Cindy Sheehan Arrested for Wearing T-Shirt

[The Old Sarge]

The only unelected people allowed into he chamber for the State of the Union address are the military and the corporate fat cats.

Come, come, Nino. lol Your biases are showing. lol

 

[The Old Sarge]

Yeah, but you're suggesting not a T-shirt with a slogan, but one with a slogan and an offensive graphic, you vile anti-Semitic piece of shit.

Everything is offensive to someone. That's the biggest problem with laws and rules like the one sparkingg this thread.

They attempt to define, universally define, what is and is not offensive. It's quite impossible.

And besides, I think you missed the point that the fetus shirt is a more than a graphic image. It's a "protest statement." Also strictly forbidden by house rules.

The Old Sarge

 

[toggle]

Everything is offensive to someone. That's the biggest problem with laws and rules like the one sparkingg this thread.

They attempt to define, universally define, what is and is not offensive. It's quite impossible.

And besides, I think you missed the point that the fetus shirt is a more than a graphic image. It's a "protest statement." Also strictly forbidden by house rules.

The Old Sarge

you have also missed something. This cunt is happy to spread nazi propeganda as justification of the holacaust. Pretty much everything else is irrelavent compared to that.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Easy, toggle.

I'm on a totally different subject than you.

 

[toggle]

Easy, toggle.

I'm on a totally different subject than you.

The shit he came out with, i intend on reminding him every time i see him say anything here.

 

[nino_savatte]

Come, come, Nino. lol Your biases are showing. lol

My "biases" are showing? Not a very good come back. Bot-like I'd say...so you're not disputing the fact that the said address is only attended by an elite I take it?

 

[The Old Sarge]

My "biases" are showing? Not a very good come back. Bot-like I'd say...so you're not disputing the fact that the said address is only attended by an elite I take it?

If by elite, you mean (military) all the highest brass, yes. I agree. Rank has its privileges. (AS if hobnobbing with assholes wwere a privilege.)

If, by the MIC fatcats (or whatever it was you called them), yes. The very same. The one's that pay to have our leaders "elected" and then take said leaders on their payroll.

I was not critisizing your biases. We all have them. I was just pointing out that you were exposing them rather blatantly.

And I could give a rat's scruffy ass who attneds the address. I don't even bother watching the bullshit on the telly. Same feces, different anus.

The Old Sarge

 

[The Old Sarge]

Pretty much everything else is irrelavent compared to that.

That's your estimation. To which you are entitled. Pardon me if I have a different estimation.

Now excuse me while I carry on the discussion about the Sheehan incident. Please don't drag me into the anti-semitic thing with PB. I don't care to go there.

 

[nino_savatte]

If by elite, you mean (military) all the highest brass, yes. I agree. Rank has its privileges. (AS if hobnobbing with assholes wwere a privilege.)

If, by the MIC fatcats (or whatever it was you called them), yes. The very same. The one's that pay to have our leaders "elected" and then take said leaders on their payroll.

I was not critisizing your biases. We all have them. I was just pointing out that you were exposing them rather blatantly.

And I could give a rat's scruffy ass who attneds the address. I don't even bother watching the bullshit on the telly. Same feces, different anus.

The Old Sarge

So you support the continued and very strong links between the elected representatives (elected by the people not a company) and the MIC?

These aren't "biases" as you so indelicately put it; it is a fact: the country is not answerable to the people who elected the politicians but accountable, instead, to businessmen and generals.

But let's look at that word "bias" shall we? Is that a new standard reply you give because you can't think of a reply? Or is it the case tha ttyou can't think for yourself? At any rate, you have misused the word for the sake of dismissing my point...you're almost on a par with pbman in that respect.

 

[davekriss]

How much you want to wager? I'm betting she was arrested for failure to co-operate/comply with a law enforcement officer rather than for wearing a certain shirt.

Don't get me wrong, either way it's total bullshit. But, the congressional chambers DO have a dress code ... like it or not.

Old Sarge, I stand corrected; here's your first post and in it you clearly imply that Sheehan's arrest was "bullshit" ("either way", as you suggest). After that you are on to a discussion about the Constitutionality of the House setting for itself it's own rules, including dress code.

So on this, my apologies.

But I would like to get your take on Gainer's remark, quoted above, where he says neither Sheehan nor the Congressman's wife should have been confronted over their shirts. Is Gainer just plain wrong? Gainer should know, of course, as he is Police Chief of the US Capitol Police force.

Further, I quote above Sheehan's account of the incidence. She took off her jacket. The officer who escorted her to her seat saw the body count on the shirt and cried, "protestor!" then proceeded to bully her off the floor, cuffed her while still in the elevator, held her until a squad car came by, the car then hurried her off to headquarters, and she was held in a cell for 4 hours -- all for wearing a T-Shirt with the GI body count on it which, as just shared, Gainer believes did not rise to the level of "protest" demanding forceful ejection (which is just what happened, a forceful ejection followed by unlawful detention).

You did, on your first post, say it was bullshit either way (implying you felt she should not have been handled that way), but given your belief that her dress violated an unwritten rule of decorum, and the fact that others wear politically symbolic items on their clothing all the time and are not ejected (e.g., yellow ribbons, flag lapen pins), do you think Gainer is wrong? Did the State, in the form of the USCP, have the legal right to forcefully eject and detain Cindy Sheehan?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Its justified cause the rules aply to everyone.

Even anti-war commies.

And if one of us, wore, an anti-abortion t-shirt, you guys would be screaming like little girls.

As I stated earlier I thought that the other lady wearing the "Support the Troops" shirt shouldn't have been ejected either. That goes for an anti-abortion shirt too. I thought you knew me better than that, Pbman.

Free Speech can often seem messy and unseemly. We have Rev. Phelps people comming around again to protest the funeral of a young man killed in Iraq. If I were going to censor anything it would be the right to hurt an already hurting family by protesting a furneral. The law in the past has been clear on this. You can't prohit something just because you personally find it objectionable:

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/02/04/nebraska/doc43e568e3ae1f6573047472.txt

OMAHA — Anti-gay protesters with a Kansas church plan to demonstrate at the funeral of an Army soldier from Lincoln who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq this week.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays. And church members have protested at the funerals of scores of military personnel killed in the war.

Phelps’ church sent out a fax Saturday evening to announce plans to protest at the funeral of First Lt. Garrison Avery. The announcement was headlined “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the improvised explosive devices used by Iraqi insurgents.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

And I could give a rat's scruffy ass who attneds the address. I don't even bother watching the bullshit on the telly. Same feces, different anus.

The Old Sarge

At least we agree on something.

I deliberately found other things to do that evening because I knew I'd just be throwing things the tv if I watched. Reading the play-by-play was amost as bad.

 

[The Old Sarge]

So you support the continued and very strong links between the elected representatives (elected by the people not a company) and the MIC?

Are you kiddng me, Nino?!? Does my post really lead you to believe I support any such thing? Personally, I think ALL lobbyists and ALL lobbying should be banned. One man/woman, one vote. There is nothing in that concept about businesses, coporations or any "group" choosing elected officials. If a "group" wants to band together to encourage its members to vote a particular way, fine. THat should not give them access, as a group, to our congressmen. THey have personal access as individual voters already. That's enough. (And, yes, I would include the NRA ... and I'm a life member. I said ALL lobbyists.)

These aren't "biases" as you so indelicately put it; it is a fact: the country is not answerable to the people who elected the politicians but accountable, instead, to businessmen and generals.

True. But the fact that you focused on it and pointed it out in the fashion you did shows a certain bias on your part, no? You could have mentioned the movie stars that often get the same treatment. lol Relax! Don't start jumping to conclusions and trying to read between the lines. I agree with you on this one. I even share your bias in this case.

The Old Sarge

 

[The Old Sarge]

Old Sarge, I stand corrected; <snip> my apologies.

Damn. A gentleman. I apologize for being so testy, Dave.

But I would like to get your take on Gainer's remark, quoted above, where he says neither Sheehan nor the Congressman's wife should have been confronted over their shirts. Is Gainer just plain wrong? Gainer should know, of course, as he is Police Chief of the US Capitol Police force.

I agree with him. I think the entire thing was a cluster@#$% and if Sheehan's version is honest and true, the dipshit that started it should be flogged. Well, dismissed then.

Did the State, in the form of the USCP, have the legal right to forcefully eject and detain Cindy Sheehan?

They have the right to enforce their dress code, whatever it is. They have the right to enforce their rule against "protests" in congressional chambers. Was she or was she not making a protest? A "statement IN protest?" That's hard to answer, since I was not there and am not inside Ms. Sheehan's mind. BUT ... if she had simply been asked to leave and then quietly but firmly escorted out (I doubt she would have resisted or made too much of a scene), the entire affair would have died bwfore it began. Direct answer to your question? The "right?" Yes. The "authority?" Yes. It, however, was not the right thing to do.

People all have motives. Ms. Sheehan had hers for wearing the shirt. Maybe she should re-think them.

The officer that pressed the Panic Button had his. Maybe he should be "re-trained" in his duties. Or as I suggested earlier, flogged, for being stupid, for panicking, for being rediculous, for just not using good sense. You pick.

The Old Sarge

 

[nino_savatte]

Are you kiddng me, Nino?!? Does my post really lead you to believe I support any such thing? Personally, I think ALL lobbyists and ALL lobbying should be banned. One man/woman, one vote. There is nothing in that concept about businesses, coporations or any "group" choosing elected officials. If a "group" wants to band together to encourage its members to vote a particular way, fine. THat should not give them access, as a group, to our congressmen. THey have personal access as individual voters already. That's enough. (And, yes, I would include the NRA ... and I'm a life member. I said ALL lobbyists.)



True. But the fact that you focused on it and pointed it out in the fashion you did shows a certain bias on your part, no? You could have mentioned the movie stars that often get the same treatment. lol Relax! Don't start jumping to conclusions and trying to read between the lines. I agree with you on this one. I even share your bias in this case.

The Old Sarge

No, there is no "bias". Just because I have identified something inherently rotten in the system, that makes me biased? Pathetic. I take it because you don't deny it, you accept it - correct?

Who is the more powerful and influential of the two, a Hollywood movie star or a captain of [a defense]industry?

Face it, m,ost of your elected officials are not there for you, they are there for big business.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Damn, Nino. What's up today? I agree with you and still you want to argue.

 

[nino_savatte]

Damn, Nino. What's up today? I agree with you and still you want to argue.

Er, you didn't agree with me (if that is 'agreeing' with me, I'd like to see you 'disagree' with me); you insisted that I was being "biased". I merely pointed out to you that I wasn't being biased at all.

 

[The Old Sarge]

Ok, the military is a maybe. They ARE part of government.

The MIC fatcats? No. Not only toss 'em out, lynch 'em from the lampposts on Pennsylvania Ave.

The lobbyists that buttonhole and bribe our congressmen? Right beside the fatcats.

I think you missed the meaning of my comment about your (as I said, I share this one) bias, so lets just drop that part.

Anything else?

The Old Sarge

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I think you missed the meaning of my comment about your (as I said, I share this one) bias, so lets just drop that part.

Anything else?

The Old Sarge

You're just not helping yourself much, are you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're just not helping yourself much, are you?

The old fella's digging such a deep hole you could hand him a shovel and you'd have a new root cellar by dusk!

 

[The Old Sarge]

You guys didn't get it either, so stop pretending to be so superior.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ok, the military is a maybe. They ARE part of government.

The MIC fatcats? No. Not only toss 'em out, lynch 'em from the lampposts on Pennsylvania Ave.

The lobbyists that buttonhole and bribe our congressmen? Right beside the fatcats.

I think you missed the meaning of my comment about your (as I said, I share this one) bias, so lets just drop that part.

Anything else?

The Old Sarge

No, the military is part of the state as is the government. Governments change, the state never changes. According to Althusser (and it is something that I agree with), the state consists of two arms: The Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus. Guess which one the military belongs to?

The MIC, are not part of this but have insinuated themselves into a position where they can straddle both state apparatuses. Their influence should not be underestimated.

During Grant's presidency, Congress was bribed by the railroad barons and the cabinet used their positions to enrich themselves. In may respects little has changed; only it isn't the railroads who call the tune today, it's the defense industries.

 

[phildwyer]

No, the military is part of the state as is the government. Governments change, the state never changes. According to Althusser (and it is something that I agree with), the state consists of two arms: The Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus. Guess which one the military belongs to?

Althusser was a lunatic. Literally. He strangled his wife and spent his last thirty years in a lunatic asylum. During that period he produced only one work: a memoir in which he admitted to never having read Marx (Marx was the subject of all his books), and retracted everything he had said previously, basically implying that anyone who took his work seriously was a sucker and fool of the first water. It is no surprise, then, to find Nino swearing by him. I wonder whose agenda Nino really serves?

 

[nino_savatte]

Althusser was a lunatic. Literally. He strangled his wife and spent his last thirty years in a lunatic asylum. During that period he produced only one work: a memoir in which he admitted to never having read Marx (Marx was the subject of all his books), and retracted everything he had said previously, basically implying that anyone who took his work seriously was a sucker and fool of the first water. It is no surprise, then, to find Nino swearing by him. I wonder whose agenda Nino really serves?

That's your opinion, phil and for what it's worth, it isn't worth a fig. But then you believe that ID is a scientifically valid 'theory'. I think I know which one of us has more credence - and it isn't you.

I've noticed that you don't attack Althusser's ideas but the man himself. Indeed it would appear that you have no alternative means of defining the state or the state's activities. Because someone has a mental health problem doesn't make their theories any less valid. But calling someone a "lunatic" based on the state of their mental health is as enlightened as calling a Spaniard a "spick". Is it the case that you believe no one has a valid theory or idea but you? Do you believe yourself to be of superior intellect to those whom you dismiss as "lunatics"? My what breathtaking arrogance!

I would take nothing you say seriously. No one else around here does....except JC2 of course.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Althusser was a lunatic. Literally. He strangled his wife and spent his last thirty years in a lunatic asylum. During that period he produced only one work: a memoir in which he admitted to never having read Marx (Marx was the subject of all his books), and retracted everything he had said previously, basically implying that anyone who took his work seriously was a sucker and fool of the first water. It is no surprise, then, to find Nino swearing by him. I wonder whose agenda Nino really serves?

See the bit I've highlighted?

Care to support what you claim?

 

[phildwyer]

I've noticed that you don't attack Althusser's ideas but the man himself. Indeed it would appear that you have no alternative means of defining the state or the state's activities. Because someone has a mental health problem doesn't make their theories any less valid. But calling someone a "lunatic" based on the state of their mental health is as enlightened as calling a Spaniard a "spick". Is it the case that you believe no one has a valid theory or idea but you? Do you believe yourself to be of superior intellect to those whom you dismiss as "lunatics"? My what breathtaking arrogance!

This isn't an Althusser thread, so I won't derail it into a lengthy discussion. Basically though, my objection to his ideas concerns his vulgar and reductive materialism which leads him to declare, among other absurdities, that "ideas have disappeared." In his memoir (which you obviously haven't read), he admits to only having "skimmed" Marx, and generally confessses to being a bluffer and a blow-hard. It does not surprise me to find that you admire him.

 

[nino_savatte]

This isn't an Althusser thread, so I won't derail it into a lengthy discussion. Basically though, my objection to his ideas concerns his vulgar and reductive materialism which leads him to declare, among other absurdities, that "ideas have disappeared." In his memoir (which you obviously haven't read), he admits to only having "skimmed" Marx, and generally confessses to being a bluffer and a blow-hard. It does not surprise me to find that you admire him.

And this isn't a thread for you to parade your vacuous ego about. My reply to Old Sarge was valid. If you don't like that, tough shit.

Interesting how you managed to decontextualise almost everything in post 232 - isn't it?