• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cindy Sheehan Go Home!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Why don't you just read what I write instead of asking me to repeat it. If you don't understand what is quite clear then it's you that doesn't understand. I can't correct that but I will say, "Cindy go home, you have been used enough." Now, did you hear me say anyone should give up protesting?

Personally I think Cindy would do better to support those leftist groups that support her in various cities where they want to organize their base. I'm sure she would attract a crowd but Crawford is over. The President isn't going to meet with her again and she won't get the chance to have that meeting and then just keep on going after she does. If I were the President and had a woman like this outside I would do what he has done and go on with his day. Cindy is over.:duel
 

Look here, dumb***, repeating yourself doesn't make yourself any clearer, so I am not asking you to repeat, but explain, elaborate, expound on "Cindy go home". Which implies you think she should give up and go home.
 
HTColeman said:
Look here, dumb***, repeating yourself doesn't make yourself any clearer, so I am not asking you to repeat, but explain, elaborate, expound on "Cindy go home". Which implies you think she should give up and go home.
Click to expand...

Our debate is over. I never resort to name calling nor do I take it from anyone. I have posted to this thread from the start because I started it. Please, say what you will but I am through with you. You have received respect from me and I have not received the same in reply so thank you. :duel
 

Respect? please, you demeaned me while avoiding my questions. You belittled my questions, hardly respect.

Why don't you just read what I write instead of asking me to repeat it. If you don't understand what is quite clear then it's you that doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

That is what you call respect? As for the name calling, cry me a river, that is just a cop out, Gunny said something while I was debating him a while ago, and I thought it was a good quote for personal use, "never let someone rent space in your mind" or something to that effect. So get your nose out of the air and debate.
 
A couple years is more than enough to **** off a populous. My understanding is that it's pretty damn war torn. 2 years of war will do that. Saddam had the power back on within 2 months of the end of desert storm. It's taken us 2 years and we don't have all the power on and we have yet to rebuild the sewage systems, water treatment systems, water pumps, etc.. How do you know the millions of other Iraqis are having a great day? Their country is under occupation and there borders aren't secure.
 

Over 8 million voted for it in February....It happened! I swear!
 

To which HTColeman responded

If her son had just been killed I would agree. If she had not previously met with the president and given him rave reviews, all of which she has now reversed, I would agree. That the media seeks out the very few parents who do not support the troops and approve of their mission in Iraq and avoids getting statements from those who do, is shameful. For the left wing wackos to exploit C Sheehan and literally put words in her mouth in the way they are doing it is shameful.

That you agree with what she is saying is incomprehensible to me, but I accept that it is your opinion.

The Straw Man in your quote was the statement (or at least inference) that her son's death had just recently happened.



To which HTColeman responded:

Strawmen in this statement: "left scheming with terrorists to destroy America'. I said nothing even close to that. "People who consider themselves 'left' are just as much American as you." I never said they were not. "....they are not your enemy". I never said they were.

Your statement that "America is not conservative" was not actually a strawman though it was off topic. (And wrong :smile: )

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl:
I won't condone it. I think no American with his/her head in the right place will condone it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To which HTColeman responded:
I am American, I am sane, I condone it.
Click to expand...

So far so good, but then he added:
You have no right to define "American".
Click to expand...

The last strawman in the post. I never defined American or claimed the right to do so.

And in all that, what did we accomplish? Not much.
 
"A couple years is more than enough to **** off a populous. My understanding is that it's pretty damn war torn. 2 years of war will do that. Saddam had the power back on within 2 months of the end of desert storm. It's taken us 2 years and we don't have all the power on and we have yet to rebuild the sewage systems, water treatment systems, water pumps, etc.. How do you know the millions of other Iraqis are having a great day? Their country is under occupation and there borders aren't secure."

1) Because I know.

2) Saddam had the power back on after two months? I guess he stopped working at it after he hooked his fellow Sunni up. There are millions and millions of Shi'ites and Kurds that had absolutely no infrastructure for power or sewage away from the "jewel" areas of the country. We are not merely "turning power back on." We are attempting to bring it to the borders of Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Syria. If that means the selfish Sunni in the triangle have to do without as we cater to the rest of their neglected countrymen...so be it. Let them suffer for a few years as the rest have suffered for decades.

3) Their country is under temporary occupation until they can protect themselves. They know this and they know that the sooner they step up, the sooner we leave. I qoute a Shiek from the Al-Anbar Province (the most violent Marine occupied area between Baghdad and Syria)...."In my heart, I want you to go, but in my head I know you should stay." They are proud and we understand that. We are attempting to finish something for them and they are more greatful than your's TV tells you. They do not blame us for their violence. They are very much aware that it is their own Muslim brother murdering them. By protesting for America to leave before they are ready, protesters are stripping them of everything they have achieved.
 

It has only been a year! Her son was killed and that takes time to get over, I guess our perception of "just" differs. But as she read reports that there were no WMD's she changed her mind about the President, as she has every right to do. I see plenty of media interviews from parents supporting the war, when their children have died. They call them heroes, but Cindy views her sons death differently. As that is her son, she decides her view.

That you agree with what she is saying is incomprehensible to me, but I accept that it is your opinion.
Click to expand...

I am not saying I agree, I am saying she does not deserve the criticism.

The Straw Man in your quote was the statement (or at least inference) that her son's death had just recently happened.
Click to expand...

As I stated, our perception is different, that does not make a strawman.



To which HTColeman responded:


Strawmen in this statement: "left scheming with terrorists to destroy America'.
Click to expand...

You said: tactics such as the Left is using with Ms. Sheehan is aimed for that very end. The end which you defined as the enemy knows they win if they can just make the American citizens over here quit

Implying, or rather stating, that the Left wants the enemy, aka, terrorists to win. So it is not a strawman, it was the formation of your words.

"People who consider themselves 'left' are just as much American as you." I never said they were not.
Click to expand...

I was referring to you attitude that the "left" are "aiming" for the terrorists to win. As we are Americans, we wouldn't want that, no strawman.

"....they are not your enemy". I never said they were.
Click to expand...

Once again referring to the connotation of your words, not the literal denotation.

Your statement that "America is not conservative" was not actually a strawman though it was off topic. (And wrong :smile: )
Click to expand...

How is it wrong? Just because the President is conservative doesn't make the country conservative. It is not off topic as throughout this thread people are bashing the left as if they support 'unAmerican ideals'.



The last strawman in the post. I never defined American or claimed the right to do so.
Click to expand...



You said: I think no American with his/her head in the right place will condone it.

So you don't think any sane American would condone "it", I said that you don't have the right to define American. You were defining what you thought was a sane American. Not a strawman argument.
 
If Cindy Al-Sheehani was just greiving for her son, she would've gone up to the organizations that support her and say, "Knock it off, this is personal!"

When she does this, then I will start to believe that she didn't knowingly turn this into a political agenda.
 
HTColeman said:
Look here, dumb***, repeating yourself doesn't make yourself any clearer, so I am not asking you to repeat, but explain, elaborate, expound on "Cindy go home". Which implies you think she should give up and go home.
Click to expand...

[mod mode]

Let's knock off the name calling please. This isn't the basement.

Thanks

[/mod mode]
 
Back on topic with Cindy Al-Sheehani...

from an earlier post of mine from a different thread....

When someone joins the military, a future soldier understands that he/she is under the directive of the CiC...The REASONS the CiC makes his decisions are not relevant to the direct orders of the soldier; he/she makes a full commitment to follow those orders whether or not they personally agree with them. If they were to pick-and-choose correct reasons for this war but not the next, or the next war but not this one, the military would collapse(As I'm sure some would want to see).

Although its not to the same extent, the same logic SHOULD apply to the general public(as an "unwritten rule"). When it comes to foreign policy and war, the United States doesn't really seem "united" these days when it comes to the backing of the President, does it? But this person was elected through a process provided through the Constitution that gives him(and Congress) the power to make these decisions...whether or not one thinks of them as "good" or "bad". To not back him and fret about the details later not only undermines the missions he decides, but undermines the Constitutional that gave him him those powers. It used to be "I hate the moves he made, but he's my President, so I gotta have his back"...Now it's, "I hate the ideas, so I'll yell from the highest mountain; Screw the President!". Times have changed indeed...

Remember the days where you can make fun of your little sister, but if the guy down the street did it, he was achin' for a bruisin'? That used to be the thinking with our Presidents...Now it's open season...

I know what some are thinking..."Well that's what was done with President Clinton, too!"...A) You're exactly right...B)It was bullshit then, too...This "I'm doing bullshit because you did bullshit before" attitude just leaves us with two big steaming piles of bullshit.
 

Well said. Not much necessary to add to that.

To HTColeman: When you draw inferences from somebody else's words that they did not say, and present those inferences as what the other person said or intended, you have built a strawman. I think it also can be a strawman, or perhaps just a defensive ploy, to make an erroneous statement and then expect others to draw your 'real' inference from it.

You are perfectly within your right to emphasize, sympathize, support, defend, or hold up Cindy Sheehan as all that is right, good, and proper with America, or any part of that if that is in fact is what you think or believe. Others of us are also perfectly within our right to think that what she is doing is either misguided or destructive or just plain wrong. It goes far beyond simply protesting. It in fact is an attempt to undermine and undercut a president and the military in wartime.

I think the majority of this country are right of center and that is why the Republicans have been kicking butt for the last decade or so, not that many of them are very conservative, but at least they aren't left wing radicals either. I think a responsible media would be reporting that and would be presenting more of the side of those who support the war, support the president, and support the military. That Cindy Sheehan has received the huge amoung of publicity that she has received says volumes about which side the mainstream media is mostly on.

CNRedd had it right. No president can be successful if he doesn't know that the American people have his back.
 

Looks like you got your wish, because Cindy Sheehan did go home. I heard her mom was actually so distraught with Cindy exploiting her grandson's death, she actually was watching Cindy making an ass of herself on the news when she had the stroke.
 
AlbqOwl said:
That Cindy Sheehan has received the huge amoung of publicity that she has received says volumes about which side the mainstream media is mostly on.
Click to expand...

Soldier dies....Mom meets President...She wants to meet him again because her views have changed.

Is this REALLY a good news story? Or has it been made out to be that way?
 

I think the American public will become more conservative as people age. It is like the days you live paycheck to paycheck until your position in employment matures along with your spending and saving habits. Some people never get it but I know people that make low wages and manage to live comfortable. The key word is "manage".

As the public matures and becomes more conservative I think it will show in our political arena. I think it already has begun.

That's another reason why I say, "Go home Cindy. The media has used you to the point that many of us just think you are one of them." In 1985 45% of Americans thought the news media was biased. Now the figure is over 60%. Go home Cindy. You're being used. :duel
 
The democrats are in a real quandry......The old party of JFK and "Scoop" Jackson has been hijacked by the far left.....A moderate has no chance........Nothing points that out more then when a moderate like Leiberman runs for president and can not win one primary.......There candidate is the biggest Liberal in the Senate.....Then what do they do........Elect another big liberal like Dean to head the DNC.......I think JFK would turn over in his grave if he were to see what has happened to his party

This country is made up of moderates.... They will never elect anyone to the far left or right.........The democrats will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the left wing liberal path..........They are just not a competitive party now............

Just my 2 cents.......
 
Navy Pride what is this FAR LEFT?

I mean the Democrats are 'centre right' in politics, so who is really on the FAR LEFT?
 
IMO, all or at least a lot of the following is probably or mostly true:

The Far Left is pretty much pro abortion and condemns anybody who is not; pro-gay-marriage and condemns any who are not, pro-big government and condemns anybody who is not; pro-activist courts and condemns anybody who is not; pro-environmentalist and this is to the absolute extreme with condemnation for anybody who advocates common sense, pro multi-culturalism and condemns anybody who is not, anti-anything-military unless a Democrat is president, mostl anti-religious and condemns anybody who is, pro higher taxes and condemns anybody who is not, pro federal government mandates unless it is an issue conservatives are for, moderately anti-capitalism and moderately strong socialistic, pro political correctness and condemns anybody who is not, mostly critical of uniquely American values and pro-European values, mostly anti-gun, anti-military, pro-criminal rights, and above all hates George W. Bush with a hatred that defies rational explanation.
 
 
Old lady? I bet Cindy Sheehan would love to hear that. :lol:
 

The Far Left = Ones who say "down"...not because they support the logic of "down"...but for the simple reason that a Republican previously said "up".
 
Lest anybody think the Sheehan fiasco is not political, the following is from Bob Novak's column today (emphasis mine):
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_20_05_RN.html
 

Sorry but I think this is not only a wasted position but plays into the hands of the 2 party system. If we have such a moderate country why don't we demand of "their side" that the work get done? Why not demand it of "our side"?

We just saw our Congress pass the largest transportation bill in the history of the world. THE WORLD. And our illustrious Republicans and Democrats did this while the price of gasoline was going up and was projected to stay up and go up higher. Does that make sense to anyone?

Now that we see the price of gas leaping up the ladder of our income the Congress can't even lower the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax to give us a few pennies off. Have to pay for a transportation bill that is absolutely loaded with Democrat and Republican pork.

Some blame the President. They have no idea what drives gas and oil prices. Some, very few some, blame the oil companies and they know and understand less. There's only two things that are moderate about the cost of gas: those who produce oil and gas and those of us that use it. There is only one thing that has anything to do with the politics of gas prices - a do nothing Congress interested more in themselves than those they represent (represent?).

Cindy Sheehan has gone beyond a mother protesting the war in Iraq or wanting to "talk" to the President. She is now a tool of the media and those on both sides who want to blame. In another thread I say and mean, "Blame is cheap." It allows Republicans and Democrats, war supporters and protesters, liberals and conservatives to lay it on the doorstep of the other. Feels good, doesn't it? It's not your party it's the other. It's not your President it's the last one; or the next. It's not you, it's me.

I've been accused here of wanting Cindy to go home and shut up. I never said any such thing. I say, "Go home Cindy. You're being used." Whether she understands that, disagrees with that or enjoys that that which may be happening is not me, it's her. Blame. The feel good emotion; the easy act without any consequence or cure. They did it; she did it; he did it.

Go home Cindy. Even those who love/hate; agree/disagree; believe/disbelieve; support or don't support - they have no clue. You are a media event and the President has given you all the time you deserve. You say you want to meet with the man that "murdered" your son. If you weren't so radical you might have had that 2nd meeting but since you have been trained and coached by those who know better than you or I, you will be ignored.

Go home Cindy and find a better way to protest. Protest is not just about spewing your side but trying to get others to join it. Regardless of what your handlers tell you, success isn't coming your way. :duel
 
This woman is using her dead son as a platform to "stardom." She's a disgrace.

At least her husband had enough sense to file for a divorce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…