Go go free speech!

miir · Post by **miir** » February 2, 2006, 3:47 pm

Wearing an anti-war t shirt will get you handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct.

Even better... being the wife of a congressman and wearing a 'Support The Troops' sweatshit will get you forcibly ejected from the president's state of the union address...

U S A !!! U S A !!! U S A !!!

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 2, 2006, 4:07 pm

At least the cops didn't shoot em outright. I guess that should count for something.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 2, 2006, 4:09 pm

I think they have the right to protect the integrity of the function (spare me the one liner responses).

no one is stopping either of them from wearing the shirts or speaking to the media about said shirts.

Some of us actually want to hear a speech without the childish interruptions of people desperately seeking more attention.

Some people hate the war, I get it.
Some people don't, I get it.

Let me hear the speech.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 2, 2006, 4:21 pm

I think they have the right to protect the integrity of the function

What does arresting someone for unlawful conduct have to do with the integrity of the function?

no one is stopping either of them from wearing the shirts or speaking to the media about said shirts

They were personally invited to attend a function at which they were handcuffed and forcibly removed because of the shits they were wearing.

Some of us actually want to hear a speech without the childish interruptions of people desperately seeking more attention.

How do letters on a shirt interfere with you being able to hear a speech?
Maybe they should have handcuffed and tasered everyone that was wearing a red tie just in case. You know how wacky those democrats desparately seeking attention can get.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 2, 2006, 4:58 pm

Reports I heard also stated that they were asked to cover the shirts up before being led out. Sheehan, at least, declined to do so. I do not know about the politician's wife.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 2, 2006, 5:18 pm

It was a Black Tie event.

My God it was a joke, Listen the bitch wore the shirt to get a reaction, She got one right? She got more fucking press then she deserved.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 2, 2006, 5:25 pm

They make people wear jackets and ties at fancy restaurants, I imagine this was something similar. It's not "Black Tie" because that means tuxedo formal, but I imagine that they expect people to be in proper business attire, which t- and sweatshirts do not qualify as.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 2, 2006, 6:06 pm

There is no dress code for gallery guests.

Even if there were, a person violating the dress code would not have been allowed to enter in the first place... and they most certainly would not be forcibly removed, handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » February 2, 2006, 6:27 pm

Even if there were, a person violating the dress code would not have been allowed to enter in the first place... and they most certainly would not be forcibly removed, handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct.

Whats your point here? Actual written dress code or not, there is a formality to the event that one should adhere to. What I imagine happens is that they don't have bouncers at the door checking you to make sure your dressed in proper attire. I would speculate that the t-shirt and sweats wearer attire was brought before whoever makes the decisions and they where told to change or leave. If you didn't leave and had to be forcibly removed, then yes you should get some kind of charge for being a jackass on general principle.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 2, 2006, 6:41 pm

Sumdaor wrote:Whats your point here? Actual written dress code or not, there is a formality to the event that one should adhere to. What I imagine happens is that they don't have bouncers at the door checking you to make sure your dressed in proper attire. I would speculate that the t-shirt and sweats wearer attire was brought before whoever makes the decisions and they where told to change or leave. If you didn't leave and had to be forcibly removed, then yes you should get some kind of charge for being a jackass on general principle.

The point is that there is no fucking dress code, moron.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » February 2, 2006, 6:42 pm

The point is that there is no fucking dress code, moron.

Your acting like a child. Take your head out of your ass and think for just one moment.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 2, 2006, 6:45 pm

Maybe they were being disruptive in someway. It wouldn't be the first time that the press was skewd to print what it wanted and leave out the little details like that.

Where did you find out that there is no dress code? Just curious.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 2, 2006, 6:53 pm

Did any of you read the fucking article? No tehy weren't being disruptive. No they weren't "protesting". No they weren't required to wear formal wear. The cops have flat out said they fucked up, and you're still trying to defend them. Head up his ass? Well yes, usually, but he's still not the one with his head up his ass in this case. I know it feels warm and safe in there, where you don't have to hear anything not fed to you, but pull it out.

"Just wearing a T-shirt is not unlawful," Gainer said. Wearing a T-shirt and engaging in actions meant to draw attention to the shirt is against the law, he said, but neither woman was doing so.

For the record, Gainer is the US Capitol police chief.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 2, 2006, 6:59 pm

Nope. Didn't read the article. Just going off the abreviated versions of everyone on the board. Besides, why did you read what I wrote when you have me on ignore? I knew you loved me.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » February 2, 2006, 7:02 pm

Did any of you read the fucking article? No tehy weren't being disruptive. No they weren't "protesting". No they weren't required to wear formal wear. The cops have flat out said they fucked up, and you're still trying to defend them. Head up his ass? Well yes, usually, but he's still not the one with his head up his ass in this case. I know it feels warm and safe in there, where you don't have to hear anything not fed to you, but pull it out.

The point is wrong or not, its not some great injustice. If you attend a formal event maybe you should wear formal attire. Your trying to make something out of nothing. She got arrested big deal, well if your asked to leave and you start swearing and yelling in the capitol building. Yeah your probably going to get arrested.

This incident sure as hell didn't warrant a post from the anti-bush/US brigade.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 2, 2006, 7:36 pm

The point is wrong or not, its not some great injustice.

You don't see any injustice?

How would you feel if you were walking down the street, minding your own business when some cop came up to you, told you to come with him, cuffed your hands behind your back, threw you in the back of a cruiser and told you that you were being arrested for unlawful conduct?

Would you just sit there like a fucking pussy and make up excuses for the cop acting like a douchebag?

If you attend a formal event maybe you should wear formal attire

Are you just pretending to be fucking retard?
IT IS NOT A FORMAL AFFAIR TO SIT IN THE GALLERY OF THE HOUSE
There is no formal dress code required to watch your government in action.

She got arrested big deal, well if your asked to leave and you start swearing and yelling in the capitol building. Yeah your probably going to get arrested.

Nobody was yelling or swearing in the gallery.
They were both sitting quietly, watching the speech.

This incident sure as hell didn't warrant a post from the anti-bush/US brigade.

The funny thing it, this has nothing at all to do with Bush.
It has to do with me trolling you 'uber-patriotic' retards who will defend anything related to your country... regardless of how fucked up it is.

The cops admitted they fucked up and they are probably looking at a big ugly lawsuit.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 2, 2006, 8:18 pm

Lol people are actually defending this sort of bullshit.

Please go read a few books and educate yourselves beyond the level of a fucking sheep.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » February 2, 2006, 8:20 pm

I am not saying it was right to throw the crazy bitch out but it is not the first time this has happened. I still think her son would disown her like her husband did.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashts.htm

FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial
Wed Feb 01 2006 08:47:08 ET

Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist who was removed from the House gallery last night before the State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt with a political message, is not the first person to be tossed from a Congressional gallery at a high-profile event for wearing a political t-shirt.

In the early days of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, "Clinton doesn't inhale, he sucks."

The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

END

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 2, 2006, 9:10 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Nope. Didn't read the article. Just going off the abreviated versions of everyone on the board. Besides, why did you read what I wrote when you have me on ignore? I knew you loved me.

I don't have you on ignore anymore. You were put on it for posting some disgusting shit in general forum that had no place being there.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 2, 2006, 9:47 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:Nope. Didn't read the article. Just going off the abreviated versions of everyone on the board. Besides, why did you read what I wrote when you have me on ignore? I knew you loved me.
I don't have you on ignore anymore. You were put on it for posting some disgusting shit in general forum that had no place being there.

Ahhh must have been that annorexic chick at the beach thing. Sorry about that.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 2, 2006, 9:51 pm

I have Dregor's fatass avatar blocked other he'd be the only person I'd have on ignore.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 3, 2006, 12:51 pm

In the early days of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, "Clinton doesn't inhale, he sucks."

So... at Clinton's trial, someone was wearing a shirt with disparaging remarks about the guy on trial, and was removed.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read "Support the Troops."

At the State of the Union, a woman was wearing a shirt that said (and I quote. I also point out unnecessary things for emphasis) "Support the Troops".

How are those two things even in the same ballpark? Are you trying to say that "Support the Troops" is analagous to "Bush eats babies", because it seems like you could both be a Bush fan and supporter of the members of our military. Feel free to call it liberal bias on my part (which it's not), I'd just like someone to connect the dots for me.

Sumdaor · Post by **Sumdaor** » February 3, 2006, 1:35 pm

How would you feel if you were walking down the street, minding your own business when some cop came up to you, told you to come with him, cuffed your hands behind your back, threw you in the back of a cruiser and told you that you were being arrested for unlawful conduct?

If the cop asked me to do something and you refused. Which Sheenan was giving the option of covering up and refused. Thats why she was escorted out, and then arrested.

It has to do with me trolling you 'uber-patriotic' retards who will defend anything related to your country... regardless of how fucked up it is.

Thats funny I think of you as some "uber-patriotic" retard. Your cousin go back to work yet on for the Canadian Border Patrol or is he still hiding out at the house making his "political statement".

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 3, 2006, 1:40 pm

Bullshit, if a cop asked you something to do something that he has no right to enforce you don't actually have any reason to abide by his stupid wishes.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2006, 1:46 pm

If the cop asked me to do something and you refused. Which Sheenan was giving the option of covering up and refused. Thats why she was escorted out, and then arrested.

You've already proven my point that you're an idiot.
No need to keep proving it.... we get the point.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » February 3, 2006, 3:04 pm

Even in the fuck up, there are inconsistencies.

Why was Mrs. Young merely thrown out (still something that should not have happened) and Cindy Sheehan arrested? Anyone else think this increases the odds of her lawsuit against the cops being successful?

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » February 3, 2006, 4:35 pm

Sumdaor wrote:
How would you feel if you were walking down the street, minding your own business when some cop came up to you, told you to come with him, cuffed your hands behind your back, threw you in the back of a cruiser and told you that you were being arrested for unlawful conduct?
If the cop asked me to do something and you refused. Which Sheenan was giving the option of covering up and refused. Thats why she was escorted out, and then arrested.

It has to do with me trolling you 'uber-patriotic' retards who will defend anything related to your country... regardless of how fucked up it is.
Thats funny I think of you as some "uber-patriotic" retard. Your cousin go back to work yet on for the Canadian Border Patrol or is he still hiding out at the house making his "political statement".

I haven't read the article, but from what I saw on TV, she wasnt even asked to cover up. She unbuttoned her jacket and had that t-shirt on underneath and was arrested WITHOUT being given the option to put her jacket back on. In a statement from her, she said if she had been asked to cover it up she would have.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 3, 2006, 4:39 pm

What right does anyone have to even begin to start fucking whining, much less arresting, when some woman wears a shirt stating a FUCKING FACT.

Seriously...it's fucked up beyond belief.

This just in, man gets arrested for wearing a tshirt daring to say the sky is blue and water exists on planet earth.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 3, 2006, 4:56 pm

Asheran Mojomaster wrote:
Sumdaor wrote:
How would you feel if you were walking down the street, minding your own business when some cop came up to you, told you to come with him, cuffed your hands behind your back, threw you in the back of a cruiser and told you that you were being arrested for unlawful conduct?
If the cop asked me to do something and you refused. Which Sheenan was giving the option of covering up and refused. Thats why she was escorted out, and then arrested.

It has to do with me trolling you 'uber-patriotic' retards who will defend anything related to your country... regardless of how fucked up it is.
Thats funny I think of you as some "uber-patriotic" retard. Your cousin go back to work yet on for the Canadian Border Patrol or is he still hiding out at the house making his "political statement".
I haven't read the article, but from what I saw on TV, she wasnt even asked to cover up. She unbuttoned her jacket and had that t-shirt on underneath and was arrested WITHOUT being given the option to put her jacket back on. In a statement from her, she said if she had been asked to cover it up she would have.

This is all kind of funny. The TV reports I heard stated that Sheehan was asked to cover it up and refused before she was led out. Oh, and it wasn't on FOX!

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » February 3, 2006, 6:22 pm

Sylvus wrote:
In the early days of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999, a Pennsylvania man named Dave Delp was removed by the Capitol police from the Senate gallery for wearing a t-shirt that said, "Clinton doesn't inhale, he sucks."
So... at Clinton's trial, someone was wearing a shirt with disparaging remarks about the guy on trial, and was removed.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read "Support the Troops."
At the State of the Union, a woman was wearing a shirt that said (and I quote. I also point out unnecessary things for emphasis) "Support the Troops".

How are those two things even in the same ballpark? Are you trying to say that "Support the Troops" is analagous to "Bush eats babies", because it seems like you could both be a Bush fan and supporter of the members of our military. Feel free to call it liberal bias on my part (which it's not), I'd just like someone to connect the dots for me.

Man you have sucha hard on for me you talk desperate smack trying, hell the only logical thing is that both of them got smacked. If support the troops had been tossed out, and Sheehan not, or vice versa that would be a problem.

How is tossing a guy out of government business ever right, oh yeah, if your politicians that you support abuse the system it is okay. I think the entire thing is fuxxored, but even while I think he is a disastrous president, I would still not pull some stunt like that, I respect the office, even if not the person. If I had met Clinton I would have have greeted him as Mr. President and shook his hand, even though he tossing our economic futures out the window at a pace matched only by Reagan and Bush2.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 3, 2006, 6:46 pm

I AM seeing no injustice at all.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan wore a shirt with the message "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read "Support the Troops."

Both sides are at eachothers throats enough. Every day, in every way, especially in the various forms of media. Every few seconds you can tune into some political figure, some new anchor, some nobody saying something in print, over the radio, over the TV...that divides us further and further apart. The 2 parties are enjoying this time in history. They have never been further apart. It's bullshit. There really isn't too many different ways to obtain the important things in life we as a nation desire from our government. Stability and protection.

Anyways, I applaud their removal. That address needs everyone who cares to watch to focus in on the importance of the topics at hand, not being distracted by self rightous assholes and their pompous messages. It's not their forum..it's the Presidents.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 3, 2006, 7:11 pm

Bush is infinitely more of a self righteous and pompous asshole than Cindy Sheehan.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 3, 2006, 7:16 pm

For once, Ide like to see a president do a state of the union, and begin with "please hold all applause untill the end of my speech."

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » February 3, 2006, 7:24 pm

i hope cindy sheehan gets hit by a bus and that is my contribution to this thread

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2006, 9:18 pm

Anyways, I applaud their removal. That address needs everyone who cares to watch to focus in on the importance of the topics at hand, not being distracted by self rightous assholes and their pompous messages. It's not their forum..it's the Presidents.

Yea because having two people who were sitting quietly, forcibly removed from the vistors gallery and the media shitstorm that followed wasn't a distraction whatsoever.

If you can provide any evidence or eyewitness account that insomuch as hints that either of these two individuals were making any sort of disturbance, I'll agree with you.

But that won't happen as even the police admitted that neither one had done anything to draw any attention to themselves.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 3, 2006, 9:19 pm

Stragi wrote:i hope cindy sheehan gets hit by a bus and that is my contribution to this thread

Grow up or get a new schtick.
This one is tired and unfunny.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 4, 2006, 12:22 am

As I have said since Day one these women did this for attention and they recieved it I dont see the problem. they got the result they wanted.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » February 4, 2006, 11:20 am

Sionistic wrote:For once, Ide like to see a president do a state of the union, and begin with "please hold all applause untill the end of my speech."

I'd rather them go back to what they did starting with Jefferson up to Woodrow Wilson (who ended the practice) of just sending a written message.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/opini ... ref=slogin

Post by **Sylvus** » February 4, 2006, 8:55 pm

Kylere wrote:Man you have sucha hard on for me you talk desperate smack trying, hell the only logical thing is that both of them got smacked. If support the troops had been tossed out, and Sheehan not, or vice versa that would be a problem.

How is tossing a guy out of government business ever right, oh yeah, if your politicians that you support abuse the system it is okay. I think the entire thing is fuxxored, but even while I think he is a disastrous president, I would still not pull some stunt like that, I respect the office, even if not the person. If I had met Clinton I would have have greeted him as Mr. President and shook his hand, even though he tossing our economic futures out the window at a pace matched only by Reagan and Bush2.

Uhh... what? That's relatively incoherent.

It had fuckall to do with you specifically, all you did was regurgitate something Drudge posted. Sorry that my use of the pronoun "you" leads you to believe I have "sucha hardon" for "you".

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 6, 2006, 2:33 pm

The people on this thread, and the way they defend what happened is sickening and evidence as to why the country is the way it is these days.

Inch by inch until it's all gone.

Amazingly pathetic.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 6, 2006, 8:22 pm

Siji wrote:The people on this thread, and the way they defend what happened is sickening and evidence as to why the country is the way it is these days.

Inch by inch until it's all gone.

Amazingly pathetic.

Sorry, the State of the Union address isn't the place for political grandstanding. People with an axe to grind or simply wanting to make a political statement simply don't belong there.

Cindy Sheehans shirt was plainly meant to be obnoxious and disruptive.

The Support the Troops shirt wasn't, but still, had no place there.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 6, 2006, 8:42 pm

Aruman wrote:Sorry, the State of the Union address isn't the place for political grandstanding. People with an axe to grind or simply wanting to make a political statement simply don't belong there.

By your logic, W himself should have been hauled out in irons. Or did you consider his "No Island of Dr. Mareau" statements as something other than fearmongering grandstanding? Or his bitching about being cockblocked on social security something other than axe grinding? Or 99% of the Iraq BS as something other than purely political statements?

Sheenan is nutty, to be sure, but the fact that W is downright afraid of her speaks volumes about the state of affairs.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 6, 2006, 8:55 pm

Shut up Mister Republican says its ok to have freedom of expression/speech (his words = axe to grind) in CERTAIN places.

What an American!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 6, 2006, 10:50 pm

Nick wrote:Shut up Mister Republican says its ok to have freedom of expression/speech (his words = axe to grind) in CERTAIN places.

What an American!

All I can hear is Blah Blah Blah... I'm not an American...

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 6, 2006, 10:51 pm

Jice Virago wrote: By your logic, W himself should have been hauled out in irons. Or did you consider his "No Island of Dr. Mareau" statements as something other than fearmongering grandstanding? Or his bitching about being cockblocked on social security something other than axe grinding? Or 99% of the Iraq BS as something other than purely political statements?

Sheenan is nutty, to be sure, but the fact that W is downright afraid of her speaks volumes about the state of affairs.

Logic has crap to do with it. He is there to give HIS State of the Union Address... as REQUIRED.

He doesn't have to suffer the fools.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 6, 2006, 10:54 pm

Well I guess if your ears are so easily clogged up with misinformation and stupidity it would be hard to hear just about anything.

"He doesn't have to suffer the fools" = lol!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 7, 2006, 5:17 am

Aruman wrote:
Jice Virago wrote: By your logic, W himself should have been hauled out in irons. Or did you consider his "No Island of Dr. Mareau" statements as something other than fearmongering grandstanding? Or his bitching about being cockblocked on social security something other than axe grinding? Or 99% of the Iraq BS as something other than purely political statements?

Sheenan is nutty, to be sure, but the fact that W is downright afraid of her speaks volumes about the state of affairs.
Logic has crap to do with it. He is there to give HIS State of the Union Address... as REQUIRED.

He doesn't have to suffer the fools.

Actually, he is not required to do anything more than issue a written statement to congress. He certainly is not required to make a big spectical out of it legally, much less list the TV show Manimal as a credible threat to our nation's security.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 7, 2006, 5:57 am

Jice Virago wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Jice Virago wrote: By your logic, W himself should have been hauled out in irons. Or did you consider his "No Island of Dr. Mareau" statements as something other than fearmongering grandstanding? Or his bitching about being cockblocked on social security something other than axe grinding? Or 99% of the Iraq BS as something other than purely political statements?

Sheenan is nutty, to be sure, but the fact that W is downright afraid of her speaks volumes about the state of affairs.
Logic has crap to do with it. He is there to give HIS State of the Union Address... as REQUIRED.

He doesn't have to suffer the fools.
Actually, he is not required to do anything more than issue a written statement to congress. He certainly is not required to make a big spectical out of it legally, much less list the TV show Manimal as a credible threat to our nation's security.

Sure, that may be all that is required... but you know that isn't going to happen. The citizens want to hear it, and the media sure as hell want to cover it, so who better to give it publically than the person who is supposed to deliver it to Congress? I'd consider it his responsibility to do so.I personally wouldn't want some Congressman reading my State of the Union Address to the citizens of the United States on national television.

As far as your Manimal and Dr. Moreau references. I searched the transcription at these URL's:

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcr ... &year=2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01468.html

Neither of them has any such reference, so I wasn't able to even see what context those may have been used in. Are you making stuff up or what?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 7, 2006, 7:06 am

What's the big deal? So what two people's freedom of expression were violated, so what the first amendment of the constitution was blatantly ignored in a place where it should be most diligently upheld? It happens all the time all over the world, this is no different. And I'm absolutely positive they were the only two people in the entire place wearing t-shirts, obviously the dress code violation was the reason they were removed, and it had nothing to do with what their shirts actually said. I'm sure of that so I can use it in my argument. They are fools and I'm smart!!

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » February 7, 2006, 12:37 pm

As far as your Manimal and Dr. Moreau references. I searched the transcription at these URL's:

Neither of them has any such reference, so I wasn't able to even see what context those may have been used in. Are you making stuff up or what?

Obviously you need to watch the Daily Show instead of Faux News. Everyone has been joking about his desire to ban human animal hybrid cloning.

Further, doing more than is required is the very deffinition of grandstanding. Of course, to be fair, W hardly started the practice and would skip it entirely, if Rove let him, given his public speaking ability. The major thing you fail to grasp (and what seperates the SOTU from being just another RNC pep rally speech) is that it is intended to address the electorate, through congress. Its not limited to merely those who agree with you.

Does the fact that your man W is deathly afraid of a crazy old woman with a T-Shirt concern you in a Hamlettesque manner at all? If he had ANY balls, he could have put all this shit to rest long ago just by meeting her in person (at his ranch would have been ideal for him) and just plain be upfront with her. If, after that, she kept on being nutty, then he could have her hauled off and tossed in the loony bin with the rest of the tinfoil hat wearers. Instead, his fear of her has legitimized her.