Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 11, 2006, 10:41 am

Im sympathetic to the fact the she lost her son, but when she calls suicidal, indiscriminant muderers of innocent civilians freedom fighters, something is wrong with her ass.

Scribbler1 · Feb 11, 2006, 11:42 am

Quote:

Quote by: bugsbunny04

Im sympathetic to the fact the she lost her son, but when she calls suicidal, indiscriminant muderers of innocent civilians freedom fighters, something is wrong with her ass.

I don't call them that either, but you must keep in mind it's a matter of perspective. If these insurgents' were doing their thing 20 years ago and their stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein we may be looking at them in a different light.

Actually, indiscriminate murderers are the same to me no matter what their goals, but I think the sheep in general would buy that, especially if whoever was in the White House said so.

Waychel · Feb 11, 2006, 08:30 pm

Did Sheehan actually refer to the Iraqi insurgency as "freedom fighters"? This only exemplifies how little this woman knows of the country she claims to be speaking in the best interest of when it comes to this war. The insurgency in Iraq is harming the civilian population at this point moreso than our occupying forces. Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad has targeted Shiite Muslims from day one by bombing areas of dense civilian occupation where they are concentrated. Many of these Islamic extremist groups are made up of foreigners and they look upon some of Iraq's minority groups with greater disdain than coalition forces.

Anyways, regarding the SOTU: What Sheehan did was wear a jacket over her shirt when she entered the building. If she had not concealed the shirt under her jacket, she would have been told at the door that she could not enter without covering up. After she was allowed in and seated, she removed her jacket, revealing the shirt. I don't know whether Sheehan concealed the shirt intentionally or not, but she was asked to cover up or leave when she removed her jacket, and refused; which is why she was escorted out and arrested for civil disobedience.

Everyone knows that protests are not allowed within the buildings of Congress (only outside of them) and statements on clothing have been considered a form of protest since around the 1960's I believe. There was another woman asked to leave for the exact same reason as Sheehan and she was wearing a pro-Iraq/Bush shirt. This only goes to show that protestors were not discriminated against by the nature of their protest, being treated equally and fairly by law enforcement who were acting to uphold the law.

I think that what many people are overlooking is the fact that the focus of the SOTU address is normally supposed to be the president and what he has to say -- not somebody's T-shirt with the statement, "2,242 DEAD - How Many More?" in the audience. If Sheehan wanted to protest, she could have done so outside with all of the other protestors. I do not see why her popularity for belligerence should put her above the same laws that other protestors are required to abide.

Zeebadee · Feb 11, 2006, 08:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

I do not see why her popularity for belligerence should put her above the same laws that other protestors are required to abide.

Yeah, wearing a T-shirt is pretty belligerent all right. Killing thousands of people is ok, but wearing a T-shirt is an act of belligerence. And, btw, what laws did she break??

Waychel · Feb 11, 2006, 08:52 pm

Where did I say that wearing a t-shirt was belligerent? Nice strawman comeback that you have there.

RickSp · Feb 11, 2006, 08:53 pm

And Dr. Martin Luther King was thrown in jail more than a few times for protesting. I recall hearing the same sort of "that ______ should know his place" slur that the conservatives now direct at Sheehan. No that much changes really.

And now the number of dead Americans is 2,267 and counting. That hasn't changed either. Dr. King opposed the war in Vietnam and was called traitor for that too.

RickSp · Feb 11, 2006, 08:57 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

Where did I say that wearing a t-shirt was belligerent? Nice strawman comeback that you have there.

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

I think that what many people are overlooking is the fact that the focus of the SOTU address is normally supposed to be the president and what he has to say -- not somebody's T-shirt with the statement, "2,242 DEAD - How Many More?" in the audience. If Sheehan wanted to protest, she could have done so outside with all of the other protestors. I do not see why her popularity for belligerence should put her above the same laws that other protestors are required to abide.

Hey Waychel, that sure sounds like you are suggesting that wearing a T-shirt was an act of belligerence. If you lack the courage of your own words, then don't type them.

Actually the strawman here is your suggestion that Sheehan was breaking the law. She wasn't and the Capital Hill police apologized to both Sheehan and the Congressman's wife.

Waychel · Feb 11, 2006, 09:06 pm

How is this a slur at Sheehan? Who is calling Sheehan a traitor?

Protests are not to be held in the buildings of Congress. They are to be held outside. All of the other protestors were outside. Why should Sheehan be the exception? I've yet to see any explanation for this being given in the thread.

There is a fine line between protest and anarchy. Designating specific areas for protesting to take place during a rally or speech insures that the rights of the speaker are protected as much as the right of the protestors. Exemptions would only be discriminatory, if not defeatist of that purpose.

RickSp: I could care less what it "sounded like," as what I infact said was that wearing the shirt was a form of protest and refusing to cover it up or leave was an act of civil disobedience (which justified her arrest so that she could be removed from the premises). The police may have apologized due to public pressure, but they were doing their job and I find nothing wrong with how they handled the situation, given the facts.

RickSp · Feb 11, 2006, 09:15 pm

Waychel,

Your comments about "protests" and "anarchy" are uninformed - at best. Wearing T-shirts in the upper gallery is not at all unusual. Throwing people out because of wearing a t-shit is. If the police were doing their job as you suggest, why would they apologize? They should not have thrown out either Sheehan or the congressman's wife. No one was breaking rules or the law except possibly the police officers involved.

Waychel · Feb 11, 2006, 09:24 pm

They apologized because of public opinion. That is the bottom line.

Quote:

Wearing T-shirts in the upper gallery is not at all unusual.

Wearing T-shirts with a protesting statement during a State of the Union Address is. Do we allow picketers in to be seated in the audience? Why should the fact that a message is printed on a shirt be any different?

RickSp · Feb 11, 2006, 09:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

They apologized because of public opinion. That is the bottom line.

Wearing T-shirts with a protesting statement during a State of the Union Address is. Do we allow picketers in to be seated in the audience? Why should the fact that a message is printed on a shirt be any different?

LOL. You are concerned that wearing a black and white T shirt will even be visible in the upper galley? That is funny. A t-shirt is not a picket sign or a banner. Get a grip.

Waychel · Feb 12, 2006, 12:27 am

What is the difference between having a slogan/statement on a shirt as opposed to a sign? There is none.

The double standard here is that you are upset Sheehan could not display the message, yet at the same time, you feign ignorance of it being in any shape or form a protest, sign or banner. If the shirt did not contain a remark or protest and was not a "sign or banner" as you claim, then may I ask why you are all so upset that Sheehan was not allowed to display it in the gallery?

Zeebadee · Feb 12, 2006, 02:57 am

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

What is the difference between having a slogan/statement on a shirt as opposed to a sign? There is none.

If you're really so friggin' dense as to believe that carrying a physical sign is the same as having lettering on a T-shirt, there's no sense even trying to talk to you. Just give us some evidence that the T-shirt actually broke any rules or laws. We may "feign ignorance", you display the real thing.

Morgan_Freeman · Feb 12, 2006, 03:10 am

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

If the shirt did not contain a remark or protest and was not a "sign or banner" as you claim, then may I ask why you are all so upset that Sheehan was not allowed to display it in the gallery?

Because she had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

RickSp · Feb 12, 2006, 09:33 am

Quote:

Quote by: Waychel

If the shirt did not contain a remark or protest and was not a "sign or banner" as you claim, then may I ask why you are all so upset that Sheehan was not allowed to display it in the gallery?

Because I would prefer to think that we are not yet such a police state that the republic is not mortally threatened by a fucking t-shirt. You obviously prefer the police state to respectful freedom of speech.

Feb 11, 2006, 10:41 am	#121 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Im sympathetic to the fact the she lost her son, but when she calls suicidal, indiscriminant muderers of innocent civilians freedom fighters, something is wrong with her ass. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 11, 2006, 08:53 pm	#126 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	And Dr. Martin Luther King was thrown in jail more than a few times for protesting. I recall hearing the same sort of "that ______ should know his place" slur that the conservatives now direct at Sheehan. No that much changes really. And now the number of dead Americans is 2,267 and counting. That hasn't changed either. Dr. King opposed the war in Vietnam and was called traitor for that too. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Feb 11, 2006, 09:15 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	Waychel, Your comments about "protests" and "anarchy" are uninformed - at best. Wearing T-shirts in the upper gallery is not at all unusual. Throwing people out because of wearing a t-shit is. If the police were doing their job as you suggest, why would they apologize? They should not have thrown out either Sheehan or the congressman's wife. No one was breaking rules or the law except possibly the police officers involved. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Feb 11, 2006, 08:30 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Did Sheehan actually refer to the Iraqi insurgency as "freedom fighters"? This only exemplifies how little this woman knows of the country she claims to be speaking in the best interest of when it comes to this war. The insurgency in Iraq is harming the civilian population at this point moreso than our occupying forces. Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad has targeted Shiite Muslims from day one by bombing areas of dense civilian occupation where they are concentrated. Many of these Islamic extremist groups are made up of foreigners and they look upon some of Iraq's minority groups with greater disdain than coalition forces. Anyways, regarding the SOTU: What Sheehan did was wear a jacket over her shirt when she entered the building. If she had not concealed the shirt under her jacket, she would have been told at the door that she could not enter without covering up. After she was allowed in and seated, she removed her jacket, revealing the shirt. I don't know whether Sheehan concealed the shirt intentionally or not, but she was asked to cover up or leave when she removed her jacket, and refused; which is why she was escorted out and arrested for civil disobedience. Everyone knows that protests are not allowed within the buildings of Congress (only outside of them) and statements on clothing have been considered a form of protest since around the 1960's I believe. There was another woman asked to leave for the exact same reason as Sheehan and she was wearing a pro-Iraq/Bush shirt. This only goes to show that protestors were not discriminated against by the nature of their protest, being treated equally and fairly by law enforcement who were acting to uphold the law. I think that what many people are overlooking is the fact that the focus of the SOTU address is normally supposed to be the president and what he has to say -- not somebody's T-shirt with the statement, "2,242 DEAD - How Many More?" in the audience. If Sheehan wanted to protest, she could have done so outside with all of the other protestors. I do not see why her popularity for belligerence should put her above the same laws that other protestors are required to abide.

Feb 11, 2006, 08:52 pm	#125 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Where did I say that wearing a t-shirt was belligerent? Nice strawman comeback that you have there.

Feb 11, 2006, 09:06 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	How is this a slur at Sheehan? Who is calling Sheehan a traitor? Protests are not to be held in the buildings of Congress. They are to be held outside. All of the other protestors were outside. Why should Sheehan be the exception? I've yet to see any explanation for this being given in the thread. There is a fine line between protest and anarchy. Designating specific areas for protesting to take place during a rally or speech insures that the rights of the speaker are protected as much as the right of the protestors. Exemptions would only be discriminatory, if not defeatist of that purpose. RickSp: I could care less what it "sounded like," as what I infact said was that wearing the shirt was a form of protest and refusing to cover it up or leave was an act of civil disobedience (which justified her arrest so that she could be removed from the premises). The police may have apologized due to public pressure, but they were doing their job and I find nothing wrong with how they handled the situation, given the facts.

Feb 12, 2006, 12:27 am	#132 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	What is the difference between having a slogan/statement on a shirt as opposed to a sign? There is none. The double standard here is that you are upset Sheehan could not display the message, yet at the same time, you feign ignorance of it being in any shape or form a protest, sign or banner. If the shirt did not contain a remark or protest and was not a "sign or banner" as you claim, then may I ask why you are all so upset that Sheehan was not allowed to display it in the gallery?