Cindy Sheehan: will self-denegrate for coverage

[Mycroft]

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?

Guess who this is kissing Hugo Chavez?

 

[Mycroft]

Er, this photo:

 

[Jocko]

Er, this photo:

Well, how do you like that? Look who she's willing to lie with if it'll feed her delusions... the new Castro. Ain't motherhood swell?

I predict Mark's response will be to repost a thirty-year old picture of Rumsfeld meeting Hussein... because it's about as topical and contemporary as anything else he's had to offer. That, and actually addressing the issue is just a tad bit too sticky.

 

[Mark]

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:



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.

I did answer your question---at length--in this very thread! It is not my fault if you can't read. It's also not surprising.

I realize that your position is shaky at best---and therefore you have to rely on childish insults---but, really, continually asking me to answer a question I already answered fully just makes you look, well, stupid.

Perhaps you could re-read what I posted and get a friend to help you with any big words.

 

[Elind]

However, grief, especially the loss of a child, can trigger terrible reactions, including escapes from reality. I think Ms. Sheehan is more to be pitied than censured.

I have some doubts about what her political position was to begin with. I don't think she is grieving, I think she is loving the attention.

 

[Jocko]

I did answer your question---at length--in this very thread! It is not my fault if you can't read. It's also not surprising.

I realize that your position is shaky at best---and therefore you have to rely on childish insults---but, really, continually asking me to answer a question I already answered fully just makes you look, well, stupid.

Perhaps you could re-read what I posted and get a friend to help you with any big words.

Sorry, Mark, are you sure that you didn't just explain in your mind? You know, there's a lot of whacky stuff going on in there I'm not privvy to. Perhaps you could humor a dummy like me by paraphrasing or quoting your answer.

How can you equate these two politically when only one accepts money from a hostile government to issue her message?

 

[Mark]

Sorry, Mark, are you sure that you didn't just explain in your mind? You know, there's a lot of whacky stuff going on in there I'm not privvy to. Perhaps you could humor a dummy like me by paraphrasing or quoting your answer.

How can you equate these two politically when only one accepts money from a hostile government to issue her message?

See post #29.

 

[DavidJames]

How can you equate these two politically when only one accepts money from a hostile government to issue her message?

I explained why I felt the comparison is valid. No, it's not a 100% perfect comparison. Only you seem to be holding the source of the funding as a reason for you to complain.

You think it should be an issue, why? What laws have been broken? Explain why anyone should care?

 

[Jocko]

I explained why I felt the comparison is valid. No, it's not a 100% perfect comparison. Only you seem to be holding the source of the funding as a reason for you to complain.

Sheesh. The OP made the "reason" plain; since I started the bloody thread, don't you think I'm entitled?

You think it should be an issue, why? What laws have been broken? Explain why anyone should care?

Can you declare exactly which laws were broken the Abrahmoff scandal? No? Neither can I; it hasn't been determined. They haven't even released the list of charges yet or who they're against vis a vis your comparison to targeted officials. Yet you felt it was appropriate to introduce the comparison; that's your prerogative and I feel I've answered it.

Mark, however, made a typically hysterical knee-jerk tu quoque argument with a comparison to Ann Coulter. I examined his comparison and found it wanting; i.e., his blithe dismissal of the issue rather than answering it.

Here's Mark's insight, from his own precious post #29:

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

Dodging and weaving as usual. Anything, ANYTHING than admit that maybe a critic of Bush may be a raving lunatic and a traitor, not because she's criticizing Bushitlerhalliburton, but because she a raving lunatic and a traitor in her own right.

Actually, I think I just answered my own question about why Mark holds her so completely blameless.

 

[Jocko]

See post #29.

See my response above, then try and work out a better answer than "it's a different issue."

 

[DavidJames]

Sheesh. The OP made the "reason" plain; since I started the bloody thread, don't you think I'm entitled?

Of course you're entitled, I'm just asking so what? You think it's a big deal, I'm just asking why?

Can you declare exactly which laws were broken the Abrahmoff scandal? No? Neither can I; it hasn't been determined. They haven't even released the list of charges yet or who they're against vis a vis your comparison to targeted officials. Yet you felt it was appropriate to introduce the comparison; that's your prerogative and I feel I've answered it.

I clearly explained why I introduced it and I've asked multiple time now why you consider it signficant.

Mark, however, made a typically hysterical knee-jerk tu quoque argument with a comparison to Ann Coulter.

this comment does nothing to further the discussion, in fact it, IMO, say more about you then Mark.

I examined his comparison and found it wanting;

do you mean this, which includes the other quote of his.:

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.

You find it "wanting", fair enough, but he's answered your question, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean he hasn't answered.

Dodging and weaving as usual. Anything, ANYTHING than admit that maybe a critic of Bush may be a raving lunatic and a traitor, not because she's criticizing Bushitlerhalliburton, but because she a raving lunatic and a traitor in her own right.

Actually, I think I just answered my own question about why Mark holds her so completely blameless.

Blameless for what? Mark states his opinion of Sheehan quite clearly and hardly is holding her blameless.

Traitor That charge is every bit as hysterical and knee jerk as anything Mark has said.

 

[Jocko]

Never mind, Mark, looks like Cindy might actually start answering the camera instead of preaching at it all the time.... when she challenges Dianne Feinstein for her senate seat:

She said she would decide whether to run after talking with her three other adult children. The Democratic primary will be held in June, and candidates must submit their statements for the voter guide by Feb. 14.

Yeah, wouldn't want to do anything to embarrass one's family, would we?

By the way, note the dateline on the article. Quite humorous.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1553463&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

[Jocko]

Traitor That charge is every bit as hysterical and knee jerk as anything Mark has said.

Separate issue.

Oooooh, I like that one!

 

[Mark]

Sheesh. The OP made the "reason" plain; since I started the bloody thread, don't you think I'm entitled?



Can you declare exactly which laws were broken the Abrahmoff scandal? No? Neither can I; it hasn't been determined. They haven't even released the list of charges yet or who they're against vis a vis your comparison to targeted officials. Yet you felt it was appropriate to introduce the comparison; that's your prerogative and I feel I've answered it.

Mark, however, made a typically hysterical knee-jerk tu quoque argument with a comparison to Ann Coulter. I examined his comparison and found it wanting; i.e., his blithe dismissal of the issue rather than answering it.

Here's Mark's insight, from his own precious post #29:



Dodging and weaving as usual. Anything, ANYTHING than admit that maybe a critic of Bush may be a raving lunatic and a traitor, not because she's criticizing Bushitlerhalliburton, but because she a raving lunatic and a traitor in her own right.

Actually, I think I just answered my own question about why Mark holds her so completely blameless.

I already said Cindy was engaging in emotional rehtoric, devoid of content. Why do you keep ignoring that? But, seriously...now she's a TRAITOR?!?!?!?!

Please tell me what U.S. law she has violated to lead you that that hysterical conclusion. Or is it now an act of treason merely to speak opinions with which you (and I) disagree?

The scary thing here is that there are lots and lots of conservatives (like you) who think exactly that...but I guess it's OK, you all being on a mission from God and all that.

 

[Elind]

I already said Cindy was engaging in emotional rehtoric, devoid of content. Why do you keep ignoring that? But, seriously...now she's a TRAITOR?!?!?!?!

The word is a stretch under the circumstances, but Chavez certainly considers himself an enemy of the US, not just the present administration, and she is certainly giving him comfort and support in that.

Camping out in Texas is one thing, doing so with Chavez is another.

Legally correct, perhaps not, but as far as where I would spit, close enough.

 

[Jocko]

I already said Cindy was engaging in emotional rehtoric, devoid of content. Why do you keep ignoring that? But, seriously...now she's a TRAITOR?!?!?!?!

Please tell me what U.S. law she has violated to lead you that that hysterical conclusion. Or is it now an act of treason merely to speak opinions with which you (and I) disagree?

The scary thing here is that there are lots and lots of conservatives (like you) who think exactly that...but I guess it's OK, you all being on a mission from God and all that.

"People like you"... "Mission from God"... you really are hysterical. Your world is so full of boogeymen that people like Sheehan look just peachy in comparison. That's your problem Mark, not the world's. Don't conflate the issues that way, it makes you sound silly.

 

[Jocko]

The word is a stretch under the circumstances, but Chavez certainly considers himself an enemy of the US, not just the present administration, and she is certainly giving him comfort and support in that.

Camping out in Texas is one thing, doing so with Chavez is another.

Legally correct, perhaps not, but as far as where I would spit, close enough.

Glad to see SOMEBODY here gets the friggin' point. God knows Mark's never gonna figure that out...

 

[Mark]

"People like you"... "Mission from God"... you really are hysterical. Your world is so full of boogeymen that people like Sheehan look just peachy in comparison. That's your problem Mark, not the world's. Don't conflate the issues that way, it makes you sound silly.

You didn't answer the question.

You accused her of treason. What law did she violate? It's a pretty simply question...especially if you are going to go around screaming "Traitor!" at everyone with whom you disagree.

So answer the question.

 

[DavidJames]

The word is a stretch under the circumstances, but Chavez certainly considers himself an enemy of the US, not just the present administration, and she is certainly giving him comfort and support in that.

Camping out in Texas is one thing, doing so with Chavez is another.

Legally correct, perhaps not, but as far as where I would spit, close enough.

Glad to see SOMEBODY here gets the friggin' point. God knows Mark's never gonna figure that out...

Feel free to apply whatever labels you choose to people with whom you disagree. We are a nation of laws though aren't we? But don't let that stop you.

Reasonable people should be able to differ over political opinions. Too bad some are unable to do so without resorting to hysterical hyperbole like that. I guess it's no surprise why Coulter is so popular. Some of her ideas are will represented here.

 

[Ed]

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.

If they accept money, they are crooked. The vote on any given issue is not relevant.