Posted on 08/08/2005 9:42:07 AM PDT by OESY
I don't, because I'm not talking about her motives, but his.
Please use some common sense. His actions MUST be dictated by her behaviour. I can see your dislike of Bush is colouring your opinion of her. You don't care that she might be a risk factor. Ok. I'm done.
Standing peacefully by the roadside. Yep, a real danger necessitating keeping her miles away from the ranch.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush, May 21 1999, in response to a parody site about him.
Yup. A perfectly "rational" person.
Rational? Probably not. Dangerous? Also not. Embarrassing? Definitely -- keep her away from thin-skinned Bush!
That alone makes her dangerous. Irrational people do irrational things. Your hatred of Bush blinds you. Truthfully, if it was Clinton instead of Bush, I'd feel the same about Sheehan. Her own family has distanced themselves from her. I don't believe she'd attack Bush but there are any number of other things she can claim happened if she's allowed near him. Her first meeting was documented in an article and she now claims it was totally different. I wouldn't trust a lying tool from MoveOn.org. She can and WOULD say anything to harm Bush.
But not necessarily dangerous things. You assume too much.
Your hatred of Bush blinds you.
You assume too much again. I don't hate Bush. However, unlike loyalists, I realize he has flaws. The inability to tolerate criticism is one of them. Supporting big government is another.
t there are any number of other things she can claim happened if she's allowed near him.
She wouldn't near him even if she were standing at the entrance to the ranch. Unless she's packing a high-powered rifle or an RPG, she's not a danger.
She can and WOULD say anything to harm Bush.
Yes, say. Not do, physically.
Authorities Getting Ready to Throw Anti War Protestors From Bush Ranch for Tresspassing
As a result of no tresspassing signs being put up around the protestors, Sheehan and others are seeking legal counsel with the assistance of the ACLU in order to make sure that their free speech rights are protected.
What about peoples property rights? Typical leftist believes HER "rights" trump everyone elses. This is not a rational person that can be trusted in ANY way.
Words, claims? Is that all you have to go on? She hasn't even said one threatening word. How does that make a person dangerous?
Authorities Getting Ready to Throw Anti War Protestors From Bush Ranch for Tresspassing
Has nothing to do with the case. Some people are walking on a neighbor's private property (oh horror, what a danger!) and could rightly be charged with simple trespass. This paranoid woman believes it's part of a plot to drive her further away from the ranch, further disrupting her right to peacably assemble and protest.
Sorry, even loons have constitutional rights. And I will support their rights, even if I don't support them.
I'm truly sorry that you don't "get it".
Authorities Getting Ready to Throw Anti War Protestors From Bush Ranch for Tresspassing
Has nothing to do with the case.
It has everything to do with it.
Authorities Getting Ready to Throw Anti War Protestors From Bush Ranch for Tresspassing
Did you read the story, or only the misleading headline? Some of the people there are walking across a vacant lot two miles from the Bush ranch. The lot happens to be private property, meaning it is trespassing. But it is in no way any type of dangerous or threatening activity.
And you can't see that she's TRYING to get arrested? Whatever.
Read more on FR. Sheehan is backed by Michael Moore and Code Pink.
She is staying on the street, and her attorney says he only expects to defend her right to protest on public property. The article mentioned that others who supported her had been trespassing on the vacant lot. Standing on a street and walking across a vacant lot. Really dangerous kind of people you got there. I think we need to call in the National Guard to handle them.
I'm sure this useful idiot would love to get arrested, but she is still no physical danger to Bush. She is, however, an embarassment, since her status as a Gold Star mom gives her credibility to the uninformed masses.
You don't think Code Pink is dangerous?
It is my belief that Code Pink is dangerous to this country in an ideological sense. But the 1st Amendment protects their right to protest, so I must support that right.
I do not believe this woman and the Code Pink supporters there constitute a physical threat to anybody. They have certainly not shown any violent tendencies so far.
Presidents/former presidents are little more special these days.
Trajan88; TAMU Class of '88
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.