- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
"And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis than George Bush."
scottyz said:Perhaps she is not as much of a partisan hack as Repubs make her out to be?
RightatNYU said:You're mistaken. I don't think shes partisan, I think shes ****ing crazy. I knew that from the day she first opened her yap. I'm just wondering if now people on the left will start admitting that as well.
FinnMacCool said:I thought she was a nut until I listened to an interview with her and libertarians from Free Talk live. Ever since then, I've changed my mind, though I don't agree with her methods. Although her tactics draw attention to the anti war movement, I believe they do so in a more negative then positive way.
It's just funny though how the more she talks, the more acceptable it becomes to attack the mother of a dead soldier.
If it was a pro-war mother of a dead soldier all those folk who attack Sheehan would be crying how evil it was to attack the mother of a dead soldier.FinnMacCool said:It's just funny though how the more she talks, the more acceptable it becomes to attack the mother of a dead soldier.
scottyz said:If it was a pro-war mother of a dead soldier all those folk who attack Sheehan would be crying how evil it was to attack the mother of a dead soldier.
She's an imbecile, a raving lunatic, a publicity slut, a complete fringe nutjob, and a pathetic excuse for a human being.
That's a good, if patently untrue generalization.
FinnMacCool said:Case in point.
And she doesn't sound like a raving lunatic to me, though I'm sure thats what you would have others think.
She sounds angry though
In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the dwindling multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants.
If you feel the need to sum up a whole persons life through a few sentences or a few quotes then go right ahead but you'll run straight into a brick wall if your looking for truth.
It is true. The only time it would be denied is when it starts to hurt you politically. Then you will slowly edge away like the democrats are doing with Cindy Sheehan.
Read that again. That doesn't sound like a raving lunatic to you? I live a block from a homeless shelter. I don't hear **** as crazy as this even from the guy who pisses himself on a daily basis.
Actually, its not true. If someone is grieving, I say leave them to it. If they want to take their grief and use it to get in front of the cameras and become spokespersons for advocacy, they lose every bit of that sympathy. On either side.
Don't forget fugly...RightatNYU said:She's an imbecile, a raving lunatic, a publicity slut, a complete fringe nutjob, and a pathetic excuse for a human being.
I didn't know you lived near galen...RightatNYU said:Read that again. That doesn't sound like a raving lunatic to you? I live a block from a homeless shelter. I don't hear **** as crazy as this even from the guy who pisses himself on a daily basis.
aps said:I liked that her protest caused people to look more closely into why we went to war since it has caused people to question this president's honesty. When I saw her on Chris Matthews, I saw a very intelligent, articulate woman. However, her continued protest started to become a drag.
My feelings are not remotely hurt, particuarly because, as scotty said, it shows that she may not be so partisan after all.
BWG said:I think if you go back on the threads here about her, most people were defending her RIGHT to say what she said, not the CONTENT, but of course the cons will twist it like a pretzel.
It's funny that the cons condemned her every move, but will quote her when she says something that they think they can use to defame the other side.
It's kinda like on Monday, the cons will denounce The NY TImes as a liberal rag, piece of junk. Tuesday, there's a favorable article and it's quoted all over the place. Which is it? Liberal, conservative, moderate or none of the above?
I love the humor..LOL
FinnMacCool said:What's there to say that hasn't already been said? She's not a politician.
Is that so? Then surely you must have ill feelings towards the parents of Columbine victims?
Gardener said:As far as I'm concerned, when she made herself a public person, she invited response. If she had restricted her rhetorec to grieving for her son, and only talked from the angle of wanting to reduce the loss of life, I would agree that people might be too rough on her. The thing is -- she's doing a LOT more than just that, and so she's fair game as a result.
She really doesn't necessarily represent the left IMO, because a sizeable chunk of the left can't stand her, either. She only represents that authoritarian uber-left fringe that has left liberality far behind -- folks like A.N.S.W.E.R. and the various "solidarity" movements. She's waaaaaay out there, and that's why she is attacking Clinton. In the groupthink of many of these A.N.S.W.E.R. type "antiwar" people (an oxymoron, since they support terrorism) anything that doesn't conform completely with their rigid ideology is a sellout. These are the fundamentalists of the left, and a similar spot on the right might land you on top of somebody like Fred Phelps. All you get with either extreme is dogma dogma dogma.
RightatNYU said:That's my point. I guess my pipe dream of a wish was that people in the mainstream - liberal left who didnt know much about her and thought she was okay would see this and realize that she was crazy.
Silly me, hoping to impact someone.:doh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?