Sheehan: Memo to Drudge- It's Not About Me..

[umbrella39]

So I take it no one has proof that Sheehan ever met personally with Moore or that if they did, her opinion was swayed from pro-Bush to anti-Bush and that there is no proof that she is being paid off to protest. I don't have proof that the Schindlers accepted money from the right wing but assume they were paid to parade their daughter's story. So I guess it works both ways.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: owensdj
I wonder how much George Soros and Michael Moore are paying her to do this? It seems odd that the hundreds of other mothers who lost their sons in Iraq aren't making a spectacle of themselves like this lady.

I find it amazing that people just can't fathom the notion of standing for something without some sort of financial gain.

I find it repugnant, but consider the sources. Devout acolytes of the "Greed is Good" faith.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I am not saying this may not be the case, but I can find no links on Google news that indicates she ever met with Moore (like many have stated) or that she is being backed by Moveon. Links please if you have them?

If that is the case, so future protesters knows the lay of the playing field, DON'T let Moore or MoveOn post anything about your cause? Even if it is valid, the mere mention of your cause by either of these two entities invalidates anything you have to say? Just curious.

Moveon.org ran a 2 page ad in the Waco Tribune backing Cindy.

At the bottom of this page.

So?? It's OK for Rush to have his little temper trantum, but MoveOn can't have an opinion on it?

Wow, you pulled that straight out of your ass!

He asked a question, "...that she is being backed by Moveon. Links please if you have them?"
I linked to an advertisement from MoveOn that backed Cindy.

Is it really that difficult to not jump to conclusions about a post?

Hmm, he asked a question and you answered it. Fine. I also was wondering if he meant being backed by money, but decided to just ask you the obvious question.

I asked you the question, but your response is that I pulled it "out of my ass" and don't answer it. Then you say I jumped to a conclusion?? What conclusion was that?

I guess you only answer the questions you choose. How selective of you.

What you asked me was irrelevent to the subject that was posted. And I had previously posted "But they (meaning MoveOn) do support her cause and have come out for her. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I was just trying to answer your question."

Yes, Rush and MoveOn can have temper tantrums. Where did I post that they cannot? In fact I specifically said that there was nothing wrong with MoveOn showing support for Cindy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
So I take it no one has proof that Sheehan ever met personally with Moore or that if they did, her opinion was swayed from pro-Bush to anti-Bush and that there is no proof that she is being paid off to protest. I don't have proof that the Schindlers accepted money from the right wing but assume they were paid to parade their daughter's story. So I guess it works both ways.

Yes, Sheehan has met Moore before.

http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/111696.php

As far as being swayed from pro-Bush to anti-Bush, that's a strawman you're setting up as that is NOT what's being claimed by anyone with any brains or comprehension skills. What's being claimed is that she changed her tune quite drastically on her meeting with Bush, which her very own words duplicitously demonstrated. (Because, of course, no reactionary lefty would be caught dead uttering a kind word about Bush.).

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Your the one assuming here. My question was as direct as it could be. Let him answer the question I've put to him and quit trying to divert this into a personal attack on me.

Might I ask where I personally attacked you?

The "pull out of ass" was not an attack. It was simply me being blown away by the question. Umbrella asked for a link showing a connection between Sheehan and MoveON or Moore. I found a link showing that MoveOn supported Sheehan.

You then cry, "So?? It's OK for Rush to have his little temper trantum, but MoveOn can't have an opinion on it?"

There is no, "So" here. It was a question and answer, if you want to draw weird ass right leaning conclusions from that, you may, but expect to get called on it.

Rush, MoveOn, and even you are allow opinions on this protestor. No one here has said otherwise.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Your the one assuming here. My question was as direct as it could be. Let him answer the question I've put to him and quit trying to divert this into a personal attack on me.

Might I ask where I personally attacked you?

The "pull out of ass" was not an attack. It was simply me being blown away by the question. Umbrella asked for a link showing a connection between Sheehan and MoveON or Moore. I found a link showing that MoveOn supported Sheehan.

You then cry, "So?? It's OK for Rush to have his little temper trantum, but MoveOn can't have an opinion on it?"

There is no, "So" here. It was a question and answer, if you want to draw weird ass right leaning conclusions from that, you may, but expect to get called on it.

Rush, MoveOn, and even you are allow opinions on this protestor. No one here has said otherwise.

Well, how about right now when your answering a question that was directly asked of Yankee Fan as if I accused you of it. Talking about pulling something "straight out of your ass". You take the cake for that, or are you just "jumping to conclusions" again?

I could go on, but I have some other things that need my attention right now. Things that actually have some meaning in them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: owensdj
I wonder how much George Soros and Michael Moore are paying her to do this? It seems odd that the hundreds of other mothers who lost their sons in Iraq aren't making a spectacle of themselves like this lady.

I find it amazing that people just can't fathom the notion of standing for something without some sort of financial gain.

There is nothing amazing about it at all. They see others as they know themselves to be.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: owensdj
I wonder how much George Soros and Michael Moore are paying her to do this? It seems odd that the hundreds of other mothers who lost their sons in Iraq aren't making a spectacle of themselves like this lady.

I find it amazing that people just can't fathom the notion of standing for something without some sort of financial gain.

There is nothing amazing about it at all. They see others as they know themselves to be.

We're on the same page with this. Self-hate produces more hate in a constant cycle. But it is amazing, or maybe sad is the better word?

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
Oh the irony!! It is OK for you to attack a country in retaliation of 9/11 who had nothing to do with it, but you whine about a woman who is peacefuly protesting her sons unecessary death.

This is the first time im posting in PN, and this is all I'm gonna say about this lady's protest. He was a grown man fully capable of making his own decisions. He signed on that dotted line on his own volition, not with Bush hanging over his shoulder saying cmon kid, I need you to sign up so i can get you killed. Lets get this straight, someone in IRAQ got him killed, not Bush. Bush did not pull the trigger, launch an RPG, plant an IED. Her own family can see right though her, (shes gettin divorced).. Why can't you?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Pedro69
Oh the irony!! It is OK for you to attack a country in retaliation of 9/11 who had nothing to do with it, but you whine about a woman who is peacefuly protesting her sons unecessary death.

This is the first time im posting in PN, and this is all I'm gonna say about this lady's protest. He was a grown man fully capable of making his own decisions. He signed on that dotted line on his own volition, not with Bush hanging over his shoulder saying cmon kid, I need you to sign up so i can get you killed. Lets get this straight, someone in IRAQ got him killed, not Bush. Bush did not pull the trigger, launch an RPG, plant an IED. Her own family can see right though her, (shes gettin divorced).. Why can't you?

With all due respect, yes, he voluntarily joined the military, but I believe the crux of Sheehan's protest is that the war was conceived on false pretenses, not that her son was coerced into the military. The Commander in Chief is always responsible for his troops, which is why war should never be entered into lightly.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
With all due respect, yes, he voluntarily joined the military, but I believe the crux of Sheehan's protest is that the war was conceived on false pretenses, not that her son was coerced into the military. The Commander in Chief is always responsible for his troops, which is why war should never be entered into lightly.

Did Bush go through Congress to get the authority to conduct this "illegal war?" I somehow doubt that he went around the 1972 War Powers Act (though I think the act, in and of itself, is unconstitutional). Clinton went around it at first, but then got the votes he needed for Bosnia (and the funding, of course).

 

[Moonbeam]

The fact that Bush was able to prosecute this war is an indication of just how deeply sick our government has become.

 

[wiin]

The media is providing sheehan a lot of attention but the moms who do not agree
with her are not given the same attention.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: wiin
The media is providing sheehan a lot of attention but the moms who do not agree
with her are not given the same attention.

What do they want to say? "Send more of our sons over, please and thank you." ??

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
With all due respect, yes, he voluntarily joined the military, but I believe the crux of Sheehan's protest is that the war was conceived on false pretenses, not that her son was coerced into the military. The Commander in Chief is always responsible for his troops, which is why war should never be entered into lightly.

Yes, I believe that was her intention at one point, but that doesn't change what has transpired and the rhetoric she's spouted and associations she's kept. I respect her right to speak her mind, but she and the rest of the "anti" crowd should respect other's right to speak their mind about the circus she's turned this into.
The CIC is responsible for his troops but to make the leap of logic that he murdered his troops is nothing more than inflammitory rhetoric and comments like that(or of that sort) need to be shown for what they are.

BTW, I hope her mother is OK. Suffering a stroke is no light matter and I hope people(especially the media) do respect her mother's privacy as she has nothing to do with the sheehan circus.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: umbrella39
So I take it no one has proof that Sheehan ever met personally with Moore or that if they did, her opinion was swayed from pro-Bush to anti-Bush and that there is no proof that she is being paid off to protest. I don't have proof that the Schindlers accepted money from the right wing but assume they were paid to parade their daughter's story. So I guess it works both ways.

Yes, Sheehan has met Moore before.

http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/111696.php

As far as being swayed from pro-Bush to anti-Bush, that's a strawman you're setting up as that is NOT what's being claimed by anyone with any brains or comprehension skills. What's being claimed is that she changed her tune quite drastically on her meeting with Bush, which her very own words duplicitously demonstrated. (Because, of course, no reactionary lefty would be caught dead uttering a kind word about Bush.).

LOL, them being in the same room is not proof. Guess he swayed her opinion pretty quick to have done it that night. He looks pretty persuasive in that photo. No proof of any meeting that he set up to prod her into pursuing this cause? Didn't think so Colonel. :roll:

Your lies about her changing her tune regarding the Bush meeting have been debunked by the editor and the interviewer of The Reporter in which they were printed and appeared.

"We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then."

 

[mytechmafia]

test

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
With all due respect, yes, he voluntarily joined the military, but I believe the crux of Sheehan's protest is that the war was conceived on false pretenses, not that her son was coerced into the military. The Commander in Chief is always responsible for his troops, which is why war should never be entered into lightly.

Did Bush go through Congress to get the authority to conduct this "illegal war?" I somehow doubt that he went around the 1972 War Powers Act (though I think the act, in and of itself, is unconstitutional). Clinton went around it at first, but then got the votes he needed for Bosnia (and the funding, of course).

I don't think cKGunsligner said anything about an "illegal war"...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: wiin
The media is providing sheehan a lot of attention but the moms who do not agree
with her are not given the same attention.

Interesting...because there is plenty of pro-war stuff in the opinion parts of the media (and the news parts in some less than stellar news organizations...). You are right that there doesn't seem to be a counterpart to Sheehan from the pro-war side. On the other hand, there aren't exactly dozens of Sheehan's running around either, could be they just aren't that common. But as I was going to say, the pro-war commentators they get on TV at least always seem to be these rich, white, male conservative pundits attacking Sheehan. I realize this seems ok for the Hannity crowd, but it seems like someone else would seem less...no-taste.

 

[Busithoth]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
BTW, I hope her mother is OK. Suffering a stroke is no light matter and I hope people(especially the media) do respect her mother's privacy as she has nothing to do with the sheehan circus.

Well, Sheehan's a flip-flopper for leaving.

Look, I think it's demonic to think that this mom should've kept alone and quiet in her protest this whole time. She's media-savvy, yes. The fact that she parked next to the press corps, bored out of their minds with nothing to do is a testament to that.

It'd be naive for her to think that she wouldn't be scrutinized. I don't think she is naive. Basically, you're witnessing the power of spin. Shooting the messenger is par for the course of this administration. Sheehan can always ground the conversation by getting back to its start, the War in Iraq. You can paint her bat-sh!t crazy, it won't change the fact that she lost her son, and want the President of the United States to stop acting like the kid won the lottery. Scrutiny? If that's what you have to call it to sleep at night.

Scrutinize the methods used to decide on this war of choice. Experts predicted the situation we're in, but fantasists in power thought they had it all figured out. That there's a price to be paid in blood is an afterthought.

Sheehan's even said that she's trying to play down some media attention and affiliations, in favor of keeping on topic. She knows that people like Moore can bring as much hatred and opposition as Ted Kennedy, and that indignation only drowns her message.

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, as to the topic at hand...Sheehan is right, it isn't about her. It's not really about anyone involved in the issues, it's about their views and ideas. Attacking Sheehan on a personal level (dishonoring her son, etc, etc) doesn't make a pro-war case any more than making fun of Bush for his inability to use words makes an anti-war case. The real debate should be about the war in Iraq, attacking Sheehan is a pointless sidetrack. Of course you can blame her for making it all about her as much as you can blame the righties, but that's not an excuse for them.

 

[Gaard]

I'm interested in knowing how she could've gone about this without "making it about herself".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm interested in knowing how she could've gone about this without "making it about herself".

That's a good point. I guess the way I phrased it sounded like I thought it was something bad. I don't, this is SUPPOSED to be a personal thing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm interested in knowing how she could've gone about this without "making it about herself".

That's a good point. I guess the way I phrased it sounded like I thought it was something bad. I don't, this is SUPPOSED to be a personal thing.

Ditch the media, the moveon-type supporters, the non war related leftwinged agenda, and the Israel bashing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm interested in knowing how she could've gone about this without "making it about herself".

That's a good point. I guess the way I phrased it sounded like I thought it was something bad. I don't, this is SUPPOSED to be a personal thing.

Ditch the media, the moveon-type supporters, the non war related leftwinged agenda, and the Israel bashing.

I don't know too much about the non-war related stuff (seriously, point it out to me, I haven't seen too much of that), but like anyone else trying to get a message out, the media is important, as are supporters.