Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on August 13, 2005, 07:13:07 PM
-
ok the lady outside of the Crawford Ranch, Will bush talk to her again already. I know he already did, but it at least give her a chance at closure in her son's death. I also saw that Pro-Bush supporters have shown up there. There have been several altercations between the Pro/anti war/bush demonstrators outside of his ranch. I would have no problems but this is a greiving mother who lost a son in Iraq so where is the compassion??? Sad state of affairs...
-
What are you talking about?
-
THe lady who's son died a year ago in Iraw. She is an anti-war activist now, so Bush won't talk to her.
He did talk to her already though, last year.
-
Why should he talk to her. The guy is taking a break. Running the country is "hard work", he needs his vacation.
I personally don't see a need to talk to her. While I feel for her I don't agree with her position that ALL the troops need to be pulled out now.
Against the war or not we have a responsibility in Iraq to fix it.
-
Have her arrested by the guys in the black helicopters and let her dissapear into a Gitmo dungeon. :)
Seriously, I dont think he can start a precedent of answering to each parent of a service member wounded or killed.
Besides, he has already talked with her once before, what does she want, an office next to his every time she wants to chat? I think since he as met with her once already, she might just be after publicity this time.
not that I dont pity the loss she suffered, but he cant be held hostage to her.
-
He did send several people out to talk to her but it did not seem there was anything to discuss.
-
Hi Raider,
I hope you will believe me when I say that I have enormous amounts of compassion and respect for military families, and unfortunately I too know and have grieved with people who have lost loved ones in Iraq. However, this particular incident has become politics, pure and simple.
For instance, as you noted the President originally met with Sheehan at the White House a couple of months after the death of her son. In an article published 06/24/2004 and available here (http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921)
the Sheehan family stated the following (it's worth reading carefully):
-------------
"Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said. "
-----------
Elsewhere, it has been confirmed that her son's politics and her own as well as their views of the war have always differed. Her son clearly believed in the Iraq effort and volunteered for it. In fact her son, Casey legitimately deserves considerable respect. Casey voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, earned a Bronze Star, and as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City (that action being the one in which he died).
One has only to contrast that with some of her recent statements including railing against neo-cons and her statements to the effect that "he knew it the war was wrong the whole family knew, etc" which is currently being denied by the rest of the Sheehan family:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.[/b]
Cindy, was and always has been a left-winger, unfortunately she is now being actively exploited by people like Michael Moore, which is bad enough, what I find intolerable is that she is using the death of her son in such a blatantly political manner, and probably not one that he himself would have appreciated or approved of.
It would be analogous to my parents forming a group to protest against Christian missions in Muslim countries if I were killed while serving as a missionary out there.
- SEAGOON
-
Excellant post Seagoon, thank you. You confirmed what I suspected, political motivation rather than grieving mother.
dago
-
Excellent post?
That was BS. In like a hundred different ways.
Listen, I'm lookin' goofy at this Sheehan chick for thinkin' that she can demand face time with the President. But whatever. Almost pales in comparison to the crap you folks are trying to throw at the situation.
BVVSHHHTTTSHHTTTTTZZZZSHAPSHA PSSSS..... Noise.
It turns out - she hit a nerve. Who woulda guessed.
-
LOL, some of you are too much. A mother loses her son and it's all politics now? People go through different stages when coping with the loss of a loved one.
Something like this order:
Denial, sadness, anger, acceptance. She's probably in the anger stage wanting her answers. Doesn't matter who the President is or what party affiliation the powers that be that run the country, parents will usually want answers to those things that puzzle them about the death of their son/daughter.
A parent shouldn't outlive their children. Gotta be the worst nightmare a parent goes through.
Political cause? Naw, just a parent grieving the loss of her child.
-
Yeah, her opinions and grief are meaningless because she is not a republican. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
A parent shouldn't outlive their children. Gotta be the worst nightmare a parent goes through.
If you lose your spouse, you're called a widow. If you lose your parents, you're called an orphan.
If you lose your son or daughter.... well, there isn't a name for that. Some things are too horrendous to name.
-
Agreed. it is terrible to loose a child and that she lost hers. AndI can understand her greif and the process. I can imagine nothing worse.
But the president cant just up and meet with every greiving parent whenever they want a meeting with him
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
But the president cant just up and meet with every greiving parent whenever they want a meeting with him
Yeah, that would kind of open the floodgates to "have" to meet every parent that demands it. I don't know of any President that would have that kind of courage and patience.
-
Yeah, the President should definitly get into the "tail wagging the dog" scenario.
Lefties just love to find some way to try and paint Bush in a bad light.
She had her face time, and that is something the overwhelming majority of deceased servicemens parents never get. I think now she has recovered and is trying to use her son's death in a pathetic way to advance her previously existing political agenda.
dago
-
Yep.. he should become her private shrink and set up weekly appointments.
lazs
-
Phil Hendrie describes the situation very well in my opinion:
Casey Sheehan was a re-enlistee with the Army's 1st Cavalry. He knew he was going to fight. He understood that. He embraced it. He fought like a soldier. And like a soldier he died, killed in April of 2004, in Sadr City, Iraq.
Casey's mom, Cindy, doesn't quite get it. She is a mother who has lost her son to a war. Convinced she knows more about the costs of war than other parents who've suffered similar loss, she has parked herself outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Full of judgment and hate, calling him "selected," not elected, blaming him personally for the death of her son, this clueless woman is going to sit there until the President comes out. She's going to set him straight.
Cindy Sheehan is another bereaved parent that the anti-Iraq War movement has run its game on. Manipulating her in her sadness and anger, they've created a self-righteous ignoramus. Casey Sheehan was cut down by foreign insurgents, the same Saudi-Iranian-Syrian animals that carved up Nick Berg. But to Cindy, the man who killed her son is George Bush. Cindy believes Bush lied about our reasons for going to war and thus led her son to his death through outright deceit.
The "Bush Lied" theory has been debated and discredited but Anti-War Mom hasn't noticed. Cindy Sheehan isn't outside the Bush ranch as a truth-seeker. She's there for her public-relations potency. "I want people to know the real costs of war," she says. A mother grieving her loss. The inhumanity of war. Oh, the wickedness of it all. It's the anti-Iraq War Propaganda Machine working the sewer again.
The philosophy of the September 10th movement can be boiled down to this: "If we hadn't started anything....... then nothing would have started." Like a parent encouraging a child to avoid bullies by walking 2 blocks out of the way, the September 10th movement believes that avoidance and non-engagement would have been the way to avert 9/11, the Gulf War, Beirut...maybe even World War Two. Since that didn't happen, the anti-Iraq war Poseurs set out to revise history so they can shore up politically. "Clinton had nothing to do with any of this. It was all Bush and he (just to add a touch of true malevolence) LIED!!" No proof is offered of course. Proof means truth. And the truth is this war was unavoidable, brought on by an historic clash of culture and ideal, powered by the American people themselves, rising to meet the future, pissing off the rag heads.
Anti-War Mom raised her children in the American culture of struggle, progress, success and failure. Like many, she refused to take ownership of her government, preferring the platitude of loving her country. No people own their government more than the American people. And no other people in the world more strenuously disassociate from it when the going gets tough. And the going is always the toughest when times are good and war arrives. For Cindy Sheehan and millions of other moms the inconvenience of this could not be overstated. While she was busy chasing the good life, made possible by the millions of backstairs deals cut globally everyday through American corporations and politicians (not to mention enforced by an international security apparatus) her good life was coming up against other considerations authored in the caves of Pakistan.
At first, since it was a question of country, not government, Anti-War Mom supported the war although her loyalty to one and not the other began to impede her ability to understand things clearly. When news arrived of her sons death, her tenuous line to reality snapped. Not only was she not at all responsible for her government, she didn't much like the country either, lecturing her fellow citizens on the costs of war, arrogant in the depths of her ignorance about the prices others have paid.
Anti-War Mom might be powerful had she any ideas of her own. But since she is a mouth-piece for the September 10th movement her guns are empty. The Anti-War movement in America continues to lack anything approaching ideas or answers. But it does encourage Anti-War Mom to live in the past. It's where her son lives, they tell her. So she joins the other wayfarers in the desert, nomads whose camels follow the camel ahead, all going in a circle.
Disclaimer: Our comments section is for comments on the topic at hand, whether you agree, disagree or are not sure. It is not for former colleagues of mine in the radio business who've had a tough time dealing with my success and their own failure to post dull, inside radio claptrap. If you are one of those and you dare to tread here, you'll be made to look like the lame bellybutton you are.
http://www.georgewbushisgod.com/
-
Originally posted by Nash
Excellent post?
That was BS. In like a hundred different ways.
do you have anything to actually dispute what seagoon said. I think Seagoon is a compasionate person and wouldn't post something inflamatory for political reasons.Does somone just automatically get a pass when it comes to motivations because they are a grieving mother?
Politics aside I grieve for this womans loss, but she needs to move on with the grieving process. From my experience that just takes time really.
-
Gunslinger, I'd like you to compare these two sentences:
Casey voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, earned a Bronze Star, and as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City (that action being the one in which he died).
Casey, who voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, who earned a Bronze Star, and who as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but who volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City, that action being the one in which he died, seemed want to serve.
One is from Seagoon, and one is from somewhere else. I realize that people are going to get bent out of shape over Sheehan, but I think digging up dirt on this chick is weak. She's an anti-war protester. Absolutely. But..... So what?
Who cares what her aunts think? Who even cares what Casey would have thought? Who cares if she thought something else a year ago, and changed her mind this year?
She is a woman who lost her son, she has some problems with that, and she has every right to say so. It's really just that simple.
I shouldn't have wandered into this thread, because I really don't care about it. It's about the last I'm gonna say on this - I hope.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Yeah, that would kind of open the floodgates to "have" to meet every parent that demands it. I don't know of any President that would have that kind of courage and patience.
Or time.
On thinking about it though wouldnt it be a novel idea if all world leaders had to at some point give an audience to all the parents who have lost their children to war?
I understand that war is a necessary evil.That sometimes must be waged in defence or our national interests
And I was and still am in favor of this one.
But it might make leaders less likely to wage it. (Excluding psychopaths such as Saddam, Hitler and the like)
-
Two key words about Casey.
"voluntarily"
"volunteered"
He "voluntarily" re-upped
He "volunteered" to go on the mission he died in.
As far as Im concenred what Casey himself thought is of the utmost consideration
He knew the score and he went anyway "voluntarily"
This isnt like Nam where you were selected and plucked out of your home,school or college. and told you were going whether you wanted to or not. He chose to do this of his own free will.
He must have beleived in what he was doing because he knew the dangers involved and that there was a chance he could loose his life due to any number of reasons there yet chose to do it again anyway. Otherwise. Why would he?
IMO I understand her loss but she is doing a great disservice to her son and his memory.
You understand going into the services that when you join there is a chance you will be sent to war. Wherever, whenever and for WHATEVER reasons are given. Be it for WMDs, Oil. OR simply because the guy in charge doesnt like people with mustaches that have had 10 facelifts. Thats your job.
You dont sign up. Then sign up again if you dont beleive in what your doing.
Thats your choice. That was his choice.
He made his choice and it was just that. HIS choice
-
Cindy Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004. Reports say her family had about 10 minutes with him. From news reports at the time, she was satisfied with the visit.
Now she's not; she's angry. That's certainly her business.
She wants to meet with Bush again; certainly her business.
Now why does she think Bush should have to meet with her again? If this next visit doesn't satisfy her after another year of reflection, will she ask for another "do over"?
I'm of the opinion she had her shot at Bush. She can stay P.O.'d as long as she likes, she can vigil all she likes, she can press release all she likes but the simple fact is........
Bush already met with her and she had her chance to talk to him already.
Done deal.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
I hope you will believe me when I say that I have enormous amounts of compassion and respect for military families, and unfortunately I too know and have grieved with people who have lost loved ones in Iraq. However, this particular incident has become politics, pure and simple.
For instance, as you noted the President originally met with Sheehan at the White House a couple of months after the death of her son. In an article published 06/24/2004 and available here (http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921)
the Sheehan family stated the following (it's worth reading carefully):
-------------
"Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."
The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.
But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.
For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.
"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."
The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said. "
-----------
Elsewhere, it has been confirmed that her son's politics and her own as well as their views of the war have always differed. Her son clearly believed in the Iraq effort and volunteered for it. In fact her son, Casey legitimately deserves considerable respect. Casey voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, earned a Bronze Star, and as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City (that action being the one in which he died).
One has only to contrast that with some of her recent statements including railing against neo-cons and her statements to the effect that "he knew it the war was wrong the whole family knew, etc" which is currently being denied by the rest of the Sheehan family:
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
Cindy, was and always has been a left-winger, unfortunately she is now being actively exploited by people like Michael Moore, which is bad enough, what I find intolerable is that she is using the death of her son in such a blatantly political manner, and probably not one that he himself would have appreciated or approved of.
It would be analogous to my parents forming a group to protest against Christian missions in Muslim countries if I were killed while serving as a missionary out there.
- SEAGOON [/B]
Do you not think it possible that because of the Valerie Plume leak by someone in the Bush Administration and the Downing Street Memo, could have caused her to change her views on the war? And now she, just like many Americans want answers. The difference is that Her Son died and she wants to know why...
I saw that letter. Know what else is missing from it?
Here let me help you...
"In addition to his parents, Patrick and Cindy, Sheehan is survived by his brother, Andy, and sisters, Carly and Jane."
The "family" you speak of is not whose opinions matter. They are extended family. His Family is his Mom, Dad, Brother and His two sisters. I notice none of them signed this letter.
Did you know that the death of her son caused the breakup of their marriage? This is a lady that is obviously broken up about the death of her son. Where is the compassion Bush loves to talk about? All he would need to do is spend a few minutes with this woman and let her vent, then explain her son is a hero and let her go on her way. But instead he prolongs it, as if he is sooo busy he can't help a greiving mother come to terms with the loss of her son.
Maybe she is being exploited but its also possible that the ones who are "exploiting" her are the only ones who are helping her and to get what she wants she is letting her self be used. She needs publicity or else she has no chance of seeing Bush.
As for her quotes you forgot the one where she said "Bush didn't even know his name" from the 1st meeting between them.
It would only be analogous if someone besides yourself, sent you there, not because you went upon your own choice to do missionary work. But really there is no analogy to this, nothing even comes close to comparison.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Agreed. it is terrible to loose a child and that she lost hers. AndI can understand her greif and the process. I can imagine nothing worse.
But the president cant just up and meet with every greiving parent whenever they want a meeting with him
Sorry but I only see 1 greiving parent demanding a meeting. And maybe if the President knows he is going to have to face to face explain himself to people whose son's and daughter's got killed based on his decisions, maybe he will be a little more selective in his decisions and not just go off playing Cowboy in Texas for weeks at a time.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Sorry but I only see 1 greiving parent demanding a meeting.
No, you see 1 grieving parent demanding a second meeting.
-
Pres. Bush should talk to her. def.
Comfort her...
I mean who wouldn't?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Where is the compassion Bush loves to talk about?
Cindy Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004. Reports say her family had about 10 minutes with him. From news reports at the time, she was satisfied with the visit.
All he would need to do is spend a few minutes with this woman and let her vent, then explain her son is a hero and let her go on her way.
Cindy Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004. Reports say her family had about 10 minutes with him. From news reports at the time, she was satisfied with the visit.
But instead he prolongs it, as if he is sooo busy he can't help a greiving mother come to terms with the loss of her son.
Cindy Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004. Reports say her family had about 10 minutes with him. From news reports at the time, she was satisfied with the visit.
Maybe she is being exploited but its also possible that the ones who are "exploiting" her are the only ones who are helping her and to get what she wants she is letting her self be used. She needs publicity or else she has no chance of seeing Bush.
[/b]
Cindy Sheehan met with Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004. Reports say her family had about 10 minutes with him. From news reports at the time, she was satisfied with the visit.
watch out raider, your on the border of turning this all into a political thing mentioning leaks and memos. I thaught this was about a grieving mother?
-
Because the leaks and memo's are "WHY" she changed her mind. maybe you didnt catch that part.
"Do you not think it possible that because of the Valerie Plume leak by someone in the Bush Administration and the Downing Street Memo, could have caused her to change her views on the war? And now she, just like many Americans want answers. The difference is that Her Son died and she wants to know why..."
This is my understanding of what I have read. She looks at it different now because there is "evidence" in her mind that She was lied to, thus warranting a second meeting. But I think he should meet her (again, Toad you stickler, lol) and that would do it. No more meetings with her, but one more could only help this lady get over her son. And that is what is important.
-
Because the leaks and memo's are "WHY" she changed her mind.
Well, that, and the juicy paychecks from various DNC/Soros related organizations...
-
Shes a nutbag (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Shes a nutbag (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cs.htm)
Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
yea raider it really sounds like the dowding st memo got her going. If that's the case it must have really thrown her off her rocker. Losing a son is tough and I really don't think this woman is doing too well.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Sorry but I only see 1 greiving parent demanding a meeting. And maybe if the President knows he is going to have to face to face explain himself to people whose son's and daughter's got killed based on his decisions, maybe he will be a little more selective in his decisions and not just go off playing Cowboy in Texas for weeks at a time.
this is true. but to do so would set a pecident and next thing other families would want the same. then more and more.
After all if you did it for her. then why not me, or you, or anyone else?
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Pres. Bush should talk to her. def.
Comfort her...
I mean who wouldn't?
If I had already met with her once.
ME
-
She got her chance to meet Bush and according to reports, was satisfied with the visit.
Her son volunteered up and down. His choice. He knew the price and served his country.
Mrs. Sheehan has kids at home to take care of, but would rather go camping and try and get a 2nd visit, probably to either complain again or (I wouldn't be surprised) attack the President.
I give it about 2 weeks until no one cares because to me shes just one protestor and has a tent.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ok the lady outside of the Crawford Ranch, Will bush talk to her again already. I know he already did, but it at least give her a chance at closure in her son's death. I also saw that Pro-Bush supporters have shown up there. There have been several altercations between the Pro/anti war/bush demonstrators outside of his ranch. I would have no problems but this is a greiving mother who lost a son in Iraq so where is the compassion??? Sad state of affairs...
Explain why she is so very special she should get a SECOND meeting with Bush, unlike OTHER families who got ONE visit and were satisfied.
Yes, it is terribly sad that she lost her son. No one denies that. Nor is anyone trying to deny her compassion. Or closure.
She does not want "closure" . She does not want "compassion". She wants to make a spectacle of herself.
She has become a "poster child" for the left. Nothing more, nothing less.
She is no longer just a "grieving mother" deserving of compassion. She is now an anti war protester who has become a "cause'' for the left. She does not want to talk with the President, she wants to scream at him and have the "Press" present to record the spectacle.
Meeting with her would serve few purposes, none of which are worthwhile. She's looking to make a fool of herself, and try to drag the President into it with her. The left is desperately hoping to get some sort of "soundbite" out of it they can try to use against Bush. She got no "closure" from the 1st visit, she'll get none from the second.
The Plame "scandal" has nothing to do with this. Of course, the left, and their legions of mindless minions would like to use this little episode to try to revive the Plame "scandal". The "Dowding Street Memo" has nothing to do with it either. You're reaching, and grasping at straws.
The whole thing is a sort of sad sick joke, and Cindy Sheehan appears to be the butt of that joke. Worse yet is the willingness of the left to capitalize on it and use the woman to their best advantage. Anyone who is in on it with the left is just as sad and sick as they are for exploiting this obviously disturbed woman for their political purposes. As is anyone who supports them in it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Or time.
-snip
Actually I meant that when I said patience.
What do they tell the parent, "Sorry, but your hour is up. Have a good day?"
There aren't many leaders that would take the trouble to meet a parent that's going to be asking pointed, accusary questions.
Fact is most leaders don't really know why, just that their advisors said to. Rare for a leader to really know everything that's going on.
The worst thing a leader can tell a parent is that he didn't know, or give a soundbite of an answer.
BTW, I'm not pointing the finger at Bush. I'm talking in generalities here.
-
Liberals, your fearless leader:
On Sunday, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean (search) said Bush should meet with Sheehan.
"Because the president sent her son to Iraq, her son lost his life. I think the president should meet with any parent who has sacrificed their son or daughter for the defense of the United States of America," Dean told a Sunday morning network talk show.
YYYEEEEEAEAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH HHH!
-
This is simple.
Forget democrat, liberal, republican, conservative................. .
She is going against her dead son's beliefs and using his name to promote her own beliefs.
that's it.
-
Pretty much sums it up.
Last year she met with Bush, came out saying she was impressed and had a good conversation with him
A year later, she feels the need to be the center of attention...which she's getting...in order to talk to him again now that she's changed her mind.
She needs grief counseling or something. Blasting the President and stalking him isnt.
-
"Because the president sent her son to Iraq, her son lost his life. I think the president should meet with any parent who has sacrificed their son or daughter for the defense of the United States of America," Dean told a Sunday morning network talk show.
Bush did meet with her, she's asking for a second meeting.
60 years ago, a similar situation was handled like this:
"Dear Mrs. Sullivan:
The knowledge that your five gallant sons are missing in action, against the enemy, inspired me to write you this personal message. I realize full well there is little I can say to assuage your grief.
As the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, I want you to know that the entire nation shares your sorrow. I offer you the condolence and gratitude of our country. We, who remain to carry on the fight, must maintain the spirit in the knowledge that such sacrifice is not in vain. The Navy Department has informed me of the expressed desire of your sons; George Thomas, Francis Henry, Joseph Eugene, Madison Abel, and Albert Leo, to serve on the same ship. I am sure, that we all take pride in the knowledge that they fought side by side. As one of your sons wrote, `We will make a team together that can't be beat.' It is
this spirit which in the end must triumph.
Last March, you, Mrs. Sullivan, were designated to sponsor a ship of the Navy in recognition of your patriotism and that of your sons. I am to understand that you are, now, even more determined to carry on as sponsorer. This evidence of unselfish-
ness and courage serves as a real inspiration for me, as I am sure it will for all Americans. Such acts of fate and fortitude in the face of tragedy convince me of the indomitable spirit and will of our people.
I send you my deepest sympathy in your hour of trial and pray that in Almighty God you will find a comfort and help that only He can bring.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt
As far as I can tell, FDR did not meet personally with Mrs. Sullivan, but she showed up for many war bond drives and such to support the decision of her sons to serve the country in time of war.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ok the lady outside of the Crawford Ranch, Will bush talk to her again already. ...Sad state of affairs...
he can't , there would be hundred more relatives with lostsons and daughters at the gate the next day
see the son looking down wishing his mom would stop embarassing his ultimate sacrifice with her misplaced grief
very sad in many ways...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
snip...
60 years ago, a similar situation was handled like this:
...snip
And 80 years before that:
Executive Mansion,
Washington,
November 21, 1864.
Mrs. Bixby,
Boston, Massachusetts:
DEAR MADAM: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours very sincerely and respectfully,
Abraham Lincoln.
For this situation, I dont think anything can top Tapakeg's comment though -- and I'm not sure if there's another perspective that could trump his insight.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
this is true. but to do so would set a pecident and next thing other families would want the same. then more and more.
After all if you did it for her. then why not me, or you, or anyone else?
He could simply say because of the unique or extenuating circumstances regarding her loss he was willing to comfort her again. I think it would show compassion on his part, no matter what the outcome.
The lady is torn up bad over her son, that much is obvious. But if another meeting with the Pres. will give her some closure and he is unwilling to do it, thats not a leader to me. A leader takes criticism and deals with it. He doesn't say "well she's entitled to her opinion, I have heard her opinion". That is not what you say to someone whose son you sent off to Iraq and he died. You are supposed to show some level of compassion and sorrow. I see none of that from Bush. He seems more concerned with fighting off the "political bs" this has turned into, instead of putting that all aside and letting this lady chew him out for 5 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea raider it really sounds like the dowding st memo got her going. If that's the case it must have really thrown her off her rocker. Losing a son is tough and I really don't think this woman is doing too well.
You do of course know she testified at the Downing Street Hearings that were held, but of course you knew that right?
Cindy Sheehan's Speech At The DSM Hearings
My Testimony for the Downing Street Memo Hearings
By Cindy Sheehan
Congressman Conyers and all, it is an honor to be here to testify about the effect that the revelations of the Downing Street Memo has had on me and my family. It is an honor that I wish never had to happen. I believe that not any of us should be gathered here today for this reason: as the result of an invasion/occupation that never should have occured.
My son, Spc Casey Austin Sheehan, was KIA in Sadr City Baghdad on 04/04/04. He was in Iraq for only 2 weeks before L. Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi’ite Militia into a rebellion which resulted in the deaths of Casey and 6 other brave soldiers who were tragically killed in an ambush. Bill Mitchell, the father of Sgt. Mike Mitchell who was one of the other soldiers killed that awful day is with us here. This is a picture of Casey when he was 7 months old. It's an enlargement of a picture he carried in his wallet until the day he was killed. He loved this picture of himself. It was returned to us with his personal effects from Iraq. He always sucked on those two fingers. When he was born, he had a flat face from passing through the birth canal and we called him "Edward G" short for Edward G. Robinson. How many of you have seen your child in his/her premature coffin? It is a shocking and very painful sight. The most heartbreaking aspect of seeing Casey lying in his casket for me, was that his face was flat again because he had no muscle tone. He looked like he did when he was a baby laying in his bassinette. The most tragic irony is that if the Downing Street Memo proves to be true, Casey and thousands of people should still be alive.
I believed before our leaders invaded Iraq in March, 2003, and I am even more convinced now, that this aggression on Iraq was based on a lie of historic proportions and was blatantly unnecessary. The so-called Downing Street Memo dated 23 July, 2003 only confirms what I already suspected: the leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry picked intelligence. Iraq was no threat to the United States of America and the devastating sanctions and bombing raids against Iraq were working. As a matter of fact, in interviews in 1999 with respected journalist, and long time Bush family friend, David Herskowitz, then Governor George Bush stated: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” It looks like George Bush was ready to lead this country into an avoidable war even before he became president.
But of course your right, it had nothing to do with Downing street
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Explain why she is so very special she should get a SECOND meeting with Bush, unlike OTHER families who got ONE visit and were satisfied.
Yes, it is terribly sad that she lost her son. No one denies that. Nor is anyone trying to deny her compassion. Or closure.
She does not want "closure" . She does not want "compassion". She wants to make a spectacle of herself.
She has become a "poster child" for the left. Nothing more, nothing less.
She is no longer just a "grieving mother" deserving of compassion. She is now an anti war protester who has become a "cause'' for the left. She does not want to talk with the President, she wants to scream at him and have the "Press" present to record the spectacle.
Meeting with her would serve few purposes, none of which are worthwhile. She's looking to make a fool of herself, and try to drag the President into it with her. The left is desperately hoping to get some sort of "soundbite" out of it they can try to use against Bush. She got no "closure" from the 1st visit, she'll get none from the second.
The Plame "scandal" has nothing to do with this. Of course, the left, and their legions of mindless minions would like to use this little episode to try to revive the Plame "scandal". The "Dowding Street Memo" has nothing to do with it either. You're reaching, and grasping at straws.
The whole thing is a sort of sad sick joke, and Cindy Sheehan appears to be the butt of that joke. Worse yet is the willingness of the left to capitalize on it and use the woman to their best advantage. Anyone who is in on it with the left is just as sad and sick as they are for exploiting this obviously disturbed woman for their political purposes. As is anyone who supports them in it.
1)Because she asked for it, and then when denied, she decided to stand outside of Crawford until he saw her. It would help her greiving process, which seems to just go right over some of you.
2)Her son was killed, she and her husband split up and yeah I would say she is probably pretty vulnerable to exploitation. But if it helps her find closure then so be it. Small price to pay.
3)So would you be in favor of a "private meeting"? no camera's? Because that is what I would expect. If in fact she wanted camera's there I might shift my position on the subject. But so far that is only your guess and not actual info.
4)How you can possibly say that woman is "no longer deserving of compassion" is beyond me. Aren't we supposed to have compassion for all people, much less a woman whose son died defending OUR country? She has hurt no one and only spoken her mind.
5)It's about time to admit Iraq is screwed. We broke it and we can't fix it. They are not gonna have any kind of stable government and Saddam had no WMD. This is why Bush can't face her, because his "goals" are no longer acheivable, and he has nothing he can say now.
-
"It's about time to admit Iraq is screwed. We broke it and we can't fix it. They are not gonna have any kind of stable government and Saddam had no WMD."
Sadly..... yep!:(
-
How could we have made iraq worse for the people of iraq or the people of the world than the sadman was doing? We would have to kill 500,000 INOCENT citizens (with no end in sight) to do that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
He could simply say because of the unique or extenuating circumstances regarding her loss he was willing to comfort her again. I think it would show compassion on his part, no matter what the outcome.
Problem is the only thing unique or extenuating I see in her circumstance is that as someone else said. She wants a "Do over"
With her meeting with the Pres
How many times is he supposed to meet with her? Till he tells her what she wants to hear?
And what good would another meeting do?
Her sons gone. And he isnt comming back. Thats the tragic truth.
But he is gone because of something he volounteered to do..twice. When he already knew what could happen.
Not because of what Bush did.
He knew the score and he chose to go anyway
And thats the sad truth. And thats what she really needs to come to grips with.
the only reason this is such a big story is everyone is out of washington for the summer and with Bush holed up at the ranch. The press is bored to tears.
this is the only story they have so they are running with it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gunslinger, I'd like you to compare these two sentences:
Casey voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, earned a Bronze Star, and as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City (that action being the one in which he died).
Casey, who voluntarily re-enlisted in the Army after his first hitch was up, who earned a Bronze Star, and who as a mechanic was not expected to see combat but who volunteered to join a rapid rescue team being formed to get a convoy of soldiers from his unit out of trouble in Sadr City, that action being the one in which he died, seemed want to serve.
One is from Seagoon, and one is from somewhere else. I realize that people are going to get bent out of shape over Sheehan, but I think digging up dirt on this chick is weak.
My apologies Nash, I thought that my intro to thise sections that I wrote: "Elsewhere, it has been confirmed that her son's politics and her own as well as their views of the war have always differed" indicated that I was paraphrasing or quoting what was stated elsewhere. I didn't mean to give the impression that this was first hand material. I've never personally met Sheehan and I didn't know Casey. All I have to go by is what everyone else has, the media electronic and print. For what its worth, the first few articles I read on Sheehan were in the mainstream press.
Anyway, my most sincere apologies for not appropriately sourcing all my material, I will endeavor not to let it happen again. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa*.
BTW - Do I get docked if I don't strictly adhere to the Turabian Format? :D
- Seagoon
* The original source of this saying is unknown to the author, but it certainly isn't him.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How could we have made iraq worse for the people of iraq or the people of the world than the sadman was doing? We would have to kill 500,000 INOCENT citizens (with no end in sight) to do that.
lazs
An Iraqi Civil War could cause that kind of Death toll very easily.
-
I don't care how big the wall of text Seagoon throws up, or where the wall of text is sourced, it is all just politicizing of the ladies situation by BOTH sides of the issue.
1. Who cares if her family disagrees
2. Who cares if she has wacky views on the middle east?
3. Who cares if she got face time a year ago along with a bunch of other familys?
Bush is an idiot for not meeting with her and has created a cause celeb by his failure. Now BOTH sides of the issue are digging up the talking points to either make the mom look bad or to make the Pres look bad. All of which could have been avoided by a 10 minute meeting. Duh!
-
Go down pose for a few pics.
Say I'm sorry for your lose,
I understand you want the US out of Iraq,
Thanks for your point of view, we're not doing it,
now good day.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
5)It's about time to admit Iraq is screwed. We broke it and we can't fix it. They are not gonna have any kind of stable government and Saddam had no WMD. This is why Bush can't face her, because his "goals" are no longer acheivable, and he has nothing he can say now.
Iraq was screwed and broken long before GW1.
We can't fix it but we can sure give the Iraqis the opportunity to fix it. That's exactly what is happening.
The Iraqis will vote on a new Constitution sometime in October or November. The Iraqis will elect a new government in December or January.
Will it be an instant success? I doubt it. Recall that the fledgling US Government had a very difficult time initally and in fact we had to have our own very bloody Civil War to really establish the form of government we have today.
I suppose anyone could look at the first 100 years of trial, tribulation and war and say the US experiment in democracy was a total failure. They'd be wrong, but they could say that.
The Iraqis will get their chance to make it. It may not be perfectly peaceful and it may take a while. They'll get their chance though and it'll be what they make it.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the only reason this is such a big story is everyone is out of washington for the summer and with Bush holed up at the ranch. The press is bored to tears.
this is the only story they have so they are running with it.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Raider179
You do of course know she testified at the Downing Street Hearings that were held, but of course you knew that right?...
Cindy Sheehan's Speech At The DSM Hearings
I believed before our leaders invaded Iraq in March, 2003, and I am even more convinced now, that this aggression on Iraq was based on a lie of historic proportions and was blatantly unnecessary. The so-called Downing Street Memo dated 23 July, 2003 only confirms what I already suspected:...
But of course your right, it had nothing to do with Downing street
:rolleyes:
So you agree then that she just wants a do over?
After all, before the invasion she held the same conviction about the war. She says here the DSM didn't change any of her opinions but rather confirmed what she already suspected.
So when she met with Bush the FIRST time she held these convictions and none of them have changed because of the DSM.
Do over, that's all it is. Of course, this time she gets to be on national TV. Everybody gets 15 minutes, right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Iraq was screwed and broken long before GW1.
We can't fix it but we can sure give the Iraqis the opportunity to fix it. That's exactly what is happening.
The Iraqis will vote on a new Constitution sometime in October or November. The Iraqis will elect a new government in December or January.
Will it be an instant success? I doubt it. Recall that the fledgling US Government had a very difficult time initally and in fact we had to have our own very bloody Civil War to really establish the form of government we have today.
I suppose anyone could look at the first 100 years of trial, tribulation and war and say the US experiment in democracy was a total failure. They'd be wrong, but they could say that.
The Iraqis will get their chance to make it. It may not be perfectly peaceful and it may take a while. They'll get their chance though and it'll be what they make it.
Constitution and new government are gonna mean squat if a civil war breaks out. I wonder what the ethnic make-up is of the military/police forces we are "training".
Are you saying Iraq is, or is going to be a democracy? Because that is not what I call government that basis it's rules and laws on Religion. That is a theocracy. And we all know how well behaved theocracies are.
I fear We are gonna sneak out of Iraq at the first opportunity and leave them to their fate, which is not what we promised and hence once more our credibility will get tarnished.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you agree then that she just wants a do over?
After all, before the invasion she held the same conviction about the war. She says here the DSM didn't change any of her opinions but rather confirmed what she already suspected.
So when she met with Bush the FIRST time she held these convictions and none of them have changed because of the DSM.
Do over, that's all it is. Of course, this time she gets to be on national TV. Everybody gets 15 minutes, right?
No disagreement, although your term "do-over" is not what I would say. I would say she wants further clarification.
Bush has made this lady bigger than she would have ever been if he would have just took 5 minutes to speak with her. The longer it goes on the worse it is gonna look for him. I believe it's inevitable that he will meet with her again.
-
Did I miss some rule that the transition from dictatorship to government by the people has to be bloodless?
Civil War? Did WE have a Civil War? I recall we did; in fact, the low estimates of military casualties in our Civil War are around 620,000.
Did the fact that we had a Civil War mean our Independence wasn't worth it? That we should have never rebelled against the British?
I would prefer that Iraq transition to government by its people without bloodshed. We've already seen that isn't going to happen. There may in fact BE a Civil War; does that mean that living under a dictatorship is a much better solution?
Neither you nor I know what exact form of Government Iraqis will choose. Their proposed Constitution hasn't been release and it won't be voted on until October or November. A bit premature to speculate, I think.
Will their religion play a role in their Constitution? I'm sure it will to some degree. The Christian thought of the US founders played a role in the form and formation of out government. Why would theirs be different?
Originally posted by Raider179
I fear We are gonna sneak out of Iraq at the first opportunity and leave them to their fate, which is not what we promised and hence once more our credibility will get tarnished.
Fear that do you? So do I.
Yet you rarely miss an opportunity to criticize our role in Iraq, undermine the confidence of your fellow Americans in the mission, undermine the CinC and generally do things that will sway American public opinion towards early withdrawal from Iraq.
Before you start, let me clear this up for you:
I supported the invasion based on the information available to the us at the time. I also said the WMD would have to be found to justify the invasion under "just war theory" and that if it was not found that Bush should be held accountable.
Obviously WMD was not found. The US public's main chance to hold Bush accountable was the 2004 election; Bush was returned to office. I did not vote for Bush in 2004.
Now, I think we have to stay until the Iraqis have a fair shot at establishing their new government under their new Constitution. It would be nice if that could all be accomplished with the wave of a wand but it doesn't work that way. There are some severe challenges in Iraq ethnically and religiously but I think the Iraqi people will ultimately "sign on" to the idea and process.
The real question is will the "15 minute attention span" US public have the patience to endure while this real life opportunity for an incredible change in the ME plays out?
And then there's the question of how best do we encourage our fellow Americans to "stay the course".
Excuse me for saying so, but I think your method here on the board is antithetical to encouraging the US to stay the course.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No disagreement, although your term "do-over" is not what I would say. I would say she wants further clarification.
Yeah, I see. Do you prefer "sanitation engineer" to "janitor" too?
Bush has made this lady bigger than she would have ever been if he would have just took 5 minutes to speak with her.
No, the media in a slow month has made this lady bigger than she is. That and the monetary support of the "I hate Bush" crowd.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Did I miss some rule that the transition from dictatorship to government by the people has to be bloodless?
Civil War? Did WE have a Civil War? I recall we did; in fact, the low estimates of military casualties in our Civil War are around 620,000.
Did the fact that we had a Civil War mean our Independence wasn't worth it? That we should have never rebelled against the British?
I would prefer that Iraq transition to government by its people without bloodshed. We've already seen that isn't going to happen. There may in fact BE a Civil War; does that mean that living under a dictatorship is a much better solution?
Neither you nor I know what exact form of Government Iraqis will choose. Their proposed Constitution hasn't been release and it won't be voted on until October or November. A bit premature to speculate, I think.
Will their religion play a role in their Constitution? I'm sure it will to some degree. The Christian thought of the US founders played a role in the form and formation of out government. Why would theirs be different?
Fear that do you? So do I.
Yet you rarely miss an opportunity to criticize our role in Iraq, undermine the confidence of your fellow Americans in the mission, undermine the CinC and generally do things that will sway American public opinion towards early withdrawal from Iraq.
Before you start, let me clear this up for you:
I supported the invasion based on the information available to the us at the time. I also said the WMD would have to be found to justify the invasion under "just war theory" and that if it was not found that Bush should be held accountable.
Obviously WMD was not found. The US public's main chance to hold Bush accountable was the 2004 election; Bush was returned to office. I did not vote for Bush in 2004.
Now, I think we have to stay until the Iraqis have a fair shot at establishing their new government under their new Constitution. It would be nice if that could all be accomplished with the wave of a wand but it doesn't work that way. There are some severe challenges in Iraq ethnically and religiously but I think the Iraqi people will ultimately "sign on" to the idea and process.
The real question is will the "15 minute attention span" US public have the patience to endure while this real life opportunity for an incredible change in the ME plays out?
And then there's the question of how best do we encourage our fellow Americans to "stay the course".
Excuse me for saying so, but I think your method here on the board is antithetical to encouraging the US to stay the course.
I think you have the Revolutionary war, which we gained our independence from England, with the Civil War which was North vs. South.
The Iraqi's are not gonna be fighting for "democracy, freedom, or even against terror" They are gonna fight to see who gets to control the other side.
Living with Dictatorship as opposed to getting 2000 of our soldiers get killed so that Iraq can eventually fall into chaos and many more people will die? We didnt have enough boots on the ground at the beginning and we don't have enough there now. If we are gonna do, we ought to do it right. This war has been mis-handled and mis-managed from the get-go.
Here is a link to the preliminary Bill Of rights
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf
20. a. Freedom of religion, belief, and performance of religious rites are guaranteed in accordance with the law.
23. In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of international law, so long as these do
not contradict Islam.
8. The state shall provide for harmonization of the duties of the women towards their family and their work in the society. [It shall also provide for] their equality with men in all fields without
disturbing the provisions of the Islamic shari‘a.
21. Freedom of opinion, expression, organization, publishing, printing, the press, media, advertising,meetings, peaceful demonstration, and parties is guaranteed in accordance with the law and insofar as public security and morals are not harmed.
26. Freedom of the press, printing, publishing, media, and advertising are guaranteed and the law regulates the exercise of these freedoms.
27. There shall be no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, media, and advertising except by
law.
4. An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.
All Iraqis are equal before the law without regard to gender, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin. Discrimination on the basis of gender, nationality, religion,origin, or social standing is forbidden. They have the right to personal security in life and
freedom except in accordance with the law. Equality of opportunity is guaranteed to all citizens in accordance with the law.
Just a few excerpts, some good some bad.
I'm sorry did I miss the part of our Constitution where it says people have certain rights as long as it doesnt contradict Christianity? Cause I missed that part.
Something wrong with being critical? If anyone is "undermined" by my opinions on this BBS I would be very surprised. I am not standing on some street corner trying to convert people to my point of view. I see current events and I discuss my opinion of them. If Only I knew my opinion carried so much weight that I could "undermine the CinC and sway public opinion." :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I see. Do you prefer "sanitation engineer" to "janitor" too?
No, the media in a slow month has made this lady bigger than she is. That and the monetary support of the "I hate Bush" crowd.
1)Semantics
2)Well someone on Bush's staff duffed it. Shoulda seen it coming and headed it off. Blame on the media if you want, I see another day gone by where he could have ended all the attention she was getting. But I think he was golfing today.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I think you have the Revolutionary war, which we gained our independence from England, with the Civil War which was North vs. South.
[/b]
No, I don't have them confused. I'm pointing out that even though we had a more unified approach and more unified population when forming our Republic, it really wasn't fully formed and settled for 100 years. We had to have a Civil War to get into this government we have now.
It wouldn't suprise me if the Iraqis had to shed blood in a similar fashion to establish their government by the people in a form that will alst.
Living with Dictatorship as opposed to getting 2000 of our soldiers get killed so that Iraq can eventually fall into chaos and many more people will die? We didnt have enough boots on the ground at the beginning and we don't have enough there now. If we are gonna do, we ought to do it right. This war has been mis-handled and mis-managed from the get-go.
[/b]
1. Iraq may NOT fall into chaos after they get their constitution and election. They may slowly make progress towards standing on their own, albeit with some continuing violence. Clearly there are influences both inside and outside Iraq that want them to fail.
2. So what do you suggest we do to "do it right"? What's your solution? It's easy to complain; tell me what you want done.
I'm sorry did I miss the part of our Constitution where it says people have certain rights as long as it doesnt contradict Christianity? Cause I missed that part.
[/b]
I'm sorry, did I miss the part that says the new Iraqi Constitution should be the exact mirror of ours? Because I missed that part. Anyone who thinks Islam will have no influence in the new Constitution is living in a dream world, IMO.
Further, you did note that OUR Constitution had a Bill of Rights attached soon after ratification and that it has been amended a few times? You expect the Iraqis to get it perfect first pass?
[quote\Something wrong with being critical? [/QUOTE]
Not at all. Criticism is valuable feedback; it's your right and responsibility.
However, you seem concerned with the idea that
We are gonna sneak out of Iraq at the first opportunity and leave them to their fate
[/b].
What are YOU doing to prevent that? Are your posts here likely to encourage or discourage that behavior/attitude in the folks that read your posts.
Do you submit you criticism to your elected representatives? We see it here; do you send it to the Congress and President?
What suggestions do you make to ensure that we DO NOT sneak out? Do you submit those to Congress or the President?
I watched the entire VietNam debacle. I was in the military when we evacuated Saigon. I saw a lot of criticism of the government then too. What I didn't see was any suggested solution that was better than what the government was trying to do.
I see a lot of similarity between that and what's going on now.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
2) I see another day gone by where he could have ended all the attention she was getting. But I think he was golfing today.
Semantics? Slant is probably more accurate. Spin if you like. She wants a do-over, that's all. Her views haven't changed one iota, DSM notwithstanding. There's nothing "new" in her views.
What I see is another day gone by where the majority of folks don't care that she's camped out in Texas. I think most folks recognize her efforts for what they are, an attempt at a do-over.
It's only "newsworthy" to those that are Bushophobic.
The rest of us know what happens in war, understand the grief of losing loved ones, realize that Iraq is a difficult problem and that we can't just walk away from it. In short, we don't like it but we realize we're in it now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
[B
2. So what do you suggest we do to "do it right"? What's your solution? It's easy to complain; tell me what you want done.
[/B]
We have to ride it out. But our country needs to be on a "war footing". We need more troops. We need more/better equipment/armor. We need vehicles that are suited for combat inside Iraqi cities. The Stryker is alright but you need more protection from IED's. More funding for CIA ops inside Iraq. Not sure what the budget is for it right now, but more will always help. Not sure if we would have to have a draft in order to raise troop levels but if so, then so be it. Hell the way things have been going in Afghanistan lately, might need more personel there as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Semantics? Slant is probably more accurate. Spin if you like. She wants a do-over, that's all. Her views haven't changed one iota, DSM notwithstanding. There's nothing "new" in her views.
What I see is another day gone by where the majority of folks don't care that she's camped out in Texas. I think most folks recognize her efforts for what they are, an attempt at a do-over.
It's only "newsworthy" to those that are Bushophobic.
The rest of us know what happens in war, understand the grief of losing loved ones, realize that Iraq is a difficult problem and that we can't just walk away from it. In short, we don't like it but we realize we're in it now.
So what if its a do-over. What if it is? What does that mean? People get do-overs all the time. I didn't realize the president had rules that say "I only meet people 1 time, after that, I never have to see you again".
Of course she is grief stricken and like I said, if it helps her get better over the death of her Son to yell at bush for a minute, then he should show some compassion and take it like man. Not hide behind his staff.
-
More troops. Absolutely. Didn't have enough to begin with, I think. At long last, after 35 years in my opinion, the ridiculous idea that we can fight two major wars on opposite sides of the globe simultaneously is being exposed for the farce it always was. Even if they were meeting the enlistment goals, the force would still be too small for operating as they desire to operate (1 year tours).
It's up to Congress to authorize an increase in the size of the forces. Written to your reps about that lately?
Better armor is on the way.
For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is replacing body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, citing a need for better protection that can withstand the strongest of attacks from insurgents, a spokesman said Saturday.
It's going to take a while though.
"If I had the capability, I'd like to see everybody that needs enhanced SAPI to have it and at the rate we have now, we're going to have months before we get the kind of aggregate numbers we want to have," General Catto said, referring to the thicker plates, known as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert. "That's just a fact of life because of the raw materials paucity and the industrial base."
Written to your Congressmen about expanding the industrial base for the military in the US? The dreaded "military-industrial complex"?
There's
Lots of new stuff coming (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050812-3662.html) .
Afghanistan? It's heating up. Why? 7 weeks until Parliamentary elections. I think you realize there's folks that don't want Afghanistan to succeed with a democratic form of government.
But there are some positives.
28 suspected Taliban killed (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/afghan.violence.ap/index.html)
The good news there isn't the death of the Taliban. It's that in those events it was Afghan military and police that were involved, not US/UN forces. The Afghans are starting to handle it themselves.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
So what if its a do-over. What if it is? What does that mean? People get do-overs all the time. I didn't realize the president had rules that say "I only meet people 1 time, after that, I never have to see you again".
Of course she is grief stricken and like I said, if it helps her get better over the death of her Son to yell at bush for a minute, then he should show some compassion and take it like man. Not hide behind his staff.
The point is she HAD her meeting with Bush. She had her chance to "yell at Bush". She herself has pointed out that her feelings about the war have never changed. She always felt this way.
How many families who lost loved ones haven't had the opportunity to meet with Bush at all? (Nor am I saying that Bush can or should meet with every family. That hasn't happened in any war or police action this country has fought.)
What if she gets this meeting and a year from now is once again unsatisfied? Still seeking closure? Another meeting? Then another? How long will you champion her cause?
This whole thing is blown out of proportion. She has no "right" to any meeting at all. Beyond that, she's HAD a meeting unlike the vast majority of women that have lost loved ones in Iraq.
I believe that the Bushophobics are just hoping she'll get a chance to embarass the President in some way, preferably on camera.
I think that's what you want. I seriously doubt your main interest in this is that Bush help her over her grief.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe that the Bushophobics are just hoping she'll get a chance to embarass the President in some way, preferably on camera.
I think that's what you want. I seriously doubt your main interest in this is that Bush help her over her grief.
I would be satisfied with a private, no camera's meeting.
-
Urm what wierd world do you people who think Iraq has been a successful intervention live in?
Realy it would be funny if it wasn't such a tragedy of epic poportions.
-
I feel bad that good folks die in battle.
Right now joining the armed services is a voluntary decision.
Those that join voluntarily know that when told to do something they do it with out question wheather or not they agree with it or not.
Those same individuals will know that at any given time they may be called to arms and could very well possibly die.
In my mind anybody who volunteerss for the armed services are more or less signing their death certificate.
I do feel bad for those who have lost loved ones but I cant grasp really why they are so mad at the government when the one they lost voluneered in the first place. Granted the reasons for going to war arent always true or clear but the bottom line to me is that the ones lost knew what they were getting into when they signed.
-
Wolf you do have a point there.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I would be satisfied with a private, no camera's meeting.
There's no need to satisfy you at all.
She already HAD her private meeting.
She already stated that her views on the war have not changed because of her son's death.
She just missed her chance to vent the first time apparently and she wants another go at it. And if that one proves insufficient or unfulfilling, she'll want another one.
As I said, it's a media event more than anything else.
-
Bush would be playing the fool to grant that women what she is asking for - (in my mind's eye I visualize the scene in "Jaws" where the grieving mother of a shark-eaten boy approaches Chief Brody in her black veil and slaps his face) - all this bimbo wants to do now is make political drama, and there is no doubt in my mind that she would attempt to rudely embarrass the President. If he meets with her, he deserves it.
-
"Quit saying that U.S. troops died for a noble cause in Iraq, unless you say, 'well, except for Casey Sheehan.' Don't you dare spill any more blood in Casey's name. You do not have permission to use my son's name.
"And the other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bullsh--! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We're not freer here, thanks to your Patriot Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," she said.
"There, I used the 'I' word ¨C imperialism. And now I'm going to use another 'I' word ¨C impeachment ¨C because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail." ---Sheehan
We won't let George Bush and his evil neocon cabal ruin our world anymore. ---Sheehan
I can't believe that someone who is the figurehead of an administration that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people doesn't spend his days hiding under his bed in shame, let alone riding his bike. ---Sheehan
I had a soldier from Ft. Hood come out today and he brought me a small stone with a First Cavalry insignia painted on it and the pictures of three of his beautiful buddies who were murdered there by George's reckless policies. ---Sheehan
If I were George, I wouldn't meet with her either.
-
interesting timing on this...dont know if its been posted yet.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Amazing how the right wing retard PR machine is being out done by a single bereaved mother. Poor babies.
Also amazing that people would stoop to trying to destroy her instead of simply moving on. The attacks on her are dumbfounding.
Actually, the attacks on her are reprehensible (look it up bucky)sick, irresponsible, and unamerican.
She's in grief, let her complain, that's her right.
Bush is damned if he does talk to her (well now he is, he had a chance early on, that's gone) and damned if he doesn't.
If he can't explain why her son died then he does have a problem and the 60% of the nation that doesn't have its opinions spoon fed to it by Sean Hannity doesn't believe the president has any credibility anymore because guess what: he lied about firing Rove, about WMD, about knowing Ken Lay, about what O'Neill and Clarke said, Bush is a known and obvious liar.
Guys like you are talking-point queens: all RNC lists of talking points, and no original thought or opinion. How proud you must be to repeate shameful lies and nonsense without bothering to look into the people you mindlessly support. Too afraid to admit your error? Geez, shameful. Please grow some hair down there.
I recall a time when I was proud to be republican because it was the party that preached accountability. Bush runs his policies on polls and fear tactics, smear anyone who disagrees with you. Hide from the public, control the media. The RNC is an out of control disgrace to the nation and conservatism is shallow, baseless, and irresponsible when it fosters hatred and stupidity like it does now.
Shame on you for repeating such nonsense.
The GOP has become the party of screaming down anyone who disagrees, the party of zero accountability, pork barrel politics (outstripping even the democrats for sheer greed) and wholesale selling of their tulips to money to be re-elected. You guys don't stand for anything but staying inpower, you're out of ideas except "smear anyone who we don't like". Wow, what a great way to run a democracy ehhh? You're shameful and unamerican, leave my country, please.
You so called Nancy boy conservatives should be ashamed of youserelves, berating a grieving american woman. What brave boys you all are, go get em tigers! You are making this an issue by getting into the mud. Anyone who catcalls the mother of a dead soldier is a waste of protein hugahunk in my book.
Grow up, get your own opinion and stop the hatred.
For god's sake, when will the GOP become men again instead of finger pointing, lying little back stabbing whining crybaby rumor mongers?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
[QUOTE
Amazing how the right wing retard PR machine is being out done by a single bereaved mother.
Also amazing that people would stoop to trying to destroy her.
That's sick, irresponsible, and unamerican.
She's in grief, let her complain, that's her right.
Bush is damned if he does talk to her (well now he had a chance early on, that's gone) and damned if he doesn't.
If he can't explain why her son died then he does have a problem and the 60% of the nation that doesn't have its opinions spoon fed to it by Sean Hannity doesn't believe the president has any creidbility anymore. Guys like you are talking point queens, all RNC lists of talking points, and no original thought or opinion.
I recall a time when I was proud to be republican because it was the party that preached accountability. Bush runs his policies on polls and fear tactics, smear anyone who disgarees with you. The RNC is an out of control disgraceto the nation and conservatism is shallow, baseless, and irresponsible when it fosters hatred and stupidity like it does now.
Shame on you for repeating such nonsense.
The GOB has become the party of screaming down anyone who disagrees, zero accountability, pork barrel politics (outstripping even the democrats for sheer greed) and wholesale selling of their tulips to money to be re-elected. You guys don't stand for anything but staying inpower, you're out of dieas except "smear anyone who we don't lkike". Wow, what a great way to run a democracy ehhh? You're shameful and unamerican, leave my country, please.
You so called Nancy boy conservatives should be ashamed of youserelves, berating a grieving american woman. What brave boys you all are, go get em tigers! You are making this an issue by getting into the mud. Anyone who catcalls the mother of a dead soldier is a waste of protein hugahunk in my book.
Grow up, get your own opinion and stop the hatred.
For god's sake, when will the GOP become men again instead of finger pointing, lying little back stabbing whining crybaby rumor mongers?
Sakai
You operate under the FALSE assumption that Cindy Sheehan's agenda has ANYTHING to to with grief, seeking closure, seeking comfort and consolation, or seeking answers. Cindy Sheehan is politicizing the death of her son, and is making a sad attempt to use his death to gain publicity for her political agenda. But that is by all means all American, right? And calling her on it is un American?
Admit you despise and hate Republicans in general and Bush in particular, and that it colors your judgement to the point you see nothing but your own hatred. It's a fact. You've been ranting like this since Bush was elected the first time. The mere mention of Bush sets you to frothing at the mouth. Anything anti Bush is all American to you, and anyone who has listened to you for the past 5-6 years knows it.
Cindy Sheehan is now a political figure backed by the left's anti war anti Bush movement. Anyone who doesn't see this (or more to the point, refuses to see this) is either completely ignorant and blind, a deluded fool blinded by their hatred of Bush and the conservative/Republican party, or a liar willing to say or do anything for the same motivation and results as the previously mentioned deluded fool.
1. She met with Bush once already, who has met with the families of casualties on at least a dozen times. So did the rest of the family.
2. She didn't complain at all after the first meeting. She said she was satisfied.
3. The entire rest of her family is evidently satisfied with having met with Bush once.
4. Evidently, the rest of the families are satisfied with having met with Bush once.
5. Why should SHE get a SECOND meeting when other families have not had a FIRST? She's not one damned bit better or different than they are. So until EVERY family has had their FIRST visit with Bush, SHE goes to the BACK of the line.
6. She's being backed, supported, and funded by multiple political activist groups from the left, like MoveOn.org, and several others (Howard Dean "leader" of the Democratic party). If this little fiasco has nothing to do with politics, then those groups should SHUT UP AND BUTT OUT.
7. It's a media driven circus, nothing more, nothing less.
8. She's become politicaly active in a very broadly publicized way. This is about politics and not grief. She's now using the death of her son for political purposes, which makes her far sicker than anyone I've seen so far in this fiasco. Evidently, the entire rest of her family agrees. maybe, just maybe, they know better than the rest of us. They sure know HER well enough, better than ANY of us.
9. She has every right to complain and to scream her complaints at the top of her lungs.
10. She's entitled to "protest'' all she wants. It does not mean anyone should meet with her or owes her anything.
You want to know who the REAL un American panty waisted nancy boys are? Those are the gutless simpering cowards on the LEFT, who are using a woman with a dead son ranting against Bush as a human shield. That defines sick, and un American about as well as anything I've seen yet.[/COLOR]
-
Originally posted by Dnil
interesting timing on this...dont know if its been posted yet.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html
yeah they mentioned it on the bbc web page as well...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4155186.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4155186.stm)
-
yep... sockie.... the mean old republicans did meet with her... the media circus was there... now she wants a do over after telling everyone just what she is gonna say.
What do you really want? You want the pres to meet with her (or anyone else with a view) every time she has a new idea on how she thinks?
Maybe you want her to "vent" in a jerry springer/early hippie media circus?
maybe you want Bush to say.. "well... you don't like the war so we will just put a halt to it as soon as I can get my pen out"?
What do you want?
lazs
-
Amazing how the right wing retard PR machine is being out done by a single bereaved mother. Poor babies. - Sakai
No need to get overwrought. This is not a crisis for Bush.
-
Sakai, I demand that you change your name immediately. You cannot festoon yourself with the appearance of clear-eyed perception by putting on a name as though it were a jacket.
-
Dear Sakai,
Normally, I don't dip into anecdotal evidence in order to prove a point, but my reaction to Sheehan doesn't come from "RNC talking points." I pastor a church literally filled with men who have already done tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of whom will end up doing more. We pray for them when they go, and we pray for them when by the grace of God they return home. I have also counseled and grieved with those who have lost their loved ones over there, so I know a little about the "grieving process" for those losing their kids, husbands, or fathers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've also spoken to young men in the army who have turned against the war, specifically one was a young sergeant and the other a very young pfc, both of whom were profoundly influenced by Farenheit 9/11 and saw their own service in Iraq through that lens. Both of them showed their disgust by choosing not to re-up. It is also possible to decline service in Iraq, although it will adversely affect one's career. So no one has to go to Iraq, no one, its a voluntary decision each of those soldiers makes and incidentally, and I reinforce this in my own preaching and teaching, no soldier should fight in a war he is sure sinful. "I was only following orders" holds no water at all.
My congregation is mostly composed of first generation Christians, so in many cases their beliefs are 180 degrees removed from those of their parents. In more than one case their parents are opposed to their religion, to their serving in their military, to their politics, to theie child-rearing practices, and so on. In one case, I remember shaking the hand of a visiting father at the end of the service even as he was launching into a railing diatribe against conservatives, Bush, the war, corporations and so on. His son, is literally the antithesis of his father.
I say all that to make the following points. Thankfully, this is not the way most or even "many" family members grieve, its not even healthy. She has channeled her grief into a passionate hatred for an individual. Already that hate is destroying her life - her kids have begged her "come home, we need you here," her husband has filed for divorce, and she has become estranged from most of her other relatives. Meanwhile the "compassionate" left is encouraging her to continue on a course that serves their ends but at the cost of her family and her life. In a sense, its like when the IRA encouraged men to go on hunger strikes till they died "for the movement" saying it was for their families, when in the end all the families gained was more death and misery. She will end up far more twisted, hate-consumed and desperately unhappy at the end of this than when she began, and I say that with a great deal of pity, not as a neo-con but as a Pastor who would be saying it if the conflict had been Somalia and she had been camping outside of Clinton's residence.
I pulled up the other day behind a car with a back window logo "In memory of Ernesto Blanco, Iraq, 12/28/2003" I don't normally weep at stoplights, but Ernie was in my Bible Study, he was an upstanding officer and a man so profoundly loved that one of his men had put his name on the back of his tricked out Civic. Those men were honoring the memory of a man who would have done anything for his guys and did. Now how do you think it would have made them feel, who remember Ernie and the man that he was - his ideals and his courage, if his mother had begun this roadside vigil? That's not for him, that's for her, they would have concluded. She is actually "disrespecting" him and his memory is what they would conclude.
And Sakai, please believe me, most of them see this as aimed at them, aimed at everything they are trying to do. Most of them don't particularly enjoy the war, or Iraq, or all of the messes that exist over there, but with a couple of exceptions, every one I have talked to is appalled at the idea that we would be willing to squander their sacrifices and those of their buddies and run away at this point. They also can't understand why nothing good they do over there gets reported, and they and their families are actually more HURT than HELPED by spectacles like Sheehans, and don't tell me that's baloney, because thats what they've TOLD ME.
So please, don't play the "this is not politics its grieving and compassion" game because I live in the midst of the world that really does grieve over the names that get reported from Iraq and Afghanistan and Sheehan's kind of "grieving" is neither good, nor normal, nor healthy.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Dear Sakai,
- SEAGOON
Doubtful on several counts, here's why:
Clinton didn't start Somalia, Bush senior did. Regardless, I wouldn't care who protested it or why: that's their right.
My Nephew served as well, so what? He gives me anecdotal evidence I pass on, but sure, I hear the opposite of his view. So what?
I also see zero significance in any of this regarding how many are first, second or even eighth generation Christians, that's absolutely irrelevant as is much of the stuff you note. It's great stuff, but not germane to the point at hand. You're talking personal and I accept your experience without question, I'm talking nation wide and global and the evidence is rather obvious and compelling.
Here is where I disagree with you: You act as if you have a special insight on grieving, you don't. Grief is personal and individual and this woman is working hers out in the way she can and wants to, demonizing her is sick and unamerican--period. You are judging her, might gander into that bible of yours to see what Christ said about that. I'm in a ministry as well, I wont discuss it in context of politics like you will because I think Christ specifically said to keep those separate. and frankly, your playing that card sickens me. I am fed up with the politicization of religion my friend, and you should be too.
I appreciate your servivce to our servicemen and women, they need it, I have several loved ones in the service or who served honorably. But saying you personally believe x or y is also irrelevant as it pertains to the question of the right wing hate machine geared up to smear and attack any citizen who expresses their Constitutional right to ask for redress of grievances. Disagree with teh c in c and pay personally. How proud we should be. You can say anything you want, but you'd be excusing and rationalizing what you know to be true: the right wing has become a hate and smear machine and your post, while filled with great stuff, does not address that simple fact.
If you don't see yourself in my slam, don't respond: it wasn't aimed at you.
Look, weeping for the dead is understandable, but no one dishonors them but you if you support a corrupt group of power mad liars that send them to death. I suppose more should die so no one brings up any disquieting issues like "gee, should we be there?" So because they're being slaughtered needlessly we shame them by asking why? Uhhh, explain that to me?
That is neither logic nor acceptable reasoning. It's her kid, how dare you say she has to do x or y regarding his memory. How dare you imply that stopping such stupidity dishonors those that died. Stop waving the flag and think about what you're saying mate.
Oh, didn't see you address another basic fact: Bush has looked this nation right in the eye and lied about many, many things. If someone feels their child died for a lie, god forgive you for judging them.
Just saying,
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Toad
There's no need to satisfy you at all.
She already HAD her private meeting.
She already stated that her views on the war have not changed because of her son's death.
She just missed her chance to vent the first time apparently and she wants another go at it. And if that one proves insufficient or unfulfilling, she'll want another one.
As I said, it's a media event more than anything else.
Sorry, what I meant by that is a no camera meeting should be satisfactory to her..
She stated the downing memo "confirmed" her suspicions on the war. So her views have changed.
Maybe she was intimidated by meeting the President, I know I would be.
No third meeting.
It wouldnt be a media event if Bush would have seen her the 1st day.... It's only one because he refuses to speak to her, otherwise it would just be another greiving mother. Karl Rove must be busy or got other things on his mind to be blowing it this badly.
He is going to have to meet with her. It's inevitable imo.
I agree she wants to vent and you know Bush should be man enough to be able to deal with it. Not make her sit outside his ranch for 9 days. Where is the uniter not a divider? Where is his human compassion to ease a mother's suffering? All he has to do is let her ***** at him. Small price to pay to help a woman who is greiving over the death of her son in Iraq.
-
Think what you like.
I don't thinks this is about Cindy grieving for her son anymore. Sorry.
She can camp out until November of '08 for all I care. She had her chance to chew out Bush face to face and she passed.
Bush has met with more than 200 families of dead servicemen. Check the records and see if any other wartime President has done anything like that.
I don't particularly favor Bush; as I said I didn't vote for him in 2004.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You operate under the FALSE assumption that Cindy Sheehan's agenda has ANYTHING to to with grief, seeking closure, seeking comfort and consolation, or seeking answers. Cindy Sheehan is politicizing the death of her son, and is making a sad attempt to use his death to gain publicity for her political agenda. But that is by all means all American, right? And calling her on it is un American?
Cindy Sheehan is now a political figure backed by the left's anti war anti Bush movement. Anyone who doesn't see this (or more to the point, refuses to see this) is either completely ignorant and blind, a deluded fool blinded by their hatred of Bush and the conservative/Republican party, or a liar willing to say or do anything for the same motivation and results as the previously mentioned deluded fool.
1. She met with Bush once already, who has met with the families of casualties on at least a dozen times. So did the rest of the family.
2. She didn't complain at all after the first meeting. She said she was satisfied.
3. The entire rest of her family is evidently satisfied with having met with Bush once.
4. Evidently, the rest of the families are satisfied with having met with Bush once.
5. Why should SHE get a SECOND meeting when other families have not had a FIRST? She's not one damned bit better or different than they are. So until EVERY family has had their FIRST visit with Bush, SHE goes to the BACK of the line.
6. She's being backed, supported, and funded by multiple political activist groups from the left, like MoveOn.org, and several others (Howard Dean "leader" of the Democratic party). If this little fiasco has nothing to do with politics, then those groups should SHUT UP AND BUTT OUT.
7. It's a media driven circus, nothing more, nothing less.
8. She's become politicaly active in a very broadly publicized way. This is about politics and not grief. She's now using the death of her son for political purposes, which makes her far sicker than anyone I've seen so far in this fiasco. Evidently, the entire rest of her family agrees. maybe, just maybe, they know better than the rest of us. They sure know HER well enough, better than ANY of us.
9. She has every right to complain and to scream her complaints at the top of her lungs.
10. She's entitled to "protest'' all she wants. It does not mean anyone should meet with her or owes her anything.
Her political Agenda is for more mothers to not go through what she has. Let that sink in real deep and think about it.
She is a figurehead, now. And the longer he refuses to meet with her, the larger she will become, as both a figurehead and a black mark on his presidency.
1)You guys act like there is some rule where you get 1 presidential meeting and then you cant ever see him again. Where is that rule exactly? I missed it.
2)Oh sorry, Guess in America you cant change your mind anymore without it being an issue. Kinda like when Bush said he would fire anyone involved in releasing Valerie Plume's identity and then later changed it to anyone "charged" in releasing her identity. Kinda changing your mind like that?
3)Really? How do you know that? Which one of her family have you seen say that?
4)double post
5)That is hilarious. She is right outside the ranch. He could have her walk in and not waste more than Five minutes of his own "valuable" time. I don't see any other single person who has lost a family member in Iraq sitting outside Crawford demanding their own meeting with the Pres. Just Her.
It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one," Bush said. "I also have heard the voices of those saying pull out now, and I've thought about their cry and their sincere desire to reduce the loss of life by pulling our troops out. I just strongly disagree." Later, the White House released a list of 24 occasions at which Bush has met with about 900 family members of 272 fallen soldiers.
http://politics.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/leavingiraqnownotwisebushsays
6)Why should she not accept help? Who else is gonna help her? The Repubs? Maybe the swift boat people will show up and volunteer to help...:rolleyes: How could it not be about politics? It involves politicians....
7)Like I said if Bush would have met her earlier all the wind woulda left that sail. Bush would have given his standard noble cause speech and she would not have soundbites or media attention. The longer he continues to not meet with her, the worse it will get.
8)I think it involves both. Her grief has affected her politics. What is wrong with that? Her life changed and the way she sees the world changed. But you keep on speaking for her and her family. Link me to anything you have where the immediate family (husband, other son, daughters) say what you claim....
9)It is her right and she shouldn't get trashed because she is exercising it. She is a mother on a cause and you don't agree with the cause so you attack her personally. Real low...
10)Bush by no means "has" to meet with her, but it will be a mark on his presidency if he never does.
-
He is going to have to meet with her. It's inevitable imo. - Raider
I really don't think so. What is it that will force Bush to engage in a dog and pony show with her? It certainly isn't public opinion.
-
Amazing the ugliness this has brought out of some people.
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1686471.html
Larry Northern, 59, of McLennan County, was charged Tuesday with Criminal Mischief Over $1,500 and under $20,000 after a pickup truck tore through a row of white crosses erected by anti-war protesters gathered near the President’s ranch in Crawford.
Bail was set at $3,000.
The crosses bear the names of U.S. military personnel who have died in the war in Iraq.
Witnesses said the driver swerved the truck in and out of the makeshift memorial Monday night.
The protesters who are camped out in Crawford expressed outrage at the vandalism.
-
It doesn't matter whether anybody trashes her or not. Everyone has a right to an opinion, not just "Cindy."
Raider, you have a fantasy that Bush is in a trick box. He is not. You've been reading too many blogs.
When Bush goes back to Washington she can follow him there and camp out in the parks and pavillions where the government roach coaches will feed them for free. Some have stayed there through administration after administration.
-
Hi Raider,
Ok let me expand on my previous analogy and then ask you some questions.
Let us say that my call to Pastor this church ends and I get a call to become a missionary in Indonesia with MTW (our denominational Missions organization). I go out to there and while I'm there, I volunteer to help a friend struggling in one of the most heavily Islamist districts of his city. While ministering there I am killed by an angry Muslim mob.
Now let us say that my parents meet with the leaders of MTW who share how sorry they are that I died while carrying out the call I volunteered for, but while assuring them that the cause I died for was ultimately a good one and that consequently my death was not in vain.
Let us assume that my parents were highly atheistic to begin with and not too happy about missions and definitely not happy about me going. But in any event they shake hands with the MTW head, and have their meeting. Then later let us assume that memos are released that claim that MTW leaders knew that the "prospects" for successfully evangelizing that area were just about zero and that there were already several death threats that had been circulated.
So then let us assume that my mother (sorry mom, this is all hypothetical) forms an anti-missions group calling for the immediate recall of all missionaries, and for the trial and removal of the head of MTW. Then she camps out in front of his office and calls him nasty names. Let us also assume that she is joined and supported by atheist and anti-Christian groups. In the meantime the family falls apart, and she gets divorced because of her quest.
So you're telling me:
1) The head of MTW should arrange for a second face to face with her so she can scream abuse at him and demand the end of missions and that this would somehow be "therapeutic" and "help her."
2) That the head of MTW is responsible for my death when I twice volunteered to do somthing I believed in when I knew in advance it was highly dangerous?
3) That the head of MTW and not the Islamists who killed me should be the ones held responsible because of what a few memos claim about information potentially available?
4) This would be a legitimate use of my name and memory?
5) That that would be "healthy" and "natural" grieving and "not ideological?"
6) That the other groups with a pre-existing agenda jumping in would not be a shameless misuse of her misguided grief?
7) That my staying at home and staying "safe" is always better than giving up my life to try to accomplish something I believe in?
8) That she must be held above all reproach regardless of what she does and says because she is my mother and I died?
I'm sorry, I know I'm thick as a plank, but I'm just not seeing how the answer to all these is "Yes"
- SEAGOON
-
Sakai
So you know this women then? You know her motivations? Or are you speculating just like everyone else on this thread about why she is doing it?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sakai
So you know this women then? You know her motivations? Or are you speculating just like everyone else on this thread about why she is doing it?
Does it matter why a grieving mother is doing it? She is out of her mind with grief. I dont really need to know anything more. And I dont think Sakai insinuated that he knows what is in her head. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out though.
Why are grown men pig piling on her? Why is the so called liberal media making it personal. Who cares what her family thinks? Who cares if her husband is divorcing her? She lost her son and is upset.
She wants answers from a man who has "misrepresented" the reasons for going to war. Her son bought the mans "misrepresentations" and paid the ultimate price.
She isnt going to get the answers she wants but I dont blame her for acting out.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
Ok let me expand on my previous analogy and then ask you some questions.
Let us say that my call to Pastor this church ends and I get a call to become a missionary in Indonesia with MTW (our denominational Missions organization). I go out to there and while I'm there, I volunteer to help a friend struggling in one of the most heavily Islamist districts of his city. While ministering there I am killed by an angry Muslim mob.
Now let us say that my parents meet with the leaders of MTW who share how sorry they are that I died while carrying out the call I volunteered for, but while assuring them that the cause I died for was ultimately a good one and that consequently my death was not in vain.
Let us assume that my parents were highly atheistic to begin with and not too happy about missions and definitely not happy about me going. But in any event they shake hands with the MTW head, and have their meeting. Then later let us assume that memos are released that claim that MTW leaders knew that the "prospects" for successfully evangelizing that area were just about zero and that there were already several death threats that had been circulated.
So then let us assume that my mother (sorry mom, this is all hypothetical) forms an anti-missions group calling for the immediate recall of all missionaries, and for the trial and removal of the head of MTW. Then she camps out in front of his office and calls him nasty names. Let us also assume that she is joined and supported by atheist and anti-Christian groups. In the meantime the family falls apart, and she gets divorced because of her quest.
So you're telling me:
1) The head of MTW should arrange for a second face to face with her so she can scream abuse at him and demand the end of missions and that this would somehow be "therapeutic" and "help her."
2) That the head of MTW is responsible for my death when I twice volunteered to do somthing I believed in when I knew in advance it was highly dangerous?
3) That the head of MTW and not the Islamists who killed me should be the ones held responsible because of what a few memos claim about information potentially available?
4) This would be a legitimate use of my name and memory?
5) That that would be "healthy" and "natural" grieving and "not ideological?"
6) That the other groups with a pre-existing agenda jumping in would not be a shameless misuse of her misguided grief?
7) That my staying at home and staying "safe" is always better than giving up my life to try to accomplish something I believe in?
8) That she must be held above all reproach regardless of what she does and says because she is my mother and I died?
I'm sorry, I know I'm thick as a plank, but I'm just not seeing how the answer to all these is "Yes"
- SEAGOON
I can't draw a parallel bewteen you going on missionary work and a soldier dying in service of America. I can't and won't.
The two are not even close to the same. Why not just use the actual scenario, the facts are well known enough, no need for analogies.
say you went off to war and got killed and your mother did what Cindy is doing. She is a mother with a Son who died in a war. Why is it all you guys try to do is make her look like some twisted person? maybe she is out there, but I would think the death of a child would allow people some leeway, but I guess not.
So what if she is making a political issue out of it???
But I get the feeling that some of you seem to have insight into her grief and feel she is "faking it" to make Bush look bad. Now if her son turns up alive or something then maybe you will have a leg to stand on but until then, I only see a greiving mother.
-
silat.. I think you hit on it.... she is "out of her mind with grief"..
No good can come from a meeting with such a person... no answer short of raising her son from the dead will make her happy...
She cares not for the feelings of the mothers who feel their sons sacrafice was a noble one. Her insanity is self centered and she believes that only she has the insight into what all other people involved want.
She needs to see someone and often but it isn't Bush.
lazs
-
Silat
Well yeah it maters why she is doing it.
Thats the point, I think some people do not believe it is about grief anymore.
You do not know if she is out of her mind with grief or just pissed off or a political puppet letting her sons death be used to make a point. It could be any of them.
You don't know, I don't know the world doesnt know. Its all speculation.
I don't know why she is doing it, I am willing to give her the benifit of the doubt.
I also don't see it as the end of the world if Bush ignores her.
Just because her child died fighting in iraq does not mean she is a good or noble person. If she was a good and noble person thats great, but if she was a jerk, well the death of her kid does not make her a good person.
No one knows now, all it is ratings now.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sakai
So you know this women then? You know her motivations? Or are you speculating just like everyone else on this thread about why she is doing it?
I'm not speculating about crap. I never said "why" she's doing anything. I said 1) she gets to express her grief in anyway she chooses without being judged by the pastor and 2) she has a constitutionally protected right to say what she damned well pleases and 3) she has a constitutionally protected right to redress of grievance and if, if mind you, Bush lied then she has a legitimate ***** regarding the death of her son.
Besides, you're not staying on point. The point is everyone's trying to destroy her and that's evil, unamerican and simply part and parcel of the politics of hatred practiced by the current admin and their lackeys in the press.
It's unamerican.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat.. I think you hit on it.... she is "out of her mind with grief"..
No good can come from a meeting with such a person... no answer short of raising her son from the dead will make her happy...
lazs
No good for who? ohhh no good for the Bush.... Somehow that shouldn't be what is important.
How do you know what will help make her better? She might get closure, or at least be able to go on with her life afterwards.
-
No one is trying to shut her up or destroy her, they are offering opinions about her. AND that is their right. Just like its hers to protest.
Freedom of speech is funny that way.
People using their freedom of speech to talk about someone is un American?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
No one is trying to shut her up or destroy her, they are offering opinions about her. AND that is their right. Just like its hers to protest.
Freedom of speech is funny that way.
People using their freedom of speech to talk about someone is un American?
ummm yeah some people are...
The guy who decided to shoot his gun off because he was tired of protesters.
The above article I linked where the guy ran over the protesters crosses.
Freedom of speech is one thing, Trying to stifle someone else's is another.
-
Well thats two, and the truck guy is going to pay dearly for it.
The shotgun guy has a right to discharge a firearm on his land. If he broke a law he will pay too.
The people on this board Sakai is attacking, have the same rights to freedom of speech as she does.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat.. I think you hit on it.... she is "out of her mind with grief"..
She cares not for the feelings of the mothers who feel their sons sacrafice was a noble one. Her insanity is self centered and she believes that only she has the insight into what all other people involved want.
See, demonize anyone who points out the obvious: These deaths are starting to appear more and more arbitrary and meaningless. Sure no one wants to hear they voted a con man and liar into office and that they screamed down anyone who pointed out the obvious. Sure people want to think their kid died for something.
Look, 2 to 1 the American people are saying Bush dropped the ball in Iraq. So this isn't like, you know, just a loony: she's now the nation asking a simple question: why do we continue to die for a war no one understands, no one can explain and the rationalization for it has changed a dozen times? What about being fed a line of poo makes you want to salute?
How many lies is too many?
Liberty is represented vastly more by that woman's stance in Crawford than it is by the ridiculous, unsupportable trash being heaped on her by O'Reilly and Malkin et al.
But you know, to each his own.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well thats two, and the truck guy is going to pay dearly for it.
The shotgun guy has a right to discharge a firearm on his land. If he broke a law he will pay too.
The people on this board Sakai is attacking, have the same rights to freedom of speech as she does.
Yes and no, shotguns aren't expressions of free speech, neither is running over the names of dead troops you say you support.
In fact, excusing that--especially the thinly veiled threat shotgun man made, a threat that in any honest state would have gotten him a visit from a sheriff--is simpy mind boggling.
But all have a right to say what they want, it is the coordinated hate attacks that seem to be unseemly, inappropriate and uniquely unamerican.
But if you don't love the nation, by all means: pile on, hate someone for no reason. Hatred is an American value now, ask the GOPand the Christian right.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I can't draw a parallel bewteen you going on missionary work and a soldier dying in service of America. I can't and won't.
The two are not even close to the same. Why not just use the actual scenario, the facts are well known enough, no need for analogies.
say you went off to war and got killed and your mother did what Cindy is doing. She is a mother with a Son who died in a war. Why is it all you guys try to do is make her look like some twisted person? maybe she is out there, but I would think the death of a child would allow people some leeway, but I guess not.
So what if she is making a political issue out of it???
But I get the feeling that some of you seem to have insight into her grief and feel she is "faking it" to make Bush look bad. Now if her son turns up alive or something then maybe you will have a leg to stand on but until then, I only see a greiving mother.
Raider, I used the parallel in an attempt to do a number of things:
1) To show the volunteer nature of the actions in both cases, and how it is possible to die doing what is right and yet have a relative profoundly disagree, be grieved, and use it for purposes at odds with the apparent desires of the person in question.
2) To take the ultra-inflammatory Bush/Iraq elements out of the story and show that my concern lies in the fact that I believe this is wrong regardless of the politics of the thing.
Am I really the only one who thinks that her primary duty should have been to her living kids and to working to preserve the covenant bond between she and her husband? I don't doubt her grief, its just this is a selfish, wrong, and self-destructive way of expressing it. If I desired to sacrifice my kids and my marriage so I could get a second opportunity to scream invectives at the man whom I had translated my grief into hate towards, I would hope that someone on this board would care enough to say, "For heaven's sake man, don't do this." instead of saying "Hey, that's your right dude."
Sheehan's fanatical and single minded pursuit of this cause is reminiscent of what Paul Johnson wrote of in "Intellectuals" and their willingness to disregard the lives and concerns of living loved ones in order to pursue an idealized political goal. "Everything is subservient to the cause." The moment a mother ignores the call "Come home, we need you" from her living children in order to pursue a political goal, is the moment I have to say, thats fundamentally wrong.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Yes and no, shotguns aren't expressions of free speech, neither is running over the names of dead troops you say you support.
In fact, excusing that--especially the thinly veiled threat shotgun man made, a threat that in any honest state would have gotten him a visit from a sheriff--is simpy mind boggling.
But all have a right to say what they want, it is the coordinated hate attacks that seem to be unseemly, inappropriate and uniquely unamerican.
But if you don't love the nation, by all means: pile on, hate someone for no reason. Hatred is an American value now, ask the GOPand the Christian right.
Sakai
Both the shotgun guy and truck guy will be facing charges if they broke the law as I said in the last post. (You can make the same argument for shotgun firing, as you can for flag burning by the way) (not that I defend the irresponsible use of a firearm as a gun owner. It does not do any gun owners good, in this day and age)
I am not excusing anything; they should not have done it.
You are fooling yourself if you think one party is a hate machine and the other would not do the EXACT same thing if they had the chance. Both suck. Both are out for their own ends and don't give a **** about the people of this nation.
I have not piled on anyone.
You sound JUST like the people you are going after, just the opposite side of the coin. Who is spoon feeding you your opinion?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
It doesn't matter whether anybody trashes her or not. Everyone has a right to an opinion, not just "Cindy."
And she should get to have that opinion without a wall of hatred being heaped on her by the right wing press.
When did mindless hatred for political gain become an American value? Why be so proud of and make excuses for it?
So
-
Originally posted by Sakai
And she should get to have that opinion without a wall of hatred being heaped on her by the right wing press.
When did mindless hatred for political gain become an American value? Why be so proud of and make excuses for it?
So
So its hate when you question the motives of a women doing something like this?
People should not question why another person is doing something like this?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Raider, I used the parallel in an attempt to do a number of things:
1) To show the volunteer nature of the actions in both cases, and how it is possible to die doing what is right and yet have a relative profoundly disagree, be grieved, and use it for purposes at odds with the apparent desires of the person in question.
2) To take the ultra-inflammatory Bush/Iraq elements out of the story and show that my concern lies in the fact that I believe this is wrong regardless of the politics of the thing.
Am I really the only one who thinks that her primary duty should have been to her living kids and to working to preserve the covenant bond between she and her husband? I don't doubt her grief, its just this is a selfish, wrong, and self-destructive way of expressing it. If I desired to sacrifice my kids and my marriage so I could get a second opportunity to scream invectives at the man whom I had translated my grief into hate towards, I would hope that someone on this board would care enough to say, "For heaven's sake man, don't do this." instead of saying "Hey, that's your right dude."
Sheehan's fanatical and single minded pursuit of this cause is reminiscent of what Paul Johnson wrote of in "The Intellectuals" and their willingness to disregard the lives and concerns of living loved ones in order to pursue an idealized political goal. "Everything is subservient to the cause." The moment a mother ignores the call "Come home, we need you" from her living children in order to pursue a political goal, is the moment I have to say, thats fundamentally wrong.
- SEAGOON
Her living kids are not minors.
Staying in a bad marriage can be worse than divorce.
Who knows what toll this has taken on the family.
Do you have ANY evidence of Cindy Sheehan neglecting her children, or is that just a quote from Johnson? Because her children are grown and should be able to care for themselves. Unless of course being at crawford makes her a bad mother too :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Yes and no, shotguns aren't expressions of free speech, neither is running over the names of dead troops you say you support.
In fact, excusing that--especially the thinly veiled threat shotgun man made, a threat that in any honest state would have gotten him a visit from a sheriff--is simpy mind boggling.
Sakai
Yeah I saw them interview the neighbor who fired the gun. He clearly intended it as a warning to the protesters. They asked (para-phrased) "Did you shoot because you are tired of the protesters?" he muttered back "You figure it out".
Who fires a gun 1 time to get ready for dove season? Was he within his rights? I wouldnt think you were allowed to scare protesters away (when they are not trespassing) with a fire-arm. But that is just me. Hell even the police use pepper spray and tear gas first. The guy belongs in the jail for a few days.
-
If he broke a law, I am sure they will get charged with something. With this much media coverage why wouldn’t he?
If he did break a law he should be charged. Their is no excuse for using a firearm in an irresponsible way.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
Let us say that my call to Pastor this church ends and I get a call to become a missionary in Indonesia with MTW (
I expect that MTW would meet with anyone grieving for you as many times as needed and would be much more caring and savvy.
I also suspect no one at MTW would say "I need my rest too much to talk to her" as Bush did.
Sakai
-
It is also possible to decline service in Iraq, although it will adversely affect one's career. So no one has to go to Iraq, no one, its a voluntary decision each of those soldiers makes...
Just a small point, but:
FORT STEWART, Georgia (AP) -- Before being sentenced to 15 months for refusing to return to Iraq with his Army unit, Sgt. Kevin Benderman told a military judge that he acted with his conscience, not out of a disregard for duty.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/29/objecting.soldier.ap/?section=cnn_law
If by "adversely affect one's career" you mean charged with desertion, given a prison sentence and dishonorably discharged you are correct.
Me, well, I'm increasingly in favor of a draft without loopholes for any conflict that extends past a year. I would favor a permanent draft in general, actually, but this is a more moderate limited solution. Let's let all sectors of society face the same potential issues as Mrs. Sheehan, and not just that subset that still has some true patriotism (a call to serve) or that seeks military service out of financial need. If the cause is truly worth it why not? If it's not truly worth it, maybe people will pay more attention from the start.
Charon
-
Sakai,
A reoccuring theme in your posts deserves a response:
Originally posted by Sakai
You are judging her, might gander into that bible of yours to see what Christ said about that.
&
Originally posted by Sakai
I'm not speculating about crap. I never said "why" she's doing anything. I said 1) she gets to express her grief in anyway she chooses without being judged by the pastor
I take it you are referring to the statements made by Christ in Matthew 7:1-5, Mark 4:24, & Luke 6:37-42 to the effect of: "Judge not lest you be judged" and implying that I have violated Christ's commandment in regards to Cindy Sheehan.
In understanding the meaning of these verses they are best understood in their full context, given in Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Christ does indeed condemn the self-righteous, hypocritical, and vindictive spirit of the Pharisees - men who refused to acknowledge their own manifold sins and lack of love, and instead went about pointing out the sins of others - and Christ does indeed call his followers to manifest the Love of God by the absence of a vindicative, vengeful, self-righteous spirit, and instead to be forgiving and humble. He also calls us to high standard of personal holiness, its not just that his followers shouldn't be seeking specks, they shouldn't have logs in their own eyes either.
But his condemnation of the Pharisees hypocritical and hyper-critical judgmentalism is not a call to an utter lack of discernment, it is not a call to never judge another person, for without the ability to judge and discern correctly how will you be able to know good from evil, truth from falsehood, light from darkness? How could we obey Christ's command in John 7:24 " "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment?" How could we indeed be able to judge the fruits of a man's ministry and determine whether he was a false prophet as Christ commanded?
What we are called to, is to judge by the right standard and in the right spirit. Not to seek out specks and gleefully condemn them according to our own manufactured standards, but to be able to exercise what Jesus called "righteous judgment" - that is a judgment of the actual situation according to God's standard and without prejudice aforethought.
As J.C. Ryle put it:
"Our Lord does not mean that it is wrong, under any circumstances, to pass an unfavorable judgment on the conduct and opinions of others. We ought to have decided opinions. We are to "prove all things." We are to "try the spirits." Nor yet does He mean that it is wrong to reprove the sins and faults of others, until we are perfect and faultless ourselves. Such an interpretation would contradict other parts of Scripture. It would make it impossible to condemn error and false doctrine. It would debar any one from attempting the office of a minister or a judge. The earth would be "given into the hands of the wicked." (Job 9:24.)
...
What our Lord means to condemn is a censorious and fault-finding spirit. A readiness to blame others for trifling offences, or matters of indifference--a habit of passing rash and hasty judgments--a disposition to magnify the errors and infirmities of our neighbors, and make the worst of them--this is what our Lord forbids. It was common among the Pharisees. It has always been common from their day down to the present time. We must all watch against it. We should "believe all things," and "hope all things "about others, and be very slow to find fault. This is Christian charity. (1 Cor. 13:7.)"
Now if you believe I have judged Sheehan by a standard other than that spelled out in the bible, or that I disliked her personally and have acted maliciously and/or hypocritically, then I am eager to hear my sins in this regard that I might repent of them.
- SEAGOON
-
CRAWFORD, Texas - Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, is moving her camp closer to President Bush’s Texas ranch.
The piece of private property was offered by a relative of a man who had fired a shotgun in frustration over the protests, a source in the Sheehan camp said. The property owner is also a veteran.
“A neighbor of President Bush’s has offered us his land,” the source said. “It’s got plenty of acreage for us, it’s private land, we would have legal permission to be on it, it’s much closer to the ranch — in fact it’s across the street from his (Bush’s) church.”
According to the source, the land offered to Sheehan is owned by Fred Mattlage, who is a distant cousin of Larry Mattlage, a man who fired a shotgun over the weekend in frustration over the commotion caused by the vigil.
‘I support what you all are doing’
The source said Fred Mattlage made the offer saying “I’m a veteran, I support what you all are doing and I want to offer you my land.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8975281/
8/16/05
-
Originally posted by Raider179
CRAWFORD, Texas - Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, is moving her camp closer to President Bush’s Texas ranch.
The piece of private property was offered by a relative of a man who had fired a shotgun in frustration over the protests, a source in the Sheehan camp said. The property owner is also a veteran.
“A neighbor of President Bush’s has offered us his land,” the source said. “It’s got plenty of acreage for us, it’s private land, we would have legal permission to be on it, it’s much closer to the ranch — in fact it’s across the street from his (Bush’s) church.”
According to the source, the land offered to Sheehan is owned by Fred Mattlage, who is a distant cousin of Larry Mattlage, a man who fired a shotgun over the weekend in frustration over the commotion caused by the vigil.
‘I support what you all are doing’
The source said Fred Mattlage made the offer saying “I’m a veteran, I support what you all are doing and I want to offer you my land.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8975281/
8/16/05
Great that's all they need to do to gain more credibility....hassle the guy when he AND OTHERS are going to church.
-
"Bring the boys back home.
Bring the boys back home.
Don’t leave the children on their own, no, no.
Bring the boys back home."
Pink Floyd 1979.
And thats all there is to it.
Its a mess and a foreign affairs blunder of the highest order deserving a chapter in
(http://www.cdselections.com/cdslive/images/products/books/BS525H.JPG)
The woman may be going about it the wrong way I don't realy know. But she lost her son to some idiot foreign policy dreamed up by a right wing religious nutjob thats killed thousands destroyed a country and made global terrorism worse!!! Realy it beggars belief.
-
I'm confused.
Why do half the posters in this thread want this woman declaired exempt to public discussion and scrutiny when she has chosen to make her spectical in the arena of public opinion? For better or worse she is now a Public figure and will have to face her detractors with the best of all those who came before her.
Regardless of whats being leveled at her by some members of this board, the Press, or portions of the Public; why do some members of this BB attempt to chill freedom of speech and discorse by accusing other members of the board of heaping a wall of hatred upon her? Or vauge declarations that because she is a greiving mother coupled with accusations Bush lied that she is to be elevated above all of our protected constitutional right to free speech.
When does losing a loved one in war time rate one U.S. citizen supra constitutional rights over other citizens in this country? And where does the constitution protect the right to chill the speech of others because you don't agree with them or they don't belong to and agree with your ideological world view?
-
What's with all this noise assuming that anyone who fires a gun should be arrested or something? Charged with "something"? What BS. He wasn't arrested, charged with anything, or even hassled by the sherrif because...
wait for it...
He didn't break any laws.
GASP! Shooting a firearm on your own land can be legal? Holy crap somebody better DO SOMETHING!
It's absolutely sickening, both reading people spouting their ignorance over firearm laws shouting for the sherrif to somehow charge this guy with something (invent a law if necessary, but lock this lunatic in jail!), and reading news sources like CNN who say equally biased things like "fired his shotgun but was not arrested", as if there was some assumption there that anyone who fires a gun ought to be arrested just on general principle.
Get over it - The guy fired a gun on his own property in a fashion that did not harm anyone. The only people who could have possibly been harmed or threatened would be people illegally trespassing on his land, so even threatening someone by firing a shotgun into the air would be treated as reasonable restraint in any texas court. They'd publicly congratulate the guy for firing a warning shot, and privately tell him that if he wants to just shoot the next guy trashing his property, that would be ok too.
Get over it. He didn't break any laws so quit quivering about how unjust it is that he didn't get thrown in jail. It's his property, shooting firearms on his property is legal, and he didn't shoot anyone. Anyone claiming psychological injury or saying he should be charged with SOMETHING is acting the fool, getting hyped up over nothing. Of all the stupid causes to get agitated about, this one is pretty retarded. Convince a kid to stay in school, volunteer to work a soup kitchen, do ANYTHING useful but give this one a rest. The guy didn't do anything even remotely illegal.
-
I went and shot my shotgun on private property outside the city limits today. Quick somebody call the law to come arrest me. I obviously did something wrong and am breaking the law. Oh woe is me, heaven forbid I shoot my shotgun.
-
LOL
Eagl, all I said is if he DID break a law he would get charged.
-
Originally posted by eagl
What's with all this noise assuming that anyone who fires a gun should be arrested or something? Charged with "something"? What BS. He wasn't arrested, charged with anything, or even hassled by the sherrif because...
wait for it...
He didn't break any laws.
GASP! Shooting a firearm on your own land can be legal? Holy crap somebody better DO SOMETHING!
It's absolutely sickening, both reading people spouting their ignorance over firearm laws shouting for the sherrif to somehow charge this guy with something (invent a law if necessary, but lock this lunatic in jail!), and reading news sources like CNN who say equally biased things like "fired his shotgun but was not arrested", as if there was some assumption there that anyone who fires a gun ought to be arrested just on general principle.
Get over it - The guy fired a gun on his own property in a fashion that did not harm anyone. The only people who could have possibly been harmed or threatened would be people illegally trespassing on his land, so even threatening someone by firing a shotgun into the air would be treated as reasonable restraint in any texas court. They'd publicly congratulate the guy for firing a warning shot, and privately tell him that if he wants to just shoot the next guy trashing his property, that would be ok too.
Get over it. He didn't break any laws so quit quivering about how unjust it is that he didn't get thrown in jail. It's his property, shooting firearms on his property is legal, and he didn't shoot anyone. Anyone claiming psychological injury or saying he should be charged with SOMETHING is acting the fool, getting hyped up over nothing. Of all the stupid causes to get agitated about, this one is pretty retarded. Convince a kid to stay in school, volunteer to work a soup kitchen, do ANYTHING useful but give this one a rest. The guy didn't do anything even remotely illegal.
How bout this
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/76R/billtext/HB00786H.HTM
H.B. No. 786
1-2 relating to displaying a deadly weapon in order to hinder an
1-3 official proceeding or prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting,
1-4 gathering, or procession; providing penalties.
Sec. 42.05. DISRUPTING MEETING OR PROCESSION. (a) A person
2-18 commits an offense if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a 2-19 lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he
2-20 obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by:
2-21 (1) physical action or verbal utterance; or
2-22 (2) display of a deadly weapon in plain view.
He definitely was attempting to dirupt the anti-war protest and he definitely used physical action (firing of this gun in the air).
Why should the protesters feel threatened by him? What gives him that right? People are allowed to assemble without being harrassed(threatened) by someone shooting off a gun to intimidate them. You buy his "getting ready for dove season"? How many people shoot a fire-arm 1 time to get it ready for the season? This guy is reckless with fire-arms and he proved it.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
I went and shot my shotgun on private property outside the city limits today. Quick somebody call the law to come arrest me. I obviously did something wrong and am breaking the law. Oh woe is me, heaven forbid I shoot my shotgun.
Was there a group of anti-war protesters nearby? Were you shooting your gun to threaten them? Or was it dove season where you were too :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Was there a group of anti-war protesters nearby? Were you shooting your gun to threaten them? Or was it dove season where you were too :rolleyes:
Dream on. IF he'd broken a law, he'd have been arrested. He didn't. Live with it.
-
Raider,
Untill he is found guilty before a jury of his peers, he is presumed innocent. Even if he gets remanded to the custody of the local district while a decision is made to prosicute him or not. Have you already decided his guilt and we should all conceed to your Omniscience?
If we prosicuted our citizens by the concept "his intention is so obvious and so is his guilt" then we might as well issue you and like minded citizens ideological warrents for prejudice along with a gun and set you forth as judge/jury/executioner and call all of our freinds to warn them their justice is coming.
Personally I think Bush owes his neighbors something because of all the nutbugers that have no respect for the communities privacy being ravaged by a constant parade of human Ding Dongs and HoHo's. Bush should of bought a more secluded ranch. I voted for him, but I'd be pissed at Bush for 8 years of nutburgers raising crap around my neighborhood. I think the citizens of Crawford may be reaching the last strand in their rope with the nutberger parade........I think we all should have a bit more respect for the members of that community and their marginalised privacy.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Was there a group of anti-war protesters nearby? Were you shooting your gun to threaten them? Or was it dove season where you were too :rolleyes:
Naw there werent no anit-war protesters, but there was the fella I was thinkin of shootin because he kept throwin broken clay pigeons at me while I was trying to shoot the ones being thrown.
Funny thing was an officer did show up, asked if some cows that were out belonged to the onwer of the property, and then he shot a few pigeons himself. He left and we were shaking our heads thinkin what a day it was when a cop shows up and shoots with ya and then drives away.
-
Don't you guys know? This is a liberal tactic. Cry fowl that somone committed a crime and broke the law when no charges and sometimes no investigations exist. Codemn them in public and if you say it loud and long enough the charges magicly become a matter of fact instead of speculation.
when no one listens to them all they have to do is say it's because of Bush that no law was broken....errr no charges were filed.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How bout this
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/76R/billtext/HB00786H.HTM
H.B. No. 786
1-2 relating to displaying a deadly weapon in order to hinder an
1-3 official proceeding or prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting,
1-4 gathering, or procession; providing penalties.
Sec. 42.05. DISRUPTING MEETING OR PROCESSION. (a) A person
2-18 commits an offense if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a 2-19 lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he
2-20 obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by:
2-21 (1) physical action or verbal utterance; or
2-22 (2) display of a deadly weapon in plain view.
He definitely was attempting to dirupt the anti-war protest and he definitely used physical action (firing of this gun in the air).
Why should the protesters feel threatened by him? What gives him that right? People are allowed to assemble without being harrassed(threatened) by someone shooting off a gun to intimidate them. You buy his "getting ready for dove season"? How many people shoot a fire-arm 1 time to get it ready for the season? This guy is reckless with fire-arms and he proved it.
this is based on your all knowing first hand knowledge I'm assuming?
-
Well, having read this thread from top to bottom, only one thought comes to mind...
...I'd like that 20 minutes of my life back, please.
-
Say whatever about the gunshot. Its legality or otherwise.
At its core, it threatened people's lives. The very act itself was meant to do nothing other than threaten people's lives. As if to say - "this is just a warning, I've got a gun, and you might get killed."
So get all caught up in the legal defense of it all you want, but holy smokes - this is the kind of wingnut that you do not want as a neighbor.
The defense of this kind of thing typifies the dance of those coming out against Sheehan, supporting this war, and supporting this President. It has become increasingly very shaky ground... such that the defenders are becoming unwitting participants in the dance craze that will soon be sweeping the nation; the 'Tectonic.'
Erhm... that is unless you subscribe to the idea that would have Mattlage threatening people with his gun as if to say "If you keep it up, there will be even more loud noises!" Go ahead, try and make that argument to me.
No - he was threatening to kill people, and that is the only interpretation of this incident that comes even close to getting to the root of it. Lawful or not.
Is it suprising that someone would do this? Considering the location and the divided not united nature of things... absolutely not. Is it suprising that some here would tango with it? Yeah - man it still does.
Sheehan, on the other hand, is a partisan political war protester who hates this war and who hates Bush for impaling his country on it. It is sparkling Windexy crystal clear.
But leave it to some folks to get the whole entire thing just so gawdamned messed up. Don't attack her stance. Just attack her.
It's base emotion stuff that the Right 'gets'.... responds to.... which is exactly the kind of thing that gets them elected. And it's the entire explanation of their reaction to her and their handling of this situation. Huge suprise there.
As for Bush's role? Give me a single example of him ever admitting a mistake. It's a running joke. I've made possibly, oh, several thousand mistakes in what, the last week alone? He'd have us believe he's never made one in the last 5 years. But we already know that. Why it's pertinent here is because it is his driving psychology in all of this. For him to talk with her now, at this late date, would constitute an admission of error. Folks - this isn't going to happen.
At this point, a Bush-Sheehan meeting takes on all the unlikely newsworthy importance of a Rabin/Arafat peace deal or a Jackson trial verdict. "We're breaking away live now to go to Crawford, where..."
[flashbulbs go off like strobe lights, microphones jam the frame....]
Imagine that....
And Sheehan... she will go to Washington to camp there when Bush goes back to work. And she will remain there for the next three and a half years. And her cause will grow -exponentially.
And it will grow because finally, despite the politician's and the media's shocking reluctance to look at the Iraq war with anything even approaching a critical, objective eye, there will be this lone woman named Sheehan who said, simply, this is a bunch of crap.
It is something that folks frankly aren't hearing all that much. When they do, and they are, it just... resonates...
-
"And her cause will grow -exponentially."
I doubt it. The Roberts confirmation fight is coming up. Iraqi Constitution/Elections. There'll be some disaster to occupy the newsies.
She can camp as long as she wants but I don't think she's the beginning of a VietNam war-type Peace movement.
We'll see I guess.
-
Yup.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
this is based on your all knowing first hand knowledge I'm assuming?
I saw him interviewed. Pretty easy to understand if you saw it.
-
For a "fair and balanced" view of parents who've lost children in this war, you need to see a counter-article. Here is an article about Mrs. Natalie Healy. She is the mother of Senior Chief Daniel Healy, who was killed in action in Afghanistan when the MH-47 he and fellow SEALs and 160th SOAR members was shot down.
From what I've gathered on the opinions of mil bloggers and guys who have gone for a tour and come back, it is imperative that we do not waiver at home. If you really want to see morale drop in the units that are doing the fighting, then go ahead and pull them out before the job is done. THEN it will seem like a waste of all the effort put in.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=59189
Mother of fallen SEAL says she still supports the war
By SCOTT BROOKS
Union Leader Staff
Merchants Automotive Group
Natalie Healy made a decision this summer after losing her son in war-torn Afghanistan.
"I can't go to those mountains and climb them and I can't shoot a gun," she said. "But I can do everything I can to make sure we stay the course, and if that means speaking out, then that's what I want to do."
Less than two months after the death of her son, Navy SEAL Senior Chief Petty Officer Daniel Healy, the Exeter mother and small business owner is following through on her word.
Natalie Healy of Exeter is shown with her son, Navy SEAL Senior Chief Petty Officer Daniel Healy, at his wedding. (COURTESY PHOTO)
Healy is making her feelings known in response to the nation's interest in a California mother who has camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son was killed in Iraq last year.
Healy said she initially sympathized with the grief-stricken mom. Now, however, as Sheehan's message continues to fill the airwaves, Healy said she fears a backlash against the war on terrorism.
"It's sort of like a tidal wave," Healy said. "And it's gaining and gaining and gaining. And I'm not sure what will stop it, to tell you the truth.
"My big concern is that the enemy will use Cindy Sheehan to their benefit. They will point to her and say, 'See? See how this American is calling the President a murderer? See how they're going to start weakening from within?'"
Healy said she was booked to speak on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews last night. The interview got bumped just a few hours before the show, she said.
But Healy said spreading her voice to support the war effort is her "new mission in life."
"I'm hoping, by having another mother who's lost a son speaking out loudly and strongly, that the troops will hear it and be heartened by it," she said. "Because we all know how they're always shocked when they get home and they find out what has been reported."
Several national polls show that a majority of Americans now consider the decision to invade Iraq a mistake. Healy herself said she initially had doubts about the war. She is now convinced the United States cannot leave Iraq just yet.
"The fact of the matter is, at this stage in the game, we're over there," she said. "We have to complete the mission."
Healy said she doubted Sheehan's son, Casey, would support his mother's mission.
Rather, she said, "I think my son would be happy that I was trying to remind people that we have to stay the course. We have to, without a doubt. And I know he'd be saying, 'OK, mom. Good. Good, mom.'"
Healy recognized the public's opinion of the Iraqi conflict is not the same as its opinion of the war in Afghanistan, where her son died June 28. Daniel Healy, a 36-year-old father of four, was one of 16 soldiers killed when insurgents shot down their helicopter.
But Healy said the two conflicts are part of the same war on terrorism, and it's a war the U.S. must continue to fight.
"I think fighting for freedom in Iraq and fighting for freedom in Afghanistan is one and the same," she said.
Healy is hopeful that the public will hear both sides in the debate over pulling U.S. troops from Iraq. It would be harmful, she said, if Sheehan's voice carried the day.
"I just don't want it to be the only story," Healy said. "I want the other voices to be heard so that the young men that fought with my son — that were broken-hearted from all their buddies getting killed — will know somebody else is speaking out for them. And maybe they won't be heard as much as Cindy Sheehan, but there's somebody trying, anyway."
-
And she should get to have that opinion without a wall of hatred being heaped on her by the right wing press.
When did mindless hatred for political gain become an American value? Why be so proud of and make excuses for it?
So - Sakai
All that we are promised by the Constitution in that regard is that we have the right to freedom of expression and speech.
That doesn't mean people are forced to love you for it. People have the right to hold you in contempt for your opinions, or hate you for them.
Your objection to the reaction against this woman is silly. Its as if you are saying that you object because people don't agree with her.
When did mindless hatred for political gain become an American value? Why be so proud of and make excuses for it?
I don't know what to make of this these questions. It is silly to karp because people may disagree with Cindy. People are free to vigorously express themselves and others are free to vigorously reject those opinions if they wish. There is nothing to make excuses for.
Past that, you are blinded to the fact that both factions behave the same way. The hypebole is off the scale, and you are right in there doing your share of it, bud. Read over your first post.
-
Damn nash did your stove break again? Your panties are awfully bunched up tonight.
Havn't you ever been to texas? When we are talking about neighbors here we arent talking about a house 10 ft from the other we are talking about "country miles" down the road. The guy has a right to shoot on his property and fireing of a shotgun even if in protest is just a texas way of turning your music/TV up loud to piss somone off.
Raider I saw and interview too. I have yet to read were this guy said was attempting to disrupt the anti-war protest
what gives him the right?
I will tell you the 2nd amendment gives him the right. In addition he OWNS the land he's firing on. He could shoot clay pidgeons all day long if he felt like it. It's HIS land. As long as he doesn't shoot over any roads he isn't breaking any laws.
Now now I know you are a legal expert in the state of Texas and all and your hourly visit to Moveon.org probably prompted you to post some law that might be twisted and spinned enough to make this guy guilty without any type of evidenct trial or jury but maybe you could post the interview were he said he ment to scare the protesters and I might give the guy a shame shame.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
"Bring the boys back home.
Bring the boys back home.
Don’t leave the children on their own, no, no.
Bring the boys back home."
Pink Floyd 1979.
And thats all there is to it.
Its a mess and a foreign affairs blunder of the highest order deserving a chapter in
(http://www.cdselections.com/cdslive/images/products/books/BS525H.JPG)
The woman may be going about it the wrong way I don't realy know. But she lost her son to some idiot foreign policy dreamed up by a right wing religious nutjob thats killed thousands destroyed a country and made global terrorism worse!!! Realy it beggars belief.
excellent!!! i only say this cause we went to war because of WMD. WMD!!!
oh and the gun thing... we once had private property. and we once shot guns because of 'intruders'.. but the problem was.. we werent citizens of the country, that would have given use the protection of private property. but now intruders beware... im a citizen..
'home land security since 1492' - nativez
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Damn nash....
Havn't you ever been to texas?... The guy has a right to shoot on his property and fireing of a shotgun even if in protest is just a texas way of turning your music/TV up loud to piss somone off.
(http://members.shaw.ca/cwharton/pics/dancer.gif)
-
He might be dancin' Nash, but he's right.
-
Noted.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Noted.
But seriously Nash,
Is your stove broke again?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider I saw and interview too. I have yet to read were this guy said was attempting to disrupt the anti-war protest
what gives him the right?
I will tell you the 2nd amendment gives him the right. In addition he OWNS the land he's firing on. He could shoot clay pidgeons all day long if he felt like it. It's HIS land. As long as he doesn't shoot over any roads he isn't breaking any laws.
Now now I know you are a legal expert in the state of Texas and all and your hourly visit to Moveon.org probably prompted you to post some law that might be twisted and spinned enough to make this guy guilty without any type of evidenct trial or jury but maybe you could post the interview were he said he ment to scare the protesters and I might give the guy a shame shame.
While about 60 in Sheehan's group held a religious service Sunday morning, a nearby landowner, Larry Mattlage, fired his shotgun twice into the air. Sheriff's deputies and Secret Service agents rushed to his house but did not arrest him.
"I ain't threatening nobody, and I ain't pointing a gun at nobody," Mattlage said. "This is Texas."
Mattlage said he was initially sympathetic toward the demonstrators, but that they have blocked roads in the area and caused traffic problems. He said he fired his gun in preparation for the dove-hunting season, but when asked if he had another motive, he said, "Figure it out for yourself."
I'd say "Figure it out for yourself" says it all. But you saw the interview right?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/14/moms_protest_riles_gun_toting_neighbor/
Secret Service Showed up, I would bet he is not gonna be doing that again anytime soon.
Yeah try Google. I even linked to the site I found it on, so again attacking the person whose view you don't agree with?
From Foxnews...
Mattlage said he was initially sympathetic toward the demonstrators, but that they have blocked roads in the area and caused traffic problems.
He said he fired his gun in preparation for the dove-hunting season, but when asked if he had another motive, he said, "Figure it out for yourself."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165735,00.html
Oh no they were blocking roads and causing traffic problems. Let me get my gun and shoot it in the air a few times. That'll teach em! Defending someone who would do something like that is reprehensible.
I know he is not going to get charged because he already would have. But he did have alterior motives for discharging his fire-arm.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But seriously Nash,
Is your stove broke again?
:cool:
Nope - it's working. It was a scene out of Brazil. He pulled something out, put something in, and tried to explain it. It sounded like "ding bot shing giyu." Now the stove works. Haven't used it since. :D
-
:rolleyes:
(http://www.thevegetable.net/images/pics/napavatar.gif)
so yet AGAIN you are assuming based on the guys open ended statement?
no were in the interview did he say he was doing anything other than preping for dove season or did I miss it?
"figure it out for yourself"
I figure he was preparing for dove season. Does that make my opinion MORE true than yours? Is the hat starting to chafe?
-
It's DOVE SEASON! Yeah.... that's it.
Jesus... Come on.
You and me and you and me know better.
Now DANCE!
(it's goofy - why even pretend at a defence?)
-
Does it occur to anyone that "Dove" is another term for a peace demonstrator?
-
that poor woman is being tooled and it aint by GeeDubya.
I feel very sorry for her.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Does it occur to anyone that "Dove" is another term for a peace demonstrator?
ROFL !!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
:rolleyes:
so yet AGAIN you are assuming based on the guys open ended statement?
no were in the interview did he say he was doing anything other than preping for dove season or did I miss it?
"figure it out for yourself"
I figure he was preparing for dove season. Does that make my opinion MORE true than yours? Is the hat starting to chafe?
So he was practicing for Dove season? That's what you believe? Two shots isn't practice. That is a message.
I thought you said you saw the interview. If you did there was no mistaking what he was talking about. And he damn sure didnt say No.
-
News flash:
Texan goes nuts.
Shocker.
Throw your hands in the air like you just don't care.
Like just about everything about this war, it NEVER is about these absurd moments - it is the reactions to them.
These are and have always been the most telling.
-
Lefty Koolaid 1
Nash 0
If these hippies get all our troops home from everywhere, I'll gladly eat crow though.
:aok
-
You can't help it, can ya?
-
Not when it comes from a furriner. :)
-
Har har. Good.
Now I gotta question for you.
There was a time when you were soliciting people's advice on if you should enlist. You were ----> <------ this close to doing it.
What stopped ya?
-
I'm too fat. And I like my job. And I found out that I was too old to get into any kind of officer school.
-
Jeezus.
That's real funnay.
-
Meanie :)
-
But Funked - dude.... seriously.
This war aint abstract. It takes actual people like you and me to die for it.
That aint partisan - that is a simple mathematical reality.
You don't wanna be one of them? Then, well.... gosh....
How much weight do you seriously want me to lend to your opinion?
-
Which opinion?
-
don't MAKE me whip out the little dancing gif.
-
I'm serious, not sure what you are getting at.
-
Okay, well.... I'd love to go a-archiving....
That's a lie.
We can get to the bottom of it right freaking now.
Are you in support of this war? Yes or no?
If so, do you recognize that it takes people to fight this war?
If so - do you think you are any better than anyone else?
If not, do you realize that you fall within the recruitment age, and that you would be accepted if you volunteered?
If so, where the hell are you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Are you in support of this war? Yes or no?
[/b]
My opinion on the war:
The invasion was a mistake.
US forces should be withdrawn as soon as possible while keeping in mind the "you break it you bought it" principle.
Home for Christmas sounds about right.
If so, do you recognize that it takes people to fight this war?
People, and money that was borrowed or extorted from citizens.
If so - do you think you are any better than anyone else?
I'm good at video games, and I can beat all comers in constests of eating and drinking, and baseball trivia. And Scrabble.
If not, do you realize that you fall within the recruitment age, and that you would be accepted if you volunteered?
Actually, no, I wouldn't be accepted. I checked out their minimum physical requirements and I would be rejected on multiple grounds.
-
Wow....
Yer basically saying that it's a fiasco now....
That's quite a shift...
Yet you wanna dog me (this thread for example)?
I don't blame ya for the change.... At least you have it in ya (no small thing). Don't bite my ankles for saying what I always have.
-
If I shifted or changed it was around the middle of 2003 when it became clear that Iraq didn't have the capability or intent to hit the US with WMD, and that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.
Some good has still come out of the war (scratch one Hitler-wannabe), but Murrican boys shouldn't be doing what Iraqi boys should be doing for themselves.
Bush and his people either lied or screwed up (don't know or care which), and I voted against them last year.
We need to bring troops home (http://agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?t=28088) from pretty much everywhere. Our military should be used to defend Americans and strike back at those who attack Americans. Anything else is not consistent with Constitutional principles.
I will continue to dog hippies though, and furrin hippie supporters, because of Vietnam.
Nash, you get special treatment, because you are so zealous, a true believer, and I like you. If I didn't like you I wouldn't say anything at all. :)
-
Well, I like you too and that's why I went semi-ballistic when I heard that you were considering "service."
This war is dead...
-
"We need to bring troops home from pretty much everywhere. Our military should be used to defend Americans and strike back at those who attack Americans."
Ditto British troops.
Glad to see you've see the light FUNKED1.
You see I'm not an apologist for terrorists or a damn hippy. I just don't believe the Iraq war has actualy helped anything. all it has done is provided fuel for terrorists and got too many good men women, and children killed.
It is a catastrophic military, political blunder. Mr Bush has Im afraid shown total incompetence which is why I'm sure many outside the USA can't believe he's still in power and on a five week holiday! Couldn't you guys make it a permanent holiday? ;)
For the record I think Mr Blair ought to shoulder some blame too and gracefully make way.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Great that's all they need to do to gain more credibility....hassle the guy when he AND OTHERS are going to church.
Here's a heads up, if Bush and the GOP want to make Jesus the center of politics then do not whine when, oddly and unexplicably, church is politicized.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow....
Yer basically saying that it's a fiasco now....
But, doesn't a fiasco require Latin music?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So its hate when you question the motives of a women doing something like this?
People should not question why another person is doing something like this?
Uhhhh . . .
Read the news:
Bill O'Reilly says she is guilty of Treason
Michelle Malkin has channeled the dead son to attack her
All this Blogosphere hatred is a simple query?
Oh yeah baby, that's accurate!
Dude, this is the Neocon hate machine in full swing, not someone saying "Gee Cindy, what's your motivation?"
By all means, excuse and pretend what you want, but surely you guys read and know enough to be honest anbout such things?
Let us drop the pretenses, please.
Sakai
-
"By all means, excuse and pretend what you want, but surely you guys read and know enough to be honest anbout such things?
Let us drop the pretenses, please. "
Let's also drop the pretense that Sheehan is not part of the Soros/MoveOn/DNC hate machine.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Sakai,
What our Lord means to condemn is a censorious and fault-finding spirit. A readiness to blame others for trifling offences, or matters of indifference--a habit of passing rash and hasty judgments--a disposition to magnify the errors and infirmities of our neighbors, and make the worst of them--this is what our Lord forbids.
Agreed, and if this point about what Christ condemns is not the description of the Karl Rov/Newt Gingrich principles of lies and destructive politics, the Rush Limbaughed, Ann Coultered, Michelle Malkinated and Sean Hannityized GOP, then it never existed in any form or any nation.
As I said, it's a hatred machine, and it sold its soul for political gain, destroying any person who dares to ask "why".
Rationalizing this is beneath any man capable of exegetical discretion, as you appear to be.
Homey don't play that in politics, neither should any many who claims to be a Christian for the savior plainly derided the Pharisees who were supposed to be the spiritual leaderhisp of the covenant, while refusing to engage--refusing to engage in any way, shape or form--the political power of Rome in Judah.
You sir, have sold your soul to Rome. Evangelical Christianity has become Pharasiacal in its desire to engage in politics, the politics of hatred, derision, money grubbing and blood sport. All in the name of Jesus. How nice.
There is simply no excuse in any scripture for the politicization of Christianity, but I do love to see folks scramble to rationalize such.
Like the Pharisees, the evangelists in our nation scoff that "we have the truth, we know the real truth" and anyone who dares to query simply has to be errant. "How dare anyone question a political agenda based on Christ, why, as we can plainly see he exhorted us to this calling . . ."
The Bible tells us a story. A recurrent story that man should never forget: People who claim to be of god (and this of course brings up the entire rationalization of ordination in protestantism) and then start to mingle in the philosophies of men always wield political power, and always bring their nations to destruction. Always. It is always man coming to god, then drifting away.
"Come back to the raft Huck honey . . ."
Put that in context, and smoke it baby.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"By all means, excuse and pretend what you want, but surely you guys read and know enough to be honest anbout such things?
Let us drop the pretenses, please. "
Let's also drop the pretense that Sheehan is not part of the Soros/MoveOn/DNC hate machine.
Poor Neocons, now that Soros offsets some of the Bruce Kovner, Mellon-Scaife hit man money, and does it in the open instead of closeted like a little queen the way Mellon-Scaife does, it's evil?
Dude, that's laughable.
Suppose Soros cut these folks a check?
Parents of Fallen Marine Make Plea to Bush
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By JOE MILICIA Associated Press Writer
August 16,2005 | CLEVELAND -- The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.
"We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out," Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, said Tuesday.
Schroeder, 23, died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion, one of 16 Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.
The soldier's father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.
-
He certainly didn't cut this family a check:
Austin TX Aug 15th KXAN news:
Matt and Toni Matula don't want their son's name to be part of an anti-war demonstration.
"Matthew was very proud of being a Marine and proud of his unit and what they were doing," Toni Matula said.
When the Matulas saw the Crawford protest on TV, something did more than just bother them.
"All this stuff going in crawford, we've just been watching it and shaking our heads until two days ago, we saw the crosses with the names on there," Matt Matula said.
On one white cross read the name Mattew Matula: their 20-year-old son who was killed in Iraq last year.
"He's not a victim, he's a hero, and I think that everybody that's serving our country is heroes," Matt Matula said.
"He knew joining the Marines, his chances are, that was the purpose. His main number one job was to defend our country. He was very aware of that before he signed up," Toni Matula said.
So Matt Matula went to Crawford to stand up for his son, a Marine who proudly stood by the war he died in.
"I went there and had Matthew's name taken off of there. It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause," Matt Matula said.
"For people to use his name against it is not what he died for. He died so that they can do that though," Toni Matula said.
The Matulas' youngest son has just recently joined the military and is also heading to Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
He certainly didn't cut this family a check:
Austin TX Aug 15th KXAN news:
No one denigrates them for their decision, but don't confuse this attempt to divert the question from the real point ok?
Why should any man die for a war based on a pack of lies from a known liar?
No one has addressed that Bush has lied about a great many things in office and continues to dodge the question. The response is: "Well, now that we're dying for lies and mired in muck, wave the flag more and play some Sousa music . . ."
Oh yeah baby, that is the answer.
Sakai
-
It looked like your point was the Neocons vs the Moore/MoveOns.
I guess I didn't read your post thouroughly.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It looked like your point was the Neocons vs the Moore/MoveOns.
I guess I didn't read your post thouroughly.
Thta's where folks want to take it, this was a tactic perfected by Newt Gingrich a couple decades ago: take any response and simply throw up garbage, if it's flag waving garbage so much the better. Attack anyone who asks a question that hurts you with language that derides and demeans. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the actual question, just throw garbage out there until the question is lost and say "See, told you so" and walk away but never, ever respond to the question. That leads to another question, and soon: real dialogue and god knows, we can't have that ruin our political dreams.
Well, I reckon I fished out this pond with enough Dupont lures to call it quits, I sincerely appreciate the kind and thoughtful responses.
Sakai
-
I just wonder why it is OK for the entire Congress to come together to help the poor unfortunate Schaivo parents, but it is too much to ask the President to say howdy to this lady?
Oh, and Sakai is my newest BBS hero.
-
but... soros isn't even an American.. course... neither is nash..
I would expect that every mother that lost a son at anything would be bitter... that is why we have stupid seat belt and helmet laws and a million other nanny laws lke gun control..
As children...We strive to move out of our moms house and live our own life and make our own choices... this ladies kid did.. he joined a war. He got killed... even when he is dead his mom is using him to nanny everyone else.
I think it takes a certain type of person to be a soldier under any circumstance.... war is no diffferent... I think that the military can take the fun out of anything.... If you are doing something fun while being in the military... you will be in trouble if you get caught.. I watched em make shooting no fun at their range even..
I think we spent too much money in Iraq but I think we have made some gains their that were inevitable. I really did want the sadman gone... I really would like a friendly place in the region besides the jews.
lazs
-
Sakai,
Originally posted by Sakai
You sir, have sold your soul to Rome. Evangelical Christianity has become Pharasiacal in its desire to engage in politics, the politics of hatred, derision, money grubbing and blood sport. All in the name of Jesus. How nice.
There is simply no excuse in any scripture for the politicization of Christianity, but I do love to see folks scramble to rationalize such.
Like the Pharisees, the evangelists in our nation scoff that "we have the truth, we know the real truth" and anyone who dares to query simply has to be errant. "How dare anyone question a political agenda based on Christ, why, as we can plainly see he exhorted us to this calling . . ."
I'm going to leave this thread as gracefully as I can, because unfortunately I'm getting close to the rendering evil for evil stage and I don't think that replying to ad hominem rants is going to serve much purpose in any event. If you want to fold me into your "Republican right wing Christian hate attack machine," go ahead. My sermons are published on the internet and available in MP3 format the week after they are preached, if you want to take me to task for ignoring scriptural principles or breaking the moral law, I'll always listen, but from my perspective it seems to you want to simply attack anyone who doesn't happen to believe that the actions of Cindy Sheehan are right, laudable, and good.
Sakai, if you would care to do a search on my thoughts about using the Christian faith as a tool for politics on this board or indeed online, I'll be happy to be judged by the results, rather than constantly being prejudged by you.
Now when it comes to someone rendering a censorious judgment when their own glass house is rather fragile, I'd say Mrs. Sheehan could write a book:
"That lying b*stard, George Bush, is taking a five-week vacation in time of war," Sheehan tells the Veterans For Peace, Mike Ferner. "You get that maniac out here to talk with me in person. Bush needs to tell me why my son died in Iraq. I've got the whole month of August off, and so does he."
"The other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bull*****! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We're not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," she says.
"There, I used the 'I' word -- imperialism," the 48 year-old mother quipped. "And now I'm going to use another 'I' word impeachment because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny . . . you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me for back taxes and we'll put this war on trial."
I'd say my own kids would get spanked for using that kind of language but that would be "a right wing attack statement" based on the Bush White house issued 10 Judgemental attack statements, along with statements like Karl Rove (aka Paul the Apostle)'s press release to the Colossian Christian Right Hate Group to the effect of "But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." (Col. 3:8)
Yeah, right Sakai, this is a mother grieving, it's not political, and no one has a right to render judgment based on her words and actions. Well, if that's the case then I'd better bow out, because frankly I'm disgusted and dispirited. You win Sakai, perhaps you can Ad Hom everyone else out of the discussion too.
- SEAGOON
BTW - My apologies to everyone else about the above, I definitely stayed in this one for too long for any good to come of it.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Uhhhh . . .
Read the news:
Bill O'Reilly says she is guilty of Treason
Michelle Malkin has channeled the dead son to attack her
All this Blogosphere hatred is a simple query?
Oh yeah baby, that's accurate!
Dude, this is the Neocon hate machine in full swing, not someone saying "Gee Cindy, what's your motivation?"
By all means, excuse and pretend what you want, but surely you guys read and know enough to be honest anbout such things?
Let us drop the pretenses, please.
Sakai
Bill O'reilly is a pompous ass, I don’t listen to him. EVER.
I don’t even know who Michelle Malkin is.
I don’t listen to hanity.
All I see is a women protesting on the news and people on THIS bbs wondering why she is doing it.
I don’t see anything un American about normal people asking, I don’t listen to partisan hacks on either side. You should try that. Maybe you wouldn’t sound like you bought Moores BS hook line and sinker.
The only un American behavior I have seen on this thread is you going around and telling everyone you don’t agree with they are un-American sheep, when you sound just as bad or worse.
Calling anyone un-American for using their rights, is by far more un-American then anything else I have seen in this thread.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh, and Sakai is my newest BBS hero.
Thats sad.
He sounds just like towd, but he can spell.
-
O'Reilly DID NOT say Cindy Sheehan was treasonous. The paper that printed that had to print a retraction and an apology. But it makes GREAT fodder for the left, and they make great use of it. Too bad it just isn't true. The reporter who wrote it cannot even quote a source, she "doesn't remember" where she read, saw, or heard it.:rofl
-
Savage
That wont matter to a guy like sakai, he will just pass it off as more neocon lies.
Whats funny is he can't see that he is JUST like what he claims to hate, just the flip side of the coin.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
O'Reilly DID NOT say Cindy Sheehan was treasonous. The paper that printed that had to print a retraction and an apology. But it makes GREAT fodder for the left, and they make great use of it. Too bad it just isn't true. The reporter who wrote it cannot even quote a source, she "doesn't remember" where she read, saw, or heard it.:rofl
Yes, he did:
O’REILLY: I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this, and also for the responsibility of other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq, who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.
Don't play semantics please, you know what he's saying and its a nasty comment.
The bastard.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Savage
That wont matter to a guy like sakai, he will just pass it off as more neocon lies.
Whats funny is he can't see that he is JUST like what he claims to hate, just the flip side of the coin.
Right, answer the question:
George Bush a liar or not?
Sakai
-
yeah probably.
Bush is an ******.
Most politicians are.
Your point?
Now go spew some lefty hatred like you have so far, maybe someday you will figure out both parties are ****. Thats the problem.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Sakai,
I'm going to leave this thread as gracefully as I can,
Then leave, don't play games on the way out. You're gonna leave gracefully by tossing hand grenades?
How christian of you, what discernment you show.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
yeah probably.
Bush is an ******.
Most politicians are.
Your point?
Now go spew some lefty hatred like you have so far, maybe someday you will figure out both parties are ****. Thats the problem.
Well there is the thing about Bush promising to "restore dignity and honor to the white house", to "Clean up Washington" and to "get rid of politics as usual". That was part of his Campaigns.
Yep they both suck. Dems need new leadership/Candidates and Repubs need a new base. :rofl
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I just wonder why it is OK for the entire Congress to come together to help the poor unfortunate Schaivo parents, but it is too much to ask the President to say howdy to this lady?
Oh, and Sakai is my newest BBS hero.
Grandstanding politics. Unfortunetly, too many politicians will do what they feel will get them reelected rather than what is actually the right thing to do. Been that way pretty much throughout history. Pandering to their constituency.
This won't change anytime soon.
No kidding about Sakai, he's spot on. I've thouroughly enjoyed reading his posts in this thread.
-
Dems need new leadership sure, and they need to step back from the far left wackos too. Step back from being anti gun. Americans love guns. Start looking like they care more about people then criminals. AND stop being out to protect us from ourselves.
The reps, well, they need to try and keep the Christians who dont understand state and church dont go together at arms length. They need to get back to responsibility and acountability. Stop spending like drunken sailers...
Bush is a disaster. Not for just them but the whole nation.
Not that he hasnt done a few things right, but so SO much wrong.
We need politicians that care about the people of this nation, not the special interest groups. (and not in a nanny state way, in a freedom way)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Dems need new leadership/Candidates and Repubs need a new base. :rofl
Dems have not had leadership in decades and fewer new ideas than leaders.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Savage
That wont matter to a guy like sakai, he will just pass it off as more neocon lies.
Whats funny is he can't see that he is JUST like what he claims to hate, just the flip side of the coin.
Uhm, where has Sakai shown that?
He's been spot on correct.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
yeah probably.
Bush is an ******.
Most politicians are.
Your point?
The point I made originally:
If a person loses a child to an immoral war based on lies then the actual morality would be stopping that war, protesting it, no?
Why should anymore people die for lies? Why should everyone excuse a liar by attacking anyone who simply dared to ask "why"?
So let's not ask any questions, let's just compound our grief?
Sakai
-
So again she gets to ask questions because you agree with her cause but anyone who questions hers is un american?
ALL I am saying is its not unamerican to question her motives.
They have the right to do that just like she has the right to protest.
You believe in her, you believe bush lied. Other do not believe that, they have the same rights you do and she does.
Thats freedom, sometimes its ugly, but there it is.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Uhm, where has Sakai shown that?
He's been spot on correct.
Saburu
Have you read the thread? He may have some points, but he is damn hostile in making them. Calling people Un-American is pretty over the top in my opinion.
Or maybe its just me if you and MT both don't see it.
-
He's been calling some on their statements. When some of you have tried to go off course, he's steered it back to the original discussion.
What he hasn't done is follow the right wing hate machine and started with irrelevent smear tactics.
I have yet to see anyone refute his argument. He's done quite well in handeling himself here.
If you want to keep this in context, we can go post by post and point out to each other whether he has or not.
You can start with the first one and I'll follow. Refute what he said as you haven't yet. No one has.
BTW, try not to classify him as a left wing Democratic supporter. Try not to box him in as my take on it is he's not. He just hates the right wing hate element of the Republican party.
Edit... How has he been hostile? Don't tell me your sensitivity just went up a notch. He's been responding in kind. Go reread his posts you feel were hostile and look at what he was responding to.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Sakai, I demand that you change your name immediately. You cannot festoon yourself with the appearance of clear-eyed perception by putting on a name as though it were a jacket.
This has been my handle since flying in Air Warrior on AOL.
Sakai
-
I will go back and read them.
I am man enough to admit when I am wrong.
The only point I have pushed is everyone has a right to spout their views. Ugly views or not.
I dont think I ever said or meant to say he was "wrong" just that what he was doing isn't that far from what they are... and that using ones rights is not un-American, nasty and unclassy sure but not Un-American.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Saburu
Have you read the thread? He may have some points, but he is damn hostile in making them. Calling people Un-American is pretty over the top in my opinion.
If that's over the top then you certainly have written your president, senators and congressmen to demand a cessation of such tactics in politics by the GOP?
Good for you.
The point being: liberty is a trait that Americans espouse a belief in, ostensibly. As is our constitutional right to redress, speech, and a resistance to tyrannical rule.
Following that line of thinking, attacking anyone who exercises their rights simply to support someone acknowledged as a liar to maintain thier abusive power is unamerican.
It isn't over the top, it is what it is.
In fact, whining about me saying it's unamerican is unamerican. Leave my nation, you don't deserve to be american.
Have I made the point yet?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
If that's over the top then you certainly have written your president, senators and congressmen to demand a cessation of such tactics in politics by the GOP?
Good for you.
The point being: liberty is a trait that Americans espouse a belief in, ostensibly. As is our constitutional right to redress, speech, and a resistance to tyrannical rule.
Following that line of thinking, attacking anyone who exercises their rights simply to support someone acknowledged as a liar to maintain thier abusive power is unamerican.
It isn't over the top, it is what it is.
In fact, whining about me saying it's unamerican is unamerican. Leave my nation, you don't deserve to be american.
Have I made the point yet?
Sakai
Saburo
You dont find this rude?
-
System issues repost.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
If that's over the top then you certainly have written your president, senators and congressmen to demand a cessation of such tactics in politics by the GOP?
Good for you.
The point being: liberty is a trait that Americans espouse a belief in, ostensibly. As is our constitutional right to redress, speech, and a resistance to tyrannical rule.
Following that line of thinking, attacking anyone who exercises their rights simply to support someone acknowledged as a liar to maintain thier abusive power is unamerican.
It isn't over the top, it is what it is.
In fact, whining about me saying it's unamerican is unamerican. Leave my nation, you don't deserve to be american.
Have I made the point yet?
Sakai
Your still missing the point, they are no less American then you because they dont think like you. Thats the point.
it is my nation, and their nation too. I have every right to any opinion I want.
Nice to see you want people you don't agree with to leave though.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So again she gets to ask questions because you agree with her cause but anyone who questions hers is un american?
Do I really believe in her cause? I believe she has the right to do what she is doing, nothing more. Reread my post(s).
Originally posted by GtoRA2
ALL I am saying is its not unamerican to question her motives.
C'mon dude, why is it even necessary for anyone to question her"motives"?
It has been more than simple questioning. It has been a public character assassination. Politically motivated by the Right.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They have the right to do that just like she has the right to protest.
Because one has the "right" doesn't mean it has to be acted upon. The decent thing is to just let it die. Mudslinging and trying to have her fit into a nice labeled box isn't a good thing in my book. We need not be that sensitive that we have to label everything we disagree with.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You believe in her, you believe bush lied. Other do not believe that, they have the same rights you do and she does.
I belive the Bush Administration lied. I've believed that from the beginning. I believe she is a parent in the anger stage trying to still cope with her loss, trying to find her answers.
Does she have the right to camp out and request her second meeting? Sure, doesn't mean she'll get it.
The President will meet her if his advisors feel it won't hurt him politically.
Right now, there is nothing he can say that will make him look good to her pointed, direct questions.
His advisors have directed the President to stay low key on this subject, as he should. His position is not defendable from that situation.
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Thats freedom, sometimes its ugly, but there it is.
Sure it is. but the choice on how ugly it gets is up to us as individuals, isn't it?
If you want to pat yourself on the back and say it's okay to drag that lady through the mud, by all means pat away.
Bottom line is, she has every right to do what she's doing. We don't have to agree with her, but we also don't need to exercise some character assassination as well.
It's all about the choices we make and the things we do.