NationStates Jolt Archive

Move America Forward's "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy!" Caravan
MoveAmericaForward.org

Supporters of U.S. Troops and their Mission in Iraq Plan Caravans to Texas.
Move America Forward will be conducting the “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy” caravan beginning next week. It will feature military family members who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan. The delegation will be led by Deborah Johns of Marine Moms. (Her son has served in Operation Iraqi Freedom).

Main caravan leaves from San Francisco, California on Monday, August 22nd. Other caravans will depart from around the country. If you want to be part of a caravan, email us with your name and location you will depart from and we will include in our caravan coverage so people in your area can depart with you.

Everyone arrives in Crawford, Texas for a giant “We Support Our Troops AND Their Mission” Rally on Saturday, August 27, 2005.

If you have a loved one serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and would like to join the caravan please contact Move America Forward’s Robert Dixon: Robert@MoveAmericaForward.org


This message brought to you by http://TroopsSupport.com

Mail that has a good purpose, is always the best kind though :p.

Varying opinions are the devil!

We curse anyone who thinks differently!


W FOREVER.

Varying opinions are the devil!

We curse anyone who thinks differently!


W FOREVER.


Freedom of speech is a mighty thrifty idea until someone disagrees with you.

Varying opinions are the devil!

We curse anyone who thinks differently!

W FOREVER.
By what distortion of logic is it ok for the anti-war mom to park her broad butt outside the President's ranch and demand that he see her ... again, but it's not ok for others to protest that they are for both the soldiers and thier mission? Explain that to me, please.

Freedom of speech is a mighty thrifty idea until someone disagrees with you.
Ain't it da troof, though! :D

By what distortion of logic is it ok for the anti-war mom to park her broad butt outside the President's ranch and demand that he see her ... again, but it's not ok for others to protest that they are for both the soldiers and thier mission? Explain that to me, please.


sigh.....


Maybe I should have used the "/sarcasm" thing?

I've been thining of doing the same thing. I don't necessarily agree with war, but, my goodness, how can some people be so stupid as to request an audience with the president because your son died doing what he wanted to do. I liked the guy who lives near the Bush ranch who rang a shotgun blast over top of Sheehan and her group. Then told a police officer that "This is Texas."

If Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for them, fine, they are entitled to express their opinion.

If this becomes another attempt to intimidate her into silence, though, expect harsh condemnation.

:p

They both have a right to speak

Though I do hope that this does not turn into an anti Sheehan rally

Making it personal would be dumb for them to do, I have a feeling they are going to do it anyways

I wonder how many mothers of dead sons will be on that tour.

If Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for them, fine, they are entitled to express their opinion.

If this becomes another attempt to intimidate her into silence, though, expect harsh condemnation.

:p
"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.

I wonder how many mothers of dead sons will be on that tour.
All of them from Cincinnati probably. They all support Bush and our local conservative politicians. And hell, we have a pretty high count of dead soldiers from this area. We even had one decapitatiob from this area, and I bet his mother will be there.

"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.
Exactly, the only attempt to silence her was when Bush DID meet with her. Though, she wasn't 'satisfied.'

"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.There was a thread on how someone had vandalized several objects in her camp.
But Eut, you didn't seriously think that this is going to get much support from the General forum, did you? :p
I mean the "support the troops AND the mission" thing is a major turn-off...
(Not that I'd be willing to pay for a plane ticket to go to Crawford anyway :D )

I wonder how many mothers of dead sons will be on that tour.
Well, seeing that the caravan is being organized by women whose sons have either served in Iraq or who have been killed in Iraq, I would think quite a few. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? ( Rather than jumping to the conclusion that any mother whose son was killed in Iraq is automatically against the war ... which is something the anti-war protestors would love to have us believe. )

Eutrusca, you ideas are beautiful. Especially after some of yesterday's threads.

Well, seeing that the caravan is being organized by women whose sons have either served in Iraq or who have been killed in Iraq, I would think quite a few. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? ( Rather than jumping to the conclusion that any mother whose son was killed in Iraq is automatically against the war ... which is something the anti-war protestors would love to have us believe. )
And the pro war people would love to have us believe that all mothers of solders support the war ...so?

Eutrusca, you ideas are beautiful. Especially after some of yesterday's threads.
Lordy! NOW what did I do? LOL! [ looks over his shoulder for mods ]

And the pro war people would love to have us believe that all mothers of solders support the war ...so?
That would be an obvious stretch. I was responding to the implication by the previous poster than few if any mothers who have lost sons in the war would be in the caravan.

Lordy! NOW what did I do? LOL! [ looks over his shoulder for mods ]

Just a relief from all this 'Conservatives must die' talk.

That would be an obvious stretch. I was responding to the implication by the previous poster than few if any mothers who have lost sons in the war would be in the caravan.
But even so you claim anti war protestors would love to have you think mothers with dead sons dont support the war ... on the flip side the pro war protesters probably would love to have you believe that mothers with dead sons still support the war

it really is all just jockying for public image both sides are guilty of it

Just a relief from all this 'Conservatives must die' talk.
Where do you get that from? I and a lot of others respect your right to have your viewpoint weather or not we agree with it … we only ask the same courtesy

That would be an obvious stretch. I was responding to the implication by the previous poster than few if any mothers who have lost sons in the war would be in the caravan.

I implied nothing, but your email mentioned only mothers with sons live and kicking, not parents with dead sons.

Not every parent changes their mind once their child is killed of course.

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Just a relief from all this 'Conservatives must die' talk.
LOL! Well, I don't think either conservatives or liberals should "die," since we need both poles to make this political system work. As I have been at pains to point out many times on here, there are certain issues about which I have strong feelings, mostly anything dealing with the US military, US veterans, and soldiers ... and those who protest them. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, since I think political ideologies are unadulterated bullshit. [ see last line of my signature below ] :)

While I dont see anything wrong with those people demonstrating, I have to say this is a really dumb idea. The decision has been made already, the US is fully committed to continuing the occupation of Iraq, and anyone who thinks that this administration will change its policy because of this woman's protests is out of his mind. Therefore, the question has to be asked...what is the point? You dont mount demonstrations in support of the status quo unless the government is actually thinking of changing it. The effect this protest can have is the opposite of what they intend. Rather than letting the issue die, they are blowing it up. The media wouldve grown tired of this woman's campaign by the end of the week and she would quickly become little more than a side show. But now they are blowing up the issue and making sure it remains in the media. This reminds me of those idiots you see on these people's court type shows that interrupt and argue against what the other person is saying when the judge has clearly already decided and the case is won. If you are already winning (or in this case already won), then the only thing opening your mouth can accomplish is make things worse.

While I dont see anything wrong with those people demonstrating, I have to say this is a really dumb idea. The decision has been made already, the US is fully committed to continuing the occupation of Iraq, and anyone who thinks that this administration will change its policy because of this woman's protests is out of his mind. Therefore, the question has to be asked...what is the point? You dont mount demonstrations in support of the status quo unless the government is actually thinking of changing it. The effect this protest can have is the opposite of what they intend. Rather than letting the issue die, they are blowing it up. The media wouldve grown tired of this woman's campaign by the end of the week and she would quickly become little more than a side show. But now they are blowing up the issue and making sure it remains in the media. This reminds me of those idiots you see on these people's court type shows that interrupt and argue against what the other person is saying when the judge has clearly already decided and the case is won. If you are already winning (or in this case already won), then the only thing opening your mouth can accomplish is make things worse.

Very true I was already starting to forget about her except for the truck over crosses thing and now this

Just let her cause die a quiet death lol

While I dont see anything wrong with those people demonstrating, I have to say this is a really dumb idea. The decision has been made alre...

blablabla

...), then the only thing opening your mouth can accomplish is make things worse.
Ha! LazyHippies! Ha! :D

Where do you get that from? I and a lot of others respect your right to have your viewpoint weather or not we agree with it … we only ask the same courtesy

Oh, I am the most courteous persom around. Assuming I am not attacked first. Though if I am, you can bet you last penny that there will be hell to pay ;)

I'm a nice guy though. Try not to get too defensive on this conservative based thread? ;)

I cant really see this motivation behind this though. They cant be protesting because the administration aggrees with them about the war so the only reason I can see for them going down there is to do something about the woman wanting to see GW. And seeing how they're organising what sounds like rather a lot of people to go down there I just think its extremely excessive.

LOL! Well, I don't think either conservatives or liberals should "die," since we need both poles to make this political system work. As I have been at pains to point out many times on here, there are certain issues about which I have strong feelings, mostly anything dealing with the US military, US veterans, and soldiers ... and those who protest them. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, since I think political ideologies are unadulterated bullshit. [ see last line of my signature below ] :)

I still don't quite know what you think I am saying to you, but it's a compliment. I am typically open for opinions and not so quick to choose liberal or conservatives, but I can't stand how aggressive liberals are towards anyone who supports the war or Bush. I just like someone else who keeps an open mind ;)

I cant really see this motivation behind this though. They cant be protesting because the administration aggrees with them about the war so the only reason I can see for them going down there is to do something about the woman wanting to see GW. And seeing how they're organising what sounds like rather a lot of people to go down there I just think its extremely excessive.

Not so much. I'd have to respectfully disagree. If Bush has to put up with war protestors, some people just believe that he might as well also put up with war supporters.

Going down to Crawford for this reason is asinine.

All your doing is giving this woman more attention, wich is exactly what she wants.

Furthermore...you dont go protest something in wich your in favor of.

Its like carrying a sign that says "I like Milk!"
and looking angry and serious.

Going down to Crawford for this reason is asinine.

All your doing is giving this woman more attention, wich is exactly what she wants.

Furthermore...you dont go protest something in wich your in favor of.

Its like carrying a sign that says "I like Milk!"
and looking angry and serious.

Again, who said they are looking angry and serious?
cough*STRAWMAN*cough

And 'protestors' who are 'protesting' something they are in favor of are typically called 'supporters.'

I still don't quite know what you think I am saying to you, but it's a compliment. I am typically open for opinions and not so quick to choose liberal or conservatives, but I can't stand how aggressive liberals are towards anyone who supports the war or Bush. I just like someone else who keeps an open mind ;)
As do I. Thanks. :)

Not so much. I'd have to respectfully disagree. If Bush has to put up with war protestors, some people just believe that he might as well also put up with war supporters.

I still dont see the point though. Going down there just to aggree with something. What can they possibly hope to acheive?

LOL! Well, I don't think either conservatives or liberals should "die,"...I do. Can you imagine what the US would be like with a bunch of immortal people that could never disagree? :(

I do. Can you imagine what the US would be like with a bunch of immortal people that could never disagree? :(

Excellent, I typically also like your interludes from this tough reality we call NationStates. ;)

Anyone find it odd that the caravan is called "You don't speak for me Cindy!" and it'll finish up in Crawford?
Cindy....


....Crawford?


Will Richard Gere be there to welcome them?


Personally I think it's pretty harsh and nasty to organise a nation-wide condemnation of one woman who's understandably upset over her son's death. But hey, that's the state of US politics these days. Why engage in meaningful dialogue when knee-jerk reactions, simple-minded sound-bites and character assasinations are the norm for media dissemination.

Anyone find it odd that the caravan is called "You don't speak for me Cindy!" and it'll finish up in Crawford?
Cindy....


....Crawford?


Will Richard Gere be there to welcome them?


Personally I think it's pretty harsh and nasty to organise a nation-wide condemnation of one woman who's understandably upset over her son's death. But hey, that's the state of US politics these days. Why engage in meaningful dialogue when knee-jerk reactions, simple-minded sound-bites and character assasinations are the norm for media dissemination.

Though honestly, it's no different than organizing a nation-wide condemnation of one man because some woman is upset over her son's death, who's son by the way knew what he was getting into when he signed up. Personally, I do not want to go to war myself, so I DID NOT sign up. Though I support those courageous enough to sign up.

Again, who said they are looking angry and serious?
cough*STRAWMAN*cough

And 'protestors' who are 'protesting' something they are in favor of are typically called 'supporters.'


But theyre not supporting anything, are they?

Theyre going down with the purpose of bitching at the woman whos opinions they hate.

There will be picket signs..marching...all of that....and like I said...you dont protest something you support....so all they wish to do...is argue at this woman.

Going down to Crawford for this reason is asinine.

All your doing is giving this woman more attention, wich is exactly what she wants.

Furthermore...you dont go protest something in wich your in favor of.

Its like carrying a sign that says "I like Milk!"
and looking angry and serious.
I'm sure most leftists and anti-war types would love to believe that they are the only ones entitled to protest and carry signs and yell ... but it just ain't true! Too bad, so sad. :D

Excellent, I typically also like your interludes from this tough reality we call NationStates. ;)I just woke up :D

I still dont see the point though. Going down there just to aggree with something. What can they possibly hope to acheive?
If nothing else, to demonstrate support for the US, the US military, our soldiers, etc. You have some sort of problem with that???

But theyre not supporting anything, are they?

Theyre going down with the purpose of bitching at the woman whos opinions they hate.

There will be picket signs..marching...all of that....and like I said...you dont protest something you support....so all they wish to do...is argue at this woman.

I do believe the following was part of that email:

"Everyone arrives in Crawford, Texas for a giant “We Support Our Troops AND Their Mission” Rally on Saturday, August 27, 2005."

I believe this itself is what they support.

I still dont see the point though. Going down there just to aggree with something. What can they possibly hope to acheive?
If nothing else, to demonstrate support for the US, the US military, our soldiers, etc. You have some sort of problem with that???

I'm sure most leftists and anti-war types would love to believe that they are the only ones entitled to protest and carry signs and yell ... but it just ain't true! Too bad, so sad. :DHm? I thought that pro-lifers, anti-gays, and other conservatives had the right to protest. I think their reasons are assinine, but not their protests...

I do believe the following was part of that email:

"Everyone arrives in Crawford, Texas for a giant “We Support Our Troops AND Their Mission” Rally on Saturday, August 27, 2005."

I believe this itself is what they support.


Yes they do.

(I knew you guys would say that)

But supporting the war isnt the point of the entire trip.

If it was..they wouldnt have waited for this woman to make it.

The whole idea is to protest HER..and her ideals.
Thats whats this is all about.

If nothing else, to demonstrate support for the US, the US military, our soldiers, etc. You have some sort of problem with that???

If that was the true intention of the rally....no.

But with a name like "You dont speak for us Cindy" how can anyone believe this isnt about disagreeing with HER..and not just support for the war?

That kind of crap..yeah..I do have a problem with.

Anyone find it odd that the caravan is called "You don't speak for me Cindy!" and it'll finish up in Crawford?
Cindy....


....Crawford?


Will Richard Gere be there to welcome them?


Personally I think it's pretty harsh and nasty to organise a nation-wide condemnation of one woman who's understandably upset over her son's death. But hey, that's the state of US politics these days. Why engage in meaningful dialogue when knee-jerk reactions, simple-minded sound-bites and character assasinations are the norm for media dissemination.
Obviously, I can't speak for those participating in this caravan, but I would imagine their primary objective is to make sure the American public understands that most mothers of American military personnel ( deceased or not ) do not agree with the anti-war protestors. It's actually quite simple and it's disengenous of the left to make it into something complex in a bald-faced attempt to claim the right of protest as their own and no one else's.

If nothing else, to demonstrate support for the US, the US military, our soldiers, etc. You have some sort of problem with that???I actually do. There's better ways of doing that than by going against a woman that lost her son. They're not going down to show their support for troops, they're going because they don't like the woman's message. May I remind you of the "support the troops AND the mission". I have no problem with supporting the troops, but using that as a veil the way these people might is questionable.

I actually do. There's better ways of doing that than by going against a woman that lost her son. They're not going down to show their support for troops, they're going because they don't like the woman's message. May I remind you of the "support the troops AND the mission". I have no problem with supporting the troops, but using that as a veil the way these people might is questionable.
Agreed this might turn out very bad PR for them

I actually do. There's better ways of doing that than by going against a woman that lost her son. They're not going down to show their support for troops, they're going because they don't like the woman's message. May I remind you of the "support the troops AND the mission". I have no problem with supporting the troops, but using that as a veil the way these people might is questionable.
Hmm. Let me see if I read you correctly here:

1. Cindy is a grieving mother so she should be allowed to protest unchallenged by anyone else.

2. Just the possibility of the pro-soldier/pro-mission people opposing this woman's message is sufficient to deny them the right to protest.

3. This woman should have exclusive rights to American media outlets because ... what? She's a grieving mother? She's "anti" something? She's ... what???

Hmm. Let me see if I read you correctly here:

1. Cindy is a grieving mother so she should be allowed to protest unchallenged by anyone else.

2. Just the possibility of the pro-soldier/pro-mission people opposing this woman's message is sufficient to deny them the right to protest.

3. This woman should have exclusive rights to American media outlets because ... what? She's a grieving mother? She's "anti" something? She's ... what???
Who is advocating demeaning them the right to protest? I think he was more pointing out the fact that it may not be a great idea to attack the woman like we see great potential for.

Its all cool to share your point of view but it might not be great PR to attack her

This entire argument is so specious. You can't deny people the right to protest, either in opposition or support, just because you think they MIGHT be sending "the wrong message," or because they're opposing something initiated by another citizen ( whether "grieving mother" or not ), or for any other legitimate, non-violent reason. I would have thought that the left would have learned this lesson a long time ago when they got away with murder during the Vietnam war.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you claim a right for yourself, you cannot turn and deny it to others.

Obviously, I can't speak for those participating in this caravan, but I would imagine their primary objective is to make sure the American public understands that most mothers of American military personnel ( deceased or not ) do not agree with the anti-war protestors. It's actually quite simple and it's disengenous of the left to make it into something complex in a bald-faced attempt to claim the right of protest as their own and no one else's.
Then why not call it a "We support the war" caravan, and not "You don't speak for me Cindy!"?
(Ab)using the name of a woman whose son is dead is pretty repugnant, imo.

Hmm. Let me see if I read you correctly here:

1. Cindy is a grieving mother so she should be allowed to protest unchallenged by anyone else.

2. Just the possibility of the pro-soldier/pro-mission people opposing this woman's message is sufficient to deny them the right to protest.

3. This woman should have exclusive rights to American media outlets because ... what? She's a grieving mother? She's "anti" something? She's ... what???


1. True, except for the "unchallenged" part.

2. Sigh...wow...thats crap, and I dont think anyone actually said that.
But No...they can "protest" all they want...even if supporting the war has little to do with it, and publicly denouncing a grieving mother is closer to the aim.

3. I seriously dont know what your on about.
I dont think she gets "exclusive rights" to any media outlet...especially Fox.

This entire argument is so specious. You can't deny people the right to protest, either in opposition or support, just because you think they MIGHT be sending "the wrong message," or because they're opposing something initiated by another citizen ( whether "grieving mother" or not ), or for any other legitimate, non-violent reason. I would have thinked that the left would have learned this lesson a long time ago when they got away with murder during the Vietnam war.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you claim a right for yourself, you cannot turn and deny it to others.
Again who is proposing denying them that right?

Now that's odd. For some reason my last post had an unhappy face atached to it. I don't remember putting an unhappy face there.
Egads. Is Nationstates becoming intelligent and asigning smileys according to how we feel?

1. True, except for the "unchallenged" part.

2. Sigh...wow...thats crap, and I dont think anyone actually said that.
But No...they can "protest" all they want...even if supporting the war has little to do with it, and publicly denouncing a grieving mother is closer to the aim.

3. I seriously dont know what your on about.
I dont think she gets "exclusive rights" to any media outlet...especially Fox.
I don’t know what he is going off about as far as I can tell none of us proposed denying them any right … just mentioned that it may be an idiotic move to attack the woman like we see potential of them doing


I support everyones right to make a fool of themselves

Maybe we should be encouraging this rally … it could turn out to be great anti war PR :p

If anything...these people would prefer Cindy werent allowed to protest.

Else, why would they gather together and caravan to Texas?

Then why not call it a "We support the war" caravan, and not "You don't speak for me Cindy!"?
(Ab)using the name of a woman whose son is dead is pretty repugnant, imo.
No. Let me tell you what's repugnant!

Repugnant is god damned protestors calling the families of dead soldiers in the middle of the night to tell them how glad they are their sons were killed in combat.

And that's just ONE example of the sort of thing that happens when these idiots run wild. [ curses a blue streak under his breath ]

Hmm. Let me see if I read you correctly here:

1. Cindy is a grieving mother so she should be allowed to protest unchallenged by anyone else.

2. Just the possibility of the pro-soldier/pro-mission people opposing this woman's message is sufficient to deny them the right to protest.

3. This woman should have exclusive rights to American media outlets because ... what? She's a grieving mother? She's "anti" something? She's ... what???I said I have a problem with it, not that it should be stopped. I don't agree with your statement that they're doing it to support the troops, because, frankly, I don't think sending caravans to Crawford to show how much they disagree with a woman that lost her son is a good way of doing that. It puts too much emphasis on the "pro-mission" part of the message.
You may have read correctly, but not in my posts.

No. Let me tell you what's repugnant!

Repugnant is god damned protestors calling the families of dead soldiers in the middle of the night to tell them how glad they are their sons were killed in combat.

And that's just ONE example of the sort of thing that happens when these idiots run wild. [ curses a blue streak under his breath ]
Personally I find both repugnant

No. Let me tell you what's repugnant!

Repugnant is god damned protestors calling the families of dead soldiers in the middle of the night to tell them how glad they are their sons were killed in combat.

And that's just ONE example of the sort of thing that happens when these idiots run wild. [ curses a blue streak under his breath ]That is much worse, Eut. You know most of us would agree with you on that account.

No. Let me tell you what's repugnant!

Repugnant is god damned protestors calling the families of dead soldiers in the middle of the night to tell them how glad they are their sons were killed in combat.

And that's just ONE example of the sort of thing that happens when these idiots run wild. [ curses a blue streak under his breath ]


Is that any worse than Karl Roves Push poills back in 2000?

Hell, and those were aimed at a member of his own party.

Dont get pissed when you see douchebaggery, and presume its only one side that is pulling it.

If anything...these people would prefer Cindy werent allowed to protest.

Else, why would they gather together and caravan to Texas?
You really should make an effort to read what has been posted. :(

You really should make an effort to read what has been posted. :(
You as well … but you don’t have to you can keep erroneously declaring that we are trying to deny them the right to protest

Dont get pissed when you see douchebaggery, and presume its only one side that is pulling it.
Ok ... I'm getting way too angry over this whole mess. I have a very, very bad view of protestors because of having been through the whole Vietnam bullshit. I'm going to go for awhile because I may get myself banned if I don't.

Talk to you all later.

I've been thining of doing the same thing. I don't necessarily agree with war, but, my goodness, how can some people be so stupid as to request an audience with the president because your son died doing what he wanted to do. I liked the guy who lives near the Bush ranch who rang a shotgun blast over top of Sheehan and her group. Then told a police officer that "This is Texas."
If it was on his property, it was legal. :D

You know everybody, the women protesting is the soldier’s mom, but she had little to do with raising him. Also, she has always been the opposite of her son politically, and the dead solder’s step mom and dad (the ones who raised him) say that they are disappointed in her.
I’m against the war, but this women rubs me the wrong way. I get the feeling that she is just using her son for political purposes.

Ok ... I'm getting way too angry over this whole mess. I have a very, very bad view of protestors because of having been through the whole Vietnam bullshit. I'm going to go for awhile because I may get myself banned if I don't.

Talk to you all later.
Probably a good idea … keep yourself safe old man

:fluffle:


We just don’t like our statements misrepresented any more then you do … hence the battle

Ok ... I'm getting way too angry over this whole mess. I have a very, very bad view of protestors because of having been through the whole Vietnam bullshit. I'm going to go for awhile because I may get myself banned if I don't.

Talk to you all later.

shalome.

"Supporters of U.S. Troops and their Mission in Iraq Plan Caravans to Texas.
Move America Forward will be conducting the “You Don’t Speak for Me, Cindy” caravan beginning next week. It will feature military family members who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan. The delegation will be led by Deborah Johns of Marine Moms. (Her son has served in Operation Iraqi Freedom)."

but... they didnt die... cindy has a good reason to do what she is doing.. concider that before you go bitch at her.

"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.

The shotgun, the knocking over of the crosses

I still dont see the point though. Going down there just to aggree with something. What can they possibly hope to acheive?

One, they wanna show their support, which is fine and dandy. I have protested the World Bank, and almost got arrested, but if tomarrow the World Bank decided to forgive all Third World debt or alter their policies to try to work for what they say their mission is, if they hired someone I believe had the best intrest of the developing world in mind, I would be out in front font of the building with a big sign saying "thank you!" and shaking hands of workers going in and out. But intill then, I will fight them, even though I know I am probably doing no good.

Anyone find it odd that the caravan is called "You don't speak for me Cindy!" and it'll finish up in Crawford?
Cindy....


....Crawford?


Will Richard Gere be there to welcome them?


Personally I think it's pretty harsh and nasty to organise a nation-wide condemnation of one woman who's understandably upset over her son's death. But hey, that's the state of US politics these days. Why engage in meaningful dialogue when knee-jerk reactions, simple-minded sound-bites and character assasinations are the norm for media dissemination.

agreed

I'm sure most leftists and anti-war types would love to believe that they are the only ones entitled to protest and carry signs and yell ... but it just ain't true! Too bad, so sad. :D

For someone who claims to eskew conservative/liberal ideologies and politics, you use "liberals" and "leftsists" as insults quite often....

This entire argument is so specious. You can't deny people the right to protest, either in opposition or support, just because you think they MIGHT be sending "the wrong message," or because they're opposing something initiated by another citizen ( whether "grieving mother" or not ), or for any other legitimate, non-violent reason. I would have thought that the left would have learned this lesson a long time ago when they got away with murder during the Vietnam war.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you claim a right for yourself, you cannot turn and deny it to others.

No one here is saying that they shouldn't have the right to protest, so don't twist people's words.

Interesting choice of words in regard to Viet Nam, conscidering what happened at Kent State.

You can't put it all on the protesters, the police were pretty brutal and in many cases had just as much disregard for the law, they just get punushed less. It's still much that way now. Not saying that all cops are bad people, many just want to keep order and protect the comunity, but not all cops are good people, as many would have you believe.

No. Let me tell you what's repugnant!

Repugnant is god damned protestors calling the families of dead soldiers in the middle of the night to tell them how glad they are their sons were killed in combat.

And that's just ONE example of the sort of thing that happens when these idiots run wild. [ curses a blue streak under his breath ]

That's pretty fucking low of 'em. When did this happen?

Still, doesn't take away from the fact that I think it's pretty bad to organize a whole protest against one lady like this. There have been counter-protests, but it has always been civil. This one seems to be created in a air of anger, with a porpose of anger, and nothing good can come of it.

Hopefully I am wrong, and they will go, speak their mind, have their demonstaration, and nothing will go wrong.

I'm waiting for everyone that denounced Mrs. Shenan protest as "political partisanship" and "pushing an agenda" to denounce this caravan as the same thing. Why should something be despicable one day but perfectly alright the next?

I'm looking at you Eutrusca, among other.

Also,
By what distortion of logic is it ok for the anti-war mom to park her broad butt outside the President's ranch and demand that he see her ... again, but it's not ok for others to protest that they are for both the soldiers and thier mission? Explain that to me, please.
"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.

why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and aeveryone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. After all, you are one of the first to demand respect for the troops. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return.

By what distortion of logic is it ok for the anti-war mom to park her broad butt outside the President's ranch and demand that he see her ... again, but it's not ok for others to protest that they are for both the soldiers and thier mission? Explain that to me, please.
Hey--her butt ain't broad, okay?

Believe it or not, I encourage the counter-protest. It's an expression of free political speech and they have every right to take part in it. And besides, I can always hope they come up with more genius chants like "We don't care," which is what they were chanting out there a week or so ago.

If I get that message. Block Return to sender Delete.

Awesome. Good for more people bringing attention to Cindys cause. w00t!

[ see last line of my signature below ] :)
That last line of your signature is pretty slippery considering what you have stated here.

Invading Iraq has protected us from nothing. Iraq could no longer invade it's neighbors much less us. You have stated several times that you support the invasion on the principle of spreading democracy and 'doing what's right.' That's ideology.

Fighting in Vietnam protected us from nothing (remember, the north won and communism didn't spread like wildfire). Even given the 'goal' of Vietnam-halting the spread of Communism in favor of Democracy-that is idealogy.

Your notion that no matter what crazy crusade the president decides to send the brave and noble to die for we should cheerlead blindly is in itself an idealogy.

The truth is you are more than willing to send the children to die for idealogy, and you've proven it again and again and to once more here.

For all your support of the military and the brave and the proud you support someone who would waste thier lives on idealogy-poor information, who would dishonor them by sending 'the army you have not the one they want' and then not take care of them after they serve. He honors them by playing dress up. One would think that you would care more about the men and not as much about those who would play games with their lives.

Look, both groups have the right to public protest. Unless they violate statute - trespassing, blocking roads, etc.

Any questioning of motives, while great sport, is irrelevant to the right of expression and is surely ideologically driven. This sort of thing has happened thousands of times before, this is how the protest game is played before the public and the media.

I'm waiting for everyone that denounced Mrs. Shenan protest as "political partisanship" and "pushing an agenda" to denounce this caravan as the same thing. Why should something be despicable one day but perfectly alright the next?

I'm looking at you Eutrusca, among other.


Also,

why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and aeveryone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. After all, you are one of the first to demand respect for the troops. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return.
24 hours later and still no response.

Can't say that I'm surprised.

"Another" attempt? Care to elaborate on the other attempts to silence her, please? I am not aware of any, and it's painfully obvious that none of these alleged plots has succeeded ... her fat ass is still parked outside the President's ranch.

Well, actually, it's not. Her mom just had a stroke, so she's attending her in the hospital. I imagine she'll be back shortly though. The others are still there.

By what distortion of logic is it ok for the anti-war mom to park her broad butt outside the President's ranch and demand that he see her ... again, but it's not ok for others to protest that they are for both the soldiers and thier mission? Explain that to me, please.

Well first off, here's a concept. Why is she in Texas? Why isn't she in Washington? Oh...right...because Bush is on vacation for the 75th time since being in office.

No doubt, I'm sure being president is a tough job...when you show up to work. Bush has thus far only spent 144 days in the White house and abroad working.

This is the land of the free! She can go where she please and say what she wants. As can the people against her. That's the whole idea. If either group is stifled I will put Bush akin to Hitler.

I don't really know why it all matters...If you agree with Sheehan, that's nice...If you don't agree with Sheehan, that's nice too...She is simply a person that feels extreme grief over the loss of her son when she believed it was before his time, since he wasn't even a soldier...She chooses to express her opinion in a manner that conservatives condemn and liberals cheer, but she's just doing her own thing...Leave her be...

I don't really know why it all matters...If you agree with Sheehan, that's nice...If you don't agree with Sheehan, that's nice too...She is simply a person that feels extreme grief over the loss of her son when she believed it was before his time, since he wasn't even a soldier...She chooses to express her opinion in a manner that conservatives condemn and liberals cheer, but she's just doing her own thing...Leave her be...
WTF do you mean "he wasn't even a soldier?"

Well first off, here's a concept. Why is she in Texas? Why isn't she in Washington? Oh...right...because Bush is on vacation for the 75th time since being in office.

No doubt, I'm sure being president is a tough job...when you show up to work. Bush has thus far only spent 144 days in the White house and abroad working.

This is the land of the free! She can go where she please and say what she wants. As can the people against her. That's the whole idea. If either group is stifled I will put Bush akin to Hitler.
You know ... all this post proves is one of two things:

1. You're too young to understand that the Presidency follows the incumbent wherever he goes. OR ...

2. You're just being disengenuous in the extreme.

Either way, you've just demonstrated that your posts can safely be ignored.

Well, actually, it's not. Her mom just died, so she's attending the funeral. I imagine she'll be back shortly though. The others are still there.
Oh, I'm sure the fact that she was protesting while her mother died will somehow be interpreted as President Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

If either group is stifled I will put Bush akin to Hitler.Please knock that off. Don't ever compare Hitler to anyone that hasn't committed genocide, and when you do, be damn careful with it.

24 hours later and still no response.

Can't say that I'm surprised.
Is THIS what you wanted me to respond to:

"why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and aeveryone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. After all, you are one of the first to demand respect for the troops. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return."

Oh. You mean kinda like the disrespect you show to everyone who doesn't toe the party line as far as you're concerned ... like, from President Bush on down to, and including US military personnel, who you and those like you attack at every opportunity? You mean like the way they can't be here to defend themselves against YOUR attacks on THEM? You mean like the way you insult them because you disagree with their actions? You should apologize. Perhaps if you showed some respect for those of us who don't agree with your leftist bullshit, you'd get some respect in return.

I don't need or want any respect from those who have no respect for my Nation, its elected leaders, its government, its military forces, or its veterans.

Arguing about the war = :headbang:

I tried for so long, some people will spend their whole lives with their eyes shut and form opinions without foundation.
IMO you need to be able to quote at least 1 reputable source to justify anything you say or just STFU.

(And if you haven't seen news from at least 3 seperate parts of the world try http://www.bbc.co.uk http://www.cnn.com and http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage )
-and be sure you know who they are before replying boys and girls

Is THIS what you wanted me to respond to:

"why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and aeveryone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. After all, you are one of the first to demand respect for the troops. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return."

Oh. You mean kinda like the disrespect you show to everyone who doesn't toe the party line as far as you're concerned ... like, from President Bush on down to, and including US military personnel, who you and those like you attack at every opportunity? You mean like the way they can't be here to defend themselves against YOUR attacks on THEM? You mean like the way you insult them because you disagree with their actions? You should apologize. Perhaps if you showed some respect for those of us who don't agree with your leftist bullshit, you'd get some respect in return.

I don't need or want any respect from those who have no respect for my Nation, its elected leaders, its government, its military forces, or its veterans.
I was refering to the fact that you said two days ago that the protest of Mrs. Sheenan was despicable because it had a political motive. I should think that the protest of this caravan is equally as despicable because it has an equally political motive. But I don't see you condemning them, now do I?

As far as your rant is concerned, it goes both way. Sho w some respect and I shall show some. I have been to great lenghts to treat the war and those who fight it as different issues. I have never condemned the military personnel apart for their actions in Gitmo and the torture incidents revealed in Abu Graib and elsewhere. Surey we can agree that these acts are reprehensible? Show me a quote where I was disrespectfull to the military, I dare you.

In the meantime, ad hominem on someone using her freedom of speach because you disagree with her viewpoint is to be condemned as it doesn't help in any way. I do not think you will apologize for it as you seem to want to twists the meaning of all the posts that you replied to so far in this thread.

But go ahead, prove me wrong.

I was refering to the fact that you said two days ago that the protest of Mrs. Sheenan was despicable because it had a political motive. I should think that the protest of this caravan is equally as despicable because it has an equally political motive. But I don't see you condemning them, now do I?
No, what I said was that she was dishonoring the memory of her son. As far as I'm concerned, she and any other idiot with a "cause" or a "gripe" can protest and whine and complain all they like, including those in the "caravan" to make sure the media are at least cognizant of the fact that Ms. Sheenan and her ilk don't represent all of America.

And on top of my belief that she is dishonoring her son, I just don't like "protestors," period. Will I attack them? No. Will I defend their right to protest? Yes. Will I speak out loud and long against them? Probably.

No, what I said was that she was dishonoring the memory of her son. As far as I'm concerned, she and any other idiot with a "cause" or a "gripe" can protest and whine and complain all they like, including those in the "caravan" to make sure the media are at least cognizant of the fact that Ms. Sheenan and her ilk don't represent all of America.

And on top of my belief that she is dishonoring her son, I just don't like "protestors," period. Will I attack them? No. Will I defend their right to protest? Yes. Will I speak out loud and long against them? Probably.
Apart for the fact that I disagree on the dishonour part, I think we can agree on your stance, then.

Other posters, however, have done so. I have yet to see them condemning this counter-protest. I am asking them to do so unless they want to be seen as hypocrit.

Oh, I'm sure the fact that she was protesting while her mother died will somehow be interpreted as President Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

Whoops, my mistake -- her mother hasn't died, she had a stroke. Sorry to disseminate erroneous information.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/crawford.protest/

...halting the spread of Communism in favor of Democracy...

Just a note, Communism is an Economic system, democracy is a governmental structure, they are compatible, so you can't really say you are halting one in favor of the other. What you ment was "athuritarian Communism." Communism of an on it's own does not pre-suppose any particular form of government

Oh, I'm sure the fact that she was protesting while her mother died will somehow be interpreted as President Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

Show some fucking compassion, and quit spreading hatrad based on differing political ideologies.

Is THIS what you wanted me to respond to:

"why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and aeveryone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. After all, you are one of the first to demand respect for the troops. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return."

Oh. You mean kinda like the disrespect you show to everyone who doesn't toe the party line as far as you're concerned ... like, from President Bush on down to, and including US military personnel, who you and those like you attack at every opportunity? You mean like the way they can't be here to defend themselves against YOUR attacks on THEM? You mean like the way you insult them because you disagree with their actions? You should apologize. Perhaps if you showed some respect for those of us who don't agree with your leftist bullshit, you'd get some respect in return.

No, he ment the direct question at the beginning of the post.

I don't need or want any respect from those who have no respect for my Nation, its elected leaders, its government, its military forces, or its veterans.

I have no respect for our elected leaders, government, but tremendous respect for our soldiers and veterans (not so much the generals or policy makers). Does this make me worthy in your esteem? ::rolls eyes::

Ahhh, another Bush FUBAR!!

If Bush had taken the time to meet with Cindy, then this would not even be news today.

Oraganizing a rally to protest Sheehan's activities is even dumber.

If this leads to any kind of violence then the US will get a huge black eye.

This kinda stuff reminds me of what happened at Kent State, and I do hope that it does not end up with the same result.

And the US is trying to install "democracy" in what country?