cKGunslinger
Lifer
Well then now I'm confused as to the current argument. I don't think too many are arguing that Sheehan doesn't have the "right" to protest (flame thread posted in P&N not withstanding), just that her 'message' is a bit clouded by her history, actions, and associations.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've never said that Cindy is as pure as the driven snow. I have said she has the right to protest to her hearts content. The people against her have the right to do that also.
I thought I was clear? The crap they're throwing at her doesn't seem to be sticking as well as the crap she's throwing at them.?? Or maybe you think it is? I don't, and I ask myself why?? The only answer I come up with is that the public identies with her and her viewpoint better then the opposing viewpoint.
I think people are realizing what a money pit GWB threw us into and that he purposely mislead us to do it, for the benifit of the military-industrial complex. Most people call them the elite, he calls them his base.
I mean, you can have the most universally truthful message in the world - such as "Children are important" - but if during your protest you tout your NAMBLA card and marching around with dead babies on pikes, people are going to question your motives and the sincerity of your statements, no?
*That* seems to be the argument here. Not whether Sheehan has the right to protest, but whether her message has any merit based on her past and current behaviors. The right extremists are guilty of emotional appeals against her, but the left radicals are just as guilty of emotional appeals for her. Only someone decidedly biased would recognize one and ignore the other.