A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Yes - I did lump you together because you were psting in amongst them, and supportively.

What was you actual purpose for cutting and pasting the white supremacist thing if it were not to smear Cindy? Really. What effect do you hope to have by posting these things? What effect do you think you DO have?

The purpose of cutting and pasting the white supremacist thing was to point out that they have embraced her movement.

nope..

Quote:
We don't want leftist Johnny-come-latelys who are misleadingly protesting this war as if the war is about oil (not true), or as if it's right-wing patriots who launched this war (not true) to hijack the issue from us.

We want to challenge these leftists with the fact that their leftist leaders, like Hillary Clinton, are on the same War for Israel team as the cowardly Republicans who have been bought and paid for in the Senate, House, White House, and Media by the Jewish Neocon political machine.

doesn't sound real chummy to me.

I didn't say they were cuddling; just doing the nasty for a bit then going their separate ways.

0 Replies

I just read the past ten pages or so in this thread...let's see if I can summarize.

Tico is saying that, after all his posts in this thread, and all the opinons and statements he has put forth, that he is basically not saying anything. Got it.

And for once, I totally agree with you, Tico.

0 Replies

"The purpose of cutting and pasting the white supremacist thing was to point out that they have embraced her movement. "

The point being?

0 Replies

I would like to know why those who support Cindy seem to bypass the rest of her remarks and center on the ones that only appease to you? It is her remarks and actions that have drawn the ire of those that disagree with her.

0 Replies

I actually do NOT support her.

I simply think the kind of smear campaign being waged against her is improper.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I actually do NOT support her.

I simply think the kind of smear campaign being waged against her is improper.

Par for the course now though. Dare to speak up make sure you have those skeletons in your cupboard well and truly tied down because the smearers will come after you.

0 Replies

Not sure that they are targeting anything so substantial as skeletons.

Like - they rave on about white supremacist associations - while seemingly passing over stuff like she thinks she is channeling her son (if she does - it was a throwaway thing Tico said.)

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Not sure that they are targeting anything so substantial as skeletons.

Like - they rave on about white supremacist associations - while seemingly passing over stuff like she thinks she is channeling her son (if she does - it was a throwaway thing Tico said.)

Good point. Right then. In an effort to avoid engagement with the argument itself they will dredge up all sorts of irrelevant issues to obfuscate, confuse and generally divert the discussion.

Not a skeleton in sight.

0 Replies

Lol - we all have skellingtons.

Shrugs - she MIGHT be the things they claim - I think she is just not very clever - but they sure as hell are sliming her on nothing so far re the jewish and "racist" thing.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Good point. Right then. In an effort to avoid engagement with the argument itself they will dredge up all sorts of irrelevant issues to obfuscate, confuse and generally divert the discussion.

Although not something with which you may have been familiar previously, this sort of tactic comes as no surprise to a regular visitor to political threads here. Beginning with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, and then through the continued failure of administration policy and planning (if ever there were any) in Iraq, the members here supporting the right wing have increasingly relied upon diversion. The policy of the administration is more and more revealed as short-sighted, if not actually blind, and ineffective--so the Right begin to loudly carp about Clinton or Kerry, as though that were relevant to what Bush has done or failed to do.

0 Replies

Thanks Set - there must be a law of human behaviour in there somewhere.

Disappointing too.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

"The purpose of cutting and pasting the white supremacist thing was to point out that they have embraced her movement. "

The point being?

As I said:

"The purpose of cutting and pasting the white supremacist thing was to point out that they have embraced her movement. She may not be racist, but her views are entirely in line with theirs. Make of it what you will, but it appears you will just peer down your nose, sniff, and announce that YOU would never smear."

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Not sure that they are targeting anything so substantial as skeletons.

Like - they rave on about white supremacist associations - while seemingly passing over stuff like she thinks she is channeling her son (if she does - it was a throwaway thing Tico said.)

What is your point by saying this? Do you think we should focus on the fact she thinks she is channeling her son? Why do you think that is more important? Is it more important that focusing on her anti-Israel remarks?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Lol - we all have skellingtons.

Shrugs - she MIGHT be the things they claim - I think she is just not very clever - but they sure as hell are sliming her on nothing so far re the jewish and "racist" thing.

What? You say she "MIGHT" be the things we claim. Then why the hell are your panties all bunched up about the fact these things are being said? You aren't even coming to her defense in substance? You can point out she might or might not be the things she is claimed to be, but I don't understand your dispair that these things are being brought up. It appears you just think she should be insulated from criticism. Why? Because her son died? She has total moral authority on the subject in your view, so she should not be criticized when she grabs the spotlight to push her political agenda?

0 Replies

None of the above Tico. Just that she has a really good point to make.

0 Replies

I have no need to "come to her defence in substance".

It behoves you slimers to attack her with something of substance.

As I have repeatedly said, if you attack her with reasoned debate and substance, I have no problem.

It is the nature of the attack that I react to.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Not sure that they are targeting anything so substantial as skeletons.

Like - they rave on about white supremacist associations - while seemingly passing over stuff like she thinks she is channeling her son (if she does - it was a throwaway thing Tico said.)

What is your point by saying this? Do you think we should focus on the fact she thinks she is channeling her son? Why do you think that is more important? Is it more important that focusing on her anti-Israel remarks?

She has a perfect right to criticise Israel and your government's foreign policy.

You appear to think that criticising either is treason, or some such nonsense. We disagree so fundamentally and utterly on this that there is no crossing the abyss. So be it.

I think her sanity is quite important, given that the media is giving her such a stage for the time - and believing that she is channeling her son (if that is true) gives me some cause to doubt her mental state.

Although, even that is a matter of debate - since I understand numbers of otherwise sane people believe in the same thing - just as lots of folk believe in the invisible friends they call gods, and few call them nuts. It is simply a matter that I consider relevant in looking at the nature of her movement. I have no idea how relevant, cos I am not following it that closely.

Anyway, I agree with those who think this is something the media have picked up only to drop soon.

I hope she has, at least, stirred the sluggish streams of thought in those Americans who believe everything that Bush and Fox tell them.

0 Replies

Anyhoo, speaking professionally, it is actually not extremely unusual for people in grief to believe they can see/hear their loved one - and one does not question their mental state as much at that time as one otherwise might.

Shrugs.

0 Replies

I think anyone who believes in life after death is weird.

But they have a right to think that, doesn't hurt me so I'm not fussed.

Someone can believe they are chanelling someone, doesn't fuss me - though I think it is weird. But then I don't believe prayer does anything either. I think it's sort of strange but it can't hurt.

But I don't think that believing in an afterlife or prayer or being able to channel someone is really bad. I just think it's silly.

But you can hold those beliefs should you wish.

You can also hold other beliefs which don't conflict, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation was all about oil. I am likely to agree with you.
I would think you were still weird about channelling or prayer though.

But I wouldn't hold it against you.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

None of the above Tico. Just that she has a really good point to make.

What is her point? She's made her point already, so what is the point remaining to be made by her?

0 Replies

A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know