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

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Tab
Good fvcking god, can't you people even have a little sympathy? It's clear that she lost her marbles, can't you just let her be... Ugh..

"lost her marbles" ? You sound quite sympathic :roll: I don't think she's "lost her marbles", I just think she's let her grief become all consuming and she chose Bush to focus her rage on. She is entitled to express that as I've said, but it doesn't mean she is shielded from any criticism - especially since she chose to make a public scene.

I am sympathic to her, she lost her fvkcing son. All you're doing is making the situation worse, she wants attention you're giving it to her.

Yes we understand this. She lost her son in Iraq. . .but she is unique in this respect how? Her sons life was more important than all the other sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, both Iraqi and American, who have died in Iraq how? She is so special, why? I do feel sympathy for her. At first I thought it was a good idea what she was doing. . .calling Bush on his BS. And she made her point. Now I feel sorry for her for a different reason. . .I feel she has lost her grip on reality due to the trauma of losing her son. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe. There is also the grim possibility as some others have suggested that she has suddenly found all this lime-light not that objectionable and is just soaking it all in waiting for that book deal or that made for TV movie offer.

You forget the possibility that she is sincere in asking Bush that one question... "For what noble cause did my son die for?" Did she ask people to come down? No. She said it's nice that people feel the way she does, but she would've been just as determined if she were by herself waiting for the President's answer.

No I didn't forget that. I know that is what she set out on this quest for. And it should be obvious now that she is not going to get an answer. . .why? Because Bush probably doesn't have an answer. He is at least smart enough to realize that any "sunshine up a$$ blowing" answer he gives will be transparent at the least and full patriotic mumbo-jumbo and the public will see through it. So he remains silent. She made her point. Now she is starting to look like an idiot.

That's a valid argument. I think if Bush would've met with her (as Sen. Hagel had said), all of this could've been avoided and Bush could've gotten some points with the public with the gesture. You know that option was given to the President at some point, but he refused. The only question I have is.. why, at that point, didn't he want to talk to her? Was it arrogance? Was it because he doesn't have an answer? Does he just not care?

As for her leaving now, she vowed to stay in Crawford the entire duration of Bush's vacation. Plus, she has other mothers that have had their sons killed or are deployed in Iraq with her as well. I suppose she also feels compelled to stay for that reason.

Bottom line: Sheehan has painted Bush into a corner, politically. I don't think that was her intention per se, but that's the way Bush played it.

you sound as delusional as she is. She already met with him once what makes her so special to meet with him twice? And what does Bush "gain" from meeting with her this time around? All she will do is spit her hatred in his face and it will deliver more ammunition for the leftists in this country.

What the hell is is going to say to her questions about sending his daughters? It is a loaded question that cant be answered in any realistic fashion.

Bush had everything to lose from meeting with her. He did the right thing not to talk with her.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Tab
Good fvcking god, can't you people even have a little sympathy? It's clear that she lost her marbles, can't you just let her be... Ugh..

"lost her marbles" ? You sound quite sympathic :roll: I don't think she's "lost her marbles", I just think she's let her grief become all consuming and she chose Bush to focus her rage on. She is entitled to express that as I've said, but it doesn't mean she is shielded from any criticism - especially since she chose to make a public scene.

I am sympathic to her, she lost her fvkcing son. All you're doing is making the situation worse, she wants attention you're giving it to her.

Yes we understand this. She lost her son in Iraq. . .but she is unique in this respect how? Her sons life was more important than all the other sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, both Iraqi and American, who have died in Iraq how? She is so special, why? I do feel sympathy for her. At first I thought it was a good idea what she was doing. . .calling Bush on his BS. And she made her point. Now I feel sorry for her for a different reason. . .I feel she has lost her grip on reality due to the trauma of losing her son. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe. There is also the grim possibility as some others have suggested that she has suddenly found all this lime-light not that objectionable and is just soaking it all in waiting for that book deal or that made for TV movie offer.

You forget the possibility that she is sincere in asking Bush that one question... "For what noble cause did my son die for?" Did she ask people to come down? No. She said it's nice that people feel the way she does, but she would've been just as determined if she were by herself waiting for the President's answer.

That is funny you use the word sincere.

You know, people like you really make me wonder if I should rethink my view on abortion.

I know, saying one thing then having to answer to why you did a 180 is silly talk.

Didn't do a 180 you schmuck. You're just too damn stupid to comprehend a f'in thing.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I kind of agree with the OP. I think by now, Sheehan has made her point and it is time to go home. Now her little protest is getting to be a little bit gratuitous and she is starting to really make herself look like a bit of a loon to some. I think she should pack it up and go home while she still maybe has a few minutes of her 15 minutes of fame left.

I thought her point was to talk to the Prez??

And she's right, as much as the righties don't like it, it's not about her, it's about the insane war Bush created.

Does the right really think that when Cindy "goes away" that everything will be the same as it was? LMAO, she's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Tab
Good fvcking god, can't you people even have a little sympathy? It's clear that she lost her marbles, can't you just let her be... Ugh..

"lost her marbles" ? You sound quite sympathic :roll: I don't think she's "lost her marbles", I just think she's let her grief become all consuming and she chose Bush to focus her rage on. She is entitled to express that as I've said, but it doesn't mean she is shielded from any criticism - especially since she chose to make a public scene.

I am sympathic to her, she lost her fvkcing son. All you're doing is making the situation worse, she wants attention you're giving it to her.

Yes we understand this. She lost her son in Iraq. . .but she is unique in this respect how? Her sons life was more important than all the other sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, both Iraqi and American, who have died in Iraq how? She is so special, why? I do feel sympathy for her. At first I thought it was a good idea what she was doing. . .calling Bush on his BS. And she made her point. Now I feel sorry for her for a different reason. . .I feel she has lost her grip on reality due to the trauma of losing her son. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe. There is also the grim possibility as some others have suggested that she has suddenly found all this lime-light not that objectionable and is just soaking it all in waiting for that book deal or that made for TV movie offer.

You forget the possibility that she is sincere in asking Bush that one question... "For what noble cause did my son die for?" Did she ask people to come down? No. She said it's nice that people feel the way she does, but she would've been just as determined if she were by herself waiting for the President's answer.

That is funny you use the word sincere.

You know, people like you really make me wonder if I should rethink my view on abortion.

I know, saying one thing then having to answer to why you did a 180 is silly talk.

Didn't do a 180 you schmuck. You're just too damn stupid to comprehend a f'in thing.

You saying the newspaper lied?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I'm sorry all the right-wing pea-brains can't figure it out.

Truely neither the right wing nor left wing pea-brains can figure it out. Luckily, the conservatives understand.

While I understand what the OP says about Cindy having made it about herself I would suggest that it is really all about the anti-American movement of the radical left. code pink, move on (aka george soros), michael moore, and the elitists around the world.

She is simply the focal point for the moment.

She is neither the first nor the last to accept a few pieces of silver to advance the cause of another.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

She is neither the first nor the last to accept a few pieces of silver to advance the cause of another.

That's a serious accusation, and I haven't seen one piece of credible evidence to support it. I'd have to assume that if Cindy Sheehan were on the payroll of Michael Moore or anyone else, it'd be trumpeted day and night on Fox News et al.

Do you have documentation of this?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

She is neither the first nor the last to accept a few pieces of silver to advance the cause of another.

That's a serious accusation, and I haven't seen one piece of credible evidence to support it. I'd have to assume that if Cindy Sheehan were on the payroll of Michael Moore or anyone else, it'd be trumpeted day and night on Fox News et al.

Do you have documentation of this?

They don't need documentation, Don Vito. Even when they do they just make it up, (see Iraq.)

When accurate, truthful documentation is provided that doesn't fit the party line they ignore it.

"Truth" has become whatever fits their agenda.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I'm sorry all the right-wing pea-brains can't figure it out.

Truely neither the right wing nor left wing pea-brains can figure it out. Luckily, the conservatives understand.

While I understand what the OP says about Cindy having made it about herself I would suggest that it is really all about the anti-American movement of the radical left. code pink, move on (aka george soros), michael moore, and the elitists around the world.

She is simply the focal point for the moment.

She is neither the first nor the last to accept a few pieces of silver to advance the cause of another.

Anti-American? I never knew wanting peace and fighting only just wars was anti-American. The only thing anti-American is supporting a lie of a war.

 

[umbrella39]

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.

I meant financial backing. They champion everything that is Anti-Bush. Many here have claimed to have the inside scoop that she was pro Bush until some meeting with Moore. Others have claimed she is only doing this because MoveOn is paying her to do it. That is what I meant. The mere fact that Moore is reposting her blog info and that MoveOn champions her cause is not evidence I am seeking, but thanks for the link. I get MoveOn sh!t in my inbox all the time (I delete them as soon as they come in) 3 times a day about Sheehan. I am well aware they support anything that is anti-Bush.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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.

I meant financial backing. They champion everything that is Anti-Bush. Many here have claimed to have the inside scoop that she was pro Bush until some meeting with Moore. Others have claimed she is only doing this because MoveOn is paying her to do it. That is what I meant. The mere fact that Moore is reposting her blog info and that MoveOn champions her cause is not evidence I am seeking, but thanks for the link. I get MoveOn sh!t in my inbox all the time (I delete them as soon as they come in) 3 times a day about Sheehan. I am well aware they support anything that is anti-Bush.

Umbrella, are you single? Do you live in a college town? If so, PM me, I have an interesting story to tell you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

She is neither the first nor the last to accept a few pieces of silver to advance the cause of another.

That's a serious accusation, and I haven't seen one piece of credible evidence to support it. I'd have to assume that if Cindy Sheehan were on the payroll of Michael Moore or anyone else, it'd be trumpeted day and night on Fox News et al.

Do you have documentation of this?

Certainly he does! He read my post earlier in this thread:

"Moonbeam: "I bet she's doing it for money. None of the mothers I know give a sh!t about their kids. I have to be able to rationalize away this whole thing. Cause if Bush is wrong that would make me evil. And I know better than that. I'd rather bare false witness than find out that. "

What better authority would he need?

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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.

I meant financial backing. They champion everything that is Anti-Bush. Many here have claimed to have the inside scoop that she was pro Bush until some meeting with Moore. Others have claimed she is only doing this because MoveOn is paying her to do it. That is what I meant. The mere fact that Moore is reposting her blog info and that MoveOn champions her cause is not evidence I am seeking, but thanks for the link. I get MoveOn sh!t in my inbox all the time (I delete them as soon as they come in) 3 times a day about Sheehan. I am well aware they support anything that is anti-Bush.

Oh, well financial backing is quite different than what I thought you meant. Of course I haven't seen it reported that MoveOn or Moore was paying Cindy to protest...

But they 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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.

As I said above, that's an explosive allegation, and one I imagine you have zero evidence of. If you have proof, by all means produce it, but I'm unaware of any evidence that Ms. Sheehan is on anyone's payroll

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[1EZduzit]

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.

SO, who's paying your to make such unproven allegations?

 

[yankeesfan]

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.

The umbrella post asked if she had "met" with Moore, or is being "backed" by moveon.org. The Moore comment wasn't about money, but you assumed that the moveon.org comment was? You're calling him selective for interpreting it the way it was meant to be? You need a brain implant.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: umbrella39

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.

I meant financial backing. They champion everything that is Anti-Bush. Many here have claimed to have the inside scoop that she was pro Bush until some meeting with Moore. Others have claimed she is only doing this because MoveOn is paying her to do it. That is what I meant. The mere fact that Moore is reposting her blog info and that MoveOn champions her cause is not evidence I am seeking, but thanks for the link. I get MoveOn sh!t in my inbox all the time (I delete them as soon as they come in) 3 times a day about Sheehan. I am well aware they support anything that is anti-Bush.

Oh, well financial backing is quite different than what I thought you meant. Of course I haven't seen it reported that MoveOn or Moore was paying Cindy to protest...

But they 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.

No worries. I should have been more specific. Thanks for replying.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

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.

The umbrella post asked if she had "met" with Moore, or is being "backed" by moveon.org. The Moore comment wasn't about money, but you assumed that the moveon.org comment was? You're calling him selective for interpreting it the way it was meant to be? You need a brain implant.

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.

 

[BushBasha]

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.

Pot, is that you? This is kettle. Come in, pot.


PS.. you're

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

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.

Pot, is that you? This is kettle. Come in, pot.


PS.. you're

Yes, like I respect you and your narrow monded view also. I'm not with you, so I'm against you.....I can live with that. :laugh: