Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

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.

You can attack the woman if you want. It's a free website. Just don't get upset when it is pointed out that the GOP appears to have abandoned all semblance of reasoned discussion in favor of character assassination. It seems to be all you do.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!! OMG!!!!! That could be the funniest thing I have read all day!!

McGentrix wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!! OMG!!!!! That could be the funniest thing I have read all day!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!! OMG!!!!! That has to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing I have read all day!!

Do you honestly think you have right to have those questions answered?

Her marriage is her personal life. What goes inside that marriage is unknowable to anyone else, and it's none of anybody's business, either.

Still another example of Republicans who cannot refrain from turning every issue, every public discourse, into a gossip fest of the private life of all who oppose them. No sooner have you let up on Michael Schiavo than you start in again on Cindy Sheehan. Don't you people ever stop?

What difference would it make if it did? A mom's gotta do what a mom's gotta do.

Or maybe what you call "talking points" are simply the reasons she is there, which reasons were arrived at independently.

Why are you surprised that many people who have come to oppose the war do so for similar reasons?

If I hear another righty telling us there is a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda-even though bin Laden and Hussein hated each other and their respective organizations spent a good deal of time shooting at each other-I'm going to keel over.

You can attack the woman if you want. It's a free website. Just don't get upset when it is pointed out that the GOP appears to have abandoned all semblance of reasoned discussion in favor of character assassination. It seems to be all you do.

No more than Rosa Parks was a pawn of the civil rights movement. Please read my post above on Rosa, then come back here and tell me what the difference is between the two. Unless, of course, you were on the side of the bus company in the Rosa Parks confrontation?

kelticwizard:

kelticwizrd wrote:

]Her [Cindy Sheehan's] marriage is her personal life. What goes inside that marriage is unknowable to anyone else, and it's none of anybody's business, either.

Baldimo wrote:

Tell that the guy who was running against Barrack Obama.

Ahem. Jack Ryan withdrew from the race against Barack Obama because it came out during his divorce that:

Quote:

In light of documented testimony from Mrs. Ryan that her husband forced her to visit bondage clubs in New York and Paris and attempted to force her to commit related sexual acts.....

.....The divorce documentation reportedly quotes Mrs. Ryan as describing the bondage clubs as having "cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."

So let me amend that. Cindy Sheehan's divorce is none of anyone's business unless the husband is filing because she repeatedly tried to get him to perform bondage acts while in a steel cage, hanging from a ceiling, in public.

Otherwise, her divorce has nothing to do with it.

Baldimo wrote:

kelticwizard:

kelticwizrd wrote:

]Her [Cindy Sheehan's] marriage is her personal life. What goes inside that marriage is unknowable to anyone else, and it's none of anybody's business, either.

Baldimo wrote:

Tell that the guy who was running against Barrack Obama.

Ahem. Jack Ryan withdrew from the race against Barack Obama because it came out during his divorce that:

Quote:

In light of documented testimony from Mrs. Ryan that her husband forced her to visit bondage clubs in New York and Paris and attempted to force her to commit related sexual acts.....

.....The divorce documentation reportedly quotes Mrs. Ryan as describing the bondage clubs as having "cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."

So let me amend that. Cindy Sheehan's divorce is none of anyone's business unless the husband is filing because she repeatedly tried to get him to perform bondage acts while in a steel cage, hanging from a ceiling, in public.

Otherwise, her divorce has nothing to do with it.

The press went after him and got a judge to unseal his divorce records. Neither him nor his wife wanted the records unsealed but a judge did so other wise. I would call that an invasion of privacy and a private attack on his personal life. You do not approve of this?

You are saying because he was a Conservative and could have beat Obama that is was ok to find out why he was divorced?

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

No more than Rosa Parks was a pawn of the civil rights movement. Please read my post above on Rosa, then come back here and tell me what the difference is between the two. Unless, of course, you were on the side of the bus company in the Rosa Parks confrontation?

There is a huge difference in the two cases. Rosa was a racial minority who wanted a change. That cannot be said for Casey's mother.

She [Cindy Sheehan] is a disgruntled mother who has an axe to grind.

The only thing the two have in common is the fact that they were both setups.

One had a good cause to end segregation the other has no purpose other then to try and embarrass the President.

The press went after him [Ryan] and got a judge to unseal his divorce records. Neither him nor his wife wanted the records unsealed but a judge did so other wise. I would call that an invasion of privacy and a private attack on his personal life. You do not approve of this?

You are saying because he was a Conservative and could have beat Obama that is was ok to find out why he was divorced?

kickycan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!! OMG!!!!! That could be the funniest thing I have read all day!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!! OMG!!!!! That has to be the MOST IDIOTIC thing I have read all day!!

Aawwww... you're mean.

Casey's mother is there to effect a change as well. She wants the mothers of the boys slated to go to Iraq to quit passively accepting the president's reasons for sending them there. Just as Rosa Parks wanted people to quit passively accepting segregation.

It is a principle of fairness that those most affected by a decision have the right to question that decision, especially by an elected leader who is accountable to her and everyone else.

Cindy Sheehan had her son killed because of Bush's decision. Certainly she, more than most, has the right to protest that decision.

Correct. But you find nothing wrong with Rosa Parks' posing as a passenger who wanted to get to her destination, when in fact she was on that bus to confront segregation. If that is okay, then why is it so wrong for Cindy Sheehan to be in Crawford ostensibly to talk to the president, but really to confront the policies he put in place which resulted in her son's death? Both Parks and Sheehan really were not there to do what they are posing as doing-but you criticize Sheehan for being there under false pretenses, but don't dare criticize Parks.

One way to interpret Rosa Parks' actions is that she deliberately intended to embarrass the bus company. I'm sure the bus driver saw it that way. But Parks was actually there to confront the larger issue, as she had the right. Just as Cindy Sheehan has the right to pose as a bereaved mother who wants to talk to the president, when in fact she is there to confront the larger issue.

since you seem to be up on this, care to give us a link as to what arguments were used to unseal the records? I think that might be important.

I am saying that affairs, if carried out with even a modicum of effort to remain discreet, should not be part of the political process. They were not before the current spate of insanity.

On the other hand, if your sex life is going to involve public participation in chains, whips and getting your wife to perform, against her will, sex acts in steel cages suspended from the ceiling in a public tavern, then I would say you might have gone beyond the point where the public can be expected to look the other way.

Only the lowest of the low would attack a grieving mother in regard to her personal life. This divorce thing REALLY gets me, 90% of parents who lose a child wind up splitting. So now they are attacking her because of A SYMPTOM of her grief. Pathetic.

Segregation is far different then an anti-war protest and they have nothing to do with each other.

I heard that on the radio the other day but haven't been able to verify it. NEVERTHELESS unless she runs for office, her relationship with her husband is no one's business. Only the lowest of the low would attack her family life. But, of course, we all knew it was coming. That is all you guys know. It is a new McCarthyism and it is tearing this country apart.