News Cindy Sheehan arrested

  • Thread starter Manchot
  • Start date
310
2
MaxS said:
Ah, looking at that picture I have indeed surmised that I was on the complete opposite side of the white house LOL. (Or they opened up the fence so people could stand in line to take a tour.. this was well before 9/11. They don't even allow tours of the white house anymore).
Yeah, actually most of the pictures of the whitehouse I saw were of the other side, which has about 4x as much park to it, so there may very well be no fence (or rather only a fence further in).
 
279
0
It seems she wanted to be arrested for peacefully protesting - It seems she wanted to spark this kind of energy - the exact debate you guys are having.

I don't feel sorry for her, or upset with the government. She knew the rules, and played them so that she'd be arrested. The cops knew and played too.

I oppose the war, and I hope this action gets some people thinking about the war if they aren't .... but really my main response to the whole thing today is: :rolleyes:
 
29
0
Man, YOU Are ignoring the issue by continuing this idiocy,

THIS ARGUEMENT IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARGE TO PROTECT MY CIVIL LIBERTIES.

It has not fulifilled its duty. Indeed it has passed legislation attempting to retract many of my rights (and yours too, if you would just open your eyes).
 
310
2
So... was I the only one that looked at the actual front of the white house? :rofl:
 
29
0
Pengwuino said:
No, you ignored the issue and started attacking. Bad form.
Uh and I didn't ignore the issue, I stated a very clear arguement which you chose to completely ignore.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
MaxS said:
It has not fulifilled its duty. Indeed it has passed legislation attempting to retract many of my rights (and yours too, if you would just open your eyes).
I think im the only one here realizing there have been rights that have been infringed upon for the last 2 centuries. How can one be so ignorant as to think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything and everything they want to do without an insignificant bit of restraint?

Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.

Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.

Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!

Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
Smurf said:
So... was I the only one that looked at the actual front of the white house? :rofl:
Fool! Who uses the front of buildings??? :rofl: :rofl:

But no really, they use the back side because the oval office has a view of it as far as I can tell. Unless you want to protest the secretaries of the white house... the back is better.

MaxS said:
Uh and I didn't ignore the issue, I stated a very clear arguement which you chose to completely ignore.
Incorrect. Your argument was emotionally charged rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
 
310
2
Pengwuino said:
Fool! Who uses the front of buildings??? :rofl: :rofl:

But no really, they use the back side because the oval office has a view of it as far as I can tell. Unless you want to protest the secretaries of the white house... the back is better.
I don't know, I don't think there'd be much of a response from Bush. I thought the point was to gain other people's attention... so the front would be better.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
Smurf said:
I don't know, I don't think there'd be much of a response from Bush. I thought the point was to gain other people's attention... so the front would be better.
Well I guess the only reason protestors use that side is because it may get more traffic? I dunno...
 
279
0
Pretty sure she chose the side that would get her arrested (ie had a narrow sidewalk.)
 
454
7
Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.

Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.

Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!

Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?
Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.
 
29
0
Pengwuino said:
Incorrect. Your argument was emotionally charged rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
This was my arguement:

Yes I did take some American Government classes

They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.

This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.

------

Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?

If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.
 
Last edited:
106
4
MaxS said:
This was my arguement:

Yes I did take some American Government classes

They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.

This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.

------

Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?

If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.
So, what are you doing about it?
 

JamesU

Gold Member
732
3
I have to agree with Max.


first amendment said:
...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
she was peacfully assembling. just because she has some signs doesn't make it any different. she had every right to be there.
hitssquad said:
Max,

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html
he said the preamble to the declaration of independance
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,706
4,927
MaxS, the bottom line here is that you are unwilling to accept the fact that all rights have limits, even the right to freedom of speech. Whether in this specific case, the protester stepped over the line isn't really important to whether or not such a line exists. And it does (and must) exist.
 

JamesU

Gold Member
732
3
when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'
 
279
0
The charge was obstructing the flow of (foot) traffic...

Or words to that effect.

IMU there was a group of people, not just one woman, and several were arrested, not just Cindy.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
Huckleberry said:
Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.
And how isn't the permitting process common sense? What if (and this has happened before, many times) two groups want to protest at hte same place? What if people would like to actually drive their cars or walk along the sidewalk and all of a sudden your blocking their way? Invading their rights as well! Yes, this is common sense. Permitting is common sense.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
yomamma said:
when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'
Yes its legal but you need a permit because you are obstructing traffic. Many protests normally have to have the streets blocked off so you get a permit which informs the city that you will need the streets blocked.... less you want to get run over or make people late for work.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,863
2,340
MaxS said:
Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.

They, as part of the federal government, share a responsibility in DEFENDING those rights.
First, stop with the personal attack.

Max, since you seem not to understand laws in the US, perhaps you should read up before continuing in this thread.

Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either. :rolleyes:
 

JamesU

Gold Member
732
3
umm...prtests have been going on here. I've never heard of an arrest here because of the lack of foot traffic. that doeasn't even count as 'disturbing the peace'
 
466
4
Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,863
2,340
Manchot said:
Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.
They did if they didn't have a permit.
 

Related Threads for: Cindy Sheehan arrested

Replies
71
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Posted
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top