Cindy Sheehan arrested........

[easyt65]

I didn't say that you were doing the name calling

Sorry, thought you were saying I condoned the name-calling.

And yes, Sharon Rocha is very similar to Cindy Sheehan. They both lost their children, and they're both making money off of that. NEITHER of them should be doing the things they are. Cindy just has a larger audience because of the circumstances under which her son died.

I would agree with you there - neither one is doing anything they should be, but this is America, land of the almighty dolla ($). Making money is OK, but selling out your country isn't. :roll:

And if I read your comment correctly about 'chill pills', congratulations. If I am WAY off the mark, :doh I deny ever saying anything!

 

[Stace]

Sorry, thought you were saying I condoned the name-calling.

Not at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I would agree with you there - neither one is doing anything they should be, but this is America, land of the almighty dolla ($). Making money is OK, but selling out your country isn't. :roll:

Very true. Of course, I'm sure that in some corner of Cindy's brain, she thinks she's doing a good thing. There's nothing wrong with voicing opposition to the war, many people would echo that sentiment, but the way she's going about it is just.....over the top. There are more constructive ways to go about it. Then again, I think she's a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

And if I read your comment correctly about 'chill pills', congratulations. If I am WAY off the mark, :doh I deny ever saying anything!

Yes, you read it correctly, it's no big secret, so thanks :mrgreen:

 

[Vandeervecken]

The lies and distortions of the right wing are nearly as bad as their name calling here.

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

#3 Yes you have every right to base your debate on childish name calling in this nation, However that does not mean we do not have the right to point out that playground taunts seem to be most of what you have. Grown adults who think, "She is an ugly bitch," somehow rebuts her political stance are truly pitiful, lack any sort of knowledge and our worthy of no respect in this forum.

#4 It would be nice to see the rules finally start getting followed on this forum. As it stands now there are a number of long standing members, and some of the mod team, who are totally rule exempt and fill this forum with insults, profanity and all manner of rules violations with seeming impunity. Meanwhile many newcomers are told to watch their step or the very same mod team members breaking the rules will jump all over them.

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

 

[Deegan]

The lies and distortions of the right wing are nearly as bad as their name calling here.

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

#3 Yes you have every right to base your debate on childish name calling in this nation, However that does not mean we do not have the right to point out that playground taunts seem to be most of what you have. Grown adults who think, "She is an ugly bitch," somehow rebuts her political stance are truly pitiful, lack any sort of knowledge and our worthy of no respect in this forum.

#4 It would be nice to see the rules finally start getting followed on this forum. As it stands now there are a number of long standing members, and some of the mod team, who are totally rule exempt and fill this forum with insults, profanity and all manner of rules violations with seeming impunity. Meanwhile many newcomers are told to watch their step or the very same mod team members breaking the rules will jump all over them.

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

This all carries Little weight if you are not prepared to speak about ALL the lies we hear daily, you listed only those of the right. Is there any honesty in you, or are you just an angry partisan yourself? I can say that I agree with most of your post here, but I refuse to ignore the real threat that Chavez poses on his country, and Latin America as a whole. I would also add that I don't know why Cindy's son re-enlisted, only that he did do so, and this speaks to his courage, loyalty, and honor to his fellow troops, this is how I will remember him, not on what is presumed!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It has to do with all of you getting all up in arms because Cindy's made some money and garnered some attention off of her son's death. Well, Laci Peterson's mother is doing the same thing, though not quite on the same scale....she's making the talk show rounds, she's got a book out......so why is no one berating her for making money off of her daughter's death? What makes it so wrong for Cindy, but ok for Sharon Rocha?

Actually when I heard that the mother was going to putting out a book it made me sick to know that she was trying to profit off of her daughters death.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

Hmmm....war began when our troops rolled over the border. That it's not a war following constitutional requirements doesn't mean it's not a war.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

Chavez is no friend of ours. He's probably the second biggest threat to US security in this hemisphere, outside of Mexico. Commie China has MFN status, too.

#3 Yes you have every right to base your debate on childish name calling in this nation, However that does not mean we do not have the right to point out that playground taunts seem to be most of what you have. Grown adults who think, "She is an ugly bitch," somehow rebuts her political stance are truly pitiful, lack any sort of knowledge and our worthy of no respect in this forum.

Or...we're talking to Democrats...

#4 It would be nice to see the rules finally start getting followed on this forum. As it stands now there are a number of long standing members, and some of the mod team, who are totally rule exempt and fill this forum with insults, profanity and all manner of rules violations with seeming impunity. Meanwhile many newcomers are told to watch their step or the very same mod team members breaking the rules will jump all over them.

Call me Switzerland, I'm not getting involved. Just send me all that dental gold...

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

What you're saying here is that Cindy's stupidity was not only genetic, but its on a dominant gene.

You're also demonstrating a deplorable ignorance of why Iraq is important in and of itself, ignorance of the realities of what we can do, and ignorance of what we need to do.

Iraq is important because of the map.

We can't be wasting resources attacking countries controlled by people favorable to us. Note Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

We need to replace the emotionally ruled culture of the towelhead world with a rational culture. As a first step, we took out the Taliban. That too was a war, deny it not, though it wasn't a "declared" war either. Both Afghanland and Iraq now have fledgling representative governments that we're responsible for.

Cindy Sheehan, in her urge to profit off her son's death, is harming this nation by telling the terrorists that they're right, that if they hold on long enough, we'll run away, just like we did in Somalia, just like we did in Vietnam. People supporting Sheehan are working their hardest to make sure Iraq is another US Vietnam.

That's all they're doing.

 

[Stace]

Actually when I heard that the mother was going to putting out a book it made me sick to know that she was trying to profit off of her daughters death.

Thank you for being honest about that, Traj, rather than trying to attack me for saying it :smile:

 

[ludahai]

The lies and distortions of the right wing are nearly as bad as their name calling here.

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

The same is true for both Korea and Vietnam, wars that began under Democratic administrations.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

Democratic if you accept outright fraud and intimidation at the ballot box and denial of access of opposition candidates to the same media time that Chavez was able to get.

#3 Yes you have every right to base your debate on childish name calling in this nation, However that does not mean we do not have the right to point out that playground taunts seem to be most of what you have. Grown adults who think, "She is an ugly bitch," somehow rebuts her political stance are truly pitiful, lack any sort of knowledge and our worthy of no respect in this forum.

I do agree that the childish chants from BOTH sides need to go.

#4 It would be nice to see the rules finally start getting followed on this forum. As it stands now there are a number of long standing members, and some of the mod team, who are totally rule exempt and fill this forum with insults, profanity and all manner of rules violations with seeming impunity. Meanwhile many newcomers are told to watch their step or the very same mod team members breaking the rules will jump all over them.

Agreed!

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

Perhaps he re-enlisted because he thought he was part of a noble mission. This is not Bush's war. This is a war that was delayed and was inevitable due to the behavior and intransigence of Saddam. Most countries would consider an assination attempt on a former head of state as an act of war, but Clinton's partisanship and hatred for PResident Bush (at that time) apparently knew no bounds. As for this whole House of Saud - House of Bush thing, EVERY president since FDR has been intertwined with the Saudis in one way or another.

 

[NYStateofMind]

The same is true for both Korea and Vietnam, wars that began under Democratic administrations.

FYI:

The first US casualties in the Vietnam War were in 1959. The US military presence began in 1955, during the (Republican) Eisenhower administration.

 

[ludahai]

FYI:

The first US casualties in the Vietnam War were in 1959. The US military presence began in 1955, during the (Republican) Eisenhower administration.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident saw the escalation from more than a token military force, and that occurred during the Johnson Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The lies and distortions of the right wing are nearly as bad as their name calling here.

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

Joint Resolutions of Congress on September 14, 2001, and October 22, 2002, we are in an official state of war.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

NAFTA, North, American, Free, Trade, Agreement, the only members are Canada The U.S. and Mexico, Venezuela is not a member of CAFTA either, they are a member of Mercosur but that has nothing to do with the U.S. and it is primarily Chavez who is standing in the way of the FTAA (Foriegn Trade of the Americas Agreement). Furthermore; upon being elected Chavez has rewritten the Constitution, installed a unicameral legislature beholden to his will, put into legislation to crack down on the freedom of the press, and has aligned Venezuela with such nations as Iran and Cuba, it is clear that Chavez is not only an enemy of the U.S. but an enemy to freedom in general. Hitler was elected too.

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

The Bush administration never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 they did make the claim that AlQaeda was allied with Saddam which is true.

 

[NYStateofMind]

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident saw the escalation from more than a token military force, and that occurred during the Johnson Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

.....but the first casualties of the war happened under the Eisenhower administration. Officially, the first casualties of the war happened in 1959. Are those men not considered KIA because it hadn't "escalated?" Nonsense. Tokens? I think not. I'm betting that their families and the government consider them to be casualties of the Vietnam War.

Soon after the Korean War, with the intention of preventing South Vietnam from becoming a communist state, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the first of hundreds of American armed servicemen (along with CIA agents [1]) to Vietnam as military advisers on Feb 12 1955.

At a news conference, Eisenhower stated, "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly." Eisenhower and his staff subsequently started a plan for military support of South Vietnam.

On July 8, 1959 Dale Buis and Charles Ovnand were the first Americans killed in Action in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_United_States_becomes_involved

 

[Vandeervecken]

This all carries Little weight if you are not prepared to speak about ALL the lies we hear daily, you listed only those of the right. Is there any honesty in you, or are you just an angry partisan yourself? I can say that I agree with most of your post here, but I refuse to ignore the real threat that Chavez poses on his country, and Latin America as a whole. I would also add that I don't know why Cindy's son re-enlisted, only that he did do so, and this speaks to his courage, loyalty, and honor to his fellow troops, this is how I will remember him, not on what is presumed!

Your problem is that you assume that since I oppose Bush and the rest of the Christian Fascisti that I must be a liberal Democrat. BZZZZT Wrong, thanks for playing, take your Rice-A-Roni and go home now.

Yes I call the left on their nonsense too. Such as when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. I m no Democrat. Never voted for Clinton or Gore yadda yadda.

I was a democrat way back in my youth but their contempt for the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments among others made me leave them behind.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Hmmm....war began when our troops rolled over the border. That it's not a war following constitutional requirements doesn't mean it's not a war.

That makes it a conflict, not war, which has a legal designation under both our Constitution and international law. We have never declared war. Bush never asked for a declaration of war, congress never issued one.

Chavez is no friend of ours. He's probably the second biggest threat to US security in this hemisphere, outside of Mexico. Commie China has MFN status, too.

Doesn;t mean he is an enemy either. Under no reasoible designation of the word enemy can you call him that.

Or...we're talking to Democrats...

A playground taunt, naught else.

Call me Switzerland, I'm not getting involved. Just send me all that dental gold...

A semantic null.

What you're saying here is that Cindy's stupidity was not only genetic, but its on a dominant gene.

No, that is not what I said nor implied.

You're also demonstrating a deplorable ignorance of why Iraq is important in and of itself, ignorance of the realities of what we can do, and ignorance of what we need to do.

Yet none of this was cited by the Bush administration in reasons for war.

Iraq is important because of the map.

Ah, so when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we should have invaded Brazil becasue it was geographically more accesible?

We can't be wasting resources attacking countries controlled by people favorable to us. Note Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is our number one enemy on the pleanet. In point of fact I wouls say they are the number one enemy of western civilization. Pakistan has the bomb which is why Bush coizied up to them.

We need to replace the emotionally ruled culture of the towelhead world with a rational culture. As a first step, we took out the Taliban. That too was a war, deny it not, though it wasn't a "declared" war either. Both Afghanland and Iraq now have fledgling representative governments that we're responsible for.

Islam and rationality are mutually exclusive things. One cannot have both.

Cindy Sheehan, in her urge to profit off her son's death, is harming this nation by telling the terrorists that they're right, that if they hold on long enough, we'll run away, just like we did in Somalia, just like we did in Vietnam. People supporting Sheehan are working their hardest to make sure Iraq is another US Vietnam.

That's all they're doing.

It will be no matter what anyone else does. You cannot impose democracy on unwilling others at the point of a gun.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The same is true for both Korea and Vietnam, wars that began under Democratic administrations.

The Korean Conflict (Also no declaration of war there) was started by a UN resolution and as a part of out duties as signatory to the UN charter.

The Vietnam Conflict was started during the administration of Eisenhower. First troops in country went in 1956, first deaths 1959. Facts are stubborn things.

Democratic if you accept outright fraud and intimidation at the ballot box and denial of access of opposition candidates to the same media time that Chavez was able to get.

Sounds like Florida circa 2000. In fact the last charge sounds like US politics for the last several decades.

I do agree that the childish chants from BOTH sides need to go.

We have a point of solid agreement here.

Agreed!

Make that two points of solid agreement.

Perhaps he re-enlisted because he thought he was part of a noble mission. This is not Bush's war. This is a war that was delayed and was inevitable due to the behavior and intransigence of Saddam. Most countries would consider an assination attempt on a former head of state as an act of war, but Clinton's partisanship and hatred for PResident Bush (at that time) apparently knew no bounds. As for this whole House of Saud - House of Bush thing, EVERY president since FDR has been intertwined with the Saudis in one way or another.

You should really read Craig Unger's book House of Saud-House of Bush. It is fully footnoted, and leaves no doubt. This is well beyond the norm. This is Bush's war, he could not go against the nation that really attacked us, Saudi Arabia, so he decided to settle family accounts with Saddam.

PS, would you mind if I copied your signature graphic about support for Denmark and placed it in my own for a while?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Joint Resolutions of Congress on September 14, 2001, and October 22, 2002, we are in an official state of war..

This is simply a lie. Bush has not asked for, nor has Cingresses issued a Declaration of War. An authorization to use force is not a declaration of war. The United Staytes has not declared war since World War Two.

NAFTA, North, American, Free, Trade, Agreement, the only members are Canada The U.S. and Mexico, Venezuela is not a member of CAFTA either, they are a member of Mercosur but that has nothing to do with the U.S. and it is primarily Chavez who is standing in the way of the FTAA (Foriegn Trade of the Americas Agreement). Furthermore; upon being elected Chavez has rewritten the Constitution, installed a unicameral legislature beholden to his will, put into legislation to crack down on the freedom of the press, and has aligned Venezuela with such nations as Iran and Cuba, it is clear that Chavez is not only an enemy of the U.S. but an enemy to freedom in general. Hitler was elected too..

You are right on NAFTA, you ignore the OAS though. As to all your charges against Chavez more than a few could be applied to Bush as well. I quite frankly fear the damage Bush can do to us far more than any Chavez could.

The Bush administration never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 they did make the claim that AlQaeda was allied with Saddam which is true.

They tried to leave that strong impression even long past everyone knew it was false. Al-Qaeda was not allied with iraq, they in fact did not at all like the fact iraq was a secular government. More lies.

 

[ludahai]

The Korean Conflict (Also no declaration of war there) was started by a UN resolution and as a part of out duties as signatory to the UN charter.

But we are the ones who called for the UN resolution. We even got the Soviets pissed off about the whole China representation thing and got them to walk out so the resolution would pass.

The Vietnam Conflict was started during the administration of Eisenhower. First troops in country went in 1956, first deaths 1959. Facts are stubborn things.

Who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? U.S. involvement in the region was token prior to 1964.

Sounds like Florida circa 2000. In fact the last charge sounds like US politics for the last several decades.

If you have the money, you can get the press time. In many countries, you simply can't. Chavez has access and control of the state broadcaster (PBS is the closest thing to a state broadcaster in the US) and intimidates the independent press. The two do NOT correlate.

I don't know why you are bringing FL into the discussion.

We have a point of solid agreement here.



Make that two points of solid agreement.

So, is the glass half empty, or half-full? :2razz:

You should really read Craig Unger's book House of Saud-House of Bush. It is fully footnoted, and leaves no doubt. This is well beyond the norm. This is Bush's war, he could not go against the nation that really attacked us, Saudi Arabia, so he decided to settle family accounts with Saddam.

That book has also been discredited on many fronts. As for KSA being our enemy? I don't regard them as afriend, that is for sure, but it was the Taliban in Afghanistan who hid the criminals who repeatedly attacked the US and US interests, NOT KSA.

PS, would you mind if I copied your signature graphic about support for Denmark and placed it in my own for a while?

It isn't mine, it is linked from another site. USE IT USE IT - and spread it to as many people as possible.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

That makes it a conflict, not war, which has a legal designation under both our Constitution and international law. We have never declared war. Bush never asked for a declaration of war, congress never issued one.

That makes it a war. I just bought a giant dictionary, an amazing 2500 page monster with an entire page dedicated to just the word "round"...it's gonna give me a hernia...it says:

war :
1 An open armed conflict between nations or states [Iraq is a nation, right? The US of A is a nation, right? We're in conflict, right?] or between parties in the same state [Iraqi animals are killing Iraqi citizens, right?] carried on by force of arms [this means "using weapons"] for various purposes [the animals want to enslave the citizens, the citizens don't wish to be enslaved by the animals]; a conflict of arms between hostile parties or nations. [the random use if IED's is nothing if not hostile, right?]

2. the profession, science or art of military operations...

3. any state of violent opposition or contest; [like when animals hijack peaceful airliners, murdering passengers and crew, to attack harmless buildings], inimical act or action [yeah, I'd say that Saddam's payoff's to successful suicide bombers is an inimical act against everyone]; hostility, strife.

war (v)
1to make war, to carry on hostilities; to engage in military operations. [we're engaged military ops in Iraq, right?]

2. to contend; to strive; to be in a state of hostility or contention.

war

Hmmmm....not one single mention of the United States Constitution. You think maybe my two dollar dictionary has made a mistake?

Doesn;t mean he is an enemy either. Under no reasoible designation of the word enemy can you call him that.

That's okay. I haven't used that word in regard to Hugo yet. I'm sure the time will come, but not yet.

A playground taunt, naught else.

That you responded to....

A semantic null.

It's amazing how good I am, isn't it?

No, that is not what I said nor implied.

You implied he was a sucker. Your exact words:

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life. Of course that and the fact that the House of Saud and House of Bush are so intertwined as to make any attack on our real enemies impossible under the current junta in Washington.

That I chose to dress it up in my own unique way doesn't alter the fact that you think that a man that re-enlisted could be doing so because he's been conned.

There's no evidence of "vengeance" in the war in Iraq, that's mere slanderous speculation on your part.

Yet none of this was cited by the Bush administration in reasons for war.

1) I can imagine what the Surrender Monkeys would have said if the stated primary reason for invading Iraq was strategic control of the center of the board. I can hear the applause when the award for using the word "Belgium" the most times in a single Surrender Monkey article is handed out.

2) Hussein was a threat. The Democrats for the eight years we suffered under their perjurer claimed that Bush the Elder should have moved on Baghdad in the first Gulf War and removed the problem then. I hear the nation's chiropractors made billions fixing all the necks whiplashed by the Democrat heads when Bush the Younger got elected.

3) I'm not the president. The guy we got now is better than the guy he replaced. Which isn't saying much at all.

Ah, so when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we should have invaded Brazil becasue it was geographically more accesible?

Was Brazil rewards for Japs that killed Americans? Your analogy fails.

Saudi Arabia is our number one enemy on the pleanet.

No. The number one enemy of the United States is the internal cadre of Surrender Monkeys and Blame America Firsters that inhibit efficient or even moral action.

The number two enemy is China.

Fairly far down the list is the little kingdom with all the oil. They're only a problem because of internal domestic strife between the rulers and the lunatic fanatic koran thumpers.

The problem with Sau In point of fact I wouls say they are the number one enemy of western civilization. Pakistan has the bomb which is why Bush coizied up to them.

No. Bush "cozied" up to them because it was necessary to achieve the primary objective of the Taliban. It's called "cost-benefit" analysis. Frankly, a couple of low yield nukes aren't that big a big deal. Islamabad isn't going to run away if their toys get used, now will it?

Islam and rationality are mutually exclusive things. One cannot have both.

Yeah, there's never been a representational secular government in an Islamic land. I'm hungry, I think I'll see if I got some Turkey for a sandwich. You want one?...

...nah, no Turkey handy. Got some in the freezer, maybe I should nuke all of it in the microwave?

It will be no matter what anyone else does. You cannot impose democracy on unwilling others at the point of a gun.

Yeah, those Iraqis are incredibly unwilling. Our troops had to use bayonets on those millions and millions of voters the last time they had an election...

 

[easyt65]

The lies and distortions of the right wing are nearly as bad as their name calling here.

#1 No matter how you try and distort it, Bush did not ask for, and congress did not issue a Declaration of War. We are not at war.

Congress voted and gave Bush the power to go to war. Once that vote was passed, Bush had every right to do what he did without having to come back and 'beg' for the right he already had as President.

#2 Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a South American nation is not only not an enemy of our nation but Venezuela is a member of several organizations we are members of such as NAFTA, the OAS and the like. Venezuela even holds Most Favored nation status with us. Hardly an enemy of our nation. You might note that Cuba and Castro can say none of those things.

NAFTA makes Chavez our friend? How many jobs have been lost and how badly has NAFTA hurt our economy again? Just because Venezuela has MFN Status and just because he was democratically elected does NOT make him our buddy. Remember the old saying about kepping your friends close and your enemies closer? Chavez and Venezuela are a 'necessary evil' and not to be confused with our 'friend'.

#3 Yes you have every right to base your debate on childish name calling in this nation... Grown adults who think, "She is an ugly bitch," somehow rebuts her political stance are truly pitiful, lack any sort of knowledge and our worthy of no respect in this forum. #4 It would be nice to see the rules finally start getting followed on this forum. As it stands now there are a number of long standing members.....

I couldn't agree with you more - there is no need for profanity or personal attacks within debate. I have no problem stating that I believe her 'crusade' has become about HER now rather than about her son, that she does not speak for anyone else's sons or daughters, and that, IMHO, she has disgraced her son's memory and the memory of his act of a truly honorable and noble thing in sacrificing for his country. But that is just me,and I said it without 1 personal attack or profanity-laced tirade.

#5 Yes Cindy's son did reenlist, but perhaps he bought the lies and propaganda of the Bush administration and actually somehow thought Iraq had something meaningful to do with 9-11 when in reality is is private Bush family vengeance for the attempt on the elder Bush's life.

Translation:
1. "Perhaps" - I don't know, but here is what I think...
2. "When in reality..." - I don't know, but here is my own personally biased belief of what I think ...
---- THAT is YOUR reality, my friend - be careful not to pass it off in a debate as the FACTS!

 

[Stinger]

Uh...I wasn't making a big deal over whether it was a Senator or a Representative. I was talking about the fact that she was wearing a t shirt, not unfurling a banner. I've read every post in this thread, thanks, and you said no such thing in your first few posts....in fact, from what I can see, it wasn't until post #39 that you tried to say Rep. Woolsey should have known better.....

Me>> According to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchensen she WAS unfurling a banner but I can find no confirmation. And the news reports say that the securtiy approached her and tried to discuss with her that she would have to cover up any messages, as on her shirt, as they were against the rules. She was unresponsive and would not acknowledge them, so they removed her. She then argued with them in the hall and was arrested.

BTW the same thing happened during Clinton's impeachment trial and the left sure supported it then and did not cry out about free speech

http://drudgereport.com/flashts.htm


FLASHBACK: Man Wearing Anti-Clinton T-Shirt Removed from Senate Gallery at Impeachment Trial

You

I'm perfectly aware of all of that, so what's your point, exactly?

If a lawenforcement officer asks you something and your are unresponsive you are likely to be taken into custody especially at just such an occasion.

You>>Well, no kidding. I'm aware of that, too...my husband IS a police officer, you know. So I still don't get your point. It's not like I ever made the argument that she shouldn't have been arrested, now did I?


What was your point about her JUST wearing a T-Shirt then?

 

[Deegan]

Your problem is that you assume that since I oppose Bush and the rest of the Christian Fascisti that I must be a liberal Democrat. BZZZZT Wrong, thanks for playing, take your Rice-A-Roni and go home now.

Yes I call the left on their nonsense too. Such as when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. I m no Democrat. Never voted for Clinton or Gore yadda yadda.

I was a democrat way back in my youth but their contempt for the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments among others made me leave them behind.

I don't assume anything, where on earth did I say you were a Democrat, Liberal, Green party member for that matter? I said partisan, and it appears that way when all you do is critique the right, and it's all you have done since you have been here. You are careful not to take sides, this way you can always take the high road, and seem correct on every issue, I don't respect that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is simply a lie. Bush has not asked for, nor has Cingresses issued a Declaration of War. An authorization to use force is not a declaration of war. The United Staytes has not declared war since World War Two.

No it's not I suggest you read the war powers resolution of 1973 again, we are in an official state of war.

They tried to leave that strong impression even long past everyone knew it was false. Al-Qaeda was not allied with iraq, they in fact did not at all like the fact iraq was a secular government. More lies.

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were allies it's all right in the 9-11 Commission Report. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 though that's two different things.

 

[Stace]

What was your point about her JUST wearing a T-Shirt then?

Well, if you had bothered to read all of my posts, you would see that I was merely trying to keep the story accurate. I was getting sick of everyone saying that she was unfurling a banner when she wasn't. If you're going to discuss something, at least have the facts.

 

[Stinger]

Well, if you had bothered to read all of my posts, you would see that I was merely trying to keep the story accurate. I was getting sick of everyone saying that she was unfurling a banner when she wasn't. If you're going to discuss something, at least have the facts.

Sorry but the software makes going back through the entire history way too much work and if you note my post I stated a Senator had reported she saw Sheehan starting to take out a banner but it was not confirmed. But the fact is she was asked to leave because she would not cooperated with the security not necessarily because of the tee shirt. Now do I believe she was not planning to disrupt the occasion. Not for a minute. She even stated in one interview that she doubted she would have been able to stay during the entire speech because it would "upset" her and she would have probably had to stand up and leave. Which gives me clear reason to believe that she planned to stand up in the middle, take off her coat and make a scence of walking out which all the news camera's would have picked up and we would have been treated to endless repeats of it.

So it's good they prevented such tacky behavior for what ever reason.

 

[Navy Pride]

I can guareentee that she was up to no good at the state of the un union and given a chance she would have mad and ass out of herself just like she always does.....