State of the Union~are you ready?

[Conveyor Belt]

Boy, are you the epitome of liberalism and seething hatred of Rebupicans.

[fuzzis]

I'm thinking we need a good drinking game. Got any tequila handy, Hawk? :-D

fuzzis

[Conveyor Belt]

Just take a shot everytime there's a standing ovation or boos/hisses and you'll be gone in the first 5 minutes... :)

[fuzzis]

LOL! That's too easy.

fuzzis

[wilebill]

Boy, are you the epitome of liberalism and seething hatred of Rebupicans.
Trying to figure out if that is a misspell or sarcasm. :smt102

[wilebill]

I've not been happy with this adminstration for some time.

<snip>

People love to paint the Republican Party as a conservative party, but the truth is that the majority of the GOP leadership still leans toward the middle, and GWB is no different.
I was with you up to the last sentence. Personally, I think the Rs and the Ds are both out of touch because they're not more inclined toward the middle. Poll after poll have shown that the majority of Americans are more moderate than either of the parties are, whether they think of themselves as moderate conservatives or moderate liberals. As each party moves towards the extremes they have less and less in common and the result is more and more partisanship. At no point in history have there been such partisanship in congress as there is now.

Extremism: bad. Moderation: good.

[fuzzis]

Good job Coyote. That's what I was trying to say to the magic rug merchant. American's middle majority moderates have no party. These partisan SOB's are like an outboard motor; only two speeds, idle or wide open.

So does this mean we're not drinking this evening? :eusa_thin

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

:smt042

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

You've not seen me at Brew Ha-Ha, huh? *grin* Actually, I'm supposed to head out to a friend's, and that means I'm gonna have to drive. Dammit.

And I agree with you about Teddy Kennedy. *sigh*

fuzzis

[wilebill]

Some really good ones there!

To recap the good ones for people too lazy to click your link:

Every time the president says: # of drinks


"Jack Abramoff" or any reference to the congressional corruption scandals or congressional "ethics" one sip of the drink belonging to the person next to you

"Bring it on" Arm-wrestle the person next to you; loser drinks

“nukular” 1


“Scooter Libby”; or other reference to “Plamegate” Poke a hole in your cup and drink from the leak


"New Orleans" take dark chocolate, ... mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink” that you should then drink


bipartisan or bipartisanship 2 (+1 if followed by giggle or chuckle)

Medicare wait a really long time to get a drink you really need

"fiscal discipline" laugh out loud, then drink

"Don't mess with Texas!" Locate the nearest Texan; mess with him/her; then drink

Every time he:


defends the necessity or legality of the NSA surveillance program drink while looking over the shoulder of the person next to you

Every time the camera shows:


a Bush daughter 1 for each (or however many she's having)

Ted Kennedy drink until your liver cries

a Supreme Court justice to whom Bush is referring 1 judicious shot

[Tully Mars]

Maybe I misused the term. Moderate equates to moderation to me. Moderation is the key~how simple can that be?
Have a glass of wine-healthy
Drink a case-unhealthy
Eat a steak once a week-healthy
Eat a cow-unhealthy
And oh yeah, be happy living within your means. :smt102
Stay out of the rat race-they always win. :)
Family first. (don't say it, its implied)

Well put Hawk...allow me to add another attribute to the Moderate American characteristic:

Common sense - generally speaking if it sounds like it makes good sense it probably does. If it sounds like B.S. it probably smells like it too.

It seems that since Reagan left office our federal elected officials have lost all grasp of logic and common sense. There was not that much really magical about Reagan other than the fact that he was actually in tune with middle America and that the actually used common sense and logic in his decision making processes.

[fuzzis]

Ted Kennedy drink until your liver cries


I've been preparing for this one. I'm well hydrated, so while my liver may cry early, my kidneys will be able to handle it. :-D

fuzzis

[IGID]

If I had to pick one or the other, I'd have to go with the R's, but I consider myself in the middle of the road. I do believe that Kennedy and Kerry are hurting the D's more than they are helping.

[fuzzis]

BUSH’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TO BE SIMULCAST IN ENGLISH
President Hopes to Reach Broader Audience, Aides Say

For the first time since he was elected President of the United States, George W. Bush’s State of the Union address tonight will be simulcast in English, the White House confirmed.

With the president’s approval ratings sagging, the decision to simulcast the speech in English was widely seen as an attempt by the president to make an appeal to a broader audience.

“The majority of people in this country are English speaking, and quite frankly, we can’t afford to ignore them any longer,” one senior aide said. “Hopefully, by doing the English simulcast, we’ll be reaching out to a lot of those folks.”

Once the decision was made earlier in the month to launch the historic first English simulcast of a speech by President Bush, then began the hard work of translating the text of the address from Mr. Bush’s language into English.

Davis Logsdon, a professor of linguistics at the University of Minnesota, was one of several scholars approached to do the translation who ultimately quit in frustration.

“The problem is that the language the president speaks, by most measures, is not a language at all,” Professor Logsdon said.

Still, the White House remains guardedly optimistic about tonight’s simulcast, and aides said that if all goes as planned they might soon offer English simulcasts of press briefings by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Elsewhere, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein stormed out of his courtroom today, got a good look at what was going on in the streets of Baghdad, and quickly hurried back in.

:smt044 :smt044 ...getting ready to leave but have had a cocktail already.

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

Fussiz, if that's original you need to email it to Jon immediately.

Unfortunately not original. The Sner sent it to me. No clue where she got it. I did a quick google search but couldn't find the source.

:smt043

fuzzis

[IGID]

Cindy Sheehan was arrested before she even made it inside. Wonder what she did. What a idiot.

[Tully Mars]

Well Doc, I think that part of the point is that if you are not "fully" a democrat or "fully" a republican then somehow you are left out of the political equation all together. What Hawk, a few others, and I are saying is that there has got to be a middle ground somewhere for us folks who are just average, ordinary, hard-working, tax paying citizens. It seems to me lately that our voices are being lost in the shuffle.

As far as my comment about common sense is concerned the last thing that I can remember coming out of Washington that even resembled common sense was when Clinton removed selective availability from the GPS satellites.

[fuzzis]

OK...I'm still drinking over the following:

"A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research – human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator – and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale."

WTF? human-animal hybrids? Where in the hell did that come from? The rest of it, OK, but to toss in the human-animal hybrids? Did he adlib that one or did some idiot speechwriter let that one zoom by?

:smt043

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

Cindy Sheehan was arrested before she even made it inside. Wonder what she did. What a idiot.

According to ABCNews before the address, she had a front row seat and security was afraid she would be disruptive. They said something about the possibility that she had a banner that she would display. So...it appears she didn't do anything, although I wouldn't have put it past her to have attempted something.

fuzzis

[IGID]

Looks like she did do something. She couldn't follow the rules and was arrested for it just as anybody else will be when you don't follow rules. If you don't like the rules, run for a political office and get to Washington and try to change them. You can't just selectively follow the one's you agree with and not follow the one's you don't agree with. Good for them.

[Tully Mars]

Okay Tully, I see where you are coming from, but let me ask you a specific question:

Which approach has more common sense:

Our current tax system

A flat tax

Taxing the rich more, cutting taxes for everyone else

Taxing everyone more

Flat tax...

I don't know anyone who fully understands our current system,

The rich and middle class are already paying the lion's share of taxes as it is. You can't provide a tax cut to folks who aren't currently paying taxes...nothing from nothing still equals nothing.

Taxing everyone more just feeds Washington's addiction to spending.

[fuzzis]

So a dress code violation (is there an official dress code for the state of the union?) is an *arrestable* offense? Remove her from the gallery, but *arrest* her and charge her with an offense?

That's quite a bit of irony considering the President honored Coretta Scott King in his speech and she was all about the non-violent protest.

fuzzis

[IGID]

If they say there is a dress code and she ignores them and refuses whatever lawful orders she was given, yes, it's arrestable. I'm sure the Capital Police are a little more strict around the President, which they should be. Maybe she can put her tent up after she bonds out of jail.

[Jessica]

....Maybe she can put her tent up after she bonds out of jail.

That's great IGID! :smt038 You had me laughing on that one! :smt038

[fuzzis]

If they say there is a dress code and she ignores them and refuses whatever lawful orders she was given, yes, it's arrestable. I'm sure the Capital Police are a little more strict around the President, which they should be. Maybe she can put her tent up after she bonds out of jail.

Which country is it, again, where they arrest peaceful protesters and dissidents? What was that about our "freedoms" and "liberties" that the terrorists supposedly hate?

fuzzis

[IGID]

There are still rules no matter how free we think we are. Go into any courtroom you want and wear something objectionable by the judge and then refuse to remove it or leave and see what happens.

[jmb]

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after a scuffle over a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.
U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.
But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.
Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”
“Shame, shame,” he scolded.

Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan had wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.
“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.
Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond.
Sheehan uncomfortable going to speech
She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”
She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”
“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things. ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

[fuzzis]

There are still rules no matter how free we think we are. Go into any courtroom you want and wear something objectionable by the judge and then refuse to remove it or leave and see what happens.

Good grief. She didn't refuse to leave. You're attributing things to the situation that didn't happen. If you're going to make comparisons, at least compare like situations to like situations. (And thank you very much, I'm well aware of how law enforcement and the court systems work)

You disagree with the woman; it's your right. But your disagreement with her, and her disagreement with our President, doesn't mean that she should have been ARRESTED. Put aside your dislike for her and look at it rationally.

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

jmb has already posted an article, but in the following CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html), it was reported that NEITHER woman (Sheehan was arrested, Young's wife was NOT) should have been removed from the gallery for merely wearing a t-shirt.

The relevant portion is as follows:

"On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. "We made a mistake," he told CNN."

Talk about pre-mature ejaculation...on the parts of many. :roll:

fuzzis

[IGID]

As the doc reported, the anti-clinton republican was removed from the chamber, so apparently there is some kind of rule against disruptive attire. I think they shouldn't have caved and stuck to their guns. At least she wasn't able to make a bigger fool of herself than she already has.

[fuzzis]

As the doc reported, the anti-clinton republican was removed from the chamber, so apparently there is some kind of rule against disruptive attire. I think they shouldn't have caved and stuck to their guns. At least she wasn't able to make a bigger fool of herself than she already has.

Again...please compare like situations to like situations. The anti-Clinton Republican was *removed*. He was NOT ARRESTED. Sheehan's arrest makes the two situations fundamentally different, negating a comparison.

The police have admitted that they screwed up...if they can do it (and apologize), why do you keep insisting that they were right? Do you hate the woman so much that you'd deny her rights...rights you said in another thread you'd defend?

fuzzis

[IGID]

Personally, I think the war in Iraq would be much shorter if the enemy didn't have hope and as long as Sheehan, and people like her protest the war, they have hope. She is hurting the men and women on the ground in Iraq and she doesn't care. Since Congress made a declaration of war, she should be charged with treason.

treason
n 1: a crime that undermines the offender's government [syn: high treason (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=high%20treason), lese majesty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lese%20majesty)] 2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn: subversiveness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subversiveness), traitorousness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=traitorousness)] 3: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treachery), betrayal (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=betrayal), perfidy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perfidy)]

She has the right to do whatever the Constitution allows her to do, but not in a time of war.

[IGID]

By definition, if you think she's not committing treason, all we're doing is making Hub Dollars because neither of us will ever see the other side. Have a good night.

[fuzzis]

That's a nice dodge. What Cindy Sheehan did last night was not treasonous. Her protests have not been treasonous. "Time of war" doesn't mean that citizens of this country lose their rights to protest or dissent. As the Republicans are fond of saying with regard to the rumors of Bush's impeachment...if you've got a case, let's see it and get on with it. Otherwise...stop smearing the man. If she's committing treason, arrest the woman and get on with it. Otherwise...

fuzzis

[Tully Mars]

I was reading one of Lylabean's journal entries where she relayed googling the state of the union from the year she was born. She stated that the issues discussed were familiar to the ones that we are facing today. Inspired by that, I did a search for the state of the union on the year that I was born. It too seems eerily familiar. Take a gander at this excerpt:


I have come here tonight to report to you that this is a time of testing for our Nation.

At home, the question is whether we will continue working for better opportunities for all Americans, when most Americans are already living better than any people in history.

Abroad, the question is whether we have the staying power to fight a very costly war, when the objective is limited and the danger to us is seemingly remote.

So our test is not whether we shrink from our country's cause when the dangers to us are obvious and close at hand, but, rather, whether we carry on when they seem obscure and distant-and some think that it is safe to lay down our burdens.
I have come tonight to ask this Congress and this Nation to resolve that issue: to meet our commitments at home and abroad- to continue to build a better America-and to reaffirm this Nation's allegiance to freedom.

[Tully Mars]

Doc, I agree with all of those things and I also agree with the comment that fuzzis made. To be honest, I really wasn't trying to go that deep by posting the exerpt. I was simply stating the adage that the more things change the more they seem to stay the same. It was not my intention to take comments out of context.

[Tully Mars]

He also said this:

We should protect what Justice Brandeis called the "right most valued by civilized men"-the right to privacy. We should outlaw all wiretapping-public and private- wherever and whenever it occurs, except when the security of this Nation itself is at stake-and only then with the strictest governmental safeguards. And we should exercise the full reach of our constitutional powers to outlaw electronic "bugging" and "snooping."

[noway]

Fuzzis I try to stay out of the national politics because I'm not really smart on the terms you and others use on here.. But seeing that lady on the news with that shirt on how many has died in the war and going to the state of the union address she needed to be arrested.. She was there to start trouble and get in the news.. She pisses me off..Her son will slap her one day..If I went into donanelle's wearing a shirt with prices from other steak houses or saying that the meat sucks..what would the owner do to me? *cap in my ass*

[fuzzis]

Fuzzis I try to stay out of the national politics because I'm not really smart on the terms you and others use on here.. But seeing that lady on the news with that shirt on how many has died in the war and going to the state of the union address she needed to be arrested.. She was there to start trouble and get in the news.. She pisses me off..Her son will slap her one day..If I went into donanelle's wearing a shirt with prices from other steak houses or saying that the meat sucks..what would the owner do to me? *cap in my ass*

I have said that I would support *removing* her from the gallery, even though the Capital police have said that even that shouldn't have happened. But ARRESTED? There is no way in hell that should have happened. (And...once again, if you're going to make a comparative statement, please use like situations. Hawkeye *might* throw you out for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt, but unless you refused to leave, he would have no grounds to arrest you.) Sheehan did NOT refuse to leave. I believe that I made a post awhile back about objecting to the things she's *actually* done and not the things you wish she would have done (or the things the "right", whoever the hell they are, has spun and you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker). If you're going to bitch about her, at least get the story straight.

For those too blinded by your hatred to understand what I'm saying...the thing I object to is her ARREST. She pisses you off...GREAT. She pisses me off too, but that doesn't mean she should be ARRESTED.

The last time I checked, we *still* live in a free society and not a police state, regardless of how hard some of you may try to make that case. Wearing a t-shirt listing the number of dead in this conflict and asking how many more, is not TREASON. I am continually amazed at how readily people are willing to surrender their rights, rights our soliders are dying to ensure for other people. You can go right ahead and surrender yours, but don't expect me (and others like me) to blindly follow you down that path and cheapen that sacrifice.

fuzzis

[MSQueen]

I have said that I would support *removing* her from the gallery, even though the Capital police have said that even that shouldn't have happened. But ARRESTED? There is no way in hell that should have happened. (And...once again, if you're going to make a comparative statement, please use like situations. Hawkeye *might* throw you out for wearing an inappropriate t-shirt, but unless you refused to leave, he would have no grounds to arrest you.) Sheehan did NOT refuse to leave. I believe that I made a post awhile back about objecting to the things she's *actually* done and not the things you wish she would have done (or the things the "right", whoever the hell they are, has spun and you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker). If you're going to bitch about her, at least get the story straight.

For those too blinded by your hatred to understand what I'm saying...the thing I object to is her ARREST. She pisses you off...GREAT. She pisses me off too, but that doesn't mean she should be ARRESTED.

The last time I checked, we *still* live in a free society and not a police state, regardless of how hard some of you may try to make that case. Wearing a t-shirt listing the number of dead in this conflict and asking how many more, is not TREASON. I am continually amazed at how readily people are willing to surrender their rights, rights our soliders are dying to ensure for other people. You can go right ahead and surrender yours, but don't expect me (and others like me) to blindly follow you down that path and cheapen that sacrifice.

fuzzis
fuzzis, i agree!! i still don't think that many of those posting about this GET THE POINT of what u r trying to say. i believe once the prez's people realized she was there, they were looking for a reason (ANY reason) to get her out of there so she COULDN'T cause a scene. when they saw her t-shirt, they used that as a reason to ARREST her... could some of our intellegent scholars here please tell me WHAT GROUNDS they might have to ARREST her? especially when the police THEMSELVES even admitted (after the State of the Union was over) that it was a "mistake", that they should never have "arrested" her. the ONLY REASON she was arrested was to get her removed where she could possibly draw attention to herself and her cause (however "warped" that cause might be) and not further create more problems for the prez.

[spoon]

I saw on the morning news that she wasn't actually arrested, only detained, as was a supporter of the war that was wearing a "Support Our Troops" t-shirt. If the rules state you cannot wear that type of clothing with a message, then I think it was appropriate. However, I don't know what the rules or dress code is so I'm not qualified to say if it was right or wrong. I do think it was in poor taste for her to wear the shirt. I wouldn't think it would be appropriate for anyone to protest during a State of the Union speech. As much as I disagreed with President Clinton, I would not have wanted anyone to wear a shirt protesting his platform at a State of the Union address.

[fuzzis]

They *dropped* (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-02-02T021239Z_01_N01400453_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-SPEECH-SHEEHAN.xml) the charges. Which means she was arrested. And there is no dress code for the state of the union.

And if Reuters is too liberal for you, there's this from Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183392,00.html).

fuzzis

[jmack]

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government," Sheehan wrote.

Maybe she will move to Iraq.

[Biggie]

Man I get detained for Jay-Walking.

[MSQueen]

it's a T-SHIRT -- NOT a banner, NOT a flashing neon sign, NOT something with confetti streaming from it -- just a T-SHIRT...

i can't see how some of u don't get it......

[fuzzis]

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government," Sheehan wrote.

Maybe she will move to Iraq.

She shouldn't have to. Isn't that why the reason (or at least the most recent reason) our government has given us for why we're in Iraq?

fuzzis

[MSQueen]

People, these were NOT the President's people. These were guards at the Capitial from crying out loud! Let's not forget that these same *people* removed the wife of a Republican representative. It was the police who chose to *arrest* Sheehan, though I'm sure there are many people in the slammer tonight who would gladly take her brand of *arrest*
c'mon, doc... surely u understand politics... NOT the prez's people -- guards at the Capital -- i think that is probably about the same thing... and we probably will hear more from that Republican representative about what happened to his wife...

[jmb]

from The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Rep. Bill Young was so outraged that he held up his wife's shirt during heated remarks on the House floor Wednesday. "Shame. Shame," he said.


I'd like to hear the rest of the heated remarks.

Given Cindy Sheehan's history, why was she given an invite in the first place? Isn't that asking for trouble?

[MSQueen]

Queen, if you went to Sunflower and saw *No shirt, no shoes, no service* and you went in barefoot, what would you expect to happen? This is NOT the first time a person has been expelled from the Capital for having political speech on their tee-shirt and it won't be the last.

This wasn't some backyard B-B-Q. It wasn't some political rally or some party. It was the State of the Union for crying out loud. Let's have a little dignity and class with SOMETHING that we broadcast to the world. taken from the Reuters article referred to by fuzzis in an earlier post...


The Capitol Police statement said neither guest should have been confronted about her expressive T-shirt.
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken, effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague," Gainer said. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

[fuzzis]

from The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Rep. Bill Young was so outraged that he held up his wife's shirt during heated remarks on the House floor Wednesday. "Shame. Shame," he said.


I'd like to hear the rest of the heated remarks.

Given Cindy Sheehan's history, why was she given an invite in the first place? Isn't that asking for trouble?




Maybe it was. But then again, from what I recall all of her protests have been non-violent, civil disobedience type things. She has said that she was not planning to be disruptive...to just attend wearing the shirt.

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

Sheehan's arrest is part of Jon Stewart's show this evening. :smt042

fuzzis

[AlphaMale]

I think it was in poor taste and she seems to stuck on bringing attention to herself and not on the memory of her son. Shes now hinted that she may run for Congress.

Would you all have defended someone doing the same thing when Clinton was giving a State of the Union Address with a
"ADULTRY IS A SIN" t-shirt?

[fuzzis]

I think it was in poor taste and she seems to stuck on bringing attention to herself and not on the memory of her son. Shes now hinted that she may run for Congress.

Would you all have defended someone doing the same thing when Clinton was giving a State of the Union Address with a
"ADULTRY IS A SIN" t-shirt?

You miss the point, AlphaMale. I haven't been defending her wearing of the shirt. It's not about the shirt. I have been protesting her ARREST. She shouldn't have been ARRESTED. Removed? Probably. But ARRESTED? Not a chance in hell in a country that supposedly values *freedom*.

And if a person wearing a shirt saying "Adultery is a Sin" had been ARRESTED, I'd say the same thing.

fuzzis

[IGID]

I told myself I wasn't going to get back in this , but I can't help it. I realize criminal charges were dropped, but police drop charges everyday for one reason or another, right or wrong, but the Capital Police acted in good faith on what they thought was the right thing to do. Sheehan wasn't and hasn't been the only person asked to leave the chamber. I know some are going to say but she was arrested and the other were ask to leave and they would be correct. The difference here is the others were approached and ask to leave and they did. Sheehan did not.


Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

The last part of that statement is critical. Did not respond. If the police tell you to do something they believe they are in their right to tell you to do and you do not respond, they are absolutely in their right to place you under arrest and more than likely will.

[fuzzis]

The difference here is the others were approached and ask to leave and they did. Sheehan did not.

Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.


Those are two completely different statements. Nothing I've read says that she was asked to leave and refused. The difference is significant when one considers spin.

fuzzis

[fuzzis]

I think thats why Stewart chose the Comedy Network so he's not pressured to take one's slant over another's spin. He could name his price with any of the big cable news outlets. His market share is huge. He brings light to the absurdness in both parties that many overlook. MSNBC's Keith Olberman makes an attempt at it, but you can tell he's ham-strung with certain network no-no's.

You're probably right Hawk. I seem to recall that he was pretty hard on Kerry during the elections. :smt042 Kind of looking forward to him hosting the Oscars. (I got America The Book for Christmas from the Sner last year, and it was pretty darn funny)

fuzzis

[IGID]

The congressmans wife was ask to leave and she did. Sheehan did not respond. Thats a direct quote from this news report, paragraph 4.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/31/D8FG2HV82.html

[AlphaMale]

Why was she invited to this to begin with? The answer is the Democrats were using the woman to make the President uncomfortable and humiliate him while the world was watching. I'm not defending the security or arrest or whatever, what we should be mad at is who used this woman to put her through this ordeal also.

[fuzzis]

The congressmans wife was ask to leave and she did. Sheehan did not respond. Thats a direct quote from this news report, paragraph 4.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/31/D8FG2HV82.html

Once again, IGID, that's a nice dodge and deflection. Nowhere in the link *you've* provided does it say that Sheehan was asked to leave and refused, which was the initial point you and others raised. The implication in *your* above paragraph, with the link to the congressman's wife, is that she was in fact asked to leave, just choose not to respond to the police. That is NOT the case.

Don't make things up. As I've said before, there's plenty to object to with the woman without creating fiction to malign the woman. There's no need to grasp at straws.

(And to throw into the mix, there is Sheehan's account (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehan3feb03,1,4302698.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews) of what happened...not that anyone is remotely interested in that, although I would assume that much like any situation the truth of what really happened lies somewhere between Sheehan wanting to appear the martyr and the police looking to do damage control for being over-zealous in a situation that presented no danger)

fuzzis

[wilebill]

Apparently some of the people on the MS gulf coast were not too thrilled with his speech. In a C-L article the other day several people were quoted as saying they wished he would have said a little more about their plight than what he did. Supposedly there were only 165 words in the speech in reference to hurricane relief, and not once did the prez say "Katrina".

[IGID]

Fuzzis, you're right. When you don't respond when the police tell you do do something, that's not ' refusing '. If you ignore them when they tell you to leave, thats's refusing. I haven't heard any reports of her being hard of hearing or deaf, but I may be wrong, been wrong before. Maybe she just didn't hear them. Besides, this is America, the land of the free. You can do whatever you want whenever you want cause we're free.

[Jessica]

Not to change the subject but does anyone have a link to the cartoon which has gotten all the Muslims AK's in a wad? Our own politically correct State Dept has issued a statement condeming the cartoon of Ali wearing a bomb turban as being insensative or some such. Seems to me the Muslims have absolutly no sense of humor. We need to develope the Nitrous Oxide warhead and lighten these fellows up a little. Dang, they anal.

What about this Hawk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

I like what the Danish Prime Minister said when the Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, in protest after the government refused to censure the newspaper or apologize.

The Danish prime minister said, "The government refuses to apologise because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech".

[Jessica]

Thanks Babe, Like I said, they take themselves too seriously. If we could make them laugh it might kill them. Would they find anything funny besides seeing us gutted? :smt102
Imagine how Brokeback Mountain, cast with two turban wearing goat hearders would play over there? Oooo

You're welcome darling! I'm trying to remember ever seeing one of them laugh....I don't think they know how. :smt102 They are some cold heartless people.

[fuzzis]

Fuzzis, you're right. When you don't respond when the police tell you do do something, that's not ' refusing '. If you ignore them when they tell you to leave, thats's refusing. I haven't heard any reports of her being hard of hearing or deaf, but I may be wrong, been wrong before. Maybe she just didn't hear them. Besides, this is America, the land of the free. You can do whatever you want whenever you want cause we're free.

IGID, now you're being *extremely*disingenuous, and that's pretty low. You originally said that she was asked to leave and she refused. NOWHERE in the article that you presented did it say that she was asked to leave. When you can't prove that assertion, you change it?

As I said in my first post to you today, you were talking about two different things (1.refusing to leave when asked...which as far as I can tell did NOT happen and 2. not responding when she was told that she couldn't wear the shirt). Now you're interchanging the two in order to be obstinate.

fuzzis

[Jessica]

Is it getting hot in here or is it just me? :smt084

[just-Wynn]

Sheehan is an idiot. Period. Her original point has been muted by her own liberal publicity. For some reason people are still backing her and they can't even remember why.

[IGID]

I'm sorry Fuzzis. The way I see it is when they approached her, that was when they were going to ask her to leave. When she ignores them, that's when she refused. Refused by her actions. That's my common sense view of the incident. I realize you will never admit she was wrong for ignoring them when they approached her and that's ok. Like they say, opinions are like ...holes, everybody has one.

[Biggie]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/getalong2.jpg

Can't we just all get along?