Sheehan shirking taxes why again?

goodfielder wrote:

When did the sex lives of politicians become an issue? Just a question.

That is is a separate issue. (I think it really started when Gary Hart challenged that Miami Herald reporter to follow him around.)There used to be a modicum of civilty in politics. Now, since Lee Atwater and Rove anything is fair game.

What really illustrates how low these lower than the lowest scum of the earth have become in their panic to discredit Cindy is this. Even the divorces of public officials running for high office are considered off limits unless there are unusual circumstances like infidelity.

Chrissee wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

I already said I couldn't find verification and the statistic true or not is essential to my point.

I think this is what Baldimo is pointing out Chrissee. You are using a stat that, in your words, whether true or not, supports your point. But if the stat is not true, then how does it support your point?

I think if you re-read the post, you could clearly ascertain that what I meant to say was that IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY POINT.

And, of course, you did, that is why you jumped on my last post before the ink even dried and I edited it. Funny and I was just talking avout intellectual dishonesty.

Chrissee wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

I already said I couldn't find verification and the statistic true or not is essential to my point.

I think this is what Baldimo is pointing out Chrissee. You are using a stat that, in your words, whether true or not, supports your point. But if the stat is not true, then how does it support your point?

I think if you re-read the post, you could clearly ascertain that what I meant to say was that IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MY POINT.

And, of course, you did, that is why you jumped on my last post before the ink even dried and I edited it. Funny and I was just talking avout intellectual dishonesty.

Don't be stupid Chrissee. I read a post and responded to what I thought was a statement either in error or just plain dumb. Please tell me how I was supposed to read your mind and know you were going to edit it?

Chrissee wrote:

Again, Baldimo, why aren''t you in Iraq?

What's with all the personal questions? You like prying into the affairs of those you argue with here, don't you ... wondering what type of law I practice ... now quizzing Baldimo on his personal life.

Are you sweet on us?

CR, did I ever mention how much I like you? Let's go have a beer.

True, it is not an issue now and I understand what you were saying. It now makes sense. Thank you.

And have a good day Chrissee.

She is a political activist using her son to further her goals. Where she simply a grieving mother she would not have her face plastered on the news.

The day she decided to make her protest public, she made her life, her decisions and her rhetoric public.

She is a political activist using her son to further her goals. Where she simply a grieving mother she would not have her face plastered on the news.

The day she decided to make her protest public, she made her life, her decisions and her rhetoric public.

CoastalRat wrote:

True, it is not an issue now and I understand what you were saying. It now makes sense. Thank you.

And have a good day Chrissee.

Thanks, sorry I misunderstand your point and your stance. I get a little emotional about Cindy. I have met her, I know a lot of people who know her, she is totally sincere, she doesn't always say the "right thing" and sometimes her rhetoric becomes emotional. But she is NOT a politician and is NOT being handled and it is NOT fair to treat her like a professional politician or even a polished spokesperson. She is grieveing mother just trying to come to terms with wny her son was, in her view, needlessly sacrificed.

McGentrix wrote:

She is a political activist using her son to further her goals. Where she simply a grieving mother she would not have her face plastered on the news.

The day she decided to make her protest public, she made her life, her decisions and her rhetoric public.

Wrong. The mere fact that she has a "politcal agenda" doesn't give the scum of the earth the right to smear her. That you try to paint her as someone who is "using her son to further her goals" reveals much more about you than it does of her.

Ticomaya wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

Again, Baldimo, why aren''t you in Iraq?

What's with all the personal questions? You like prying into the affairs of those you argue with here, don't you ... wondering what type of law I practice ... now quizzing Baldimo on his personal life.

Are you sweet on us?

Us? Actually the mere thought makes me nauseous. Why are you defending Baldimo now. Are you sweet on him?

CoastalRat wrote:

True, it is not an issue now and I understand what you were saying. It now makes sense. Thank you.

And have a good day Chrissee.

Thanks, sorry I misunderstand your point and your stance. I get a little emotional about Cindy. I have met her, I know a lot of people who know her, she is totally sincere, she doesn't always say the "right thing" and sometimes her rhetoric becomes emotional. But she is NOT a politician and is NOT being handled and it is NOT fair to treat her like a professional politician or even a polished spokesperson. She is grieveing mother just trying to come to terms with wny her son was, in her view, needlessly sacrificed.

McGentrix wrote:

She is a political activist using her son to further her goals. Where she simply a grieving mother she would not have her face plastered on the news.

The day she decided to make her protest public, she made her life, her decisions and her rhetoric public.

Contemptible.

Questioning her motivation doesn't mean smearing her in the mode of Rove. But perhaps honest political debate has been lost, shoved out of the collective memory by the smear reflex?