Cindy Sheehan Arrested For Wearing T-Shirt

[1123581321]

Cindy Sheehan did nothing wrong. Charges have been dropped.

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.

Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”

“Shame, shame,” he scolded.

Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.

“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’

They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan had wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.

She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.

“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.

Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.

Told she could not wear shirt?
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.

Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.

“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”

She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.

“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”

She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”

“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.

[Hamel]

Looks like the guy with the "DU mentality" was right all along.

OOPS

[SirNitram]

Oh look, the whiny little shithead has decided he's going to tough it out and declare I'm 'inventing' fallacies. You turn 'Clothes don't make statements' into 'It's perfectly okay to stand around naked!!!!!'

Ok, then so exactly how little clothing IS ok then? You're saying a T-Shirt is ok but nude is not; where's the fucking line, and WHY THE FUCK does your opinion of where that line is carry any weight whatsoever?

Take your infantile Slippery Slope Fallacies elsewhere. My opinion carries no more weight than yours, pigfucker, but at least I don't lie about my opponent's position, over and over.

you screech and whine about style over and over and over.

You keep trying to pretend that clothing is only about style, when both Master of Ossus and I demonstrated it's not. Logic might serve you better than a hissy fit.

The only hissy fit here is you. You can try this infantile tactic of 'You're just mad', but it doesn't work. You're sitting here and throwing out textbook fallacies(Christ, you even said 'Where do you draw the line between t-shirts and nudity'), and you think it's me that's having trouble with logic....

You further bullshit and claim Keevan stated his opinion was fact, and use a quote where he never once uses the word.

He didn't explicitly say "This is fact" but he did not qualify it as opinion. That makes it a statement of fact unless otherwise qualified.[/quote]



Sure, fuckface. Backpedal faster.

Funny, I had to reexplain to you that my statement was opinion even though it was clearly labelled as such, but his statement you just fucking assumed was opinion without him saying it at all.

Some of us can read English, fuckface. Apparently you can't.

You're a fucking liar. And to top it off, you claim I'm threatening you to win the argument.

I'm telling the fucking truth. It's right there in plain English, you stupid fucker. I've been watching this board long enouygh to know what happens to liars. You're fabricating claims of lying to distract from the debate, or maybe you just think anyone who contradicts your almighty position is a liar.

No, not really. Ossus clearly shows that someone not strawmanning me and employing multiple fallacies doesn't get called a liar. But hey, let's claim that so you can get sanctimonious.

Let's see. You claim I am using a fallacy whose name means 'winning by threatening'. When all I said is that it'd go to the HoS. Do I regularly abandon discussions that go there? ...Nope, not unless the Horsemen fail to keep the vultures in check. So you're lying. Again.

Oh, and your little comment about "where this thread ends up" or words to that effect ARE argumentum ad bacculum.

A thread that has derailed from it's original discussion into what's formal, and now, your inability to see your own fallacies, has only a rightful place in that Hall. You can whine about this policy, but it remains SDN policy.

No, you fucking dumbass. I was taunting your idiotic ass to keep strawmanning and lying.

Which are figments of your imagination in which any of what you claim I did actually occured.

Right, you claimed my position is equal to standing around nude. This is an open strawman. Stop bullshitting and grow up.

And look, you did. You even accuse me of 'manipulating' fallacies by understanding the logic behind them.

Except that, apparently you don't. You claim "style over substance" despite the obvious fact that we're talking about what society considers formal (a matter of style) and that substantial information is conveyed through dress, which both I and Master of Ossus have shown.

Mayhap you'd be assisted by reading the full exchange, where both of us hit the same thing on the head: The people who beleive this stuff are morons. Therefore SoS is fully accurate, as it doesn't say it isn't used, but that it's stupid and illogical. Nice try though.

You apparently don't understand the strawman either you stupid little fuck, since something that logically follows from your argument is a strawman, but is NOT A FALLACY

Except Nudity doesn't follow from T-shirt. No sensible, sensate person will beleive that. Which tells us alot about you.

[urlhttp://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man]strawman[/url]

The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

So: Since you claim that "It's perfectly ok to go nude to a formal setting" is a strawman of "It's ok to wear a t shirt in a formal setting" explain just where the fuck the line of acceptable dress begins and I won't have to point out just how stupid your reasoning is.

Keep peddled your fucking slippery slope, asshole. Grow the fuck up. I'm taking some aspirin for my back pain and if you fucking continue this infantile bullshit about t-shirts equating nudity, I'll just flame you to shit. Because the instant you decided to cling to that because you couldn't stand your opinion being criticized, you painted a target on yourself.

[SirNitram]

Cindy Sheehan did nothing wrong. Charges have been dropped.

Any word on an apology to the other woman removed?(Yes, the evil flaming liberal thinks this is a miscarriage of their duty no matter which side they remove.)

[Big Phil]

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

[Glocksman]

The Capitol police had better be able to cite the rule or they're going to wind up with egg on their faces.

Scrambled or Poached?

[Glocksman]

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

My understanding is that Sheehan refused to comply when asked to cover it up, whereas the Congressman's wife left the gallery when asked to do so.

It's the refusal that got her arrested.

[Big Phil]

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

My understanding is that Sheehan refused to comply when asked to cover it up, whereas the Congressman's wife left the gallery when asked to do so.

It's the refusal that got her arrested.

Which, since they shouldn't have bothered her in the first place, is beside the point. Where did the entire idea to enforce a non-existent rule come from?

[Plekhanov]

Unless of course you think the woman recently voted by listeners of radio 4 as the 10th most influential person in Britain is “conveying an attitude of unconcern” in this headshot on her organisations web site.

If her t-shirt clearly conveyed something inflamatory, completely changing the tone indicated in the photograph, I'd say it might.

When did I mention anything about Sheehan? I was responding to SVDP's moronic argument that there's something so inherently wrong about t-shirts that wearers of them should “to be at least kicked out” of the capital building.

I think anyone wearing a T-Shirt out to be at least kicked out, regardless of who the President is or whether the shirt has a message.

because obviously merely being ejected from the building is not punishment enough for the terrible crime of wearing a t-shirt

A) That could be a regular shirt with a V-neck style collar

Yes it could be a regular shirt with invisible seems and buttons which look exactly like a t-shirt

B) She's wearing it in combination with a more sophisticated jacket

So what? It’s a smart t-shirt she wouldn’t be immediately be rendered slovenly if she took her jacket off

I didn't think I needed to explain that it was "a T-Shirt as the sole upper body garment other than coats removed when indoors" but apparently I need to make that clear for the comprehension-impaired.

Liar you stated that

Pretty much, you've decided to define t-shirts as unpresentable...what if it had been printed on a cummerbund, would that have been better?

What is inherently unpresentable about a t-shirt?

Formal dress codes are frankly one of the stupidest concepts it's been my misfortune to ever encounter.

Dumbass, I said the T shirt is unacceptable because it's a t-shirt, not because of what's on it.

Why do you think dress codes are dumb? Too inconvenient for you?

You never included any caveats about t-shirts being ok if worn with a jacket, but go ahead and back track some more, whilst pretending we can't scroll up and read the crap you spewed earlier in the thread why don't you.

[SirNitram]

Which, since they shouldn't have bothered her in the first place, is beside the point. Where did the entire idea to enforce a non-existent rule come from?

1) The previous removals, see Bynum Vs. Capitol Police. Problem: Rules were overturned years ago.

2) Just the same as we've been constantly hearing. Nothing that might question the President is allowed to be in his eyeshot. That this has gone on for six years has signifigantly reduced my ability to beleive any one incident is not affected by it, particularly when this dramatic catch-and-release accomplishes the job.

[Glocksman]

AOL News has a pretty good indepth article on it that includes a likely explanation of why the Capitol police acted like they did.

The two women appeared to have offended tradition as much as the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

Generally, the House's sergeant at arms sets out rules at the House speaker's direction. The Capitol Police enforce them and the Secret Service evaluates any threat to the president.

Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day.

However, State of the Union guests don't receive any guidelines, Hanley said. "You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire," she said.

Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, had been invited to the speech and given a ticket by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

The cops fucked up, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it appears they weren't acting with a political bias in mind when they did screw up.
If you're a Capitol officer, pissing off an 18 term Congressman who chairs a powerful subcommittee isn't the way to impress the leadership.

[Keevan_Colton]

To reject the premise that what you wear does provide information about you to others makes little sense to me.

The only really definitive information it can provide about you is that you are wearing those clothes at that time. People can try and draw inferences from that information to other things, but those, as we've already agreed, are generally shit.

Okay, I have to get some work done and I'll try to be back tomorrow evening.

Let me say, though, that this is bullshit. If I wear a Patrick Marleau sweater to a Mighty Ducks game, people would be perfectly reasonable in drawing the conclusion that I am a Sharks fan.

Yes it would since you'd be wearing something almost literally stating it...there is room for something explicitly showing something you know...a guiness shirt implies that you like guiness, a rangers football top implies you like rangers and so on...I think I'd be right to think someone in a police officers uniform is likely a police officer and so on...

If some young lawyer wears an expensive suit, people are reasonable in their assessment that this guy believes his future earnings will be very high.

Not neccesarily, what if you dont know he's a lawyer already? Does everyone with an expensive suit own it in the expectation of future earnings?

There is actually valuable information in personal atire, and while I won't defend ALL of society's judgements regarding dress codes I will say that what people wear in fact conveys information about their personalities.

It can, but it doesnt always, and drawing infrences from just someones attire will get you bullshit information a great deal of the time.

[SVPD]

Unless of course you think the woman recently voted by listeners of radio 4 as the 10th most influential person in Britain is “conveying an attitude of unconcern” in this headshot on her organisations web site.

If her t-shirt clearly conveyed something inflamatory, completely changing the tone indicated in the photograph, I'd say it might.

When did I mention anything about Sheehan? I was responding to SVDP's moronic argument that there's something so inherently wrong about t-shirts that wearers of them should “to be at least kicked out” of the capital building.

I think anyone wearing a T-Shirt out to be at least kicked out, regardless of who the President is or whether the shirt has a message.

because obviously merely being ejected from the building is not punishment enough for the terrible crime of wearing a t-shirt

So in other words, you have a different opinion.

A) That could be a regular shirt with a V-neck style collar

Yes it could be a regular shirt with invisible seems and buttons which look exactly like a t-shirt

I take it you're not familiar with the fact that the seams could be under the jacket, or that shirts other than T-shirts do exist which do not have buttons down the front length.

B) She's wearing it in combination with a more sophisticated jacket

So what? It’s a smart t-shirt she wouldn’t be immediately be rendered slovenly if she took her jacket off

Yes, she would.

I didn't think I needed to explain that it was "a T-Shirt as the sole upper body garment other than coats removed when indoors" but apparently I need to make that clear for the comprehension-impaired.

Liar you stated that

Dumbass, I said the T shirt is unacceptable because it's a t-shirt, not because of what's on it.

Why do you think dress codes are dumb? Too inconvenient for you?

You never included any caveats about t-shirts being ok if worn with a jacket, but go ahead and back track some more, whilst pretending we can't scroll up and read the crap you spewed earlier in the thread why don't you.

As I stated, I did not think I needed to include any caveats as I thought they were obvious, but in your fantasy world apparently admitting that you failed to include them is somehow lying.

[SVPD]

The only hissy fit here is you. You can try this infantile tactic of 'You're just mad', but it doesn't work. You're sitting here and throwing out textbook fallacies(Christ, you even said 'Where do you draw the line between t-shirts and nudity'), and you think it's me that's having trouble with logic....

Well, where the fuck is it then? The line is OBVIOSLY somewhere between them since you state there's an obvious difference between nudity and T-Shirts, but WHERE, and WHY DOES IT FALL THERE and not anywhere else.

Unless you can answer these questions, you're basically taking issue with my idea that T-Shirts are inappropriate without saying WHAT MAKES THEM APPROPRIATE.

Sure, fuckface. Backpedal faster.

Backpedal? You used a weak semantic nitpick to claim he didn't state it as fact because he didn't use the word fact. Is there some SDN rule I'm not aware of that states nothing is assumed to be fact unless specifically labelled as such?

Once again, you conceed that you use different standards for me and Keevan.

Some of us can read English, fuckface. Apparently you can't.

Loosely translated, this reads as: I'm a stupid fuckwit who has no rational response other than "well, you can't read english"

No, not really. Ossus clearly shows that someone not strawmanning me and employing multiple fallacies doesn't get called a liar. But hey, let's claim that so you can get sanctimonious.[/quotw]

Sanctimonius? We argued the same thing; namely that clothes have substantial communicative effects. But somehow it's fallacious when I say it and not when he does. I guess in your little world argument validity is determined by post count.

Let's see. You claim I am using a fallacy whose name means 'winning by threatening'. When all I said is that it'd go to the HoS. Do I regularly abandon discussions that go there? ...Nope, not unless the Horsemen fail to keep the vultures in check. So you're lying. Again.

Not lying at all. The transfer of any thread to the HoS has no bearing on the validity of any argument therein. So, once again, you simply fabricate a reason to accuse me of lying because you have to cover up your fallacy.

A thread that has derailed from it's original discussion into what's formal, and now, your inability to see your own fallacies, has only a rightful place in that Hall. You can whine about this policy, but it remains SDN policy.

I take no issue with SDN policy, and I find it very unlikely that you'll find any post where I took issue with it. It does not change the fact of argumentum ad bacculum though.

Right, you claimed my position is equal to standing around nude. This is an open strawman. Stop bullshitting and grow up.

You know what? I'll conceed. I admit that standing aroiund nude is a strawman of Being in a T shirt at a formal event. There is obvious difference. I revoke that argument.

Now, you stupid fuck, will you say at what point dress or lack thereof becomes unacceptable and why? Or is it simply convenient to claim that T-Shirts are OK with no reason why?

[Mayhap you'd be assisted by reading the full exchange, where both of us hit the same thing on the head: The people who beleive this stuff are morons. Therefore SoS is fully accurate, as it doesn't say it isn't used, but that it's stupid and illogical. Nice try though.

I read the entire thread from beginning to end, something you obviously didn't do since your argument hinges on my holding Keevan to a different standard regarding opinions BEFORE he said it was opinion.

The fact of the matter is that both I and Master of Ossus provided good exampples of how clothing conveys information, and you're just pretending his argument is different than mine by virtue of his higher post count.

Except Nudity doesn't follow from T-shirt. No sensible, sensate person will beleive that. Which tells us alot about you.

The fact is that you failed to say what standards tell us what makes a T shirt acceptable and nudity not, so the line lies somewhere between, but you are more concerned with whining about fallacies than you are with resolving this issue (since without doing so there is no reaon to think you wouldn't say nudity is OK, there are, after all, perfectly sane people that woul say it is. Nudists for example, who see nothing at all wrong with the naked body)

Keep peddled your fucking slippery slope, asshole. Grow the fuck up. I'm taking some aspirin for my back pain and if you fucking continue this infantile bullshit about t-shirts equating nudity, I'll just flame you to shit. Because the instant you decided to cling to that because you couldn't stand your opinion being criticized, you painted a target on yourself.

Oh, you'll keep saying mean things to me? Waaaa... I'm so scared. You little pussy. First it was a strawman, now it's a slippery slope. You don't even understand slippery slope. That would be arguing that allowing T-Shirts would lead to nudity, whic I have not argued.

You are just another internet wuss who can't argue and has to throw fallacies around to distract from his own errors.

[SirNitram]

The only hissy fit here is you. You can try this infantile tactic of 'You're just mad', but it doesn't work. You're sitting here and throwing out textbook fallacies(Christ, you even said 'Where do you draw the line between t-shirts and nudity'), and you think it's me that's having trouble with logic....

Well, where the fuck is it then? The line is OBVIOSLY somewhere between them since you state there's an obvious difference between nudity and T-Shirts, but WHERE, and WHY DOES IT FALL THERE and not anywhere else.

Why the fuck does it matter? And why does it go from 'T-shirt' to 'nudity', since nudity is not an option to any sane person, or at least one opposed to frostbite? Oh right! Because you're too much of a retard to realize that declaring the link is stupid and fallacious!

Unless you can answer these questions, you're basically taking issue with my idea that T-Shirts are inappropriate without saying WHAT MAKES THEM APPROPRIATE.

Appropriate is the default, dumbshit. Since my opinion is constructed on utilitarian ethics, you must show the harm. You have failed to do such, and are basically just resorting to screaming, whining, and strawmanning.

Sure, fuckface. Backpedal faster.

Backpedal? You used a weak semantic nitpick to claim he didn't state it as fact because he didn't use the word fact. Is there some SDN rule I'm not aware of that states nothing is assumed to be fact unless specifically labelled as such?

You're a very dumb person. But we knew that from your laughable 'IT MUST MEAN NUDITY IS OKAY!' argumen.

When two opinions collide, we understand they are opinions. Unless we're you.

Once again, you conceed that you use different standards for me and Keevan.

No duh. This has been criticism of our opinion. That you don't seem to get we're allowed to do that, you whine more.

Some of us can read English, fuckface. Apparently you can't.

Loosely translated, this reads as: I'm a stupid fuckwit who has no rational response other than "well, you can't read english"

There's no translation needed, unless you're illiterate. The point, since you missed it, is that anyone sane would realize he's criticizing your opinion and that would be.. Shock.. His opinion.

No, not really. Ossus clearly shows that someone not strawmanning me and employing multiple fallacies doesn't get called a liar. But hey, let's claim that so you can get sanctimonious.[/quotw]

Sanctimonius? We argued the same thing; namely that clothes have substantial communicative effects. But somehow it's fallacious when I say it and not when he does. I guess in your little world argument validity is determined by post count.

His arguments are rooted in reality; yours in ridiculous bullshit like equating t-shirts to nudity.

Let's see. You claim I am using a fallacy whose name means 'winning by threatening'. When all I said is that it'd go to the HoS. Do I regularly abandon discussions that go there? ...Nope, not unless the Horsemen fail to keep the vultures in check. So you're lying. Again.

Not lying at all. The transfer of any thread to the HoS has no bearing on the validity of any argument therein. So, once again, you simply fabricate a reason to accuse me of lying because you have to cover up your fallacy.

Of course there's no bearing on the validity. So you admit you were lying when you claimed I was using an Argument From The Stick to say I was right, for even if my prediction(I can't flush my own arguments, dumbshit.) is right, it's not a declaration of victory.

It's so nice when I get you idiots to run in circles until you argue you're wrong.

A thread that has derailed from it's original discussion into what's formal, and now, your inability to see your own fallacies, has only a rightful place in that Hall. You can whine about this policy, but it remains SDN policy.

I take no issue with SDN policy, and I find it very unlikely that you'll find any post where I took issue with it. It does not change the fact of argumentum ad bacculum though.

The fact that it can't be a threat of argument from the stick, since I can't flush my own thread(So obviously I'm just predicting my fellow moderators will take action against someone clogging this thread with 'T-SHIRT EQUALZ NUDITY!'), and that flushing doesn't equate an end. So you're lying. Again.

Right, you claimed my position is equal to standing around nude. This is an open strawman. Stop bullshitting and grow up.

You know what? I'll conceed. I admit that standing aroiund nude is a strawman of Being in a T shirt at a formal event. There is obvious difference. I revoke that argument.

About fucking time!

Now, you stupid fuck, will you say at what point dress or lack thereof becomes unacceptable and why? Or is it simply convenient to claim that T-Shirts are OK with no reason why?

Providing the material covers the body properly(And women's fashion shows us that is a bendy standard indeed.), I'm happy with almost anything. Since I'm not a dumbshit like you, I clearly stop short of underwear.

See? When you admit you've been a lying, fallacy-spewing wretch, I play nice.

[Mayhap you'd be assisted by reading the full exchange, where both of us hit the same thing on the head: The people who beleive this stuff are morons. Therefore SoS is fully accurate, as it doesn't say it isn't used, but that it's stupid and illogical. Nice try though.

I read the entire thread from beginning to end, something you obviously didn't do since your argument hinges on my holding Keevan to a different standard regarding opinions BEFORE he said it was opinion.

Ah yes, you're one of those stupid fucks who needs every-little-inch spelled out.

The fact of the matter is that both I and Master of Ossus provided good exampples of how clothing conveys information, and you're just pretending his argument is different than mine by virtue of his higher post count.

No, your laughable bullshit was based on fallacies and claiming an Argument From Stick when none can exist.

Except Nudity doesn't follow from T-shirt. No sensible, sensate person will beleive that. Which tells us alot about you.

The fact is that you failed to say what standards tell us what makes a T shirt acceptable and nudity not, so the line lies somewhere between, but you are more concerned with whining about fallacies than you are with resolving this issue (since without doing so there is no reaon to think you wouldn't say nudity is OK, there are, after all, perfectly sane people that woul say it is. Nudists for example, who see nothing at all wrong with the naked body)

'Whining about fallacies', huh? No, sorry kid. This site does not 'whine about fallacies', we mock the people who use them. Since you feel pointing out such is somehow inappropriate in a thread, perhaps you should run the fuck away.

Keep peddled your fucking slippery slope, asshole. Grow the fuck up. I'm taking some aspirin for my back pain and if you fucking continue this infantile bullshit about t-shirts equating nudity, I'll just flame you to shit. Because the instant you decided to cling to that because you couldn't stand your opinion being criticized, you painted a target on yourself.

Oh, you'll keep saying mean things to me? Waaaa... I'm so scared. You little pussy. First it was a strawman, now it's a slippery slope. You don't even understand slippery slope. That would be arguing that allowing T-Shirts would lead to nudity, whic I have not argued.

Actually, that's more or less the gist of your equating the two in your initial claim. But hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night. You're the one who can't construct an argument.

You are just another internet wuss who can't argue and has to throw fallacies around to distract from his own errors.

Says the guy who equates t-shirts to full nudity!

Kid, shut up. That's the best thing you can do for yourself now. You're upset you got called on fallacies, so what do you do? You attack the very matter of calling your opponent on fallacies! I hope you keep this up. That's not a threat; sadly, I lack the power to carry out what I hope for there. But please. Keep up this claim that calling stupid sacks of shit like you on fallacies is somehow wrong.

[Elfdart]

Cindy raised the ante from 'cover it up'(assuming the above turn of events is true) to 'please leave or be arrested'. The man running security probably gave an order along the lines of "OK, everybody from here on out is to get the same." The, proverbial, hand isn't over until the night is over, and the ante is the grand ultimatum.

I concur. The police have nothing to gain by trumping up false charges against such a high-visibility target, and everything to lose. Sheehan behaved like a twit and got treated as one, so far as I can tell.

Police, like any other government employees, know what's expected of them and what will please their superiors. If they had allowed her to stay (T-shirt or no T-shirt), there was a real chance the camera would have panned over to her and all the memories of last summer when Sheehan made Bush look like the liar, fool and coward he is would come rushing back. Of course, they can't admit that the real reason they illegally arrested her was because Bush is too much of a pussy to be in the same room with a middle-aged Sunday school teacher.

So they:

A) make up a bullshit story about Sheehan having a banner, then feed that story to CNN and other outlets, and

B) they claim she broke a rule that didn't exist

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

Because they knew that by the time it was found out Sheehan hadn't broken any rules, the State of the Union would be over. I'll wager some Democrat who noticed Sheehan being ejected demanded and got Young kicked out on the same bullshit grounds.

Looks like the guy with the "DU mentality" was right all along.

OOPS

The Capitol Police owned up to their dishonesty and stupidity as damage control since Young and Sheehan will probably sue. I wonder when some of the cowardly little assholes who posted here are going to own up their dishonesty and stupidity. I'm not holding my breath.

[SVPD]

Why the fuck does it matter? And why does it go from 'T-shirt' to 'nudity', since nudity is not an option to any sane person, or at least one opposed to frostbite? Oh right! Because you're too much of a retard to realize that declaring the link is stupid and fallacious!

It matters you stupid shitbag excuse for a life form, because you're trying to argue that the arbitrary line between inappropriate and appropriate is somewhere below "t-shirt" and above "butt naked", but when questioned why it lies there you have no fucking reason at all! That's your opinion! whay does your opinion hold any force? Because you say so?

Appropriate is the default, dumbshit. Since my opinion is constructed on utilitarian ethics, you must show the harm. You have failed to do such, and are basically just resorting to screaming, whining, and strawmanning.

And precisely what makes utilitarian ethics correct? Because you like them? You're a fucking little snot with a superiority complex.

Demonstrate logically that appropriate is the default, since you've asserted it as fact, or admit that it's opinion.

You're a very dumb person. But we knew that from your laughable 'IT MUST MEAN NUDITY IS OKAY!' argumen.

When two opinions collide, we understand they are opinions. Unless we're you.

Unless of course, on of those opinions is presented as fact! You are using hindsight to claim there were two opinions, when in fact what happened was I labelled mine as such to start off and restated it for your personal benefit when you called it into question, but mysteriously knew that Keevan's opinion was opinion without it being said! There's several words for that:

INCONSISTANCY
FAVORITISM
DOUBLE STANDARD

Once again, you conceed that you use different standards for me and Keevan.

No duh. This has been criticism of our opinion. That you don't seem to get we're allowed to do that, you whine more.

Oh, I get it!

So you admit that you're only concerned about a "level playing field" when it appears not to be level for the guy you agree with!

You hypocritical fucktard! You've admitted that you need to use different standards for different sides of the same point! You call that "whining"? It's called pointing out that you have no fucking argument and continue the thread only because your pride in your status and massive post count means your gigantic ego will be bruised if you admit fault!

Not that I'm surprised; your kind populates many discussion boards.

There's no translation needed, unless you're illiterate. The point, since you missed it, is that anyone sane would realize he's criticizing your opinion and that would be.. Shock.. His opinion.

In case the obvious had escaped you, it's possible to cricticize opinion with fact, jackass. I could state that it's my opinion that blacks are markedly inferior to whites, but observable fact would reveal me to be wrong (not to mention a racist fuckhead) if I did express that opinion.

You're trying to use hindsight to justify the fact that you flew off the handle at me for asking that he justify his opinion when he asked me to do the.

I'll also call your attention (if you can keep it there that long) that in the same post I asked he prove his (not yet shown to be) opinion I offered the first of quite a few reasons for my.

You, you lying sack of turd, pretended that somehow 2 1-line reasons for my opinion constituted "I don't have to prove my opinion but you have to prove yours" which I in no way implied.

Which would be yet another double standard on your part, since I clearly did not expressly state "I don't need to prove my opinion but you need to prove yours" but amazingly, the hindsight implication that Keevan's position was opinion DID have an impact on your addled brain

Apparently implication is only recognizable to you when it wotks in your favor.

His arguments are rooted in reality; yours in ridiculous bullshit like equating t-shirts to nudity.

As ide from the fact that I conceeded that, you keep harping on that while ignoring the long list of examples I provided in which clothing conveyed substantial information about the wearer.

But, why bother addressing points when it's so much easier to jump up and down stamping your feet yelling "Heeeee made a STRAWMAN!!! SEEEEEE!!! STRAWMAN!!!! I'm calling the horsemen!!! WAAAAAAA!!!!!"

You pussy. you've harped on that for upteen post and never refuted my examples.

[Of course there's no bearing on the validity. So you admit you were lying when you claimed I was using an Argument From The Stick to say I was right, for even if my prediction(I can't flush my own arguments, dumbshit.) is right, it's not a declaration of victory.

No, I admitted no such thing. Your reference to HoS, while permissible under the local rules, and part of SDN policy has no logical link to the issue at hand. You use the little dodge of taunting, when any idiot can see you were trying to get me to conceed merely on the threat that someone might HOS this.

It's so nice when I get you idiots to run in circles until you argue you're wrong.

Yes, I'm enjoying watching you do it.

The fact that it can't be a threat of argument from the stick, since I can't flush my own thread(So obviously I'm just predicting my fellow moderators will take action against someone clogging this thread with 'T-SHIRT EQUALZ NUDITY!'), and that flushing doesn't equate an end. So you're lying. Again.

Possibly in error about how HoS works, I will admit to, but apparently you don't realize the difference between error on board procedures and lying.

But, since you're a pussy with no real argument and a gigantic post-count inflated ego, it's no surprise that you'd have to invent lies when you get in a debate you started by

A) flying of the handle and
B) Showing blatant favoritism despite crying about level playing fields.

About fucking time!

Yes, I finally caved in to argumentum ad nauseum. Silly me. Maybe we can get something more productive out of this now that you can't hand-wave about strawmen.

Providing the material covers the body properly(And women's fashion shows us that is a bendy standard indeed.), I'm happy with almost anything. Since I'm not a dumbshit like you, I clearly stop short of underwear.

And just what the fuck makes your standard valid? Why is it only necessary that the body be covered? Why is it necessary that the body be covered AT ALL? Do you have some pent-up angst over the nude human form?

See? When you admit you've been a lying, fallacy-spewing wretch, I play nice.

Let's try: You've been complaining about the strawman for so long that when I drop it you jump right out and admit that your standard is "covering the body" which is just as much arbitrary and personal opinion as mine is!

Holy fuck! Call the papers! Now we've figured it out... You've been taking issue with my opinion of "formal" because it's different from yours! Maybe now you can explain just when you were appointed the Lord High Determiner of Appropriate Dress!

Ah yes, you're one of those stupid fucks who needs every-little-inch spelled out.

In other words, you admit that he did not say it was opinion. Apparently your vast psychic powers reveal when items presented as fact are opinion to you... perhaps you could forgice us mere mortals for going by what the fuck was actually posted!

No, your laughable bullshit was based on fallacies and claiming an Argument From Stick when none can exist.

Argumentum ad Bacculum is argument from force. YOU do not have to personally exercise the force. In the link I provided, the audience shouting down one debater was an example. In here, the thread being HoS'd would be similar.

But again, we see that logical fallacies mean "whatever's convenient to Nitram"

'Whining about fallacies', huh? No, sorry kid. This site does not 'whine about fallacies', we mock the people who use them. Since you feel pointing out such is somehow inappropriate in a thread, perhaps you should run the fuck away.

In that case, you must suffer a serious amount of mockery

You're whining about fallacies that mysteriously differ from their actual definition when it's convenient for you.

Actually, that's more or less the gist of your equating the two in your initial claim. But hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night. You're the one who can't construct an argument.

Slippery slope is not equating anything. That would be the weak analogy.

But hey, just yank the first fallacy you see off the shelf and slap it on there!

Says the guy who equates t-shirts to full nudity!

Kid, shut up. That's the best thing you can do for yourself now. You're upset you got called on fallacies, so what do you do? You attack the very matter of calling your opponent on fallacies! I hope you keep this up. That's not a threat; sadly, I lack the power to carry out what I hope for there. But please. Keep up this claim that calling stupid sacks of shit like you on fallacies is somehow wrong.

Let's address a few points here

A) It's the height of vanity to think I'm upset over this
B) Attacking the matter of the fallacies themselves is legitimate. Fallacies have proofs which much be shown for the fallacy to exist. You havent done that.
C) You apparently think that disagreeing with you is somehow an invalidating form of argument, since you've basically asserted that your idea of appropriate dress is somehow more valid than ine (which would logically extend to the idea that it's more valid than anyone else's)
D) You flew off the handle at me because you claimed you wanted a "level playing field", invented a standard of me holding him to proof that I don't hold myslef (and is not borne out by perusal of the thread)
E) Then, you decieded to indulge in a few threats, hoping that the idea that someone would HoS this would make me knuckle under, so that you wouldn't have to defend your ridiculous position
F) You've fabricated claims of lies, probably in hopes of facilitating dsaid trip to the HoS


You're a sorry sack of shit. You can't make a decent argument, and you've made it explicitly clear you're hoping a mod will save your ass.

[SirNitram]

Why the fuck does it matter? And why does it go from 'T-shirt' to 'nudity', since nudity is not an option to any sane person, or at least one opposed to frostbite? Oh right! Because you're too much of a retard to realize that declaring the link is stupid and fallacious!

It matters you stupid shitbag excuse for a life form, because you're trying to argue that the arbitrary line between inappropriate and appropriate is somewhere below "t-shirt" and above "butt naked", but when questioned why it lies there you have no fucking reason at all! That's your opinion! whay does your opinion hold any force? Because you say so?

Why does yours, shitface? Again, why is it a question between 't-shirt' and 'nudity' when 'nudity' isn't a style of dress to those of us in the 1st world?

Appropriate is the default, dumbshit. Since my opinion is constructed on utilitarian ethics, you must show the harm. You have failed to do such, and are basically just resorting to screaming, whining, and strawmanning.

And precisely what makes utilitarian ethics correct? Because you like them? You're a fucking little snot with a superiority complex.

With opponents like you, it's hard not to get one, but I try to debate actual superiors every now and then to keep myself in check.

Demonstrate logically that appropriate is the default, since you've asserted it as fact, or admit that it's opinion.

Ah, so I have to justify my opinion logically when it's based on a personal ethical system. Or are you one of those dumbshits who thinks one person pointing out their ethical model is assigning it to all?

You're a very dumb person. But we knew that from your laughable 'IT MUST MEAN NUDITY IS OKAY!' argumen.

When two opinions collide, we understand they are opinions. Unless we're you.

Unless of course, on of those opinions is presented as fact! You are using hindsight to claim there were two opinions, when in fact what happened was I labelled mine as such to start off and restated it for your personal benefit when you called it into question, but mysteriously knew that Keevan's opinion was opinion without it being said! There's several words for that:

Okay, yea, we get it. You're too dumb to get that someone criticizing your opinion is expressing their own. I'm gonna do you a huge favour and snip this huge whine-fest out, because seriously, repeating ad naeseum that you're unable to make this conclusion is earning you nothing but badwill.

INCONSISTANCY
FAVORITISM
DOUBLE STANDARD

No. Inconsistancy would be demanding someone else prove their opinion logically when you say you don't have to prove yours because it's your opinion. That'd make you the inconsistant hypocrit.

Once again, you conceed that you use different standards for me and Keevan.

No duh. This has been criticism of our opinion. That you don't seem to get we're allowed to do that, you whine more.

Oh, I get it!

So you admit that you're only concerned about a "level playing field" when it appears not to be level for the guy you agree with!

Keep stuffing words in my mouth, this is hilarious. Really.

You hypocritical fucktard! You've admitted that you need to use different standards for different sides of the same point! You call that "whining"? It's called pointing out that you have no fucking argument and continue the thread only because your pride in your status and massive post count means your gigantic ego will be bruised if you admit fault!

Absolutely not. I realize self-important fucktards who pride themselves on their ability to put on a three peice with only minimal help from their mothers place value in status and their giant egos, I realize that netrats winge about postcounts and never admit fault, but I am none of these things. Keep stuffing words in my mouth, though. Through the backpain, you're a wonderful anastetic from the laughter.

Not that I'm surprised; your kind populates many discussion boards.

The oh-so-evil 'Pointing out fallacies' kind! Quick, better start a movement to purge our infestation of SDnet! Rar!

There's no translation needed, unless you're illiterate. The point, since you missed it, is that anyone sane would realize he's criticizing your opinion and that would be.. Shock.. His opinion.

In case the obvious had escaped you, it's possible to cricticize opinion with fact, jackass. I could state that it's my opinion that blacks are markedly inferior to whites, but observable fact would reveal me to be wrong (not to mention a racist fuckhead) if I did express that opinion.

That's not opinion vs. fact. That's false data vs. real data. That someone cloaks it in the language of subjectivity does not make the statement any less of an attempt at objectivity.

You're trying to use hindsight to justify the fact that you flew off the handle at me for asking that he justify his opinion when he asked me to do the.

Keep lying. It's amusing the lengths you go to while I wind you up.

I'll also call your attention (if you can keep it there that long) that in the same post I asked he prove his (not yet shown to be) opinion I offered the first of quite a few reasons for my.

All of which were pretty dumb, but hey, we've covered your inadequecies there.

You, you lying sack of turd, pretended that somehow 2 1-line reasons for my opinion constituted "I don't have to prove my opinion but you have to prove yours" which I in no way implied.

You know, this lie really just keeps on giving.

Your own words, when asked to give some substance to your claims..

I was responding to Keevan's question of why in my personal opion

Before you ask for me to demonstrate something, why don't you make sure you understand what I was saying in the first place.

You clearly felt you needed to demonstrate nothing.

Which would be yet another double standard on your part, since I clearly did not expressly state "I don't need to prove my opinion but you need to prove yours" but amazingly, the hindsight implication that Keevan's position was opinion DID have an impact on your addled brain

Addled only by your ravening stupidity, maybe. Did I mention you're shitty at this, by the way?

Apparently implication is only recognizable to you when it wotks in your favor.

Sure kid. Keep telling yourself it's all just magic bias.

His arguments are rooted in reality; yours in ridiculous bullshit like equating t-shirts to nudity.

As ide from the fact that I conceeded that, you keep harping on that while ignoring the long list of examples I provided in which clothing conveyed substantial information about the wearer.

like is a word used for reasons. Read up on them. Notice that I did not contest that some people believe choice in clothes conveys more information than 'I'm wearing clothes'. I simply put forth the completely sensible argument that these messages are based on illogical social 'norms' which bear the usual limited interaction with reality.

But, why bother addressing points when it's so much easier to jump up and down stamping your feet yelling "Heeeee made a STRAWMAN!!! SEEEEEE!!! STRAWMAN!!!! I'm calling the horsemen!!! WAAAAAAA!!!!!"

Why, gosh, a site with 'Mockery of stupid people' has people who will laugh and mock a debator so inept that they'll use a strawman? Say it ain't so!

As for the Horsemen, I don't need them. You've made plenty a fool of yourself without their help.

You pussy. you've harped on that for upteen post and never refuted my examples.

You mean the examples of a completely illogical and unfounding connection, whose only concession I made was that the majority beleives it?

This ain't fantasy-land, kid. Real world is not altered by the beleifs of others.

[Of course there's no bearing on the validity. So you admit you were lying when you claimed I was using an Argument From The Stick to say I was right, for even if my prediction(I can't flush my own arguments, dumbshit.) is right, it's not a declaration of victory.

No, I admitted no such thing. Your reference to HoS, while permissible under the local rules, and part of SDN policy has no logical link to the issue at hand. You use the little dodge of taunting, when any idiot can see you were trying to get me to conceed merely on the threat that someone might HOS this.

You'd be a pretty fucking big wimp if you conceded on the loss. Of course I was taunting you. I taunt all my dumber opponents; it's what keeps me from nodding off while they spew self-righteous crap about how everything they've done is, in fact, the sins I am guilty of.

It has quite a link, by the way. Derailing a thread this messily is almost always a cause for it.

It's so nice when I get you idiots to run in circles until you argue you're wrong.

Yes, I'm enjoying watching you do it.

Wow, the 'I am rubber and you are glue!' response. What are you, twelve?

The fact that it can't be a threat of argument from the stick, since I can't flush my own thread(So obviously I'm just predicting my fellow moderators will take action against someone clogging this thread with 'T-SHIRT EQUALZ NUDITY!'), and that flushing doesn't equate an end. So you're lying. Again.

Possibly in error about how HoS works, I will admit to, but apparently you don't realize the difference between error on board procedures and lying.

Nope, lying. Because your own words:

Not lying at all. The transfer of any thread to the HoS has no bearing on the validity of any argument therein.

So you knew that it being flushed was not 'winning' the argument. Which means, again, you're lying! You just can't stop. Are you pathological? Wait, crap, with people like you, how can you tell?

But, since you're a pussy with no real argument and a gigantic post-count inflated ego, it's no surprise that you'd have to invent lies when you get in a debate you started by

Post count inflated ego? Christ, where'd that come from? Are you projecting your inadequecies, and if so, why are you feeling inadequete over postcount of all useless identifiers?

A) flying of the handle and

Oh dear, I used bad words, I must be off the handle!!!!

Shit, kid. You couldn't raise my pulse, let alone get me off the handle.

B) Showing blatant favoritism despite crying about level playing fields.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it's as valid as your nudity point.

About fucking time!

Yes, I finally caved in to argumentum ad nauseum. Silly me. Maybe we can get something more productive out of this now that you can't hand-wave about strawmen.

Ah, I see. You have no interest in debating logically, you merely give up your ridiculous strawmen because you get tired and give up. Hint: That just lost you any chance at an exchange designed to do anything but amuse me. Why? Because I don't waste any more effort on shitstains who think they can just attribute 'fallacies' as something the mean people invoke.

Providing the material covers the body properly(And women's fashion shows us that is a bendy standard indeed.), I'm happy with almost anything. Since I'm not a dumbshit like you, I clearly stop short of underwear.

And just what the fuck makes your standard valid? Why is it only necessary that the body be covered? Why is it necessary that the body be covered AT ALL? Do you have some pent-up angst over the nude human form?

It's called physics and the fact it's January in the Northern Hemisphere. You want your nuts to fall off, go ahead. But I realize this is just you raising a stink against another eviiiiiil person stating an opinion other than yours.

See? When you admit you've been a lying, fallacy-spewing wretch, I play nice.

Let's try: You've been complaining about the strawman for so long that when I drop it you jump right out and admit that your standard is "covering the body" which is just as much arbitrary and personal opinion as mine is!

No, mine is based off the fact that not covering the body can lead to objective harm, like frostbite, cuts, scratches, and the nightmare of men everywhere, sunburned dick.

Holy fuck! Call the papers! Now we've figured it out... You've been taking issue with my opinion of "formal" because it's different from yours! Maybe now you can explain just when you were appointed the Lord High Determiner of Appropriate Dress!

Keep lying. This is the funniest yet; you try to be smartarsed but fall on your face yet again.

Ah yes, you're one of those stupid fucks who needs every-little-inch spelled out.

In other words, you admit that he did not say it was opinion. Apparently your vast psychic powers reveal when items presented as fact are opinion to you... perhaps you could forgice us mere mortals for going by what the fuck was actually posted!

We don't call them 'vast psychic powers'. We call them 'High School English Comprehension'.

No, your laughable bullshit was based on fallacies and claiming an Argument From Stick when none can exist.

Argumentum ad Bacculum is argument from force. YOU do not have to personally exercise the force. In the link I provided, the audience shouting down one debater was an example. In here, the thread being HoS'd would be similar.

Except being HoS'd has no effect on the validity of the arguments, as you yourself stated. So this whine is a lie.

But again, we see that logical fallacies mean "whatever's convenient to Nitram"

'Them mean ol' SDnetters aren't letting me bullshit!'

'Whining about fallacies', huh? No, sorry kid. This site does not 'whine about fallacies', we mock the people who use them. Since you feel pointing out such is somehow inappropriate in a thread, perhaps you should run the fuck away.

In that case, you must suffer a serious amount of mockery

Shockingly no. That says more than you'd care to admit about me, though, so you'll go on with this third grade level of insult.

You're whining about fallacies that mysteriously differ from their actual definition when it's convenient for you.

Absolutely not, as demonstrated I don't know how many times before, and will doubtlessly be done again because you refuse to give in on even this.

Actually, that's more or less the gist of your equating the two in your initial claim. But hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night. You're the one who can't construct an argument.

Slippery slope is not equating anything. That would be the weak analogy.

But hey, just yank the first fallacy you see off the shelf and slap it on there!

That'd be you, mister 'I'm too dumb to recignize I'm being taunted so I'll claim he's threatenning me!'.

Says the guy who equates t-shirts to full nudity!

Kid, shut up. That's the best thing you can do for yourself now. You're upset you got called on fallacies, so what do you do? You attack the very matter of calling your opponent on fallacies! I hope you keep this up. That's not a threat; sadly, I lack the power to carry out what I hope for there. But please. Keep up this claim that calling stupid sacks of shit like you on fallacies is somehow wrong.

Let's address a few points here

It'd make a change from your other posts here, which have been your worthless opinion and your endless bullshit and lying.

A) It's the height of vanity to think I'm upset over this

I'm so vain you can tell which way the wind's blowing, baby!

B) Attacking the matter of the fallacies themselves is legitimate. Fallacies have proofs which much be shown for the fallacy to exist. You havent done that.

Oh bullshit. You equated nudity to t-shirts, for a damn start, and finally conceeded that. Oh, but you apparently only did this because you were so weary at the fact you couldn't defend it! So sad!

C) You apparently think that disagreeing with you is somehow an invalidating form of argument, since you've basically asserted that your idea of appropriate dress is somehow more valid than ine (which would logically extend to the idea that it's more valid than anyone else's)

Nope, I've just stated what mine are. I don't give a shit what yours are. Or Keevans. Or Ossus'. However, you've failed to show any objective harm in t-shirts, so I see no real way you're getting anyone to do anything but laugh at your self-righteous shit here.

D) You flew off the handle at me because you claimed you wanted a "level playing field", invented a standard of me holding him to proof that I don't hold myslef (and is not borne out by perusal of the thread)

What was it? 'It is the height of vanity to think I'm upset at this'? Well, I'd be a bit more crude:

You must be having delusions of mediocrity to think your worthless ass has slithered high enough for me to hold you in anything but contempt, and I don't feel angry towards things that live in contempt.

E) Then, you decieded to indulge in a few threats, hoping that the idea that someone would HoS this would make me knuckle under, so that you wouldn't have to defend your ridiculous position

Once again, this threat which is naught but taunting is preying on your mind. Tell me, does it haunt you? It'd be fun to have haunted someone. Is your thread in the HoS yet? Will you know if you don't refresh? When does the next Horseman log in?

That'd be funny as fuck.

F) You've fabricated claims of lies, probably in hopes of facilitating dsaid trip to the HoS

Man, if I was gonna fabricate lies I'd go for bigger than the bullshit you've pulled. I'd at least go Communist level, they're more entertaining.

You're a sorry sack of shit. You can't make a decent argument, and you've made it explicitly clear you're hoping a mod will save your ass.

Why would I need a subordinate to save my ass from a sorry little shitstain whose only recourse in a debate is to complain I'm calling him on his fallacies?

[Star-Blighter]

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

Because they could. Simple as that really. I think that the charges were simply to get her out of the room and that they actually intended to drop them in the first place.

But thats just one paranoid theory and I think I hear a knock at my door...

What a wonderful world we live in.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart is right, if only because of the Broken Watch principle. He just can't prove it because he doesn't understand logical debate.

I understand it well enough to actually stick to the subject, asshole. As the rulings firefly and I posted links to show, Sheehan did nothing wrong. YOU on the other hand, have spent FOUR FUCKING PAGES arguing with an imbecile (and rather poorly) over T-shirts and which fallacy better matches the irrelevant points you two are making.

Whatever, just pretend that you won another crushing victory. Maybe you should try to threaten him with your dark powers or whatever it is you usually do.

Couldn't have said it better.

So does this mean that there is no such rule? In which case, why the fuck did the keystone cops kick these two women out and arrest one? I don't like or agree with Cindy Sheehan, but that doesn't mean I support a violation of her civil rights.

Because they could. Simple as that really. I think that the charges were simply to get her out of the room and that they actually intended to drop them in the first place.

Ditto.

[theski]

Looks like the guy with the "DU mentality" was right all along.

OOPS

His attitude was DUish right off the bat.. not his arguement...

[theski]

And I will add.. He was right...

[tharkûn]

What probable cause? They had as much right to arrest her as they would have had arresting the late Coretta Scott King. I can't help but wonder when the CSI team is going to show up and dust your chin for Bush's ball prints.

Not seeing the speech, nor seeing how Mrs. Sheehan acted, nor knowing the rules inside the chamber I said the police would only have probable cause once she revealed her shirt. I point blank admitted I didn't know if she was disruptive; and it appears she was not. My point was that had her shirt broken the rules (which I do NOT beleive it did), the cops could only arrest her once she removed her blouse.

[Redleader34]

Stop gong down to fucking pessonal atacks and discus the Issue at hand I personaly think that that the presdent has the right to kick anyone wearing any kind iof message beacuse its distractig from the speech

[Gandalf]

I personaly think that that the presdent has the right to kick anyone wearing any kind iof message beacuse its distractig from the speech

When did the Prez ask for her to be booted from the premises?