Cindy Sheehan arrested before SOTU

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . 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]

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Back on point

yes, that was the point 5-6 posts ago

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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.

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

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

...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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

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

Damn, that really is scary aint it???

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

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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 Also, your opinions are hardly mainstream

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

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/222659.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]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . 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?