Last night Cindy Sheehan was arrested and expelled from the gallery for disruptive behavior. I don't blame Cindy one bit. Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan was just doing what Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan does. To claim that you didn't see that coming is worse than sheer stupidity, it's a lie.
Rep. Woolsey is directly responsible for disrupting the President's State of the Union Speech. It was she who gave her one invitation to last night's event to a known anti-American activist and traitor.
No, Cindy Sheehan is not an anti-war activist as the MSM constantly reports, she is an anti-American activist. The kind of anti-American activist who believes in a global Jewish conspiracy. The kind of anti-American activist who believes Washington takes its marching orders from Tel Aviv. The kind of anti-American activist who embraces strong-men like Hugo Chavez because they both share the same vision of a weak America which will not meddle in the affairs of third-rate countries' schemes to oppress their own people.
Cindy Sheehan is more than an anti-war activist, she is a traitor to her own son who volunteered to fight in Iraq. She believes her own son was in Iraq to oppress the Iraqi people and to steal their oil.
If that wasn't enough, she is a criminal. And a criminal with poor manners, at that. Arrested on numerous occasions in acts of civil-disobedience, what the hell did any one expect she would do last night? Frown at the President.
So, the person responsible for bringing her to the State of the Union address had to have known what she was planning. To say Lynn Woolsey didn't know is to say Lynn Woolsey is stupid.
Lynn Woolsey ought to be impeached and removed from the House of Representatives for her part in facilitating an unlawful act. At the very least, she should be immediately censured by that body.
I will update this post later and see what other people are saying about Lynn Woolsey and Cindy Sheehan. I hope I'm not alone in my utter disgust at one very irresponsible Congresswoman's actions. Excuse any typos but I banged this out pretty fast and no time to check it now.
Yet another update: It looks like Lynn Woolsey isn't the only Congressperson who stands in dire need of censure. Add to that list Rep. Pete Stark, D-CA.
Apparently, the Capital police are content neutral. They also
, which really sucks.
.
Let me just say this to all the conservatives out there who are saying something like, "Well, it's okay to throw Cindy out because they also threw out Pete Stark's wife." Look, if you want to equivocate Cindy Sheehan's anti-Americanism with Mrs. Stark's patriotism, be my guest. However, doing so is kinda, I dunno, wimpy. Like, who on earth are we to judge the content of the speech being said? Screw that. I'll judge if you aren't willing to. Cindy Sheehan's very presence in the Capital building is an offense to that institution after she went down and hugged Hugo Chavez last week. But to allow her to come into that building wearing that shirt is even worse.
And to the 'free speech' crowd who seem so well versed in the 1st Amendment, let me remind you of Article 1, sec. 5 of the U.S. Constitution:
I find myself with a couple of extra minutes so I'm trying to see what the blog reaction is.
.
Another update: At the request of John Ryan, here is what Mother Saint Cindy's shirt says. 2,242 DEAD How Many More?
I won't bother to look, but I'm sure the Leftards are up in arms over this.
1
Rusty, I'm well beyond disgust at that clownish attention whore. I'm also disgusted with our legal system that arrests these traitors in the evening and lets them go in the morning. It's ridiculous. Why bother even arresting them. She should do 30 days in jail, MINIMUM, every time she gets arrested for her attention whore behaviour.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 08:34 AM (8e/V4)
2
Nope, Rusty, you're not alone. It is disgraceful for an elected offical to aid and abet these disrespectful and childish -- not to mention criminal -- antics. Rep. Woolsey has shown a complete lack of regard for not only the office of the President, but the halls of Congress, her colleagues, and her position of trust as an elected official. It shows a lack of integrity and character, and she should be censured, at the very least.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 01, 2006 08:41 AM (IEpte)
3
You're not alone in your disgust.
There is a place and time for protest, dissent, criticism. But the State of the Union speech is not one of them.
This is not adult behavior. Give the man 1 hour to freaking speak his mind for godsakes!
Can you imagine someone giving Paula Jones a pass to see Clinton's speech. For what gain? Even if Sheehan is completely right, how does this help anything?
"What? The NSA is spying on phone conversations with al-Qaeda? Impeach the president! Yea!!! We're a bunch of retarded monkeys who shit in our own food supply."
Do these people realize that we're all in the same mess together?
I really feel bad for the President who has such an immense burden on his shoulders of basically saving Western civilization and Liberal Democracy while our own people are pulling retarded, anarchic, immature stunts like this.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 01, 2006 08:47 AM (VNPtA)
4
I was shocked, shocked! I say, by O Glorious And Righteous Holy Mother Of Peace And Tranquility's actions.
I fully expected her to do no more than frown at the President.
Seriously though, this wasn't just a patented Cindy attention-whoring, judging from her claim in her letter I linked to below, this was also a stunt to raise funds by picking the taxpayer's pockets. Assuming she files suit against the feddle gubmint like she claims to be thinking of.
Posted by: Vinnie at February 01, 2006 08:49 AM (f289O)
5
I won't bother ranting, you all know my standard response by now. It sounds a little less extreme with each passing day, doesn't it?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:19 AM (0yYS2)
6
Rusty how about telling us what the bad words written on her shirt were? I haven't been able to actually see a picture that is really readable.
Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 09:53 AM (TcoRJ)
7
What bad words were on Cathy's shirt? Well, none at all. All that was on her shirt was a number. It just so happened that it was the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. I guess that the President didn't want anyone reminded of how many of our brave Men and Women have been killed fighting his dirty war...just like his administration doesn't want anyone seeing pictures of honorable troops coming home in caskets... While the President speaks of spreading freedom, Miss Sheehan was kicked out and arrested for wearing a shirt with a number on it. Last time I checked, this was not illegal. I guess that the Bush administration's idea of freedom is a little different than mine.
Posted by: What Country are we in? at February 01, 2006 10:24 AM (Xxdrc)
8
Of course. Your idea of freedom is whatever the exact opposite of anything Bush says.
"Last time I checked, this was not illegal."
Maybe you need to check again.
There is a time and a place for protest and inside the Capitol Building during the State of the Union address is not that time. She's an attention whore and you are an idiot.
Posted by: slug at February 01, 2006 10:33 AM (wcNc2)
9
Dear "What country are we in?"
I guess our idea of getting the facts is different than yours. Sheehan's shirt said:
"2245 Dead. How many more?"
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:26 AM (5pqct)
10
Of course nobody is talking about a US Representative's wife who was also asked to leave because she had a shirt with a slogan on it - a pro-America slogan. Yeah. Apparently the rules don't allow
any form of demonstration, but the media, leftards, and other pieces of shit who should be killed are only talking about the attention whore du jour.
What country are we in? Well it damn sure isn't Russia, China, Cuba, or North Korea you stupid piece of shit.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:28 AM (0yYS2)
11
I have a hard time understanding why some of you guys get so worked up over this. Cindy's a marginalized fool with a one-way ticket to obscurity, hell bent to further alienate the bulk of the American people on her journey.
In reality, she has become a bizzare asset - another "there they go again" moment.
Rep Woosley? One of 435 - participating in an idiotic stunt for the sole benefit of her latte crowd back in her California district - totally necessary for her if she doesn't want to get challenged by a GreenDem in '06. Just her version of a "Maxime Waters" moment.
They want your anger - your rage - over over-reaction - its the only freakin' thing left they've got they can pass off to themselves as "success".
I laugh at them - dismiss them as inept and incompetent - and they hate that more than anything else!
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 11:49 AM (3aakz)
12
she has posted some sob story on her site, posting on Kos as well.
Posted by: Howie at February 01, 2006 11:51 AM (D3+20)
13
I keep reading on these lefty sites that if they get the "neocons" upset, they're doing something right.
I would venture to guess that if your biggest goal in life is to get others upset, it might be time to re-evaluate your goals.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:57 AM (5pqct)
14
Cindy Sheman(she fits in well with other liberals Reno, Boxer, Helen Thomas, etc...) They are not only the most classless group in America, they are hands down the ugliest women in America
Posted by: Andy at February 01, 2006 11:58 AM (tMU4W)
15
All that was on her shirt was a number.
I'm surprised it wasn't "88" given the rhetoric she loves to spew from time to time.
Posted by: h0mi at February 01, 2006 12:05 PM (zpJBl)
16
Ummm, first of all, Cindy Sheehan didn't "disrupt" anything. She took her coat off a half hour before the speech. By most accounts, when she was forcefully escorted out, she didn't make a peep.
Secondly, this business that "she had been warned" seems a little sketchy too. If T-shirts were so clearly off limits, wouldn't the Republican congressman's wife be equally guilty? Is there a reason she wasn't arrested, even though (unlike Cindy) she argued with the House staff during her ejection, calling them "idiots"?
How come Cindy's the only one who ends up in cuffs?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:11 PM (xoDSv)
17
pdq: You're going under the assumption that Cindy didn't want to be arrested.
Now she's got a lawsuit! A national headline! international attention!
It must be terrible to be oppressed.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 12:15 PM (CcXvt)
18
>>>It must be terrible to be oppressed.
On the contrary, the Left THRIVES on "oppression". Without "oppression" they would literally cease to exist.
FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 12:27 PM (8e/V4)
19
Her goal was to be arrested - sorry she got it - a clownish stunt remains a clownish stunt. would have preferred the Cap police wore clown outfits - to keep things in perspective.
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 12:29 PM (3aakz)
20
pdq: You're going under the assumption that Cindy didn't want to be arrested.
If you just want to be arrested, wouldn't you, um, make a stink or something? Wait until the speech started before you took off your coat? Resist a little?
Cindy wore a T-shirt, and took off her coat. When she was escorted out she did so quietly. That didn't used to get you arrested, at least not in this country.
FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial
Hmm. That was a
trial, and his shirt said "Clinton sucks". Just for fun, you ought to try attending a trial with a Tshirt that says the defendant "sucks" and see what happens.
Last night was a
speech, ostensibly open to the public. Do you see any differences here?
If you guessed the guy at the trial was not arrested, but the war mom who left quietly was, why then, you'd be right.
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:43 PM (xoDSv)
21
What country are we in?
Uhm, Iran? No, she was not buried up to her waist and stoned to death.
Cuba? No, she was not taken out and shot.
China? No, she and her family were not taken out and shot.
Bolivia? No, she was not taken out and beaten to death.
Posted by: Phillep at February 01, 2006 12:49 PM (Xg00m)
22
What country are we in?
Well, I would hope that we we're in a country like Britain. When they ejected (not
arrested, mind you) a man from a Labor Party conference who audibly called Jack Straw's comments about the Iraq war "nonsense", the chairman later apologised to the man.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1580432,00.html
What are the chances of that happening here?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 12:58 PM (xoDSv)
23
pdq: I'd see your point if her T-shirt read "Nike - Just do it" but she was wearing a protest T-shirt, to get the response that she hoped for.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 01:14 PM (CcXvt)
24
...to get the response that she hoped for.
Just out of curiousity, what response do you think Representative Young's wife was hoping for with
her T-shirt?
If
she'd been arrested, would you be here saying she just got what she was hoping for?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 01:28 PM (xoDSv)
25
pdq, I don't know if you've been reading the accounts or not, but maybe this will help you:
According to Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider, "She was asked to cover the shirt up and did not."
Another report said:
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond.
We have a case of he said/she said here and it's obvious you've already decided who is lying. You're assuming you know and using your bias to make that assumption. Notice too that one source was a direct quote and the other is not. I'd say the context changes a bit with the quoted account. Looks to me like one is more of an editorial than the other.
As to why one was arrested and the other wasn't - I don't know any more than you do. Neither of us were there. So you probably shoudn't make assumptions on something you didn't witness.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 01:38 PM (5pqct)
26
So you probably shoudn't make assumptions on something you didn't witness
Umm, did
you witness this? Did any of the folks above calling Cindy a "whore" see what happened?
CNN said she "unfurled a banner" and even helpfully supplied bogus video which they have now pulled. Other sources said she was "boisterous", and that she caused a "disruption". Several people here have managed to read her mind and are certain she was trying to get arrested.
I'm just trying to point out that after all the BS that got floated initially, it seems most reputable news reports agree that she was removed within moments of taking off her coat, that she left quietly and without resistance, and was handcuffed and arrested for "demonstrating", which was later changed to "unlawful conduct"...for wearing a T-shirt...the same T-shirt she'd been wearing all day.
For what it's worth, Rep. Young says a guard at the house chambers called his wife "a demonstrator and a protester". But she wasn't arrested. Why is that?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:03 PM (xoDSv)
27
Ed,
Only if you equivocate between Cindy Sheehan's anti-Americanism and Rep. Young's pro-Americanism.
To quote the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sec 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 02:04 PM (JQjhA)
28
A friend of mine was in some city, possibly Atlanta or NO, I can't remember, but he's a truck driver and was stuck there because they stopped traffic in the whole city for Klintoon's visit, and he found a vendor on the motorcade route who was selling T-shirts that said "Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him the most?", and he said some Secret Service guys arrested him and put him in the back of a hot van for two hours, then let him go. Free speech? Not when a liberal is in charge. What we need is a good old fashioned American revolution, in which we can eradicate this scum.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:12 PM (0yYS2)
29
hey pdq, read:
"The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."
http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html
mkay? Now stfu.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:13 PM (8e/V4)
30
Ed,
getting arrested is the whole object of Lefty protests. It's a high honor among you moonbats and you're granted instant hero status. Stop pretending you're all upset about it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:15 PM (8e/V4)
31
According to Capitol Police Sergeant Kimberly Schneider, "She was asked to cover the shirt up and did not."
Moonbats are habitual liars. So who you gonna believe? A cop? or a lying moonbat.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:24 PM (8e/V4)
32
If she'd been arrested, would you be here saying she just got what she was hoping for?
Last time I checked she wasn't going to other countries and bashing the United States, or going to the Whitehouse threatening to chain herself to the fence, or camping outside the home of the president with a gang of smelly hippies, so with that in mind I would say she probably was not trying to get arrested.
Imagine that.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 02:27 PM (CcXvt)
33
Stop pretending you're all upset about it
Not all upset about it. Just seems odd to me that the lady who gave her only son to the Iraq war effort and who left quietly when she was physically ejected for wearing a T-shirt gets arrested, cuffed, and charged but the other lady wearing a T-shirt, who called the guards (who considered her a "demonstrator" and a "protester") "idiots" doesn't.
Can you think of a plausible reason why?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:31 PM (xoDSv)
34
>>>Can you think of a plausible reason why?
pdq,
Is the fact that the cop said Cindy refused to comply not plausible enough for you?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:36 PM (8e/V4)
35
Maybe because the cops don't like her because she is a traitor who thinks her son died for a Zionist conspiracy while they thought it was stupid that they had to remove the other one for wearing a patriotic t-shirt? She's lucky they didn't use the tazer.
Posted by: Rusty at February 01, 2006 02:39 PM (JQjhA)
36
Rusty,
that reason works for me too.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:46 PM (8e/V4)
37
Is the fact that the cop said Cindy refused to comply not plausible enough for you?
Referring to not covering her T-shirt? Neither did Mrs. Young.
She raised a stink, and called the guards "idiots" to boot.
Why wasn't she arrested?
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 02:54 PM (xoDSv)
38
"Umm, did you witness this?"
I said I didn't. And I'm not speaking for anyone else here. Thank you.
Casey was not her only son. So don't even try that. Let the facts stand on their own without making stuff up. The difference here is that some are expressing an opinion and you're masquerading yours as facts. I can't answer your question why one was arrested and not the other. As I said - I wasn't there.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 02:56 PM (5pqct)
39
Just seems odd to me that the lady who gave her only son to the Iraq war effort
For the umpteenth time:
She did not GIVE her sone to the war effort, HE chose AS AN ADULT to VOLUNTEER.
Fuckwit.
Can you think of a plausible reason why?
Couldn't have anything to do with her behavior, could it? Nah. We know that
all anti-war protestor are gentle as doves. Must be an eeevil RethugliKKKan conspiracy.
Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 02:59 PM (rGfpg)
40
Why wasn't she arrested?
Ask the Capitol Police.
Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 03:01 PM (rGfpg)
41
"Why wasn't she arrested?"
pdq,
Because protesting inside the chambers is illegal, and Mrs. Young's "I heart the troops" t-shirt wasn't a protest, but rather a message of support. See the diff? That's why she was so pissed about it. SHE WASN'T PROTESTING.
Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 03:25 PM (8e/V4)
42
>>>“Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President?
ummm, since never?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:27 PM (8e/V4)
43
Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war
It's almost biblical, Cindy Sheenan holding aloft her son, and offering him as a sacrifice.
As Brian pointed out earlier, she did not give anything, it wasn't hers to give. Her son gave HIS life, in the line of duty. Claiming otherwise makes it sound like he did not volunteer for Iraq, did not die because he felt his comrades were in danger and raises Cindy in status, and not her son.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 03:33 PM (CcXvt)
44
Okay, folks...I know that when people that don't know me start calling me "fuckwit" that it's probably time to go.
But you know what I think?
I think a few of you are sensitive about this all because deep inside you're a little uncomfortable about a president that only appears in front of screened, friendly audiences. You're not really sure why he needs to have news conference questions pre-scripted. And even though you vehemently disagree with his critics, you're just a little uneasy about how dissent has become
unpatriotic lately...and sometimes just plain illegal, even if you're a grieving parent who's lost a son and can't understand why.
Maybe I'm wrong- maybe this doesn't bother you, not even a little bit.
But it should.
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 03:38 PM (xoDSv)
45
>>>raises Cindy in status, and not her son.
Excellent point. The attention whore has brought him no honor nor glory for his sacrifice, but has instead used her son only to raise her own status, while diminishing his. It's disgusting. And yet the Leftards can't see it. Simply amazing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:43 PM (8e/V4)
46
Okay, folks...I know that when people that don't know me start calling me "fuckwit" that it's probably time to go.
Ya think? Wow, nothing gets past you, does it?
Oh, and Ed? Did it ever occur to you that Cindy might just um... embellish... the story a bit to make herself look like the victim? I'll say essentially what I said earlier in another thread -- her story sounds like the kind of excuse offered by someone who gets caught red-handed doing something wrong, and has to concoct an Occam's Razor-defying, convoluted story to explain why what happened really wasn't their fault. It's cute when a 5-year-old does it. When an aging hippy does it, it's just tiresome.
Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 03:46 PM (rGfpg)
47
pdq,
It doesn't make me uncomfortable. To me it just means he's not a natural politician, nor public speaker. We all hate politicians, remember? Now that we got a non-schlickmeister up there, it's supposed to upset me? Hardly.
And your dissent IS unpatriotic. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to voice it, but let's not kid ourselves about it being patriotic. It's not.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:48 PM (8e/V4)
48
she lost her son long before his death, probably around the time she threatened to run him over with a vehicle in order to stop him going to Iraq.
Her views, were not his.
You piss all over his sacrifice, while holding Cindy up as a shining example of "grief".
She even said after his death if she thought about it, she wouldn't have buried him in his uniform. Obviously that is not something her son would have wanted.
You see Casey cut the strings, but Cindy still plays like she was the puppetmaster, and continues to try and make decisions her son wouldn't wanted, when I think of Cindy, I see her using the skull of her son as a puppet, with her trying to talk through it.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 03:50 PM (CcXvt)
49
"Stifled?" And since when is this "truth" being stifled? She's gotten how much airtime, print space and video? We and those at the SOTU are not required to give her a platform for her free speech. The sole purpose for her actions is to invade and make a mockery of everything she simply disagrees with. How much more time and space does this woman require? There are precious few mediums she hasn't abused and seized upon to keep the spotlight upon herself. Enough!
Her message has become muddled and shrill and most people are just damn sick and tired of it. It's almost as if it's become a game for her.
And pdq, dear dear, I'm not in the least uneasy. I'm sick and damn tired.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 03:54 PM (5pqct)
50
>>>There are precious few mediums she hasn't abused and seized upon to keep the spotlight upon herself. Enough!
hahaha! excellently put. Far from being "stifled", her 15 minutes are long up.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 03:57 PM (8e/V4)
51
"People's State of the Union"???
Well - seems she been working on the vernacular.
Its all comical really when you just sit back and watch the "show".
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 04:10 PM (3aakz)
52
>>>"The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested -- once again -- that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq."
Sorry, but I listen to the same Bush speeches these Lefties do, and I've yet to hear him make that claim. And yet they keep repeating that accusation over and over hoping it sticks. Simply orwellian.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:16 PM (8e/V4)
53
Sorry- just one more post, which I'll keep as informational as possible:
NBC is now reporting that the Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges against Cindy Sheehan.
We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
Posted by: pdq at February 01, 2006 04:30 PM (xoDSv)
54
>>>charges just dropped.
See now nice George Bush is? Now say thank you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:32 PM (8e/V4)
55
"We screwed up,”"
No you didn't! You did GREAT!
Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 04:34 PM (8e/V4)
56
The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.
Well, they screwed up in arresting Mrs. Young too. Cindy got tossed, and so did pro-troops Mrs. Young, so we're all none the worse for wear.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:37 PM (8e/V4)
57
We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Spoken like a truth-stifling, free-speech-quashing unconstitutional stormtrooper.
That was our point, right?
Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 04:49 PM (rGfpg)
Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 04:59 PM (rGfpg)
59
Much ado about nothin' and nobody. You all noticed that Cindy hadn't been able to get any attention on her "World Socialist Justice Tour" - especially the anti-globalization stop in Venezula.
Is this the best she/they can do for a try at another 15 minutes?
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 05:25 PM (3aakz)
60
Since I see the dreadlocked Starbucks employees really came out on this one, here is the pertinent information via a commenter at Patterico's.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt
For those of you too lazy to look it up yourself, "An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly:
(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings."
Next, you "mainstreamers" will try to redefine what 'disturbing the peace', 'disorderly conduct', and 'protest' mean and how it doesn't apply here.
Go further and you will read, if you are able, "... (2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."
Explain how her banner that she tried to unfurl doesn't meet the definition of 'banner' in the House rules.
You Cindy-lovers are a)ignorant and b) have the worst taste in a 'human-being' that I've ever seen.
She just makes herself look more pathetic every day. Those who support her are even more pathetic because you look up to someone like her. Here is a woman who would normally be a sympathetic figure by losing her son because he was doing what he thought was right. Instead, her husband divorces her for being stupid and bashes her for denigrating their son's name and service to his country. She continues to embarass herself more and more every day. It won't be long before we see her French-kissing Castro.
Isn't there a single one of you that has the good sense to know that this cow is dragging all of you and your party down with her? I know you actually think you are the mainstream and believe she is your savior so keep up the good work. It really is comical to those of us who are watching.
Go ahead and trot her out for a Senate seat. I dare you.
Posted by: slug at February 01, 2006 05:29 PM (0YdQw)
61
Explain how her banner that she tried to unfurl doesn't meet the definition of 'banner' in the House rules.
slug...
...that "banner" thing?
Didja hear about that on CNN?
Turns out there wasn't one. Just one mom, and her T-shirt. CNN sorta, kinda made that banner thing up.
Don't feel bad- these guys here were falling all over themselves just a few hours ago explaining why sitting quietly wearing a T shirt is now illegal in America.
Except it's not.
Yet.
Posted by: roger&me at February 01, 2006 05:38 PM (xoDSv)
62
back that up! paste where someone said wearing a T-Shirt was illegal in America.
Lefty exaggeration, at it's best again.
The people that were commenting, were correct that her T-shirt fit the definition under the Capital Building laws, as slug described above.
"Yet"
lol you guys are funny.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 05:43 PM (CcXvt)
63
ed,
and they tossed Mrs. Young out on her ass too. So what exactly is your point? That the Capitol cops need to brush up on the house rules? Good, then maybe we finally agree on something. If they were following the house rules, then they're heroes. If they weren't, then they end up with egg on their face. Got it. Does that make this some kind of a great victory for World Socialism or something? This all about the house rules, nothing more. It's not some greater struggle for "Free Speech" and World Socialism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 05:58 PM (8e/V4)
64
Wearing a T-shirt is not illegal in America - but you know that - as you know "stunts" aren't allowed by anyone in the format. You just want to be cute. Fine by me.
Does any of this actually have any influence on Mainstreet America - the general public? No - it a typical leftist joke - like bringing the paper mache puppets to one of their "perfomance art" demonstrations.
Enjoy the moment - Cindy & kind appeal to a very limited crowd - and stuff like this doesn't broaden it - in fact - often it helps the opposition. I actually wanted her to make a fool of herself and fellow travellers on Prime time - I'm truly disapointed!
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 05:58 PM (3aakz)
65
Why was Sheehan arrested while Young was not? Because when each was asked to leave due to the t-shirts, Young cooperated yet Sheehan refused. Simple. Sheehan forced it.
Posted by: Carl at February 01, 2006 06:01 PM (GfsZK)
66
You still don't get it do you roger&me? The SOTU address is done with dignity and purpose once a year, no matter how you feel about what's being said or who is saying it. It's not a friggin' rock concert or a political opposition march where everyone gets imaginative with t-shirt slogans and whatnot to
"express themselves". This august body stands before members of the House and Senate, Governors and those representing noble institutions, along with many others as a President speaks to the nation and it deserves a little respect EVEN IF ONE HAS TO FAKE IT FOR AN HOUR!
There were any number of people there who absolutely despise Bush, yet they had the wherewithall to treat the institution with enough respect to dress appropriately and refrain from trying to draw attention to themselves until after the speech and someone actively seeks their opinion. Some people actually have respect for the President and want to hear what he has to say without the all pervasive Cindy Sheehan antics in their faces, regardless what you or Sheehan's friends think. There's a time and a place, get it?
It's called decorum. Look it up.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:02 PM (YudAC)
67
>>It's called decorum. Look it up.
Decorum (like patriotism, honor, faith, mom and apple pie) is just another "social construct" created by the Man to keep the little guy down. They spit on decorum. Any day they can disrupt a gathering of the Man is a good day to a Lefty.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:07 PM (8e/V4)
68
And just for the record, Young shouldn't have worn hers either.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:09 PM (YudAC)
69
Y'all owe Lynn Woolsey a giant apology--and you deserve to wear a dunce hat.
Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan
WASHINGTON - Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."
The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.
"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:13 PM (2yc8s)
70
Btw, I believe there's a word for people who believe that those who defy the state should be punished--even when the state is clearly in the wrong.
Tell me, Dr. Shackleford, who do you admire more--Stalin or Mussolini?
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:17 PM (2yc8s)
71
>>>Y'all owe Lynn Woolsey a giant apology--and you deserve to wear a dunce hat."
I fail to see how I owe her any apology. You seem to believe this is a 1st Ammendment issue. It isn't. This is merely a house rules issue. If the Capitol cops were fuzzy on the rules, how's that my problem?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:21 PM (8e/V4)
72
Well, the proto-fascist who runs this site was demanding that the Representative who invited Sheehan be removed from office or otherwise punished.
Where neither the Representative nor Sheehan had broken any rules.
Last time I checked, we don't punish people for having the wrong viewpoint in the United States of America.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:24 PM (2yc8s)
73
Hell! I would have let her stay! I know she would lose it and start yelling with a goal to disrupt the national address on Prime Time! I know she would have made a fool of herself and pissed of (believe it or not) DEMS at other DEMS - you think they want the Left to upstage and embarrass them on National TV - when they are soooooo uncertain of their own image and positions?
Nothing hurts the Left more than an unscripted confrontation they aren't carefully coordinating - and Cindy was the ultimate loose canon set to go off to a 26market share.
Oh, the same applys to the DEMS.
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:25 PM (3aakz)
74
>>>I believe there's a word for people who believe that those who defy the state should be punished--even when the state is clearly in the wrong.
Geek,
then why were you cheering so loudly when Clinton burned all those children alive at Waco?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:26 PM (8e/V4)
75
I don't owe Lynn Woolsey anything.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 06:28 PM (YudAC)
76
JC:
I'll bet you can't even guess which state I was in when WACO happened, let alone my reaction as it unfolded.
Care to prove me wrong?
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at February 01, 2006 06:28 PM (2yc8s)
77
Guess we'll never find out if Cindy had plotted to make a spectacle of herself during the speech because she was weeded out in advance, however I can only imagine the T-shirt was the tip of the iceburg.
Oh well, I'm sure they'll be plenty of other times she'll get arrested, or make some other media storm.
Geek isn't it time bushhitler kitted you out with some sort of iron-on donkey patch or a tattoo? so you can be identified by the 'regime'?
I thought with the 'fascist' Government you guys banter about, you would have all be fitted for disposal by now, guess it's all bullshit eh.
Posted by: dave at February 01, 2006 06:32 PM (CcXvt)
78
Geek,
but it didn't keep you from re-electing Clinton, did it? I guess that makes you a fascist too, just like Rusty.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 06:32 PM (8e/V4)
79
Proto???? What's with the Left and their idiotic obsession with qualifying adjectives?
It case you aske me - Mussolini, because he was snappy dresser.
So many tired, lame, worn-out cliches! Jesus Christ! somebody write some new material for the Left!
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 06:33 PM (3aakz)
80
I'll bet you can't even guess which state
I'm guessing the state of denial.
parampump!!!
Posted by: dcb at February 01, 2006 06:59 PM (8e/V4)
81
Cindy Sheehan is NOT anti-American activist.
Webster's definition of anti-American: opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the U.S.
-webster's definition of hostility: overt acts of warfare
Hostility and dissent are not one in the same sir.
So according to your statement of her being anti-American, Sheehan is- doing overt actions of warfare against the policies and people of the US government.
What act of warfare?
The t-shirt is her gun? The message were her bullets? I think not. Against who? Bush? Hilary Clinton? John Kerry? (remember they all are members of our government).
I come from a long line of DAR women, and am a direct discendant of President Pierce's family myself, just as Barbara Bush is. So don't say I don't know your view; I also have personnel connections in this war. However, I would NEVER call someone with a dissenting opinion from my own a anti-American activist.
What she did at the State of the Union may not have been a classy move; however, Lyyn Woolsey is no more responsible for Sheehan's actions than a parent is responsible for his child's speeding ticktes- so no blame on Lynn Woolsey.
Impeachment according to webster: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office.
So... Woolsey guilty by association? Is that what you what her impeachment based on? What is her crime? Inviting a guest to the State of the Union who wore a shirt you didn't agree with? So should we impeach the person who brought the lady who wore the "support the troops" shirt? As he is equally as guilty as Woolsey, if you are placing the blame on the mere fact Woolsey invited Sheehan. Honestly Woolsey and the person who invited the other guest (who was removed) did actions that were one in the same- merely invited someone they wish to attend. Oh that's right, I forgot that's a basis for impeachemnt, oh wait- it's NOT.
Posted by: M.B. at February 01, 2006 07:50 PM (nE+02)
82
MBs got ya there guys! You do over-react - and in this case over a non-event nobody. Shame on you all! Especially since the wacko fringe feeds on your over-reaction.
Its like that StarTrek episode (OS) with the Klingons and Kirk & crew fight on while the ship is on runaway - and that freaky light thing is all a glowin' watchin' the action.
On behalf of all right-wing fascists sexists whatever here - I send out a massive group hug to Cindy & gang.
Now geek & MB - shrivel up and fade away.
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 08:02 PM (3aakz)
83
welldidn't this turn out to be something. I for one enjoyed the absurdity of it all;both the incident AND the comments. For more than one reason I am glad the Capitol Police did not order her to take the t-shirt off.
Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 09:48 PM (TcoRJ)
84
I wish the Capitol Police had pulled the Sheeman's shirt over her face. Oh, the humanity of it all!
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 10:03 PM (rUyw4)
85
Wow! I finally agree with John Ryan! I sure as hell don't want to see here ta ta's .. JJ! You do? Damn! This is Wash DC ... not New Orleans!
Am I missing something here?
Posted by: hondo at February 01, 2006 10:31 PM (3aakz)
86
Oh, I don't know, hondo. It does seem like a circus up there in Washington to me, so perhaps a Mardi Gras is in order, but no Sheeman ta ta's for me, either. I just wanted her face covered up.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:53 AM (rUyw4)
87
I love how the left uses technicalities and the law when it's to their benefit yelling triumphantly, but when the law is not on their side, they just make stuff up or ignore inconvenient facts.
Hey, M.B.
Ding! Fries are done!
You looked up webster's definition of anti-American and futher go on to define "hostile" while ignoring "opposed"? Nice try.
I don't think either woman should have worn such t shirts to a State of the Union Address, but at least Congressman Young's wife didn't just get back from kissing and hugging Venezuela's dictator, Chavez, standing on a platform with him and denigrating her country. Never mind that Sheehan NEVER would have been permitted to pull such stunts there as a citizen of Venezuela.
Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 06:28 AM (YudAC)
88
Dear douchebags -
As you all know by now, the Capitol Police have apologized and said Sheehan didn't break any laws and should not have been arrested.
This has got to be one of the sorriest, stupidest groups of walnut-brained know-nothings I have ever seen. Impeach a congresswoman because she invited an anti-war protester to the SOTU? Are you kidding me? Why leave it at that? Why not tie her to the podium and shoot her?
Bush is not a fascist. I voted for the guy, in fact (in 2000 at least). But many of you here are genuine fascists. I do not mean that figuratively.
Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 09:25 AM (vUlAq)
89
Oh no!
How will I sleep at night, Pete called me a fascist! -- well actually he said 'genuine fascists'
I guess there are just so many 'fake fascists' around, that Pete feels the need to distinguish.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 09:41 AM (CcXvt)
90
What is your specific objection?
Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:03 AM (vUlAq)
91
Dear Pete,
We know the new news. We are still entitled to our opinions and you're entitled to yours. I'm glad you got that off your chest.
Love,
Douchebag
Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 10:09 AM (5pqct)
92
That's a classic wingerism. You say you know the news - ie, that Sheehan didn't break any laws or rules - but you're still entitled to an opinion that contradicts reality.
Further evidence that relativism's new home is the wingnut right.
Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:17 AM (Rw/yc)
93
Wow, lookitall the comments! Pizza delivery times must have been outrageous for a while there.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:24 AM (0yYS2)
94
Nay, Pete, relativism is still the provence of the Left. And the post is tongue-in-cheek, you dumb ass.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
95
"We are still entitled to our opinion, and you are entitled to yours." This statement was tongue-in-cheek? Do you actually believe that?
Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 10:45 AM (Rw/yc)
96
Pete, the day I'm not entitled to my opinion, regardless of any law, is the day you and I both have lost everything.
Let me spell it out for you. Since you don't seem inclined to read my previous comments. It is my opinion that Ms. Sheehan should have used decorum when entering an esteemed institution and refrained from her usual antics. Whether or not the rules state that she must has no bearing on how I feel about it. And before you jump on me for that, I also believe that Ms. Young should have refrained from wearing her shirt as well.
So no, my statement was certainly NOT tongue in cheek.
Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 12:07 PM (5pqct)
97
When did I say that you shouldn't be permitted to have an opinion? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Posted by: Pete at February 02, 2006 12:17 PM (Rw/yc)
98
Pete, I took your statement here,
"That's a classic wingerism. You say you know the news - ie, that Sheehan didn't break any laws or rules - but you're still entitled to an opinion that contradicts reality," to imply that my opinion was contradictory and therefore invalid. And wrapped it up in your snide remark, "classic wingerism". This is after your widely distributed "douchebag" label. Perhaps you didn't imply that I couldn't actually have an opinion, but contradictory to reality? Do you want a kiss and a hug after that? Capitulation? Adoration for your wise and insightful commentary?
Good day, sir.
Posted by: Oyster at February 02, 2006 12:52 PM (5pqct)
99
You should be able to wear whatever you want at the SOTU. Case Closed. Cheney and Hastert had on the same tie. It was red, you know, to match the pitchfork they carry around. By the way, when are we getting to Mars? Bush = Murderer
Posted by: Brian at February 02, 2006 01:01 PM (m9tb8)
100
Is that all you have?
It wasn't even illegal, but for argument sake, let's say it is.
Is this truly your threshold for impleachment. If so, but wouldn't have lasted a week.
Or perhaps you're just engaging in some shiny hyperbole... hoping that people look away from the Bush boy admin crimes.
Not so. The sweet smell of impeachment is in the air. You might as well get used to it and start planning for '08.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 01:44 PM (NXi5I)
101
This is not adult behavior. Give the man 1 hour to freaking speak his mind for godsakes!
AND
Can you imagine someone giving Paula Jones a pass to see Clinton's speech.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at February 1, 2006 08:47 AM
He had is hour, all he could come up with was Werewolves!
Perhaps bush boy should scale it down to 5 minutes. He already played the 'man to mars' card. He's got nothing.
To your second point, Paula Jones DID attend a Clinton SOTU speech! The Republicowards were crowing the entire time. How quickly you forget the facts.
Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 01:49 PM (NXi5I)
102
Congressman Young's wife didn't just get back from kissing and hugging Venezuela's dictator, Chavez, standing on a platform with him and denigrating her country.
Posted by: Oyster at February 2, 2006 06:28 AM
Ummmm...
1. Chavez was democratically elected twice.
2. Bush supported a failed military coup against Chavez. Now THAT would have resulted in a dictatorship. Possibly a right-wing dictatorship, but I get the feeling that would be OK with you.
I think your comments really well illustrate why you support bush boy some much... because you cannot tell the difference between democracy and dictatorship. That would certainly explain your apologies for bush boy's lying and abuses of power.
You may not like Chavez. I don't like him because he hides behind the guise of the military, exactly like bush boy does when he plays 'dress up'. But just because you don't like him, doesn't transform the reality of his winning the popular vote into a dictatorship. It ends up just giving you the same lack of credibility of Pat Robertson.
History is bitch, especially when you don't study it. And to you, you have some studying to do before you put yourself, and your credibility, on the line with false statements.
bok bok Chicken Hawk
Posted by: Lars Gruber at February 02, 2006 02:01 PM (NXi5I)
103
To leap off the diving boards right into the deep end, it may very well be one's opinion that you shouldn't wear a T-shirt to the SOTU. That's all well and good. The issue is whether or not you can be arrested for wearing one. I happen to think lavender looks awful on Sen. Clinton. I wouldn't arrest her for it, I just think it is tacky.
Posted by: Tom in Texas at February 02, 2006 02:08 PM (pemuP)
104
Lars is creating his very own echo chamber in an old thread. What a hero.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 02:34 PM (CcXvt)
105
Oyster,
Wondering if you have a problem with those that showed at last year's SOTU speech with their fingers in purple ink?
Wash your damn hands!! Don't these people have any respect or decorum during the President's hour long commercial, I mean speech?
Posted by: Robert at February 02, 2006 02:47 PM (ByaZN)
106
Lars Gruber? Is that a name? Yes, Chavez was democratically elected just like Castro was democratically elected. I'm glad we agree on your interpretation of democratic elections.
And don't call a woman a chickenhawk, or anyone else for that matter, as you are in no position to judge or even know whether that person has performed military service or is even eligible for service. This is a tactic of the Left to try to silence people on the Right. I tell you what, only if you have served in the military do you have the right to freedom of speech or any other right. Only a veteran or an active military person should have the right to govern the country. Right, bok bok!
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 04:56 PM (rUyw4)
107
This country has gotten to the point that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are writing letters to complain about a cartoon and people are being arrested for wearing certain T-shirts. Has it always been like this? Did I just not see it?
Posted by: Jason at February 02, 2006 05:02 PM (QlIxf)
108
What's wrong with the Joint Chiefs writing a letter to complain about a cartoon that was the creation of a sick mind? Did they make a death threat? That's what I thought, you Lefties always want freedom for yourselves to say and do anything, but seek to censor the rest of us. You're a real freedom fighter there, Jason.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 06:15 PM (rUyw4)
109
Jason, It's even worse than you think! I'm hearing that Chicken Little reported seeing parts of the sky falling.
Posted by: dave at February 02, 2006 06:15 PM (CcXvt)
110
For some, Dave, the sky never ceases to threaten imminent collapse.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 11:14 AM (0yYS2)
111
I'll apologize to Lynn Woolsey right after she makes a sincere apology about trying to get a rapist a lighter sentence...because he stuffed campaign envelopes for her.
Posted by: Der Tommissar at February 03, 2006 12:45 PM (7cVlV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
(I wonder how they'd perform shooting through a smokescreen)
Last night Cindy Sheehan was arrested and expelled from the gallery for disruptive behavior. I don't blame Cindy one bit. Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan was just doing what Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan does. To claim that you didn't see that coming is worse than sheer stupidity, it's a lie.
Here is an image from Mother Saint Cindy Sheehan's reaction over at big fat traitor's website here. 
