let me get this out first...

I think Sheehan is a desperate woman


.... Okay, with that out of the way... i will say that alot is being made out of a little here.

First off, CNN is reporting she was "arrested", when she WASNT. She was escorted out because she was asked to do something and she refused.

Do i agree with what CNN said their reasons for escorting were?? No i dont.. she should be allowed to wear an antiwar shirt.

BUT, coming from CNN, i guess i dont know the full story. Because who knows, maybe there is a dress code, maybe she was being loud and obnoxious. For both those reasons, ANYONE would get kicked out.

Now she's going on Good Morning America at 7am the VERY NEXT DAY!! woowee what a coincidence!! And after that comes a CIVIL SUIT... geez we have to stop giving this desperate woman so much attention. She loves every minute of it, and is pretty much walking a fence very carefully just to get in the papers.... what a media whore

My only question is.. does she even remember her son's name???

Originally posted by Decka
First off, CNN is reporting she was "arrested", when she WASNT.FOXNews says she was arrested, handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct.

Sheehan Arrested at Speech (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183392,00.html)

Sheehan is a freaking joke. The other day I heard that she was in Venezuela meeting Hugo Chavez and demanding Diane Feinstein vote to filibuster Judge Alito or she would run against her for her California senate seat. ya, grieving mother my ass. And here everyone was blubbering all over her and demonizing anyone who dare say she as anything but a grief stricken mother. LMAO, a grieving mother who simply wants to honor her sone doesn't demand US senators vote a certain way on a supreme court nominee while meeting Hugo fuckin' Chavez the Commie in Venezuela.

Activism is a tough, dangerous, thankless game. It takes a certain type of person to do it. I have no clue what activists get out of doing it, but it seems Sheehan has found a new lease on life to replace her fallen son.

what does Feinstein voting against Alito have to do with Sheehans son? face it, her son is no longer part of this. how long is she going to drag his body around with her? everytime someone dare criticize her she hold him up? that is sick and a slap in the face, she is a piece of shit

Agreed, Trav.

Now she says she is gonna sue because her first amendment rights were infracted. Come on gimme a break. Anyone remember the guy who was arrested for wearing an anti-clinton shirt at his congressional hearing?

Originally posted by Travh20
what does Feinstein voting against Alito have to do with Sheehans son? face it, her son is no longer part of this. how long is she going to drag his body around with her? everytime someone dare criticize her she hold him up? that is sick and a slap in the face, she is a piece of shit

Agreed that the woman is clearly cuckoo, but protest is a well worn tradition in the US and she has every right to protest.

I don't think any rational person wants to stop her from protesting, Drew. The problem lies in her methods, which I think are safe to call disgusting, at best. That woman's a piece of shit. Lunacy aside, I don't have any respect for her tactics, period.

Yes but protest is always about raising profile for a certain position or view. She does that quite successfully - she is always in the news & her antics are widely reported - in that sense she is a successful protester, not that she does much good for her cause - she may as well be protesting for the right to be a lunatic.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I don't think any rational person wants to stop her from protesting, Drew. The problem lies in her methods, which I think are safe to call disgusting, at best.

Please describe what she did, the actions she took at the SOTU address..........???

Here, i'll tell you what she did, and you can then explain how "disgusting" the action was.

""she was ejected from the House gallery for wearing a T-shirt""



<gasp!!!>

The unconscionable [b]FIEND!!!!!!!

Sitting and wearing a tee-shirt!!!!!!!!! How DARE she do that!!!!!!

EWWWWWW.....what an utterly, utterly, incredbly ***disgusting*** method of protest!!!!!!!

[/sarcasm]

You rightwing fucktards are a goddamned joke, accusing people of carrying out **disgusting methods** of protest because they wore a tee-shirt.

As was the wife of a HR who was wearing a tshirt supporting the troops.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=24740

Originally posted by waldo
As was the wife of a HR who was wearing a tshirt supporting the troops.

Let me guess, Prae.

The Republican Bill Young's wife's protest did **NOT** exemplify a *disgusting method* of expressing a political opinion.

Originally posted by waldo
As was the wife of a HR who was wearing a tshirt supporting the troops.She was not arrested, handcuffed, and charged with unlawful conduct. Sheehan was.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Please describe what she did, the actions she took at the SOTU address..........???

Here, i'll tell you what she did, and you can then explain how "disgusting" the action was.

""she was ejected from the House gallery for wearing a T-shirt""



<gasp!!!>

The unconscionable [b]FIEND!!!!!!!

Sitting and wearing a tee-shirt!!!!!!!!! How DARE she do that!!!!!!

EWWWWWW.....what an utterly, utterly, incredbly ***disgusting*** method of protest!!!!!!!

[/sarcasm]

You rightwing fucktards are a goddamned joke, accusing people of carrying out **disgusting methods** of protest because they wore a tee-shirt.

I bet if someone wore a T shirt that said death to all niggers, or liberals should be gassed like the jews you wouldnt be such a smart ass about it. Why not? its just a T shirt right?

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if someone wore a T shirt that said death to all niggers, or liberals should be gassed like the jews you wouldnt be such a smart ass about it. Why not? its just a T shirt right?
Did her shirt say anything like that? Oh, no it didn't. Making your dumb point false.

look, was it just a T shirt or was it not?

Originally posted by Travh20
look, was it just a T shirt or was it not?
Arresting someone for wearing a shirt that was sending an anti-war message is un-american bullshit that the Republicans call for these days.

Right as Bush was calling for "civil debate" and saying how "freedom is on the march" a woman was being arrested for a simple anti-war slogan that was not promoting any form of violence (making it civil) and was expressing herself in this "free" nation or the nation that Bush says sets the example for the world. Yeah fucking right.

Trav, she was arrested. Not just kicked out. That is insane and showing a clear sign that American culture is getting shit on because of this new Neo-Con mind-set which is proven by the way the conservatives have reacted to this incident.

Originally posted by DrewM
Agreed that the woman is clearly cuckoo, but protest is a well worn tradition in the US and she has every right to protest.

And we have every right to laugh at her.

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if someone wore a T shirt that said death to all niggers, or liberals should be gassed like the jews you wouldnt be such a smart ass about it. Why not? its just a T shirt right?

1. "Death to all niggers"

2. "Liberals should be gassed like the Jews"

3. "2,245 Dead. How Many More?"

Question: Which of the above statements do you find "disgusting"?

Overdose

She wasn't arrested for wearing a tee shirt. She was arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order to leave the area.

so the limit is what is disgusting? OK, I will look that up in the constitution

and OD, go cry in your latte somewhere else, she wasnt arrested for wearing a shirt, she was arrested for being a distaraction. Go look at that thread about the chinese lady getting her head blown off for speaking out and come back

If she was kicked out for the message on a T-shirt, then that is clearly wrong. She has a right to wear whatever Tshirt she wants.

Originally posted by Frogger
Overdose

She wasn't arrested for wearing a tee shirt. She was arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order to leave the area.

That's not exactly what happened.

""Shehan said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, "Protestor."

"He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs," she wrote. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.

"I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress," Sheehan wrote. "I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later."

YOU might want your country to make it illegal to wear a t-shirt with the words --""2245 Dead. How many more?"" -- on it, but I don't.

It is fucking BULLSHIT to outlaw the wearing of clothes with such non-confrontational words on them.....we see the expansion of the Police State every day under the ConservFascists.

To Frogger

She wasn't arrested for wearing a tee shirt. She was arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order to leave the area.
Why was she told to leave? Because of her t-shirt. She was invited by a senator to watch. She was told to leave because of her shirt. I would tell the police to shove it too, actually. Where does it say in law that you cannot wear a shirt that says that? And don't come back and say "well she was a distraction" because how is wearing a minor shirt with a simple anti-war message a "distraction" give me a break. Isn't it the republicans who preach about not being "sissies" as Arnold would say? And isn't it the Republicans who say liberals get offened by too much? Seriously, catch a clue.

PS: Where does it say she was even ASKED to leave? I think they did it and didn't even ask her to take it off.

To Travh20
so the limit is what is disgusting? OK, I will look that up in the constitution
Promoting violence has always been the line. You cannot promote violence, period.

and OD, go cry in your latte somewhere else, she wasnt arrested for wearing a shirt, she was arrested for being a distaraction.
Yeah, now who is getting offended by minor stupid shit? Yeah, wearing a simple anti-war shirt is such a distraction.

Originally posted by Travh20
so the limit is what is disgusting? OK, I will look that up in the constitution


No, there are many limits to free speech, but being "disgusting" isn't usually one of them. You didn't say she was disgusting, Prae did, but you did use two of the examples I posted as if to compare their messages...do you think the messages are comparable?

Police apologize to Sheehan, drop charges (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3629288.html)

Originally posted by Freethinker
Please describe what she did, the actions she took at the SOTU address..........???
Well, to be completely honest, I wasn't talking about the SOTU address specifically, but I suppose that's my fault - I should've stuck to the topic at hand. And speaking of tee-shirts, as far as I'm concerned, she's the fucking tee-shirt, and if you press the issue, I'll supply a laundry list of the deplorable tactics relentlessly employed by that bitch to gain favor in an underhanded and serpentine fashion, which --and it's sad to say-- seems to be her MO, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. That aside, I'm shocked Mattel hasn't made a Chatty Kathy doll of her dead son yet. I can see it now - it's a male doll in tattered military fatigues with missing limbs who, upon pulling the cord, says things like, "listen to my mommy, for she knows what I wanted in life, so she can speak for me now" "Impeach Bush!" "Long live Freedom - too bad I can't have mine" "I hate Neo-cons" and last but not least, "Vote for my mommy when she runs for office!!!"

Yeah, she's classy, all right...she's using her fucking son as a campaign prop.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
....if you press the issue, I'll supply a laundry list of the deplorable tactics relentlessly employed by that bitch to gain favor in an underhanded and serpentine fashion

Consider it *pressed*, twit.

Start naming all these supposed "deplorable tactics and disgusting methods" of protest that Sheehan has perpetrated.

(not holding my breath)

From what I understand, one is required to wear formal clothes at one of those functions. Cindy was wearing a T shirt. If she wished to send a message, she could've worn a pin.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
From what I understand, one is required to wear formal clothes at one of those functions. Cindy was wearing a T shirt. If she wished to send a message, she could've worn a pin. From the link posted above:

Capitol Police did not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not. However the unlawful conduct charge against Sheehan was being dropped, according to Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. And in a private meeting Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized and planned to issue a statement, Rep. Thomas told reporters.

"They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed," Hanley said today. "The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested."

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
From what I understand, one is required to wear formal clothes at one of those functions. Cindy was wearing a T shirt. If she wished to send a message, she could've worn a pin.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Sheehan's shirt wasn't "formal" enough so she HAD TO BE arrested and handcuffed.

OTOH, the lack of "formality" of the t-shirt worn by Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, did not necessitate an arrest, but being simply escorted from the room.

As I've said before, freethinker, I'm not up on all the facts of this case. When asked to leave, did Sheehan leave quietly or put up a fuss???

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
As I've said before, freethinker, I'm not up on all the facts of this case. When asked to leave, did Sheehan leave quietly or put up a fuss???
Sheehan said she was never asked. Period. And was arrested without being told what she had done. Which is bullshit.

Originally posted by sedan
From the link posted above: Capitol Police did not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not. However the unlawful conduct charge against Sheehan was being dropped....

Yeah.......their attitude obviously being one of ---------"Aww, fuck this cumyunist bitch Sheehan.....let's drag her out and arrest her and handcuff her, then later we'll issue a so-called "apology". Kinda like the one we gave to the wife of Amadou Diallo. At least she won't be there to disturb the Retardate-in-Chief as he makes his speech"

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
When asked to leave, did Sheehan leave quietly or put up a fuss???

Read the Faux News account....then you tell me.

Apparently now the capitol police have publicly apologized to her & dropped all charges.

Clearly what appears to have happened here is they did not want her on TV detracting from the Presidents message. They figured the negative publicity from booting her was better than the negative publicity of the TV showing her T-shirt.

And what about that Speech - wow - more of the same crapola. If you watch one speech by Bush you are set for life because every other speech is pretty much the same ol crap just reworded.

Originally posted by DrewM
Clearly what appears to have happened here is they did not want her on TV detracting from the Presidents message. They figured the negative publicity from booting her was better than the negative publicity of the TV showing her T-shirt.I'm wondering if they booted the Congressman's wife as an afterthought to show plausible impartiality.

I wondered the same. Her Tshirt said "support the troops" - she was apparently a protester also.

Cindy's version of events - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0201-01.htm

quite interesting really. She makes some valid points.

I don't like how she types. It bugs me. haha. But yes, she does make some good points and what happened to her was unfair and wrong.

I'm not sure about this, but I think it's a "House Rule" *yay for puns* that you can't bring demonstrations inside the building. This would include signs, posters, t-shirts, etc.

Perhaps it was just dress code. After all, you ARE supposed to dress up for this sort of thing...

Just my 3 cents.

Bush always brings in some demonstration - it's either the family of a dead soldier, some ethnic woman a badge or a silver coin some sap gave him. All publicity stunts - what's the difference?

Originally posted by Evil Homer
I'm not sure about this, but I think it's a "House Rule" *yay for puns* that you can't bring demonstrations inside the building. This would include signs, posters, t-shirts, etc.

Calling a midddle-aged woman, sitting quietly with a t-shirt on that says --""2245 dead. How many more?""--- a **demonstration** is akin to calling a dust mote a boulder.

But it is funny to see what a bunch of fucking pussies Bush and his goons are, that something as meek and unthreatening as a schoolmarm in a t-shirt would make them wet their pants for fear some of the sheep in teevee-land might see it and perhaps begin to think critically about the war and about how many soldiers have been sacrificed on the altar of **CHEAP OIL**.

OK, poor cindy, just a little sobbing mother, STFU she is a publicity whore who thinks she is somehow in position to dictate policy to senators like feinstein over such things as supreme court nominees. She is a fucking hack. stop your crying about her in her fucking t shirt. You know damn well it wasnt just some lady in a t shirt, in fact, the best thing that could happen is for poor cindy to get arrested, thats a good thing! now she can sue and her followers can post how evil Bush is on web sites like this. I am sick of people like this thinking they are so brave for speaking out in a country where the right to speak out is guarenteed. go to china and do it if you think you are brave.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/starguard/113330.jpg

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, poor cindy, just a little sobbing mother, STFU she is a publicity whore who thinks she is somehow in position to dictate policy to senators like feinstein over such things as supreme court nominees. She is a fucking hack. stop your crying about her in her fucking t shirt. You know damn well it wasnt just some lady in a t shirt, in fact, the best thing that could happen is for poor cindy to get arrested, thats a good thing! now she can sue and her followers can post how evil Bush is on web sites like this. I am sick of people like this thinking they are so brave for speaking out in a country where the right to speak out is guarenteed. go to china and do it if you think you are brave.Ya know, I don't like Cindy Sheehan. I think she has a screw loose. I don't buy the argument that her opinions have greater validity because she lost a son in the war. That's as much BS coming from her as it is when Frogger and Brooks think their opinions on terrorism carry more weight than others, or when people think only veterans can understand foreign policy.

Yes, she's a wacko. SO WHAT!? She's an American citizen and as such should not be vilified for excercising her rights to protest what she believes is an unjust war. I don't think she ever said "I am so brave I wore a T-shirt to the State of the Union". To say she should go to China to prove something she never said strikes me as a completely irrational argument. All you guys who are trashing her instead of trashing what she says are falling victim to emotional impulses, not rational thought. I thought only liberals supposedly did that.

Originally posted by sedan
I don't buy the argument that her opinions have greater validity because she lost a son in the war.

Maybe they don't.

But that is not the argument that ignorant people like TravH make, sedan.......they contend that her argument has ZERO valididty.

People like Trav are the true **whining bitches** in this, as far as i'm concerned, for this reason; their only real problem with Cindy Sheehan, the reason why they hate her so, is that she is being openly critical of their conservative champion GWBush and is exposing him for having made the horrendously BAD decision to wage a war against Iraq.

But what REALLY bafffles me, and what really illustrates the seething hatred and lunacy of the crowd who [like TravH] hates Shehan is their continued allegations that Sheehan did not really feel any anguish over her son being killed.....

.....that her activisim is nothing but a sham.

No, they say, -- ""her son's death didn't really mean anything to Sheehan""..."why!, Cindy Sheehan is not thinking about her dead son at all!!!...she's just a *hack* who is conveniently USING her son's death as a stepping stone to fame and glory".

You want to talk about people who are TRUE goddamned "wackos", sedan?!?!?

Start with the deeply disturbed nitwits contending that a mother does not feel a sense of deep loss over her son being gone, but that she's just some radical subversive whose true motivation is a desperate desire for fame, money and power.............

My take on this--
Cindy WANTED to be arrested. If it weren't for the shirt/tresspassing, it would have been for something else. She would have seen to that.

She wants and needs attention. I don't care for her personally simply because she seems to thrive on getting her name in the paper. I distrust such sorts, of any pursuasion.

My advice to those who don't like her or want to hear what she says is--ignore her. The more you salivate and talk, the more this feeds the fire.

I understand, the only speech that isnt free is telling someone who is exercising thier right to free speech to shut the fuck up. I am sick of the anti war crowd thinking they have a monopoly on free speech and dissent. I am dissenting their stupid high school tactics of chanting and wearing T shirt to protest a war and use my right to free speech to tell them so. grow up sheehan, this isnt the MTV awards or the 1960's. The only message you are getting across is your a publicity whore who cant come up with anything new, pathetic. go back to Hugo's house. the thing that makes the maddest though is taht we have to hear about this stupid woman every fucking day! why od the left wingers who we hear about as the voice of thier movement have to always be so stupid? why cant Kate Beckinsale protest the war by getting naked and running around the state of the union adress with a "no blood for oil" thong on?

Originally posted by Freethinker

People like Trav are the true **whining bitches** in this, as far as i'm concerned, for this reason; their only real problem with Cindy Sheehan, the reason why they hate her so, is that she is being openly critical of their conservative champion GWBush and is exposing him for having made the horrendously BAD decision to wage a war against Iraq.



you think you are so fucking smart dont you? I dont give a crap about Bush. Bush is only a man who holds an office, he will be gone soon. I dont like her using the death of her son s some sort of weapon to advance her left wing agenda, not just about the war, but aobu teverything. she is using his body as a stump, yet you refuse to see that. Tel me freethinker, how the hell does her son dying in iraq give her the credibility to debate supreme court justices from Venezuela while she has dinner with Hugo Chavez? you are an idiot you know that? you cant even see when someone is no longer what you still try to make them out to be. the dead son and grieving thing is over man, and has been for a long time.

Originally posted by Travh20
you think you are so fucking smart dont you?

Nooooo........it just seems that way when I am contrasted with someone as woefully uninformed and unintelligent as you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Also, back to the issue of whether or not Sheehan violated a rule and deserved to be arrested; if the Capitol police were not such dickheads, they would never have handcuffed and arrested Sheehan in the FIRST place.

From MSNBC ---------

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353

Associated Press-- Feb. 1, 2006

WASHINGTON D.C.--- Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”


The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.


Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charge against Sheehan.

Originally posted by sedan
All you guys who are trashing her instead of trashing what she says are falling victim to emotional impulses, not rational thought. I thought only liberals supposedly did that.
That's a damn good point, Sedan, and rest assured, I'll do my best to avoid letting it happen again.

Originally posted by sedan
All you guys who are trashing her instead of trashing what she says are falling victim to emotional impulses, not rational thought.

Yes.......but it goes far, far deeper than that.

If the situation had been reversed, had a Democrat in office sent 2200+ soldiers to their deaths in some trumped up, bullshit "war", and had one of the dead soldier's mothers taken it upon herself to simply ASK the Democratic president to EXPLAIN to her "what noble cause her son died for", people like TravH would not only NOT be spewing their insane --"Aww, she doesn't give a fuck that her son is dead, she's just a stupid fucking hack and a publicity whore!"-- invective toward her, but would be 110% percent behind her, and we both know it.

Thanks for telling me what I would say jackass. I tell you this, I dont care what letter is next to the predients name, when we are at war I am behind them. My loyalty to my country doesnt come from a fucking letter next to someones name. Just because you look at everything through a pair of fucked up glasses doesnt mean we all do. take your sorry, bitter, cynical ass somewhere else

and stop trying to play up the dead son thing you idiot! what are you stupid? its not about that anymore. the way you keep justifying her crap with his death makes you worse then anyone who lives in reality and see her for what she is, a fucking puppet ont he strings of the left wing who rely on useful idiots like you to repeat "her son dies, what are yo saying she isnt in pain? blah blah blah" god, stfu you dumb son of a bitch, wake up already. Sitting there insisting she is doing all of this for her dead son is like someone insisting we are still looking for WMD's. Just answer me why her sons death makes her an expert onthe supreme court? why do you keep dodging that?

Originally posted by Travh20
and stop trying to play up the dead son thing you idiot! what are you stupid? its not about that anymore.

I am not **playing up* her dead son in the slightest.

I am simply refuting your continual claims that her campaign to seek justice and peace is phony............that she was not affected by the death of her son to such a degree that she took on City Hall, but that instead it is her whorish desire for publicity that is really her abiding motivation.

Only an insane person would try --as you continue to do-- to make the case that instead of her activism being motivated by her son having been killed, it is purely motivated by a frantic desire on her part for recognition and fame.

Originally posted by Travh20
Sitting there insisting she is doing all of this for her dead son is like someone insisting we are still looking for WMD's.

?!?!?!?

Has your rightwing partisanship caused you to be SO goddamned divorced from reality that you cannot imagine someone SO devastated by the death of their son--a death that Cindy Sheehan truly regards, as I do, as having been completely UNnecessary-- that they might be deeply motivated to seek political change?!?!


Originally posted by Travh20
Just answer me why her sons death makes her an expert onthe supreme court? why do you keep dodging that?

Because it is a nonsensical question and a strawman argument, in that no one has ever made ANY claim , including Sheehan herself, that she is such an "expert".

Originally posted by Freethinker
Only an insane person would try --as you continue to do-- to make the case that instead of her activism being motivated by her son having been killed, it is purely motivated by a frantic desire on her part for recognition and fame.

Why only an insane person? Questioning her motivations by looking at her behavior is within the realm of reason.

Has your rightwing partisanship caused you to be SO goddamned divorced from reality that you cannot imagine someone SO devastated by the death of their son--a death that Cindy Sheehan truly regards, as I do, as having been completely UNnecessary--

The son didn't think so, and it was his life on the line that he volunteered. Why should she get to go against his wishes for use of political propagandizing just because she is his mother?

Originally posted by Evakian
Why only an insane person? Questioning her motivations by looking at her behavior is within the realm of reason.
No shit.

She has the right to protest no matter what her mental state is or even whatever her motivations are.

Given that her son was killed in Iraq and given that she did not protest before he died, then I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that her motivations are driven by what happened to her son.

But, once she puts herself in the public eye - she automatically opens herself up for people to question her motives & to discredit her. It's totally reasonable for people to question her motives.

Whatever her motives - it's clear that it's not easy to be Cindy Sheehan these days.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I am not **playing up* her dead son in the slightest.

I am simply refuting your continual claims that her campaign to seek justice and peace is phony............that she was not affected by the death of her son to such a degree that she took on City Hall, but that instead it is her whorish desire for publicity that is really her abiding motivation.

Only an insane person would try --as you continue to do-- to make the case that instead of her activism being motivated by her son having been killed, it is purely motivated by a frantic desire on her part for recognition and fame.



?!?!?!?

Has your rightwing partisanship caused you to be SO goddamned divorced from reality that you cannot imagine someone SO devastated by the death of their son--a death that Cindy Sheehan truly regards, as I do, as having been completely UNnecessary-- that they might be deeply motivated to seek political change?!?!




Because it is a nonsensical question and a strawman argument, in that no one has ever made ANY claim , including Sheehan herself, that she is such an "expert".

look, I feel for her loss, but you know damn well this isnt some saturday afternoon special about a mother fighting for justice. WTF does Hugo Chavez and Sam Alito have anything to do with the war in Iraq? It is not a strawman, it is a real question. Why am I listening to the guy on the news tell me that Cindy Sheehan says if Senator Feinstein doesnt vote against Alito she will run agaisnt her for US Senate? If the guy on the news told you a lawyer says you shouldnt eat red meat anymore are you going to listen? Its just out of place, and putting the "her son died in iraq" bandage on it wont make it right. Lots of peoples sons died in iraq, are we all now supposed to hang on their every word? The majority of parents who lost kids in Iraq want us to stay the course, what do you say to them? are they stupid or have no deceny freethinker?

That's exactly right, Trav.

Let me repost what i said in the VERY FIRST POST:

Do i agree with what CNN said their reasons for escorting were?? No i dont.. she should be allowed to wear an antiwar shirt.


So what was your argument about the T shirt again?

Originally posted by Travh20
look, I feel for her loss, but you know damn well this isnt some saturday afternoon special about a mother fighting for justice. WTF does Hugo Chavez and Sam Alito have anything to do with the war in Iraq? It is not a strawman, it is a real question. Why am I listening to the guy on the news tell me that Cindy Sheehan says if Senator Feinstein doesnt vote against Alito she will run agaisnt her for US Senate? If the guy on the news told you a lawyer says you shouldnt eat red meat anymore are you going to listen? Its just out of place, and putting the "her son died in iraq" bandage on it wont make it right. Lots of peoples sons died in iraq, are we all now supposed to hang on their every word? The majority of parents who lost kids in Iraq want us to stay the course, what do you say to them? are they stupid or have no deceny freethinker?

That's true about the Alito stuff - I forgot about that, she pokes her nose well beyond any so called scope she has. Her son dying in Iraq doesn't make her the mouthpiece of any subject that she feels like. When she strays beyond the war in Iraq - she is definately just using her son's death for her own ends - that's pretty sickening to me. Seh should run for office & then she can stray onto any subject she likes & not have to use her son's death as an ace up her sleeve. Those type of actions cheapen her sons death - and abuses his memory, epsecially bad because he has no say in how his name is beiong hijacked.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
No shit.

I must say, what stimulating debate is going on.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Only an insane person would try --as you continue to do-- to make the case that instead of her activism being motivated by her son having been killed, it is purely motivated by a frantic desire on her part for recognition and fame.

Originally posted by Evakian
Why only an insane person? Questioning her motivations by looking at her behavior is within the realm of reason.


Get ONE thing thru your head!!!......

TravH is NOT simply "questioning" Cindy Sheehan's motivations!!!

He is emphatically and repeatedly claiming that her primary motivation as a political activist does not stem from her feelings of loss over her son, but are instead born out of some desperate desire on her part for publicity and recognition.

THAT is where the insanity enters the picture.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Get ONE thing thru your head!!!......

TravH is NOT simply "questioning" Cindy Sheehan's motivations!!!

He is emphatically and repeatedly claiming that her primary motivation as a political activist does not stem from her feelings of loss over her son, but are instead born out of some desperate desire on her part for publicity and recognition.

THAT is where the insanity enters the picture.

Although I don't agree that her motivations are born only from the desire for publicity - the notion is certainly not insane.

The notion that her motivation is less than perfect is given credibility by her straying outside of the issue of the Iraq war and talking about making a run for the senate.

Originally posted by Travh20
The majority of parents who lost kids in Iraq want us to stay the course, what do you say to them? are they stupid or have no deceny freethinker?

If you're asking my opinion, i'll tell you.

They are probably decent.....but there is NO doubt as to their stupidity.

They were STUPID in that they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing BushCo's lies that Iraq posssessed hundreds and hundreds of tons of WMDs, which necessitated this country going to war against them.

How could any of those grieving parents NOT be angry that pure, unadulterated LIES got their kids killed?!?!?

I feel sorry for them that their abject ignorance and gullbility allowed their sons to be sent to die for nothing..........well, nothing except immense profits for the Oil and Defense Industry owners.

I'm sure that most of the parents with kids in Iraq want only one thing - for their kids to come home safely. As a parent myself I cannot imagine any other possible thought going thru their minds.

Whatever the reality of Iraq - it's simplistic to say the lost soldiers died for nothing, it may be no comfort to the parents, but it is quite possible & highly likely that their loss has prevented the continued Butchering of thousands by Hussain. The outcomes may not be as black & white as WMD, US security etc - but undoubtedly these soldiers did not die for absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by DrewM
I'm sure that most of the parents with kids in Iraq want only one thing - for their kids to come home safely. As a parent myself I cannot imagine any other possible thought going thru their minds.

I would agree with that 100%.

But it should be noted that the desires of parents who still have kids in Iraq has NOTHING to do with what Trav and I were talking about ---which was parents who have already lost kids in Iraq.



Originally posted by DrewM
...it may be no comfort to the parents, but it is quite possible & highly likely that their loss has prevented the continued Butchering of thousands by Hussain.

Ok.

If Hussein WAS butchering people --and you and I would seem to agree that that was probably the case-- then the U.S. Government had NOT ONE shred of goddamned decency in their aiding and supporting Hussein --under Reagan/Bush during the 1980's-- and authorizing US Corporations to sell the butcher the precursors for weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg

Now Drew........please go ahead and trot out your tired assed excuses as to why --"Well, uhh, you see, Reagan and Bush just HAD to be buddies with Iraq and they just HAD to sell that stuff to Saddam Hussein back then, 'cause of the political expediencies in the Middle East!!!!

what does rumsfeld and hussein have to do with sheehan and alito?

Originally posted by Travh20
what does rumsfeld and hussein have to do with sheehan and alito?

The same thing that the following remark of yours---

""Freethinker will still have the job of defending the memory of Cindy Sheehans dead son ""

--- had to do with the thread that you posted it in, entitled -- **Bush proves God is dead** , which was based on an article by Lee Salisbury and had to do, specifically, with Bush's actual demonstrated values and how little they correspond to his purported (Christian) values.

I agree that the US supported Iraq in the 80's against Iran during the cold war, but that doesn't really have anything to do with any value that comes out of a soldiers death in Iraq now does it ?

Actually I find a lot in common between Sheehan and Carolyn Maloney. Didn't ask for it, but tried to make some good out of the situation. I think she's over the top at times. So what? Deal with it.

Originally posted by DrewM
I agree that the US supported Iraq in the 80's against Iran during the cold war, but that doesn't really have anything to do with any value that comes out of a soldiers death in Iraq now does it ?

It has a great deal to do with it.

Had the USGovernment not aided and propped up Saddam back then, he well might have already fallen from power, rendering the US move to wage war against him unecessary........also, had the USGovernment not approved the sale of WMD precursors to him 20 years ago, Bush43 would have had no excuse --not even the falsehood of Hussein's possessing WMDs in the year 2001-- to drum up a war with.

No war on Iraq........no 2200 dead soldiers.

It has nothing to do with it sorry.

We're not talking about some hypothetical fairy tale world.

The point I made is that soldiers who have died have not died for nothing. My comment on that is not an attempt to justify their death - it is only in response to your statement that they have died for absolutely nothing. Saddam was still a butcher in 1980 as he was in 2003 and the US past alliance with him has no impact on that pertinent fact.

The problem here freethinker, as always, is you can never take the blinders off and focus on the point being discussed. The stuff you bring up is all well and good - but it has nothing to do with or has any relevance to the point I made. Your idea of relevance is anything and everything that fits into your worldview.

Moving my post

Originally posted by Freethinker

They were STUPID in that they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing BushCo's lies that Iraq posssessed hundreds and hundreds of tons of WMDs, which necessitated this country going to war against them.


Translated into Non-Bullshit:

I dont agree with what president Bush is doing so i will claim everything OPPOSITE to my viewpoint to be lies and murder while i am cleansed of any such notion

give the dramatics a rest Freethinker... the more adjectives you use doesn't make your point any more viable.

Originally posted by DrewM
That's true about the Alito stuff - I forgot about that, she pokes her nose well beyond any so called scope she has. Her son dying in Iraq doesn't make her the mouthpiece of any subject that she feels like. When she strays beyond the war in Iraq - she is definately just using her son's death for her own ends - that's pretty sickening to me.
Trav and you are insane to attack her for going beyond the Iraq War debate. Why can't she poke her nose beyond that scope? She is afterall an American citizen with the right to speak about what she wants no matter the topic, and no matter if she has something to do personally with it. As for her being a mouthpiece, well, she isn't making herself that. The media and the Republicans are. Attacking her for being a mouthpiece is also insane. And I don't think she uses her sons death to make any of her opinions more valid, that is just what got her in the eye of the media. Since then she has just kept fighting for what she believes in and that does not mean she is "using" her son on those other issues what-so-ever. That is just the event that got her started, you cannot say she uses her sons death to get her other opinions in the media.

Originally posted by DrewM
Seh should run for office & then she can stray onto any subject she likes & not have to use her son's death as an ace up her sleeve.
Why haven't you run for office? You seem to stray onto a lot of topics as well. What is the difference between you and her?

Originally posted by Overdose
As for her being a mouthpiece, well, she isn't making herself that. The media and the Republicans are. Attacking her for being a mouthpiece is also insane. And I don't think she uses her sons death to make any of her opinions more valid


Can anyone look up "insanity" in a dictionary?

Geez, to think this lady is "pure" in her motives and methods is just blindness... just like love.

Originally posted by Decka
Geez, to think this lady is "pure" in her motives and methods is just blindness... just like love.
I think it is blindness to think she isn't pure in her motives and methods. Why wouldn't she be pure? I mean, do you not even see how easy it is for me to turn what you say right around? Why don't you try actually posting something that is actually smart and not something that is like "you are blind". Why don't you prove it she isn't pure?

Originally posted by Overdose
I think it is blindness to think she isn't pure in her motives and methods. Why wouldn't she be pure? I mean, do you not even see how easy it is for me to turn what you say right around? Why don't you try actually posting something that is actually smart and not something that is like "you are blind". Why don't you prove it she isn't pure?

If Sheehan is pure than so is Bush...

Originally posted by Decka
If Sheehan is pure than so is Bush...
Again, NOT posting anything that has to do with the thread, the debate or anything we are talking about. Proving once again you have nothing to contribute to the debate we are having. THANKS.

Originally posted by Overdose
Again, NOT posting anything that has to do with the thread, the debate or anything we are talking about. Proving once again you have nothing to contribute to the debate we are having. THANKS.

Oh it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. You hold certain people to different standards. Sheehan is obviously someone you look up to, and she is innocent until proven guilty.. but not Bush. Any SNIFF of bad-doing is INSTANTLY true. Hey it even MIGHT be true, but nothing is proven.

If sheehans opinion means "X" amount in the political spectum... then ANY OTHER mother of a son who died ALSO is entitled to "X" amount in the political spectrum.

The fact that only Cindy Sheehan is getting press is two things...

1. the liberal agenda

2. She purposely gets herself in situations to be arrested so she can be on the news.

THAT is the bottom line.

Originally posted by Decka
Oh it has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. You hold certain people to different standards.
No, it has nothing to do with this discussion. And I don't hold people to different standards.

Originally posted by Decka
Sheehan is obviously someone you look up to, and she is innocent until proven guilty.. but not Bush. Any SNIFF of bad-doing is INSTANTLY true. Hey it even MIGHT be true, but nothing is proven.
Firstly, I agreed with going to war with Iraq because I honestly thought Bush was telling the truth about the WMD's. So, you're wrong. And no, I don't "look up" to her what-so-ever. I just don't see why I should not trust her motives. What examples do you have to suggest her motives are false? I've had many debates proving that Bush was wrong about the WMD's and links to terrorism. I've given examples to suggest why I don't and others shouldn't trust what he says because of his history. I'm waiting for the examples for Cindy. So, no, I don't hold people to different standards.

As for her press. It is because the Republicans are bringing her up so much and because they hate what she stands for, which is truth.

Originally posted by Overdose
Trav and you are insane to attack her for going beyond the Iraq War debate. Why can't she poke her nose beyond that scope? She is afterall an American citizen with the right to speak about what she wants no matter the topic, and no matter if she has something to do personally with it. As for her being a mouthpiece, well, she isn't making herself that. The media and the Republicans are. Attacking her for being a mouthpiece is also insane. And I don't think she uses her sons death to make any of her opinions more valid, that is just what got her in the eye of the media. Since then she has just kept fighting for what she believes in and that does not mean she is "using" her son on those other issues what-so-ever. That is just the event that got her started, you cannot say she uses her sons death to get her other opinions in the media.


Why haven't you run for office? You seem to stray onto a lot of topics as well. What is the difference between you and her?

I am not saying she is a total phoney - I'm just saying she opens herself up to the valid question that she is a phoney.

I agree she has the right to say whatever she wants, but people then have the right to say 'hold on a moment - what has Alito got to do with your son'. Remember - the only reason she has been given the equivalent of millions of $ of free media exposure is she had a son that died in Iraq and she protested the president by camping out at his ranch - that is newsworthy & in that sense she is relevant. Now, once she switches the subject & starts going off topic & starts talking about a senate run, people are saying mmm...maybe there was a plan behind all this. That doesn't mean she has no right - it just means she's open season on critique if thats the game she plans to play. Senate runs cost millions - it won't cost cindy a dime - without her dead son who is cindy sheehan? I'm not in the camp that necessarily believes that to be true - but I can see how people would think that. Freethinker called it insane - it's not insane & I'm explaining why it isn't.

The issue is not her right to talk about what she wants - the issue is the right for people to reasonably question her motives without being told they are insane by one track minded bufoons.

Originally posted by DrewM
I agree she has the right to say whatever she wants, but people then have the right to say 'hold on a moment - what has Alito got to do with your son'. Remember - the only reason she has been given the equivalent of millions of $ of free media exposure is she had a son that died in Iraq and she protested the president by camping out at his ranch - that is newsworthy & in that sense she is relevant. Now, once she switches the subject & starts going off topic & starts talking about a senate run, people are saying mmm...maybe there was a plan behind all this. That doesn't mean she has no right - it just means she's open season on critique if thats the game she plans to play. Senate runs cost millions - it won't cost cindy a dime - without her dead son who is cindy sheehan? I'm not in the camp that necessarily believes that to be true - but I can see how people would think that. Freethinker called it insane - it's not insane & I'm explaining why it isn't.
I agree with FT. Because her talking about other issues is natural for all Americans to do. All Americans talk about current issues at the times they are being presented. Alito and other things were current at the time so she spoke about them and shared her opinions on them. People are paying to hear what she thinks, not just what she thinks about the Iraq War. Her protesting the war because of her son's death was just the start for her and it has progressed because of the Republican hate-machine into something more.

So you believe than anybody who dares question St Cindy Sheehans motives is insane?

Originally posted by DrewM
So you believe than anybody who dares question St Cindy Sheehans motives is insane?
I don't think they are insane, but I think the "examples" and the "reasons" they give are very very stupid. I suppose they aren't "insane", Drew, if you want to play semantics, but I doubt you actually thought I literally meant insane. Anyway. I don't see anything she's done as sufficent proof or reason enough to question her motives. Searching Iraq for 2+ years and not finding weapons is sufficent proof to question Bush and if he is a liar. What she's done does not raise any questions in my mind.

I meant exactly the word "insane" because that is what FT said and I was responding to that.

Originally posted by DrewM
I meant exactly the word "insane" because that is what FT said and I was responding to that.
Well, I don't know if he seriously meant the word "insane" Sometimes people say words like "retard" or "insane" and they don't actually mean what the words mean, but are used to convey a strongger message.

true.

Originally posted by Overdose
No, it has nothing to do with this discussion. And I don't hold people to different standards.

go ahead and deny it, i dont see any proof that you dont.

Originally posted by Overdose

Firstly, I agreed with going to war with Iraq because I honestly thought Bush was telling the truth about the WMD's. So, you're wrong. And no, I don't "look up" to her what-so-ever. I just don't see why I should not trust her motives. What examples do you have to suggest her motives are false?

go look at the other thread. geez you just dont read a damn thing anyone types do you....
Originally posted by Overdose

I've had many debates proving that Bush was wrong about the WMD's and links to terrorism. I've given examples to suggest why I don't and others shouldn't trust what he says because of his history. I'm waiting for the examples for Cindy. So, no, I don't hold people to different standards.

You are biting the hand that feeds for this woman. If her son didnt die, NOONE WOULD KNOW WHO THE HELL SHE IS.. she is entitled to nothing. If Cindy Sheehan was a conservative and sitting outside of "president Kerry's" massachusetts mansion you'd think she was a wackjob... no doubt.

oh and you have no proof you hold different people to the same standards.. i dont beleive you
Originally posted by Overdose

As for her press. It is because the Republicans are bringing her up so much and because they hate what she stands for, which is truth.

I would definitely not mind her at all if she stopped whoring herself out, and make political change the right way.

Originally posted by Decka

give the dramatics a rest Freethinker... the more adjectives you use doesn't make your point any more viable.

I don't think you even KNOW what a godddamned adjective is.

Point out the overabundance for me.....tell me how many of those *adjectives* that you hate so are contained in the following sentence, the one you criticized for having too many adjectives-----

""They were STUPID in that they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing BushCo's lies that Iraq possessed hundreds and hundreds of tons of WMDs, which necessitated this country going to war against them. ""

Go ahead.....try to prove you're not a moron..........count the adjectives.

Originally posted by Overdose
Well, I don't know if he seriously meant the word "insane" ....Sometimes people say words like "retard" or "insane" and they don't actually mean what the words mean

Yes, i used it regarding Trav's position, and i meant it literally.

Drew, naturally, being the dishonest little twit that he is, has repeatedly tried to twist it far from the context in which i originally used it.

I have already gone thru this once on rthis thread , explaining to try what i meant by calling Trav's position *insane*.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear; I was not and did not say that ANYONE was *insane* for question sheehan or for not believing that Sheehan's motives were "pure".

I used the term *insane* to describe Trav's stated position, which was that ---------*"Cindy Sheehan is more motivated into being an activist by a desperate desire for fame and publicity than she is by the death of her son"*.

THAT is Trav's position, and THAT is specifically what I refered to as being ***insane***.

And Drew can fucking lie and spin this all he wants, but he cannot refute the truth of what i just said.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Yes, i used it regarding Trav's position, and i meant it literally.

I have already gone thru this once on rthis thread , explaining to try what i meant by calling Trav's position *insane*.

I used the term *insane* to describe Trav's stated position, which was that ---------*"Cindy Sheehan is more motivated into being an activist by a desperate desire for fame and publicity than she is by the death of her son"*.

THAT is Trav's position, and THAT is specifically what I refered to as being ***insane***.

And Drew can fucking lie and spin this all he wants, but he cannot refute the truth of what i just said.

Exactly - you were literal in saying such a view was insane - I showed you finger puppets style with a logical & reasonable argument why, even if I personally don't agree to such a view, such a view is certainly not insane. If you want to call that spinning, lying then whatever floats your boat.

Freethinker - and I mean this from the bottom of my heart - I am absolutely certain that you are mentally challenged, any finer point of discussion you miss because you quite frankly don't understand them. This is why you cannot grasp why your notion that such a view was insane is incorrect. That is why any reasoned and logical argument to you equals lying or 'spinning'

Originally posted by Freethinker
I used the term *insane* to describe Trav's stated position, which was that ---------*"Cindy Sheehan is more motivated into being an activist by a desperate desire for fame and publicity than she is by the death of her son"*.
No, what you did, FT, was take one portion of his reply, and then dismissed the entire point because his "publicity whore Vs. grieving mother" comment gave you a cheap leg-up in debate. I'm sure Trav made that statement because he's disgusted by her actions, and rightfully so. It doesn't invalidate what he was trying to say, nor does it make his inquiry any less appropriate, especially considering the circumstances.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I don't think you even KNOW what a godddamned adjective is.

Point out the overabundance for me.....tell me how many of those *adjectives* that you hate so are contained in the following sentence, the one you criticized for having too many adjectives-----

""They were STUPID in that they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing BushCo's lies that Iraq possessed hundreds and hundreds of tons of WMDs, which necessitated this country going to war against them. ""

Go ahead.....try to prove you're not a moron..........count the adjectives.

oh i know what one is.. and you are foolish for thinking i meant that this was the one and only sentence which i was talking about... sorry if you didnt figure that out.

but come on... does anyone else notice overdramatics coming from FT on a daily basis?

Point out the overabundance for me.....tell me how many of those *adjectives* that you hate so are contained in the post........

Originally posted by Decka
oh i know what one is.. and you are foolish for thinking i meant that this was the one and only sentence which i was talking about... sorry if you didnt figure that out.

but come on... does anyone else notice overdramatics coming from FT on a daily basis?

Gosh, it must be awfully embarrassing for you to be exposed as having no clue what an adjective is.

The issue had nothing to do with so-called *overdramatics*.

You made the allegation about an overuse of adjectives, and now you ---as is the case with so many other nonsensical claims you've made here--- are laughably exposed as being totally unable to back up said allegation.

Your idiotic PeeWee Hermanesque --""I know you are but what am I? Nyah nyah nah boo boo!! -- style of debate grows tiresome. What a desperate and unintelligent little man you are.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Your idiotic PeeWee Hermanesque --""I know you are but what am I? Nyah nyah nah boo boo!! -- style of debate grows tiresome.
Now that was funny.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Gosh, it must be awfully embarrassing for you to be exposed as having no clue what an adjective is.

Where do you get that from?

You made the allegation about an overuse of adjectives, and now you ---as is the case with so many other nonsensical claims you've made here--- are laughably exposed as being totally unable to back up said allegation.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry if i didnt give my initial motivations more clearly.. i simply wanted to say that you SEVERLY overuse words like "brainwashed", "religious", etc. when describing the population of america. Hey think whatever you want but i think we get your point.

Originally posted by Freethinker

Your idiotic PeeWee Hermanesque --""I know you are but what am I? Nyah nyah nah boo boo!! -- style of debate grows tiresome. What a desperate and unintelligent little man you are.

First off i didnt know PeeWee actually took part in debates...

second, coming from you that makes me feel more intelligent.

Third.. did "i know you are but what am I" ever come out of my mouth? or anything remotely close to it? please explain this should be good.

First off i didnt know PeeWee actually took part in debates...

second, coming from you that makes me feel more intelligent.

Third.. did "i know you are but what am I" ever come out of my mouth? or anything remotely close to it? please explain this should be good.

If it was anybody else, I'd be laughing because of the subtle satirical thread running through the 'counterpoints'. But nope, this sort of literal thinking is just par for the course for a Decka post.

Really Decka, this style of debate just doesn't suit you. Maybe you should try blogging?