Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!

Politics is politics, bigotry is bigotry.
When you grow up you might understand that.

edited to add:
You probably do understand quite well what bigotry is, that`s why you chose not to comment on the examples of it in the article I posted but get a dig in at me instead. Not that you are a bigot of course.
 
BTW, Phil Hendrie is not right-wing. He loves to attack religious nuts including abortion protestors. He supports the war but he has taken many opportunities to trash Bush and Republicans.
 
RandFan said:
Well, she's becoming quite the cause célèbre. I'm torn on this one. I champion free speech and protest. Even protest that I disagree with. I want to say "you go girl" but I can't help but think she is being manipulated for political purposes. Yeah, I know, cynical but I don't put it past any group to exploit the emotions of someone that has lost a child to score poltical points.

Still she is an adult and it is her choice. Also, she has a buffer from too harsh criticism due to her situation and she is in a great position to exploit that. It's her right and it is really scoring points at the moment. So, you go Cindy. Enjoy the 15 minutes. I know it will never make up for your loss which is quite real. I say that with all sincerity and I'm very glad that brave young people like your son are willing to volunteer to serve their country.
Click to expand...
My views exactly. She's being preyed on and used by those w/ a poitical agenda who found her at her most vulnerable, and were on her like a pimp on a runaway teen at a bus station. :(
 
demon said:
Politics is politics, bigotry is bigotry.
When you grow up you might understand that.
Click to expand...
Well tell me demon. If the two are so different then please explain it to me? Why is it ok for democraticunderground to call people idiots but its not ok for someone to criticize Cindy?

Is this the difference?

Bigotry = anyone attacking someone who shares my political views.

Politics = anyone attacking someone who doesn't share my political views.
 
WildCat said:
My views exactly. She's being preyed on and used by those w/ a poitical agenda who found her at her most vulnerable, and were on her like a pimp on a runaway teen at a bus station. :(
Click to expand...


I suppose you got this bit of info from the same place that told you about the WMDs and that Iraq was responsible for 911.

I haven't really decided whether what she is doing is of any value
or even remotely realistic.
After all what does she REALLY expect Bush to do?
What exactly does she envision this conversation to go?


But this despicable meme that the republiscums are coming out with is just sick because at the heart of this arguement is the notion that this person is either;

so stupid that she can not have her own feelings and opinions
about the death of her son without some"evil" left wing group telling her

or she is so callous that she sees nothing in her sons death except a political opportunity to exploit.


Oh and this is from people who take every opportunity to tell us how not supporting the troops causes terrorism and then
call those who served but have a differing political view
deskpukes - ala rush the junky. Still have not uparmed most of the vehicles, - the 15 from OH died in an amphibious vehicle in the dessert and have manages to cut strip or otherwise destroy a vast percentage of VA services in about 3 years.
 
Magyar said:
so stupid that she can not have her own feelings and opinions
about the death of her son without some"evil" left wing group telling her

or she is so callous that she sees nothing in her sons death except a political opportunity to exploit.
Click to expand...
I think this is a false dillema. I think she can have her own feelings and also be pressured to engage in this behavior out of a sense of giving meaning to that which at present has no meaning to her.

I don't know.
 
Regarding the Bush refusal to meet with Cindy a second time - what if a few more mothers that lost their sons (or wives with dead husbands or husbands with dead wives) show up at the ranch and significantly expand the anti-war protest (I'm not counting the liberal hanger on types that are showing up)? If so, this could really start to snowball and expand into a serious anti-war movement. Possibly more grieving spouses have shown up and we (the public) just haven't heard about it yet.

Possibly Bush should swallow his pride and meet with Cindy and give here a small and possibly meaningless victory and end the "small" protest - instead of risking a larger more meaningfull anti-war effort.
 
joe1347 said:
Regarding the Bush refusal to meet with Cindy a second time - what if a few more mothers that lost their sons (or wives with dead husbands or husbands with dead wives) show up at the ranch and significantly expand the anti-war protest (I'm not counting the liberal hanger on types that are showing up)? If so, this could really start to snowball and expand into a serious anti-war movement. Possibly more grieving spouses have shown up and we (the public) just haven't heard about it yet.

Possibly Bush should swallow his pride and meet with Cindy and give here a small and possibly meaningless victory and end the "small" protest - instead of risking a larger more meaningfull anti-war effort.
Click to expand...
It's all tactics and strategy. You make assumptions about the outcome. How do you know that the end result will be as you suggest?
 
Magyar said:
I suppose you got this bit of info from the same place that told you about the WMDs and that Iraq was responsible for 911.
Click to expand...
You are a liar. Show me where I ever claimed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Also, show the world leaders who claimed, prior to 2003, that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Memes, indeed. :rolleyes:

My opinion was my own, I don't need anyone else to form them for me, nor have I.

You can spread your BS all over the internet if you'd like, but I still won't step in it.

edited for clarification.
 
RandFan said:
It's all tactics and strategy. You make assumptions about the outcome. How do you know that the end result will be as you suggest?
Click to expand...

Agree that I can't predict the outcome, but isn't the alternative worse (i.e, a much larger/serious anti-war movement). Maybe the Bushies are over estimating the ability of their pet attack dogs to discredit Cindy in the short term. A few more grieving Moms will certainly play in the media and god knows there is getting to be alot of them out their now.

Alternatively, flash back to the Clinton years. Didn't some hugs and a few tears work wonders for Clinton's popularity (we'll skip the kisses). Maybe Bush should try it instead of making heartfelt statements - or am I way off-base and a few hugs will make Bush look weak in the eyes of our "enemies".
 
joe1347 said:
Maybe Bush should try it instead of making heartfelt statements - or am I way off-base and a few hugs will make Bush look weak in the eyes of our "enemies".
Click to expand...

So you would be satisfied if President Bush made a statement that acknowledged Ms. Sheenan, agreed with her fundamental right to protest, expressed his remorse at the loss of her son and acknowledged the seriousness of committing troops into battle?
 
Originally posted by daredelvis
On that note one could point out that many readers and contributors of LGF make David Duke look like Mother Teresa. I am sure that there is some overlap in their views (woo wooism to some (ok me)) with yours. Do I have to draw a map?
Click to expand...

Granted, there is woo wooism on the other side of the spectrum as well.

Originally posted by daredelvis
Your attempt to associate Sheehan with Duke is typical of the rights smear campaigns of any one who dares to question our Dear Leader. But, I would say that you have taken it to even a higher level. Bravo!
Click to expand...

It was Duke who attempted to associate Sheehan with Duke, I just happened to bring it here for us all to look at.

I suppose it would suprise you to learn I'm still not a Bush supporter. Never have been.
 
Cylinder said:
So you would be satisfied if President Bush made a statement that acknowledged Ms. Sheenan, agreed with her fundamental right to protest, expressed his remorse at the loss of her son and acknowledged the seriousness of committing troops into battle?
Click to expand...


I think that I see where you're going with this. I guess the issue has somewhat of a slippery slope - as in once Bush opens the door to dissention by talking to Cindy, she can hammer him with questions that he certainly will not answer well or is likely not sharp enough (unlike Clinton) to provide Cindy with feel good answers (or hugs) that will defuse the issue (at least in the short term). On the other hand, what is the message if the Bush's only response to one upset gold star mother is character assasination? Is the situation in Iraq really that bad?
 
joe1347 said:
I think that I see where you're going with this. I guess the issue has somewhat of a slippery slope - as in once Bush opens the door to dissention by talking to Cindy, she can hammer him with questions that he certainly will not answer well or is likely not sharp enough (unlike Clinton) to provide Cindy with feel good answers (or hugs) that will defuse the issue (at least in the short term). On the other hand, what is the message if the Bush's only response to one upset gold star mother is character assasination? Is the situation in Iraq really that bad?
Click to expand...
???? Bush is attacking Cindy's character? Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? Why do you think this lady is going to settle for a hug? What about the situation makes you think feel good answers are going to have any effect at all? This woman has a clear agenda and I don't see any of your suggestions as likely to have any success.
 
"...have manages to cut strip or otherwise destroy a vast percentage of VA services in about 3 years"

Veteran's benefits have been raped for decades, by politicians at many levels, from both parties.

You can't 'destroy' something that was destroyed already.
You can only continue the same pattern.
 
crimresearch said:
"...have manages to cut strip or otherwise destroy a vast percentage of VA services in about 3 years"

Veteran's benefits have been raped for decades, by politicians at many levels, from both parties.

You can't 'destroy' something that was destroyed already.
You can only continue the same pattern.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, Clinton cut all kinds of $ from the military
(though from what I recall, a lorge part of this was on recommendations from people leke Chenney)

But more important - The dems weren't going around calling anyone who criticized the admin for not having enough - troops, up armer and so on - for aiding the terrorists or being against the troops or being anti-american while they stripped bennies from the VA.
 
WildCat said:


My opinion was my own, I don't need anyone else to form them for me, nor have I.

You can spread your BS all over the internet if you'd like, but I still won't step in it.

edited for clarification.
Click to expand...



HOW Halarious! You get indignant when someone makes the suggestion that you might just be buying into the party line, but
you actively do the same to someone who doesn't share your political point of view.

Where is YOUR evidence that Sheehan is being forced, coerced or otherwise controlled by anything OTHER than ?

"My opinion was my own, I don't need anyone else to form them for me, nor have I."



Or do you have the secret tapes provided by the same sources that released her divorce paper :brick:
:bricks: :bricks: :bricks:
 
joe1347 said:
Regarding the Bush refusal to meet with Cindy a second time - what if a few more mothers that lost their sons (or wives with dead husbands or husbands with dead wives) show up at the ranch and significantly expand the anti-war protest (I'm not counting the liberal hanger on types that are showing up)? If so, this could really start to snowball and expand into a serious anti-war movement. Possibly more grieving spouses have shown up and we (the public) just haven't heard about it yet.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure myself. The conservatives spinmesiters do have a quick answer for anything, and the flocks are quick to follow. Last night the local news brought up the whole Sheehan thing and he started ranting and raving about how she was "p-ssing on her son's memory to attack our contry!" "Her son choose to fight for this country, she doesn'thave any say about it." Etc. Etc. Etc. He then went off on a story he saw on the Drudge report claiming that returning soliders would have to go through psychological screenings before they were allowed to return to their home state. (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/08/16/20050816_004401_flash3.htm)

I too would like to see any anti-war movement that cuts across ideological lines. Problem is we won't see that as long as the demagoges get to define the issue in their own narrow ideological terms. In otherwords, anti-war leftists aren't going to convince conservatives, or even moderates, to oppose the war as long as they blame it on capitalism, the military-industrial complex, global warming ;) , etc.

Libertarian cartoonist Peter Bagge makes my point a little better:

http://www.reason.com/0303/bagge.shtml

and here:

http://www.reason.com/0406/bagge.shtml
 
Magyar said:
You're absolutely right, Clinton cut all kinds of $ from the military
(though from what I recall, a lorge part of this was on recommendations from people leke Chenney)

But more important - The dems weren't going around calling anyone who criticized the admin for not having enough - troops, up armer and so on - for aiding the terrorists or being against the troops or being anti-american while they stripped bennies from the VA.
Click to expand...


Al Gore, in his autobiography claims that his most important achievement was to reduce the military by a huge percentage.
Clinton took credit for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', until it was seen as a disaster.

Are The Democrats just mindless puppets of the evil genius Cheney, and helpless to take any actions on their own? Or is it just their screw-ups like the un-tendered Cole that are all the fault of Republicans?


Oh, and BTW....
The military and the veterans are covered by two entirely different agencies, with different budgets, different directors, and different bureaucracies... comparing them is akin to mixing apples and oranges.

All administrations played up the troops and wrapped themselves in the flag as the only 'true patriots', when it served their goals, all the while crapping on the vets.

I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just too cynical to hold a naive, partisan, 'Us=good/Them=bad' view of the way the world works. Evil super villians and noble but outmatched heros are more suited to comic books than political reality.

It seem more likely that all politicians are corrupted by as much power as they can get their hands on....
and they benefit when people like Cindy Sheehan, and David Dukes, et al. chant their agit-prop and rhetoric for them, because that serves to drown out skepticism, and critical analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom