home

UPDATED: Freedom For Whom?

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:52:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

UPDATE: The arrest of Cindy Sheehan served its purpose. Cindy was spirited away from cameras to purify the background for the president's speech. Now that she's not a threat to the president's image, Capitol Police have released her and plan to apologize. No charges will be pressed, as the Capitol Police belatedly discovered that no rule prohibits expressive attire. One might have expected the police to have inquired about the law before arresting Cindy for an imaginary crime.

Perhaps to prove that they are bipartisan transgressors of the right to free speech, the Capitol Police also removed Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, from the audience, having spotted her sporting a "Support the Troops" shirt. Rep. Young took to the House floor to admonish the Capitol Police -- "Shame, shame" -- for treating a patriot so poorly. Beverly Young said it best:

"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.'"

But Young was only ejected while Cindy was arrested, albeit briefly. Why?

Capitol Police did not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not.

ORIGINAL POST:

As the president was preparing to preach the value of freedom around the world, Cindy Sheehan was being arrested for wearing an anti-war t-shirt.

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

Freedom is great in other countries, but in the U.S., the government can listen to your telephone conversations without a warrant, and can arrest you for expressing unwelcome opinions. If the president bothered to read newspapers, would he understand the irony?

< SOTU Open Thread | AT&T Sued For Helping NSA Eavesdrop >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? | 140 comments (140 topical)
    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:58:53 AM EST
    Arresting Sheehan was stupid, even though she is an imbecile. It just gives her another 15 seconds of infamy. On the other hand, if you are talking long-distance to a known terrorist, your calls should be listened in on.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    On the other hand, if you are talking long-distance to a known terrorist, your calls should be listened in on.
    I agree. As long as the agency wanting to monitor the communication goes before a neutral magistrate, presents an affidavit of probable cause, and obtains a warrant.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:14:01 AM EST
    If Cindy Sheehan had been wearing a shirt that said "I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ" would she have been thrown out?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    justpaul: Arresting Sheehan was stupid, even though she is an imbecile.
    Free speech allows anyone the chance to voice an opinion, even if it is to insult the mother of a dead Iraq war veteran. Oh, the irony in your post. Disgusting.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lora on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    In Cindy's own words posted today on the Smirking Chimp website: "I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. 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..." From the article (AP) above: "Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said" Okay, here's a direct example of collusion by the Mouthpiece Media. Clearly the reporter did not bother to get or report Cindy's account of the incident, but parroted the spokeswoman's words, implying that it was a factual account. We should not accept this. We should fight such misrepresentations starting now, whenever and wherever they occur, as relentlessy as the Repressive Right puts forward its agenda, using the media as a willing partner.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:29:38 AM EST
    here is her account of the incident via robot wisdom
    I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country. There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:
    read the rest

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    Lab, So Cindy Sheehan has the right to spout any message she wants (a right I freely grant her and will support), but I have no right to question her integrity, her intelligence, or her sincerity. Yes, it is a disgusting version of "free speech" you have in mind.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    The thing is that Sheehan did not disrupt anything, make any comments or do anything to even draw attention to herself. No matter what you think of her, making her leave because of her t-shirt seems a clear violation of her (and our) rights to free speech. I'm sure if she had been wearing a Christian coalition t-shirt, they would have left her alone.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:39:56 AM EST
    Lab, So Cindy Sheehan has the right to spout any message she wants (a right I freely grant her and will support), but I have no right to question her integrity, her intelligence, or her sincerity. Yes, it is a disgusting version of "free speech" you have in mind.
    Oh, I'm sure you are all for Cindy's right to free speech (not). You are digusting for calling the mother of a dead soldier an imbecile. My last words to you are: FOAD

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:40:25 AM EST
    justpaul-give it a rest. as you have your opinion others have theirs. No one arrested you or banned you from TL's private comment section, where free speech is at her discretion. Funny how the wingnuts see only their speech as protected. Wah Wah, boo hoo. I agree, just disgusting.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:42:37 AM EST
    Too true, Tamar, too true. Cindy was targeted because of who she is, not what she was wearing. Which was, I suspect, her intention all along. Cindy didn't go to the SOTU to hear Bush speak, she went to grab some more attention, probably in an attempt to make up for last week's disastrous decision to have the free speech advocate go to a country that squelches free speech and hobnob with its leader. She got what she wanted, and she even got the bonus of making her opponents look stupid in the process. Not a bad night's work for a lady without a day job.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:45:11 AM EST
    Calling a woman who lost a son in war an imbecile, no matter what her politics, has got to be one of the most immature, intolerant, extremely unamerican remarks I've yet to read on this site. Too bad she didn't fall in line with JP's version of "patriotic". Signed, Proud to be an imbecile just like Cindy Sheehan. PS: Big smille JP. Big Smile.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    justpaul: Cindy didn't go to the SOTU to hear Bush speak, she went to grab some more attention Even assuming that were true - your guess, based on no data - she got attention because Bush's goons know the First Amendment means nothing in the presence of King George.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#14)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:49:58 AM EST
    Lab, FOAD. Let me guess "F..K off and die"? Brilliant response. And probably in violation of the rules here, but I'm willing to let it slide as it serves to show just how lame your position really is that all you can do is make assumptions about where I stand on the issue of Cindy's rights, try to hide under her having lost a son in a war she does not support (even though he did support it), and utter profanities under your breath. Squeaky, Who are you to tell anyone to let anything go. You beat every horse you climb up on not just to death, but into the ground. And then you make another of your snide "wingnut" references, as if you even have a clue, you "wangnut". As I said at the top of the thread, Squeak, they were wrong to arrest Cindy last night. Whether you believe I am sincere in that sentiment is your problem. Che, Oh great, another one who will not grant to anyone else the rights they so proudly claim for themselves. You should sign up for Bush's Goon Squad, Che; you're a natural. Jes, I agree.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    Oh great, another one who will not grant to anyone else the rights they so proudly claim for themselves. You should sign up for Bush's Goon Squad, Che; you're a natural.
    This is nonsense, Che never said you could not say what you did [ hint thats where the freedom comes in], he was expressing his feelings about it. Or is he not allowed to do so? IMO, you are allowed to call her an imbicile and we are free to think you are an immature partisan hack for doing so.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:00:20 AM EST
    FOAD. Let me guess "F..K off and die"? Brilliant response. And probably in violation of the rules here, but I'm willing to let it slide as it serves to show just how lame your position really is that all you can do is make assumptions about where I stand on the issue of Cindy's rights, try to hide under her having lost a son in a war she does not support (even though he did support it), and utter profanities under your breath.
    I stand by my acronym and your interpretation of it is dead on. Some speech is worth getting booted off this board for or being removed from a government building. It is a fitting response to the profanity that you feel free to utter here, insulting the memory of a women's dead son. You have succeeded in stirring up the hornets nest with your disrespect here, so you must feel pretty good about yourself right now, huh? Pathetic.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    "If Cindy Sheehan had been wearing a shirt that said "I SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ" would she have been thrown out?" Well, all you need to do is look here to find out:
    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."
    Seems like it's pretty non-specific - they eject anyone wearing a political message. On the one hand, that seems harsh - on the other, I'm not sure we really need organized protests/cheering sections in the gallery either. There were numerous protests last night (all lightly attended, it seems), and the police weren't after any of them - in DC or elsewhere. Also, there's this, which TChris could have found if he actually did some research before venting his spleen (I know, it's a lot to ask):

    In the early days of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, "Clinton doesn't inhale, he sucks."

    The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

    Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt."

    Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

    So it seems that this is a bi-partisan game, whereby members of the opposition party - knowing what the rules for the gallery are - try to embarrass the administration by having people with political messages hustled out of the chamber - after which the partisan in question can cry havoc over their loss of free speech. TChris fell for it - and I'd bet good money that he didn't say a single negative word about the 1999 incident.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#18)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Some speech is worth getting booted off this board for or being removed from a government building. Lab, Please clarify. What speech is worth being removed from a government building? Under what authority does the government have that power? And calling Cindy Sheehan an imbecile is now a profanity? That's an interesting definition you have of profanity. So be it, but I suspect your real motto is "free speech for all who agree with us." Expulsion for all others.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    It is ludicrous to assume that Cindy Sheehan, who was invited to the SOTU by a congresswoman, attended just to grab more "attention" without having any solid evidence to back up said assertion. Sure, justpaul, you can voice any opinion you want, but it always surprises me that people like you whine the most when you are called on your insensitive and downright stupid comments. It's as if you want to spout whatever vile GOP inspired propaganda/smears without having to account for your statememts. And to think I was under the assumption that the GOP was all about personal responsibility. Apparently that just goes for the minorities and poor people in this country; if you are in Gods Own Party than you can go around spewing anything you darn well feel like. Typical, for the Republicans in this country decorum and civility are only for those who happen to disagree with them. Cindy Sheehan wasn't even told to not display her t-shirt, by her account, and from all reports it seems that she was only singled out because she was "protesting". What third world junta am I living in that just wearing a t-shirt can get you manhandled by the authorities? Incredible. And people like justpaul think this is A-OK.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    justpaul-
    You beat every horse you climb up on not just to death, but into the ground.
    One of my better qualities. Thanks for noticing. BTW-Sorry to underestimate your mood as a result of being called out for hypocrisy. Seems less like Wah, Wah, boo hoo, and more like a full blown tantrum. If you really had principal regarding your claim that the first amendment is a fundamental American right, your comment would be one of shock and horror on hearing about Sheehans arrest, no more no less. Labyrinth13 has it right, not just disgusting but pathetic as well.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:21:28 AM EST
    justpaul, you do miss the point. Nobody said you didn't have the right to say your opinion of Ms. Sheehan. You can insult her all you want -- nobody is going to arrest you. Its a free country, uh, unless you want to visually say something in the halls of our lawmakers. What a perfect example of a police state and the misapplication of governmental force that is supposed to protect the rights that we cherish. Isn't it a characteristic of, I daresay, facism, when even passive dissent is aggresssively squelched and prosecuted? What might have made a statement, perhaps sliding under the rigid, intolerant and, IMHO, unconstitutional house rules, would have been for as many of the audience as possible to wear a color, say yellow, as a call to bring our troops home. Or would that be a "protest", prompting mass arrests?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    And calling Cindy Sheehan an imbecile is now a profanity? That's an interesting definition you have of profanity. So be it, but I suspect your real motto is "free speech for all who agree with us." Expulsion for all others.
    Insulting the mother of a dead Iraq soldier by calling her an imbecile is a profanity by any standards of decency and shows that you have absolutely no respect. I am simply saying that I find you and your "speech" disgusting. It shows me and everyone else on here just exactly what kind of person you really are.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#23)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    Rand and Sherm, Who's whining here? I said what I said, and I stand by it. Sheehan is an imbecile. It seems to me that the one's whining are the ones who are crying because I have dared to utter something less than kind about the Sainted Cindy. Which just goes to prove that even when Jeralyn will consent to dissent on her plantation (Hey, if it's good enough for Hillary...), most of the other residents wont. Enjoy the day people.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    No, justpaul, I don't think calling her an imbecile is profane. I think maybe the mind that inspired such an ignorant comment is though. How dare you call a woman who sacrificed her son for this country, even if she disagreed with the rationale behind this needless war in Iraq. What have you done lately to help your country other than defame Cindy Sheehan and whine about how mean people are to you when they get fed up with your comments. But at least you have some good company on your side now, that mental giant James Robertson has provided all here with yet another of his calculated strawmen. It's good to see bonding over making fun of Cindy Sheehan. What big men you two must be. Been to see any military recruiters lately? As long as you are under 42 you still have a chance to put your money where your mouth is and really have a leg to stand on when criticizing Ms. Sheehan by joining up and bringing freedom to all of the Middle East. Go get 'em tigers!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    justpaul: I said what I said, and I stand by it. Sheehan is an imbecile. Which proves you too ignorant to be worth talking to. You disagree with Cindy Sheehan's politics; that's your privilege. Calling her an "imbecile" because you disagree with her, tells us more about your quality of mind than hers.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#26)
    by swingvote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    Jes, What makes you think I called her an imbecile because I disagree with her position? I question Cindy's abilities based on her actions, like last week's trip to Venezuela to be feted by a leader who really does know a thing or two about squelching free speech and her recent comments about running for the Senate. She is free to oppose the war all she wants. I'm not a big fan of it either. As I said, enjoy the day folks. I've got things to do this afternoon.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    justpaul: I said what I said, and I stand by it. Sheehan is an imbecile. There are imbeciles eveywhere justpaul. Like bogeymen, there's probably one in your closet or under your bed just itching to blow you up when you're not looking. This guy must be a an imbecile too?
    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." A.E.


    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    nice quote edgar!!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#29)
    by ras on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    Sheehan was arrested and the Dems present at the time did nothing at the time to stop it or to protest? Wimps and collaborators. Sheehan should run for the Senate as a Dem and set that party straight, and all those who decry her treatment last night should encourage her to do so. Here's hoping.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    oops spelling alert. nice quote edger!!!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    Squeaky, I don't write 'em, I just pass 'em on. ;-) Just like bogeymen, they are everywhere, for those who look with open eyes, and minds.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#32)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    I just called my congressman's office. I was told in no uncertain terms that "this has been the policy forever." I told him I wanted to see it in writing and he will email me the details. However, he told me about the other woman who was ejected. She's the wife of a repug congressman. Boy, he got me there. But I realized after I hung up that this woman wasn't arrested. Why not? I called back. No answer to the question and no intention to find out why. I've got a call in to the Capitol Police 202-224-0908, it's their Public Information Office. They are to get back to me with the reason for the discrepancy in treatment. I'm wondering if cindy was treated differently because at first the officer didn't recognize her and she wasn't dressed up. Kind of a class thing against her. Then when he found out who she was he thought that arresting her was a good option. Now in the other case, the crucial point is, when did they decide not to arrest her, before or after they found out who she was. Perhaps others can follow up on this too. I have to leave soon and can't post till this evening. Thanks.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    ras-what would you suggest them to do. The officer who dragged her out did not even know who she was. She was not staging a protest. How was any on to know what was going on. I am sure that her removal took less than a minute and for all anyone knew they had a reason for removing a person. One would expect that such an act of removal would have a good reason behind it. In case you have not noticed many are protestng her arrest. But you are happy to turn it around and make up some reason to assign blame to the dems.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ras on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    Squeaky, As others have noted above, the no-billboards approach has been the general policy for a long time, so as not to turn the SOTU into a circus. And no one's protested, no this time nor at the previous incidents, neither R nor D. That means they approve. So if the Left feels strongly about this, they should support Cindy in a Senate run for either party, actually, but I presumed she'd run as a Dem since she's stated as much in her earlier comments to Feinstein. Also, I think Sheehan's political philosophy aligns more closely to the D's than to the R's and she'd have more of a chance that way. You disagree? Really?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    ras-Sheehan was arrested, other's (R's) were allegedly removed without arrest. Double standard, no? Senate run? It is her choice and the peoples choice to yea or nay based on the issues. I will cross that bridge should she decide to run. Right now she is a very vocal mom who lost her son in an unjust war. She represents many who share her grief, and antiwar sentiment; that is what is compelling about her cause. Individuals can make a difference. Her example, attempt to end an insane war with its senseless killing, is inspiring.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    Non-disruptive political speech is protected very strongly by the first amendment. It might be legally squelched if the policy (and enforcement of the policy) is viewpoint-neutral, more of a dress code than a speech code, but that seems unlikely. If an "Eat at Joe's" shirt is allowed and a "2245 Killed" or even a "I like George Bush" is not, then it's not neutral. If all shirts that have words written on them are banned, then it's neutral, and maybe constitutional. Wearing a t-shirt that says something some people don't like isn't disruptive. Nobody has claimed that Sheehan did anything more than wear a t-shirt, and nobody have mentioned evidence that she intended to do more than that later. So it's non-disruptive political speech. So the burden of proof for getting a conviction, for the cop not being an ass-hat, and for the policy makers not exceeding their authority, is quite high. If right-leaning people were arrested, too, that just makes a bipartisan disgrace. Assuming the worst for the various other "if"s above.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#37)
    by ras on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    Squeaky, So you're on a different argument now? Well, OK. A minute ago it was the suppression of free speech, but that turned out to have no partisan merit, so now your concerns are instead over how the removed individuals were treated afterward, even tho we know nothing about how they reacted to their removal, or who vouched (and took responsibility) to get them outta there, or anything like that? The diff might be as simple as Sheehan wanting to be arrested, you know. Hypothetically speaking.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    If I were Karl Rove, I would secretly funnel money to keep this MORON on TV 24-7-52. Yes, I called her a moron. Calling her a moron at her son's funeral would be fighting words. Calling her a moron at the Crawford vigil, bad taste. Calling her a moron after the pose with Chavez, understatement. Cindy Sheehan, you have earned the applation moron. Wear it with pride. Jimbo

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#39)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    If I were Karl Rove, I would secretly funnel money to keep this MORON on TV 24-7-52.
    Yeah, that's the ticket. That'll really show the compassion and bring in the female vote. Great plan, chief.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#40)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    An even better plan, of course, would be to prove Cindy wrong by signing up for the Army yourself, or enlisting your kids, if you have any.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    scarshapedstar, Don't ask too much of them, scar. That would be putting their money where their mouths are. Ahem... You know, like Cindy does.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    ras-no different argument. I thought I was responding to your question/statement. Guess not.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:06:09 AM EST
    "As others have noted above, the no-billboards approach has been the general policy for a long time" Actually, no one but drudge says that. And he doesn't provide attribution and he is a known liar. Maybe it is a senate rule, but i can't find it among senate rules. Sheehan and Mrs Young were both said to be protesting, mainly because some 'idiot' (Young's term, not mine), couldn't understand her shirt. If she had one on with a flag and bush's face do you think she would have been asked to leave?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    Whenever I read a thread like this one, I become even more convinced that the only sensible response to the nonsense posted by the likes of justpaul, James Robertson, and ras is silence. Responding to them just makes them act as if their opinions deserve to be discussed, and so encourages them to post yet more nonsense. So what's the point? In fact, if only TL had an 'ignore' option that made their posts disappear, I would have invoked it by now. I am always willing to give someone a hearing, but if they prove that they never have anything worthwhile to say, after a while I don't have to waste my time listening to the same old nonsense.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    Cindy Sheehan for President!!!! I stand behind a responsible user of their rights! I hope she yells fu#k in a crowd of children to show the beauty of the freedom of speech. BTW - a Republican's wife was also removed for wearing a "support the troops" shirt - DIDN'T HEAR ANY SUPPORT FOR HER ON THIS SITE

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#46)
    by ras on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    Sailor, yes, all messages - and they included "support the troops" as well as Cindy Sheehan's, were removed. BTW, the gallery rules don;t just apply during SOTU; they are all the time, and they are set by Congress itself - i.e. the House & the Senate. The rules enforced last nite are the same ones that have pretty much always been enforced. I have never heard the congresscritters of either party seriously propose changing them, cuz they know the circus that would follow, and the battles over seating as different groups strove for free publicity for their side. Lastly, there is a good comments thread here on Patterico.com that will contain the descriptions, quotes & links you say you haven't seen on the matter.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#47)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    so as not to turn the SOTU into a circus.
    If that was somebody's goal they missed that boat a long time ago. On their own, fine suits and sombre expressions bedecking the faces of smug millionheirs a dignified even do not make.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    BTW - a Republican's wife was also removed for wearing a "support the troops" shirt - DIDN'T HEAR ANY SUPPORT FOR HER ON THIS SITE
    I think that removing the Republican wife was wrong, too. BUT YOU DON'T HEAR ANYONE CALLING HER AN IMBECILE OR A MORON ON THIS SITE

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kitt on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    Posted by Cymro February 1, 2006 12:28 PM
    Whenever I read a thread like this one, I become even more convinced that the only sensible response to the nonsense posted by the likes of justpaul, James Robertson, and ras is silence. Responding to them just makes them act as if their opinions deserve to be discussed, and so encourages them to post yet more nonsense. So what's the point? In fact, if only TL had an 'ignore' option that made their posts disappear, I would have invoked it by now. I am always willing to give someone a hearing, but if they prove that they never have anything worthwhile to say, after a while I don't have to waste my time listening to the same old nonsense.
    Yeow!!! No kidding. The representative's wife who was (allegedly) 'asked' to leave was not treated in the same manner as Cindy Sheehan. Regardless, it's just as disgraceful. Especially as Bush chortles, "I invite discussion....." with that loathsome, ever-present smirk.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    BUT YOU DON'T HEAR ANYONE CALLING HER AN IMBECILE OR A MORON ON THIS SITE
    Stands to reason, considering she hasn't performed any of the controversial escapades CS has.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    Sarc, What do you know about this person?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    Add Sarc, And by "this person", I don't mean Cindy Sheehan.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    Same as you, I'd imagine, Dadler. Why?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    Here is a good example for all the chickenhawks out there. Particularly those who fancy a future life in politics where decisions regarding starting a war may come into play.
    Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq next year as a troop commander and is likely to patrol the hazardous border with Iran, defense sources have disclosed.
    linked text

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    Tony and Cherie [Blair] have four children. The eldest, Euan, born in 1984, has proved a bit of a rebel, ending up in court for being "drunk and incapable". Second son Nicky was born in 1986 and a daughter, Kathryn, was born in 1988... In November 1999 it was announced that 45-year-old Cherie was pregnant with her fourth child, Leo, who arrived in May 2000.
    Are any of them in the ME, or even serving? And Georges children?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    "yes, all messages - and they included "support the troops" as well as Cindy Sheehan's, were removed. Please provide links. Also provide links that one can't wear a tee shirt with words on it in the senate building. I can find zero on the above.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    Sarc, Because you're assuming things about this person you have no knowledge of. They are not Cindy Sheehan, that's self-evident. Beyond that? Nada. You have a link to who this person actually is? I think that would aid this entire thread greatly.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#58)
    by roy on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    "This person" is Beverly Young, wife of Representative Bill Young (R-FL). The shirt was "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom". Random other link:
    "They said I was protesting," she said in a telephone interview with the newspaper Tuesday. "I said, 'Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"
    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    Posted by sarcastic unnamed one February 1, 2006 12:53 PM BUT YOU DON'T HEAR ANYONE CALLING HER AN IMBECILE OR A MORON ON THIS SITE Stands to reason, considering she hasn't performed any of the controversial escapades CS has.
    Yeah, Cindy Sheehan's opposition to killing people in an unnecessary war is soooo controversial. Bush is pretty controversial, too. Is he an imbecile and a moron by your same standards? Yeah, that's what I thought . . .

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    Lab, lab, lab. You might note that I didn't call her an imbecile nor moron, but merely suggested why she was called those names and Bev Young wasn't. I'm sure you understand that but just need to vent. So be it. Dadler, same answer, basically.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    First, let me say that I have the utmost respect for Cindy. Second, I agree that there should an ignore button on TL for when certain individuals lower themselves to a juvenile name-calling post. Three I found this: http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/secsen/2005rules.pdf which on page 31 item 15.05 (7) To maintain professionalism in the legislative process, dress code policies may be established for positions which support decorum and protocol of the Senate. That being said, I feel it was obnoxious behavior to handcuff & cart Cindy off to jail for 4 hours, while a Republican's wife gets asked to leave. She was later quoted as saying "Wait the President hears about this!"

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#62)
    by jen on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    Whether or not the rules have been in place forever, Rep. Young is upset. The news here in DC showed a clip of Rep. Young berating the house because his wife was removed and she didnt see the president's speech. I paraphrase: The president was encouraging Americans to support the troops and she was thrown out for wearing a tshirt supporting the troops. I quote: "SHAME" And she wasn't even arrested!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    Lab, lab, lab. You might note that I didn't call her an imbecile nor moron, but merely suggested why she was called those names and Bev Young wasn't. I'm sure you understand that but just need to vent. So be it.
    That's cool, but I would have to say that regardless of what anyone thinks about Cindy's "controversial escapades" as you put it, I just don't believe that anyone should stand by and tolerate the disgustingly vile on here while they denigrate the mother of a dead soldier. Not under any circumstances. Is that what you are saying? That Cindy is somehow "fair game" just because she might be "controversial" in her opinion? If so, count me out of participating in that sort of "speech."

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    justpaul: What makes you think I called her an imbecile because I disagree with her position? Because you've just said you did, in the following paragraph, in which you explicitly say you think she's an imbecile because you disagree with her position. Take away the fool, gentlemen.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    2bit, the link you led to was for "15.05 Other Personnel. " IOW, employees, not guests or visitors. Let's recap shall we? A chain link cage is a 'free speech area'. Having a bumpersticker on your car means the SS can detain you. Wearing a t shirt is grounds for arrest. (BTW, in addition to not being arrested Mrs Young called the guard an idiot, and still wasn't detained. You get a beat down in my neighborhood if you call a cop an idiot.)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:12:32 PM EST
    She's an imbecile" This from a moron thinks Zell Miller is a great democrat and talks about Kerry and Ted Kennedy as if they were donning berets and training a peoples guerilla army in the mountains.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#67)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    On the other hand, if you are talking long-distance to a known terrorist, your calls should be listened in on
    A "known terrorist"? My goodness, why hasn't he or she been arrested instead of being allowed to sit around gabbing on the phone?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    John Mann: why hasn't he or she been arrested instead of being allowed to sit around gabbing on the phone? John, I thought I heard someone mention imbeciles around here awhile ago. Did you hear anything like that too? ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    NBC News and news services Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006 NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped. "We screwed up," a top Capitol Police official said.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#70)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    John, I thought I heard someone mention imbeciles around here awhile ago. Did you hear anything like that too?
    Yes, "idiot" is a fairly common synonym, so it's not too surprising that certain individuals posting here would throw around the epithet. The irony zings over their heads like a smart bomb heading for an Iraqi wedding party.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    edger, I wish you had concluded the quote:
    "We screwed up," a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    The irony zings over their heads like a smart bomb heading for an Iraqi wedding party. Making fun of the learning impaired won't win me any friends, you mean? ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    I should have I guess, Sailor. I was too preoccupied imagining roving phone calls blasting the Capitol Police for making the preznitwit look bad. ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    Lora quotes Mrs. Sheehan:
    "I was never told
    From AP:
    Police warned her
    Can you tell me how you know Mrs. Sheehan is being truthful? Or how you would know AP is being truthful? Sounds like "he said-she said" to me. Et al - Mrs. Sheehans freedom of speech should not impede my right to hear the President, nor should it impede my right to do so in a peaceful and tranquil manner. I am very pleased that the police arrested her and removed her. And although my sympathy lies with the gentle lady from Florida, she too should have been removed, and arrested if she disturbed the peace or resisted. Places and events should not be used for these things. Both ladies are welcome to wear anything they want on the outside. Decorum, people. Decorum. BTW - Why do all of you folks call her "Cindy?" As far as I can tell none of you have met her and she surely deserves a more respectful salutation than "Cindy." Why, I would guess that Chavez called her Mrs. Sheehan. Surely you can do the same. Squeaky writes: Prince Harry is to be sent to Iraq Service in the military is a British royalty tradition. And Prince Harry has about as much political clout as you, me or Mrs. Sheehan.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#75)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    Making fun of the learning impaired won't win me any friends, you mean?
    No enemies either, since they won't know you're doing it.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    goodness, 'we' all disrespect Cindy Sheehan because 'we' use her name, I guess all those newspapers who say 'George W. Bush' do the same? What a laughable, and desperate, attempt to change the discourse. Roughing up a war widow who was invited to the STFU address is important, removing a congresman's wife from said function is important for wearing a t-shirt is important. Both of their shirts supported the troops. Irony, your dance with death has concluded, you may now spin in your grave as bush digs his ever deeper.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#77)
    by roy on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    Jim,
    Mrs. Sheehans freedom of speech should not impede my right to hear the President, nor should it impede my right to do so in a peaceful and tranquil manner.
    Dude, it was a t-shirt. The other audience members were surely capable of pointing their heads towards the president despite the presence of any given shirt. That's their personal responsibility, which would be trivially easy to fulfill. Let's not treat political figures as children just for an excuse to keep dissent out of sight. As for hearing, one of us seriously misunderstands the physics of sound. I've been wearing a t-shirt all day (it says "World's Greatest Grandpa", like, in letters, not out loud) and it hasn't interfered with conversation. I try not to talk down to people, Jim, but geez you've got to keep the discussion at a certain level if you want to be taken seriously. T-shirt. Not disruptive.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#78)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    Mrs. Sheehans freedom of speech should not impede my right to hear the President, nor should it impede my right to do so in a peaceful and tranquil manner.
    Neither you nor I know whether Ms. Sheehan intended to disrupt the proceedings - unlike Republican members and Democrat stooges who insisted on interrupting Mr. Bush's speech over and over again with their jumping up and down and other boisterous behavior. Shame on them.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    No enemies either, since they won't know you're doing it. Great deadpanning, Mann. ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    BTW, do ya think Youngs inadvertent removal (and calling the CapCop an idiot and saying "the president will hear about this) had anything to do with charges being dropped against Cindy Sheehan? Decorum, freakin' DECORUM in the HOR, (gee I love that acronym for the House of Representatives;), can you say bandaids and purple fingers!? The first rule of Fight House is there are no rules!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    Decorum, people. Decorum ROTFLMFAO.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    Mr. PPJ, sir? Why do all of you folks call her "Cindy?" As far as I can tell none of you have met her and she surely deserves a more respectful salutation than "Cindy." I know that we've never met personally sir, and haven't shaken hands, and we don't have a prior relationship that puts us on a first name basis. But, Mr. PPJ, Sir? Would it offend you if I called you Jim? Sir? And you can call me whatever the [fill in the blank] you want, Sir.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:42:07 PM EST
    Roy, John Mann; Thanks ... just thanks.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimcee on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    Hey all politics aside, Doesn't anyone dress for special events anymore? Tee shirts, at a big televised shindig? I mean seriously did anyone show up at thier last job interview in a tee-shirt? And get hired? 'Cindy' should not have been arrested but she should have been escorted out, politely as was that congressman's dim-witted wife. There are afterall rules in the House. As far as calling Cindy Sheehen an idiot? That is not so much cruel as it is accurate. She is a sad casuality of her son's death in his service to his country. Her family, including her ex-husband obviously don't agree with her views and have stayed politely (and kindly) in the shadows. She is a suffering human being and shouldn't be used, whether willingly or not by those that would use her for thier own (and her) ends. The woman doesn't seem particulaly bright and is not the least bit articulate but she is a great altar for the anti-war movement to worship at. It just seems as if the anti-war folks don't care if they are exploiting a mentally damaged person if it promotes thier agenda. And that is desperate and sad. Cindy Sheehen has become the anti-war folks embodiement of the proverbial bloody shirt and they should be embarrassed. But alas.....

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    Jim: Can you tell me how you know Mrs. Sheehan is being truthful? Or how you would know AP is being truthful? We have two independent witnesses who both say that guards removed them from their seats and from the auditorium, without at any point giving them a "warning" that they had to cover up the t-shirt with the "off-message" words in order to be allowed to stay in their seats. Collusion between Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young to make the Capitol Police look bad seems improbable: are you suggesting, Jim, that they both ignored "warnings" and then told the same lie, or that they got together beforehand and decided what story they were going to tell?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:26:43 PM EST
    jimcee - Your estimation of Sheehan is practically line-for-line O'Reilly; subtext: only a mentally ill person or a woman "being used"( because theyre essentially passive and happy that way), would do what Sheehan does ie: put themslves on the line for something that they believe and oppose the war. If she really wants to help the country she should be out being a good libertarian entrepenuer; right jimcee?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    jimcee-
    There are afterall rules in the House.
    Yes that I am sure is true. Whatever the rules you are imagining here they did not apply to this situation. That has been cleared up with an apology by the police. Non stated dress codes of the kind you refer to, may relate to class issues. Sheehan wore what she thought appropriate and was not trying to fit into an upper class dress code, nor should she. She dressed comfortably.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:49:38 PM EST
    jimcee: exploiting a mentally damaged person if it promotes thier agenda. Ahem... good characterization of PNAC, Cheney, and the GOP.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:51:41 PM EST
    sailor - Actually I was thinking that since she is such an icon of the Left she deseves better of the Left than being a "Cindy" since she has absolute authority. But if you don't like "Mrs." Perhaps "Madame" or a simple, "Great Leader?" And I don't think Mrs. Sheehan is a "widow" since it is her son who is dead.
    a woman who has lost her husband by death and usually has not remarried
    Of course Hitchens says it best. Jesurgislac - I imply nothing, just that we have two conflicting stories. Please feel free to choose the version of your choice. edger - You may call me Jim. But never late for supper. ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:55:07 PM EST
    edger - You may call me Jim. But never late for supper. ;-) I wouldn't want to upset your digestion by showing up for dinner. :^\

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:04:53 PM EST
    She is a moron. She had to opportunity to cover her shirt and stay for the speech, but to cause a stink she opted to resist and was removed. The officers should have used pepper spray, batons, and tasers on her. She is a Bush hater, not an anti-war activist. I wonder what she said to her son when he joined the armed forces. I am sure she was against his decision, since the military makes war. She is a comical figure, and her 15 minutes should have ticked away a long, long time ago.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    To my previous list of those whose posts should be ignored (justpaul, James Robertson, and ras), I wish to add the names Jimbo, jimcee, and JimakaPPJ, and any more jimnuts who post RW nonsense here just to create a disturbance.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    Wow, you people are really threatened by this. It must make you really insecure being this insecure, I suppose... But you're not paranoid, we really are coming after you. ^^ OO

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    Add MerexOfTulsa to that list.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:18:11 PM EST
    MerexOfTulsa-Obviously you are talking about Beverly Young, wife of Representative Bill Young (R-FL). I did not know that she hated Bush too. Good for her, she shows more sense than her husband.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    Cymro, It was in response to Merex's post. S/he is first on the list. Check your closets and look under your bed befor you sleep Merex. Oh... and use payphones from now on, and keep the conversations under 2 minutes.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:27:21 PM EST
    Cymro, to some degree I am proud to be in this list. She offends me every time she calls Bush a murder, or our troops terrorists, so I am just getting my jabs in. Even though parts of my post were clearly hyperbole and exaggerated, I apologize if I offended anyone.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    Beverly Young was not arrested. She is a reasonable person, and was not looking to get her name in the papers.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    edger, I was referring to my previous post, not yours, which sneaked in between while I was typing. Sorry about the confusion.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    Merex: should have used pepper spray, batons, and tasers on her. Just getting your jabs in? Who are you really, Rambo? Rambone? Ummm... look... maybe a valium would help? A joint? A girl? A boy? You need something I think. Tell you what... Go for a walk, get some fresh air, take some long deep breaths, think about it, then go get blind falling down drunk, and get some nitrous oxide to cheer you up! But have a nice day, Ok? I know life is tough, but really, it just ain't that bad! Really... trust me... ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    Merex:
    She offends me every time she calls Bush a murder, or our troops terrorists, so I am just getting my jabs in.
    I understand; I imagine that Michael Moore probably offends you too. That's exactly why I want the option to ignore your posts, and why you are proud to be on the list of those whose opinions I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to spend my time discussing that with you.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    Sorry Cymro, I was laughing too hard, you know?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:42:59 PM EST
    ppj, you are correct and I was wrong to say she was a war widow; her son died, not her husband. Et al, the president, the senate and all of us should be reminded every day how many Americans are dying for this cause. Whether you agree with the cause or not, no matter who the message comes from, we should ALL honor the fallen.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Johnny on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:55:53 PM EST
    I mean seriously did anyone show up at thier last job interview in a tee-shirt? And get hired?
    Yes as a matter of fact. Merex: wishing doom and destruction on people of opposing idealogies sounds strikingly similar to that bearded ghost, osamawhatzizname. Get a grip. Et Al... Calling Cindy Sheehan a moron is you expressing an opinion. You have absolutely zero way of knowing anything abou this womans intellect, you are just parroting what your keepers tell you. Seriously. You get all agitated when we call the prez a moron (and judging by his public behavior despite massive coaching and intervention) is probably not too far off, technically... Yet you reserve that harshest of judgements for a person whom you have never met. And in fact, your only impressions of her are her pro-peace stances. Ya'll need a dose of reality. Merex, get a grip man.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    Don't flog yourself too badly over that Merex, Ok? After all, I thought I made a mistake once before, but I found out later I was wrong. You know? Go easy on yourself, huh?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    There is no doubt that Bush is not the sharpest tack in the bunch, and his speaking skills are sub-par. He is a leader, which is what a Prez should be. He surrounds himself with smart people and makes decisions based on their recommendations. With respect to your argument, you could substitute Bush for Sheehan!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Al on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    It's quite extraordinary to see how angry the Bush shills are with Mrs. Sheehan. It's worth remembering why. One day Bush said that the soldiers who died in Iraq had done so for a good cause. Since her son had died in Iraq, she asked Bush what that cause was. And determined to get an answer, she parked herself outside the Bush ranch and waited. Her stance is completely peaceful and non-violent, the sort of thing that Gandhi would have heartily approved. Any decent person with their heart in the right place knows she's perfectly right and applauds her determination. To insult someone like Cindy Sheehan is simply despicable.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#108)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    She offends me every time she calls Bush a murder, or our troops terrorists, so I am just getting my jabs in.
    Well, that's fair enough - but I hope you'll understand that by virtually any definition, George W Bush and his half-witted sire before him are terrorists on a scale far grander than any of those al-Qaeda boys could ever hope for. bin-Laden, al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri and all the Taliban put together are hapless rookies when it comes to the Bush's penchant for spectacular acts of terror. Between the two of these modern monsters, they have murdered countless thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - and just because they didn't do the dirty deeds themselves renders them no less culpable. Ask any attorney. The two of them should be arrested, charged with Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity, given a speedy trial, then taken to prison where they can spend the rest of their miserable lives in solitary confinement. These rats and their smirking lackeys almost make me reevaluate my position against capital punishment. But hey, that's just my opinion.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:40:09 PM EST
    John: But hey, that's just my opinion. It's much more than just your opinion John.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#110)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    Hey Did anyone call the Capitol Police Public Information Office to find out what really happened? I posted about it earlier today. Guess you were all having too much fun razzing each other and forgot that what really counts is action. Calling and insisting on answers would have increased the pressure on the Cap Police to come clean with the real story. Think we'll ever get it?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    Representative Young,a Republican Said perhaps the police need sensitivity training.A man sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States and the only consecquence for a policeman who is also sworn to uphold those pincipals is sensitivity training. The first amedment is now also lost. All the more reason for the second amendment I say.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:43:32 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ: Jesurgislac - I imply nothing, just that we have two conflicting stories. Please feel free to choose the version of your choice. No, Jim, we don't have "two conflicting stories". We have two stories from independent witnesses with no real possibility of collusion that confirm each other: and we have a conflicting story from the Capitol Police. That was my point. By claiming there are only two conflicting stories, you are trying to imply that Beverley Young and Cindy Sheehan are colluding and telling the same story.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Andreas on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:17:51 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    Sheehan has suggested in public recently that she is considering opposing Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, in the California Democratic Party primary next June; she has until March 10 to decide. Sheehan has said she would not support a pro-war Democrat again and regrets endorsing Democratic Party candidate John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, for president in 2004.
    At Bush's State of the Union: Cindy Sheehan arrested for wearing antiwar message By David Walsh, 2 February 2006

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:48 AM EST
    Jesurgislac - No we don't. We have two conflicting stories and some statements of a couple of people who have not been investigated,or questioned under oath. As I said, feel free to believe whatever version you desire. telly kastor writes:
    How come bush is the only one in his family with the accent? You'd almost think he was a phony and a fraud
    Because he is the one that spent years and years in Texas. BTW - No charge for the information and education. 60s girl - Can you tell me what principles you are speaking of? More specfically, what civil rights you have lost? More sepcfically, what part of the first and second?? BTW - You have never had the right to create a disturbance in an invitation only assembly or yell fire in theater. If you think you do, go to your neighbor's yard and start creating a "scene" and see what happens. John Mann writes:
    bin-Laden, al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri and all the Taliban put together are hapless rookies when it comes to the Bush's penchant for spectacular acts of terror.
    John, if you didn't exist the Repubs would have to invent you. They'll probably buy you lunch for the 1000 or so votes your statement will bring them. Al - Actually Mrs. Sheehan met twice with the President. After the first meeting:
    "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
    Later, as her fame grew under the unrelenting adoration of the MSM and the Left, and having her "absolute moral authority"declared, her story changed. And as the MSM and the Left went away after Crawford was no longer interesting, she went on to bigger and better things such as demanding Israel and the US get out of the ME, playing huggy-huggy with Chavez and now we have this latest affair, which was designed to get attention during the speech with millions watching. In the meantime...
    TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."
    edger wrote:
    I wouldn't want to upset your digestion by showing up for dinner. :^\
    Thank you, thank you, thank you. ;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:22:19 AM EST
    Thank you, thank you, thank you. ;-) Look out your window... ;-) ^^ OO

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:42:09 AM EST
    Nooooooooooooo!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:48:32 AM EST
    Jesurgislac - No we don't. We have two conflicting stories Okay, Jim: your theory is that Beverly Young and Cindy Sheehan are in collusion and telling the same story. If you're going to stick to that - which your "two conflicting stories" certainly makes necessary - how do you think Young and Sheehan got together? And what was their motivation? This is your assertion, remember, that these two women are effectively telling one story: you need to justify this theory of yours.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#118)
    by John Mann on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:06:46 AM EST
    John, if you didn't exist the Repubs would have to invent you. They'll probably buy you lunch for the 1000 or so votes your statement will bring them.
    Jim, they didn't invent me, but they sure did help to focus my thinking. Anyway, who cares if I generate votes for them? There's no appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats - which is exactly why the last couple of presidential elections have been so close. Kerry? Bush? Who cared? They're two peas in a pod. There's no viable candidate on the horizon for the Democrats who will do anything other than conduct business as usual when he or she gets his or her turn in the barrel in 2008. It's too bad Howard Dean hadn't been the nominee last time around; that would have made the election campaign pretty interesting. If elected, he would have probably pulled the troops out of Iraq, and since the U.S. had already lost the war by then, a lot of lives on both sides would have been saved.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:18:01 AM EST
    Jesurgislac - Hmmm. What is it about the fact that what we have here are a bunch of uninvestigated stories not given under oath? That is no theory. Again. Please feel free to believe either story you desire. John Mann - Yes, too bad Dean didn't run. That would have completed the destruction of the Democratic party and just might have pushed reform and change so that we could start looking at the real problems of the country. As for losing the war.... wrong.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:41:04 AM EST
    JimAkaPPJ: - Hmmm. What is it about the fact that what we have here are a bunch of uninvestigated stories not given under oath? Ah, you've gone from "two conflicting stories" to "a bunch of uninvestigated stories not given under oath"? Fine. In that case, the balance of probabilities lies with the version of events given by the two independent witnesses, rather than the version of events given by the Capital Police, does it not? We have three "uninvestigated stories not given under oath": one of those stories conflicts with the other two. Again. Please feel free to believe either story you desire. So, you're still suggesting that Sheehan and Young are in collusion? That it's just a matter of "desire" whether we believe either Sheehan and Young's version of events, or the Capitol Police? If that's the version you're pushing, Jim, you really need to explain why and how you think Sheehan and Young are colluding to tell the same story. Put up or shut up, Jim: explain what evidence you're using to build this theory of yours that Sheehan and Young got together beforehand and agreed what story they'd tell.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#121)
    by John Mann on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:48:01 AM EST
    As for losing the war.... wrong.
    Really? The insurgency gets stronger every day, more coalesced and focused every day, while those who think the way you do refuse to read the writing on the wall. Four things have created a resistance that's not going away: 1. The attack on Iraq, a country that posed exactly no threat to the United States. This war is a war of aggression, not defense, and as such is a Crime Against Peace. 2. Dictator Bremer's decision to fire the entire Iraqi civil service. This act on its own created 500,000 new resistance fighters overnight, not to mention family members affected by these sudden job losses. 3. American imperialism and its inability to keep its nose out of the rest of the world's business and stay in its own back yard. This is the root cause of Muslim hostility toward the United States. 4. Unqualified support for the state of Israel. Before Israel, Jim, you had no enemies in the Middle East. Now you have no friends. Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, you keep telling yourself the the resistance in Iraq is fueled by a few "foreigners" that have somehow managed to sneak into the country through porous borders. The foreigners that have created the resistance in Iraq, Jim, are Bush the Dumb and Bush the Dumber, and the best you can do in defense of this debacle is tell me I'm wrong about the course of the war.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:56:31 AM EST
    ppj - Before you crown Hitchens poet laureate, you might want withhold judgement until read his tribute to that other American hero Reagan, aka: "The Hedgehog". Tell me what you think. Of course Hitchens says it best.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    Jondee - I believe that was befoe his conversion..;-) Like most people, he may be wrong on somethings - Reagan and right on others... But I note you do not dispute his conclusions. John Mann - In your dreams.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:52:47 AM EST
    Jim, I'm still waiting for your evidence (hell, even for your reasoning) that Sheehan and Young are in collusion. You seem so certain of it, you should share!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#125)
    by John Mann on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    John Mann - In your dreams.
    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    ppj - Actually it was after his "conversion". And no I dont dispute his conclusions. "Dumb as a stump".

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:57:11 AM EST
    Jesurgislac - Why should I defend something I'm not trying to dispute? Like I said, he said-she said, not under oath, heresay, etc. Please feel free to the story of your choice. jondee - Dumb old Reagan and dumb old W. They changed the world. Are you sure you need those super smart intelligence nuanced candidates?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    John - I also don't defend the fact that the sun rises in the morning, the tide comes and various other obvious facts. I also, from time to time, note that OBL demands that Moslems be allowed to do what they please... but then I'm sure you don't want to debate that.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    Changed the world. A lot of people fit in that category and they aint all candidates for sainthood.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    Jim: I also, from time to time, note that OBL demands that Moslems be allowed to do what they please... but then I'm sure you don't want to debate that. Yes, we know that from time to time you take ONE statement that bin ladin made at one time, and take it out of context to try to support your theory that the only useful response is more of the same actions that are causing the problem in the first place. There are also other statements made by bin Ladin, and there are also statements and actions of others that are important to be aware of, but then I'm sure you don't want to debate them.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:04:57 AM EST
    PPJ keeps trying to move the goal posts, and you're doing a great job keeping them tied down, I'll tell you:
    Please feel free to the story of your choice.
    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    Thanks, DA. I admit I get a little tired of endlessly refuting the same worn out tactics though. But, lest we forget: Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY... trying to win support for his proposed overhaul of the Social Security system. About halfway through the event Bush came out with this pearler.
    "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
    You can listen to him say it here.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ: Jesurgislac - Why should I defend something I'm not trying to dispute? Like I said, he said-she said, not under oath, heresay, etc. Please feel free to the story of your choice. Because if you're going to make a bald assertion (as you've been doing all down this thread) that depends entirely on the theory that Sheehan and Young are in collusion, then yes, Jim, you do have to defend this theory of yours. So, explain why you think Sheehan and Young are in collusion, or give up trying to claim that it's "he said she said".

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#134)
    by John Mann on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    I also, from time to time, note that OBL demands that Moslems be allowed to do what they please... but then I'm sure you don't want to debate that.
    There is no debate about this stale old troll, Jim. I won't accuse you of lying, but will rather just say you need to take a course in reading comprehension.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    136 comments so far and counting. Is there a record for this sort of thing?

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    edger
    Thanks, DA. I admit I get a little tired of endlessly refuting the same worn out tactics though.
    You have to admit that this is mainly because we keep reply to the the same worn out poster;-) The Cap cops have said it was wrong to arrest Sheehan, apologised, nad said bad training was the cause. When the folks involved said she did nothing wrong, then it really doesn't matter what some commenters say to contradict them. Game, set, match.

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    When the folks involved said she did nothing wrong, then it really doesn't matter what some commenters say to contradict them.
    :-) You got to put on your sailin' shoes...

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    Thanks edger! Little Feat is one of my favs! Boy do I love that song! Back on topic: IRT this thread; game, set, match;-)

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    Me too. Just about my favorite band. I especially like Willin' and Dixie Chicken and Apolitical Blues! Dylan's not bad either!

    Re: UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    Lowell George and Bonnie Raitt doing Louisiana Blues together is amazing...

    UPDATED: Freedom For Whom? | 140 comments (140 topical)