It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Cindy Sheehan Under Arrest

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
*coughs*


This is The Face of the Anti War Movement


My guess in Central or South America?


Great pics, that's the way to do it, kids! I doubt the girls wear black sweats in Central America--too hot. But the architeture is hard to tell, much was exported to SA with the European immigrants to areas of the caribbean and South America. Mostly mediterranean style though, to beat that heat.


So the protest turned into a sit-in. Very 60's. Why didn't the Rangers arrest her when she was cooling it alongside a Texas highway? Different laws?


I have a 19 yo son and NEVER want to know how it feels like she does. But I can well imagine...




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Your satirical humor is funny and all, but can you imagine the piles of people that would plop down in front of the whitehouse everytime they had a grievance with the government if such laws were not in place?


Sorry, over in the U.K. till last month there was no problem with going outside the House of Commons and holding a protest [in fact the courts are backing us on this issue and not the Government.]

Democracy has always been will of the people, if they all wish to go and protest outside the White House, not harming anyone what is the crime?

Oh wait they were on the street...

It's a joke. I wonder how many times during the Civil Rights Movement they waited to get a permit?

In fact, I don't remember any cases in the U.K. being it for Women's Lib or Civil Rights, nor can I in American History and part of my minor was Civil Rights Movement and Equality... Could you imagine Gandhi not holding a speech because he didn't have a permit or Martin Luther King?

I also do believe this line:


Amendment I

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.


Public safety, maintaining the public peace, prevention of violence, prevention of a threat of violence, and protection of property all result down to 'Police Judgement' as well as a 'Judges View' and this again can be reflected upon which protests they allow which is not democratic and is open to the Law Enforcement and the States own view-point resulting in problems for the people [on both sides.]

In fact, as you push more and more people away from peaceful protests that only opens up one other option which I doubt anyone wishes to be involved in?

What harm did she do by sitting there? None.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Loam, tu habla espanol?



While I'm no lingualist (more like sloppy hillbilly with a 'tude and a few eccentricities), looks spanish to me.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Amendment I says:



or abridging the freedom of speech


Yet you can't yell "FIRE!" in a packed theater and there are laws against slander and libel. Most of our freedoms are somewhat limited in the interest of the public good.


[edit on 9/26/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
That does it! Now Hollywood will have to make a movie out of her story. the only question left is will it be a made-for-TV or go straight to DVD? And oh, who will play the lead?


I think David Spade would be a good choice to play Cindy.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It's about a 'criminal intent' that the police and judge get to discern at the moment.

Resting your weary dogs is hardly criminal. And a sin not to allow it, imho.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
That Tired Old Refrain

The "cops are out to get me" ploy is even more worn out than the "grieving mother" gimmick.

Cindy Sheehan is surrounded by handlers who know the ropes (note the presence of the usual suspects from Protest, Inc. by her side sucking up what publicity they can scavenge), and they are working from a playbook that hasn't changed since WWI.

She was arrested because she wanted to be arrested. That's the statement she wanted to make, and the local constabulary was happy to oblige.

If she wants to play the same old boring "civil disobedience" games that were such a hit during the '60s, she is free to do so.

If she willfully breaks the law in the process, she deserves to be arrested, just like any other citizen who does so.

Arguing that this is somehow evidence of "oppression" in the U.S. doesn't convince anyone who has seen this same old gambit pulled a thousand times before, and has already seen this precise "free speech" issue argued to death in these very forums at least as much.

What I see here is just another cynical ploy from someone long overdue for the time-out chair, and I am very unimpressed.

It's just sad.
:shk:



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Amendment I says:



or abridging the freedom of speech


Yet you can't yell "FIRE!" in a packed theater and there are laws against slander and libel. Most of our freedoms are somewhat limited in the interest of the public good.


Many of these laws are to protect the people, shouting fire in a crowded theater can cause a panic.

Slander can damage someones career.

I have yet to see someone taken to court for sitting in the street, even during a Civil Action Suit...you know why?

In the U.K. we'd laugh it out of court.

If they wish to sit down and protest, let them. Many people [tourists] will like the fact they can see democracy in action and protesting is an important part of this. In fact recently a guy in London [outside the House of Commons] has been getting a lot of coverage from tourists due to his ongoing protest however through lack of media involvement nobody really hears of it.

Real question is; what is the point in limiting the right to protest outside of the White House? Will it benefit Ssociety or hinder society? Who does it harm?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Or do the anti-Sheenan zealots sound like a bunch of goose-stepping idealogues?

How about a little compassion for the poor woman? Sure, she's not exactly making great decisions... But she did LOSE her son!

How many of you guys bashing on her can match her loss?

How many of you guys bashing on her actual have a family member in harms way?

I am one serious right-wing warmonger... But the sad truth is our freedoms HAVE been seriously erodded!

What the zealots seem to be forgetting is we have devolved to such a low state that we actually have insanities like FREE SPEECH ZONES...

Naturally, out of sight of our fearless leader.


Sure it's totally OK to be for her or be against her... But I got to tell you most of the zealot wannabes come off sounding so insanely narrow-minded when you start denigrating at such a personal level.

Do this passerby a little favor... In the future try to sound like you are in possession of at least a little wisdom.



Mod Edit: Made this statement a little less personal - My additions are in italics...

[edit on 9/27/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
you guys are kidding right??? Cindy Sheehan under arrest. ???

This is so predictable!! So packaged!!! When will you people ever learn.??? This is not news. It is a product packaged and put on the shelves at the stores for your consumption under the guise of news. Soon it will be in the tabloids if it isnt already there.

Cindy Sheehan has been eclipsed in the last few weeks by the Hurricanes that took place down south. She must do something dramatic to get back in the forefront of the news. This is dramatic???? Your kidding right?? People think this is real news??? Shows you how hard up they are to live second hand through a MAJOR NEWS STAR.
To stay in the limelight in competition with other news items Cindy Sheehan must wax worse and worse to stay up front. The only other thing left for her to do is become a martyr for the evening news. This too will be planned and canned. When will you people get tired of this political claptrap passing itself off as leadership???
Amazing to me how hard up the news media is for headlines and the moral high ground.!!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I have compassion for Cindy Sheehan's loss. I do not have compassion for the machine which is so obviously running her from the strings of the puppet master.
Here loss does not entitle her to such front page antics. Her loss is not a free pass to play through. Her loss is not a default setting to play through other arenas unchallanged.
I am aware of her sons first name...Casey. Few in the news even bother to publish this anymore in lieu of the politics that they desire for her to generate on such issues.
This is political whoredom of the first magnitude by a machine with no other objective than political power on the back of her loss. I have little respect for this kind of politicial machine. Whoredom or this kind of merchandizing is exacely what it is...one and the same.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Sheehan says she won't pay the fine for exercising her first amendment rights.



Karl Rove (besides being a very creepy man) outed a CIA agent to punish her husband for showing up George’s lies about Niger yellowcake. Dick Cheney's old company is reaping profits beyond anyone's wildest imaginations in their no-bid contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and New Orleans.
...
The fine for "demonstrating without a permit" is $75.00. I won't pay it.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Good! I hope she keeps pushing the envelope until she commits a severe enough crime that she spends the rest of her pathetic life in prison.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Oh my;
"demonstrating without a permit"

Can anyone honestly imagine what the World would be life if every protest we had to stop and get permission before hand.

Person 1:"We are protesting for the right for black people to vote."
Government: "Sorry, protest denied."
Person 1:"O.K. we'll be on our way back to the cotton plantation."

Edit:

Damn typo.

[edit on 27/9/2005 by Odium]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Person 1:"We are protesting for the right for black people to veto."
Government: "Sorry, protest denied."
Person 1:"O.K. we'll be on our way back to the cotton plantation."


Certainly, the world would be a far worse place, if it were not for the right of black people to veto.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Certainly, the world would be a far worse place, if it were not for the right of black people to veto.


As far as I am aware, Democracy is the voice of the people.
Be it, black, white, yellow, red, green or blue.
Man or woman...

It is not a democracy when you can't vote because of how you are born. It is but a tyranny on the people who can't vote.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Oh, did you mean vote? That of course is different. What you fail to realize is that when America was founded there were many inequities that were institutionalized and that the forward advance of freedom has been every bit as strenuous as it was for the colonists. To fault the founders and those who followed for being products of their time is naive arrogance. The Constitution opened the door to every freedom that has come since, including the right of a woman to murder her unborn child.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Oh, did you mean vote? That of course is different. What you fail to realize is that when America was founded there were many inequities that were institutionalized and that the forward advance of freedom has been every bit as strenuous as it was for the colonists. To fault the founders and those who followed for being products of their time is naive arrogance. The Constitution opened the door to every freedom that has come since, including the right of a woman to murder her unborn child.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]


Sorry, missed the typo.

But can't the same be said about terroists as just 'products of their time'?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Eyes On Target

I ask my fellow members to bear in mind that discussion of Cindy Sheehan and this incident are on-topic, but discussions of other members -- particularly blanket insults directed at those who hold differing views -- is decidely off-topic.

Please don't insult other members.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
My God, this is exactly what she wanted. It's just perfect. Didn't you see her smiling as she was carried away?

Majic, you hit the nail right on the head with your earlier comment. Unfortunately, many people don't see it the same way you do, and it brings out a "rebel spirit" inside of them.

People love to feel righteous, what can I say?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join