Reply With Quote
So?
So did I.
They did know she was gonna be there.
So?
So did I.
What we have are two illegal ejections, one of them probably to justify the other, and an illegal arrest. Civil Liberties at their best.
That's rich. Apparently a few years back someone was ejected for wearing an "Impeach Bill" shirt to some Congressional proceedings. Again, bad policy, but no evidence of conspiracy.
Then again, I may be biased. My life doesn't revolve around Cindy Sheehan.
Bush is the one who is underhanded.
Bush = bad, so there must be a conspiracy. Got it.
Are you kidding? He lies constantly. That's not debatable. He's a pathological liar. He wiretaps without a court order, even though he said in 2004 that we must get a court order to even chase down terrorists.
They lied us into war, but no, they wouldn't have an anti-war activist arrested, no way. Now, that is rich.
Still no motive...
You lost, move on.
See how you've gone and made an incident (in which most people would probably side against those who arrested Sheehan) into something different that makes you look like YOU have the irrational point of view?
It never changes...
How you try to label me doesn't change the fact that she was unlawfully ill treated and arrested for Not breaking the law. Where you spin it from there shows your irrational point of view.
I'm out, save some egg for later fellas.
How is that even related? You asked why one was arrested and not the other, I offered a possible explanation. It's not like I said it was the right thing to do. I was simply countering your certainty that it had to be some Republican conspiracy to shut her up.You lost, move on.
So the answer is "A mistake was made." Wow, congratulations on your victory...
And most people here agree with that. Where you look stupid is when you try to one-up it with your theories about foul play.How you try to label me doesn't change the fact that she was unlawfully ill treated and arrested for Not breaking the law.
Just like when discussion of whether the War is justified turns in to a debate over who Bush is in bed with for oil money.
It looks stupid, because that's your opinion. By the way, it was just about everyone in here but a few, who's opinion and theories, that said Cindy Sheehan was probably lying and probably the nuisance or resisted. It was yall's opinion and theory.
We saw how that turned out. Now I'm really out, Peace.
Spurm...you're just feeding the monkey, man.
So that means there was a conspiracy to remove Sheehan from the gallery and "justify" it by booting a rep's wife? Sorry, doesn't follow.
American Politics 101.
"conspiracy" is just a play on words. For many in here it was a conspiracy that Sheehan broke the law on purpose to get arrested, it was a conspiracy for her to be disruptive and she must have been a nuisance and a liar. It was a theory by many that Bill Youngs wife was the peaceful one.
Sorry, that doesn't really follow. We saw how all that turned out, didn't we?
Last edited by SA210; 02-01-2006 at 10:49 PM.
All politicians lie constantlyAre you kidding? He lies constantly
, that is the weakest ever. He lies. Boo ing hoo. Everyone who's in D.C. is a ing liar, they would not have gotten there if they didn't.
I think you are lying AHF!
She did break the law. The Cons ution protects the right to free speech (expression) but that right is not absolute -- it is subject to certain reasonable exceptions, particularly time, place, and manner restrictions. Were that not true, police could, for example, never arrest someone for disturbing the peace with speech. That clearly is not the law.
The exception to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions is that government cannot engage in viewpoint censorship.
Nobody stopped Cindy Sheehan from expressing her view, but the law prohibited her from expressing her view in the gallery of the House of Representatives. Apparently, there was no viewpoint censorship, particularly because a woman with an opposite view was also ejected. Thus, there is no cons utional issue in this cir stance.
Personally, I have a hard time believing that this situation was as innocuous as Cindy Sheehan portrays it. She obviously knew she was wearing that shirt, she wore it to a purely political event, and she wore it knowing it was controversial. Frankly, she likely got more press for her effort by being ejected than she would have gotten had she simply sat and watched the proceedings, whether wearing her shirt or not.
I'm just wondering, how does your post change the fact that Sheehan was unlawfully arrested and her rights were infringed on?
And what is this about, all politicians lie anyway? Wasn't Bush the one that promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House? That seems pretty weak.
Spinning and changing the subject to fill space to make it seem as if this is even debatable for lack of an arguement doesn't change the truth.
The Capitol Police even say now that she didn't break the law.
One man's arguement is another man's potatoe!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
