Cindy Sheehan Is A Fool.

[300miles]

Cindy has gone to that hotbed of Democracy... Venezuela... to gain support from Chevez, Socialists, Anti-Americans, and Anarchists. Just the type of people necessary to win a US Senate bid.

"Oh, Chavez is so sincere!" What a fool. She seems to have no clue that she's being used for blatant anti-American propaganda. She stands smiling next to the guy while he shouts "Down with the US Empire!"

That same day, Chavez voiced his support for Iran's Nuclear goals. Chavez was also good buddies with Saddam Hussein.

What a guy.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/US/D8FENN382.jpg



Chavez backs Sheehan plan for Bush protest

By IAN JAMES
Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela — Cindy Sheehan, who gained international fame when she camped outside President Bush's ranch in an anti-war protest, plans to pitch her tent again, Venezuela's president said Sunday as he urged activists worldwide to help bring down "the U.S. empire."

Hugo Chavez, an arm around Sheehan's shoulders, told a group of activists that she had told him "she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch" in April.

In some of his strongest recent comments aimed at Washington, Chavez condemned the Bush administration and said his audience should work toward ending U.S. dominance.

"Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chavez said, listing countries from Panama to Iraq where the U.S. military has intervened. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!"

Chavez said Sheehan had invited him to join her April protest at Bush's Texas ranch.

"Maybe I'll put up my tent also," Chavez said, to applause from an audience invited to his weekly broadcast on the final day of the World Social Forum, an annual gathering of anti-war and anti-globalization activists.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004, thanked Chavez for "supporting life and peace." She said earlier that she was impressed by his sincerity when they met privately on Saturday.

"He said, 'Why don't I run for president?'" she said. "I just laughed."

Sheehan, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., said Saturday that she is strongly considering challenging Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein because the lawmaker will not support calls to immediately bring the troops home.

Sheehan, 48, said running in the Democratic primary in June would help "bring attention to all the peace candidates in the country."


Sheehan, who was visiting Venezuela for the six-day forum, said she will decide whether to run after talking with her three adult children in California.

Sheehan accused Feinstein of being out of touch with Californians on the war in Iraq.

Feinstein's campaign manager, Kam Kuwata, said the senator did not support Bush and felt she had been misled by his administration. But with troops committed, Feinstein believes immediate withdrawal is unworkable, he said.

"Senator Feinstein's position is, 'Let's work toward quickly turning over the defense of Iraq to Iraqis so that we can bring the troops home as soon as possible,'" Kuwata said in an interview Saturday.

On Sunday, when Chavez passed the microphone to Sheehan on his show, she blamed Bush for the killings of innocents in Iraq.

Noting that the singer and activist Harry Belafonte recently called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Chavez's show, Sheehan said: "I agree with him."

Chavez said his government would help protest the war in Iraq by supporting a drive to gather petitions and delivering them to the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. Chavez, who before the war in Iraq had friendly relations with Saddam Hussein, has been a frequent and strident critic of the war

[LHardy]

Treason?
The Hollywood left seems to be smitten with Hugo.I suppose the fact that he is a socialist may have something to do with their glee.
Won't they be surprised when he starts the destruction of the rain forest for infrastruture into the reaches of his country.
Though the kook left will over look that in favor of his support for anti-american rhetoric and anti-war stance.

Let's see how many of those child labor laws he establishes.
How many enviromental laws go into effect just before the bulldozers rip through the forest. For the oil pipeline. Killing off species of unknown wildlife. Maybe even the wild flora that holds the cure for AIDS.
What a great man! You go Hugo!
Show us what your made of.

For the kooks on the left.
That is OIL, you smell coming out of his pores. Maybe a little cocaine blended in for effect. Selling not using.

[biker]

Your thread title says it all.

The less attention paid to this person, the sooner she may get the help she needs to put a life back together.

[heresthesun]

I don't listen to Michael Savage to much but he often says, "extreme liberalism" is a mental disorder. Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example. To encourage this poor woman's activities is just plain wrong. She's being funded by someone, just to spread THEIR agenda, hate America, love Socialism.

[biker]

Where do you pick up Michael Savage around here?

I only get him when I'm out West.

[heresthesun]

That's because I'm in AZ. Here is his website http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
CAUTION: you may become crazier than you are if your a liberal :-))

[biker]

Thanks.

I keep getting you and wherethesun confused.

I stored my bike in Phoenix this winter to get a jump on Spring. I'll be out your way in late March.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by heresthesun
I don't listen to Michael Savage to much but he often says, "extreme liberalism" is a mental disorder. Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example. To encourage this poor woman's activities is just plain wrong. She's being funded by someone, just to spread THEIR agenda, hate America, love Socialism.

Did he ever see the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after a visit to Iraq to sell him weapons?

[mikewrona]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 300miles
[B]Cindy has gone to that hotbed of Democracy... Venezuela... to gain support from Chevez, Socialists, Anti-Americans, and Anarchists. Just the type of people necessary to win a US Senate bid.

"Oh, Chavez is so sincere!" What a fool. She seems to have no clue that she's being used for blatant anti-American propaganda. She stands smiling next to the guy while he shouts "Down with the US Empire!"

That same day, Chavez voiced his support for Iran's Nuclear goals. Chavez was also good buddies with Saddam Hussein.

What a guy.[Quote]

• The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

That's pretty ironic. Cindy Sheehan may be acting much like Ronald Reagan's affair with Saddam Hussein isn't it?

[300miles]

Hey... they yanked that classy photo of Cindy and her new buddy. I must repost!

[speaker]

Originally posted by biker
Your thread title says it all.

The less attention paid to this person, the sooner she may get the help she needs to put a life back together.

This I agree with. I feel enormously sorry for her, but she is doing the wrong thing. But, I think, for the right reasons.

[steven]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was taken into custody by police in the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address.

Police escorted Sheehan from the visitors' gallery above the House chamber after she caused a disruption, said a Capitol Police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the incident were sketchy.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., had invited Sheehan to the address as her guest.

"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."

Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech - Gallery 5, seat 7, row A - earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group promoting the end of the Iraq war.

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/STATE_OF_THE_UNION_SHEEHAN?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Hey... they yanked that classy photo of Cindy and her new buddy. I must repost!

One question. What's the difference between the number of American's killed in Iraq vs the number American's killed in Venezuela?

[300miles]

Cindy is trying to arm the Venezuelans? Gad! How could we be so blind?!

[LHardy]

Originally posted by mikewrona
One question. What's the difference between the number of American's killed in Iraq vs the number American's killed in Venezuela?

Nothing.
Iraq is not Venezuala.

More Americans, young and old, men and women, have been killed by cocaine coming out of Venezuela via Colombia. Then any amount of americans killed in Iraq. Many AMericans have been kidnaped and held for ransom. This being a new form of small buissness. In some cases witrh government subsidy.

Maybe that's it! Cindy is now a new cocaine queen pin in the drug cartel. They have decriminilized drugs in Venezuela. This maybe the reason the left is so gitty about Hugo.

[heresthesun]

March is a beautiful time of year here. The cactus are in bloom and the cirtus too.



Originally posted by biker
Thanks.

I keep getting you and wherethesun confused.

I stored my bike in Phoenix this winter to get a jump on Spring. I'll be out your way in late March.

[speaker]

Originally posted by LHardy
......................maybe the reason the left is so gitty about Hugo.

huh?

[biker]

Hugo Chavez!

Come on, Speaker. Time to get hep, cat.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
Nothing.
Iraq is not Venezuala.

More Americans, young and old, men and women, have been killed by cocaine coming out of Venezuela via Colombia. Then any amount of americans killed in Iraq. Many AMericans have been kidnaped and held for ransom. This being a new form of small buissness. In some cases witrh government subsidy.

Maybe that's it! Cindy is now a new cocaine queen pin in the drug cartel. They have decriminilized drugs in Venezuela. This maybe the reason the left is so gitty about Hugo.

Do the drug dealers force people to take drugs? No

Did drugs come into the U.S. before Chavez? Yes

Is the Colombian government an ally of the U.S.? Yes

Is the U.S. Army assisting the Colombian army? Yes

Do drugs come to the U.S. from Colombia? Yes

Does heroin come from Afghanistan? Yes

Does the U.S. military control Afghanistan? Yes

Has the U.S. military stopped the heroin trade in Afghanistan? No

Are there drugs in Western New York? Yes

Do Western New Yorks use drugs? Yes

Do rich people use drugs? Yes

Are people forced to take drugs? No

So what's your point.

[mikewrona]

Forgot to mention.

Iraq was a member of the "Axis of Evil" not Venezeula or Colombia.

Good job Rumsfeld!

[300miles]

Mike, I'm not totally understanding the relevance of your postings with Cindy getting direct political support from blantant anti-Americans that only want to bring our country down. Somebody running for US Senate should use their brains a bit more (if she has one... I'm not really sure.)

The photo of Rumsfeld is (I'm assuming) from the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq war. That was at least 15-20 years prior to the "axis of evil" speech. The US had supported Iraq militarily to counter Iran which has been an enemy of the US at least since the 70's.

You can debate the US support for Iraq during the 1980's in another thread if you want. It really has nothing to do with Cindy going to Venezuela and chanting "Down with the US Empire"

[LHardy]

Mike! What is your point is the real question.
I simply answered yours.
My point is...
Venezuela and Iraq have nothing to do with each other.
Outside of the fact that Cindy has decided to fall in love with anti-American dictators and socialists.
Outside the fact that Cindy is receiving moral support from the same. Those loving individuals that would behead their captives versus just keep them in prison. Outside the fact that Cindy decides that America should be defeated at every corner.
I no longer feel for her. Sympathy for her loss is one thing.
It is quite another to tolerate her treason.
In the days when men where men, not metro sexuals, she would have been shot or hung by now.
Let's have at it, as far as I'm concerned.
When we as a country, have open and honest debate, it is good for the country. The minute an individual or group steps outside of that and enters into alliances with known enemies of this country. They are no longer an Amercan. They become simply trash that needs to be disposed of.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by LHardy
Mike! What is your point is the real question.
I simply answered yours.
My point is...
Venezuela and Iraq have nothing to do with each other.
Outside of the fact that Cindy has decided to fall in love with anti-American dictators and socialists.
Outside the fact that Cindy is receiving moral support from the same. Those loving individuals that would behead their captives versus just keep them in prison. Outside the fact that Cindy decides that America should be defeated at every corner.
I no longer feel for her. Sympathy for her loss is one thing.
It is quite another to tolerate her treason.
In the days when men where men, not metro sexuals, she would have been shot or hung by now.
Let's have at it, as far as I'm concerned.
When we as a country, have open and honest debate, it is good for the country. The minute an individual or group steps outside of that and enters into alliances with known enemies of this country. They are no longer an Amercan. They become simply trash that needs to be disposed of.

Actually, I think the Bush Administration has handled Cindy quite wisely. It is letting her hang herself, so to speak. I suspect whatever sympathy and/or support she had originally is gone. Only the far right cares about her anymore because it is trying to convince the public that she represents Dems.

I'm sure she has some Democratic Party supporters, somewhere. But you know perfectly well she doesn't represent the more than half the population that is unhappy with Bush and his handling of Iraq.

As I said, she's hanging herself -- no need for any of you macho guys to bother.

[biker]

Ummmm, so I guess the honorable Member of Congress who gave her the pass to sit in the gallery for the State of the Union speech was from the "far right"?

But I have high hopes for some in your party,T TF. I'm always struck by the Democratic Memberettes who wear Republican Red to these televised events. Someday they may come fully to their senses and cross the aisle.

BTW-I don't want to participate in anything that prolongs this woman's publicity. But the opportunity to tweak you--priceless.

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Actually, I think the Bush Administration has handled Cindy quite wisely. It is letting her hang herself, so to speak. I suspect whatever sympathy and/or support she had originally is gone. Only the far right cares about her anymore because it is trying to convince the public that she represents Dems.


As I said, she's hanging herself -- no need for any of you macho guys to bother.

I agree 100%
The only place I hear about her is on right wing radio.

[300miles]

Originally posted by LaNdReW
The only place I hear about her is on right wing radio.
Interesting, considering (as Biker mentioned) a Democratic representative Lynn Woolsey invited her to attend the State of the Union address in the first place.

Even more interesting, considering her name has been plastered all over the news sources since her visit to Venezuela, her attending the State of the Union address, and her getting handcuffed and arrested right in the US Capital.

Maybe the news sources you're reading are too embarrassed to question the motives behind their own Democrat politicians that continue to give support to that nut-case.

I wonder if Lynn Woosley supports Chavez and chants "Down with the US Empire" when the camera's aren't on her...

[biker]

Originally posted by LaNdReW
The only place I hear about her is on right wing radio.

Glad to hear you're listening; there's hope for you yet.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Interesting, considering (as Biker mentioned) a Democratic representative Lynn Woolsey invited her to attend the State of the Union address in the first place.

Even more interesting, considering her name has been plastered all over the news sources since her visit to Venezuela, her attending the State of the Union address, and her getting handcuffed and arrested right in the US Capital.

Maybe the news sources you're reading are too embarrassed to question the motives behind their own Democrat politicians that continue to give support to that nut-case.

I wonder if Lynn Woosley supports Chavez and chants "Down with the US Empire" when the camera's aren't on her...

"Just as with the Roman Empire, there is always some crisis somewhere, which inevitably is used as the excuse for raising taxes and reducing liberties. And then there’s always someone somewhere who is resisting the empire. Consider, for example, Saddam Hussein, the recalcitrant ruler of Iraq. He’s actually an empire’s greatest asset because he can be so easily employed to raise the citizenry to crisis mode and fever pitch whenever necessary. Yet how many Americans know that Saddam Hussein used to be an ally of the empire when it was helping him wage war against Iran?

Consider also the recent coup attempt in Venezuela against its democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez. Ever since his election, Chavez has been a mortal enemy of the empire, but not because he’s a socialist or an authoritarian, as empire officials suggest. After all, the empire befriends many socialist and authoritarian rulers, most recently the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, an army general who took control of that nation in a coup and who, with the implicit support of empire officials, refuses to call for democratic elections.

The real reason that U.S. officials don’t like Chavez and why they implicitly endorsed (and possibly supported) the military coup against him is that Chavez has refused to serve and obey the empire, even going so far as to befriend such mortal enemies of the empire as Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.

Conservatives like to point out how the United States defeated the Soviet Empire by making it tax and spend so heavily that the entire system ultimately collapsed from within on the impoverished and dispirited Soviet people. That’s also why the Roman Empire ultimately fell to the barbarian invaders. But that can’t happen to the American Empire. Right?"



Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Virginia, which recently published Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State by Sheldon Richman.

[LHardy]

After that posting and manyothers over the years. It is plain to the average foreign affairs student that the democrat party does not understand the nature of foreign policy and how it works. They seem to assume that a country as powerful as the US or China is supposed to just sit back and watch the world go by.
The leaders of these countries are not to be involved in any kind of intervention even when it is to their countries interest.

It is also amazing how the US is now prtrayed as an empire by the democrat left. The dem party is showing its' true lack of understanding and it is well that they are out of power.
They are week kneed and spineless to act upon what is good for the country. Yet they find it exciting to denagrate their own country in order to make themselves feel as if they still are in power. You know that whole "miority rights" BS.

The dems have no plans or solutions. Just complaints and carping.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
After that posting and manyothers over the years. It is plain to the average foreign affairs student that the democrat party does not understand the nature of foreign policy and how it works. They seem to assume that a country as powerful as the US or China is supposed to just sit back and watch the world go by.
The leaders of these countries are not to be involved in any kind of intervention even when it is to their countries interest.

It is also amazing how the US is now prtrayed as an empire by the democrat left. The dem party is showing its' true lack of understanding and it is well that they are out of power.
They are week kneed and spineless to act upon what is good for the country. Yet they find it exciting to denagrate their own country in order to make themselves feel as if they still are in power. You know that whole "miority rights" BS.

The dems have no plans or solutions. Just complaints and carping.

As is usually the case. You are wrong in your response to my attachment concerning U.S. Empire.

"Our mission is to an uncompromising moral, philosophical and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government." www.fff.org

My post on the American Empire came from a conservative libertarian organization with the website: www.fff.org

As you have read, it's mission statement clearly shows it is no Liberal Dem organization as you would have everyone believe.

My opinion is that you like your beloved President have two incredibly ignorant political opinions - That is "politics is black and white with no gray in between."

[LHardy]

No I'm not wrong. I now can add the libertarian party to the list of idiots. Well at least that orginization you quoted.
That is not conservative speach at all. Libertarian? Maybe?

Also a belief that things are not black and white is an ignorance of reality. There is no gray in matters of state. To believe so is folley and dangerous. If you see gray you are color blind and can not discern between right and wrong. Leaving you incapable of making a decision.
All the more reason to keep Dems out of power and now certain libertarians.

[moonshine]

"What Really Happened", an article written by Cindy Sheehan about her arrest at the SOTU.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan27.html

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
No I'm not wrong. I now can add the libertarian party to the list of idiots. Well at least that orginization you quoted.
That is not conservative speach at all. Libertarian? Maybe?

Also a belief that things are not black and white is an ignorance of reality. There is no gray in matters of state. To believe so is folley and dangerous. If you see gray you are color blind and can not discern between right and wrong. Leaving you incapable of making a decision.
All the more reason to keep Dems out of power and now certain libertarians.


You can run but you can't hide. This is a Conservative nation, with a conservative President, a conservative Congreee and a Conservative Supreme Court.

You can blame us for actions you guys take, i.e.:

A Conservative President Bush responds to Dictator Pervez Musharraf. Washington Times (Conservative) Dec. 6, 2005

Washington, DC, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush said Saturday he looks forward to "working closely" with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf for the next four years, indirectly endorsing his ally's claim to power.

"A person with whom I've worked very closely over the past four years, a person with whom I look forward to working closely over the next four years," said Bush while welcoming Musharraf at the White House.


Musharraf came to power in 1999 through a bloodless coup but restored partial democracy in October 2002 by holding parliamentary election. But he retained his position as the head of Pakistan's army, which has ruled the country for more than half of its 57 years as a sovereign state, and as president.

However, last week his supporters amended a law that forbids the army chief from holding an elected position. The amendment allows Musharraf to continue both as the army chief and the president.

The observers also said that Washington is persuading Musharraf to restore more democracy and accommodate opposition leaders -- particularly former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shairf -- in his new political setup.

But Bush's unflinching support for Musharraf proves those speculations wrong.


Directly addressing Musharraf, Bush said, "And I appreciate very much your clear vision of the need for people of goodwill and hope to prevail over those who are willing to inflict death in order to achieve the predominance of an ideology that is just backward and dark in its view."

In his opening statement, Bush said that Musharraf can play a role in the creation of a Palestinian state and in restoring peace to the Middle East.

Bush said he assured the Pakistani president the creation of a Palestinian state would be a priority of his administration. "The goal is two states living side-by-side in peace and security," he added.

Responding to Bush's remarks, Musharraf said he had traveled to Washington basically to congratulate the U.S. president for having re-election and also for talks on "the enhancement of our bilateral relations, enhancement of our commercial ties with the United States."

"Our relationship is much bigger than that. Our relationship is one where we work closely together for the common good of our own people and for the common good of the world," Bush said.

[300miles]

I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. 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 and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.
I think Lynn Woolsey's motives need to be called into question here. She gave Cindy the ticket and promptly called the media to let everyone know. Lynn Woolsey, John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh all knew what the dress code would be for this event, yet no-one said anything to her.

Or possibly Cindy had her jacket zipped the whole time prior to going in? Did she really think that was appropriate attire for something as big and formal as the State of the Union, at which she was a guest? Ignoring an established dress-code is not valid free speach.

She retains her Fool status. And Lynn get's my nomination for Worst Instigator of the month.

[biker]

Let's just leave this lady alone.

I doubt Woolsey, Conyers, et al will be visiting her after she has her final breakdown.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Ignoring an established dress-code is not valid free speach.



If the dress code is such that I can't afford to attend because I can afford the clothes, then it certainly is a denial of "free speech." It is also discriminatory.

This is an event for the whole American public, not simply the wealthy American Public.

[300miles]

Originally posted by mikewrona
If the dress code is such that I can't afford to attend because I can afford the clothes, then it certainly is a denial of "free speech." It is also discriminatory.

This is an event for the whole American public, not simply the wealthy American Public.
LOL. Are you trying to say the only T-shirts she can afford are emblazoned with political commentary? The didn't throw her our for wearing a T-shirt, they threw her out for the political grand-standing which was inappropriate.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
LOL. Are you trying to say the only T-shirts she can afford are emblazoned with political commentary? The didn't throw her our for wearing a T-shirt, they threw her out for the political grand-standing which was inappropriate.

I would say that you are the typical hypocrit. This thread is about Cindy Sheehan and political grandstanding.

Yet you Neo-Cons have completely ignored and avoided criticizing Beverly Young, wife of Republican Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young of Florida, who was also tossed out from the visitors gallery for the exact same reason.

Cindy was taken out in handcuffs, Beverly was not.

Was it because was Beverly's Tee shirt was in support of Presidential policy.

A great example of Conservative "...liberty and justice for all."

[300miles]

Nope. Wrong again. If you read the other thread on the State of the Union, I clearly said I supported removing both of them for not following rules.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by 300miles
Nope. Wrong again. If you read the other thread on the State of the Union, I clearly said I supported removing both of them for not following rules.

As do I!
The dress code for such an event is formal.
They both wore political t-shirts to the SOTU and both got what they deserverd. To be removed from the Building.

If mike has a problem with dress code. He must then have a problem with about 3/4's of the clubs and resturants in WNY.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by LHardy
The dress code for such an event is formal.Wrong. There is no dress code for the State of the Union speech. Naturally, the overwhelming majority of attendees are well-dressed for this event. But there is not a formal dress code for attendance.


There is no gray in matters of state.I couldn't possibly disgree more.

[biker]

Originally posted by LHardy
As do I!
The dress code for such an event is formal.
They both wore political t-shirts to the SOTU and both got what they deserverd. To be removed from the Building.

If mike has a problem with dress code. He must then have a problem with about 3/4's of the clubs and resturants in WNY.

I don't.

This equates with frisking 80 year old grammas so they can frisk the real high risk profile: a 26 year old guy named Mohammed wearing a turban.

The nameless whacko was trying (and succeeded) to be noticed and provocative.

The other was trying to evoke and show the support most of the country has for the troops and their mission, to protect us.

The people who don't understand the difference are just like Reps. Murtha and Moran (pronounced "moron") who were shamed into silence during a public community meeting by a returning veteran, proud of his service and his mission.

And I don't think Levi is a spineless, scum-sucking wimp for calling out the differences for what they were.

He's just pretending to make nicey-nice with the whiney, anti-American, condescending liberals who lurk in the lunatic fringes of Speakup.

:)

[LaNdReW]

How can there be a dress code, the members of the scotus were wearing their Bathrobes.

:D

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Nope. Wrong again. If you read the other thread on the State of the Union, I clearly said I supported removing both of them for not following rules.

And yet you continue to attack only Cindy Sheehan for being inappropriate, how non-deceitful of you.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
As do I!
The dress code for such an event is formal.
They both wore political t-shirts to the SOTU and both got what they deserverd. To be removed from the Building.

If mike has a problem with dress code. He must then have a problem with about 3/4's of the clubs and resturants in WNY.

I see that you don't understand the difference. I can explain:
Restaurants are privately owned.
Clubs are controlled by their members
Each make their rules for the facilities.
Congress is owned by all 280 million Americans.
It should be open unincumbered to all it's owners donn't you think. Or do you really believe that everyone should look like a banker in Blue business suit and red power tie.

[mikewrona]

OK both you guys say the same thing about both women.

How convenient, NOW!

This thread was started to attach Mrs. Sheehan and no mention was made of Mrs. Young. That's called editorial bias. Thought only the liberal media did that?

[LHardy]

Originally posted by mikewrona
I see that you don't understand the difference. I can explain:
Restaurants are privately owned.
Clubs are controlled by their members
Each make their rules for the facilities.
Congress is owned by all 280 million Americans.
It should be open unincumbered to all it's owners donn't you think. Or do you really believe that everyone should look like a banker in Blue business suit and red power tie.

Don't kid yourself mike. I understand the differance just fine.
Nor will I waste time explaining diplomacy to you.
Nor was it the t-shirt that provided the removal.
It was the words upon those shirts and it wasn't their turn to speak. The t-shirts represent a form of speach and are disruptive by nature. For the good or bad.
There are rules of conduct in all our public institutions. During presidential addresses, the President has the floor and no one is allowed to speak at the same time. Until such time that the President yeilds the floor.
Now.
Please clue us into to the democracy of your choice that has ever allowed such folly.

[WestSideJohn]

LHardy has me on ignore, but once again he's spreading false information. There is no dress code for people who attend the state of the union address. The removal of Sheehan and Young from the event because of their attire was not based on any existing law, rule, statute or policy, and has been apologized for.

[300miles]

Originally posted by mikewrona
And yet you continue to attack only Cindy Sheehan for being inappropriate, how non-deceitful of you.
Um... Mikewrona... if you read the very beginning of this thread, I didn't even mention anything about the SOTU fiasco. I started this thread because of Cindy's idiotic trip to Venezuela to chant anti-American slogans and meet with and support a foreign leader that hates the USA.

You on the other hand are just trying to nitpik about one detail of one event that wasn't even the focus of this thread to begin with.

[speaker]

The parallels between the Viet Nam war and this Iraqui farce are occurring more frequently every day. The incidents are very much the same.
While I didn't care for the attire worn to the speech, I don't like people's rights to be taken away, these women had the right to wear these shirts.
The insecurities of this administration are showing, and the Bill of Rights is being violated by this administration, more and more. Only a small group of US citizens are being represented by them, now, and the American spirit and the American way are systematically being eroded.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Um... Mikewrona... if you read the very beginning of this thread, I didn't even mention anything about the SOTU fiasco. I started this thread because of Cindy's idiotic trip to Venezuela to chant anti-American slogans and meet with and support a foreign leader that hates the USA.

You on the other hand are just trying to nitpik about one detail of one event that wasn't even the focus of this thread to begin with.

My first post was of Rumsfeld with Saddam. And what did you do when I posted a picture of Donald Rumsfeld meeting with and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?

You don't like the fact that your people stupidly propped Saddam up and wrote something like " oh that was 15-20 years ago, why are you bring that up?" I bring it up because this administration's leaders have led us to two wars with Iraq.

When I asked how many Americans have died in Iraq and in Venezuela,

You avoided the topic.

Then I bought up Sheehan and Young at the speech,

you avoided criticizing Mrs. Young. It was Ms. Sheehan who was grandstanding not Ms. Young

Only in your mind are you objective in your understanding of things. You are extremely partisan. I think you are in that blatantly intolerant "if you don't agree with me you hate me" group.

You are also anti-Democratic. Whatever you or I think of President Chavez, he is the legally elected president of Venezuela. He is not a U.S. supported dictator like Pres. Musharaff of Pakistan, or the King of Saudi Arabia.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy

Nor will I waste time explaining diplomacy to you.

Please clue us into to the democracy of your choice that has ever allowed such folly.

I suggest you watch C-SPAN with the British and Canadian Parliaments and see what happens there.

You are a pretty arrogant man and very narrow minded man.

You believe you know more than every single person posting on the blog.

[LHardy]

Originally posted by mikewrona
I suggest you watch C-SPAN with the British and Canadian Parliaments and see what happens there.

You are a pretty arrogant man and very narrow minded man.

You believe you know more than every single person posting on the blog.
I have watched parliaments and never once have I seen any individual wearing political t-shirts. The shouting and booing is hillarious at times. Unfortunatly for you we are not a parliamentary form of government. Close but not quite.

Try agian.

Your discription of me being arrogant is your confusion of confidence. I know what I know and because you have not proven me wrong through facts. You expect me to acquiesce. I don't think so. Just prove me wrong with facts. If you can provide any. Not just the same old emotional dribble you have been providing.

Also I am not narrrow minded. I am focused and that bothers those who think there are grey areas in politics. To sad for you.

So for you to feel better about yourself and your position. I am required to be gullable and ignore reality and facts? Sorry that won't happen either.
So if you want to debate. Do so with actual facts.
If I can prove there is a better way with my facts I will.
I am not here to make you or anyone else happy.

I also do not pretend to know more then every single person on this MB. If it seems that way to you then maybe I do know more then you.
I also do not enter into a debate that I know I can't win. What would be the point of that?
Thank-You very much, for your compliments!

[300miles]

Originally posted by mikewrona
My first post was of Rumsfeld with Saddam. And what did you do when I posted a picture of Donald Rumsfeld meeting with and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?
What did I do? I questioned its relevancy. Something that happened 20 years ago under completely different current events, and a statesman visiting another statesman is no comparison to what Cindy is doing.

Of course you never responded to that question. You merely went off on some tirade.

Am I partisan? a little. Don't try and tell you you are not. However if you read any of my posts you'd know I dish out criticism to republicans almost just as quickly as to democrats. I lean right so I cut them some slack sometimes. ;)

I agreed with the wife being kicked out along with cindy. I also called some of Bush's speaking points bull****.

Thanks for reducing this discussion into personal attacks.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
What did I do? I questioned its relevancy. Something that happened 20 years ago under completely different current events, and a statesman visiting another statesman is no comparison to what Cindy is doing.

Of course you never responded to that question. You merely went off on some tirade.

Am I partisan? a little. Don't try and tell you you are not. However if you read any of my posts you'd know I dish out criticism to republicans almost just as quickly as to democrats. I lean right so I cut them some slack sometimes. ;)

I agreed with the wife being kicked out along with cindy. I also called some of Bush's speaking points bull****.

Thanks for reducing this discussion into personal attacks.

"Chavez was also good buddies with Saddam Hussein.

What a guy."

This is why I attack.

You write some very personal and disturbing things about an American citizen doing what she has every right to do. That is scary. You would silence people you don't agree with.

Chavez elected in a free and open election. Venezuela is our third largest oil supplier. So much for being a danger.

You don't make sense. You just told us that Rumsfeld is acting as a diplomat. Here you are saying Chavez is buddies with Saddam. Why is that? Why is Rumsfeld a diplomat and Chavez friends. Is it because you like Rumsfeld and dislike Chavez.

Did Chavez sell arms to Saddam so he could kill his people. Rumsfeld did that.

Is Rumsfeld in the government today. Yes, he is. I expect that if he was arrogant and exercised poor judgement then he'll do the same today.


Can I assume you supported the decision of Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration to take Iraq off the Watch list, make him a favorable trading partner, and sell him weapons?

[300miles]

Mikewrona, you are trying to compare current event with things that happened 20 ago as if they happened at the same time.

Like I said before, if you want to debate the US support of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's, start another thread.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by 300miles
Mikewrona, you are trying to compare current event with things that happened 20 ago as if they happened at the same time.

Like I said before, if you want to debate the US support of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980's, start another thread.

Do you know what a resume is?

1980's Iraq is on his Rumsfeld's resume. He decided then it was in our interest to take his government off the terrorist list, restart diplomatic relations, and arm him.

This is relavent. Rumsfeld is a government official. Cindy Sheehan is an individual citizen.

Why is her actions more a threat to the U.S. than Rumsfeld's?

I'm not going to let you slander a woman who lost a son to war while you sat home cheering the boys on.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by LHardy
Your discription of me being arrogant is your confusion of confidence. I know what I know and because you have not proven me wrong through facts. You expect me to acquiesce. I don't think so. Just prove me wrong with facts.


First off, you have already been proven wrong in your argument that a non-profit organization like Planned Parenthood makes a profit. Yet you continue to argue the point that they make a profit. That is arrogance.

Going back to sixty days there have been 93 threads on U.S. Politics. You started 11 of them or 12%.

Here they are:

Mexico, Read MY Third Finger
Planned Parenthood Profits
Hamas Wins
Bloody Baby
Osama offers truce?
Where the world is today
New Orleans is like a box full of chocolate
American Agricultue, Can it survive?
Torture
Leaks! Leaks! Everywhere
Clinton Scandal

Plus you add in your expert opinion on Crime and the Police in Amherst (amazing as you are a Colden resident), the State, County, City of Buffalo. From Mexican immigration, to family planning, to Palestinian politics, Hurrican Katrina, Agricultue, the Clinton Administration, I can't imagine what else you consider yourself to be an expert. You are a genius in you own mind.

[300miles]

Originally posted by mikewrona
1980's Iraq is on his Rumsfeld's resume. He decided then it was in our interest to take his government off the terrorist list, restart diplomatic relations, and arm him.

This is relavent. Rumsfeld is a government official. Cindy Sheehan is an individual citizen.

Why is her actions more a threat to the U.S. than Rumsfeld's?

I'm not going to let you slander a woman who lost a son to war while you sat home cheering the boys on.
If Cindy wants to stick her head out there and become a political figure (read: Public) she better get used to criticism of her misplaced ideals. She is running for senate and is attempting to represent us as a country (or at least California). Her travels abroad and her hatred for her own country should and will be publicized and criticized.

She is not the only person who has rights here. I'm a citizen too and have every right to call out bull**** when I see it.

And even by your own argument, if Rumsfeld did make a mistake 20 years ago, why the hell does that mean it's OK for Cindy to do the same? If it's wrong, it's wrong. You should not be allowing your personal hatred for Bush or Republicans as an excuse to allow somebody else to make more mistakes?

Who is more biased here? You.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by 300miles
...if Rumsfeld did make a mistake 20 years ago...Buying whole milk instead of 2% is a mistake. Putting "2005" on checks you write in January is a mistake. Setting your Ti-Vo to record Gilmore Girls at 9:00 instead of 8:00 is a mistake.

Supporting Saddam Hussein, giving him tens of millions of dollars and weapons (including chemical weapons) strikes me as a bit more serious than just a mistake. Thinking that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" makes sound foreign policy is a bit more serious than just a mistake.

Keep in mind... it was no secret even then that Saddam was trouble. Rumsfeld and his pals decided to overlook all that nasty stuff because hey, he hates Iran too. And now, decades later, we're paying the price for this "mistake" to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. If you insist on comparing Cindy Sheehan to Donald Rumsfeld, by all means, do so. When Cindy's actions have a 2300+ body count, then you'll have a case.

I'm no fan of Cindy's, believe me. But before our Republican friends begin their daily 20 minute hate (which, oddly, always seems to run about 23 hours longer than scheduled) I suggest you take a look at some of the folks who have an (R) after their names and get your own house in order.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by mikewrona
First off, you have already been proven wrong in your argument that a non-profit organization like Planned Parenthood makes a profit. Yet you continue to argue the point that they make a profit. That is arrogance.

Going back to sixty days there have been 93 threads on U.S. Politics. You started 11 of them or 12%.

Here they are:

Mexico, Read MY Third Finger
Planned Parenthood Profits
Hamas Wins
Bloody Baby
Osama offers truce?
Where the world is today
New Orleans is like a box full of chocolate
American Agricultue, Can it survive?
Torture
Leaks! Leaks! Everywhere
Clinton Scandal

Plus you add in your expert opinion on Crime and the Police in Amherst (amazing as you are a Colden resident), the State, County, City of Buffalo. From Mexican immigration, to family planning, to Palestinian politics, Hurrican Katrina, Agricultue, the Clinton Administration, I can't imagine what else you consider yourself to be an expert. You are a genius in you own mind.

Mike, you've spent too much time in the Amherst threads, where personal attacks are the norm. I don't agree with LHardy, but I also don't launch personal assaults against him.

Do us a favor and take that MO back to the Amherst threads, where for some weird reason it is allowed.

[300miles]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Keep in mind... it was no secret even then that Saddam was trouble. Rumsfeld and his pals decided to overlook all that nasty stuff because hey, he hates Iran too. And now, decades later, we're paying the price for this "mistake" to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. If you insist on comparing Cindy Sheehan to Donald Rumsfeld, by all means, do so. When Cindy's actions have a 2300+ body count, then you'll have a case.

I'm no fan of Cindy's, believe me. But before our Republican friends begin their daily 20 minute hate (which, oddly, always seems to run about 23 hours longer than scheduled) I suggest you take a look at some of the folks who have an (R) after their names and get your own house in order.
What house? You cannot "put something in order" that happened 20 years ago.

Let me ask you this: What is going on in that photo? any idea? They're shaking hands. And... You don't know do you. Probably selling Iraq arms.. sure OK. It's a photo. Did Rumsfeld have all these arms in the trunk of his Taurus? A little personal business? Did rumsfeld single handedly support Saddam Hussein in the 80's? Did he go there on a personal mission to gain support from Iraq? Did the support for Iraq fail to get any Democrat support? Were all Democrats fiercly opposed to arming Iraq in the 80's????

Can you answer how all this was done solely by Republicans when Congress was firmly in Democrat control in the 80's?

It's annoying how people sift through history and try to conveniently blame ONE party when the other party was probably also supporting those decisions at the time it happened.

Can you understand that decisions made in the 80's were based on what had happened in Iran years earlier? You're against supporting one country only because the other is our enemy? Well start digging through US history and see how many times that "mistake" has happened... and try to show me how the amazing Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for all of them.

[speaker]

Okay--the US practice of selling arms, munitions and planes to one of two or more parties at war, or just battling each other, goes back over many generations and involves both parties, no doubt about it. It's always been something which made me uncomfortable. But that practice has come back to bite us more than one time, and I think we should never do it again. If not for humanitarian purposes, then out of self defense. It's not only politically motivated, it's profiteering on someones else's
grief.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by 300miles
What house? You cannot "put something in order" that happened 20 years ago.20 years ago sure seems like a long time... until you turn on the news and see that we're dealing with the consequences of those actions right now. It's costing us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives right now, and there's no end in sight for the forseeable future. 20 years is a long time for you or me, but it's the blink of an eye for history.


Originally posted by 300miles
You're against supporting one country only because the other is our enemy?Yes, I am. If that's the only reason to support a country, you're probably making a mistake. Iraq is the perfect example. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" might make a great fortune cookie but it's far too facile to use as foreign policy.


Originally posted by 300miles
Well start digging through US history and see how many times that "mistake" has happened... and try to show me how the amazing Donald Rumsfeld was responsible for all of them. Who on Earth suggested that he was responsible for all of them? Certainly not me. What I said is that Rumsfeld and his pals were responsible for this specific instance. But I think you already knew that.

[300miles]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
Who on Earth suggested that he was responsible for all of them? Certainly not me. What I said is that Rumsfeld and his pals were responsible for this specific instance. But I think you already knew that.
No, I don't know that.

Show me proof that the Democrats were all firmly against supporting Iraq in the 1980's

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by 300miles
No, I don't know that.So you honestly thought I was saying Donald Rumsfeld is responsible for every mistake in US foreign policy history? Wow. And not in the good way.

[300miles]

wouldn't be surprised at all from some posters here.

[WestSideJohn]

It's amazing to me that in a world where our soldiers don't have adequate body armor, or where Fox News broadcasts troop locations, or where 54% of Americans now say the Bush administration deliberately misled us about Iraq WMDs (Gallup, 1/06), Cindy Sheehan is being presented as the biggest obstacle to success in Iraq.

We all know I believe this war was a hideous tactical blunder. But even putting that aside, the execution has been even worse and the news is full of the proof every day. So Cindy Sheehan shook hands with the president of Venezuela. Yeah, that's a pisser. Now can we please move on? Can we please get some body armor for our troops, or, better yet, come up with a plan for success so we can bring them the hell home?

[LHardy]

Well mike it just goes to show, that you don't read what I have posted and it eliminates your claim that I'm narrow minded.
I'm sorry you do not have the confidence in your own abilities to make judgements and relate facts and read with comprehension. They do offer adult remedial classes for that. I suggest you take some.
By the way I don't mind if you don't agree. Never have.
Though you do find it a neccessity to go on personal attacks when you can not persuade me to your point of view. So I shall return to you the same as I have stated to you in the past.

I hope you never venture onto a thread that is outside of the Amherst forum. That would simply mean you too are a know it all.

I also would like to know what century you are from.
No one outside of Amherst can have an opinion about Amherst?
Now that is arrogance as well as prejudice!

[300miles]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
[B]... Cindy Sheehan is being presented as the biggest obstacle to success in Iraq.
You're the first person to say that WSJ. I never said anything about cindy being an obstacle. I said she was a fool.

Once again, like with mikewrona you can't seem to deal with the topic at hand so you start putting words in people's mouths.

[WestSideJohn]

Originally posted by 300miles
Once again, like with mikewrona you can't seem to deal with the topic at hand so you start putting words in people's mouths. Oh, this is rich. The guy who implied I blamed all our foreign policy mistakes in history on Donald Rumsfeld talks about putting words in people's mouths.

[300miles]

WSJ - what I meant by that was that "No i don't know that" Rumsfeld was solely responsible for our support of Iraq in the 80's. Because I had said earlier that I'm sure it was ALSO supported by democrats. To which you never responded.

your quote: "Rumsfeld and his pals were responsible for this specific instance. But I think you already knew that"

I responded. "No. I don't know that." Because I don't think it's even true that Democrats don't share in that responsibility.

Understand now, or should I draw pictures?

[300miles]

Okay Okay... I'll draw pictures...

Here's Rumsfeld
:(

Here's Rumsfeld on crack... no, wait...

Here's Rumsfeld's "pals"
:) :) :P :O (he doesn't have many friends)

Here's the Majority Democratic Controlled Congress:
:( :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :]
:P :P :O :) :] :P :P :O :] :P :P :O :)
:] :P :P :O :o :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P
:P :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P
:P :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :O :) :] :P :P :O
:) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P :P :O :) :] :P :P :O :P :P
:P :P :P :) :^) :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :)
:] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :]
:P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P
:) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :]
:P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :)
:] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P
:) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :) :] :P :-]~
(The last one is drooling...)

Of course this is just a small sample of the Democratic congress. The rest would hire mikewrona to sue me for slander.

[WestSideJohn]

I love having a conversation with someone who disagrees with me. It's a great opportunity for both of us to gain a greater understanding of whatever issue is being discussed. It's also a chance for me to rethink my own position as I explain or defend it.

Unfortunately, there are all too many people who play the "I'm right no matter what" game. They're easy to spot. They'll stretch the truth, backpedal, spin, use strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or even outright lies. The problem with this is that it makes a true dialogue impossible, and nobody learns anything except what a person's capacity for dishonesty is.

And yes, a strawman argument is intellectually dishonest. It's also, often, a good sign that whoever makes it knows their point is too shaky to stand on its own.

I posted that Rumsfeld and his pals were responsible for the foreign policy events of 20 years ago. Your reply was a challenge that I prove Rumsfeld was responsible for all the foreign policy mistakes throughout US history. That's a classic strawman argument. That's putting words in my mouth (a tactic which you then hiliariously complain about just a few minutes later). That's all the proof I need that there's no dialogue to be found here.

I'm sure you're sincere in your beliefs just as I am in mine. But I already have an LHardy to make false statements and generally skewer any attempt at honest debate. I don't need another one.

That's all I'll say on this topic. You're free to have the last word.

[300miles]

Thanks I will.

The only direct response to that is - you need to turn that around and look in the mirror.

If anyone is going to simplify the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's down to a sound byte and one random photo they need to take some time and educate themselves on how complicated politics were in that war.

There was concern over Iran's fanatical islamic policies taking over the middle east and risking oil supplies. Iraq was much more secular, but was looking to build a pan-Arabic power.

I'm not defending any actions from that period, but the US supplied arms to both Iraq and Iran. Some of the doctrine in the Gulf was setup not by Reagan, but by Jimmy Carter. And besides the US.... France and the USSR were also supplying arms to Iraq. The Cold War was still a major factor... the US was trying to balance Soviet influence with the Iran/Iraq war getting out of control and attempting to ensure the end result wouldn't cut us off from oil reserves.

Of course people looking to simply blame foreign policy on one single man and his pals can't handle that kind of complexity.

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by WestSideJohn
I love having a conversation with someone who disagrees with me. It's a great opportunity for both of us to gain a greater understanding of whatever issue is being discussed. It's also a chance for me to rethink my own position as I explain or defend it.

Unfortunately, there are all too many people who play the "I'm right no matter what" game. They're easy to spot. They'll stretch the truth, backpedal, spin, use strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or even outright lies. The problem with this is that it makes a true dialogue impossible, and nobody learns anything except what a person's capacity for dishonesty is.

And yes, a strawman argument is intellectually dishonest. It's also, often, a good sign that whoever makes it knows their point is too shaky to stand on its own.

I posted that Rumsfeld and his pals were responsible for the foreign policy events of 20 years ago. Your reply was a challenge that I prove Rumsfeld was responsible for all the foreign policy mistakes throughout US history. That's a classic strawman argument. That's putting words in my mouth (a tactic which you then hiliariously complain about just a few minutes later). That's all the proof I need that there's no dialogue to be found here.

I'm sure you're sincere in your beliefs just as I am in mine. But I already have an LHardy to make false statements and generally skewer any attempt at honest debate. I don't need another one.

That's all I'll say on this topic. You're free to have the last word.


Awsome post about strawman arguments!! The old red herring!!
Ignore the argument, set up the straw man, then attack the strawman.. They see this as supporting their point, while ignoring the original point alltogether, nice ploy.

Many talk radio hosts are great at this...some even take the next step, and refer to their apponents with degrading nicknames.
The extremists are the most obvious:
ALL X are Y
Most X are Y

To quote Obi-wan, "Only Siths deal in absolutes"

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Mike, you've spent too much time in the Amherst threads, where personal attacks are the norm. I don't agree with LHardy, but I also don't launch personal assaults against him.

Do us a favor and take that MO back to the Amherst threads, where for some weird reason it is allowed.

You just told me to leave. That's pretty personal!

So let's have more intellectual cnversation like this:

Cindy Sheehan Is A Fool.
Cindy has gone to that hotbed of Democracy... Venezuela... to gain support from Chevez, Socialists, Anti-Americans, and Anarchists. Just the type of people necessary to win a US Senate bid.

"Oh, Chavez is so sincere!" What a fool. She seems to have no clue that she's being used for blatant anti-American propaganda. She stands smiling next to the guy while he shouts "Down with the US Empire!"

That same day, Chavez voiced his support for Iran's Nuclear goals. Chavez was also good buddies with Saddam Hussein.

What a guy.

[Usually Right]

Mikey, Mikey,

Please come back to the Amherst WB where we know your brain is like a political speech ... mostly empty!

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by Usually Right
Mikey, Mikey,

Please come back to the Amherst WB where we know your brain is like a political speech ... mostly empty!

Hi Susan!

[speaker]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Mike, you've spent too much time in the Amherst threads, where personal attacks are the norm. I don't agree with LHardy, but I also don't launch personal assaults against him.

Do us a favor and take that MO back to the Amherst threads, where for some weird reason it is allowed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You just told me to leave. That's pretty personal!

NOOOOO! ttf just said take that MO back to the other thread where it is the norm. You can stay!

def: MO--modus operandi:)

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by speaker
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
Mike, you've spent too much time in the Amherst threads, where personal attacks are the norm. I don't agree with LHardy, but I also don't launch personal assaults against him.

Do us a favor and take that MO back to the Amherst threads, where for some weird reason it is allowed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You just told me to leave. That's pretty personal!

NOOOOO! ttf just said take that MO back to the other thread where it is the norm. You can stay!

def: MO--modus operandi:)

Understood!!!

[Pauldo]

The Sad Story of Cindy Sheehan
BY JAMES TARANTO
Friday, August 12, 2005 3:05 p.m. EDT

Times-Herald reports that Sheehan and her husband, Pat, have separated and that "family members of Sheehan denounced her actions Thursday in an e-mail":

Sent to a San Francisco radio station Thursday, the first public acknowledgment of a family rift came from Cherie Quartarolo, sister-in-law to Cindy Sheehan and godmother to her son, Casey.

Reached by phone Thursday, Quartarolo said she consulted with other family members before releasing the brief statement, but she declined to elaborate. She signed the memo on behalf of Casey's paternal grandparents, as well as "aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

Noting that her family is still grieving the loss of Casey, Quartarolo wrote: "We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation."

Casey's father, Patrick, of Vacaville, was not mentioned. He has acknowledged that he and his wife are separated, but he has avoided the spotlight that surrounds his wife's high-profile protest.

The family's e-mail, however, said "The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president, silently, with prayer and respect."

What are we to make of Mrs. Sheehan's demand for a second meeting with President Bush? She claims she wants an explanation of why her son died, but she acknowledges that her mind is already made up. This is an excerpt of a speech she gave Monday, as transcribed on the Web site of an outfit called Veterans for Peace, describing how she conceived of her protest (quoting verbatim):

I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac [the president] out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand, every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission; you say, except Casey Sheehan.' "

"And you say except for all the members of Goldstar Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."

And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bull****.

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.

Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine"

According to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." So we now have it on absolute moral authority that America is a cancer, that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein, and that Israel must be destroyed? The question is somewhat facetious, of course; Dowd is not known for thinking through the implications of the things she writes.

Yet thousands of American parents have lost children in Iraq, and thousands more in, among other places, Afghanistan, Germany, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, New York, Pennsylvania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tanzania, Virginia and Yemen, either fighting Islamist terrorism or as a result of the failure to fight Islamist terrorism with sufficient determination. Although these thousands of parents doubtless have a wide range of opinions on the Iraq war and other subjects, we'd venture to say that not many--especially among those whose children were in the military--agree with Cindy Sheehan.

Indeed, we are now starting to see stories like this one, from the Gloucester County (N.J.) Times:

Marine Cpl. Marc T. Ryan, of Gloucester City, was killed in an explosion in Ramadi, Iraq in November.

"I would tell Cindy Sheehan that, as one mother to another, I do realize your loss is your loss and there's nothing you can do to heal from it," said the corporal's mother, Linda Ryan.

"George Bush didn't kill her son, it's the evildoers who have no value of life who killed her son. Her son made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country, knowing that, at any time, war could come about," Ryan said. . . .

"George Bush was my son's commander-in-chief. My son, Marc, totally believed in what he was doing," she said.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007102

The woman is a radical wack job that definitely needs some psychiatric help.

[Usually Right]

Spoken just like a petty, sister-in-law

[avet]

"Punxsutawney Pauldo"

He calls others "wackos",...the one who wants to replace his neighborhood watches with ....."SWAT TEAMS" in his tiny little burb !!

Welcome to the real world. The world created mostly by your "leaders", in the last few years.

FACT: swarms of terrorists increasing "ten\twenty fold" ....EVERYWHERE.
When did all this start? Who ALLOWED this to start?
Terrorism was severely ignored, & key terrorist investigators were told to "BACK OFF" key terrorists, by the administration leaders - BEFORE 911, (some terrorist LIVED directly across the street from the NSA - some "partyed" on Ambramoff's yacht). What a JOKE!!
THE ACTIONS OF G.W.B. & CREW WEREN'T ...RADICAL\ILLOGICAL ??? MAKES PERFECT SENSE ....TO YOU, RIGHT?

FACT: Wide Open borders giving extremely "easy acess" to illegals, drug smugglers, non-mexican ...TERRORISTS
It's all for the "good of the economy" & would SEVERELY hurt us ....if it's stopped!
THE ACTIONS OF G.W.B. & CREW AREN'T ...RADICAL\ILLOGICAL ??? MAKES PERFECT SENSE ....TO YOU, RIGHT?

FACT: Huge increases in the poverty level, joblessness ("reasonable" paying jobs - not a career in Wal-mart\MacDonalds working 2 shifts). This nation is severely "broke" in just the last few years.
THE ACTIONS OF G.W.B. & CREW AREN'T ...RADICAL\ILLOGICAL ??? MAKES PERFECT SENSE ....TO YOU, RIGHT?


Is it getting a "little too close" to affecting YOU and YOUR safety? (Bank robberies in Amherst? OMG!!)

"Punxsutawney Pauldo"
SEEK HELP SOON - BEFORE THEY TURN ON THE STREET LIGHTS IN YOUR BURB!

FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.

SWAT IS ON THE WAY, TO GUARD "YOU & YOURS".

THEY HAVE STICKERS TOO, ....I'M PRETTY SURE!