Author Topic: Just Talk to Her Already  (Read 3690 times)

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2005, 03:31:31 PM »
Quote
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:

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2005, 03:35:32 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2005, 03:39:30 PM »
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.

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #108 on: August 16, 2005, 03:57:29 PM »
Quote
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
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #109 on: August 16, 2005, 04:07:43 PM »
Quote
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:

Quote
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
« Last Edit: August 16, 2005, 04:13:09 PM by Charon »

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #110 on: August 16, 2005, 04:14:49 PM »
Sakai,

A reoccuring theme in your posts deserves a response:

Quote
Originally posted by Sakai
You are judging her, might gander into that bible of yours to see what Christ said about that.


&

Quote
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
« Last Edit: August 16, 2005, 05:01:28 PM by Seagoon »
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #111 on: August 16, 2005, 06:14:55 PM »
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

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #112 on: August 16, 2005, 06:18:12 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2005, 06:26:40 PM »
"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



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.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2005, 06:28:43 PM »
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?
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2005, 06:31:07 PM »
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.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Wolf14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2005, 06:50:46 PM »
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.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2005, 06:52:09 PM »
LOL
Eagl, all I said is if he DID break a law he would get charged.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2005, 07:44:01 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Just Talk to Her Already
« Reply #119 on: August 16, 2005, 07:46:34 PM »
Quote
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: