What's so "free" about this
story
Quote:
Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.
When the president is giving a speech and includes a message that "we are fighting the enemies of freedom" why was she not allowed to wear this "statement"?
I will add that I'm not sure if there is a rule barring all political messages so it may be the case that if she was wearing a "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" slogan then she would have suffered the same treatment, however to me this smacks of censorship.
She was not standing up and shouting, she was not causing a disturbance.
Edit:
Apparently the wife of congressman young was asked to leave because she was wearing a "support our troops" t.shirt. So there isn't a bias.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Edit:
Apparently the wife of congressman young was asked to leave because she was wearing a "support our troops" t.shirt. So there isn't a bias.
At least she wasn't arrested.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid Hartha
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Edit:
Apparently the wife of congressman young was asked to leave because she was wearing a "support our troops" t.shirt. So there isn't a bias.
At least she wasn't arrested.
Perhaps her stance wasn't strong enough to stand (or sit) by.
Sheehan, like her views or not stood on principle.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Sheehan, like her views or not stood on principle.
What principle?
Free speech?
Certainly.
What else?
Re: What's so "free" about this
Wish I knew where I saw the story about this, but an apology was issued next day too.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Sheehan, like her views or not stood on principle.
What principle?
Free speech?
Certainly.
What else?
the war and support of the troops
sheehan supports the troops in her way by making sure we know how many died (I don't get how one can support the war and wish to hide such costs) and by campaigning to get them out of harms way. You may not agree with how she supports them but she is not anti troops. In this she stood on principle and refused to cover her shirt or leave.
the other claimed to support the troops and the war but didn't think it worth making a stand.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPerry
Wish I knew where I saw the story about this, but an apology was issued next day too.
yes it was. I do wonder if this would have happened if it wasn't for a republican congressman's wife being removed.
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What principle?
Free speech?
Certainly.
What else?
the war and support of the troops
sheehan supports the troops in her way by making sure we know how many died (I don't get how one can support the war and wish to hide such costs) and by campaigning to get them out of harms way. You may not agree with how she supports them but she is not anti troops. In this she stood on principle and refused to cover her shirt or leave.
the other claimed to support the troops and the war but didn't think it worth making a stand.
The "war" is not a principle.
"Support of the troops" is not a principle.
Her refusal to cover her shirt indicates nothing but stubbornness.
Actually, for her to say she "supports the troops" strikes me as a bit specious.
If she hates what they are doing, how can she "support" them, given their volunteer status?
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
the war and support of the troops
sheehan supports the troops in her way by making sure we know how many died (I don't get how one can support the war and wish to hide such costs) and by campaigning to get them out of harms way. You may not agree with how she supports them but she is not anti troops. In this she stood on principle and refused to cover her shirt or leave.
the other claimed to support the troops and the war but didn't think it worth making a stand.
Her refusal to cover her shirt indicates nothing but stubbornness.
So did Rosa Parks refusal to change her seat.:wacko:
Re: What's so "free" about this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Her refusal to cover her shirt indicates nothing but stubbornness.
So did Rosa Parks refusal to change her seat.:wacko:
Nobody was complaining about Rosa's shirt, which was changeable-they had a problem with her skin color, a distinctly different kettle of fish.
Do not let your inclination to refute me mislead you into bitch-ass stupid-fuck reasoning, Busyman.
You do Rosa no credit when you are so undisciplined..