TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Cindy Sheehan Strikes Again And Gets Locked Up...Freedom Of Speech?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In all seriousness, this is a woman who was practically in bed with Hugo Chavez a week ago (figuratively speaking). Calling the President of the U.S. the biggest terrorist in the world. And you think they actually would let her into the SOTU? Hell--they actually did. It wasn't until she was seen in her protest T-shirt that she was finally escorted out. This is hardly surprising.

You cannot defend this pre-emptive strike from things she's been saying or doing before. If those actions were seen as crimes, she should have been punished for them, and after having served her time/paid the fine, she should be treated equally to all others. You wouldn't prevent former bank robbers from entering banks either, would you?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And to Trancer-X's comments. I would tend to agree. The President isn't above any man or the law, but the forum in which Sheehan was clearly the wrong one and I can't blame them for escorting her out.

If the forum was really so wrong, I think that the proper way of handling that fact, would be by screening the list of invites, and then simply refrain from inviting those that are "wrong". After all, the woman took time to come.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You cannot defend this pre-emptive strike from things she's been saying or doing before.

So we can't say that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior? I mean why even bother having registered sex-offenders, right?

quote:

You wouldn't prevent former bank robbers from entering banks either, would you?

I'd certainly be on my guard! As were security at the SOTU. They allowed her in and kindly escorted her to her seat. It was only when she revealed she was wearing a protesting, likely-to-disrupt T-shirt that she was escorted out. Whatever her reasoning, I don't see why anyone would be given more than 1 strike at such a major event.

quote:

If the forum was really so wrong, I think that the proper way of handling that fact, would be by screening the list of invites, and then simply refrain from inviting those that are "wrong". After all, the woman took time to come.

OK, fine, but I bet there would've been plenty of outrage over the fact that a congresswoman gave Sheehan a ticket only to have her turned away at the door. You're dabbling in hypotheticals. Let's deal with what actually happened. Sheehan exposed her shirt, for whatever reason, and was caught and escorted out. There weren't going to be any chances of disruption. I really can't believe all of this outrage.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So we can't say that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior? I mean why even bother having registered sex-offenders, right?

Why bother having AWOL National Guardsmen as president's?

Damn, did I just say that?

I meant ex-cokeheads.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Why bother having AWOL National Guardsmen as president's? Damn, did I just say that? I meant ex-cokeheads.

OK, well if we must go there...are you willing to place a statute of limitations on that?

When is the last time Cindy said Dubya was the world's biggest terrorist? Last week perhaps?

When is the last time Dubya did a line of coke? 30 years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, well if we must go there...are you willing to place a statute of limitations on that? When is the last time Cindy said Dubya was the world's biggest terrorist? Last week perhaps? When is the last time Dubya did a line of coke? 30 years ago?

Not that I'm saying she's right, but I think Cindy has more of a valid reason for calling the Prez a terrorist than we do in assuming that the man is fit for the job of leading our Nation in an honest and moralistic manner.

How many years ago was it that he illegally sold his Harken stock, or used the government's eminent domain powers to grab the land in which to build his baseball stadium (using taxpayer dollars), or any other number of other sleazy things in which he's done?

It just seems like a bad pattern of corruption and immorality to me - something that could hardly be said of a bereaved mother who's simply trying to send a message to the people of our country.

She's not the one running this Nation into the ground, either.

And I'm simply saying that given her recent track record and the fact that she revealed she was wearing a T-shirt that no doubt would've caused a disruption (much like the other woman who was ejected), if for no ther reason than the fact that the media would fawn all over it--I think it's pretty understandable why she was asked to leave.

I believe a security spokesman said that in retrospect it was wrong to have ejected either woman, but personally I don't know if I would be second guessing that decision. It was a judgment call, and given the pertinent facts, I probably would've done the same thing.

The cops later admitted they had messed up.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd The cops later admitted they had messed up.

Right. Read what I wrote before you responded. I still think they probably did the right thing given the circumstances. No doubt the security got a lot of flack and are backpeddaling to cool the outrage.

Somebody kill her.

She's such a dolt.

There's a time and place for flaunting your freedom of speech and to be as arrogant as to do it during the State of the Union address??

She knew that speach was important, people would be watching and she thought, in her infanant wisdom, that stealing some thunder for herself would be a wise move??

She has to be someone's muppet; no one is that asinine...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r She's such a dolt. There's a time and place for flaunting your freedom of speech and to be as arrogant as to do it during the State of the Union address?? She knew that speach was important, people would be watching and she thought, in her infanant wisdom, that stealing some thunder for herself would be a wise move?? She has to be someone's muppet; no one is that asinine...

moooooveon.org

throw that bitch in a ditch, fill it with nuclear waste and the rest is history

or deport her to france or canada

Shakka: I find it hard to argue hard with you, as I tend to share your contempt for Sheehan. However, a few points:

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So we can't say that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior? I mean why even bother having registered sex-offenders, right?

Registering of sex-offenders is an official part of their punishment. That is, the offender knows the full extent of his punishment at sentence, and can build a life within the boundaries of that punishment. What I don't like about the Sheehan-ban is that it seems to be ad-hoc or implicit.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, fine, but I bet there would've been plenty of outrage over the fact that a congresswoman gave Sheehan a ticket only to have her turned away at the door.

I wouldn't have her turned away at the door. I would have had all recipients of ticket screened before the ticket was even mailed to them.

Is this a free speech violation?

quote:

WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL Fri Feb 03 2006 09:24:48 ET A woman accused of using racial epithets while waiting for food at a Connecticut Taco Bell drive-through window was arrested Wednesday. Jennifer Farrelly, 19, of East Windsor, has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color and second-degree breach of peace. Farrelly's boyfriend, Eric Satterlee, 22, of Ashford, was charged with breach of peace in the incident. On Dec. 18, Farrelly and Satterlee became frustrated by the slow service at the Taco Bell restaurant on Brookside Place, according to an arrest warrant. Farrelly banged on the drive-through window and called the Taco Bell attendant, Jamelle Byrd, a racial epithet, according to the warrant. Satterlee allegedly cursed and banged on the window. Farrelly denied using racial epithets when she was interviewed by police, saying Byrd caused the dispute by ridiculing her for parking her car far away from the drive-through window, the warrant states. Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.

Apparently you simply can't say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want to. However, you can certainly do whatever the hell you please in your own home as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Is this a free speech violation? Apparently you simply can't say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want to. However, you can certainly do whatever the hell you please in your own home as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't go so far as to try and classify any racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual epithets as freedom of speech. I'd say they're more akin to verbal abuse more than they are free speech.

Cindy sheehan is an embarrassing individual.

Yes her son died, most mothers would be heart broken.

She is protesting for herself, and her feelings, and nothing else, remember that.

She is unbelievably selfish.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Cindy sheehan is an embarrassing individual. Yes her son died, most mothers would be heart broken. She is protesting for herself, and her feelings, and nothing else, remember that. She is unbelievably selfish.

+1
She makes the people who are against war look ridiculous to the people in the middle. When she first came into the spotlight, the concept all sounded good, mother loses child, comes to revelation that war is bar, costs too high, etc. Then she started talking and making an ass of herself. Now she's with meeting with Hugo Chavez. If I were one of those people in the middle who are still undecided about how to deal with this war, I'd look at her and walk the other direction. She's essentially helping Bush with these people.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.