NationStates Jolt Archive

http://stoptheaclu.com/wp-images/kissing.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/sheehanchavez.jpg


January 30, 2006
Sheehan, Chavez Give Dem Response to Bush Speech
by Scott Ott

(2006-01-30) — Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who parlayed the death of her soldier son into a successful public speaking and writing career, will join Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Tuesday night to deliver the Democrat response to President George Bush’s State of the Union address.

“Our choice of Cindy and Hugo demonstrates our commitment to diversity, and personifies our platform for the future,” said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democrat National Committee (DNC). “Plus, they’re among the few well-known progressives who didn’t vote to support the war in Iraq while publicly attacking the Bush administration for its policy toward Iraq.”

Mr. Chavez, whose generous contribution of cheap oil prevented the freezing deaths of thousands of residents of the impoverished commonwealth of Massachusetts, said his rebuttal of the Bush speech will constitute “a major counter-terrorism offensive.”

Mrs. Sheehan, a potential candidate for Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat, said, “I’ve never given a speech for a national television audience, so I’m going to spend the next 24 hours organizing my thought, and turning that thought into a good rhyming chant.”

Mr. Dean said the DNC has given Mrs. Sheehan a small stipend for her efforts that should cover the cost of laundering her t-shirt.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2163

That's it? That's literally ALL we need to know about the entire anti-war movement and Democrats in general? That Sheehan, a woman that even many Democrats can't stand, and the president of another country who so kindly helped the American people, are giving a rebuttal speech?

No, no, I think there's a bit more to "All you need to know" than this. A swing and a miss.

Erm, so what, Sheehan is anti-war and a democrat and so that's all anyone needs to know about being anti-war? Is that all YOU know, or are you saying something about President Chavez and his evil plans?

I'm looking for content here but all I see is a copy and pasted article with copy and pasted pictures.

Isn't that trolling? It's certainly not worth even the time it took for me to come up with this response.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.

I think the telling part is this:
Mrs. Sheehan, a potential candidate for Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat, said, “I’ve never given a speech for a national television audience, so I’m going to spend the next 24 hours organizing my thought, and turning that thought into a good rhyming chant.
Ah, hell naw! You ain't no Jesse Jackson, bitch. Now, you best be steppin' off 'fore you gets cut.

Or, yeah, something like that.

This is symptomatic of the decline of Ameikan right wing trolling in general...they've never recovered from the whole "Wheres yer WMD now?" episode.....

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
- Confucius

This is symptomatic of the decline of Ameikan right wing trolling in general...they've never recovered from the whole "Wheres yer WMD now?" episode.....


Its really a shame they lacked the moral courage to bet their lives on the WMD claim and then carry through with a suicide pact.

Is Hugo Chavez seriously going to be speaking for the Democrats? He's not even American. Is this story a fake?

Can I know what you have against President Hugo Chavez, one of the most loved leaders of the world, and one who actually DO help both his people and other peoples ?

Is Hugo Chavez seriously going to be speaking for the Democrats? He's not even American. Is this story a fake?
YA its a fake its rilly gonna b OSAMA who gives the speech HAHAHAHHWH

YEEEHHHHHHAW

Is Hugo Chavez seriously going to be speaking for the Democrats? He's not even American.

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.

Is Hugo Chavez seriously going to be speaking for the Democrats? He's not even American. Is this story a fake?

News fairly Unbalanced --- It is a joke.

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.
This topic is above most USians heads... give it a few years.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.

so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.


This has been gone over before, "American" is the suitable english word to describe citizens of the United States, while "south american" or "north american" are more suitable if reference is specifically being made to the continents, unless the context makes reference to the continents extremely clear.

The context in this case made it extremely clear that he was talking about US citizenship.

There is no question that you're wrong in your criticism.

so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...


No gangsta', i'm saying that saddam should have been made king of england (and that osama bin laden should have been king of america, obviously).

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.

Wrong. Chavez is a South American. There is no continent called America, only a country. There are two continents, North America and South America, so any Canadian, American, or Mexican can easily be a North American, just as any Columbian, venezulian, or Peruvian could be a South American, but no one other than Americans can be an American.

Stop being such a Frenchy. :p

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.
If you'd bother to read my fucking location, I'm not from any American country. Let me rephrase:

Is Hugo Chavez seriously going to be speaking for the Democrats? He's not even from the United States of North America, which is the nation of the Democrats. Is this story a fake?

Can I know what you have against President Hugo Chavez, one of the most loved leaders of the world, and one who actually DO help both his people and other peoples ?
My opinion of Chavez is unimportant here. He's done some things I like and some things I don't like.

The point is that I am amazed that the Democrats would pick a representative who is not from their own country (and thus not from their own party). Plus, Chavez is way to the left of any Democrats (many of whom are pro-war). I conclude that this story is a fake.

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.
No, he's not American. He's Venezuelean. He is from the continent South America, so you COULD call him South American. America have been an accepted term for us for around 200 years. Why don't you get over yourself. :rolleyes:

so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...

Thats what I like to call a classic "post WMD/AL Qaeda" remark. Much like burning down somebodys house, threatening the safety of other houses in the process and generally being a nuisance while exclaiming that that woodworm will never menace anyone again....

If you'd bother to read my fucking location, I'm not from any American country. Let me rephrase:

Dont worry about him, just read HIS location...hes a Parisian, who the French outside of Paris (yes there are French outside of Paris) tell me are a bunch of assholes that give the rest of their country a bad name.

No, he's not American. He's Venezuelean. He is from the continent South America, so you COULD call him South American. America have been an accepted term for us for around 200 years. Why don't you get over yourself. :rolleyes:

Whooo good post MIB, look at my post 18 :D

No, he's not American. He's Venezuelean. He is from the continent South America, so you COULD call him South American. America have been an accepted term for us for around 200 years. Why don't you get over yourself. :rolleyes:
You are telling him to get over himself while claiming the entire term “American”... Wow
Maybe it is “America” That has to get over itself :rolleyes: (see I can use them too)

so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...
That's about what the anti-war position comes down to. But why stop at Saddam? Why are we just sitting here talking when we ought to be (well, you ought to be, given that you live in the USA) out lobbying the government to end the various reigns of terror that exist in North Korea, Iran, Sudan and other places.

Thats what I like to call a classic "post WMD/AL Qaeda" remark. Much like burning down somebodys house, threatening the safety of other houses in the process and generally being a nuisance while exclaiming that that woodworm will never menace anyone again....
Assuming that you're using 'house' as a simile for 'country'; Iraq was not burned to the ground or destroyed, and Hussein's dictatorship was somewhat more pervasive than your average woodworm.

Dont worry about him, just read HIS location...hes a Parisian, who the French outside of Paris (yes there are French outside of Paris) tell me are a bunch of assholes that give the rest of their country a bad name.
I don't take well to mindless French-bashing, you right-wing nutjob.

Assuming that you're using 'house' as a simile for 'country'; Iraq was not burned to the ground or destroyed, and Hussein's dictatorship was somewhat more pervasive than your average woodworm.


I'd say in excess of 20,000 dead, instability, and the almost dead certainty that a large section of the population will never accept the legitimacy of the government, not to mention a nervous Iran trying to go nuclear a fairly burnt demesne all the same.

You are telling him to get over himself while claiming the entire term “American”... Wow
Maybe it is “America” That has to get over itself :rolleyes: (see I can use them too)
Who fucking cares what word we use as long as we all know what country we're talking about? I just casually said "America" because that is the name by which the USA is commonly referred to.

All That You Need to Know About the Pro-War Movement and Republicans:

God gave them brains too small and wallets too big. ;)

I don't take well to mindless French-bashing, you right-wing nutjob.
Maybe because you're not from here, you don't get it, but it's not just the right wingers that dislike the French. Personally I'm not quite fond of the French, least of all the Parisians I've met, and folks have exploded for attempting to pin me even as a centrist.

But back on topic....

Who fucking cares what word we use as long as we all know what country we're talking about? I just casually said "America" because that is the name by which the USA is commonly referred to.
Did you check the quote? Upward was addressing Man in Black, not you.

I think somebody should take a breather. You seem to be viewing everything as an attack.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats: We're right.
No. You're left! :D

No. You're left! :D
That one got a groan out of me lol

so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...

If we don't have enough manpower to secure our objectives afterward and still successfully prosecute our real objective, the War on Terror, then yes.

I thought that the first rule of fighting would be fairly obvious: don't pick one you can't win.

How US-centrism could be more ridiculous ? Hugo Chavez is definetly American ! He's the president of an American country.

You know, America is not limited to USA. South America is America too. And many, many in America are pissed off by US imperalism, and your "we are America" attitude.
Oh, for God's sake! Get the frack over it! Jeeze! :rolleyes:

I'd say in excess of 20,000 dead, instability, and the almost dead certainty that a large section of the population will never accept the legitimacy of the government, not to mention a nervous Iran trying to go nuclear a fairly burnt demesne all the same.
I wouldn't. 30,000 (a more accurate figure) dead, while tragic, is rather small on the scale of wars in general. That many French civilians were killed in Allied bombings in the second half of 1944.

Instability is not permanent nor can the minority that formerly benefitted frm Hussein's rule stay out of democratic politics forever.

That one got a groan out of me lol
( shrug ) They get confused easily. :D

No. You're left! :D
No, the Democrats are right-wing (and thus generally wrong by default - there's a new word for your thread.)

I wouldn't. 30,000 (a more accurate figure) dead, while tragic, is rather small on the scale of wars in general. That many French civilians were killed in Allied bombings in the second half of 1944.

Well okay, but then again 3,000 people killed in 9/11 is also small-scale. Compared to practically anything, say nothing of wars. Lookit the homicide rate, Americans kill more Americans than terrorists ever do.

1 rape may be insignificant compared to 1,000, but both are still crimes.

No, the Democrats are right-wing (and thus generally wrong by default - there's a new word for your thread.)
New word? "Democrats?" Heh!

They're just "blocked up." I try to help them out, ya'kno? Only thing is, everytime I show up, they shout: "OMG! Run! Here comes that damned 'CENTRIST' again with his bottle of kao-fucking-pectate!" :D

Just an FYI - Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will be giving the actual Democratic response to the State of the Union.

Well okay, but then again 3,000 people killed in 9/11 is also small-scale. Compared to practically anything, say nothing of wars. Lookit the homicide rate, Americans kill more Americans than terrorists ever do.
Just as 9/11 didn't destroy New York, the Allied invasion didn't destroy France and the US invasion didn't destroy Iraq.

"right-thinking leftists" :D

Well okay, but then again 3,000 people killed in 9/11 is also small-scale. Compared to practically anything, say nothing of wars. Lookit the homicide rate, Americans kill more Americans than terrorists ever do.

1 rape may be insignificant compared to 1,000, but both are still crimes.
Not if you're the 1!!!! :p

"right-thinking leftists" :D
[ Referee runs onto the field ] "Oxymoron! The penalty is 15 yards and a bottle of Kayopectate!"

Just as 9/11 didn't destroy New York, the Allied invasion didn't destroy France and the US invasion didn't destroy Iraq.

Alright, so we didn't burn down the house.

Instead, we only burned down part of it. Then we moved in, took the wife and children of the former owner for our own - all with their consent of course (nevermind that they 'consented' to Hussein too) - and incidentally took over management of the family business.

Is it really much better to "only" kill a few tens of thousands instead of a few million? I wonder if that would work in court. "Hey, I raped her, but at least I didn't rape half the women in the nation! I did nothing wrong!"

I think it is a mistake to associate the activists who fought against the US mass slaughter in Iraq with the incompetent and collaborationist leadership of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not the anti-war movement. The Democratic Party hates the anti-war movement. It always has and it always will. Popular movements scare the members of the political ruling class, they involve the possibility of making politicians actually do things.

If the Democrats actually did what the article accuses them of doing I might consider supporting them. Cindy Sheehan and President Hugo Chávez are good choices for a serious analysis of US policy and some of its effects. Better than that homophobic coward Tim Kaine, who just declared his support for banning any semblance of granting human rights to gay couples in Virginia.

Simonist']That's it? That's literally ALL we need to know about the entire anti-war movement and Democrats in general? That Sheehan, a woman that even many Democrats can't stand, and the president of another country who so kindly helped the American people, are giving a rebuttal speech?

No, no, I think there's a bit more to "All you need to know" than this. A swing and a miss.
At least she did something unlike Mr. Konceding Kerry.

Alright, so we didn't burn down the house.
The only possible response (http://www.geocities.com/fhornsr/burnin.wav) to that! :D

Is it really much better to "only" kill a few tens of thousands instead of a few million?
I wouldn't phrase it like that. It's worse to kill a few tens of thousands than it is to kill a few million. Which is why Bush and Pinochet are not usually compared to Hitler or Stalin (in any serious way).

I wonder if that would work in court. "Hey, I raped her, but at least I didn't rape half the women in the nation! I did nothing wrong!"
Would you not expect a man who had raped many women to get a tougher sentence than a man who raped just one?

Would you not expect a man who had raped many women to get a tougher sentence than a man who raped just one?

I would expect in most cases, both rapists would go free.

I would hope, though, that both rapists would get the same sentence. That is to say.... death.

Back to Iraq, just because the number of dead relative to world war two is not so great, doesn't make it any less wrong or as you say, tragic. And it certainly doesn't in any way justify the incorrection of the action.

I see it as much more tragic in fact, since without a few extra zeroes, most people don't seem to care about it at all, even to the point of shrugging it off and mumbling something about breaking eggs to make omelettes or some shit like that.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.
Damn skippy.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:rolleyes:

You wish.

Y'know, whenever I see the phrase, "all you need to know about (fill-in-the-blank)" it just somehow translates into "here's still more sand to pour over your ears regarding (fill-in-the-blank), just in case you were in danger of lifting your head out of the sand".

Can I know what you have against President Hugo Chavez, one of the most loved leaders of the world, and one who actually DO help both his people and other peoples ?

Your joking right? That was sarcasm...wasn't it? Loved? Maybe to the most extreme socialist.

Your joking right? That was sarcasm...wasn't it? Loved? Maybe to the most extreme socialist.
Okay hotshot - let's see who you think is the leader most loved by his (or her) own people. Start a thread about it.

Or is it easier just to kick back and make with the bitching and moaning?

I think it is a mistake to associate the activists who fought against the US mass slaughter in Iraq with the incompetent and collaborationist leadership of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not the anti-war movement. The Democratic Party hates the anti-war movement. It always has and it always will. Popular movements scare the members of the political ruling class, they involve the possibility of making politicians actually do things.

If the Democrats actually did what the article accuses them of doing I might consider supporting them. Cindy Sheehan and President Hugo Chávez are good choices for a serious analysis of US policy and some of its effects. Better than that homophobic coward Tim Kaine, who just declared his support for banning any semblance of granting human rights to gay couples in Virginia.
Wow. I have two words for you: Batshit Crazy


Cindy Sheehan is a attention-craving puppet. Hugo Chavez is about a good of a choice of seriously analyzing US policy as Fidel Castro.

Wow. I have two words for you: Batshit Crazy


Cindy Sheehan is a attention-craving puppet. Hugo Chavez is about a good of a choice of seriously analyzing US policy as Fidel Castro.
Anything constructive to add then, or just more bile?

Okay hotshot - let's see who you think is the leader most loved by his (or her) own people. Start a thread about it.

Or is it easier just to kick back and make with the bitching and moaning?
Bitching and moaning? More like shaking my head in pity.
Oh I am sure many Venzualeans love him as well. Just I find him in the same large category as President Bush as leaders who attempt to gain popularity by finding a scapegoat to point at, to cover up their own failings.

Bitching and moaning? More like shaking my head in pity.
Oh I am sure many Venzualeans love him as well. Just I find him in the same large category as President Bush as leaders who attempt to gain popularity by finding a scapegoat to point at, to cover up their own failings.
Okay then, so what are his failings?

Originally Posted by New Granada
All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.


so you're saying Saddam should have stayed in power?

Just wondering...


Unfortunately for the highly enlightened Democrat Anti-war folks, there are people in the world who have weapons, and are willing to use them, even on their own people (Remember Cambodia, Somalia, Yugoslavia, or Iraq)? If we are not prepared to defend, respond, or perhaps even pre-empt, then the fact of the matter is, all of the good words, negotiations, talks, and group hugs will not prevent your slaughter when a madman levels the bead of his firearm on you or your family, or your country.

I would rather people not so much like us, but respect us enough not to mess with us than to wind up lying at the bottom of a mass grave like they have in some other countries, recently.

You say that can't happen here, this is the USA? Well, you're damned right. That won't happen here because we don't have any problem going to war, and when we do, we don't mess around.

Sal, you got 'em hook, line, and sinker. And I don't think they even know it.

Bitching and moaning? More like shaking my head in pity.
Oh I am sure many Venzualeans love him as well. Just I find him in the same large category as President Bush as leaders who attempt to gain popularity by finding a scapegoat to point at, to cover up their own failings.

Well, Chavez did win re-election by a large majority- and still holds popular support today- something which cannot be said about President G. Bush.

Since when is Chavez a Democrat?

The opposition has also claimed that the Chávez government has engaged in extensive electoral fraud, especially during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and has reported that many anti-Chávez activists are detained as political prisoners.[43]

The human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations under Chávez.[5][6] Scores of deaths and hundreds of injuries inflicted during both opposition and pro-Chávez demonstrations have resulted in little investigative action taken on the part of Chávez. These organizations have also made allegations of ill treatment of detainees, torture, and censorship by Chávez's government. Meanwhile, relatives of victims who were killed in the April 11, 2002 clashes have filed a case against Chávez and others at the International Criminal Court, stating that Chávez is legally complicit in crimes against humanity. A ruling has yet to be reached.[47]

The Chavez government has been denounced by Human Rights Watch for its passage of legislation that threatens to stifle anti-Chavez criticism and dissent from Venezuelan media. The statements are leveled specifically at restrictive amendments to the Venezuelan Criminal Code that criminalize insults, disrespect, and libelous remarks from the news media aimed at either the president or other government authorities. Severe punishments, including sentences of up to 40 months, are part of the so-called "Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television" personally endorsed by Chavez.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

Oohh... Wiki. now there's an unbiased source.

Oohh... Wiki. now there's an unbiased source.
If there is something unbiased about it, go and edit it. Or show a less biased source refuting all those statements.

Chavez is not a nice guy...but there are others about a hundred times worse.

Is it really just that US-Americans are trained to not like left-wing South American Populists, and that makes it so easy to whip up "patriotic" feelings against him?

What has Chavez ever actually done to the US? Nothing.

The US has been against him from Day One, and he's started to condemn the administration in his rhetoric, as you would expect a populist to do. This is the same bullshit as with Castro, where a few Neo-McCarthyists are throwing a fit about something that doesn't concern them in the least.

As for the Sheehan thing...:rolleyes:

Since when is Chavez a Democrat?

I guess Socialist and Democrat now go hand in hand!
lol!

Cindy Sheehan is a attention-craving puppet. Hugo Chavez is about a good of a choice of seriously analyzing US policy as Fidel Castro.

Cindy Sheehan is a heroic woman who chose to dedicate her time to fighting the murderous warmongering of the Bush Administration. She understands its costs, and so she opposes its continuation.

"Puppet" of whom, exactly?

Chávez and Castro are both rather knowledgeable about the effects of US policy; Castro even more than Chávez, if anything. I happen to prefer Chávez to Castro for a number of ideological reasons, such as my liberal democratic orientation on some issues, and thus I would prefer to hear him speak on the subject.

If there is something unbiased about it, go and edit it.
Why? I'm just as biased as anyone else... I'm just not going to quote something biased to back up my biased opinion.


Or show a less biased source refuting all those statements.

I don't honestly care if they're true or fabricated. Just don't use Wiki to back up your points on topics that are so 'hot'. It doesn't back up your points in the slightest.

Cindy Sheehan is a heroic woman who chose to dedicate her time to fighting the murderous warmongering of the Bush Administration. She understands its costs, and so she opposes its continuation.

Oh yeah, some hero for fighting for America! And now a quote from Cindy Sheehan about her love for our country... Cindy?

"This country is not worth dying for."

Thank you Cindy for your sincere comment.

Screw her.

Mr. Chavez, whose generous contribution of cheap oil prevented the freezing deaths of thousands of residents of the impoverished commonwealth of Massachusetts, said his rebuttal of the Bush speech will constitute “a major counter-terrorism offensive.”

Funny... people in Massacheusetts are in absolute no danger of freezing. The poor people (I know many of them) can afford rent, and those who can't don't see any benefit of this deal anyway. Whats a homeless guy going to do with a 50 gallon drum of oil next to his box? If he burns it straight, that will last him maybe a day :rolleyes:

Those who truly needed the help still haven't recieved it.

"This country is not worth dying for."
You never bothered to even try to understand, did you.

"Argggn, she's a heretic, burrrrrrn her!!!"

Some more inspiring words from Cindy Sheehan.

"I am watching CNN and it is 100 percent rita [sic] ... even though it is a little wind and a little rain... it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today... and in the world! ...the media will cover anything else besides the war."

In other words, "Hey, why arent you paying attention to me? waaaa!!!!"

And now a rebuttle from her sis-in-law:
"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Finally someone with common sense that sees what she really stands for.

You never bothered to even try to understand, did you.

"Argggn, she's a heretic, burrrrrrn her!!!"

whats there to understand. Our country not worth dying for? Then get the fuck out! You dont like it leave. There's the border, renounce your citizenship, and leave. We dont have room for freeloaders like that!

Finally someone with common sense that sees what she really stands for.You make it sound like there hasn't been AN INCREDIBLE and PROTRACTED VOLUME OF criticism for her beliefs heard already. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, some hero for fighting for America! And now a quote from Cindy Sheehan about her love for our country... Cindy?

"This country is not worth dying for."

Thank you Cindy for your sincere comment.

Screw her.

Yes, she does have the unfortunate tendency to speak the truth, even when not convenient for the complacent.

Let's copy that whole quote, for those interested:

"America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for'. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq."

That is, she is in favor of defending the United States, but she is against fighting in wars of aggression. The correct position.

Unfortunately for the highly enlightened Democrat Anti-war folks, there are people in the world who have weapons, and are willing to use them, even on their own people (Remember Cambodia, Somalia, Yugoslavia, or Iraq)? If we are not prepared to defend, respond, or perhaps even pre-empt, then the fact of the matter is, all of the good words, negotiations, talks, and group hugs will not prevent your slaughter when a madman levels the bead of his firearm on you or your family, or your country.

It is not "we." It has never been "we." It is they. We, the citizens of the United States, must come to understand this. This country does not fight wars for us, it never has. It does not fight wars to defend us from attack, or to defend other people from attack. It fights wars for its own reasons, its own interests, like every other state on the planet.

I guess Socialist and Democrat now go hand in hand!
lol!
To the far Right in this country, they always have. BTW, there's a reason they call it the "Right"... it's called irony.

look, I got no problem with her view that she lost her son in a war that is unpopular, but once it starts to downright denouncing the US, making an ass out of herself, and then politicizing this protest to the point that she is going to a new socialist president to protest Bush together is unbelievable. that would be like Henry Ford standing up with Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s proclaiming he supports his new take over.
I feel for her losing a son, (its terrible to lose a child) but to politicize his death to this extent, its probably making her son turn over in his grave. I wonder if he is haunting her now. lol!

Wow. I have two words for you: Batshit Crazy


Cindy Sheehan is a attention-craving puppet. Hugo Chavez is about a good of a choice of seriously analyzing US policy as Fidel Castro.


batshit crazy may not be strong enough of a descriptive.

i agrre with you,sheehan is completely around the bend" the us is nuking iraq" and other such nonsensical utterances.

the army is occupying new orleans is another of her blatherings.

i felt sorry for the women for her loss,that turned to cynisim after she was used as an idout mouthpiece for the du,then turned to plain disgust as i have watched her disgustingly use her sons death to keep her name in the news(do i smell a book deal...oprah deals)after most democrats wisely started to distance themselves from her, after her crazy rants.

now i read she is planning to run for office in cali....it is tragic that she lost her son,but that does not qualify a person for public office...period.

what she does have that qualifies her,is her obvious need for attention at any price,at any cost to her self respect.

i dont know if she truly believes what she babbles about...maybe she does..but either way,she is crazy nuts...and she is no better then some drunk on the corner that has deluded themselves into thinking they are the second coming(they may believe it,but that dont make it so,not in the real world at least)

as far as hugo goes,i know nothing about him other then he was elected by his country,he has done nothing to me,or said anything truly irrational(ala..iranians head crazy has)
he has an opposing view on bush,as do i,and he is not murdering his own people or threatening his neighbors(as far as i know)so i say leave the man be!

so he dislikes america's policies...i oppose many of them also,but he is absolutely no threat to us or me.

if his people are happy and he doesn't threaten anyone..wtf is the problem?

sheehan...attention whore and greedy from what i know about her..or simply deluded...

hugo chavez so far has not shown me anything to think badly of him.

that would be like Henry Ford standing up with Adolf Hitler in the early 1930s proclaiming he supports his new take over.
Now this is just ridiculous.

Sal, you got 'em hook, line, and sinker. And I don't think they even know it.

:p

WOW! What a brilliant fucking response! An emoticon! That's almost as good as copy and pasted articles for the original post! Aren't you a fucking clever little bitch!

WOW! What a brilliant fucking response! An emoticon! That's almost as good as copy and pasted articles for the original post! Aren't you a fucking clever little bitch!
Wow, brilliant.

:gundge:

Yes, she does have the unfortunate tendency to speak the truth, even when not convenient for the complacent.

Let's copy that whole quote, for those interested:

"America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for'. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq."

That is, she is in favor of defending the United States, but she is against fighting in wars of aggression. The correct position.

If she had said, "IRAQ is not worth dying for." then I would agree 100%.
She really should know how to word these things.

[/QUOTE]It is not "we." It has never been "we." It is they. We, the citizens of the United States, must come to understand this. This country does not fight wars for us, it never has. It does not fight wars to defend us from attack, or to defend other people from attack. It fights wars for its own reasons, its own interests, like every other state on the planet.[/QUOTE]

Time to give you a history lesson in response to you saying this country never fought for us, or defended us from attack. You see it all goes back to 1941. Dec. 7, 1941. A date which will live in infamy. America was forced to get into a fight for its survival in response to a dastardly attack on its lands. Japan bombed our naval port in Pearl Harbor. Hitler was finishing up his final touches for the conquest of America after the victory in Europe. Japan sent out thousands of aerial bombs to attack the mainland US, killing US citizens. Hitler was preparing bombing plans for the US. All of a sudden America gets into the fight and starts to woop axis ass. Not only to protect Europe and Asia, but also to protect the USA from facism and Japanese agression. If you ever say that America never fought to protect its people, then you must have never opened a history book.

Now this is just ridiculous.

how so?

If she had said, "IRAQ is not worth dying for." then I would agree 100%.
She really should know how to word these things.


Iraq... America.. meh. All perspective.

You see it all goes back to 1941. Dec. 7, 1941. A date which will live in infamy.
A date which will live in infamy in the minds of people who don't have the common sense to get over things that happened sixty-four years ago, I suppose.

*yawns*

Is the boring history lesson over yet, or have you got some gems from the War of Independence you wanted to trot out for the class?

Wow, brilliant.

:gundge:

You know, you're on to something. At first I thought making vapid thoughtless posts that mean absolutely nothing and just sticking a random word or maybe an emoticon in there was a sign of intellectual weakness. But now that your arguments have persuaded me to think just like you I'm gonna be exactly like you... I see the way now. Thank you. I mean that. :)

how so?
You just lost the thread. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)
That should tell you everything you need to know.

A date which will live in infamy in the minds of people who don't have the common sense to get over things that happened sixty-four years ago, I suppose.

*yawns*

Is the boring history lesson over yet, or have you got some gems from the War of Independence you wanted to trot out for the class?
Ahh so history is boring is it?
No wonder those who fail in it are doomed to repeat it.
And Independance? WTF are you taking about. Apparently you mistook the American Revolution for WWII.
Well, you have proven my point.

You know, you're on to something. At first I thought making vapid thoughtless posts that mean absolutely nothing and just sticking a random word or maybe an emoticon in there was a sign of intellectual weakness. But now that your arguments have persuaded me to think just like you I'm gonna be exactly like you... I see the way now. Thank you. I mean that. :)
It's probably a more well thought out plan than posting a complaint in moderation after posting WOW! What a brilliant fucking response! An emoticon! That's almost as good as copy and pasted articles for the original post! Aren't you a fucking clever little bitch!.

:D

If she had said, "IRAQ is not worth dying for." then I would agree 100%.It is her God given rigth to Die for whatever she likes...

Iraq and USA are 2 political entities.. imaginary lines.. AKA Countries.. are they whorted dying for?

It is up to you really... You own your life... and can donate it if you wish.

You just lost the thread. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)
That should tell you everything you need to know.
Oh yes, I am so sorry.
Apparently the Hitler claus should be only used with Bush.
thank you for reminding me.

It's probably a more well thought out plan than posting a complaint in moderation after posting .

:D

Oh not at all :fluffle: :fluffle: :sniper:

whats there to understand. Our country not worth dying for? Then get the fuck out! You dont like it leave. There's the border, renounce your citizenship, and leave. We dont have room for freeloaders like that!and I asume you are typing this from some US army base in Iraq?

or are you one more Chickenhawk?

If she had said, "IRAQ is not worth dying for." then I would agree 100%.
She really should know how to word these things.

Context helps. Sheehan has no obligation to word everything she says in a manner that prevents right-wing demagogues from selective quotation to smear her.

Time to give you a history lesson in response to you saying this country never fought for us, or defended us from attack.

I did not say that. I said that this country does not fight wars to defend us from attack, not that wars this country fights never happen to defend us from attack.

You see it all goes back to 1941. Dec. 7, 1941. A date which will live in infamy. America was forced to get into a fight for its survival in response to a dastardly attack on its lands.

Not "its" lands, somebody else's land that it had stolen, but I digress.

The important point to make here is that even after Dec. 7 the US was hardly fighting for its survival. Neither Germany nor Japan was any great threat to the United States at the time. In another decade or so, maybe, but not then.

The US fought in other people's countries for the duration of the war, and was never bombed, at least not the mainland. That is indicative.

The US during World War II was fighting in Asia for its own imperial interests. What it desired on the European front, and what it achieved, was the destruction of its competitors. It is worthy of attention that it waited until Germany had Britain by the throat before it intervened significantly.

World War II was probably the most successful war for the US, securing for itself the foremost place in the global system for decades afterward. Since then, incompetent leaders have botched much of the gains, but even now they remain significant.

Because of the absolute evil of its enemies, support for the war was probably justified, however - perhaps the only twentieth century case where that was true.

Ahh so history is boring is it?
No wonder those who fail in it are doomed to repeat it.
And Independance? WTF are you taking about. Apparently you mistook the American Revolution for WWII.
Well, you have proven my point.
No history is actually rather interesting. It's all in how it's told.

Indeed, those who pay it little heed are, more often than not, consigned to repeat past mistakes. I'll make sure to not willfully fail to inform my fleet of an impending attack, then shall I?

As for the rest, well - humour apparently isn't your strong point, either.

And though you'll undoubtedly fail to understand the wheres, whys and hows - thank you for beautifully illustrating my points for me, chum.

Be seeing you - !

and I asume you are typing this from some US army base in Iraq?

or are you one more Chickenhawk?

If he is a Chickenhawk, what does tha make you?

Chickenfertilizer?

and I asume you are typing this from some US army base in Iraq?

or are you one more Chickenhawk?
No sir, as a matter of fact, I will be going into the Air Force in about a year or two, as soon as I can get a degree. I'd like to start with an officer's pay.
And please dont call me a chickenhawk. I'll be the first to stand up and fight when the rest of you run and hide when the time comes.

If he is a Chickenhawk, what does tha make you?

Chickenfertilizer?

You don't even have the balls to say chickenshit! :eek: :cool: :p

[QUOTE=Soheran]
The important point to make here is that even after Dec. 7 the US was hardly fighting for its survival. Neither Germany nor Japan was any great threat to the United States at the time. In another decade or so, maybe, but not then.

The US fought in other people's countries for the duration of the war, and was never bombed, at least not the mainland. That is indicative.
QUOTE]
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm
here you go. Cant argue with history.
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bljapanesebombwc1.htm
You say we were never bombed, we were.
Damage minimal yes, but nonetheless we were bombed.
and yes there was a major plan by Hitler for America after Europe's fall.
Hitler had vast plans since 1928 on America. And yes it could of happened had we not got in when we did!

Cindy Sheehan is a heroic woman who chose to dedicate her time to fighting the murderous warmongering of the Bush Administration. She understands its costs, and so she opposes its continuation.

"Puppet" of whom, exactly?

Chávez and Castro are both rather knowledgeable about the effects of US policy; Castro even more than Chávez, if anything. I happen to prefer Chávez to Castro for a number of ideological reasons, such as my liberal democratic orientation on some issues, and thus I would prefer to hear him speak on the subject.
ROFLMFAO!!! Cindy Sheehan is a publicity whore who walked on her own son's grave to get attention. She is totally without honor and if the Democratic Party supports her, I fully intend to change my registration from Independent to Republican at the earliest possible opportunity.

Chavez is a dictator posing as a populist and promising his people everything but the frakking moon! Wonder what's going to happen when he can't deliver? Hmmm?

What the hell, I'll be fair!
I'll give Chavez a chance. Maybe he;s not
so bad.

Chavez is a dictator posing as a populist and promising his people everything but the frakking moon! Wonder what's going to happen when he can't deliver? Hmmm?
But Bush is a dictator posing as an elected official, and he's actually promised his people the Moon. Wonder what's going to happen when he finds his ass in jail? Mehhh.

All you need to know about the Anti-war Movement and Democrats:


We're right.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, that is all

But Bush is a dictator posing as an elected official, and he's actually promised his people the Moon. Wonder what's going to happen when he finds his ass in jail? Mehhh.
No, he just happens to be a duly elected President that you don't like. I hate to be the one to spoil all your pampered childhood's illusions, but just because you don't like him doesn't mean he's a dictator. So sorry, little Bobbie. :D

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm
here you go. Cant argue with history.
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/bljapanesebombwc1.htm
You say we were never bombed, we were.
Damage minimal yes, but nonetheless we were bombed.
and yes there was a major plan by Hitler for America after Europe's fall.
Hitler had vast plans since 1928 on America. And yes it could of happened had we not got in when we did!

Fair enough. The United States was indeed bombed - negligibly and insignificantly, and irrelevantly to the point I was making.

Lots of people have plans, the question is whether they can actually be implemented. Nazi Germany in Dec. 1941 was occupied with the Soviets, and was definitely incapable of launching an invasion across the Atlantic. They hadn't even been able to crush the British.

No, [Bush] just happens to be a duly elected President that you don't like. I hate to be the one to spoil all your pampered childhood's illusions, but just because you don't like him doesn't mean he's a dictator. So sorry, little Bobbie. :D

Chavez is a dictator posing as a populist and promising his people everything but the frakking moon! Wonder what's going to happen when he can't deliver? Hmmm?

Eutrusca's quotes speak for themselves - no further comment is necessary.

This topic is above most USians heads... give it a few years.

Technically correct, but only in a geographical sense. You're shaving hairs. We are the only country in the Americas with America in its' nation's name, are we not? Why does people from the U.S. calling themselves Americans bother you?

Eutrusca's quotes speak for themselves - no further comment is necessary.
Though some measure of thanks should be given. Thank-you, Soheran. That was good of you.

I just hate all the BS reasons the Bush people gave for the war. If they came right out and told the people that the oil supply was running a little low, and they needed to go get some more from the middle east, id be all for the war. No more of this invisible enemy inside and outside the country crap. Oil is an incredibly useful resource, and it’s worth a few lives to obtain. Just not mine.

You don't even have the balls to say chickenshit! :eek: :cool: :p
Are you going to follow me around from thread to thread spewing your garbage for the rest of eternity?

Its really a shame they lacked the moral courage to bet their lives on the WMD claim and then carry through with a suicide pact.
SO good it merits repeating..
*bows*

Are you going to follow me around from thread to thread spewing your garbage for the rest of eternity?
Probably not, just until you discover what you're missing and either leave the forum gracefully or with the help of a mod. ;)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, that is all
Oooh, you really ... uhm, GOT'em there, huh ... ?
Way to ... something.
:rolleyes:

The opposition has also claimed that the Chávez government has engaged in extensive electoral fraud, especially during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and has reported that many anti-Chávez activists are detained as political prisoners.

Sure. The elections were controlled by international observers, including the Jimmy Carter center, and none ever found the slightest amount of fraud. It's easy to claim there is fraud when you are overwelminingly defeated (Chavez won by >59%), it's less easy to prove it when there is nothing...

And for political prisonners, don't make me laugh, even the generals who did a coup attempt are still free ! They were fired from the army (that's the least Chavez could do without being , but didn't even get sued !

The human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations under Chávez.[5][6]

People killed during demonstrations ? Oh, like in 2002 ? You know, when the anti-Chavez TV showed Chavez supporting shooting from a bridge to a peaceful demonstration below, killing 18 persons... oh, oops, the demonstration never went below that bridge. What happened is that Chavez _opponents_ used snippers to open fire on Chavez supporters, and Chavez supporters then fired back on where the snippers were suppoed to be. On the 18 death, 14 were Chavez supporters.

And everything is like that in those "numerous human rights violations". Not proven, and if you look more closely, you end up with anti-Chavez being the ones doing those violations !

censorship by Chávez's government

How could you be more ridiculous ? On the 8 TV channels of Venezeula, 7 are strongly anti-Chavez, only Channel 8, the governemental TV, is pro-Chavez.

Chavez never did censor the anti-Chavez TV, even when they show public call to murder him (try to call for the murder of Bush on US TV, and see how long before you end up in jail - and I don't many countries where you could do that without troubles), or show generals calling for a coup.

Look at facts, not at rents by angry people who after losing elections on elections can only spread lies, do coup or murder attempts.

Chavez is not a nice guy...but there are others about a hundred times worse.

What do you have against Chavez ? ;)

What has Chavez ever actually done to the US? Nothing.

Hey, he sells cheap oil directly to poor citizen in USA ! That's bad for the profits of US oil companies !

The US has been against him from Day One, and he's started to condemn the administration in his rhetoric, as you would expect a populist to do.

Chavez is not populist. A populist is someone who call to the people and say what the people wants to hear to take the power for himself. Chavez says what he thinks, and the people like that. Chavez is from the people, and he gives the power back to the people (local democracy circles, recall referendums, ...). And most of all, Chavez keeps his promises.

You can't call "populist" a leader who is loved by his people because he does what he says, because he does what the people want him to do ?

I just hate all the BS reasons the Bush people gave for the war. If they came right out and told the people that the oil supply was running a little low, and they needed to go get some more from the middle east, id be all for the war. No more of this invisible enemy inside and outside the country crap. Oil is an incredibly useful resource, and it’s worth a few lives to obtain. Just not mine.

You've just justified every invasion in the history of the planet.

Nice job.

I assume you're being facetious.

Either that, or you're Bush himself.

This is symptomatic of the decline of Ameikan right wing trolling in general...they've never recovered from the whole "Wheres yer WMD now?" episode.....

According to an Iraqi general, they are in Syria.

Not that it matters now.

http://stoptheaclu.com/wp-images/kissing.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/sheehanchavez.jpg

You know, I think you learn all you need to know about the pro-war viewpoint just by looking at the sources they choose. A link to a group that opposes American civil liberties, and a link to Michelle Malkin...I mean, really, is that the best you've got? Opposition to individual rights, and a shrill right wing hack who insists that internment camps were a great idea?

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
- Confucius
"The fool says what he knows, but the wise man knows what he says"
-Schopenhauer.