Cindy Sheehan Go Home!!!

[SKILMATIC]

Well then let me ask you(napoleon) a question.

Do you beleive that the terrorists and sadaam were people who deserve just punishment for there actions?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Well then let me ask you(napoleon) a question.

Do you beleive that the terrorists and sadaam were people who deserve just punishment for there actions?

1. Saddam - yes but perhaps time would have delivered just punishment.

2. Terrorists - yes but if you only address the problem with a gun you will never address the fundamentals of that problem which will allow it to contunially fester.

 

[edb19]

I can only think of my grandmother who lost her oldest son in WWII and the folded flag that our family has. My grandmother taught me what grace in loss was. She unlike Cindy honored my uncles memory every day of her life as we do now. God bless the fallen and thier families. We share the cost of freedom with you all.

Thank you for an extremely sane and heartfelt post. If still alive - thank your grandmother.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
Even God himself told the jews to invade jericho and kill every man woman and child.

How do you know this? Did you get an email recently?

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Well the most important thing was defeating Hitler, were wielding weapons an important part of that?

1. Yes, but there were FAR more REASONABLE ways to end the war without armys having at eachother. Assasiante him. I recall an assasination plot to kill Hitler while he was walking from 1 cabin to the other to get his morning tea. Which he did on a daily basis without guards. This operation was scratched at the last second for no apparent reason.

Assinate Hitler, well that is force. But exactly when should this have been done and what makes you think it was even conceivable. His own generials tried it and failed. And there were plenty of other Nazi's waiting in the wings to take over. And absurd proposition on your part.


Me>> And were not those tactics designed to wield weapons against him? Without those weapons wielded against him how well do you thing the reason would have worked?

2. Hitler did not declare war on the United States..in fact he considered us equalls.

Yes he did. On December 11, 1941

It was Japan who declared war when they attacked Pearl Harbor..and that attack was not by order of Hitler.

Yes they did, and I suppose you would have preferred we use reaon on them too.

Do I think we still should have gone to war against Hitler because of his humanitarian crimes? Yes because it was taking place at the time..but it would not have taken an all out war. 1 successful assasination would have done it.

And you think the rest of the Nazi's would have just gone home. What folly.

Because Saddam's humanitarian crimes were NOT ANYWEHRE NEAR Hitlers in addition to other reasons I list below.

Oh yes they were.

3. The military is NOT being taught to only use a gun when reason and politics fail..their being taught that it's ok to use a gun simply when someone else tells them too. My example is Iraq. Iraq posed NO threat to the United States

It posed a threat to the entire world with it's actions against it neighbors and willingness to aid and harbor terrorist and manical desire to pocess weapons of mass destruction. It was in violation of all cease fire agreements and UN sanctions. And had we stopped Hitler when he violated his agreements and entire world wide war may have been averted. We did so with Saddam.

and would not have for decades

Not dedades, a matter of years if not months once the sanctions were lifted and he was already aiding and abetting terrorist.

and the 9/11 commission said that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "NO collaborative relationship"

Yes they did not commit any terrorist acts together but the 9/11 commission the Kay report and the Duelfer report all detail the working realtionship they did have and confirm Saddam was working for closer ties.

therefore it is NOT part of the war on terror.

Your conclusion is rebutted by the report you cite and the additional ones I cited.

The war was based on the ASSUMPTION that 10-20 years from now Saddam would still be in power and would want to attack the US.

It was based on exactly what President Bush has repeatedly said in over 50 speeches.

Perhaps his government would topple and a democratic government would take it's place.

We were long passed the wishing stage.

What they did is like saying it would have been ok to attack Germany 10-20 years before anyone even knew who Hitler was simply because someone MIGHT come to power and MIGHT murder millions and MIGHT try to take over Europe.

It was nothing of the sort, but it was like Hitler invading Poland and the world not doing anything.

 

[Stinger]

If someone came into my house and murdered my family I might point a gun at him but I wouldn't kill him. A REASONABLE person knows that even though he killed my family he is no less deserving of due process of law.

Why not put a sign up in your front yard declaring that you will never use force against anyone who ever enters your house for what ever reason.

Then run for President and once elected announce to the world that the US will never ever use force against anyone and pledge to only use reason, then see how long we last as a country.

 

[gordontravels]

I know I'm wasting my time but I really wish you would study. Just at the very least go read a book before publishing what you don't know. Heck, lots of it is on the net and I know you have a computer.

QUOTES in Black are Napoleon's Nightingale: 1. Yes, but there were FAR more REASONABLE ways to end the war without armys having at eachother. Assasiante him. I recall an assasination plot to kill Hitler while he was walking from 1 cabin to the other to get his morning tea. Which he did on a daily basis without guards. This operation was scratched at the last second for no apparent reason.

The best known assassination attempt on Adolph Hitler was at Wolf's Lair and was carried out by senior military officers. Rommel himself was allowed to commit suicide for his part in the plot. Where do you get your history? Comics? And if not; tell me where I can find this tea time assassination attempt, done, planned or called off. I'd like to read it.

2. Hitler did not declare war on the United States..in fact he considered us equalls. It was Japan who declared war when they attacked Pearl Harbor..and that attack was not by order of Hitler. Do I think we still should have gone to war against Hitler because of his humanitarian crimes? Yes because it was taking place at the time..but it would not have taken an all out war. 1 successful assasination would have done it. I say successful because Hitler servived a few attempts made by his own people which were carried out succeessfully but Hitler survived all of them on luck. Do I think Iraq is any different? YES. Because Saddam's humanitarian crimes were NOT ANYWEHRE NEAR Hitlers in addition to other reasons I list below.

Germany was a part of the Axis. You know. The Axis? Japan, Italy and Germany? As soon as Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on the Axis and Germany, Hitler, declared war on the United States. Now you are going to tell me that members of the Axis, Japan and Germany, didn't know what each other was doing?

Now you are going to use your Military Mind to rely on one single assassination to take out the Third Reich? What about Himmler, Goering or any of a dozen military officers ready to step in to take the millions of Germans on to victory? The most mechanized military power in the world?

You don't think all out war was necessary? 53,000 killed in Vietnam. 600,000 killed in our Civil War, our largest loss in any war. 57,000,000 killed in WWII. Where do you get your information or what you call your knowledge of these things? I say you may have heard something but made the rest up. Heck, don't take that as a compliment, please.

3. The military is NOT being taught to only use a gun when reason and politics fail..their being taught that it's ok to use a gun simply when someone else tells them too. My example is Iraq. Iraq posed NO threat to the United States and would not have for decades and this was stated many times by the government and the 9/11 commission said that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "NO collaborative relationship" therefore it is NOT part of the war on terror. The war was based on the ASSUMPTION that 10-20 years from now Saddam would still be in power and would want to attack the US. Whos to say what would happen in 10-20 years time? Perhaps his government would topple and a democratic government would take it's place. What they did is like saying it would have been ok to attack Germany 10-20 years before anyone even knew who Hitler was simply because someone MIGHT come to power and MIGHT murder millions and MIGHT try to take over Europe.

In this last paragraph you say:

"The military is NOT being taught to only use a gun when reason and politics fail..their being taught that it's ok to use a gun simply when someone else tells them too."

Someone else? Being taught that it's ok to use a gun? I can tell you never went through boot and advanced training. I don't mean to demean your lack of knowledge but..... You have no clue. :duel

 

[SKILMATIC]

How do you know this? Did you get an email recently?
Today 05:32 AM

Its called read His word. I know you may not understand the Bible becasue it is a very complicated book to read(im being serious not trying to demean your reading comprehension). But in the old testament it describes God's orders to the isrealites in what to do in the battle of jericho.

The isrealites were told to just march around the walls of jericho and blow there trumpets and because they obeyed God the walls and the city of jericho fell. After the walls had fallen they were to kill everyone that had lived and leave the gold and valuables there for God himself. However, Achon(a soldier)took some gold and burried it in the sand under his tent so that no one could see it(but of course God can). God of course knew of his direct disobedience so he ordered the military officials to stone his whole family to death, and have achon executed by laying him flat on his back and taking a huge boulder and pressing it against his back till his spine snaps inhalf. This is where we get the phrase "my achon back". Now of course I and others thought God is righteous and loving, but what you people fail to realize that he is also fair and stern just like a Father. Sin just doesnt affect one person but others as well. And in achons case it was his family.

The morale of the story is terrorism just doesnt extend to bin laden or other terrorists themselves but it extends and is able to be fueled by other organizations and people that are willing to fund and supply this type of thing. Terrorists are even among us and are all over the world. We need to start somehwere. We started in afghanistan then made our way to iraq. I hope we dont stop there but keep marching forward to other nations as well.

 

[ANAV]

Here's a link with the President kissing Cindy Sheehan.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45800

And some guy that is fed up with this lady decided to take a drive over her vigil in his pick-up truck. He was later arrested for criminal mischief. I guess there is a legal limit to which people can show there support for the President.

Also, residents of Waco have routed a petition to ban parking and camping roadside. And a resident has hung a big sign saying "We support our Commander-in-chief. It's really time for her to leave and go home. Where is home now that her husband has kicked her to the curb?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16179436.htm

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I know I'm wasting my time but I really wish you would study. Just at the very least go read a book before publishing what you don't know. Heck, lots of it is on the net and I know you have a computer.

QUOTES in Black are Napoleon's Nightingale: 1. Yes, but there were FAR more REASONABLE ways to end the war without armys having at eachother. Assasiante him. I recall an assasination plot to kill Hitler while he was walking from 1 cabin to the other to get his morning tea. Which he did on a daily basis without guards. This operation was scratched at the last second for no apparent reason.

The best known assassination attempt on Adolph Hitler was at Wolf's Lair and was carried out by senior military officers. Rommel himself was allowed to commit suicide for his part in the plot. Where do you get your history? Comics? And if not; tell me where I can find this tea time assassination attempt, done, planned or called off. I'd like to read it.

2. Hitler did not declare war on the United States..in fact he considered us equalls. It was Japan who declared war when they attacked Pearl Harbor..and that attack was not by order of Hitler. Do I think we still should have gone to war against Hitler because of his humanitarian crimes? Yes because it was taking place at the time..but it would not have taken an all out war. 1 successful assasination would have done it. I say successful because Hitler servived a few attempts made by his own people which were carried out succeessfully but Hitler survived all of them on luck. Do I think Iraq is any different? YES. Because Saddam's humanitarian crimes were NOT ANYWEHRE NEAR Hitlers in addition to other reasons I list below.

Germany was a part of the Axis. You know. The Axis? Japan, Italy and Germany? As soon as Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the United States declared war on the Axis and Germany, Hitler, declared war on the United States. Now you are going to tell me that members of the Axis, Japan and Germany, didn't know what each other was doing?

Now you are going to use your Military Mind to rely on one single assassination to take out the Third Reich? What about Himmler, Goering or any of a dozen military officers ready to step in to take the millions of Germans on to victory? The most mechanized military power in the world?

You don't think all out war was necessary? 53,000 killed in Vietnam. 600,000 killed in our Civil War, our largest loss in any war. 57,000,000 killed in WWII. Where do you get your information or what you call your knowledge of these things? I say you may have heard something but made the rest up. Heck, don't take that as a compliment, please.

3. The military is NOT being taught to only use a gun when reason and politics fail..their being taught that it's ok to use a gun simply when someone else tells them too. My example is Iraq. Iraq posed NO threat to the United States and would not have for decades and this was stated many times by the government and the 9/11 commission said that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "NO collaborative relationship" therefore it is NOT part of the war on terror. The war was based on the ASSUMPTION that 10-20 years from now Saddam would still be in power and would want to attack the US. Whos to say what would happen in 10-20 years time? Perhaps his government would topple and a democratic government would take it's place. What they did is like saying it would have been ok to attack Germany 10-20 years before anyone even knew who Hitler was simply because someone MIGHT come to power and MIGHT murder millions and MIGHT try to take over Europe.

In this last paragraph you say:

"The military is NOT being taught to only use a gun when reason and politics fail..their being taught that it's ok to use a gun simply when someone else tells them too."

Someone else? Being taught that it's ok to use a gun? I can tell you never went through boot and advanced training. I don't mean to demean your lack of knowledge but..... You have no clue. :duel

1. If you think that was the only assasination plot and attempt against Hitler you know absolutley nothing. The attempt at the Munich Hoffbrahause is just 1 such attempt.Watch the history channel and look them up online. I know a great deal more about history than you. The Allies CHOSE to keep him alive effectively allowing him to continue to massacre millions of people.

2. The absence of a major leader leaves a power vaccum..a vaccum in which generals would be squabaling over power and in which opposing voices and forces can topple the current government. The german people didn't like millions being mudered and their ashes raining down upon them.

3. I was reffering to Iraq. A genocide in progress against 2 million people in the Sudan is FAR more important than a few people being slapped around in a prison in Iraq.

4. Japan was not acting under the orders of Hitler. Japan was acting out of it's OWN interests and only attacked nations who they had been wanting to attack for hundreds of years and America.

5.You obviously don't understand our government. Soldiers are sent to war because they believe it to be a noble cause. Soldiers are sent to war because CONGRESS TELLS THEM TO regardless of whether or not the soldiers believe it to be the right thing to do.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Napoleon, no one ever said you know nothing of our nations history infact I think you know alot. You know alot but you dont understand it is all I am saying. You beleive that its always our fault and we proked him and we provoked that guy. Its never the responsiblity of others. You are always quick to blame us for everything. You cant blame the gun for killing someone you must blame the guy who pulled the trigger of that gun.

I notice its never the terrorists or hitlers fault with you. Its always the so called the provokers fault. Yes we as individuals get provoked day in and day out and we all have decisions to make no one twists our arms to make them. Its by those decisions that you as a man get judged upon. the terrorits and other individuals made a decision whether or not to aid or participate in the acts of killing people so now they are getting judged for those actions. Yes we as a nation may have pissed them off, but just because I **** you off does it give you the right and the reason to go and kill me? In a earlier post you made you said no.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Napoleon, no one ever said you know nothing of our nations history infact I think you know alot. You know alot but you dont understand it is all I am saying. You beleive that its always our fault and we proked him and we provoked that guy. Its never the responsiblity of others. You are always quick to blame us for everything. You cant blame the gun for killing someone you must blame the guy who pulled the trigger of that gun.

I notice its never the terrorists or hitlers fault with you. Its always the so called the provokers fault. Yes we as individuals get provoked day in and day out and we all have decisions to make no one twists our arms to make them. Its by those decisions that you as a man get judged upon. the terrorits and other individuals made a decision whether or not to aid or participate in the acts of killing people so now they are getting judged for those actions. Yes we as a nation may have pissed them off, but just because I **** you off does it give you the right and the reason to go and kill me? In a earlier post you made you said no.

But without that provocation would they be as likely to commit those actions? We only become responsible when those actions can be prevented or stopped but instead do nothing. In a court of law someone who does something to encourage a wrongful act whether intentional or unintentional is convicted of a conspiracy to commit that act. I don't "blame us for everything" but I do blame us for allowing ourselves to become victims of our own hypocracy.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I don't "blame us for everything" but I do blame us for allowing ourselves to become victims of our own hypocracy

Ok I understand this. However, you just said in a earleir comment that killing no matter what is wrong right?

Well although we may have provoked the terrorists they in no way have the right to run commercial airlines into buildings killing thousands who prolly had no hand in the provocation of them. So therefore we are protecting ourselves from those kinds of features. And it strikes me odd that you would condone there actions before you would condone our acts of goodness. 2 wrongs dont make a wright. So since we may have provoked them that gives them the full entailment to go ahead and commit acts of terrorism in the world. Well at least thats what you have explained to us through your many anecdotes of wisdom.

 

[Billo_Really]

Think of all the lives that would have been saved if the German Christians (much like the neo-conservatives of today) of Weimar, Germany, would have caught the clue early enough and not have voted the bastard into office in the first place!

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Ok I understand this. However, you just said in a earleir comment that killing no matter what is wrong right?

Well although we may have provoked the terrorists they in no way have the right to run commercial airlines into buildings killing thousands who prolly had no hand in the provocation of them. So therefore we are protecting ourselves from those kinds of features. And it strikes me odd that you would condone there actions before you would condone our acts of goodness. 2 wrongs dont make a wright. So since we may have provoked them that gives them the full entailment to go ahead and commit acts of terrorism in the world. Well at least thats what you have explained to us through your many anecdotes of wisdom.

Thats not what I said. What I said was this: resorting to violence without first resorting to reason is wrong. Killing should only be a last resort. Besides, why do you think that threatening to kill someone who's planning to kill himself, hurting others in the process, will have any effect on the base of the problem? The base is radical islam..you can't address a theology with a gun especially when they're planning on dying anyway.
If someone is poking you with a pencil and refuses to stop it will irritate you and eventually you will physically force them to stop. Lobbing cruise missles into training camps will irritate terrorists and cause them to retaliate. I'm not condoning terrorists attacks I'm saying they are to be expected. This is another reason why I'm angry at the administration. There were plenty of intelligence agencies here and abroad telling the administration that it was likely that the terrorists would use airliners to attack the US..yet they acted like it was a big suprise when it acctually happened. Instead of enforcing strict security measures at airports they simply shrugged off the idea and ignored it until 3000 people died.

 

[gordontravels]

1. If you think that was the only assasination plot and attempt against Hitler you know absolutley nothing. The attempt at the Munich Hoffbrahause is just 1 such attempt.Watch the history channel and look them up online. I know a great deal more about history than you. The Allies CHOSE to keep him alive effectively allowing him to continue to massacre millions of people.

2. The absence of a major leader leaves a power vaccum..a vaccum in which generals would be squabaling over power and in which opposing voices and forces can topple the current government. The german people didn't like millions being mudered and their ashes raining down upon them.

3. I was reffering to Iraq. A genocide in progress against 2 million people in the Sudan is FAR more important than a few people being slapped around in a prison in Iraq.

4. Japan was not acting under the orders of Hitler. Japan was acting out of it's OWN interests and only attacked nations who they had been wanting to attack for hundreds of years and America.

5.You obviously don't understand our government. Soldiers are sent to war because they believe it to be a noble cause. Soldiers are sent to war because CONGRESS TELLS THEM TO regardless of whether or not the soldiers believe it to be the right thing to do.

You absolutely have no clue:

The Allies chose to keep Hitler alive?
German Generals would have squabled?
The German people didn't "like" the war?
The Sudan? Overlooking the mass graves in Iraq?
Who said Japan took orders from her friend in Germany?
Congress tells our soldiers to go to war?
You learn this stuff on the History Channel?

You absolutely have no clue. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Thats not what I said. What I said was this: resorting to violence without first resorting to reason is wrong. Killing should only be a last resort. Besides, why do you think that threatening to kill someone who's planning to kill himself, hurting others in the process, will have any effect on the base of the problem? The base is radical islam..you can't address a theology with a gun especially when they're planning on dying anyway.
If someone is poking you with a pencil and refuses to stop it will irritate you and eventually you will physically force them to stop. Lobbing cruise missles into training camps will irritate terrorists and cause them to retaliate. I'm not condoning terrorists attacks I'm saying they are to be expected. This is another reason why I'm angry at the administration. There were plenty of intelligence agencies here and abroad telling the administration that it was likely that the terrorists would use airliners to attack the US..yet they acted like it was a big suprise when it acctually happened. Instead of enforcing strict security measures at airports they simply shrugged off the idea and ignored it until 3000 people died.

So let me ask. When did Osama ask for a sit down with President Clinton? When did Osama ask for a sit down with President Bush? When did Osama or even his friends in the Talaban who were protecting him ever ask for a sit down with the UN? When has any terrorist organization asked for any kind of negotiations before sending their homicide bomber or parking their car bomb or firing their mortars or sending their Scuds?

As for our government ignoring intelligence: Intelligence agencies were cut drastically in both method and manpower under the Clinton Administration. There was intelligence information gathered during the Clinton Administration even to the point of the Sudan offering up Osama after he had bombed our African embassies. The 9/11 Commission ignored and didn't include in it's report an elite intelligence unit of ours that warned of the 9/11 terrorist leader by name.

Do you think when President Clinton should have let his people set up the "wall" (the Clinton term) that made it impossible for our own intelligence agencies to share information? Do you think the Clinton Administration should have taken Osama after we had identified him as an enemy and the Sudan offered him? Do you think if we had taken the offered Osama he would have directed 9/11 from Leavenworth?

Every question here is based on fact and I wonder if you have answers since you know more about history than I do. That's what you said earlier.

Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball", Chris Mathews asked Cindy Sheehan if she would run for Congress. France would love that. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Just so it doesn't get buried in another post:

Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball", Chris Mathews asked Cindy Sheehan if she has considered running for Congress. This is our media? :duel

 

[Stinger]

Just so it doesn't get buried in another post:

Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball", Chris Mathews asked Cindy Sheehan if she has considered running for Congress. This is our media? :duel

And this morning I heard her tell a bald-face lie that the property owner across the street had fired a gun at them.

 

[Surenderer]

And this morning I heard her tell a bald-face lie that the property owner across the street had fired a gun at them.

Actually I saw on CNN that there was a report of a farmer firing a gun as he said "in the air" above thier crowd



peace

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And this morning I heard her tell a bald-face lie that the property owner across the street had fired a gun at them.

Actually I saw on CNN that there was a report of a farmer firing a gun as he said "in the air" above thier crowd
peace

It's Dove season, LOTS of farmers are firing thier guns. He did not fire it at them and she knows it. He did not fire it above them. He fired his gun on his property into the air away from the crowd. If CNN reported that he fired it above them then THEY are telling a bald face lie. There were police and Texas Rangers and SS all over the site, had he fired at them he would have been arrested. He was not.

 

[Deegan]

Just so it doesn't get buried in another post:

Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball", Chris Mathews asked Cindy Sheehan if she has considered running for Congress. This is our media? :duel

Oh my, yes, that question had me in stitches, all though.......with some of the people we send up there, why not her.:rofl

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You absolutely have no clue:

The Allies chose to keep Hitler alive?
German Generals would have squabled?
The German people didn't "like" the war?
The Sudan? Overlooking the mass graves in Iraq?
Who said Japan took orders from her friend in Germany?
Congress tells our soldiers to go to war?
You learn this stuff on the History Channel?

You absolutely have no clue. :duel

1. Yes! Winston Churchill said it himself. He believed hitlers military blunders to be more valuable than an end to his life. Do your research.

2. Yes. Have you ever known any totalitarian or dictarship that didn't have at least squabling before someone finally took power?

3. No, they didn't. I've been there, I've spoken to them, they told me. There was one man I specifically remember from Munich. He said that people knew what was going on in the concentration camps because the ashes were reigning down upon them. They were also afraid to object to the camps because people were known to have "dissapeared" or were sent to the camps for disagreeing with the German policy. The vast majority of Germans did not like what Hitler was doing to their country.

4. The mass graves in Iraq had already been filled. The mass graves in the Sudan were in the process of being filled. Whats more important..blabbering about graves that are already filled or preventing the graves of 2 million people from being filled in the Sudan? The administration chose the dead over the living.

5.SKIL

6. YES. The President cannot declare war without the approval of congress. Read the constitution sometime.

It's apparent that you are the one who has no clue.

 

[argexpat]

She has a major credibility problem, but the left is known for sending us some real winners to be their spokespersons, this is just another sad example.:roll:

No, actually it's you Republicans who make these people spokespersons for anybody. It's a hackneyed rhetorical tactic. You find the person with the most radical or controversial or extreme views, and make them the spokesperson for the other side. The problem with this tactic is that it works both ways. Jerry Falwell was obviously speaking for you when he blamed 9/11 on homosexuality. G. Grordon Liddy was speaking for you when he called for the killing of ATF agents. Pat Robertson was speaking for you when he called liberal judges worse than Nazis. Anti-abortion terrorists speak for you when they call for the killing of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics. Timothy McViegh spoke for you when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. That jackass that ran over the crosses at Sheehan's vigil was speaking for you. The other jackass who fired his shotgun near the protestors was also speaking for you. Right?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

No, actually it's you Republicans who make these people spokespersons for anybody. It's a hackneyed rhetorical tactic. You find the person with the most radical or controversial or extreme views, and make them the spokesperson for the other side. The problem with this tactic is that it works both ways. Jerry Falwell was obviously speaking for you when he blamed 9/11 on homosexuality. G. Grordon Liddy was speaking for you when he called for the killing of ATF agents. Pat Robertson was speaking for you when he called liberal judges worse than Nazis. Anti-abortion terrorists speak for you when they call for the killing of abortion doctors and the bombing of abortion clinics. Timothy McViegh spoke for you when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. That jackass that ran over the crosses at Sheehan's vigil was speaking for you. The other jackass who fired his shotgun near the protestors was also speaking for you. Right?

*Gasp!* Of course not! Republicans never have any blood on their hands and their campaigns are run with smiles, sunshine, and pretty flowers and no one whos ever done anything wrong represents the republican party because republicans are perfect and never do anything wrong like intentionally brand people with red hot pokers to welcome new members to their fraternities and daddy never comes to bail you out and lets you serve time with the other people responsible. Didn't you know that? *note sarcasm*:rofl