NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?

You do make a valid point. However, her motive to have another one-on-one aside, her intentions with the protest and vigils are well-intended.

Except for the part in which she blames the U.S. and Israel for all of the world's terrorism.

who? :confused:

who? :confused:

It's another one of those insignificant US news storms in a water glass. Pay it no attention.

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?Cindy Sheehan seems kinda selfish? You think she wants to talk to the President again for "her self" so she has the wonderful opportunity of basking in his prescence again?

It's another one of those insignificant US news storms in a water glass. Pay it no attention.I've seen it on German channels, Fass :D

You're missing the whole point of the thread. I'm asking why should she get a second meeting when hundreds of parents haven't even gotten a first meeting. It's not so much criticizing her, it's more supporting them.

You're missing the whole point of the thread. I'm asking why should she get a second meeting when hundreds of parents haven't even gotten a first meeting. It's not so much criticizing her, it's more supporting them.
She shouldn't. Her call for an interview should be for the parents who are rallying beside her in Crawford and later for those who aren't immediately there right now, at a time when they can go and have their own questions answered.

You're missing the whole point of the thread. I'm asking why should she get a second meeting when hundreds of parents haven't even gotten a first meeting. It's not so much criticizing her, it's more supporting them.

Surely an integral part of the American Dream is the chance of getting more than others in the same situation as you if you push hard enough?

I've seen it on German channels, Fass :D

I saw a report on it on Swedish television, too. A report. Not the constant crap you hear about it on US channels. Same thing with what's her name, the feeding tube lady. A report on what was making the news around the world. It was still as insignificant, and not worthy of anyone's attention.

To be honest, I really don't fucking care about this.

It's another one of those insignificant US news storms in a water glass. Pay it no attention.
right.... no attention paid. :)

*goes for a nap*

To be honest, I really don't fucking care about this.


Then why take the time to post in a thread about it?

I saw a report on it on Swedish television, too. A report. Not the constant crap you hear about it on US channels. Same thing with what's her name, the feeding tube lady. A report on what was making the news around the world. It was still as insignificant, and not worthy of anyone's attention.

Terry Schiavo? I eventually didn't care about that either. I got annoyed of hearing about it.

Insignificant and not worthy of anyone's attention is correct.

Then why take the time to post in a thread about it?

Obviously I have nothing better to do right now.

Terry Schiavo? I eventually didn't care about that either. I got annoyed of hearing about it.
Insignificant and not worthy of anyone's attention is correct.

http://www.minimumsecurity.net/toons2005/5034.jpg

Replace "Terri" with "Cindy" where applicable.

Obviously I have nothing better to do right now.


Other than to take the time to post in a thread in wich you proclaim apathy?

You need a hobby.

Obviously I have nothing better to do right now.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?

Suppose you got a rare meeting with the president of your country.

Suppose, during that meeting the president made you a specific promise.

Suppose he then broke it.

Not even as a citizen, but as a human being, I would say you have the right to hear why directly from the liar.

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but, why is it when Americans take notice of an issue via a specific case (Terri Schiavo- Brain damage and living wills) (Cindy Sheehan- Human face on the War on Iraq) other countries act like we are inferior for covering something so insignificant on our media outlets.

Fass:
I saw a report on it on Swedish television, too. A report. Not the constant crap you hear about it on US channels. Same thing with what's her name, the feeding tube lady. A report on what was making the news around the world. It was still as insignificant, and not worthy of anyone's attention.

It isnt crap, its big issues on a personal level. However I am the first to admit that all the buzz around Terri Schiavo got old, and fast for me. Michael Jackson Molestation Trial was worse.

Anyways, to answer your question, yes I do think on some level Cindy Sheehan is selfish. She held her protests and vigils and rallies, got her chance with the President, but shes still there. I don't know what shes fighting for at this point, she got what she wanted and she wont go home.

On the other hand I do find it amusing shes causing a stir in US Politics, and quite frankly, no one can stop her. If the Gov't were to try and silence her, she would scream louder. If she was jailed for being annoying (Disturbing the Peace?) half the country would begin plans for a Cindy Sheehan Revolution. MLK Jr. all over again, the only difference is Sheehan is white and currently fighting for nothing. But, I am not happy with Bush, so seeing Cindy mess things up for him does my heart good. :D

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but, why is it when Americans take notice of an issue via a specific case (Terri Schiavo- Brain damage and living wills) (Cindy Sheehan- Human face on the War on Iraq) other countries act like we are inferior for covering something so insignificant on our media outlets. I personally just think that "World News" could find better things to talk about. This issue does not concern Australia, nor is vital to global events, so why are we hearing about it?

Suppose, during that meeting the president made you a specific promise.

I haven't heard this part of the story. What was the specific promise?

I haven't heard this part of the story. What was the specific promise?
Not to use the death of their sons for political purposes.

Which he does all the time, btw.

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?

Because, all those who have heard the fellow speak, just KNOW it must be a real thrill to converse with him...

What we have here, is an individual who believes that she was lied to by the government, and that those lies led to the (wasteful) death of her son - and thousands of other 'sons'.

Why SHOULDN'T she meet the president?

She already met with him, now she's being used or is using, I don't know which... But I wonder how Casey would have felt about this?

While Mrs. Sheehan has gained worldwide press attention, she says her husband sought refuge in tinkering with two 1969 Volkswagens. Mrs. Sheehan has told reporters that her husband and her three surviving children all supported her position, but suggested her husband's views on the war and Mr. Bush were not as extreme.

Members of her husband's family have criticized her. Last week, Casey's aunt and godmother, Cherie Quararolo of Kelseyville, Calif., and others in the family sent e-mail to a California radio station that challenged Mrs. Sheehan's motives.

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She appears to be promoting her own personal agenda at the expense of her son's good name and reputation," the family members said. "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently with prayer and respect."

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050816-112405-7015r

She already met with him, now she's being used or is using, I don't know which... But I wonder how Casey would have felt about this?

While Mrs. Sheehan has gained worldwide press attention, she says her husband sought refuge in tinkering with two 1969 Volkswagens. Mrs. Sheehan has told reporters that her husband and her three surviving children all supported her position, but suggested her husband's views on the war and Mr. Bush were not as extreme.

Members of her husband's family have criticized her. Last week, Casey's aunt and godmother, Cherie Quararolo of Kelseyville, Calif., and others in the family sent e-mail to a California radio station that challenged Mrs. Sheehan's motives.

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She appears to be promoting her own personal agenda at the expense of her son's good name and reputation," the family members said. "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently with prayer and respect."

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050816-112405-7015r

So - hearsay testimony is more important that the word of the individual?

Maybe, she was motivated by the brutal death of her child, to try to oppose the lies that took her young?

Not to use the death of their sons for political purposes.

Which he does all the time, btw.

how so?

So - hearsay testimony is more important that the word of the individual?

Maybe, she was motivated by the brutal death of her child, to try to oppose the lies that took her young?


How is the testimony from Casey’s Father and the father's family hearsay? Or any less reliable than her testimony. Is it simply that you agree with hers and not theirs?

Edit:
The father filed for divorce this week, irreconcilable differences :(

How is the testimony from Casey’s Father and the father's family hearsay? Or any less reliable than her testimony. Is it simply that you agree with hers and not theirs?

Not at all... but, who is going to have a better idea of her motivations? Her self, or her husband's parents?

How is the testimony from Casey’s Father and the father's family hearsay?

Um.....Where in that was there testimony from Casey's father? In fact, the article said that he has been silent on whether or not he agrees with her stance.

And she never claimed that the aunt and godmother agreed with her - at least not according to your article. She said that her husband and children supported her.

Or any less reliable than her testimony. Is it simply that you agree with hers and not theirs?

Theirs wouldn't be any less reliable. I'm just waiting to see evidence that anyone has given any testimony that contradicts hers.

She already met with him, now she's being used or is using, I don't know which... But I wonder how Casey would have felt about this?

While Mrs. Sheehan has gained worldwide press attention, she says her husband sought refuge in tinkering with two 1969 Volkswagens. Mrs. Sheehan has told reporters that her husband and her three surviving children all supported her position, but suggested her husband's views on the war and Mr. Bush were not as extreme.

Members of her husband's family have criticized her. Last week, Casey's aunt and godmother, Cherie Quararolo of Kelseyville, Calif., and others in the family sent e-mail to a California radio station that challenged Mrs. Sheehan's motives.

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She appears to be promoting her own personal agenda at the expense of her son's good name and reputation," the family members said. "The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our president, silently with prayer and respect."

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050816-112405-7015r


All this shows is that Cindy can think for herself and does not need permission from her family to do so. I'm glad she is standing up for what she believes in despite her families dissent. Strength in character, that is.

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?
Just another in a long line of spoiled bitches and bastards who think the world should be remade in their own image.

Um.....Where in that was there testimony from Casey's father? In fact, the article said that he has been silent on whether or not he agrees with her stance.

And she never claimed that the aunt and godmother agreed with her - at least not according to your article. She said that her husband and children supported her.



Theirs wouldn't be any less reliable. I'm just waiting to see evidence that anyone has given any testimony that contradicts hers.

Well evidently he's not supporting her, he's filing for divorce from what I hear.

Just another in a long line of spoiled bitches and bastards who think the world should be remade in their own image.
Indeed... and yet we KEEP electing them...

Indeed... and yet we KEEP electing them...What do you mean "we"?

What do you mean "we"?

That's not the point...

Um, read some news, guys. She's camping out for a variety of reasons.

She believes that the war is predicated on lies and seeks a meeting with Dear Leader in order to confont him about this on behalf of her dead son and anyone else who's pissed off about this. She doesn't think the the theoretical leader of the free world is supposed to get away with lying about why he sends people off to die, and personally, I'm fine with that. At least she's ballsy enough to be down there rattling Junior's chain; goodness knows he needs it.

Well evidently he's not supporting her, he's filing for divorce from what I hear.

Yes, and if he feels that he can no longer be married to her, that obviously means he disagrees with her on every single subject, right?

That's not the point...I suppose not, but I'm still ticked that the guy I voted for didn't make it... "They keep getting elected" sounds much nicer...

Because, all those who have heard the fellow speak, just KNOW it must be a real thrill to converse with him...

What we have here, is an individual who believes that she was lied to by the government, and that those lies led to the (wasteful) death of her son - and thousands of other 'sons'.

Why SHOULDN'T she meet the president?



The thing is, she wasn't lied to, yet she's convinced she was. No amount of evidence to the contrary, or no lack of proof on her part will convince her otherwise, so she's getting nothing accomplished except making anti-war protestors look stupid.

Why does she think she should get a second meeting with the President? What about the parents of dead soldiers who haven't gotten a first meeting?

If you had bothered to check you'd see that I already made this point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438144&highlight=tenth) when I mentioned that she wanted to steal over .1% of his vacation time and almost 2% of his bike riding time. It's all part of a diabolical plot to enable terrorists to strike our nation by having the president slightly distracted by not having gotten his "rider's high" that day.

You do make a valid point. However, her motive to have another one-on-one aside, her intentions with the protest and vigils are well-intended.

No - her intentions are only well-intended if they are actually what she claims they are. If, as a number of people think, she's more addicted to the ego-trip of having that much influence and media attention, then her intentions are quite selfish and disgusting.


Not to use the death of their sons for political purposes. Which he does all the time, btw.

Because, God knows, that isn't what SHE'S doing. Oh, wait, it is. But I guess it's okay in her case, since it's what her son would have wanted... except, it's NOT his cause, is it?

You could argue that she's only saying what he would have said, if he were still alive - but what gives her the cosmic insight into his mind to KNOW that? The fact that she's his mother? Consider - all of her surviving children are basically pissed at her, and her husband (father of the dead son) is divorcing her. What makes her point-of-view more valid than theirs?

Fact is, people who are against Bush have latched onto her as a figurehead - after all, who can criticize a poor mother who lost her son? Problem is, there comes a time when you're not crusading in the name of the son whose death you mourn, but ghoulishly using his death to justify your own political views and fuel your own media presence.


Um, read some news, guys. She's camping out for a variety of reasons.

Except that, again, that's what she SAYS. You can accept the idea that Bush lied about any number of things that benefited him, but you can't accept the idea that SHE could be mouthing platitudes that are just as hollow?

Like others have suggested, if this was SOLELY about making Bush answerable for his statements, she could do so just as easily without making herself the center of attention like she's doing. I'm not even suggesting that Bush is right and she is wrong - but I certainly don't think she's as much of a saint as Bush's enemies are painting her as, either.

I suppose not, but I'm still ticked that the guy I voted for didn't make it... "They keep getting elected" sounds much nicer...

Oh, I agree... but one should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers... these wunderkinds keep getting elected because 'we' (collectively) make bad decisions... even though many of the individual 'we', do not.

Read an interesting position in the opinion page in my local paper yesterday. Summarized in a nutshell:

Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan, but not alone and privately, but instead with other parents and families that have lost someone in Iraq; allow some reporters in, but they don't ask the questions; family asks questions, including some that could be considered confrontational; and get Rummy to do the pro-invade side, as he's been the most vocal supporter of it.

I believe thats the main gist. I don't necessarily agree, but its a good compromise.

Um, read some news, guys. She's camping out for a variety of reasons.

She believes that the war is predicated on lies and seeks a meeting with Dear Leader in order to confont him about this on behalf of her dead son and anyone else who's pissed off about this. She doesn't think the the theoretical leader of the free world is supposed to get away with lying about why he sends people off to die, and personally, I'm fine with that. At least she's ballsy enough to be down there rattling Junior's chain; goodness knows he needs it.

It's only courage when Republicans do things that Democrats disagree with.

e.g.
Sending thousands of people off to fight and die if you're a Democrat = "Wagging the Dog."

Sending thousands of people off ot fight and die if you're a Republican = Courage.

Not caring what people who disagree with you think if you're a Democrat = Totalitarianism.

Not caring what people who disagree with you think if you're a Republican = Leadership, and courage.

Making decisions with no evidence, information, or good judgement if you're a Democrat = ...Well, we don't have a name for that yet, but you can bet it won't be "courage" which is the word for what it is when a Republican does it.

The thing is, she wasn't lied to, yet she's convinced she was. No amount of evidence to the contrary, or no lack of proof on her part will convince her otherwise, so she's getting nothing accomplished except making anti-war protestors look stupid.

You are entitiled to your own opinion... and yet, the evidence suggests that ALL Americans were lied to, and have been since. In fact, the whole world has been involved in Bush's 'War on Error' and 'Weapons of Mass Distraction' fiasco.

Bush told the American people he could win the war. Bush told the American people he could NOT win the war. Bush has changed the justification for his holy war a dozen times.

Some people feel that good Americans are throwing their lives away to further the political aspirations of one Texan oil-baron. Some of those people demand a reckoning.

And, the beauty of a democracy (even an 'American Democracy') is that they are ALLOWED to demand that reckoning.


Last point - how exactly is this issue "making anti-war protestors look stupid"?

Sending thousands of people off to fight and die if you're a Democrat = "Wagging the Dog."

Well, a difference there (that I can quickly think of) was that Clinton ordered some missiles launched just like a week or less before a meeting to testify on the whole Lewinsky thing to divert public attention. Timing was the thing there.


Ahhhh, great movie though!!

Yes, and if he feels that he can no longer be married to her, that obviously means he disagrees with her on every single subject, right?

I don't know about all that, but it sure looks like he's pouring his support all over her.

The thing is, she wasn't lied to, yet she's convinced she was. No amount of evidence to the contrary, or no lack of proof on her part will convince her otherwise, so she's getting nothing accomplished except making anti-war protestors look stupid.

So Bush hasn't been saying things like, "We can't let the memories of our dead soliders down. Follow me and continue the war," or "We must honor our fallen soldiers by continuing on."?

Funny, seems I've been hearing quite a few speeches to that tune.

Oh, I agree... but one should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers... these wunderkinds keep getting elected because 'we' (collectively) make bad decisions... even though many of the individual 'we', do not.

ok, that was a graphically elitist sentiment.

You are entitiled to your own opinion... and yet, the evidence suggests that ALL Americans were lied to, and have been since. In fact, the whole world has been involved in Bush's 'War on Error' and 'Weapons of Mass Distraction' fiasco.

Bush told the American people he could win the war. Bush told the American people he could NOT win the war. Bush has changed the justification for his holy war a dozen times.

Some people feel that good Americans are throwing their lives away to further the political aspirations of one Texan oil-baron. Some of those people demand a reckoning.

And, the beauty of a democracy (even an 'American Democracy') is that they are ALLOWED to demand that reckoning.


Last point - how exactly is this issue "making anti-war protestors look stupid"?



It's making them seem like illogical, duplicitous folks who publicly protest under the guise of a genuine concern for others when, in reality, they are doing so for their own selfish means. Take her political views, and the views espoused by her family and the views we can infer her son had, and her case falls apart. Also, she's ruining the lives of the residents of Crawford, as the frustrated pickup-driver demonstrated with the crosses. She just wants her time in the spotlight, her 15 minutes of fame, whatever you want to call it. It's not as much about grieving over her son as it is about attention-mongering and furthering anti-war sentiment. She wants to be viewed as a "hero of the people."

It's only courage when Republicans do things that Democrats disagree with.

e.g.
Sending thousands of people off to fight and die if you're a Democrat = "Wagging the Dog."

Sending thousands of people off ot fight and die if you're a Republican = Courage.

Not caring what people who disagree with you think if you're a Democrat = Totalitarianism.

Not caring what people who disagree with you think if you're a Republican = Leadership, and courage.

Making decisions with no evidence, information, or good judgement if you're a Democrat = ...Well, we don't have a name for that yet, but you can bet it won't be "courage" which is the word for what it is when a Republican does it.

:rolleyes:

No - her intentions are only well-intended if they are actually what she claims they are. If, as a number of people think, she's more addicted to the ego-trip of having that much influence and media attention, then her intentions are quite selfish and disgusting.

And just how do you intend to find out which is which.

Because, God knows, that isn't what SHE'S doing. Oh, wait, it is. But I guess it's okay in her case, since it's what her son would have wanted... except, it's NOT his cause, is it?

In truth, she is using her own suffering for her cause. She is saying she wants to keep other people from dying and other mothers from going through what she is going through.

Consider - all of her surviving children are basically pissed at her, and her husband (father of the dead son) is divorcing her. What makes her point-of-view more valid than theirs?

Prove that her children are pissed at her about her views. Prove that her husband is divorcing her because of her views. Otherwise, you don't know what their view on this is.

Except that, again, that's what she SAYS. You can accept the idea that Bush lied about any number of things that benefited him, but you can't accept the idea that SHE could be mouthing platitudes that are just as hollow?

I I remember correctly, there was media coverage of the first meeting...

Like others have suggested, if this was SOLELY about making Bush answerable for his statements, she could do so just as easily without making herself the center of attention like she's doing.

She hasn't made herself the center of attention. The media has. And, if Bush had simply walked out and talked to her for a few minutes when she first got there, there wouldn't be a media presence at all.

You are entitiled to your own opinion... and yet, the evidence suggests that ALL Americans were lied to, and have been since. In fact, the whole world has been involved in Bush's 'War on Error' and 'Weapons of Mass Distraction' fiasco.

There is no evidence of lies. GnI you, of all people, should know the definition of the word lie.

Bush told the American people he could win the war. Bush told the American people he could NOT win the war. Bush has changed the justification for his holy war a dozen times.

It isn't now, and it never has been a holy war.

Some people feel that good Americans are throwing their lives away to further the political aspirations of one Texan oil-baron. Some of those people demand a reckoning.

And, the beauty of a democracy (even an 'American Democracy') is that they are ALLOWED to demand that reckoning.

they ARE allowed to demand it, but they're not guaranteed to get it.

ok, that was a graphically elitist sentiment.

How so? Mob Psychology is an observable principle.. that basically dictates that large masses of people TEND to behave according the lowest common denominator...

Thus, the intelligence of a mob is governed by the least capable, and the morality of a mob is governed by the most corrupt.

If you are honest - you'd have to agree with me, although you might not want to. Example: Christians are a minority of ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, and yet, they firmly believe they have made the right choice, and everyone else is wrong... do they not?

I'm not being 'elitist'... I am describing human psychology.

So Bush hasn't been saying things like, "We can't let the memories of our dead soliders down. Follow me and continue the war," or "We must honor our fallen soldiers by continuing on."?

Funny, seems I've been hearing quite a few speeches to that tune.

and these statements help him politically, how? Oh yeah, he they might help him get reelected. He's the president, he's constantly asked about the war, and he's constantly expected to give statements about it. I believe he's entitled to use whatever cliche' he feels like to get his point across. That doesn't mean its for political gain.

It's making them seem like illogical, duplicitous folks who publicly protest under the guise of a genuine concern for others when, in reality, they are doing so for their own selfish means. Take her political views, and the views espoused by her family and the views we can infer her son had, and her case falls apart. Also, she's ruining the lives of the residents of Crawford, as the frustrated pickup-driver demonstrated with the crosses. She just wants her time in the spotlight, her 15 minutes of fame, whatever you want to call it. It's not as much about grieving over her son as it is about attention-mongering and furthering anti-war sentiment. She wants to be viewed as a "hero of the people."

I'm sorry.. what made you such an expert on the motivations of this person? Does this mean you know her? Or, is this PURE speculation, based on the same evidence that anyone else can see?

Personally, I don't draw ANY parallels about GROUPS of people, from the actions of INDIVIDUALS. Otherwise, I'd be believing that ALL Catholic Priests abuse children, ALL musicians are drug addicts, ALL Christians dance with snakes, etc. It is a bad idea to generalise in that way.

If ONE individual offends you with their anti-war protesting, I think that says more about the gap between her politics and yours, than about the COLLECTIVE of anti-war protestors.

Ok more perspective:

Some one said earlier who could critisize a mother grieivng her son?

A lot of you are.

You claim she's using him for her own political gain, which is to protest this whole war.

Thats your opinion ok fine. But aren't the rest of us allowed to have one? I don't understand how it's ok that someone (like Bush) can do whatever they want and not be critisized for it. Why is it as soon as someone opposes him or says anything 'not nice' about him you all pounce? I don't understand why his supporters just think and claim everyone else is lying or has a hidden agenda of their own all the time? Why can't you guys just take the criticism and say maybe thats something we should consider?

How so? Mob Psychology is an observable principle.. that basically dictates that large masses of people TEND to behave according the lowest common denominator...

Thus, the intelligence of a mob is governed by the least capable, and the morality of a mob is governed by the most corrupt.

If you are honest - you'd have to agree with me, although you might not want to. Example: Christians are a minority of ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, and yet, they firmly believe they have made the right choice, and everyone else is wrong... do they not?

I'm not being 'elitist'... I am describing human psychology.

oh bull! Mob psycology? So everyone who made the "unintelligent" choice to vote for Bush were involved in and dictated by mob psychology, while anyone NOT affected by this mob psychobabble obviously voted for the "intelligent" choice. I've got news for you, we ALL went into a voting booth alone. We all made our choices in private and we all voted for who we believed AND THOUGHT was the right man. I don't remember a mob playing ANY part in my decisions for voting. As a matter of fact, I must have missed them because I never even saw a mob.

To use your logic, every president in history would have been the wrong choice because the "mob" of evidently unintelligent people always hold the majority over the elite thinkers. Kerry didn't win because there weren't enough smart people voting. That, my friend, is elitist.

It's making them seem like illogical, duplicitous folks who publicly protest under the guise of a genuine concern for others when, in reality, they are doing so for their own selfish means.

How do you know if they are illogical or duplicitous? You are placing those labels on them because you disagree with their views, but you cannot know whether or not they are doing it for selfish reasons or not.

Also, she's ruining the lives of the residents of Crawford, as the frustrated pickup-driver demonstrated with the crosses.

That's funny. Yeah, some guy decided he didn't like a display of crosses that was not affecting him in any way and decided to run over them. That obviously means that the people who placed the crosses there were ruining his life. :rolleyes:

The protestors in Crawford have been cooperative with everything they have been asked to do. After some initial problems with sheer volume, they have been careful not to block any roadways. They have not invaded private property that has not been voluntarily loaned to them. They haven't been shooting off fireworks that startle livestock or anything like that. To claim that they are "ruining the lives of the residents of Crawford" is completely ludicrous.


and these statements help him politically, how?

They push his stance on the war by using fallen sodliers.

Oh yeah, he they might help him get reelected. He's the president, he's constantly asked about the war, and he's constantly expected to give statements about it. I believe he's entitled to use whatever cliche' he feels like to get his point across. That doesn't mean its for political gain.

If he is trying to get his point across, then it is furthering his political goals.

Meanwhile, I agree he could use whatever cliche he wants. However, when he has point-blank said that he will not use a certain phrase or situation, and uses it anyways, that is reprehensible. The same goes for his statement that he wouldn't use the tragedy on 9/11 for personal gain, and then we saw wreckage, etc. in his own campaign commercials.

There is no evidence of lies. GnI you, of all people, should know the definition of the word lie.


What is that supposed to mean?

I guess it depends on your definition of 'lies'. When Bush says he has ONE reason for going to war, and then he later amends that ONE reason to a different reason... well, to me, that sounds like convenience, rather than honesty.


It isn't now, and it never has been a holy war.


According to Haaretz, you are wrong:

"Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


Further, according to Bush's 'State of the Union' address, in 2003: "With the might of God on our side we will triumph over Iraq. God will watch over our troops and grant us a victory over the threat of Saddam’s army. God will bless us and keep us safe in the coming battle".

Not to mention the fact that presidential confidantes, including Ms. Rice, have publically stated that Bush has said he believes God led him to war in Iraq.

Don Evans, for example - quoted in USAToday, all the way back in April of 2003 - discussing Bush'sbeliefs about the War in Iraq

"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment". (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm)


they ARE allowed to demand it, but they're not guaranteed to get it.

I agree - but they ARE entitled to ask for it... that IS the point.

How do you know if they are illogical or duplicitous? You are placing those labels on them because you disagree with their views, but you cannot know whether or not they are doing it for selfish reasons or not.


Ok, I'm not claiming to have psychic powers, but let's be reasonable: The evidence clearly points in that direction, as does my sense of pattern-recognition. How much do you want to bet that, if she does get a second meeting with Bush, she's going to be convinced her son's death was not in vain? In all honesty, if I were a liberal anti-war person, I would know that the day she rescinds her position will be the day pigs fly. Nothing good can come of her demanding a meeting with Bush, and even her family seems to realize that from statements they've given.

oh bull! Mob psycology? So everyone who made the "unintelligent" choice to vote for Bush were involved in and dictated by mob psychology, while anyone NOT affected by this mob psychobabble obviously voted for the "intelligent" choice. I've got news for you, we ALL went into a voting booth alone. We all made our choices in private and we all voted for who we believed AND THOUGHT was the right man. I don't remember a mob playing ANY part in my decisions for voting. As a matter of fact, I must have missed them because I never even saw a mob.

To use your logic, every president in history would have been the wrong choice because the "mob" of evidently unintelligent people always hold the majority over the elite thinkers. Kerry didn't win because there weren't enough smart people voting. That, my friend, is elitist.

I assume you voted Bush at the last election then? And now feel the need to defend that choice... curious.

I didn't say anything about Bush/Kerry partisanship. I am politically non-partisan, although I dislike the elected leader of one of the parties. But - you are right - people on BOTH sides were 'led' to their decisions... for evidence one only has to look at anyone who listed their reason for voting Bush as "Kerry is a flip-flopper'. That's marketing, my friend... and we all participate in it, to some extent.

You are attributing elitist tendencies to me, based on things YOU attribute to me, rather than things I have said. Well, knock yourself out, my friend... I feel no need to defend myself against your Strawmen.


Regarding, however, your idea that each INDIVIDUAL made their decisions about the last US election (what a DELICIOUSLY quaint notion) - you must have observed such phenomena as the Ohio-reversal, based on British letters to voters, no?

I wonder, further, if you actually read ALL the election manifesto documents for candidates in your area?

Ok, I'm not claiming to have psychic powers, but let's be reasonable: The evidence clearly points in that direction, as does my sense of pattern-recognition. How much do you want to bet that, if she does get a second meeting with Bush, she's going to be convinced her son's death was not in vain? In all honesty, if I were a liberal anti-war person, I would know that the day she rescinds her position will be the day pigs fly. Nothing good can come of her demanding a meeting with Bush, and even her family seems to realize that from statements they've given.

If nothing else, Bush will know that he can't make promises to people and then break them without a hassle. That, to me, sounds like something good coming out of all this.

Meanwhile, why would the purpose of any second meeting with Bush be to convince her that her son's death was not in vain?

How do you know if they are illogical or duplicitous? You are placing those labels on them because you disagree with their views, but you cannot know whether or not they are doing it for selfish reasons or not.

She used the word "seems" in there.


If he is trying to get his point across, then it is furthering his political goals.

What? So tell me again what goals are being furthered? I don't think speaking one's mind and hoping to be understood qualifies as actual "political goals".

Meanwhile, I agree he could use whatever cliche he wants. However, when he has point-blank said that he will not use a certain phrase or situation, and uses it anyways, that is reprehensible. The same goes for his statement that he wouldn't use the tragedy on 9/11 for personal gain, and then we saw wreckage, etc. in his own campaign commercials.

He said point-blank he would not use them for political gain, he most certainly can use them when conversing about them.

Ok, I'm not claiming to have psychic powers, but let's be reasonable: The evidence clearly points in that direction, as does my sense of pattern-recognition. How much do you want to bet that, if she does get a second meeting with Bush, she's going to be convinced her son's death was not in vain? In all honesty, if I were a liberal anti-war person, I would know that the day she rescinds her position will be the day pigs fly. Nothing good can come of her demanding a meeting with Bush, and even her family seems to realize that from statements they've given.Note that since you are not a liberal anti-war person, you fail to notice that the part I bolded is something a liberal anti-war person would not necessarily agree with.

She used the word "seems" in there.


And for something to "seem" a certain way you must have evidence of it, not, "I don't agree with them so they must be lying!"

What? So tell me again what goals are being furthered?

It should be fairly obvious. The goal is get support of US citizens for the war that Bush wants to continue. That is a political goal that he is furthering by using the memory of fallen soldiers.

I don't think speaking one's mind and hoping to be understood qualifies as actual "political goals".

When a politician speaks, they are trying to garner support - a political goal. He isn't hoping to be understood. He is hoping that others will agree with him and thus support his goals.

What? So tell me again what goals are being furthered? I don't think speaking one's mind and hoping to be understood qualifies as actual "political goals".


For me, the clincher here, is Bush giving a pre-Election speech from a vantage point beside the WTC.

More than anything, that was Bush using the dead of America, to justify his political ambitions, no?

What is that supposed to mean?

I guess it depends on your definition of 'lies'. When Bush says he has ONE reason for going to war, and then he later amends that ONE reason to a different reason... well, to me, that sounds like convenience, rather than honesty.

I wasn't calling you a liar. I meant you're obviously very good with language so you know what is and isn't a lie.
There were several reasons Bush went to this war. He never once used the phrase "one reason". The fact that WMD turned out to be either unfindable or non-existant does not constitute a lie. Everyone, including the UN, inspectors, and John Kerry believed they were there. It didn't become a lie just because they never turned up.



According to Haaretz, you are wrong:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaretz, June 26 2003
"Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."




http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y



Who the hell is Haaretz? Why should I take his word for anything? Its not even his word, its hearsay. He's telling us what Abbas said. Well who the hell is Abbas?




I agree - but they ARE entitled to ask for it... that IS the point.

we agree here.

Personally, I think The Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/08/hating-cindy-it-is-way-of-bully-you.html) said it best in his blog today.

8/18/2005
Hating Cindy:
It is the way of the bully, you know, to choose the weakest, nose-pickingest, insignificant, wouldn't-hurt-a-fuckin-flea kid on the playground and pummel that little bastard into the dirt. And, as study after study has shown, bullies lash out against the schoolyard peons because it's the only way they can deal with truths they cannot face.

So, like, when some crazed white collar redneck plows through a field of flags and crosses bearing the names of soldiers who died in Iraq simply because said crosses were planted by Cindy Sheehan and her fellow Crawford protesters, we can pretty much assume that said crazed white collar redneck, also known as Waco realtor Larry Northern, may have been acting out of a sense of impotence, rage, and fear, the same combination that has driven crazed rednecks since Bocephus Yankeebeater pissed on the first pair of shoes ever to make its way up the Ozarks to Fuckedmysister, Arkansas.

It's not to excuse Northern (Operation Truth has already done the takedown) or stupid ass neighbor Larry Mattlage, apparently forgetting that bullets that go up do fuckin' come down, fired a warning shot near the demonstrators. But Mattlage and Northern are helpless, voiceless, deluded pukes who, like the kid whose father is beating his mother and him, have no other way but violence to express their anger and chimp-like confusion about Sheehan. ("She's a mother whose son died in the war. But wait. She opposes our President. But wait. She's a mother whose son died in the war. But wait. She's gettin' more people to protest the war. Aw, fuck it, let's just break shit.")

However, what are we to make of our depraved, desperate right wing punditry who are clinging, like plague fleas to the hair on the balls of the last rat in 1665 London, to any shred of an iota of evidence that Sheehan is wrong, which would discredit her vigil and, they hope, the entire cause of anti-war protesters. There's needs-to-be-sodomized-with-a-microphone Bill O'Reilly, who on his Fox "news" masturbatory yowl-fest, keeps repeating that Sheehan once said that Israel should get out of Palestine (as if that's somehow a far-left sentiment, despite having been expressed by many on the right who are not nutzoid end-of-days evangelicals or nutzoid neocons or David Horowitz) and that Sheehan posts messages on Michael Moore's website. And, of course, O'Reilly's making the story about himself, about whether or not he implied Sheehan was "treasonous." He did not, but he did say and imply that she was now a tool of "radicals" in America, denying her the voice he repeatedly insists she's allowed to have, treating her like the little woman who can't compete in the big, bad world of ideological rhetoric.

And what are we to make of Ann Coulter, whose cuntistry knows no bounds or limitations? In her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the sidewalk chalk scribbles of a delusional paranoiac just escaped from the chains holding her in her shit covered cell in the basement of the local charity hospital"), Coulter lashes out at Sheehan as if, say, Sheehan had sent the nation to war under false pretenses. Coulter, always the mainstream voice of the monkeyfuck insane right, says, "After your third profile on Entertainment Tonight, you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show." Coulter then tries to impugn Sheehan with out of context quotes. But the words don't matter. O'Reilly's connections don't matter.

All over the right, the attempts to destroy Sheehan are getting increasingly desperate and repellent, from dragging out her divorce documents and the liens against her property to saying that she "endangers" the troops (damn, you'd think lack of body armor would be doin' that, but then, fuck you - if you speak of it, our troops'll die). But that image, of the mother, outside, in that no-wonder-everyone's-goin'-insane heat of West Texas, is far more powerful. When you hear her voice, it ain't the crazy rantings of the so-called loony left. It's the calm, reasonable tone of the righteous. And that's what's so fuckin' threatening to the bullies.

Goddamn, it feels good to pound that weakling into the dirt until you hear the weakling's sobs and cries of mercy. But what happens if the weakling gets up, brushes off, and dares you to take another shot? That's the way the bullies crumble.

I assume you voted Bush at the last election then? And now feel the need to defend that choice... curious.

Not at all, I just don't like seeing that kind of elitist attitude and feel the need the combat it.


You are attributing elitist tendencies to me, based on things YOU attribute to me, rather than things I have said. Well, knock yourself out, my friend... I feel no need to defend myself against your Strawmen.

No sir. I'm not attributing anything on you personally as I've gained quite a lot of respect for your intelligence lately. Its exactly what you said, that I'm attributing it too. You defined mob psychology and then implied the reason why Bush (and others like him) keep getting elected is due to it. Bush was elected because the "stupid mob" has the majority over the minority of, I guess you'd call them "free thinkers", as if these free thinkers would all have voted against Bush.

Who the hell is Haaretz? Why should I take his word for anything? Its not even his word, its hearsay. He's telling us what Abbas said. Well who the hell is Abbas?


Sorry - I assumed too much... but you COULD have answered those questions by following the link?

Haaretz is an Iarael news source, and Mahmoud Abbas is the Palestinian Prime Minister.

... she's getting nothing accomplished except making anti-war protestors look stupid.
Wow! Now there's something that takes virtually no effort! :D

Sorry - I assumed too much... but you COULD have answered those questions by following the link?

Haaretz is an Iarael news source, and Mahmoud Abbas is the Palestinian Prime Minister.Can't say that I heard of Haaretz before, but someone posting on the politcal debates of this forum should really know who Mahmoud Abbas is.

Personally, I think The Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/08/hating-cindy-it-is-way-of-bully-you.html) said it best in his blog today.
Ah! Another fracking idiot heard from! And no, I do not mean YOU, Stephie. I refer, of course, to the Rude Pundit, to whose rantings I have previously been exposed ... I broke out in a rash! :p

Can't say that I heard of Haaretz before, but someone posting on the politcal debates of this forum should really know who Mahmoud Abbas is.

I know who he is, my point was why should I listen to someone tell me what he said that president Bush said?

Ah! Another fracking idiot heard from! And no, I do not mean YOU, Stephie. I refer, of course, to the Rude Pundit, to whose rantings I have previously been exposed ... I broke out in a rash! :pDoes that mean that her sitting in front of the Shrub's ranch is really killing more troops than them not being equipped properly?

Not at all, I just don't like seeing that kind of elitist attitude and feel the need the combat it.


And, yet... I believe most of what you were fighting here, was shadows...since you seem to have constructed opponents out of the gps between my words.


No sir. I'm not attributing anything on you personally as I've gained quite a lot of respect for your intelligence lately.


Why, thank you. It is honestly appreciated. The feeling, my friend, IS mutual. :D


Its exactly what you said, that I'm attributing it too. You defined mob psychology and then implied the reason why Bush (and others like him) keep getting elected is due to it. Bush was elected because the "stupid mob" has the majority over the minority of, I guess you'd call them "free thinkers", as if these free thinkers would all have voted against Bush.

Still hitting strawmen... the same psychology applied to the Kerry supporters, also.

You must have seen, in your life, that very few people fight against 'received' notions among their peers.

I know who he is, my point was why should I listen to someone tell me what he said that president Bush said?Cuz, chances are, if you don't talk to the President personally, you'll be getting whatever you have from second hand sources. I don't get daily briefings, so I have to rely on said sources.

As a liberal, I say that Cindy Sheehan is an idiot.

I know who he is, my point was why should I listen to someone tell me what he said that president Bush said?

Why should you listen to ANY media source, about anything?

And yet, we do....

As a liberal, I say that Cindy Sheehan is an idiot.
:rolleyes:

why do you feel the need to post flames about someone who isn't even here to respond. Everyone is entitled their opinion and everyone has the right to some common curtesy. You are insulting her just because you disagree with her actions. You should apologize. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return. Attack the person's ideas, not the person.

Cuz, chances are, if you don't talk to the President personally, you'll be getting whatever you have from second hand sources. I don't get daily briefings, so I have to rely on said sources.

this is very true, but I don't think I'll accept the word of a foreign news agency telling me what a different foreign leader says my leader said.

:rolleyes:

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. Show some respect for people and maybe you'll get some respect in return. Attack the person's ideas, not the person.

Good point... ad hominems are not 'reason'.

this is very true, but I don't think I'll accept the word of a foreign news agency telling me what a different foreign leader says my leader said.

Isn't THAT elitist?

I dont mean to hijack this thread, but, why is it when Americans take notice of an issue via a specific case (Terri Schiavo- Brain damage and living wills) (Cindy Sheehan- Human face on the War on Iraq) other countries act like we are inferior for covering something so insignificant on our media outlets.
It's because this method of news is indicative of the American need to sensationalise and humanise everything before it is felt to be worthy of attention.

Isn't THAT elitist?

not at all. Not when the news agency is from one side of a war and the different foreign leader is on the opposite side of the war and said leader leads suicide bombers. Somehow I just don't feel I can trust that information.

this is very true, but I don't think I'll accept the word of a foreign news agency telling me what a different foreign leader says my leader said.A lot of news agencies are international by now. I take Reuters as a good source. A national news agency is only as reliable as the government allows it to be. Iran, Russia, North Korea... bad news agencies.

this is very true, but I don't think I'll accept the word of a foreign news agency telling me what a different foreign leader says my leader said.

Because only US news sources and only US politicians could possibly be truthful

not at all. Not when the news agency is from one side of a war and the different foreign leader is on the opposite side of the war and said leader leads suicide bombers. Somehow I just don't feel I can trust that information.

There is no current "war" between Palestine and Israel. At the moment, the two governments are working together quite amicably.

And Abbas has actually been much better at stopping the incidence of suicide bombers than his predecessor. I hate to break it to you, but Palestinian != suicide bomber.

Ah! Another fracking idiot heard from! And no, I do not mean YOU, Stephie. I refer, of course, to the Rude Pundit, to whose rantings I have previously been exposed ... I broke out in a rash! :p

Hey, he makes no false pretense, he's honest while admits he's going to be rude about it. But he has one of the best and honest blogs on the net. The only blog I like more than his is The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) .

not at all. Not when the news agency is from one side of a war and the different foreign leader is on the opposite side of the war and said leader leads suicide bombers. Somehow I just don't feel I can trust that information.

War? Who is at war?

Abbas and Sharon are golden examples (I think) of factions working together to end conflict... or am I wrong?

And - just because Haaretz is based in Tel Aviv (I believe) doesn't make it a Zionistic lapdog, or the enemy of Palestine...

Ah! Another fracking idiot heard from! And no, I do not mean YOU, Stephie. I refer, of course, to the Rude Pundit, to whose rantings I have previously been exposed ... I broke out in a rash! :p

You're having an alergic reaction to truth. It's pretty common in Republicans.

In most cases symptoms are easily treated by topical solutions of network news, but in more severe cases, resulting in confusion and emotional distress, a perscription for FOX news may be in order. However the long term effects of FOX news on mental health are not entierly known, but preliminary research (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000714.html) indicates that it may be dangerous.

Sufferers may wish to reduce their exposure to truth. If spouses or children produce the kind of truth to which the patient is allergic, the patient may wish to limit them to certain parts of the house, excluding them from the bedroom or living room for example. This may be an unpleasant thought, as spouses and children often come to feel like members of the family, but your health, and that of our fellow republicans is at stake. Another measure that most Republican's find useful is to limit late night television viewing. Truth in such programs is usually heavily treated with comedy, and most Republicans can tolerate it without undue reaction, but to be safe a patient should limit his exposure. Especially to Jon Stewart which posesses a truth content that is very high relative to its processing, and David Letterman which isn't really funny enough to properly buffer the truth.

In the most severe cases, or those in which the patient is simply unable to avoid truth, the patient may need to be given immuno-veracity therapy. This is a complicated procedure in which small doses of truth are delivered in a heavily treated form that the immune system does not recognize as a threat. For example, a Republican who may suffer a sever reaction to the truth "Bush Sr. invaded Iraq with 500,000 troops and that was just for a quick in-and-out mission. Bush Jr. used a mere 100,000 troops and that was for an occupation that has now lasted several years. He forced all military personel who contradicted his overly optimistic appraisal of the state of a 100,000 man invasion force into retirement and only kept those who told him what he wanted to hear," will be given a small dose of that truth as "Some critics claim that the invasion force was too small, but President Bush maintains that he provided all the troops that his ground commanders felt they needed."

If you think you may be a candidate for this kind of treatment you ought to consult your local Young Republican's Club if you have not previously been active in the Republican party.

One, or some combination of several, of these measures will enable you to live a contented life as a devoted Republican. Remember, an allergy to the truth doesn't mean you can't be a good Republican. In a limited capacity you can even be a professional one. Just look at Ari Fleischer.

Just another in a long line of spoiled bitches and bastards who think the world should be remade in their own image.
If this is your opinion, why did you vote for him?

Problem is, there comes a time when you're not crusading in the name of the son whose death you mourn, but ghoulishly using his death to justify your own political views and fuel your own media presence.

Last time Amnesty International, now this. It's just the latest opponent of the Bush Administration's policies to be demonised en masse by the mindlessly partisan supporters of the President. Even the Clinton Democrats in the late 1990s weren't this bad (and I'm sure you'll agree, that's saying a lot).

Hey, he makes no false pretense, he's honest while admits he's going to be rude about it. But he has one of the best and honest blogs on the net. The only blog I like more than his is The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) .
Actually, the Rude Pundit did make one untrue statement:
And, of course, O'Reilly's making the story about himself, about whether or not he implied Sheehan was "treasonous." He did not...
The truth is O'Reilly did imply that Sheehan was treasonous. I dont blame the Rude Pundit for that, he simply overestimated O'Reilly's honesty.