Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

In what way?

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

the question was



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.



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?

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!

Same goes for Hannity. Collecting other peoples money to give as charity is NOT noble. He has sacrificed nothing, and gets your admiration?

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:

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?

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

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.

And I understand he never served either.

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.

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?

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