Cindy Sheehan arrested before SOTU [Archive]

View Full Version : Cindy Sheehan arrested before SOTU

irishgrl

01-31-2006, 09:13 PM

Tuesday, January 31

Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Posted: 9:03 p.m. EST (02:03 GMT)

Editor's Note: The CNN Wire is a running log of the latest news from CNN World Headquarters, reported by CNN's correspondents and producers, and The CNN Wire editors.

Peace activist Sheehan arrested before Bush's State of the Union

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the vocal anti-war activist whose son was killed in the Iraq war, was arrested Tuesday night on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol, shortly before President Bush was to deliver his State of the Union address, U.S. Capitol Police said.

A senior House official said Sheehan was seated in the House chamber when she unfolded an anti-war banner and was apprehended. This official said she was taken for questioning for about an hour in a separate area of the House.

"She was arrested within the Capitol complex," a Capitol Hill officer told CNN.

Sheehan had been invited to attend the speech as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., who has called for a withdrawal for Iraq and supported legislation for a Department of Peace. (Posted 9:03 p.m.)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/31/tuesday/index.html

dissention

01-31-2006, 09:15 PM

Because of a banner? That's America for you.

Richard B

01-31-2006, 09:21 PM

That's pathetic. I'm sure Bush squirmed to know she was a guest. Another BOR squashed.

Why bother even with the SOTU? I don't want to hear or see him move his lips. Can't we just get the transcript emailed or posted? Can't the camera just shoot the teleprompter?

The Bush minions will applaud and cheer.

Meanwhile...I need to use the bathroom.

ontheEdgeof17

01-31-2006, 09:25 PM

The Bush minions will applaud and cheer.

Meanwhile...I need to use the bathroom.

Yes, we, as Americans, are addicted to oil.

I saw that headline and decided not to watch his blubbering speech. :rolleyes:

jannieC

01-31-2006, 09:30 PM

They announced that she was being "detained" but not arrested. :confused:

I can't watch this anymore. I wish they would do away with the constant applause- it's so distracting and time consuming. But, I know, this is his big night to feel popular and liked. :distress:

estranged4life

01-31-2006, 09:41 PM

The following seems appropriate (Would make this SOTU more enjoyable):
<div align=center><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/Q/bush_ducttape.jpg"></div>

BombaySapphire3

01-31-2006, 09:41 PM

I was going to go down to Union Square to the protest. but alas have a touch of the flu.I'm listening to his droning speech but can't bring myself to look at his smirking .lying mug.If he had even a modicum of class or cojones he would have let Cindy in and finally answered her question.

Serrart

01-31-2006, 09:47 PM

I agree, it's pathetic and would cause a even bigger media backlash IMO.

What a big boy he is.

Romy

gldstwmn

01-31-2006, 10:13 PM

Mrs. Sheehan was wearing a t-shirt when she took off her coat that had the number of soldiers killed in Iraq on it. So they arrested her. There was no banner.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002355.htm

BombaySapphire3

01-31-2006, 10:16 PM

Mrs. Sheehan was wearing a t-shirt when she took off her coat that had the number of soldiers killed in Iraq on it. So they arrested her. There was no banner.
And so the right wing Bush police state continues. Even as he defends wire tapping and the Patriot act from inside the forum..Chilling.

dissention

01-31-2006, 10:18 PM

What the fukc was this "human-animal hybrid" business he was rambling about? He's been hitting the bottle.

Last year it was sterioids, now it's "human-animal hybrids."

BombaySapphire3

01-31-2006, 10:20 PM

What the fukc was this "human-animal hybrid" business he was rambling about? He's been hitting the bottle.

Last year it was sterioids, now it's "human-animal hybrids."
I dunno maybe he got the idea after looking in the mirror?:shrug:

gldstwmn

01-31-2006, 10:22 PM

And so the right wing Bush police state continues. Even as he defends wire tapping and the Patriot act from inside the forum..Chilling.

I thought he looked crazier than ever this evening-and his words were slurrier. I don't know what else to say anymore.

gldstwmn

01-31-2006, 10:24 PM

What the fukc was this "human-animal hybrid" business he was rambling about? He's been hitting the bottle.

Last year it was sterioids, now it's "human-animal hybrids."

I could only watch for a few seconds at a time.

gldstwmn

01-31-2006, 10:26 PM

"The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

dissention

01-31-2006, 10:26 PM

A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them.

This is why the Democrats will continue to be the minority party. With Bush thanking them, the average voter sees no difference between Dems and Repugs.

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research -- human cloning in all its forms ... creating or implanting embryos for experiments ... creating human-animal hybrids ... and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.

Gotta love the way he threw in his creationism bull****.

A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they are back on their feet.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, societies other than this one.

As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity.

I think I'll have the opportunity to breastfeed Gary Coleman before any of that happens.

dissention

01-31-2006, 10:28 PM

"The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

Did they thrown her in the nearest wire cage? Er, um, I mean "Free Speech Zone."

estranged4life

01-31-2006, 10:36 PM

MSNBC? Diane Feinstein is being interviewed at this moment.

BombaySapphire3

01-31-2006, 10:36 PM

[I]Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research -- human cloning in all its forms ... creating or implanting embryos for experiments ... creating human-animal hybrids ... and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.

That did really jump out at me from the rest of the Bu****.Maybe some footage of the "Island of Dr. Moreau " got spliced with his Teleprompter cues.

estranged4life

01-31-2006, 10:43 PM

What the fukc was this "human-animal hybrid" business he was rambling about? He's been hitting the bottle.

Last year it was sterioids, now it's "human-animal hybrids."

what a "human-animal hybrid" looks like?????

<div align=center><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/7/bush_chimp.jpg"></div>

Damn, that really is scary aint it???

ShangriLaTroubl

02-01-2006, 02:49 AM

"The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

Wow I forgot it was illegal to mention on a tshirt how many have died in a war--

tynan88

02-01-2006, 03:22 AM

I found the speech poorly delivered and the applause from everyone in the room; democrat and republican alike really absolutely digusting.

Whoever decided to let that new governor give the reply speech; especially in the setting he did is an absolute moron, he looked and sounded uncomfortable and gave a limp-dick response to the most dangerous person in the world and letting him get away with it.

I don't think it is unreasonable to compare the democrats letting off Bush with Bush letting off Osama.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 08:26 AM

Yes, we, as Americans, are addicted to oil.

Omigod, I just realized that was a quote of his because Maddow just played it. :eek:

I saw that headline and decided not to watch his blubbering speech. :rolleyes:

I am just hearing this about Sheehan. I tried to watch that speech 5x and could not do it. I just kept thinking, "That's a lie." regarding every word coming out of his mouth. I just don't believe anything he says.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 09:19 AM

Just out of curiosity - do you all really think any sitting President would have allowed that live wire in their SOU speech :shrug:

Moreover, does anyone here really think she was going to sit there with her mouth shut and not heckle the Pres.?

If so - I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :laugh:

Finally, the idea of totally free speech at any place at any time is not based in the Const. or the 200+ years of American jurisprudence. The govt. clearly has and has had for well over 100+ years, the right to suppress speech when it feels it will cause danger, violence, etc. - moreover, the law allows protestors to be placed in an area that does not prohibit the functioning of an event. Actually, the whole body of law on this issue is rather fascinating and worth a read - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

__________________________________________________

Having said all of that - I think this lady is on a noble mission. I also respect her for what she has done and the awareness she has raised. On the other hand, she is in bed with some shady people who use her, though I often wonder if it is not she using them as she is rather clever.

I also would have loved to have seen her heckle W - who needs it desparately.

Finally, does anyone find it disconcerting that she was able to slip past and elude for a long time arguably the tightest security in the world :eek:

In the end, she came across to the general public, yet again, as ineffective and a stunt puller - which is sad.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 09:20 AM

I could only watch for a few seconds at a time.

Me too. I wanted to hurl at that Smirking Judas.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 09:27 AM

...

A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they are back on their feet.

Except it is he who knocked us on our asses. Lying, smug, deluded, dumb bastard.

Three different people came up to Ed Shultz yesterday talking about the job market, or lack thereof, and how it is affecting them. He said it was random, the people just approached him to tell him what was going on. Yet this president has the juevos to stand up there and say how well the economy is doing. Shame shame shame on him.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 09:30 AM

. . . Yet this president has the juevos to stand up there and say how well the economy is doing. Shame shame shame on him.

Statistics indicate the economy is recovering :shrug: I mean I do not want to give any undue accolades to W, whom I despise, but facts are facts. I do think, however, that the number of jobs created has been far less than the economic recovery figures suggest should have been created. Thus, it is a relatively jobless (or lower rate new jobs) economic recovery.

Here are some sites:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/frankel_economy_forward_122203.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/08/jobs_numbers/index_np.html

Again - I give no praise to W other than the facts indicate.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 09:44 AM

Statistics indicate the economy is recovering :shrug: I mean I do not want to give any undue accolades to W, whom I despise, but facts are facts. I do think, however, that the number of jobs created has been far less than the economic recovery figures suggest should have been created. Thus, it is a relatively jobless (or lower rate new jobs) economic recovery.

Here are some sites:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/frankel_economy_forward_122203.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/08/jobs_numbers/index_np.html

Again - I give no praise to W other than the facts indicate.

Oh, I know, I know. I will take a look at these when I get a chance. Its just that average Americans are not benefitting. Salaries for middle class Americans have not incereased at all, on average, under this administration. Also, when inflation is taken into account, they have actually gone down a bit. Unions have declined. Millions have gone into poverty, etc. I'd like to see the economy actually improve, of course. I would love for him to be right on this one.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 09:51 AM

Oh, I know, I know. I will take a look at these when I get a chance. Its just that average Americans are not benefitting. Salaries for middle class Americans have not incereased at all, on average, under this administration. Also, when inflation is taken into account, they have actually gone down a bit. Unions have declined. Millions have gone into poverty, etc. I'd like to see the economy actually improve, of course. I would love for him to be right on this one.

Oh darlin' I am right there with ya. I mean it is beyond me how Exxon/Mobile can have record breaking profits like that (I read somewere where the per person effect in the US was like free gas for everyone for a year :eek: ) - and no new jobs are being created. Thus, I conclude it is greed.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 09:56 AM

Oh darlin' I am right there with ya. I mean it is beyond me how Exxon/Mobile can have record breaking profits like that (I read somewere where the per person effect in the US was like free gas for everyone for a year :eek: ) - and no new jobs are being created. Thus, I conclude it is greed.

I know you are. :xoxo: They made $1,300 per second last quarter. :eek: They have the nerve not to help the poor with their heating costs. That is why MA is going to Valdez for cheaper oil.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 09:59 AM

. . . I would love for him to be right on this one.

AND ANOTHER THING :laugh: - it just kills me how everytime W seems to take a step forward, he nullifies that with inane behavior. For example, most experts agree the tax cuts provided a spark that ignited the economy. So, what does W do to kindle that - he borrows more money than we can pay back, which had the effect of smothering the newly developed economic flame and instead caused only the small fire we currently are seeing. He does this with everything - even Iraq. If you accept even in a hypothetical way the premise that war with Iraq was correctly started - the execuction of the war was botched from the beginning. I mean yes, Iraq is now having elections and that is a good thing, but the road there was so sloppy. Oh well, at least Halliburton made billions :rolleyes:

markolas

02-01-2006, 10:04 AM

Me too. I wanted to hurl at that Smirking Judas.

You guys actually turned on your TVs for this? I can't stand either the sight or the sound of him. On the rare occasions when I'm listening to NPR and hear them play a clip of him speaking, I immediately turn off the radio. And he's one of the reasons why I just don't watch TV anymore. I'm afraid of catching a glimpse. :lol:

Trying to pretend he (and Republicans and Christians, in general) doesn't exist is the only way I know to keep from going on a murderous rampage.

cliffdweller

02-01-2006, 10:28 AM

Hillary Clinton's facial expressions were priceless, especially after Bush said that his dad's two favorite 60 year olds were him and President Clinton.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 10:53 AM

AND ANOTHER THING :laugh: - it just kills me how everytime W seems to take a step forward, he nullifies that with inane behavior. For example, most experts agree the tax cuts provided a spark that ignited the economy. So, what does W do to kindle that - he borrows more money than we can pay back, which had the effect of smothering the newly developed economic flame and instead caused only the small fire we currently are seeing. He does this with everything - even Iraq. If you accept even in a hypothetical way the premise that war with Iraq was correctly started - the execuction of the war was botched from the beginning. I mean yes, Iraq is now having elections and that is a good thing, but the road there was so sloppy. Oh well, at least Halliburton made billions :rolleyes:

He has us borrowing billions from China. He does not include the costs of the war(s) in his budgets! He is so full of it.

Sheehan is scheduled to be on Stephanie Miller tomorrow.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 10:54 AM

You guys actually turned on your TVs for this? I can't stand either the sight or the sound of him. On the rare occasions when I'm listening to NPR and hear them play a clip of him speaking, I immediately turn off the radio. And he's one of the reasons why I just don't watch TV anymore. I'm afraid of catching a glimpse. :lol:

Trying to pretend he (and Republicans and Christians, in general) doesn't exist is the only way I know to keep from going on a murderous rampage.

This has been my policy for years. However, Ed Shultz had this monologue about how important it is to watch. So I gave it a shot and I just can't do it.

irishgrl

02-01-2006, 11:14 AM

A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them.

This is why the Democrats will continue to be the minority party. With Bush thanking them, the average voter sees no difference between Dems and Repugs.

I didnt watch SOTU. if the man's lips are moving, he's lying. However, I dont see a direct correlation between Bush thanking the Senate and equating Dems with Repugs. The Senate has more Repugs than Dems, so, in effect, he's thanking his rank and file. no surprise there. But, from the emails Ive gotten from the various groups I subscribe to and the posts on various Dem boards (including your Democratic Underground) I sense a new sense of battle fever. I think I am seeing a new rallying spirit, and a different attitude than I certainly expected...just when I thought all was lost, and that I was going to give up on my party, I see a new determination from many sectors, and I am amazed, humbled and ashamed of my prior bout of despair.

irishgrl

02-01-2006, 11:18 AM

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 11:25 AM

Yes. the T-shirt spoke for itself, no further verbiage necessary.

You are deluded once again. History demonstrates that woman does not know how to keep her mouth shut. But, if you want to think that - go right on ahead.

I mean you are the one that thinks the spooge stained dress keeping Monica Lewinsky had no bad intent, Clinton never helped her get a job, and Clinton never sent any of his people out to perpetuate his lie :laugh: :rolleyes:

Note - please do not confuse this with whether I think CS should have been allowed in there - I do. Interestingly, has CS said she was going to protest in "silence" and only with the shirt?

JazmenFlowers

02-01-2006, 11:27 AM

I couldn't watch it either...

I would love to see a stunt similar to the one the Yes Men pulled at a World Trade Organization meeting. It was hilarious. Has anyone caught that documentary?

irishgrl

02-01-2006, 11:28 AM

Statistics indicate the economy is recovering :shrug: I mean I do not want to give any undue accolades to W, whom I despise, but facts are facts. I do think, however, that the number of jobs created has been far less than the economic recovery figures suggest should have been created. Thus, it is a relatively jobless (or lower rate new jobs) economic recovery.

Here are some sites:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2003/frankel_economy_forward_122203.htm

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/08/jobs_numbers/index_np.html

Again - I give no praise to W other than the facts indicate.

Well, I think its more of a mixed bag........
Manufacturing growth Slows (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/01/news/economy/ism/index.htm)
OIL CRUNCH Report
(http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/gasprices/)
CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/index.html)

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 11:45 AM

Well, I think its more of a mixed bag........
Manufacturing growth Slows (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/01/news/economy/ism/index.htm)
OIL CRUNCH Report
(http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/gasprices/)
CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/index.html)

That is my point. On average, businesses are doing better. However, they are not hiring at the point they "should" be and when they do hire, the jobs pay less - or current workers are being forced to take less to keep from being fired.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the high fuel costs are considered. High fuel costs effect every single segment of the economy.

Rickypt

02-01-2006, 12:14 PM

I only saw a snippet at a bar, normally try to avoid it. All that standing and clapping over a bunch of lies like "I'm going to double funding for teaching physical sciences", something like that. George Bush doesn't double funding for anything except war.

Then he said a doozy like "we are a better nation now, violent crime is down, and welfare recipients are cut in half".....right, because he and Clinton cut them all from the rolls.

His call for getting more AIDS money to the states: another lie. He talks about AIDS in every SOTU and never backs up his words with meaningful action.

As for Cindy Sheehan, she rocks my world. I don't care who she is aligned with; she is an ordinary person who has a personal reason to be against this unjust war, and works her ass off to do her part to end it. TIME got it wrong, she was 2005 person of the year.

heyjupiter678

02-01-2006, 12:27 PM

Interestingly, has CS said she was going to protest in "silence" and only with the shirt?
Here is her account of what happened:

<i>Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

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:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh. Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the underground tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like, "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said, "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

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, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2,244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable...that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy</i>

http://michaelmoore.com/mustread/print.php?id=594

Rickypt

02-01-2006, 12:30 PM

I just heard that a wife of a Republican congressman was taken out of the Capitol for wearing a shirt that says "Support Our Troops".

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 12:55 PM

She's suing the government, that's great, but it won't go anywhere. :distress: Still, it is worth the fight. People in the US should not be arrested for wearing a t-shirt! What was her crime?

Brwn_eyes0511

02-01-2006, 12:58 PM

I just heard that a wife of a Republican congressman was taken out of the Capitol for wearing a shirt that says "Support Our Troops".

:shocked: ........

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 01:51 PM

She's suing the government, that's great, but it won't go anywhere. :distress: Still, it is worth the fight. People in the US should not be arrested for wearing a t-shirt! What was her crime?

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 :laugh:

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 :shrug: I mean did she actually think that shirt was in any way more respectful than a verbal heckle :shrug:

In the end, I think she got what she wanted, publicity - and she is very very clever at doing that.

I also think she should have been able to wear that shirt in the Congress.

But, that is my opinion.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 01:59 PM

emphasis supplied:

Activist Sheehan arrested in House gallery
GOP congressman says his wife was also ordered to leave

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

According to a blog post on Michael Moore's Web site attributed to Sheehan, the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

Young, an 18-term congressman, held up his wife's shirt during his remarks, speaking with anger and emotion about her treatment.

"She has a real passion for our troops, and she shows it in many, many ways," Young said.

"And most members in this House know that, but because she had on a shirt, that someone didn't like, that said, 'Support Our Troops,' she was kicked out of this gallery while the president was speaking and encouraging Americans to support our troops. Shame. Shame."

Sheehan held 4 hours
Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET Tuesday on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail, Capitol Police said.

She was handcuffed and held in the Capitol building until she was driven to the Capitol Police headquarters for booking. According to her blog, she was released about four hours after her arrest.

Sheehan, who became a vocal war opponent after her son was killed in Iraq, was an invited guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California. Woolsey has called for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq and supports legislation for the creation of a Department of Peace.

Sheehan gained national attention in August when she and hundreds of other protesters camped outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and demanded an audience with the president.

She also recently penned a book, "Not One More Mother's Child."

In April 2004, Sheehan and other relatives of troops killed in Iraq met with Bush during a visit to Fort Lewis, Washington, shortly after the death of her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24.

Sheehan later said that the president wouldn't look at pictures of her son and "didn't even know Casey's name."

The Vacaville, California, resident has said she'd like to meet with Bush again to discuss her opposition to the war.

The president has declined another meeting and has taken issue with Sheehan's calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it," Bush said in August. "I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."

CNN.com's Eliott C. McLaughlin contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

dissention

02-01-2006, 02:05 PM

This country has ceased to resemble anything American.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 02:13 PM

This country has ceased to resemble anything American.

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.

But, I agree with you, she and that wife should have been allowed to wear their shirts.

dissention

02-01-2006, 02:22 PM

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.

I'd like to know exactly what those rules are, actually, that ban invited guests wearing t-shirts that the Bushbots don't want America to see. I'm serious.

And I'm referring to everything that's happened since Lyndon B. Johnson took office. That's when this country began it's true downward spiral. This country has been royally ****ed since then, even moreso in the last few years with neonazis ruling over us.

But, I agree with you, she and that wife should have been allowed to wear their shirts.

Of course they should have. That kind of goes without saying.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 02:33 PM

I'd like to know exactly what those rules are, actually, that ban invited guests wearing t-shirts that the Bushbots don't want America to see. I'm serious . . . .

I am pretty sure those rules were put in place when Congress was formed or at least 200 years ago. But, I could be wrong and do not have the time to do the research. I googled "united states house of representative rules protest gallery" and got nothing. In the end, I do not think this is a Bush thing and that it has been this way for a long time, even though I do not agree with it. So and though W is an a$$ - asserting that this somehow makes him worse than others in this regard is false.

irishgrl

02-01-2006, 02:56 PM

That is my point. On average, businesses are doing better. However, they are not hiring at the point they "should" be and when they do hire, the jobs pay less - or current workers are being forced to take less to keep from being fired.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the high fuel costs are considered. High fuel costs effect every single segment of the economy.

I personally think the economy is doing great when the little guy on the street can feel it. Like in the Clinton years. If only the rich fat cats at the top are doing great, that isnt MY idea of a booming economy, its just BUSINESS AS USUAL. :shrug:

irishgrl

02-01-2006, 03:01 PM

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 :laugh:

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 :shrug: I mean did she actually think that shirt was in any way more respectful than a verbal heckle :shrug:

In the end, I think she got what she wanted, publicity - and she is very very clever at doing that.

I also think she should have been able to wear that shirt in the Congress.

But, that is my opinion.

well, then, she should have just solidly SAT and NOT CLAPPED every time the audience engaged in gratuitous back slapping via applause. HOW OBSCENE.
This Government, from top to bottom makes me sick. We need more citizen activists. Its time the sheep woke up, and saw the wolves in sheep's clothing that have been running this show..........

dissention

02-01-2006, 03:14 PM

well, then, she should have just solidly SAT and NOT CLAPPED every time the audience engaged in gratuitous back slapping via applause. HOW OBSCENE.

You had to love how the Dems jumped to their feet as quickly as the Republicans to applaud the Boy King every time with huge smiles plastered across their faces, ready to slap him on the back for a job well done.

Here's an idea: start purging your party of every Pink Tutu Democrat and install real Dems. Next time a Pink Tutu Dem is being opposed by someone with actual values, vote for the one with the values. Or is that a bad idea because *gasp* the one with values...might...actually...lose? All 50 of the Iraq war vets running as Democrats need to be elected, not the scum that are in office now.

This Government, from top to bottom makes me sick. We need more citizen activists. Its time the sheep woke up, and saw the wolves in sheep's clothing that have been running this show..........

I agree. But that would require thought. The American public doesn't have it in them.

dissention

02-01-2006, 03:19 PM

From my imaginary wife:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-democratic-response-_b_14888.html
The Democratic Response: My Worst Fears Realized
Arianna Huffington

All my worst fears about the Democratic response (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dems-pick-kaine-for-state_b_14112.html) to the State of the Union address being given by Virginia Gov Kaine were realized tonight when he completely failed to take on the president on his greatest vulnerability -- the war in Iraq. “Second guessing is not a strategy,” Bush said -- but Kaine didn’t even bother to second-guess.

Instead, he told us “together, we can do better” (I swear he did!) and that “our greatest need is to heal our partisan wounds.” Now if I can only figure out how to heal these fresh wounds on my wrists, we’ll be fine. At least, together we’ll be fine.

While Kaine was droning on, I closed my eyes and imagined Jack Murtha giving the response, someone with the authority to do much more than second guess -- to offer an alternative strategy on Iraq and the war on terror, as opposed to Kaine’s program of “service and competent management.” And I thought “competence” had gone out of vogue with Michael Dukakis.

As for the Kaine bromide, “common sense solutions to common problems” -- who came up with that one? Fire them immediately. Please.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 03:23 PM

I personally think the economy is doing great when the little guy on the street can feel it. Like in the Clinton years. If only the rich fat cats at the top are doing great, that isnt MY idea of a booming economy, its just BUSINESS AS USUAL. :shrug:

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.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 03:28 PM

. . . I agree. But that would require thought. The American public doesn't have it in them.

Interestingly, at least half of them do and sadly they are all for W and his religious craziness. I mean those people have a big enough backbone. Sadly, the D's play to the middle, which is really all they can do to get elected. I know you disagree with that statement, but Kerry almost won by playing to the middle and some think he did win but the fraud came into play. So, implying the middle is unwinnable turf is incorrect.

To me, the far more interesting argument is how can the D's entice a truly "liberal" and winnable candidate. I suggest they cannot because the country hates abortion at will and gays asserting any rights - and the D candidate I assert must support those two positions, which means the American public will not elect them. Once again, the D's have no one to blame but themsleves for letting the religious zealots frame the issue this way. Ditto for the war in Iraq.

estranged4life

02-01-2006, 03:29 PM

This country has ceased to resemble anything American.

like that for years if ya ask me.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 03:31 PM

well, then, she should have just solidly SAT and NOT CLAPPED every time the audience engaged in gratuitous back slapping via applause. HOW OBSCENE.
This Government, from top to bottom makes me sick. We need more citizen activists. Its time the sheep woke up, and saw the wolves in sheep's clothing that have been running this show..........

Bless your heart, I am talking about violating the House rules, which she did and intentionally so :shrug: So, for her to say she did not mean to cause a scene is utter cr*p. That was her sole intent.

Please note - This is not to say I agree with the House rule - I do not. I am just taking issue with your apparently blind appreciation of this probably once altruistic woman.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 03:39 PM

stargazer99

02-01-2006, 03:44 PM

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 :shrug: I mean did she actually think that shirt was in any way more respectful than a verbal heckle :shrug:

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

02-01-2006, 03:51 PM

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 :shrug: ) 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

02-01-2006, 03:51 PM

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

02-01-2006, 03:52 PM

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 :shrug: 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

02-01-2006, 03:52 PM

From my imaginary wife:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 03:57 PM

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

02-01-2006, 04:02 PM

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

02-01-2006, 04:04 PM

She's going to be on Randi this hour. :)

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

Good thing she doesn't want any publicity :laugh:

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

02-01-2006, 04:08 PM

Good thing she doesn't want any publicity :laugh:

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

02-01-2006, 04:12 PM

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.

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

02-01-2006, 04:16 PM

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.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/02/01/316797.html&cvqh=itn&ts=2006.02.01_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

02-01-2006, 04:17 PM

She's going to be on Randi this hour. :)

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

Cool... thanks for the heads up!

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:18 PM

^^^^^

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 :cool:

dissention

02-01-2006, 04:20 PM

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 :laugh:

She did nothing illegal.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-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. (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-1337c.pdf) (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).

stargazer99

02-01-2006, 04:22 PM

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:26 PM

She did nothing illegal.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/learning-from-dear-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. (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/97-1337c.pdf) (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).

Well, I'll be damned - and I stand corrected.

Interestingly, this case was enforced in the Clinton administration, which I suggest was also stormtrooper esq., though less so than W's administration.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 04:28 PM

Well, I'll be damned - and I stand corrected.

EVERYBODY WRITE THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT DOWN!!! :lol: :]

Sorry Strandie. I could not resist.

Is she on yet? I can't stream from this 'puter - no sound card. But if she's on I'll switch.

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 04:28 PM

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:29 PM

EVERYBODY WRITE THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT DOWN!!! :lol: :]

Sorry Strandie. I could not resist.

Is she on yet? I can't stream from this 'puter - no sound card. But if she's on I'll switch.

Hey now :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh:

gldstwmn

02-01-2006, 04:33 PM

I just heard that a wife of a Republican congressman was taken out of the Capitol for wearing a shirt that says "Support Our Troops".

I'll bet she was a plant. :nod:

estranged4life

02-01-2006, 04:35 PM

EVERYBODY WRITE THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT DOWN!!! :lol: :]

Sorry Strandie. I could not resist.

I am cold today...Hell froze over apparently!!!

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:36 PM

I am cold today...Hell froze over apparently!!!

Everyone is beating up on me - wwwwhaaaaaa whhaaaaaa :mad:

ya know I am kiddin ya

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:37 PM

I'll bet she was a plant. :nod:

I thought that too, which perhaps should frighten you :laugh:

estranged4life

02-01-2006, 04:38 PM

Everyone is beating up on me - wwwwhaaaaaa whhaaaaaa :mad:

ya know I am kiddin ya

but I am frikkin' cold (Had to change my signature picture to a more accurate one after last night's SOTU-Same Ol' Totally Useless speech!)

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 04:38 PM

I am cold today...Hell froze over apparently!!!

OMIGOD, your new sig is priceless.

gldstwmn

02-01-2006, 04:39 PM

I thought that too, which perhaps should frighten you :laugh:

Why?

Mrs. Sheehan is on now, BTW.

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:39 PM

but I am frikkin' cold (Had to change my signature picture to a more accurate one after last night's SOTU-Same Ol' Totally Useless speech!)

Your new sig is FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

esp. considering the loincloth fittingly looks like a twisted and shriveled penis :eek:

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 04:40 PM

Why?

Mrs. Sheehan is on now, BTW.

He's not normally a conspiracy theorist!

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 04:40 PM

Why? . . . .

Well, ya know I can come from left field at times :laugh:

Seriously, when I read that about the wife, all I could do was think about O'Reilly and Hannity going off about it.

gldstwmn

02-01-2006, 04:44 PM

Well, ya know I can come from left field at times :laugh:

Oh, I see what you mean. But the idea really isn't that far out there, given the history of this administration.

estranged4life

02-01-2006, 04:45 PM

OMIGOD, your new sig is priceless.

thought about using this one but didnt want to "offend" anyone:

<div align=center><img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Bush-Monica-Moment.jpg"></div>

SuzeQuze

02-01-2006, 04:46 PM

thought about using this one but didnt want to "offend" anyone:

<div align=center><img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Bush-Monica-Moment.jpg"></div>

No one ever got to the bottom of that one, so to speak ;)

GypsySorcerer

02-01-2006, 05:08 PM

<iframe height="235" width="340" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.backwardsbush.com/includes/publicClock.php"/></iframe>

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 05:23 PM

Rickypt

02-01-2006, 05:32 PM

strandinthewind

02-01-2006, 05:47 PM

SuzeQuze

02-02-2006, 08:28 AM

I think the best part of the Sheehan thing last night is that the number 2,245 is all over the news today. The number of dead U.S. soldiers is often told, but by being part of a controversial T-shirt, the number can't be ignored today.

Other great thing is that Sheehan is getting so much publicity on a day that should be all about Bush's speech.

You're right! I hadn't thought about that number getting into the mainstream press that way. I mean, I temporarily forgot that most people don't know the number. Maddow said the other day that 90% of the media is owned by 5 companies, and they are all conservative. That was a good reminder of what we are up against. We need a cable channel! That would be a start since if it ain't on TV it didn't happen. :distress:

SomeKindaMother

02-02-2006, 10:37 AM

Kerry almost won by playing to the middle and some think he did win but the fraud came into play. So, implying the middle is unwinnable turf is incorrect.

I do agree with that, as I have always been a middle of the road Democrat in the past. But the worse things get, the further left I'm heading. I was, and still am, upset about the filibuster not happening and as far as I'm concerned every Democrat that voted against the filibuster and then had the nerve to vote against Alito is a hypocrite. I guess my point is that the Democratic leaders need to recognize that we (the constituants) are ready for someone to start standing up for us. Rattle the cage, rock the boat....get someone to notice how crappy things are going!

I *want* to be middle of the road, but I don't want to be steamrolled by a government that continually proves that it cares nothing about me. So I guess I'll have to jump one way or another if I want to tip the scales. And I'm disappointed that the Democrats weren't up it yet at such an important time.

As far as Mrs. Sheehan, I also think she should have been allowed in, as the Republican's wife should. (I also wondered if she wasn't a set up....but who knows.) If I were the powers that be, though, I don't think I'd have trusted Ms. Sheehan to behave. :D

Kelly :)

gldstwmn

02-02-2006, 11:52 AM

BTFLCHLD

02-02-2006, 12:27 PM

One day after Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt to President Bush’s State of The Union address, Capitol police have dropped her charges and apologized. Sheehan, whose son Casey died in combat in Iraq in April 2004, was removed from the House gallery Tuesday night after unveiling a T-shirt that read: "2,245 dead and how many more?” – a reference to the number of US service members killed in Iraq. In a statement, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Sheehan should not have been arrested. President Bush began his speech shortly after she was removed.

www.democracynow.org

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 12:39 PM

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.

Jason, I am not stupid. I know that fraud happened. but I also know that whatever forces were fueling the economy at that time benefitted the MAN ON THE STREET. THAT is what I look at when I look at how the economy is doing. because when the little guy has $$$ in his pocket, he goes and spends it. he buys houses. he invests in the stock market. that is TRUE economic progress. No matter what you think, the dot com bubble and the rampant fraud in certain big companies do NOT comprise the entire economic landscape. That doesnt require much thought either.

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 12:51 PM

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 :shrug: ) 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.

Jason, as usual, your entire ENTIRE perspective is from the point of view of the HAVES. I can tell you, as one of the Have NOTS, that I was doing far better during the Clinton years, and I was not in the least affected by Enron or MCI debacles (unless you count the GOUGING California took for energy costs) To think that the little guy was only able to prosper because of the money manipulation engaged in by certain companies is myopic to say the least.

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 12:55 PM

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 01:20 PM

Why do you have such a negative take on Cindy? Why do you think she is a pawn of other forces? do you have some sort of inside info to rely on?
I take her at face value, someone who misses her son, and who thinks that it was an unnecessary death, based as it was on Bush's LIES. Some groups may have pointed to her as an example to show us the need for solidarity, but I dont think she is working in concert with anyone....(as contrasted with Terri Schiavo's parents who were OBVIOUSLY being funded by pro-life groups)

She posts her blog or whatever on Michael Moore's site :shrug:

Also, I am not being down on her. I think she is serving a good cause. I just think her efforts are mostly ineffective in that the vast majority of Americans do not really take her seriously, which is sad.

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 01:26 PM

. . . To think that the little guy was only able to prosper because of the money manipulation engaged in by certain companies is myopic to say the least.

It was not just a few large companies, it was two of the largest and those two alone caused the market to deflate, which effects everyone whether they hold stock or not. I mean when Enron collapsed, pretty much all of Houston - from the coffee vendors on up - suffered. Then, when you add the IPO deflation (which included the deflating of other existing stocks whoch went along for the ride) the loss to the economy was well into the trillions of dollars and a huge loss of jobs began. I mean logic dictates that when a bog company closes in any town, people who worked there as well as the people who made livings supplying that company as well as the secondary places like restaurants, car dealerships, realtors, etc. - took a hit, which is what happened. So, yes, you did better under Clinton, but that better was fueled mostly by fraud and phantom IPO's. How you can say that is untrue is beyond me. Yet, you make it sound like the fraud and phantom IPO's were a tiny fragment of what the Clinton economy was built on.

As for the haves and have nots and the little and big guys - they all suffered and I have made no contrary statement as much as you would like to paint me into that corner.

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Back on point:

The Capitol's Tempest in a T-Shirt
Chief Apologizes for Ejections at State of Union

By Petula Dvorak
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 2, 2006; A01

Two T-shirts -- one black, the other heather gray -- spotted in the House gallery the night of the president's State of the Union speech caused a major ruckus on Capitol Hill.

It spilled into yesterday and came complete with impassioned political speeches, strident questions about rights being trampled, threats of lawsuits and a hat-in-hand apology from the U.S. Capitol Police chief.

The black shirt with white letters was worn by celebrated war protester Cindy Sheehan; the white letters read: "2,245 Dead. How Many More?" Beverly Young, the wife of a Republican congressman, sported a heather gray top with red, white and blue letters saying, "Support the Troops."

The wearers were hustled out of the House gallery by Capitol police who said the shirts amounted to protesting.

Late yesterday, after C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) had taken to the floor with an impassioned speech and his wife's T-shirt held aloft, Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer showed up at his office to apologize.

Gainer said he also would ask that charges against Sheehan -- she was arrested; Beverly Young left before it came to that -- be dropped. "It was," he said, "a good-faith mistake by officers operating under poor direction."

After a night of fingerprinting and booking and lockup, Sheehan departed the city. But Young had not, and her response as she enjoyed hugs from supporters yesterday after the apology was to call Gainer "an idiot." Witnesses said her words for him were much saltier the night before.

The drama in cotton unfolded when Sheehan, who received a spectator ticket from Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Calif.), took her seat and unzipped her jacket, revealing her antiwar message. Sheehan's son, Casey, was a soldier who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

A Capitol Police officer spotted the words, pointed to her and yelled, "Protester!" Sheehan said. "He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly . . . shoved me up the stairs," she said, adding that she was handcuffed, taken away, fingerprinted and booked.

That was before the speech.

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said.

She said she angrily challenged officers to explain what law she had violated, and they threatened arrest.

She said an officer mentioned that Sheehan was removed earlier and therefore "it was kind of only fair" that she be asked to leave, too.

"They publicly humiliated me," Young told reporters. "They insulted our troops."

When the congressman heard what had happened to his wife, he summoned Gainer to his office and called Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff.

"When your wife is insulted and embarrassed, you do tend to get a little offended," Young said yesterday, explaining his upbraiding of Gainer that night and his fervent speech on the House floor yesterday morning, when he waved the shirt and bellowed about his wife's ejection: "Shame! Shame!"

Young said he wouldn't be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer's officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.

Attorneys on Sheehan's side and attorneys for Young pored over case law yesterday, trying to find precedent for the ejection.

Gainer's office didn't respond to inquiries until after 5 p.m., when he walked into Young's office and apologized.

"We've asked the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charge against Sheehan," Gainer said later. "Our interactions both with her and Beverly Young were inappropriate."

He said he will clarify rules about disruption to remind officers that "simply having a T-shirt on" does not constitute lawbreaking.

After the mea culpa, Beverly Young, in her T-shirt again, was not forgiving, calling Gainer "an idiot" who should be replaced.

Her husband said he doesn't want Gainer fired, but when asked if he might take legal action, he said, "I'm taking it one step at a time."

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

BTFLCHLD

02-02-2006, 01:47 PM

Back on point yes, that was the point 5-6 posts ago :p

dissention

02-02-2006, 01:56 PM

Young said he wouldn't be so mad if it were just Sheehan. "I totally disagree with everything she stands for," he said. But by removing his wife, Gainer's officers clearly "acted precipitously," Young said.

Fukc you, you piece of ****.

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 02:03 PM

Fukc you, you piece of ****.

I know - and this man is making laws that are supposed to be applied in an even and fair manner to all people regardless of personal opinions.

Interestingly, it sounds like the wife was far more of a hellion than CS and the wife should have been arrested as well - if either should have at all.

SuzeQuze

02-02-2006, 02:10 PM

I know - and this man is making laws that are supposed to be applied in an even and fair manner to all people regardless of personal opinions.

Interestingly, it sounds like the wife was far more of a hellion than CS and the wife should have been arrested as well - if either should have at all.

Typical hypocritical BS. Cindy should be arrested while his wife shouldn't have because of what CS stands for? How about the crime at hand or lack thereof? Does that have any merit in the arrest? Idiot. And what does Sheehan stand for? She stands for mothers who have sons in Iraq who do not want to lose them. I can see why people would be against that. :rolleyes: :mad:

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 02:12 PM

Typical hypocritical BS. Cindy should be arrested while his wife shouldn't have because of what CS stands for? How about the crime at hand or lack thereof? Does that have any merit in the arrest? Idiot. And what does Sheehan stand for? She stands for mothers who have sons in Iraq who do not want to lose them. I can see why people would be against that. :rolleyes: :mad:

Hey now - any dissent in a time of war means you do not want the troops to succeed and is inherently Anti-American :rolleyes:

SuzeQuze

02-02-2006, 02:14 PM

Hey now - any dissent in a time of war means you do not want the troops to succeed and is inherently Anti-American :rolleyes:

Yep, and it is defeatist. Don't forget that!

SomeKindaMother

02-02-2006, 03:32 PM

...A Capitol Police officer spotted the words, pointed to her and yelled, "Protester!" Sheehan said. "He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly . . . shoved me up the stairs," she said, adding that she was handcuffed, taken away, fingerprinted and booked.

That was before the speech.

About 45 minutes into the speech, an officer asked Beverly Young to step outside, where he told her: "We consider you a protester" because of her shirt, she said.

Sooo...Who wants to bet that if Mrs. Sheehan hadn't been already 'asked to leave', then Mrs. Young would have never been either? Someone figured they'd better cover their butt once they finally noticed her shirt....45 minutes into the speech. I wonder why she wasn't intercepted before she got in?

As to her husbands comments....typical.

Kelly :)

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 03:41 PM

She posts her blog or whatever on Michael Moore's site :shrug:

Also, I am not being down on her. I think she is serving a good cause. I just think her efforts are mostly ineffective in that the vast majority of Americans do not really take her seriously, which is sad.

So Michael Moore is giving her a forum to post her blog? and that makes her what exactly? How does the mere fact that she uses his website to post her blog add up to her "being used?" Michael Moore certainly doesnt need Cindy to bring traffic to his site, it was there long before she came around.....and she could find her own site to blog from, true--but if she is offered free space to post, whats the big deal if she takes him up on it? Do you have reason to think that he somehow influences her or vice versa? I highly doubt it. I think it is just a case of like minds hooking up.

As for the majority of Americans not taking her seriously, Im not sure I see how you got there..........I certainly take her serious........and I dont think Im alone........

CelticGypsy

02-02-2006, 03:45 PM

what a "human-animal hybrid" looks like?????

<div align=center><img src="http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/l/7/bush_chimp.jpg"></div>

Damn, that really is scary aint it???

DAMN!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I love you for putting that up. I need something to piss off the hubby today. This should do it:p :lol: :lol:

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 03:52 PM

It was not just a few large companies, it was two of the largest and those two alone caused the market to deflate, which effects everyone whether they hold stock or not. I mean when Enron collapsed, pretty much all of Houston - from the coffee vendors on up - suffered. Then, when you add the IPO deflation (which included the deflating of other existing stocks whoch went along for the ride) the loss to the economy was well into the trillions of dollars and a huge loss of jobs began. I mean logic dictates that when a bog company closes in any town, people who worked there as well as the people who made livings supplying that company as well as the secondary places like restaurants, car dealerships, realtors, etc. - took a hit, which is what happened. So, yes, you did better under Clinton, but that better was fueled mostly by fraud and phantom IPO's. How you can say that is untrue is beyond me. Yet, you make it sound like the fraud and phantom IPO's were a tiny fragment of what the Clinton economy was built on.

As for the haves and have nots and the little and big guys - they all suffered and I have made no contrary statement as much as you would like to paint me into that corner.

You act like Houston was the snapshot for the entire US of A, and Im here to tell ya, It AINT! The Clinton economy had more going for it than just a few large corporations.....I believe he truly did understand economics better than any President, before or since. He worked very closely with Greenspan and I do think that their joint efforts kept us solvent.

My only point, contrary to what you assert, is that I believe we experience a good economy when the little guy experiences boom times. Big companies experience boom times no matter WHAT goes on for Joe America.......witness Exxon's recent profit headlines...
by the way, Im not painting you into anything. Im just saying that you look at certain indicators and you think America is doing well. My indicator is what it costs to LIVE and how much I EARN and how much TAXES I pay and how every year since Bush took office, prices go up, but services go down, and no one's gettin' fat, 'cept Mama Cass...........(to coin a phrase....)

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 03:54 PM

So Michael Moore is giving her a forum to post her blog? and that makes her what exactly? How does the mere fact that she uses his website to post her blog add up to her "being used?" Michael Moore certainly doesnt need Cindy to bring traffic to his site, it was there long before she came around.....and she could find her own site to blog from, true--but if she is offered free space to post, whats the big deal if she takes him up on it? Do you have reason to think that he somehow influences her or vice versa? I highly doubt it. I think it is just a case of like minds hooking up.

If you think they did not fund her, you are not living in reality and with money comes strings. That is how politics works. Certainly, now she can raise her own cash and I am sure she gets thousands for speaking engagements. But, clearly she is advised by people initially above her station in politics and is still being advised by them. But, if you refuse to believe that - whatever.

As for the majority of Americans not taking her seriously, Im not sure I see how you got there..........I certainly take her serious........and I dont think Im alone........

Well, here are the polls - which indicate a majority do not favorably look upon her :shrug: Also, your opinions are hardly mainstream :shrug:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Cindy%20Sheehan.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/20/222659.shtml

I could not find any 2006 ones. But, clearly at least 50% do not have a favorable opinion of her, which to me is sad.

Again, I am not saying she is incorrect or that I do not agree with her. In fact, I mostly agree with her, though I think pulling all US forces out when she first called for it would have been inhumane and caused more deaths in a situation we created. I do agree, however, that then we should have started a multi-phased withdrawal which could be complete by now.

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 04:00 PM

You act like Houston was the snapshot for the entire US of A, and Im here to tell ya, It AINT! The Clinton economy had more going for it than just a few large corporations.....I believe he truly did understand economics better than any President, before or since. He worked very closely with Greenspan and I do think that their joint efforts kept us solvent.

Are you unable to read ;) - Enron was in Houston, but it effected all 50 states, look at your example of California - you don't think people lost jobs because of that. Plus, MCI was in MS and FL - and all the IPO's, which I submit caused more carnage than the fraud, were all over the country, though Claifornia seemingly had a larger share. Again, when 10's of thousands of employees all over the country are no longer buying cars and cutting back on buying things, going out to dinner, etc. - that effects the retail/manufacturing sector and then those effected in those sectors are then forced to cut back.

As for Clinton, once again, when trillions of new wealth are created on an unstable platform, when that platform gives way, those trillions and more are lost and that is exactly what happened with the Clinton economy. Are you actually suggesting that that loss of trillions had no significant effect because the economy was strong enough to withstand that loss. If you think that, then I suggest Economics 101 :shrug:

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 04:01 PM

. . . My only point, contrary to what you assert, is that I believe we experience a good economy when the little guy experiences boom times. Big companies experience boom times no matter WHAT goes on for Joe America.......witness Exxon's recent profit headlines...
by the way, Im not painting you into anything. Im just saying that you look at certain indicators and you think America is doing well. My indicator is what it costs to LIVE and how much I EARN and how much TAXES I pay and how every year since Bush took office, prices go up, but services go down, and no one's gettin' fat, 'cept Mama Cass...........(to coin a phrase....)

Once again, the little guy got a boon in the Clinton economy mostly through phantom wealth. Can you not see that?

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 04:12 PM

Once again, the little guy got a boon in the Clinton economy mostly through phantom wealth. Can you not see that?
No....the money in my pocket and in my bank account was real enough. it bought my house which is also real. Housing markets were booming all OVER the Nation, and new housing starts too during the Clinton years. THAT is real. The only way that could fall is if people were stupid enough to buy into that creative financing with ARM's and whatnot. That could certainly pose a problem like you said. but that isnt an aspect of the Clinton economy. I maintain that under his watch, the lifestyle and living conditions for the majority of mainstream America was improved for the first real time since the second world war. We probably wont see that again in our lifetimes.

strandinthewind

02-02-2006, 04:16 PM

No....the money in my pocket and in my bank account was real enough. it bought my house which is also real. Housing markets were booming all OVER the Nation, and new housing starts too during the Clinton years. THAT is real. The only way that could fall is if people were stupid enough to buy into that creative financing with ARM's and whatnot. That could certainly pose a problem like you said. but that isnt an aspect of the Clinton economy. I maintain that under his watch, the lifestyle and living conditions for the majority of mainstream America was improved for the first real time since the second world war. We probably wont see that again in our lifetimes.

Ostrich - head - sand

Again, the money you got was made in a market based on phantom wealth - all of it and even if you never played the market, etc. That money was in some way touched, and I submit significantly, by the relatively instantaneous creation of trillions of dollars in new wealth. The economy must act as one - it cannot operate in a mutually exclusive fashion. In other words, when the markets lose something like a third or more of overal value, the economy is goinf to tank and that effects everyone.

But, if you want to think that staggering loss had no effect whatsoever on you, go right on ahead.

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 06:04 PM

Ostrich - head - sand

Again, the money you got was made in a market based on phantom wealth - all of it and even if you never played the market, etc. That money was in some way touched, and I submit significantly, by the relatively instantaneous creation of trillions of dollars in new wealth. The economy must act as one - it cannot operate in a mutually exclusive fashion. In other words, when the markets lose something like a third or more of overal value, the economy is goinf to tank and that effects everyone.

But, if you want to think that staggering loss had no effect whatsoever on you, go right on ahead.

There's nothing to think about~ I couldnt buy a house before that time, then I could. So, in the end, as far as I am concerned, the proof of how well an economy is doing is in how much actually makes it to the lowest levels. You can shout "phantom wealth" all you want, but what Enron and MCI were doing, I submit is nothing more than business as usual. they just got caught. so if there is "phantom wealth" being created, then it was always that way IMO. In any event, your so-called indicators only reflect the situation for the fat cats at the top, not the man on the street, and therefore, do NOT reflect the TRUE state of the economy IMO.

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 08:30 PM

The New Economy
New Economy Performance

PPI | Front & Center | October 18, 2004
Bush vs. Clinton: An Economic Performance Index
By Robert D. Atkinson and Julie Hutto

According to public opinion polls, most Americans feel the U.S. economy has been moving in the wrong direction. Indeed, an analysis of several important economic indicators shows they're right. In apples-to-apples comparisons of annualized data, these indicators of the country's economic well-being show mostly negative change during President George W. Bush's administration, compared to mostly positive change during President Bill Clinton's administration. Presidents obviously do not control everything that happens on their watch. But it is fair -- and entirely appropriate -- to judge how they play the economic hands they are dealt. Bush's economic policies have diverged dramatically from Clinton's, and PPI believes the disparities in economic outcomes under each administration are attributable at least in part to those policy choices.

This chart compares economic performance under the two administrations on a number of especially important fronts:

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg

[Download chart as PDF (http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Performance_Index.pdf)]

Methodology

This index provides a broad view of the economy over the last 12 years by focusing on: (1) things that effect people's everyday lives, such as health insurance and homeownership; (2) measures of economic outcomes and performance, rather than inputs or intermediate variables like inflation rates; (3) percentage changes, rather than total changes in such things as the number of jobs or the dollar value of per capita gross domestic product (GDP); and (4) average annual changes -- to account for the fact that Clinton was in office for eight years, and Bush has been in office for three and a half.1

For the most part, the numbers in the chart correspond to the annual compounded rates of progress for each indicator.2 The indicators have also been inverted in some cases, so that positive scores represent moves in the right direction, and negative scores represent moves in the wrong direction. For example, poverty declined by an average of 2.29 percent in the Clinton years (a move in the right direction), and it grew by 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years (a move in the wrong direction). To make the decline a positive number and the growth a negative number, we have changed the indicator to poverty reduction. Thus, Clinton's score is plus 2.29 percent, and Bush's is minus 4.33 percent.3

What the Indicators Mean:

Our Fiscal Future

* Debt Reduction Relative to GDP4
The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003).5 It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

* Trade Deficit Reduction Relative to GDP6
The trade deficit increased during both administrations. It increased by 0.52 percent of GDP per year under Clinton and by 0.37 percent per year under Bush.7 This is one of two indicators where economic performance under Bush appears to be better than it was during the Clinton administration. But underneath that data is a less flattering story for the Bush years. The trade deficit grew at the rate it did under Clinton for two main reasons: because the first Bush Administration's recession had cut imports to an artificially low level, and because the economy was expanding rapidly. People were confident, so they were buying a lot of imported goods. Businesses were growing, too, so U.S. factories were importing materials to manufacture their products. Throughout this period, export growth was very strong. In the Bush years, the trade deficit has been a product of a different, and less healthy dynamic: U.S. exports have dipped dramatically relative to imports.

Employment

* Jobs8
One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11

* Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs12
The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

* Jobs with Good Wages
The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14

* Americans with Health Insurance15
Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16

Incomes

* Productivity17
Productivity measures the amount of economic output that each hour of work produces. It is an important indicator of economic performance because high rates of productivity traditionally correlate with strong growth in living standards. The most accurate measure of productivity covers non-farm businesses. During the Clinton administration non-farm business productivity grew 1.83 percent per year. During the Bush administration, it grew by an average of 3.76 percent per year. This is one of the only bright spots in a period of otherwise lackluster economic performance, and it is a measure that suggests hope for the economy in the coming years. But it is important to note that the late 1990s saw both productivity growth and job growth, producing a double benefit for the economy. During the Bush years, productivity has grown while jobs have not. Whether the nation can maintain the robust levels of productivity growth we have enjoyed since 1996 depends in large part on whether we put in place the right policies, including investments in research and development, and the skills of the workforce; promotion of the digital economy, including high-speed broadband deployment; and fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low.18

* Per Capita GDP19
Simply comparing the annual growth of GDP under each administration would be misleading, because the population continues to grow. Per capita GDP -- in other words, how much output there is each year relative to the total population -- is a more accurate measure. While per capita GDP rose 2.42 percent under Clinton, it has risen just 1.62 percent per year during the Bush presidency. In large part, this is because fewer people are working.

* Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

* Poverty Reduction21
Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.

* Homeownership22
No economic indicator can embody the American dream in quite the same way as homeownership. Indeed, one of the successes that President Bush frequently points to under his watch is the increase in homeownership. But while the home ownership rate has increased 0.37 percent per year during the Bush administration, that is a slowdown compared to the average increases of 1.94 percent during the Clinton administration.

Endnotes:

1 Most of the indicators in this index do not include 2004 data, since the data are not yet available. The three exceptions are in the number of jobs, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs, and per capita GDP.

2 The indicators for jobs with good wages and the ratio of the trade deficit to GDP are not annualized in the same way as the others. (See explanations below.)

3 To determine the average annual growth in each indicator, PPI first calculated percentage change from 1992 to 2000 for Clinton and for 2000 to 2003 for Bush and then derived the percentage change per year on a compounded rate basis.

4 National debt figures are from the Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014," January 26, 2004: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11. GDP numbers are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

5 This measure of debt is the most accurate figure because it is not skewed by government programs with their own sources of funding, such as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

6 U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, "U.S. Trade in Goods and Services - Balance of Payments (BOP) basis",
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/
statistics/historical/gands.pdf

7 Average yearly change in the trade deficit divided by average GDP in each administration.

8 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Current Employment Statistics,
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

9 The index includes the most recent jobs numbers available (September 2004) from BLS.

10 "Strengthening America's Economy: The President's Jobs and Growth Proposals," Council of Economic Advisers, February 4, 2003,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/
cea_growth_package_macroeconomic_effects.pdf

11 PPI and others have estimated that approximately 1.2 million jobs have been lost due to negative trends in exports combined with rapid growth in imports of labor-intensive products. See Robert D. Atkinson, "Understanding the Offshoring Challenge," Progressive Policy Institute, May 2004:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?
knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=123&contentID=252655

12 BLS, Current Population Survey (series reports)

13 Like the Trade Deficit/GDP ratio, the job quality indicator for wages does not simply equal average yearly change. Rather, it is a weighted index based on income quintiles, which compares the change in the income structure of job growth under Clinton and Bush. The analysis uses five income brackets based on the average salary of an occupation at the beginning of each administration, such that in the base year each income quintile represents 20 percent of total jobs. At the end of each administration, the percent of jobs in each quintile changed as people moved from lower-paid jobs to higher-paid jobs or vice versa. (For the Clinton years, PPI's analysis is based on figures from Erik Olin Wright and Rachel E. Dwyer, "The patterns of job expansions in the USA: a comparison of the 1960s and 1990s," Socio-Economic Review, 2003, v. 1, p. 289-325.) PPI then weighted the quintiles by multiplying the percentage point change in the highest quintile by 2, the second highest quintile by 1, the second lowest quintile by -1, and the lowest quintile by -2. The multiplier for the middle quintile was a neutralizing zero. These weighted growth figures were then summed to calculate a total index for Clinton and for Bush.

14 BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics. These numbers only include jobs that fall into a BLS occupational category.

15 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Health Insurance Tables, Table HI-1, "Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1987 to 2003,"
http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html

16 Ibid.

17 BLS, Productivity and Costs,
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/prod_nr.htm

18 Robert D. Atkinson, "The Innovation Economy: A New Vision for Growth in the 21st Century," Progressive Policy Institute, October 20, 2003,
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?
contentid=252104&knlgAreaID=107&subsecid=123

19 BEA, National Economic Accounts, NIPA Table 7.1, "Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained dollars."

20 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, Table H-6 "All Races by Median and Mean Income: 1975-2003,
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h06ar.html

21 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Table B-1: "Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2003," Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, p40,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

22 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Annual Statistics (1995, 2000, and 2003), Table 9: "Estimates for the Total Housing Inventory for the United States."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hvs.html

Robert D. Atkinson is vice president of PPI and director of its Technology & New Economy Project. Julie Hutto is a policy assistant at the Progressive Policy Institute.

DavidMn

02-02-2006, 08:53 PM

I know I'm a bit late here, but I fail to understand why this woman is perceived to be such a threat.:confused:

irishgrl

02-02-2006, 08:54 PM

Enron: Crouching Profits, Hidden Debt
What happened and what does government have to do with it?

Whether the Enron situation turns out to be a political scandal or just a case of very bad decisions by a very big company remains to be seen. As Congress and other government agencies investigate the sudden failure of the former seventh largest company in the nation, here are the basics you need to know about Enron.

What did Enron make?
Enron didn't really "make" anything. Enron acted as the "middleman" in large natural gas and electricity deals. Enron always admitted it was hard to define their "business" in one sentence, but they finally came up with: "we make commodity markets so that we can deliver physical commodities to our customers at a predictable price." See? Since Enron did not really produce a product, the failure of the once-seventh largest company in America will not really hurt the economy. [Enron's Products & Services]

Why did Enron fail?
In November 2001 it became known that since 1997, Enron (ENE-NYSE) had left many of its debts "off the books" and had overstated profits by some $400 million in its annual reports. Based on those falsified reports, investors and thousands of Enron employees decided to buy or hold Enron stock and options. Shortly after the disclosure of the misrepresented profits, Enron's independent auditors, Big-Five accounting giant Arthur Andersen, admitted it had incorrectly approved Enron's flawed profit statements and had even destroyed documents related to Enron -- a cardinal sin in the accounting business. With confidence in the company shattered, Wall Street quickly soured on Enron. Shares of Enron plummeted from almost $90 per share to mere pennies. On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for protection in the largest Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in U.S. history. Needless to say, Arthur Andersen's future in the auditing business is now none to bright, either. [Current Enron stock price]

Who asked the government to help Enron?
Robert E. Rubin, Treasury Secretary under former President Clinton, called the Treasury and asked undersecretary for domestic finance Peter Fisher "what he thought of the idea" of the U.S. Treasury persuading bond-rating agencies to hold off reducing the freefalling Enron's credit rating. This sounded like a good idea to Rubin, who was acting in his new capacity as CEO of Citigroup, one of Enron's top creditors. Fisher did not think much at all of the idea and the Treasury took no action to "help" Enron.

On the same day Enron filed for bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan revealed that they had all received calls from Enron's CEO, Kenneth L. Lay asking for assistance during Enron's downward spiral. Attorney General John Ashcroft, having received contributions from Enron during his 2000 campaign for Senate, recused himself from the government's criminal investigation. Lay was also the largest individual contributor to President Bush's presidential campaign.

On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D.-Connecticut), stated he had seen no evidence that any member of the Bush administration had taken any action to aid Enron.

How is government involved in the Enron debacle?
Congress is more than a little concerned with both the circumstances and effects of Enron's fall. Thousands of Enron employees are now unemployed. Made up of nothing but 401(k) accounts filled with of now-nearly worthless Enron stock, their pensions, like their jobs, are gone.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating allegations that Enron's executives, based on insider knowledge of the company's fatal flaws, sold their stock before the price dropped. If that proves to be true, "there's going to be heck to pay," said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware).

• President Bush has appointed a task force to study changing the 401(k) laws to protect pensioners in bankruptcy cases, but those changes would come too late for Enron's former employees.

• Enron executives attended many meetings of Vice President Chaney's energy task force that produced President Bush's National Energy Policy adopted last summer. Congress is now considering filing a suit forcing Cheney to turn over records of those meetings. The White House has so far refused to deliver the records voluntarily.

• The House Energy and Commerce Committee has asked Arthur Andersen to turn over hundreds of documents from the firm's audits of Enron. The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations went beyond asking and issued 51 subpoenas to Enron and Andersen demanding the documents.

• Despite Enron's sizable contributions to President Bush's campaign, there is no evidence that the Bush administration intervened to help Enron after it's financial problems became known.

link (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm)

gldstwmn

02-02-2006, 11:41 PM

Since Enron did not really produce a product, the failure of the once-seventh largest company in America will not really hurt the economy.

Nicely done. :thumbsup:

SomeKindaMother

02-03-2006, 10:12 AM

• Despite Enron's sizable contributions to President Bush's campaign, there is no evidence that the Bush administration intervened to help Enron after it's financial problems became known.

link (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm)

Have you watched 'Bush Family Fortunes'? It was shown on FSTV. (We got 'tv' while our hurricane family was with us, and we've kept it since they left.) Evidently both bushes spoke on videos made for certain retiring Enron executives. I think even they knew better than to intervene on that one.

Kelly :)

strandinthewind

02-03-2006, 10:37 AM

There's nothing to think about~ I couldnt buy a house before that time, then I could. So, in the end, as far as I am concerned, the proof of how well an economy is doing is in how much actually makes it to the lowest levels. You can shout "phantom wealth" all you want, but what Enron and MCI were doing, I submit is nothing more than business as usual. they just got caught. so if there is "phantom wealth" being created, then it was always that way IMO. In any event, your so-called indicators only reflect the situation for the fat cats at the top, not the man on the street, and therefore, do NOT reflect the TRUE state of the economy IMO.

Again, that economy was the source of your money and that economy was built on fraud and phantom wealth. That you profited from it cannot erase that. But, you will never admit that, though it is very true. As for business as usual - I agree, which is another insult to Clinton and in many ways suggests if not dictates that Clinton had nothing to do with it as it was "business as usual" :shrug:

In any event, I am done with this argument.

irishgrl

02-03-2006, 10:58 AM

So, Enron did not almost bankrupt California?

Also, the loss of the spending generated by the market wealth created by Enron coupled with all the other stuff mentioned earlier had no effect whatsoever on the national economy. That is just incorrect.

You are confusing two different events. Enron got RICH by gouging CA, but its bankruptcy happened AFTER that, and thus you cannot equate Enron's gouging of CA with the National Economy. TSK TSK.

btw: your perspective of Enron's effect on the economy is AGAIN, tainted because you only see things from the TOP END. Please refer to the Public Policy Institute Graph in my previous post for TRUE economic indicators.
As the professor clearly states,
This index provides a broad view of the economy over the last 12 years by focusing on: (1) things that effect people's everyday lives, such as health insurance and homeownership; (2) measures of economic outcomes and performance, rather than inputs or intermediate variables like inflation rates; (3) percentage changes, rather than total changes in such things as the number of jobs or the dollar value of per capita gross domestic product (GDP)

The fact that those poor folks at Enron or MCI who once played the stock market and now cant because their savings evaporated overnight is a MOOT POINT. The Stock Market ALREADY GOT THEIR MONEY!!! Just because they cant keep investing is not a reason for the stock market to fumble :shrug:
Cant you see that playing the stock market (or not) is not what everyday folks CARE ABOUT?
Puh LEEZ.:rolleyes:

strandinthewind

02-03-2006, 11:32 AM

. . . The fact that those poor folks at Enron or MCI who once played the stock market and now cant because their savings evaporated overnight is a MOOT POINT. The Stock Market ALREADY GOT THEIR MONEY!!! Just because they cant keep investing is not a reason for the stock market to fumble :shrug:
Cant you see that playing the stock market (or not) is not what everyday folks CARE ABOUT?
Puh LEEZ.:rolleyes:

Your views are incorrect, unlearned, and not based in reality - they just sound like sour grapes. Surely, you are smart enough to realize that more than just people that invest in the market lost money when the market crashed. If you cannot see that, then you have no real grasp on how the economy works and any further discussion is worthless. Again, when these companies (and there were like 500+) crashed, yes, the people who held stock in them lost that wealth, which you seemingly gloat over, which is pathetic IMO. But, my larger point is the people these stockholders and companies did business with also lost revenue and therefore wealth. Plus, the employees of these companies also lost their jobs, which meant that everyone they did business with lost revenue and therefore wealth - and so on down the chain. You seem to think the collapse of these companies effected only the elite that you seemingly hate so much, which again is pathetic. It did not. It effected everyone and staggeringly so. Again, if the failure of all of these companies did not crash the market, then what did? Please thrill me with your acumen.

In any event, the last word is for you because you have no concept on the way a large economy works and I am tired of beating my head against a wall trying to explain it to you. I suggest you take Economics 101.

SuzeQuze

02-03-2006, 11:43 AM

BTFLCHLD

02-03-2006, 11:44 AM

hate seeing people's thoughts and opinions called pathetic :D thankyou suze!

strandinthewind

02-03-2006, 11:53 AM

Can we argue points without making things personal? Stick to the subject at hand and the facts without making judgements about people! I know, it isn't easy but its worth it. I hate seeing people's thoughts and opinions called pathetic. If people can't be nicer around here then nice people are going to keep leaving. :(

Well, when they are that I think it is fair to say so. Note - I did not call Mary pathetic, which is my def. of a personal attack. But, I will remove the entire post if you like - or you may do so if you like.

SuzeQuze

02-03-2006, 12:10 PM

Well, when they are that I think it is fair to say so. Note - I did not call Mary pathetic, which is my def. of a personal attack. But, I will remove the entire post if you like - or you may do so if you like.

No, it isn't fair. Her opinions are not inherently pathetic. That is your perception of them. She's entitled to her opinions without them being called pathetic, just as you are.

irishgrl

02-03-2006, 12:11 PM

Your views are incorrect, unlearned, and not based in reality - they just sound like sour grapes. Surely, you are smart enough to realize that more than just people that invest in the market lost money when the market crashed. If you cannot see that, then you have no real grasp on how the economy works and any further discussion is worthless. Again, when these companies (and there were like 500+) crashed, yes, the people who held stock in them lost that wealth, which you seemingly gloat over, which is pathetic IMO. But, my larger point is the people these stockholders and companies did business with also lost revenue and therefore wealth. Plus, the employees of these companies also lost their jobs, which meant that everyone they did business with lost revenue and therefore wealth - and so on down the chain. You seem to think the collapse of these companies effected only the elite that you seemingly hate so much, which again is pathetic. It did not. It effected everyone and staggeringly so. Again, if the failure of all of these companies did not crash the market, then what did? Please thrill me with your acumen.

In any event, the last word is for you because you have no concept on the way a large economy works and I am tired of beating my head against a wall trying to explain it to you. I suggest you take Economics 101.

I know our economy is in the dumpster, but I believe it has more to do with bad policy decisions by the administration rather than the collapse of Enron or MCI. You're entitled to your opinion but I have yet to see you back it up with anything more than derrogatory remarks about me. At least I have found facts/figures to base my opinion on. If you can show me these "staggering effects" to our economy from the loss of Enron or MCI's contribution, then I'll take a look at it.
btw: I never gloated over the misfortunes of the Enron Employees. I am very pissed at the fact that these poor folks, through no fault of their own were victimized in such a long term way. I absolutely HATE the way big business is conducted. And as for your constant blame of Clinton, I attribute that to your knee jerk reaction to ALWAYS find fault with him no matter what is going on NOW or WHO is really at fault.

EDIT: I didnt read what Suze wrote, my apologies for being late in attending to this, Ive taken out the offending language.

strandinthewind

02-03-2006, 12:15 PM

No, it isn't fair. Her opinions are not inherently pathetic. That is your perception of them. She's entitled to her opinions without them being called pathetic, just as you are.

So, if I had said they were "patently incorrect" or "not grounded in fact" - etc. that would be okay? So, I am never allowed to use the word pathetic when describing an opinion - come on - that is pathetic ;)

BTW - Mary just called me (as in the past) an elitist and this time one full of "hot air" - and I am not offended, but certainly, she should be called out for this as well :wavey:

SuzeQuze

02-03-2006, 12:19 PM

strandinthewind

02-03-2006, 12:23 PM

No kidding. I happened to use your word "pathetic". I was looking for the names Mary used but couldn't find them. Now, I didn't say anyone was offended. I just asked that you not make the arguments personal, I meant both of you. I'm asking you please to not make these things personal and just stay on topic. That is all.

Again, I think calling someone's argument pathetic is not a personal attack because I am not calling them pathetic. But, I will abide.

SuzeQuze

02-03-2006, 12:57 PM

Again, I think calling someone's argument pathetic is not a personal attack because I am not calling them pathetic. But, I will abide.

I know and I didn't say it was an "attack". This is a guideline that we have, not to make things personal as copied here: "If you post something you feel is potentially controversial, or if you are responding to a potentially controversial post, it is your responsibility to keep the focus on the subject at hand. Don’t let your arguments get personal. Any disagreements, past or present, should be dealt with privately, not on The Ledge. " Emphasis mine.

Take a look at the guidelines if you want a refresh: http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_new_faq_item.

I apologize for making you and Mary the example when many many people do this. I just wanted to address it because people keep leaving the board because of nastiness. I am hoping everyone can be more respectful of one another.

Brwn_eyes0511

02-03-2006, 01:02 PM

when many many people do this.

:xoxo:

and YES I know I'm one of them sometimes...but still! Great point Suze. :xoxo:

seeker007nmss

02-03-2006, 04:21 PM

That's it! Time for a kitty doing Stevie impersonation (without top hat though)

<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/imageskmir.jpg" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket">

gldstwmn

02-03-2006, 11:44 PM

A few of us really enjoy the literary equivalent of mud wrestling on the political threads. We have a long history of it. Mary, Strandie and Diss all know the ropes. And to quote (gasp) Bill O'Reilly, no harm, no foul. Ugh, I can't believe I just typed that. :shocked:

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 12:15 PM

I actually thought that some nice people left because they got crushes on someone here, but then that someone was mean to them.

I think "being mean to them" is putting it mildly. I would've come out and straight up said that guy's a dick. But I guess I just did. :shocked: :lol:

Or because they are religious and they didn't like seeing their religion being argued against. Those reasons are just two that I know of.

Yep. It's still a free country. Or a mirage thereof. :laugh: Unfortunately, no one ever brought any of this to my attention. I have to hear about it all second and third hand. People go sulking off like they've been wronged. How would I know they feel that way if they don't tell me? :confused:
Sorry Amber, this isn't really directed at you. Your musings just inspired a stream of conciousness rambling from me. Would you like to be my muse? :lol:

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 12:18 PM

. . . straight up said that guy's a dick . . . .

That was fabulous!!!!!

Marry me :angel:

amber

02-04-2006, 12:42 PM

I think "being mean to them" is putting it mildly. I would've come out and straight up said that guy's a dick. But I guess I just did. :shocked: :lol:

Yep. It's still a free country. Or a mirage thereof. :laugh: Unfortunately, no one ever brought any of this to my attention. I have to hear about it all second and third hand. People go sulking off like they've been wronged. How would I know they feel that way if they don't tell me? :confused:
Sorry Amber, this isn't really directed at you. Your musings just inspired a stream of conciousness rambling from me. Would you like to be my muse? :lol:

:laugh:

Well, my Muse calendar is pretty booked up....how about Monday? $25/hr, bring cash.

The crush thing I was talking about didn't involve any guys.

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 01:15 PM

:laugh:

Well, my Muse calendar is pretty booked up....how about Monday? $25/hr, bring cash.

The crush thing I was talking about didn't involve any guys.

Ha! It just goes to show how many ways there are to perceive things. :laugh:
See you Monday. ;)

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 01:15 PM

That was fabulous!!!!!

Marry me :angel:

Oh my dear...of course. But it will take us years to negotiate the contract. :lol:

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:18 PM

Oh my dear...of course. But it will take us years to negotiate the contract. :lol:

I know - it will be years later and I am on the oxygen tank, which by contract you have to pay for :laugh:

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:20 PM

Oh my dear...of course. But it will take us years to negotiate the contract. :lol:Yeah, but he's a Lawyer, so it probably wouldnt take too long.:lol:

amber

02-04-2006, 01:21 PM

Yeah, but he's a Lawyer, so it probably wouldnt take too long.:lol:

You don't know these two. Their grandchildren will still be negotiating their contract. :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:23 PM

You don't know these two. Their grandchildren will still be negotiating their contract. :laugh:

and it will entail a fancy suite in every fab. hotel in the Nothern Hemisphere - and over room service!!

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:25 PM

and it will entail a fancy suite in every fab. hotel in the Nothern Hemisphere - and over room service!!Speaking of that, I know youve stayed at the Waldorf in NY. How awesome is it really? and where in NYC is it?

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:27 PM

Speaking of that, I know youve stayed at the Waldorf in NY. How awesome is it really? and where in NYC is it?

Here is its webpage.

http://www.hilton.com/en/hi/waldorf/index.jhtml?adId=Google,waldorf,30

It easily is the nicest place I have ever stayed. If you can, stay in The Towers, which inside of, but a sep. hotel from the Waldorf Astoria, which is very nice as well.

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:30 PM

Here is its webpage.

http://www.hilton.com/en/hi/waldorf/index.jhtml?adId=Google,waldorf,30

It easily is the nicest place I have ever stayed. If you can, stay in The Towers, which inside of, but a sep. hotel from the Waldorf Astoria, which is very nice as well.Eh, Motel 6 for me..;)

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 01:34 PM

I know - it will be years later and I am on the oxygen tank, which by contract you have to pay for :laugh:

I have a big heart so I will pay for your oxygen tank. You, of course will be financing the shopping trips to Saks. :)

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 01:35 PM

Yeah, but he's a Lawyer, so it probably wouldnt take too long.:lol:

Oh honey, please don't tell my you think I'm going to settle. :lol:

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 01:36 PM

and it will entail a fancy suite in every fab. hotel in the Nothern Hemisphere - and over room service!!

I like my creme brulee just the way the Ritz makes it and at one in the morning. :]

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:39 PM

I like my creme brulee just the way the Ritz makes it and at one in the morning. :]You can get creme brulee at 1 A.M?

amber

02-04-2006, 01:41 PM

and it will entail a fancy suite in every fab. hotel in the Nothern Hemisphere - and over room service!!

I volunteer to have your guy's grandchildren! :wavey:

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:41 PM

I like my creme brulee just the way the Ritz makes it and at one in the morning. :]

I know - that was WAY decadent - even for us :laugh:

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:45 PM

I know - that was WAY decadent - even for us :laugh:I know you're quite the food connisseur, so I looked up the most expensive resturant in the USA and its a placce called MASA in NYC.Ever heard of it?

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:52 PM

I know you're quite the food connisseur, so I looked up the most expensive resturant in the USA and its a placce called MASA in NYC.Ever heard of it?

Yes. It is good if you like sushi and Japanese food. IMO Per Se is better.

Here are their reviews:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/reviews/restaurant/n_10201/

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/reviews/restaurant/9333/

IMO - places like this are a fun treat, but I am never too enthralled with over the top food. I must say though that the best deal in NYC for lunch is the $20.06 price fixed menu at Jean Georges - http://www.newyorkmetro.com/listings/restaurant/jean-georges/

And - one of my favorite things is the Sunday brunch at Cafe Botanica in the Essex House.

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:54 PM

Yes. It is good if you like sushi and Japanese food. IMO Per Se is better.

Here are their reviews:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/reviews/restaurant/n_10201/

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/reviews/restaurant/9333/

IMO - places like this are a fun treat, but I am never too enthralled with over the top food. I must say though that the best deal in NYC for lunch is the $20.06 price fixed menu at Jean Georges - http://www.newyorkmetro.com/listings/restaurant/jean-georges/

And - one of my favorite things is the Sunday brunch at Cafe Botanica in the Essex House.Ever been to Peter Luger's? I FRIGGIN love a good steak

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 01:57 PM

Ever been to Peter Luger's? I FRIGGIN love a good steak

I have not been there - but, I have to say Logan's Roadhouse makes one hell of a steak for about $15.00 :nod:

DavidMn

02-04-2006, 01:59 PM

I have not been there - but, I have to say Logan's Roadhouse makes one hell of a steak for about $15.00 :nod:Is that in NYC also? I love talking food. I'd love to do more eating out at nice places. BTW, if you're ever in Minneapolis, I'll take you to Manny's in the Hyatt downtown. Hows that?

gldstwmn

02-04-2006, 02:06 PM

And - one of my favorite things is the Sunday brunch at Cafe Botanica in the Essex House.

Fantastic. Everything about it was just fantastic.

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 02:40 PM

Is that in NYC also? I love talking food. I'd love to do more eating out at nice places.

Logan's is a chain. It is the kind of place you throw the peanut shells on the ground :laugh: But, it is very good.

I love eating out, but it can be expensive even if you do only moderate places.

BTW, if you're ever in Minneapolis, I'll take you to Manny's in the Hyatt downtown. Hows that?

You got a deal there!!!!!!!!

strandinthewind

02-04-2006, 02:48 PM

Fantastic. Everything about it was just fantastic.

I mean the park and the horses and carriages are directly across the street and can be enjoyed through those HUGE windows. The buffet is fab. and if you don't want just that, you can order off the menu. The Essex House itself is an art deco masterpiece. Interestingly, it is no longer a Starwood property, so we will see what will happen to that rest.

SuzeQuze

02-05-2006, 11:45 AM

I think "being mean to them" is putting it mildly. I would've come out and straight up said that guy's a dick. But I guess I just did. :shocked: :lol:

Yep. It's still a free country. Or a mirage thereof. :laugh: Unfortunately, no one ever brought any of this to my attention. I have to hear about it all second and third hand. People go sulking off like they've been wronged. How would I know they feel that way if they don't tell me? :confused:
Sorry Amber, this isn't really directed at you. Your musings just inspired a stream of conciousness rambling from me. Would you like to be my muse? :lol:

Its interesting that Amber's original post has been deleted. All I wanted to express was that people should think about what they are posting and be respectful of one another! But perhaps that is an old fashioned notion. Silly me.

gldstwmn

02-05-2006, 02:39 PM

Its interesting that Amber's original post has been deleted. All I wanted to express was that people should think about what they are posting and be respectful of one another! But perhaps that is an old fashioned notion. Silly me.

I don't want to speak for Jason and Mary but I look at the way they argue kind of in the same light as couples who like to fight before they have wild, passionate sex (not that Jason and Mary are having wild, passionate sex- well at least not with each other :laugh: ). It gets their motors running, so to speak. They aren't out to harm one another. And because I'm familiar with both of them and they post a lot, I know that. Neither one of them has ever complained to me about the other. Now, if they did, that would certainly be another thing. But if we take a "one size fits all" approach and rules are rules, then look at all of the fun I would deprive them of. :laugh:

SuzeQuze

02-06-2006, 08:19 AM

I don't want to speak for Jason and Mary but I look at the way they argue kind of in the same light as couples who like to fight before they have wild, passionate sex (not that Jason and Mary are having wild, passionate sex- well at least not with each other :laugh: ). It gets their motors running, so to speak. They aren't out to harm one another. And because I'm familiar with both of them and they post a lot, I know that. Neither one of them has ever complained to me about the other. Now, if they did, that would certainly be another thing. But if we take a "one size fits all" approach and rules are rules, then look at all of the fun I would deprive them of. :laugh:

Well that's a good point. Perhaps it would be better for me to just not read it if it makes me cringe! I just felt that since Jason and Mary have thick skins it might be a good time to point out what I felt was disrespectful. Also that it seemed to be a trend around here and that maybe people should give a little more thought to their posts. That is all.

irishgrl

02-06-2006, 10:57 AM

So, if I had said they were "patently incorrect" or "not grounded in fact" - etc. that would be okay? So, I am never allowed to use the word pathetic when describing an opinion - come on - that is pathetic ;)

BTW - Mary just called me (as in the past) an elitist and this time one full of "hot air" - and I am not offended, but certainly, she should be called out for this as well :wavey:

I realize this is late after the fact, but I have not had access to the internet, and I wanted to respond to these statements.

Jason, apparently you didnt take the time to READ the material I posted from the Public Policy Institute regarding economic indicators. The fact that you keep harping on the number of people who cant play the stock market because of Enron/MCI's skullduggery shows ME that you have absolutely NO concept of the realities of life for anyone making less than 50K per year.

As the graph and explanatory paragraphs pointed out, there are many things during a President's term that he cannot control. However there are many more that he DOES have control over and it is these policy decisions that affect the quality of life for the regular guy on the street. You go to a cafe in smalltown USA, you're going to hear about the lack of decent work, the lack of decent healthcare, the price of food/gas/childcare/insurance/mortgage payments etc. You are not usually going to hear a spirited discussion about the collapse of Enron/MCI and how the stock market is going to suffer. My whole premise regarding the state of the economy looked at everyday concerns. Yours looked at concerns of people with considerably more discretionary income. That is what I meant by you always looking at things from the TOP END. As my second supporting post pointed out, the collapse of Enron et al did NOT affect the economy to the degree you seem to think it did (if at ALL). Thats not to say that our economy isnt in trouble, merely that I think the cause has more to do with the current administrations PRIORITIES than it does with the exposure of corruption in our corporations.

Btw, I would appreciate an explanation of this "phantom wealth" phenomenon you keep harping on. Please explain to me how the fact that a few thousand employees losing their savings/pensions created the money I used to buy my home. That should be interesting. I think I'll call it the "phantom theory".

irishgrl

02-06-2006, 11:04 AM

Well that's a good point. Perhaps it would be better for me to just not read it if it makes me cringe! I just felt that since Jason and Mary have thick skins it might be a good time to point out what I felt was disrespectful. Also that it seemed to be a trend around here and that maybe people should give a little more thought to their posts. That is all.

I dont usually engage in name calling (or curse words LOL!) I try to get my point across without resorting to that. But I did point out early on that Jason was being derrogatory without actually providing any substance to support his claims. I did delete the one comment I made--but I'll still be thinkin it Jason my boy! :nod: :eek: :lol:

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 11:32 AM

But if we take a "one size fits all" approach and rules are rules, then look at all of the fun I would deprive them of. :laugh: so....what youre saying is that the 'rules' here at the ledge do not apply to everyone? if that is the case, who then determines what rules are applied to which members? im curious.

strandinthewind

02-06-2006, 11:48 AM

I realize this is late after the fact, but I have not had access to the internet, and I wanted to respond to these statements.

Jason, apparently you didnt take the time to READ the material I posted from the Public Policy Institute regarding economic indicators. The fact that you keep harping on the number of people who cant play the stock market because of Enron/MCI's skullduggery shows ME that you have absolutely NO concept of the realities of life for anyone making less than 50K per year.

As the graph and explanatory paragraphs pointed out, there are many things during a President's term that he cannot control. However there are many more that he DOES have control over and it is these policy decisions that affect the quality of life for the regular guy on the street. You go to a cafe in smalltown USA, you're going to hear about the lack of decent work, the lack of decent healthcare, the price of food/gas/childcare/insurance/mortgage payments etc. You are not usually going to hear a spirited discussion about the collapse of Enron/MCI and how the stock market is going to suffer. My whole premise regarding the state of the economy looked at everyday concerns. Yours looked at concerns of people with considerably more discretionary income. That is what I meant by you always looking at things from the TOP END. As my second supporting post pointed out, the collapse of Enron et al did NOT affect the economy to the degree you seem to think it did (if at ALL). Thats not to say that our economy isnt in trouble, merely that I think the cause has more to do with the current administrations PRIORITIES than it does with the exposure of corruption in our corporations.

Btw, I would appreciate an explanation of this "phantom wealth" phenomenon you keep harping on. Please explain to me how the fact that a few thousand employees losing their savings/pensions created the money I used to buy my home. That should be interesting. I think I'll call it the "phantom theory".

You will get no more response from me as I am wasting my time doing so and am missing out on being harsh, cruel, and judgemental on the poor.

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 11:53 AM

so....what youre saying is that the 'rules' here at the ledge do not apply to everyone? if that is the case, who then determines what rules are applied to which members? im curious.

Everyone has tried to give you a rational response to this question. I don't know what else to tell you. If you continue to harp on this subject, I'm just going to let you know right now that I consider it baiting. You've been going on about this for almost a good two months that I know of. Move on from this subject please or take it off the public forums. It's disruptive.

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 12:23 PM

Everyone has tried to give you a rational response to this question. I don't know what else to tell you. If you continue to harp on this subject, I'm just going to let you know right now that I consider it baiting. You've been going on about this for almost a good two months that I know of. Move on from this subject please or take it off the public forums. It's disruptive. :thumbsup: thanks!

amber

02-06-2006, 12:27 PM

:thumbsup: thanks!
do you know where the answer was? I searched GDW's posts for a few pages for the answer, but didn't see it. On the face of the situation it seems unfair to me, too, if someone says the rules are flexible depending on who is talking, so I want to see the answer. :)

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 12:31 PM

do you know where the answer was? I searched GDW's posts for a few pages for the answer, but didn't see it. On the face of the situation it seems unfair to me, too, if someone says the rules are flexible depending on who is talking, so I want to see the answer. :) apparently there isnt one amber...you will note my original post of the question was deleted by me 1 minute after i posted it as i had a feeling my question based on my curiousity would be misconstrued...and its been 'lingering for two months' now as it never has been answered...curiousity killed the cat...too bad :rolleyes:

amber

02-06-2006, 12:36 PM

apparently there isnt one amber...you will note my original post of the question was deleted by me 1 minute after i posted it as i had a feeling my question based on my curiousity would be misconstrued...and its been 'lingering for two months' now as it never has been answered...curiousity killed the cat...too bad :rolleyes:
What? Are you sure? :confused: It's not like GDW to say she answered when she really didn't. I'll search through her posts when I have more time. :)

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 12:37 PM

I'll search through her posts when I have more time. :) good luck :woohoo:

irishgrl

02-06-2006, 12:40 PM

You will get no more response from me as I am wasting my time doing so and am missing out on being harsh, cruel, and judgemental on the poor.

And they've missed you SO.

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 12:45 PM

What? Are you sure? :confused: It's not like GDW to say she answered when she really didn't. I'll search through her posts when I have more time. :)

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=24555

DavidMn

02-06-2006, 12:46 PM

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=24555How was your weekend?:wavey:

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 12:50 PM

How was your weekend?:wavey:

Pretty good. I did open house on Satruday with one of my realtors and got a good lead out of that. Then I went and met with one of my clients who is the sweetest lady. Yesterday I took the day off.
How about you? Anything hapeening on the job front?

DavidMn

02-06-2006, 12:53 PM

Pretty good. I did open house on Satruday with one of my realtors and got a good lead out of that. Then I went and met with one of my clients who is the sweetest lady. Yesterday I took the day off.
How about you? Anything hapeening on the job front?Yes, I may have something soon. I pm'ed you btw.:)

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 12:56 PM

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=24555

There's more here:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=490912#post490912

And there have been some pm's which I can't post on the board. And that's about as far as I'm going to go with this. :)

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 12:58 PM

do you know where the answer was? hmmm i looked too...but i don't recall asking this specific question before "who then determines what rules are applied to which members?" but apparently its been answered :confused:

when i have time i will see what i can come up with...there must be a thread/post here somewhere :rolleyes:

[edit]omg ive been going on about this for months!!! months i tell ya!

amber

02-06-2006, 01:04 PM

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=24555
Thanks for directing me to that. :angel: I had seen it before.
Unfortunately nowhere does that thread directly address the question: Why would rules apply differently to people depending on who it was?
It really doesn't sound fair the way you said it. No disrespect intended, I'm sure you didn't mean it unfairly, unfortunately all I have to judge from right now is the exact words you used. :) Perhaps you only mean the variance in rule application to apply to the very few people who know each other well and tease each other possibly using words that coming out of anyone else would be construed as an insult? I'm sure that's what you meant.
In any case, I would have thought twice about saying publicly that I consider the rules should not be applied as one size does fits all, the same for everyone. Because then a**holes like me will ask you about it, and others may take it the wrong way. :laugh: :xoxo:

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 01:08 PM

Because then a**holes like me will ask you about it, and others may take it the wrong way. :laugh: :xoxo: awww the voice of reason...as i said i was curious...with no disrespect intended...ive said over and over how much i apprec what the mods do...i dont know...perhaps when the instances come up thats when i ask the questions and peeps take personally...its never intended that way...but its from the circumstances that the questions arise...make sense? ive gotten my answer anyways...it cant be answered and its all subjective...such is life. :xoxo:

amber

02-06-2006, 01:40 PM

awww the voice of reason...as i said i was curious...with no disrespect intended...ive said over and over how much i apprec what the mods do...i dont know...perhaps when the instances come up thats when i ask the questions and peeps take personally...its never intended that way...but its from the circumstances that the questions arise...make sense? ive gotten my answer anyways...it cant be answered and its all subjective...such is life. :xoxo:
Oh, I know. I didn't mean to imply that you were an a**hole. I saw when you asked about it before and you were respectful.
I realized later I should have just said I was an a**hole. :laugh:
I was just making a joke, b/c I took pause, too, when I first read her post (last night), and almost asked her about it. I decided not to b/c I figured it was GDW, and I doubted that she would mean to be unfair, so I didn't want to start a whole thing. That is because I know her . I think the wording she chose might be more confusing to some. :shrug: But again, I doubt that she would be unfair.

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 01:48 PM

Oh, I know oh amber i def know you werent referring to me sweetheart :xoxo: wow...youre not the first person who has stated they thought of saying something but decided against...others have said it is because they dont want to be singled out and thought of as a "troublemaker." personally, i think it is quite a shame that someone cant ask an honest question about something theyd like to know because they are "afraid" of how it would look or what the ramifications would be.

and yes, i used to have a truck labeled 'nofear' :lol:

DavidMn

02-06-2006, 01:58 PM

oh amber i def know you werent referring to me sweetheart :xoxo: wow...youre not the first person who has stated they thought of saying something but decided against...others have said it is because they dont want to be singled out and thought of as a "troublemaker." personally, i think it is quite a shame that someone cant ask an honest question about something theyd like to know because they are "afraid" of how it would look or what the ramifications would be.

and yes, i used to have a truck labeled 'nofear' :lol:No fear eh? You've always struck me as one tough mama you know?:xoxo:

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 03:11 PM

ive gotten my answer anyways...it cant be answered and its all subjective...such is life.

Finally! Yes, that's the answer and it's been the answer since you first asked the question and it's going to remain the answer. Oy vey.

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 03:17 PM

oh amber i def know you werent referring to me sweetheart :xoxo: wow...youre not the first person who has stated they thought of saying something but decided against...others have said it is because they dont want to be singled out and thought of as a "troublemaker." personally, i think it is quite a shame that someone cant ask an honest question about something theyd like to know because they are "afraid" of how it would look or what the ramifications would be.

Oh let me break out my violin. That's touching. Speaking for those who are too afraid to speak out for themselves. What am I going to do to them? Banish them to cyber prison? Cyber torture?

amber

02-06-2006, 03:18 PM

Finally! Yes, that's the answer and it's been the answer since you first asked the question and it's going to remain the answer. Oy vey.
I think she was confused because normally rules are just rules, they are rarely thought of as subjective. Usually everyone has to "follow the rules" or be punished equally. Well, maybe she didn't think that, but that's why I'm confused.

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 03:21 PM

I think she was confused because normally rules are just rules, they are rarely thought of as subjective. Usually everyone has to "follow the rules" or be punished equally. Well, maybe she didn't think that, but that's why I'm confused.

My dear, you're a law student. The rules are always subjective. I think if I just coldly enforced "the rules" it would be a hell of a lot less compassionate than taking into account the person and situation involved.

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 03:23 PM

Oy vey. your answer anyways :rolleyes:

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 03:26 PM

What am I going to do to them? you presume 'this' had something to do with you...which is way weird :wavey:

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 03:28 PM

Usually everyone has to "follow the rules" or be punished equally keyword: usually :lol:

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 03:29 PM

your answer anyways :rolleyes:

I have a sneaking suspicion you think you could do much better?

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 03:31 PM

you think you could do much better? not really...as i said curiousity killed the cat...not sure why this convo is continuing :shrug:

amber

02-06-2006, 03:52 PM

My dear, you're a law student. The rules are always subjective. I think if I just coldly enforced "the rules" it would be a hell of a lot less compassionate than taking into account the person and situation involved.
I didn't make any judgements. Sounds fine.
But I don't think rules are "always subjective" at least not in their pure form, the meaning of the word. In law, it's not so much that the rules are subjective, it's more that any side could be argued successfully to decide whether or not the rules were broken.
But that's just how I think of rules. If they were subjective, and not everyone was supposed to abide by them by law, wouldn't we call them...oh, I dunno...Suggestions? Guidelines? The word "rules" implies consequences if you don't abide by them.
anyhoo, as long as everything turns out fair and there are no favorites or friends excused from bad behavior I don't have a problem. :shrug: I haven't noticed anything like that. Like I said, it was just your wording and description that initially gave me pause. :)

P.S. - technically I'm a paralegal student. :p

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 04:06 PM

anyhoo, as long as everything turns out fair and there are no favorites or friends excused from bad behavior I don't have a problem. :shrug: I haven't noticed anything like that thanks for your input amber :wavey:

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 04:13 PM

you presume 'this' had something to do with you...which is way weird :wavey:

Then who the hell have you been talking to for the last two or so pages? :laugh: :confused:

BTFLCHLD

02-06-2006, 04:16 PM

Then who the hell have you been talking to for the last two or so pages? :laugh: :confused: amber :lol:

gldstwmn

02-06-2006, 04:34 PM

amber :lol:

Well here's how I'm going to ask that the rules be applied to you. You just admitted a few posts ago that you weren't really interested in getting an answer to your question. Therefore, I have only to assume that your sole intent is to disrutpt. I will make my recommendations accordingly.