Cindy Sheehan arrested before SOTU

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, and pay attention this time, the Clinton economy was built on trillions in false data and fraud. This is not a hard concept, esp. when how many Fortune 500 companies and how many in the Dow go belly up because of this. Yet, you always incorrectly assert everything was just fine and dandy during Clinton's term, when, though yes the effect was there, the underpinnings were faulty to say the least. So, according to you, you would rather have trillions in phantom wealth with no regard to the consequences just as long as the little guy has a job for a relatively fleeting moment. Whatever.

While this is true it is only part of the picture. The little guy was doing better then for other reasons besides the tech bubble and creative Enron-style accounting.

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Personally, I think her statement " . . . and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her" is a load of cr*p because that is exactly what she did by wearing that shirt, which caused a disruption, albeit not during the speech itself, but surely it could have occured then I mean did she actually think that shirt was in any way more respectful than a verbal heckle

She was at a protest earlier that day, where she was offered the ticket. She wore the t-shirt for that protest, and went straight to the SOTU from there.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

While this is true it is only part of the picture. The little guy was doing better then for other reasons besides the tech bubble and creative Enron-style accounting.

Intertesting point, but I think it is untrue. The inflation of wealth created by the blind expectation of profiting off of IPO (I mean $150 a share in a day on the IPO when the company has never made a dime ) created the vast majority of those jobs either directly or indirectly. For example, GM was able to produce more middle level cars because the guy selling the copier paper to these companies was doing better and could afford one, etc. So, it had a huge effect on the economy. Same with Enron and MCI and the other fraud companies.

I will say this though, the lowering of the interest rates spawned a housing boom that allowed the economy in a relative manner to escape the carnage that could have resulted from the essentially overnight disintegration of the fraud wealth and the tech IPO boom wealth. In fact, though it has slowed, the housing market is still keeping the economy afloat and that is despite several rate hikes. The caveat there is creative financing (interest only loans, 125% loans, etc. ) could cause that market to burst, but they have not so far.

In the end, Clinton/Greenspan did some great things with the economy - but much of the often touted good times were due to the IPO and the fraud issues, which occured during that time period.

Will the Bush economy see a recovery in jobs? I tend to doubt it becuase one logical explanation for the realtive lack of hiring is that yes, the companies are making more money, but the fuel costs are double and that precludes taking on more employees. I think this is a true statement, though I am sure greed factors in there somewhere.

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If you refer to the removal of CS and the Congressman's wife, I believe those rules have been in place for a very long time. So, how they are now contributing more to the cessation of America is a little beyond me, esp. since they were applied evenly in this case.

If Cindy Sheehan's version is accurate, then they weren't applied evenly. According to her, she was arrested without warning. The Congressman's wife was only removed.

Regardless, it's utter B.S. that neither of them were allowed to wear a f*cking t-shirt simply because not everyone agrees with the sentiments displayed.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

She was at a protest earlier that day, where she was offered the ticket. She wore the t-shirt for that protest, and went straight to the SOTU from there.

That is all good - but she did not think the t-shirt would cause the very scene she allegedly hoped to avoid I just do not believe that. I mean what other possible reason could she have for going to this event other than to start trouble?

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by dissention

From my imaginary wife:

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

If Cindy Sheehan's version is accurate, then they weren't applied evenly. According to her, she was arrested without warning. The Congressman's wife was only removed . . . .

I was talking about both being removed from the event. Interestingly, we do not have the wife's story - so it could be similar to CS' story. Also, I strongly suspect the wife was a trifle more respectful than CS because I know CS wanted publicity out of this. That others cannot see that kind of surprises me. Again, why else would she go there wearing that shirt?

On edit - I think people think I am against CS - I am not. I am simply pointing out that she has turned into a political operative and a very good one at that. Does that belie her original good intent? Who knows. But, I am sure it has effected it in some way.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

She was at a protest earlier that day, where she was offered the ticket. She wore the t-shirt for that protest, and went straight to the SOTU from there.

She's going to be on Randi this hour.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

She's going to be on Randi this hour.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

Good thing she doesn't want any publicity

I think she should go on O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes. I mean Air America is all fine and dandy for an extremely limited market that rings of "preaching to the choir." The shows I suggested would get her message to the people she really needs to reach and I am sure she could give Hannity and O'Reilly a run for their money.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Good thing she doesn't want any publicity

She wants publicity for her cause. Duh. You can disagree with her approach all you want, but I take issue with you seemingly implying that she wants publicity for herself.

I think she should go on O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes. I mean Air America is all fine and dandy for an extremely limited market that rings of "preaching to the choir." The shows I suggested would get her message to the people she really needs to reach and I am sure she could give Hannity and O'Reilly a run for their money.

O'Reilly has already stated he won't have her on his program & got into a verbal tussle with Letterman over it, and anyone with self-respect would decline an invitation to Hannity & Colmes, especially since Hannity calls her every name in the book.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

She wants publicity for her cause. Duh. You can disagree with her approach all you want, but I take issue with you seemingly implying that she wants publicity for herself.

I honestly do not know. I get a publicity hound vibe from her. But, to each their own.

Originally Posted by dissention

O'Reilly has already stated he won't have her on his program & got into a verbal tussle with Letterman over it, and anyone with self-respect would decline an invitation to Hannity & Colmes, especially since Hannity calls her every name in the book.

There are others. yet, she tends to shy away from the mainstream media, though she certainly has been on it. I mean why not in this instance?

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was talking about both being removed from the event. Interestingly, we do not have the wife's story - so it could be similar to CS' story. Also, I strongly suspect the wife was a trifle more respectful than CS because I know CS wanted publicity out of this. That others cannot see that kind of surprises me. Again, why else would she go there wearing that shirt?

Actually, I have seen part of the wife's story, which I quote below:

Mrs. Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.

"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"

Source: http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...06.02.01_12.25

Calling the policeman an idiot isn't exactly respectful to me.

I understand your point. You believe this was a stunt by CS, and she wanted to get arrested for effect. I just don't necessarily agree with it. You can assume she wore the shirt to start trouble. And we'll probably never know for sure what the real truth is. But according to CS, she already had the shirt on when she was invited. And she initially turned down the ticket. CS claims she was arrested simply for wearing the shirt, without any warning that it was against house roule, and that she had no intention on causing a scene. The policeman says she was warned but wouldn't cover it up. You're probably right that it wasn't totally innocent on her part, but we don't know for sure.

Even if it was intentional, I say good for her. Good for her in trying to keep this in the face of Americans who are so blindly behind Bush and this war. Who don't want to mess up their "beautiful minds" by being reminded the cost we're paying for this war, not only financially but in lost lives. Some may see her as "whoring herself out", but I for one commend her for doing whatever she can to not let people forget what's going on in Iraq, and trying to wakke people up to the fact that this president is a fraud.

On Edit: added link to source.

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by dissention

She's going to be on Randi this hour.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

Cool... thanks for the heads up!

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^

and I agree they both should been able to wear those shirts. I am actually FAR more offended from a social grace vantage point. I mean who the hell would wear a t-shirt to a semi-formal event

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Her crime is you cannot disrupt the Congress, which IMO was her intent. In other words, the law, which I personally do not agree with, allows certain space for protest, and I can assure you, that space is not in the hall where the Pres. is speaking

She did nothing illegal.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...ar-leader.html

The law is clear that Sheehan did nothing illegal and there was no legal basis whatsoever for removing and arresting her for wearing that t-shirt.

In Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf), the District Court found the regulations applying 140 U.S.C. § 193 -- the section of the U.S. code restricting activities inside the Capitol -- to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Bynum involved a Reverend who was threatened with arrest by Capitol Police while leading a small group in prayer inside the Capitol. The Capitol Police issued that threat on the ground that the praying constituted a "demonstration."

That action was taken pursuant to the U.S. Code, in which Congress decreed as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons wilfully and knowingly . . . to parade, demonstrate or picket within any Capitol Building." 140 U.S.C. § 193(f)(b)(7).

As the Bynum court explained: "Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a 'demonstration,' the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets 'demonstration activity,'" and that regulation specifically provides that it "does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158" (emphasis added).