Mother of slain son holds vigil in Crawford.

[Brasil]

[quote name='DeathBug']I've got the innate feeling I'm about to be talked down to by Siren again.[/quote]
You?re breaking my heart. If you don't want negative feedback, don't say stupid ****, simple as that. "Again" is absolutely right, DB, because rarely have I seen you make any shred of sense. Remember the No Child Left Behind? Yeah, so do I.

[quote]Here's an idea: how about you spend your entire life around the military, and meeting the people who make it work, and then you tell me about their reasons, and what they can and can't do.

Any perosn with the courage and discipline to join the US militrary doesn't need the military to make something of their life, because they've already got the ability to be something without it. It's a matter of character, and the way your assertions portray them is insulting.[/quote]
And what does this matter, DeathBug? Our military is comprised of good individuals. Okay. But that doesn't mean that those in the Armed forces for educational or economic reasons aren't there for educational or economic reasons. And again...remember that the "sense of duty" can still (and has) been spun into the "gung-ho" even by the dutiful themselves. I give props to our military, DB. I do. I respect them.

But I'm not about to springboard off of that to vehemently criticize a woman whose political viewpoint I'm diametrically opposed to.

By the way, "they've already got the ability of character" is utterly trite and fairly naive. It more sounds like the recruitment commercials than any respectable view on things.

[quote]And I wonder why this paragraph is even included here, as it adds nothing to our conversation.[/quote]
Wasn?t it obvious? If she was right-wing, you wouldn?t have a problem with her at all.

[quote]If it's not a point, don't write three paragraphs about it and then tell not to "attempt to refute it", especially when you're trying to make my point look invalid by disputing a single clause of it.

I am not attacking this woman; I pointed out the truth of what she's doing. I am attacking her actions. She is using her son's death to give her autohority she otherwise wouldn't have. And this is not an act of desperation anymore, if it ever was. You don't get a press secretary, a web ring, a fund-rasining organization, and collabortaiton with Micheal Moore and MoveOn.Org as an act of desperation; you do it as an act of activism.[/quote]
DeathBug, I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you basically implied (and just outright said above) she was a good-for-nothing political opportunist, exploiting her son?s death to further her own personal political agenda. I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you implied that she was a ?two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake.? You?re not attacking her? Please. Dispense with the smokescreen, man.

And do (did) you feel the same way about Terry Schiavo?s parents? After all, based on your evaluation criteria, they?re exploiting their daughter so they can further a political agenda. They used her death (for all intents and purposes, it was a death) to petition both Bushes. And yet, I can?t recall seeing anything from you that wasn?t critical of Michael Schiavo and remotely scathing directed towards Terry?s parents. Why is that? Why don?t you just admit what we all know here? The following screams what I?m getting at.

[quote]Why isn't it? She's certainly making it an issue.

I didn't lump her in with Moore; she did, by co-ordinating with him. Or maybe her press secretary did it; I can't be sure.

Wow, it's almost like you're saying, because she lost her son, she's beyond all critisism.

Gee, isn't that exactly what I just said she wanted to happen?

Maybe the fact that she's only getting it because her son died? It's almost like she's milking his death for political attention...

I'm not minimizing her actions; I'm responding to them. History will judge if she made any impact.

I don't dislike this woman any more than I dislike all misguided activists. What I dislike is her calluos use of her son's sacrifice.

Which is easy to do when she's a political activist. She was prior to her son's death, as well.[/quote]
And you don?t see why you?re taking issue with this woman? Her being an activist has nothing to do with it. Your entire argument is politically charged. You don?t dislike her for what she is. You dislike her for what she isn?t.

Also, you?ve described her actions as callous, but you?ve just sat here and accused her of being a political shark, that she doesn?t really care about her son, only that she can use it to further a political agenda. And you say she?s callous? Grow a heart..

And?if history will judge if she made any impact, why are you able to comment on anything? And again, bringing up historical context, if you take issue with one act of political activism purely on the grounds that one is making connections and networking to help further one?s cause?you?d have to condemn history itself, because that?s what political activism involves: building a voice. You find it on the right and left, so why do we see you only criticizing it when the left does it?

By the way, are you about to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to make connections, network, etc., if you were fighting for a particular political issue? Seems hypocritical to denounce what this mother is doing when it?s very likely (almost a guarantee I?d think) that you?d do the same things, just from a different political standpoint.

[quote]Yes, complete and utter misinformation that the entire world believed. As you'll recall, the debate prior to the war was not whether or not Iraq had WMD's, but whether or not they should be given more time to comply with UN regulations.[/quote]
I suppose the speeches of Bush?s that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Rumsfield that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Cheney that harped on WMDs?weren?t really about WMDs? Iraq?s noncompliance was incidental, because the only way to prove Iraq was noncompliant because they had WMDs (i.e., something to hide) was to?provide proof they had WMDs. And to this day, the only three people in the world that haven?t fully acknowledged Iraq?s WMDs were largely non-existent are Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. I suppose my paragraph here wasn?t really about WMDs, either, was it?

[quote]Conservative broadcasters refer to it because they know the liberal ones are, and they'll look foolish if they ignore it. If they didn't feel they needed to report it in some fashion, they wouldn't.[/quote]
They?ll look foolish? That?s incredibly trite and naïve. They report the news for the ratings. If a story doesn?t bring in viewers, if an item won?t boost Nielsen numbers and the similar systems?you won?t see it on the news. They report the news so they don?t look foolish? Complete and utter horse****. Look at it this way. If they didn?t want to appear foolish?they wouldn?t cover half of the crap we see every hour.

[quote]Yes, because clearly, you know everything about me, and my motivations, and therefore have no problems personally attacking me, because you're so damned smart.

Wow, and pigeonholing me into a stereotype makes you look so smart. How relevent are personal attacks?[/quote]
From what I?ve seen from you in the past? The prototypical Republican mouthpiece? DeathBug, I don?t even know what you?re trying to get at here, but what I?m noting about you isn?t some outlandish and bizarre radical assessment. I?m not just coming out of left field on this one.

I pigeonholed you into a stereotype? You pigeonholed yourself into a stereotype.

Ironically, your dependence on sarcasm in your post is one of the plagues of your reply?simply, because it just doesn?t work. You?re trying to use sarcasm to sound clever, but you?re not being very witty at all, and frankly?the sarcasm just sounds like a teenager being pissed off.

By the way, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Keep that in mind if you want to continue trading barbs here.

[quote]But, I'll give it to you: I am pissed off. I'm pissed off from the total bull being spouted about the armed forces. To hear the new party line, you'd think the lot of the US military are a bunch of stupid kids who can't make cognitive decisions.

And I'm completely sick of "We support the troops, but not the war". Oh, we think want you're doing is evil and it should fail, because that would show the Bush Nazi's...but we think you guys are okay. BS.[/quote]
Who gives two ****s? You don?t like how things work? It?s the same type of vitriolic rhetoric coming from the right, yourself included, DeathBug.

And how does your Ideology work, anyway? Because someone disagrees with the reasoning for stepping into a theatre of war, they should treat the troops like subhuman degenerates? Yes, I think that?s your fundamental point in a nutshell, isn?t it? Unless I?m horribly misinterpreting your point here?that Ideology makes no sense at all. I don?t know if you?re playing the pseudo-philosopher or whatever, but even then?from a philosophical standpoint, your point is absurd and unrealistic?and we?re talking about a field where something like Solipsism isn?t completely unheard of.

[quote]Why should I care what you think, honestly? Every single time I disagree with you, you post from some supposed intellectual superiority and talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you. I'm not so shallow that I need the acceptance of others to know when I'm right.[/QUOTE]
Why should you care what anyone thinks? You?re obviously so incredibly right here in labeling a grief-stricken, angry mother like she was some liberal nutcase you?d find distributing Truth Pamphlets in college towns in middle New York that you couldn?t possibly be utterly mistaken?or at least operating from such a skewed Ideological perspective as to view a situation in the extremes?couldn?t you? Again, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Come on, man. Just get over yourself. Lol.

I?ve talked down to you in the past because in the past, you were pulling absolute bull****, like in that No Child Left Behind thread. In this thread, it?s no different; your posts are so incredibly transparent that anyone can see what your true modus operatum is. Face it, man. You?re just an angry teenager who?s become a mindless mouthpiece for your own political party. Go ahead and laugh at me. Shrug me off. I don?t care. Your negative reactions only further confirm what I?ve said here. Call me arrogant. Consider yourself right. Who gives a crap. Fact of the matter is, you don?t sound like anyone with an actual grasp on the issues here. You just sound like some mouthy teenage Republican.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Siren']You?re breaking my heart. If you don't want negative feedback, don't say stupid ****, simple as that. "Again" is absolutely right, DB, because rarely have I seen you make any shred of sense. Remember the No Child Left Behind? Yeah, so do I.[/quote]

No, actually, I don't remember much of NCLB, because that was at least a year ago; you're the one who keeps bringing it up, because you want to constantly bring up a time you were right and I was wrong. Grow up.


[QUOTE]And what does this matter, DeathBug? Our military is comprised of good individuals. Okay. But that doesn't mean that those in the Armed forces for educational or economic reasons aren't there for educational or economic reasons. And again...remember that the "sense of duty" can still (and has) been spun into the "gung-ho" even by the dutiful themselves. I give props to our military, DB. I do. I respect them.

But I'm not about to springboard off of that to vehemently criticize a woman whose political viewpoint I'm diametrically opposed to.[/QUOTE]

I didn't actually use that to critisize Sheehan; I was responding to a point already brought up.

[QUOTE]By the way, "they've already got the ability of character" is utterly trite and fairly naive. It more sounds like the recruitment commercials than any respectable view on things.[/QUOTE]

I have an entire lifetime's worth of experience living on military bases and with members of the armed forces my assertion. It's truth in advertising.


[QUOTE]Wasn?t it obvious? If she was right-wing, you wouldn?t have a problem with her at all.[/QUOTE]

If she was right-wing, what would she be doing?


[QUOTE] DeathBug, I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you basically implied (and just outright said above) she was a good-for-nothing political opportunist, exploiting her son?s death to further her own personal political agenda. I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you implied that she was a ?two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake.? You?re not attacking her? Please. Dispense with the smokescreen, man.[/QUOTE]

Who said two-faced? Part of my point was that she's saying exactly what she was always saying, only now she's using an elevated platform. She's an activist, same as she's always been, and my problems with her are the same as my problems with any misguided activist.

[QUOTE]And do (did) you feel the same way about Terry Schiavo?s parents? After all, based on your evaluation criteria, they?re exploiting their daughter so they can further a political agenda. They used her death (for all intents and purposes, it was a death) to petition both Bushes. And yet, I can?t recall seeing anything from you that wasn?t critical of Michael Schiavo and remotely scathing directed towards Terry?s parents. Why is that? Why don?t you just admit what we all know here? The following screams what I?m getting at.[/QUOTE]

Well, this is totally off-topic, but the Schiavo debacle made all involved look bad. Micheal Schiavo was persnally reprehensible for not letting her parents have the body for funeral purposes, the judge who decided she should be starved to death was a cretin, and all politicians involved in summoning an emergency session of Congress for a single private individual were grossly overstepping their bounds.

Not that any of this matters at all to the Sheenhan debate, unless you're trying to make this a debate on my personal credibility.


[QUOTE]And you don?t see why you?re taking issue with this woman? Her being an activist has nothing to do with it. Your entire argument is politically charged. You don?t dislike her for what she is. You dislike her for what she isn?t.[/QUOTE]

I dislike her for what she's doing. And the argument is politically charged because it's a politically charged discussion.

[QUOTE]Also, you?ve described her actions as callous, but you?ve just sat here and accused her of being a political shark, that she doesn?t really care about her son, only that she can use it to further a political agenda. And you say she?s callous? Grow a heart..[/QUOTE]

[b]I never once said that she didn't care about her son.[/b] Of course she does; it's not a part of this discussion at all. And while we're at it, I never said I was sorry that she lost her son; I figured that would be a given. But since apparently I'm not assumed to have basic human feelings, I'll say it now: I'm sorry she lost her son.

[QUOTE]And?if history will judge if she made any impact, why are you able to comment on anything?[/QUOTE]

Because I'm discussing the appropriateness of her actions, not their impact.

[QUOTE]And again, bringing up historical context, if you take issue with one act of political activism purely on the grounds that one is making connections and networking to help further one?s cause?you?d have to condemn history itself, because that?s what political activism involves: building a voice. You find it on the right and left, so why do we see you only criticizing it when the left does it?[/QUOTE]

I'm critisizing the way she's presenting herself: as a non-activist. She's not sitting alone in Crawford holding a silent vigil; she's at the center of a political rally she's organizing. She doesn't want to call a spade a spade, because it won't arouse public sympathy the same way.

[QUOTE] By the way, are you about to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to make connections, network, etc., if you were fighting for a particular political issue? Seems hypocritical to denounce what this mother is doing when it?s very likely (almost a guarantee I?d think) that you?d do the same things, just from a different political standpoint.[/QUOTE]

Of course I would. But I wouldn't misrepresent my circumstances, which is what she's doing. At least you've stopped denying she's an activist.

[QUOTE]I suppose the speeches of Bush?s that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Rumsfield that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Cheney that harped on WMDs?weren?t really about WMDs? Iraq?s noncompliance was incidental, because the only way to prove Iraq was noncompliant because they had WMDs (i.e., something to hide) was to?provide proof they had WMDs. And to this day, the only three people in the world that haven?t fully acknowledged Iraq?s WMDs were largely non-existent are Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. I suppose my paragraph here wasn?t really about WMDs, either, was it?[/QUOTE]

And I suppose the British and Russian intelligence backing up those assertions weren't really about WMD's, either? Saddam spent a great deal of time and money to create a credible farce of having WMD's, and he succeeded. And, again, everyone in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD's.


[QUOTE] They?ll look foolish? That?s incredibly trite and naïve. They report the news for the ratings. If a story doesn?t bring in viewers, if an item won?t boost Nielsen numbers and the similar systems?you won?t see it on the news. They report the news so they don?t look foolish? Complete and utter horse****. Look at it this way. If they didn?t want to appear foolish?they wouldn?t cover half of the crap we see every hour.[/QUOTE]

Then what does their reporting of this issue have to do with anything?


[QUOTE]From what I?ve seen from you in the past? The prototypical Republican mouthpiece? DeathBug, I don?t even know what you?re trying to get at here, but what I?m noting about you isn?t some outlandish and bizarre radical assessment. I?m not just coming out of left field on this one.

I pigeonholed you into a stereotype? You pigeonholed yourself into a stereotype.

Ironically, your dependence on sarcasm in your post is one of the plagues of your reply?simply, because it just doesn?t work. You?re trying to use sarcasm to sound clever, but you?re not being very witty at all, and frankly?the sarcasm just sounds like a teenager being pissed off.

By the way, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Keep that in mind if you want to continue trading barbs here.[/QUOTE]

As I recall, you started 'trading barbs' first. You attacked me personally. Don't talk to me about 'barbs'.

[QUOTE]Who gives two ****s? You don?t like how things work? It?s the same type of vitriolic rhetoric coming from the right, yourself included, DeathBug.[/QUOTE]

I don't like how things work when they screw over the military.

[QUOTE]And how does your Ideology work, anyway? Because someone disagrees with the reasoning for stepping into a theatre of war, they should treat the troops like subhuman degenerates? Yes, I think that?s your fundamental point in a nutshell, isn?t it? Unless I?m horribly misinterpreting your point here?that Ideology makes no sense at all. I don?t know if you?re playing the pseudo-philosopher or whatever, but even then?from a philosophical standpoint, your point is absurd and unrealistic?and we?re talking about a field where something like Solipsism isn?t completely unheard of.[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't, but they do. And I'm not coming from a philosophical point of view; I'm coiming from a historical one. I'm not going to just let the protests get to the Vietnam level. The people running these campaigns are the same as from 30 years ago, and are already trying to use the same tactics. ("Maimed for a Lie" outside of vetern's hospitals, the ever-popular "We support your right to shoot your commanding officers", comparisons to Nazi's by liberal congressmen).

If the protesters really cared about the troops, they would be discreet enough so that their protests aren't seen by the enemy. But one of the things we learn from history is that most people don't learn from history.

[QUOTE]Why should you care what anyone thinks? You?re obviously so incredibly right here in labeling a grief-stricken, angry mother like she was some liberal nutcase you?d find distributing Truth Pamphlets in college towns in middle New York that you couldn?t possibly be utterly mistaken?or at least operating from such a skewed Ideological perspective as to view a situation in the extremes?couldn?t you? Again, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Come on, man. Just get over yourself. Lol.[/QUOTE]

You can be offensive, but you'd rather chose condescension. Just like you are to me, and just like you were to Trastic. Do you listen to yourself? You sound like a repriminding parent. I already know I sound pissed.

[QUOTE]I?ve talked down to you in the past because in the past, you were pulling absolute bull****, like in that No Child Left Behind thread. In this thread, it?s no different; your posts are so incredibly transparent that anyone can see what your true modus operatum is. Face it, man. You?re just an angry teenager who?s become a mindless mouthpiece for your own political party. Go ahead and laugh at me. Shrug me off. I don?t care. Your negative reactions only further confirm what I?ve said here. Call me arrogant. Consider yourself right. Who gives a crap. Fact of the matter is, you don?t sound like anyone with an actual grasp on the issues here. You just sound like some mouthy teenage Republican.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to apologise for being passionate about an issue; I pasionatly dislike it when the military gets screwed. Apathy isn't a virtue.

And if you honestly think I'm such a punk, why are you even talking to me? Unless, of course, it's a shallow attempt to make yourself look better at my supposed expense. The fact that you're using a public forum to attack my "perosnality flaws" suggests ths.

Edit: And, I just realized our ocnversation has moved beyond Cindy Sheehan's actions, into my line of thought in coming to my opinion on Cindy Sheehan. Since this way lies flames, I'm going to withdraw. If anyone has anything to say regarding me personally, they may do it through a PM. As for Mrs. Sheehan, I've already stated my disapproval of her actions multiple times.

[AnimeFront]

i think mrs. sheehan is moe upset to the fact that her son died, and that bush had promised all this progress and new changes in iraq but nothing has changed really.

[Bloodseeker]

What's a military there for? Its there to fight the government's wars. Its the government's giant fighting machine. That's what a military is. When you join the military, you know that. And you know that there are risks involved. He was willing to take that risk, and he paid for it with his life. It may sound cold, but that's what it boils down to.

If the President spent all of his time talking to the families of every soldier that died in Iraq, he'd be spending all of his time conversing instead of doing his job.

[AnimeFront]

[QUOTE=Bloodseeker]What's a military there for? Its there to fight the government's wars. Its the government's giant fighting machine. That's what a military is. When you join the military, you know that. And you know that there are risks involved. He was willing to take that risk, and he paid for it with his life. It may sound cold, but that's what it boils down to.

If the President spent all of his time talking to the families of every soldier that died in Iraq, he'd be spending all of his time conversing instead of doing his job.[/QUOTE]
shes mad because no progress has been made in iraq, since we caught Saddam.

[Morpheus]

To say we haven't made any progress in two years is ignorant. We are progressing, slow as it seems.

This war seems a lot like WW2. We ignored Saddam for the longest time and we finally hit the breaking point when one of his allies attacked us. We are now fighting a war people seem to hate. Please, tell the person that was to be tortured the day Saddam went into hiding that the war is pointless.

[QUOTE=Bloodseeker]
If the President spent all of his time talking to the families of every soldier that died in Iraq, he'd be spending all of his time conversing instead of doing his job.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. He doesn't have time to waste on this sort of thing. To call him insensitive for avoiding her is ignoring that fact that he has a job to do. I'll restate this:
[I]
[B]We are at war. In war, people ******* die, and there is nothing you can do about it.[/B] [/I]

[Lafleur]

[quote name='Morpheus']To say we haven't made any progress in two years is ignorant. We are progressing, slow as it seems.[/quote]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
The only progress that's been made, if you can call it that, is that a puppet government was installed. The Insurgency is worse then ever, people are dieing faster than ever, Iraq is in it's worst state since it's creation. Iraq is, if anything going backwards. Guess it's true what they say about Conservatives:
[B]
A Conservative is a person with two perfectly good legs who's never learned to walk forward.[/B][/COLOR]

[AnimeFront]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
The only progress that's been made, if you can call it that, is that a puppet government was installed. The Insurgency is worse then ever, people are dieing faster than ever, Iraq is in it's worst state since it's creation. Iraq is, if anything going backwards. Guess it's true what they say about Conservatives:
[B]
A Conservative is a person with two perfectly good legs who's never learned to walk forward.[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


Except for your little qoute, cause i have some friends who are conservatives that do make progress. I agree with you completely. And to you morpheus i am suprised that your are so conservative, since your athiest. Bush hates you and me as much as he hates "The axis of Evil".


I also think it is wrong how people are demonizing mrs. Sheehan for having some complaints against the war, and to say she does not support our troops is just plain ignorance.

O yea one more thing morpheus, name some progress?

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Akari_Demon]Except for your little qoute, cause i have some friends who are conservatives that do make progress. I agree with you completely. And to you morpheus i am suprised that your are so conservative, since your athiest. Bush hates you and me as much as he hates "The axis of Evil".


I also think it is wrong how people are demonizing mrs. Sheehan for having some complaints against the war, and to say she does not support our troops is just plain ignorance.

O yea one more thing morpheus, name some progress?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Well, it was a general qoute. It applies more to Canada than the US (I'll admit that Regan did make some strides; but that was purely coincedental. The USSR was buggered anyway) because literally every time a conservative gets elected PM it bites us in the balls. *Caugh*Deifenbaker*caugh.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]No, actually, I don't remember much of NCLB, because that was at least a year ago; you're the one who keeps bringing it up, because you want to constantly bring up a time you were right and I was wrong. Grow up.

You can be offensive, but you'd rather chose condescension. Just like you are to me, and just like you were to Trastic. Do you listen to yourself? You sound like a repriminding parent. I already know I sound pissed.

And if you honestly think I'm such a punk, why are you even talking to me? Unless, of course, it's a shallow attempt to make yourself look better at my supposed expense. The fact that you're using a public forum to attack my "perosnality flaws" suggests ths.[/quote] Oh. My. God. Are you serious? You?re telling me to ?grow up? because I happen to have a very good memory and know exactly why I was talking down to you before? I?m not the one who initially mentioned previous experiences here, DeathBug. Does ?I?m about to be talked down to by Siren again? look familiar? Let?s not forget ?Every single time I disagree with you, you post from some supposed intellectual superiority and talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you.?

You tried to use my previous posts as some type of bartering currency here, to portray me as some dickish monster, right? Yes, I?m the cold and unfeeling one, the high and mighty ?holier than thou? intellectual god on high, right? Try again. I find it amusing, to say the least, that as soon as I respond with a more in-depth exploration of past threads, you suddenly don?t want to hear about it. DeathBug, you know just as well as I do that I?ve gotten on your and other people?s cases in the past when you and other people post with complete and utter bull. And those are the only times when I really lean into someone.

Frankly, if you aren't (and weren?t) prepared or willing to acknowledge the exact reasons why something happened the way it did, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. And you know?I find it amazing that you can say what you just said and believe every word of it, because it looks to me like you?re just trying to avoid a point that I was getting at earlier:

That I may be harsh, but I?m fair. I think it?s blatantly clear that your bluff was called here, because quite frankly? You?re trying to pass off the negativity as if it?s my fault, even going to the length of referencing Transtic Nerve? Please. Yes, I?m sure that two teenagers such as yourself, one perpetually angsty and the other just mildly, could never be held accountable for anything they say and surely, others? reactions to them could never be a result of the mindless, trite, and annoying drivel they churn out. Dude, be realistic here. lol

You tried to make your post have some teeth there?but when you?re down to the gums?it?s just going to come off as an act of desperation?and it looks pretty damn desperate to me.

So let?s get at least one thing straight here: if you?re going to attempt character assassination, make sure you?ve got some ammunition.

[quote]I didn't actually use that to critisize Sheehan; I was responding to a point already brought up.

I have an entire lifetime's worth of experience living on military bases and with members of the armed forces my assertion. It's truth in advertising.[/quote] Fair enough. But is your own personal experience enough to make blanket statements that the entire military is good, honest, noble, and fully capable? I think you really should take a few philosophy courses?or at least a logic course, because the argument you?re using there is akin to the open blue duck argument. It goes a little something like this:

Duck A is blue.
Duck B is blue.
Duck C is blue.

Therefore, all ducks are blue.

That?s your precise argument, and if you were to use that in any logic course, it would not be received well.

By the way, have you read any of how her son was killed? Here?s an excerpt from CNN.com.

"On April 4, Palm Sunday, we got the word that Casey had been killed in an ambush," Cindy Sheehan wrote in her essay. "The first chance he got, my brave, wonderful, faithful, sweet, gentle and kind boy volunteered for a rescue mission ... Casey and 20 of his buddies were sent into a raging insurgent uprising to rescue wounded soldiers. Only 13 of them returned."

21 were sent in to rescue wounded soldiers. 13 returned. They went into an uprising to rescue soldiers. With only 13 of an initial 21 coming back, do you really think that was a responsible strategy?

I?m a college Lit dork with Tourette?s Syndrome, ADHD, OCD, and asthma, who has never been trained in any type of military positioning, combat strategies, justifiable loss, etc?and even I know that type of maneuver is a bad idea regardless of the situation. It?s just lousy planning, but trying to talk to those officers over there couldn?t help, because they just don?t have the authority to change things on a national scale. But who does? President Bush. And whom did Sheehan want to meet with? President Bush.

[quote][b]If she was right-wing, what would she be doing?[/b]

Who said two-faced? Part of my point was that she's saying exactly what she was always saying, only now she's using an elevated platform. She's an activist, same as she's always been, and my problems with her are the same as my problems with any misguided activist.

Well, this is totally off-topic, but [b]the Schiavo debacle made all involved look bad[/b]. [b]Micheal Schiavo was persnally reprehensible[/b] for not letting her parents have the body for funeral purposes, [b]the judge who decided she should be starved to death was a cretin[/b], and [b]all politicians involved in summoning an emergency session of Congress for a single private individual were grossly overstepping their bounds[/b].

Not that any of this matters at all to the Sheenhan debate, unless you're trying to make this a debate on [b]my personal credibility[/b].

I dislike her for what she's doing. And [b]the argument is politically charged because it's a politically charged discussion[/b].

I never once said that she didn't care about her son. Of course she does; it's not a part of this discussion at all. And while we're at it, I never said I was sorry that she lost her son; I figured that would be a given. But since apparently I'm not assumed to have basic human feelings, I'll say it now: I'm sorry she lost her son.

Because I'm discussing the appropriateness of her actions, not their impact.

I'm critisizing the way she's presenting herself: as a non-activist. She's not sitting alone in Crawford holding a silent vigil; she's at the center of a political rally she's organizing. She doesn't want to call a spade a spade, because it won't arouse public sympathy the same way.

Of course I would. But I wouldn't misrepresent my circumstances, which is what she's doing. At least you've stopped denying she's an activist.[/quote] I?ve stripped your bolding and added my own. Ironically, portions of your post are echoing my argument nearly exactly.

DeathBug, if Sheenan was right-wing, she?d be supporting right-wing ideals, and spreading a right-wing message. Your argument is politically charged because politics are the issue here. You don?t dislike Sheenan because she?s an activist. You dislike her because you disagree with her politics, because she?s a Democrat and you?re a Republican. Activism has nothing to do with it. Her actions have nothing to do with it. Her message is the problem you have with her. Her political viewpoint is why you dislike her.

And take note that there?s no criticism of Terry Schiavo?s parents in your reply. You have a problem with misguided activism? Then you need to have a problem with her parents?and it doesn?t look like you do (or ever did). Attacking your personal credibility? DeathBug, as far as I?m concerned?and as far as this discussion is concerned?you have no credibility.

[quote]And I suppose the British and Russian intelligence backing up those assertions weren't really about WMD's, either? Saddam spent a great deal of time and money to create a credible farce of having WMD's, and he succeeded. And, again, everyone in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD's.[/quote] If everything was about WMDs, then Iraq?s noncompliance was an incidental topic, which is what I said previously. Bush?s speeches weren?t focused on Iraq?s noncompliance. Cheney?s speeches weren?t focused on Iraq?s noncompliance. Rumsfield?s speeches weren?t, either. The buzzphrase of years of speeches was ?weapons of mass destruction.?

[quote]Then what does their reporting of this issue have to do with anything?[/quote] I just wanted to make it clear why news stations report the news, because your explanation was ridiculously absurd.

[quote]As I recall, you started 'trading barbs' first. You attacked me personally. Don't talk to me about 'barbs'.[/quote] And where did I do that? ?You?ve gotta be kidding me, coming in here spouting this garbage?? Or ?Republican teenager being pissed off?? Comments not without merit, DB. Remember that.

[quote]I don't like how things work when they screw over the military.[/quote] Yes, a few comments here and there are really screwing over the military!

[quote]I'm not going to apologise for being passionate about an issue; I pasionatly dislike it when the military gets screwed. Apathy isn't a virtue.[/quote] And yet you expect Sheehan to pretty much apologize for some problem you see in her actions? She?s passionate about the issue. Do you want her to apologize?

[quote]They shouldn't, but they do. And I'm not coming from a philosophical point of view; I'm coiming from a historical one. I'm not going to just let the protests get to the Vietnam level. The people running these campaigns are the same as from 30 years ago, and are already trying to use the same tactics. ("Maimed for a Lie" outside of vetern's hospitals, the ever-popular "We support your right to shoot your commanding officers", comparisons to Nazi's by liberal congressmen).[/quote]
Point me to the current protestors spitting on veterans and calling them ?Baby Killers,? and then you can have your point. Otherwise, if you?re unable to, I?d strongly advise against trying to draw some bizarre parallel between extremist Flower Power children and those today who use slogans like ?Maimed for a Lie? and ?We support your right to shoot your commanding officers,? because ?Maimed for a Lie? and ?We support? are critical of the leaders. ?Baby Killer? is critical of the soldiers. It?s an incredibly important distinction that you?re missing.

[quote] If the protesters really cared about the troops, they would be discreet enough so that their protests aren't seen by the enemy. But one of the things we learn from history is that most people don't learn from history.[/quote] With 24/7 news coverage across the globe?I think your criticism here is largely invalid. To say that protestors should be discreet enough so that their protests aren?t seen by the enemy is missing a huge component of the world structure today: instant broadcast. ?Oh, they shouldn?t be on the news? is an idiotic thing to say, because the only way for them to not be on the news is if they don?t say a damn thing. But maybe that?s exactly what you want, isn?t it? Those who present a different political viewpoint to just silence themselves indefinitely?

[quote]Edit: And, I just realized our ocnversation has moved beyond Cindy Sheehan's actions, into my line of thought in coming to my opinion on Cindy Sheehan. Since this way lies flames, I'm going to withdraw. If anyone has anything to say regarding me personally, they may do it through a PM. As for Mrs. Sheehan, I've already stated my disapproval of her actions multiple times.[/QUOTE] You disapprove of her political viewpoint, not her actions.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
I think that your logic doesn't really make sense. You can support the troops, that they come home safely etc, but can disagree with the war. It's not the Soldiers choice to go into whatever conflict; it's decided by somone else and they don't have a choice but to do it. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[these discussions move quickly!]

Actually, you aren't supporting the troops. You are supporting the end of a war. You are supporting their coming home. You aren't supporting their current job whatsoever!

Oh, give them the credit they deserve. Soldiers are well aware of the possibility of entering a conflict with any possiblity of a rival nation, or threat to our nation. I'm not saying the Iraq war was justified. I'm just saying that the soldiers have made that choice beforehand.

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth][these discussions move quickly!]

Actually, you aren't supporting the troops. You are supporting the end of a war. You are supporting their coming home. You aren't supporting their current job whatsoever!

Oh, give them the credit they deserve. Soldiers are well aware of the possibility of entering a conflict with any possiblity of a rival nation, or threat to our nation. I'm not saying the Iraq war was justified. I'm just saying that the soldiers have made that choice beforehand.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Notice I said etc.? Coming home safely seems to be a major factor in supporting the troops, since if you don't support them coming home safely what can you support them for? Supporting the troops isn't about just supporting their actions. They don't have a choice about their actions, usually.

Just because they're aware of it doesn't mean that they agree with the war. Or that they have the chance to go to war in the war they don't agree with. [/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Notice I said etc.? Coming home safely seems to be a major factor in supporting the troops, since if you don't support them coming home safely what can you support them for?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Well you can support them in a variety of ways. You can support them by making sure our government appropriately allocates tax dollars to keep them well-equipped and trained so they are at their safest during combat. Even if you disagree with the war, you could encourage them to finish the job. You should at least extend the dignity to these soldiers; a dignity that, in recent history, was stripped of soldiers before.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Supporting the troops isn't about just supporting their actions. They don't have a choice about their actions, usually.

Just because they're aware of it doesn't mean that they agree with the war. Or that they have the chance to go to war in the war they don't agree with. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Do you realize how infantile you're portraying these troops as? You're saying that they had no concnious decision in their career! That's like telling a fireman that he even though his job description is extinguishing fires- he probably wasn't expecting to put out fires, nor would he have any inclination to agree with his job expectancy.

Sure, there's troops who don't agree with the motives behind the war, but the simple truth is that they are involved in open conflict. Until it's resolved, I'm going to support their actions, regardless of whether or not I agree with the conflict.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the conflict in Iraq either.