I say call them what they are, donks!

blahAHHhahAHahahahhaAHahAHhHAHAHahahah

maybe they would get something done if they stopped bribing/contracting desperate loons to do their dirty work and actually tried to do something good for the country.

It is amazing how hate-filled they are; they consider "Code Pink" to be debate...what they don't understand is that debate requires the exchange of ideas...and shouting when someone else is speaking precludes the exchange of ideas.

Shows, though, what we'll have to put up with for the next four years.

...worthy of being Daschled

I heard that Nancy Pelosi got pulled into a room shortly after the speech with President Bush, Bill Frist, Denny Hastert, and a couple of other key Republicans from the hill. No doubt, she got a good dressing down for the stunt, even if she wasn't involved. (There's a price to being in leadership.)

I mean come on, the RNC arranged this whole event, they're going to know who's section that was where Code Pink sat.

Boy would I have loved to have been a fly on that wall.

I didn't even notice any disruption. Hmm. Guess they weren't very effective.

"Boy would I have loved to have been a fly on that wall."

I would have too, Brett. But the little tiff is instructive nonetheless. The six shrews in question were merely convenient cats'-paws for someone who wanted to disrupt things as they did--and did not have the nerve to do it. Certain names suggest themselves rather readily.

"I didn't even notice any disruption. Hmm. Guess they weren't very effective."

Since I was at work, I could only listen to the address on the radio. After President Bush had finished, the correspondents said that if we noticed applause at some strange times during the address, it was because police were escorting protesters out of the crowd and most of the people in the crowd were cheering the police action.

So while the disruption may not have been evident on TV or on the radio much, it was surely evident to those who were at the inauguration ceremony. Also, President Bush is above that nonsense and would never let it distract him. So while they were not effective in distracting the President, that was not their purpose there. They were merely there to disrupt things and cause trouble and get noticed for it. Instead of the first thing out of the correspondents' mouth being how impressive a speech it was or how many thousands were there to witness it, they spoke of the protestors. In that, playing to the biased media, they were very effective.

I am retired military. My whole life I have heard that these disrupters "have rights". Most agree. But the question I ask myself: Should I give up some of my rights so that others can exercise theirs?

I had business at the gate at Fort Huachuca awhile back. The base commander closed the main gate entrance so demonstrators could show their signs, many retread from Vietnam era.

Oh yes, the media was busy photographing them, the TV stations were there. The pictures showed lots of signs and people (actually about 50).

Across the street is a counter demonstration, (about 30). Sorry this was not news. One sign I thought should bring reflection:

(arrow points to Fort Huachuca)
"The reason you can demonstrate is because of them"