Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Just Wondering 30

Journal by pudge

Shouldn't there be a list of people who have chained themselves to the front gates of the White House? And shouldn't the people on said list be automatically excluded from entrance to events such as the State of the Union?

Seems obvious to me.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Just Wondering More

Just Wondering

Comments Filter:
  • The only group Cindy Sheehan appeals to is the far-far-far way out in left field liberals.

    Moderates wish she'd just go away already, as they're tiring of her little stunts.

    The more the Democrats are associated with "Mother" Sheehan, the more damage it does to their chances at gaining any congressional seats this year.

    Get her out of jail and turn her loose. The crazier she gets, the better.

    Think about it: If she were to beat Dianne Fienstein in a primary, then the GOP can mark that seat as theirs. Ci

    • Because they are known troublemakers who are likely to cause more trouble should they be allowed in. Which, of course, is what happened with Sheehan last night.

      Isn't that totally obvious?
      • She caused trouble? She just took off an outer shirt to reveal and anti-war shirt!!! That's trouble.

        How far we have fallen...

        I was surprised when they didn't usher the Democrats out for appluading their actions that Bush was denouncing. If he would have thought of it, he surely would have.
        • Besides, what she did is EXPRESSLY NOT against the law, (see Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (Dist. D.C. 1997) (.pdf) [uscourts.gov]).

          Specifically:

          Unlike the grounds surrounding the Capitol, which historically have been the site of numerous demonstrations, there has been a ban on demonstrations inside the Capitol since 1946 when Congress decreed: "It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly -- ... to parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of the Capitol Buildings." 40 U.S.C. 19

          • Besides, what she did is EXPRESSLY NOT against the law

            What you quote is not about the law, but about rules. And traditionally, those rules have been interpreted much more strictly for the State of the Union, as demonstrated by the fact that a Republican lawmaker's wife was removed last night for her pro-troops shirt, and a Santorum guest was removed in the 90s for an anti-Clinton shirt.

            And not that it matters anyway, because the Post reports that Sheehan was vocal, according to Capitol Police, so she was d
            • I didn't believe that I misrepresented. I take your corrections at their face value. My recollection must be faulty. Sorry.
              • I didn't believe that I misrepresented.

                Wow. So you say I believed Powell, though I never did. You directly implied I said the war was sold on nation building, though I clearly did not. You said the President went to war based on the uranium forgeries, though he clearly did not.

                And you say you still do not believe you misrepresented anything?

                That's incredible.

                • And you say you still do not believe you misrepresented anything?

                  If I read him correctly, he stated that at the time (past tense) he did not believe he had misrepresented anything, but now admitted fault and apologized. He might have been sarcastic, but if not, it appears he's admitting he misrepresented you while claiming it was done unwittingly.

                  My reading of the situation may be wrong.

                • No, I thought you had said that Powell, and the rest of Bush's staff, believed the evidence and didn't know that they were forgeries and, as it was only a partial justification for the war, it was OK as they were acting in America's best interest nonetheless and that after-knowledge of no WMDs or of forgeries is not enough to say the war was brought on false pretenses as they weren't the only pretense to begin with. I think that sums it up.

                  Like I said, my memory could be faulty.
                  • No, I thought you had said that Powell, and the rest of Bush's staff, believed the evidence

                    To a large degree, yes, they did. They both -- Powell and Bush -- expressed the notion that the public case was weak, but they both believed it was true evidence, and that Iraq did have WMD.

                    and didn't know that they were forgeries and, as it was only a partial justification for the war

                    No, no, no. I already went over this, and you apparently did not even read my response. The forgeries were not ANY part of the justi
                    • There's two completely different things here: one is how the war was sold. We are all in agreement -- and I said this before the invasion! -- that the war was not sold appropriately to the American people. Then there's the war itself: forgetting for a moment about how it was sold, was it justified? For me, the answer is unequivocally yes.

                      So we are in agreement on the first question.

                      On the second, we unequivocally disagree.

                    • And do you agree there is not a snot of evidence that Bush or Powell based their arguments on the forgeries?
                    • No. I don't think they based them on the forgeries. The forgeries were used to bolster the argument against people suspicious of Iraq's nuclear threat. Before the UN, Powell used intel about the aluminum tubes that were already hotly criticized within the CIA.
                    • No. I don't think they based them on the forgeries. The forgeries were used to bolster the argument against people suspicious of Iraq's nuclear threat.

                      Yes, but almost entirely internally, not publically, and long before the State of the Union.

                      Before the UN, Powell used intel about the aluminum tubes that were already hotly criticized within the CIA.

                      He used them at the UN too. But don't blame Powell: Tenet told him to say it. Yes, it was hotly debated within the CIA, and at the end of the day, Tenet said i
          • You don't know how to read. What you are QUOTING is not a directive of the court opinion, but a "regulation" issued by the Capitol Police to guide them in how to handle disturbances -- which in this case the capitol police applied it to "prayer".

            That's right, the case you cite is about PRAYER. Not tee-shirts.

            You present this as if it proves what you suggest. It does not.

            Googling for "tee shirt" and "capitol" may yield some hits -- but you should at least READ those hits before you cite them...

            BTW, the Ca
            • You don't know how to read. Actually, I do know how to read. I was quoting a decision about demonstrations in the capitol building. It just so happens that the demonstration in the capitol building for this case revolved around prayer. However, for clarification, the capitol police clarified the law with a regulation that expressly excluded wearing Tee Shirts and buttons that may carry slogans or political speech/ideas.
              • Police do not "clarify" laws. I think I understand what you are TRYING to say, but you are stating it wrong. Simply stated, what they do is list out details on how they (the Police) need to ENFORCE the law. The courts then decide on the application of the law on specific cases -- or possibly the constitutionality (state or federal) of a law.

                So, perhaps you "know how to read", but fell in to the "read far more into something than was actually there" bucket... Example:

                I was quoting a decision about demon

        • You may not like her. You may not like her message. But she was an invited guest and had a ticket and had every right to wear that shirt as long as she was not being vocally disruptive. What the capitol police did was expressly wrong. The irony is that she was escorted out just as Bush was giving lip service to our rights to civily disagree.

          What a joke.
          • she was an invited guest and had a ticket and had every right to wear that shirt as long as she was not being vocally disruptive

            Incorrect. She is not allowed to be disruptive, period.

            What the capitol police did was expressly wrong.

            You're wrong.

            The irony is that she was escorted out just as Bush was giving lip service to our rights to civily disagree.

            No, she was escorted out before he entered the chamber.

            • Hey pudge, check it out, you just achieved one of the pinacles of zoo.pl, being modded as a troll in your own journal. =D Congratulations.

              Anyway, I tend to interpret things like freedom of speech, right to protest and freedom of assembly as being quite broad. As long as they aren't gonna being popping shots off at the president or being highly disruptive(IE: Yelling, etc. not wearing a T-shirt, and yes this cuts both ways) they should be allowed in. Affiliation, dress, etc. should not be factors.

              Anywho,
              • Hey pudge, check it out, you just achieved one of the pinacles of zoo.pl, being modded as a troll in your own journal. =D Congratulations.

                Yeah. It's telling when people mark things trolls that quite obviously are not, especially since I was stating verfiable facts. Such people are blind to truth, what can I say?

                Anyway, I tend to interpret things like freedom of speech, right to protest and freedom of assembly as being quite broad.

                Feel free to. But the rules are plain, clear, and evenly enforced. I don't
                • I haven't had much time to keep up with national politics, so my understanding of the new PATRIOT act is probably off. My understanding is that it felonizes going beyond a security barrier even if it's a peaceful protest. So it could effectively be used to quash the right to protest.
                  • My understanding is that [the PATRIOT Act] felonizes going beyond a security barrier even if it's a peaceful protest. So it could effectively be used to quash the right to protest.

                    That provision has nothing to do with protesting. Right now, it is illegal to breach a restricted area when the President or some other prominent official is or will be visiting. The proposed change in the law says that you can't breach that area even if those protected persons have already left.

                    Let me repeat: this has nothing a
                    • Yes, it does. It confines protests to certain areas. Beyond this area you're a felon. There is nothing to prevent them from expanding said area out to encompass whatever.

                      No official should require that level of protection and still be in office. If they're worried about 55% of the pop wanting to kill official X he should resign or take the risk like a man.
                    • Yes, it does. It confines protests to certain areas. Beyond this area you're a felon.

                      No. It has nothing to do with protesting. It has to do with *anyone* who is not authorized to be in a restricted area.

                      There is nothing to prevent them from expanding said area out to encompass whatever.

                      Yes, the law can be abused to prevent otherwise lawful protesting, but that is the case now, and was the case before the PATRIOT Act. This specific proposal doesn't change that fact, or give any additional powers to govern
                    • Sigh, can't I get away with using hyperbole just this once?

                      Anyway, my understanding is that the new patriot act raises the stakes to a felony. Which is quite a bit more serious than some minor jail time. I disagree with both, but in many states you can lose the right to vote from being convicted of a felony. So go out, protest something you passionately believe in and cross a security barrier, and boom your participation in the process is over.

                      Anywho, I tend to err on the side of the people well over any
        • She caused trouble?

          Yes.

          She just took off an outer shirt to reveal and anti-war shirt!!! That's trouble.

          Right, exactly. Protesting and similar demonstrations as she made are disallowed from such occasions, and for good amd obvious reason.

          I was surprised when they didn't usher the Democrats out for appluading their actions that Bush was denouncing.

          No, because that's different.

          If he would have thought of it, he surely would have.

          No, he surely never would. Do you enjoy being completely full of it?
        • Turns out... SHE DIDN'T BREAK ANY RULES OR LAWS, just customs.

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/ [msn.com]

          And neither did the Republican Rep's wife that left, nor the foreign born US citizen that was removed because of his appearance.

          • Turns out... SHE DIDN'T BREAK ANY RULES OR LAWS, just customs.

            She broke what many consider to be the proper interpretation of the rules. I don't see that as significantly different from saying she broke the rules. Others have a different interpretation, and say she did not break the rules. *shrug*

            I think anyone who is not dressed well should be disallowed from attending the State of the Union, so whatever.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Close