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

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger.

Yawn, another evasion. Go figure.

Evasion of what? Your little personal flame in your ongoing crusade against me in here?

Giive it up and move on. Your constant fixation on me seems rather unhealthy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not preventing this woman from doing whatever stupid thing she feels is necessary. But since she has decided to shine the public spotlight upon herself, she has opened herself up to criticism and, imo, derision as well for her less than palatable antics. If she wants to protest fine, feel free to do so. But give me the same courtesy to criticize her as a public personality, as is also my right to do.

It's funny that I don't see the righties trying to shut down Sheehan's protest, but the left sure feel compelled to shut down any criticism of her. How telling.

If the reason it's ok to criticize this woman is that she 'decided to shine the public spotlight upon herself', then why were the Dems attacked for looking into the motivations and funding behind the Swift Boat Veterans and not just assuming they were upstanding veterans with a righteous cause?

See it works the same both ways. I think this woman has a right to say anything she wants and people have a right to have sympathy for her or not. If they find she has some non-altuistic reason for doing this that someone can prove, they have a right to bring that up, too. The same for the Swiftys. Oh, and noone was calling for throwing the Swiftys in prison for what they did.

Of course it works both ways. Some of the same people eager to attack the Swifty's are now getting bent out of shape by those who criticize Sheehan. Just like many who whined about the attacks on Clinton now eagerly attack Bush.

It's politics. Hypocrisy abounds.

ANd the swifites were lying out there ass. Now prove Cindy is. Links please.

The links have already been provided on her discrepancies in statements. Where the hell have you been during that time?

Where? I can't find them and I looked. Did you post any?

Stop wasting my time. If you don't already know what's going on with the whole Sheehan discussion, do some research come back when you do.

Oh blow it out your but. I've read everything I've seen and don't know what discrepancies your refereing to. Do you actually have something to input besides your amazing mind reading abilities?
:laugh:

I see. So you were just playing dumb.

Or were you really playing?

:laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've had 46 years to grasp what's going on in people's heads based on their words and actions and in that time I've become pretty proficient at doing that. Many people are proficient doing that and are not therapists. In fact, if you have not garnered that particular capability yourself, I'd think you'd have a rather difficult time at your profession.

Well I've had even longer than you, and we're either watching different footage or your Bush colored glasses are filtering your perceptions. Every time I've seen her, even in the most recent footage, she is obviously someone in great anguish.

You claim to have a son in Iraq. Try imagining yourself in her shoes before attacking her.

I do more than "claim" to have a son in Iraq, I do have a son in Iraq. Additionally, I have imagined myself in her shoes (Well, as long as they don't have heels and some frou-frou on the front.) and I would mourn the loss of my son in private and not make it some public affair.

If it were to happen, I suppose I could go camp out in the front of the house of the owner of the NY Times, and make moronic statements about how their constant derision of the war has emboldened the terrorists in Iraq, which abbetted the death of my son, and have all the uber right-wing groups beat drums, chant, and scream slogans about how the Times are murderers. But personally I don't think that would be any way to honor my son's memory.

Fair enough...but I've got say that if the worst happened and you did loose your son in Iraq, I would hope people give you at least a measure of sympathy and respect. Even if you did protest in front of the NY Times, I would hope people would react a little more sympathetically than if you were just some random protestor. I'm not real confident that's what would happen, but I would like to think so.

Even if you think Sheehan is dishonoring her son's memory, the way some people have been attacking her seems awfully cold-blooded considering her loss.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger.

Yawn, another evasion. Go figure.

Evasion of what? Your little personal flame in your ongoing crusade against me in here?

Giive it up and move on. Your constant fixation on me seems rather unhealthy.

:roll:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How do you know what my motivations are? You some kind of mind reader or something?

Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Evasion of that, of course.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not preventing this woman from doing whatever stupid thing she feels is necessary. But since she has decided to shine the public spotlight upon herself, she has opened herself up to criticism and, imo, derision as well for her less than palatable antics. If she wants to protest fine, feel free to do so. But give me the same courtesy to criticize her as a public personality, as is also my right to do.

It's funny that I don't see the righties trying to shut down Sheehan's protest, but the left sure feel compelled to shut down any criticism of her. How telling.

If the reason it's ok to criticize this woman is that she 'decided to shine the public spotlight upon herself', then why were the Dems attacked for looking into the motivations and funding behind the Swift Boat Veterans and not just assuming they were upstanding veterans with a righteous cause?

See it works the same both ways. I think this woman has a right to say anything she wants and people have a right to have sympathy for her or not. If they find she has some non-altuistic reason for doing this that someone can prove, they have a right to bring that up, too. The same for the Swiftys. Oh, and noone was calling for throwing the Swiftys in prison for what they did.

Of course it works both ways. Some of the same people eager to attack the Swifty's are now getting bent out of shape by those who criticize Sheehan. Just like many who whined about the attacks on Clinton now eagerly attack Bush.

It's politics. Hypocrisy abounds.

ANd the swifites were lying out there ass. Now prove Cindy is. Links please.

The links have already been provided on her discrepancies in statements. Where the hell have you been during that time?

Where? I can't find them and I looked. Did you post any?

Stop wasting my time. If you don't already know what's going on with the whole Sheehan discussion, do some research come back when you do.

Oh blow it out your but. I've read everything I've seen and don't know what discrepancies your refereing to. Do you actually have something to input besides your amazing mind reading abilities?
:laugh:

I see. So you were just playing dumb.

Or were you really playing?

:laugh:

I would never play with you....toy yes, but play, no.

:laugh:

What about the other post? Care to address it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've had 46 years to grasp what's going on in people's heads based on their words and actions and in that time I've become pretty proficient at doing that. Many people are proficient doing that and are not therapists. In fact, if you have not garnered that particular capability yourself, I'd think you'd have a rather difficult time at your profession.

Well I've had even longer than you, and we're either watching different footage or your Bush colored glasses are filtering your perceptions. Every time I've seen her, even in the most recent footage, she is obviously someone in great anguish.

You claim to have a son in Iraq. Try imagining yourself in her shoes before attacking her.

I do more than "claim" to have a son in Iraq, I do have a son in Iraq. Additionally, I have imagined myself in her shoes (Well, as long as they don't have heels and some frou-frou on the front.) and I would mourn the loss of my son in private and not make it some public affair.

If it were to happen, I suppose I could go camp out in the front of the house of the owner of the NY Times, and make moronic statements about how their constant derision of the war has emboldened the terrorists in Iraq, which abbetted the death of my son, and have all the uber right-wing groups beat drums, chant, and scream slogans about how the Times are murderers. But personally I don't think that would be any way to honor my son's memory.

Fair enough...but I've got say that if the worst happened and you did loose your son in Iraq, I would hope people give you at least a measure of sympathy and respect. Even if you did protest in front of the NY Times, I would hope people would react a little more sympathetically than if you were just some random protestor. I'm not real confident that's what would happen, but I would like to think so.

Even if you think Sheehan is dishonoring her son's memory, the way some people have been attacking her seems awfully cold-blooded considering her loss.

I have sympathy for her son. I also have great sympathy for anyone who has lost a son or daughter in Iraq, particularly considering how close to home that sentiment could be.

But I truly think she has turned this into little more than politics that are her own and not her son's, that her bile and vitriol goes far beyond her son's death, and she has become a media whore in the process (She seems very impressed with herself about all the people she has met as well as the hullaballoo over her "protest", which doesn't indicate a grieving mother to me).

(And please note that media whore does not imply that I think she's some kind of slut. It's a term we are all familiar with as to its meaning, so let's not twist it.)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger.

Yawn, another evasion. Go figure.

Evasion of what? Your little personal flame in your ongoing crusade against me in here?

Giive it up and move on. Your constant fixation on me seems rather unhealthy.

:roll:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How do you know what my motivations are? You some kind of mind reader or something?

Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Evasion of that, of course.

I answered with:

"Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger. "

There's no evasion. I pointed out your penchant for personal flames instead of discussion of the topic.

Now you seemingly want to extend the flame-fest. So do you actually have anything on-topic to say or are you going to continue with your little vendetta of hate and vitriol?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I would never play with you....toy yes, but play, no.

:laugh:

Whatever.

What about the other post? Care to address it?

Not really. You've done little more than waste my time in the majority of your replies to me today in this thread and elsewhere with accusations and attempts at character assasination. As such, I see no reason to reply to you further. When your posts begin to contain something of substance, then we'll talk.

Take a tip from Rainsford. He knows how to have a decent discussion without devolving into personal flames.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Fair enough...but I've got say that if the worst happened and you did loose your son in Iraq, I would hope people give you at least a measure of sympathy and respect. Even if you did protest in front of the NY Times, I would hope people would react a little more sympathetically than if you were just some random protestor. I'm not real confident that's what would happen, but I would like to think so.

Even if you think Sheehan is dishonoring her son's memory, the way some people have been attacking her seems awfully cold-blooded considering her loss.

If I was stupid enough to protest in front of the NY Times, I doubt the left would have much sympathy for me whatsoever and you could bet the lefty sites and blogs would bash me relentlessly.

Have the attacks against Sheehan been cold-blooded. Sure. But maybe that's because plenty of people view her as cold-blooded herself. She's destroyed her immediate family and has pitted much of her extended family against her in her little quest. No warm-blooded person does that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How do you know what my motivations are? You some kind of mind reader or something?

Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Evasion of that, of course.

I answered with:

"Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger. "

There's no evasion.

Yep, an evasion. You asked how one could know your motivations. I explained how. You changed the subject by attacking me.

I pointed out your penchant for personal flames instead of discussion of the topic.

Now you seemingly want to extend the flame-fest. So do you actually have anything on-topic to say or are you going to continue with your little vendetta of hate and vitriol?

You seem to be the one focused on turning this into a flame-fest, both with me, and with your continual name-calling and attacks on most everyone else in this thread. And, for the record, I already have addressed the topic, multiple times. I also answered your question. You're welcome.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If it were to happen, I suppose I could go camp out in the front of the house of the owner of the NY Times, and make moronic statements about how their constant derision of the war has emboldened the terrorists in Iraq, which abbetted the death of my son, and have all the uber right-wing groups beat drums, chant, and scream slogans about how the Times are murderers. But personally I don't think that would be any way to honor my son's memory.

That's fine, I mean whatever you chose to do as a result would be your choice. Why can't you allow Sheehan the same choice? I feel like I keep having to remind you that it's her son and she should be able to grieve/take action in whatever manner she feels is appropriate. What gives you the right to impose judgement on her choices and/or start slinging mud at her because you disagree? Meaning: what makes you the moral authority on this matter?

I really think that's the crux of this issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's fine, I mean whatever you chose to do as a result would be your choice. Why can't you allow Sheehan the same choice? I feel like I keep having to remind you that it's her son and she should be able to grieve/take action in whatever manner she feels is appropriate. What gives you the right to impose judgement on her choices and/or start slinging mud at her because you disagree? Meaning: what makes you the moral authority on this matter?

I really think that's the crux of this issue.

That's the part that angers me. They aren't limiting their comments to criticizing her actions. They are attacking her personally. It is one of the signature tactics of BushCo and its minions, and I find it totally repugnant. It is pure sleaze, a level of moral bankruptcy that should immediately and permanently disqualify perpetrators from any further role in public service. Sadly, it's an imperfect world, and we have an inattentive and poorly informed citizenry who are hyponotized by the pretty colors emanating from the idiot box in their living rooms.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
How do you know what my motivations are? You some kind of mind reader or something?

Actions speak louder than words. Your actions consistently paint the same picture.

Evasion of that, of course.

I answered with:

"Considering you're constantly focusing on me instead of the topic, so do yours, Finger. "

There's no evasion.

Yep, an evasion. You asked how one could know your motivations. I explained how. You changed the subject by attacking me.

No, it was not an evasion, it was a response to demonstrate your hypocrisy in the matter. Besides that, all you know is my words. You are clueless as to my actions and since you don't have any idea about me irl, you will always remain clueless in that respect.

I pointed out your penchant for personal flames instead of discussion of the topic.

Now you seemingly want to extend the flame-fest. So do you actually have anything on-topic to say or are you going to continue with your little vendetta of hate and vitriol?

You seem to be the one focused on turning this into a flame-fest, both with me, and with your continual name-calling and attacks on most everyone else in this thread. And, for the record, I already have addressed the topic, multiple times. I also answered your question. You're welcome.
[/quote]
Your transparent quest has gotten far past the point of being tiresome. Go find someone new to harrass.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If it were to happen, I suppose I could go camp out in the front of the house of the owner of the NY Times, and make moronic statements about how their constant derision of the war has emboldened the terrorists in Iraq, which abbetted the death of my son, and have all the uber right-wing groups beat drums, chant, and scream slogans about how the Times are murderers. But personally I don't think that would be any way to honor my son's memory.

That's fine, I mean whatever you chose to do as a result would be your choice. Why can't you allow Sheehan the same choice? I feel like I keep having to remind you that it's her son and she should be able to grieve/take action in whatever manner she feels is appropriate. What gives you the right to impose judgement on her choices and/or start slinging mud at her because you disagree? Meaning: what makes you the moral authority on this matter?

I really think that's the crux of this issue.

I am not preventing her "choice." I am criticizing it. What gives you the moral authority to criticize my voice?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I am not preventing her "choice." I am criticizing it. What gives you the moral authority to criticize my voice?

The same one that gives you the right to criticize her's.

 

[Gaard]

I guess I should go ahead and add Cindy Sheehan to the list, eh brother?

 

[CaptnKirk]

What is so easy to do is predict which players will take which side on any given news element.

What is stunning is the depth of bitterness that some carry, and wouldn't hesitate to tell you your opinion.

 

[umbrella39]

Question for the opponents. Would you be as angry if she were protesting outside the Whitehouse and not in Crawford? Just curious.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So you criitize and deride her motives and justify your conclusions by being a self proclaimed mind reader? You "studied" her, LOL. You must have a real HDTV!! Get a clue, not even an idiot is going to buy into your "Carmac the Magnificent" routine. You aren't fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.

What are you saying? You have no capacity whatsoever to read people and get a reliable impression of them? If so, imo, you are in the minority because most people I know have that capability to a greater or lesser degree.

Again, get a clue. You can't tell what her motives are. You are only trying to kill the messenger because you don't like the news.

How do you know what my motivations are? You some kind of mind reader or something?

:laugh:

LOL, you think your cute, don't you. I have read everthing you've said in this thread and have argued with you for before on various other subjects, so I do have an idea of where you are coming from. Additionally you posted this earlier:

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.

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

You on the other hand, have never had any interaction with Cindy Sheehan, yet you claim to know her motivations. All hail Carmac the Magnificent, Need help with that foot?

:laugh: YOU are the biggest waste of time in all of ATP&N. :laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep, an evasion. You asked how one could know your motivations. I explained how. You changed the subject by attacking me.

No, it was not an evasion, it was a response to demonstrate your hypocrisy in the matter. Besides that, all you know is my words. You are clueless as to my actions and since you don't have any idea about me irl, you will always remain clueless in that respect.

Hardly. Your actions are the threads you respond to, the way in which you respond, the things you support and the things you attack, etc. Your words are statements like "I am a liberal" and "I'm only criticizing the way (whoever) acts". Your words are regularly belied by your actions.

So, once again, you asked how we can know your motivations. That is how.

You seem to be the one focused on turning this into a flame-fest, both with me, and with your continual name-calling and attacks on most everyone else in this thread. And, for the record, I already have addressed the topic, multiple times. I also answered your question. You're welcome.

Your transparent quest has gotten far past the point of being tiresome. Go find someone new to harrass.

Waaah. Give your ego a rest. When somone posts BushCo propaganda or uses dishonest arguments to shill for the administration, especially if that person is particularly belligerent or arrogant, I will often challenge them. When they post mere disinformation, I often challenge with facts. When they post attacks, I often respond in kind. As long as you continue to litter P&N with BushCo propaganda and dishonest arguments, I will often reply. If you are frustrated by those replies, perhaps you should try harder to contribute something of value.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If it were to happen, I suppose I could go camp out in the front of the house of the owner of the NY Times, and make moronic statements about how their constant derision of the war has emboldened the terrorists in Iraq, which abbetted the death of my son, and have all the uber right-wing groups beat drums, chant, and scream slogans about how the Times are murderers. But personally I don't think that would be any way to honor my son's memory.

That's fine, I mean whatever you chose to do as a result would be your choice. Why can't you allow Sheehan the same choice? I feel like I keep having to remind you that it's her son and she should be able to grieve/take action in whatever manner she feels is appropriate. What gives you the right to impose judgement on her choices and/or start slinging mud at her because you disagree? Meaning: what makes you the moral authority on this matter?

I really think that's the crux of this issue.

I am not preventing her "choice." I am criticizing it. What gives you the moral authority to criticize my voice?

Um, what? I never accused anyone of "preventing her choice" -- I asked what gives you the right to impose judgement on her choices? What makes you the moral authority?

In other words, why can't you live and let live?

I certainly don't make a habit of tracking down moms who lost their sons/daughters in Iraq and choose to deal with their grief by throwing their efforts behind support the troops type activities and give them a load of crap for doing that. I don't locate these moms and then criticize them for "selling out" to the administration, dig up dirt on their personal lives, call them names and question their motives.

See how easy that is? I have no problem allowing these parents to take whatever actions they deem appropriate following the loss of their son or daughter.

 

[1EZduzit]

America, where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters?

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I am not preventing her "choice." I am criticizing it. What gives you the moral authority to criticize my voice?

The same one that gives you the right to criticize her's.

hahahahahaha.....pwned

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Question for the opponents. Would you be as angry if she were protesting outside the Whitehouse and not in Crawford? Just curious.

The silence. I didn't think anyone woud take the bait but it was worth a try. I have heard serveral complain about the location of the protest. Same people who defend Bush's 50 vacations to Crawford and state publically that he can do his job anywhere. Well, this is the Whitehouse until he returns to DC according to them and these protesters should be allowed onto his property to do their protesting. But that would give his neighbors less to bitch er a shoot at or drive over.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Question for the opponents. Would you be as angry if she were protesting outside the Whitehouse and not in Crawford? Just curious.

The silence. I didn't think anyone woud take the bait but it was worth a try. I have heard serveral complain about the location of the protest. Same people who defend Bush's 50 vacations to Crawford and state publically that he can do his job anywhere. Well, this is the Whitehouse until he returns to DC according to them and these protesters should be allowed onto his property to do their protesting. But that would give his neighbors less to bitch er a shoot at or drive over.

I wouldn't. She wouldn't be trampling all over the lives of many innocent people living in the area if she was protesting in washington.