Cindy Approaches the Twoof

[pomeroo]

[=boloboffin;2396515]Whee... pomeroo posted a link and worded it to yank Perry's chain. Yay! Perry yanked back!

Now pomeroo gets to be all high and mighty about Perry being leftwing and Whiplash gets to pile on.

This wasn't about CT or even politics - this is a grudge match.

How can it be a "match"? Perry doesn't respond; he is a hit-and-run artist. How many times should I post the same questions before we conclude that he has nothing to say?

 

[pomeroo]

[=greyleonard;2396730]pomeroo, is this the thread to gather examples of insane right-wing and libertarian Inside Job Cultists, or should there be a particular thread for each political category?

Greyleonard, I've never denied the existence of far-right conspiracy loons. As I mentioned in another post, I came to debunking 9/11 woo through a libertarian discussion forum. Perhaps living in New York City and hearing so many people denounce Bush for, well, everything colors my opinion of the fantasy movement. Many leftists I know buy into the conspiracy madness. I feel that they are not devoid of critical thinking skills (actually, some of them are), but suffer from what Charles Krauthammer calls "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Perry Logan is conspicuous for his uninformed irrationality about all things relating to George Bush, and yet he claims not to swallow the conspiracy snake oil.

You do approach a nagging issue, though. At DU, I've been accused of being a right-wing shill / republican troll in disguise, and its always only been an accusation meant as an insult leveled by a few of the most woo-laden and dishonest lefties. (astrologers and 9/11 CTists) Iow, they seem to have the idea that the litmus test for being a true progressive is profession of faith to the Inside Job Cult. We both know they're deranged, but I'm curious if you think right-wing Inside Job Cultists use the same tactic against their respective debunkers.

I think you see the problem. It's easier for me to defend George Bush against preposterous allegations that he conspired to attack American institutions for no other motive than to line the pockets of Dick Cheney's cronies than it is for, say, a liberal like Mark Roberts who has no great regard for either Bush or Cheney. After all, I voted for the guy I'm defending. To answer your question, yes, I was accused of being a socialist by an anarcho-libertarian who believes that FDR was a communist and accepts uncritically EVERY aspect of the conspiracist lunacy. I should mention that I have long suspected that this particular psycho was some sort of mole. He had nothing but kind words for Marxist outfits such as A.N.S.W.E.R and NION. Were it up to him, libertarians would march lockstep with far-left totalitarians who would liquidate them or pack them off into re-education camps upon the success of the glorious revolution.

 

[~enigma~]

We will never know what you are.

Yes we will. Some of us already do.

You have such a big smoke screen

Nah, they are transparent and it is done with mirrors. Kind of like a magician misdirects his audience.

we will never know if you are a truthful fact filled 9/11 smart guy, or a giant CTer with lots of lies.

It is the latter of the two possibilities.

 

[Pardalis]

It is the latter of the two possibilities.

Huh?

 

[greyleonard]

...I was accused of being a socialist by an anarcho-libertarian...

Hah! Oh, man.
Vilifying ones opponent is one of the first tactics CTists use when they know their evidence and logic is unconvincing. It's a way for them to blame the debunker for not believing their BS.

 

[William Rea]

We will never know what you are. You have such a big smoke screen we will never know if you are a truthful fact filled 9/11 smart guy, or a giant CTer with lots of lies. The smoke screen is your talk. If you do not like the "lies" etc comments, then please bring up some faxts that support the 9/11 truth movement.

I can help you; there are only .00067 percent of all US engineers in the truth movement. You could check this fact and may be correct me.

But I expect a giant smoke screen to continue.

Still what could Cindy do to help the truth movement - she could provide facts, but she will not.

The smoke screen is made by you, not me.

It is a product of your insecurity because you don't know if I'm a "Twoofer" or not, so in the absence of certainty you react in an instinctivley human way by irrational attack. Don't worry you're not alone, there are far worse on here.

I have repeated my clear and unambiguous position several times on the CT forum.

 

[William Rea]

Hah! Oh, man.
Vilifying ones opponent is one of the first tactics CTists use when they know their evidence and logic is unconvincing. It's a way for them to blame the debunker for not believing their BS.

Pot, kettle and black comes to mind here.

 

[Without Rights]

"Pearl Harbour"

Oh boy - another twoofer who can't comprehend basic English.

I've yet to see this "we need a new Pearl Harbour" quote.

I believe it is in reference to this;

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

As found in PNAC's Rebuilding Americas Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[Without Rights]

You are not fit to lick Cindy Sheehan's boots.

I agree, regardless of her position on things like 911 or whatever, she does alot for the anti-war movement and is the mother of a dead soldier and she deserves our respect.

 

[William Rea]

I believe it is in reference to this;

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

As found in PNAC's Rebuilding Americas Defenses
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Everyone knows that PNAC is woo, even though Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld signed up to it in 1997.

It still makes me laugh when I think of how Francis Fukuyama (the intellectual power house of neo-conservatism) dropped it like a hot brick recently when he saw how badly Iraq was going.

 

[Arus808]

as with many people. she deserves the respect as being a mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty.

and that's it.

anything else she does , which is CASHING in on the fact that she is the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty, to further her own causes, no she doesn't deserve respect on that aspect. I dont care if she anti-war or hates the bush administration for the war with iraq, that is her beliefs. not the belief of her son.


ETA: and to add, YES, i had two people close to me die who were serving in iraq; one was the brother of a good friend of mines and fellow classmate, and the other was a college classmate. None of their families are blaming Bush or cashing in on their children's good name.

 

[William Rea]

as with many people. she deserves the respect as being a mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty.

and that's it.

anything else she does , which is CASHING in on the fact that she is the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty, to further her own causes, no she doesn't deserve respect on that aspect. I dont care if she anti-war or hates the bush administration for the war with iraq, that is her beliefs. not the belief of her son.

Just for clarification, if she was using the death of her son to be active in favour of the war you would have a problem with that as well?

How do you know what her son believed?

 

[Arus808]

Just for clarification, if she was using the death of her son to be active in favour of the war you would have a problem with that as well?

Doesn't matter. she's using the death of her son to further/support her beliefs.

How do you know what her son believed?

if he didn't want to go to war or fight in a war he didn't believe in, he could have done the same as 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. He may be court martialed, put into jail, but hey, at least he would be making his stance and beliefs known.

 

[William Rea]

Doesn't matter. she's using the death of her son to further/support her beliefs.

if he didn't want to go to war or fight in a war he didn't believe in, he could have done the same as 1st Lt. Ehren Watada. He may be court martialed, put into jail, but hey, at least he would be making his stance and beliefs known.

So, just to be sure, if she was using the death of her son to be active in favour of the war you would have a problem with that as well?

Speculation, you have no idea what her son believed. I suggest that as a Mother she probably has a far better idea than you ever will.

 

[Arus808]

So, just to be sure, if she was using the death of her son to be active in favour of the war you would have a problem with that as well?

Guess you have reading comprehension : do you understand what "Doesn't matter" means? Guess not

For the war or against it; she's using her son's death for her own gain.

Speculation, you have no idea what her son believed.

neither do you. neither does Cindy Sheehan. To presume that she knows what her son believed or not believed, is wrong at best. Unless her son can speak from the grave; and MY guess for him is, like any other soldier, he went to war because he believed in the protection of this country, and that is the reason why he joined in the first place.

I suggest that as a Mother she probably has a far better idea than you ever will.

Sorry, but its often that parents barely know what their sons/daughters truly believe or even feel about anything that is political in nature. My parents never ask me how I feel about the war, or my political beliefs or even my religious beliefs.

 

[William Rea]

Guess you have reading comprehension : do you understand what "Doesn't matter" means? Guess not
For the war or against it; she's using her son's death for her own gain.
neither do you. neither does Cindy Sheehan. To presume that she knows what her son believed or not believed, is wrong at best. Unless her son can speak from the grave; and MY guess for him is, like any other soldier, he went to war because he believed in the protection of this country, and that is the reason why he joined in the first place.
Sorry, but its often that parents barely know what their sons/daughters truly believe or even feel about anything that is political in nature. My parents never ask me how I feel about the war, or my political beliefs or even my religious beliefs.

I'm not the one speculating about what her son believed though am I. For all either of us knows he was an unwilling combatant. We don't know.

I agree with your comment about alienation from parents but, again, we don't know.

 

[Arus808]

I'm not the one speculating about what her son believed though am I. For all either of us knows he was an unwilling combatant. We don't know.

I agree with your comment about alienation from parents but, again, we don't know.

Yes, and that is the ONLY thing that you, I and Cindy Sheehan can do. She lost her son to a war ; her son joined the military knowing full well the consequences of that decision. Instead of using his death to further her interest, she should be using his death as a means to recognize his heroism and his patriotism and his life that he did live.

 

[DavidJames]

Instead of using his death to further her interest, she should be using his death as a means to recognize his heroism and his patriotism and his life that he did live.

How generous of you to tell a mother how she should react to her sons death and how she should act on her thoughts.

 

[William Rea]

Yes, and that is the ONLY thing that you, I and Cindy Sheehan can do. She lost her son to a war ; her son joined the military knowing full well the consequences of that decision. Instead of using his death to further her interest, she should be using his death as a means to recognize his heroism and his patriotism and his life that he did live.

No, Cindy Sheehan had a direct relationship with her son, so she does not fall into the same category as you and me. If the relationship was flawed, we have no idea, she does and she is doing as her conscience guides her with the direct knowledge she has.

What does recognising his heroism and patriotism mean to you? Do you mean she should allow or use his death to support the war? How is that any different to using his death against it?

How do you know she is not fiercely proud of him?

 

[William Rea]

How generous of you to tell a mother how she should react to her sons death and how she should act on her thoughts.

Exactly.