1
   

Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

 
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 05:55 pm
In what way?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:01 pm
Chrissee wrote:
In what way?


It's a simple question. Does the father of your children feel the same way about your children as you do?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:05 pm
the question was

Quote:
Does the father of your children feel the same about your children as you do?


I answered "in what way?" I don't know where Baldimo is going with this, I am rather amazed that he would think that mothers and fathers feel the same way about their kids. Either he comes form a very atypical family or doesn't have one.

It is hard to describe but although I love all my kids equally, there is a special place in my heart for the first and many women I know have felt the same way. Maybe there are just as many women who don't, I have never taken a survey or read a study on this. One only needs to look at scripture however to ferret out the "specialness" of the first-born son.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:08 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
In what way?


It's a simple question. Does the father of your children feel the same way about your children as you do?


If I may. A mother's love is a special love that most father's do not even understand.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:09 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
In what way?


It's a simple question. Does the father of your children feel the same way about your children as you do?


That is NOT a simple question. Maybe "feelings" toward your children is simple to you, it is not to me. Without you providing more feedback, I already answered your question on my last post and I got to go, maybe you want to start a new topic on this. But don't expect "simple" answers to complex interpersonal relationships. Besides, for all you know, my kids might not even have a father.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:15 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
In what way?


It's a simple question. Does the father of your children feel the same way about your children as you do?


If I may. A mother's love is a special love that most father's do not even understand.


That is why it blew me away when he said it is a simple question. If he meant "Does he love them as much?" Perhaps so, but it is different but I don't expect a man, especially those who appear as insensitive as most of the righties on
this board do, to understand.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 06:17 pm
I am a man and I understand. I would be interested as well to know the reason for the question and why it was asked.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 08:05 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

Were there Bush supporters claiming she had no right to protest? I mean on this forum?

Nobody on the board is saying that Cindy's protest is unlawful, no. However, there are plenty of Bush supporters claiming Cindy has no cause to take the position she has and to do what she is doing. In that sense, they said she didn't have the right to protest.


Ticomaya wrote:
lol. Successfully? She [Cindy] achieves success with her "people" simply by constantly repeating her bizarre anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric. She has gobs of libbies flocking to her. Nothing new there.

I don't see any Bush-supporting bereaved mothers taking the effort to travel to a far off place to have their views known. Or any rightie supporters coming to their side either. Fact is, Cindy is successful in drawing attention to her cause, whether you think very much of the people she is reaching or not.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 08:52 pm
Quote:
Nobody on the board is saying that Cindy's protest is unlawful, no. However, there are plenty of Bush supporters claiming Cindy has no cause to take the position she has and to do what she is doing. In that sense, they said she didn't have the right to protest.


Are you assuming to know what people are thinking? No one has said what you claim but you are going to guess at what they mean instead of looking and reading the words they use.

Quote:
I don't see any Bush-supporting bereaved mothers takig the effort to travel to a far off place to have their views known. Or any rightie supporters coming to their side either. Fact is, Cindy is successful in drawing attention to her cause, whether you think very much of the people she is reaching or not.


Have you ever heard of Michael Gallagher? He has been supporting military families for a very long time. He always has donations added to his "Gallagher's Army" funds and he then donates all of the money to military families. Sean Hannity also has a benefit for military families and if I'm correct most of the money goes to the children of soldiers who have died. Has anyone prominent from the left done any such thing?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:00 pm
Oh yeah! Gallaghers Army! Hahahahahaha!

He has four sons of military service age that aren't enlisted.

Getting money from other people to give to other people that are fighting to protect you doesn't make one noble or any other positive characteristic.

Gallagher is a hypocrite. He's sacrificed NOTHING!
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:27 pm
Same goes for Hannity. Collecting other peoples money to give as charity is NOT noble. He has sacrificed nothing, and gets your admiration?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:35 pm
I'm only surprised it took so long for the smearing of Cindy Sheehan to begin. They're off their game these days obviously. Smearing critics is what the Bush Administration and the Republicans do these days. No effort is made to engage in a debate on the issues, just smear those opposing. The same thing happens here. Smear the critics. It's a mindset now.

Standing by for smearing :wink:
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:36 pm
squinney wrote:
Oh yeah! Gallaghers Army! Hahahahahaha!

He has four sons of military service age that aren't enlisted.

Getting money from other people to give to other people that are fighting to protect you doesn't make one noble or any other positive characteristic.

Gallagher is a hypocrite. He's sacrificed NOTHING!


What cracks me up is the fact that you think parents can force their children to either join or not join. They don't have a say after the kid turns 18. It is up to the kids to join, not anyone else. If his sons wanted to join they would.

What have you done for the troops?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:40 pm
goodfielder wrote:
I'm only surprised it took so long for the smearing of Cindy Sheehan to begin. They're off their game these days obviously. Smearing critics is what the Bush Administration and the Republicans do these days. No effort is made to engage in a debate on the issues, just smear those opposing. The same thing happens here. Smear the critics. It's a mindset now.

Standing by for smearing :wink:


Could you please give an example of what smearing has taken place?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:42 pm
Intrepid wrote:
I am a man and I understand. I would be interested as well to know the reason for the question and why it was asked.


As far as my "first born being special" statement is, I grant you, debatable. This is an observation based on personal experience. I don't think that hardly anyone would dispute that mothers generally "feel differently" toward their kids than fathers do.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:55 pm
squinney wrote:
Oh yeah! Gallaghers Army! Hahahahahaha!

He has four sons of military service age that aren't enlisted.

Getting money from other people to give to other people that are fighting to protect you doesn't make one noble or any other positive characteristic.

Gallagher is a hypocrite. He's sacrificed NOTHING!


And I understand he never served either.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:59 pm
Attacking Cindy Sheehan

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted August 18, 2005.

Virulent attacks on the grieving Cindy Sheehan expose the stench of desperation in pro-war circles

Also in MediaCulture



While debating conservative pundit David Horowitz on Ron Reagan's MSNBC show the other night, I was struck by the desperation with which supporters of the war have turned their fury on Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who has been trying to get an audience with President Bush.

Horowitz, the former left-wing zealot who is now a right-wing zealot, described the woman who has camped out near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch as "hateful," accused her of dishonoring the memory of her son and promised that if Sheehan and other anti-war activists succeed in bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq then "rivers of blood" will flow in the streets of America. It was a remarkable performance, so much so that even Horowitz admitted that he was "emotional" about the subject.

Of course, Horowitz is wrong, on every point. But it is difficult to get angry with him, or even to take his ranting seriously. When Reagan asked me if I wanted to "dignify" Horowitz's comments with a response, I declined, except to express a measure of sympathy for Horowitz and other true believers who have become so frenzied in their need to defend the Iraq imbroglio that they feel they must attack a grieving mother who wants to make sure that no more parents will have to bury their sons and daughters as a result of the Bush administration's arrogance.

The rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who continue to search for some rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq has been driven to the brink of breakdown by the success of Sheehan's protest. Go to the website of William F. Buckley's National Review magazine and you will find Sheehan described in headlines as "nutty," dismissed by columnists as "the mouthpiece... of howling-at-the-moon, bile-spewing Bush haters" and accused of "sucking up intellectual air" that, presumably, would be better utilized by Condoleezza Rice explaining once more that it would be wrong to read too much into the August 6, 2001, briefing document that declared: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." Human Events, the conservative weekly newspaper, dismisses Sheehan as a "professional griever" who "can claim to be in perpetual mourning for her fallen son" -- as if there is some time limit on maternal sorrow over the death of a child.

Fox News Channel spinner-in-chief Bill O'Reilly accuses Sheehan of being "in bed with the radical left," including -- horrors! -- "9-11 families" that are still seeking answers about whether, in the first months of 2001, the Bush administration was more focused on finding excuses to attack Iraq than on protecting Americans from terrorism. And Rush Limbaugh was on the radio the other day ranting about how, "(Sheehan's) story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real..." (Just to clarify for Limbaugh listeners: Cindy Sheehan's 24-year-old son Casey really did die in Iraq, and his mother really would like to talk with President Bush about all those claims regarding WMDs and al-Qaida ties that the administration used to peddle the "case" for war.)

The pro-war pundits who continue to defend the occupation of Iraq are freaked out by the fact that a grieving mother is calling into question their claim that the only way to "support the troops" is by keeping them in the frontlines of George W. Bush's failed experiment. Bush backers are horrified that Sheehan's sincere and patriotic anti-war voice has captured the nation's attention.

What the pro-war crowd does not understand is that Cindy Sheehan is not inspiring opposition to the occupation. She is merely putting a face on the mainstream sentiments of a country that has stopped believing the president's promises with regard to Iraq. According to the latest Newsweek poll, 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handing of the war, while just 26 percent support the president's argument that large numbers of U.S. military personnel should remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to achieve the administration's goals there.

The supporters of this war have run out of convincing lies and effective emotional appeals. Now, they are reduced to attacking the grieving mothers of dead soldiers. Samuel Johnson suggested that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But, with their attacks on Cindy Sheehan, the apologists for George Bush's infamy have found a new and darker refuge.

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:01 pm
Baldimo wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
I'm only surprised it took so long for the smearing of Cindy Sheehan to begin. They're off their game these days obviously. Smearing critics is what the Bush Administration and the Republicans do these days. No effort is made to engage in a debate on the issues, just smear those opposing. The same thing happens here. Smear the critics. It's a mindset now.

Standing by for smearing :wink:


Could you please give an example of what smearing has taken place?



Quote:
Limbaugh, Coulter, Liddy, Hitchens, Barone continue attacks on Cindy Sheehan


The smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan continued in recent days, with numerous conservative media figures leveling baseless attacks against her and media coverage of her story. Sheehan -- whose son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq -- began her anti-war protest outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch on August 7. Media Matters for America has compiled examples from the most recent wave of attacks.

Limbaugh, Coulter likened Sheehan protest to Wellstone memorial because both are "exploiting death"

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter attacked Sheehan by comparing her anti-war protest to another event they claimed was "exploiting death": the memorial service for Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who died in a plane crash in 2002. Media Matters has previously identified other examples of conservative commentators misrepresenting the service as a political event.

From the August 16 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Hey, Rush, this whole Sheehan memorial, if you want to call it that, reminds me of another memorial, and that was the Wellstone memorial, and it seems like the left's playbook is shifting to exploiting deaths, and it backfired at the Wellstone memorial, and I think it's going to backfire here.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. That's a good way to -- exploiting death.

CALLER: Yes.

LIMBAUGH: These are basically a bunch of miserable, angry people exploiting death. But that's actually a good analogy out there, [caller]. It is. This sort of has the same tone to it and the same hysteria that accompanied the Wellstone memorial -- which, of course, as we know, was not a memorial to Paul Wellstone. It was a campaign event, and it was "win one for Wellstone" and so forth. It was appalling. It was clearly appalling, and it was a factor in the Democrats' stunning defeats in the 2002 midterm elections.

From Coulter's August 17 syndicated column, titled "Cindy Sheehan: Commander in Grief":

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Liddy called Sheehan "anti-Semitic"; claimed that when Sheehan says "neocons" she means "the Jews in the Pentagon"

Radio host and former Nixon administration official G. Gordon Liddy called Sheehan "anti-Semitic," claiming that Sheehan's use of the term "neocons" is a code word for "the Jews in the Pentagon."

From the August 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

LIDDY: Well, I think that it's true that there are Americans who feel the way Cindy Sheehan does. Unfortunately, they are Americans who are very anti-Israel and, in some ways, anti-Semitic. She uses the term how the "neocons" are doing this thing -- that's code word for "the Jews in the Pentagon." She has made statements such as --

ALAN COLMES (co-host): Are you calling her anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes. If she gets Israel out of Palestine, then we can get out of Iraq. I mean, check out her statements, she's way out there.

COLMES: Cindy Sheehan's anti-Semitic?

LIDDY: Yes.

COLMES: That's outrageous.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): It's outrageous what has been said.

ELEANOR CLIFT (Newsweek contributing editor): That is almost not worth responding to.

LIDDY: Look at her statements. Look at her statements and judge for yourself.

CLIFT: Look at your statements.

Liddy also took a swipe at syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington's Greek background on the August 16 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:

HUFFINGTON: But you know, there are many, many different opinions in this country. And one of the things that's troubling me is the way the president is talking about what he's doing. It sounds as though he has so much time on his hands. He's watching [motivational speaker] Tony Robbins and [TV host] Dr. Phil too much, because he's talking about "my being needs [sic] to be outside exercising" or "it's very important for me to get on with my life." That's so very flippant and very petulant at a time of war, and huge sacrifice by many Americans.

ZAHN: Gordon, you get the last word tonight.

LIDDY: It may sound flippant and patronizing in Greece, but not here in the United States.

HUFFINGTON: Oh, wow, now we're doing ethnic varieties [sic]. Well, it's not just the Greek-Americans who are complaining; it's millions of Americans. And that's why the president's approval ratings are down at 42 percent.

LIDDY: That's a gratuitous assertion, and any gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.

Hitchens accused Sheehan of saying "her son was killed in a war run by a secret Jewish cabal," referred to "Camp Casey" as "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag"

Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens also implied that Sheehan is anti-Semitic, accusing her of repeatedly making a statement "to the effect that her son was killed in a war run by a secret Jewish cabal within the administration." Hitchens then asserted that Sheehan was being manipulated by "hysterical paranoid ideologist[s]" who have turned the "Camp Casey" protest into "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag."

From the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

NORAH O'DONNELL (guest host): Christopher, do you think that this represents -- or she represents some sort of tipping point in public opinion in America?

HITCHENS: Certainly not. She has, just today, lied about a statement that she made several times before to the effect that her son was killed in a war run by a secret Jewish cabal within the administration. She now says she didn't make that statement. She did make that statement. So as well as being an hysterical paranoid ideologist, or at least being manipulated by people who are, who turned this into Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag, she has decided not to have the courage or maybe the cowardice of her conviction. She now says she didn't make a statement that she definitely did.

Barone claimed that the media is covering Sheehan protest because they "do not want us to win this war"

U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone claimed that the media is currently devoting substantial coverage to Sheehan because "many in the press ... do not want us to win this war and think that we don't deserve to win this war." Barone further argued that the press corps during World War II would have seen her as "a person who was the victim of a personal tragedy and who had gone over the bend as a result of it" and would have "mercifully given her no publicity."

From the August 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARONE: So, yeah, I think there's some risk that Bush is getting behind there. And I think part of this is the question of the press corps. I mean, I asked the question, if a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan had gone to Hyde Park and Warm Springs and camped out, demanded a meeting with President Roosevelt, would she have received coverage from the press in the World War II era?

And I've studied this era. And I think the answer is clearly no. She would have just been thought to have been a person who was the victim of a personal tragedy and who had gone over the bend as a result of it. And they would have mercifully given her no publicity.

We've got a different kind of press. Then, in World War II, the press almost unanimously wanted us to win the war. Today, we have many in the press -- not most, I think, but some at least -- who do not want us to win this war and think that we don't deserve to win this war. It's a more critical press.

?- N.C., J.K., & J.S.

Posted to the web on Thursday August 18, 2005 at 4:44 PM EST
Quote:


mediamatters.org
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:05 pm
Baldimo wrote:
squinney wrote:
Oh yeah! Gallaghers Army! Hahahahahaha!

He has four sons of military service age that aren't enlisted.

Getting money from other people to give to other people that are fighting to protect you doesn't make one noble or any other positive characteristic.

Gallagher is a hypocrite. He's sacrificed NOTHING!


What cracks me up is the fact that you think parents can force their children to either join or not join. They don't have a say after the kid turns 18. It is up to the kids to join, not anyone else. If his sons wanted to join they would.

What have you done for the troops?


I didn't say anything about forcing children to enlist, so don't put words in my mouth.

One would think though that the Right would have instilled some sense of duty and honor in service into their children. That they may have instilled those conservative values of patriotism, and encouraged them to do the Right thing. Course, you know how it is with kids. They get the "Do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy pretty quick, and end up following in their parents footsteps.

No comment on Gallagher / Hannity giving other peoples money in support of the troops?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:14 pm
Baldimo wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
I'm only surprised it took so long for the smearing of Cindy Sheehan to begin. They're off their game these days obviously. Smearing critics is what the Bush Administration and the Republicans do these days. No effort is made to engage in a debate on the issues, just smear those opposing. The same thing happens here. Smear the critics. It's a mindset now.

Standing by for smearing :wink:


Could you please give an example of what smearing has taken place?


I have 57,000 more examples of smears of Cindy Sheehan.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 11:23:14