Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[ViolentPanda]

So Yuwepi gets a pass on her "derogatory insult unrelated to the issue being addressed"?

Double standards, anyone?

Yuwipi doesn't make a habit of it, but if you trawl through Rogue Yam's short and sordid history of posting on this site you'll find that he does make a habit of it, in spades.

So yeah, she "gets a pass".

That's not double standards, that's elementary content analysis.

Nice of you to indicate where you stand though, thanks.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

If you actually read the constitution, you'll find that both houses of congress make whatever rules they choose as far as governing their own business and practices. You may not like it, I may not like, but that's the way it is. And keep in mind that non-members of both houses are only guests. Including the president himself.

The Old Sarge

When courts decide these issues they usually use two tests.

One is a balancing test. This test determines the priority of rights when there is a conflict between different sets of rights. To pass this test a law/rule has to be neccessary to furthering some compelling government interest. Notice the word "compelling" because that is important. The government must have a compelling reason to abrogate a person's rights. In this case, it is the unsightliness of the T-shirt is the government's reason for prohibiting it. Unsightliness is not a compelling interest.

One is a rational relation test. The prohibtion must be rationally related to that a governmental interest. Prohibiting something that millions of people do every day and causes harm to no one is not rational. If I went to someone's house and they demanded I remove my shirt, I wouldn't consider them a rational person whose demands need complied with.

The rule fails on both counts in this case.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Ask congress. THey're in a much better position to answer that question.

Conservatives always decry the nanny state making decisions for them, but when it comes to decide what to wear to the House then they applaud nannydom. It isn't rational.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In Britain, of course, many of those who decry the nanny state actually had nannies.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So Yuwepi gets a pass on her "derogatory insult unrelated to the issue being addressed"?

Double standards, anyone?

I suspect if you count Mr Yam's total number derogatory insults and you count mine for the same period he will have a larger number. I generally respect posters who exhibit respect for others. When they do not, then they get reciprocal treatment.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

And I agree with you on all the pretty little feelygood ribbons. I'd like to string one of each color into a long enough piece to choke the shit out of the idiots that wear them and keep coming up with more reasons to come up with more ribbons ...

I hate those too, but I wouldn't prohibit them. Sometimes freedom is unsightly and a bit crass.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Freedom´s a terrible thing, no?

Point is that the USA lauds itself as the gurantor of freeedom worldwide, and regularly uses this as a pretext to invade, bomb or blockade soveriegn states, yet will not uphold the constitutional rights to freedom of speech of its own citizens.

If I was an American i´d be a little concerned.

That's the thing isn't it. It starts with a small issue and gradually expands to the point that freedom no longer exists. Dissent no longer exists. You have to watch these suckers like a hawk because they'll try to slip something past you. Ever wonder why the White House puts out news they want no one to notice out on friday afternoons? BTW, I'm not slagging Bush for this. Clinton did it as well.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Yes. Some of them. Just as you leave some at MY door if you come into MY house. And I leave some of mine if I enter YOUR house.
Rules. Roles of host and guest. See?

I seem to recall that they are the House guests and are there on the sufferance of the voters. They don't own the joint, they merely presume they do.

 

[chilango]

I seem to recall that they are the House guests and are there on the sufferance of the voters. They don't own the joint, they merely presume they do.

Exactly...I bet the founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

 

[rogue yam]

So Yuwepi gets a pass on her "derogatory insult unrelated to the issue being addressed"?

Double standards, anyone?

Thanks for the backup, OS, but I for one am not ready to concede that the word "hysteria" is a "derogatory sexist insult". After all, what word am I supposed to use to refer to "2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political ~>"? Lefties like nothing better that to catch someone crossing one of their artificial and arbitrary little rules so they can then get up on their high-horse and shriek self-righteously to the heavens about such heinous, oppressive thoughtcrime. This is why these rules proliferate. But I think we are doing them, and the world, a diservice when we cooperate with such hysteria.

 

[friedaweed]

Thanks for the backup, OS, but I for one am not ready to concede that the word "hysteria" is a "derogatory sexist insult". After all, what word am I supposed to use to refer to "2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political ~>"? Lefties like nothing better that to catch someone crossing one of their artificial and arbitrary little rules so they can then get up on their high-horse and shriek self-righteously to the heavens about such heinous, oppressive thoughtcrime. This is why these rules proliferate. But I think we are doing them, and the world, a diservice when we cooperate with such hysteria.

Sexist

 

[rogue yam]

Sexist

That's funny! Thanks.

 

[chilango]

one of their artificial and arbitrary little rules ....heinous, oppressive thoughtcrime. .

So this is how you describe the constitution?

Filthy Commie !

*mutters about undermining democracy, doing al qaeda´s dirty work for them, axis of evil, traitors, terrorism etc. before reaching for the phone to call the dept of homeland security to report Rogue Yam for unamerican activities*

 

[chilango]

Rogue Yam yesterday....

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Sexist

Its a matched set with his racism.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Thanks for the backup, OS, but I for one am not ready to concede that the word "hysteria" is a "derogatory sexist insult". After all, what word am I supposed to use to refer to "2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political ~>"? Lefties like nothing better that to catch someone crossing one of their artificial and arbitrary little rules so they can then get up on their high-horse and shriek self-righteously to the heavens about such heinous, oppressive thoughtcrime. This is why these rules proliferate. But I think we are doing them, and the world, a diservice when we cooperate with such hysteria.

As opposed to the tactics of the right: the Big Lie, the little lie, and that other lie over there. That's in addition to standing on street corners and yelling at people they are going to hell. Then, of course, there are the bombings of clinics and the OKC bombing. Yes, real rational discourse that.

BTW, I'm a middle of the roader, not a liberal. I realize that Americans have forgotten what that is, but I haven't.

 

[friedaweed]

That's funny! Thanks.

no problem just returning the laughs you gave me

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks for the backup, OS, but I for one am not ready to concede that the word "hysteria" is a "derogatory sexist insult". After all, what word am I supposed to use to refer to "2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political ~>"? Lefties like nothing better that to catch someone crossing one of their artificial and arbitrary little rules so they can then get up on their high-horse and shriek self-righteously to the heavens about such heinous, oppressive thoughtcrime. This is why these rules proliferate. But I think we are doing them, and the world, a diservice when we cooperate with such hysteria.

You really do talk out of your arse, don't you?

I've heard plenty more "self-righteous shrieking" than substantive posting from you in your 6 or so weeks of membership of this board, and you have the gall to try and lay such a charge on others?

I'm surprised you can look at yourself in a mirror, you hypocrite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Rogue Yam yesterday....

Nah, that guy looks like he occasionally gets some...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Only took 23 posts and someone has finally found the weenie!

A couple of points here: This is the House Chamber and it operates according to House rules. This is a long-standing rule not unique to this President (who is in a different branch of government, anyway, and thus has no say in this rule) or to the Republican Party, who currently hold the majority. Sensible people can readily understand the value of a "no protest" rule. Otherwise there would need to be a thousand rules defining what is "acceptable" protest and you lot would scream yourselves purple about each and every one. Finally, the idea of there being absolutely no rules and thus "free speech", as the most childish here put it, is clearly a non-starter. Is there any legislature anywhere on Earth that conducts its business in the face of a braying, spewing mob of deranged leftists? Of course not.

But according to the article, the regular handout for visiting the House sets out the prohibitions, but visitors for the State of the Union don't get any info about what is or is not acceptable.

Fine to have a dress code, but you should tell people what it is before they show up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Finally, the idea of there being absolutely no rules and thus "free speech", as the most childish here put it, is clearly a non-starter. Is there any legislature anywhere on Earth that conducts its business in the face of a braying, spewing mob of deranged leftists? Of course not.

I guess you have no idea what goes on in the Canadian or British Parliaments, between the govt and the Opposition...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Dress codes do not trump the constitution.

That's a good point. If it's constitutionally protected to wear the t shirt at the mall, why not in Congress?

But on the other side of the pond, from what I gather, you can't demonstrate anywhere near the Parliament building.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That's a good point. If it's constitutionally protected to wear the t shirt at the mall, why not in Congress?

But on the other side of the pond, from what I gather, you can't demonstrate anywhere near the Parliament building.

You may recall the incident at the Labour Party conference where an octegenarian holocaust survivor was dragged away and threatened with Tony Blair's latest anti-terrorism laws for a bit of minor heckling in respect of the lies nuLabour were telling about Iraq.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's the unpleasant detail.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=858&id=2013662005

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes. Some of them. Just as you leave some at MY door if you come into MY house. And I leave some of mine if I enter YOUR house.
Rules. Roles of host and guest. See?

Yeah, but they're both 'houses' in name only.

You have property rights over your house.

Come to think of it, the owners of the House, ie 'you the people', should have some rights in that House as well. Those guys in suits sitting in the chairs are only the caretakers there on your behalf, aren't they?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, but they're both 'houses' in name only.

You have property rights over your house.

Come to think of it, the owners of the House, ie 'you the people', should have some rights in that House as well. Those guys in suits sitting in the chairs are only the caretakers there on your behalf, aren't they?

Umm no, they are representatives of the people who paid for their campaigns.

Citizens are merely an inconvenience and activist citizens are obviously a dangerous threat.

 

[krtek a houby]

In a way, I think such ejections and arrests are good. In a way.

Why?

Because they raise public awareness. Makes people angry.

Sooner or later, people are gonnna ask just who the fuck are these elected arseholes who are stifling free speech and protest?

Whilst we may be mired in right-wit machinations at the moment, I believe that the tide will turn. Sooner than later.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Here's the unpleasant detail.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=858&id=2013662005

<shakes head>

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

In a way, I think such ejections and arrests are good. In a way.

Why?

Because they raise public awareness. Makes people angry.

Sooner or later, people are gonnna ask just who the fuck are these elected arseholes who are stifling free speech and protest?

Whilst we may be mired in right-wit machinations at the moment, I believe that the tide will turn. Sooner than later.

There is always a tension between the right and the left. It swings back and forth. What is missing at the moment is the middle that bridges the gap between them. You can't have a constructive government without them.

 

[krtek a houby]

There is always a tension between the right and the left. It swings back and forth. What is missing at the moment is the middle that bridges the gap between them. You can't have a constructive government without them.

Agreed. But who is the middle? And who is ready to compromise?