I'm sorry, that's not good enough. The arresting officer and that supervisor should be charge with felony violations of federal law, as I posted above, what they did is clearly a chargeable offense.

Wait Pat, I'm confused. You are against federal laws until they suit your purpose and now you want them enforced??

Splain please.

The Capitol Police made a mistake, and almost immediately owned up to it. I applaud them, it's quite refreshing. Give em' a break. We all make mistakes, it's nice to see an outfit with the integrity to admit it.

Quite the oppposite of 99% of the neocons on this board, and 100% of the Bush administration.

Cindy was there for one reason and one only, to disrupt. It is demonstrable that this was her intent. She should have been removed. She was given entrance by a hard-leftist idiot from San Francisco who doesn't have the brain power to hold elected office. She was planted there as a gesture to the pro-communist left...Cindy is an insult to the son whose body she swings about in the air to bring attention to herself.

http://www.goodolddogs3.com/saddam-photo-op.jpg

Rodeo, I do agree she should not've been arrested. However, she shouldn't have been surprised to be asked to leave if her dress is not appropriate for the occasion, just like any other event.

And mul, the neocommunists are also those in power...one could assume even more communistic (yes it's sad, that they could be even more so than the dems)....they sure use the same tricks....

Ever since fastpatsy came on the seen you have turned into his female rhetorical clone...Republicans are quite obviously the lesser of the two socialist evils...even Murtha agrees that the spending would be much greater under Democrats.

Truth hurts, huh?

And no they aren't. They just argue on which socialist program to spend on.

Not to mention, the biggest debt has been under republican presidents.

And the admin's other communistic tactics....well....seems they did their studying of other regimes, huh?

I actually quite enjoy the exchanges with the brighter, thinking liberals on this board. They bring some very well thought out, well presented arguments to the table. I find myself even being pursuaded by some of them at times.

Rodeo stands in stark contrast to that. I can't say his is a "liberal" approach, as I see plenty of conservatives using it too. It is nothing, however, if not predictable.

Start by blindly supporting or opposing an issue, person, policy or whatever based solely along the lines of party loyalties. No need (or ability?) to put any thought whatsoever into it, your red or blue affiliations and loyalties preclude any need for that inconvenience.

When it becomes clear that you are pretty much on your own (save for the other blindly loyal subjects on your side) in an unsupportable position, it's clearly time to quit discussing the topic at hand. You probably don't understand it anyway. So what to do? Things are getting desperate...

There are a number of readily available options; paths to follow when it looks hopeless. In no particular order (o.k., so these are in the order Rodeo chose; that doesn't mean it matters), here are some options.

Produce unrelated comparisons in an attempt to water down the arguments against you. Better yet, these comparisons may even serve to redirect the converstation away from the matter at hand. "Our gal is not as bad as your guy" is essentially the tact taken here. Trying to support Sheehan's wrongdoing by pointing to allegedly worse ones by Bush, as if that excuses her. Anyone who has ever parented small children sees through that immediately, leaving our hero with a dwindling list of options. What to do next?

It's clearly time to go after your opponent, and drop any efforts to even try to keep up with the conversation. It's just too hard; and confusing. And you think you might be losing, you just can't put a finger on why. There is only one answer - take the low road; attack his character. Your opponent lacks integrity, therefore anything he says is suspect. That should pretty much wrap it up. No need to further discuss anything with some cad lacking in integrity; everyone knows that. It's a waste of time, so you get to drop the whole thing and just slink out the back door. Whew; that was close...

You got the last bit right. You lack the integrity to even admit that the woman did nothing wrong, per the Capitol Police. Prosecute your "thought crimes" elsewhere, not in my country.

Jeff, Rodeo, because you two disagree doesn't make either of you more right or more wrong.

Jeff, it's not all that you write about there. You two just disagree whether wearing a tshirt to the SOTU is right or wrong. But neither of you are "right" or "wrong." Just a difference of opinion.

Sorry CC, it's a lot more than a fashion disagreement. He somehow knows that "Sheehan was there to interupt and disturb the address."

Therefore it was prefectly proper that "she was removed before she could."

He's a scary dude.

You don't think she was there to do that? If she wasn't, she wouldn't have worn that.

Don't you think there's a time and a place for everything, and some things aren't appropriate at certain times?

Campaign trail...oh hell yeah, I'm all for that. They're trying to "sell" themselves.

But the SOTU is an address to congress...IMO hardly the place.

Are you asking me if I would have worn that shirt to the SOTU address? That's easy, I would not have worn that tee shirt or any tee shirt.

If you are asking me if someone should be arrested for wearing that shirt to the SOTU, I don't need to answer. The police department with jurisdiction over the Capitol has already answered -- NO THEY SHOULD NOT BE ARRESTED FOR WEARING THAT SHIRT.

Finally, if you are asking me if it's proper to arrest someone because of what that person MIGHT do, or what Mr. Higgins believes they WILL do in the future, the answer is absolutely not. Not in America.

See, we don't actually arrest people here until they commit a crime, no matter if Mr. Higgins or anyone else has superhuman powers and just KNOWS they will do something illegal in the future.

It’s called freedom. Something Mr. Higgins apparently has little familiarity with.

I've already stated I don't agree with Sheehan being arrested. That was clearly wrong. From what I can tell, Jeff isn't talking about arrest either, he's talking about removal. I could be wrong, and if he feels she should be arrested, that's pretty bad.

CC, you are right on with this one. This is no "Minority Report" incident. Arresting her may have been a bit reactionary, but removing her certainly was not. It was the prudent thing to do when looking at the whole picture. Her past behavior and what she was wearing certainly suggested why she was there. While innappropriate, and serving as an indicator, the tee shirt is not the main issue. It's her lack of respect for the SOTU; her innability to distinguish that and an appropriate venue to voice her opposition.

Rodeo, I'm sorry you have hit such a dead end on this that you feel you have to resort to questioning my integrity and calling me a "scary dude". I guess it's kind of morbidly facinating to watch you flailing around so, kind of desperately throwing punches in the dark. You simply cannot support your position in the face of any form of reasoned response, so you resort to the unreasonable.

To everyone else, I'll stop now. I'm actually kind of embarassed over my actions. While it has been kind of fun to periodically stuff another quarter into Rodeo and watch him spin out, I'm starting to feel bad about it. I feel I have been cruel in a way, like tabs pushing his retards down the stairs. Rodeo is equally helpless and maybe even equally innocent. I'll be kinder from now on, and try not to push him so hard.

Oh c'mon....

This is just a difference of opinion. Rodeo doesn't agree with her being arrested. How is he supposed to "support " that? It's his opinion.

Now I understand a bit more. It's not just a fascist streak; it's plain ignorance at work here as well.

Mr. Higgins wouldn't arrest Ms. Sheehan, her would simply take possession of her person by force, because he didn't like her outfit, and of course because of her "past behavior," of which he apparently disapproves.

I guess he doesn't understand that this is an arrest, by any legal standard.

It’s also an illegal prior restraint, with all the hallmarks of a police state.

Of course Mr. Higgins doesn't understand that he advocates an illegal arrest and prior restraint, while at the same time claiming to be against an “arrest.” Or he doesn’t care. Likely both.

Like I said, one scary dude.

Jeff and CC are right here. She wore the shirt to the SOTU speech where it should not have been worn, then admitted that she was going to show the shirt when the camera's came on her, and that is demonstrating, period, end of story. Anyone who cannot see this is just plain blind. It was not allowed during Clinton's speeches, and it will not be allowed now, no politics involved.

No one knows exactly what happened when the police came over but I would guess that she was given the choice of removing the shirt or leaving. Again, we were not there to see exactly what happened but my guess is that she was not the most compliant and the police cuffed her and took her out.

She was trying to make a scene and unfortunately for her and fortunately for the most of the rest of the world, it happened before the speech.

Best summary thus far.

Taste however remains subjective.

Now, do those tuxedo shirts count as fair play at a wedding?