Let's see who you are!!
- Thread starter DevilDog723
- Start date
-
- Tags
- smokeasy
- Status
teddyg112 said:
DAMN!
She's a keeper, brother!
Not only is this the best forum around for knowledge and for great people. It's the best because we all have the hottest women!
Joined Oct 2005
2K Posts | 1+
Lost in translation
Bloofington said:
Cheapest cake I have ever bought 9 for its size), and it served nearly 100 people. I love grocery store cakes.
cutter said:
thats her, under the sweatshirt she was wearing a t-shirt that said "2,400 dead, how many more?" or something along those lines...
She (Sheehan) irritates the everliving hell out of me, but I have to say I'm disturbed she was removed from the audience because of her clothing. Seriously, how do you get ejected from the heart of our democracy, right in front of the president and congress, for making a non-threatening peaceful statement? I know this is standard procedure for presidential appearances, but how did it get that way!? If you can justify it legally, how can you stand yourself morally?
Sorry, I know this is OT, just something that really bugs me.
Sorry, I know this is OT, just something that really bugs me.
soupwell said:
this is what happenned...
she was planning to display her shirt at a more high profile time during the sotu to get more attention, but she inadvertantly did so before it even started while people were still funneling in...
she obviously already had a bullseye on her in the ss eyes, and she stood up to nonchalantly unzip her sweatshirt because she was hot, and sat back down, this exposed the tshirt briefly and they grabbed her and escorted her out, she was detained for a couple hours as i understand it and all charges were dropped and the capitol police issued a statement saying they had made a mistake and were incorrect for removing her...
its important to note that there was no hubub or major event that caused any sort of attention to them during her removal, she was peacefully removed, two guys just had a hold of each arm...
now, my .02 fwiw, is that yes, freedom of speach and all that should permit you to wear what you want, and at first glance, even at the sotu, BUT...
the sotu is an iconic, historical, tradition with extreme importance to both the nation and the world...clothing and demonstrations of such that was intended by Sheehan would have detracted from the sacredness of the sotu and disrupted a public assembly and disturbed the piece to the extent that it would impeded the national interest which exists to have a full, uninterrupted sotu, and would have detracted from the PUBLICS right to hear the sotu...
the publics rights supercedes the individuals in this case...
thats the argument and my .02
First off, I'm a little hesitant to accept the sacredness of SOTU. It's more of the president's time to get massive nationwide attention in a setting where he controls nearly every detail.
Second, I don't think group rights should EVER supersede individual rights unless the individual is doing demonstrable harm to the group. Expressing a non-partyline point of view at the leader's moment of glory is hardly an open and shut case for harming the public.
That all said, Cindy Sheehan is a pinko, whining, attention-grubbing, America-hating, b*!ch!
Second, I don't think group rights should EVER supersede individual rights unless the individual is doing demonstrable harm to the group. Expressing a non-partyline point of view at the leader's moment of glory is hardly an open and shut case for harming the public.
That all said, Cindy Sheehan is a pinko, whining, attention-grubbing, America-hating, b*!ch!
the sotu is sacred, its cloaked in history and much of the presidents talking points direct the country's and often the worlds agenda for the atleast the following year...
good of the general public usually always superscedes that of the individual, if the rights of the individual harms that of the public, the question is not how an opposing view point or expression would harm the public, but that it would disrupt the "event" to the extent that the public (read: nation/world) would not receive a sotu which fulfilled its constitutional obligations...
agree on the last part re: cindy, but i dont think she hates America, i think she genuinely think she is doing good- but she isnt
my .04, lol, all done, i promise
good of the general public usually always superscedes that of the individual, if the rights of the individual harms that of the public, the question is not how an opposing view point or expression would harm the public, but that it would disrupt the "event" to the extent that the public (read: nation/world) would not receive a sotu which fulfilled its constitutional obligations...
agree on the last part re: cindy, but i dont think she hates America, i think she genuinely think she is doing good- but she isnt
my .04, lol, all done, i promise
There has been a standing policy for the SOTU for some time that displaying slogans is not allowed. A guy got kicked out of one of clinton's SOTU for doing so, without any option of covering it up.
Link:
http://drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
Cindy Sheehan was offered the option of covering up, but declined and so was ejected. There is a thread containing a discussion about this on in the "Political Issues" thread.
LInk:
http://www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15
She knew that what she was doing was prohibited and did it anyway. It didn't matter what the slogan was, the rule applies to everyone.
A woman was kicked out of one of Bush's SOTUs for wearing a "support the troops defending our freedom shirt". It doesn't get too much more right wing than that.
Link:
http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html
Joe
Link:
http://drudgereport.com/flashts.htm
Cindy Sheehan was offered the option of covering up, but declined and so was ejected. There is a thread containing a discussion about this on in the "Political Issues" thread.
LInk:
http://www.ambackforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=15
She knew that what she was doing was prohibited and did it anyway. It didn't matter what the slogan was, the rule applies to everyone.
A woman was kicked out of one of Bush's SOTUs for wearing a "support the troops defending our freedom shirt". It doesn't get too much more right wing than that.
Link:
http://www.local6.com/news/6647094/detail.html
Joe
Yup, a Republican congressman at that.
And slightly more on topic, here is a pic from last week of yours truly with the twins a few minutes after they were born. It isn't the greates pic as I hadn't slept or eaten for quite some time, and have separated/cracked ribs from boxing, but I am very proud of it.
Joe
And slightly more on topic, here is a pic from last week of yours truly with the twins a few minutes after they were born. It isn't the greates pic as I hadn't slept or eaten for quite some time, and have separated/cracked ribs from boxing, but I am very proud of it.
Joe
Attachments
I guess at least the fascist rules are applied fairly... (that does count for something in my book)
But still, I don't see how slogans on clothing inhibit the delivery of the constitutionally required SOTU.
BTW: Nowhere does the constitution require that the president actually address in person the citizens (or the congress for that matter). The SOTU was delivered by letter for most of its history, the fancy theatrics of today's address are just that: theatrics.
But still, I don't see how slogans on clothing inhibit the delivery of the constitutionally required SOTU.
BTW: Nowhere does the constitution require that the president actually address in person the citizens (or the congress for that matter). The SOTU was delivered by letter for most of its history, the fancy theatrics of today's address are just that: theatrics.
- Status