Reply #17: I have no doubt that she "acted out" [View All]

[lapfog_1]

and, as an adult, should know when enough is enough. Example: It's one thing to get permits, organize and march and yell slogans and wave signs... it's another thing to deviate from the protest route and disrupt traffic and throw rocks and bottles. She would seem to have the capability to do the latter... however, in this instance, only seeing a video or some other, independent, eye witness testimony would decide for me if she went too far or was unfairly treated. However, in these days of "don't taze me bro", my inclination is to believe that the police overreacted, as they seem to do on a regular basis with dissenters who speak out. The dissent now is not nearly like it was in the sixties, and while the police don't automatically start gunning demonstrators down like Kent State, they do seem to be more like Darth Vader's imperial storm troopers and less like Andy Taylor.

My question still remains... Why did Hillary (and probably other Dem Senators) agree to a "no opposition" deal for Bush nominees to the federal bench in 2004? Were they "keeping the powder dry" for the next Supreme Court nominee? And if that is true, should our nominee for President be someone who did deals like that (as well as the now famous litany of bad votes that Hillary has made over her relatively brief career as the junior senator from New York, the IWR being the prime example)???

It's interesting to me that folks around here have been very disappointed with Nancy Pelosi because of her inability to do things to stop Bushco in any or every way possible, and yet Hillary gets a pass from some of these same posters when she "went along to get along" quite a bit more (when she wasn't out and out cheer leading for the Bushies) simply because she is the first leading female contender for President in one of the two major parties.