vergiss
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,356
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Sent by a friend, originally from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/what-fox-news-channel-wou_b_5514.html
Cindy Sheehan – in case you’ve been living in a box or you only watch the mainstream media – is the mom of slain Iraq War veteran Casey Sheehan. She is protesting in front of George Bush’s Crawford ranch this month. This grieving mom has been characterized as a flip-flopper, accused of putting on a public circus, lambasted as a publicity seeking grandstander and criticized for not truly speaking for her family since an aunt and a godmother Matt Drudge found somewhere in the Sheehan family disagrees with her.
The conservative attack machine is in high gear in the efforts to tear this woman down.
That made me think of how it would have been in the Civil Rights era if Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the rest of the gang were around back then.
O’Reilly: “Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she’s just trying to gain publicity and doesn’t speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they’re black.”
Hannity: “Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!”
Drudge: “We have found three members of the Parks family who say that Rosa doesn’t speak for them. That, in fact, they are very happy with the government of the state of Alabama. The uncle, step-brother-in-law and niece three-times removed all agree that the better route is a dignified, respectful silent deference to authority. Developing …”
Limbaugh: “We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!"
Drudge: “More stories on Rosa Parks scandalous history of consistently sitting in the back of the bus before she changed her position and insisted she would only sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”
Malkin: “I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself.”
Hannity: “Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!”
Colmes: “You’re right, Sean. I’m sorry.”
O’Reilly: “To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It's ridiculous that they think they don't have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.”
Scarborough: “Yeah, whatever they just said on Fox News Channel! Well … I mostly agree with it.”
Kaplan: “Can we hire Shep Smith to cover this? Maybe give him his own show?”
Limbaugh: “What did I tell you folks? These libs like Parks would rather live in France where they can sit anywhere they want on the bus. They hate America. They want special privileges to be able to sit anywhere they want. They hide behind the color of their skin to try to undermine this country.”
Coulter: “Rosa Parks is a dyke!”
Blitzer: “Dr. King, is it true that you support the liberal agitator Rosa Parks in her defiance of America? Can you confirm whether she has in fact sat in the back of the bus before? Do you think this makes her a flip-flopper? If she has been so inconsistent on this, how can we trust her on anything?”
Drudge: “MY SOURCES TELL ME THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME ROSA PARKS HAS EVER SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS. A whole life of sitting in the back of the bus and now this woman claims all of a sudden she wants to sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”
O’Reilly: “Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Ridiculous!”
Hannity: “Incredible!”
Scarborough: “What did they just say?”
In Unison: “Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!”
Blitzer: “Ms. Parks left the bus in disgrace today after it was confirmed that some members of her family did not agree with her, she had ruined her credibility by working for the NAACP before the bus incident, and she had in fact sat in the back of the bus on previous occasions. Now back to the emotionally wrenching story of the girl missing in …”
Her own actions and statements do a much better job.The conservative attack machine is in high gear in the efforts to tear this woman down.
Batman said:Her own actions and statements do a much better job.
Batman said:Her own actions and statements do a much better job.
AlbqOwl said:Indeed they do. But if it's the 'conservative attack machine' doing it, apparently her husband, parents, and siblings are part of that attack machine. :wink:
vergiss said:It's cute, how the Right can't stand the sight of someone with different views to their own - they feel they have to demonise them as being rabid psychos with bombs practically strapped to their chest. A tad threatened by any form of dissent, perhaps?
That's good.:lol:cnredd said:Cindy Al-Sheehani
AllAmericanRageJunky said:oh of course, because if her family disagrees with her that makes her completely false.
vergiss said:It's cute, how the Right can't stand the sight of someone with different views to their own - they feel they have to demonise them as being rabid psychos with bombs practically strapped to their chest. A tad threatened by any form of dissent, perhaps?
Batman said:That's good.:lol:
I agree! It seems to me that some people who oppose her have trouble understanding that because her son was killed in a war that America is against she should not be allowed to speak her mind, and to speak it as often as she wants to so long as it is within the legal limits of the law.ban.the.electoral.college said:It's a shame when we sit here and allow the war in Iraq continue, while criticizing the only person standing up against it. I've never seen such idle craven banter. The time is ticking, and Bush is still sitting on his high horse...
Suppose we had not fought the War in Iraq and Saddam Hussein was still in power.
U.S. Safer 15%
U.S. More Dangerous 49%
About the Same 29%
RasmussenReports.com
July 5, 2005--Just 15% of voters believe the U.S. would be safer today if we had avoided the War with Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in power. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 49% take the opposite view and say that such a strategy would have made life in the U.S. more dangerous. Twenty-nine-percent (29%) think it would be about the same either way.
Those figures are little changed from a year ago.
Republicans, by a 77% to 5% margin, believe the U.S. would be more dangerous if our nation had not fought the war that toppled Hussein.
Democrats are divided on this question. A plurality, 43%, says that things would be about the same. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the U.S. would be more dangerous today if we had not fought the War with Iraq. Twenty percent (20%) of Howard Dean's party believe that avoiding the War would have made the U.S. safer today.
Those not affiliated with either party believe, by a 2-to-1 margin, that avoiding the War would have made the U.S. a more dangerous place.
The ONLY person standing up against it? I guess that's why she's getting so much press coverage - she's the first and ONLY person to stand up against the Iraq war.:shock:ban.the.electoral.college said:It's a shame when we sit here and allow the war in Iraq continue, while criticizing the only person standing up against it..
Sorry, that poll did NOT ask the right question. I wrote what would a poll today reflect, are we safer TODAY than we were BEFORE the war. Your poll asked a totally different question....AlbqOwl said:Here's the 2005 Rasmussen poll asking just that question:
26 X World Champs said:Sorry, that poll did NOT ask the right question. I wrote what would a poll today reflect, are we safer TODAY than we were BEFORE the war. Your poll asked a totally different question....
GPS_Flex said:You’re making too sound an argument AlbqOwl. Didn’t you get the ultra secret conservative propaganda memo that detailed how you are supposed to hate Cindy and bash her at every opportunity?
26 X World Champs said:I agree! It seems to me that some people who oppose her have trouble understanding that because her son was killed in a war that America is against she should not be allowed to speak her mind, and to speak it as often as she wants to so long as it is within the legal limits of the law.
What's stopping opposing points of view from starting a "Camp War" in Crawford that supports the damn war? Nothing!
How many posts have you read in this community that end with "Cindy, GO HOME"? Cindy's put a face on the grief of many Americans who have lost loved ones AND oppose this damn war. A STRONG MAJORITY of AMERICANS oppose the Iraq war too.
Maybe instead of attacking the messsenger it's time we attack the guys who got us into this nightmare?
Do we have to do another poll proving that we all feel less safe since we decided to attack a country that had nothing to do with our enemy? You remember our enemy, TERRORISM? I can't remember the last time an Iraqi attacked the USA, can you?
Reading comprehension issues are part of your profile?cnredd said:Name one time someone on this forum said she should be arrested or she is NOT ALLOWED to speak her mind....One....
No one has said that....NO ONE!...N-O O-N-E...nada...zip...zero....zilch....
We(some?many?) think she SHOULD shut up(opinion)...No one said she HAS TO(breaking a law)....Voltaire is still in effect...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=63348&postcount=272LaMidRighter said:Once again, she is annoying, nothing more nothing less, personally, I'd like to see her get arrested along with all of the other protesters on harassment charges, which would have happened had this been a private citizen and not the president.
BTW - I never said ANYONE in this forum asked for her to be arrested. I wrote:cnredd said:BTW - as pertaining to this part..."so long as it is within the legal limits of the law."....When would something NOT be? Maybe "inciting a riot", but I can't think of anything else...
Notice what I highlighted in bold dear boy?Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs
I agree! It seems to me that some people who oppose her have trouble understanding that because her son was killed in a war that America is against she should not be allowed to speak her mind, and to speak it as often as she wants to so long as it is within the legal limits of the law.
What's stopping opposing points of view from starting a "Camp War" in Crawford that supports the damn war? Nothing!
How many posts have you read in this community that end with "Cindy, GO HOME"?
26 X World Champs said:I agree! It seems to me that some people who oppose her have trouble understanding that because her son was killed in a war that America is against she should not be allowed to speak her mind, and to speak it as often as she wants to so long as it is within the legal limits of the law.
AlbqOwl said:Kinda sorta like your post does?
cnredd said:That's a wonderful exaggeration...
Batman, AlqeOwl, MiamiFlorida & I have posted opposings views...Could you please point out where we "can't stand" your post? Has anyone said, "YOU can't write that!"? Has anyone said it's "stupid" or "ignorant"?
I can name EXACTLY where you have "demonized" though this post...
conservative attack machine ...that could very well be construed as offensive and demonizing...
Now that I've pointed out where YOU have done it, please state your claim.
Point out EXACTLY where those mentioned above have "demonized" anyone.
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?