# Dead Soldier; Happy Mom



## KenpoEMT (Sep 26, 2005)

I've never seen the mother of a dead soldier look so happy.







http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/26/D8CS5JB00.html



> Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."





> "I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters: Don't be a group of unthinking lemmings," said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. She said the anti-war demonstrations "can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope."


I could care less about what Sheehan legally does in protest of the war; however, she appears awfully plastic to me.

It looks to me as if she is using her son's death as a means for attention and validation.

IMO she is more than welcome to protest whatever the hell she wants, but this is just too fake for her to establish credibility in my mind.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2005)

I continue to assume she thinks she's makiing his death meaningful. Of course, I can't know whether thisis the case or not.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I continue to assume she thinks she's makiing his death meaningful.


Maybe this is so. 

Perhaps every time she gets arrested, or everytime she gets media coverage, she thinks that she has brought meaning to a death she views as meaningless.

Good point there.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2005)

I disagree with the title of this thread; strongly.

I would like to point out that Ms. Sheehan was arrested yesterday, October 26, 2005 for 'Demonstration without a Permit'. Ms. Sheehan was participating in a 'Die In', in recognition of the more than 2000 US Fatalities in Iraq. Protestors laid down in front of the White House, refused to move when asked, three times, and were arrested.

It is expected the protestors will pay a $75.00 fine and be released.

Rumor has it, that she plans to protest again today. 



Incidentally, the photograph linked to above, which apparently caused someone to label Ms. Sheehan a 'Happy Mom', because of her smile ...I think Ms. Sheehan has stated she was smiling because at that moment, she was convinced the whole world could see her underwear.


----------



## ginshun (Oct 28, 2005)

Jeez,  who could have guessed she would ever pull another stunt to get arrested? 


On the upside, it seems as though people have pretty much stopped noticing her.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> On the upside, it seems as though people have pretty much stopped noticing her.


 

Are you sure ... Somewhere in the last few months, the *majority* of Americans decided they don't think President Bush is doing too slick of a job in Iraq. Only a fool would discount Ms. Sheehan had at least *some* impact on that. 




> NORFOLK, Va. Oct 28, 2005  At a turbulent point in his presidency, President Bush sought to bolster public backing for his war policies Friday, just days after the U.S. death toll in Iraq surpassed 2,000.
> 
> "We will never back down, we will never give in and we will never accept anything less than complete victory," the president said.
> 
> AP-Ipsos polling shows that public support for *Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest point, 37 percent*, roughly where it has been since early August, and _fewer than half of Americans, 46 percent, approve of Bush_'s handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.


 
And don't you just love how President Bush comes up with Tim Allen's line from Galaxy Quest? Apparently the President was left to his own devices as Mr. Rove plays Rock-Paper-Scissors with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 28, 2005)

Cindy who?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Cindy who?


Cindy Lou Who, who was not more than two.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Cindy who?


 
~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~
~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~
~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~
~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~

~ Casey, can you come home, after the war (after the war) ~
~ We can hang out at the reflecting pool (reflecting pool) ~
~ Did your mom get back from her jail house trip (jail house trip) ~
~ Is she there, did Mr. Bush try to give her the slip (give her the slip) ~

~ You know, we're not as blind as we used to be ~
~ Sure Saddam is all gone, but Georgie can't you see! ~

~ Casey's Mom, has got it goin' on ~
~ What Noble Cause? We've watched for so long. ~
~ Georgie can't you see, they're not dyin' just for me ~
~ You know it must be wrong, or you would meet with Casey's mom. ~

~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~
~ Casey's mom, has got it goin' on ~

~ Georgie, do you remember down there in Crawford (down in Crawford) ~
~ His mom hangin out on the side of the road (side of the road) ~
~ We could tell you didn't like her, you drove so fast (drove so fast) ~
~ She held up a mirror, and you looked like an *** (looked like an ***) ~

~ And I know you wish it would all go away ~
~ But if you don't walk out, she'll get stronger every day ~

~ Casey's mom has got it goin' on ~
~ What's the Noble Cause, they've been dying for too long ~
~ Georgie can't you see, two thousand dead and three ~
~ You know it must be wrong - or you could meet with Casey's Mom ~


----------



## arnisador (Oct 28, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> On the upside, it seems as though people have pretty much stopped noticing her.



She does seem to be getting much less attention...though as noted, her desired effect of lowering the president's approval rating and support seems to be occurring, coincidence or not.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 28, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I could care less about what Sheehan legally does in protest of the war; however, she appears awfully plastic to me.



Indeed. It seems that her son's death has made her what many people struggle all their lives for. Namely, known to everyone in America.

I honestly wonder if her son would want her to be doing this. Of course, I do not think that his opinion really matters to her.

Where I to make a choice like her son did to join the military, I would hope that those who loved me would not use my name to further their own agendas if I died.

I do not think any of my friends would. But you can't choose who you are related to.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> She does seem to be getting much less attention...though as noted, her desired effect of lowering the president's approval rating and support seems to be occurring, coincidence or not.


 
Is it Ms. Sheehan's desire to have the Presidents approval rating lowered?

I thought she wanted to know why American's are dying in a foreign land? President Bush has said her son's sacrifice was for a 'Noble Cause', it appears that she doesn't understand what the 'Noble Cause' is, and seeks clarification. 

As the President has been unwilling to discuss that topic, she is calling for all the other mothers' children to come home.




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I would hope that those who loved me would not use my name to further their own agendas if I died.


 
What is her agenda? Or, what do you mean by 'agenda'? It is a term laden with vitriol. I suppose it is a code word that some will understand, but I certainly don't.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What is her agenda? Or, what do you mean by 'agenda'? It is a term laden with vitriol. I suppose it is a code word that some will understand, but I certainly don't.



I suspect part of her agenda is to be a celebrity. But even if it is not, if she had not used her relationship with her son we would not know of her. Her dead son, whether he would agree with her point or not, is the cause of her fame and her effectiveness. I would not like someone using my name like that unless they were sure it was a cause I supported.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

Got it .... because you believe she is seeking 15 minutes of fame, her calls for peace can go completely unheeded; never mind that her son is dead forever.

I don't think Ms. Sheehan is using her son's name for any cause. 

She is certainly using his death for a cause. And that he is dead, he no longer has an opinion, so we are left with hers. And it seems to me she has every right to use her son's death in any way she chooses. 

She certainly has more claim to her son's death than those who are claiming she has an agenda.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> She certainly has more claim to her son's death than those who are claiming she has an agenda.



I agree. I'm not going  to question whether her son would've approved or not. There are enough soldiers who don't think we should be in Iraq--it's very plausible he was one of him. His mother would be in a goo dposition to know. Does she really know what he thought? We'll never learn the answer to that.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

But, I do not believe she is arguing what Casey wanted, or would have wanted. 

I believe she is arguing that there are 160,000 mothers in this country, who might suffer the same loss she has. It seems she wants to not have any more mothers become part of the Gold Star organization.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, I do not believe she is arguing what Casey wanted, or would have wanted.
> 
> I believe she is arguing that there are 160,000 mothers in this country, who might suffer the same loss she has. It seems she wants to not have any more mothers become part of the Gold Star organization.



Fine. But the fact remains that she is using her dead sons name to further that cause when that son probably did not share her opinions. He is now too dead to rebut how she is using him.

I would not like to have that happen to me if I died.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 29, 2005)

Would be nice to fight wars with no casualties. 

Seems she's so obsessed with her own feelings that she is negating the sacrifice that her son willingly made. Probably why the rest of the family is giving her the boot.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

It is never nice to fight a war. 

In wars people die.

When war is needed as a tool of the state, it should be for clear, measurable objectives. The Constitution of the United States demands that Congress declare war. The Congress abdicated its responsibility. The President usurped power. We have no measurable objectives. 

And young men and women are dying every day. 

No thinking person should be in favor of this war. Every thinking person should be rallying behind Ms. Sheehan and demanding answers from the President. 

Pottery Barn rule be damned.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Constitution of the United States demands that Congress declare war. The Congress abdicated its responsibility.



I seem to remember that congress did give the president the authorization to use force.

Perhaps you mean that you feel that congress made the wrong choice.

And whatever you feel about the war, I think we can conclude that this mother has taken advantage of her son's death to get what she wants. She would not be half as famous or have as much of an impact if she had not used the image of her son- who probably would not agree with her.

That is the subject of this thread. The nobility of her cause does not erase the way she has used her dead son's status for her own purposes.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

Congress indeed made the wrong choice. Each and every Representative and Senator that voted to give away their constitution responsibility deserves to be voted out of office. 

The vote to give the President authorization to use force is Unconstitution if it leads to war. This is not the first time. 

The founders gave Congress the responsibility of declaring war because they had to go back to the local districts and answer to those whose family members would die in the war. 

As Congress gave that responsibility away, each citizen should petition the President on the results of war. Ms. Sheehan certainly has earned the right.

In my opinion, those who question her motives and actions, unless they have suffered a similar loss, would do best to keep their opinions private.

She has earned the right to cry from every mountain top. 

If you disagree .... enlist.  Put up or Shut up.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In my opinion, those who question her motives and actions, unless they have suffered a similar loss, would do best to keep their opinions private.
> 
> She has earned the right to cry from every mountain top.
> 
> If you disagree .... enlist.  Put up or Shut up.



Nice way of shutting down debate when you can't win it by logic and facts.

I enlisted, knowing that I may go to a war I did not choose or understand. I got out without harm. Her son made the same choice I did. When I say I would not want someone using my death to puch their own agenda, I know what I am talking about.

Your other points really do not make any sense. Giving the president the authorization to use force is somehow different from letting him wage war? I do not follow how you can feel that way.

And I will not shut up, and I do not expect anyone else such as you to either.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 29, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Nice way of shutting down debate when you can't win it by logic and facts.
> 
> I enlisted, knowing that I may go to a war I did not choose or understand. I got out without harm. Her son made the same choice I did. When I say I would not want someone using my death to puch their own agenda, I know what I am talking about.
> 
> ...


 
Giving the President the authorization to use force is very much different than declaring war. The United States Constitution says (Article I - Section 8) *The Congress shall have the power* ....  (Clause11) *to declare war*. If you enlisted, you should be familiar with this document.

I welcome any discussion on facts and logic concerning the legitimacy of the current action in Iraq. 

But attacking Ms. Sheehan personally because you believe anything about her (seeking celebrity) or her son (he wouldn't have wanted her to protest the war) is shameful and disrespectful to the service and sacrifice of Casey.

By the way ... why did Casey die?  What the hell was he doing in Iraq anyhow .... I mean, I know he was following orders .... but why were we there again? How's that goin?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 29, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But attacking Ms. Sheehan personally because you believe anything about her (seeking celebrity) or her son (he wouldn't have wanted her to protest the war) is shameful and disrespectful to the service and sacrifice of Casey.



Isn't her use of Casey disrespectfull to his service and sacrifice?

You said people who had not enlisted and disagreed with her should shut up. Well, should everyone who is not in the military perhaps shut up about how the military is used? People are not forcecd to join. Should we not respect their decision? They know what they are getting into, know they may be sent to war on the orders of politicians.

It is not Ms Sheehan's choice to determine what her son could and should not have done. It was his choice. It is the choice of everyone when they sign the line on the enlistment form. To say that people that disagree with your stance should shut up and join the military beggers the fact that people in the military have made a decision and you are not respecting their ability to make that choice for themselves.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2005)

Funny to hear "enlist or shut up" from some folks around here. If I had used that line a while back all hell would have broken loose.

But OK...enlist or shut up. Works for me. I did my time.....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

Forgive me if the context of my 'enlist or be quiet' comment is complex and difficult to understand. I will try and make it more clear. 

I believe there are two sperate topics at issue in this thread. I believe they should be viewed and discussed sperately. And I have probably been guilty of overlapping my comments between these two topics without clarity in this thread. 

Topic A - The war is wrong, unconstitutional, too expensive and needs to be stopped.

Topic B - Ms. Sheehan's demand for accounting on her son's death. 

As mentioned, on Topic A, I will discuss with logic and fact, any time.

The 'Put up or Shut up' comment is directed to those who have not experienced any sacrifice in this war, denigrating Ms. Sheehan's actions. I do not know what it is like to lose a son, daughter, wife, father in this war. But there are two thousand families out there that do. And fifteen thousand whose loved ones that have been wounded. 

It is just not our place to tell these people how they can honor their family members. No one should be able to do that. 

We all can petition our elected officials; in support of, or opposition to the military action.

But putting down this woman (Cindy Who?), accusing her of anything, is just shameful. 

Standing up for what you believe is wrong is something we valued in this country. It may be a strained analogy, but isn't Ms. Rosa Parks going to lie in State today and tomorrow? She sat down, and refused to get up. Is that all that different? (Rosa Who? Tom)


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The 'Put up or Shut up' comment is directed to those who have not experienced any sacrifice in this war, denigrating Ms. Sheehan's actions.
> 
> Snip
> 
> It is just not our place to tell these people how they can honor their family members. No one should be able to do that.



Ms Sheehan did not fight in a war. Her son did. If you were killed, would you want someone using your death to promote a cause you did not beleive in? I do not think Sheehan is using this to honor her son's memory. She has a goal, and she is using her son's death in a way that if it were me would not please me.

As a general rule, I dislike people that say that we do not have a right to comment about something on an internet chat board. I can easily use that to say that unless you have been in the military, you should not be talking about how the military is used. 

Again, the thing is that her son made a decision and knew what he was getting into. She may not agree with that decision, but to use her son's death is not honorable and not what I would want happen to me in the same circumstances. 

And I do not think you or anyone else can tell us what we can or can not talk about.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

This is from a Newsweek article .... and the husband of another Gold Star Mother.



			
				Newsweek said:
			
		

> Edward (Augie) Schroeder, a Boy Scout turned Marine, was killed along with 13 other soldiers on their fifth trip into Al Hadithah, Iraq, to clean out insurgents. Their _fifth_ trip. "When you do something over and over again expecting a different result," Augie's grieving father, Paul, told me, "that is the definition of insanity." As the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq reached 2,000 last week, Paul Schroeder concluded that the military had not sent enough troops to Iraq to do the job properly and that the president was incompetent: "*My son's life was thrown away, his death was a waste.*"



And this from the Gold Star Mother.



			
				Newsweek said:
			
		

> "I think it's more patriotic to speak up," Rosemary says. "If the emperor has no clothes, or the president has no plan&#8212;then you have to speak out. Otherwise, *you're putting all these lives in danger for no good cause.*"



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865068/site/newsweek/


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2005)

To compound things...isnt she saying things like "useless death", "meaningless", "died for no reason" etc. Those are the things my soldier spirit would come back to haunt my relatives for. Doing my duty as a soldier would have been meaning enough.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2005)

BTW. Since when did loosing a loved one make anybody more of an "authority" on ANY topic? There is this trend in the US...loose a loved one to a gun and you are now an expert on gun control. Loose one in a war and your opinions on strategy and foriegn policy now carry some weight. Loose one to a drunk driver and anything you say about DWI laws and the courts gets attention....regardless of your education, experience or personal connection to any of the topics. While I can respect a persons grief and feel sorry for their loss, they are no more educated, knowledgeable or an authority on any topic. Its the media and their efforts to make a story out of peoples loss that propagate this phenomena IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

It makes said person an 'authority' on the sacrifice. 

The President continues to call for sacrifice for the stuggle in Iraq. I am making no sacrifice, except for the financial disaster fight a war on credit will create. Our children will be stuck paying for this excursion.

In light of the recent body count passing 2,000, many are saying the 'sacrifice' is worth it. Many who have, like me, not made any sacrifice. How nice of them to tell Ms. Sheehan the price she paid was appropriate.

Ms. Sheehan speaks with the authority of having made a sacrifice.

By the way ... why are US Soldiers in Iraq again?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 30, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Ms Sheehan did not fight in a war. Her son did. If you were killed, would you want someone using your death to promote a cause you did not beleive in? I do not think Sheehan is using this to honor her son's memory. She has a goal, and she is using her son's death in a way that if it were me would not please me.


What if you were fooled into believing that you fought a war for a certain cause but it was really for another?  A cause that was not revealed to you until you entered the spirit world?

If this war continues on questionable grounds, is it dishonorable to shut up and say nothing? is it dishonorable to not fight against the needless future loss of lives?

Is it not POSSIBLE that her son can now understand her motivations to preserve life? Is it POSSIBLE?

Sure it is.  And now he's dead, he is likely far more knowledgeable and compassionate than any of us can ever dream to be.

LONG LIVE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2005)

He didnt enlist to fight in a specific war. He enlisted to follow the orders of those appointed above him. It called duty and is part and parcel of being a soldier. Especially a volunteer and not a draftee. Plenty of soldiers have disagreed with the wars they fought in but they went and fought anyway, duty is what gives the soldier honor more than any "cause". They fight because their fellow countrymen and their friends are there moreso than any soundbyte, speech or cause. If Ms. Sheehan thinks the war is meaningless thats her prerogative. I just dont think she has a grasp on what her son thought was "meaningful".


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2005)

http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/


> Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."
> 
> And, now, here's another:
> 
> ...





> Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

Tom, I don't necessarily agree with Ms. Dodd's assessment, athough, I do believe it is pointed in the correct direction, but perhaps a bit overreaching.

And perhaps I am drilling down to far in claiming that Ms. Sheehan has the right to talk about 'sacrifice' with more authority than I, or those of us who have not lost a son, daughter, brother or sister in Iraq.

I am not claiming her loss grants her more authority to discuss the motivations for the war..... but the cost.


It is convienent that the invasion of Iraq lines up so precisely with what the Project for a New American Century called for ten years ago, isn't it? Or is that, unfortunate.

Why are US Soldiers dying in Iraq, again?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> What if you were fooled into believing that you fought a war for a certain cause but it was really for another?



That is still being debated. And it is not really the subject of this thread.

The subject is  about how Sheehan is now smiling happily and basking in celebrity status while using her sons death to promote a cause I doubt he would approve of.

If you were killed, would you like a relative using you like that?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The subject is about how Sheehan is now smiling happily and basking in celebrity status while using her sons death to promote a cause I doubt he would approve of.


 
Basking in celebrity? 

As I posted earlier, the reason she is laughing, is she had the random thought that the whole world could see her underwear. 

She was getting arrested when that photo was taken. A courageous act of civil disobedience. 

You don't think there is anything absurd in a little old lady getting busted and carried away by four or five Police Officers? Regardless of the issue, it's just absurd. But, just for review .... I think Betty was probably smiling too

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=215427&postcount=56


Basking in celebrity, indeed.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I posted earlier, the reason she is laughing, is she had the random thought that the whole world could see her underwear.



So she says now.

I am free, like others, to believe otherwise. I never heard of her before this and her name would not be known to millions had her son not died.

That is a fact we can agree on, yes?

I have seen parents use their kids before. I can believe that Sheehan is doing the same. It seems the rest of the family feels close to what I feel based on stories that they are giving her the cold shoulder.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 30, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So she says now.
> 
> I am free, like others, to believe otherwise. I never heard of her before this and her name would not be known to millions had her son not died.
> 
> ...


 
Here is a link to an unfriendly source that reports Ms. Sheehan's statement on September 28, 2005 ... two days after her arrest. 

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/28/sheehansmile/

Other points we can agree upon ... or agree to disagree.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The subject is about how Sheehan is now smiling happily and basking in celebrity status while using her sons death to promote a cause I doubt he would approve of.
> 
> If you were killed, would you like a relative using you like that?



I really don't think we know how he feels about his death. Maybe he regretted joining the service and would approve of what she has said; maybe he'd embarrassed by what she has said. I don't see how we can know either way.


----------



## mantis (Oct 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I really don't think we know how he feels about his death. Maybe he regretted joining the service and would approve of what she has said; maybe he'd embarrassed by what she has said. I don't see how we can know either way.


it doesnt matter
he fought thinking he's saving his country and his people
and she's also fighting thinking she's saving her country and the youths (yoots, if you are from NY) of her country


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

I like your point of view, *mantis*.

But, I do share the concern that he would be offended by this...I just don't know how to tell if that's really so.


----------



## mantis (Oct 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I like your point of view, *mantis*.
> 
> But, I do share the concern that he would be offended by this...I just don't know how to tell if that's really so.


i dont think she's doing anything that brings shame to the soldier. 
if i am killed i would like people i leave behind to find out why i was killed, would you too?
she's only trying to find the truth behind the motive of this war.  
i dont think she's questioning the death of her son in a battle for his country. i am not a citizen, but i would think all americans would be proud of giving their sons for their countries, but she's questioning the meaning of the battle, and if that battle is actually about america, and about what america stands for. that should make the soldier proud of his mother. 
i think, given the rights americans were given pre-bush, it's the mother's right to at least acquire some explanations.
knowing her motive, and the soldier's motive i see they both are fighting on the same front.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 30, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i dont think she's doing anything that brings shame to the soldier.
> if i am killed i would like people i leave behind to find out why i was killed, would you too?



I think that she is. She has an agenda and is using his death to further it. We can not say for certain he would have approved of this crusade by her.

It is not really about getting answers as it is in attacking the policies in place by this administration. And it may be about getting celebrity status.

I know that if I were killed in a bomb by Islamic extremists, I would not want my relatives using that to gain fame for themselves and push a pro- Christian, anti- Muslim message.


----------



## mantis (Oct 30, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think that she is. She has an agenda and is using his death to further it. We can not say for certain he would have approved of this crusade by her.
> 
> It is not really about getting answers as it is in attacking the policies in place by this administration. And it may be about getting celebrity status.
> 
> I know that if I were killed in a bomb by Islamic extremists, I would not want my relatives using that to gain fame for themselves and push a pro- Christian, anti- Muslim message.


i dont mean no offense, but i think you got some facts mixed up.
the crusades are lead by bush, killing the muslims in more than one country.
sheehan is against that crusade, and she'a against using the youth in this unfair war.
sheehan is trying to stop the war by using her son's death.
so what's the problem again?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 31, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> i dont mean no offense, but i think you got some facts mixed up.
> the crusades are lead by bush, killing the muslims in more than one country.



The word Crusade is not a proper noun as I used it. Sheehan is waging a crusade.




> sheehan is trying to stop the war by using her son's death.



I am glad to see somoene is admiting that she is using her sons death.

Now, how on earth can anyone say that her son would have approved of that with certainty?

I served in the military. I know that before I went in I got some flack from some relatives about it. I knew what signing the line entailed. It is a very big decision and affects many aspects of your life. I did not serve during a very good time IMO. But speaking as someone who has worn the uniform, I would not be happy with someone using my death as she has used her sons.

Now, using the "Enlist or shut up" argument already on the table, who here has served in the military and has that sort of insight into the mind of those that join and yet still wants to argue the case that using his death for her own ends is a good thing?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 31, 2005)

Well, ought we not offer the woman the benefit of the doubt?  What I mean here, is that it seems to me she also has a duty to herself to express her opinion.

This point was brought up loosely before, but Casey's service was his own choice, and I don't think that her protest in any way disrespects that service.  But the result of that service was that he died following orders, and that was his duty.

It's the orders that she is questioning here.  Should she not be free to do that?  I mean, should the only people protesting the war be people who have not lost family members there?  What about Iraqis?  Should the mothers of the men in Saddam's army who have died due to this conflict be able to speak out against the insurgents there?  May they be granted the moral authority to protest for peace?  How about to demand Saddam's death?

I'd think so.


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 31, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It's the orders that she is questioning here.  Should she not be free to do that?



Everyone has a right to question. The problem is the way she is using her son's death. Her name is now known to hundreds of millions of people and her cause is furthered by her son's death. Mantis even said, clearly, that she was using his death. The question is, where is the proof that he would have approved?

If one of your loved one's died and you were not absolutly certain that he/she would approve of your cause, would you use the tragedy of their death to push it?

For me, the answer would be no. And having worn the uniform of the United States, I doubt many who took the same oath I did would approve. There is enough doubt, and seemingly no proof he felt the same as she, to look on this as a case of someone disrespting the wishes of the dead for their own means and benefit.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 31, 2005)

. . . And if Ms. Sheehan is defined as a crazed left wing, MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore, puppet, who is abusing the memory of her son to gain notoriaty, we don't have to consider the substance of her arguments.

Why is it that Casey, and 2,017 of his colleagues have died in Iraq, again? What are we doing there anyway?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 31, 2005)

The ladys a littile nutty...

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy  not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The ladys a littile nutty...
> 
> "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy  not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."


 
I don't see anything nutty about this message.  I have supported every single point in the above on MT with our the administrations own words and other documents.  Heck, Norman Podhoretz says as much and he's a founding member of PNAC.  If you still doubt me, check out "Rebuilding Americas Defenses," by Paul Wolfowitz.

Yet, no media outlet is particularly forth coming with any of this information.  Particularly about how was was apparently chosen over Saddam's exile.  This last bit would make a new good topic...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 31, 2005)

Yes Don, I really do see your point.  I guess the question I have here is where lies Cindy Sheehan's larger responsibility?  To her son's supposed wishes or her own self actualization?  I don't personally believe that she's speaking anything that she herself doesn't believe.  And, I suppose that it could also be noted that more people know of Casey Sheehan's sacrifice now, than would have had she remained silent.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The ladys a littile nutty...
> 
> "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy  not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."



This is nutty?  Then wrap it in coconut and chocolate cuz I feel like a nut.

Is it nutty to question the powers that be? I don't think so.  Further, the fact that she gave birth to that young man who so willingly sacrificed his life for lies and half-truths gives her the right to claim her very personal pain in a very public manner.  The constitution guarantees her that right and her son died to protect her ability to do so.  So, you would rather she usurp that and just sit down and shut up, right?  Wouldn't it be nice if everyone would just sit down and shut up when the president is trying to overthrow oil-rich governments for his own gain??  

So, you're telling me it's wrong to point to military catastrophes and call them wrong if any of our soldiers have died at all ... especially if you're a family member of a deceased soldier?  a victim of a lie?  Whether he went into battle believing that lie or not, he is still the victim of a lie.  When we speak out against the lies we HONOR OUR DEAD WITH TRUTH - I'd rather be honored with truth than remembered with deception.


----------



## DngrRuss (Oct 31, 2005)

To quote myself from a previous thread on the subject:  "Wow, so much to get snippy about, so little time...  Questioning the administration regarding the death of Casey Sheehan, and any other soldier for that matter, is neither unAmerican, disrespectful, nor is it improper.  When a soldier signs on the dotted line, he is putting his own life and safety on the line to defend our country from all threats. Yes, he has to follow the orders of the Comander in Chief, the will of the Congress, his commanding officers, etc. Only if the order is unjust or illegal does the soldier have the right and/or duty to not follow those orders. Noone is denying any of that. Noone is denying that Casey Sheehan did his duty and made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. The question here is, did his country squander that sacrifice?  Comparisons have been made between the current war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. There is at least one very distinct difference: In Vietnam, there was always one answer to the question "why are we here?"- to stop the spread of communism and protect our country from the domino-effect. Whether you agree with that reasoning or not, whether you supported that war or not, at least you knew where the administration stood and what the facts (at least what we were being told) were.  With the Iraq war, the story keeps changing to either fit a current political climate, or hide the fact that we have made a rather large-scale blunder. If we were going in to protect ourselves against WMD's, and none were found, I would want to know why my son sacrificed his life and noone was accountable in the administration. Then the story changes to Hussein=BinLaden. Then that proves not to be accurate. Again, why is my son dead, and noone in the administration accountable? Then the story is that this is the "war on terror" (sidenote: haven't we learned that when we declare a war on a noun- like drugs, poverty, illiteracy, terror, etc.- that it just doesn't work), but the terrorists weren't bombing Iraq until we destabilized it. Again, my son pays the ultimate sacrifice, and noone up the food chain is accountable?  This administration has done very little other than to give stump speeches and redneck-rhetoric to rally the country behind it. I would also like some answers. I want the government to be accountable for it's actions. You tell me I'm threatened, by God, send in the Marines to kick ***. But if the threat is not exactly what you said it was, then proves not to be there at all, I want some answers. And I haven't lost a child (though a few of my students are over there). I would demand answers if I had.  Does Ms. Sheehan deserve a private audience with the President? I don't think so. I agree that there are millions of prople with millions of different grievences with this government, so seeing each of them is unrealistic. Seeing Ms. Sheehan specifically would probably be political suicide for the President.  Do I think that her questions deserve answers? Abso-friggin'-lutley. This idea that the President has no accountability is absurd. He works for ME. He works for Ms. Sheehan. He works for every American on this board. He may be the CEO, but we are the stockholders.  How many executives of any business would survive the ax if they were this inconsistent and, imho, incompetent? If I were the CEO of a company and one of my executives gives me information that causes me to take action that puts the company and myself in jeopardy, and this information proves to be false, I would fire his a** and do what I can to fix the problem. Noone in this administration has paid any price for the actions of this country- though many soldiers have.  I have stated on other threads that I do not support a pull-out of Iraq. I want to be a good American and a good citizen of the world. My country screwed up this situation, and my country needs to fix it. I want my administration, my government, and my soldiers to be accountable. I want to see the best result from this debaucle as possible. I don't think I'm gonna get it as long as this administration is in power, changing stories, not accounting for thier actions, and not taking the bull by the horns and fixing the situation.  I as an American am embarrassed by what my government has made me look like to the rest of the world. I am outraged that they are not doing everything they can to fix the situation and firing those who caused it. It continues to make us all look like a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks that shoot first, then don't even bother to ask questions.  All Ms. Sheehan wants is accountability. I think she deserves it, as do we all. Brave soldiers are willing to sacrifice thier lives for us. I for one do not want those sacrifices to be wasted in my name, by an administration that can't seem to get it's story straight, and is allied by a movement that throws out labels like "unAmerican, traitor", and the ever popular "liberal" for those who wants answers and accountability."  And Don- You have stated that Ms. Sheehan has been disrespecting her son because he "probably" wouldn't have agreed with her views.  Your point is falacious at best.  You have no idea what he would have thought or not.  My opinion is that he "probably" would have agreed with her decisions and actions in his name, since his most influencial years were molded by his mother, not his drill instructor.  I also could be very wrong, that is why I would never dare to assume or to know or make "probable" the thoughts of a dead man whom I have never met.  For God's sake people- she lost her son.  Just because you think that her politics are wrong does not make her any less a greiving mother.  And, if it were me, and I had died for an unjust cause, by God I would hope that my family would use my name, likeness, or any other rememberence of me to help bring an unjust action to a close.  My 2 cents.


----------



## DngrRuss (Oct 31, 2005)

Is somehting wrong here-  My pagagraph breaks show on the posting window, but not the final post.  Am I doing something wrong here?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 31, 2005)

See the Support forum. Other people have had the same problem. It's an after-effect of the upgrade. Try clearing your cache for starters.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> And Don- You have stated that Ms. Sheehan has been disrespecting her son because he "probably" wouldn't have agreed with her views.  Your point is falacious at best.  You have no idea what he would have thought or not.  My opinion is that he "probably" would have agreed with her decisions and actions in his name, since his most influencial years were molded by his mother, not his drill instructor.  I also could be very wrong, that is why I would never dare to assume or to know or make "probable" the thoughts of a dead man whom I have never met.



Ah, but Ms Sheehan has presumed to tell the thoughts of her dead son. Or at least give that as an excuse for why she sought the limelight like she did.

Your reasoning that her son probably would have felt like her due to his raising is quite a bit of a stretch. Have you never heard of parents and children disagreeing? Have you never heard of parents using their children and abusing them? Have you always felt the same political views of your parents?

Well, I can tell that you have never served in the military by what you write. I have. The decision is the biggest one I ever made in my life. It is a more important choice than getting married. You can't get killed in most marriages or be sent around the world at someone else's order. You do not go into that without a lot of thought and soul searching about what it means for you and those you know. You know going in that you may not have all the answers. You know that there have been suicide missions and that you may be called upon to die for some purpose that may never be revealed in your lifetime. If you can't live with that, there is no draft to force you to serve.

Sheehan's son signed the dotted line knowing all this. Having been in that situation, it is hard for me to beleive that he would approve of what his mother is using the tragedy of his death for her own means. 

All during this debate, no one has been able to come forward with anything that shows that he would feel the same way as her. There are no letters by him complaning about the war I have heard of. The people around him at the end as well as the rest of his family do not seem to be flocking to her side to say he would have wanted his name to be used in this manner.

So there seems to be a great deal of probability that he would not have approved, and that would stop me from doing what she has done.

I asked a while back if anyone would like one of their relatives to use their name after they died to promote a cause they did not believe in. No one has said they would. I do not grudge Sheehan her right to protest, but I have the right to say that using her dead son's name for this fame is vile.

No one can show proof that he would have approved her actions. It looks very much to be the opposite.

No one has said they would like their name used for a cause they don't believe in like his has.

In fact, I look at this thread and I see a disturbing sentiment. Those that are on her side would not like their own name used in a cause they do not believe in, but their arguments can be boiled down to "the anti-war cause is too important to take into account the considerations of the dead and how their name is used."

I see people taking chances to launch rabid attacks against the president and decry the war, but no one willing to think about what this dead soldier really would have wanted. No one would want their name used for a cause they don't support like this, but no one seems willing to say that this is wrong because it might damage their argument against the war.

There are other threads about the war. This thread is supposed to be about how a mother has used her dead son's name to gain fame for herself. I have left my feelings about the war outside and tried to think about how I would feel if I were used as it looks like this guy was used. But no one defending Ms Sheehan seems to feel anything about what her child would have wanted- attacking the war is far too important to do so it would seem.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

Don ...

Casey is Dead. Cindy is not. I understand you don't approve of her tactics. For the sake of argument, I'll conceed. Ms. Sheehan is wrong. She shouldn't be doing this. It's disgraceful. 

But can we address the substance of her argument.

What the hell are 161,000 United States Soldiers doing in Iraq?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 1, 2005)

The fact that his father and other relatives have publicly stated their disagreement with Ms. Sheehan. Would seem to point out that perhaps Casey didnt share his mothers beliefs due to upbringing. 

My parents and sisters are decidedly more liberal than I am.....


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don ...
> 
> Casey is Dead. Cindy is not. I understand you don't approve of her tactics. For the sake of argument, I'll conceed. Ms. Sheehan is wrong. She shouldn't be doing this. It's disgraceful.



Good. And the subject of what she says she wants to push is the subject of many other threads.

Or does someone else want to divert attention and the subject away from how she is using her sons death to gain fame?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Good. And the subject of what she says she wants to push is the subject of many other threads.
> 
> Or does someone else want to divert attention and the subject away from how she is using her sons death to gain fame?





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> But can we address the substance of her argument.




OK Don . . . I gave you a concession and now you are ducking the question.

Why did 94 American Soldiers Die in Iraq in October of 2005?

How many more American Soldiers are going to die in Iraq this month? Next Month? Why are they dying?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK Don . . . I gave you a concession and now you are ducking the question.
> 
> Why did 94 American Soldiers Die in Iraq in October of 2005?
> 
> How many more American Soldiers are going to die in Iraq this month? Next Month? Why are they dying?



I declined to answer because the subject of this thread is about Sheehan and not what you want to turn the conversation to.

You are so eager to push your agenda that you *also* want to use this mans death to promote it against his probable will?

Go to the other threads about the war. It is not the subject the original poster intended to talk about. You are not showing honor by trying to hijack the thread about how a man's death is being used to use for your own crusade.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I declined to answer because the subject of this thread is about Sheehan and not what you want to turn the conversation to.
> 
> You are so eager to push your agenda that you *also* want to use this mans death to promote it against his probable will?
> 
> Go to the other threads about the war. It is not the subject the original poster intended to talk about. You are not showing honor by trying to hijack the thread about how a man's death is being used to use for your own crusade.


 
Crusade? Man, you have to think about the words you use. 

As for honor .... maybe I am attempting to show honor to the *living* soldiers. I don't want any more of them to die because our petulant President had a grudge against someone attempting to assassinate his "Dad". A President who either knowingly lied to the American Citizens (and the World) to build a case for war or was incompetent enough to be misled himself. 

Haven't you figured out that these threads are discussions ... all discussions wander in and out of topics ... but, now, I am just being asked to shut up by someone who earlier in this thread said they wouldn't do that. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And I will not shut up, and I do not expect anyone else such as you to either.


 
If you wish for stronger moderation, there is a link in the upper left corner of the posts to report the thread to the moderators.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As for honor .... maybe I am attempting to show honor to the *living* soldiers. I don't want any more of them to die because our petulant President had a grudge against someone attempting to assassinate his "Dad". A President who either knowingly lied to the American Citizens (and the World) to build a case for war or was incompetent enough to be misled himself.



And maybe you are not trying to honor them. You are more interested in trying to bash the president than in discussing the idea that this thread is about. Martialtalk is about discussion. But they do try to prevent thread drift and do not like when people with agendas try to hijack threads _as you are doing._

You have no interest in the dead soldier. As a former one, I do. If you want a response from me or a questioned answered, keep to the spirit of the first post.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You have no interest in the dead soldier.


 
And you are a mind-reader too.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 1, 2005)

As a member (I've commented in the discussion) I see the question that michaeledward raised as being perfectly relevant.  In fact, I see it as illustrating precisely what Cindy Sheehan herself is asking.  So, how is that not relevant in a thread about Cindy Sheehan? 

If we know what she is asking, and we can see how people react to that question, does that not speak to whether Cindy Sheehan is a "happy mom" about her son being a "dead soldier"?

Of course, nobody needs to answer the question if they don't want to.  You still have choice in whether you participate in the discussion.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Nov 1, 2005)

I think the thread title is just a little . . . disgusting. It's as if some people believe that a woman is happy that her son is dead.

Maybe she's happy because she feels successful in her protest efforts.

Of course she probably wouldn't be protesting as strongly had her son not died, but that does not necessarily mean she is using him.

Imagine having a serious illness that requires an extensive stay in a hospital. While there, you become good friends with someone and that friendship makes you very happy. Are you happy because of your serious illness? Are you using the illness to further your friend-gaining agenda?

Not the best analogy, but damn - can we at least show some respect?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 1, 2005)

This just in.

Secretary of Defense is suggesting that the number of US Soldiers on the ground in Iraq may need to *increase* as we move forward toward the December elections.

The number of troops on the ground was at its highest level in mid-October (161,000) but has rotated down slightly (158,000).

How many were used to capture Baghdad?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 1, 2005)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> Not the best analogy, but damn - can we at least show some respect?



I think that is the point is that to my eyes Ms Sheehan is not respecting the probable wishes of her dead son.

Take a minute to do an image search on her. She is not clustered at home, collapsed with grief. She has gone out to seek the spotlight. It is not just the picture at the beggining of this thread, she is quite free from tears as she seeks out camera crews to talk with.

I would not use a dead person's name to futher my own ends unless I was pretty damn sure they would have approved. If there was any doubt, I would refrain. And it would not be a case of, 'this cause is too important to care how the dead would feel.'

Ms. Sheehan has made a choice to be a media figure. If she was so torn with grief that she could not leave the house I would decry the media circus camped out on her lawn. But when she made the effort to be known to millions of people, she became open to public discussion.

It seems that the anti-war people would like to have a spokesperson who can bash the president for them but can't be touched on for her rather vile behavior.

Again, would you want your name 'respected' by your relatives to say that Islam was the religion of the devil after you were killed in a bomb? It does not matter the cause, just that you probably would not approve and despite that your relatives used your name to get in front of the cameras.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2005)

Are we still discussion Cindy Sheehan's (losing) battle for attention (or sanity)?  I thought that circus left town weeks ago.  It must be difficult to have all those cameras pointed at you, and then suddenly find yourself relegated to anonymity once again.  To think how Cindy's handlers fed this woman's ego, played her up and then dropped her like a hot potato once her 15-minutes of fame and her usefulness were up.  Oh well, next...


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

Ms. Sheehan has a court appearance today for 'demonstrating without a permit'. The maximum sentence is a $500.00 fine and / or 6 months in jail.

One has to wonder if the courts will demonstrate the same 'tin-ear' the President has, and put her in jail for 6 months. She has stated she will not pay a fine.


----------



## modarnis (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ms. Sheehan has a court appearance today for 'demonstrating without a permit'. The maximum sentence is a $500.00 fine and / or 6 months in jail.
> 
> One has to wonder if the courts will demonstrate the same 'tin-ear' the President has, and put her in jail for 6 months. She has stated she will not pay a fine.



If the prosecutors are smart, they will decline to prosecute the case, limiting the newsworthiness of the event and preventing her from being a martyr


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

Cindy Sheehan was found guilty of Demonstrating without a Permit. U.S. Magistrate Kay has ordered Sheehan to pay $50.50 in fines and court fees. 

Ms. Sheehan will appeal the conviction on grounds she was petitioning the government as provisioned in the First Amendment to the Constitution.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## modarnis (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Cindy Sheehan was found guilty of Demonstrating without a Permit. U.S. Magistrate Kay has ordered Sheehan to pay $50.50 in fines and court fees.
> 
> Ms. Sheehan will appeal the conviction on grounds she was petitioning the government as provisioned in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> ​



Of course there is a large body of case law that allows governments to regulate the time, place, and manner  of the exercise of free speech and assembly (see Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569)  Obviously any state or local ordinance must be content neutral and evenly applied


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2005)

Petitioning the govt.? Eh, I don't buy it. It was aprotest. That's great...but it's something different.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Dec 18, 2005)

Sheehan is welcome to say whatever she wants to say in opposition to the war. Hooray for free speech.
The fact of the matter is that the death of her son does not make her an expert on foreign affairs.  She isn't an authority on anything pertaining to the political aspect of this war. I was astounded that the media paid her so much attention.

It appears that many activist groups think that grief will overcome logic. "If we find a grieving poster-child, we will automatically win the arguement." Clearly, this isn't so.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Dec 18, 2005)

Well, at least she's in Spain this time.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI2P782.html


> Dec 17 10:19 AM US/Eastern
> 
> 
> *MADRID, Spain* - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.
> ...


"Iraq is worse than Vietnam."  That's cute...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Well, at least she's in Spain this time.
> http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI2P782.html
> 
> "Iraq is worse than Vietnam." That's cute...


 The woman's a nit-wit.  I'd be surprised if she could spell 'Vietnam'.  She's an expert on 'how she feels', which is fine....just don't be surprised when you talk out side your area of expertise, other people ridicule you.  

That crap plays well in Europe, though, it plays to their elitist tendencies...makes them feel superior, just as some American's like to make themselves feel superior by identifying with Europeans (I hope I didn't step on some pretentious toes there).  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It is good to see Cindy is working again.  I had become concerned that, without a camera in front of her, she might become distraught.  I guess she got drafted to play in the European Arena league.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 1, 2006)

Ms. Sheehan was arrested at the State of the Union address yesterday. She was wearing a T-Shirt that referenced fallen American soldiers; "2,245 dead - How Many More?"

The charges were dropped today.

The Gray cloud / Silver lining over this incident is that the wife of Representative Young (R-FL) was also removed from the State of the Union address. She was wearing a T-Shirt, as well; "Support the Troops - Defending our Freedom".

I suppose it becomes difficult to control the activities of a Totalitarian State once you get started, eh?


----------



## KenpoEMT (Feb 1, 2006)

Hell, they probably should have just removed everybody from the address...


----------



## Carol (Feb 1, 2006)

Sheehan has flirted with considering challenging Diane Feinstein for her senate seat, and she sounds quite serious about it.  

If Sheehan were to make a political move, now is time.  She lambasted Feinstein for introducing her fellow Stanford alum, Condaleeza Rice, at Rice's Secretary of State nomination hearing.  Sheehan has also criticized Feinstein for praising a member of the Bush cabinet.

To my untrained eyes, Sheehan's entire stance can be condensed down to "Bush is wrong."   Since everything she talks about revolves around Bush, she needs to make a move in this mid-term election while Bush is still in office.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Gray cloud / Silver lining over this incident is that the wife of Representative Young (R-FL) was also removed from the State of the Union address. She was wearing a T-Shirt, as well; "Support the Troops - Defending our Freedom".



Wow. A rule applied evenly to everyone! Imagine that!

Imagine the idea of Sheehan running for senator. I have heard some people use almost anything to get into office. It is not a big surprise that Sheehan would profit so handsomely off of the death of a child who dared disagree with her.


----------



## qizmoduis (Feb 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Wow. A rule applied evenly to everyone! Imagine that!



Except that it wasn't.  Sheehan was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, whereas the other lady was asked politely to leave.  Of course, this shouldn't be surprising to anybody, given Bush's history of suppression of dissenting viewpoints wherever he goes.  The congressional Democrats should probably feel grateful they weren't arrested as well.


----------



## Xequat (Feb 2, 2006)

Was either of them acting up?  I didn't see it, but was Sheehan being obnoxious where the other woman was being quiet or anything like that?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2006)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Was either of them acting up? I didn't see it, but was Sheehan being obnoxious where the other woman was being quiet or anything like that?


 
Actually, the reports are exactly the opposite. Ms. Sheehan went quietly with the Capitol Police. Representative Young's wife was a bit more beligerant with the Capitol Police, addressing one of them the phrase, "You're an Idiot.".


----------



## jdinca (Feb 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I suppose it becomes difficult to control the activities of a Totalitarian State once you get started, eh?



:rofl:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 2, 2006)

I guess Cindy Sheehan is desperately clinging to her 15-minutes of fame.  It's not surprising, many people find it difficult to give up the limelight, once they've become famous.  Many resort to cheap publicity stunts to keep their name in the news.  I expect to see Cindy on Celebrity Boxing next.


----------



## Sapper6 (Feb 2, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Actually, the reports are exactly the opposite. Ms. Sheehan went quietly with the Capitol Police. Representative Young's wife was a bit more beligerant with the Capitol Police, addressing one of them the phrase, "You're an Idiot.".


 
are you making this up?  i have yet to read that portion of the circus.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 2, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> are you making this up? i have yet to read that portion of the circus.


 
No. 

Ms. Sheehan's report of what happened to her can be read here ...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index_594.html

There is a bit of a report concerning Mrs. Young here .. 

http://www.nbc10.com/news/6646907/detail.html

This article reports some of Mrs. Young's wonderful activities on behalf of American Service people. It also reports a bit of a blue streak in her use of language.

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2005/12/beverly-young-for-us-senate.html

And this ... 

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1138864769.shtml


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 2, 2006)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Was either of them acting up?  I didn't see it, but was Sheehan being obnoxious where the other woman was being quiet or anything like that?



Young was told that she could not wear the t-shirt in the gallery where the president was giving the speech. She left on her own, but protested the ejection. It seems that the protesting and the idiot comment happened outside the gallery.

Sheehan, according to several reports, did not respond to the police. She ignored them and had to be taken away in handcuffs.

One was charged, the other who left on her own was not.

Check with sources like CBS and read them carefully. Stay away from some of the more partisan sources like Michel Moore's web site if you want the truth. Here is a report by ABC.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2006/02/060202tshirts.shtml


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, by all means, avoid the First Person accounts of what happened. God knows the people who were actually involved won't have any idea what happened. 

Instead, look to the 'Liberal Media' to give you a 'Fair and Balanced' description of what happened. Never mind that the ABC article explains very little about what actually happened, and much more about the Capitol Police apologizing for their actions. 

Don't use the right of a 'Free Press' to gather the facts from a variety of points of view, to then form an opinion. Just take the spoon fed 'story' that Corporate America wants you to be aware of. 

Or you could catch John Stewarts description on 'The Daily Show', it was pretty good too.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, by all means, avoid the First Person accounts of what happened. God knows the people who were actually involved won't have any idea what happened.



Kind of like asking O.J. Simpson what happened to his ex-wife. Seriously, you expect someone who obviously hates Bush as much as Sheehan and Moore do to be objective? And the whole line about 'corporate America'... seriously now!:uhyeah:


----------



## hong kong fooey (Feb 3, 2006)

I can understand why she would want to protest president bush. I am not a big fan of the war but that is my opinion. so I say as long as she thinks this is what she needs to do then all the power to her


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

She was not there to Protest the President. She was an invited guest of a member of the United States House of Representatives. 

If you look at the link, you will see that Michael Moore does not make any statements on the page I connected to. The reason the first person account is linked to from that page is because ABC didn't carry the first person report; nor did Fox, or CNN. Ms. Sheehan's recounting of the events were posted on the Huffington Post, and possibly DailyKos. But those sites would no doubt engender similar attitudes. 

Ms. Sheehan's recounting of the event (if you bothered to read it) explains two very  common sense items .... 1) she had been wearing that t-Shirt througout the day. 2) if she wanted to make a statement, she would have not taken her overcoat off until after the President had arrived in the Chamber. 

That's OK though, Don Roley, just keep your mind closed. It's easier that way.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> She was not there to Protest the President.



Uh, and we are to believe her after all that has gone on?

For all my "closed mind", I still try to point people in the direction of places like ABC, CNN, and others that have a need to maintain a standard of proffesionalism. To discount them because they are some part of a corporate conspiracy is rather nutty in my view. 

I would think that the news orginizations that have to rely on their reputation would listen to Sheehan and take what she says into account with everything else. And of course, Sheehan is very, very biased against the president. So it is not surprising that an equally biased Micheal Moore would give her version of events and not something like ABC unless it fit with other accounts.

To say to listen to the obviously partisan veiwpoints of Sheehan and company and ignore established journalists due to their corporate leanings is right up there with Illuminati conspiracy theories as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Ray (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> She was not there to Protest the President. She was an invited guest of a member of the United States House of Representatives.


If I were invited to such an event, I would respectfully wear a suit; My wife would also choose "proper" attire. When I work, attend church or other such gatherings then I also wear attire without messages. When I'm out & about in public, then I might wear a TeeShirt advertising my kenpo school or even a political message.

I think everyone should do the same (especially wear a shirt that advertisies my kenpo school).


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ms. Sheehan's recounting of the event (if you bothered to read it) explains two very common sense items .... 1) she had been wearing that t-Shirt througout the day.


No bath and change of clothes before the event? I don't think that's shows common sense, after all, how many of us get such an invite?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Ray, apparently that is the case, indeed. There are photos of her wearing that shirt earlier in the day.

Don Roley, I am not discounting ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

I am suggesting we expose ourselves to the information available. I am not suggesting that we believe only Ms. Sheehan and nobody else. Look at all the information available, and apply logic to the situation to see if we can determine what happened.

Sounds like you are saying ... well, because her thoughts are subjective, we must discount them. 

Put all the available information into the pot, boil it for away, burn away the chaff, use your intelligence as a crucible. Recognize her comments as subjective, and apply your own sense of 'common sense' and 'fair play' to the information you receive. 

I wonder if we dug around some other thread, if we would find you guys decrying the "Liberal Media", that you are now saying we must turn to.

If the accused is willing to take the stand at a trial, would you say "Nope, we can't hear from him"?

EDIT --- P.S.   and if you look at my original links, you will see I posted a link to an NBC News affiliated station.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don Roley, I am not discounting ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or FOX



Then explain this,



> Just take the spoon fed 'story' that Corporate America wants you to be aware of.



Yes, you are discounting them on the basis that they are "Corporate America."

I feel free in saying that when someone has as much history of bias and rabidly attacking the president as Sheehan does, you do not listen too closely to them unless there is something to back up what they say. Would Sheehan have a stake in presenting things in a certain way? The answer is most obviously yes.

And nothing else I see from reputable sources seems to contradict the version that she was taken away and charged because she would not leave or take off the t-shirt as Young did.

We all know that she has had to be dragged away from protests by the police. She has been photographed smiling as she is being carried away. This incident fits her past behavior. To think that she would not enjoy another media circus and chance to present the President in an bad light is folly.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 3, 2006)

I have to question what purpose ANY demonstration by Cindy Sheehan serves at this point.  The only people really paying any attention to her at this point, are the Michael Moore type "quacks".  If not for the "15 minutes of fame", what other purpose could this nonsense serve?  Is a protest effective if no one is listening?

It's unfortunate, but I think she will eventually realize that celebrity does not make up for the loss of a loved one.  Especially when your "crusade" only damages the relationships you have with your other loved ones.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> I have to question what purpose ANY demonstration by Cindy Sheehan serves at this point. The only people really paying any attention to her at this point, are the Michael Moore type "quacks". If not for the "15 minutes of fame", what other purpose could this nonsense serve? Is a protest effective if no one is listening?
> 
> It's unfortunate, but I think she will eventually realize that celebrity does not make up for the loss of a loved one. Especially when your "crusade" only damages the relationships you have with your other loved ones.


 
Ms. Sheehan was not attempting, at the State of the Union, to make any Demonstration. She was there to observe. I assume that is the same reason many Americans tuned in to the television or, like me, via radio. 

SHE WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROTEST ANYTHING! ! !


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 3, 2006)

Um..ok. So, you are invited to sit with Washington's elite, and listen to the State of the Union Address.  So you go through your wardrobe, and instead of picking out a formal dress, you pull at a T-shirt, with language clearly against the war.

And you do not see this as a protest or an attempt to get noticed once again?  Of course you don't.  Because she's protesting George Bush, you rationalize it anyway you can.  Had this been John Kerry, you'd be sreaming murder.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Then explain this,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
My explanation for that sentence is, as described above, that there is more information available concerning the events of the evening. An intelligent person would make themselves available to such facts before forming an opinion.

Certainly, we need not wait for every available fact before coming to an opinion, because often facts are difficult to attain, and we should not expend more energy to gather facts than the decision will impact in the end. In this case, additional facts are easily available and there is no reason not to expose ourselves to them, aware of their subjective nature, and use them when forming an opinion.

Further, I apologize for ending a sentence in a preposition.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I feel free in saying that when someone has as much history of bias and rabidly attacking the president as Sheehan does, you do not listen too closely to them unless there is something to back up what they say. Would Sheehan have a stake in presenting things in a certain way? The answer is most obviously yes.
> 
> And nothing else I see from reputable sources seems to contradict the version that she was taken away and charged because she would not leave or take off the t-shirt as Young did.


 
Do the 'reputable sources' report who asked her to leave, politely without handcuffs? 

Do the 'reputable sources' report who asked her to remove the t-shirt?

You are entering facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that Ms. Sheehan and Mrs. Young were asked to remove or change their clothing, even in the 'reputable sources'.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> We all know that she has had to be dragged away from protests by the police. She has been photographed smiling as she is being carried away. This incident fits her past behavior. To think that she would not enjoy another media circus and chance to present the President in an bad light is folly.


 
So, you won't read what she has written about the event, but you will make suppositions about her thoughts, attitudes and opinions based on a photograph. 

Was Mrs. Young's goal to also present the President in a bad light?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Um..ok. So, you are invited to sit with Washington's elite, and listen to the State of the Union Address. So you go through your wardrobe, and instead of picking out a formal dress, you pull at a T-shirt, with language clearly against the war.
> 
> And you do not see this as a protest or an attempt to get noticed once again? Of course you don't. Because she's protesting George Bush, you rationalize it anyway you can. Had this been John Kerry, you'd be sreaming murder.


 
OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).

So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).
> 
> So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?



I think the reaction of both women in the aftermath was overblown and silly. I saw the congressmans wife on tv yesterday and even after he made the comment agreeing that this was a misinterpretation of the law, she was still shaking her head in disgust.

This was quite simply a couple of Capitol Hill cops who thought they were enforcing the law and were trying to be even handed. Everything that happened after initial contact with the two individuals went on their observations and verbal reports. It's been clearly acknowledged that they overstepped their bounds and both people have been personally apologized to by the chief of the capital police. There was no nefarious plot against Cindy Sheehan, no "Bush's Gestapo" (that one was pretty funny), no nothing. A couple of cops screwed up.

This is a tempest in a teapot, and not worth the press it's been getting.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

That is a thoughtful response.

And, if there were no pre-existing pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush Administration interpreting t-shirts or bumper stickers as protests, and removing those people from an assembly area, I could agree with your analysis.

But, there is that pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush adminstration. As such, it is difficult to accept the argument that it was a couple of over-zealous officers on duty.

And, I don't think it is getting a lot of press. If the Congressman's wife had not been removed (and one other person was removed from the Gallery, although I can't find a reason why), it would be getting even less press.

I believe the officers were exercising their instructions as instructed, and Mrs. Young is, as they say in intelligence circles, blowback.


----------



## Seig (Feb 3, 2006)

So far, the only person I have seen give their opinion as a Veteran is Don. While I disagree on many things with Don, as a Veteran, I agree with him. I joined the military during Desert Shield, the Coast Guard to be exact. The first thing they told me is,  "You know you can be sent to Iraq, right?" I enlisted anyway. My specialty? Law Enforcement and Search and Rescue. Some of our SARs were not only high profile, but also extremely dangerous,  as were some of LE Ops. No one made me choose to put my *** out there, I did it on my own. When everyone else was running away from disaster, we were running in. Did I do it for the victims? Maybe a little, but more importantly, I was there to make sure my shipmates came back. The saying we lived by, "You have to go out, you don't have to come back."
What does this have to do with the topic? Just this, most people in the military care more about their "buddies" than they do with politics. If my crew went out into a hurricaine and all hands were killed, how silly would it look if my mother started protesting against the president, god, and the weather?
Her son made a choice, good or bad.
His mother has a right to protest the war, as do all Americans, thanks to the veterans that fought the wars.
Using her son in the manner she is, from a veteran's stand point, is a disgrace.
If she wants to protest Bush, Iraq, or Snoopy for all I care, then fine, but don't use her son as a martyr. He wasn't, he chose to be there by enlisting.
The bottom line is this, there are right ways and wrong ways to do everything. She *may* be doing the right thing, but she's doing it the wrong way.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That is a thoughtful response.
> 
> And, if there were no pre-existing pattern of behavior on the part of the Bush Administration interpreting t-shirts or bumper stickers as protests, and removing those people from an assembly area, I could agree with your analysis.
> 
> ...



Mrs. Young was removed after Cindy Sheehan in a fit of "Political Correctness", IMO. She was removed after Bush had already started his speech. If your hypothesis that the administration had somehow taken control of the Capitol Hill Police just to keep her or other protestors out, then they wouldn't have bothered. If it had just been Sheehan who had been removed, I would possibly be more willing to concede your point.

I am willing to accept the CHP explanation at face value.

http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2006/pr_02-01-06.html

This agency is under the control of Congress, btw, and not the Executive Branch. Yes, yes, I know, they're all under the control of Republicans, so they're all guilty. :uhyeah:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

I had heard both women were removed from the Gallery. I had assumed that both women were removed before the President started speaking. After seeing your post, referencing Mrs. Young's departure was after the President started speaking, I went to find that in news posts. The Washington Post does report that Mrs. Young was asked to leave approximately 45 minutes into the President's speech.

More interesting and More interesting. 

So you think the Capitol Police just wanted to get Sheehan out of the Gallery to avoid embarrassing the President ... and then realized their actions might look bad on Wednesday morning, so they ran a Republican Congressman's wife through the wringer too; hedging their bets, so to speak. 

Interesting. 

So, what you're saying is Ms. Sheehan didn't do anything wrong. She shouldn't have been pulled out of the Gallery because of her bad fashion sense. And the powers that be are trying to make themselves look incompetent, but not malicious. Yes?


P.S. ... and even if the Capitol Police are under the direction of the Congress in normal times, don't you think when the President is visiting the Capitol, the Secret Service is giving *all* of the orders.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So you think the Capitol Police just wanted to get Sheehan out of the Gallery to avoid embarrassing the President ... and then realized their actions might look bad on Wednesday morning, so they ran a Republican Congressman's wife through the wringer too; hedging their bets, so to speak.
> 
> P.S. ... and even if the Capitol Police are under the direction of the Congress in normal times, don't you think when the President is visiting the Capitol, the Secret Service is giving *all* of the orders.



No, that's not what I think. Based on the reports I've read, until somebody clued him in the cop didn't even know it was Cindy Sheehan. He saw the t-shirt when she opened her jacket and thought it was a protestor. As for Mrs. Young, I think it was political correctness in that she was also wearing a t-shirt with a political message so whe was in violation, regardless of whether it was pro or con. In both situations they overreacted.

Yes, I do think the Secret Service was calling the shots. I think they told the CHP that under no circumstances were they to allow a protestor to start protesting. I don't think they told them that if they saw Cindy Sheehan to "cuff her and stuff her".


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Fair enough ... 

As I mentioned earlier, once you start considering what is written on T-Shirts a protest that must be stopped, it becomes very difficult to define which words on T-shirts fall within the bounds and which words on T-shirts fall out of bounds. That is what makes those first five words of the Bill of Rights so amazing. It tells us right away, that the founders knew trying to create or define those boundaries can only lead to problems.
Congress shall make *no* law . . . . . . ​Or, as Loa Tzu put it .... 
The Tao the can be explained in words, is not the true Tao.​


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK ... Let's assume for the moment her intention is to embarass the President ... (something with which Ms. Sheehan has denied, out of respect for her Congresswoman).
> 
> So, why did she take the jacket off while sitting down, long before the President arrived?



Well, you were talking about "patterns of behavior" when talking about the Bush administration. What about Sheehan? Her pattern of behavior is to cause as much trouble for the president as possible. And she enjoys the media attention as she has been litterally carried away from protests.

So, by wearing the t-shirt and failing to respond to the police when they talked to her, she got yet another chance to hit the airways and embarrass the president. People now are using this as an example of the goverment being fascist.

So by showing the t-shirt and then not leaving as Young did, she got all this media time. It fits perfectly with her agenda. Why should we believe her when she says she was not there to protest when everything she does is some sort of protest or another?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with the topic? Just this, most people in the military care more about their "buddies" than they do with politics. If my crew went out into a hurricaine and all hands were killed, how silly would it look if my mother started protesting against the president, god, and the weather?
> Her son made a choice, good or bad.
> His mother has a right to protest the war, as do all Americans, thanks to the veterans that fought the wars.
> Using her son in the manner she is, from a veteran's stand point, is a disgrace.



Yes.

To protest is one thing. But now it looks like she will be using her son's death to maybe go after the power and prestige of being a senator. I do not think she has much of a chance, but the idea is not one that fills me with pity for her. 

There has been a lot of talk about how she is just trying to use her son as she thinks he would like to be used. But none of those who have been in the military seem to agree. We would not want someone to disrespect our choices to push their own agenda or benifit from it. And if she uses his death to be one of the most powerfull people in American politics.......


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, you were talking about "patterns of behavior" when talking about the Bush administration. What about Sheehan? Her pattern of behavior is to cause as much trouble for the president as possible. And she enjoys the media attention as she has been litterally carried away from protests.
> 
> So, by wearing the t-shirt and *failing to respond to the police *when they talked to her, she got yet another chance to hit the airways and embarrass the president. People now are using this as an example of the goverment being fascist.
> 
> So by showing the t-shirt and then not leaving as Young did, she got all this media time. It fits perfectly with her agenda. Why should we believe her when she says she was not there to protest when everything she does is some sort of protest or another?


 
I'm sorry, which 'reputable source' indicated that Ms. Sheehan did not respond to the police?


EDIT .. 

Hey ... I found such a quote ... from the post I linked to .... let's review



			
				NBC News report said:
			
		

> Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.



In this quote, the person stating that Ms. Sheehan "did not respond" is a Capitol Police Force Spokeswoman. 



			
				Capitol Police Force Press Release said:
			
		

> Mrs. Sheehan was charged Tuesday night with Unlawful Conduct after she displayed a T-shirt with an anti-war message while in the House Gallery.



The Press Release makes no claim of non-responsiveness from Ms. Sheehan. The charge against her is 'displaying an anti-war message'. 

Measure these quotes against your prejudices.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, which 'reputable source' indicated that Ms. Sheehan did not respond to the police?



Several "corporate America sources" such as the AP, Yahoo, ABC and CBS. 

For example,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan_8

".....but Sheehan did not respond."


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, and this statement from the guilty (oops not guilty, the charges were all dropped and the Capitol Police have offered an apology) ... from those very news reports must be discounted completely.



			
				Yahoo News Story said:
			
		

> She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
> "I knew  *George Bush* would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket," Sheehan wrote. "I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her."
> *She said she had one arm out of her coat* when an officer yelled, "Protestor."
> "*He then ran over to me*, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) *shoved me up the stairs*," she wrote. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
> "I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress," Sheehan wrote. "I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later."



I supppose by law enforcment standards, when the officer yells at you .... and you don't run over to him with your hands on your head, that qualifies as "did not respond".


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 3, 2006)

Its been my experience that Cops dont like being ignored....


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Measure these quotes against your prejudices.



Yes, especially since the officers say they did tell her that she could not wear the t-shirt and she says no one did.

Sheehan got what she wanted- a chance to give the president a black eye and give those that hate him even more reason to stick to their guns. 

Sheehan is giving one version of events. So far, no one else in the gallery has come forward to support her story of how the arrest went down. You would think others would see and comment to the press.  When that guy got shot by air marshals in Florida, there was no shortage of people who did so, and there were more people in the gallery that night than on the tarmac. Anyone who takes her word for things have to be in the same catagory as those that think the President's precautions against bird flu are just a means of scaring the country into supporting him. :uhyeah:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> . Anyone who takes her word for things have to be in the same catagory as those that think the President's precautions against bird flu are just a means of scaring the country into supporting him.


 
And don't forget the windfall in profits that Secretary Rumsfeld gets as a major stockholder in the maker of Tamiflu ...


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh, yeah .... and there is this ... 

From the United States Capitol Police Force Press Release dated 2/1/2006



> As the Department reviewed the incident, it was determined that while officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the Department in the House Gallery for years, *neither Mrs. Sheehan&#8217;s manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.*


 
But, we better not believe them, either.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah .... and there is this ...
> 
> From the United States Capitol Police Force Press Release dated 2/1/2006



Yes, I read about that. It seems that both Young and Sheehan were taken away for something that everyone thought was in the rules, but was not. Everyone assumed that there were dress codes on the books. But it seems that when they wrote the rules that no one even considered the idea that people would try to show up in anything but their best clothes and act with the most proper of behavior.

So after they looked over the rules, they found that there really was nothing covering it as they thought and apologized.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 3, 2006)

Just a side story:

When you get a ticket, you never argue with the cop. It just makes it worse and it could get you in trouble even if you were not really in trouble. One takes it to court to get your say. 

So the story goes like this. I get pulled over by a police officer doing 66 MPH in a 65 MPH, in a group of cars. Others travelling faster. The officer walks up to the vehicle, Ihave the window down and and he "Reaches" in by slapping his hand against my chest and clinching his hand into a fist, and asking "What the hell are you doing?"  I get my ticket, and ask for his number and full name politely and write it down and ask him why he picked me out. He told me the Chief's wife had called and said I was flipping her off.  I did not argue with the officer.

I went to court and to argue my case. The officer did not show up. The judge did not want to sign off on the ticket and so talked to me, in chambers, about speeding, and that I must have done something else to get a 1 MPH speeding ticket. So I showed him my notes and explained the situation. He was quite upset, and said if I wished to press charges, I could, I told him that I would not if he would talk to the officer and also the chief. He smiled and thanked me.

I went from being guilty with a judge to explaining myself calmly and politely and in a manner that was not aggressive. He was concerend about the absense of the officer and the possible media and political problems. I jsut wanted it not to happen again. 

I got a good result by following the instructions of the officers dispatched. I did not fight. I did not stand on the Bill of Rights. I waited for my time in court.

There are rules and laws, and procedures not chaos and anarchy.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 3, 2006)

You also didnt WANT to make a big scene in front of the entire nation.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> You also didnt WANT to make a big scene in front of the entire nation.


 
And Blotan Hunka can read the future that didn't happen, and thoughts of someone far away ... man, that is some serious kung fu. 



			
				Capital Police Press Release said:
			
		

> neither Mrs. Sheehans manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, by all means, avoid the First Person accounts of what happened. God knows the people who were actually involved won't have any idea what happened.


 Of course, and we are sure to get the unbiased, absolute truth too, right? As we all know, Cindy wouldn't lie for the cause.  Actually, i'm less concerned with her telling the truth, than her grip on reality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  People with a martyr complex tend to live in fanatasy worlds.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 .... there are already enough responses as to whether Ms. Sheehan's first person account should be viewed as 'unbiased, absolute truth' ... check 'em out.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course, and we are sure to get the unbiased, absolute truth too, right? As we all know, Cindy wouldn't lie for the cause.  Actually, i'm less concerned with her telling the truth, than her grip on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That martyr complex is an interesting point.

She says she was not there to protest. Should we believe her or look more toward her past patterns of behavior.

Let's face it. She has arranged to be dragged away (smiling) from protests before and arrested. She camped out for weeks in front of the president's ranch in the hope of confronting him. She has sought out fame and media attention at every oppurtunity, good or bad.

And despite all this, the guy who gave her the ticket somehow did not expect her to get up in the middle of the speech and cause trouble?

No one can predict the future or what someone would do. But Sheehan's past actions do not point to her sitting quietly without fuss. Someone wanted some fireworks. It just did not happen live onn national tv.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> That martyr complex is an interesting point.
> 
> She says she was not there to protest. Should we believe her or look more toward her past patterns of behavior.


 She was obviously there to protest.  Moreover, she was there for attention.  She seems to desire the limelight obsessively.  It's hard to let go once you become a celebrity.  It's apparently quite addictive.  



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Let's face it. She has arranged to be dragged away (smiling) from protests before and arrested. She camped out for weeks in front of the president's ranch in the hope of confronting him. She has sought out fame and media attention at every oppurtunity, good or bad.


 She certainly seems to enjoy herself.  It's sad that her son had to die, in order that she become a minor celebrity.  



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And despite all this, the guy who gave her the ticket somehow did not expect her to get up in the middle of the speech and cause trouble?


 It was entirely staged and orchestrated.  It was a chance to pour a little bad news on the president's state of the union address.  Had she not gotten arrested, there would be no story.  

She had to get arrested.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't a democratic operative who made sure to point out to the Capital Police that she was 'protesting' in the first place.  No arrest/No story. Surely they don't think we're all that stupid.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> No one can predict the future or what someone would do. But Sheehan's past actions do not point to her sitting quietly without fuss. Someone wanted some fireworks. It just did not happen live onn national tv.


 Cindy is a publicity addict.  Her handlers will use her until they can't squeeze anything else out of her.....then she'll be on an episode of Celebrity Boxing, fighting Anna Nicole Smith.

It's pathetic when you think about it.  I shudder to think what she'll do when the cameras are gone.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> She was obviously there to protest. Moreover, she was there for attention. She seems to desire the limelight obsessively. It's hard to let go once you become a celebrity. It's apparently quite addictive.
> 
> She certainly seems to enjoy herself. It's sad that her son had to die, in order that she become a minor celebrity.
> 
> ...


 
And all of this also applies to Mrs. Young, right? You know, the Congressmans' wife. I mean, who would show up to the State of the Union Speech in a T-Shirt, unless they wanted to get arrested, eh?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> . . . can read the future that didn't happen, and thoughts of someone far away ...






			
				Capital Police Press Release said:
			
		

> neither Mrs. Sheehans manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention.



Hmmm, I was once standing out side of a building after spending about $25 for a pool table and paid hourly rate. Ncie pool hall. The local ordinances did not have loitering, or gang related laws in place. I was jsut standing there, waiting for a friend to show, who was late, so we could go some place else.

A police officer rolls up, and gets out of his vehicle with his spot on me, and has me against the wall, and after a check says I have to leave. I told him I left something inside, and needed to go ask for it. The officer told me to leave or he would put me in the back of his car. So, I rold him I was reaching for my keys in my coat pocket (* he already knew as he had patted me down *) and was going to leave. 

Michael, I really do not know what world you live in. But the world I grew up in, has racism, (* which I hate *), discrimination (* which I hate *), and people who make judgement calls based upon their experience, (* which is tolerable in some instances. *). 

My point is this and remains this. If asked to leave you leave. Do not pretend you do not see them or hear them. When they get in your face and tell you again, even if you had not seen or heard, them apologize and go with them. When it is over, if you are in the right either they will be censured and or an apology will be given. 

In my case, I left and went to BK, ordered a burger, and then went back and went inside and asked if I could have my $25 back. The owner manager was surprised, by my actions. So I explained that the police officer would not let me back in. And that if this is how he was going to have a relationship with his customers, and having police escort them off property after their money is spent, I did not wish to do business with him. Some people walked out without getting a table. Others packed up and left. Why? Because I was a regular. If I got treated like this would the others? The owner filed a complaint with the police department. The department apologized. The officer was new and had come from an area with no loitering. You see, his training was not complete. He did not know the thousands of laws for local and state and fed for the area he was working. 

I do not support the woman in question of this thread. I just realize that mistakes happen, and knowing ever law is not practical. Hence, why police enforce, not interpret the law. That is for Lawyers to argue and Judges to rule.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

Rich Parsons .... 

The reports have been two reports about what happened. 


Ms. Sheehan states something to the effect of ... I was taking off my coat, I had one sleeve out of my jacket when the police officer yelled "Protestor", came over grabbed me, and escorted me out of the building.
​The other report is the Capitol Police Force Spokesperson, who states something to the effect of ... She did not respond.
​I guess the question is, which of these statements seems to have more validity. How one interprets these statements will apparently have quite a bit of bearing on the case.

Ms. Sheehan was there. Her description of events is specific and reasonable (I take my coat off one sleave at a time. In that activity, the clothing beneath my jacket becomes visible.)

The Capital Police Force Spokesperson does not elaborate on the statement. Because it is a spokesperson, and not the arresting officer, we are one step removed (at least) from the activity. 

Some are ascribing 'motive' to Ms. Sheehan for manipulating her statement; fair enough. But, couldn't there similarly be 'motive' for the Police Spokesperson to manipulate her statement? 

I contend, that Ms. Sheehan was not 'asked to leave'. If she was, let's get that presented into evidence. What were the words the officer spoke? What was Ms. Sheehan's reply? Did the officer repeat the request and clarify to whom he was speaking? (I am assuming the gallery was a bit noisy and many people were moving around ... would it be clear to whom the officer was speaking? - Ms. Sheehan was not loitering alone in the gallery). 

Rich Parsons ... how do you know, or why are you making the assumption that Ms. Sheehan is 'pretending' to not see or hear, or respond to the police? 

Rich Parsons ... why are you making the assumption that the officer 'got in Ms. Sheehan's face' and repeated a request - any request - to do anything, for which she should apologize? 

Those facts, to my reading of the story, are not in evidence. 

Many seem to think that because Ms. Sheehan would peacefully camp out on the side of the road in Texas, her goal in life is to embarass the President. Or because she attempted to 'Petition' her government, and was arrested outside the White House, her goal is to embarrass the President. 

I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.




The Bill of rights allows for this yes. Yet there are laws in place that prohibit such with out the proper permits. Sometimes it is a simple fee, other times they have to make sure proper security is there.

As to embarassing the sitting President, I cannot speak to her actions nor intent, nor her words. For I think he just like any politician can embarass themselves easily enough.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 4, 2006)

It was the state of the union address, not a protest site. I thought that attendance was "invitation only" didnt some Dem. polititian "invite" her to attend. I always thought that the State of the Union Address was the President primarially talking to Congress, not an "open door event". Its easy enough to "uninvite" a troublemaker from a closed door event and thats not a violation of the Constuitution.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

My comments about Peaceable Assembly, and Petitioning the government refer not to the evening of the State of the Union address, but rather to the opinions that some are expressing about Ms. Sheehan desire to embarrass the President.

I specifically mentioned her camping out in Texas, and the arrest at the White House.

From those activities, which I believe are Constitutionally protected, some have formed the bias and opinions about what her activity at the State of the Union might, or might not be.

A citizen exercising her rights .... can't have that, can we?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The reports have been two reports about what happened.
> 
> 
> Ms. Sheehan states something to the effect of ... I was taking off my coat, I had one sleeve out of my jacket when the police officer yelled "Protestor", came over grabbed me, and escorted me out of the building.
> ...



I would think that unless you are highly partisan, the Capital Police Force Spokesman would be the more reasonable source. And that is the reason that the major news orginizations went with it rather than Sheehan's versions of events.

Despite the idea that they  are the tools of Coporate America's propaganda arm, the major newsgroups do like to make money off of selling eye-catching stories. But they do have a reputation to uphold and try to view the sources as best they can.

Aside from the fact that no- one taken away in cuffs gives an acount that puts the blame on themselves for it, there is all the past action by Sheehan to look at. She has _forced_ police to arrest her and drag her away. She has tried to confront the president and cause trouble for him every chance she gets.

So, before running with her side of the story, a good editor would try to see if there were any witnesses to the screaming and running that she says went on. This happened in a large room full of people. If there had been only a few that they could find that would back up what Sheehan says, as an editor I would run her version of events next to the statement by the police. Considering just how hard it would be to miss if her versions of events went down, I would view the failure to find any collaberating witnesses as a big sign that her view of things may not have any merit.



> Many seem to think that because Ms. Sheehan would peacefully camp out on the side of the road in Texas, her goal in life is to embarass the President. Or because she attempted to 'Petition' her government, and was arrested outside the White House, her goal is to embarrass the President.
> 
> I thought our Bill of Rights gave spelled out the right to peaceably assemble and to petition our government. Others, apparently don't.



Actually, it is the things like how she does interviews, forces police to arrest her and drag her away and her public statements that all point to her extreme hatred towards the president and a desire to cause him trouble.

As for her right to protest, if _anyone_ runs out onto the field at the Superbowl this weekend to protest anything, they will be taken away in cuffs. And if someone has always shown a pattern of behavior before through protests, it is acceptable to point to those public protests as an example. I am quite content with letting Sheehan make statements and protest in a legal manner. But I don't think that pointing to those protests to show a pattern of behavior is an infringment on her rights as you are saying.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> My comments about Peaceable Assembly, and Petitioning the government refer not to the evening of the State of the Union address, but rather to the opinions that some are expressing about Ms. Sheehan desire to embarrass the President.
> 
> I specifically mentioned her camping out in Texas, and the arrest at the White House.
> 
> ...


 She was arrested protesting in Texas?  I don't recall that occuring

Moreover, I have the right to protest in America....but I don't have the right to physically protest in your living room, if you don't want me there.  Therefore, there are obvious restrictions on the time and place of a protest.  As the State of the Union address is not open to the general public, it's not a 'Public Forum'.  You can be removed from the building, and arrested for refusing to leave.  Imagine, if I could just barge in your house or office, at will, and begin a protest somewhere the general public isn't allowed to be.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> She was arrested protesting in Texas? I don't recall that occuring


 
No, she was assembling peaceably in Texas. Something some have called part of a pattern of behavior. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Moreover, I have the right to protest in America....but I don't have the right to physically protest in your living room, if you don't want me there. Therefore, there are obvious restrictions on the time and place of a protest. As the State of the Union address is not open to the general public, it's not a 'Public Forum'. You can be removed from the building, and arrested for refusing to leave. Imagine, if I could just barge in your house or office, at will, and begin a protest somewhere the general public isn't allowed to be.


 
If you have evidence that she 'refused to leave'. .... put up or shut up. 

The police have said, that nothing in Ms. Sheehan's initial actions merited police intervention. 

Your reasoning is ... "She was in handcuffs, so she must have refused" ... then why was Mrs. Young given the reason 'It's only fair' that she needed to be escorted out?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

Furthering Ms. Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame ... 



			
				Cindy Sheehan said:
			
		

> by Cindy Sheehan
> Dear Friends,
> I just saw the below "apology" on MichaelMoore.com...thanks Eric!
> This is the biggest crock of horse manure ever.
> ...


 
You may take not of the name of the arresting officer ... "Mike Weight".

You may compare that with the name of the person who reports Ms. Sheehan did not respond ... "Kimberly Schneider".

Are arrest records public documents?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No, she was assembling peaceably in Texas. Something some have called part of a pattern of behavior.


 And she was not arrested, thank you.  So nobodies 'rights' have been violated.  




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If you have evidence that she 'refused to leave'. .... put up or shut up.
> 
> The police have said, that nothing in Ms. Sheehan's initial actions merited police intervention.
> 
> Your reasoning is ... "She was in handcuffs, so she must have refused" ... then why was Mrs. Young given the reason 'It's only fair' that she needed to be escorted out?


 Whatever.  The fact of the matter is that she intended to cause a scene, and managed to do so.  Everything Ms. Sheehan has done for the past several months has been a calculated, orchestrated publicity stunt.  Now she's gotten more publicity.  The whole 'I got arrested' schitck is a part of that publicty stunt.  The controversy she's trying to start now about how and why she got arrested is simply CONTINUING the same publicity stunt.  If you set out to get arrested, don't whine that.....you got arrested.  Go figure.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And she was not arrested, thank you. So nobodies 'rights' have been violated.
> 
> Whatever. The fact of the matter is that she intended to cause a scene,


 
How has her 'intent' been proven as fact?

Unless, of course, you argue the pattern of behavior.... but, her behavior has been within the bounds of the Constitution. ...

So, if her behavior has not violated her rights .... how can she have a pattern of behavior that determines intent? 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> and managed to do so. Everything Ms. Sheehan has done for the past several months has been a calculated, orchestrated publicity stunt. Now she's gotten more publicity. The whole 'I got arrested' schitck is a part of that publicty stunt. The controversy she's trying to start now about how and why she got arrested is simply CONTINUING the same publicity stunt. If you set out to get arrested, don't whine that.....you got arrested. Go figure.


 
Oops, there you go, arguing the Pattern of Behavior .... behavior which is within her rights .... so, why thend did she get arrested?

Was it her intent to exercise her constitutionally protected rights, that no one violated?

You sure have me running in circles there ....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How has her 'intent' been proven as fact?
> 
> Unless, of course, you argue the pattern of behavior.... but, her behavior has been within the bounds of the Constitution. ...
> 
> So, if her behavior has not violated her rights .... how can she have a pattern of behavior that determines intent?


 That didn't even make sense, michael.  Could you please restate that.

Let me sumerise for you.  Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound.  She lives for controversy.  It's the only way she gets her message out.  When she protests within the bounds of the law, she can say whatever she wants.  She camped out in Texas, and got all the publicity she wanted legally.  However, eventually people started getting bored with her.  So then she had to get kookier and kookier to get the cameras pointed her way.  

She intended to provoke an incident at the State of the Union Address, for the purposes of getting arrested, because she knew getting arrested would get her name back on the front page.  I have no doubt she orchestrated the incident, and acted in such a way as to provoke arrest.   That's her 'pattern of behavior' now, as you call it, to get arrested for publicity.  Her handlers have decided that it is necessary to get publicity.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oops, there you go, arguing the Pattern of Behavior .... behavior which is within her rights .... so, why thend did she get arrested?


 LMFAO.  It's obvious what Cindy Sheehan is, and that's a publicity animal.  She wants to get arrested.  She was arrested because she wanted to get arrested.  She set out to provoke an arrest.  That's she's now playing the 'victim' is nothing new.  That's part of her modus operandi.  Provoke arrest, and then play the martyr.  It's a continuing cycle of her martyr complex.  

Moreover, michael, you're well aware of all of this.  You're a smart guy. You're just a happy, willing participant in spreading the myth, but you very well know the truth, even if you don't admit it.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Was it her intent to exercise her constitutionally protected rights, that no one violated?


 Her intent was to get arrested, so that she could continue her 15-minutes of fame, by getting us to talk about her getting arrested.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> You sure have me running in circles there ....


 You should be used to running in circles by now.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 4, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How has her 'intent' been proven as fact?
> 
> Unless, of course, you argue the pattern of behavior.... but, her behavior has been within the bounds of the Constitution. ...



No, I think you are trying to distort the issue. The matter of her past behavior is being pointed to as reason to not trust her version of events unless their is some sort of proof. There seems to be no one else that can say they saw the whole screaming, running, etc that she says went on in a room of a maybe a few hundred people.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No, I think you are trying to distort the issue. The matter of her past behavior is being pointed to as reason to not trust her version of events unless their is some sort of proof. There seems to be no one else that can say they saw the whole screaming, running, etc that she says went on in a room of a maybe a few hundred people.


 
And the person who said she 'Did not respond' was not in the building at the time either.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That didn't even make sense, michael. Could you please restate that.
> 
> Let me sumerise for you. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound. She lives for controversy. It's the only way she gets her message out. When she protests within the bounds of the law, she can say whatever she wants. She camped out in Texas, and got all the publicity she wanted legally. However, eventually people started getting bored with her. So then she had to get kookier and kookier to get the cameras pointed her way.
> 
> ...


 
There are an awful lot of opinion statements being presented as fact.

"Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound"
"She lives for controversy."
"She intended to provoke an incident"
"I have no doubt she orchestrated the incident"
These statements are your beliefs, and you are not alone. A recent, unscientific, web poll indicated that 17% of respondents felt the same way.

Seems to me that these beliefs of yours are prejudicing your opinions and comments. Because it's Cindy Sheehan  . . . . 

Except we have many posts on this board about the President quarrantining dissent.

So, while Ms. Sheehan has a pattern of behavior ... about which you claim no one's rights were violated.

The President also has a pattern of behavior ... and there is a picture of a little old lady being carried away in her lawn chair somewhere on this board ... which I believe violates rights.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 5, 2006)

I dont think the general public even cares about Cindy now. She started out as a sympathetic figure but turned herself into a nutjob.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2006)

Simply put, she makes a mockery of the sacrifice her son made. Being a vet, I can tell you that if my mother ever thought of doing anything remotely similar I would be ashamed and embarrassed. 

1) Our military is made up completely of volunteers. No one is FORCED to join therefore no one is FORCED to go to war. If you joined up for college money...I'd like to say I'm sorry...but I'm not. It's the Army... what did you think the Army was for?? 

2) Her son obviously held values (God, country, Mom's apple pie, freedom, and sacrifice to name a few)  not held by his mother (ie: he  joined the military....of his own free will *see #1) She is, quite simply put, crapping on his values and his grave as wll as the sacrifice he made. This fact has been stated by other family members (that don't get near the press Cindy does.) 

Before you go off on me I recently lost a friend and former student in Iraq. He too, joined up of his own free will because of his beliefs. I still have friends serving today. They too, joined of their own free will and would consider it an extreme sign of disrespect for anyone to belittle or degrade their sacrifices. 

Cindy Sheehan was being used as a tool by anti-Bush supporters until they realized that her blatant stupidity and idiotic comments made them look even worse. 

I think it has more to do with their extreme hatred of Bush than it does the war in Iraq. They're so blinded by their hatred that they don't care who suffers from their efforts to get rid of Bush at all costs. 

Sad really. They would have voted Joeseph Stalin in to power if it would have meant getting rid of Bush.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

*Mod. Note. *
Please, keep the conversation polite and refrain from personal attacks.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-Sr. Moderator-


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are an awful lot of opinion statements being presented as fact.
> 
> "Cindy Sheehan is a publicity hound"
> "She lives for controversy."
> ...


 hehe.  You don't even believe Cindy's not a publicity hound, you're just attempting to muddy the waters.  You know exactly what Cindy is, you just happen to agree with her basic premise, and that's fine. However, lets not pretend Cindy is anything other than what she is....a manufactured issue.  Her wealthy handlers and backers gave her a makeover, because they needed a 'goldstar mom' to push their agenda.  It's all so pathetically artificial. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Now, many of her former handlers, I think, wish she'd go away.  But Cindy's grown to like the limelight.  In fact, the most offensive thing anyone could say, as far as Cindy Sheehan is concerned, is.........'Cindy who?'  

So i'm going to let the issue drop, because Cindy's not worth the continued waste of cyberspace.  I'd suggest anyone else who feels the same, should let it drop as well.  Keeping 'whats-her-name' in the conversation is only playing their game.  Without controversy, she's not even a blip on the radar.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2006)

Well, I guess it's nice that the United States Capitol Police played right into her hands then ... boy, they must be really stupid, if this ding-bat media hound was able to play them like a toy drum. 

Wonder how they manage to keep anyone safe.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, I guess it's nice that the United States Capitol Police played right into her hands then ... boy, they must be really stupid, if this ding-bat media hound was able to play them like a toy drum.
> 
> Wonder how they manage to keep anyone safe.


 You're right, it was pretty stupid on their part.   Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that Cindy wants to get arrested, and when the powers that be saw that she managed to get her way, they probably developed a migraine.  I bet she wasn't even in the station house, when the phone call came saying 'Let the ding-bat go'.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The officer that arrested her was doing nobody any favors....except, maybe, as you called her 'the ding-bat media hound' and her handlers.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

Ms. Sheehan was held in custody for four hours before being released. If she was not at the Station House, where would she have been? 

And I resent the implication that I have less than an ounce of brains.


----------



## qizmoduis (Feb 6, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I dont think the general public even cares about Cindy now. She started out as a sympathetic figure but turned herself into a nutjob.



No she hasn't.  The right-wing political smear machine has done this.  You can see it happening in this very thread.  Any conscientious American citizen who dares to stir up a little dissent immediately becomes the target of focused attention of the same group of character-assassins behind the infamous and false "Swift Boat" tactics we saw during the last election.  Mrs. Sheehan is simply one of their current victims.

Her son was killed by the current president's murderous policies.  She wants explanations, and she wants to do something about it.  WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?  If it were my daughter, you can be damned sure I'd be doing the same thing, or more.  I just cannot fathom the thought process that would lead someone to the conclustion that parents of killed soldiers should worship Bush or STFU.  It makes no sense to me.  There's really, really something wrong with that, and with some of you who consistently vilify her for having the nerve to speak up.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 6, 2006)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> No she hasn't. The right-wing political smear machine has done this. You can see it happening in this very thread. Any conscientious American citizen who dares to stir up a little dissent immediately becomes the target of focused attention of the same group of character-assassins behind the infamous and false "Swift Boat" tactics we saw during the last election. Mrs. Sheehan is simply one of their current victims.


 
While I'm not really all that concerned about Mrs. Sheehan's politics one way or the other....

Your comments suddenly reminded me of the 2000 Republican Presidential Primaries, in which a mudslinging campaign was directed against Senator John McCain, including accusations about his military record ("Swift Boat", anyone?) and rumors that he had a "black baby" (  ).

I'm sensing a trend.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Her wealthy handlers and backers gave her a makeover, because they needed a 'goldstar mom' to push their agenda.  It's all so pathetically artificial.



Exactly. Im sure there are other parents of the fallen who share Ms. Sheehans beliefs. Why is it that she is the one who gets funding? If theres a "right wing smear machine" its sharing space with the "left wing smear machine".


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ms. Sheehan was held in custody for four hours before being released. If she was not at the Station House, where would she have been?
> 
> And I resent the implication that I have less than an ounce of brains.


 
Michael,

I never once said you had less than one ounce of brains or tried to imply anything like that. 

Yet, should I have a thread about me, for evertime I was held for 4 or more hours without being charged, and then let go? The answer is no. 

Should I have a movie made about the fact that Michael Moore would not answer my questions, yet he makes fun and insults those that do not answer his questions when he shows up to a board meeting? The answer is no. 

She has a right to her opinion. She has the right to express her opinion, with in the laws of the land. She has the right to make a specticle of her self and the media to pick her up.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

Rich Parsons

The comment was made because of this post.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> . . .  Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that Cindy wants to get arrested . . .


 
I acknowledge that Ms. Sheehan took part in a display of civil disobedience in front of the White House last fall, in which one of her objectives was to get arrested. 

I am not willing to acknowledge that Ms. Sheehan's objective at the State of the Union Address was to get arrested.

In fact, wouldn't have made more sense for Ms. Sheehan to remain in the gallery with that shirt displaying "2,242 Dead - How Many More?" during the address. The television camera's would have captured that for all of America to see. Wouldn't that have created more controversy than being arrested?

Rich Parsons, if you would like a thread about you any time you are arrested, held with charge, and then the charges dropped after a day, please feel free to start one. I'll play along, if it is interesting enough.

Ms. Sheehan has become a symbol for a Peace movement. More than 50% of the country now believe the war in Iraq was started on less than 'above-the-board' information. 

Is then, it a legitimate question to ask, how many more American Soldiers are going to die? Did you hear the new Republican Majority Leader say Sunday morning that the War in Iraq is a "gift we are going to give our Grandchildren"?  I thought we were told the conflict would take "Six Days, maybe Six weeks, I doubt Six Months" by the Secretary of Defense.... now it is a gift for our Grandchildren.

This war is wrong. It is illegal. And it is a fair question to ask, how long are we going to pay for it. With Cash, With Credit, With Lives?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 6, 2006)

Is it possible for you to stay on topic?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> Is it possible for you to stay on topic?


 
Jeff Boler ... my response is on topic ... 

Is it possible for you to contribute, rather than nag?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Feb 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Jeff Boler ... my response is on topic ...
> 
> Is it possible for you to contribute, rather than nag?


 
The topic is Cindy Sheehan, not your crusade against the war.  Therefore you are not on topic.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

The topic of my post is:

Is Cindy Sheehan's question a fair one? 

Regardless of personal opinions of Ms. Sheehan, is it legitimate to ask how many soldiers are going to end up like Ms. Sheehan's son? And, is it worth it? 

If you can't recognize the question as distinct from the questioner, and the questioner from the question, well ... then, ... maybe you are just left to nag.



And kindly don't use the word 'crusade' when describing my point of view and this war. It is in exceedingly poor taste.

Oh, and there is this: 
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/02/06/opinion/20060206_IRAQ_GRAPHIC.html


----------



## jdinca (Feb 6, 2006)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> No she hasn't. The right-wing political smear machine has done this. You can see it happening in this very thread. Any conscientious American citizen who dares to stir up a little dissent immediately becomes the target of focused attention of the same group of character-assassins behind the infamous and false "Swift Boat" tactics we saw during the last election. Mrs. Sheehan is simply one of their current victims.
> 
> Her son was killed by the current president's murderous policies. She wants explanations, and she wants to do something about it. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT? If it were my daughter, you can be damned sure I'd be doing the same thing, or more. I just cannot fathom the thought process that would lead someone to the conclustion that parents of killed soldiers should worship Bush or STFU. It makes no sense to me. There's really, really something wrong with that, and with some of you who consistently vilify her for having the nerve to speak up.



"The current President's murderous policies".  Gosh, I'm just glad the left doesn't have a "political smear machine", or else they wouldn't be able to take the self righteous moral high ground they seem to have laid claim too. 
Ms. Sheehan has every right to protest. Her son died protecting that right. Absolutely nobody has said that she doesn't have that right, even those she's protesting so mightily against. That said, do you consider hugging Hugo Chavez and making a number of anti-America comments a protest over her son's death? 

As for the Swift Boat Veterans, they were protesting Kerry's Vietnam claims. They have that right, just as much as Cindy Sheehan does. I find it interesting that you consider this okay for her but you call the Swift Boats part of a smear machine. Sounds like you only want free speech for those you agree with, or am I misinterepreting your comments?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> That said, do you consider hugging Hugo Chavez and making a number of anti-America comments a protest over her son's death?


 
That she gets a hug from an elected leader of a democratic country must really burn some up. (Democracy, but only if you agree with it, or am I misinterpreting your comments?)

What anti-American comments?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That she gets a hug from an elected leader of a democratic country must really burn some up. (Democracy, but only if you agree with it, or am I misinterpreting your comments?)
> 
> What anti-American comments?



If you are considering the last election of Chavez to have been democratic and not totally controlled by his faction, then I don't know that we have any common ground to even be discussing this.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> If you are considering the last election of Chavez to have been democratic and not totally controlled by his faction, then I don't know that we have any common ground to even be discussing this.


 
Why not? 

Don't you think the same argument could be made for Senior' Bush in 2000  ... or 2004.



P.S. 


And ... What anti-American Comments?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

The ignore option here is wonderful.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why not?
> 
> Don't you think the same argument could be made for Senior' Bush in 2000  ... or 2004.
> 
> ...


Calling the US a "malicious empire" doesn't count? How about calling us imperialists, trying to impose our will? This one has to do with American companies:

A new world is necessary and it can only be possible if we rein in the depraved corporations that thrive off of the flesh and blood of our neighbors all over the world and here in America. War profiteers like Halliburton, Bechtel and General Electric who are racking up obscene profits and increasing the bottom line of their shareholders while they are running roughshod over this planet. Malevolent companies such as Dow who dump chemicals and other pollutants into the water and atmosphere that kill people, our environment and our future! Companies like Wal-Mart that exploit workers in the U.S. and abroad to enrich a family that already has more than enough money to fund healthcare and a living wage for all of its employees and have a little extra left over to pay their country club fees.

Here's another one:

Before I dive into the concept of Matriotism, let's explore the word "patriotism." Dictionary.com defines it as: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it. When we all know that patriotism in the US means: exploiting others' love for country by sending them and their children off to sacrifice for my bank balance!

Yet more, she's including Afghanistan in this one:

After the tragedy of 9/11 we were on our way to becoming a fledgling Matriotic society until our leaders jumped on the bandwagon of inappropriate and misguided vengeance to send our young people to die and kill in two countries that were no threat to the USA or to our way of life. The neocons exploited patriotism to fulfill their goals of imperialism and plunder.

A one liner:

 The apathy of most of America is stunning and appalling to me.

And finally:

 America: this is what you are allowing your government to do in your name:  
Detain and torture prisoners without due process. Use chemical weapons on other members of humanity. Spy on Americans without a court order (I hope my conversations put them in a coma of boredom). Carpet bomb cities filled with human beings like yourselves. Destroy the infrastructure of other countries. Destroy the infrastructure of American cities. Cut taxes on the rich while pouring money and blood into the thirsty sands of the Middle East. Decimate our treasury. Rape the environment. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

I will acknowledge that she saves the majority of her vitriol for the government. It is nice to know that at least she's including the democrats now.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

I'm not sure any of those statements are 'Anti-American'.

She does call out the apathy of America ... where we struggle to get 50% of the population to show up on election day. It may be anti-American, but it is accurate, isn't it? 

The only other item I see in these quotes that moves from opinion (to which she is entitled) to incorrect (which demands correction), is the comment about "two countries" that posed no threat to America. Iraq in 2003 can obviously and accurately described as 'no threat to America'. (especially with hindsight showing there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction). Afghanistan, as a country, was no threat to anyone, except by the support of Al Qaeda. The Taliban rulers of that country should have been (and were) removed.  That does not negate that the neoconservative view of Afghanistan is such that we need a friendly government to get our pipeline through there territory. 

Some may also argue (as I have) that White Phosphorous was used as a chemical weapon in Fallujah. Others disagree. We don't need to re-argue that item here. But I think there are enough people on both sides of the argument to consider it a fair statement. 


Certainly, some of her statements are strong. And people of good character may have differing opinions. However, to call these anti-American is to simplify the argument to a characature. Much like the Danish Newspapers. Separate the question from the questioner. Are there merits in what she is saying. I believe people of integrity can recognize and appreciate the question, even if they disagree with the answer.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Calling the US a "malicious empire" doesn't count? How about calling us imperialists, trying to impose our will? This one has to do with American companies:
> 
> A new world is necessary and it can only be possible if we rein in the depraved corporations that thrive off of the flesh and blood of our neighbors all over the world and here in America. War profiteers like Halliburton, Bechtel and General Electric who are racking up obscene profits and increasing the bottom line of their shareholders while they are running roughshod over this planet. Malevolent companies such as Dow who dump chemicals and other pollutants into the water and atmosphere that kill people, our environment and our future! Companies like Wal-Mart that exploit workers in the U.S. and abroad to enrich a family that already has more than enough money to fund healthcare and a living wage for all of its employees and have a little extra left over to pay their country club fees.
> 
> ...



Looking over the above, as well as a lot of other things I have seen, there is no way I can believe that Sheehan became what she was as a result of her son's death. Hatred of the president and the way, yes I could believe that. But she had to be pretty fringe before her son joined to have the views she has now about everything.

I mean... she even thinks that we should not have invaded Afghanistan after they sheltered the guys that pulled off 9-11 and would not turn them over. How far out do you have to be to have that point of view?

So, when she got her chance for fame due to her son's death, she took it. And now I am convinced she is using her son's death for her own means. As a person who has served, I know I would not like it if my relatives used my death like that. And I know a lot of people who joined the military over the objections of their parents and sometimes to get away from those same parents. This may just be her form of revenge on her son as well as her chance for fame and to promote her agenda.

I do not see anything that runs counter to that view.


----------



## Seig (Feb 7, 2006)

Ya know, if she pepetrated this kind of behavior on any of us, we could charge her with being a stalker.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> Ya know, if she pepetrated this kind of behavior on any of us, we could charge her with being a stalker.


 

What kind of behavior?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Looking over the above, as well as a lot of other things I have seen, there is no way I can believe that Sheehan became what she was as a result of her son's death. Hatred of the president and the way, yes I could believe that. But she had to be pretty fringe before her son joined to have the views she has now about everything.
> 
> I mean... she even thinks that we should not have invaded Afghanistan after they sheltered the guys that pulled off 9-11 and would not turn them over. How far out do you have to be to have that point of view?
> 
> ...



What gets me is how upset she got at Bush for using her son's name and telling him in many forums that he does not have her permission to do so, yet she and her cohorts had no problem setting up a mock graveyard in Texas with the names of those who have died in Iraq without the families permission.

It's an interesting note that the radical left screams about their right to free speech, calls the President of the United States a murderous war monger and the world's worst terrorist, yet those who disagree with them are hate mongers, liars, racists, part of the "neocon smear machine", etc. I don't get it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> What gets me is how upset she got at Bush for using her son's name and telling him in many forums that he does not have her permission to do so, yet she and her cohorts had no problem setting up a mock graveyard in Texas with the names of those who have died in Iraq without the families permission.


 
You know, I thought I was pretty well informed about Ms. Sheehan. 

I am wondering when, specifically, President Bush used the name Casey Sheehan, and for what purpose.

Also, there are many displays honoring the dead soldiers, often portrayed with empty boots. I haven't seen names on those displays. I'm wondering if names are provided, if they are provided with the familie's permissions.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You know, I thought I was pretty well informed about Ms. Sheehan.
> 
> I am wondering when, specifically, President Bush used the name Casey Sheehan, and for what purpose.
> 
> Also, there are many displays honoring the dead soldiers, often portrayed with empty boots. I haven't seen names on those displays. I'm wondering if names are provided, if they are provided with the familie's permissions.



I'm just going by Sheehan's own words in several of the speeches, columns of hers I've read.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 8, 2006)

Is Mary Tillman in for the same types of attacks as Ms. Sheehan? 

Or, have the times changed significantly enough?



			
				The Nation Magazine said:
			
		

> "The Administration used Pat," Mary Tillman told me in a phone interview on Monday from San Jose. "They tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him."


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 9, 2006)

Is Mary Tillman going to talk to the media and let her opinions be known or is she going to act as batty as Sheehan?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2006)

Ms. Sheehan has purchased a 5 acre plot of land in Crawford, Texas. Apparently, she will continue to hold protests in Crawford, petitioning the President for a change of policy. 

The residents of Crawford, Texas don't seem to be especially neighborly.



> I wish shed stay away. Crawfords a Republican town, and shes a dumb Democrat,


 
Wonderful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14093546/


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Ms. Sheehan has purchased a 5 acre plot of land in Crawford, Texas. Apparently, she will continue to hold protests in Crawford, petitioning the President for a change of policy.
> 
> The residents of Crawford, Texas don't seem to be especially neighborly.
> 
> ...



Suppose your next door neighbor gets in trouble, or is a politician that is left leaning. Would you enjoy it if someone parks out in the lawn to protest all day long? Even if I agreed with the person, I'd get a bit annoyed after a few years. Considering the purchase, I'm guessing she is staying at least until 2008.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2006)

Yes.

I might get a bit bothered by a protest. 

I don't know that I would describe the protestor as that Crawford resident described Ms. Sheehan. 

I didn't realize the war in Iraq, and soldiers dying, and the desire for peace, was a 'Republican / Democrat' issue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know that I would escribe the protestor as that Crawford resident described Ms. Sheehan.



Its all well and good that you can pull the quote of a single Republican to make them all sound bad...

Wonder how many I can pull of Liberals referring to Republicans as Uneducated, morons, ignorant, etc...

If its not, as you say about Republican vs Democrat why did you bring that specificly to light... you could have left it to the fact she purchased the land, and was continuing her protests.  You didnt need to pull an ignorant quote from one resident... *You* chose to turn the discussion in that direction by doing so.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 29, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Its all well and good that you can pull the quote of a single Republican to make them all sound bad...
> 
> Wonder how many I can pull of Liberals referring to Republicans as Uneducated, morons, ignorant, etc...
> 
> If its not, as you say about Republican vs Democrat why did you bring that specificly to light... you could have left it to the fact she purchased the land, and was continuing her protests. You didnt need to pull an ignorant quote from one resident... *You* chose to turn the discussion in that direction by doing so.


 
Yes, I suppose I did. 

You will note, if you follow the link, the quote was in the second paragraph of the news report. I did not write that news report, by the way.

But, you see, I do believe that the war in Iraq is a 'Republican / Democrat' issue. Because the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress, and the Republican Executive Administration has dug this hole for us ... and they keep right on digging. 

We're buried in Iraq to the tune of two billion dollars a week. 

And anytime someone suggests that we are not being helpful in Iraq, and that in fact, we are exacerbating the issue, and Democrats are accused of cutting and running, of being communists, of hating their country, or, as in this case ... dumb. 

So, please, bring on the Democratic quotes that slander Republicans ... but remember, at this point in our country, Democrats have almost no power. We are as close to a one party state as we have been since the time of the first George W.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Wonder how many I can pull of Liberals referring to Republicans as Uneducated, morons, ignorant, etc...



From just martialtalk?  

I can imagine just how upset the locals are about this latest turn of events. To go out and buy property just so that you can continue to keep in the public eye is not qualities I would want in someone in my neighborhood. 

Either she is a publicity hound so intent on using her son's death for some fame or she is so unhinged by it that she goes to these extremes to carry on her agenda. Neither is reasuring. And the sad thing is, if it is the later case then most of her handlers are more interested in the use they can get out of her in her attacks on the president than in getting her some serious help.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 30, 2006)

I dunno ... when  I think of how the right rallies the churches of America to their cause I have to ask myself:  "Self, ..."    "... what's the most morally corrupt, anti-American tactic; buying a piece of property next to someone who you think really needs to hear your message (legally fine) or inciting the opiating effects of religion and God to back your state message (legally NOT fine)?"

I have a lot of respect for all the people who laid down their lives and families to preserve our freedoms in this land - one of which is the freedom of religion and its absence in the state.  Thank the Lord above there are pastors like this one.

Oh Ms. Sheehan ... should I bring my own lawn chair? And can I protest what I want to as well?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> one of which is the freedom of religion and its absence in the state. Thank the Lord above there are pastors like this one.
> 
> Oh Ms. Sheehan ... should I bring my own lawn chair? And can I protest what I want to as well?


 
Isn't that a great article. Almost gives one faith, in faith, again.

I believe in 2009 (When GW abandons his ranch / the presidency), Ms. Sheehan is going to donate or convert the property to a park.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Isn't that a great article. Almost gives one faith, in faith, again.
> 
> I believe in 2009 (When GW abandons his ranch / the presidency), Ms. Sheehan is going to donate or convert the property to a park.



How morally corrupt of her ...  :boing2:


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, please, bring on the Democratic quotes that slander Republicans ... but remember, at this point in our country, Democrats have almost no power.



Wait... Lemme get this straight... you are saying since they have no other power they have simply resorted to namecalling, and thats appropriate?

Michael, honestly, the Democratic party is killing _itself. _ I think that kind of thinking is speeding it along.  For the past term and a half *I* have seen the democratic  party as a bunch of crybabys and sore losers,  and  honestly I only put a minor piece of my attention towords politics in general... I can't imagine how its percieved by people who it is meat and milk to.

Now, that said, personally I feel the direction they are going is good for this country.  They should keep crying and whining so no one takes them seriously.  That way when the next election rolls around, and people are fed up with the abuses of the republican party, maybe we have a chance for some real leadership instead of a Fat Cat Puppet of the party.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I have a lot of respect for all the people who laid down their lives and families to preserve our freedoms in this land - one of which is the freedom of religion and its absence in the state.



I still feel thats debatable.  Its written the other way around, freedom from the state in religion, (congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof), but the best arguments I have gotten as to why that is not the case is citations of letters from the writers and other "statements of intent"... Which I would be willing to accept as arguments if the same people presenting them were not saying the same kind of source material was not accptable to prove that the 2nd amendment held water.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Wait... Lemme get this straight... you are saying since they have no other power they have simply resorted to namecalling, and thats appropriate?
> 
> Michael, honestly, the Democratic party is killing _itself. _I think that kind of thinking is speeding it along. For the past term and a half *I* have seen the democratic party as a bunch of crybabys and sore losers, and honestly I only put a minor piece of my attention towords politics in general... I can't imagine how its percieved by people who it is meat and milk to.


 
I don't know why some people think I speak for the Democratic Party. Remember, I voted Nader and Kucinich, for Pete's Sake. 

But, to ignore the rule changes put into congress under Gingrich, Delay, Boehner, is to deceive yourself about what is happening in Washington. While being unaware of those rule changes is forgivable, because who really wants to pay attention to that crap anyway, is another step toward the end of the American experiment. 

But, as long as you aren't interested in what is going on in Congress, they understanding why you have a perception of Democrats as crybabies, will also be beyond your reach. 

I recommend the much slandered movie, 'The Big Buy'. While I haven't seen it, it encapsulates some of the abuses of the 12 year, Republican Congress


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 30, 2006)

_Remember, I voted Nader and Kucinich, for Pete's Sake._

Pbtbtbt...you're mainstream. I voted Peroutka


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 30, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I dunno ... when I think of how the right rallies the churches of America to their cause I have to ask myself: "Self, ..."  "... what's the most morally corrupt, anti-American tactic; buying a piece of property next to someone who you think really needs to hear your message (legally fine) or inciting the opiating effects of religion and God to back your state message (legally NOT fine)?"
> 
> I have a lot of respect for all the people who laid down their lives and families to preserve our freedoms in this land - one of which is the freedom of religion and its absence in the state. Thank the Lord above there are pastors like this one.
> 
> Oh Ms. Sheehan ... should I bring my own lawn chair? And can I protest what I want to as well?




"G" et al,

While I am 100% behind you on the use of Religion and "GOD" to get votes, I also have issues with any party that goes after "Knee Jerk" reactions based upon emotions and or religious faith.  Both parties and there members are guilty of this. 

To me it is sad. And a major problem with our system. 

People break everything down to an emotional issues and the big issues many times that could be emotional as well are ignored. Our pushed aside.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 30, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I dunno ... when  I think of how the right rallies the churches of America to their cause I have to ask myself:  "Self, ..."    "... what's the most morally corrupt, anti-American tactic; buying a piece of property next to *someone who you think really needs to hear your message* (legally fine) or inciting the opiating effects of religion and God to back your state message (legally NOT fine)?"



When abortion protestors use that logic it scares me. People have a right to say what they want. People have a right to not listen or agree.

For one side to say that their message is so important that they have to go to extreme lengths to get people to listen to it, it is scary. Whether it is abortion protestors surrounding clinics and pushing photos in women's faces or Sheehan- the principle is the same. I do not know how many people that back Sheehan would allow abortion protestors to do the same if they had the power and vice versa. But for me, both cases are wrong.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> When abortion protestors use that logic it scares me. People have a right to say what they want. People have a right to not listen or agree.
> 
> For one side to say that their message is so important that they have to go to extreme lengths to get people to listen to it, it is scary. Whether it is abortion protestors surrounding clinics and pushing photos in women's faces or Sheehan- the principle is the same. I do not know how many people that back Sheehan would allow abortion protestors to do the same if they had the power and vice versa. But for me, both cases are wrong.


 
The property Ms. Sheehan has purchased is 7 miles from the Bush ranch. If only abortion protestors stayed 7 miles from the clinics. 

"Extreme Lengths", indeed.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The property Ms. Sheehan has purchased is 7 miles from the Bush ranch. If only abortion protestors stayed 7 miles from the clinics.
> 
> "Extreme Lengths", indeed.



So she buys land in the lcoal area to say she has a reason to be there.

And she is not going to drive by someone's land and just have a flat and also some signs? Or maybe in the easeway along the road have a nice little picnic?

I also agree that Abortion Protestor should stay further away. But what I  see here is someone using the same system she is complaigning about to make her point. Using the rights that are hers but in a protest format, that in most places require public filing for events to help pay for the cost of police and security. 

So if you lived in the same neighborhood, would it be ok for her to protest and it to increase the cost of police and security and they now have to raise the taxes to pay for this.  Now I understand it may not be at this point, but at what point is there a line to be drawn?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So she buys land in the lcoal area to say she has a reason to be there.
> 
> And she is not going to drive by someone's land and just have a flat and also some signs? Or maybe in the easeway along the road have a nice little picnic?
> 
> ...


 
Each community can establish property laws ... 

I can't burn lawn wastes on my property without a permit, and prior notification to the fire department. I'm sure Crawford can enact laws detailing what citizen can and can not do on their property in the community.

If she has rights, can't she use them however she pleases? Else, they are not rights, correct? 

So, perhaps the town will enact some laws to restrict the rights of "dumb democrats".


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Each community can establish property laws ...
> 
> I can't burn lawn wastes on my property without a permit, and prior notification to the fire department. I'm sure Crawford can enact laws detailing what citizen can and can not do on their property in the community.
> 
> ...



michaeledward,

I never once said anything about "dumb democrats". I am not trying to make this a party issue. If you thought I was please point out the comments that lead you to think as such so I can review and learn from them. 

I agree she has the rights on her property. And she should be able to throw a party and have any signs that meet her local laws. What I was trying to say was that she could go to someone else's house and sit outside their house and make a point. Our causing a scene so as to get more press and publicity so she get her point on the air. And this cost money to make sure that no one gets hurt. That was my point. Sorry I was not clearer.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 30, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Our causing a scene so as to get more press and publicity so she get her point on the air. And this cost money to make sure that no one gets hurt. That was my point. Sorry I was not clearer.



And when someone like that moves into your area, no matter what politics you have, you tend to not welcome them with open arms.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, perhaps the town will enact some laws to restrict the rights of "dumb democrats".



So up in arms about that Dumb Democrats statement.

Youd think the guy didnt have the RIGHT to say it.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2006)

If it's okay for him to say "dumb democrats" can we say "stupid republicans?"  After all, it is our right.

Don, the line of rights is a fine one, indeed and there are no easy answers in this great democratic experiment.  But we must have some level of tolerance to be free.  It is our responsibility as people to explore all that we can about our freedoms, their cost, what history has to offer about relenquishing our rights in face of fear of terrorism, communism, socialism, ism-ism ... but how many truly do?

What confounds me is when one side thinks they have all the rights to do and say as they please just so long at the "dumb" other party doesn't make it difficult for them to do so.  meh ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I never once said anything about "dumb democrats". I am not trying to make this a party issue. If you thought I was please point out the comments that lead you to think as such so I can review and learn from them.


 
Rich Parsons, the phrase 'dumb democrat' was used by a Crawford resident as part of his objection to Ms. Sheehan acquiring property in the town. That link can be found above. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> So up in arms about that Dumb Democrats statement.
> 
> Youd think the guy didnt have the RIGHT to say it.


 
Why would you think that? 



I do think that 'Gated Communities' are a bad idea for our country. As are the 'Active Adult 55+' communities I see all around my neighborhood. You know, there is probably something disagreeable with 'Chinatown' in the big cities too. 

Yep, somehow, I think that segregation is a less good idea, and integration is a better idea. And I think it is irrelevant as to how people are segragating themselves, even Political Parties. 

But, I expect we will never rid ourselves of 'Dumbth', as Steve Allen used to say.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> If it's okay for him to say "dumb democrats" can we say "stupid republicans?"  After all, it is our right.



Yeah, its pretty much said all the time anyhow.  Its no skin off my back either way, because first of all, its just words, words can only hurt if you allow them to do so.  I'm called "Fencerider" all the time by my friends because i refuse to pick a party and stick by and support them... oh well.  Its just a word.  And second of all, even if the magic words had power, it wouldnt bother me, because I make no claims to either side.

The Dumb Democrats and Stupid republicans can have all the fun they want slinging names at each other.  Its their right after all.  If people dont like it, they can always buy a Piece of land and launch a protest against our free speech rights.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 31, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah, its pretty much said all the time anyhow.  Its no skin off my back either way, because first of all, its just words, words can only hurt if you allow them to do so.  I'm called "Fencerider" all the time by my friends because i refuse to pick a party and stick by and support them... oh well.  Its just a word.  And second of all, even if the magic words had power, it wouldnt bother me, because I make no claims to either side.
> 
> The Dumb Democrats and Stupid republicans can have all the fun they want slinging names at each other.  Its their right after all.  If people dont like it, they can always buy a Piece of land and launch a protest against our free speech rights.



Fellow fencerider ... :cheers:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich Parsons, the phrase 'dumb democrat' was used by a Crawford resident as part of his objection to Ms. Sheehan acquiring property in the town. That link can be found above.



MichaelEdward,

While I may have seen that there comment in a link, it was not mentioned here in this thread, and I did not ask my question or make my points to make it political. 

Thank you for the clarification.


----------

