Secret Service hassles lady behind CatsOnACouch, prevent her from attending public, government events featuring JD Vance

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 9:09 PM

Laodicean60 said:
I guess if the shoe fits, and I didn't single you out.

Then I'm not part what you mean with "you guys" in this case. I am fully prepared to discuss my views or arguments, but not the ones just ascribed to me for the other party's convenience.

Laodicean60 said:
I'll be honest: the word credentials is a trigger word for me because I've heard it used in arguments.

You used the word first in our interaction.

Laodicean60 said:
Yes absolutely. When I seek professional help, I expect credentials, but to us normal folk on these forums, it's judgment.

~~Calling someone pathologically obsessed isn't?~~

Saying that someone creates the impression that they are pathologically obsessed isn't a judgement?

ETA: I rewrote the sentence above, so it would better mirror what had been written. Even though I don't think it changes the point in this post, it is good to be correct. Sorry @Servus

Laodicean60 said:
I remember talking about dementia because of my mom and in-law; this is a good one to search. You got everyone making a diagnosis about Biden first, then Trump with dementia.

Liberals in general

Servus · Saturday at 10:18 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
No, just opinions that the opiners refuse to support.

What support are you demanding?

Servus · Saturday at 10:28 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Calling someone pathologically obsessed isn't?

Someone saying a person appears pathologically obsessed to them, is not the same as claiming they are pathologically obsessed. It's simply a personal impression someone has of someone else.

Belk · 2026-07-12T00:10:58-0500

Servus said:
Someone saying a person appears pathologically obsessed to them, is not the same as claiming they are pathologically obsessed. It's simply a personal impression someone has of someone else.

<Blink>

Uh, yes, yes it is. That is literally what the words mean.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-12T00:54:15-0500

Servus said:
Someone saying a person appears pathologically obsessed to them, is not the same as claiming they are pathologically obsessed. It's simply a personal impression someone has of someone else.

That was YOUR judgement of her. Of course you might be wrong, especially since you wouldn't even try to explain your reasoning.

Servus · 2026-07-12T01:02:08-0500

Belk said:
<Blink>

Uh, yes, yes it is. That is literally what the words mean.

Nope. The former is nothing more than a personal impression. The latter is claiming something is a fact.

Like the difference between me saying your avatar looks like Jimmy Kimmel to me, and claiming that your avatar is a picture of Jimmy Kimmel.

Servus · 2026-07-12T01:12:46-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
That was YOUR judgement of her. Of course you might be wrong, especially since you wouldn't even try to explain your reasoning.

Nope it was my impression of her.

Pommer · 2026-07-12T01:22:21-0500

Servus said:
Someone saying a person appears pathologically obsessed to them, is not the same as claiming they are pathologically obsessed. It's simply a personal impression someone has of someone else.

I agree.

The first is merely an opinion. The second is a clinical diagnosis.

Was she somehow adjudicated mentally-unfit to share space with Vice-President Vance?
No, or if she was, does not appear to have an avenue to challenge that assessment.

The lawsuit will be messier than it will be worth it to the Administration and she’ll prevail.
In November, after the mid-terms.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-12T01:25:38-0500

Servus said:
Nope it was my impression of her.

Yes, you think that she seems to have a pathological obsession. That is you making your impression of her known, it is still a judgement.

You do realise that even psychiatrist give opinions, the difference is that they try anchor them in diagnostic criteria.

ETA: I changed the post that gave rise to this last exchange of posts, to better represent what had been written. See:

Secret Service hassles lady behind CatsOnACouch, prevent her from attending public, government events featuring JD Vance

I guess if the shoe fits, and I didn't single you out. Then I'm not part what you mean with "you guys" in this case. I am fully prepared to discuss my views or arguments, but not the ones just ascribed to me for the other party's convenience. I'll be honest: the word credentials is a...

www.christianforums.com

Declaring how something appears to you is a judgement though.

Pommer · 2026-07-12T01:41:49-0500

Servus said:
That's my opinion based on watching her video clips. "Seems like in my opinion" isn't something that's back up with evidence as it's strictly a matter of perception.

It's like asking someone to provide evidence that a particular food they don't like tastes bad in their opinion.

Well the Vice-President could count on you, then, should the job of assessing who’s allowed to be in his presence, fall to you.

What will be your legal basis for axing her rights?

Pommer · 2026-07-12T01:52:44-0500

Servus said:
You know the president and vp get extra level of security. There's a lot more scrutiny involved. But let's go with the whole fascist constitutional rights violations routine. And act all miffed that cat lady got turned away. I'm going to go out tomorrow wearing cat ears and holding a sign. Right after I dye my hair pink and get a nose ring.

What a spirited defense of Big Government silencing the “little-man”, (irony noted)!

There are still “small-government conservatives“, (I’m almost sure of it). If this isn’t resolved amicably, then in the long run, the Administration will either have to capitulate or double-down and bar more people.

If they capitulate, the sooner the better; if they double-down, we’ll all know what road we’re on.

Have a great night!

Servus · 2026-07-12T02:32:35-0500

Pommer said:
I agree.

The first is merely an opinion. The second is a clinical diagnosis.

Was she somehow adjudicated mentally-unfit to share space with Vice-President Vance?
No, or if she was, does not appear to have an avenue to challenge that assessment.

The lawsuit will be messier than it will be worth it to the Administration and she’ll prevail.
In November, after the mid-terms.

Pommer said:
Well the Vice-President could count on you, then, should the job of assessing who’s allowed to be in his presence, fall to you.

What will be your legal basis for axing her rights?

Pommer said:
What a spirited defense of Big Government silencing the “little-man”, (irony noted)!

There are still “small-government conservatives“, (I’m almost sure of it). If this isn’t resolved amicably, then in the long run, the Administration will either have to capitulate or double-down and bar more people.

If they capitulate, the sooner the better; if they double-down, we’ll all know what road we’re on.

Have a great night!

Does the secret service broadly grant access to a VP? Probably not.

Have there been a lot of people who were denied access to a VP? Probably yes.

Is allowing and preventing access to a VP up to the discretion of the secret service? Probably yes.

Should the secret service allow someone access to a VP when they would rather not for whatever reason? Probably not.

Servus · 2026-07-12T02:55:26-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, you think that she seems to have a pathological obsession. That is you making your impression of her known, it is still a judgement.

You do realise that even psychiatrist give opinions, the difference is that they try anchor them in diagnostic criteria.

ETA: I changed the post that gave rise to this last exchange of posts, to better represent what had been written. See:

Secret Service hassles lady behind CatsOnACouch, prevent her from attending public, government events featuring JD Vance

I guess if the shoe fits, and I didn't single you out. Then I'm not part what you mean with "you guys" in this case. I am fully prepared to discuss my views or arguments, but not the ones just ascribed to me for the other party's convenience. I'll be honest: the word credentials is a...

www.christianforums.com

Declaring how something appears to you is a judgement though.

Judging that something appears a certain way, is not the same thing as passing judgment that something is in fact a certain way.

There's been many instances were a person on YouTube or similar social media, intentionally puts on an act to appear to be crazy.

Saying that person appears to be crazy is accurate, but it in no way is a declaration that the person is in fact actually crazy.

Put another way I was judging the YouTube persona and performances I saw, rather than the actual person in everyday actual life.

Pommer · 2026-07-12T03:09:50-0500

Servus said:
Does the secret service broadly grant access to a VP? Probably not.

I missed where she was denied an audience with his Elegy-ness; she only wanted to occupy the same building.

Servus said:
Have there been a lot of people who were denied access to a VP? Probably yes.

Right, there’s nothing wrong with barring her for being a possible danger to the person of the Vice-President, that’s just fine. Everybody’s in agreement on that. But she’s challenging that (apparent*) “ruling” by whichever official decided it. And filed suit, as is her right.

Servus said:
Is allowing and preventing access to a VP up to the discretion of the secret service? Probably yes.

I’m sure that they’ll have just scads of things besides her speech, to keep her on the “doesn’t get to get near the Vice-President” list. Just scads!

Servus said:
Should the secret service allow someone access to a VP when they would rather not for whatever reason? Probably not.

Discovery would have been interesting in this case. (I don’t see it going that far.)

* this assumes that an investigation was conducted somewhere in between her getting confirmation of her attendance and her denial of entry. Otherwise it really would start to look like she was barred for speech.

Servus · 2026-07-12T03:27:22-0500

Pommer said:
I missed where she was denied an audience with his Elegy-ness; she only wanted to occupy the same building.

Ah, semantics time. Does the secret service broadly allow access to an area where a VP is present? Probably not.

Pommer said:
Right, there’s nothing wrong with barring her for being a possible danger to the person of the Vice-President, that’s just fine. Everybody’s in agreement on that. But she’s challenging that (apparent*) “ruling” by whichever official decided it. And filed suit, as is her right.

What is the set of established written rules that the secret service must follow in deciding whether or not to grant someone access to an area where a VP is present? And which established written rule(s) did the secret service violate?

Most anyone has the right to file a frivolous lawsuit in order to make a spectacle of it on social media, in order to accumulate cash by way of hits.

Pommer said:
I’m sure that they’ll have just scads of things besides her speech, to keep her on the “doesn’t get to get near the Vice-President” list. Just scads!

Discovery would have been interesting in this case. (I don’t see it going that far.)

* this assumes that an investigation was conducted somewhere in between her getting confirmation of her attendance and her denial of entry. Otherwise it really would start to look like she was barred for speech.

The bottom line is, is being granted access to an area of a public event where a VP is present, a privilege or a right? Unless it's right, which it likely isn't, then no one's rights have been violated.

Pommer · 2026-07-12T03:41:14-0500

Servus said:
Ah, semantics time. Does the secret service broadly allow access to an area where a VP is present? Probably not.
What is the set of established written rules that the secret service must follow in deciding whether or not to grant someone access to an area where a VP is present? And which established written rule(s) did the secret service violate?

I’m willing to guess that these rules assume that everyone is allowed to go see the Vice-President during these “public-events”, unless they’re barred by some sort of vetting that they failed.

Servus said:
The bottom line is, is being granted access to an area of a public event where a VP is present, a privilege or a right? Unless it's right, which it likely isn't, then no one's rights have been violated.

She feels otherwise and has filed suit.

Servus · 2026-07-12T03:52:30-0500

Pommer said:
I’m willing to guess that these rules assume that everyone is allowed to go see the Vice-President during these “public-events”, unless they’re barred by some sort of vetting that they failed.

I asked if there are any rules and if so which rule(s) did the secret service violate? Or what is the established vetting process and how was it violated?

Pommer said:
She feels otherwise hand has filed suit.

Sure, but the discussion of this topic hasn't been limited to her filing a lawsuit.

Perhaps she's hoping for a nice fat settlement at the tax payers expense.

Also like I figured, it appears that she has a Gofundme. And it's racked up over $206,000 so far.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-12T03:54:55-0500

Servus said:
Judging that something appears a certain way, is not the same thing as passing judgment that something is in fact a certain way.

There's been many instances were a person on YouTube or similar social media, intentionally puts on an act to appear to be crazy.

Saying that person appears to be crazy is accurate, but it in no way is a declaration that the person is in fact actually crazy.

Accurate according to you, that's your judgement. You declined to explaining your reasoning, which is fine but it makes your observation less informative.

Servus said:
Put another way I was judging the YouTube persona and performances I saw, rather than the actual person in everyday actual life.

You are still making a judgement, it doesn't really change anything in relation to post #41.

Servus · 2026-07-12T04:11:05-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
Accurate according to you, that's your judgement. You declined to explaining your reasoning, which is fine but it makes your observation less informative.

No, I was quite explicit in my reasoning. You seem to have a pattern of claiming no explanation has been given, after an explanation has indeed been given. Thus turning conversations with you into an endless rabbit hole.

Stopped_lurking said:
You are still making a judgement, it doesn't really change anything in relation to post #41.

Post #41 is an exchange between you and someone else who is not me.

Pommer · 2026-07-12T04:15:01-0500

Servus said:
I asked if there are any rules and if so which rule(s) did the secret service violate? Or what is the established vetting process and how was it violated?

I know a fair number of things but these aren’t among them.

I’m going to have to assume that there is a process or test which she failed, because otherwise even a vocal critic of the Vice-President would have been allowed into the venues.

Servus said:
Sure, but the discussion of this topic hasn't been limited to her filing a lawsuit.

Perhaps she's hoping for a nice fat settlement at the tax payers expense.

Also like I figured, it appears that she has a Gofundme. And it's racked up over $206,000 so far.

It’s cynical to stand up for your own individual rights?

Secret Service hassles lady behind CatsOnACouch, prevent her from attending public, government events featuring JD Vance

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Similar threads