Cindy Sheehan: will self-denegrate for coverage

[Jocko]

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.

Huh? You're making no sense.

If you look back, we were not discussing merits of one's rhetoric. You said she was "no worse" than Coulter, not that "her arguments have no more merit than Coulter's." Again, I will quote you back:

She's nutty...and yet no worse than Ann Coulter, et. al. who don't even have the excuse of having lost a son. Odd that you keep pointing only at her...

No mention of the criteria you now conveniently choose to apply after the fact, is there?

That's why I tried to draw a common line between the two - you know, to make your point even remotely relevant - by asking if Coulter would be worse if she accepted money from a hostile regime. This you have again dodged, in yet another display of rank dishonesty. You can choose to be insulted if you like, but it's a demonstrable fact independent of your easily-bruised feelings.

 

[DavidJames]

I disagree. I find Ms. Sheehan's conduct reprehensible but I don't think she should go to jail for it.

I wasn't referring to the legality. I was referring to any Quid pro quo expectations.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

It would be helpful if you actually responded. I'll break it down into simple sentences.

1. Can you provide evidence of the agreement Sheehan had with Chavez regarding the content of her message?

2. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?

 

[Jocko]

It would be helpful if you actually responded. I'll break it down into simple sentences.

1. Can you provide evidence of the agreement Sheehan had with Chavez regarding the content of her message?

2. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?

It's truly hilarious.

1. I didn't say there was an agreement. I said she was de facto in their employ. If I show you your W2 and it has your employer's name on it, what does that show you?

2. While demanding evidence to prove something I never said, you summarily condemn every congressman Abrahmoff has ever dealt with without the benefit of an actual investigation's findings or anything. Not that I disagree with you, but I'm not calling for Sheehan to be convicted of anything. See, I'd need an actual investigation to do that.

 

[Jocko]

I wasn't referring to the legality. I was referring to any Quid pro quo expectations.

Problem is, no one else is referring to quid pro quo expectations. All I said is she was taking money from a hostile regime, not that she was their spokeperson. That's why your comparison to Abramoff makes as little sense as Mark's comparisons to Coulter.

A better comparison would be Al Gore and the Chinese, but then I wouldn't want to be accused of being partisan or anything scary like that.

 

[DavidJames]

1. I didn't say there was an agreement. I said she was de facto in their employ. If I show you your W2 and it has your employer's name on it, what does that show you?

Fair enough, I retract any suggestion you I made that you thought there was any agreement. Now I need to ask, then so what, what's your point?

2. While demanding evidence to prove something I never said, you summarily condemn every congressman Abrahmoff

Here is the entirety of my quote regarding Abrahmoff. Please tell me exactly where I condemned anyone.

2. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?

 

[Mark]

Problem is, no one else is referring to quid pro quo expectations. All I said is she was taking money from a hostile regime, not that she was their spokeperson. That's why your comparison to Abramoff makes as little sense as Mark's comparisons to Coulter.

A better comparison would be Al Gore and the Chinese, but then I wouldn't want to be accused of being partisan or anything scary like that.

Or Ronald Reagan and the Iranians...

 

[Jocko]

Or Ronald Reagan and the Iranians...

But of course, an "independent thinker" like you would go for the more contemporary example, especially since it involves a pol who's still alive and still grabbing every camera he can find.... right?

Of course, I'd be satisfied if you just answered the question on Sheehan/Coulter, but then I'm a chronic optimist that way.

 

[Mark]

But of course, an "independent thinker" like you would go for the more contemporary example, especially since it involves a pol who's still alive and still grabbing every camera he can find.... right?

Of course, I'd be satisfied if you just answered the question on Sheehan/Coulter, but then I'm a chronic optimist that way.

Gore and China was a "contemporary" example? So where is the magic temporal line? Oh, I know...it stops when it is a Republican in office. You crack me up.

 

[Jocko]

Gore and China was a "contemporary" example? So where is the magic temporal line? Oh, I know...it stops when it is a Republican in office. You crack me up.

Actually, you may have missed it, but I clearly drew the line with "alive" and "in the camera." Don't blame me for your illiteracy; blame public schools.

Oh, and as expected, you have "ducked" the question for the umpteenth time. Why not change your avatar to Daffy as "Duck Dodgers"? That would be more appropriate.

 

[Jocko]

Here you go, no charge.

 

[Mark]

Actually, you may have missed it, but I clearly drew the line with "alive" and "in the camera." Don't blame me for your illiteracy; blame public schools.

Oh, and as expected, you have "ducked" the question for the umpteenth time. Why not change your avatar to Daffy as "Duck Dodgers"? That would be more appropriate.

Pardon me for ignoring your latest "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

So...we can bring up 10 year old issues if the person is still alive, and a Democrat, and it makes him/her look bad. Anything else is out of bounds. Got it.

I like you; you say funny things.

 

[Jocko]

Pardon me for ignoring your latest "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

So...we can bring up 10 year old issues if the person is still alive, and a Democrat, and it makes him/her look bad. Anything else is out of bounds. Got it.

I like you; you say funny things.

Amazing, you deflect and dodge from your ill-advised premise and still you think you've scored some kind of point. 'Fraid that's not how it works, except in that bizarre world inhabited by you and people like Claus.

You don't say why you prefer one example over the other. I have explained why I think one is more relevant; you have yet to return the courtesy.

You claim to be a moderate, yet you'd rather eat a turd than criticize a democrat with anything more than a passing mention. In fact, you once told me that you believe the entire Supreme Court was conservative! And you expect me to acquiesce to such bizarre, blatantly dishonest viewpoint? Think again, Mark.

For the record, I don't think you're a liar. I think you're a rabid, hysterical extremist who's had a little too much kool-aid and isn't thinking straight as a result. If you want to change that perception, you can begin by addressing the question that I've put to you no fewer than 5 times already.

 

[DavidJames]

Speaking of answering questions.

Originally Posted by Jocko :
2. While demanding evidence to prove something I never said, you summarily condemn every congressman Abrahmoff

Here is the entirety of my quote regarding Abrahmoff. Please tell me exactly where I condemned anyone.

Originally Posted by DavidJames :
2. I view this financial relationship not unlike our friend Jack Abramoff's financial relationships with some of our elected officials, would you agree?

 

[Jocko]

Speaking of answering questions.



Here is the entirety of my quote regarding Abrahmoff. Please tell me exactly where I condemned anyone.

Point taken. I made the same mistake you did, reading between the lines too intently.

In response to your actual question, no, I don't think it's the same, because:

1. Abramoff is an American, representing (native) Americans.
2. Sheehan was bankrolled by the another country, one antithetical to American interests.

Now, just saying it's not the same thing is not the same as excusing a guilty party in either case - it's just not a comparable situation. That's why I proffered the Gore/China connection, as it does involve sponsorship by another country that works against American interests in many ways. That's something I hope you understand, and if so, you're welcome to try explaining it to Mark before he swallows his tongue in his indignation.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

I can't imagine anything more off-topic than this. What were you thinking?

 

[DavidJames]

Point taken. I made the same mistake you did, reading between the lines too intently.

Thanks, admitting mistakes is not very helpful to me if I'm going to try and demonize you.

In response to your actual question, no, I don't think it's the same, because:

1. Abramoff is an American, representing (native) Americans.
2. Sheehan was bankrolled by the another country, one antithetical to American interests.

Now, just saying it's not the same thing is not the same as excusing a guilty party in either case - it's just not a comparable situation.

I guess it depends on how precise a comparison one wants to make. Here is my take.

Abramoff is paying (or rewarding) (IMO) elected officials for their support.
Venezuela paid Sheehan to come to their country (IMO) for her support.

In that case, it's, to me anyway, pretty much the same thing.

I'm not getting into what they were supporting (native American's vs. foreign policy). I agree those are different (duh). Nor am I addressing which one is legal, which leads me to...

As far as working against American's interests. I happen to think Abramoff's efforts were more damaging. I'll let the result of the legal proceeding speak for me.

 

[Jocko]

Thanks, admitting mistakes is not very helpful to me if I'm going to try and demonize you. I guess it depends on how precise a comparison one wants to make. Here is my take.

Abramoff is paying (or rewarding) (IMO) elected officials for their support.
Venezuela paid Sheehan to come to their country (IMO) for her support.

In that case, it's, to me anyway, pretty much the same thing.

I'm not getting into what they were supporting (native American's vs. foreign policy). I agree those are different (duh). Nor am I addressing which one is legal, which leads me to...

As far as working against American's interests. I happen to think Abramoff's efforts were more damaging. I'll let the result of the legal proceeding speak for me.

Fair enough, but I'm willing to cut pretty much any homegrown PAC more slack than I would give Hugo Chavez when it comes to the deisred outcomes of their sponsorship. I can understand profit motive, even if I don't agree with it; I can't make heads or tails of Chavez but I'm pretty sure whatever it is his government is up to is probably not good for the US.

As to the Abramoff scandal, I agree that anyone, regardless of party, who sold votes should be pulled from office and jailed as long as possible.

 

[Mark]

Amazing, you deflect and dodge from your ill-advised premise and still you think you've scored some kind of point. 'Fraid that's not how it works, except in that bizarre world inhabited by you and people like Claus.

You don't say why you prefer one example over the other. I have explained why I think one is more relevant; you have yet to return the courtesy.

Since I specifically didn't say I prefer one over the other (that was my whole point) your comment is nonsensical. Big surprise.

You claim to be a moderate, yet you'd rather eat a turd than criticize a democrat with anything more than a passing mention. In fact, you once told me that you believe the entire Supreme Court was conservative! And you expect me to acquiesce to such bizarre, blatantly dishonest viewpoint? Think again, Mark.

Taking me out of context proves nothing (I'll ignore the disgusting metaphor). In the sense that there are no true radicals on the Supreme Court (yet), then, yes, I consider them all to be conservative. Sorry the distinction was too subtle for you: is English your second language? I'll make allowances if it is.

Also, in the past I have been asked (by Grammatron, among others) to post a list of complaints I have against the Democrats...and I have done so several times, a fairly lengthy list. I admit I am tired of answering that particular question; how many times do I have to jump through that hoop?

For the record, I don't think you're a liar. I think you're a rabid, hysterical extremist who's had a little too much kool-aid and isn't thinking straight as a result. If you want to change that perception, you can begin by addressing the question that I've put to you no fewer than 5 times already.

I just responded to every point. if you have another, ask it and---provided you leave out the personal insults---I'll answer it. Your evaluation of my political position is of no interest to me.

 

[Jocko]

Since I specifically didn't say I prefer one over the other (that was my whole point) your comment is nonsensical. Big surprise.


Taking me out of context proves nothing (I'll ignore the disgusting metaphor). In the sense that there are no true radicals on the Supreme Court (yet), then, yes, I consider them all to be conservative. Sorry the distinction was too subtle for you: is English your second language? I'll make allowances if it is.

Also, in the past I have been asked (by Grammatron, among others) to post a list of complaints I have against the Democrats...and I have done so several times, a fairly lengthy list. I admit I am tired of answering that particular question; how many times do I have to jump through that hoop?



I just responded to every point. if you have another, ask it and---provided you leave out the personal insults---I'll answer it. Your evaluation of my political position is of no interest to me.

Wow, four paragraphs and no answer. A liberal response if ever I've seen one.

No one asked which you "prefer." You offered - and here it is AGAIN in its full context:

She's nutty...and yet no worse than Ann Coulter, et. al. who don't even have the excuse of having lost a son. Odd that you keep pointing only at her...

The operative verb clause, Mark, Mr. "suggest Jocko is the one with English problems," is the term "is no worse than."

So again, I ask you, in paroxysms of irrational hope, what makes you equate a loudmouthed b!tch like Coulter with a loudmouthed b!tch like Sheehan, in light of the fact only one of them is being funded by a hostile government?

Please leave your too-easily bruised feelings at the door and answer a straight damned question with a straight damned answer, if you can muster the marbles. This fillibuster crap is getting old.