MSNBC.com Breaking News

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: montanafan
Was Martin Luther King, Jr. an attention whore? How about Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Jones, or Nelson Mandela? Should they have been locked up and the key thrown away? Well, for Mandela those that thought so almost got their way.

Not that I would put Cindy Sheehan on the same level as the real leaders of those protests, but the premise is the same. You're protesting something the government is doing and you need attention for your cause so that more people will take notice in the hope that they will put pressure on the government to bring about change. Civil disobedience and being arrested brought attention to all of those others and the strategy here is to do the same. People who lean toward your cause will see it as an example of the government trying to use its power to silence those who disagree with them and deny the will of the people; those who disagree with your cause will see it as grandstanding and a lack of respect for the law and the government that needs to quelled by those in authority to maintain law and order.

Of course it's all about getting attention. And it works. We're all talking about the subject again after a long break from it. I don't see it as a big deal. It won't change many people's minds one way or the other, but it is an age old strategy for bringing your cause to the attention of others and raising the debate about it. It's the American way...and the South African... and the Indian... and the...

What about the unibomber? He was protesting for a cause. Yeah, he broke the law in a different way, but the premise is the same. Right?

How about Rodney King?

What if it were some pro-life folks protesting instead? Would you have the same sympathy?

C'mon, even uttering Sheehan's name in the same context with MLK, Gandhi, or Mandela is grounds for permanent insanity charges. The attempt at moral relativism is shameful.

See bolded. I agree. You should be ashamed of trying to compare the violence of the unibomber and Rodney King with the nonviolence protest of the others.

And if you'd read my post you would have seen this - Not that I would put Cindy Sheehan on the same level as the real leaders of those protests

 

[Starbuck1975]

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. an attention whore? How about Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Jones, or Nelson Mandela? Should they have been locked up and the key thrown away? Well, for Mandela those that thought so almost got their way.

I think the distinction being that the list of people you mentioned were respected leaders of their respective causes...in the sense that each was fighting fairly specific social injustices being suffered by groups of people under the yoke of oppression.

Those opposed to the war in Iraq have no such concise message...many in Sheehan's camp have suffered no injustice, motivated only by their hatred for Bush...very much a partisan as opposed to just cause.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. an attention whore? How about Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Jones, or Nelson Mandela? Should they have been locked up and the key thrown away? Well, for Mandela those that thought so almost got their way.

I think the distinction being that the list of people you mentioned were respected leaders of their respective causes...in the sense that each was fighting fairly specific social injustices being suffered by groups of people under the yoke of oppression.

Those opposed to the war in Iraq have no such concise message...many in Sheehan's camp have suffered no injustice, motivated only by their hatred for Bush...very much a partisan as opposed to just cause.

I agree with you on the comparison of those leaders of their movements with Sheehan, that's why I wrote, "Not that I would put Cindy Sheehan on the same level as the real leaders of those protests..." She is not the leader of this movement by a long shot. She is a figurehead who is being fed most of her lines by those running the show. And yes, those running the show are mainly motivated by their desire to embarrass and discredit Bush, but the strategy is still the same.

People are referring to Sheehan and her group as attention whores. They are seeking attention for their cause just as MLK, Jr. and the others were doing when they marched, sat in the front of the bus, sat at the counter of the restaurant, got arrested, etc. The strategy is the same and those who denigrate Sheehan and her like for doing the same are missing the point. Why is it behavior that the others are now respected for, yet those who disagree with Sheehan's group's message find the same sort of behavior to be disgusting grandstanding and attention whoring?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
There's a kernel of a good point here, in that I agree Cindy Sheehan is far from equivalent to MLK or Gandhi, but they share an important characteristic not common to Ted Kaczynski or Rodney King. Ms. Sheehan, like Gandhi and MLK (and most but not all pro-life protestors), engaged in peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience. It's nonsensical to pretend they have nothing in common, or that the Unabomber is of their same ilk.

I agree - mentioning Sheehan along the likes of MLK is ridiculous. Almost like the far left trying to associate Bush with Hitler.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
There's a kernel of a good point here, in that I agree Cindy Sheehan is far from equivalent to MLK or Gandhi, but they share an important characteristic not common to Ted Kaczynski or Rodney King. Ms. Sheehan, like Gandhi and MLK (and most but not all pro-life protestors), engaged in peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience. It's nonsensical to pretend they have nothing in common, or that the Unabomber is of their same ilk.

I agree - mentioning Sheehan along the likes of MLK is ridiculous. Almost like the far left trying to associate Bush with Hitler.

But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Edit: Why are so many avoiding the question and deflecting it to comparing the people involved?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
There's a kernel of a good point here, in that I agree Cindy Sheehan is far from equivalent to MLK or Gandhi, but they share an important characteristic not common to Ted Kaczynski or Rodney King. Ms. Sheehan, like Gandhi and MLK (and most but not all pro-life protestors), engaged in peaceful, nonviolent civil disobedience. It's nonsensical to pretend they have nothing in common, or that the Unabomber is of their same ilk.

I agree - mentioning Sheehan along the likes of MLK is ridiculous. Almost like the far left trying to associate Bush with Hitler.

Pabster gets the whole gamut of my post.

 

[montanafan]

And again...

But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Why are so many avoiding the question and deflecting it to comparing the people involved?

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Why are so many avoiding the question and deflecting it to comparing the people involved?

It's all they've got...if they don't deflect, they project.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: montanafan
And again...

But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Why are so many avoiding the question and deflecting it to comparing the people involved?

It's indicative of the weakness of their rhetoric (just as comparing Cindy Sheehan to Rodney King, of all people, is).

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheehan is an attention whore and nothing more.

So true.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

I agree - mentioning Sheehan along the likes of MLK is ridiculous. Almost like the far left trying to associate Bush with Hitler.

Do you think there's any legitimacy to comparing her to Rodney King?

 

[CaptnKirk]

She doesn't have a problem being the symbol for a cause - that's what it's all about.
We went through this in the 60's, it's De Ja Vu all over again.


Everything that she's doing is for the symbology of the opposition to the ( X ) Administration's ( Y ) policy.
Choose X: Bush , Johnson
Choose Y: Iraq , Veitnam


Be she right or wrong is not an issue, the issue is being able to address the Government with a greivence, and not have it ignored.

Every thing that she does from now on puts herself AS WELL AS the Bush Administration under a microscope.
Bush isn't looking superlative right now, and any perceived 'Jumping the Couch' attacks on one symbolic woman will be looked upon badly.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Do you think there's any legitimacy to comparing her to Rodney King?

No. Any more wild comparisons / analogies you'd like me to dismiss?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

Becareful, there are alot of unpleasant facts about MLK they don't teach in our public education system. But we'll leave those alone in this thread and save it for a different day.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Becareful, there are alot of unpleasant facts about MLK they don't teach in our public education system. But we'll leave those alone in this thread and save it for a different day.

Absolutely. But that would be getting WAY too far off topic here.

I'm talking in general terms

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

Again, you ignore the question and argue people and personalities you disagree with.

MLK, Jr. fought for more than civil rights, he also protested the war. And he himself said he must spread "propaganda".

"Those of us who love peace must organize as effectively as the war hawks. As they spread the propaganda of war, we must spread the propaganda of peace....We must demonstrate, teach and preach, until the very foundations of our nation are shaken. We must work unceasingly to lift this nation that we love to a higher destiny, to a new plateau of compassion, to a more noble expression of humanness. " - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

Becareful, there are alot of unpleasant facts about MLK they don't teach in our public education system. But we'll leave those alone in this thread and save it for a different day.

We teach it all, the good and the bad. It helps to show the kids that the great ones were mere humans just like them.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

Becareful, there are alot of unpleasant facts about MLK they don't teach in our public education system. But we'll leave those alone in this thread and save it for a different day.

We teach it all, the good and the bad. It helps to show the kids that the great ones were mere humans just like them.

Who is "we"?

 

[slyedog]

WOW. TLC stomped the whack jobs tonite. as bad as LSU stomping Tenn. tonite.

let Cindy out so she can go home. she and her blowhards are washed up

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: montanafan
But how are their strategies that different? Why are people saying to lock her up and throw away the key? Didn't people say the same thing about MLK,Jr. and the others at the time? Why is it okay now for them to have done it, but not her?

Let's see. MLK fought for civil rights. Sheehan fights for Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite (which were resoundingly stomped on in November 2004.)

I'd say that's as different as night and day. MLK wasn't a propagandist, either.

Becareful, there are alot of unpleasant facts about MLK they don't teach in our public education system. But we'll leave those alone in this thread and save it for a different day.

We teach it all, the good and the bad. It helps to show the kids that the great ones were mere humans just like them.

Who is "we"?

We is me, a teacher in "our public education system".

 

[montanafan]

And a very relevant quote from one Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Curtailment of free speech is rationalized on grounds that a more compelling American tradition forbids critism of the government when the nation is at war. More than a century ago when we were in a declared state of war with Mexico, a first term congressman by the name of Abraham Lincoln stood in the halls of Congress and fearlessly denounced that war. Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois had not heard of this tradition or he was not inclined to respect it. Nor had Thoreau and Emerson and many other philosophers who shaped our democratic principles. Nothing can be more destructive of our fundamental democratic traditions than the vicious effort to silence dissenters."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheehan is an attention whore and nothing more.

So true.

But you seem to love giving her all the attention she craves??

Why is that?

 

[Chinadefender]

o...what was that cop doing?

http://bbs.china.com/images/2005-09-27/...1668126926452005092707172851883800.jpg

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sheehan is an attention whore and nothing more.

So true.

But you seem to love giving her all the attention she craves??

Why is that?

No, the press seems to love giving her the attention she craves - I call things as I see it. She's an attention whore. I will also point out the things you won't see from the fawning MSM about sheehan.

You seem to like defending her, why is that? You believe her "message"?