Mossadeq
(87 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:01 AM
Original message |
We cannot demonstrate in the SOTU ? |
|
Maybe I am confused, But Cindy showed anti-war support at the SOTU.
And last year the repubs all held up purple fingers showing their support for war.
WTF, Am I missing something ?
|
thinkingwoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:03 AM
Response to Original message |
|
the Bushco definition of "demonstrating" is: saying, wearing, or thinking anything Bush doesn't like, approve of, or agree with. :evilgrin:
|
dogday
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. When you see how differently the two mothers were treated |
|
one who believed in the war, was clapped for and given lavish attention. The one who does not believe in the war was taken out in handcuffs for a t-shirt stating how many soldiers have died. I see no better time to remember our dead than at the SOTU speech...
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. You cannot have banners in the gallery. That's the rule. nt |
Jeanette in FL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. What banner are you talking about? |
|
Cindy did not have a banner.
|
fasttense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. What banner? That's just Freeper exaggeration, otherwise known as lies. |
dogday
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
marmar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Not in the U.S.A.S.S.R. |
|
Not under the despotic regime we're under.
|
Benhurst
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Maybe back in the days of the Republic, but not any more. NT |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-01-06 09:06 AM by Benhurst
|
acmejack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |
4. They are busily suppressing dissent everywhere. |
|
They don't abide peaceful dissent, checkout section 215 in the Patriot Act. It makes certain "disruptive activities" felonies if they occur in an area where the president or someone else who the secret service is protecting is at or will be at.
The police state is nigh.
|
HereSince1628
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Know your Patriot Act, and live within it's imprint |
|
It's not your Grandfather's Bill of Rights.
|
meisje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message |
7. protesting in the chambers is illegal |
|
had it been a different cop ,she may have been allowed to stay.
|
Ravenseye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
What she did, technically, was illegal. It's not about free speech zones, but more about rules protecting 'the dignity' of the house. Those areas are open to the public much of the time, for people to watch the process, and the rules are very strict concerning what they can do, wear, and say while up there, so as not to distract from the floor.
That said, the agent should have realized that she would never have gotten there if she was a real threat and simply asked her to rebutton her blouse. Or if they were going to go, calmly remove her instead of bruising and dragging her away.
|
hwmnbn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message |
8. maybe we should put purple paint..... |
|
on our middle finger instead and raise it everytime the chimp speaks.
That way the idiot won't know what to do.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message |
9. They were discussing this on CNN this AM with Johnathan Turley |
|
a law professor. Mr Turley said they've been getting much tougher on conduct in Congress recently, but it's quite biased to the Pub side. He said this is not the only icident, nor was it the first. There was a woman arrested a short time ago for standing up during a hearing and asking to speak. She was removed, arrested and CONVICTED!
He said there is only one rule they could possible be sighting in the Sheehan case. The one that refers to "wear proper business attire", but it's a real stretch to say that applies to a tee shirt.
|
seabeyond
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-01-06 09:22 AM
Response to Original message |
13. good point. we will have to use it. thanks n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 06:45 PM
Response to Original message |