Cindy Sheehan - Camping Out in Crawford
- Thread starter MrBadExample
- Start date
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']>>Now she thinks she deserves special treatment and wants ANOTHER meeting with Bush
Again that was a meeting with many other people. Get it through your damn skull.[/QUOTE]
What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face. She apparently has a following going on where she is, there are apparently other people who feel the same way. I believe she even said she'd like to met with people like her as well. So there'd probably be other people there too anyhow. Having another meeting (yes the 1st one counts) with just her and him would be a rediculous amount of special treatment as well. There's probably less than 2 or 3 dozen people in the entire country who get to meet one on one with the president with nobody else around, no matter the circumstances. Actually that probably goes for most every nation out there.
Again that was a meeting with many other people. Get it through your damn skull.[/QUOTE]
What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face. She apparently has a following going on where she is, there are apparently other people who feel the same way. I believe she even said she'd like to met with people like her as well. So there'd probably be other people there too anyhow. Having another meeting (yes the 1st one counts) with just her and him would be a rediculous amount of special treatment as well. There's probably less than 2 or 3 dozen people in the entire country who get to meet one on one with the president with nobody else around, no matter the circumstances. Actually that probably goes for most every nation out there.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I love how this story has engrossed this board for 5 pages.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love how this story has engrossed this board for 5 pages.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.[/QUOTE]
I think it's as much of a non news story as you do, yet I keep posting here about the non news story, as you do. We're paying attention to the non news story.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.[/QUOTE]
I think it's as much of a non news story as you do, yet I keep posting here about the non news story, as you do. We're paying attention to the non news story.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love how this story has engrossed this board for 5 pages.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.[/QUOTE]
The economy is good? Who are your cohort of friends, oil executives?
The deficit is shrinking? Cute sleight of hand; the projected annual deficit is shrinking; meanwhile, the national debt is *increasing,* and the annual deficit would be higher than projected if Social Security reform went through. B- for effort, I'm afraid.
The "no news" argument is poor, because there is always a deluge of stupid things on the news; drunk girls missing in Aruba, shark attacks, "meth mouth," (though, for me, the jury's still out on that one), the "McDiet," ad infinitum.
If you want to read real news, read real news sources. You know how to tell the difference. Real news presented Richard Myers' arguments that releasing the remainder of the photographs the US had from Abu Ghraib are so scandalous that it will greatly *help* the recruitment efforts of terrorists.
When news disregards a matter such as that for "brad and jen" and other filler, I'm as angry as you are.
Summary: A nut and 100 people sit in a ditch in Texas bitching. Media has nothing to do in a slow news month with Congress out of session, won't report the defecit is shrinking or the economy is very good so they make this an issue.
Idiots on internet think 100 people showing up somewhere is news. It's not.[/QUOTE]
The economy is good? Who are your cohort of friends, oil executives?
The deficit is shrinking? Cute sleight of hand; the projected annual deficit is shrinking; meanwhile, the national debt is *increasing,* and the annual deficit would be higher than projected if Social Security reform went through. B- for effort, I'm afraid.
The "no news" argument is poor, because there is always a deluge of stupid things on the news; drunk girls missing in Aruba, shark attacks, "meth mouth," (though, for me, the jury's still out on that one), the "McDiet," ad infinitum.
If you want to read real news, read real news sources. You know how to tell the difference. Real news presented Richard Myers' arguments that releasing the remainder of the photographs the US had from Abu Ghraib are so scandalous that it will greatly *help* the recruitment efforts of terrorists.
When news disregards a matter such as that for "brad and jen" and other filler, I'm as angry as you are.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face. She apparently has a following going on where she is, there are apparently other people who feel the same way. I believe she even said she'd like to met with people like her as well. So there'd probably be other people there too anyhow. Having another meeting (yes the 1st one counts) with just her and him would be a rediculous amount of special treatment as well. There's probably less than 2 or 3 dozen people in the entire country who get to meet one on one with the president with nobody else around, no matter the circumstances. Actually that probably goes for most every nation out there.[/QUOTE]
How many of your children have died for neocon propaganda and oil?
How many of your children have died for neocon propaganda and oil?
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry champ, Bush didn't send anyone over to be killed. Even if you disagree with the war, you have to at least realize the indisputable fact that the person(s) responsible for his death were the people over there who attacked him and killed him. That question is a fair one, why are we over there, but it's not like Bush sent him on a suicide mission.
.[/QUOTE]
Do you think the piss poor planning, wholesale ignoring of common sense recommendations, lack of amour, mis-handlilng the reconstruction, baiting insurgents with stupid comments, points to any culpability?
I agree the actual murder was an insurgent/ terrorists/ whatever name but I submit that many of Bushes decisions led directly to a much less safe environment for the troops.
Even more puzzling when you consider Bush wanted to make Iraq the most important mission of the 21st century.
.[/QUOTE]
Do you think the piss poor planning, wholesale ignoring of common sense recommendations, lack of amour, mis-handlilng the reconstruction, baiting insurgents with stupid comments, points to any culpability?
I agree the actual murder was an insurgent/ terrorists/ whatever name but I submit that many of Bushes decisions led directly to a much less safe environment for the troops.
Even more puzzling when you consider Bush wanted to make Iraq the most important mission of the 21st century.
>>>What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face.
Because its not like she had him alone for any amount of time.
Even then she did not want to just at him like that, she wants to talk to him alone with the reason for meeting known.
>>(yes the 1st one counts)
No it doesnt.
Because its not like she had him alone for any amount of time.
Even then she did not want to just at him like that, she wants to talk to him alone with the reason for meeting known.
>>(yes the 1st one counts)
No it doesnt.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Someone brought up an interesting point recently, that perhaps this brouhaha is exceptionally sexist. Their rhetorical was "What would the public reaction be if the Sheehan *father* was behaving this way?"
His implication (that only women can be told in this day and age to get out of politics, that women's pleas are taken less seriously by society at large, and in this case Republicans) was obvious. I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Also, I'm still curious if the Republicans can point out a veteran/politician that they have not vilified yet. The reverence for soldiers who agree with you is fine, but coupled with accusations of "resume padding," "not serving," "not bleeding," and the swift boat tactics are appalling. McCain (don't forget the 2000 primaries), Max "Where are my
ing appendages!?!?!" Cleland, John Kerry, Paul Hackett, etc. Why do we try attack the characters of these people rather than argue against their policies?
Yes, Dems, libs, and all of us certainly attack the character of this administration, but I rarely encounter thoughtful, well-reasoned ideological refutations on Fox or right wing radio. It's the verbage of "liberal" as a self-sufficient reason for disregarding one person's opinions. Anymore, terms such as "extremists," "Michael Moore," "moveon.org," and others are treated as synonymous.
End rant. Need coffee.
His implication (that only women can be told in this day and age to get out of politics, that women's pleas are taken less seriously by society at large, and in this case Republicans) was obvious. I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Also, I'm still curious if the Republicans can point out a veteran/politician that they have not vilified yet. The reverence for soldiers who agree with you is fine, but coupled with accusations of "resume padding," "not serving," "not bleeding," and the swift boat tactics are appalling. McCain (don't forget the 2000 primaries), Max "Where are my
ing appendages!?!?!" Cleland, John Kerry, Paul Hackett, etc. Why do we try attack the characters of these people rather than argue against their policies?Yes, Dems, libs, and all of us certainly attack the character of this administration, but I rarely encounter thoughtful, well-reasoned ideological refutations on Fox or right wing radio. It's the verbage of "liberal" as a self-sufficient reason for disregarding one person's opinions. Anymore, terms such as "extremists," "Michael Moore," "moveon.org," and others are treated as synonymous.
End rant. Need coffee.
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']Sorry champ, Bush didn't send anyone over to be killed. Even if you disagree with the war, you have to at least realize the indisputable fact that the person(s) responsible for his death were the people over there who attacked him and killed him. That question is a fair one, why are we over there, but it's not like Bush sent him on a suicide mission.[/QUOTE]
But the fact of the matter is he wouldn't have been there if our Great Leader hadn't misled us into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat and pulled a bait and switch between Saddam and Bin Laden.
But the fact of the matter is he wouldn't have been there if our Great Leader hadn't misled us into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat and pulled a bait and switch between Saddam and Bin Laden.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
It would be interesting to see how the reaction would be different to fathers of fallen soldiers. Would we still have crazy neighbors firing off shotguns "practicing for dove season"? Would there still be yahoos dragging chains behind their truck to wreck crosses erected to dead soldiers? I don't think these intimidation tactics would be used against other men.
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']
Yes, Dems, libs, and all of us certainly attack the character of this administration, but I rarely encounter thoughtful, well-reasoned ideological refutations on Fox or right wing radio. It's the verbage of "liberal" as a self-sufficient reason for disregarding one person's opinions. Anymore, terms such as "extremists," "Michael Moore," "moveon.org," and others are treated as synonymous.
[/QUOTE]
My favorite is "Elitists on the Left." Rush makes me feel better than everyone else when he uses that one.
Yes, Dems, libs, and all of us certainly attack the character of this administration, but I rarely encounter thoughtful, well-reasoned ideological refutations on Fox or right wing radio. It's the verbage of "liberal" as a self-sufficient reason for disregarding one person's opinions. Anymore, terms such as "extremists," "Michael Moore," "moveon.org," and others are treated as synonymous.
[/QUOTE]
My favorite is "Elitists on the Left." Rush makes me feel better than everyone else when he uses that one.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']How many of your children have died for neocon propaganda and oil?[/QUOTE]
None, but what the hell is your point exactly? How many of your kids have died for the same thing? How many of anyone posting on this topic? We're all voicing our feelings and opinions, and while I don't know for sure, but I think the majority of us don't even have children, let alone ones that have died in Iraq. Mine is less valid than yours somehow? Is she more important than all the other people who's children have died over there that she gets to meet with the president for a two hour discussion about her feelings on the war and the death of her loved one? That's the question that bugs me. Maybe you took what I said as an attack on her (I dont get how though), if so then you're mistaken. I simply think that when you go to an event at an arranged time to meet with someone and talk directly to them, shake their hand, or whatever, it's called a meeting.
[quote name='Msut77']>>>What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face.
Because its not like she had him alone for any amount of time.
Even then she did not want to just at him like that, she wants to talk to him alone with the reason for meeting known.
>>(yes the 1st one counts)
No it doesnt.[/QUOTE]
Liek camoor, I think you missed the idea of what I was saying. She won't have him alone for any amount of time most likely. Do you honestly think that if he decides to meet with her again, he'd do it with absolutely no one else around? Hell, if I were her, I'd actually want the media and my supporters there. So if that happens are you going to say that doesn't count either? As for the reason, is the reason the death of her son or the politics of the war? Because as I understand it the reason for the first time they met was the death of her son. Perhaps, I wouldn't have such a problem with this if she acknowgled the first meeting took place, but like you it seems that she perfers it remain hidden and hardly talked about now. If she is granted another meeting, I hope she does at least plan to include other parents or supporters who feel like she does (would that count because they aren't alone?).
[quote name='MrBadExample']It would be interesting to see how the reaction would be different to fathers of fallen soldiers. Would we still have crazy neighbors firing off shotguns "practicing for dove season"? Would there still be yahoos dragging chains behind their truck to wreck crosses erected to dead soldiers? I don't think these intimidation tactics would be used against other men.[/QUOTE]
Judging from the footage I've seen there's a number of men there with her. Personally my feelings wouldn't change if it was a man or a woman. It could be a robot from the future and I'd still have the same opinion really.
As for the reactions of the locals, while it's most certainly uncalled for behavior (especially the chains thing you mentioned). I can understand a certain degree of dislike for the whole camp in general. Agree or disagree with Sheehan or with Bush, there's no denying that this whole event has literally brought a media madhouse to their doorstep. I guess they could do the same things to Bush, but they likely see him more like one of them or are on his side. That and the secret service may not like them doing that so much. Still, there's no excuse for such actions if true.
None, but what the hell is your point exactly? How many of your kids have died for the same thing? How many of anyone posting on this topic? We're all voicing our feelings and opinions, and while I don't know for sure, but I think the majority of us don't even have children, let alone ones that have died in Iraq. Mine is less valid than yours somehow? Is she more important than all the other people who's children have died over there that she gets to meet with the president for a two hour discussion about her feelings on the war and the death of her loved one? That's the question that bugs me. Maybe you took what I said as an attack on her (I dont get how though), if so then you're mistaken. I simply think that when you go to an event at an arranged time to meet with someone and talk directly to them, shake their hand, or whatever, it's called a meeting.
[quote name='Msut77']>>>What difference does that make? Even according to her, she spoke directly with him, face to face.
Because its not like she had him alone for any amount of time.
Even then she did not want to just at him like that, she wants to talk to him alone with the reason for meeting known.
>>(yes the 1st one counts)
No it doesnt.[/QUOTE]
Liek camoor, I think you missed the idea of what I was saying. She won't have him alone for any amount of time most likely. Do you honestly think that if he decides to meet with her again, he'd do it with absolutely no one else around? Hell, if I were her, I'd actually want the media and my supporters there. So if that happens are you going to say that doesn't count either? As for the reason, is the reason the death of her son or the politics of the war? Because as I understand it the reason for the first time they met was the death of her son. Perhaps, I wouldn't have such a problem with this if she acknowgled the first meeting took place, but like you it seems that she perfers it remain hidden and hardly talked about now. If she is granted another meeting, I hope she does at least plan to include other parents or supporters who feel like she does (would that count because they aren't alone?).
[quote name='MrBadExample']It would be interesting to see how the reaction would be different to fathers of fallen soldiers. Would we still have crazy neighbors firing off shotguns "practicing for dove season"? Would there still be yahoos dragging chains behind their truck to wreck crosses erected to dead soldiers? I don't think these intimidation tactics would be used against other men.[/QUOTE]
Judging from the footage I've seen there's a number of men there with her. Personally my feelings wouldn't change if it was a man or a woman. It could be a robot from the future and I'd still have the same opinion really.
As for the reactions of the locals, while it's most certainly uncalled for behavior (especially the chains thing you mentioned). I can understand a certain degree of dislike for the whole camp in general. Agree or disagree with Sheehan or with Bush, there's no denying that this whole event has literally brought a media madhouse to their doorstep. I guess they could do the same things to Bush, but they likely see him more like one of them or are on his side. That and the secret service may not like them doing that so much. Still, there's no excuse for such actions if true.
>>>>Liek camoor, I think you missed the idea of what I was saying. She won't have him alone for any amount of time most likely. Do you honestly think that if he decides to meet with her again, he'd do it with absolutely no one else around?
Well Secret Service and a few aides I assume but not many a whole crowd like the "first meeting". FYI the "first meeting" was with a group of mothers.
The rest of your post is just silly, fact is she had barely a moment with him.
Well Secret Service and a few aides I assume but not many a whole crowd like the "first meeting". FYI the "first meeting" was with a group of mothers.
The rest of your post is just silly, fact is she had barely a moment with him.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Here we show what kind of nutjob this chick really is. According to her..... ready?
Ready?
No seriously.
Ready?
We've been waging a nuclear war in Iraq. No, I'm not making this up.
CINDY UNLEASHED: 'THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH'
Wed Aug 17 2005 21:51:56 ET
"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.
Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:
"They’re a bunch ofing hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.
"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"
"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."
"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."
Link
Not even the most extreme whacked out nutjobs on DU make the nuclear war claim.
Hello? MSM? You're giving air time to a complete loon.
Ready?
No seriously.
Ready?
We've been waging a nuclear war in Iraq. No, I'm not making this up.
CINDY UNLEASHED: 'THE BIGGEST TERRORIST IN THE WORLD IS GEORGE W. BUSH'
Wed Aug 17 2005 21:51:56 ET
"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.
Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:
"They’re a bunch of
ing hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration. "If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"
"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."
"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."
Link
Not even the most extreme whacked out nutjobs on DU make the nuclear war claim.
Hello? MSM? You're giving air time to a complete loon.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Drudge proved what side of the fence he is on already by intentionally taking earlier quotes of Sheehan's out of context in order to portray her as someone whose ideological position has changed. This started a media shotstorm amongst the mudslingers that you frequent, every last one of them braying the same quotes Drudge used, and the lie, it kept a' rollin' bebe.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
Perhaps she did say it was "nuclear." Really, is that the best you can do to refute her arguments? You and your ilk are doing a fantastic job showing us how you love the troops, and it makes perfect sense for a young teenager and his/her family to want to serve their country in these positions.
I notice that you've been outstandingly silent on the destruction of the "memorial to the troops" out there in Crawford, PAD. What do you think about your party's kinfolk doing something like that? Is it alright to desecrate the soldiers if you bring down one woman?
One woman is the so dangerous to the president that all of you are scared to death of the resonance she might have with the American people. Support for the president and support for the war are so fragile that this woman is bringing down what was an amazingly unsupportable war to begin with. One woman! HA! You can't even put away your pitchforks and torches to fathom a reasonable explanation for war! Even John Gibson, the man who wants France to be subject to bombings, finally began playing around with the discourse that this administration "picked" a reason to fight Iraq (though the sack of shit has no qualms with that, of course).
PAD, you're pathetic. An entire party versus one woman? Give me a break next time yours seek sympathy for anything.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
Perhaps she did say it was "nuclear." Really, is that the best you can do to refute her arguments? You and your ilk are doing a fantastic job showing us how you love the troops, and it makes perfect sense for a young teenager and his/her family to want to serve their country in these positions.
I notice that you've been outstandingly silent on the destruction of the "memorial to the troops" out there in Crawford, PAD. What do you think about your party's kinfolk doing something like that? Is it alright to desecrate the soldiers if you bring down one woman?
One woman is the so dangerous to the president that all of you are scared to death of the resonance she might have with the American people. Support for the president and support for the war are so fragile that this woman is bringing down what was an amazingly unsupportable war to begin with. One woman! HA! You can't even put away your pitchforks and torches to fathom a reasonable explanation for war! Even John Gibson, the man who wants France to be subject to bombings, finally began playing around with the discourse that this administration "picked" a reason to fight Iraq (though the sack of shit has no qualms with that, of course).
PAD, you're pathetic. An entire party versus one woman? Give me a break next time yours seek sympathy for anything.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
Sheehan's claims are no more out of line than Bush & Co.'s prewar Iraq claims except maybe her's have a bit more truth to them. She has more right on Iraq than either You or Bush? +1 for Cindy. Let that sink in...a person you call "nutjob" is smarter than you.
But even if she is a nutjob et al. So what? Does that make her questions any less valid? Does that make Bush any less responsible for his own actions. Does that mean her son's death doesn't matter? Give me aing break.
Despite what you and Bush seem to think, Bush is the president of everyone and he owes us all explanations..from people like who clearly crammed up his rear end to the folks who hate his guts.
But even if she is a nutjob et al. So what? Does that make her questions any less valid? Does that make Bush any less responsible for his own actions. Does that mean her son's death doesn't matter? Give me a
ing break.Despite what you and Bush seem to think, Bush is the president of everyone and he owes us all explanations..from people like who clearly crammed up his rear end to the folks who hate his guts.
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
[quote name='usickenme'] Despite what you and Bush seem to think, Bush is the president of everyone and he owes us all explanations..from people like who clearly crammed up his rear end to the folks who hate his guts.[/QUOTE]
The sad fact is, this is just the same ol' same ol' from our Fearless Leader. He has been thumbing his nose at those outside of his base for 5 years.
The sad fact is, this is just the same ol' same ol' from our Fearless Leader. He has been thumbing his nose at those outside of his base for 5 years.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']Do you think the piss poor planning, wholesale ignoring of common sense recommendations, lack of amour, mis-handlilng the reconstruction, baiting insurgents with stupid comments, points to any culpability?
I agree the actual murder was an insurgent/ terrorists/ whatever name but I submit that many of Bushes decisions led directly to a much less safe environment for the troops.
Even more puzzling when you consider Bush wanted to make Iraq the most important mission of the 21st century.[/QUOTE]
There are fair criticisms and unfair criticisms. It's a fact that Bush did not want or intend or plan for her son to die. It's a fact that some insurgent or three in Iraq were the ones who attacked and killed her son. Therefore, saying as the original post did that Bush is directly responsible for her son's death is horseshit. I have no problem with intelligent arguments as to why he could have done things differently and better, but keep the inane rhetoric out of it.
I agree the actual murder was an insurgent/ terrorists/ whatever name but I submit that many of Bushes decisions led directly to a much less safe environment for the troops.
Even more puzzling when you consider Bush wanted to make Iraq the most important mission of the 21st century.[/QUOTE]
There are fair criticisms and unfair criticisms. It's a fact that Bush did not want or intend or plan for her son to die. It's a fact that some insurgent or three in Iraq were the ones who attacked and killed her son. Therefore, saying as the original post did that Bush is directly responsible for her son's death is horseshit. I have no problem with intelligent arguments as to why he could have done things differently and better, but keep the inane rhetoric out of it.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='niceguyshawne']But the fact of the matter is he wouldn't have been there if our Great Leader hadn't misled us into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat and pulled a bait and switch between Saddam and Bin Laden.[/QUOTE]
You don't really want to argue this all again, do you? Our not-so-great leader made mistakes which logically can be chalked up to bad intelligence (er, you know, the CIA kind :lol: ) and a one-track mind. There are varying opinions on this one and it's all been gone over lots of times on this board.
You don't really want to argue this all again, do you? Our not-so-great leader made mistakes which logically can be chalked up to bad intelligence (er, you know, the CIA kind :lol: ) and a one-track mind. There are varying opinions on this one and it's all been gone over lots of times on this board.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']There are fair criticisms and unfair criticisms. It's a fact that Bush did not want or intend or plan for her son to die. It's a fact that some insurgent or three in Iraq were the ones who attacked and killed her son. Therefore, saying as the original post did that Bush is directly responsible for her son's death is horseshit. I have no problem with intelligent arguments as to why he could have done things differently and better, but keep the inane rhetoric out of it.[/QUOTE]
Mideval Europe would have been better off if they hadn't launched the crusades. The Middle-Easterners would have left Europe alone. However the European leaders thought it was a great idea to try and capture the holylands - therefore these European leaders and their ignorant followers were resposible for the deaths of so many crusading Europeans.
The same culpability of Our Leader exists for the second Iraq war.
Mideval Europe would have been better off if they hadn't launched the crusades. The Middle-Easterners would have left Europe alone. However the European leaders thought it was a great idea to try and capture the holylands - therefore these European leaders and their ignorant followers were resposible for the deaths of so many crusading Europeans.
The same culpability of Our Leader exists for the second Iraq war.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Mideval Europe would have been better off if they hadn't launched the crusades. The Middle-Easterners would have left Europe alone. However the European leaders thought it was a great idea to try and capture the holylands - therefore these European leaders and their ignorant followers were resposible for the deaths of so many crusading Europeans.
The same culpability of Our Leader exists for the second Iraq war.[/QUOTE]
I think you missed that fact that population control in Europe was a good thing at the time. They had plenty of royalty they needed to send off least they create pointless civil wars in Europe and ruin the country side.
I doubt Islam would have left Europe alone especially when they already controled a part of it called spain.
It's also interesting to note that the crusades were followed by a rather large and important boom in technology.
The same culpability of Our Leader exists for the second Iraq war.[/QUOTE]
I think you missed that fact that population control in Europe was a good thing at the time. They had plenty of royalty they needed to send off least they create pointless civil wars in Europe and ruin the country side.
I doubt Islam would have left Europe alone especially when they already controled a part of it called spain.
It's also interesting to note that the crusades were followed by a rather large and important boom in technology.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
It's too bad Hitler didn't have a hard on for killing Muslims.
Can someone call Mr. Peabody and have him ready the way back machine??? I have some historical revisions I'd like corrected.
Can someone call Mr. Peabody and have him ready the way back machine??? I have some historical revisions I'd like corrected.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It's too bad Hitler didn't have a hard on for killing Muslims.
Can someone call Mr. Peabody and have him ready the way back machine??? I have some historical revisions I'd like corrected.[/QUOTE]
Why? The Muslims might have actually put up a decent fight. It's always good to choose a toothless historic evil.
Can someone call Mr. Peabody and have him ready the way back machine??? I have some historical revisions I'd like corrected.[/QUOTE]
Why? The Muslims might have actually put up a decent fight. It's always good to choose a toothless historic evil.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan'] Forgets fact that Saddam Hussein could have complied with resolution 1441 avoiding a costly US invasion and would still be in power while her son would probably still be alive [/QUOTE]
Yeah, bow to the US's every whim or be annihilated (after all, we don't give negotiation a real chance - as Bush would say, negotiating is hard)
And you wonder why US popularity has significantly declined since Bush took office.
Yeah, bow to the US's every whim or be annihilated (after all, we don't give negotiation a real chance - as Bush would say, negotiating is hard)
And you wonder why US popularity has significantly declined since Bush took office.
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, bow to the US's every whim or be annihilated (after all, we don't give negotiation a real chance - as Bush would say, negotiating is hard)
And you wonder why US popularity has significantly declined since Bush took office.[/QUOTE]
Ummm..We may have helped bring about Resolution 1441, but overall it was the entire UN that created the Resolution, thus they wouldn't exactly be bowing to the US's whim, but the whole United Nations...Are you just the liberal version of PAD or something?
And you wonder why US popularity has significantly declined since Bush took office.[/QUOTE]
Ummm..We may have helped bring about Resolution 1441, but overall it was the entire UN that created the Resolution, thus they wouldn't exactly be bowing to the US's whim, but the whole United Nations...Are you just the liberal version of PAD or something?
[quote name='karsh']Ummm..We may have helped bring about Resolution 1441, but overall it was the entire UN that created the Resolution, thus they wouldn't exactly be bowing to the US's whim, but the whole United Nations...Are you just the liberal version of PAD or something?[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes he is.
Yes, yes he is.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='fanskad']Yes, yes he is.[/QUOTE]
Dude, you only wish you knew as much as PAD.
Dude, you only wish you knew as much as PAD.
[quote name='camoor']Dude, you only wish you knew as much as PAD.[/QUOTE]
I have to admit, PAD gets quite a bit of crap despite the fact he's quite well informed. He's one of the few posters in this forum I respect. I'd also put mykevermin on that list, though he's been slipping lately.
You, however, rarely have anything useful, helpful, or intelligent to say anymore. A more apt comparison would be the liberal version of scrubking.
But, I will speak no more of this in this topic, I don't want to thread hijack. If you would like to discuss my "anarcho-capitalism", make another topic.
I have to admit, PAD gets quite a bit of crap despite the fact he's quite well informed. He's one of the few posters in this forum I respect. I'd also put mykevermin on that list, though he's been slipping lately.
You, however, rarely have anything useful, helpful, or intelligent to say anymore. A more apt comparison would be the liberal version of scrubking.
But, I will speak no more of this in this topic, I don't want to thread hijack. If you would like to discuss my "anarcho-capitalism", make another topic.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='fanskad'] I'd also put mykevermin on that list, though he's been slipping lately.[/QUOTE]
Explain.
Explain.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='fanskad']But, I will speak no more of this in this topic, I don't want to thread hijack. If you would like to discuss my "anarcho-capitalism", make another topic.[/QUOTE]
Wow, someone is highly overrating themselves.
You are not worth your own topic, I hope to never see a "Fanskad orignal" here, it would be an affront to the VS board.
Wow, someone is highly overrating themselves.
You are not worth your own topic, I hope to never see a "Fanskad orignal" here, it would be an affront to the VS board.
[quote name='mykevermin']Explain.[/QUOTE]
You're typically a wonderful poster, using supporting facts, anecdotal evidence, statistics. Your arguments include supporting sentences, and you're not usually reactionary. Lately, you seem to be slipping more into the "you're wrong because I disagree with you" camp.
Don't get me wrong, I feel you're still one of the best on here. It's just that some of the statements you've made have been for inflammitory effect.
My apologies if I have offended.
You're typically a wonderful poster, using supporting facts, anecdotal evidence, statistics. Your arguments include supporting sentences, and you're not usually reactionary. Lately, you seem to be slipping more into the "you're wrong because I disagree with you" camp.
Don't get me wrong, I feel you're still one of the best on here. It's just that some of the statements you've made have been for inflammitory effect.
My apologies if I have offended.
[quote name='camoor']Wow, someone is highly overrating themselves.
You are not worth your own topic, I hope to never see a "Fanskad orignal" here, it would be an affront to the VS board.[/QUOTE]
Sigh...
It seems the comments in my earlier post have offended you. I would much rather have intelligent discourse than angry "you're the stupid!" posts. That is why I suggested the seperate topic. That, and I didn't want to hijack. My reaction to the hypocrite comment was probably too aggressive.
Please. Tell me what I can do to help clear that chip off your shoulder towards me.
You are not worth your own topic, I hope to never see a "Fanskad orignal" here, it would be an affront to the VS board.[/QUOTE]
Sigh...
It seems the comments in my earlier post have offended you. I would much rather have intelligent discourse than angry "you're the stupid!" posts. That is why I suggested the seperate topic. That, and I didn't want to hijack. My reaction to the hypocrite comment was probably too aggressive.
Please. Tell me what I can do to help clear that chip off your shoulder towards me.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='fanskad']You're typically a wonderful poster, using supporting facts, anecdotal evidence, statistics. Your arguments include supporting sentences, and you're not usually reactionary. Lately, you seem to be slipping more into the "you're wrong because I disagree with you" camp.
Don't get me wrong, I feel you're still one of the best on here. It's just that some of the statements you've made have been for inflammitory effect.
My apologies if I have offended.[/QUOTE]
I'm not easily offended, but typically curious.
I try to save my ad hominems for those who deserve it (namely Scrubking). I do my best to avoid direct attacks, although I do resort to condescending language and smarmy pretension sometimes.
The only problem I have with the remark "I'm slipping" is that I feel that I must acheive something substantial before I slip. It bruises one's ego to slip from mediocrity, you know.
Don't get me wrong, I feel you're still one of the best on here. It's just that some of the statements you've made have been for inflammitory effect.
My apologies if I have offended.[/QUOTE]
I'm not easily offended, but typically curious.
I try to save my ad hominems for those who deserve it (namely Scrubking). I do my best to avoid direct attacks, although I do resort to condescending language and smarmy pretension sometimes.
The only problem I have with the remark "I'm slipping" is that I feel that I must acheive something substantial before I slip. It bruises one's ego to slip from mediocrity, you know.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
Wow - check out what Cindy said over on rawstory:
'Casey's not dead. I see him in all of your eyes and Casey will never die. They can kill the body, but they can't kill the love and the spirit, and no matter how hard they try they can’t do that... So this is the boy who they say I’m dishonoring by what I do and I know when I get up with Casey, like he went there before me. When I get up, he's gonna say, 'Good job Mom.' He's not going to say, ' Why’d you make me spin in my grave.' I can just hear him saying 'George Bush you are really an idiot. You didn't know what you were doing when you killed me. You didn’t know what you were getting into....' MUCH MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/
'Casey's not dead. I see him in all of your eyes and Casey will never die. They can kill the body, but they can't kill the love and the spirit, and no matter how hard they try they can’t do that... So this is the boy who they say I’m dishonoring by what I do and I know when I get up with Casey, like he went there before me. When I get up, he's gonna say, 'Good job Mom.' He's not going to say, ' Why’d you make me spin in my grave.' I can just hear him saying 'George Bush you are really an idiot. You didn't know what you were doing when you killed me. You didn’t know what you were getting into....' MUCH MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Good God, enough with the ditch bitch already.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Good God, enough with the ditch bitch already.[/QUOTE]
No, it's more like "Enough with the rationalizations for the Iraqi war." :lol:
It's a good thing Bush doesn't pay attention to polls or he'd be getting depressed.
No, it's more like "Enough with the rationalizations for the Iraqi war." :lol:
It's a good thing Bush doesn't pay attention to polls or he'd be getting depressed.
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Good God, enough with the ditch bitch already.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, everyone seems to still enjoy talking about her.
I don't know, everyone seems to still enjoy talking about her.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Good God, enough with the ditch bitch already.[/QUOTE]
as noble and well spoken as always
as noble and well spoken as always
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Good God, enough with the ditch bitch already.[/QUOTE]
Are you afraid that one person, a *woman* no less, has become the symbolic representative of growing anti-war sentiment that now has only 36% of Americans favoring what is going on right now?
It's unfortunate that your side has so little to bring to the table in terms of a logical, rational argument at this point that all you can do is belittle a person whose son died fighting in Iraq.
Pat Tillman, used for months as a champion of self-sacrifice by the military to bolster support (and likely recruitment as well) is a hero, yet it turns out he was killed by friendly fire, and covered up by the military (though the level of the coverup is not known, admittedly).
Y'know, this might be alot easier for Americans to deal with if anyone in the administration had aing clue what was going on over there.
What are your thoughts on Chuck Hagel's "'stay the coure' is not a strategy" criticism?
Are you afraid that one person, a *woman* no less, has become the symbolic representative of growing anti-war sentiment that now has only 36% of Americans favoring what is going on right now?
It's unfortunate that your side has so little to bring to the table in terms of a logical, rational argument at this point that all you can do is belittle a person whose son died fighting in Iraq.
Pat Tillman, used for months as a champion of self-sacrifice by the military to bolster support (and likely recruitment as well) is a hero, yet it turns out he was killed by friendly fire, and covered up by the military (though the level of the coverup is not known, admittedly).
Y'know, this might be alot easier for Americans to deal with if anyone in the administration had a
ing clue what was going on over there.What are your thoughts on Chuck Hagel's "'stay the coure' is not a strategy" criticism?
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
From Michael Moore's newsletter:
I'm glad she's suspended her trip to DC to protest the war in light of the hurricane tragedy. Now we'll just have to wait and see how the right bashes her for helping people in need. And because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even help you get started - "Ewwwww! It's from Michael Moore. It is teh liberal..."
I'm glad she's suspended her trip to DC to protest the war in light of the hurricane tragedy. Now we'll just have to wait and see how the right bashes her for helping people in need. And because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even help you get started - "Ewwwww! It's from Michael Moore. It is teh liberal..."
bread's done