NationStates Jolt Archive

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

I wrote this earlier.

Let the battle... I mean, informed debate... on the topic begin. ;)

Agree? Disagree? Am I too inflammatory? Is this just a load of propagandist bullshit?

Whatever you think, lemme know, and I'll try and keep this thread going.

--Hannah

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

I wrote this earlier.

Let the battle... I mean, informed debate... on the topic begin. ;)

Agree? Disagree? Am I too inflammatory? Is this just a load of propagandist bullshit?

Whatever you think, lemme know, and I'll try and keep this thread going.

--Hannah

Got to liberal media. Realized what time it is.

Two words: Eric Alterman. 'Night.

Surely 2,000 men isn’t too high a price to pay for the freedom of others?

Somehow I imagine that Ms. Sheehan does not think that the freedom of others was worth losing her son.

good god, i want to deck that woman. sure, it sucks that her son died. however, the US military is volunteer, and he made the choice. This is typical of people who utterly ignore an issue until it whacks them upside the face.

CSW... I have no idea who Eric Alterman is.

Bimmovia...


good god, i want to deck that woman. sure, it sucks that her son died. however, the US military is volunteer, and he made the choice. This is typical of people who utterly ignore an issue until it whacks them upside the face.


100% agreed.

"Liberals would rather live in a peaceful, oppressed nation than have to die for democracy." -you

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there. For the present, it means gleefully dancing on soldier's graves.

I told my mother the other day that if I ever went off to war and died...I would haunt her if she did what that awful Sheehan woman is doing to her son.

I love how you stereotype that every liberal is like the one you describe...

Nice spelling of "Sarcaustic" :D

Reichskampen (sp?)...


"Liberals would rather live in a peaceful, oppressed nation than have to die for democracy." -you

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there. For the present, it means gleefully dancing on soldier's graves.

I told my mother the other day that if I ever went off to war and died...I would haunt her if she did what that awful Sheehan woman is doing to her son.


Ah, have you read "Useful Idiots" by Monica Charen? It's about how the liberals, to quote her, 'got it all wrong during the Cold War'. You'd probably like it. Check it out.

Blackest Surreality...

I love how you stereotype that every liberal is like the one you describe...

ME TOO :D

Rambozo...

Nice spelling of "Sarcaustic" :D

Some have suggested that they add it to the dictionary, but, sadly, it wasn't me that came up with the word.

Wow. Isn't it fun to scapegoat Cindy Sheehan for how much of an assclown circus Iraq is starting to become thanks to Ringmaster Bush? Jesus Christ, historians will have trouble figuring out the sheer scope of mindless loyalty from the Busheviks here.

She's protesting what she feels is a big fucking lie (and it is as if we haven't heard this all before) and you're all getting off on labelling her a Commie Mutant Traitor.

She's not damaging the war effort one bit, and Il Duh-ce is simply ignoring her. Any future fuckups in Iraq are not going to have anything to do with her one bit.

Unless you like running over crosses, shotgunning protestors and changing the National Anthem to The Imperial March, just leave the woman and her fellow demonstrators alone.

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there. For the present, it means gleefully dancing on soldier's graves.
Wow, people still bitch about the Soviet Union.

Newsflash, foagie: That nation disappeared from existence almost fourteen (that's 14) years ago. I daresay it's time to let it pass.

Wow. Isn't it fun to scapegoat Cindy Sheehan for how much of an assclown circus Iraq is starting to become thanks to Ringmaster Bush? Jesus Christ, historians will have trouble figuring out the sheer scope of mindless loyalty from the Busheviks here.

She's protesting what she feels is a big fucking lie (and it is as if we haven't heard this all before) and you're all getting off on labelling her a Commie Mutant Traitor.

She's not damaging the war effort one bit, and Il Duh-ce is simply ignoring her. Any future fuckups in Iraq are not going to have anything to do with her one bit.

Unless you like running over crosses, shotgunning protestors and changing the National Anthem to The Imperial March, just leave the woman and her fellow demonstrators alone.

AGREED.

Gauthier...


Wow. Isn't it fun to scapegoat Cindy Sheehan for how much of an assclown circus Iraq is starting to become thanks to Ringmaster Bush? Jesus Christ, historians will have trouble figuring out the sheer scope of mindless loyalty from the Busheviks here.

She's protesting what she feels is a big fucking lie (and it is as if we haven't heard this all before) and you're all getting off on labelling her a Commie Mutant Traitor.

She's not damaging the war effort one bit, and Il Duh-ce is simply ignoring her. Any future fuckups in Iraq are not going to have anything to do with her one bit.

Unless you like running over crosses, shotgunning protestors and changing the National Anthem to The Imperial March, just leave the woman and her fellow demonstrators alone.


The WMD's were there. We've found some evidence, just not the actual WMD's yet. No, she isn't damaging the war effort, she's just a huge pain in the ass.

Gauthier...



The WMD's were there. We've found some evidence, just not the actual WMD's yet. No, she isn't damaging the war effort, she's just a huge pain in the ass.
They've stopped looking a few years back. Give it a rest, he was wrong. Eric Alterman is the name of an author you should read. Wrote "What Liberal Media?".

The WMD's were there. We've found some evidence, just not the actual WMD's yet.
LOL. You're kidding, right? Well, then, if we can follow this course of logic, we can just arrest any suspect of any crime and charge him with said crime without any conclusive (beyond a reasonable doubt) evidence? Nice.

No, she isn't damaging the war effort, she's just a huge pain in the ass.
Then why do you even bother?

We've found some evidence

Examples please?

Hmm. But we found a chem. weapons lab the other day, so they're probably looking again. IMO, the weapons were probably either buried under the sand somewhere in the desert or trucked over to Syria as Colin Powell once claimed. We just didn't find them, I mean, we gave Saddam months to bury them.

I think Cindy Sheehan is GREAT!! Anything that fucks up Georgie-Porgie's little vacation, and makes that fucker THINK about what he's done, and what blood is on his hands...is a damn good thing. I hope they NEVER give him any peace. GWB doesn't deserve any. He got their sons and daughters killed in an illegal war for oil, that he wouldn't even send his own daughters to...he wouldn't fight himself, when he had the chance...but he can strut around in a flight suit and a codpiece on the deck of an aircraft carrier...or pose holding a fucking plastic turkey? fuck him, he deserves no peace, and I hope the Gold Star Families fucks up the entire rest of this miserable asshole's Presidency!

And, yes, I'm a liberal who absolutely DESPISES conservatives and Republicans.

Gauthier...



The WMD's were there. We've found some evidence, just not the actual WMD's yet. No, she isn't damaging the war effort, she's just a huge pain in the ass.

Let's see how much a pain in the ass you would be if you felt YOUR son died for a lie!

"What Liberal Media?" Indeed. Hate to break it to you, but its always staring down your face, unless you only watch Fox News and listen to NPR on the radio.

But maybe you're correct. (I won't say you're "Right" in any sense of the word), the media isn't liberal. It's just incredibly pessimistic about everything we try to accomplish.

On the subject of Ms. Sheehan, yes, she does have the right to protest, no denials...and therefore I won't complain. But I do think she should realize that her son died so that others, in Iraq and Afghanistan, will also have these rights.

I enjoy the fact that Bush is suffering. But still, Cheney is still out there, someone needs to go and haunt him some since he's the one who's going to get the most out of this war.

Lyric...


I think Cindy Sheehan is GREAT!! Anything that fucks up Georgie-Porgie's little vacation, and makes that fucker THINK about what he's done, and what blood is on his hands...is a damn good thing. I hope they NEVER give him any peace. GWB doesn't deserve any. He got their sons and daughters killed in an illegal war for oil, that he wouldn't even send his own daughters to...he wouldn't fight himself, when he had the chance...but he can strut around in a flight suit and a codpiece on the deck of an aircraft carrier...or pose holding a fucking plastic turkey? fuck him, he deserves no peace, and I hope the Gold Star Families fucks up the entire rest of this miserable asshole's Presidency!

And, yes, I'm a liberal who absolutely DESPISES conservatives and Republicans.


1) It's a working vacation. Would you want to be in DC during the dog days of August?
2) The blood's not just on Bush's hands.
3) Bush did the right thing.
4) If the war was for oil, why are prices at record highs right now? Why isn't any oil coming out of Iraq? Why wouldn't Bush attempt to capitalise on the oil?
5) How is the war illegal? Congress passed the war bill.
6) I don't discriminate. I hate everybody equally.

There, does that satisfy j00?

Hmm. But we found a chem. weapons lab the other day, so they're probably looking again. IMO, the weapons were probably either buried under the sand somewhere in the desert or trucked over to Syria as Colin Powell once claimed. We just didn't find them, I mean, we gave Saddam months to bury them.

You mean the chemical lab that was established after Saddam Hussein had been deposed? Wow, the Busheviks sure like to use Ex Post Facto a lot with justifying an invasion.

1) It's a working vacation. Would you want to be in DC during the dog days of August?


Color me naive, but I think that the White House might have some luxuries like air conditioning.

How do we know those chemical weapons weren't taken from a stash left over from Saddam's regime and prepared for use by Al-Queda? Would you rather those weapons were still in the hands of terrorists? At least now we know they won't be used on us.

They are the by-product of Saddam's regime, regardless.

How do we know those chemical weapons weren't taken from a stash left over from Saddam's regime and prepared for use by Al-Queda? Would you rather those weapons were still in the hands of terrorists? At least now we know they won't be used on us.

They are the by-product of Saddam's regime, regardless.

Maybe they built some weapons because...say...we invaded them? I'm not saying chemical weapons are the least bit acceptable, but you are just dodging the fact that this was post-invasion.

Lyric...



1) It's a working vacation. Would you want to be in DC during the dog days of August?
2) The blood's not just on Bush's hands.
3) Bush did the right thing.
4) If the war was for oil, why are prices at record highs right now? Why isn't any oil coming out of Iraq? Why wouldn't Bush attempt to capitalise on the oil?
5) How is the war illegal? Congress passed the war bill.
6) I don't discriminate. I hate everybody equally.

There, does that satisfy j00?

1) As opposed to Texas during 90°+ heat?
2) Bush directed the biggest amount of bloodshed with blatant lies and the wasting of post 9-11 support from the world.
3) Bush did the right thing as a side effect. He never declared he was liberating the Iraqi people until after his WMD excuse started to crumble.
4) It's called Gouging. Would you want people to buy cheaper oil if you owned an oil company and could screw the consumers over with record prices?
5) Illegal because the primary reason for it- the WMDs- turned out to be blatant lies.
6) But you hate anyone you consider Liberal more than others.

good god, i want to deck that woman. sure, it sucks that her son died. however, the US military is volunteer, and he made the choice. This is typical of people who utterly ignore an issue until it whacks them upside the face.

Incentives and disincentives can force anyone into a choice. Consider, if you will, whether or not you get a job. Employment is voluntary. However, when you consider the options other than unemployment: welfare and the scorn of those around you, you really don't get much of an option. This is the situation thousands of poor kids in the United States face with military enrollment, simply because the other options are so lousy. Yes, they choose to go into the military because it gives them a chance to make something of themselves, just like you choose to get a lousy job for measly pay because otherwise you have no spending money and you need work experience, but that doesn't mean the odds aren't stacked against. Incentives and disincentives can unofficially require people to do a lot of things without denying them "choices", part of the reason I like incentives and disincentives instead of edicts. I'm not an American, so I don't know exactly what things are like there, but I have heard that those from lower income families are more likely to enroll than those from upper end families. In this sense, incentives and disincentives have created a draft of the poor. Sure, the patriotic also sign up, but a lot of people who don't want to go to war end up going because the incentives and disincentives are set up to force them into it.

At the same time, I can't think of a better way to do it. My point is that you can't assume that someone who signs up for the war necessarily supported the war or even had that much of a choice in signing up. I'm not sure if that's the case here; I'm merely advising against generalizations.

Then why do you even bother?

Because we enjoy trampling on your delusions. :)

There is also the matter that you should be ashamed for your eagerness to exploit a mourning woman. Casey Sheehan's mother is useful to you exclusively because of the glory reflected upon her by her deceased son. So you "anti war" leftists turn her against her family and against her son's memory for no better reason than your desire to score cheap political points. And then when you have no further use for the poor demented fool you will abandon her in a way that leaves her nothing. And you wonder why we scorn you and intend to hold this against you?

Like it or no the people currently with her are nothing more than a collection of pimps and whores. They really should be ashamed of themselves. :mad:

BUSH DOESN'T OWN AN OIL COMPANY! He sold off his interests quite some time ago, I believe.

Anyway, it wasn't a sack of lies. If it was, Bush didn't make it all up, someone else did. All the President does is command based on the information disseminated to him by organisations like the FBI and CIA. He doesn't collect intelligence on his own.

How do we know those chemical weapons weren't taken from a stash left over from Saddam's regime and prepared for use by Al-Queda? Would you rather those weapons were still in the hands of terrorists? At least now we know they won't be used on us.

They are the by-product of Saddam's regime, regardless.

You mean the alleged chemical weapons stash that would have stayed put in a relatively secure place if Cowboy Shrub didn't decide to holler "Yee Haw, I'm Avengin' Yer Honor Daddy" and went ahead with the invasion? You mean the 500 tons of explosives that the Marines left unguarded until it all vanished?

You make a good point, Ragbralbur. But at the same time, if you do join, rather than take a low-paying job, you should expect that, if something happens, you may have to go into combat, even die, becuase that is your line of duty. Much like firefighters. I respect the men in the military, both because I know some personally, and because I understand that they're going through things I will likely never, ever face...and won't have to, becuase of them.

Lyric...



1) It's a working vacation. Would you want to be in DC during the dog days of August?
2) The blood's not just on Bush's hands.
3) Bush did the right thing.
4) If the war was for oil, why are prices at record highs right now? Why isn't any oil coming out of Iraq? Why wouldn't Bush attempt to capitalise on the oil?
5) How is the war illegal? Congress passed the war bill.
6) I don't discriminate. I hate everybody equally.

There, does that satisfy j00?
1. Working vacation my ass. That man hasn't known a real day's work in his entire life. and if it's good enough for 3 or 4 million DC residents to be in DC in the Dog days of August, it's good enough for Bush. Besides, I've lived in Texas, and it's fucking hotter THERE than it is in DC, I can tell you that!

2. No, you're right. Cheney and Rummy, and a few others got blood on their hands, too.

3. How do you figure Bush did the right thing? The "right thing" is to lie and exaggerate a threat to the Amnerican public, to sell a war he personally wanted? Against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and hadn't so much as swatted a fly outside it's borders in the last 12 years?

4. it's awful goddamn hard to get oil out of a country when you have an insurgency trying to stop you. who says Bush isn't capitalizing on the oil? the oil fields were the first thing secured, leaving weapons and ammo dumps unguarded, so that insurgents could get their hands on all sorts of neat stuff to turn into car and roadside bombs! Remember some 350 million tons of missing explosives, or something like that? And oil is a record highs because that is exactly the way Bush and his cronies want it. They are making money hand over fist! Think they'[re gonna pass any of those record profits onto us...you gotta be kidding me!! You tell ME why Exxon-Mobil reported RECORD PROFITS last quarter.

5. It's illegal because he lied to Congress to get them to pass the war bill. They did it on false and misleading information. Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense...except, of course, if you are a Republican!

6. Good for you. I hate Republicans.

Airlandia...


Because we enjoy trampling on your delusions.

There is also the matter that you should be ashamed for your eagerness to exploit a mourning woman. Casey Sheehan's mother is useful to you exclusively because of the glory reflected upon her by her deceased son. So you "anti war" leftists turn her against her family and against her son's memory for no better reason than your desire to score cheap political points. And then when you have no further use for the poor demented fool you will abandon her in a way that leaves her nothing. And you wonder why we scorn you and intend to hold this against you?

Like it or no the people currently with her are nothing more than a collection of pimps and whores. They really should be ashamed of themselves.


Haaaaallelujah. Someone with a bit of common sense.

We must hold this against the Democrats forever! :p

Elephants never forget, you know.

(Actually, I'm more of a capitaliztic libertarian than anything, but they aren't exactly electable these days.)

Because we enjoy trampling on your delusions. :)

There is also the matter that you should be ashamed for your eagerness to exploit a mourning woman. Casey Sheehan's mother is useful to you exclusively because of the glory reflected upon her by her deceased son. So you "anti war" leftists turn her against her family and against her son's memory for no better reason than your desire to score cheap political points. And then when you have no further use for the poor demented fool you will abandon her in a way that leaves her nothing. And you wonder why we scorn you and intend to hold this against you?

Like it or no the people currently with her are nothing more than a collection of pimps and whores. They really should be ashamed of themselves. :mad:
LOL, and you just assume that I support this woman. I honestly couldn't care less about what she's doing. I haven't supported this war from the beginning, and I don't need some military mom telling me what to think. These shenanigans were wrong from the very outset from the starting gate.

We must hold this against the Democrats forever! :p

Elephants never forget, you know.

You get the Lamest Pun of the Year Award. You win. Or lose. Whichever's worse.

BUSH DOESN'T OWN AN OIL COMPANY! He sold off his interests quite some time ago, I believe.

Anyway, it wasn't a sack of lies. If it was, Bush didn't make it all up, someone else did. All the President does is command based on the information disseminated to him by organisations like the FBI and CIA. He doesn't collect intelligence on his own.

How COULD GWB collect any intelligence?? He has nowhere to KEEP it!!

If I only had a braaaaaiiiiinnnn....

You get the Lamest Pun of the Year Award. You win. Or lose. Whichever's worse.


Do I get a trophy for it? Maybe if I run for President, I can wave it around and nobody will be able to speculate as to its authenticity if we have this on the record.

I don't personally believe the information was false, but it wouldn't be illegal anyway, since even if it WAS, Bush & Co. didn't know that when they made the case for war to Congress.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I also hate the UN for calling the war illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volksnation
Lyric...



1) It's a working vacation. Would you want to be in DC during the dog days of August?
2) The blood's not just on Bush's hands.
3) Bush did the right thing.
4) If the war was for oil, why are prices at record highs right now? Why isn't any oil coming out of Iraq? Why wouldn't Bush attempt to capitalise on the oil?
5) How is the war illegal? Congress passed the war bill.
6) I don't discriminate. I hate everybody equally.

There, does that satisfy j00?


1. Working vacation my ass. That man hasn't known a real day's work in his entire life. and if it's good enough for 3 or 4 million DC residents to be in DC in the Dog days of August, it's good enough for Bush. Besides, I've lived in Texas, and it's fucking hotter THERE than it is in DC, I can tell you that!

2. No, you're right. Cheney and Rummy, and a few others got blood on their hands, too.

3. How do you figure Bush did the right thing? The "right thing" is to lie and exaggerate a threat to the Amnerican public, to sell a war he personally wanted? Against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and hadn't so much as swatted a fly outside it's borders in the last 12 years?

4. it's awful goddamn hard to get oil out of a country when you have an insurgency trying to stop you. who says Bush isn't capitalizing on the oil? the oil fields were the first thing secured, leaving weapons and ammo dumps unguarded, so that insurgents could get their hands on all sorts of neat stuff to turn into car and roadside bombs! Remember some 350 million tons of missing explosives, or something like that? And oil is a record highs because that is exactly the way Bush and his cronies want it. They are making money hand over fist! Think they'[re gonna pass any of those record profits onto us...you gotta be kidding me!! You tell ME why Exxon-Mobil reported RECORD PROFITS last quarter.

5. It's illegal because he lied to Congress to get them to pass the war bill. They did it on false and misleading information. Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense...except, of course, if you are a Republican!

6. Good for you. I hate Republicans.

Lyric

1. The man has a masters degree. He's worked more than a lot of people in this country, and lets face it, being the President is hard work.

2. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, you poor, scapegoating, misguided son of a bitch.

3. The right thing. Fighting against a threat to our country. Think Jefferson and Tripoli, not a direct threat at that point in time, but could have become one at any time. And the "War on Terror" doesn't have to be just about 9/11. It's about all terrorism.

4. Oil prices worldwide are going up, not just here, so its more than just a United States problem.

5. It still isn't illegal, the bill was passed, and Bush didn't lie intentionally. If you believe he did, you're probably dumb enough to think we didn't actually land on the moon. (and don't you dare through moron conspiracy theory into this)

6. Well, I hate stupid bastards that whine about everything and expect the everything to come easy to them if they don't work. In short, I hate liberals.

There is also the matter that you should be ashamed for your eagerness to exploit a mourning woman. Casey Sheehan's mother is useful to you exclusively because of the glory reflected upon her by her deceased son. So you "anti war" leftists turn her against her family and against her son's memory for no better reason than your desire to score cheap political points. And then when you have no further use for the poor demented fool you will abandon her in a way that leaves her nothing. And you wonder why we scorn you and intend to hold this against you?

Here's the funny thing. We, on the left, or in my case, on the center, look at you as exploiting a woman's genuine concern about her son and the fate he endured in order to take a shot at the left for politicizing that concern. You're no better than those on the left because you've stooped to the exact same level. You're using this woman's well-intentioned, if perhaps ill-founded, vigil to take a shot at those that share her opinion.

Let me put it to you this way. I support a War In Iraq, but I understand why people don't. It's a values issue. In particular, to what extent the ends justify the means. That said, I don't want to get into all that stuff. What I want to make clear is that this woman has very real concerns. You have no proof that she is planning to gain personally from it. What you do have proof of is a woman using the system to get what she wants, which is to have some questions answered by the person in charge. That's not a crime or even immoral. That's just shrewd. The left probably shouldn't have politicized this matter to as great an extent as they did, but the truth is that they cared. I would have gone to visit her if I were a politician, just to let her know that even though I disagree I understand how difficult it must be. So why is the right firing back like this? Bush had the message right, kind of. You appreciate and understand her concern, but this isn't how one should dissent. The president is a person too and needs his time off. Stuff like that, not calling her names.

You make a good point, Ragbralbur. But at the same time, if you do join, rather than take a low-paying job, you should expect that, if something happens, you may have to go into combat, even die, becuase that is your line of duty. Much like firefighters. I respect the men in the military, both because I know some personally, and because I understand that they're going through things I will likely never, ever face...and won't have to, becuase of them.

And Cindy Sheehan's son did all of those things that you say he should have to do. At the same time, when you or someone you love signs up for the military, I would contend that the government has an obligation to make sure that you feel that the government is doing its best to look out for you. As I said above, I would have met with her. It was the right thing to do. And you know what? If I sent people to war and one thousand people lined up outside my door asking to see me because their child died or even because they had questions, I would try to see as many of them as I could.

I didn't say Sheehan was doing this for personal gain. In fact, I understood her cause in the beginning.

But why let the liberal media take your cause and make it a huge media circus? Why not just quietly ask for the president's attention and then go home again after a day or two? Why's it got to be a huge controversy like this?

That's what I don't understand.

So I intrepret it as selfishness, because if she's still too dense to understand why her son decided on his own accord to go serve in Iraq, she'll never understand even if someone pounds her on the head with the brick of reason.

LOL, and you just assume that I support this woman.

"Support" was not the word I used. Learn to read.

I didn't say Sheehan was doing this for personal gain. In fact, I understood her cause in the beginning.

But why let the liberal media take your cause and make it a huge media circus? Why not just quietly ask for the president's attention and then go home again after a day or two? Why's it got to be a huge controversy like this?

That's what I don't understand.

So I intrepret it as selfishness, because if she's still too dense to understand why her son decided on his own accord to go serve in Iraq, she'll never understand even if someone pounds her on the head with the brick of reason.

Again, it goes back to playing the game, which is what she's doing. She still wants the meeting, and she is hoping that if enough people agree with her, even if it only is because they see it on the news, the President might change his mind. She forgets that this President has never changed his mind about anything, except perhaps why the American soldiers were going into Iraq (I'm a centrist, I swear! The shot was just too easy.), which is why she isn't getting anywhere. She's still clinging to the hope that he'll give in and see her.

But why let the liberal media take your cause and make it a huge media circus?
To quote Maddox, on the "liberal media":

To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

Does she have control over how much the media exploits her? I don't think so.

Ragbralbur: I admire your eloquency. :)

Does she have control over how much the media exploits her? I don't think so.
Exactly. I mean, it's not like the was was really popular and then Cindy Sheehan came along and ruined it for the Republicans. This war has rarely had more than 50% support, and has been below 40% for the last few months.

She's only a story because Bush allowed her to become one. He could have met her on the first day or two and she would have gone home, maybe have gotten a mention or two in a local paper and it would have been over.

Now Bush is up against a wall. He can't go out and greet her now because to do so would be a sign of weakness, and what's left of his base would eat him alive. And yet every day he avoids the confrontation, he gets ridiculed and mocked, which is a welcome change from the lapdog treatment he's gotten the last five years.

And as a liberal, if Cindy Sheehan is to be our face, we could do a lot worse.

Ragbralbur: I admire your eloquency. :)

Thank you, but the real test is if it convinces you of anything.

Lyric

1. The man has a masters degree. He's worked more than a lot of people in this country, and lets face it, being the President is hard work.

Ya, ceruiosly ppl, hes proly alot mor smert than u r. He has 2 make bgi desisions n shit.


2. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, you poor, scapegoating, misguided son of a bitch.

I smell FLAMEWAR!!!


3. The right thing. Fighting against a threat to our country. Think Jefferson and Tripoli, not a direct threat at that point in time, but could have become one at any time. And the "War on Terror" doesn't have to be just about 9/11. It's about all terrorism.

I absolutely agree. The best kind of war is one with no definite ending or timetable. Almost like ... dare I say it ... VIETNAM! Only this time with a twist: we declare war on an abstract concept! And didn't you hear, our noble administration has plans to rename our righteous struggle. Probably to something like "The War Against Satan" or "The War Against Human Sin." Victory has never seemed nearer!

4. Oil prices worldwide are going up, not just here, so its more than just a United States problem.

Yikes. Good thing the good old USA has them old fields under military guard. Ain't nobody gettin' that oil but us.

5. It still isn't illegal, the bill was passed, and Bush didn't lie intentionally. If you believe he did, you're probably dumb enough to think we didn't actually land on the moon. (and don't you dare through moron conspiracy theory into this)

Yeah! Not Bush's fault ... gotta get those WMDs! Wait, I mean liberate the Iraqis ...

6. Well, I hate stupid bastards that whine about everything and expect the everything to come easy to them if they don't work. In short, I hate liberals.

Definitely. No liberal ever did an honest day's work in their life.

You people need to understand that our beloved president communicates directly with GOD. God has approved the occupation of Iraq. Some loser liberal like Cindy Sheehan is deservedly absent from God's agenda ... president Bush should just ignore her. Under no circumstances should he grow a pair and speak with her, empathize with her concerns, or even try and convince her that her son's death meant something. He should CERTAINLY not feel any personal responsibility or moral obligation to reconcile her loss. And assuredly not if that means exposing the rationale for his war to public or even PRIVATE criticism.

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)



You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.
Careful with the name-calling. It's not necessary and can get you a warning from the mods.

:c

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

I wrote this earlier.

Let the battle... I mean, informed debate... on the topic begin. ;)

Agree? Disagree? Am I too inflammatory? Is this just a load of propagandist bullshit?

Whatever you think, lemme know, and I'll try and keep this thread going.

--Hannah
True, at least in part, and agree, at least in part. But one of the blogger's conclusions was incorrect: it's not because the left can't understand ... they understand quite well. It's because they don't want to face the contradictions in their own positions that they won't listen when someone tries to explain to them.

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there. For the present, it means gleefully dancing on soldier's graves.

Liberals? You're not talking about the US democrats?

True, at least in part, and agree, at least in part. But one of the blogger's conclusions was incorrect: it's not because the left can't understand ... they understand quite well. It's because they don't want to face the contradictions in their own positions that they won't listen when someone tries to explain to them.

Why does the right have this common misconception about the War in Iraq? The left isn't annoyed at you because we're there overall. In fact, the general idea of liberating the Iraqi people is one that many, many people on the left support. They take issue with how we got there. The War In Iraq was one of the biggest American intelligence blunders in the last fifty years. We consistently saw what we thought was fact questioned and then downright disproven. I offer you this alternate scenario. Had the President stood up on day one of his attempt to convince the American people to go to war with Iraq and done so entirely on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a bad man that killed his own people and forced them to live in penury as he lined his pockets and that we had a moral imperative to help these people, it would have been the left that went along with his proposal before the right. That's what Tony Blair, leader of the far more left-leaning Labour Party in Great Britain did. Though he occaisionally gave the WMD rhetoric, he appealed the British voters on the moral imperative of helping those in need. I would contend that had he stayed away from WMD altogether he would have higher approval ratings than he does right now.

I would just like to say that if those who say they support Cindy Sheehan don't support her stated goals, she's just a tool to be used then. A throw away.

In the forums I belong to, I know of several people who say they support Cindy but oppose the idea of immediate withdrawal from Iraq which Cindy is fighting for. Are these people truly supporting her or are they just using her to apply pressure to Congress and the Adminstration in the hopes they would come forward with an exit plan such as what Sen. Feingold proposed?

Another example of people using Cindy is the flare up over the letter to ABC. According to Mrs. Sheehan, a (now former) friend changed part of it without her knowledge in an effort to futher his own agenda.

Why does the right have this common misconception about the War in Iraq? The left isn't annoyed at you because we're there overall. In fact, the general idea of liberating the Iraqi people is one that many, many people on the left support. They take issue with how we got there. The War In Iraq was one of the biggest American intelligence blunders in the last fifty years. We consistently saw what we thought was fact questioned and then downright disproven. I offer you this alternate scenario. Had the President stood up on day one of his attempt to convince the American people to go to war with Iraq and done so entirely on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a bad man that killed his own people and forced them to live in penury as he lined his pockets and that we had a moral imperative to help these people, it would have been the left that went along with his proposal before the right. That's what Tony Blair, leader of the far more left-leaning Labour Party in Great Britain did. Though he occaisionally gave the WMD rhetoric, he appealed the British voters on the moral imperative of helping those in need. I would contend that had he stayed away from WMD altogether he would have higher approval ratings than he does right now.
I don't know how I'd feel about that. But worldwide, there would probably be much more support. It's insane that there are so many connections linking the Bush administration to control over the oil, no contract bids to companies like Halliburton and so forth, only to have the Right try to convince the Left that everything is peachy. There were many people (both left and right) who disagreed with Bush that there WMDs in Iraq. A post invasion site is found and they're saying, "We were right!"??? Take the CIA's suggestion to Bush that even if Saddam did have WMD, he wouldn't use it unless pushed into a corner. Bush has made the world less safe and succeeded in winning people over to organizations like Al Qaida in an effort to join the fight against our empire. This entire situation could have been handled better and without all this bloodshed. Bush needs to say that a big mistake was made. And he needs to apologize to the rest of us whom he placed in greater danger than there was previously.

I would just like to say that if those who say they support Cindy Sheehan don't support her stated goals, she's just a tool to be used then. A throw away.

In the forums I belong to, I know of several people who say they support Cindy but oppose the idea of immediate withdrawal from Iraq which Cindy is fighting for. Are these people truly supporting her or are they just using her to apply pressure to Congress and the Adminstration in the hopes they would come forward with an exit plan such as what Sen. Feingold proposed?

Another example of people using Cindy is the flare up over the letter to ABC. According to Mrs. Sheehan, a (now former) friend changed part of it without her knowledge in an effort to futher his own agenda.
You need to acquire a more complex view of the world.

I would just like to say that if those who say they support Cindy Sheehan don't support her stated goals, she's just a tool to be used then. A throw away.

In the forums I belong to, I know of several people who say they support Cindy but oppose the idea of immediate withdrawal from Iraq which Cindy is fighting for. Are these people truly supporting her or are they just using her to apply pressure to Congress and the Adminstration in the hopes they would come forward with an exit plan such as what Sen. Feingold proposed?

Perhaps you misunderstand these people. Chances are they support her right to protest and state what she believes in, even if they disagree, and they respect her for having such strong convictions, again, even if they disagree.

Besides that, you can support some of her goals without supporting all of them. One of her goals is to bring some accountability to this war, and while I think the war was fundamentally a good idea, it has been severely mismanaged at certain points along the way. That's a goal I certainly support, and its a goal I support her in trying to achieve. On the other hand, I think American troops should stay as long as necessary to accomplish the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. That means I support some of her goals, but not all of them. Were I to meet her, I would tell her just that.

It's insane that there are so many connections linking the Bush administration to control over the oil, no contract bids to companies like Halliburton and so forth, only to have the Right try to convince the Left that everything is peachy. There were many people (both left and right) who disagreed with Bush that there WMDs in Iraq. A post invasion site is found and they're saying, "We were right!"??? Take the CIA's suggestion to Bush that even if Saddam did have WMD, he wouldn't use it unless pushed into a corner.

*snip*

You see, Etrusca? The left takes exception to the means, not the ends.

good god, i want to deck that woman. sure, it sucks that her son died. however, the US military is volunteer, and he made the choice. This is typical of people who utterly ignore an issue until it whacks them upside the face.

Those of us who serve do so for different reasons. We have to hope and trust that our leadership is not so insane that will go to war under the guise of fighting for freedom and security, and not do so to free up oil reserves and make rich oil-men richer. Oh, wait.
It seems to me that most people who get on here and blab about how great this war is have never gotten into uniform and gone anywhere to prove it. Perhaps it is time to pony up?

BUSH DOESN'T OWN AN OIL COMPANY! He sold off his interests quite some time ago, I believe.

Actually the oil company he ran went bankrupt. See, he runs your country the same way he ran that business. He's a lying sack of sh*t! (Bush that is)

Those of us who serve do so for different reasons. We have to hope and trust that our leadership is not so insane that will go to war under the guise of fighting for freedom and security, and not do so to free up oil reserves and make rich oil-men richer. Oh, wait.
It seems to me that most people who get on here and blab about how great this war is have never gotten into uniform and gone anywhere to prove it. Perhaps it is time to pony up?
Amen. http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

The Cindy Sheehan protest has gotten alot of press but I believe it's more hype then substance and that may be because August is usually a slow news month.

Below is a link to a site where there's a very good picture of the Bush Ranch and where Camp Casey is in relation to it (have to scroll down a bit). Searching other sources, I've found that Camp Casey is a little over 3 miles from the Bush house and there's usually about a 100 protestors there at any given time. Looking at the pic and considering the number of protestors, Bush isn't exactly being besieged by them as some reports state.

http://cryptome.org/brp/bush-ranch2.htm

The new camp, Camp Casey II, is about 2.5 miles to the right of the Bush house.

In regards to the numbers of protestors, many left leaning sites talk of hundreds of them but most MSM sources say about a 100, more or less. I've also looked at probably dozens of pictures taken in and around Camp Casey and in not one of them have I seen very large group of people.

The Cindy Sheehan protest has gotten alot of press but I believe it's more hype then substance and that may be because August is usually a slow news month.

Below is a link to a site where there's a very good picture of the Bush Ranch and where Camp Casey is in relation to it (have to scroll down a bit). Searching other sources, I've found that Camp Casey is a little over 3 miles from the Bush house and there's usually about a 100 protestors there at any given time. Looking at the pic and considering the number of protestors, Bush isn't exactly being besieged by them as some reports state.

http://cryptome.org/brp/bush-ranch2.htm

The new camp, Camp Casey II, is about 2.5 miles to the right of the Bush house.

In regards to the numbers of protestors, many left leaning sites talk of hundreds of them but most MSM sources say about a 100, more or less. I've also looked at probably dozens of pictures taken in and around Camp Casey and in not one of them have I seen very large group of people.
They are about a mile away. http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=CDB8DC02-0A4F-4885-968F-89EB864B5D82

And what does that have to do with anything anyway?

And yet another video...

This one is pretty lengthy, but the guy who made it, talked to a bunch of the people there protesting. If you have the time, you should watch it. It's not the best looking video, but it makes a good point.

One Day at Camp Casey (http://homepage.mac.com/godofkarma/swimmerfilms/iMovieTheater75.html)

5. It still isn't illegal, the bill was passed, and Bush didn't lie intentionally. The bill was passed with strings attached, such as that Bush get a broad amount of foreign support. He didn't. Furthermore, while he didn't lie intentionally, he did basically say that we was only interested in receiving intelligence that supported his case for war, and he deliberately ignored the rest.

So I intrepret it as selfishness, because if she's still too dense to understand why her son decided on his own accord to go serve in Iraq, she'll never understand even if someone pounds her on the head with the brick of reason.I haven't really been following the case, but did her son sign up to go to the military, or did he sign up to fight in Iraq? The two scenarios are completely different.

The bill was passed with strings attached, such as that Bush get a broad amount of foreign support. He didn't. Furthermore, while he didn't lie intentionally, he did basically say that we was only interested in receiving intelligence that supported his case for war, and he deliberately ignored the rest.

I haven't really been following the case, but did her son sign up to go to the military, or did he sign up to fight in Iraq? The two scenarios are completely different.
From what I understand he signed up to be in Iraq because he didn't want his friends to be without him.

From what I understand he signed up to be in Iraq because he didn't want his friends to be without him.That's an interesting reason, one that's completely neutral from whether or not he felt the war was justified or not.

Thoughts on this issue from an aspiring Political Scientist.

Now, I'm no fan of Bush and I'm no fan of the War with Iraq.... But I still can't help but laugh at those idiots who protest the war.

1st) No blood for oil. If those people knew what they were saying, they'd eat their words. People don't realize just how much we need oil in today's world. Our ENTIRE lifestyle would have to change if we weren't willing to put lives on the line for oil. To give you an idea, the Amish travel style might become more popular. Also, intercontinental travel would be dead as airplanes and ships have trouble opperating without oil... While i suppose you could run ships off coal, that would kill the environment... Which, for liberals, is just as bad as war. To add to that, many people in America would be STARVING now due to the lack of oil. Keep in mind that the farm lands of America (especally in the south) have been worked to death and are slowly become unuseable. Therefore, we need to import crops from other nations.... We can't very well do that without oil. Anti war slogen = slain.

Now to answer your question on Sheehan... First off, the rest of her family has disclaimed her saying that she's nuts. Secondly, she's just being used now like a rag tag doll by the liberal group MoveOn.org. Third, what does she hope to prove? The presidency is the most busy and stressful job one can hold. The president's idea of a vacation is waking up and hour later and having, maybe, 1 less staff meeting.... He has no time to waste with her. She, like most of these fools, will fade....
.
The Democrats aren't going to win back control of congress or the white house until they disown these fools.... The people who are beating the democrats are their own constituents.... To prove this, let's look at Micheal Moore. Micheal Moore and many other idiots like him are going around and ruining funerals for soldiers..... They support the Democrats and the Democrats have made no motion to disclaim him.... Would you, as a centrist, want to vote for a party who condones such actions?

My personal opinion is that Saddam Hussien wasn't a threat and we shouldn't have gone in.... But we're there now and we have to figure out a way to successfully get through this.

They are about a mile away. http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=CDB8DC02-0A4F-4885-968F-89EB864B5D82

And what does that have to do with anything anyway?

It appears that the original protestors are not moving to the new camp.

Minnesota Bloggers EllaGoes.com report that the original campers have decided to remain in the ditch. The new site (with huge tent) will be for concerts and code pink events… and MeetwithCindy.org says there is no parking (since we ‘lost’ the 212 acres) - so everyone must go to the Crawford Peace House for a shuttle ride. How many people are going to want to camp and leave their car 10 miles away in a town full of hornery rednecks? ZERO.

http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/08/20/divide-and-conquer/

Alex tells me that Camp Casey will stay put at the original site on Prairie Chapel Road.

The groups that started out in the ditch with Cindy Sheehan are also staying put. Gold Star Families for Peace. Veterans for Peace. Iraq Veterans Against the War. Military Families Speak Out. If I'm missing some, let me know.

The private ranch property offered by local residents will be the site for supporting events organized by Code Pink and other groups, including a concert this weekend.

The groups that first came to Crawford with Cindy Sheehan in search of answers still want those answers. And they're still in the ditch. And they're still waiting.

http://ellagoes.typepad.com/

Here's a link to a hand drawn map showing Camp Casey and the new camp. It appears that Camp Casey II is at the junction of Canaan Church Road and Prairie Chapel Road which is a distance of 2.5 miles to Mill Road. Mill Road is the access to Bush's Ranch. One can find these distances by using google or yahoo maps.

http://198.65.14.85/News/2005/31-40/33news15.htm

From what I understand he signed up to be in Iraq because he didn't want his friends to be without him.


It's been said in some articles that Casey liked the Army and wanted to make a career out of it.

It appears that the original protestors are not moving to the new camp.



http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/08/20/divide-and-conquer/



http://ellagoes.typepad.com/

Here's a link to a hand drawn map showing Camp Casey and the new camp. It appears that Camp Casey II is at the junction of Canaan Church Road and Prairie Chapel Road which is a distance of 2.5 miles to Mill Road. Mill Road is the access to Bush's Ranch. One can find these distances by using google or yahoo maps.

http://198.65.14.85/News/2005/31-40/33news15.htm
I haven't seen anything where they talk about the split you and these sources describe. There is a shuttle taking protestors to the new site. Like you said. How many of the protestors who are there protesting are going to go to where the protest is...? It's like a tongue twister.

Rathanan: What happens when we run out of oil?

I think Cindy Sheehan is GREAT!! Anything that fucks up Georgie-Porgie's little vacation, and makes that fucker THINK about what he's done, and what blood is on his hands...is a damn good thing. I hope they NEVER give him any peace. GWB doesn't deserve any. He got their sons and daughters killed in an illegal war for oil, that he wouldn't even send his own daughters to...he wouldn't fight himself, when he had the chance...but he can strut around in a flight suit and a codpiece on the deck of an aircraft carrier...or pose holding a fucking plastic turkey? fuck him, he deserves no peace, and I hope the Gold Star Families fucks up the entire rest of this miserable asshole's Presidency!Eloquent.

And, yes, I'm a liberal who absolutely DESPISES conservatives and Republicans.I am glad you have found an outlet for that passive-aggressive hate you have been suppressing while dealing with those customers at McDonalds all day.

Lyric

1. The man has a masters degree. He's worked more than a lot of people in this country, and lets face it, being the President is hard work.

2. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, you poor, scapegoating, misguided son of a bitch.

3. The right thing. Fighting against a threat to our country. Think Jefferson and Tripoli, not a direct threat at that point in time, but could have become one at any time. And the "War on Terror" doesn't have to be just about 9/11. It's about all terrorism.

4. Oil prices worldwide are going up, not just here, so its more than just a United States problem.

5. It still isn't illegal, the bill was passed, and Bush didn't lie intentionally. If you believe he did, you're probably dumb enough to think we didn't actually land on the moon. (and don't you dare through moron conspiracy theory into this)

6. Well, I hate stupid bastards that whine about everything and expect the everything to come easy to them if they don't work. In short, I hate liberals.

1. He has the lowest IQ of any man who has ever served as President. He got C's at Harvard and Yale, and they wouldn't have let him in, except that it was a legacy admission...and he probably didn't even do a lot of the work to get the grades he got, he was too busy pumping coke up his nose, and waving pom-poms.

2. You get one warning from me. You will not call me a son of a bitch, or any other name, ever again. Agree or disagree with me all you want, I WILL NOT TOLERATE PERSONAL ATTACKS. The next one gets reported to a Mod, understand?

3. You are comparing apples to oranges. Bush went after Iraq for oil, and because it would be an easy conquest, or so he thought...and since he could not get OSAMA...and thirdly, he went to war with Iraq to avenge his daddy. Which is why I still call the War on Iraq "Operation Anigo Montoya."

4. And your point is what, exactly?

5. Like hell he didn't lie intentionally. Ever hear of the Downing Street Memo?? "The facts were being fixed around the policy." That one statement sounds to me as if only facts that fitted the policy (a course of action already decided upon) were even being considered...and other facts were being twisted and distorted to fit neatly around the already-decided-upon policy.

As for the moon thing, I'm not even going to go there. It happened before I was born, I have no way to prove that we did, or did not, go to the moon, and I happen to believe that we DID.

6. Well I hate people who want to make MY PRIVATE LIFE their personal business, and want to legislate what I can, or cannot do...in my own damn bedroom. In short, I hate conservatives.

And, remember...you have been warned about personal attacks. I will not tolerate another one. I have no desire to get anyone in trouble with the Mods, but I am not going to take personal attacks, just because you happen to have a different political opinion than I do. I attack the leaders, I attack the ideology...I DO NOT ATTACK INDIVIDUAL POSTERS by calling them names.

And I will not tolerate any such behavior, either. As with everyone else here, you get one warning, like this, before I go to Mods. You have had yours. I expect more civil discourse out of you in the future. YOU WILL NOT CALL ME A SON OF A BITCH, EVER AGAIN...GOT IT??

I attack the leaders, I attack the ideology...I DO NOT ATTACK INDIVIDUAL POSTERS by calling them names.

Sematics. You state your hatred for someone based on thier political affiliation. That is hate speech.

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there. For the present, it means gleefully dancing on soldier's graves.


As opposed to gleefully mowing down (with a pick'em up truck) the memorial crosses of those who died in this illegal war? Larry Northern, anyone??

I haven't seen anything where they talk about the split you and these sources describe. There is a shuttle taking protestors to the new site. Like you said. How many of the protestors who are there protesting are going to go to where the protest is...? It's like a tongue twister.

Here's another source that talks about the two camps.

The news is that we now have two camps. Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II. The liberals are taking over Crawford county! :) It seemed there were to many people that wanted to stay and that Camp Casey II couldn't accomodate all of them. So it was decided to split the vigil up and now we have two camps and growing. By the end of August all of America will be at Georges doorstep. Buddy said they had approx. 250-300 at both Camp Casey I and Camp Casey II, thats not to mention those at the Peace House in Crawford.
He said that they had about 150 staying the night at Camp Casey II and another 200 staying at Camp Casey I.

http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.com/index.php?act=ST&f=81&t=1712&st=0

As opposed to gleefully mowing down (with a pick'em up truck) the memorial crosses of those who died in this illegal war? Larry Northern, anyone??
Oh, so now you arre in favor of crosses? And by the way, the vast majority of those names on those crosses were of people who would not want thier names put up in some liberal sham "memorial", and would oppose the lies spewed by those who put up the sham "memorial".

Eloquent.

I am glad you have found an outlet for that passive-aggressive hate you have been suppressing while dealing with those customers at McDonalds all day.

You are now officillay warned by me that any future personal attack will be reported to a Mod. I will not tolerate it.

agree or disagree with me as you will...I attack your leaders, and your ideology...BUT NOT YOUR PERSON!! I expect the same level of courtesy and civil discourse in return. You have now gotten your one warning from me. future personal attacks will be reported to Mods for action. I don't have to take this sort of shit from you, and from here forward, I won't. Get it?

You are now officillay warned by me that any future personal attack will be reported to a Mod. I will not tolerate it.

agree or disagree with me as you will...I attack your leaders, and your ideology...BUT NOT YOUR PERSON!! I expect the same level of courtesy and civil discourse in return. You have now gotten your one warning from me. future personal attacks will be reported to Mods for action. I don't have to take this sort of shit from you, and from here forward, I won't. Get it?You are a master of hate speech and victimization. Your masters at the moveon.org must be so proud. Any future reference to christians, republicans and conservatives is a direct assualt on me, and a personal attack, and will be reported to a Mod. I will not tolerate it.

1. He has the lowest IQ of any man who has ever served as President. He got C's at Harvard and Yale, and they wouldn't have let him in, except that it was a legacy admission...and he probably didn't even do a lot of the work to get the grades he got, he was too busy pumping coke up his nose, and waving pom-poms.
?


The low IQ story got debunked a few years ago already.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Sematics. You state your hatred for someone based on thier political affiliation. That is hate speech.

And you do the same when you speak your hatred of liberals. That is not a personal attack. That is attacking an ideology that you do not happen to agree with. You called me, personally, a son of a bitch. THAT is an open personal attack. And such attacks will not be tolerated. Understand?

On Edit: Mea Culpa. It was DeeEm who called me a son of a bitch. You, on the other hand, made the snarky comment about McDonald's...which I do not work at...and NEVER have worked for, in my entire life. In either case...both were takern by me as personal attacks, and both of you have received your one warning from me. Future personal attacks will be reported to Mods.

Attack my ideology and the leaders who share it all you wish. Attack my message all you wish. You will not attack me personally. Do I make myself perfectly clear?

And you do the same when you speak your hatred of liberals. That is not a personal attack. That is attacking an ideology that you do not happen to agree with. You called me, personally, a son of a bitch. THAT is an open personal attack. And such attacks will not be tolerated. Understand?
See, now you are lying about me, and what I said. I am going to have to report you to the mods.

Oh, so now you arre in favor of crosses? And by the way, the vast majority of those names on those crosses were of people who would not want thier names put up in some liberal sham "memorial", and would oppose the lies spewed by those who put up the sham "memorial".

When was I ever against crosses? and even if I were, what difference does that make? My point is that you accuse us liberals of "dancing on soldier's graves" which we do not do....and yet, you can't take it when I point out your side's hypocrisy when one of your guys goes and mows down the memorial crosses...and that is perfectly fine. That is okay, but "dancing on the soldier's graves" isn't?

I get it now. Anything YOUR PEOPLE do is okay, but anything MY PEOPLE do is abhorrent. Pot...meet kettle.

Anyways, I happen to be a Unitarian Christian, so what problem would I have with crosses? what I DO have a problem with is people who twist what the Bible says, and then uses that twisted text to justify hatred, bigotry, and prejudice against their fellow man, and then justifies it by hiding behind the cross. THAT I do have a problem with.

'Tis a sad time in the general forums, wot with all you bickering about this and that.

You are a master of hate speech and victimization. Your masters at the moveon.org must be so proud. Any future reference to christians, republicans and conservatives is a direct assualt on me, and a personal attack, and will be reported to a Mod. I will not tolerate it.
Go ahead. Report me. I'm well within my rights. I can attack groups, ideologies, and leaders with whom I disagree. and the Mods will back me up on that. What one cannot do, is direct a personal attack against another poster.

I can go on about hating conservatives all I want, and I can call George Bush a son of a bitch and an asshole. That is perfectly within the rules of NS. Calling another player a son of a bitch, however, is a violation of the rules. And your snarky comment about McDonald's would also be interpreted as a personal attack, and be judged as flamebaiting.

I did you the courtesy of warning you myself this time. Because I don't really have a desire to get others (especially people I disagree with) in trouble, and I have no interest, really, in having Mods fight my battle for me. However, I wil;l not tolerate a direct personal attack from you again. You have been once warned. Don't push me. I didn't have to warn you. And if you push much harder, I'll recind the warning, and directly report the snarky McDonald's comment right now.

You are getting a free pass from me. Don't blow it.

I am 51% sweetheart and 49% bitch....don't push me.

Anyways, I happen to be a Unitarian Christian, so what problem would I have with crosses?
Is this how one Christian speaks about another?

How COULD GWB collect any intelligence?? He has nowhere to KEEP it!!

If I only had a braaaaaiiiiinnnn....

I think Cindy Sheehan is GREAT!! Anything that fucks up Georgie-Porgie's little vacation, and makes that fucker THINK about what he's done, and what blood is on his hands...is a damn good thing. I hope they NEVER give him any peace. GWB doesn't deserve any. He got their sons and daughters killed in an illegal war for oil, that he wouldn't even send his own daughters to...he wouldn't fight himself, when he had the chance...but he can strut around in a flight suit and a codpiece on the deck of an aircraft carrier...or pose holding a fucking plastic turkey? fuck him, he deserves no peace, and I hope the Gold Star Families fucks up the entire rest of this miserable asshole's Presidency!

And, yes, I'm a liberal who absolutely DESPISES conservatives and Republicans.

See, now you are lying about me, and what I said. I am going to have to report you to the mods.

and you will also notice that I IMMEDIATELY edited the post, and corrected it...leaving my original error in there. I like to think I'm woman enough to own up to it when I'm wrong. I realized that it was DeeEm who had called me a son of a bitch....and that it was YOU who'd made the snarky McDonald's comment. In either case, you both got persoanl warnings from me.

Don't push it. I didn't have to do that. I did so out of the goodness of my heart. You want me to report you to a Mod, keep up your personal attacks, and I will.

Go ahead. Report me. I'm well within my rights. I can attack groups, ideologies, and leaders with whom I disagree. and the Mods will back me up on that. What one cannot do, is direct a personal attack against another poster.

I can go on about hating conservatives all I want, and I can call George Bush a son of a bitch and an asshole. That is perfectly within the rules of NS. Calling another player a son of a bitch, however, is a violation of the rules. And your snarky comment about McDonald's would also be interpreted as a personal attack, and be judged as flamebaiting.

I did you the courtesy of warning you myself this time. Because I don't really have a desire to get others (especially people I disagree with) in trouble, and I have no interest, really, in having Mods fight my battle for me. However, I wil;l not tolerate a direct personal attack from you again. You have been once warned. Don't push me. I didn't have to warn you. And if you push much harder, I'll recind the warning, and directly report the snarky McDonald's comment right now.

You are getting a free pass from me. Don't blow it.

I am 51% sweetheart and 49% bitch....don't push me.
See, that is where you are wrong. Any namecalling of conservatives and republicans is a personal attack on me. Don't let your hate control you. If you take soo much offense to that McDonalds crack, report it. I pity you. You can attack all day long, but the moment anyone repsonds to your crap, you cut and paste your little warning, and then report, report, report. Amazing. and sad.

and you will also notice that I IMMEDIATELY edited the post, and corrected it...leaving my original error in there. I like to think I'm woman enough to own up to it when I'm wrong. I realized that it was DeeEm who had called me a son of a bitch....and that it was YOU who'd made the snarky McDonald's comment. In either case, you both got persoanl warnings from me.

Don't push it. I didn't have to do that. I did so out of the goodness of my heart. You want me to report you to a Mod, keep up your personal attacks, and I will.
Typical. You can dish the hate all day long, but the moment anyone says anything to you...

Is this how one Christian speaks about another?

I don't really understand your question. To me, a Christian is one who follows the TEACHINGS OF JESUS. Most who claim Christianity fail this particular test. Because they justify bigotry, hatred and prejudice in God and Jesus's name, while claiming to be Christian. Nowhere in my Bible did I see JESUS advocate hatred, bigotry, or prejudice.

Thus, those who practice such baehavior, and justify it in the name of Christianity, are, in my book, not Christian. By definition, they cannot be, for they are failing to follow the most basic teachings of JESUS.

Make what you want out of what I just said. There is no personal attack in my words. If you happen to feel that the shoe fits you a little too comfortably, then that is your problem.

See, that is where you are wrong. Any namecalling of conservatives and republicans is a personal attack on me. Don't let your hate control you. If you take soo much offense to that McDonalds crack, report it. I pity you. You can attack all day long, but the moment anyone repsonds to your crap, you cut and paste your little warning, and then report, report, report. Amazing. and sad.

No, it is not a personal attack. Any more than you and all those of your ilk making comments about liberals. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander.

so if my comments about conservatives are a personal attack (and they are not) then YOUR comments about liberals would also have to be considered a personal attack. Or is it only okay for YOUR PEOPLE to make such comments about liberals...but we liberals are not allowed to make comments back about conservatives?

I don't really understand your question. To me, a Christian is one who follows the TEACHINGS OF JESUS. Most who claim Christianity fail this particular test. Because they justify bigotry, hatred and prejudice in God and Jesus's name, while claiming to be Christian. Nowhere in my Bible did I see JESUS advocate hatred, bigotry, or prejudice.

Thus, those who practice such baehavior, and justify it in the name of Christianity, are, in my book, not Christian. By definition, they cannot be, for they are failing to follow the most basic teachings of JESUS.

Make what you want out of what I just said. There is no personal attack in my words. If you happen to feel that the shoe fits you a little too comfortably, then that is your problem.
I am glad I have finally met the one true authority on all things Christian.

Hypocrisy is a chronic disease.

Typical. You can dish the hate all day long, but the moment anyone says anything to you...

Actually, that is more typical of people on your side of the aisle...

Want examples??

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity...the idiot who walked off CNN last week in a huff, Michael Savage, etc etc etc.

Actually, that is more typical of people on your side of the aisle...

Want examples??

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity...the idiot who walked off CNN last week in a huff, Michael Savage, etc etc etc.
AL Franken, Michael Moore, Barbara Striesand, Blah Blah Blah. It is more typical of those on your side of the Aisle...

This is childish, your opinion is childish, you are ignored.

I am glad I have finally met the one true authority on all things Christian.

Hypocrisy is a chronic disease.
I never claimed to be an authority. I merely said that I do not consider such people to be Christians. How can they be Christians? By definition, a Christian is one who follows JESUS. And, if you are committing acts of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice...and justifying it in the name of Christianity (which Jesus never taught) then how can you be following the teaching of Christ...ergo, how can you possibly be a Christian?

I merely said I do not consider them to be Christians. I do not validate their claim to it. I never claimed to be an authority. i'm merely making a value judgement. And even the Bible says, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." Well, I have seen the fruits of many of the type of people I am talking about....and it is by those fruits that I know them...and I do not accept their claim on Christianity.

Now, where in there have I ever claimed to be an authority of any kind?

I'm merely stating my own judghement, and my own opinion.

AL Franken, Michael Moore, Barbara Striesand, Blah Blah Blah. It is more typical of those on your side of the Aisle...

This is childish, your opinion is childish, you are ignored.

Good riddance.

Surprised to see that this thread is still going. I am on a hotel computer in Canada right now so this could be a bit awkward, since there are several people currently reading this on a TV screen.

1) I am all for civil discourse. I must admit it though, we are having a pretty good laugh from the WebTV in the room over someone or other calling me an idiot or an ignoramus or something, since we all just LOVE that song American Idiot here.. played it all the way to Canada.

2) Let me just clarify something here. President Bush and Cindy Sheehan did meet once in 2004, before this was huge news, and Cindy said she understood and genuinely believed W's reasoning for the War in Iraq. This has been proved, but since I can only have one window open at a time on this thing, I'm not going to bother finding it. This is my (working) vacation, you know. ;) Cindy Sheehan has just been corrupted, I guess, so... meh.

Typical. You can dish the hate all day long, but the moment anyone says anything to you...
And later that day...
AL Franken, Michael Moore, Barbara Striesand, Blah Blah Blah. It is more typical of those on your side of the Aisle...

This is childish, your opinion is childish, you are ignored.

*sigh*

I liked it better when the conversation included someone calling my writing eloquent. Now this thread isn't worth reading anymore.

See, that is where you are wrong. Any namecalling of conservatives and republicans is a personal attack on me. Don't let your hate control you. If you take soo much offense to that McDonalds crack, report it. I pity you. You can attack all day long, but the moment anyone repsonds to your crap, you cut and paste your little warning, and then report, report, report. Amazing. and sad.
That bolded part is bullshit and you know it, and even if you don't, no mod on this board will back you up on it.

Besides, if it were true, you'd have been deleted a long time ago for your disparaging remarks about liberals which seem to pop up in damn near every post you write. So pick your poison, bub--either deal with the criticism of conservatives or shut your mouth about liberals.

The military is volunteer, but no one expected a real war. And no one expected something like this. I wish more people would join with her and they formed a mob.

That bolded part is bullshit and you know it, and even if you don't, no mod on this board will back you up on it.

Besides, if it were true, you'd have been deleted a long time ago for your disparaging remarks about liberals which seem to pop up in damn near every post you write. So pick your poison, bub--either deal with the criticism of conservatives or shut your mouth about liberals.

Exactly what I tried to tell him. either deal with the criticism of conservatives, or shut it about liberals. He can't have it both ways, though he is trying to. Again, typical of his side of the aisle.

Again, typical of his side of the aisle.

You just couldn't resist the last jab, could you? So close, and yet so far away...

People, war is always a possibility when America is provoked. Even when other nations insult us diplomatically, we make the threat. You kill 3000 Americans by crashing planes into the World Trade Center, and it's not a threat, it's a command.

The war is on TERROR, not against Iraq. That is a mistake liberals often make: "Iraq didn't provoke us, why are we in war against Iraq?!" No, Iraq didn't provoke us, but they were enabling the provokers, and part of the root of the problem. That's why we're going to war against TERROR in IRAQ. (Not against Iraq.)

Now, this war isn't going to end in five years, even twelve. We will eventually get out of Iraq, but may I take the radical stance here to say that this is a world war on terrorism?

Liberals don't want to believe that terrorists are the enemy, only that they're scary. (Well, duh, that's why they're called TERRORISTS.) But the truth is, whether the American liberals will accept it or not, that the people fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan are not "insurgents". They are the terrorists, AKA... the ENEMY.

They are the enemy because they want to kill you. They won't take pity on you if even if you are a loving, caring, liberal. You could be a radical Muslim American, and they would still hate you, because of that whole 'American' part, you know. They hate Americans. They see Americans as they enemy. They want us all to die. It makes me cringe every time I hear some crackheaded liberal commentator on TV talk about how the terror suspect in Gitmo are being abused and shit because we're supposedly violating their "rights" (when obviously, just by being terrorists, they've already violated ours) when I watched the video footage recorded on the investigation that Hillary Clinton and McCain and a few others did of Gitmo. The lunches we serve to American students who are not enemy combatants or terror suspects in public schools are much, much, worse than the fare served to the ENEMY at Gitmo.

The war on terror does not end with Iraq.

The war on terror ends when the enemy has been defeated.

Namely, the terrorists.

Terrorism will never go away as long as there are people out there who hate America and what America stands for. It doesn't end with Iraq, because as long as America is one of the dominating superpowers in our world shaping people's lives, people will disagree, and some of them will hate us and want to kill us.

I guess it's the never-ending war.

People, war is always a possibility when America is provoked. Even when other nations insult us diplomatically, we make the threat. You kill 3000 Americans by crashing planes into the World Trade Center, and it's not a threat, it's a command.

The war is on TERROR, not against Iraq. That is a mistake liberals often make: "Iraq didn't provoke us, why are we in war against Iraq?!" No, Iraq didn't provoke us, but they were enabling the provokers, and part of the root of the problem. That's why we're going to war against TERROR in IRAQ. (Not against Iraq.)

Now, this war isn't going to end in five years, even twelve. We will eventually get out of Iraq, but may I take the radical stance here to say that this is a world war on terrorism?

Liberals don't want to believe that terrorists are the enemy, only that they're scary. (Well, duh, that's why they're called TERRORISTS.) But the truth is, whether the American liberals will accept it or not, that the people fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan are not "insurgents". They are the terrorists, AKA... the ENEMY.

They are the enemy because they want to kill you. They won't take pity on you if even if you are a loving, caring, liberal. You could be a radical Muslim American, and they would still hate you, because of that whole 'American' part, you know. They hate Americans. They see Americans as they enemy. They want us all to die. It makes me cringe every time I hear some crackheaded liberal commentator on TV talk about how the terror suspect in Gitmo are being abused and shit because we're supposedly violating their "rights" (when obviously, just by being terrorists, they've already violated ours) when I watched the video footage recorded on the investigation that Hillary Clinton and McCain and a few others did of Gitmo. The lunches we serve to American students who are not enemy combatants or terror suspects in public schools are much, much, worse than the fare served to the ENEMY at Gitmo.

The war on terror does not end with Iraq.

The war on terror ends when the enemy has been defeated.

Namely, the terrorists.

Terrorism will never go away as long as there are people out there who hate America and what America stands for. It doesn't end with Iraq, because as long as America is one of the dominating superpowers in our world shaping people's lives, people will disagree, and some of them will hate us and want to kill us.

I guess it's the never-ending war.

And yet Bush invaded Iraq and got re-elected on the premise of winning the "War on Terror." Which means that once again, he lied to the general public. Then again the American Public in general would excuse and condone Bush for anything up to and including murdering a prostitute in public. ("That filthy whore deserved it!!")

Terrorism will never go away as long as there are people out there who hate America and what America stands for. It doesn't end with Iraq, because as long as America is one of the dominating superpowers in our world shaping people's lives, people will disagree, and some of them will hate us and want to kill us.

You can put a full stop after "Terrorism will never go away". There is no way we can eradicate every terrorist threat from everyone. And it's not just America - countries are targeted all over the world. The War on Terror will be a never-ending and unwinnable war if it is continued in this manner. Even if we find and capture terrorists, new terrorists will spring up in their place. So what's the point? I can see the point of trying to capture a ringleader like Osama, whom we can possibly credit with crime and would hopefully cause some disruption in Al-Qaeda, but not trying to get every terrorist.

Yikes, this is supposed to be about Cindy Sheehan. Offtopic, sorry.

Murdering a prostitute in public? Bush couldn't get away with that. I mean, Nixon couldn't even evade the power of irritatingly whistleblowing nutters during the Watergate scandal, what makes you think Bush could get away with murdering a prostitute?

Bush can't even get on a bicycle without liberals finding something to complain about.

I didn't say a never-ending war on terror would be a good thing, mind you. I just said it was the only way to stamp 'em all out.

Really, we have been in a never-ending war on terror since the start of the Cold War.

From the 50's until the Berlin Wall fell, we were in a campaign against a different kind of terrorism: the fear that the Soviets would nuke us into the ground.

It's not the same kind of terrorism, but it was terrorism. Plain and simple. The enemy was usng people's fears to get people to try and give in. I.e. "Don't work to combat the spread of communism and oppression, because we will nuke you if you do." It obviously worked on SOME people.

The 90's weren't as peaceful as many believe. There was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole... terrorism. There was a bombing of one of our embassies... terrorism. But we gave into our fears. We wouldn't fight back.

Then in 2001 came the breaking point: Osama had a bunch of jihadists crash planes into the WTC. Scary. He did this in the hopes that the America people would back down and again, refuse to fight back as he worked to destroy our country.

But Bush wouldn't let that happen. Bush didn't want to back down. So he didn't. He prepared the nation for war...

And as usual, those ungrateful, selfish liberals hate him for fighting back against the people who want to bring about the failure of us as a nation by abusing our fears. How typical. How silly. How utterly Sheehanesque.

And as usual, those ungrateful, selfish liberals hate him for fighting back against the people who want to bring about the failure of us as a nation by abusing our fears. How typical. How silly. How utterly Sheehanesque.

How condescending of you. How about we concentrate on nabbing Osama so we can punish the man who is responsible for this crime? I don't see that happening any time soon, though.

Why, thank you. It was meant to be condescending. The truth hurts, doesn't it? The sudden realisation that hmm... maybe I'm not so wrong after all, but you've probably been busy calling Bush a liar and a cheater and a crook since he defeated Gore way back in 2000.

We should not concentrate all of our resources on finding Osama. Osama has already committed his big crime against America and the rest of the civilised world. It's done. It makes more sense to take out the operatives who can actually cause some mayhem and destruction in this country than their ringleader, who is hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan like the powerless, cowardly git he is.

Murdering a prostitute in public? Bush couldn't get away with that. I mean, Nixon couldn't even evade the power of irritatingly whistleblowing nutters during the Watergate scandal, what makes you think Bush could get away with murdering a prostitute?

Bush can't even get on a bicycle without liberals finding something to complain about.

Nixon never had the mindless popularity that Bush currently has. A Watergate investigation in Bush's presidency would be derided as a "Liberal Witch Hunt" and we would never know how deep the corruption was.

(re: decking Cindy Sheehan) 100% agreed.

I say you ought to do it. The more people see the blatant seething hatred and evil of the American right the more that they'll be shamed into voting with a conscience. Not necessarily their consciences, because anyone who's been conservative in this country this long doesn't have a conscience worth listening to. But shame, that'll do it as long as a mirror can be held up to show them the vileness of their own countenance. That's why conservatives made so much effort to control the media. As long as conservatives get to pretend that their opinion is the majority they won't feel ashamed of how utterly putrid their souls have become.

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

Don't lump me in with her. She is not my face and does not speak for me.

*voice in my ear*: Dude, chill ... don't reply based solely on the title.
Me: Quiet, you!

After reading this entire thread the only thing I have seen these anti-war and liberal Bush haters spout is "war for oil and lies, lies, lies." The same old tired rhetoric is just that... old and tired.

If you want to place the blame on people with oil interests then you are going to have to blame the entirety of the government, including your precious liberal friends. Last time I looked, Bush has also been trying to create alternative fuel sources (hydro fuel, solar energy, electric cars, etc) but has been stopped in congress by *gasp* liberal democrats.

And Bush did not lie. Saddam had WMD's, this is a known fact. Hell he used some of them against his own people. But o wait, this destroys liberal theories so we must ignore this. Saddam had broken UN sanctions and guidelines enough times that the UN should have "invaded" Iraq 10 years ago, but wait, again that goes against the liberal theory so please ignore.

And for those whining that Iraq has been a mistake, blame the media. They only report the bad news. How many reports have we seen or read about the schools being built or the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy. NEWSFLASH: people die in war, a sad fact but true none the less. But we need hear from the media about all the good things from Iraq. Saddam is gone, the people held elections, Iraq is forming its constitution, and there forces are slowly being built so they can defend themselves. All this happened in three years. A country has gone from tyrannical oppressive regime to near democratic regime. Of course there is going to be violent recourse from the former regime and its supporters but to accomplish what Iraq and the coalition forces have in such a short time is impressive.

I feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, it is a shame that people have had to die in order for freedom to be won in this world but at least they have died in a noble cause. People like Sheehan should be ashamed that they are making a mockery out of the unfortunate situation. Dissent with the war is fine, but using a son's death for pure politics is bull*.

People, war is always a possibility when America is provoked. Even when other nations insult us diplomatically, we make the threat. You kill 3000 Americans by crashing planes into the World Trade Center, and it's not a threat, it's a command.

The war is on TERROR, not against Iraq. That is a mistake liberals often make: "Iraq didn't provoke us, why are we in war against Iraq?!" No, Iraq didn't provoke us, but they were enabling the provokers, and part of the root of the problem. That's why we're going to war against TERROR in IRAQ. (Not against Iraq.)Which provokers were Iraq enabling? Not Al Qaida, that's for sure.


Terrorism will never go away as long as there are people out there who hate America and what America stands for. Terrorism will never go away as long as America sees fit to create more terrorists.

And Bush did not lie. Saddam had WMD's, this is a known fact. Hell he used some of them against his own people. But o wait, this destroys liberal theories so we must ignore this. Saddam had broken UN sanctions and guidelines enough times that the UN should have "invaded" Iraq 10 years ago, but wait, again that goes against the liberal theory so please ignore. Uh...no one has stated that Saddam never had WMDs. What was said was that Saddam no longer had WMDs. Of course he had WMDs, the US supported him in the 80s, and increased their support after he used them on his own people. (I'm not saying that the US increased their support because of Saddam gassing his own people, but I am saying that it happened in spite of Saddam gassing his own people.)

If you truly believe that Saddam no longer had WMD's then I pity you. And last I checked, when the US "backed" Saddam George W. Bush was not president. So he cannot be blamed for that president's actions.

People, war is always a possibility when America is provoked. Even when other nations insult us diplomatically, we make the threat. You kill 3000 Americans by crashing planes into the World Trade Center, and it's not a threat, it's a command.

The war is on TERROR, not against Iraq. That is a mistake liberals often make: "Iraq didn't provoke us, why are we in war against Iraq?!" No, Iraq didn't provoke us, but they were enabling the provokers, and part of the root of the problem. That's why we're going to war against TERROR in IRAQ. (Not against Iraq.)


Why don't you attack Saudi Arabia then? 10 of the hijackers were born and bred Saudis. How many were from Iraq? What links have been PROVEN between Saadam and Sept. 11?

WMDs on the Kurds? Look he used them on his own people....what concern of that is yours?! Oh thats nice- where was the US govts care for the common man when Rwanda was going on, Darfur, Srebrenica? Hypocrites.

And by the way, what in your mind is the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'.....hindsight?

Let's see... people who bomb and kill thousands of innocent civilians are freedom fighters? So I guess that makes Hitler the greatest freedom fighter in the last century. Nice to know that all those millions innocent people deserved to die. I'm so glad I learned something new today.

Let's see... people who bomb and kill thousands of innocent civilians are freedom fighters? So I guess that makes Hitler the greatest freedom fighter in the last century. Nice to know that all those millions innocent people deserved to die. I'm so glad I learned something new today.
Nice of you to stereotype both sides so easily.

1) Aceh rebels?
2) Tamil Tigers?
3) IRA?
4) ETA?
5) Hezb'allah?
6) FLN?
7) Maquis (French Resistance)?

Yes, your right, these groups all nicely fit into your boxes... better to deal with them that way, don't need to worry about their actual issues.

After reading this entire thread the only thing I have seen these anti-war and liberal Bush haters spout is "war for oil and lies, lies, lies." The same old tired rhetoric is just that... old and tired.

Its a strange reality wherein waging war for profit and lying is "old or tired", as if any saying that...it makes it ok.

If you want to place the blame on people with oil interests then you are going to have to blame the entirety of the government, including your precious liberal friends. Last time I looked, Bush has also been trying to create alternative fuel sources (hydro fuel, solar energy, electric cars, etc) but has been stopped in congress by *gasp* liberal democrats.

Thats becuase he wants to have the existing oil companies, control such efforts as opposed to opening up such markets to anyone who actually has good ideas.

And Bush did not lie. Saddam had WMD's, this is a known fact. Hell he used some of them against his own people. But o wait, this destroys liberal theories so we must ignore this. Saddam had broken UN sanctions and guidelines enough times that the UN should have "invaded" Iraq 10 years ago, but wait, again that goes against the liberal theory so please ignore.

Sigh...yes he had them. 20 years before we invaded.

If Bush had done his homework...he would have known that they werent there.

Bush didnt lie?

Ever see any of those mobile chemical weapons labs Bush claimed he had?

Or the thousands of gallons of VX chemical agent?

Oh thats right...we officially stopped looking for them...they arent there.
We know he had them..beucase we gave them to Saddam.

As for you daring to mention the UN...did it ever occur to you, that Bush used a UN resolution for his reason to invade, even against the wishes of the very same organization?

How can you justify that?

And for those whining that Iraq has been a mistake, blame the media. They only report the bad news. How many reports have we seen or read about the schools being built or the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy.

Its funny that you should use the word "reconstruction"...did you know that no Iraqi companies were given contracts to rebuild themselves?

Oddly....American companies like Haliburton did.
Weird huh?

NEWSFLASH: people die in war, a sad fact but true none the less. But we need hear from the media about all the good things from Iraq.

Such as?

Saddam is gone, the people held elections,

Yes.they were allowed to vote for candates they did not select..WOW..thats democracy.


Iraq is forming its constitution, and there forces are slowly being built so they can defend themselves.

Yah..and it looks like you havent been paying attention in that regard either...seems they cant agree on terms, and have filed for yet another extention of the deadline...seems the Khurds cant agree with the Sunni's.

You think maybe someone could have seen that one coming?

All this happened in three years. A country has gone from tyrannical oppressive regime to near democratic regime. Of course there is going to be violent recourse from the former regime and its supporters but to accomplish what Iraq and the coalition forces have in such a short time is impressive.

OH GOD BLESS JESUS, AND APPLE PIE!!!

Do you know what the first thing we did after ousting Saddam was?

Declare martial law.

Have you tried to get an accurate number of human casualties from there?
If you tell me yes, Im going to call you a liar.

Why?

You cant get one..its too hard to know wich source to believe.
Some papers report the total death counts almost 100,000 people.
Some as low as 8,000.

Why do you suppose that is?

Those people arent "free"..."free" means to be able to go outside, anyhwere you want, without fear of government harrasment , or any other kind, for that matter.

Do you think the average person in Iraq is safe in the streets?

We took away one evil dictator, and installed another, and if you truly belive anything else, your uniformed, or deluding yourself.


I feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, it is a shame that people have had to die in order for freedom to be won in this world but at least they have died in a noble cause. People like Sheehan should be ashamed that they are making a mockery out of the unfortunate situation. Dissent with the war is fine, but using a son's death for pure politics is bull*.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Using family members in such ways is truly sickening.

"He tried to kill my Dad."
-Dubya.

"Liberals would rather live in a peaceful, oppressed nation than have to die for democracy." -you

I don't agree, only because I would go much farther. Liberals would never die for democracy because they only believe in it insofar as it can get them to their socialist/communist Utopia. You have to keep in mind, the liberal left throughout the entire Cold war essentially propped up the Soviet Union by whatever means necessary. They want their own Soviet Union and they will do whatever it takes to get there.
If this is the case, then why does the liberal left stand for almost everything the Soviet Union was against?

I'm not surprised that a guy who quotes Ian Paisley says this. A typical desparate conservative.

Surely 2,000 men isn’t too high a price to pay for the freedom of others?
I am a left winger who supports the Iraq war but I think that most right-wingers who support it are a bunch of hypocritical trolls. This is a prime example. Why is the freedom of others worth thousands of lost lives, but the welfare of others is not worth thousands of tax dollars/euros?

Casey Sheehan's mother is useful to you exclusively because of the glory reflected upon her by her deceased son. So you "anti war" leftists turn her against her family and against her son's memory for no better reason than your desire to score cheap political points. And then when you have no further use for the poor demented fool you will abandon her in a way that leaves her nothing. And you wonder why we scorn you and intend to hold this against you?
This may not apply to you but it was the exact same story with Terri Schiavo.

Any group that attacks or promotes attacking civilian targets are terrorists. Just because you are fighting for your freedom does not mean you can kill anyone and everyone.

Any group that attacks or promotes attacking civilian targets are terrorists. Just because you are fighting for your freedom does not mean you can kill anyone and everyone.


As I said just a moment ago...do you have any number of Iraqi civillian casualties?

These people believe they are defending thier country from invasion.

Would you do any different?

Just because you are fighting for your freedom does not mean you can kill anyone and everyone.
Yes, yes it does.

"If you are not willing to die for freedom then remove it from your vocabulary." Same can be said for killing. Then i'm assuming you'd never kill someone to be free?? Phew, lucky you live now and not 150 years ago mate.

As I said just a moment ago...do you have any number of Iraqi civillian casualties?

These people believe they are defending thier country from invasion.

Would you do any different?

What i'd most like to know in regards to the Iraqi defenders is whether they have majority support from their fellow countrymen

Yes, yes it does.

"If you are not willing to die for freedom then remove it from your vocabulary." Same can be said for killing. Then i'm assuming you'd never kill someone to be free?? Phew, lucky you live now and not 150 years ago mate.

Killing innocents who are not holding you back is not needed for freedom. Killing those who fight back against you is more acceptable

What i'd most like to know in regards to the Iraqi defenders is whether they have majority support from their fellow countrymen


I cant answer that...but I can tell you that Bush's approval rating concerining Iraq has fallen to around 38%.

So, if they do not...neither does Bush.

Killing innocents who are not holding you back is not needed for freedom. Killing those who fight back against you is more acceptable
Interesting. How about agents of the state? Police? Ordinary citizens underneath but still an agent of the state. Legitmate targets? And yes, if i was being withheld my freedom i would do everything in my power (icluding killing and dying) to achieve freedom.

Sorry about the off topic, but its important to realise that bandying about the word 'terrorists' as an excuse doesn't cut it anymore. Spouting rhetoric doesn't legitimise your actions.

If you believe that the liberals with oil interests are playing their interests down than you are sadly mistaken. Hell they can't even pass up the opportunity to vote themselves some raises yet the national minumum wage is still horrifyingly low.

Is it so hard to believe that since the end of the Gulf War Saddam learned how to hide his WMD's. Hidden caches are supposed to be hidden. Also since the UN held up any and all actions involving Iraq he had plenty enough time to get these weapons out of the country. Use some common sense. Would a ruler like a Saddam willingly give up such an advantage as chemical weapons?

You truly believe that a country that suffered under a brutal oppression for over thirty years is going to be able to switch to democracy overnight? If you do you are just not living in reality. Once Saddam fell there was no power structure left. Not to declare martial law until the government could be rebuilt would have meant anarchy. O and all these disagreements within Iraq over the constitution is different from what? Any other democratic country that has different parties with different interests? Just look at this forum and you could tell how far any of us would get forming one single constitution. Democracy takes work. Look at the US. It took years to even get the basic constitution, not to mention a complete overhaul (Articles of Confederation anyone) and we still change the constitution from time to time.

Everyone loves democracy it seems... but no one wants to work for it.

Interesting. How about agents of the state? Police? Ordinary citizens underneath but still an agent of the state. Legitmate targets? And yes, if i was being withheld my freedom i would do everything in my power (icluding killing and dying) to achieve freedom.

Sorry about the off topic, but its important to realise that bandying about the word 'terrorists' as an excuse doesn't cut it anymore. Spouting rhetoric doesn't legitimise your actions.

The police accept that they are in a dangerous career that protects the laws of their country and are legitimate targets. Any of those who attack innocents such as women and children not directly linked to the government are terrorists. They aim to spread terror through their attacks in an attempt to force a withdrawal

At least Saddam was a secular ruler.....

Interesting. How about agents of the state? Police? Ordinary citizens underneath but still an agent of the state. Legitmate targets? And yes, if i was being withheld my freedom i would do everything in my power (icluding killing and dying) to achieve freedom.

Sorry about the off topic, but its important to realise that bandying about the word 'terrorists' as an excuse doesn't cut it anymore. Spouting rhetoric doesn't legitimise your actions.

So by you its ok to go out on the street and kill some poor schmo walking down the street to go to work. I would kill any man or woman trying to kill me but just some civilian doing nothing? No. That is exactly what terrorists do. Intentionally target civilians who have lifted a weapon in any action let alone at your so called freedom fighters. There is no excuse for these kinds of actions. And to believe that you condone such acts is sickening.

Civilians are not legitimate targets PERIOD.

The police accept that they are in a dangerous career that protects the laws of their country and are legitimate targets. Any of those who attack innocents such as women and children not directly linked to the government are terrorists. They aim to spread terror through their attacks in an attempt to force a withdrawal

Ah... true. I agree, which is why i don't agree with Hamas, but i do agree with Hezb'allah.
But then again.... there are no rules in war. Just guidelines to keep the big boys happy ;)

Ah... true. I agree, which is why i don't agree with Hamas, but i do agree with Hezb'allah.
But then again.... there are no rules in war. Just guidelines to keep the big boys happy ;)

Guidlines to keep everyone happy and prevent terrible events not just to keep superpowers happy. I dont care what aims a terrorist group has. Their aims may be honourable but their actions are disgusting

If you believe that the liberals with oil interests are playing their interests down than you are sadly mistaken. Hell they can't even pass up the opportunity to vote themselves some raises yet the national minumum wage is still horrifyingly low.

Your also forgeting that any such legislation would need to a 2/3 majority to pass.
In a republican controled house and senate..thats not hard.
Im afraid you cant blame those nasty liberals this time.

Is it so hard to believe that since the end of the Gulf War Saddam learned how to hide his WMD's. Hidden caches are supposed to be hidden. Also since the UN held up any and all actions involving Iraq he had plenty enough time to get these weapons out of the country. Use some common sense. Would a ruler like a Saddam willingly give up such an advantage as chemical weapons?

Then perhaps you cant tell me why we have officially stopped searching for them?
Iraq is not a huge place...about the same area as California.
With an entire army to search..any such massive stockpiles could be found.
Do you think that Saddam buried them in the desert personally, and told no one?

No..if such stockpiles existed...their locations would have been divulged by those people in his administration..that are now under our employ.


You truly believe that a country that suffered under a brutal oppression for over thirty years is going to be able to switch to democracy overnight?

No..in fact..it doesnt look like theyre taking to it at all....


.
Look, you can believe anything you want...but ask yourself this:

If one million people all give various reasons why Bush is a bastard, and a lying one at that....even if all but ONE of us is wrong....that still makes Bush a lying bastard.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that this guy may not be the man you wished he were?

So my opinion that he didn't lie is wrong because all my circumstantial evidence isn't as convincing as all your cicumstantial evidence? Unless you are Bush himself, none of us can actually know if he is or has ever lied. But I forget, since I don't think Bush is an idiot or a liar or whatever you wish to call him, my opinion doesn't count regardless if I have backed it up with information that has yet to be disproven or proven.

Just because we have not found the WMD's does not mean that we will never find them or that they were never there. Iraq may not be big, but it is still easy enough to hide some weapons in. And for those huge stockpiles, there is Syria and Iran just over the border. But I forget again, it is impossible to put weapons in some sort of truck and transport them. Silly me...

Guidlines to keep everyone happy and prevent terrible events not just to keep superpowers happy. I dont care what aims a terrorist group has. Their aims may be honourable but their actions are disgusting

Meh... thats a point of view alright.
I meant big boys as in state govts. Point in case: Lloyd Georges govt vs the IRB/IRA..."stop hiding, we cant KILL YOU!! :( "

Disagree with last point- freedom at all cost. You can't start that fight and then expect to quit when it get too messy. Most countries wouldn't be here today if the 'terrorist' leaders got a dose of uber morality towards the end. Algeria, Israel, the US to a certain extent i suppose, Vietnam, Ireland, the continent of South America, etc

Just because we have not found the WMD's does not mean that we will never find them or that they were never there. Iraq may not be big, but it is still easy enough to hide some weapons in. And for those huge stockpiles, there is Syria and Iran just over the border. But I forget again, it is impossible to put weapons in some sort of truck and transport them. Silly me...

Why would Iran hide weapons for Saddam?? They HATE each other! And yes you won't find them- you know why??..........YOU STOPPED LOOKING 2 YEARS AGO!

Meh... thats a point of view alright.
I meant big boys as in state govts. Point in case: Lloyd Georges govt vs the IRB/IRA..."stop hiding, we cant KILL YOU!! :( "

Disagree with last point- freedom at all cost. You can't start that fight and then expect to quit when it get too messy. Most countries wouldn't be here today if the 'terrorist' leaders got a dose of uber morality towards the end. Algeria, Israel, the US to a certain extent i suppose, Vietnam, Ireland, the continent of South America, etc

The US won and kept its freedom through military action. If there were instances of "terrorism" they were confined to extremist groups and not the norm for the entire country. But the US was one of the few countries that was never under an extremely brutal regime in its entire history. But just because most countries have used these tactics does not mean that they should be used.

So my opinion that he didn't lie is wrong because all my circumstantial evidence isn't as convincing as all your cicumstantial evidence? Unless you are Bush himself, none of us can actually know if he is or has ever lied. But I forget, since I don't think Bush is an idiot or a liar or whatever you wish to call him, my opinion doesn't count regardless if I have backed it up with information that has yet to be disproven or proven.

Information you provided?

Hmm..I must have missed that part in your posts....

Just because we have not found the WMD's does not mean that we will never find them or that they were never there.

Someone MAY find something..but it wont be us...becuase in case youve been ignoring me when I say this...we arent looking for them anymore.

Iraq may not be big, but it is still easy enough to hide some weapons in. And for those huge stockpiles, there is Syria and Iran just over the border. But I forget again, it is impossible to put weapons in some sort of truck and transport them. Silly me...

You dont think we would have noticed mass truckloads of dangerously lethal chemicals over soverign borders?

Its not like hiding a truck of lettuce....that stuff cant just be parked any ol place....

You can scream "well what if?" all day long...the only thing we have that is tangible is whats real and in front of our eyes.

In Iraq that means: No peace....dead american soldiers,,dead Iraqi civillians....and no WMD's found, or even bothered to be looked for anymore.


Why is it, that you dont question these things?

Meh... thats a point of view alright.
I meant big boys as in state govts. Point in case: Lloyd Georges govt vs the IRB/IRA..."stop hiding, we cant KILL YOU!! :( "

Disagree with last point- freedom at all cost. You can't start that fight and then expect to quit when it get too messy. Most countries wouldn't be here today if the 'terrorist' leaders got a dose of uber morality towards the end. Algeria, Israel, the US to a certain extent i suppose, Vietnam, Ireland, the continent of South America, etc

The IRA have a very small number of followers who support their actions in Northern Ireland. Why should their idea of freedom overshadow the majority? 56% of Northern Irish people want things as they are and only a relatively small percentage want a united Ireland (i'm taking this from poll results and I can give a link if you want. just need to look it up)

Terrorists (or freedom fighters) always like to play up the romantic side of their fight and make themselves sound like great heroes fighting against insurmountable odds. If they want to use this image then back it up with heroic actions, be noble and honourable and fight against the government not against the population as a whole

Edit: oops didnt notice the time frame in the history of the IRA so the first paragraph isnt really applicable to this discussion

Why would Iran hide weapons for Saddam?? They HATE each other! And yes you won't find them- you know why??..........YOU STOPPED LOOKING 2 YEARS AGO!

The US has not stopped looking for WMD's completely. But as seeing that getting the Iraqi democracy on its feet is just a little more important it is understandable that it is no longer a priority. Especially since finding these weapons would mean searching other countries. Once Iraq is stabilised then our attention will turn to Syria and Iran. But until then we must finish Iraq first.

As I said just a moment ago...do you have any number of Iraqi civillian casualties?

These people believe they are defending thier country from invasion.

Would you do any different?

Many of the so-called freedom fighters' victims are civilians, including women and children, and so yes, I would do different.

The US has not stopped looking for WMD's completely. But as seeing that getting the Iraqi democracy on its feet is just a little more important it is understandable that it is no longer a priority. Especially since finding these weapons would mean searching other countries. Once Iraq is stabilised then our attention will turn to Syria and Iran. But until then we must finish Iraq first.


Where the hell are you getting your information from??

I demand link and proof.

The U.S has officially stopped the search for WMD's in Iraq.....if you have news or evidence to the contrary...please provide it.

Many of the so-called freedom fighters' victims are civilians, including women and children, and so yes, I would do different.


What if those invaders dropped a bomb on a school...and your children were killed?

Would you want revenge?

Of course you would.

Im not condoning this kind of actions...its pretty dispicable...but merely trying to play devils advocate.

What if those invaders dropped a bomb on a school...and your children were killed?

Would you want revenge?

Of course you would.

Im not condoning this kind of actions...its pretty dispicable...but merely trying to play devils advocate.

You seek revenge against the attackers not against random innocents who never knew anything about your personal grief

Why don't you attack Saudi Arabia then? 10 of the hijackers were born and bred Saudis. How many were from Iraq? What links have been PROVEN between Saadam and Sept. 11?

WMDs on the Kurds? Look he used them on his own people....what concern of that is yours?! Oh thats nice- where was the US govts care for the common man when Rwanda was going on, Darfur, Srebrenica? Hypocrites.

And by the way, what in your mind is the difference between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom fighter'.....hindsight?

And why weren't the liberals protesting in the streets demanding the US govt. take some kind of action in Rwanda, Dafur and Srebrencia?

Many of the so-called freedom fighters' victims are civilians, including women and children, and so yes, I would do different.
Okay, I've tried to not enter this debate because I always get called a fascist for it, but they're not. The vast majority of the attacks are levelled against the Coalition forces but that's not the way the media chooses to report it (after all, it's a lot easier to villify people who murder babies than attack an imperialist force).

http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

You dont think we would have noticed mass truckloads of dangerously lethal chemicals over soverign borders?

Its not like hiding a truck of lettuce....that stuff cant just be parked any ol place....



You can scream "well what if?" all day long...the only thing we have that is tangible is whats real and in front of our eyes.

In Iraq that means: No peace....dead american soldiers,,dead Iraqi civillians....and no WMD's found, or even bothered to be looked for anymore.


Why is it, that you dont question these things?

We saw trucks moving "something" that Saddam did not want us to find and not just one instance of this either. But again troubles with the UN stalled our actions and guess what? The trucks got away.

And yes I am screaming what if... but at least I'm not screaming "this is the way it is" and having no conclusive proof to back it up.

We are trying to stabilise chaos itself in the middle east. Such a thing cannot be quickily nor easily done. 2000 dead soldiers in three years - yes it is sad but considering this could have been either Vietnam or even a possible World War 2000 is much better than everyone thought it would be. And the death toll for Iraqi civilians is unfortunate as well but blame the terrorists, not Bush. But I guess instead of a country slowly into its freedom it would have been better to leave Saddam in power and let him continually brutalise the Iraqi people.

What if those invaders dropped a bomb on a school...and your children were killed?

Would you want revenge?

Of course you would.

Im not condoning this kind of actions...its pretty dispicable...but merely trying to play devils advocate.

It is a known fact that these so-called freedom fighter groups target civilians. You are just quessing that the reason they all do it is because they themselves lost loved ones to the Americans. Even if they did, what would be the reason for killing civilians?

It is a known fact that these so-called freedom fighter groups target civilians. You are just quessing that the reason they all do it is because they themselves lost loved ones to the Americans. Even if they did, what would be the reason for killing civilians?
Please just look at the link I posted on the previous page

Been reading about a growing rift between the original protestors on one side and Code Pink and the Crawford Peace House on the other.

There was a thread going on over the the Democrat Underground forum which was talking about there being $90,000.00 in the Crawford Peace House bank account while Cindy Sheehan is asking for donations of tarps, rope and other things. The thread has been shut down.

Please just look at the link I posted on the previous page

I'll check it out. I don't know if the figures include attacks and killings commited by one so-called freedom fighter group against other opposing groups. We do know that those who want to regain power such as the Baathists are in conflict with the fundamentalist groups.

I enjoy reading Michael Yon's blog as he does real on the scene reporting that isn't always found in other sources.

Enemy Forces

In Mosul, the enemy has two main faces: The Former Regime Elements (FRE), and the extremists. The extremists here in Mosul can be divided into five groups—more or less—one of which would be the local chapter claiming affiliation with the so-called Al-Queda gang.

The goals of the FRE and the extremist gangs are at stunning variance. In fact, they mostly hate each other, often kill one another, and work together only as needed. If the Coalition and new Iraqi government were not here, conveniently located as a central target, the FRE and other terrorists would almost certainly be at war with each other.


http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

Rathanan: What happens when we run out of oil?
Then we're screwed, unless we find an effective alternate fuel scource before then.

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

I wrote this earlier.

Let the battle... I mean, informed debate... on the topic begin. ;)

Agree? Disagree? Am I too inflammatory? Is this just a load of propagandist bullshit?

Whatever you think, lemme know, and I'll try and keep this thread going.

--Hannah

While it has essences of propaganda to it, it is a representation of the way in which the majority of Americans think and is therefore something one has to agree with in some sense. It's interesting, makes me feel a little sick.

Originally Posted by Gauthier
Wow. Isn't it fun to scapegoat Cindy Sheehan for how much of an assclown circus Iraq is starting to become thanks to Ringmaster Bush? Jesus Christ, historians will have trouble figuring out the sheer scope of mindless loyalty from the Busheviks here.

She's protesting what she feels is a big fucking lie (and it is as if we haven't heard this all before) and you're all getting off on labelling her a Commie Mutant Traitor.

She's not damaging the war effort one bit, and Il Duh-ce is simply ignoring her. Any future fuckups in Iraq are not going to have anything to do with her one bit.

Unless you like running over crosses, shotgunning protestors and changing the National Anthem to The Imperial March, just leave the woman and her fellow demonstrators alone.


I Agree 100%- I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, Just Not The Assclown in charge of them. This Current Bush Administration is nothing more than what SR. assembled in the late 80's. Only thing is.....They are doing a worse job.

Liberals would rather live in a peaceful, oppressed nation than have to die for democracy.
Was it a conservative who said "it's better to die standing up than to live on your knees"?

It's funny how conservatives always say "charity should be voluntary, not forced" but make a huge exception for Iraq. It's monstrously inconsistent.

Was it a conservative who said "it's better to die standing up than to live on your knees"?

It's funny how conservatives always say "charity should be voluntary, not forced" but make a huge exception for Iraq. It's monstrously inconsistent.

Of course it's inconsistent. Because they are not their for the IRAQI'S charity, in spite of what they say...they are there for their OWN charity (oil) Or, rather, they have sent America's poor folks over there for the rich folks' charity, anyway.

Of course it's inconsistent. Because they are not their for the IRAQI'S charity, in spite of what they say...they are there for their OWN charity (oil) Or, rather, they have sent America's poor folks over there for the rich folks' charity, anyway.
Wow, you are a small-minded person.

Then we're screwed, unless we find an effective alternate fuel scource before then.Alternatives are out there just waiting to be implimented.

But don't hold your breath, none are nearly as profitable as the current sources...at least not to those who control those resources.

Okay, I've tried to not enter this debate because I always get called a fascist for it, but they're not. The vast majority of the attacks are levelled against the Coalition forces but that's not the way the media chooses to report it (after all, it's a lot easier to villify people who murder babies than attack an imperialist force).

http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

Look at the date.

2004.

Little outdated buddy.

Alternatives are out there just waiting to be implimented.

One word: bullshit.

There is nothing we can use to drive our cars as of now besides petrol.

Even if E85 is used, which is 85% ethanol (corn-based alcohol), that presents a new problem: where would we get the corn? We have problems meeting domestic demand for corn NOW with the supplies currently being produced by American farmers. We would have to import it, and since demand would skyrocket if E85 became the way to go, the prices would go up and supplies would dwindle, since only so much corn can be grown at one time.

Plus, we don't have the infrastructure to go to ethanol just yet. Few plants are capable of producing fuel-quality ethanol at this point in time, and most gas stations don't have the equipment to offer the finished product.

Hydrogen technology is still in development and electrical/battery technology is out for people that have to travel longer distances, i.e. people like me, who live in rural areas. Most of the people that could actually use it should just take public transit, walk, or bike if they care so much, anyway.

According to Gal Luft and Fareed Zakaria, two men who I love reading articles and analysis from, it's possible to get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline using presently available technology. This was a HUGE Newsweek article, you should be able to easily find it.

500 miles per gallon is completely possible if you use E85 and a rechargeable battery in combination. Unfortunately, as stated previously, these two technologies both come with strings attached in the form of supply/demand issues and limitations in quality, safety, durability, etc.

So no, we can't just cut ourselves off of the petro just yet. It can't happen without better technology and an infrastructure that's ready for the 21st century instead of the 1970's.

Wow, you are a small-minded person.


You were already warned, once before, about making personal attacks against me. You've used up your reservoir of goodwill that I have for you.

One word: bullshit.

There is nothing we can use to drive our cars as of now besides petrol.

Even if E85 is used, which is 85% ethanol (corn-based alcohol), that presents a new problem: where would we get the corn? We have problems meeting domestic demand for corn NOW with the supplies currently being produced by American farmers. We would have to import it, and since demand would skyrocket if E85 became the way to go, the prices would go up and supplies would dwindle, since only so much corn can be grown at one time.

Plus, we don't have the infrastructure to go to ethanol just yet. Few plants are capable of producing fuel-quality ethanol at this point in time, and most gas stations don't have the equipment to offer the finished product.

Hydrogen technology is still in development and electrical/battery technology is out for people that have to travel longer distances, i.e. people like me, who live in rural areas. Most of the people that could actually use it should just take public transit, walk, or bike if they care so much, anyway.

According to Gal Luft and Fareed Zakaria, two men who I love reading articles and analysis from, it's possible to get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline using presently available technology. This was a HUGE Newsweek article, you should be able to easily find it.

500 miles per gallon is completely possible if you use E85 and a rechargeable battery in combination. Unfortunately, as stated previously, these two technologies both come with strings attached in the form of supply/demand issues and limitations in quality, safety, durability, etc.

So no, we can't just cut ourselves off of the petro just yet. It can't happen without better technology and an infrastructure that's ready for the 21st century instead of the 1970's.Dude you missed my point completely...actually you made my point.

It's not bullshit, the technologys out there, you pointed out part of it yourself, but the cost to impliment isn't going to be borne by those who are currently making money hand over fist with the current systems...and of course they impact the political system that controls public money enough to keep any changes from coming from that side...

Change is only going to happen if it's forced, inertia and a comfortable power base have to be overcome...not likely to happen anytime soon.

Dude, the CHANGE IS IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPRACTICAL.

Ethanol is impossible to use on a massive scale, because the costs would outweigh any gain.

Electrical cars suck and can't be used in rural areas where it's 20-30 miles just to get to school for the kiddies and 20-30 miles back home again.

Maybe if this was the Matrix or something, we could all be happy ethanol-li-ion-powered-car-users. But this isn't the Matrix. This is reality. And therefore, it's simply impossible.

It's not because of corporate interests in Congress, it's because most people realise that the change wouldn't actually do us any good for probably another 10 years down the road when it's too late anyway.

Dude, the CHANGE IS IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPRACTICAL.

Ethanol is impossible to use on a massive scale, because the costs would outweigh any gain.

Electrical cars suck and can't be used in rural areas where it's 20-30 miles just to get to school for the kiddies and 20-30 miles back home again.

Maybe if this was the Matrix or something, we could all be happy ethanol-li-ion-powered-car-users. But this isn't the Matrix. This is reality. And therefore, it's simply impossible.

It's not because of corporate interests in Congress, it's because most people realise that the change wouldn't actually do us any good for probably another 10 years down the road when it's too late anyway.No it's not impossible. Impractical, yes within the current infastructure. The problem is you're looking for a direct replacement, hunting for the fix within the established box. It doesn't have to be a all or nothing system. It doesn't have to be a single system. And it doesn't have to replace all petroleum based fuels. You're going out of your way to find any excuse to not look for alternatives. Do you work for the oil industry?

No, I just happen to know how these things work since I live on a farm. We have several gas tanks, diesel, unleaded, and farm-taxed. We fill in huge volumes, so we get discounts, and we go through a co-op. I read.

Actually, I'm a high school student. I work a full-time job during the summer and part-time during the school year, but I'm going into tenth grade.

I've been blogging and giving commentaries for a long time though, just not necessarily on that website.

Of course it's inconsistent. Because they are not their for the IRAQI'S charity, in spite of what they say...they are there for their OWN charity (oil) Or, rather, they have sent America's poor folks over there for the rich folks' charity, anyway.
Well my support for the Iraq war is based on getting rid of Hussein, and so I suspect is that of most conservatives who support it. But at least I am also pro-social programmes.

It's rather trollish and unsubstantiated to claim that the average war supporter is in it for the oil.

Well my support for the Iraq war is based on getting rid of Hussein, and so I suspect is that of most conservatives who support it. But at least I am also pro-social programmes.

It's rather trollish and unsubstantiated to claim that the average war supporter is in it for the oil.

But, does the average war supporter put their money where their MOUTHS are? Do they enlist themselves? Do they send THEIR kids? Shit, no...they send the kids of the poor. Just as it always has been.

Do a google search on Yellow + Elephants.

here is just the first page of returened results, (bolding mine)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesus' General
My greatest hope when I started posting about Operation Yellow Elephant was that I'd
... The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College ...
patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_19_patriotboy_archive.html - 126k - Cached - Similar pages

Jesus' General
You can also get OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT stickers, buttons, tees, ...
It's important to remember that the purpose of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to ...
patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_patriotboy_archive.html - 123k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from patriotboy.blogspot.com ]

THE BRAD BLOG: "Yellow Elephants"
Yellow Elephants. Better to Rant in Favor of the War Than Actually Participate
... When are the stickers or buttons of the yellow elephants going on sale? ...
www.bradblog.com/archives/00001487.htm - 89k - Cached - Similar pages

OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT
Andreas, Duus, Pape, Andreas Duus Pape, music, acoustic, progressive, liberal,
tunes, blues, alt.country, patriotic, patriotic music.
homepage.mac.com/andreaspape/zap/C1963732562/E723438911/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Gone Mild: Yellow Elephants
On the other hand, this is a relatively mild form of the yellow elephant disease
that is troubling our formerly brave Republican youth. ...
www.gonemild.com/2005/06/yellow-elephants.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Lipserv :: View topic - Yellow Elephants
Post Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Yellow Elephants, Reply with
quote. Laughing Does anyone know any yellow elephants? ...
www.lipserv.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3816 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

SIVACRACY.NET: Opinions, Rants, and Obsessions of Siva ...
[/b]Yellow Elephants and Chickenhawk Rich Kids. The issue is duty. ... Here's what
others have to say about Yellow Elephants and Chickenhawk Rich Kids:[/b] ...
www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/001603.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Grouchy's Liberaltopia: Yellow Elephants
Yellow Elephants. yellophant.png. Via Atrios:. A letter to the NYT. To the Editor:.
Bob Herbert's touching column about Specialist Fourth Class Hugo Luis ...
www.liberaltopia.org/archives/2005/08/yellow_elephant.php - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Grouchy's Liberaltopia: Yellow Elephants, Nazis, Fat Fascist Pigs ...
Operation Yellow Elephant has been far more successful than anything Bush has
... Who do you think would be the 'Hannibal' of the Yellow Elephants? ...
www.liberaltopia.org/archives/2005/08/yellow_elephant_1.php - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Opinion: Someone Else's Child - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
The number of influential American officials who have children in uniform in Iraq
is minuscule. It's easy to be macho when you have nothing at risk.
service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,361262,00.html - Similar pages

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440467&page=1&pp=15

Enough said.

Shit. And they have the NERVE to call KERRY a flip-flopper? WTF?!?!?

You know, someone should start a thread about Cindy Sheehan. I don't think that having 8 on one page is enough.

Cindy Sheehan: Face of the Liberal Left (http://www.blogwonks.com/blogs/HanaSoruson/)

I wrote this earlier.

Let the battle... I mean, informed debate... on the topic begin. ;)

Agree? Disagree? Am I too inflammatory? Is this just a load of propagandist bullshit?

Whatever you think, lemme know, and I'll try and keep this thread going.

--Hannah
I will address the bits I find problematic.
It’s not your fault. The liberal media has just made you the face of their cause.

Cindy Sheehan has become the symbol of their struggle to get the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan: her son died in a war she didn’t support, so now she’s grieving and blaming Bush for his death.

The liberal media is trying to make her look like the majority opinion-holder here, when really, most of the families of American soldiers support the causes their sons and daughters might die for.You might wish to have some news sites showing their support for her, or some telling snippets of broadcasts, because your readers don't have mush of a reason to believe in the liberal media claim without a bit of support.
The liberals are always telling everyone else how to live: in a state of total and complete unselfishness. Drive a car that uses vegetable oil to quit selfishly destroying the ozone. Don’t eat meat, since killing cows for food is selfish.
You are generalizing the positions of some liberals to all liberals. Not all liberals are vegans, not all liberals drive electric cars.
Liberals don’t want to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Liberals would rather live in a peaceful, oppressed nation than have to die for democracy.
This is partially unrealted to the Iraq war, as whether or not liberals would fight for their own freedom has little to do with whether liberals would fight for the freedom of Iraqis. You do later address this with the whole 'selfishness' bit, though, so that would make it seem to me as though perhaps a better example could be found than this?
Also, your claim is rather unsupported. You are again painting 'liberals' as an identical mass who all share exactly the same beliefs. Perhaps there are liberals who would never fight with anyone, ever, but there are certainly liberals that I have met who have said they would fight for their own freedom if it came to it.
And to make that sacrifice for other people to have democracy is unthinkable in the mind of a liberal. It would require a type of unselfishness and compassion they seem to be unable to comprehend.
Because they aren’t selfish, that’s why. They’re willing to give it all up if it means a brighter future for the next generation.
I don't think that an appeal to unselfishness is quite correct, unless you actually support selflessness, which I doubt that there are many people who do. Perhaps it would make more sense to say something about people having the same opportunities to success being morally right, and the position of not fighting for others' freedom going against the idea of equality of opportunity?
I'm not sure.

You know, someone should start a thread about Cindy Sheehan. I don't think that having 8 on one page is enough.

I hardly know you, and yet love you already.

And I though Canada was a divided country........

id feel sorry for her if:

1) her son was drafted (he wasnt)

2) her son was forced to go back for a 2nd tour (he wasnt)

3) she didnt have massive connections with radical leftism groups like ANSWER and others (she does)

4) she wasnt californian (she is, California is more red the China these days, personally the Americans should hire Saddam to be gov of Cali, hed clean the place up well...plus he has a great PR team that can rally the support of the world behind him while he slaughters a couple million or so, since he doesnt do it with WMD!!!!!! anymore...)

And I though Canada was a divided country........

Every major western nation is divided right now, between the people that want to die fighting, and the ones that want to die with their white flags on high..

Either way the day is coming, the islamic faith is doing a classic divide and conqure tactic...get them infighting amoung themselves and weaken them to the point that you can roll over them with ease. lol honestly every muslim right now is excited (which is why you wont see them denounce anything) its going to be a land rush in the next century or so when the muslim crusades roll over what is left of you pathetic people in Europe. The Americas are gonna be the hard target though, just due to the ocean...but as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

Whatever the case the main goal was to make the Americans look like international outlaws....it worked, and why did they target america? because they knew it was the only nation that would fight and could fight internationally. This is only step 2 of many...so enjoy it westerners your days are numbered.

And I though Canada was a divided country........

Are you kidding me? This place is a hatefest.

Seriously. Its why I hate politics. Arguments about shit they'll never directly change as though their decisions, thoughts, and beliefs were going to decide the future fate of America on their own. Next thing you know, you've got people acting and arguing like children and simply being extremely rude to each other, imagining the person on the other side of the screen is the most idiotic piece of flesh ever made (only because they have the GALL to disagree with them in the first place) and finally, it dies down the way it always does.

Everyone's agitated one way or the other, someone might get a 3-day ban, and no minds were changed.

Chalk it up to politics, baby. ;p

Dude, the CHANGE IS IMPOSSIBLE AND IMPRACTICAL.

Ethanol is impossible to use on a massive scale, because the costs would outweigh any gain.

Electrical cars suck and can't be used in rural areas where it's 20-30 miles just to get to school for the kiddies and 20-30 miles back home again.

Maybe if this was the Matrix or something, we could all be happy ethanol-li-ion-powered-car-users. But this isn't the Matrix. This is reality. And therefore, it's simply impossible.

It's not because of corporate interests in Congress, it's because most people realise that the change wouldn't actually do us any good for probably another 10 years down the road when it's too late anyway.
While Americans fume at high gasoline prices, Carolina Rossini is the essence of Brazilian cool at the pump.

Like tens of thousands of her countrymen, she is running her zippy red Fiat on pure ethanol extracted from Brazilian sugar cane. On a recent morning in Brazil's largest city, the clear liquid was selling for less than half the price of gasoline, a sweet deal for the 26-year-old lawyer.

"You save money and you don't pollute as much," said Rossini, who paid about $18 to fill her nearly empty tank. "And it's a good thing that the product is made here."

Three decades after the first oil shock rocked its economy, Brazil has nearly shaken its dependence on foreign oil.

More vulnerable than even the United States when the 1973 Middle East oil embargo sent gas prices spiraling soaring, Brazil vowed to kick its import habit. Now the country that once relied on outsiders to supply 80 percent of its crude is projected to be self-sufficient within a few years.

Developing its own oil reserves was crucial to Brazil's long-term strategy. Its domestic petroleum production has increased sevenfold since 1980. But the Western Hemisphere's second-largest economy also has embraced renewable energy with a vengeance.

Today about 40 percent of all the fuel that Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, known here as alcohol, compared with about 3 percent in the United States.

AllJazzira NEWS 2005 ©opy-paste

But, does the average war supporter put their money where their MOUTHS are? Do they enlist themselves? Do they send THEIR kids? Shit, no...they send the kids of the poor. Just as it always has been.

Do a google search on Yellow + Elephants.

I know of Yellow Elephant.

Here's something by a real writer/intellectual. (That is, she goes beyond sloganeering.)

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/index.html

Chris Bertram has been taking issue with Christopher Hitchens' remarks about whether those who don't fight themselves, and don't have children fighting, have a right to a view on whether the Iraq war - or any other, presumably - is justified. He (Chris Bertram) raises the very interesting question of just what the moral relation is between recommending a dangerous, perhaps lethal, course of action, and being prepared to take on (some of) the risks in one's own person.

He agrees with Hitchens that the question of whether the war was actually justified isn't affected by the military involvement or otherwise of the person making the judgement. But he thinks that this involvement affects the moral status of the judgers themselves. He says:
It is perfectly reasonable to ask of someone who advocates a policy that involves people in significant personal sacrifice whether they would be willing to incur or risk that sacrifice themselves.
And the point of asking the question, in his view, is that those who aren't so willing, who endorse the dangerous policy but wouldn't risk the sacrifice for themselves or their children, are 'despicable hypocrite[s] whose prattlings do not deserve the attention of reasonable people'.

Now it is right, I think, to suggest that there is something morally doubtful about being prepared to support sacrificial policies while carefully protecting oneself and those one loves from making any of the sacrifices involved, though whether it's actually hypocrisy, rather than some other vice, needs further consideration. But the trouble with this argument is that it's far too strong: if this is hypocrisy, then there's an awful lot of hypocrisy about the place, and an emphasis on its presence doesn't favour the doveish side of the debate about the Iraq war.

For we can equally ask of those who were and remain against the war whether they were themselves, in their own or their children's persons, prepared to incur the consequences attendant on that war not having been waged.

That too was a sacrificial policy. How many of those hostile to the US and UK intervention, without which Saddam would still be in power and his torture chambers still open for business, would be prepared to put their own child at risk of entering one of those chambers, to be hideously raped or tormented or murdered - or have been willing to offer up themselves? I don't believe that a single one of those who so vociferously complain about the hypocrisy of armchair warrior hawks would be prepared to risk their children or themselves at the hands of Saddam's torturers.

Are they also despicable hypocrites whose prattlings do not deserve the attention of reasonable people? Myself I don't think so: I'm prepared to listen to them and argue with them as serious antagonists in one of the most important political debates of our times. It's not to their discredit that they want their children to be protected from the horrors of the world; though what might be to their discredit is that they don't want other people's children to be protected in the same way. How ready, come to that, would your average comfortably-off critic of the war be to volunteer himself or herself for some of the more dangerous, or less healthy, non-wartime occupations which we all depend upon?

Much of the commentariat does get off lightly from life's troubles, and this is a serious moral issue; but it can't be hijacked for use by those opposed to the Iraq war to award themselves brownie points for open-eyed moral integrity. If it's hypocrisy to prefer, and indeed ensure, that others, rather than one's own loved children, take the risks of the policies one endorses, then there's going to be a lot of hypocrisy in the ranks of those who preferred Saddam to be left in power, torturing and murdering many many thousands, while the West, including its commentariat, remained safely at home. (Eve Garrard)

Surely if it is hypocritical for war supporters not to fight in Iraq, it is hypocritical for its opponents not to have gone there to oppose the war.

Read this too:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003834

Every major western nation is divided right now, between the people that want to die fighting, and the ones that want to die with their white flags on high..

Either way the day is coming, the islamic faith is doing a classic divide and conqure tactic...get them infighting amoung themselves and weaken them to the point that you can roll over them with ease. lol honestly every muslim right now is excited (which is why you wont see them denounce anything) its going to be a land rush in the next century or so when the muslim crusades roll over what is left of you pathetic people in Europe. The Americas are gonna be the hard target though, just due to the ocean...but as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

Whatever the case the main goal was to make the Americans look like international outlaws....it worked, and why did they target america? because they knew it was the only nation that would fight and could fight internationally. This is only step 2 of many...so enjoy it westerners your days are numbered.
This is probably the worst thing I have ever read on this forum.

People who rant about how anti-American all the liberals in this country are really have to keep in mind just how many people they are talking about. You are proclaiming hatred for just over half of your fellow countrymen. So by default you are the ones being anti-American.

Either way the day is coming, the islamic faith is doing a classic divide and conqure tactic...get them infighting amoung themselves and weaken them to the point that you can roll over them with ease. lol honestly every muslim right now is excited (which is why you wont see them denounce anything) its going to be a land rush in the next century or so when the muslim crusades roll over what is left of you pathetic people in Europe. The Americas are gonna be the hard target though, just due to the ocean...but as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

Jesus Christ, and I thought I was paranoid.

Every major western nation is divided right now, between the people that want to die fighting, and the ones that want to die with their white flags on high..

Either way the day is coming, the islamic faith is doing a classic divide and conqure tactic...get them infighting amoung themselves and weaken them to the point that you can roll over them with ease. lol honestly every muslim right now is excited (which is why you wont see them denounce anything) its going to be a land rush in the next century or so when the muslim crusades roll over what is left of you pathetic people in Europe. The Americas are gonna be the hard target though, just due to the ocean...but as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

Whatever the case the main goal was to make the Americans look like international outlaws....it worked, and why did they target america? because they knew it was the only nation that would fight and could fight internationally. This is only step 2 of many...so enjoy it westerners your days are numbered.


It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about. So every muslim right now is excited. Wow, all 1.5 billion of them? And you found this out... how? By polling half the muslim world and compiling your findings? Please.

And about this supposed pact between leftists and islamofascists, where's the proof?? Show me where these two conspiratorial organizations are physically carving up areas of control in the US. You can't, because it's not happening.

Seriously, what kind of fools do you take people for, that you would expect anyone to believe random claims you show no evidence of. It's rather insulting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulf Republics
Every major western nation is divided right now, between the people that want to die fighting, and the ones that want to die with their white flags on high..

Either way the day is coming, the islamic faith is doing a classic divide and conqure tactic...get them infighting amoung themselves and weaken them to the point that you can roll over them with ease. lol honestly every muslim right now is excited (which is why you wont see them denounce anything) its going to be a land rush in the next century or so when the muslim crusades roll over what is left of you pathetic people in Europe. The Americas are gonna be the hard target though, just due to the ocean...but as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

Whatever the case the main goal was to make the Americans look like international outlaws....it worked, and why did they target america? because they knew it was the only nation that would fight and could fight internationally. This is only step 2 of many...so enjoy it westerners your days are numbered.


I will DIE before I will accept the rule of the Sharia over ME!!! You keep your fucked-up ideals on the other side of the ocean. We're trying our best to tell our stupid President that you guys over there feel the same way about our ideals, and that y'all don't want them on your side of the ocean.

No fucking WAY am I ever going to accept Islam. Y'all are even worse than the Christian fundementalists we already have to deal with over here, and THAT is saying something!

This is probably the worst thing I have ever read on this forum.

It's up there... Wow...

I will DIE before I will accept the rule of the Sharia over ME!!! You keep your fucked-up ideals on the other side of the ocean. We're trying our best to tell our stupid President that you guys over there feel the same way about our ideals, and that y'all don't want them on your side of the ocean.

No fucking WAY am I ever going to accept Islam. Y'all are even worse than the Christian fundementalists we already have to deal with over here, and THAT is saying something!

Worse than the Christian fundamentalists? What's the difference between having Sharia Law crammed down your throat and having Levitical Law crammed down your throat?

my favourite quote of hers;
We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!

the woman is the biggest 'tard since Phelps.