READER COMMENTS ON
"Cindy Sheehan's Unequal Treatment Under the Law..."
(102 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:15 pm PT...
Anyone who doesn't know our entire corrupt system is rigged and broken needs a reality check. These bastards have managed to take down skyscrapers from the inside and convince Americans otherwise with their fascist control of the mass media. Then Bush used this as an excuse to take away American's rights, change the rules of forestry eliminating the opinion of "the people" on all issues of the US forestry so Bushit cronies can rape and develope our previously protected wildlands, and the most deplorable, sending US troops to Iraq based on lies. Our constitution and form of government is officially in crisis. Got Cindy's back.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Someone with common sense
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:27 pm PT...
Stupid...Cindy Sheehan, I mean.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
jeff
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:32 pm PT...
Powerline is saying that Sheehan was trying to unroll a banner. Is this true?
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:39 pm PT...
It is not true, Jeff. AP and CNN had been reporting that originally, but they were wrong.
As expected, Powerline doesn't bother with figuring out the truth before they spread their garbage. (Nor do they allow comments, so folks are not able to correct them when they do it.)
Read the entire minute-by-minute description of what happened last night right here...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Jeff
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:39 pm PT...
whoops. I just read your linked story and saw that the "banner" was her shirt. Heh, just goes to show how the press can lie to manipulate the situation. So it comes down to support Bush or get arrested huh? Wow, and this is America? Could have fooled me.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:40 pm PT...
All this while she's trying to decide whether or not to run against Dianne Fienstein in the next election. Such a travesty.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Bob Bilse
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:41 pm PT...
You have no common sense, or class. The first word of your post describes you far better than anything anyone else could possibly say in this thread.
You think YOU shouldn't have a right to wear an item, voicing your opinion, in YOUR halls of congress? You're a mindless fool.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".....Benjamin Franklin
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
popeye
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:52 pm PT...
awe, poor cindy.
its not the first time this has happened. the rules have been the same for years. ignorance is no excuse and all that. they are that way in congress for the same reason those same rules apply in voting areas. they are designed to make sure people are not feeling pressured to take a particular view. dont like it, deal with it. this is not a bushco thing, it has been that way for YEARS.
and who cares if she did not want to go originally? then dont go!! what difference does that make?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:56 pm PT...
POPEYE -
Apparently you failed to read the actual post. The "rules" for free speech, as you described them, were not equally applied. The Republican Congressman's wife was asked politely to leave. Not arrested. Not held for hours.
Furthermore, when Republicans wanted to make their statement at last year's SOTU, they were allowed to do so. No removals, no arrests. No nothing. Here's the proof...
You may not care about our Constitution, however. You'll forgive those of us who care about those "Freedoms" Bush was just kidding about last night.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Pete Bogs
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:56 pm PT...
aren't there little yellow "pro-troops" ribbons some people wear on their lapels? I'm sure they didn't kick out anyone for that reason... is it words that make the difference, or is it they were afraid (as has been said about previous ejections during Bush appearances) that she would cause a "disruption?" I'm thinking the latter...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Lou Marino
said on 2/1/2006 @ 12:58 pm PT...
Sheehan was arrested but not the Republican congressman's wife (Support Our Troops). That makes as much sense as Bush's SOTU calling for energy independence in 10 years. Okay, Mr. Oilman.
If you really want get shocked, check out Bellaciao.org and read "the USA will cease to exist Feb. 5." Chilling forecast, but it got me thinking...what the f..k!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
KestrelBrighteyes
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:01 pm PT...
Hey, just out of curiosity, I wonder if there are any photos floating around of people wearing t-shirts in the galleries with ANY slogan on them?
Things were pretty casual back in the Clinton days, might want to start looking there...
Anybody got the exact statute/law/whatever that was supposed to have been violated?
The rightwing spin machine is going crazy on this one, I've heard everything from "she was trying to unfurl a banner" to "she was asked to cover up her shirt and she refused and argued with the cops".
Who was it that said, "If you say something enough times, it's true"? Someone back in the Reagan administration I think...
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Ron Brynaert
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:03 pm PT...
Great work on this! Followed it all last night.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
SHOTTO
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:11 pm PT...
The sad part of this for me is that I don't feel surprised at all for this. Good or Bad.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Bob Bilse
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Even if the shirt violated some statute, there was never, at any point, any justification for anything other than removing her peacefully from the premises.
Aside from that, there's no question that Congressman Young's wife would never have been noticed, or asked to leave, without this incident having happened first.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:17 pm PT...
. . . the man's a piece of shit . . . . . . but WE always knew that . . . .
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:24 pm PT...
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Ian
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:41 pm PT...
Liberals,
Where is the outrage of the Congressman's wife being arrested? The guy who wore a shirt that said "Clinton didn't inhale, he swallowed" during the Clenis SOTU?
Where? Where?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Miss Persistent
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:44 pm PT...
Unreal.
I guess we could reasonably call these speeches "State of the Onion," (the kind that makes one cry). There is no union.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Powell Gammill
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:47 pm PT...
Let us not forget Ms. Sheehan was also origionally charged with a felony, that was later reduced to a misdemenor (and I bet all charges will be dropped, with the threat they can be refiled again if she decides to file suit).
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
MrBlueSky
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:50 pm PT...
Brad... I'll lay odds here that, as soon as the neocons got word that the congresswoman invited Mrs. Sheehan to SOTU, an APB was issued with the Capitol Police... and they were ordered to watch her every move like a hawk.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
chotty
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:50 pm PT...
Kids,
Something overlooked throughout the "mother Sheehan" saga... She's really not too bright (ever actually hear her speak?) And, her (once legitimate) standing as a Gold Medal Mom has long been overtaken by FAR-FAR LEFT freakazoid groups. Oops, I forgot, you don't have a problem with that... at all.
chotty
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
chotty
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:51 pm PT...
Kids,
Something overlooked throughout the "mother Sheehan" saga... She's really not too bright (ever actually hear her speak?) And, her (once legitimate) standing as a Gold Medal Mom has long been overtaken by FAR-FAR LEFT freakazoid groups. Oops, I forgot, you don't have a problem with that... at all.
chotty
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
chotty
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:52 pm PT...
Kids,
Something overlooked throughout the "mother Sheehan" saga... She's really not too bright (ever actually hear her speak?) And, her (once legitimate) standing as a Gold Medal Mom has long been overtaken by FAR-FAR LEFT freakazoid groups. Oops, I forgot, you don't have a problem with that... at all.
chotty
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:53 pm PT...
.
.OMG it's the FAR-FAR LEFT coming to get us! Run!!
.
You don't seem to bright Chotty. Care to put those big brains out on the table where we can all see them?
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Doug
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:54 pm PT...
Come on. Sheehan WANTED to get arrested. One way or another, before or during that speech, she was getting hauled out of there in handcuffs. She wanted it and she got it.
Why? So she could post her sob story about how there's no Free Speech in the Bushdom. You guys are all falling for it.
Of course, it's all rot. Free speech (as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court) doesn't mean you can yell FIRE in a theater, but it does mean in the proper time, place, and method, you can call the President whatever the hell you want. Like what's going on here, or on Sheehan's blog, or all over the news all over the world.
Sheehan should have finished her blog in the words of Dubya: Mission Accomplished.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Powell Gammill
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:57 pm PT...
This is a real coup for Ms. Sheehan. She had essentially disappeared off the mainstream radar screen. But this foolish arrest was being reported by the talking heads before Bush's speech, and after, diminishing the speech.
The humor in Bush praising the late Ms. King for civil disobedience is not lost as Ms. Sheehan is dragged from the building for wearing a t-shirt.
Don't let this distract you, Ms. Sheehan. Stay on message. Stay on message.
PS: good slideshow of galley arrest at:
http://tinyurl.com/a8rfv
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
jimmy
said on 2/1/2006 @ 1:59 pm PT...
Why does she keep saying she gave the ultimate sacrifice of her son in the war? I'm pretty sure he made his own choice in joining the military. Groups are now just using her to further their own agendas.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:04 pm PT...
Doug
Sheehan did not yell FIRE in a theatre. She wore a t-shirt.
Funny, though, how you presume to know her every thought and intention.
Come on Doug. I KNOW you WANT to surrender ALL of your civil liberties. Why? So you feel safer from the Big Bad Brown People.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:04 pm PT...
* If it Looks like SHIT *
* If it Smells like SHIT *
* & If it Sound like SHIT *
...........................................
*** It Must Be BUSH ***
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:08 pm PT...
Jimmy...
Anti-war groups? Using an anti-war mother of a fallen soldier? To advance their AGENDA?!?!? ALERT THE PRESSES!!!
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
MrBlueSky
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:12 pm PT...
I read this morning that Mrs. Sheehan will be filing a lawsuit against the government for violations of the 1st Amendment.
Why are we just now filling that "Empty Scrotum?"
Why the SHEOL hadn't anyone sued to block the USA Patriot Act way back in late 2001? How many Amendments to the US Constitution did it violate? 4? 5?
But, I ask both sides here to follow Sen. McCain's advice from last night... lower the pressure... let go of the hate... and start working together and negotiating.
(I know that should have happened back in January 2001... but BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, PEOPLE!!!)
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
Repo
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:13 pm PT...
If I really wanted to make a statement at the SOTU, I'd show up in all black, classy suit and gloves and perhaps a black hat, like a widow would to a funeral, and have a very shiny silver dove pin (or peace sign) on the lapel of the suit. And then not say a word, and let the image speak for me.
But no one really cares about that anymore, people are too stupid to play off symbolism and archetypes. They want to wear t-shirts everywhere they go with their bumper sticker slogans. Like if you don't spell it out no one is going to get it.
My sister wrote in her blog today "Cindy Sheehan: peaceful protest as civil disobedience or evening wear faux pas?" I think it is a little bit of both.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:26 pm PT...
The number of fallen soldiers in Iraq: A bumper sticker slogan? Fuck no. It's reality hitting you in the face.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:35 pm PT...
#32
Want support for the actions of the corrupt lying murderous Bushit administration? Click your toes together and pretend it's the year 1999.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 2:45 pm PT...
Truthout has a video of Cindy Sheehan bragging that Dianne Feinstein changed her mind on the Alito filibuster when she threatened to run against her if she did not. Then goes on about how she has until 12 February to decide if she's going to run or not. All this from Venezuela on the 28th, telling us she was on her way next to DC for The People's State of the Union, and unable to look into the camera to say it. Our bereft mother has turned into a globe trotter who says she's tired of all the traveling, and a campaign would keep her in California.
I had already been wondering where she got the time and money to travel so much. Now I'm REALLY wondering. Is she rich, or is the money for it coming from anti-war NGOs? I am beginning to think so much attention to, and promotion of, this woman has gone to her head. Is there a liberal blog on which she doesn't post, or be posted about, regularly? She has fallen prey to the Mark Klaas syndrome: enjoying the celebrity of being the parent of a murdered child.
There was a picture up, here, of her being escorted down a staircase, with a buttoned up sweater or jacket on, and what looked like a rolled up t-shirt in her left hand. I can't find it now, but it was here last night. Put it together with the picture of her wearing the t-shirt and jacket or sweater unbuttoned, and you get a strange feeling. Either she buttoned the sweater after the intitial grab, and who knows what that was in her left hand, OR she was nabbed for the t-shirt, and allowed/made to take it off before leaving. It could well be that she was allowed to take it off to return to her seat, and hauled off once she tried to unfurl the t-shirt as a banner.
She is threatening to *. She is threatening to a senator. She is also clearly trying to break into the MSM. The blogosphere and many peace activists have been extremely happy to put her forward as a hero for the cause. Her head is about to pop from all the "support"... which is more like a slingshot.
The woman needs to go home and GRIEVE, be left alone until she can get her legs back under her, take stock of herself, and put all the adoration in perspective. She's being used like a giant hand you wave at a ball game, and has begun using our pain to further herself. I'm hoping it is a mother running from processing the enormity of her grief, and not a mother trading on the murder of her son.
In either case, it is high time WE quit using her. This isn't a circus. Cindy Sheehan is not a freak show, and not a lion tamer. This may have been THE stunt, no matter which side pulled it, that has forever ruined the use of her as a symbol against murdering our kids to murder Iraqis.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:04 pm PT...
Amazing.. the intellectual gnats come and try to spit on someone, or spin things to their satisfaction, DESPITE the FACTS..
One yellow bus rider said "she wanted to get arrested".. uh.. ok, and you know this why? A Congressperson ASKED her to go.. so Cindy magically wanted to make a scene? Sounds like someone is projecting their own desires to always have attention..
Then we get a twit that can't figure out how to post on a blog calling Cindy "not smart"? oooook..
Then we get someone who can't seem to diferentiate 2 things.. one is "causing a panic and putting people's lives at risk", the other is "wearing a shirt that states a fact".. and thinks they are "the same"?
Notice NONE of these useless shitbags even comes CLOSE to touching the pertinant caption of this blog item.. "UNEQUAL".. See, for these unAmerican morons, it's ok to shit on the rights of people you don't like, just not theirs.. That's a psychological DISORDER called Narcissism.. a situtation where you honestly believe you are better than other people, have more rights.. For you clinically whacked idiots, I sugguest you go read your Constitution and Bill of Rights.. Pay special attention to the bit about "ALL men are created equal".. and "inalienable rights"..
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
A Concerned Citizen
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:09 pm PT...
Brad #9 - Great answer to POOPEYE, well said as usual. Your final comment, "You'll forgive those of us who care about those 'Freedoms' Bush was just kidding about last night." hit home.
What upset me last night was when the camera kept spanning the room of goons and how it kept showing them all smiling and giggling and having a good 'ole time, when there were things being discussed that were no laughing matter. It made me sick. Hollywood in DC anymore, only they're bad actors and the scripts always suck. They all better be replaced ASAP.
Cindy was wrongfully treated AGAIN, there is no doubt. We all just keep witnessing horrible things going on in this country, yet nothing is done about it, it continues day after day. It's not America anymore. In many ways, we've all been sentenced and are now serving parole, paying court costs, being watched, and receiving a reduction in pay.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:19 pm PT...
Okay. Just saw the slide show of her mentioned in #27. She was wearing the Eminem BLACK HOODIE of protesting the SOTU. It was some sort of clutch bag in her left hand. So. She was nabbed when it was unzipped, and zipped it before most of the pictures were taken on the way out. The Eminem video with putting on the black hoodie when you're fed up with the administration, and entering the SOTU in that garb was just posted here a few days ago. Cindy Sheehan was doing an Eminem at the SOTU.
Clearly a protest demonstration. Planned.
Also in that slide show, pictures of Cindy hugging and kissing Hugo Chavez. I'd love to have been able to do that too, and I've ordered my huge black hoodie too, but I want all of us to sit back and THINK about this. There isn't any doubt Cindy's appearance was a demonstration where these are banned.
In the eyes of the current power structure, booting out the congressman's wife for it amounts to equal treatment. Maybe all the difference falls into the congressman's wife not wearing a flag hoodie with her t-shirt.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
MrBlueSky
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:22 pm PT...
Grizzly Bear Dancer [Post #35]:
Yes... I know that I am dreaming.
I know that the CHANCES of civility occuring is less than 10% [if even that high!]
What can I say? I'm an idealist!
MrBlueSky sings:
"To Dream... the IMPOSSIBLE dream..."
- Man of La Mancha
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:30 pm PT...
#38 ... I felt the same way, in the agonizing minutes while the cloture vote was being taken on the Alito confirmation on Monday. There was a LOT of laughter going on during that. Felt as if I were being slapped each time.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Terrance Hill
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:49 pm PT...
:( She got what she deserved!!
Her Son would be ashamed of her!
She is un American!!
Let her go live in Venezuala!
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:58 pm PT...
Agent99.. I've not looked at the slides yet (at work).. yet, do we know what was IN the bag?
Again, you seem to be feeding the trolls with things to use as disinformation or false pretenses without supporting evidence.. You know, innocent until proven guilty, as the trolls love to spew.. So, she had a purse.. and was opening it.. That's illegal? Wearing a black hoodie is illegal? if the symbolism of the hoodie was understood by many, how is that different than wearing a rainbow pin and people knowing that means something to the gay community? AGAIN, you can NOT be prosecuted for things that have not happened. Thought police aren't legal or constitutional.
I'll have to look at the slide show.. but the current spin is "she opened a banner", false.. and when someone else was removed for the "same actions", was treated completely differently..
Class wars are in full swing, and middle class America fancies themselves in the company of the rich folks (all that crap they own that they certianly don't need.. those cadilacs they drive that are barely any better than normal chevys, but they pay 2x as much for the emblem).. The sad thing is, when they finally wake up to the fact that the system is making them second class citizens, they'll finally realize that the elite don't care about them either, it wasn't just the "poor".. They are signing away their rights in the false belief that they are "better" than "those people".. again.. "all men are created equal".. and it's not being honored in our laws or our political representation.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:33 pm PT...
Savantster, #43: I'm mightily sorry I hadn't seen the slide show before my first post about what she was wearing and what might have really happened. It occurs to me that I helped trolls by not getting a better look at pictures before I shot off my mouth. Sorry. Truly, I am sorry for that, but I hope I am also helping the anti-war side by pointing out that the Cindy Sheehan juggernaut has gone too far.
Bill O'Reilly was the first to derogate her in the right wing infotainment media, and this stunt, especially on top of going down to kiss and hug *'s nemesis in his exaltation of democracy, has turned her into a full-blown antagonist of the people her Camp Casey demonstration might have eventually won over. IT DOES NOT HELP TO PREVARICATE ABOUT HER INTENT AT THE SOTU. That is NOT upholding truth. It is prevarication. Something the bad guys use.
Almost everyone I know loathes Mark Klaas for trading on his daughter's murder, and people were already rumbling about Cindy Sheehan for trading on her son's murder. Put this together with her threats to run against Feinstein, the left's cameras on her everywhere, the apparent full-time USE of her, and she is set up to become thoroughly humiliated and discredited, NOT by trolls, but because her loss has been turned into a circus act. It might have been her own doing, or her need to run from her grief by exerting so much energy against the war, or by the anti-war movement pushing her, or all of these factors. The dignity has gone out of it.
I meant, above, to say that he clutch bag couldn't have been a banner, but if the wording of the law posted elsewhere on this site is correct, her t-shirt and black hoodie could be construed by a good lawyer to constitute breaking the law, but just as the Today show backed off giving her even more publicity for her stunt, so the government will back off further martyrization by prosecuting. If she sues, it looks even more like trading on her son's murder, another stunt for attention, garnering name recognition for help at the polls. UGLY. Ugly as the trolls.
HOW is this any more dignified than * reading the letter from the dead soldier at the SOTU?
IT ISN'T.
While I wholeheartedly endorse driving a truck around DC with impeachment slogans and funny pictures, also circus-like, IT ISN'T TURNING A KIDS' DEATH, ALL OURS KIDS' DEATHS, INTO A SIDESHOW.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
...
Brad
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:38 pm PT...
Agent99 said...
"Clearly a protest demonstration. Planned."
You know I like you, but you are just plain wrong about your take here on Sheehan.
While she was NOT planning to go to the SOTU (had given her ticket away to an Iraq Vet) she was wearing the same outfit she had been wearing all day.
Finally, even if it was a "protest demonstration," you'll note that this is still America, and --- for the moment at least --- we still have this thing called "Freedom of Speech" referred to in our Constitution.
Love or hate it, it's still there. For the moment. And I intend to continue to support the idea. Period.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
...
The Irish Man
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:44 pm PT...
"She" made the ultimate sacrafice by giving the life of her son? Uh, no. Her SON made the ultimate sacrafice by giving his life, for a cause he believed in. She's exploiting his death for her own personal causes, nothing more, nothing less.
I find it hard to believe that this media whore had no idea the effect that her wearing that shirt would have. And, she wasn't "talked" into going, she was invited and accepting. Stop trying to make this nutcase into a martyr, she's nothing of the kind.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:49 pm PT...
Agent99, my points are about what you said -after- seeing the slideshow.. implying she might have been up to no good because she was unzipping a bag when she was acausted? Bullshit, is my point.. Women have purses, and they open them in public. To arrest her and drag her out of a place she had legal right to be when she did NOTHING illegal, is WRONG.. To compound it, they did NOT treat someone else who did the "same actions" the "same way".. why? Because of elitist bullshit in the minds of most Americans.. shitting on "those less fortunate" is becoming "mainstream", despite it being Un-American.
Now the WH Police are DROPPING ALL CHARGES? Duh?? Cindy wasn't taken out because she did anything wrong, she was taken out because the facists taking over the country didn't want any images counter to their lies to be shown, and Cindy embodies that. And here you are trying to say she shouldn't be on a crusade? because her child died which is what STARTED the crusade? but she can't crusade (or be lifted up to iconify the cause) because her kid died? Your logic makes no sense. If you want to say "Cindy is becoming overly caught up in the Celebrity of this", that's fine.. but then try to PROVE that.. The argument you are using now has no merit, sorry. Your flow is "A caused B, B has gotten to size C, but only because of A.. that's wrong".. WTF kind of circular logic is that? This fucker manhandling and abusing our country sent troops to fight an illegal and unjustified war. That got people killed for NO GOOD REASON.. One of those victims is out there SCREAMING to the DEAF MASSES, and you are saying "she's only making noise because her kid died".. DUH? There are a LOT of us trying to make noise, but we haven't had as much heartache to DRIVE THE POINT HOME with us.. she has..
Your perception, seemingly, is that the neoCons are right, and Cindy is somehow "unjustified" in her protests.. If you agree, then fine.. say that.. say you side with the psychos that lie and disinform and cheat and steal to gain power. Say you have decided to believe what they said instead of looking at the "truth".. that being, Cindy IS a symbol of the anti-war movement.. she DOES need to be out there, in people's faces, making a stink, keeping people on point. Just like Shrubby almost pounced on that broken camera during his speach, like a cat after a string, so goes the masses' attention span. They NEED to be smashed in the face REPEATEDLY with this, or they drift back off to sleep in front of Faux News and slip back into the comfortable warm of consumerism. Ignorance is bliss, and people are quick to slip back into the shroud of ignorance.. Cindy isn't letting them do that (and not of her own volition, as you point out.. but as was pointed out before.. duh? when you have a club, you beat your attacker with it.. you don't set it down and pick up a flower)..
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
...
Teresa
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:50 pm PT...
Excuse me she has every right to attend a speech that the President gives she is a taxpayer. She lost her son, has anyone of you lost a child in this awlful war. I look at the children in our contry and they are being hated because our president which I didn't vote for decided that we needed to fight other people's battle. Wake up American when do we get a spine and take our house back.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:59 pm PT...
Funny how people still come and post an attack on Cindy, but don't address the glaring problem of inequality of treatment of people based on their social status..
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:03 pm PT...
Savantster: I think you misunderstood what I was saying about her purse. I think you are allowing hatred to cloud your sight and using it to justify your position. Neocons do NOT need to be bludgeoned with a woman turning herself into a symbol of the anti-war movement. It will only make them harden against it. Yes you DO set down your club and pick up a flower. ASK MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. ASK GANDHI.
This is NOT Ringling Brothers. It's NOT a street brawl.
You want an end to war? PICK UP THE FUCKIN' FLOWER!
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:06 pm PT...
And, what IS Cindy Sheehan's social status? She's been jet setting all over since she started her crusade. Who's paying for it? If she is a member of the downtrodden minions, where is she getting the dough to fly all over the place?
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
...
chotty
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:22 pm PT...
"You don't seem to bright Chotty. Care to put those big brains out on the table where we can all see them?"
Hey Genius, the word is TOO....... ONE more time: TOO.
At this point, Sheehan is nothing more than a Malignant Narcisist. You Bvac, on the other hand, are merely a dope.
Is there anyone UNDER 35-ish that has proof of the correct use of TOO ...ANYWHERE on the entire WWW?
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:22 pm PT...
"It was some sort of clutch bag in her left hand. So. She was nabbed when it was unzipped, and zipped it before most of the pictures were taken on the way out."
"Clearly a protest demonstration. Planned."
forgive me for not seeing some kind of distinction with regard to her purse..
as for the hoodie, see the post in thread about the police dropping ALL CHARGES..
"you want an end to war? PICK UP THE FUCKIN' FLOWER"
and at what point, when you're having your skull bashed in, would you suggest dropping the flower (that we HAVE been using) and picking up that club to save your life? Time for being "nice" and "peaceful" is over, period. There are too many crooks and liars running things to keep standing there saying "please stop fucking me over".
"And, what IS Cindy Sheehan's social status? She's been jet setting all over since she started her crusade. Who's paying for it? If she is a member of the downtrodden minions, where is she getting the dough to fly all over the place?"
sounds like you are jealous, to me... Coming up with a few dollars here and there isn't all that tough, if you give up some other things. I see people pissing away all kinds of money all the time and wonder "where the fuck are they getting all that money??".. Not to mention, "groups" fund travel all the time, and it's not that expensive to "drive" places.. flying last minute, sure.. but attacking her because people are giving her money so she can be where they want her to be for their cause, what's wrong with that?? Congressmen do it, Presidents do it, businessmen do it, guest speakers do it (and get paid assloads of money on top of it).. why can't Cindy have travel paid for?
why the hell are we even talking about it??????????
"Neocons do NOT need to be bludgeoned with a woman turning herself into a symbol of the anti-war movement. "
You're right.. we should just sit down and shut up.. holding our flower while we ride the train to the showers.
get a rip..
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
...
Especially for "Savantster" (Pretentious Dick)
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:31 pm PT...
One of the most common critiques of leftist intellectuals, especially Karl Marx and his followers, is that they claim to be objective, scientific observers, although their work oozes anger.
They also studiously avoid offering alternatives to the policies they are criticizing, expending all their energy on attacking the enemies they blame for all the world's problems. . . .
The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others.
This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures.
Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
...
G. Perscreepers
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:42 pm PT...
Mother Sheehan says that as she was being fingerprinted: "That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights." Her son Casey was killed April 4, 2004 in Iraq. Her activities, from the protests outside the Crawford ranch all last summer to last week's appearence with Hugo Chavez and his stooge Harry Belafonte where she called George Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and "10 times worse than bin Laden" have been well documented. But, she just then (last night) realized her loss?
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:48 pm PT...
#18: We were outraged, but there was no Brad Blog back then. Let's turn the tables, though...are you as outraged at Cindy Sheehan being arrested, as the (supposedly) person arrested with the "inhale" shirt? Let's see a post from you, how outraged you are...
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:49 pm PT...
Hey Chotty...easy on the "enter" key...
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:50 pm PT...
I meant the hoodie was unzipped when they nabbed her at her seat, and zipped when they were leading her out. The picture from last night was blurry, and I thought the clutch bag looked like a rolled up t-shirt. Seeing sharper images, which I had no idea would be posted by MSM, after my first post, I clumsily tried to correct myself. I was too quick on the draw. Trying to figure out how to make the inconsistentcies jibe, I forgot to wonder if there could be the pictures elsewhere to prevent me theorizing on thin air. My bad. Totally, MY bad.
Savantster, your hypocrisy in defending, here, isn't any better than the hypocrisy offending you... us. I'm trying to point out that the misuse of this symbol is backfiring, and we don't have the power to do damage control like they do. There's plenty wrong with the way this is all playing out, and either you look at it and do better, or you're adding fuel to the opponent's fire. If you're going to take on criminally immoral thugs with a following, you have to show a bazillion percent more probity than your target, NOT stoop to this stuff.
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:51 pm PT...
#46 Excuse me Mr. Irishman? Have you ever lost (as in the finality of DEATH) a family member or even a friend and come to find out he/she died for reason now known to be lies? You stupid fck, if you can walk in Mrs. Shehan's shoes and experience the pain and anger of losing your child FOREVER knowing your boy's intention was to serve his country. U will eat your ruster words. You are the stupid whore to devalue the truth by calling her out and throwing your support to the lying murderers in the BUSHIT administration responsible for sending our boys to fight a war in a country based on LIES. If your son was murdered and the known out walking the streets , living the good life free with no legal case pending, you just might change your stance of -0- accountability less taking the law in your own hands.
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:55 pm PT...
# 50 - Whoa, Agent99 --- What Gandhi and Martin Luther King did was disrupt the status quo through civil disobedience. I'm quite certain that the authorities in Birmingham and India didn't consider their actions to be in the "flower" category.
I'm trying to get your point about Cindy Sheehan. Trading on the memory of her dead son is a neocon talking point - and one of the more distateful ones at that. Why wouldn't she be in the forefront of the movement?
But, of course, the really relevant point is that she was wearing a t-shirt, for Christ's sake, and exercising her first amendment rights. (BTW, her personal effects were inventoried, of course, when she arrested.)
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:06 pm PT...
Does anyone think that arresting the mother of a fallen American soldier during the State of the Union speech, is one of the darkest moments in American history?
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:15 pm PT...
#46 Excuse me Mr. Irishman? Have you ever lost (as in the finality of DEATH) a family member or even a friend and come to find out he/she died for reason now known to be lies? You stupid fck, if you could walk in Mrs. Shehan's shoes and experience the pain and anger of losing your child FOREVER knowing your boy's good intention was to serve his country, U would eat your ruster words. You are the stupid whore to devalue the truth by calling her out on this blog and throwing petty support to the lying murderers in the BUSHIT administration responsible for sending our boys to fight a war in a country based on LIES. If your son was murdered and the known killer was out walking the streets , living the good life free with no legal case pending, you just might change your stance of -0- accountability. Maybe if others died and continue to die based on these lies, your physical actions would be even more desperate less taking the law in your own hands.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:23 pm PT...
Arry: I guess I'm saying I'd feel better about the whole thing if she just came out and copped to wanting to wear the t-shirt and hoodie to the SOTU as a statement, and then let herself be arrested, just like at any other protest. All the crap about not even wanting to go, and then finally deciding to go, just wearing what she'd worn all day, playing innocent of intent to protest, pisses me off. Hipocrisy.
Playing the pity card over and over and over --- dead son, only wearing what she'd worn all day, and now the bad guys are manhandling her for being her --- when her intent is pretty clearly to incite this stuff --- pisses me off. ESPECIALLY when she's all but declared against Feinstein. I don't think being offended by a parent using the loss of a child as the agar for fame and attention is unique to neocon trolls.
I'm quite sure the authorities in Birmingham and India didn't consider their peaceful civil disobedience to be in the flower category either, but flower power IS peaceful civil disobedience. If Sheehan was using the flower, she should just cop to it, and let the rest speak for itself. If she's going to head up a peace movement because of the loss of her son, she should not be talking about running for the senate, and should not be down kissing Chavez. She should be staying on message at Camp Casey.
Obama's huge success at the convention caused the party to use him to get money for other candidates, for Byrd, who just voted us to hell on the Alito confirmation. Political people use popular people to further their agenda. Cindy Sheehan has allowed herself to be used that way, and, like Obama, subverts all the good that might have followed by letting them.
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
...
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:25 pm PT...
For The Record : WHO Invented the "Banner" LIE ?
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
...
agent99
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:30 pm PT...
JoJ: I don't know, but I REALLY wish they hadn't!
I'm going to the store now before I starve to death. If anybody else wants to take me to task, well... I gotta EAT. Back later, friends.
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
...
OttO
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:51 pm PT...
Maybe I'm missing something, but the way I understood it, Sheehan wore a shirt or jacket over her t-shirt until after she was seated, and then was approached after she removed her outer garment.
I also thought that she was arrested only after refusing to leave.
I don't see how this applied only to her. The wife of a Republican wore a 'Support the toops' shirt and was also asked to cover it or leave (I'm not sure, but I believe she left, hence she didn't get arrested).
Slogans and banners are rejected in the chamber in general, so isn't the complaint here really that Sheehan disdn't get special treatment?
Finally, does anyone really believe that this wasn't perpetrated intentionally by Sheehan? If not the ruckus that led to the arrest, then at least the exposing of that t-shirt to begin with?
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
...
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:57 pm PT...
Watch for New Cars or Houses by the Capital Police . . . . or Early Retirement.
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
...
fu father eisenman
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:59 pm PT...
I just love it when people talk about the left being communists. Look at what we have. Government spying on its own people. Torture. Arrests made with no due process.
Reminds me of when we were kids singing about the "commies" to the tune of a pepsodent commercial: "you wonder where your father went, when he talked about the government".
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
...
Arry
said on 2/1/2006 @ 7:24 pm PT...
# 61 - Big Dan --- There is a comic aspect to it. ..."PROTESTOR...!!!"
What a bunch of wimps those neocons are.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/1/2006 @ 7:28 pm PT...
So as more AMERICANS continue to DIE and come home maimed in the war the Corporate OIL elite BUSHITS have waged in Iraq, those families and friends should just sit in a dark room and cry.. sit in a dark room and cry..sit in a dark room and cry.
NOW FCKING WAKE UP!!!
Maybe that would be appropriate berievement to you people. Then again in reality others are different and stronger and at least one parent refuses to accept this nightmare outside the scenario you all see as HER proper behavior. If people like you actually to the streets against the actions of the real corrupt bastards that have done a hell of a lot more damage than an unjust war such as hijacking your government and destroying the environment, Mrs. Cindy Shehan wouldn't have to wear such a bloody offensive T-Shirt in the audience of a speech by your COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
NOW FCKING WAKE UP!!!
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
...
Left_isnt_right
said on 2/1/2006 @ 8:27 pm PT...
Cindy Sheehan is 100% un-american.. she is a traitor to this great country.. she is supported by far left nuts
she is doing this for attention, money, etc.. none of this will bring ur son back cindy! he signing up for the military was his choice, not yours! he stood up for this country while all you do is make it look bad.. people like you are a disgrace to freedom.. most parents would grieve over their loss, while all you can do is try and get public attention over.. what a shame you are to our country!!
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
...
cindy
said on 2/1/2006 @ 8:29 pm PT...
When I visited the Gallery several years ago
there was no dress code posted - has something
changed?
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
...
Phrank in Foenix
said on 2/1/2006 @ 9:57 pm PT...
Do you suppose if Cindy had a purple finger, they would have let her stay? (Maybe some expressions of liberty are just more valued than others, I guess ...)
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
...
Rob
said on 2/1/2006 @ 10:01 pm PT...
Was that the same DailyKos where Sheehan whined about how New Orleans was stealing her press?
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
...
Wayne in Texas
said on 2/1/2006 @ 10:32 pm PT...
What is meant by unequal treatment?
A Pro-Bush protester was also removed, sounds equal to me.
To many of you liberals tend to ignore the truth to push your own agenda.
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
...
BCam
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:34 am PT...
Aren't we missing the larger question here? Why is the supposed most powerful man in the world (and his minions) so terrified of a simple woman?
She is not smarter than he is. Certainly not richer. No Ivy League diploma on the wall. Clealry less photogenic. She doesn't have thousands of staff propping her up, creating an image or explaining her words. No millions of dollars available to promote her positions. She has no media companies as allies, shills and parrots. She's no Kennedy, Biden or Clinton.
So why is it that Bush et al are so afraid of this one woman?
That's the question that will most likely lead directly to the faithless heart of this Administration and Congress; the tattered monument of its essential lie: a broken moral compass.
Like the woman, or hate her, there is something honest in her nature. People can sense it. They either feel drawn to her loss, or rely on The White House Press Secretary or the Fox News Channel to persuade them to rail against their better selves.
No Liberal, no Democrat, no Journalist has the guts to stand up to George Bush, but she does. Maybe its because she doesn't know any better.
Cindy Sheehan is just like the lone Chinese student standing in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square. Hopelessly out of place. Totally irrational. But essentially the truth.
Perhaps Bush harbors the same intrinsic fear that all bullies have - the fear of being exposed as a fraud.
Maybe I'm worng - but there is something essential in Cindy Sheehan that scares the hell out of the White House and they seem willing to take any chance, and apparently now break any law to keep her at bay.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
...
Thomas
said on 2/2/2006 @ 2:33 am PT...
The best way to get your message out there for everyone to see is to get arrested and removed from the SOTU gallery.
on another note while I'm participating in the shit that is this discussion:
to QUOTE Grizzly Bear Dancer:
""#46 Excuse me Mr. Irishman? Have you ever lost (as in the finality of DEATH) a family member or even a friend and come to find out he/she died for reason now known to be lies? You stupid fck, if you can walk in Mrs. Shehan's shoes and experience the pain and anger of losing your child FOREVER knowing your boy's intention was to serve his country. U will eat your ruster words. You are the stupid whore to devalue the truth by calling her out and throwing your support to the lying murderers in the BUSHIT administration responsible for sending our boys to fight a war in a country based on LIES. If your son was murdered and the known out walking the streets , living the good life free with no legal case pending, you just might change your stance of -0- accountability less taking the law in your own hands. ""
Being a military member, I have lost friends. I have served my country while operating in the Arabian Gulf, I HAVE SIGNED THAT SAME DOCUMENT THAT ALL OF MY FALLEN SERVICEMEN HAVE SIGNED.
Do any of you folks, that cry for "Support of our Troops" really care about SUPPORTING the troops. Shouting that we all need to come home, and be removed immediately IS NOT SUPPORT!!! Bashing the US Commander and Chief doesn't support us either. Agree/disagree with him or the administration, fact is, you are not supporting us....
But you don't get that do you?? Your message is more important than your message.......(understand that?)
*....and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. *
Casey Sheehan re-enlisted.....during wartime. Holding his right hand in the air and PROUDLY STATING THE ABOVE portion of his oath.
I am sorry that any mother has to lose her son(s) or daughter(s). But we that SERVE know exactly what that means.
Support the troops by supporting our oath also. If you do not, you are only supporting us to show your protest for an administration.
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
...
bluestatecrybabies
said on 2/2/2006 @ 5:10 am PT...
boo f**king hoo. You liberal windbags have no idea about etiqutte and rules of congress. My bet is that Cindy's whiney account on michealmoore.com, of all places, is as misguided as her statements that she never met with President Bush (which she did) before her camp-out in Texas. You moonbats lie outrageously in plain view of the truth. The congressman's wife was asked to leave and she did. Sheehan was asked to leave and she laid down in protest. We've all seen the photo of her being carried out--smiling like a weasel (or Ted Kennedy) at a photo op. So clam up and stop lying through your teeth she broke the law and the charges should have held.
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
...
Katie
said on 2/2/2006 @ 6:11 am PT...
Our thought process has been framed to believe certain things by the way "they" market to us about every single aspect of existence. NOT GOOD. We might be in big trouble.
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
...
RODNEY
said on 2/2/2006 @ 6:44 am PT...
To all of you who think that what she did was ok, let me put this in perspective for you. If she wants to where her shirt outside of where the state of the union was to take place that is her right! But if she chooses to go in and do it there, it would be like one of you coming into my home with something I didnt like on. I am going to tell you to leave, or throw you out on your face! I am so sick of listening to everyone complain about what is going on in Iraq! If we have another terrorist attack, the same people moaning and groaning now will be begging for the government to do something about it.
As far as her shirt supporting our troops, I am a vet and I dont feel that supports any of us. As far as the comment made about Cindy's sacrifice....she did no such thing.....her son did so that all of you can sit here and complain about what goes on! As did I!!!!!! As I see it only 1 of the 2 shirts supported our troops. And it was the one that said "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS DEFEND OUR FREEDOM" That means your freedoms to sit in your office or your home and type your condemming responses on this blog! FREEDOM NEVER COMES FREE!
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
...
An idea
said on 2/2/2006 @ 7:39 am PT...
Move to China and see how mch freedom you have. We have some issues but this doesn't help anything.
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
...
KoKo
said on 2/2/2006 @ 8:01 am PT...
Rodney, there's a difference between your private home and the Congress. You have ownership of your home, and you are correct to say you can throw anyone out of your home. But, Who owns the congress floor? Bush? Republicans? the Police? No, the American People owns Congress and is the employer of senators or hoouse representatives. Only American Law can decide what is inappropriate. Did you know that wearing a t-shirt with a slogan is perfectly legal? The police chief already apologized and dropped all charges against Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan did not violate ANY rules of the congress, wearing a T-shirt to protest is PERFECTLY legal in the congress. What happened here is her first amendment rights were violated in the place that suppose to protect it!!!
READ!
Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. And in a private meeting Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized and planned to issue a statement, Rep. Thomas told reporters.
"They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed," Hanley said Wednesday. "The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested."
http://www.usatoday.com/...01-sheehan-charges_x.htm
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
...
weefs
said on 2/2/2006 @ 8:33 am PT...
I love how bush lovers ALWAYS try to invoke the past to justfy today's behavior of the "president". It is so childish. But that's the GOP for ya. They have a collective mentality of a special ed class in elementary school.
It doesn't matter if Clinton did this or that. What matters is what is happening during this term. In 2006. Not in the 90's.
But if right wingers insist on raking coals over Clinton, then I guess we have to dig up Nasty Nixon...
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
...
big dan
said on 2/2/2006 @ 9:25 am PT...
COMMENT #85 [Permalink]
...
uberpatriot
said on 2/2/2006 @ 9:56 am PT...
Wow, Cindy really scored with this one. Does it really make a difference what her true motivation is? All that matters is she's speaking truth to power. And the essence of the situation is this: Bush's people arrested a grieving military mom for doing nothing more than wearing a T-shirt. Brilliant. And it's driving Bush's enablers crazy. Oh, happy day...
And one more thing: Many fine men and women have served or are serving in our military (some have even disobeyed orders when their conscience dictated it, and payed the price), but Rodney and Thomas and their ilk are proof positive that being a member of the military doesn't automatically exclude you from being an ignorant stooge.
COMMENT #86 [Permalink]
...
Jake
said on 2/2/2006 @ 10:54 am PT...
Forgive me for not reading all the comments. I got tired after reading #37. I'd like to make a few comments and then I will be on my merry way.
First, congrats on making it to #3 on the Google news under the "Cindy Sheehan" link. Second, I'm not sure Sheehan was undeservingly treated unequally. She occupies so much space in the news, it would be impossible to treat her equally. She's a celebrity and I don't know too many celebrities who are treated equally. She's in the spotlight and when you find yourself there, you have to be much more subtle in order to aviod attention. She should know this. She should have been told this. The media loves her and their freedom of the press is trumping her freedom of speech.
To address her rough treatment, I would like to suggest that she was treated roughly by a plain clothes police officer, not a horde of federal agents. It is possible that the grudge against Ms. Sheehan was held by the officer himself and he was merely acting out of his own feelings about her.
Finally, I'd like to ask Savantster to tone down the rhetoric. Several times during the speech, Bush made mention of the need to come together to solve America's problems and there were a few times where the Democrats were out of their seats to applaude the president before the Republicans could do so. Surprise of surprises is that he did this without calling the right side of the house (from the podium view) a bunch of shitbags, morons, or clinically whacked idiots. No one is going to support you when you call the opposition names and no one from the opposition is going to suddenly say "I am a shitbag, I'll listen to this girl/guy from now on." I understand you are frustrated with people who can't see your side of things, but you have to treat them like children and start with the basics...not jump straight to name calling.
Also, if you do want someone to jump on your bandwagon, you should make sure it is properly supported. The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, suggesting that I read the Constitution is all that is needed (unless you want to make a jab at your audience being ADD and only able to pay attention for 10 amendments). "All men are created equal" was not in the Constitution (thereby it is also not in the Bill of Rights) but in the Declaration of Independence. It was sexistly and ironicly written, by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner. And, "inalienable rights" are also not present in the Constitution....at least not the U.S. constitution. It is, however, present in most state constitutions.
In closing, I'd like to say keep up the good work. I don't agree with everything said here, but I do agree that it needs to be said if only to keep the lines of communication open. The president has been a liar before, let's rock the boat a little bit and prove to him and ourselves that we can cross lines to solve problems that threaten our America. After all, we have a love of country to build our foundation for the future. I'm starting today. Hopefully I'll see you in the trenches soon.
COMMENT #87 [Permalink]
...
bvac
said on 2/2/2006 @ 12:57 pm PT...
Wayne in Texas:
one person was asked to leave, while the other was forcibly removed, handcuffed, brought to jail and questioned for an hour.
Does this seem like equal treatment to you?
Neither were "protesting". Both were wrongfully ejected. One was arrested.
Capitol Police later said wearing a t-shirt does not violate any code or law, and apologized to Sheehan.
.
Do you have ANY original thoughts, or do you just repeat what Sean Hannity whispers into your ear?
COMMENT #88 [Permalink]
...
Thomas
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:09 pm PT...
UBERPATRIOT:
Are you claiming that I am an ignorant stooge?
I am frankly stating that myself and every single service(person) that I know feel like Cindy is not supporting us. Most of us feel that she is USING us in her fight against the administration.
Every single seviceman/woman signed a contract, as a legal adult. Are we all ignorant stooges then?
I wonder just how many citizens were wearing "2,403 Dead — How Many More??" after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor??
COMMENT #89 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:26 pm PT...
For Thomas: Pearl Harbor? As part of a discussion of deaths in Iraq?
American History 101: Japan attacked the United States fleet on Dec. 7, 1941. We declared war on Japan the next day. Iraq never attacked us, and we never declared war on Iraq. Yet we bombed the living shit out of their largest city, while people were sleeping, killing thousands of innocent people.
I don't know if joining the U.S. Army makes you an ignorant stooge, Thomas. But equating Iraq with Pearl Harbor most surely does.
COMMENT #90 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:47 pm PT...
"She occupies so much space in the news, it would be impossible to treat her equally"
This is the bit that I have a problem with. Just because she's in the news, it warrents arresting her and roughing her up? The -point- is, there was -no- reason to even ask her to leave, not based in law. It was done as pure and simple censorship.. once they saw the firestorm that was going on, they asked the "rich chick to leave", who DID cause a rucus, but was NOT arrested. I fail to understand your point about how it's seemingly reasonable to man-handle the "poor" and abuse them, but be polite to the "aristocrats".. that's not what this country was based on..
Thanks for the correction about the Declaration of Independance (what I was thinking about with the "all men created equal" and "inalienable rights"). But, for me, in my mind, all the founding documents are tied together.. yet, the acedemic mistake should not be made. The difference between the Constitution and Bill of Rights comes from my often finding them seperated in various places.. Granted, the "Constitution" in full includes the "Bill of Rights", but it also includes the Prohibition and it's later repeal.. Originally, those 2 documents were 2 individual docuements (as I understand it), and were combined because of their interdependance.
As far as toning down my rehtoric.. sometimes I just get pretty frustrated.. I'm tired of being "polite" and "nice" and "understanding".. at some point, you need to put your foot squarely up someone's arse.. Sometimes the truth hurts.. and when people cling to their view with no good reason to, that's clinical, and ignorant, and something morons do.. I understand that language like that puts people on the defensive, but that's -also- part of the problem.. we try to shelter people from anything that might cause an ill feeling, and in doing so, make them weak and soft. It's the one failing I distinctly see in "liberals" and "Democrats".. always trying to shield people from life.. and I think that causes more harm than good.
"You liberal windbags have no idea about etiqutte and rules of congress."
See the kind of thing we have to deal with? Republican leaders refusing to allow space for official investigations, or refusing to honor the call for votes/motions.. yet, THAT is ok.. civilians wearing street clothes.. now, THAT seems to be a serious problem! These wingnuts ARE CLINICAL.. *sigh*
COMMENT #91 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/2/2006 @ 2:15 pm PT...
#54..
pre·ten·tious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tnshs)
adj.
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See Synonyms at showy.
see point 2.. I take it that my being vocal here is what you are talking about.. seeing as how I'm not demanding -any- position of distinction or merit, but simply stating my opinions. Yet, I don't think my actions here elevate to "extravagant" or "ostentatious".
Me being all "show"? but then you accuse me of being "no go".. Guess what? I have LOTS of ideas, and I have NO problem presenting them to anyone that asks. I don't just "blame" with no ideas how to fix, but the fixes that I see are "required" will never be allowed to be implimented.. know why? they directly and distinctly cut into the riches of the top 10% of our society (and that massive accumulation of wealth in the hand of the few is what I see as the single biggest problem in this country). They don't want that, and have gone to GREAT lengths to get "middle America" on board with their plan..
For the immidiate thread, my "solution" is, don't arrest people when they aren't comitting a crime.. don't treat rich people with more respect than poor people, they are BOTH PEOPLE.. Here's another solution.. don't try to control the message so much that you violate the rights of citizens. Not just for the liar-in-chief Bush, but ANY elected offical. If people want to wear shirts that have a message, don't be such a pussy, let them wear them.. I don't care WHO you are (Dem, Repug, Progressive, Green, whatever), don't crap on someone who is PEACEFULLY stating their opinion. When a "demonstration" breaks out, FINE.. do something.. but censoring is bullshit, period.
I still don't get what you were trying to get at.. other than baseless attacks on someone to try and prove a point, or discredit them.. Good job being a true neoCon supporter.
I have plenty of ideas, and I have no problem offering them up to those who want to listen.. so your entire post is, essentially, a crock of shit.. but thanks for playin'
COMMENT #92 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 2/2/2006 @ 2:33 pm PT...
We need to all get a life if T-Shirts are the most Important issue we face. The hell with freedom of speech, the hell with your political views - you should dress approprately when entering our capital's halls of government.
COMMENT #93 [Permalink]
...
Thomas
said on 2/2/2006 @ 3:19 pm PT...
I guess my sarcasm was missed in my post.
My only equation was how absurd it would be to wear such a shirt in America during that time period.......
No conflict ever equates to WWII. Especially today the way battles are fought.
My point was, her shirt shows ZERO support for the troops. Statement only to better HER cause. For Anti-War people, for all Americans, 1 more death would be 1 too many.......
So what WAS the point of wearing the shirt???
COMMENT #94 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/2/2006 @ 5:16 pm PT...
What was the point of wearing the shirt? Only Cindy Sheehan could answer that. What was the point of Mrs. Young wearing a "Support our Troops" shirt? Only she can say.
The issue isn't whether Cindy Sheehan (and Mrs. Young) had ulterior motives or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. So what? We're supposedly fighting a war in Iraq for FREEDOM, which means the right to wear a T-shirt for any fricking reason, or for no fricking reason at all! That's what freedom is, and it's what differentiates us from totalitarian regimes.
COMMENT #95 [Permalink]
...
Savantster
said on 2/2/2006 @ 5:42 pm PT...
RLM, these guys just don't get it.. and probably never will.. Thomas is talking about a "justified war" with WWII, and comparing it to this illegal invasion in Iraq. Something is wrong with him if he can't see that there's a HUGE difference.
It's also telling that he trys to use the bit of "if you disagree with the criminal leader you have to dishonor the troops"... completely false association.. not that I expect him to get that.
How's this for "supporting the troops".. I want the BODY ARMOUR to be SENT TO THE TROOPS.. so they have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of surviving in Iraq. I had HAPPY to have tax dollars spent keeping them alive.. Rumsfeld and Bush feel it's better to keep that armour in a wharehouse.. So, Thomas, who "supports the troops" in that context?
I support making sure troops have adequate medical care when they get home from Iraq.. your President and Congress DEFUNDED THE VA.. hello? who supports the troops more?
I believe that our troops are ONLY to be used to PROTECT AMRERICA.. your leader wants to invade various oil-rich soverign nations for no good reason with no provocation.. Let's see.. I don't want our troops to die unless they are fighting a legitimate conflict in the defense of our country, your "Commander in Cheif" is content to kill you for NO GOOD REASON.. Hmm.. who support the troops?
Your twisted logic of "you have to support the mission to support the people" is false. It's simply not true. There are sepperate things there.. the illegal and unjustified mission, and the innocent troops following orders.. I support the "people in the trenches", not the criminal giving illegal orders.. Get that through your thick skull.. hmmmk? I'm getting damn tired of people not being able to see blatantly bungled logic from the facists.. Pull your head out of your ass and actuall THINK about what you're saying.. analyze it.. understand that SOLDIERS have NOTHING to do with the GUY GIVING THE ORDERS.. (and before try to lecture me on how the military works, I've been enlisted before.. I was in the military, I understand how it ALL works, trust me).
This IS about a damn t-shirt.. one that says "this administration is STILL killing troops in what has been PROVED to be a bunch of lies".. If that offends you, GOOD.. you're likely on the wrong side of this issue.
And for Steve at #92, spoken like a true elitist.. Grats.. "dress for the occasion, put on fronts and faces.. fuck reality, fuck what's going on in real life, fuck anyone that dares not conform!".. right? Sorry, but rebellious people and free thinkers and non-conformers is what BUILT this country, and it's what made it great once. People worrying about "appearances" more than deeds are destroying it, and you are buying into it.. Good job.
COMMENT #96 [Permalink]
...
uberpatriot
said on 2/2/2006 @ 6:17 pm PT...
People sign contracts and swear oaths for all sorts of reasons and with different intentions, some fully aware of what they're committing to, some not. Thomas, if your superiors told you to lay waste a village populated entirely by unarmed civilians, would you do it? No? But you swore an oath to obey orders, didn't you. Ah, but the Uniform Code of Military Conduct has a provision which says that you are to obey only LAWFUL orders, doesn't it? Obliterating an unarmed population wouldn't be lawful, would it? But what if the situation wasn't as clear cut? How would you know where to draw the line?
The fact is, Cindy and all the "anti-war" protestors ARE supporting your oath. They're fighting to ensure that the orders you're given are indeed lawful, that you won't have to make such a tough judgement call, and that no soldier loses his or her life needlessly.
Look, everyone at some point in their lives has been an ignorant stooge --- I'm certainly no exception.
ignorant: Unaware or uninformed
stooge: a person of unquestioning obedience
Whether or not you're an ignorant stooge is a question every person should seriously ask of themselves, and be on constant guard against.
COMMENT #97 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/2/2006 @ 6:46 pm PT...
Thomas #78
For starters to clear the air: I believe 9/11 was an inside job caused by the Bushit administration for a number of different reasons:
1. The patriot act - take away rights of Americans.
2. Unlimited Federal spending unchecked for the Bush administration and their corporate cronies with justification tapping into drumming up ANGER in the name of catching the terrorists responsible. The TRUTH is they had about as much intention of catching their tail.. WTC building #7, the shrub missile that hit the Pentagon.
3. US Forces Bombed Iraq for 6 months prior the Bush Administration lies used to invade Iraq. Pre-emptive 1st strike is what your Commander In Chief used as the reason he must invade immediately changing our system of CHECKS AND BALANCES- not the Senate. By the way, for the most part Congress is a bunch of Corporate sellout robots. Not that you have a clue about issues such as the Elito Senate vote, however Congress is a 1 party system not 2.
3. The Bushit administration has rigged the last 2 presidential elections. That is the meat and potatoes of Bradblog. The news about the fact that Gore won the popular vote in Florida in 2000 was overshadowed by 9/11.
The Bush administration has rolled back, reversed or weakened over 400 environmental laws and standards. I'm sure U were aware.
If you want to follow this cheat, this lying murderer because he is your President than you are a fool because you choose not to think for yourself. Just because an American decides to serve his country it does not mean a greedy fascist ruler won't abuse this power and lead the greatest military in the world wrongfully into battle for the self centered
personal agenda of his admininstration. The blind authority U you give is BLIND>
Read up on the following:
Downing Street minutes
Bushit Torture Abuses
The FEMA report - not an investigative agency, they were not allowed at ground zero and didn't investigate the Pentagon until the following month.
World Trade Building #7 imploded and fell 9 hours after the the other World Trade Towers collapsed the same way although it was never hit by a plane. Go find the wings from the jumbo jet that hit the Pentagon while you are at it. Go find any video and pictures of the most protected building in America. Evidence collected was confiscated, destroyed or simpley disappeared instead of being studied - open your mind and read up.
The mass media is owned by the corporate elite and run by the government. If you heard it on the TV news or the radio it's a bunch of Bushit.
Last 4th of July I made a statement that I would box all the corrupt Bush administration in a boxing ring starting with Bush and Cheney. At least I could destroy them with my fists and they wouldn't be able to go back to the positions they stole from the American voters twice. Granted there are a lot of these muther fckers but i'm strong and mean as a Grizzly.
AND
I expect another inside job terrorist attack organized by the same BUSHIT pussies so they can attack Iran or take some more rights away from American for BUSHIT reasons. If you don't think foreign terrorist would like to kill some stupid Americans after attacking Iraq you are living in Bush's fantasy world.
Cindy's cannot escape the "noble cause" for which her son lost his life and either can I. This war is based on a pack of lies and thanks to the brilliant leadership in Washington, it ain't over.
Continue following order Sir.
COMMENT #98 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/2/2006 @ 10:59 pm PT...
For Savantster: I think Thomas equates Pearl Harbor with Iraq because soldiers are taught not to distinguish between good war and bad war. War is war, and a soldier must follow orders and not make moral judgments, otherwise military discipline fails.
But the reason we have civilian control over the military is precisely because the founding fathers (including the soldier president, George Washington) knew that this was a slippery slope. Military leaders earn their keep by FIGHTING WARS, while civilian leaders have a responsiblity to AVOID WARS.
What Thomas refuses to admit, or can't comprehend, is that we have civilian leadership that is actually more out of control than the military is. The balance has shifted. I believe that is because Bush has been allowed to say "We're at war" without asking Congress for a declaration of war. Our enemy is the non-descript "terrorism," but the people who are dying aren't terrorists, they're Iraqis and Americans.
COMMENT #99 [Permalink]
...
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/3/2006 @ 7:55 am PT...
COMMENT #100 [Permalink]
...
Joan
said on 2/3/2006 @ 10:03 am PT...
#81 Rodney,
My late husband was an Air Force vet. I honor his service and I honor yours.
But I must respond to your statement:
"If we have another terrorist attack, the same people moaning and groaning now will be begging for the government to do something about it."
One of the major points made again & again on this blog & elsewhere has been that this administration HAS NOT adequately defended this country, IS NOT NOW adequately defending this country, and that this is beyond unconscionable. A truckload has been written on that subject.
Another major point is that this administration DID NOT provide proper armor for the troops it sent to war. When called on this hideous fact they lied about it. Again, much has been written on the subject.
We on the left are constantly called un-American, accused of being America-haters & of not supporting the troops.
Putting aside the fact that these charges are idiotic & infantile: yes, we are "moaning & groaning", as you put it, because we do not believe America is being served or protected by the people who swore an oath to do so--an oath to protect the country, its Constitution, its soldiers, its people & its principles.
It amazes me that we have to point out over & over that it is BECAUSE WE LOVE THIS COUNTRY & SUPPORT THE TROOPS that we believe those who swore that oath should live up to it.
Their policies, far from making us safer, have INCREASED the number of terrorists & INCREASED anti-Americanism in the world. They are also in the process of bankrupting the country. It is THEY who are betraying you, me & our soldiers while their corporate cronies rake in record profits.
It seems to me that covert surveillance is a legitimate part of defending a country. That's just reality.
But it is now feared that the president's apparently-illegal warrantless wiretapping may actually UNDERMINE future legal cases against terrorists and may result in the cases against them being thrown out.
Their actions are absolutely indefensible.
COMMENT #101 [Permalink]
...
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/3/2006 @ 10:21 am PT...
Rodney is a fool, Joan. This mantra that "If we have another terrorist attack, the same people moaning and groaning now will be begging the government to do something about it..." is a prepackaged right-wing propaganda message. I've seen it quoted almost word for word in at least three other blogs.
If we have another terrorist attack, the government won't be doing something about it, because it will have already happened. And everybody, left-wingers, right-wingers, and centrists, will be calling for the bastards to be brought to justice. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN CALLING FOR SINCE 9/11, AND GUESS WHAT? WE INVADED IRAQ INSTEAD!
Can you comprehend that, Rodney? How about looking at the world as it is, not as your right-wing mentors tell you it is? How about thinking for yourself for once? How about using your brain?
COMMENT #102 [Permalink]
...
kamery cyfrowe
said on 5/4/2006 @ 4:09 pm PT...
Very interested theme, with attention I will read following registration fees.