Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol

Planogirl said:
Karibeth19, I definitely agree with you up to the point. I believe that we have to balance that decorum with the right of access to the government by the common man. Their dress won't necessarily be all that formal and some people may not be aware of the proper forms of address but they still have the right to be allowed inside our government institutions.

I completely agree that ignorance of the proper way to behave should not keep people from inside our government institutions or away from our elected officials. My point was that many people show disrespect simply out of disagreement or dislike of the person in office, and I find that sad.
 
Judge Smails said:
Now you're just whistling past the graveyard. When pressed on the issue during the upcoming investigations is the Senate committee investigating Bush and FISA going to come and knock on your door or are they going to go to the above mentioned Constitutional scholars?

So we'll have a Senate Committee investigation with dueling Constitutional scholars. So what?
 
Here are part of the statutes for the Capitol building. The parts in bold I did that shows she broke the rules. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.


TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
SUBTITLE II - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
PART B - UNITED STATES CAPITOL
CHAPTER 51 - UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

-HEAD-
Sec. 5104. Unlawful activities

-STATUTE-
(a) Definitions. - In this section -
(1) Act of physical violence. - The term "act of physical
violence" means any act involving -
(A) an assault or other infliction or threat of infliction of
death or bodily harm on an individual; or
(B) damage to, or destruction of, real or personal property.

(2) Dangerous weapon. - The term "dangerous weapon" includes -
(A) all articles enumerated in section 14(a) of the Act of
July 8, 1932 (ch. 465, 47 Stat. 654); and
(B) a device designed to expel or hurl a projectile capable
of causing injury to individuals or property, a dagger, a dirk,
a stiletto, and a knife having a blade over three inches in
length.

(3) Explosives. - The term "explosives" has the meaning given
that term in section 841(d) of title 18.
(4) Firearm. - The term "firearm" has the meaning given that
term in section 921(3) of title 18.

(b) Obstruction of Roads. - A person may not occupy the roads in
the United States Capitol Grounds in a manner that obstructs or
hinders their proper use, or use the roads in the area of the
Grounds, south of Constitution Avenue and B Street and north of
Independence Avenue and B Street, to convey goods or merchandise,
except to or from the United States Capitol on Federal Government
service.
(c) Sale of Articles, Display of Signs, and Solicitations. - A
person may not carry out any of the following activities in the
Grounds:
(1) offer or expose any article for sale.
(2) display a sign, placard, or other form of advertisement.
(3) solicit fares, alms, subscriptions, or contributions.

(d) Injuries to Property. - A person may not step or climb on,
remove, or in any way injure any statue, seat, wall, fountain, or
other erection or architectural feature, or any tree, shrub, plant,
or turf, in the Grounds.
(e) Capitol Grounds and Buildings Security. -
(1) Firearms, dangerous weapons, explosives, or incendiary
devices. - An individual or group of individuals -
(A) except as authorized by regulations prescribed by the
Capitol Police Board -
(i) may not carry on or have readily accessible to any
individual on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings
a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives, or an incendiary
device;
(ii) may not discharge a firearm or explosives, use a
dangerous weapon, or ignite an incendiary device, on the
Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(iii) may not transport on the Grounds or in any of the
Capitol Buildings explosives or an incendiary device; or

(B) may not knowingly, with force and violence, enter or
remain on the floor of either House of Congress.

(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or
group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -
(A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress
or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the
Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble
Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to
rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;
(B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of
Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the
gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization
given by that House;
(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of
official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the
Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either
House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee
of Congress or either House of Congress;;

(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage
in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the
Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to
impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of
Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in
that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a
committee of Congress or either House of Congress;

(E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the
Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings;
(F) engage in an act of physical violence in the Grounds or
any of the Capitol Buildings; or
(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol
Buildings.

(3) Exemption of government officials. - This subsection does
not prohibit any act performed in the lawful discharge of
official duties by -
(A) a Member of Congress;
(B) an employee of a Member of Congress;
(C) an officer or employee of Congress or a committee of
Congress; or
(D) an officer or employee of either House of Congress or a
committee of that House.

(f) Parades, Assemblages, and Display of Flags. - Except as
provided in section 5106 of this title, a person may not -
(1) parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the
Grounds; or
(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed
or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or
movement.
 
wvrevy said:
:rotfl: How many died in the Balkans ? Did it destabalize a region of the globe as well ? Were we lied to about how the Balkans were going to attack us any day now with their massive stockpile of WMD's, which we knew they had and knew where they kept them ?

Afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that.

Oh, so now you're completely changing your list? :lmao:
 

I guess I should also say I do not agree with what she is doing, both DH and I are military.

BUT, I am posting this as a mother not a military member.

kc10family said:
How interesting that ONE mother from a little town in N Cal has added so much controversy to this country.

FYI… her husband divorced her over what she has done/doing. She has other children (under the age of 20 I believe) whom she doesn’t see much anymore. How sad for those kids. How sad for the husband of so many years. More than just herself was affected by the loss of her son, but she has left those others (her family) behind and forgotten.

I for one feel sorry for her and hope she doesn’t “loose” her other children forever because of her son. How sad it would be for her daughter to get married and not invite her own mother or share in the joy of a grandchild.

I think her message is out and she should be there for her other children, they need her also.

But I am just some shmoe writing on this board.
 
bsnyder said:
So we'll have a Senate Committee investigation with dueling Constitutional scholars. So what?
While your "experts" are up there, perhaps they could explain how the right can reconcile ignoring individual rights unless specifically enumerated in the constitution while granting presidential powers that are also unenumerated.

That should be interesting for all of us. :rotfl:
 
It always cracks me up when you left wing liberals are so quick to point out that President Bush was given information leading him to believe in the validity of the WMD. I can't remember how many countless quotes I've read in years past from some of your faves (Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc.) stating essentially that they all wholeheartedly believed Sadaam was stockpiling WMDs and that he was a viable threat that needed to be dealt with. Fast forward years later and somehow it was only President Bush who had such delusions of granduer! Hypocrites.
And btw Karibeth, excellent post. I agree with you about respecting the office, not the man. I have no respect for Bill Clinton the man, but as a former POTUS, I have to respect him for the office he held.
 
wvrevy said:
While your "experts" are up there, perhaps they could explain how the right can reconcile ignoring individual rights unless specifically enumerated in the constitution while granting presidential powers that are also unenumerated.

That should be interesting for all of us. :rotfl:
Or the Executive Branch claiming war powers when no war has been declared by Congress, thus no state of war exists? :confused3
 
bsnyder said:
Oh, so now you're completely changing your list? :lmao:
??? :confused3 If you are talking about my earlier comment, I believe the "list" also included the constant threat of being blown to bits by the general citizenry...something that is noticeably absent from the Balkans. :rolleyes:

Thanks for playing, please try again...
 
3princesses4us said:
It always cracks me up when you left wing liberals are so quick to point out that President Bush was given information leading him to believe in the validity of the WMD. I can't remember how many countless quotes I've read in years past from some of your faves (Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc.) stating essentially that they all wholeheartedly believed Sadaam was stockpiling WMDs and that he was a viable threat that needed to be dealt with. Fast forward years later and somehow it was only President Bush who had such delusions of granduer! Hypocrites.
And btw Karibeth, excellent post. I agree with you about respecting the office, not the man. I have no respect for Bill Clinton the man, but as a former POTUS, I have to respect him for the office he held.
Um, you may want to hold off on the name-calling. Unless, that is, you've already considered the simple fact that none of those other people invaded the country based on that information. Oh, I'm sure you'll just write them off as cowards, and discount the fact that there was plenty of contrary information out there and some of those people, unlike Shrub, are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.

But it's always fun being called a hypocrite by someone that supports George Bush. :teeth:
 
wvrevy said:
??? :confused3 If you are talking about my earlier comment, I believe the "list" also included the constant threat of being blown to bits by the general citizenry...something that is noticeably absent from the Balkans. :rolleyes:

Thanks for playing, please try again...

It included more things than not that fit the Balkans to a tee.

And of the ONE thing you listed that does not fit, we had no assurances beforehand, what might happen with the general citizenry in the Balkans. To quote my President "Hindsight alone is not wisdom."
 
kc10family said:
[
FYI… her husband divorced her over what she has done/doing. She has other children (under the age of 20 I believe) whom she doesn’t see much anymore. How sad for those kids. How sad for the husband of so many years. More than just herself was affected by the loss of her son, but she has left those others (her family) behind and forgotten.



I think her message is out and she should be there for her other children, they need her also.

But I am just some shmoe writing on this board.


I am looking everywhere to see a link to that matter , and I find it nowhere. A lot of people get divorced when they loose a child. In none of the stories I,ve read so far it is said thet her familly has disavohe(spell?) her , or that she doesn't see her other childreen ( I dont even know if she has some)
 
3princesses4us said:
It always cracks me up when you left wing liberals are so quick to point out that President Bush was given information leading him to believe in the validity of the WMD. I can't remember how many countless quotes I've read in years past from some of your faves (Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc.) stating essentially that they all wholeheartedly believed Sadaam was stockpiling WMDs and that he was a viable threat that needed to be dealt with. Fast forward years later and somehow it was only President Bush who had such delusions of granduer! Hypocrites.
And btw Karibeth, excellent post. I agree with you about respecting the office, not the man. I have no respect for Bill Clinton the man, but as a former POTUS, I have to respect him for the office he held.


They did believe it because the messenger is suppossed to be trustwordy, especially when said messenger is President of the United States. Now , If said messengers plays around with said message.
 
3princesses4us said:
It always cracks me up when you left wing liberals are so quick to point out that President Bush was given information leading him to believe in the validity of the WMD. I can't remember how many countless quotes I've read in years past from some of your faves (Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc.) stating essentially that they all wholeheartedly believed Sadaam was stockpiling WMDs and that he was a viable threat that needed to be dealt with. Fast forward years later and somehow it was only President Bush who had such delusions of granduer! Hypocrites.

Sauce for your convictions pleace. I can't find a straggling thing enforcing what you just said.

Here we have an elementary question. If the former Presidents went on record to state that (ex) President Hussein, how does it make them any better than Bush?

Easy.

Bush started a war over it.

Interestingly, during the past administration:

Condoleeza Rice said:
"These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. The first line of defense... should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration"

Colin Powell said:
"I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added [Saddam] "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

Colin Powell said:
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions—the fact that the sanctions exist—not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."



Rich::
 
toto2 said:
They did believe it because the messenger is suppossed to be trustwordy, especially when said messenger is President of the United States. Now , If said messengers plays around with said message.
I think you misunderstood. The reference to previous quotes by Democrats is about quotes made in the late 90's by members of the previous administration and members of Congress, before President Bush took office. There are numerous quotes regarding Saddam's having WMD and that is what 3princesses4us was referring to.
 
dcentity2000 said:


Sauce for your convictions pleace. I can't find a straggling thing enforcing what you just said.

Rich::
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
toto2 said:
I am looking everywhere to see a link to that matter , and I find it nowhere. A lot of people get divorced when they loose a child. In none of the stories I,ve read so far it is said thet her familly has disavohe(spell?) her , or that she doesn't see her other childreen ( I dont even know if she has some)
toto2, I live in that small town, my hair is cut by the same lady who used to cut Cindy's. Cindy's daughter and former best friend also gets thier hair cut by the same lady I do. In a coversation one day about what Cindy was doing I made a coment about how I didn't like her (Cindy) and what she was doing. I was then informed about what Cindy had not done "taken care of her other children". At this piont I felt sorry for her. I just could never forgive myself if I did this to my family. I guess you could call my info small town talk, but I think my hair designer (yes I said designer because I love what she does) was defending Cindy abit after I tried to say how nasty Cindy was being. For that I thank my hair designer for showing me that not everyting is as we read or see on TV.
 
Karibeth19 said:
I may regret posting here, but this has really been bothering me, so here goes. To me, the problem with what Ms. Sheehan, and also Mrs. Young, did, is they violated the rules of decorum of the United States Capitol. Of course they had every right to protest (or show their support) anywhere else they pleased: outside the Capitol, in front of the White House, in Crawford, even in their own front yards. However, it is not allowed in the gallery of the U.S. Capitol. It bothers me that many people today think that because they disagree with, or dislike our government, and/or the people who hold the high offices within our government, they do not have to show respect towards those institutions. The U.S. Government, along with its high offices (President, VP, SC Justice, Congressman) are much bigger than any one person and all are entitled to a certain amount of respect. When you are in the Capitol building, you are expected to behave in a certain way out of respect for the institution, much the same as how appropriate clothing (no shorts) is expected when visting the Vatican, or how silence is expected of visitors to Arlington during changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns. You may not be Catholic, or you may not care about the unknown men buried at Arlington, but you are still expected to follow their rules of decorum. Upon meeting the President (I know some of you perish the thought, but stay with me.), he should be addressed as "Mr. President" or "Sir" out of respect for the office of the President of the United States, whether you like GWB, or detest him. It drives me crazy when news organizations refer to him as "Mr. Bush", not because it is disrespectful of the man, but of the office he holds. It reminds me of a story I once heard about Ronald Regan. He refused to ever enter the Oval Office wearing anything other than a suit and a tie. When asked about this, he remarked that he didn't want to disrespect the office of the President. He knew that the office was much bigger than one man. The same goes for the Capitol of the United States. It is more than just a building; it is an institution where the bodies of our government come together to work to uphold the ideals laid out for us by the Constitution and our founding fathers. The people who gather in that building may try to promote policies or have personalities that we find objectionable, and we have the right and responsibility to speak out against them. But out of respect for the institution, those protests should not take place in the gallery during a State of the Union address.

There, I've said my peace. It may not be as eloquent as I intended (Things always sound better in my head than when I write them down.), but the increasing lack of civility and appropriate behavior among many people in this country is something that bothers me greatly, and I feel that is the true crux of this whole situation. Just because we have the "right" to do something, doesn't mean there aren't situations where acting on that right is completely inappropriate.



Great post. I was actually going to post something similar but I don't think I could have worded it any better than that.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter
Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom