Forum Discussion

I gotta go with the cops on this one, Good Will. I strongly support Sheehan's right to protest, but there are nonetheless places and times where it is inappropriate. The State of the Union address is an institution as old as the presidency, when the people, through the Constitution, DEMAND that the president speak. It's hardly decorous to heckle him while je is fulfilling a solemn duty of the office. Had she been OUTSIDE at the time, that would be different, but the Capitol is hallowed ground, the place intended as the last, most important place where the course of America is debated and decided by logical discourse and respectful dialogue. Just because it hasn't been that in many years does not excuse Sheehan's action. I imagine Rep. Woolsey is mortified that her guest acted in such a partisan, goading fashion, and if she isn't, she should be! If we are to claim to be defending our democracy and constitution from threats (WITHIN as well as without), we must treat the machinery of that democracy and the dictates of that constitution with the utmost respect.

I agree with Mr. McAllister. If she would have portested outside, hen by all means she has the right. But inside... that is like spitting on the graves at Arlington (maybe not THAT extreme but you get the idea.)

I have to disagree with everyone here on one level or another.

First with Good Will on suggesting that this is the nature of country. The police chief has already apologized and is not going to press charges. And GW conveniently leaves out Senator Young going through the same thing with a "Support our troops" t-shirt on. Had she resisted like Sheehan, the Capitol Police would have arrested her, as they threatened to do.

And while I agree with Steven and Joseph that it was inappropriate for Sheehan to be protesting in the Capitol. She and her friends are just trying to be disruptive. BUT until they start to become distruptive, wearing a t-shirt, offensive to some or not, is not an arrestable offense.

And without being a mind reader, I bet Rep. Woolsey is not mortified. Woolsey is one of the eight congressmen who is pushing to impeach Bush. And she would have to be a moron to think that putting Cindy Sheehan in the same building as the President would not be without incident.

Yup, it's all about liberals. The world picks on liberals, and thats all. Nobody cares that somebody wearing was kicked out for wearing a "Support Our Troops" shirt. (I know you mentioned it Jimmy, you mind if I call you Jimmy? Invader Jim?) (Pokes an eye toward Goody for a comment, knowing one is comming)

A liberal can do whatever they want, but a Republican does it and the world comes to an end. Anything can be done in this country, as long as a democrat does it.

Invader Jimbo will be fine.

Heeey, your a real sport! I like that, Invader Jimbo.

I guess I can see where you are coming from Invader Jim (by the way: Great name man.) I also agree with Mr. Pete, I have been shouted down for my conservative views more times than I would have liked. I just recently been called a racist Klan member for my stance against affirmative action. The funny thing is... I'm a minority, and I disdain affirmative action. I also am entering college, and I refuse to use minority scholarships. Anyway, I guess I have a biased stance against Sheehan because my cousin is currently in Afghanistan, and I am very much a supporter of our troops and of their mission. But I have to say... I am NOT pro-war, just pro-TROOPS!

So how is it that Sheehan's demands that the troops be brought home immediately anti-troop? Seems to me that not wanting them to be blasted into hamburger isn't exactly against their best interests.

>It's hardly decorous to heckle him
Wearing a shirt is hardly heckling.

>Nobody cares that somebody wearing was kicked out for wearing a "Support Our Troops" shirt.
At the time of my post I have not seen that story yet.

And I find both cases ridiculuos, offensive and illegal. But why have not they haulled her off in had cuffs like Cindy.

>First with Good Will on suggesting that this is the nature of country
Not country. The current government.

>. If she would have portested outside, hen by all means she has the right. But inside... that is like spitting on the graves at Arlington
Yeah!!! Only protestign allowed is in "freedom speech designated zones". How the hell is it like spitting on graves?

Yes, GW, I assumed you meant the Bush government. Yet you look past the Capitol Police threatening to arrest the wife of a Republican congressman who was wearing a t-shirt supporting the Iraq War, to imply that Bush gave the orders to Capitol Police to haul away anyone that dissents with him.

They didn't haul off Young because she didn't resist like Sheehan. They did threaten to arrest Young.

Finally, it was ridiculous and arguably offensive, but it was not illegal to arrest them. They would have their day in court to defend themselves, had the charges not been dropped.

P.S. Thanks, Joseph. You know where the name comes from, I take it.

You can't wear a t-shirt or carry a sign into the capital building that displays a political message while the State of the Union is delivered to Congress. It's nothing new! The reason we haven't heard of this before is probably because it hasn't happened before. The sign is obvious, but if somone was invited to the shin-dig in the past they probably dressed a little above t-shirt level anyway. Like, I don't know, mabye a henley or something.

>Finally, it was ridiculous and arguably offensive, but it was not illegal to arrest them.
Of course, it is. Arresting someone because they wear a tshirt with a number od dead soldier is very much illegal.

They arrested her because she was resisting the police
The congessman's wife did not and so they just escorted her out.

> They arrested her because she was resisting the police
No she did not. Read the story. She was not resisting the police. In fact none of teh charges they brought up and then dropped even mentioned that.
Why do yu respond with out even checking facts?

Ehem, she was resisting.

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. �Bill� Young, R-Fla., from the visitors� gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush�s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn't the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave��������..
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/01/D8FGE9800.html
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to Tuesday night's speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-013106sheehan_wr,0,1887102.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Y du yu chek facts nto. Yu tak hre werd over cpos?
She was allegedly manhandled in front of the entire Democratic side of da congsse, before the shindig even started, seems like her friends� there would take up for her, besides it�s not like she ain�t dun it before.

Pete? 
Prove it.

> Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said
Um...thats not resisting arrest.
Resisting arrest is when you are already being arrested and you are resisting, physically that. For example fighting, running and etc..

>Y du yu chek facts nto. Yu tak hre werd over cpos?
Thats right!!! can not argue the point!!! Personal attacks!!!! Villify!!! Villify!!! Villify!!! Villify!!! Swarm!!! Swarm!!! Swarm!!!

Let's see if you can tell the difference between these two sentences,ok? This is what you said:

"thats not resisting arrest.
Resisting arrest is when you are already being arrested and you are resisting"

That's true, excellent. But here is what I said:

"They arrested her because she was resisting the police"

See the difference? Resisting arrest is physical, resisting police is not necessarily physical but can be just ignoring what they told her to do. I'm sure the police didn't want to make any more of a figurehead out of Mrs. Sheehan than she already is for the radical left in this country.

>can not argue the point!!!

What point?

> Villify!!! Villify!!! Villify!!! Villify!!! Swarm!!! Swarm!!! Swarm!!!

You have mosquitoes or something? Look you're supposed to be able to take what you dish out, I heard that somewhere before. You're just pulling the ol' "look at me everybody I'm a victim". Try not to get so hysterical.

Good Will is just upset thats all, we can't hold it against him. He just gets worked up easily. Its common with Democrats.

>Good Will is just upset thats all, we can't hold it against him. He just gets worked up easily.
It is? I guess lets not mention that tantrum throwing Republican Senator who failed to attach an ANWR drilling provision to a defense bill.

>Its common with Democrats.
Woohoo...some more smear attacks and villification!!! Can not argue on merit...tsk..tsk...tsk...

I can take it, and I can also spot personal attacks instead of meritorious arguments. Give ya a lil less room to ignore the issue. :)

Cindy got what she wanted when she was arrested...media time...after seeing that whore's spread in Vanity Fair, and her publicity shots with the likes of "Reverend" Jesse and "Reverend" Al, she's proven she's all about the camera, and when people see that they just get a better idea of how retarded the left is. Please Cindy, show up for MORE media, feed your ego, get good and fat like Michael Moore, your evil invading son's life was meaningless unless you get your TV time.

Oh Dear!! I think I'm due a "Vilification" speech!

Cindy got what she wanted when she was arrested...media time...after seeing that whore's spread in Vanity Fair, and her publicity shots with the likes of "Reverend" Jesse and "Reverend" Al, she's proven she's all about the camera, and when people see that they just get a better idea of how retarded the left is. Please Cindy, show up for MORE media, feed your ego, get good and fat like Michael Moore, your evil invading son's life was meaningless unless you get your TV time.

Oh Dear!! I think I'm due a "Vilification" speech!

>Oh Dear!! I think I'm due a "Vilification" speech! 
Awwww....you already know when you are villifying....so good to see progress.

This is the way we insult grieving mother
Insult griving mothers,
Insult griving mothers,
All on the web.

>your evil invading son's life was meaningless unless you get your TV time.
Maybe you should go fight in Iraq. You know joing the Conservative Fighting Keyboardists Brigade does not count as actually military experience, right?


Good Will, do you have any other word in your mental dictionary besides Villification? Thats it, your loosing your own name...a good name for you...hmmm... you know, I kinda like TJ's idea of naming you Goot! (That oughta piss him off!)

>Good Will, do you have any other word in your mental dictionary besides Villification? 

But its a nice word, and relays exactly what I want to say. 

Thats it, your loosing your own name...a good name for you...hmmm... you know, 

I kinda like TJ's idea of naming you Goot! (That oughta piss him off!)
> That will just make me think you can see the "D" key on your keyboard after you typed two "O".

Also I make an effore of not calling you Crazy Pity. Not to much to ask for the same. ;-)



"Maybe you should go fight in Iraq. You know joing the Conservative Fighting Keyboardists Brigade does not count as actually military experience, right?"

Yeah, you snotty little F*ck I DO know what military time is about and I have my honorable discharge and DD Form 214 to prove it. Of course scum like you and Cindy wouldn't understand the word "honorable" when all you can shriek is words like "vilify" all day.

I believe there's a commune in Iran waiting for you, you yogurt sucking p*ssy; why don't you elope with Cindy and move there, your attitude makes me think you'd get along great in that environment...until the US turns it into a glass parking lot of course.

Whoa, whoa... for one thing, Patricia, thank you very much for serving the country honorably (and I'm not at all being sarcastic). For another, I agree with your interpretation of Sheehan's motives (and GW, I already cited my reasons for this in the *other* Sheehan thread, so don't accuse me of unsupported allegations), though I don't personally find emotive language to be very effective in proving a point.

In spite of this, however, and in spite of Good Will's provocation (which I'd say was only *partly* accidental <pointed look at GW>), you're overboard. Good Will's support of Sheehan, however misguided, doesn't mean that he is an enemy of the US military or a friend of the terrorists (or other foreign extremists).

That said... my opinion on the *topic*: Cindy Sheehan was not arrested for wearing a protest T-shirt. She was *asked to leave the State of the Union* for wearing it (as was Young, for wearing a *conservative* political shirt). The reason she was *arrested* and Young was not is that Young readily complied when asked to leave, while Sheehan refused.

Incidentally, it is established by Supreme Court precedent that a rule prohibiting certain *types* of speech (such as the rule of "no political shirts at the SotU address) *is* constitutional as long as it is "content-neutral" (i.e. as long as it's enforced equally no matter *which* political view is expressed... which it was).

>which I'd say was only *partly* accidental <pointed look at GW>&#10;I'll accept the blame.&#10;&#10;>The reason she was *arrested* and Young was not is that Young readily complied when asked to leave, while Sheehan refused.&#10;&#10;I still do not think there is a good reason to remove either of them. And believe I am just as ticked about Young being removed. In my opinion clothing that state either "Support our troops" or "How many more..." are both acceptable as political speech. Nor either slogans are overly obnoxious (an example of obnoxious ones woudl be including swear words on it)&#10;I argue here for the free speech, not for teh left or right.&#10;&#10;>Incidentally, it is established by Supreme Court precedent that a rule prohibiting certain *types* of speech (such as the rule of "no political shirts at the SotU address) *is* constitutional as long as it is "content-neutral" (i.e. as long as it's enforced equally no matter *which* political view is expressed... which it was).&#10;&#10;Case name or such otehr reference please.&#10;&#10;&#10;

Well, my answer to your first point will depend on my answer to your second... and I'll have to look that up. I know it's true, but I haven't read it since last semester. I've got a meeting with my Constitutional Law prof tomorrow and if I can remember, I'll bring it up.

My gut instinct though is that it's basically just a dress code (which is of course constitutional). If it were a public venue for a gov't sponsored event, then they probably couldn't restrict dress beyond basic profanity/obscenity restrictions, but since the SotU is by invitation only, it can have a dress code like any other private affair (the fact that the host is the gov't is irrelevant).