Posted on 01/31/2006 5:45:38 PM PST by NapkinUser
Edited on 02/01/2006 3:43:42 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
"Not that cute.."?
Cute? Come on guy, put Cindy next to a horse and honestly tell me you'd pick Cindy over the horse.
Personally, I'd like to see Cindy run for President. "The gift that keeps on giving, et al.", though she probably could be serious competition in NYC.
She's the lowly scum who started the attacks on the Scouts in Congress. I believe she has a son who is a homo.
So does the Vice President (daughter, in his case).
We don't make remarks about the children of public officials. That's out of bounds. God knows, there are so many other reasons to attack Woolsey....
I think there is a degree of difference.
There is a time and place for the exercise of the First Amendment. The federal government doesn't have the power to restrict it at all, however:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
NONE.
So you are correct as to Sheehan (even though she's a buffoon at best). As to the other protestors, I don't know. Were they arrested by state or city police? Then perhaps the police had a state law behind them, which would be permissible under the Constitution.
Kinda says something about the difference between our two sites, doesn't it? So much for liberal "tolerance". < snort >
If I may pipe in: The biggest difference between the left and the rest is that the left will defend lunatics like Sheehan every time; the rest would admit that someone's wrong if they are. Case in point is the DeLay issue- if he did anything illegal, he should be punished like any other citizen. The Left vehemently defended Bill Clinton when he lied to a grand jury.
Just an announcement that the charges against Cindy Sheehan have been dropped.
My experience tells me exactly the opposite.
Uh...are you saying that people have a Constitutional right to make political statements wherever and whenever they choose? In the House Chambers? In the Supreme Court? Is it always unconstitutional for government agencies to have rules designed to maintain order or decorum?
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Every one of the Code Pink protesters outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a Democrat. They are displaying absolutely no respect for "wounded soldiers" or their families, which shows their capacity for spitting on widows and mothers of deceased soldiers. Code Pink simply is part of the "can't wait" group- they aren't waiting for the soldiers to die before they disrespect them.
My first experience with these sort of forums was while I was recovering from my second major surgery at Walter Reed- I joined the Washington Post on-line discussion groups. Was I surprised at the anti-American liberals and their lack of compassion for anything other than their own beliefs. I was called a Neo-Con before I knew what it was. There was complete lunacy and hatred. I eventually stopped trying to discuss any topic out of frustration. There was no use trying to use reason and logic with most of them. Granted, there are some over-the-top FReepers here wishing bodily harm and death to liberals, but I sense that it is mostly in jest and what I have seen here is sincere discussions and a sense of "hope" for our future that is missing from all things liberal. FReepers are also prone to eat their own if someone makes a silly argument. You won't find FReepers defending criminals, regardless of political orientation. Ever.
Lastly, Liberals seem to be unable to see ANY good in any situation. If you know of one liberal idea that has hope and goodwill in it, please share it with us. Here's a clause to that request: it can't have anything to do with protesting or taking rights away from other citizens.
Good luck.
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Every one of the Code Pink protesters outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a Democrat. They are displaying absolutely no respect for "wounded soldiers" or their families, which shows their capacity for spitting on widows and mothers of deceased soldiers. Code Pink simply is part of the "can't wait" group- they aren't waiting for the soldiers to die before they disrespect them.
My first experience with these sort of forums was while I was recovering from my second major surgery at Walter Reed- I joined the Washington Post on-line discussion groups. Was I surprised at the anti-American liberals and their lack of compassion for anything other than their own beliefs. I was called a Neo-Con before I knew what it was. There was complete lunacy and hatred. I eventually stopped trying to discuss any topic out of frustration. There was no use trying to use reason and logic with most of them. Granted, there are some over-the-top FReepers here wishing bodily harm and death to liberals, but I sense that it is mostly in jest and what I have seen here is sincere discussions and a sense of "hope" for our future that is missing from all things liberal. FReepers are also prone to eat their own if someone makes a silly argument. You won't find FReepers defending criminals, regardless of political orientation. Ever.
Lastly, Liberals seem to be unable to see ANY good in any situation. If you know of one liberal idea that has hope and goodwill in it, please share it with us. Here's a clause to that request: it can't have anything to do with protesting or taking rights away from other citizens.
Good luck.
oops. Sorry about the double-entry.
The Scouts have to worry about a lawsuit if a kid gets molested. More than one adult has to be in camp with kids at all times. An adult can't be with the kids by him or her self.
Sounds like freedom of speech only applies to her, her friends, and her causes.
Actually, freedom of speech isn't absolute. There are times when government restricts speech. Libel suits are an example. I believe there are compelling reasons why demonstrations shouldn't be allowed in the House chamber - particularly during an event like the State of the Union Address.
"Actually, freedom of speech isn't absolute. There are times when government restricts speech. Libel suits are an example. I believe there are compelling reasons why demonstrations shouldn't be allowed in the House chamber - particularly during an event like the State of the Union Address."
There are, but the difference between when state governments may and when the federal government may are substantial. I believe there are reasons why demonstrations shouldn't be allowed in the House chamber, too, but I don't think that wearing a t-shirt really constitutes conduct disruptive of the chamber's work, do you? I'd prefer freedom of speech to government repression of it any day, the Constitution agrees with me even if the courts do not, and this tap on the shoulder for wearing a t-shirt with a message qualifies.
Now, I do think that the House could have imposed rules that impose a gallery dress code, or interrupting the speaker, but I also think that the chamber should be entirely bulletproof-glassed in, sealed off from interruption...
...and then, since it's Congress, filled with water.
Thanks for that great quote by my favorite Roman.
IOW, why can't we all get along together, as Rodney King was often quoted as saying.
Why don't you tell us all about your belief that the US military are "christofascists" (your word)? Tell us more, please.
When I see your moniker I just have to respond.
I hope all is well with you.
5.56mm
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.