http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060202/D8FGVVNG0.html

Not only have they released and appologised to Cindy Sheehan for violating her rights, they have also appologised to Beverly Young, wife of Bob Young (R, FL) for removing her for wearing a "Support our Troops" t-shirt. Young has demanded that Hill Police undergo sensitivity training and the department has agreed to review its actions.

I guess they dropped the charges against Sheehan, too. What was it they took her in for? Oh yeah, "Aggravated Dumbass". I think that's a felony in some states!   

While I do not agree that political t-shirts should be allowed in the Capital, I'm glad to see they apologized to both women. I would have been appalled if they apologized to one and not the other!

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): I guess they dropped the charges against Sheehan, too. What was it they took her in for? Oh yeah, "Aggravated Dumbass". I think that's a felony in some states!

As usual, the Elephant only reports on one side. Maybe Mrs. Young was charged with being an aggrivated bitch, MAF. Oh, that ruins the image you want, of only one of them being idiots. I see.

You're obsession with Sheehan is as bad as her behavior.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3): You're obsession with Sheehan is as bad as her behavior.

Yeah, I know. It was just humor, not a political argument. I'l take whatever heat you wanna give me on this one.   

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): I guess they dropped the charges against Sheehan, too. What was it they took her in for? Oh yeah, "Aggravated Dumbass". I think that's a felony in some states!

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 4): Yeah, I know. It was just humor, not a political argument. I'l take whatever heat you wanna give me on this one.

It was unfunny. She doesn't agree with you, most people don't.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 6):

Sizes up to "5XL" is all one needs to know about that t-shirt!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7): Other than that, not all GOPers agree with your stance on many things, and almost all Democrats disagree with you. Given the population spread of the country, that map is at the very least very flawed.

I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it.

It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes democrats more and more unelectable.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7): Given the population spread of the country, that map is at the very least very flawed.

The map is also flawed 'cause it's not there.  

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes democrats more and more unelectable.

Seeing how you missed Reply #6 (now removed), makes your comment all the more funny.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it.

Sound like you are advocating murder. Are you?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes democrats more and more unelectable.

Hey pal, you need to read the rest of my post. StuckinMAF's post was deleted before you read it. There is another shirt that states things in an opposite way. How about you step down off your holier than thou perch and realize that you made a mistake

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it. It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes democrats more and more unelectable

Puhleeez, Charles. The holier-than-thou attitude is the righties telling people who oppose the war that they're guilty somehow of giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. The holier-than-thou is "if you're not with us, you're against us." It's the arrogance that somehow, as some have said, that Bush was appointed by God.

Nothing arrogant about opposing the war. What it is, Charles, is a MAJORITY.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11): StuckinMAF's post was deleted before you read it.

Hell, it was almost deleted before I posted it! Someone's got a moderator in their pocket!

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 13): Hell, it was almost deleted before I posted it! Someone's got a moderator in their pocket!

Think again, I rarely ever hit SD.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14): Think again, I rarely ever hit SD.

Paranoia? I never said it was you!

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): While I do not agree that political t-shirts should be allowed in the Capital, I'm glad to see they apologized to both women.

   I agree.

Regardless of my political views, I don't think that any T-shirts like those should be allowed on the Hill, especially during the State of the Union Address. Its more of an issue with manners rather than what the shirts actually say.

But, no one needed to be arrested for it and I think the police did the right thing here.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it.

I hope all of them, anyone wears a shirt like that should be allowed to. If anyone did and was assulted or killed they ones who did that are against everything the US stands for.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 17): Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it. I hope all of them, anyone wears a shirt like that should be allowed to. If anyone did and was assulted or killed they ones who did that are against everything the US stands for.

Amen. But I guess it's a sin to dare protest against Bush's Holy and Just war in Iraq. I'm actually surprised some "red states" haven't outlawed such protest.  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18): Amen. But I guess it's a sin to dare protest against Bush's Holy and Just war in Iraq.

I don't care about protesting Bush. But to walk around Houston with a t-shirt calling everyone in sight a "complete moron" is asking for what is commonly known as an "ass-whoopin'"

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): I think that's a felony in some states!

It is a good thing that D.C is not part of any state then.   

I do wish that they didn't arrest Sheehan. I wish, in turn, that Sheehan would have then stood up every 2 minutes and swore at Bush at the SOTU speech.

I wish Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer, and Kerry would be on TV EVEN MORE than they are now.

Nothing succeeds in politics like an opponent who both loves the camera and who is an ass in front of it.

In the 90's, I'm sure Clinton loved that Gingrich and Dole were on TV everyday from the House and Senate, respectively. It made Bill look in charge and in command of the nation.

By the way, when did that Gingrich get to be an "elder statesman" anyway? He should save some of his money and all of us our time and not run in 2008. He ain't going anywhere, just like Kerry and Gore.

When you look at the electoral map on a county by county basis, it sure seems like there are lot more "morons" than "intelligent" democrats.



I love the audacity of the left. If you're not for them, you're a moron. As I keep say, the only thing that can save the GOP is the DNC.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22): I love the audacity of the left. If you're not for them, you're a moron.

Another ultra-right wing moment brought to us this time by Pope! You didn't read the whole thread, did you?  

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23): Another ultra-right wing moment brought to us this time by Pope!

Again the audacity. I'm ultra-right wing because i point out that the left likes to label anyone who voted for W a moron. Wow!

Quoting Pope (Reply 24): Again the audacity.

LOL!! You still didn't see it, did you? Read the thread.

(There was an opposing t-shirt posted by MAF in Reply #6 that has since been deleted. N1120A's was a response.)

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 16): Regardless of my political views, I don't think that any T-shirts like those should be allowed on the Hill, especially during the State of the Union Address. Its more of an issue with manners rather than what the shirts actually say.

I disagree. The Congress, particularly the House was supposed to be the people's House. Now, you can't even get into the gallery unless you have a pass from a Congressman. There's something very ironic about that policy.

I think a shirt such as what Cindy was wearing is perfectly appropriate. She was exercising her free speech. What happened to Congress shall make no law ......?

While I disagree with the message, I agree with how she was trying to do it. Members of Congress can get TV and news coverage whenever they want. Most average citizens don't have that luxury. To have Capitol Police arrest someone for a non-disruptive expression of her political thoughts is simply wrong.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 25): There was an opposing t-shirt posted by MAF in Reply #6 that has since been deleted. N1120A's was a response

You are right, I didn't see the deleted post. How I could is beyond me. Please tell me how I'm supposed to see that which is no longer there.

But regardless it doesn't change the fact that the mainstream of the democratic party really believes that if you vote red, you're a moron.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19): don't care about protesting Bush. But to walk around Houston with a t-shirt calling everyone in sight a "complete moron" is asking for what is commonly known as an "ass-whoopin'"

Yeah it is. Especially if you are wearing it anywhere near a bar on Friday or Saturday night.

Quoting Pope (Reply 27): Please tell me how I'm supposed to see that which is no longer there.

LOL! Because it's only mentioned about 3 times or more that it's missing. As I said, read the thread.   

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): While I do not agree that political t-shirts should be allowed in the Capital, I'm glad to see they apologized to both women. I would have been appalled if they apologized to one and not the other!

They acted very fair & as you said, apoligized to both parties.

I wonder if Cindy Sheehan is going to apoligize for lying when she said that she was roughed by the authorities...

Wonder if Cindy Sheehan realized that she would made a stronger statement has she just attended the speech & dressed normally...

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): What was it they took her in for? Oh yeah, "Aggravated Dumbass". I think that's a felony in some states!

You'd probably be pissed to if your kid died in Iraq.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude that makes democrats more and more unelectable.

Ironic choice of words.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19): But to walk around Houston with a t-shirt calling everyone in sight a "complete moron" is asking for what is commonly known as an "ass-whoopin'"

Very true. It also illustrates a key difference between radical liberals and radical conservatives. I go to college at one of the most left-leaning schools in the country, and I've never seen any harm come to the few Bush-stickered vehicles in the parking lot, nor their owners. Tolerance rules.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22): When you look at the electoral map on a county by county basis, it sure seems like there are lot more "morons" than "intelligent" democrats.

Unless you consider the fact that there are a lot more people living in the blue counties than the red ones...

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 31): Very true. It also illustrates a key difference between radical liberals and radical conservatives. I go to college at one of the most left-leaning schools in the country, and I've never seen any harm come to the few Bush-stickered vehicles in the parking lot, nor their owners. Tolerance rules.

Yea... right.. I seem to remember that the ONLY people prosecuted for election hampering in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections were a bunch of Democrats slicing tires of Republican vans used to transport voters in Wisconsin.

Some tolerance there Guns..

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 16): But, no one needed to be arrested for it and I think the police did the right thing here.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Ms. Sheehan DID get arrested for it! So how did the police do the right thing?

-DrDeke

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 32): Yea... right.. I seem to remember that the ONLY people prosecuted for election hampering in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections were a bunch of Democrats slicing tires of Republican vans used to transport voters in Wisconsin.

Doesn't really compare to the alleged "ass-whoopin" I'd undoubtedly recieve for wearing the depicted shirt in downtown Houston, but point taken. I won't bother getting into the people who didn't get held accountable for election tampering in 2000.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 32): Some tolerance there Guns..

Perhaps my example came across as a blanket statement, but that doesn't mean that you should refute it with one. Those folks in Wisconsin don't speak for most of us. I think that there are plenty of cases (that don't make the news) of general assholery on both sides. I know of several instances in which cars with Bush stickers had bricks thrown through their windows in Seattle, and I myself had my John Kerry bumper sticker vandalized, spraypainted over, etc. a number of times on the Eastside. There are a lot of people who's political opinions piss me off, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to damage their personal property or inflict physical harm upon them to make my point.

Bitching about it on a.net is way more progressive.  

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): I'm curious how many people have worn this shirt in Texas or other red state and lived to tell about it.

I assure you, if I happen to see a person being assaulted because of what their shirt says, the assailant will have a very personal view of the business end of my weapon.

Welcome to Texas

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter): Not only have they released and apologized to Cindy Sheehan for violating her rights, they have also apologized to Beverly Young, wife of Bob Young (R, FL) for removing her for wearing a "Support our Troops" t-shirt. Young has demanded that Hill Police undergo sensitivity training and the department has agreed to review its actions

Total BS, the rules are that no political t-shirts be warn in the chamber, she was wearing one, removed and now boo hoo? Move on, catch a flight to Clear Water and protest this, it is a Bush rule isn't it?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3): As usual, the Elephant only reports on one side

Sad, it took a jackass to point that out . I am referring to Cindy Sheehan, not you Falcon.

Quoting Pope (Reply 22): love the audacity of the left. If you're not for them, you're a moron

Sounds like lefties on this forum. Below is a t-shirt she should have worn.

Quoting IceTitan447 (Reply 35): Total BS, the rules are that no political t-shirts be warn in the chamber

BS indeed. That is not the rule. The rule is that you may not unfurl a banner in the chamber. Ms. Sheehan did not do that. Case closed.

Quoting IceTitan447 (Reply 35): Sounds like lefties on this forum.

Sounds like a right-winger ranting to me.

-DrDeke

Quoting Pope (Reply 25): I think a shirt such as what Cindy was wearing is perfectly appropriate. She was exercising her free speech. What happened to Congress shall make no law ......?

Nobody is trying to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech.............God knows Sheehan has exercised the hell out of that. But there's a time and place for everything, and the worldwide broadcast of the State of the Union Address isn't the time to be a jackass protester trying to whore away the attention.

That speech is set aside for the President........she needs to learn that she can't have the cameras all the time.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 32): Ms. Sheehan DID get arrested for it! So how did the police do the right thing?

You're kidding me, right?   

Yes, bright one..........she DID get arrested for it. So the police did the right thing here, describing the point of this thread, by apologizing.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 30): I go to college at one of the most left-leaning schools in the country, and I've never seen any harm come to the few Bush-stickered vehicles in the parking lot, nor their owners. Tolerance rules.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd be hard pressed to believe their beliefs haven't been surpressed in the classroom and around the campus.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 30): You'd probably be pissed to if your kid died in Iraq.

A lot of parents kids have died in Iraq. Don't see them out their making fools of themselves.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 33): Perhaps my example came across as a blanket statement,

Which was my point..

If you didn't read it in the other thread:

What Really Happened, by Cindy Sheehan

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 37): But there's a time and place for everything, and the worldwide broadcast of the State of the Union Address isn't the time to be a jackass protester trying to whore away the attention.

Which is precisely what she wasn't doing.

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.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 37): You're kidding me, right? crazy Yes, bright one..........she DID get arrested for it. So the police did the right thing here, describing the point of this thread, by apologizing.

"Oops." Sorry about that!

  

-DrDeke

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18): I don't care about protesting Bush. But to walk around Houston with a t-shirt calling everyone in sight a "complete moron" is asking for what is commonly known as an "ass-whoopin'"

Then those people who would do that do not understand ot choose to ignore what have been fought for in the last 200 years and unless the shirt has a prejudice remark it is valid free speech and anyone in the US is entitiled to their opinion.

[Edited 2006-02-03 01:58:43]

Do you realize that you pretty much contradicted your point?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 40): Which is precisely what she wasn't doing.

But yet....

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 40): I wore the shirt to make a statement.

Didn't want attention, but wore the shirt to make a statement................

Doesn't take much more than a juicy fart to figure that one out.   

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 41): "Oops." Sorry about that!

No prob.  

First off, let me say I am having a lot of fun with this thread, and I hope that both those who agree with me and those that don't are, too!

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 30): You'd probably be pissed to if your kid died in Iraq.

Yes, but not at President Bush. It would be very stupid to be mad at the President for my kid getting killed at a high-risk job that my kid VOLUNTARILY signed on to do knowing that it held the possibility of being put into harm's way.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34): I assure you, if I happen to see a person being assaulted because of what their shirt says, the assailant will have a very personal view of the business end of my weapon. Welcome to Texas

And welcome to the TOP of my Respected User's list!
And let me add that it wouldn't matter WHAT the shirt said, I'd do the same thing as you whether it was Cindy Sheehan's shirt or Beverly Young's! And while I'm at it, THANK GOD we live in a state that actually would allow us to protect them if we saw them being assulted!

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 38): Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd be hard pressed to believe their beliefs haven't been surpressed in the classroom and around the campus.

I'll admit it. The College Republicans cubicle in the student activities center has a big sign taped to the outside wall that says "STOP MESSING WITH OUR SHIT." Other than that, they get on alright.  

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 38): A lot of parents kids have died in Iraq. Don't see them out their making fools of themselves.

True, but then again, they didn't have the President outwardly refuse to even look at a picture of their dead child. Maybe they just assumed he wouldn't do so when he didn't attend their funeral (any of them). I'm not arguing that her actions aren't a little over the top, I'm just saying that it's a little unfair for anyone on this message board to lambast her this way when the overwhelming majority of us can't relate to what she's been through.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 44): Yes, but not at President Bush. It would be very stupid to be mad at the President for my kid getting killed at a high-risk job that my kid VOLUNTARILY signed on to do knowing that it held the possibility of being put into harm's way.

A good point, but allow me to offer my reasoning. As you've said, the men and women in our military voluntarily enlist for duty that may very well place them in harm's way. It's an admirable sacrifice, and as such, these men and women shouldn't be put into said harm's way unless the United States of America is facing a grave and imminent danger. The Bush Administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm completely at a loss as to how any American reasonably well informed on Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Queda, etc. could even begin to entertain the idea that the two could have any connection with one another without any glaring evidence, and to suggest that Iraq, a nation that was formed by the League of Nations after World War I under a British mandate without any regard whatsoever for the fact that the people within said nation had a long history of warfare and no history of cooperation (or even interaction) can ever be home to a Western style Democracy is ridiculous. In light of all this, I have absolutely no qualms with suggesting that the Bush Administration has grossly abused the sacrifice of these men and women, and had a child of mine made that sacrifice, I think I would be just a little ticked off. Just maybe.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 44): THANK GOD we live in a state that actually would allow us to protect them if we saw them being assulted!

"Hey, that guy's hurting that other guy!"
"That's not right!"
"Let's shoot him."

You guys don't see the irony here?

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 43): Do you realize that you pretty much contradicted your point?

Not really, calling someone a moron isn't exactly a prejudice statement and is seen as free speech, If the shirt said "Redneck Morons" or something that offends a specific group of people in a sterotypical or racial sense then it is a different situation, at least this is how i see it. Also if this shirt was offensive in that sense reacting by saying "Let's give them an Ass-Wooping" isn't the most civilized way of handling it.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 46): "Hey, that guy's hurting that other guy!" "That's not right!" "Let's shoot him." You guys don't see the irony here?

Do you believe in the right to self defense?

Do you believe in the defense of a third person?

Would you stop a person rapeing your daughter?

Harsh question isn't it? If you can say yes to that third question (hopefully) but wouldn't defend another person being assaulted I have to wonder where the disconect for you is.

Quote: 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.

Give me a break, she was roughed up in front of all that media, special guest guest, & Politicians. Can't she just tell the truth for once....

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 47): ...

I want you to very carefully read what I wrote, read the reference to MD-90's post, and then read my original post. Take all the time you need.   

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 44): THANK GOD we live in a state that actually would allow us to protect them if we saw them being assulted!

Yet you're not bothered to live in place where someone would get assaulted for their t-shirt in the first place. Priorities I suppose ....

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 48): Do you believe in the right to self defense? Do you believe in the defense of a third person? Would you stop a person rapeing your daughter? Harsh question isn't it? If you can say yes to that third question (hopefully) but wouldn't defend another person being assaulted I have to wonder where the disconect for you is.

My focus was directed more at your words, not your ideas. You do raise a tough question, but I've never seen anything, statistics or otherwise to suggest that allowing firearms to proliferate to the level that they have in this country prevents people from being harmed, or my non-existant daughter from being raped. Show me something that proves you're safer with said guns and I'll reconsider. Do you know anyone who's prevented theft of property or bodily harm to themselves/others with a gun? Anyone who's prevented someone from being raped using a gun? Do you have links to some news stories about such? Please share. That said, I have no issues with responsible firearm owners; it's the glorification of lethal weapons and the fact that some people cherish them enough to base their voting decisions on their ability to own, carry and use them without hinderance that bothers me.

[Edited 2006-02-03 02:40:02]

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 45): Maybe they just assumed he wouldn't do so when he didn't attend their funeral (any of them).

I have never understood this thinking that the President of the United States should attend one of those funerals. Is it somehow going to bring back the dead soldier? Is is somehow going to magically change the Presidents mind and on the ride back to Washington, or Crawford, he is going to call for the complete and immediate withdrawal of all the troops? On top of all that, having the President at your son or daughters funeral would just turn it into a complete media circus. Is that how you want or want people to remember their funeral? As sure wouldn't want my son or daughters funeral turned into a protest against the war. And I sure as hell would't want to be jostled and bothered by a bunch of people that didn't know my child and are only using their death for their own personal gain. Especially if I knew that my child had wanted to be there in Iraq.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 45): I'm not arguing that her actions aren't a little over the top, I'm just saying that it's a little unfair for anyone on this message board to lambast her this way when the overwhelming majority of us can't relate to what she's been through.

And you're right, not many of us can sympathize but that does not giver her carte blanche to act anyway she feels either.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 46): The Bush Administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm completely at a loss as to how any American reasonably well informed on Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Queda, etc. could even begin to entertain the idea that the two could have any connection with one another without any glaring evidence, and to suggest that Iraq, a nation that was formed by the League of Nations after World War I under a British mandate without any regard whatsoever for the fact that the people within said nation had a long history of warfare and no history of cooperation (or even interaction) can ever be home to a Western style Democracy is ridiculous.

I know a lot of people disagree with the notion, but the war was still justified even without the question of WMD's. Because of what has happened in the past 3 years, it might be hard for some to remember that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that had already used chemical weapons against people in his own country, so he had a known propensity to using them. He had to be removed, not just contained. Even a "potential" threat to use chemical weapons is too much for the world to bear with a dictator that has such a history as Hussein's. The war was justified.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 46): "Hey, that guy's hurting that other guy!" "That's not right!" "Let's shoot him." You guys don't see the irony here?

No, no irony, just a person being assaulted with no police in sight so someone's got to defend him or he is going to be stabbed twice in the stomach, having a lung punctured in the process and have to endure several surgeries and two cardiac arrests and other complications. Damned right I'll draw on the assailant! Human life, ANYONE'S, is very precious, and you can't just rely on the charity of an assailant to allow a victim to live.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 48): Do you believe in the right to self defense? Do you believe in the defense of a third person? Would you stop a person rapeing your daughter? Harsh question isn't it? If you can say yes to that third question (hopefully) but wouldn't defend another person being assaulted I have to wonder where the disconect for you is.

Well said. Thank you.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 52): You do raise a tough question, but I've never seen anything, statistics or otherwise to suggest that allowing firearms to proliferate to the level that they have in this country prevents people from being harmed, or my non-existant daughter from being raped. Show me something that proves you're safer with said guns and I'll reconsider. Do you know anyone who's prevented theft of property or bodily harm to themselves/others with a gun? Anyone who's prevented someone from being raped using a gun? Do you have links to some news stories about such? Please share.

I am extremely happy that you addressed this point and asked the questions that you asked. Here is a link to MANY of the exact situations you mentioned:

http://www.tsra.com/selfdfns.htm

Here are a few other statistics for you, concerning Texas.

Source: http://www.tsra.com/CHL_10yrs.htm

"Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.

According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded:

"Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong," Burnett said.

With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate.

Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.

The effect of the Concealed Handgun Law has been so positive, it has converted some of its most outspoken initial critics.

John Holmes, former Harris County district attorney, wrote to me several years after the passage of the law.

"As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets," Holmes wrote. "Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless."

Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, shared this view. "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened," White told the Dallas Morning News. "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

Think that's a biased source? OK, how about the Texas Department of Public Safety's own website? I'd be happy for you or anyone who disbelieves that firearms are an effective deterrent to violent crime to check these links out! Statistics have shown this is quite typical among all of the states that have Concealed Carry Licenses.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...on/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Edited because I misspelled "violent". Sorry!

[Edited 2006-02-03 03:45:01]

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 12): Quoting N1120A (Reply 11): StuckinMAF's post was deleted before you read it. Hell, it was almost deleted before I posted it! Someone's got a moderator in their pocket!

What was so awful about it that it was deleted?

Quoting Pope (Reply 25): While I disagree with the message, I agree with how she was trying to do it. Members of Congress can get TV and news coverage whenever they want. Most average citizens don't have that luxury. To have Capitol Police arrest someone for a non-disruptive expression of her political thoughts is simply wrong.

You are right, the police shouldn't have arrested her, but I'm not all that bothered that she was ejected. There are customs of civility in the Congress for this occasion. You don't see members of Congress wearing protest T-shirts at the SOU, and anyone with an invitation ought to have enough common sense to follow those rules.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 37): Nobody is trying to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech.............God knows Sheehan has exercised the hell out of that. But there's a time and place for everything, and the worldwide broadcast of the State of the Union Address isn't the time to be a jackass protester trying to whore away the attention.

  

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 40): "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" Cindy Sheehan, not MD-90

She wore the shirt to make a statement, because she knew the press would be there, but she didn't wear it to be disruptive.   

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55): What was so awful about it that it was deleted?

I won't post the picture again, but if you want to have a look at it, here's a link. BTW, it was only the picture, not the associated buttons around it:

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=376

And I'll even be MORE than fair about it, here's the one that N1120A posted:

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=375

I won't say any more about the post or the deletion.   

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 56): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 55): What was so awful about it that it was deleted? I won't post the picture again, but if you want to have a look at it, here's a link. BTW, it was only the picture, not the associated buttons around it:

Wow. One of the board monitors must have an awfully thin skin.

oops. I've probably just made sure this post will be deleted.   

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 54): I know a lot of people disagree with the notion, but the war was still justified even without the question of WMD's. Because of what has happened in the past 3 years, it might be hard for some to remember that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that had already used chemical weapons against people in his own country, so he had a known propensity to using them. He had to be removed, not just contained. Even a "potential" threat to use chemical weapons is too much for the world to bear with a dictator that has such a history as Hussein's. The war was justified.

So it's justified despite the fact that the alleged security threat wasn't there and the country doesn't have a chance in hell of sustaining a stable democracy in its current state? It's justified based on the past three years? Saddam Hussein was certainly a terrible dictator, but he had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, and to suggest that he poses any kind of a threat to the United States is laughable, especially now that absolutely NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction have turned up in Iraq. If you're going to argue that the war is justified based on "potential" threats, then I assume you also support the unilateral invasion of North Korea and Iran? There's an outside chance they might attack us too! It baffles me how Americans can find it in themselves to be so outraged that these nations would pursue weapons of mass destruction, when their reasons for doing so should be fairly obvious. I'm not trying to excuse them, but what would you do if you had the most powerful nation on earth breathing down your neck? This war is unjustified simply because none of the objectives (no matter how often Bush changes them) are achievable.

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 54): I am extremely happy that you addressed this point and asked the questions that you asked. Here is a link to MANY of the exact situations you mentioned: http://www.tsra.com/selfdfns.htm Here are a few other statistics for you, concerning Texas. Source: http://www.tsra.com/CHL_10yrs.htm

Excellent counterpoint, most people arguing your position never reply. However, the majority of these stories seem to be accounts of non-violent criminals being caught off guard and shot, and I don't think they support your argument for firearms being an indespensable self defense tool, especially when put up against 11,829 firearm homicides in the United States in 2002. I don't think I could shoot another human being, possibly taking their life, just because they're sticking up my mini mart. Is foiling a few would-be burglars worth it?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 53): I have never understood this thinking that the President of the United States should attend one of those funerals. Is it somehow going to bring back the dead soldier? Is is somehow going to magically change the Presidents mind and on the ride back to Washington, or Crawford, he is going to call for the complete and immediate withdrawal of all the troops? On top of all that, having the President at your son or daughters funeral would just turn it into a complete media circus. Is that how you want or want people to remember their funeral? As sure wouldn't want my son or daughters funeral turned into a protest against the war. And I sure as hell would't want to be jostled and bothered by a bunch of people that didn't know my child and are only using their death for their own personal gain. Especially if I knew that my child had wanted to be there in Iraq.

I see your argument, and I agree, I wouldn't want Bush at my child's funeral if I were in that position. However, I do find it somewhat strange that we've lost 2,000+ American soldiers in this war, and the President hasn't been to even one of their funerals. Perhaps it is out of respect for the families (as you said, "media circus"), but the fact that Bush seems to avoid direct confrontation with any dead soldier's parent who isn't in the "their death was not in vain" camp is a bit telling to me.

[Edited 2006-02-03 05:10:14]

Usnseallt82 obviously doesn't seem to understand that making a statement is not being a "jackass protester trying to whore away the attention."

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 44): Yes, but not at President Bush. It would be very stupid to be mad at the President

Why? He and his cabal pushed for the war. It was not Congressionally declared, as the Constitution requires, so I'd also be mad at Congress for not stopping it, but Bush and his administration definately deserve full blame for this tragedy.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 15): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): While I do not agree that political t-shirts should be allowed in the Capital, I'm glad to see they apologized to both women. I agree. Regardless of my political views, I don't think that any T-shirts like those should be allowed on the Hill, especially during the State of the Union Address. Its more of an issue with manners rather than what the shirts actually say.

Speech is free in this country, particularly political speech which is given the highest standard of protection. Both women were exercising their right to free political speech on public property in their legislature. Any rule against this is unconstitutional

Quoting Pope (Reply 21): When you look at the electoral map on a county by county basis, it sure seems like there are lot more "morons" than "intelligent" democrats.

How about we look at some more accurate maps, shall we?

Quoting Pope (Reply 26): But regardless it doesn't change the fact that the mainstream of the democratic party really believes that if you vote red, you're a moron.

They are T-shirts from a company that is in the business of making offensive clothing. Republicans buy them just as much as Democrats. That horse is looking mighty high right now

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 42): Then those people who would do that do not understand ot choose to ignore what have been fought for in the last 200 years and unless the shirt has a prejudice remark it is valid free speech and anyone in the US is entitiled to their opinion.

It IS prejudice!!! You are calling evreyone in an area a moron because of where they live. It is no different than if you called them that if their skin was dark. Look up prejudice in the dictionary.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 34): I assure you, if I happen to see a person being assaulted because of what their shirt says, the assailant will have a very personal view of the business end of my weapon.

You gonna pull your dick out?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 60): How about we look at some more accurate maps, shall we?

I was looking for that map when I pointed out the fact that there are a lot more people in the blue counties than the red ones. Thanks for finding and posting those, they're much more effective in accurately portraying the election results than the regular county map.

It also makes Florida look less like a wang and more like a boxing glove.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 60): Speech is free in this country, particularly political speech which is given the highest standard of protection.

For the last time, this isn't about Constitutionality. This is about an idiotic woman who has a reputation for disruptive behavior trying to make a statement, in her own words, about what she believes in. It wasn't about speaking at her own public legislative building.........it was about doing this during the State of the Union Address. It is tasteless and could have waited for another venue.

But I am surprised that you, of all people, would twist these facts. However, it seems to be more like you these days.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 63): For the last time, this isn't about Constitutionality. This is about an idiotic woman who has a reputation for disruptive behavior trying to make a statement, in her own words, about what she believes in. It wasn't about speaking at her own public legislative building.........it was about doing this during the State of the Union Address. It is tasteless and could have waited for another venue.

Whatever you consider it, whatever you think of Cindy Sheehan, it doesn't take away from what her rights are.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 63): But I am surprised that you, of all people, would twist these facts.

I didn't twist anything. I stated why she should be allowed to do what she did

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 61): It IS prejudice!!! You are calling evreyone in an area a moron because of where they live. It is no different than if you called them that if their skin was dark. Look up prejudice in the dictionary.

Have a look at this study, you'll see an interesting coralation between voting patterns and education (as well as some other interesting factors). You can cross check the sources too.

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/bush.html

Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2006-02-03 07:39:58]

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): While I do not agree that political t-shirts should be allowed in the Capital, I'm glad to see they apologized to both women. I would have been appalled if they apologized to one and not the other!

Wow, we agree.

Have a look at this definition:

id·i·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
3. Gunsontheroof, and other persons who try to prove their point using joke sites

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 67): . Gunsontheroof, and other persons who try to prove their point using joke sites

Actually, that isn't a joke site.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 58): but the fact that Bush seems to avoid direct confrontation with any dead soldier's parent who isn't in the "their death was not in vain" camp is a bit telling to me.

I wonder if perhaps he has not written a letter or two to some of the deceased families? I do not know nor do I have any information that he has or has not. I would think that a much more appropriate way of communicating his sadness at their loss. Plus it would be something they could hold on to forever as opposed to an out of control few minutes at a graveyard.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 67): 3. Gunsontheroof, and other persons who try to prove their point using joke sites

It's pretty evident you didn't read far enough to find out where that data actually came from. I'm reasonably certain that the U.S. Census, government voting records and Wal-Mart's annual report are reputable sources for the information used. The obesity information came from a non-profit organization, and you're more than welcome to debunk that correlation with hard data of your own. That said, this doesn't prove that all Bush voters are uneducated white people who shop at Wal-Mart, but it does demonstrate that if you're uneducated, white, obese and shop at Wal-Mart, you probably voted for Bush. Just because it's somewhat humorous doesn't mean it's a joke.

[Edited 2006-02-03 09:19:45]

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68): Actually, that isn't a joke site.

It appeared years ago, and was debunked immediately.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 71): It appeared years ago, and was debunked immediately.

The Wal-Mart data is from 2004. It couldn't have been that many years ago. I eagerly await your sources for debunking these findings.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 67): id·i·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)

The rest of us have managed to keep a lively debate going here without stooping to petty insults. If you're going to suggest that I'm an idiot, you could at least provide a link to a reputable source.

[Edited 2006-02-03 09:30:44]

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 71): It appeared years ago, and was debunked immediately.

Take a look at the home page for the site. It is based on very legitimate research

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 37): Nobody is trying to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech.............

  

Umm. That's exactly what the were trying to do. She was removed from the location because she was a protester. That's what the police officer told her.

While I disagree with her message, she has a right to protest the government's actions. There is something wrong about the government arbitrarily dictating when, where and how one can protest. Remember the first amendment reads, Congress shall make NO law .......

She posed absolutely no security risk and wasn't being disruptive. By all accounts she was sitting their silently.

If tomorrow, the president declared, I want everyone to show up to the next SOTU address wearing red to show your solidarity with the Republican party, would it be right for the police to escort out anyone who wore blue out of protest? I think everyone agrees that such an act would be inappropriate. The actions of the police resulted in the squelching of non-violent non-disruptive political speech. As has been pointed out above, such speech is given the highest protection under the Constitution.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74):

Summed up very nicely. I appreciate your objectivity on the issue.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 73): Take a look at the home page for the site. It is based on very legitimate research

Look, the data might be valid, but the correlations are not.

Here is an example of what I am talking about.

If I took the time to accumulate the crime statistics of all the counties in the U.S., and put all the democratic counties one one list, and the republican counties down another (according to the map in reply 21, which shows that the democratic strongholds are generally the big urban areas), and ran up the totals, I am certain I could prove to you that most criminals are democrats, or that democrats tend to be criminals, or any number of ways to twist the statistics. But all that would be derived from the fundementally disassociated fact that crime rates in cities are higher than in the countryside. But I'm sure that extremists will latch on and believe it, in spite of its logical problems, because they WANT to believe it. It feels good to think that your group is normal and everyone else is stupid, fat and lazy.

Unless you can have polls where you can match one-to-one responses as to voting preference, obesity, IQ etc., and establish direct correlations between voting patterns and other characteristics, such a "study" means nothing.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): While I disagree with her message, she has a right to protest the government's actions. There is something wrong about the government arbitrarily dictating when, where and how one can protest. Remember the first amendment reads, Congress shall make NO law .......

It's simple decorum. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, and Congress has decided that the capital will be governed by the rules of civilized discourse. Notice how senators and congressmen address each other with forms of politeness, even if they hate his guts. British parliament and other legislatures around the world have the same rules.

The law says, "No demonstrating" and t-shirts with political slogans have been deemed as a form of demonstration. Whether that definition is valid or not, I would ask the supreme court about that.

Now, I should ask you another question. Do you truely believe that, had Sheehan not been arrested, that she would have sat quietly throughout the speech? Of course not. She would wait for the quietest moments of the speech, and yell out "murderer!" and other such stuff. This would of course be extremely disruptive to the speech, and would be broadcast all over the world.

Considering that the state of the union address is a major event, mandated by the constitution as an obligation, Sheehan would not only be embarassing the president but also disrupting a ceremony mandated by law, in a place where rules of decorum are established.

One could say then that Sheehan should be charged with some crime, like disturbing the peace. But I don't think they should. Everybody knows who she is and what she does - it's almost pathological with her. She's lost her whole family over this, and clearly she's gone through a lot.

But I would file charges against the congresswoman who invited her to the speech. She knew perfectly well what Sheehan would do, if given the opportunity. She wanted to help Sheehan disrupt the speech and embarass the president, in a place where rules of behaviour are established. She should be charged with conspiracy and impeached. Is "Conduct unbecoming" an offence for congressmen an offence, like it is for military officers? It should be.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 76): If I took the time to accumulate the crime statistics of all the counties in the U.S., and put all the democratic counties one one list, and the republican counties down another (according to the map in reply 21, which shows that the democratic strongholds are generally the big urban areas), and ran up the totals, I am certain I could prove to you that most criminals are democrats, or that democrats tend to be criminals, or any number of ways to twist the statistics.

Great example of why we can't put too much weight on this kind of analysis. However, your supposedly ridiculous conclusion that most criminals are Democrats probably isn't that far off the mark.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/pjim03pr.htm
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

If you consider the fact that African-Americans and Hispanics make up 44.6% of the national prison population (again, straight from the Bureau of Justice Statistics), and the fact that the poll I've cited finds that 65% of African-Americans and 40% of Hispanics are Democrats (with only 6% of African-Americans and 20% of Hispanics identifying themselves as Republicans), it's not terribly unreasonable to assume that the majority of the inmates within our prison system are in fact Democrats. Keep in mind that when you factor in the 43.6% of inmates who are white and that the majority of our white prison inmates are from heavily Democratic urban areas (although the poll's findings that only 29% of whites identify themselves as Democrats), the percentage of the prison population affiliated with the Democratic party is likely to rise.

This is an entirely different debate, but think about the fact that there are over two million people in our prison system. Going off the statistics I've referenced, we can reasonably assume that half of them are Democrats. Now consider the fact that most of these people can't vote. Pretty interesting implications for the Democratic party, no?

Again, I'm not saying that these implications are irrefutable fact, or that they hold earth-shattering implications. I'm just trying to demonstrate that these kinds of analysis do hold some merit by using the example that Cfalk provided to challenge that very assertion.

You still haven't shown me where the earlier study in question was debunked so many years ago.

Further reading.
n'thttp://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0517/p09s02-coop.html

Cheers.

*Edited for typos and propaganda  

[Edited 2006-02-03 12:35:06]

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): She would wait for the quietest moments of the speech, and yell out "murderer!" and other such stuff.

You know this based upon ... ?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): But I would file charges against the congresswoman who invited her to the speech.

Very one-sided, Cfalk. No where in your argument do you support charges being filed against Rep. Young, whose wife was also removed, but not arrested. Seething hatred like yours for Sheehan is exactly what will continue to make her front page news. She sells papers, to people like you.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 60): Speech is free in this country, particularly political speech which is given the highest standard of protection. Both women were exercising their right to free political speech on public property in their legislature. Any rule against this is unconstitutional

I love it. "Any" rule? I guess the Supreme Court didn't get your memo on the subject!!!

Our resident legal guru is once again issuing a broad mandate of absolute truth. Only problem is, he's DEAD wrong. Once again....

Quote: In 1895 while he was a member of the highest court of Massachusetts, Justice Holmes rejected a contention that public property was by right open to the public as a place where the right of speech could be recognized, rejection endorsed in its rationale on review by the United States Supreme Court. This point of view was rejected by the Court in Hague v. CIO, where Justice Roberts wrote: ''Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.'' While this opinion was not itself joined by a majority of the Justices, the view was subsequently endorsed by the Court in several opinions. It was called into question in the 1960's, however, when the Court seemed to leave the issue open and when a majority endorsed an opinion of Justice Black's asserting his own narrower view of speech rights in public places. More recent decisions have restated and quoted the Roberts language from Hague and that is now the position of the Court. Public streets and parks, including those adjacent to courthouses and foreign embassies, as well as public libraries and the grounds of legislative bodies, are open to public demonstrations, although the uses to which public areas are dedicated may shape the range of permissible expression and conduct that may occur there. Moreover, not all public properties are thereby public forums. ''[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.'' ''The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.'' Thus, by the nature of the use to which the property is put or by tradition, some sites are simply not as open for expression as streets and parks are. But if government does open non-traditional forums for expressive activities, it may not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint in according access. The Court in accepting the public forum concept has nevertheless been divided with respect to the reach of the doctrine. The concept is likely, therefore, to continue be a focal point of judicial debate in coming years.

Once again, I have to ask. Do you actually go to class at the law school you supposedly attend?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): It's simple decorum. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, and Congress has decided that the capital will be governed by the rules of civilized discourse.

{red flag]
The difference is that one is a public safety issue and the other one is not. Surely you're not saying that allowing Sheehan to stay risked a stampede? As with all Constitutional issue, there has to be a balancing of interest. The difference is that when it comes to political speech, the burden is on the government to establish that the restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and the justification for the restriction is narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal. Decorum is simply not a compelling interest.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): The law says, "No demonstrating" and t-shirts with political slogans have been deemed as a form of demonstration.

Your statement proves my point. The Constitution says, Congress shall make NO law . . . .

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): Do you truely believe that, had Sheehan not been arrested, that she would have sat quietly throughout the speech? Of course not. She would wait for the quietest moments of the speech, and yell out "murderer!" and other such stuff. This would of course be extremely disruptive to the speech, and would be broadcast all over the world.

And now you're going down the path of prior restraint. A person should be punished for their acts, not for their thoughts or their likelihood of acting. Your argument reminds me of the movie MINORITY REPORT.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): But I would file charges against the congresswoman who invited her to the speech. She knew perfectly well what Sheehan would do, if given the opportunity. She wanted to help Sheehan disrupt the speech and embarass the president, in a place where rules of behaviour are established. She should be charged with conspiracy and impeached. Is "Conduct unbecoming" an offence for congressmen an offence, like it is for military officers? It should be.

                    

Now you're just out of control. First of all, members of Congress don't work for or report to the President of the United States the way members of the US armed forces do. Second of all, your statement goes beyond simply violating the 1st amendment, you're now support prior restraint on political speech by a member of the US Congress (ignore for a moment the provision of the Constitution which provide the member immunity from precisely that) but just think about the implications.

Should the entire democratic party be arrested if they get together and decide they weren't going to appauld during the speech?

I'm very surprised that this stuff is coming out of your mouth because you usually have a pretty good grasp of Constitutional issues.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 58): Saddam Hussein was certainly a terrible dictator, but he had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, and to suggest that he poses any kind of a threat to the United States is laughable, especially now that absolutely NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction have turned up in Iraq.

Did I say Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? As far as I am concerned, the two can be treated as completely separate issues, but related in that both pose a threat to the US or to US interests.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 58): If you're going to argue that the war is justified based on "potential" threats, then I assume you also support the unilateral invasion of North Korea and Iran? There's an outside chance they might attack us too!

Your assumption is close, but not quite correct. The situations with NK and Iran are a little different than it was with Iraq, you can't simply lump them all together and come up with a single one-size-fits-all solution. A precision strike on critical facilities similar to Israel's strike on Iraq's reactor on June 7, 1981 might be one feasable action for NK or Iran.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 58): I don't think I could shoot another human being, possibly taking their life, just because they're sticking up my mini mart. Is foiling a few would-be burglars worth it?

I'll have to agree with part of what you said. Since I am properly licensed and I do carry, this is a question not unfamiliar to me. Without being confronted with an actual situation and using the situations that you have described rather simply, I would say that I would definitely NOT use potentially lethal force against someone I saw running off with a TV set (burglary). But if I was in the "mini mart" (your words), and I saw someone holding up the place with a weapon, I certainly would intervene with potentially lethal force to protect the life of the innocent clerk and/or other patrons in the place. Same thing as if I saw someone being stabbed twice in the stomach, having a lung punctured in the process and have to endure several surgeries and two cardiac arrests and other complications. Yes, in those cases, I would not hesitate to use potentially lethal force to protect the victim, no matter what T-shirt they might be wearing!

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): While I disagree with her message, she has a right to protest the government's actions. There is something wrong about the government arbitrarily dictating when, where and how one can protest. Remember the first amendment reads, Congress shall make NO law ....... She posed absolutely no security risk and wasn't being disruptive. By all accounts she was sitting their silently.

Well, I am going to have a slight split with you here, Pope. There's a time and a place for everything and the SOTU address was not the place. Even though I have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, I would not have my job very long if I wore Sheehan's T-shirt, or the T-shirts discussed earlier, to work. My viewpoint on this is closer to how Cfalk explained:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): It's simple decorum. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, and Congress has decided that the capital will be governed by the rules of civilized discourse. Notice how senators and congressmen address each other with forms of politeness, even if they hate his guts. British parliament and other legislatures around the world have the same rules. The law says, "No demonstrating" and t-shirts with political slogans have been deemed as a form of demonstration. Whether that definition is valid or not, I would ask the supreme court about that.

Thanks for the great thread, everyone! I am really enjoying the discussion!

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 82): Well, I am going to have a slight split with you here, Pope. There's a time and a place for everything and the SOTU address was not the place. Even though I have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, I would not have my job very long if I wore Sheehan's T-shirt, or the T-shirts discussed earlier, to work. My viewpoint on this is closer to how Cfalk explained:

Well disagreement is good. It makes us have to justify our positions.

Unless you work for the government, your employer terminating you for wearing such a shirt is not a first amendment issue. Freedom of speech only implicates government action not private action.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): There is something wrong about the government arbitrarily dictating when, where and how one can protest. Remember the first amendment reads, Congress shall make NO law .......

As my previous post illustrates, Congress - and the courts have upheld - reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right in public places.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): If tomorrow, the president declared, I want everyone to show up to the next SOTU address wearing red to show your solidarity with the Republican party, would it be right for the police to escort out anyone who wore blue out of protest?

After Clinton won reelection in 1996, when he and the first lady came back to the White House in early december after a short vacation, all of the EOP staff were "invited" over to the South Lawn where we were to be given T-shirts to wear congratulating his victory. (Remember the Monica/beret incident?) Imagine if I had instead worn a Dole t-shirt. Don't you think I'd have been kicked out in a nanosecond?

Sheehan shouldn't have been arrested. However, I have no problem with the Congress enforcing rules of decorum in their chamber, as along as they are applied in an even-handed manner.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 84): As my previous post illustrates, Congress - and the courts have upheld - reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right in public places.

My post conceeds that but points out that such restrictions require a compelling government interest and that they be narrowly tailored. As of yet nobody has been willing to provide justification on either of those two requirements.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 84): However, I have no problem with the Congress enforcing rules of decorum in their chamber, as along as they are applied in an even-handed manner.

Which, in this case anyway, they were. It was almost a blessing that Beverly Young was also not allowed to wear her T-shirt to the event too. And it was the right and correct thing for them to stop her, I don't care how much Bob Young bitches about it!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 60): Speech is free in this country, particularly political speech which is given the highest standard of protection. Both women were exercising their right to free political speech on public property in their legislature. Any rule against this is unconstitutional

Here's some more evidence of how incredibly wrong you are on this issue.

Quote: Speech in public forums is subject to time, place, and manner regulations, which take into account such matters as control of traffic in the streets, the scheduling of two meetings or demonstrations at the same time and place, the preventing of blockages of building entrances, and the like. Such regulations are closely scrutinized in order to protect free expression, and, to be valid, must be justified without reference to the content or subject matter of speech, must serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. A recent formulation is that a time, place, or manner regulation ''must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate content-neutral interests, but . . . need not be the least- restrictive or least-intrusive means of doing so.'' All that is required is that ''the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest.'' Corollary to the rule forbidding regulation premised on content is the principle, a merging of free expression and equal protection standards, that government may not discriminate between different kinds of messages in affording access. In order to ensure against covert forms of discrimination against expression and between different kinds of content, the Court has insisted that licensing systems be constructed as free as possible of the opportunity for arbitrary administration. The Court has also applied its general strictures against prior restraints in the contexts of permit systems and judicial restraint of expression.

you might want to consider asking for a tuiton rebate.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 64): Whatever you consider it, whatever you think of Cindy Sheehan, it doesn't take away from what her rights are.

When you deflate your head and grasp some common sense, then come and talk to me.   

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 80): Once again, I have to ask. Do you actually go to class at the law school you supposedly attend?

   I'm starting to wonder this myself. His arrogance is getting in the way of everything. Pathetic.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): While I disagree with her message, she has a right to protest the government's actions. There is something wrong about the government arbitrarily dictating when, where and how one can protest. Remember the first amendment reads, Congress shall make NO law .......

Pope, I hate to disagree with you here, but I think in this case you are wrong. The government DOES have the right to arbitrarily dictate where you can protest. Just because its a government building doesn't mean because you are a citizen you "own" the building and can do what you want. Let's look at this whole thing in another way. What do you think would happen if anyone in that house Tuesday night took out a cigarette and started smoking it? They would be removed, or at least told to put it out. Why? Because there are rules against smoking in ANY government building. Just because you might want to smoke doesn't give you the right to do it where you want to.

Quoting Pope (Reply 74): If tomorrow, the president declared, I want everyone to show up to the next SOTU address wearing red to show your solidarity with the Republican party, would it be right for the police to escort out anyone who wore blue out of protest?

Well, wrong again Pope. NOT IN THIS HOUSE! The president has NO authority in the Congressional Buildings. Did you know, that he/(she) can NOT ever be on the floor of Congress without being invited and bringing an escort? He has no powers in that house, and thus cannot dictate what people need to wear. Sorry, but the rules of the house come from the house.

Quoting Pope (Reply 85): My post conceeds that but points out that such restrictions require a compelling government interest and that they be narrowly tailored. As of yet nobody has been willing to provide justification on either of those two requirements.

I'm not sure what the rules are up on the Hill. Time to reach out to one of my Hill sources, I guess.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): ou do not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater

Sure you do...if there's a fire!

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): One could say then that Sheehan should be charged with some crime, like disturbing the peace.

The only one disturbing the peace was the officer who forcibly removed her from the gallery.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): Do you truely believe that, had Sheehan not been arrested, that she would have sat quietly throughout the speech? Of course not. She would wait for the quietest moments of the speech, and yell out "murderer!" and other such stuff. This would of course be extremely disruptive to the speech, and would be broadcast all over the world.

I take her at her word that she planned to just sit and observe, like everyone else.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 89): He has no powers in that house

Not officially, but he sure has influence. Otherwise, why would we be in this pointless, horrible war?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 90): I'm not sure what the rules are up on the Hill. Time to reach out to one of my Hill sources, I guess.

After you pointed that out, I did some thinking and now believe that it's an even more interesting Constitutional issue than we first discussed.

Article I of the Constitution gives each house the power to set its own rules. Now I'm just speculating but if faced with a case based on a 1st amendment claim resulting from a rule derived from an Article I grant of power, might a court just hold that the case is not justiciable as its ruling would infringe on the power granted to the Congress in Article I?

Alternatively, the court might rule that the 1st amendment came later in time and therefore serves as a limitation on Article I power. I wonder what the remedy would be if after ruling that a House rule was unconstitutional the House refused to stop enforcing it. Obviously the court could preclude any criminal penalty for violating the rule, but I don't think it could stop the House from having its officers from removing people from the chamber.

I'm sure some court has dealt with this somewhere along the line. Someone should fire up Lexis and search for it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 77): It's simple decorum. You do not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, and Congress has decided that the capital will be governed by the rules of civilized discourse.

This is not fire in a theater

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 80): I love it. "Any" rule? I guess the Supreme Court didn't get your memo on the subject!!! Our resident legal guru is once again issuing a broad mandate of absolute truth. Only problem is, he's DEAD wrong. Once again....

To both of you, I submit Cohen v. California as the definitive case on this subject.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 60): Speech is free in this country, particularly political speech which is given the highest standard of protection. Both women were exercising their right to free political speech on public property in their legislature. Any rule against this is unconstitutional

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 84): Sheehan shouldn't have been arrested. However, I have no problem with the Congress enforcing rules of decorum in their chamber, as along as they are applied in an even-handed manner.

Pretty much my view. You shoudl see the press grumbling up here because the state legislature is enforcing coat and tie rules for the press covering this session

Quoting Pope (Reply 92): Article I of the Constitution gives each house the power to set its own rules. Now I'm just speculating but if faced with a case based on a 1st amendment claim resulting from a rule derived from an Article I grant of power, might a court just hold that the case is not justiciable as its ruling would infringe on the power granted to the Congress in Article I? Alternatively, the court might rule that the 1st amendment came later in time and therefore serves as a limitation on Article I power. I wonder what the remedy would be if after ruling that a House rule was unconstitutional the House refused to stop enforcing it. Obviously the court could preclude any criminal penalty for violating the rule, but I don't think it could stop the House from having its officers from removing people from the chamber.

I think that the dress code would survive without much issue. The dress code that prevents t-shirts during session could be argued prevents disruptions of the chambers and its duties. The narrowness of the focus would also be in the dress code's favor.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 94): I think that the dress code would survive without much issue. The dress code that prevents t-shirts during session could be argued prevents disruptions of the chambers and its duties. The narrowness of the focus would also be in the dress code's favor.

Now, be careful because you're making an argument that wasn't the basis of her expulsion. The officer who detained her shouted "protester" not "t-shirt wearer" when advising other officers of what was going on. This officer did not act in order to enforce a dress code, he acted because of the message.

But I'll play devil's advocate to your dress code argument. Would a tie with the same message on it be acceptable? How about a tie showing an Iranian or North Korean flag?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 61): You gonna pull your dick out?

Could quite possibly be a more effective weapon than some of the silly caliber popguns I've seen some people carry.  

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 96): Could quite possibly be a more effective weapon than some of the silly caliber popguns I've seen some people carry.

A .22 in your pocket is always better than a .45 left at home!