Cindy Sheehan

[Lemon law]

Somewhat a good point umbrella---Far more Republicans went nuts about her than Democrats openly supported her from what I've noticed.

But I lived through Vietnam---and watched the war go from something widely supported---to a point where tens of thosands of Americans were taking to the streets chanting HEY HEY LBJ---HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY!---and that war still dragged on for six or more years after LBJ was gone.

Until American regains its backbone----we still need to salute Cindy Sheehan---for being the lone voice crying out in the wilderness that the emperor has no clothes.

And Cindy is also right---the Pres is not the only idiot who gets us into these messes--they have plenty of help.

I also was against this Iraqi brainfart before it began---or at least I claim that distintion---but given the Iraq war was polling 90% three years ago---most of you can go look in the mirror and see whose is to blame.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
No one likes their rabid dog after it turns to bite them.

Are your refering to Cindy Sheehan or GenX87?

Neither...but the yahoos still embraced Limbaugh after he nearly single-handedly brought down that ship...so I don't know who he's talking about.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Darn. If I had known Cindy was around, I would have gladly marched into the Capitol and spit on her.

 

[MrPALCO]

I believe Sheehan is a wounded animal. Her grief over the loss of her son and the destruction of her marriage has addled her mind and pointed her off the cliff.

Has anyone else noticed the disconnect between her 17 year old ?Valley Girl? voice and her worn out, no make up, hairy leg, NOW gang appearance?

 

[Dolorous Dave]

She is simply a puppet that has outlived its use. The Democrats tossed her aside when even the mainstream press couldn't pretend she wasn't a raving idiot. If she and George Bush had a baby, the universe would implode from the sudden overwhelming infusion of stupidity.

I mean, I feel for the lady and all but she clearly has no common sense or opinions of her own. She's been used up by the special interest groups and even when they've walked away, she's still parading around like a retarded Energizer Bunny.

Edit for spelling error.

 

[Tab]

Is Genx87 on vacation or something? I think the young boy is in love with cindy.

 

[tomywishbone]

Her son was sacrificed for oil, by war pigs. She's harmless; I say give her a break.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Darn. If I had known Cindy was around, I would have gladly marched into the Capitol and spit on her.

Why

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Dolorous Dave
She is simply a puppet that has outlived its use. The Democrats tossed her aside when even the mainstream press couldn't pretend she wasn't a raving idiot.

The most I'd heard of her was from Fox News and those whose ire was raised by what she has said and supported...

As Fox News as well gave so much attention to Fred Phelps and his gang as well...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I think most true Americans favor freedom of speech. What is YOUR problem with it again?

The OP is not making a free speech argument. It is simply pointing out that Democrat support of Cindy Sheehan seemingly waned once she focused criticisms against their party...her free speech was certainly acceptable when she was going after Bush, and the potential that the attention payed to her by the media would have political implications for the Republicans.

people stopped paying attention long before she started calling out liberals, this no-reporting really isn't so much about bias, as it is that it won't get ratings since noone gives a damn about her anymore.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wouldn't call that "going after" Democrats in the sense of attacking them. She's got a point to make, and she's right. Poll after poll show that the voters specifically voted to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

Now that the Republicans are no longer the majority, she's taking her cause to those who were voters made the majority in power.

Why is this any suprise to you? :roll:

That is not true Harvey. The voters voted for a change in policy in Iraq, which is what Democrats offered (although they never said how they would change the policy)

The Democrats did NOT offer nor did they stand behind a policy of getting out of Iraq. That is just wishful thinking by a few on the anti-war left.

For proof of this all you have to do is look at the Democrats 100 hours plans, notice any call to bring the troops out of Iraq? Or even a call to cut spending for the war? Umm No, and no.

All you need to do to prove that I am wrong, which I know you want to do, is post some quotes by a prominent Democrat stating that if elected the Democrats will end the war in Iraq. Good luck on that.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Darn. If I had known Cindy was around, I would have gladly marched into the Capitol and spit on her.

spitting on someone is a felony in some states, you might want to rethink that.

 

[ProfJohn]

A few political commentators mentioned post election that Democrats would start to move away for her and the anti-war crowd now that they are in power.

They were great when they were attacking Republicans and bringing bad publicity to them, but once they turn on the Democrats it is bad for them. Hence the cold shoulder.

Will be interesting to see if she truly turns on them. (which will be great theater)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wouldn't call that "going after" Democrats in the sense of attacking them. She's got a point to make, and she's right. Poll after poll show that the voters specifically voted to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

Now that the Republicans are no longer the majority, she's taking her cause to those who were voters made the majority in power.

Why is this any suprise to you? :roll:

That is not true Harvey. The voters voted for a change in policy in Iraq, which is what Democrats offered (although they never said how they would change the policy)

The Democrats did NOT offer nor did they stand behind a policy of getting out of Iraq. That is just wishful thinking by a few on the anti-war left.

For proof of this all you have to do is look at the Democrats 100 hours plans, notice any call to bring the troops out of Iraq? Or even a call to cut spending for the war? Umm No, and no.

All you need to do to prove that I am wrong, which I know you want to do, is post some quotes by a prominent Democrat stating that if elected the Democrats will end the war in Iraq. Good luck on that.

if i recall, recent polling has shown that a plurality of americans want to leave sooner rather than later.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A few political commentators mentioned post election that Democrats would start to move away for her and the anti-war crowd now that they are in power.

They were great when they were attacking Republicans and bringing bad publicity to them, but once they turn on the Democrats it is bad for them. Hence the cold shoulder.

Will be interesting to see if she truly turns on them. (which will be great theater)

she never got much support, only condemnation. A few radicals supported her cause, and a few more looked at her as an example of what war does to people, but for the most part it was "hey look at her... shes camping in crawford, thats interesting" than "sheehan is our spokesman and we agree with her. As several people have mentioned already, conservatives gave her much more attention than liberals.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Genx87
If anybody paid attention to her in 04 you will notice the media stopped covering her when she started attacking democrats like Hillary Clinton. Amazing how that happens isnt it?

Anyways

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241137,00.html

I guess this is what some could call blowback. I wonder if democrats and libbies and the media will embrace her the same this time when she is going after the party.

I think most true Americans favor freedom of speech.

What is YOUR problem again?

:roll:

Where ever did you get the impression I am against freedom of speech? I think it is interesting she is going after the democrats and curious if the left, the media, and democrats will embrace her the same this time around.

I have no problem with this whatsoever, it is amusing.

So if your theory was correct Fox news should be all over her...

but wait...

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If anybody paid attention to her in 04 you will notice the media stopped covering her when she started attacking democrats like Hillary Clinton. Amazing how that happens isnt it?

Anyways

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241137,00.html

I guess this is what some could call blowback. I wonder if democrats and libbies and the media will embrace her the same this time when she is going after the party.

Maybe the media stopped paying attention to her a long time ago because that's how the news works. They report on recent events. Do you still see nightly news coverage about Mark Foley? :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wouldn't call that "going after" Democrats in the sense of attacking them. She's got a point to make, and she's right. Poll after poll show that the voters specifically voted to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

Now that the Republicans are no longer the majority, she's taking her cause to those who were voters made the majority in power.

Why is this any suprise to you? :roll:

That is not true Harvey. The voters voted for a change in policy in Iraq, which is what Democrats offered (although they never said how they would change the policy)

The Democrats did NOT offer nor did they stand behind a policy of getting out of Iraq. That is just wishful thinking by a few on the anti-war left.

For proof of this all you have to do is look at the Democrats 100 hours plans, notice any call to bring the troops out of Iraq? Or even a call to cut spending for the war? Umm No, and no.

All you need to do to prove that I am wrong, which I know you want to do, is post some quotes by a prominent Democrat stating that if elected the Democrats will end the war in Iraq. Good luck on that.

if i recall, recent polling has shown that a plurality of americans want to leave sooner rather than later.

That is not what Harvey is stating though, he is claiming the voters voted for Democrats so they would end the war, and there is no evidence of that.

Also the end the war polls are hard to sum up as easy as you say.
CBS News poll from 1-07: only 36% think the Democarts will 'remove all' troops from Iraq.

CNN Poll: 67% oppose the war, vs. 31 who favor
However, only 21% want to withdrawl immediately, 33% by 12-07 and 32% as long as needed.

So you could say 54% of Americans want us to leave Iraq, or you could say 65% are willing to give us another year in Iraq. Both statements are true.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
I wouldn't call that "going after" Democrats in the sense of attacking them. She's got a point to make, and she's right. Poll after poll show that the voters specifically voted to end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible.

Now that the Republicans are no longer the majority, she's taking her cause to those who were voters made the majority in power.

Why is this any suprise to you? :roll:

That is not true Harvey. The voters voted for a change in policy in Iraq, which is what Democrats offered (although they never said how they would change the policy)

The Democrats did NOT offer nor did they stand behind a policy of getting out of Iraq. That is just wishful thinking by a few on the anti-war left.

For proof of this all you have to do is look at the Democrats 100 hours plans, notice any call to bring the troops out of Iraq? Or even a call to cut spending for the war? Umm No, and no.

All you need to do to prove that I am wrong, which I know you want to do, is post some quotes by a prominent Democrat stating that if elected the Democrats will end the war in Iraq. Good luck on that.

if i recall, recent polling has shown that a plurality of americans want to leave sooner rather than later.

That is not what Harvey is stating though, he is claiming the voters voted for Democrats so they would end the war, and there is no evidence of that.

Also the end the war polls are hard to sum up as easy as you say.
CBS News poll from 1-07: only 36% think the Democarts will 'remove all' troops from Iraq.

CNN Poll: 67% oppose the war, vs. 31 who favor
However, only 21% want to withdrawl immediately, 33% by 12-07 and 32% as long as needed.

So you could say 54% of Americans want us to leave Iraq, or you could say 65% are willing to give us another year in Iraq. Both statements are true.

So 67% oppose the war, but somehow you think 65% are willing to give Bush another year??

I don't think so.

 

[Lemon law]

Just because some--including me---think a premature Iraq withdrawal is not the the right course either------ THIS DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUPPORT FOR GWB'S POSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While many of us in the thoughtful minority wish that we had not gotten into this Iraqi brainfart---we also realize that we must see it through to a point of some stability or the risks of not doing so is huge and vastly outweighs the benefits.

BUT IT ALSO IMPLIES THAT WE ALSO REALIZE GWB IS NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION AND IS THE ROADBLOCK THAT MUST BE REMOVED TO MAKE PROGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[herkulease]

so this lady arrived in cuba to comment about gitmo.

what I"m wondering is where does she get the money to fly around the country and then go to foreign countries.

I don't think she's rich or is she?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Just because some--including me---think a premature Iraq withdrawal is not the the right course either------ THIS DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUPPORT FOR GWB'S POSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While many of us in the thoughtful minority wish that we had not gotten into this Iraqi brainfart---we also realize that we must see it through to a point of some stability or the risks of not doing so is huge and vastly outweighs the benefits.

BUT IT ALSO IMPLIES THAT WE ALSO REALIZE GWB IS NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION AND IS THE ROADBLOCK THAT MUST BE REMOVED TO MAKE PROGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing I have to say about that is I heard the same exact reasoning to justify "staying the course" in Vietnam. It turned out to be faulty reasoning then and I think it's faulty reasoning now. The reason I think staying is the wrong course is that you can't tell who is the enemy and who isn't.

How the hell can you fight and win a war like that? Your going to have to kill a lot of innocent people to even have a chance and frankly, we just don't have the stomach for doing that.

The only ones who can turn this around are the Iraqi's. "At this juncture", we've done all we can to help them to help themselves. The best thing we can do now is tell them we want out and start planning accordingly. Let them sink or swim on their own.

It's best we lick our wounds and get our boys out before even more of them are killed in vain. If that means $100/barrel oil, then so be it. It's time we started concentrating on alternate energy sources anyway, something we should have done after the last oil crisis. I also disagree that supporting giving the current administration more time isn't actually supporting them. There is no way to win this and the longer we stay the worse it seems to get. GWB needs to admit that he/they were WRONG about EVERYTHING and proceed accordingly. That means working on an exit strategy that shifts the burden onto the Iraqi goverment. We can't prop them up forever.

 

[sandorski]

Thread number X(some huge number) by a "conservative" concerning Sheehan.

I'd do the same for the "liberal" side, but after all these years I can't recall even 1.

Though she certainly exists and certainly leans and is supported by various "liberals", she's practically a paper tiger in the grand scheme. She's good for whipping the small remaining Neo-Con faithful back into a frenzy on cue, which is why Fox and a few members here like to bring her up everytime they can.