• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Outrage??

johnday

johnday

The Crazy Scot, #3
I'm not prone to political debate, as is probably obvious, but something I just saw on CNN just infuriated the dog crap out of me.
During our fearless leaders State of the Union bullshit session, two women were arrested. One for protesting the war in Iraq, and one, some senators wife, was showing support for the troops unlucky enough for being there. What's wrong with this picture? Niether, as far as I know, were causing any kind of problems.

One thing is for sure, both of their civil rights were violated. The woman who was protesting, had lost her son over there. Is this administration so damn politically correct that one cannot peacefully demonstrate?

Both of these women intend on suing. I sincerely hope they both win. If they do, we will all be the winners in this. It almost appears that the hidden agenda's of both political parties is starting to be exposed for what it is.
Welcome to, "Amerika".
 
The woman who was "protesting" (actually, she wasn't; she was just wearing a factual tee-shirt) was Cindy Sheehan, who has been a thorn in President Bush's side ever since her son was killed in Iraq. All she did was remove her coat so the tee-shirt was visible. She was hustled out of the chamber by the Capital police, treated roughly and bruised according to her, and held (I believe locked up) for over 4 hours. She was formally arrested and changed with disruption. Her black tee-shirt had the number of Americans killed in Iraq and the message, "How many more?" It was once lettered professionally, but she had a panel pinned over the original number with newer numbers, and numbers on the panel crossed off and yet newer numbers written in magic marker.

The other was the wife of a Congressman, who was wearing a sweat shirt that said, "Support the Troops". She was also hustled out of the chamber, threatened with arrest (but not arrested), and told it was because another woman had created an incident and both had to be treated the same (although they weren't).

The next day, the Chief of the Capital police apologized and said that neither woman should have been removed from the Chamber, and promised additional training for his officers. I doubt whether Mrs. Young will sue; although she's plenty feisty and the folks who hustled her out definitely wouldn't like to be tongue-lashed by her.

But, Mrs. Sheehan appeared on TV to say that she was definitely going to file for violation of her civil rights, defamation of character, false arrest, police brutality and anything else she could think of. Remember, the only thing she's guilty of is believing that the President's orders that killed her son were given for no good reason. According to what I read, the majority of Americans now agree with her.

For a couple of years, now, the President has appeared only in places that are carefully controlled. The people who are invited are vetted and issued tickets; no one who disagrees with him could get a ticket. The backgrounds all have a repetitive propaganda message, and no visual sign of anything else is permitted. This is now so "normal" with this President that I'm sure the Capital police thought they were doing the right thing by sanitizing the appearance of agreement. I'm also sure they agonized over removing Mrs. Young for her "Support the Troops" message, but I guess some mid-level cop thought he was being "fair and balanced".
 
OkeeDon said:
Because she disagrees with you? Does that justify her treatment?
Click to expand...

No, her treatment is justified because she is a "tool". She is a huge annoying pain in the ass. I keep hoping that she will just go away. She isn't going to change any minds that aren't already changed. The only reason she gets airtime is because she shares the views of the mainstream media and doesn't care if she makes more of a horses ass of herself.
 
OkeeDon said:
I'm sure the Capital police thought they were doing the right thing
Click to expand...

Several news sources reported that there are 'rules of conduct' inside the chamber and those rules include a statement that nobody in the invited guest gallery was allowed to disrupt, visually, physically or verbally, the President in any way. Under that rule, both women should have been ejected. I have not seen the wording of the rule, but it was reported by both FOX and CNN.
 
PBinWA said:
Here's a good perspective on it:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/02/EDGU9GJDO81.DTL[/
QUOTE]

PB, Thanks for the reply, but the link you sent shows an anti-Bush type blurb. My outrage is not directed pro or anti, Left or Right, but rather both. I'm trying to see beyond the "dress code" that has been established.

My political views may be radical to many people, I'm not even sure of what political party, if any, I'm leaning towards. I firmly beleive that until the powers that be finally reachieve a two class society, we'll continue to see acts like were portrayed against these two women.

I've been wondering about the motives of the elites ever since Viet Nam. Killed off a lot of poor and middleclass kids, they did. And to be fair, yes. there were a number of the rich kids there too. But for what? I don't consider myself a victim, maybe I should, but I see the same thing happening again after 30 years. What are we to gain in Iraq to start with?

I'm afraid I'm venting my personnal frustrations about what is going on, and I apologize for my seeming disconnected rantings. I like to think that I'm seeing a bigger picture than most, even if it does sound preposterous.:soapbox::US_flag::tiphat::beer:
Click to expand...
 
B_Skurka said:
Several news sources reported that there are 'rules of conduct' inside the chamber and those rules include a statement that nobody in the invited guest gallery was allowed to disrupt, visually, physically or verbally, the President in any way. Under that rule, both women should have been ejected. I have not seen the wording of the rule, but it was reported by both FOX and CNN.
Click to expand...
The Chief of the Capital police has apologized and said neither woman should have been removed. That trumps your "several news sources" (likely Fox News) who reported their interpretation of the rules.
 
PBinWA said:
No, her treatment is justified because she is a "tool". She is a huge annoying pain in the ass. I keep hoping that she will just go away. She isn't going to change any minds that aren't already changed. The only reason she gets airtime is because she shares the views of the mainstream media and doesn't care if she makes more of a horses ass of herself.
Click to expand...
You should be ashamed of yourself. Cindy Sheehan is nobody's "tool", or are you suggesting she WANTED her son to be killed so she could be a huge annoying pain in the ass? Of course you keep hoping she'll just go away; she's saying something that you don't want to see or hear (2 of the 3 monkeys). It might do you more good to actually listen to her.

If "the only reason she gets airtime is because she shares the views of the mainstream media and doesn't care if she makes more of a horses ass of herself". then how come there was no mainstream media coverage of her getting hustled ourt of the chamber? Instead, we got to see a Father, Mother and wife of a dead soldier standing and smiling like it was wonderful that their son and husband got blown up. What is wrong with those people? Where is their outrage?
 
OkeeDon said:
The Chief of the Capital police has apologized and said neither woman should have been removed. That trumps your "several news sources" (likely Fox News) who reported their interpretation of the rules.
Click to expand...

Don, I stated 2 sources that I heard it from, one was FOX, the other was CNN. I listen to both.

The fact that the Chief of the Capital Police apologized does not discount the apparent fact that the rule exists. He is charged with enforcing the rules. He may not have applied the rule correctly with the arrests. On the other hand he may have. I suppose we are not the people who actually know this answer, I suspect a couple lawyers, a judge and a jury will ulitimately determine if the police acted in such a way as it was a "violation of her civil rights, defamation of character, false arrest, police brutality and anything else she could think of."

Never the less, rules are rules. Left leaning CNN and right leaning FOX both reported its existence. Following the rules would have kept both women from being ejected.
 
Associated Press
Published February 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and offered apologies to her and a congressman's wife after they were ejected from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

Police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.), from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was charged with a misdemeanor; Young was not arrested.

The unlawful conduct charge against Sheehan was being dropped, said Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. And in a private meeting Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized, Rep. Young told reporters.

"They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed," Hanley said.

Sheehan's T-shirt made reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2,245 Dead. How many more?" Young's shirt had the message: "Support the Troops--Defending Our Freedom."
Click to expand...
 
So it appears that the police did not make any mistake at all.

The error was very probably made by Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. The police likely would not have interviened without being called into action by Ms. Hanley or her superior.
 
Funny how two people can read the same thing and get two entirely different interpretations from it. My reading is that Ms. Hanley was the one who was getting the charges dropped and who said that "they" (presumably the police) were operatiing under a "misguided mpresseion". I hardly think she would have phrased it that way if she was the one who had done the misguiding. Also, it was the Chief who did the apologizing.

Besides, my point was that regardless of who made the mistake, a mistake was made, and it was not against the rules, despite how it might have been reported.
 
Well I never issued an opinion on if I think it was right or wrong. I simply stated if there are rules, and if the rules were broken, then the ladies should have be ejected.

As for who is to blame. I guess it could go either way. But in a forum like that, I would seriously doubt if the police would have acted without direction from someone.
 
OkeeDon said:
The Chief of the Capital police has apologized and said neither woman should have been removed. That trumps your "several news sources" (likely Fox News) who reported their interpretation of the rules.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it trumps nothing. Protest has never been allowed at any State of the Union address as far as I am aware. You can protest outside all you want, but not inside the House. I am not arguing right or wrong here, just stating that there are indeed rules. Remember the man who was ejected from Clinton's SOTU address for wearing an anti-Clinton t-shirt? I believe it said something to the effect of "Impeach Clinton". Per the rules, the man was removed. Some people are going to try and turn this into an anti-Bush issue as if Bush ordered these women removed. Nothing could be further from the truth, but of course, that will not stop some people from attempting to make political hay of this issue.
 
OkeeDon said:
For a couple of years, now, the President has appeared only in places that are carefully controlled. The people who are invited are vetted and issued tickets; no one who disagrees with him could get a ticket. The backgrounds all have a repetitive propaganda message, and no visual sign of anything else is permitted. This is now so "normal" with this President that I'm sure the Capital police thought they were doing the right thing by sanitizing the appearance of agreement. I'm also sure they agonized over removing Mrs. Young for her "Support the Troops" message, but I guess some mid-level cop thought he was being "fair and balanced".
Click to expand...
Umm...Ever been to a Clinton speaking engagement? They are also orchistrated to provide admission to those friendly to her/his cause. This is nothing new and nothing unique to Bush or many other high profile politicians. Of course, I am not at all surprised you would attempt to portray this in the manner you are doing.
 
OkeeDon said:
You should be ashamed of yourself. Cindy Sheehan is nobody's "tool", or are you suggesting she WANTED her son to be killed so she could be a huge annoying pain in the ass? Of course you keep hoping she'll just go away; she's saying something that you don't want to see or hear (2 of the 3 monkeys). It might do you more good to actually listen to her.

If "the only reason she gets airtime is because she shares the views of the mainstream media and doesn't care if she makes more of a horses ass of herself". then how come there was no mainstream media coverage of her getting hustled ourt of the chamber? Instead, we got to see a Father, Mother and wife of a dead soldier standing and smiling like it was wonderful that their son and husband got blown up. What is wrong with those people? Where is their outrage?
Click to expand...

Sorry Don. No shame here. Just calling it as I see it.:wave:
 
Gatorboy said:
Cindy Sheehan is a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
If being a pain in the ass was a crime, a good chunk of the population would be behind bars. Of course if a candidate was required to be intellegent to run for president, the world would be a different place. :whistle:
Bone
 
I don't give a good Gxx Dxxx what she was wearing. She is obviously mentally disturbed and brainwashed by grief and the Hate America First crowd who has latched onto her.

To the point of weather she is a "tool" or not; of course she is, it is very obvious. She is a Tool of the insane, extreme left in this country.

I pitty her for being taken advantage of. :(
 
BoneheadNW said:
If being a pain in the ass was a crime, a good chunk of the population would be behind bars. Of course if a candidate was required to be intellegent to run for president, the world would be a different place. :whistle:
Bone
Click to expand...

Thinking Bush is an idiot is a mistake you left-of-center folks continue to make. There is no bigger group of buffoons than the Democrat party, led by Uncle Ted, and Bush made them look even sillier with the Social Security issue during the SOTU address. You can keep wishing I suppose. :thumb:
 
Cityboy said:
Thinking Bush is an idiot is a mistake you left-of-center folks continue to make. There is no bigger group of buffoons than the Democrat party, led by Uncle Ted, and Bush made them look even sillier with the Social Security issue during the SOTU address. You can keep wishing I suppose. :thumb:
Click to expand...
You will get no argument from me that Ted Kennedy is no genious. Calling Bush a "less than intellegent" president has nothing to do with any other politician. Note that my post mentioned that a candidate should be intellegent to run for president. Finding one is another matter.
Labelling me a "left of center" folk is accurate though.
Bonehead
 
My original post was not to exonerate elephants or jackasses. In my mind it was just another example of Big Government, no matter what party anyone supports. Here we have on one hand, a woman who lost her son in a war that boarders on pure horseshit, I'm sure she's being painted as an insane, Left Wing, bleeding heart. On the other hand, we've a woman who supports the troops, a wonderful ruling party, purely patriotic, applepie baking, mom.

Now think a second, how many of us support the troops, and how many of us think we shouldn't be there? Remember guys, we were lied to about the dreaded WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. 2,245, as of last count I saw, have been lost, never to be seen again. And what has the world gained? Nothing I know of.

Is Sheehan a tool? Absolutely. Are we and our servicepeople tools? Absolutely again! What I'm getting at, as I have stated in another post, LeftWing/RightWing it's all the same boss. Guys, they don't give a damn about anyone of us.

Before some of the newer guys are wondering, I'm a veteran, I'm an American, and yes, I feel the war is wrong. But, I'd sooner kick anyones ass that doesn't support our troops.

Don, back in 2003, the prez came to Monroe Power Plant, and I did meet him. But what you said about orchestrating the whole show was absolutely right. In fact, the company even told us, any of you Union people that act up WILL be fired! I can't say if that actually came from the BIG G, or my companies idea. But I can tell you, the company said it directly to myself. At that time I was one of the Union Committeepeople at the plant.


 
John back to your original intent. CNN just announced that "wearing political T-Shirts" inside the chamber is not a crime/violation of the rules. However, as I stated earlier, you are not allowed to disrupt the president. CNN confirmed my earlier post where I wrote "nobody in the invited guest gallery was allowed to disrupt, visually, physically or verbally, the President in any way." While it is legal to wear the shirt, according to the laws/rules of the chamber, you cannot do anything to call attention to your shirt (which as I stated earlier would be a visual disruption of the President).

So if the 2 ladies sat quietly and did nothing to call attention to themselves, then they were in compliance with the rules/laws of the chamber.

We know that the congressman's wife, by all accounts did nothing to call attention to herself, so we know that she was not in violation.

I've heard at least 3 different accounts of Cindy Sheehan's arrest and the reason for it, does anyone know if she did anything to call attention to herself so people would see her shirt?
 
johnday said:
Remember guys, we were lied to about the dreaded WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION.
Click to expand...

That is not an accurate statement, John. Lied to? No. Was there information relied upon by the British and the United States that did not pan out? Yes. Did the previous presidental administration think Iraq had WMD? Yes, again. So there were many people on both sides of the aisle who had reason to believe that Iraq had WMD. I have no problem if you believe the war in Iraq is a mistake and I am thankful that we live in a nation where we can voice our opinions. Along with the freedom to voice our opinions comes the responsibility to be accurate, and to seek the truth. For all we know, the WMD got secreted to Syria, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know for certain. But to say that we were lied to outright and state it as if it is a provable fact without providing evidence to back the statement is not being responsible.

Radical Islam is our greatest enemy, and whether one believes being in Iraq is a good thing or a mistake, I say it is better to fight them on their own ground rather than ours. Iran is rattling its nuclear saber and we cannot sit back and wait for them to make the first move.

This thread was started to discuss two women who were removed from the House floor for the shirts they were wearing, but all roads these days seem to lead to Iraq, and those roads inevitably lead to rhetoric that tends to be less than accurate in most cases.
 
Actually John is correct. We were lied to.

But the "informants" that our spies used were the ones who were lied to. They passed on the information that they thought was correct because they trusted their sources. I believe it was the British secret service that obtained most of the bad information.

But I tend to think that the claim that "the President lied to the people" has been totally discredited. Remember, there were many of both parties, and many from many nations (including France) who believed the information about weapons of mass destruction was true and accurate information.
 
B_Skurka said:
Actually John is correct. We were lied to.

But the "informants" that our spies used were the ones who were lied to. They passed on the information that they thought was correct because they trusted their sources. I believe it was the British secret service that obtained most of the bad information.

But I tend to think that the claim that "the President lied to the people" has been totally discredited. Remember, there were many of both parties, and many from many nations (including France) who believed the information about weapons of mass destruction was true and accurate information.
Click to expand...

The underlying implication is that "Bush lied" when most people say "we" were lied to. I wanted to point that out yet again. That said, would you completely discount the possibility that weapons were secreted to Syria and who-knows-where else? I do not discount that possibility, but I also realize that we simply cannot be sure either way. There are those who are against the war and Bush and that is their belief no matter what and believe any bad thing they hear that they think could remotely support their position, factual or not.
 
Cityboy said:
would you completely discount the possibility that weapons were secreted to Syria and who-knows-where else?
Click to expand...
I was against the war, but do not believe Bush lied. I do believe that Iraq had some form of WMD production and I do believe they had some stockpiles. I believe that the production was destroyed, I suspect SOME WMD went to Syria or elsewhere, I believe the rest were destroyed.

I never felt lied to desipte my distaste for this war. I do not believe we should pull out, we need to finish what we started, I just don't think we needed to start when we started. I think we could/should have waited a while. But realistically I blame France for the war. France had the ear of Sadaam and Chirac could have make Sadaam blink. Instead Chirac chose not to tell Sadaam how serious we were, he chose to wring his hands and admonish us while he watched all the trade profits between his country and Iraq get destroyed in the first wave of air assaults. Germany was not much better, but France really had the close ties to Iraq that could have prevented the war. Ultimately I believe the world is better off, and ultimately I believe we did the right thing, I just think we should have used diplomacy for a little while longer.
 
B_Skurka said:
I just think we should have used diplomacy for a little while longer.
Click to expand...
Didn't the UN try that for several years and over a dozen resolutions?

At the time we went in, it was thought the WMD's were there. With the intel available at the time about WMD's and such and considering the potential for those WMD's getting into the wrong hands, how long could/should we have waited?
 
Brian, I personally think (MY OPINION) that the U.N. is a huge corrupt money pit that serves no real political purpose in the world 95% of the time and trips over its tongue the other 5% of the time. There were a dozen or so resolutions passed in the U.N. and then refused to take any action on their own resolutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top