Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

Quick, CR .... turn away from the dark side. Come back to the light. Laughing

I think she definitely realizes it. And I don't think she realistically expects a meeting, but is thankful for and desirous of the publicity for her new cause.

0 Replies

I don't believe that at all. I don't think she even cares if Bush meets with her. She's protesting.

First of all, CoastalRat, how can you be used by those who are against this war, if you are actually against the war too? How is that being used? It's like me saying you are being used by those who are for the war. You are for the war, right? And you agree with these people, right? It doesn't make sense to me.

I think she is simply protesting the war. She says she wants to meet with Bush, but I believe that she knows damn well that nothing will change because of that. What she wants is to shine a light on the fact that this is an unjust war, and her son, and many other people's sons and daughters are simply being sacrificed for no good reason.

0 Replies

No good reason? You have never listened to Occam Bill's link.

0 Replies

Yes, I have. And that ain't the reason.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quick, CR .... turn away from the dark side. Come back to the light.

I think she definitely realizes it. And I don't think she realistically expects a meeting, but is thankful for and desirous of the publicity for her new cause.

What you say could well be the case. I guess I just try real hard to put people in the best of light as much as possible. It is difficult to say how her grief is affecting her.

I certainly question her motives and will always question them. But I won't go so far as to think I know for a fact that her motives are something other than honest.

And thanks for throwing me that lifeline to keep me away from the dark side. I have seemed to slipped over a bit that way the last couple of days. My conservative dog has been looking at me rather funny. Although the plus is that my liberal dog has been chumming up to me. Maybe that is why I have drifted toward the dark side? Hmmm......

0 Replies

EDIT: I messed up. Just like a clown to do such a thing.

0 Replies

It's not you drifting, CR, is the political spectrum. Seems to me that a lot of what used to be considered conservative thought is coming up liberal and vice versa. Wait a while, it'll swing back around.

0 Replies

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it is being used if you actually agree with the people who are supposedly using you. Can't she think for herself? Is that what you're saying?

0 Replies

CR: Liberal dogs will do that ... just beware.

0 Replies

She acts as if she is the only person to have lost a child to war. Apparently, she is looking for another 15 minutes of fame at the cost of her child.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how it is being used if you actually agree with the people who are supposedly using you. Can't she think for herself? Is that what you're saying?

Sorry Kicky, did not mean to ignore your question. I had to take a call that tied me up for a while.

When I say she is being used, what I mean is that those who are against the war are making her the poster child for the cause by using the grief of a mother over her son's death as though her opinion is worth more because of her sacrifice. (Still not sure I put that quite the way I want, so I hope you get my drift.) Her opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion. Yet those against the war are using her grief in order to play on people's sympathy and persuade them that this war is unjust (or whatever).

Now maybe that is fine by her to be used in that way. Indeed, maybe she is doing her best to also use that sympathy in order to win converts. But then I question why the insistence on speaking, for a second time, with Bush? Why not camp somewhere, play the sympathy card, and protest this war?

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

What you say could well be the case. I guess I just try real hard to put people in the best of light as much as possible. It is difficult to say how her grief is affecting her.

I certainly question her motives and will always question them.

Do you question the motives of the families who demand answers when a plane smashes into the side of a mountain northeast of Athens?
I think you kow how the grief is affecting her CR.
She lost a son.
Mind you....she should have protested the war before he died. That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:

I agree that the issue with her is no longer her son, but Bush's refusal to meet with her. But here is where I bet we would diverge Candidone. I find it rather pompous for her to believe that she has a right to walk up and demand to see the president. Sure, Bush could meet with her, but then what does he do when every other parent whose child dies in military service (not just in Iraq, mind you) demands to meet with him?

Unfortunately, the two "wars" get confused by many. You won't find many (any?) arguing that Afghanistan is an unjust war. That's where Osama was. That's where the orders were coming from for terrorists that struck on 9/11. Parents of those killed in Afghanistan can confidently claim their child died for a noble cause.

You know all the arguments, so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say that isn't the case in Iraq. There's a difference. And, Bush needs to answer the parents AND the general citizenry regarding his false claims.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Mind you....she should have protested the war before he died. That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.

And me too Candidone.

squinney wrote:

You know all the arguments, so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say that isn't the case in Iraq. There's a difference. And, Bush needs to answer the parents AND the general citizenry regarding his false claims.

Yes, I know the arguments, so thanks for not repeating them.

Bush has answered the parents and general citizenry, just not to your satisfaction. (Nor to many others either) I again ask, does she think he will tell her anything more than what he has repeatedly stated publicly? If she thinks so, then she is stupid. So if her point is simply to protest the war, fine, do it with the blessing of just about all of us. But she has said she is doing it to talk to Bush to get answers for why he went to war using what she now believes to be false info. Now she has crossed the line from being motivated to end the war to playing a political game she knows is a loser from the get-go.

0 Replies

She obviously went to Crawford for the purpose of protesting the war.

As the mother of a son killed in the war, she certainly does have special status in regards to getting answers from the president.

As far as the thing being staged, just because a person really does not expect to get satisfaction from confronting someone does not mean that they are dishonest in their protest.

Case in point: Rosa Parks.

The popular belief was that Rosa Parks was a maid who one day decided not to go to the back of the bus, which was the law down South at that time.

Fact is, Rosa Parks had joined a civil rights organization, and was involved in the movement. Moreover, she had planned to do it two weeks before, but for some reason the date was moved back to coincide with some event. When Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus, and the bus driver insisted she did, (which was actually part of his job description at the time), nothing was happening that Rosa Parks and her friends in the movement did not expect.

Did that invalidate her action? No.

Same thing with Mrs Sheehan. Just because you don't seriously expect anything good to come immediately from your protest-for the bus driver to relent, for Bush to explain his actions to Sheehan-does not remove the legitimacy of the protest.

0 Replies

Well, I was going to respond to CoastalRat's question, but I see KelticWizard has done it so much better than I could have hoped to.

Carry on.

0 Replies

Maybe I need to be clearer. I don't know. Maybe I just need to shut up. Won't be the first time I have talked too much.

If she is there protesting the war, then great. Protest all she wants. Have at it. Carry your signs, chant, do whatever. I can totally understand her being upset that this war cost her son his life. I can sympathize with that.

But, if she is doing this to force the president to meet with her and expecting to get answers other than what he has said for years now, then she is being stupid and wasting her time. Personally, I hope the president would just meet with her. In fact, I like this idea for the meeting quite a bit.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050815.shtml

A meeting along those lines should make her happy, assuming that is her only agenda here.

But don't blame anyone for questioning her motivation. She is fair game for that type of questioning the moment she walked into the national spotlight.

0 Replies

Coastal Rat:

We understood your position before-you made it clear. However, I don't think you took the time to understand my reply.

Your position seems to be that unless Cindy Sheehan is simply a mother of a dead soldier who decided to go to Crawford for no other reason than to talk to the president-unless that is her only agenda-then what she is doing is invalid.

That is where you are wrong, and that is why I used the Rosa Parks example. You did not deal with Rosa Parks at all, and I think it was because you didn't grasp it.

Under the guise of simply being a young black maid who refused to go to the back of the bus one day, Rosa Parks galvanized a still-young civil rights movement.

But we now know-the people who were friends with Rosa Parks have admitted-that was not the case. Rosa Parks got on the bus that day not to travel to any particular destination, but to confront segregation. Believe me, she was never so happy as when that bus driver stood in front of her and ordered her to the back of the bus. That is what she wanted.

Of course she knew she wouldn't be allowed to stay on the bus in the front seats. But it was important for her to send the message that the time had come for black people to no longer accept segregation and second class citizenship, even it meant being arrested.

Similarly, Cindy Sheehan has a similar point to make. She really doesn't expect Bush to talk to her-she is there to show that the time has come for people to no longer accept Bush's reasons for soldiers being in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan is no more of a tool of the antiwar movement than Rosa Parks was a tool of the civil rights movement. The ostensible reason each were there was not the real reason. But that reason was justifiable nonetheless, in both cases.

Do you understand now?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What's the problem Freeduck? Is Sheehan above criticism? She placed herself on the public stage, now we get to throw tomatoes at her.

Your attempt to smear her is playing right into our hands! Thanks!

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
What's the problem Freeduck? Is Sheehan above criticism? She placed herself on the public stage, now we get to throw tomatoes at her.

Your attempt to smear her is playing right into our hands! Thanks!

It isn't a smear to point out that this isn't the first time she hasn't paid her taxes. If she had always paid her taxes and this was the first time it had happened then it wouldn't be an issue.

The same thing goes for her husband filing for divorce. Why has he chosen now to do so? Why didn't he wait till after her protest? Could her drive to do this have driven a wedge between them and that was too much for him.

It seems she has taken her talking points from the anti-war groups and has not left them even once. Talking points are an attackable offence on this website so when someone uses them they are fair game. It pushes the fact that the anti-war folks are using her as a pawn.

0 Replies

Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know