Elfdart wrote:Have you always been retarded or are you just a lying illiterate asshole? The comment was a joke about CSI dusting Tardkun's chin for Bush's ball prints. Scroll back a page and see for yourself.
Since obviously the fact that Tharkun thinks the Capitol police understand probable cause makes him some sort of Bush-wanker
What probable cause, shitstain?
The fact that she refused to leave when asked
That could be either criminal trespass or disorderly conduct (which I'm guessing is the same as "unlawful conduct") in Ohio... so why don't you demonstrate that D.C. laws are significanlty different than Ohio, since you apparently have no other points to make.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
I don't think Delp should have been removed either. Any President ought to have a little backbone. However, two points of note:
Delp's shirt was obviously meant to be obscene, instead of consisting of a number and a question.
If Santorum saw no problem with this guy but condemns Sheehan, the word "hypocrite" would spring immediately to mind.
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."
"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty
This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal. -Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
SVPD wrote:I didn't say there was a dress code, I said I think (you'll notice, clearly labelled as my opinion, not fact) that anyone who shows up with a T-shirt on should be booted.
Why?
I didn't say there was a dress code, I think there should be one.
Why?
Because it's a formal event at our nation's capital and I think people should look presentable.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
SVPD wrote:I didn't say there was a dress code, I said I think (you'll notice, clearly labelled as my opinion, not fact) that anyone who shows up with a T-shirt on should be booted.
Why?
I didn't say there was a dress code, I think there should be one.
Why?
Because it's a formal event at our nation's capital and I think people should look presentable.
No real reason then, okay.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Fire Fly wrote:[The entire event is being attended by almost every law maker of all the branches. You would think that wearing something a little more formal is common sense. And I reiterate again, there is a right time when to protest and a wrong time when to protest.
In that case, you might as well have every Democrat in Congress arrested. They got up and gave a standing ovation when Bush chastised Congress for not passing his social security reforms. If that's not protesting, I don't know what is.
Congressmen aren't guests
Clapping is customary at speeches
Not that kind of clapping. The Democrats were applauding in protest of Bush's proposal and in celebration of its defeat.
Also, you might be surprised at the versatility your writing skills acquire when you learn to use punctuation.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower
theski wrote:This might help answer some questions.. There seems to be a history..
That does not answer questions, as it does not actually address the point: Where is the legal authority to remove someone based on Dresscode? I realize some right wingers think 'But Clinton did it!' is a viable retort, but it is not. If you were trying for a 'But, the other side..' reply, why didn't you just point out that a GOPer's wife was removed last night?
It was not a Clinton did it answer.. just showing that it has happened before.. and I agree she should have just got the boot.. and not been arrested.
According to the CNN report, she was arrested for refusing to comply with a request to cover it up.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
And as for just what rule the Capitol police were enforcing, it apparently was this.
House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.
In other words she wasn't arrested for the shirt, she was arrested for refusing to cover it up when asked to do so in accordance with House rules.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
For those who would like some legalese, here's the Capitol Police's regulation when it comes to enforcing a ban on 'demonstrations' within the Capital. This ban has been in effect since 1946, when Congress decreed 'It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons willfully and knowingly -- .to parade, demonstrate, or picket within any of the Capitol Buildings'
parading, picketing, speechmaking, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other expressive conduct that convey a message supporting or opposing apoint of view or has the intent, effect or propensity to attract a crowd ofonlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message.
Elfdart is right, if only because of the Broken Watch principle. He just can't prove it because he doesn't understand logical debate. But here it is, dredged from the documents of Bynum vs. Capitol Police(PDF Here, whee Google).
Last edited by SirNitram on 2006-02-01 02:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
theski wrote:It was not a Clinton did it answer.. just showing that it has happened before.. and I agree she should have just got the boot.. and not been arrested.
Even booting is beyond the Capitol Police's legal reach. See above post involving the Capitol Police's own measuring stick.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Glocksman beat me to it. Seems that there are rules against any kind of slogans or protests in the House Chambers. Pretty reasonable rules considering what goes on in the Chambers. Still one must wonder about those shitty godawful purple thumb bullshit I had to stomach last year and whether that constituted a 'protest or display'.
The GOP supporter ejected last night intends to file a lawsuit.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's GuildCybertron's FinestJustice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
SVPD wrote:Because it's a formal event at our nation's capital and I think people should look presentable.
No real reason then, okay.
So , in other words, it's not a reason you agree with so you'll pretend it's not a real reason.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
SVPD wrote:Because it's a formal event at our nation's capital and I think people should look presentable.
No real reason then, okay.
So , in other words, it's not a reason you agree with so you'll pretend it's not a real reason.
What is the legal basis for enforcing dresscode via arrest, when this is specifically exempted from the Capital's ban on demonstration? Please. We're waiting with baited breath. 'Being rude' is not illegal.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SVPD wrote:Because it's a formal event at our nation's capital and I think people should look presentable.
No real reason then, okay.
So , in other words, it's not a reason you agree with so you'll pretend it's not a real reason.
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.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
So , in other words, it's not a reason you agree with so you'll pretend it's not a real reason.
What is the legal basis for enforcing dresscode via arrest, when this is specifically exempted from the Capital's ban on demonstration? Please. We're waiting with baited breath. 'Being rude' is not illegal.
If you'd go back and read, I was responding to Keevan's question of why in my personal opion there ought to be a rule that people cannot wear T-Shirts, regardless of political message to the State of The Union Speech, because it's not sufficiently formal dress for the occasion.
I'd also include tank tops, tube tops, shorts, jeans of any sort, miniskirts, muscle shirts, halters, sandals, sneakers, and maybe a few other things on that list.
So: Before you ask for me to demonstrate something, why don't you make sure you understand what I was saying in the first place.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
SVPD wrote:So: 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 do realize that by invoking the 'It's just my opinion!' clause, you cannot say 'Well, just because you don't think it's a point doesn't mean it isn't a very good one!', as you yourself admit it's just your opinion. The fact you seemed to think he needed more than opinion to toss out your 'It's high class' made me beleive you had something more than subjective thoughts. Mea culpa.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
So , in other words, it's not a reason you agree with so you'll pretend it's not a real reason.
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?
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
You need to justify that they're good.
What real good do they serve?
What is inherently unpresentable about a t-shirt?
I'm dying to hear this.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Keevan_Colton wrote:You need to justify that they're good.
What real good do they serve?
What is inherently unpresentable about a t-shirt?
I'm dying to hear this.
A T-Shirt carries with it connotations of informality.
The real good they serve is to designate the tone of a particular place or event.
You need to justify that they're stupid.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
SVPD wrote:
A T-Shirt carries with it connotations of informality.
The real good they serve is to designate the tone of a particular place or event.
You need to justify that they're stupid.
I think that the rules serve no useful function, you think they do serve a useful function. You're making a positive claim, all you seem able to do is go, but they're not formal! Which is remarkably circular reasoning as to why formal dress codes are good.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Keevan_Colton wrote:You need to justify that they're good.
What real good do they serve?
What is inherently unpresentable about a t-shirt?
I'm dying to hear this.
A T-Shirt carries with it connotations of informality.
The real good they serve is to designate the tone of a particular place or event.
You need to justify that they're stupid.
'I don't need to prove anything, you need to prove everything!' Christ, are you two years old?!
It's the physical manifestation of the Style over Substance fallacy, how's that? Or does that 'not count' in your silly worldview?
Get a clue
Style over substance refers to attacking an argument based on tone rather than substance
Style over Substance
The Style over Substance fallacy is based upon the sadly common belief that the manner in which one makes his argument somehow affects the truth of that argument. For example:
"Your use of foul language is all the indication I need of your personality type. I don't see how you can expect anyone to take any of your arguments seriously when you express them in such a manner."
It's got nothing to do with dress codes.
Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting this idea that I need to prove my opinion that they're good. Is no one allowed to hold an opinon if they can't prove it to your satisfaction?
He made the positive assertion that:
Formal dress codes are frankly one of the stupidest concepts it's been my misfortune to ever encounter.
So he can fucking prove that if he wants me to prove my opinion.
But if you really want to see why I think they're necessary, see my next response.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
Did you miss the words "physical manifestation"? The fact is that the dress code issue with t-shirts is a physical version of style over substance, it should be what the person has to say/does that matters not what they're wearing at the time.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Any idea without a real logical, rational foundation to support it is fucking stupid in my opinion. The very idea that there are formal codes of dress that are important to an event is stupid, it is ritual, tradition, nonsense.
Formal dress codes are totally arbitrary based upon what is believed to be formal and informal, which is in turn defined by formal dress codes. Something is acceptable simply if someone has said so...there is no true rhyme or reason to it that exists outside it's own rule structure...ergo, the whole lot really is fucking stupid.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
SVPD wrote:
A T-Shirt carries with it connotations of informality.
The real good they serve is to designate the tone of a particular place or event.
You need to justify that they're stupid.
I think that the rules serve no useful function, you think they do serve a useful function. You're making a positive claim, all you seem able to do is go, but they're not formal! Which is remarkably circular reasoning as to why formal dress codes are good.
I'm making a positive claim about my opinon. You apparently think I need your personal approval of my opinon in order to hold it.
But since you insist:
Certain events and places may be designated by the owner or operator as being formal. this is done for varying reasons; respect for the proceedings, desire to hold classy formal recreative activities, in order to not distract from the processes going on there, etc.
The dress code, whatever it may happen to be, serves two functions
A) To ensure that people do not show up in dress which is detrimental to the tone the organizer/owner/operator/ what have you wishes to set, which is his perogative to do so.
B) To remind people that the purpose of their being there is to attend whatever is going on at that location, not to indulge their personal preferences and tastes.
People like to pretend dress is just "style"... that's observably not the case, if you observe the behavior of males when females in revealing clothing (or none at all) are in view.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
Keevan_Colton wrote:Did you miss the words "physical manifestation"? The fact is that the dress code issue with t-shirts is a physical version of style over substance, it should be what the person has to say/does that matters not what they're wearing at the time.
Ahhh, I guess you've never noticed that the dress of females affects the behavior of males, have you?
Just slapping a logical fallacy name onto something doesn't make it false.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
