Idiot Cindy barks at dems

1246

Comments

  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well, I guess we'll be agreeing to disagree at this point. I don't think she's an idiot and I don't think too many people would know anything about her if not for her over the top yet effective tactics. She has many supporters now who will continue to help her spread her message. I don't think she would have near as many people behind her if it wasn't for the press she's received.

    I will grant you that without her initial crazy stunts she wouldn't have the name recognition. But now that she has it, if she wants to be effective she needs to be smarter about unifying people and making her delivery more palatable. She is currently having little to no effect with her antics (well, plenty of effect, but mostly negative). So my "idiot" comment relates to the fact that she is totally blowing an opportunity, and sacrificing her "cause" for her publicity. Earlier in the thread I called her a media whore. It is an accurate label.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    True but her exposure has led to more liked minded people becoming aware of her and organizing behind her. I wouldn't say she hasn't changed anyone's mind, either.



    Communication and diplomacy for starters.

    people have been communicating forever and wars still happen...instead of stating rhetoric, why don't you say HONESTY?

    cindy sheehan has not changed anyone's mind...and she's not affecting change...she is a stupid and short-sighted woman

    and, i don't agree with war either.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    people have been communicating forever and wars still happen...instead of stating rhetoric, why don't you say HONESTY?

    cindy sheehan has not changed anyone's mind...and she's not affecting change...she is a stupid and short-sighted woman

    and, i don't agree with war either.

    Gee, here I was thinking that DISHONEST talks would be the way to go....

    I'm sorry, let me state the obvious for you...when I was referring to communication and diplomacy, I was taking for granted that these would be honest and open talks or else no, they wouldn't solve anything.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    double post
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    miller8966 wrote:
    like the dog that she is...

    I don't blame you for making statements like this. I blame the entire town that you grew up in.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    she refers to suicide bombers as freedom fighters. she's an idiot.

    It's idiots like her that have fought tooth and nail for Civil rights in America. Without idiots like her around you and Miller would probably be running the country, with Dino as foreign secretary.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Kenny Olav wrote:
    I don't blame you for making statements like this. I blame the entire town that you grew up in.

    I blame the entire trailor park he grew up in. ;)
  • Ebizzie
    Ebizzie Posts: 240
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    I'm not gonna argue this, but "freedom" is all relative. Depends on what your definition of being free is...

    While I'd agree that "freedom fighter" is a subjective term, it's a pretty safe bet that you would never expect the mother of a victim of these "freedom fighters" to label them as such. You would think that she'd save some of that venom of her's for the people who actually pulled the trigger and killed her own child instead of spitting it all at the president.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Ebizzie wrote:
    While I'd agree that "freedom fighter" is a subjective term, it's a pretty safe bet that you would never expect the mother of a victim of these "freedom fighters" to label them as such. You would think that she'd save some of that venom of her's for the people who actually pulled the trigger and killed her own child instead of spitting it all at the president.


    Or she could be smarter than that and realize that war will always have one side killing another and fight to put a stop to the whole damn mess.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    Whoever she voted for, I have to give her tons of credit for literally speaking truth to power. Dems are the majority in Congress now, and she went to them and voiced her opposition to the war.

    I'm glad she's voicing her opposition, but I don't give her credit if she voted for Democrats. I don't know anyone high up in the Democratic Party who is completely against the war and is calling for a complete withdrawal with an actual time table like she wants.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Ebizzie wrote:
    While I'd agree that "freedom fighter" is a subjective term, it's a pretty safe bet that you would never expect the mother of a victim of these "freedom fighters" to label them as such. You would think that she'd save some of that venom of her's for the people who actually pulled the trigger and killed her own child instead of spitting it all at the president.

    If you happened to be a mother in 1930's Germany with some morals and a critical faculty, which meant that you were not easily taken in by massive indoctrination and war mongering propaganda, and a son of yours was led into joining the Nazis and was then killed by a Jewish partisan, or member of the French resistance, then would you make the same statement as the one above?
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    Saturnal wrote:
    I'm glad she's voicing her opposition, but I don't give her credit if she voted for Democrats. I don't know anyone high up in the Democratic Party who is completely against the war and is calling for a complete withdrawal with an actual time table like she wants.
    If anything, she should be applauded for this. The Democrats are more than happy to play on the anti-war sentiments of the voters, but very few have the spine to take a stand and put an end to it. Someone needs to hold their feet to the fire on this.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    1970RR wrote:
    If anything, she should be applauded for this. The Democrats are more than happy to play on the anti-war sentiments of the voters, but very few have the spine to take a stand and put an end to it. Someone needs to hold their feet to the fire on this.

    I just don't see what stand there is to take here. The Democrats aren't spineless at all, they just don't disagree much with Republicans on the issue of Iraq. Any criticism you see from high-up Democrats is all about how the Republicans are running the war incorrectly, not about how the war is wrong and we should withdraw. If Cindy wants to yell at anyone, it should be herself for expecting Democrats to take a stand against the war. That's not their job, and it's never been part of their agenda. If people are too stupid to not realize that Democrats are simply using anti-war sentiments to get votes when they're clearly not opposed to the war, then that's their own fault.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    she refers to suicide bombers as freedom fighters. she's an idiot.

    one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Cindy Sheehan has more bravery and determination than most people, yet arm chair hawks continue to personally attack her and call her names.

    she is putting into action the rights that this country cherishes, and all you guys do is bash her. i do not agree with everything she says, that doesnt make her an idiot IMO? especially considering you guys are still talking about her and discussing her, maybe she isnt that much of an "idiot" after all?
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    my2hands wrote:
    Cindy Sheehan has more bravery and determination than most people, yet arm chair hawks continue to personally attack her and call her names.

    she is putting into action the rights that this country cherishes, and all you guys do is bash her. i do not agree with everything she says, that doesnt make her an idiot IMO? especially considering you guys are still talking about her and discussing her, maybe she isnt that much of an "idiot" after all?


    Did you not read the thread? Did you not understand why some of us think she's an idiot? I'm happy to explain it again if you really need me to.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jeffbr wrote:
    Did you not read the thread? Did you not understand why some of us think she's an idiot? I'm happy to explain it again if you really need me to.

    Just because you've stated your reasons for thinking her an idiot, doesn't mean she's an idiot. Get over yourself.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Just because you've stated your reasons for thinking her an idiot, doesn't mean she's an idiot.

    It was clear that he was either misrepresenting the reason she's been called an idiot by many, or simply hadn't read it, so I was offering to clarify.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Get over yourself.

    Take your own advice.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    Saturnal wrote:
    I'm glad she's voicing her opposition, but I don't give her credit if she voted for Democrats. I don't know anyone high up in the Democratic Party who is completely against the war and is calling for a complete withdrawal with an actual time table like she wants.

    First, you're assuming she voted at all, and you're assuming she voted Democratic. Secondly, if she did vote for the Dems, she probably figured they were the least shitty of her two realistic choices, and she has every right to vote for them one day and criticize them the next.

    Some Democrats on the Hill opposed the war from the start, including Senator Obama. He was in the Illinois statehouse in 2003, but he's on record as opposing the war at that time as well. His most recent podcast calls for phased redeployment, which is not exactly what Sheehan probably wants, but it's a hell of a lot closer than Bush's plan for a "troop surge". Congressman Murtha called for redeployment in 2005, and Senator Feingold has been a critic of the war from the beginning.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    First, you're assuming she voted at all, and you're assuming she voted Democratic.

    Her words:

    "We didn't put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power," Sheehan said. "We put you in power to be opposition to them finally and we're the ones who put them in power."

    I thought it was simply understood that the word "we" would include the person talking.
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    Secondly, if she did vote for the Dems, she probably figured they were the least shitty of her two realistic choices, and she has every right to vote for them one day and criticize them the next.

    Of course she has every right to do that. I never said she didn't. I'm just saying she's stupid for telling them "we put you in power to be in opposition" to the war when they're clearly not.
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    Some Democrats on the Hill opposed the war from the start, including Senator Obama. He was in the Illinois statehouse in 2003, but he's on record as opposing the war at that time as well. His most recent podcast calls for phased redeployment, which is not exactly what Sheehan probably wants, but it's a hell of a lot closer than Bush's plan for a "troop surge". Congressman Murtha called for redeployment in 2005, and Senator Feingold has been a critic of the war from the beginning.

    Look at the voting records for the initial approval of the war, and every increase in funding thereafter. Obama voted against partial troop withdrawal in June. In February, he approved another $47 billion for the war effort. He says the same garbage as most Democrats..a "phased redoployment". A very calculated term. If he were seriously opposed to the war, he'd come out and say "we need a time table for complete withdrawal". Murtha said the same thing, and he voted in favor of launching the war in the first place. I'm not sure about Feingold, but I wouldn't consider him a higher-up.

    The point is, the message coming from the Democratic party is not "this war is wrong, and we need to withdraw". The message is "this war is a failure, and we need new leadership in order to run it correctly".

Categories