Anyone getting tired of this traitor yet?

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

wrong, often we fund the least bad among the bad (judgement call at best) and in the case of Iraq, guess what it was bad judgement.

how is what she did any different?

get over, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

i don't see where anyone is denying the bitch freedom of speech.

I would think advocating that she not be allowed back in the country and shackled if she is would be proposing that she shouldn't have free speech, but I'm weird like that in my interpretations

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of hers (definitely not a fan of Bush either), but I think people make too much out of things like this which extends the 15 minutes of someone like this.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

wrong, often we fund the least bad among the bad (judgement call at best) and in the case of Iraq, guess what it was bad judgement.

how is what she did any different?

get over, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

i don't see where anyone is denying the bitch freedom of speech.

No one is and I am not either. I think it is great for governments to have the left and the right to keep everything in balance. She can say what she wants as long as it is not meant to cause physical harm to any person. EX. If someone heard that an extremist say that they were going to use their "group" to topple the government I would expect the government to take evasive actions and shut that person down. You cant say you are going to kill someone (while actually meaning it) while holding a gun pointing at them and get away with it. That is past free speech.

 

[moshquerade]

Chavez is a dangerous man. he calls Castro one of his best friends. he doesn't care about Cindy Sheehan. he only cares to bring down our government.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

wrong, often we fund the least bad among the bad (judgement call at best) and in the case of Iraq, guess what it was bad judgement.

how is what she did any different?

get over, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

i don't see where anyone is denying the bitch freedom of speech.

I would think advocating that she not be allowed back in the country and shackled if she is would be proposing that she shouldn't have free speech, but I'm weird like that in my interpretations

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of hers (definitely not a fan of Bush either), but I think people make too much out of things like this which extends the 15 minutes of someone like this.

IM NOT REFERRING TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Im referring to her ACTIONS in context with her SPEECH.

There is a difference between saying your going to hurt someone, and saying your going to hurt someone while holding a chain to an insane bull dog.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

World War I started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered by Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society. Austria-Hungry demanded justice. When Serbia didn't produce the assassins, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28th, 1914.

Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilization of its vast army in her defense.

Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilization as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and declared war on Russia on August 1st.

France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.

Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on August 4th.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping- forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on April 6th 1917.



See, you learned something today.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Chavez is a dangerous man. he calls Castro one of his best friends. he doesn't care about Cindy Sheehan. he only cares to bring down our government.

Thank you!!! Hence my reasoning for saying that she is a traitor, she is supporting Chavez who wants to see us collapse.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Crazee
I would think advocating that she not be allowed back in the country and shackled if she is would be proposing that she shouldn't have free speech, but I'm weird like that in my interpretations

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of hers (definitely not a fan of Bush either), but I think people make too much out of things like this which extends the 15 minutes of someone like this.

Free speech advocates always seem to forget the simple concept that the right to free speech does not free them from the consequences of that speech.

 

[tommywishbone]

Her son is dead because the president of the United States is a liar, a thief, and a madman. I say... cut her some slack.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Her son is dead because the president of the United States is a liar, a thief, and a madman. I say... cut her some slack.

facts to support accusations?

and lest you forget her son signed up voluntarily to be in the military knowing he could go to war.

 

[Crazee]

Whether you think Chavez is a dangerous man is immaterial. We are not at war with them, we don't have embargos on them like Cuba. They are not our enemy so it cannot be collaboration just because you don't like it :roll:

 

[KarenMarie]

i did not know they had freedom of speech in Venezuela.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

wrong, often we fund the least bad among the bad (judgement call at best) and in the case of Iraq, guess what it was bad judgement.

how is what she did any different?

get over, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

i don't see where anyone is denying the bitch freedom of speech.

I would think advocating that she not be allowed back in the country and shackled if she is would be proposing that she shouldn't have free speech, but I'm weird like that in my interpretations

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of hers (definitely not a fan of Bush either), but I think people make too much out of things like this which extends the 15 minutes of someone like this.

IM NOT REFERRING TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Im referring to her ACTIONS in context with her SPEECH.

There is a difference between saying your going to hurt someone, and saying your going to hurt someone while holding a chain to an insane bull dog.

That is quite possibly the worst analogy made EVER. What the crap are you talking about? She went and talked against President Bush in Venezuela. Did she pick up an RPG and shoot a tank? No. Did she aid and abet terrorists? No.

I can't believe how hyperbolic you people are. The Saudi Royal family gives money to Al Qaeda and gets invited to the White House and you don't care. A grieving mother speaks against Bush and you get your panties in bind.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

World War I started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered by Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society. Austria-Hungry demanded justice. When Serbia didn't produce the assassins, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28th, 1914.

Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilization of its vast army in her defense.

Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilization as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and declared war on Russia on August 1st.

France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.

Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on August 4th.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping- forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on April 6th 1917.



See, you learned something today.

I have a degree in History and Political Science. I know what I am talking about.

It is not who started the war, but who we supported (financially, commercially, politics etc,) prior to the breakout of war. We supported Saddam/Iraq/Iran and others in their fight against the Russians and others. They in turn, many years later turned around with many of our own weapons and fired them at us.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Her son is dead because the president of the United States is a liar, a thief, and a madman. I say... cut her some slack.

WRONG.

However, Cindy Sheehan does think the insurgents murdering our troops are freedom fighters, so she is a traitor.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Whether you think Chavez is a dangerous man is immaterial. We are not at war with them, we don't have embargos on them like Cuba. They are not our enemy so it cannot be collaboration just because you don't like it :roll:

he's in bed with Castro. it's just a matter of time before his hate for the United States comes to a head.

read what he has to say about our President, our government, our people. he is not a person Sheehan should be getting involved with no matter how much she wants to blame Bush for her son's death.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Her son is dead because the president of the United States is a liar, a thief, and a madman. I say... cut her some slack.

WRONG.

However, Cindy Sheehan does think the insurgents murdering our troops are freedom fighters, so she is a traitor.

She is at the very least a whacked out idiot.

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

wrong, often we fund the least bad among the bad (judgement call at best) and in the case of Iraq, guess what it was bad judgement.

how is what she did any different?

get over, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

i don't see where anyone is denying the bitch freedom of speech.

I would think advocating that she not be allowed back in the country and shackled if she is would be proposing that she shouldn't have free speech, but I'm weird like that in my interpretations

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of hers (definitely not a fan of Bush either), but I think people make too much out of things like this which extends the 15 minutes of someone like this.

IM NOT REFERRING TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Im referring to her ACTIONS in context with her SPEECH.

There is a difference between saying your going to hurt someone, and saying your going to hurt someone while holding a chain to an insane bull dog.

That is quite possibly the worst analogy made EVER. What the crap are you talking about? She went and talked against President Bush in Venezuela. Did she pick up an RPG and shoot a tank? No. Did she aid and abet terrorists? No.

I can't believe how hyperbolic you people are. The Saudi Royal family gives money to Al Qaeda and gets invited to the White House and you don't care. A grieving mother speaks against Bush and you get your panties in bind.

Actions speek louder than words. What she did can be the equivalent of picking up an RPG and shoot a tank. She gave Chavez more gusto.

I can't believe how hyperbolic you people are. The Saudi Royal family gives money to Al Qaeda and gets invited to the White House and you don't care. A grieving mother speaks against Bush and you get your panties in bind.


Those families are so huge it really doesnt mean anything. Osama is one of how many dozen kids? That is like saying someone with the last name of Bush or Cheney voted/donated money for Kerry.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Winchester



I have a degree in History and Political Science. I know what I am talking about.

It is not who started the war, but who we supported (financially, commercially, politics etc,) prior to the breakout of war. We supported Saddam/Iraq/Iran and others in their fight against the Russians and others. They in turn, many years later turned around with many of our own weapons and fired them at us.

You must've skipped the chapter on World War I then, huh?

 

[Winchester]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Winchester

Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
Except we have freedom of speech in America, so I don't know how well that would hold up.

There is a difference between collaborating with an enemy of the United States and free speech. Her actions are no different than if she went and fought beside Osama. She has now done the same thing.

so when our govt funds foreign govt (Iraq) etc that is somehow better than what she did?

just because they are elected officials, it doesn't mean that they are held to a different standard. if what she did is traitorous than many of our presidents have also been traitorous.

We fund allies. Sometimes those allies turn around and bite us and therefore become enemies, hence, WWI, WWII, and so on.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

World War I started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered by Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society. Austria-Hungry demanded justice. When Serbia didn't produce the assassins, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28th, 1914.

Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilization of its vast army in her defense.

Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilization as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and declared war on Russia on August 1st.

France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.

Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on August 4th.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping- forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on April 6th 1917.



See, you learned something today.

I have a degree in History and Political Science. I know what I am talking about.

It is not who started the war, but who we supported (financially, commercially, politics etc,) prior to the breakout of war. We supported Saddam/Iraq/Iran and others in their fight against the Russians and others. They in turn, many years later turned around with many of our own weapons and fired them at us.

You must've skipped the chapter on World War I then, huh?

You must think you know something simply because you googled it.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Crazee
Whether you think Chavez is a dangerous man is immaterial. We are not at war with them, we don't have embargos on them like Cuba. They are not our enemy so it cannot be collaboration just because you don't like it :roll:

he's in bed with Castro. it's just a matter of time before his hate for the United States comes to a head.

read what he has to say about our President, our government, our people. he is not a person Sheehan should be getting involved with no matter how much she wants to blame Bush for her son's death.

I have read what he has said about our President, our government and our people. I know he has relations with Castro as do many other countries. Again all immaterial until sanctions or war are declared. He and the country of Venezuela are not enemies of the US.

Pat Robertson called for Chavez's assassination so he is a dangerous man. If that is the case should we exile or threaten to put his congregation in shackles because they are associating with a dangerous man?

If people would stop overreacting to crap like this it would fade away. By reacting like this it only keeps the person you don't like in the limelight longer.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Winchester



Actions speek louder than words. What she did can be the equivalent of picking up an RPG and shoot a tank. She gave Chavez more gusto.

I can't believe how hyperbolic you people are. The Saudi Royal family gives money to Al Qaeda and gets invited to the White House and you don't care. A grieving mother speaks against Bush and you get your panties in bind.


Those families are so huge it really doesnt mean anything. Osama is one of how many dozen kids? That is like saying someone with the last name of Bush or Cheney voted/donated money for Kerry.

oh... thanks for explaining it!

more gusto = 40mm shaped high explosive anti-tank round

Good to know the conversion ratio.

 

[KarenMarie]

the nested quotes are gonna ruin this thread...

can you guys, please, snip a bit? Not only are they easier to read, but it will keep the page focused better.

please?

thanks.

 

[Accipiter22]

She just doesn't want any more people to go through what she did.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Winchester

You must think you know something simply because you googled it.

google was right and you weren't. google was free. how much was your 4 year education?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: AStar617
I agree 100%... but why is this in ATOT and not P&N?

because P&N thinks she's all that and bag of cornnuts.

Right, all of three people in P&N. And the only people who actually post threads about her are conservative, so your point is moot.