When are they going to send this Cindy Sheehan to Jail...

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The 'News Story' here is that there is a woman who's son died in this war in Iraq, and she feels it is her constitutional right
to air her greivence in protest ot the policy of this Administration - as guaranteed by the Constitution of our nation.

Then there's the 'Spin' of a Conservative Machine, including FOX - that feels that they have to engage in character assassination
on anyone who dares to think outside the collective mindset of their Extreme Right Agenda.

In effect a well co-ordinated and organized minority opinion is trying to tell everyone how they must think . . .and follow, blind policy.

35 % of the population will sit around and drool, cheering like WWF fans when there is a Smack-Down by their control freak Talking Heads.

I always felt the story was why her tune changed in 12 months and what made her special enough to visit the president twice over the same time.

Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan's positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then," Barney wrote. "In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. ... We invite readers to revisit the story -- in context -- on our Web site and decide for themselves." An August 8 Editor & Publisher article quoted Barney further clarifying the paper's position: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published."

 

[Pliablemoose]

I don't agree with her or her mission, but I have to admit it takes some balls to hang out in Texas & protest against Bush.

 

[dannybin1742]

WAHHHH You Killed my son! Your son VOLENTEERED for the ARMY, this is what ARMY's do, your son KNEW what could HAPPEN, your son KNEW there were GUNS, EXPLOSIONS envolved. They showed a clip where you had got on TV 3 years ago, you LOVED Bush then...Go home you stalker.

thats funny considering this is a talking point on fux news, shutup, bill oreilly keeps mensioning these quotes from 3 years back, go to media matters or crooks andliars.com and see what she really said, fux has been making up quotes.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The point is that she's not showing her son any respect. She's practising some of the worst forms of political hackery and using her son as a bludgeon to do so.

That's merely your opinion. Do I need to reiterate that it's her son so she can respect him however she likes. Seems to me you should keep your moral indignation to yourself and butt out.

Of course it's my opinion. That's what we do in here, post opinions. Mayhaps you should take that into account and proceed to gulp a large dose of your own advise concerning moral indignation?

Says one of the people who couldn't stand the Swifties. Puhleeze pontificate some more about the wrongheadedness of digging up dirt on someone and making judgements. Or about marching in lock-step with an ideoogy.

The irony and hypocrisy of your statements is just amazing. :roll:

Way to make a personal attack Chicken! Way to mix apples and oranges! Oh please, go find some posts where I say it's acceptable to dig up dirt on the Swift Boat Vets. Can you? I bet you can't. Nice attempt at a duh-version though. Please try and stay on topic, k?

More irony, eh? ROFL.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

WAHHHH You Killed my son! Your son VOLENTEERED for the ARMY, this is what ARMY's do, your son KNEW what could HAPPEN, your son KNEW there were GUNS, EXPLOSIONS envolved. They showed a clip where you had got on TV 3 years ago, you LOVED Bush then...Go home you stalker.

thats funny considering this is a talking point on fux news, shutup, bill oreilly keeps mensioning these quotes from 3 years back, go to media matters or crooks andliars.com and see what she really said, fux has been making up quotes.

Considering all the talking points in here from the left sounding as if they come cut & pasted from DU and D-KOS (remember how to "frame" those issues, boiz), you have little room to talk.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The 'News Story' here is that there is a woman who's son died in this war in Iraq, and she feels it is her constitutional right
to air her greivence in protest ot the policy of this Administration - as guaranteed by the Constitution of our nation.

Then there's the 'Spin' of a Conservative Machine, including FOX - that feels that they have to engage in character assassination
on anyone who dares to think outside the collective mindset of their Extreme Right Agenda.

In effect a well co-ordinated and organized minority opinion is trying to tell everyone how they must think . . .and follow, blind policy.

35 % of the population will sit around and drool, cheering like WWF fans when there is a Smack-Down by their control freak Talking Heads.

I always felt the story was why her tune changed in 12 months and what made her special enough to visit the president twice over the same time.

Reporter editor Diane Barney also responded to Drudge in an August 9 column, in which she said that Sheehan's positions on Bush and the war have not changed since June 2004. "We don't think there has been a dramatic turnaround. Clearly, Cindy Sheehan's outrage was festering even then," Barney wrote. "In ensuing months, she has grown more focused, more determined, more aggressive. ... We invite readers to revisit the story -- in context -- on our Web site and decide for themselves." An August 8 Editor & Publisher article quoted Barney further clarifying the paper's position: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published."

Explain why they wrote Sheehan thought Bush was sincere.
I can care less what the apologists have to say it was written in plain english.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Ironic that those who are atacking this woman, who lost her son in the War Against Iraq, are the ones screaming the loudest about her protesting -
are in fact the cowards who don't have the guts to actually join the military and go to war themselves - they're willing to delegate it to place the
Soldiers in danger and keep them there, as long as they themselves don't have to make any sacrifices harder than $ 2.56 a gallon.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ironic that those who are atacking this woman, who lost her son in the War Against Iraq, are the ones screaming the loudest about her protesting -
are in fact the cowards who don't have the guts to actually join the military and go to war themselves - they're willing to delegate it to place the
Soldiers in danger and keep them there, as long as they themselves don't have to make any sacrifices harder than $ 2.56 a gallon.

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ironic that those who are atacking this woman, who lost her son in the War Against Iraq, are the ones screaming the loudest about her protesting -
are in fact the cowards who don't have the guts to actually join the military and go to war themselves - they're willing to delegate it to place the
Soldiers in danger and keep them there, as long as they themselves don't have to make any sacrifices harder than $ 2.56 a gallon.

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

No it's typical Republican tactics Karl Rove style!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

So, what of the fact that the reporter who interviewed her in 2004 doesn't think she's changed her tune? Doesn't that undermine your argument that she's been duplicitous? Somehow I can predict the answer: no.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ironic that those who are atacking this woman, who lost her son in the War Against Iraq, are the ones screaming the loudest about her protesting -
are in fact the cowards who don't have the guts to actually join the military and go to war themselves - they're willing to delegate it to place the
Soldiers in danger and keep them there, as long as they themselves don't have to make any sacrifices harder than $ 2.56 a gallon.

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

Yeah, the end doesn't justify the means!!!

:roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

So, what of the fact that the reporter who interviewed her in 2004 doesn't think she's changed her tune? Doesn't that undermine your argument that she's been duplicitous? Somehow I can predict the answer: no.

Anyone can read her responses concerning the meeting with Bush then and her latest responses and decide for themself. She obviously changed her tune about the meeting.

The problem is that there are those trying to reframe this, saying that Sheehan hasn't changed her tune about "Bush" or "the war." Well that's not exactly true either because her tune has become more fringe-like and hate-filled, which is not surprising considering the groups she is hanging out with now. Sure it's the same melody as before, but she's banging the drums a bit out of control now which gives her the appearance of being over the edge and unhinged.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Anyone can read her responses concerning the meeting with Bush then and her latest responses and decide for themself. She obviously changed her tune about the meeting.

The problem is that there are those trying to reframe this, saying that Sheehan hasn't changed her tune about "Bush" or "the war." Well that's not exactly true either because her tune has become more fringe-like and hate-filled, which is not surprising considering the groups she is hanging out with now. Sure it's the same melody as before, but she's banging the drums a bit out of control now which gives her the appearance of being over the edge and unhinged.

So, just to be clear, the ONLY thing you object to is that you feel she changed her mind about her meeting with the President, after the fact?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The 'News Story' here is that there is a woman who's son died in this war in Iraq, and she feels it is her constitutional right
to air her greivence in protest ot the policy of this Administration - as guaranteed by the Constitution of our nation.

Then there's the 'Spin' of a Conservative Machine, including FOX - that feels that they have to engage in character assassination
on anyone who dares to think outside the collective mindset of their Extreme Right Agenda.

In effect a well co-ordinated and organized minority opinion is trying to tell everyone how they must think . . .and follow, blind policy.

35 % of the population will sit around and drool, cheering like WWF fans when there is a Smack-Down by their control freak Talking Heads.

You miss the points.
1. If she were sincere then why does her family and friends say she is lying and why do her stories keep changing.
2. If hearing what the mother of a child who was killed in Iraq is so important then why does the media only show the radical anti-Bush women.

For #2... remember, the media did NOT put her as the lead story day after day when she supported the President after their meeting. Only after the became associated with a radical left group with an agenda, hence not her own feelings, did she become the medias darling.

Understand now?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
B...b...but, her son died. Somehow that gives Sheehan special permission to jump off the deep end and engage in a political hackery session that ultimately shows zero respect for her son's death.

Well, it's her son, so I would presume she could show "respect" whatever way she wanted. Who the F are you to tell her otherwise?

Is anyone else tired of the left playing the appeal to emotion card yet in order to excuse this woman's behavior?

And why does she need an excuse for her behavior? Her son died in Iraq and she wants to make a point that she feels it was for no damned good reason. I bet a good chunk of the American public feels the same way about the war. Typical of you to sit on the sidelines and make judgements about people.

And of course, you and the other hacks around here only villify her and dig up dirt about her personal life because she's opposed to the war in Iraq. I certainly don't see you doing the same thing with the flag-wavers who are lock-step with the administration. It's a passive-aggressive method to try and shut her down because she's getting some media attention.

And so yes, Cindy has an agenda and leftist groups are capitalizing on the attention. Who the F cares? She's speaking her mind and that's the way this country works.

Why, because she has shown by her story changing that this is not the way she really feels.

BTW,

Why is it that whenever a conservative points out a liberal hack the liberals say the conservatives are stifling free speech and are politically motivated?

Why is it that whenever a liberal points out a conservative hack the liberals say the conservatives are stifling free speech and are politically motivated?

No hypocrisy, right?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

You miss the points.
1. If she were sincere then why does her family and friends say she is lying and why do her stories keep changing.
2. If hearing what the mother of a child who was killed in Iraq is so important then why does the media only show the radical anti-Bush women.

For #2... remember, the media did NOT put her as the lead story day after day when she supported the President after their meeting. Only after the became associated with a radical left group with an agenda, hence not her own feelings, did she become the medias darling.

Understand now?

According to the reporter who interviewed her in 2004, her stories don't keep changing. I gather that some members of her family are unhappy with her recent actions (I'm sure I'd find them distressing, if she were my loved one) and don't share her political views.

As for the media's interest in this case, I think it's more related to the story's David-and-Goliath nature than any political motivations. To answer your hypothetical, a pro-Bush grieving mother wouldn't create much in the way of dramatic tension.

On the other hand, an angry grieving mother who has managed to effectively corner and embarrass the most powerful man in the free world is an interesting story. Moreover, the story is partially a by-product of the President taking such a lengthy vacation (thus giving her the opportunity to camp out in front of the "Western White House" for an interminable period). You have to figure the reporters who are stuck in Crawford, Texas for weeks on end in the middle of August aren't entirely happy about it, and I have to think this story is one way of allowing them to legitimize and vent their frustration about it.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Ironic that those who are atacking this woman, who lost her son in the War Against Iraq, are the ones screaming the loudest about her protesting -
are in fact the cowards who don't have the guts to actually join the military and go to war themselves - they're willing to delegate it to place the
Soldiers in danger and keep them there, as long as they themselves don't have to make any sacrifices harder than $ 2.56 a gallon.

Gee, only 50% of what the democrats said we should be paying for Gas... when Jimmy Carter gave us double digit inflation and gas rationing. And MUCH less than what Al Gore wanted to tax for a gallon of gas.

Are you suggesting that we depose Chavez after Clinton supported his communist take over of Venezuela? Or are you suggesting that we attack China and India to reduce their consumption? Perhaps you are wanting us to take control of the Middle East so we can control the oil there? More likely you want to shut down the refineries, pipe lines, shipping, exploration, and drilling so you can complain some more.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Anyone can read her responses concerning the meeting with Bush then and her latest responses and decide for themself. She obviously changed her tune about the meeting.

The problem is that there are those trying to reframe this, saying that Sheehan hasn't changed her tune about "Bush" or "the war." Well that's not exactly true either because her tune has become more fringe-like and hate-filled, which is not surprising considering the groups she is hanging out with now. Sure it's the same melody as before, but she's banging the drums a bit out of control now which gives her the appearance of being over the edge and unhinged.

So, just to be clear, the ONLY thing you object to is that you feel she changed her mind about her meeting with the President, after the fact?

Nope. I also believe she's shamelessly using her dead son as little more than a prop to further her newly radicalized political agenda. This "protest" seems to be more about Cindy than Casey.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito
On the other hand, an angry grieving mother who has managed to effectively corner and embarrass the most powerful man in the free world is an interesting story. Moreover, the story is partially a by-product of the President taking such a lengthy vacation (thus giving her the opportunity to camp out in front of the "Western White House" for an interminable period). You have to figure the reporters who are stuck in Crawford, Texas for weeks on end in the middle of August aren't entirely happy about it, and I have to think this story is one way of allowing them to legitimize and vent their frustration about it.

imo, she's embarrassing the left more than Bush.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Nope. I also believe she's shamelessly using her dead son as little more than a prop to further her newly radicalized political agenda. This "protest" seems to be more about Cindy than Casey.

Huh. That seems almost directly contradictory to:

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Nope. I also believe she's shamelessly using her dead son as little more than a prop to further her newly radicalized political agenda. This "protest" seems to be more about Cindy than Casey.

Huh. That seems almost directly contradictory to:

It's about her duplicitousness, not the protest.

Not at all. Claiming this is about her son when it doesn't appear that's the case is a prime example of duplicity.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

imo, she's embarrassing the left more than Bush.

It's obvious you'd have a different view of that. For that matter, I'm quite sure that if Al Franken got on the radio and said the sky was blue, you'd find a reason to call out "the left" for its obvious color blindness.

That said, it seems to me that, while I don't care a whole lot one way or the other about Mrs. Sheehan, she's effectively pinned President Bush down like a butterfly to a board, and the whole thing has turned into a kind of lazy, summery, low-level entertainment (like one of those spy novels they sell at the airport gift shop with swastikas on the cover).

FWIW, I do kind of feel as though Mrs. Sheehan should, at some point, close up shop, because this whole incident comes at great cost to her and her family. I can't see that her continued presence there can prove any more of a point (to the extent she's proved one up until now, which is certainly open to debate).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DonVito
On the other hand, an angry grieving mother who has managed to effectively corner and embarrass the most powerful man in the free world is an interesting story. Moreover, the story is partially a by-product of the President taking such a lengthy vacation (thus giving her the opportunity to camp out in front of the "Western White House" for an interminable period). You have to figure the reporters who are stuck in Crawford, Texas for weeks on end in the middle of August aren't entirely happy about it, and I have to think this story is one way of allowing them to legitimize and vent their frustration about it.

imo, she's embarrassing the left more than Bush.

Sure she is. That must be why the Right is pulling out all stops to try and shut her up.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Not at all. Claiming this is about her son when it doesn't appear that's the case is a prime example of duplicity.

Unless you're her therapist, you couldn't possibly know what's in her head.

I have no problem with people criticizing Mrs. Sheehan, but it seems more than a little arrogant to me that thousands of people who've never met her assume they know better than she does how she feels.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

imo, she's embarrassing the left more than Bush.

It's obvious you'd have a different view of that. For that matter, I'm quite sure that if Al Franken got on the radio and said the sky was blue, you'd find a reason to call out "the left" for its obvious color blindness.

That's because the "sky" itself is not actually blue. The color blue (among the other colors we can see at various times of the day and under various weather conditions) we see is caused by the light bouncing off of gas molecules in a process called Rayleigh scattering.

But who knows? Maybe Franken already knows that and it's you that doesn't.

That said, it seems to me that, while I don't care a whole lot one way or the other about Mrs. Sheehan, she's effectively pinned President Bush down like a butterfly to a board, and the whole thing has turned into a kind of lazy, summery, low-level entertainment.

Maybe it appears that way to those who would love to imagine Bush being pinned down in that manner and are willing to stretch their imagination in order to convince themselves it's happened?

::shrug::

FWIW, I do kind of feel as though Mrs. Sheehan should, at some point, close up shop, because this whole incident comes at great cost to her and her family. I can't see that her continued presence there can prove any more of a point (to the extent she's proved one up until now, which is certainly open to debate).

This is exactly why I think she's crying crocodile tears. She seems willing to sacrifice her entire family in this process, which makes me believe she's less than honest when harping about a deceased family member.