-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Two people ejected, one ...
- Thread starter grassgrunt
- Start date
An interesting story;
This morning I'm at an educational seminar put together by the Missoula Organization of Realtors, featuring a speaker from The Pacific Institute, a company that specializes in human potential.
The speaker had a volunteer hold his hand up in the air, and he put his hand up against it. The speaker pushed against the volunteers hand, and the volunteer pushed right back. When he pushed harder, the volunteer pushed harder.
The point he was making was to observe human reaction. When the volunteers hand was pushed by an opposing force, he pushed right back. The speaker mentioned that you see this happening in the Middle East right now. The US is pushing its will on the people, and many are pushing right back. The statement he said is that we will never be able to force our will on a group of people because their nature will be to push back.
This morning I'm at an educational seminar put together by the Missoula Organization of Realtors, featuring a speaker from The Pacific Institute, a company that specializes in human potential.
The speaker had a volunteer hold his hand up in the air, and he put his hand up against it. The speaker pushed against the volunteers hand, and the volunteer pushed right back. When he pushed harder, the volunteer pushed harder.
The point he was making was to observe human reaction. When the volunteers hand was pushed by an opposing force, he pushed right back. The speaker mentioned that you see this happening in the Middle East right now. The US is pushing its will on the people, and many are pushing right back. The statement he said is that we will never be able to force our will on a group of people because their nature will be to push back.
GB1
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html
Not a "democrat" site, CNN. One was arrested, one was asked to leave.
Now, before I sound like a Cindy Sheehan apologist, here's another article;
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/29/chavez.sheehan.ap/index.html
Talk about making a deal with the devil. I support her protest to the war and her right to protest, but actions like these don't make me think very highly of her judgement.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/sheehan.arrest/index.html
Not a "democrat" site, CNN. One was arrested, one was asked to leave.
Now, before I sound like a Cindy Sheehan apologist, here's another article;
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/29/chavez.sheehan.ap/index.html
Talk about making a deal with the devil. I support her protest to the war and her right to protest, but actions like these don't make me think very highly of her judgement.
Re/MaxGriz said:
***edit*** I'm spending a very late night up with my wonderful 10 month old son who apparently feels sleep isn't really necessary.
Read this article a few minutes ago, and it's a great example of what happens when you force your will on another country. Should Iran have nukes? No. Should we force our policy on them, and call them out publicly like we have been? Probably not, it's not really working right now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran
:laugh: CNN... centrist? yeah, right.
I believe that there are two differences between the Cindy Sheehan incident and the wife-of-the-congressman one. First, Cindy came in shielding her t-shirt from view and threw a banner up. I believe that everybody knew that she would try some type of a protest (especially considering her behavior down in Crawford; in Venezuela; outside of the White House, etc. etc.). And yes, she was handcuffed because she wasn't cooperative.
The other lady came in with her shirt in view and exhibited no other behavior that lead capitol police to believe she was going to cause a ruckus! This is such a non-issue and I find it laughable that people are trying to elicit sympathy for Cindy and trying to make it appear that she was treated unfairly.
The rules are: and this applies to both liberals and conservatives.... you can not cause a commotion during the State of the Union speech. And thank heaven... think what it would be like if the gallery was responding other than curteous clapping?
I just pray that Cindy tries to run for office.... The democrats deserve the monster that they have created. Her issue is well beyond the "grieving mother" role. For shame... :naughty:
I believe that there are two differences between the Cindy Sheehan incident and the wife-of-the-congressman one. First, Cindy came in shielding her t-shirt from view and threw a banner up. I believe that everybody knew that she would try some type of a protest (especially considering her behavior down in Crawford; in Venezuela; outside of the White House, etc. etc.). And yes, she was handcuffed because she wasn't cooperative.
The other lady came in with her shirt in view and exhibited no other behavior that lead capitol police to believe she was going to cause a ruckus! This is such a non-issue and I find it laughable that people are trying to elicit sympathy for Cindy and trying to make it appear that she was treated unfairly.
The rules are: and this applies to both liberals and conservatives.... you can not cause a commotion during the State of the Union speech. And thank heaven... think what it would be like if the gallery was responding other than curteous clapping?
I just pray that Cindy tries to run for office.... The democrats deserve the monster that they have created. Her issue is well beyond the "grieving mother" role. For shame... :naughty:
grassgrunt
Well-known member
ponezone said:
Ponezone, would you mind listing your reference link. Thanks.
It doesn't matter who the person was, they (she) was forceably removed for breaking what law, None. The Master-at-Arms new this, was present, yet did nothing (to my knowledge). Bad taste/poor manners aren't against the law. If it were, few if any would be walking the streets.
For me at least, it's really quite unnerving to see how willing many Americans are to embrace constitutional rights violations.
ALPHAGRIZ1
Well-known member
I think Fox is exactly to the right as CNN is too the left. That is why they both work so well. The ratings even show this to be true, Fox leads every night in prime time.
grassgrunt said:
Technically speaking, Sheehan has the right to protest away. Probably even in the Capitol Blldg, if the courts ever tested. Ironically, the Republicans probably would have benefitted greatly if she'd been allowed to protest on inside there.
All that said, I sat in the House balcony once, and the guards were very persnickety about things. no talking, etc. And when I pulled out a pad and pencil to take some notes, they trotted right over to warn me to knock it off, for reasons I never quite understood. They probably are even touchier today, in the wake of 9/11....
As for constitutional rights violations, FDR was one of the champs of that a few years back. And of course Lincoln and other presidents during wartime were much more willing to restrict rights than anything we see today. In fact, does anyone here really know anyone personally who has had their rights violated in recent years? If so, what and where? Just curious....
grassgrunt
Well-known member
grizonbob said:
That's usually what it comes down to, if something doesn't impact us directly we tend to pay it momentary lip service then turn a deaf ear.
fencer24
Well-known member
Seems to me whenever I went to watch our criminal class in action, even without a State of the Union speech, we were warned in advance that if we did anything disruptive, or showed something like Cindy's T shirt we would be booted and possibly arrested. The rules if the chamber prohibited any such activity.
