PDA

View Full Version : A tale of two t-shirts



Qtec
02-03-2006, 05:16 AM
Shirt tales differ for Sheehan, GOP wife
Capitol police admit mistake as protester mulls legal battle

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Call it the tale of two different shirts worn by two very different women: a well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House and a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

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 shirts resulted in their owners being ejected from the House chamber before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. (Full story)

Sheehan, an invited guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct. Young was asked to leave but not arrested. (Watch what Young said about the profanity she used and why -- 1:53)

<font color="blue"> The US is sacrificing its youth in Iraq for Freedom ,while at home you can get arrested for wearing the wrong t-shirt? </font color>


"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.
<font color="blue"> Technically, If you die your hair bright orange in order to draw attention to yourself [in a crowd ]because you want people to see whats written on your t-shirt you can get arrested? Basically you could get arrested for you hair color! Never mind the being spyed on and arrested without charge etc.</font color>

Geez.


Q..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

eg8r
02-03-2006, 06:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"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.
Technically, If you die your hair bright orange in order to draw attention to yourself [in a crowd ]because you want people to see whats written on your t-shirt you can get arrested? Basically you could get arrested for you hair color! Never mind the being spyed on and arrested without charge etc.

Geez. <hr /></blockquote> Once again Q, you missed the real issue at hand. The day after, the chief of police said the ejections were wrong, just wearing a t-shirt is not against the rules. Well, what does that say for next year? It is going to look like a zoo in that place with all the stupid shirts with catchy slogans. Well, that is probably an exaggeration, the real adults will dress appropriately.

However, the chief was also wrong about "just wearing t-shirts". That was not Cindy's intent, just to wear a t-shirt. That sounds like she just grabbed something out of her drawer and put it on. No, instead she chose something that could possibly have led to a disruption which is why they were correct in removing her. They did not remove her because she wore the shirt, they removed her because she would not cover it up. Cindy did not show up with that shirt on the outside being shown. No, she had it covered up. It was her intent to draw attention to herself (someone needs to because her family sure is not showing that wacko any attention) so she covered it up until the cameras turned on. The chief has no guts to stand up for the good job his officers did. They were unbiased in removing both women, and if those feel it was wrong not to arrest both women, then fine.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
02-03-2006, 08:42 AM
What ever happened to dress codes? Sheesh, we have them in pool, why not at the State of the Union Address? You can't wear a t-shirt in many restaurants, yet, you can wear one at the State of the Union Address? That's an invitation-only event. It's not open to the public.

Forget the protest issue. It's common courtesy. Dress for the occasion, for cripes sake, and GROW UP already.

Fran

Qtec
02-03-2006, 11:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
"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.
Technically, If you die your hair bright orange in order to draw attention to yourself [in a crowd ]because you want people to see whats written on your t-shirt you can get arrested? Basically you could get arrested for you hair color! Never mind the being spyed on and arrested without charge etc.

Geez. <hr /></blockquote> Once again Q, you missed the real issue at hand. The day after, the chief of police said the ejections were wrong, just wearing a t-shirt is not against the rules. Well, what does that say for next year? It is going to look like a zoo in that place with all the stupid shirts with catchy slogans. Well, that is probably an exaggeration, the real adults will dress appropriately. <font color="blue"> 'House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries'. A t-shirt with a political slogan could be a form of protest. If she didnt want to cover it up, she should have been ejected from the building but not arrested! You cant arrest people for breaking a dress code. </font color>

However, the chief was also wrong about "just wearing t-shirts". That was not Cindy's intent, just to wear a t-shirt. That sounds like she just grabbed something out of her drawer and put it on. No, instead she chose something that could possibly have led to a disruption which is why they were correct in removing her. They did not remove her because she wore the shirt, they removed her because she would not cover it up. Cindy did not show up with that shirt on the outside being shown. No, she had it covered up. <font color="blue"> I imagine, just like everyone else, she was wearing a jacket! </font color> It was her intent to draw attention to herself (someone needs to because her family sure is not showing that wacko any attention) so she covered it up until the cameras turned on. <font color="blue"> All this happened before the speech. You seem to know an awful lot about Cindy was GOING to do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
BTW, that wacko lost her son in Iraq. Its a crying shame the way the GOP pitbulls have demonised her in the media. </font color> The chief has no guts to stand up for the good job his officers did. They were unbiased in removing both women, and if those feel it was wrong not to arrest both women, then fine.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Q

eg8r
02-06-2006, 10:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All this happened before the speech. You seem to know an awful lot about Cindy was GOING to do. <hr /></blockquote> You should not be too surprised, you seem to be think you can tell the future with our Government. It is easy to pick the low hanging fruit. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, that wacko lost her son in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> I know it, and it is a shame he will be remembered by his wacko mother.

eg8r

Qtec
02-07-2006, 09:15 AM
Fran, she had an invitation. The point is that she was not arrested for wearing a t-shirt. She was arrested for what was written on her t-shirt. That sounds to me like something that would happen in the old USSR or China, not the US.
Since when was bad manners an arrestable offence?

Q

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 11:12 AM
I agree, Q, she should not have been arrested, in fact neither of them should have had to do anything but be asked to keep their shirts covered, or turn them inside out. They should have known better, but the arrest of Sheehan is just another example of what kind of treatment against dissent this administration inspires. Valarie Plame shouldn't have been outed, either.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-07-2006, 11:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, Q, she should not have been arrested, in fact neither of them should have had to do anything but be asked to keep their shirts covered, or turn them inside out. They should have known better, <hr /></blockquote> I agree, they should have known better. However, in both women's cases, no one doubts they do know better, they chose to make a statement. Cindy was not arrested only because of the shirt. From what I have read, she was repeatedly asked to cover her shirt and she refused, so they hauled her butt out of there. Was arresting her the right thing, who knows, you have your opinion I have mine, but if both women acted the same way when asked to cover up and only one was sent to jail then I agree that is wrong. Judging Cindy based on her attitude in the past, I am sure she acted in a less than professional manner than the other woman.

eg8r

eg8r
02-07-2006, 11:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that she was not arrested for wearing a t-shirt. She was arrested for what was written on her t-shirt. <hr /></blockquote> You are wrong and once again you miss the point. She was not arrested for what was written on the shirt, she was arrested for refusing to cover it up. For the life of me, I do not understand how you are able to blatantly ignore the facts and twist it around.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote police spokeswoman:</font><hr> "She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman. <hr /></blockquote> Can this be any clearer? How do you continue to screw this up?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote police spokeswoman:</font><hr> Sheehan, who was invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was later changed to unlawful conduct, Schneider said. Both charges are misdemeanors.
<hr /></blockquote> She would not have been charged with demonstrating if she would have covered up the shirt when confronted. Instead she said NO, and they took her to jail.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote police cheif:</font><hr> Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.
<hr /></blockquote> Well there you have it, not only was she demonstrating with the shirt she could not shut up. I don't remember reading anything about the Senator's wife being disruptive, but that is all you ever read about wacko Cindy Sheehan.

So, now there are two quotes from those "in the know" disproving your ridiculous remark that she was arrested for what was written. I wonder how long it will take you to put your foot in your mouth and defend such an asinine statement.

eg8r

SPetty
02-07-2006, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...or turn them inside out. <hr /></blockquote>But then she might have exposed her boobies and then she would have been arrested for showing her boobies - heaven forbid we ever see female boobies in public!

I saw a guy changing his shirt into his team uniform right out in the middle of the parking lot - showing his man boobies to the world! But heaven forbid a woman should do that!!!

supergreenman
02-07-2006, 03:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...or turn them inside out. <hr /></blockquote>But then she might have exposed her boobies and then she would have been arrested for showing her boobies - heaven forbid we ever see female boobies in public!

I saw a guy changing his shirt into his team uniform right out in the middle of the parking lot - showing his man boobies to the world! But heaven forbid a woman should do that!!!
<hr /></blockquote>

Showing your shirt in public and showing your boobies in public are both forms of expression. I thought that was protected(freedom of expression that is) under the US Constitution.

James

Fran Crimi
02-07-2006, 04:43 PM
Who said she didn't have an invitation? I said it was in invitation-only event. Do you think I was assuming that somehow she would have been able to slip past the Secret Service? Ha! You're kidding, right?

Look, Q, you can gripe about this false arrest thing till the cows come home but the message is: Don't screw around when you're in the vicinity of the President of the United States, because the Secret Service WILL stop you and they will do it in whatever way they feel is best.

They couldn't just turn someone like that loose on the front steps. What if she was part of or set up as a diversion for something much bigger, and that causing a ruckus on the front steps could be the diversion in another, bigger plan?

It may be an unlikely scenario, but I guarantee you, the Secret Service takes NO chances. They would rather be guilty of false arrest than potentially let something happen to the President. Everyone else knows that. Why doesn't she?

Fran

Qtec
02-08-2006, 12:40 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/story.sheehan.arrest.jpg

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/02/02/images/medium/A_1_1Ayoung__0202.jpg

Sheenan's account.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020106Z.shtml

The Young's account.

"Rep. Young's office received many phone calls and e-mails from people who believed his wife had the right to wear the shirt, while others said she should have been charged with a crime as Sheehan was.

Young said he was angry about the incident because the police Tuesday night had insisted she had chosen to leave the chamber. The police also said she was wearing a jacket and opened it to expose her shirt.

"They lied about what she did," Young said. <font color="blue"> Gasp! Can it be true? </font color>

He complained to House Republican leaders and to White House aide Karl Rove. The White House declined to comment on the incident.

Young said Wednesday night that he was happy to got an apology but that he and Beverly still weren't satisfied.

"I think this is more serious than just a single incident," Young said. "I think there is some kind of culture here that needs to be corrected."
--------------------------------------------------------



So there you have it. Sheenan was removed before the speech. She never had the chance to remove her jacket before she was manhandled out of the arena, cuffed and arrested.[ see photo]

Young was asked to leave 15mins into the speech and despite using [ self admitted] profanity and calling them 'idiots', she was not arrested.

As Young puts it, <font color="purple"> "I think there is some kind of culture here that needs to be corrected." </font color>

ie, it seems that embarrassing or confronting the Pres with the truth is now an arrestable offense!
They only asked Young to leave because they had already arrested Sheenan for the same 'offense' and they didnt want to be shown to be bias. ie, they were trying to cover themselves.
It was an all invitational so there must have been a guest list. Dont you think that list was scanned by whatever Dept was in charge of security? Do you think they missed the name Cindy Sheenan????????????????



......here is a story about Mrs Young. If you read this, you might well think that Young WAS protesting! I think I like the Youngs!
Quote,
"Members of Congress usually live in pricey homes close to the Capitol or in nearby suburbs. But the Youngs live 30 miles away in Woodbridge, Va.

Beverly says it's all they can afford because her husband "doesn't take bribes like all the others." /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif



http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/19/Worldandnation/Capitol_Hill_wife_who.shtml


Q

eg8r
02-08-2006, 05:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So there you have it. Sheenan was removed before the speech. She never had the chance to remove her jacket before she was manhandled out of the arena, cuffed and arrested.[ see photo] <hr /></blockquote> Well, from all accounts except Sheehan's mouth, she did expose the shirt and did refuse to cover it up. Did she finally concede when she noticed her fate? You know as full well as I do that any pic can be doctored. Was the pic you chose doctored? Who knows.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think they missed the name Cindy Sheenan????????????????
<hr /></blockquote> Nope, once they saw that wacko's name they made sure to pay specially close attention to her.

[ QUOTE ]
Beverly says it's all they can afford because her husband "doesn't take bribes like all the others." <hr /></blockquote> That is pretty funny. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am wondering though how deep one would have to dig to find something on him. All politicians are corrupt at some point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-08-2006, 05:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Showing your shirt in public and showing your boobies in public are both forms of expression. I thought that was protected(freedom of expression that is) under the US Constitution. <hr /></blockquote> One is led to believe you did not spend a lot of time putting "thought" into that statement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
02-08-2006, 08:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, from all accounts <font color="blue">Not all acounts, only the police acount! </font color> except Sheehan's mouth, she did expose the shirt and did refuse to cover it up. Did she finally concede when she noticed her fate? You know as full well as I do that any pic can be doctored. Was the pic you chose doctored? Who knows. <hr /></blockquote>

Doctored pics? LOL Are you saying there is a conspiracy?

http://wizbangblog.com/images/2006/01/sheehan_sotu4.jpg

Q

eg8r
02-09-2006, 03:49 AM
No, I am not saying there is a conspiracy, just that your pic could have been doctored. In the last pic you show, she has the shirt covered up, was that because she decided, much to late, to comply and they threw her out anyways. You don't know, but I will take the police's words over hers every single day of the week.

eg8r

Qtec
02-09-2006, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> No, I am not saying there is a conspiracy, just that your pic could have been doctored. <font color="blue"> The pic is from the W Post and there were 100,s of witnesses to the incident. Why would they 'doctor'it? You're raving! </font color> In the last pic you show, she has the shirt covered up, was that because she decided, much to late, to comply and they threw her out anyways. You don't know, but I will take the police's words over hers every single day of the week.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>



[ QUOTE ]
Young said he was angry about the incident because the police Tuesday night had insisted she had chosen to leave the chamber. The police also said she was wearing a jacket and opened it to expose her shirt.

"They lied about what she did," Young said <hr /></blockquote>


So according to you, both CS and Mrs Young are lying? Well done Ed.
True to form as expected. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Q... /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
02-09-2006, 08:16 AM
Hi guys &amp; gals, I haven't been here in a while. Here's a leap of off the wall logic...LOL
Where is the list of exceptable words, symbols, or actions that constitute arrestable behavior? Who is going to judge? If either of these women formulated a plan to have their message noticed and interpreted by others does it follow by extention that everyone in the building who was wearing a lapel pin which conveys a message should have been asked to leave the area? Geez...I just don't know

eg8r
02-09-2006, 08:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If either of these women formulated a plan to have their message noticed and interpreted by others does it follow by extention that everyone in the building who was wearing a lapel pin which conveys a message should have been asked to leave the area? Geez...I just don't know <hr /></blockquote> You are at the mercy of those in command. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Welcome back.

eg8r

cheesemouse
02-09-2006, 10:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If either of these women formulated a plan to have their message noticed and interpreted by others does it follow by extention that everyone in the building who was wearing a lapel pin which conveys a message should have been asked to leave the area? Geez...I just don't know <hr /></blockquote> You are at the mercy of those in command. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Welcome back.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Ed,
You mean we have commanders now...I'm in trouble /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I didn't do very well the last time I had a commander, sounds un-American to me...LOL Ed, you still make'n good ole Industrial Complex weapons?

eg8r
02-09-2006, 10:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL Ed, you still make'n good ole Industrial Complex weapons? <hr /></blockquote> LOL, nope. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

supergreenman
02-09-2006, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Showing your shirt in public and showing your boobies in public are both forms of expression. I thought that was protected(freedom of expression that is) under the US Constitution. <hr /></blockquote> One is led to believe you did not spend a lot of time putting "thought" into that statement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

One might also be led to believe that someone is lacking a sense of humor.

Deeman3
02-09-2006, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote supergreenman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Showing your shirt in public and showing your boobies in public are both forms of expression. I thought that was protected(freedom of expression that is) under the US Constitution. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> You may be right, but the limit of swinging your boobies could end at the next fellows nose. It's seems to be sort of like yelling "Girlfight" in a crowded theater.</font color>

Deeman