I hope Pat Leahy sees to it that these outside agitators are prosecuted and get lengthy prison terms

[bluestateguy]

A disgusting show of disrespect to our country.

:sarcasm:

Gotcha.

[liberalmuse]

1. What are you referring to? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. Well I don't know about all that... Whatever the law says.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Would you advocate the same for anyone who disturbs a House or Senate meeting?

[Tim01]

10. No, I'm sure some disruptors are to be called heros. And others to get prison terms. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. That sounds fairly capricious. Why not the same treatment for all disruptors?

[Tim01]

21. Yeah, that's my point.

You know, I have noticed something odd about humans.
Humans love to choose up teams and cheer about how great their team is and about how much the other team sucks.I don't get it. And logic rarely is useful when the team thing is happening. Just try to tell somebody that what their team says doesn't make sense.
It doesn't matter who forms the team.

If pro life people are going to jail for disruption, anti war people should go to jail for disruption.


Or how about we do the reasonable thing and throw them all out, and maybe give them a small fine.Which is what will probably happen.

[MidwestTransplant]

4. Lengthy prison terms for disrupting congress? Seems a lot too harsh. How about kicking them out.

Maybe a small fine.

[Hansel]

7. +1

Except just kicking them out works for me.

[Bluzmann57]

5. Do you want the codepink women prosecuted too?

After all, aren't they outside agitators too? We can't pick and choose who we want to prosecute for outside agitation. The law must be applied fairly to all.

[Ian David]

24. Pat Buchannan is on TV 20 hours a day. Cindy Sheehan needs to be arrested to get on TV.

Big difference.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I think they'll get what Code Pink has gotten

And I think their message won't go that far. People tend to tune out protesters of this kind, no matter what side they are on.

[Recursion]

8. "Outside agitators"?

Boy, there's a phrase with some uncomfortable baggage. Pro-life activists already feel like they're the heirs of the civil rights movement; it doesn't help when we start acting like George Wallace.

[liberalmuse]

9. Now I understand...

the truth is, I loved the disruptors on our side during the Abu Ghraib hearings. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. If you are talking about the "pro-lifers" (and I use that term very loosely) yelling during the Sotomayor hearings, well, I disagree. I love that we can speak out during government hearings, and all we have to worry about is getting ejected. Even though I do not care for those assclowns, things like this make me very glad I live in a nation where we have a bit more than the illusion of freedom at times.

[shadowknows69]

12. +1. We can't choose to quell protest by one group without endangering it for all.

Most people willing to go to such lengths know they'll be arrested for it, but the penalties shouldn't be harsh unless there is clear threatening language or violent disruption. Yelling Sotomayor is a baby killer, fine, let the idiots spew. If someone yelled. "You should die, baby killer" then that might be a horse of a different color.

[MineralMan]

11. Why? What exactly does yelling something out in a hearing

do that requires a "lengthy prison term?"

How about tossing them out on their ear, instead? Your objection appears to be based on your disagreement with the shouters in this particular instance. Have you the same opinion when the shouter yells something with which you agree?

Removal from the venue is punishment enough. No one is harmed. It costs nobody money. Where's the offense that deserves a harsh sentence. Just toss 'em out of the room.

[rubberducky]

15. + 1

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. So is Jeff Sessions,

but no one's advocating prosecuting him and sending him to the slammer for a long time.

You do realize that these hearings are open to the public, and, as such, disruptions occur.

Our Founding Fathers planned it that way, or did you skip that part of our history?

[MineralMan]

26. The OP edited in a sarcasm smiley and

said "Gotcha." I guess it's all OK now. Screw that. Sarcasm that isn't evident is just ranting. You don't get to come in later and weasel out with a smiley, IMO.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

29. Wow..........

If that isn't the height of weasel behavior, I don't know what is.

I've never seen anything like that before. Some kind of line has been crossed. That statement wasn't sarcasm, or irony, or satire, or any of those things - it was nothing but a meanspirited rant, and dressing it up with an emoticon later is nothing more than proof that the individual is an idiot.

Thanks for the info.....................

[Javaman]

14. Yeah, free speech totally sucks.

:eyes:

sorry but some animals aren't more equal than others regardless of their opinions.

[MineralMan]

16. How about dropping back in on your thread and

responding to the replies? That'd be real nice.

[bluestateguy]

18. Reply

nt

[MineralMan]

22. Well, that clarifies things.

Looks like a drive-by post to me. Sorry, but why not participate in what you start?

[PretzelWarrior]

17. that is extremely partisan. I don't think you'd say the same for CODEPINK

or other progressive protesters

[Raineyb]

27. Isn't that the point the OP was making?

When it's Code Pink or doctors advocating for a single payer system we throw the book at them. Others, not so much.

[Flying Dream Blues]

19. No, thanks, I think free speech gets my vote.

[Ian David]

23. Anti-choice conservatives are ignored and have no other way to be heard!

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

25. Screw your 'Gotcha.'

I'm not laughing at your little game. If your post needs a :sarcasm: smiley, you wrote it badly.

[msanthrope]

28. Nah--removal and a summary offense/fine. No biggie. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. Gotcha?

No, honey. You just made a perfect ass of yourself.

Welcome to "Ignore."