Cindy Sheehan: will self-denegrate for coverage

Jocko said:
Whatever, bedwetter. You're not losing me any sleep. If I was in your position, I would dodge the issue at all costs - and with any excuse necessary, just like you're doing. You're nothing if not predictable.

You can either address your own comparison or get lost. Or take the third option, continue off-topic and pout like a kid denied a second Twinkie. It's your choice.
Click to expand...
I've reported this post - I would like to see the discussion continue but without the personal insults.
 
That just might be the most insulting thing I've ever seen written about Rosa Parks.
 
If you wish to discuss Cindy Sheehan, please continue. If you wish to engage in bickering, the rest of the thread is here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Mark said:
Well done.
Click to expand...

Certainly rescues you from explaining yourself, doesn't it?

You equated a right-wing harpy who's NOT sponsored by an unfriendly government to a left-wing harpy who IS sponsored by an unfriendly government. If you want to stay in this topic, I suggest you address this rather suspicious comparison.
 
manny said:
That just might be the most insulting thing I've ever seen written about Rosa Parks.
Click to expand...

Ditto that. I think Sheehan has more in common with Madonna than she does with Rosa Parks. Lots of people lose sons for what they feel are stupid or unfair reasons. The vast majority deal with dignity. Then you get the whackjobs like Sheehan who whore themselves to any power who opposes her Bush boogeyman.
 
Jocko said:
Certainly rescues you from explaining yourself, doesn't it?

You equated a right-wing harpy who's NOT sponsored by an unfriendly government to a left-wing harpy who IS sponsored by an unfriendly government. If you want to stay in this topic, I suggest you address this rather suspicious comparison.
Click to expand...

Close enough.

Both engage in emotional, extremist rhetoric, largely devoid anything resembling intelligence. No, I do not see a significant difference.

That Cindy (allegedly) received money from an unfriendly government is despicable and idiotic. It is also a separate issue.

That the Republicans spent 44 million dollars in a vain attempt to dig up something on the Clintons (the bj hadn't happened when they started the witch hunt) is also despicable...especially when they now keep chanting that we need to respect the office and the president himself at all times. It is also a separate issue.

Understand?
 
Jocko said:
Certainly rescues you from explaining yourself, doesn't it?

You equated a right-wing harpy who's NOT sponsored by an unfriendly government to a left-wing harpy who IS sponsored by an unfriendly government. If you want to stay in this topic, I suggest you address this rather suspicious comparison.
Click to expand...
In terms of the far out hyperbole used to further their agenda's, I have no problem comparing Sheehan with Coulter. In fact, I think calling Americans who don't support Bush traitors is far worse then expressing admiration for a Chavez's "resolve" against the U.S.

Cindy Sheehan is not on my list of people who I care one wit about their opinions.
 
Jocko said:
So Republicans spending money to push a viewpoint in Washington is bad in your eyes, but a hostile regime spending money to push a viewpoint in Washington is perfectly fine. Only in Cindy's case it's a "separate issue" (you know, like Scott Ritter getting bought off by Saddam's cronies, that kind of "separate issue").

Moral relatavism at its absolute worst. You did not dissapoint.
Click to expand...

Lisa, moving DavidJames' and my response to this post---while leaving the post itself---was unfair at best.
 
Mark said:
Lisa, moving DavidJames' and my response to this post---while leaving the post itself---was unfair at best.
Click to expand...

I left it because it seemed to have something, however vague, to with Cindy Sheehan. However, once I re-read it, I noticed it ended with an insult. So I moved it as well. Please stick to the subject, everyone.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
I left it because it seemed to have something, however vague, to with Cindy Sheehan. However, once I re-read it, I noticed it ended with an insult. So I moved it as well. Please stick to the subject, everyone.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
I will keep moving posts to AAH. Stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Lisa Simpson said:
I will keep moving posts to AAH. Stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Click to expand...

Done!

A) Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter both, IMO engage in emotional rhtoric devoid of much (if any) content.

B) If Cindy Sheehan received money from an unfriendly government (or a friendly one for that matter) I consider it despicable and ill-advised. It also has nothing to do with the relative (de)merits of what she and Ann Coulter spout out.

C) Republicans spent 44 million dollars trying to topple a sitting president who (at the time...this was before the bj lie) had done nothing criminal. What does that say about the relative merits of Ann Coulter's or Cindy Sheehan's messages? Nothing.
 
Mark said:
Done!

A) Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter both, IMO engage in emotional rhtoric devoid of much (if any) content.

B) If Cindy Sheehan received money from an unfriendly government (or a friendly one for that matter) I consider it despicable and ill-advised. It also has nothing to do with the relative (de)merits of what she and Ann Coulter spout out.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with it? The sponsor of a message has nothing to do with the message? Are you certain of this?

Odd, considering you think THIS does matter:

C) Republicans spent 44 million dollars trying to topple a sitting president who (at the time...this was before the bj lie) had done nothing criminal. What does that say about the relative merits of Ann Coulter's or Cindy Sheehan's messages? Nothing.
Click to expand...

You're the one who's always complaining when people bring up Clinton. Now you're doing it yourself. That's hypocritical, Mark. How about actually defending your comparison, i.e., Sheehan is no worse than Coulter? For that to hold, you would have to agree that Coulter would be no worse a person if she DID accept money from hostile regimes. Is that really what you think?
 
Jocko said:
Has nothing to do with it? The sponsor of a message has nothing to do with the message? Are you certain of this?

Odd, considering you think THIS does matter:



You're the one who's always complaining when people bring up Clinton. Now you're doing it yourself. That's hypocritical, Mark. How about actually defending your comparison, i.e., Sheehan is no worse than Coulter? For that to hold, you would have to agree that Coulter would be no worse a person if she DID accept money from hostile regimes. Is that really what you think?
Click to expand...

I specifically said it does NOT matter, Jocko. That was exactly my point...it says NOTHING about the relative merits (or lack of) of each person's rhetoric. Thank you for agreeing.
 
Jocko said:
Has nothing to do with it? The sponsor of a message has nothing to do with the message? Are you certain of this?
Click to expand...
Can you provide evidence of the agreement Sheehan had with Chavez regarding the content of her message. I acknowledge that Venezuela's foreign ministry sponsored her visit. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?
 
DavidJames said:
I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?
Click to expand...
I disagree. I find Ms. Sheehan's conduct reprehensible but I don't think she should go to jail for it.
 
DavidJames said:
Can you provide evidence of the agreement Sheehan had with Chavez regarding the content of her message. I acknowledge that Venezuela's foreign ministry sponsored her visit. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?
Click to expand...

Wow, so in one post you're dismissing one kind of financial influence and assuming another. Truly a remarkable feat. The fact that it involves a glaring non sequitur is the cherry on top.

It can be quite interesting, seeing who gets the benefit of the doubt and who doesn't. Quite interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom