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

Ticomaya wrote:

But whose double standards are they, nimh?

Yours in this case, Tico.

You were the one who brought up how Sheehan was "channeling" her dead son, but then hastily dismissed reminders about GWB having heard God call on him with a glib non sequitur ("Do you think everyone who believes in God is "nuts"?").

Thats a blatant double standard right here in this thread, and one you got called on.

Ticomaya wrote:

The left proclaims Bush is crazy because he says God called him to be President, but insists that Sheehan be given a pass for claiming to talk to her dead son?

Well, next time I see "the left" doing that, I'll call it on that too. Ive never had much up with the ragging on Bush over that particular remark.

Thing is, nobody in this thread simultaneously proclaimed Bush crazy while giving Sheehan a pass on the same thing. Only one who called Bush nuts for it was dlowan, who had previously already expressed similar worries re: any "imaginary friend" business with Sheehan, and only kinda came back on that when she heard what the "channeling" was supposed to be all about.

So?

I point out your double standard and your defence is, "well its the same double standard I saw some lefties use somewhere else"? Thats supposed to be a defence, or even an argument, how?

Ticomaya wrote:

Frankly, I don't think she hears her dead son talking to her, and I don't think she believes she heard her dead son it talking to her. [..]

But if Sheehan thinks she is having a conversation with her dead son, I think it's an important point to discuss. Don't you?

If, if, if, but you just said that even you dont believe she actually does, so what gives? Even WND only dared state the suggestion with an insinuative question mark.

It simply aint so apparently: all you, in any case, came up with was something that struck me like a figure of speech - and even you didnt actually believe there was any of the alleged channeling, you say.

That tells me a lot, actually - I mean, you gotta wonder, what was the purpose of bringing up an insinuation even you didnt believe in the first place, then? Can anyone spell s-m-e-a-r?

Ticomaya wrote:

And, nimh, I believe you'll find it you check that most of the cheap shots in this thread are coming from the left, and are directed towards me, a fellow A2K'er who happens to disagree with them. :wink:

I think we're basically down to repeated expressions of frustration now... but for you, its a game, you think you're playing a fencing match, and winning if people give up the arguing match...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
But whose double standards are they, nimh?

Yours in this case, Tico.

You were the one who brought up how Sheehan was "channeling" her dead son, but then hastily dismissed reminders about GWB having heard God call on him with a glib non sequitur ("Do you think everyone who believes in God is "nuts"?").

Thats a blatant double standard right here in this thread, and one you got called on.

I disagree, and I explained why in my last post to you.

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The left proclaims Bush is crazy because he says God called him to be President, but insists that Sheehan be given a pass for claiming to talk to her dead son?

Well, next time I see "the left" doing that, I'll call it on that too. Ive never had much up with the ragging on Bush over that particular remark.

Thing is, nobody in this thread simultaneously proclaimed Bush crazy while giving Sheehan a pass on the same thing. Only one who called Bush nuts for it was dlowan, who had previously already expressed similar worries re: any "imaginary friend" business with Sheehan, and only kinda came back on that when she heard what the "channeling" was supposed to be all about.

Deb insists I shouldn't bring it up. Shouldn't talk about the fact that Sheehan thinks she's "channelling" her son. The double standard is the leftists think its fine to criticize the President for saying in private he believes he's been called by God to be President (and I discussed the differences in my view between Bush and Sheehan on this subject in my last post to you), but chastizes the right for pointing out that Sheehan is claiming to have a conversation with her dead son. You don't find that to be a double standard? Huh?

nimh wrote:

I point out your double standard and your defence is, "well its the same double standard I saw some lefties use somewhere else"? Thats supposed to be a defence, or even an argument, how?

You're wrong. You claimed a double standard, and I pointed out the distinction, and explained why it wasn't a double standard. A huge distinction in my mind. While I did point out the Sheehan supporter's double standard (which you can't deny), you are wrong when you say my only defense was to point out the hypocrisy of your leftist brethren.

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Frankly, I don't think she hears her dead son talking to her, and I don't think she believes she heard her dead son it talking to her. [..]

But if Sheehan thinks she is having a conversation with her dead son, I think it's an important point to discuss. Don't you?

If, if, if, but you just said that even you dont believe she actually does, so what gives? Even WND only dared state the suggestion with an insinuative question mark.

What do you mean, "what gives"? Do you not understand what the word "if" means?

nimh wrote:

It simply aint so apparently: all you, in any case, came up with was something that struck me like a figure of speech - and even you didnt actually believe there was any of the alleged channeling, you say.

Correct. I don't think she's "channelling," although Sheehan herself claims she does. She said she converses with her dead son -- just a coincidence that he happens to agree with her position?

So, whether she's a kook, or just a liar, I don't know. I believe she's one or the other with regard to this particular issue you've latched onto.

nimh wrote:

That tells me a lot, actually - I mean, you gotta wonder, what was the purpose of bringing up an insinuation even you didnt believe in the first place, then? Can anyone spell s-m-e-a-r?

The point being that she's either a kook or a liar. Which one do you think she is?

See, I know you and your anti-war friends would prefer to just think of her as a poor, wholesome, grieving mother from California, who's son died in Iraq, and who just wants to ask the President a simple, little question, but the fact is she's a politically motivated, manipulated, lying, possibly nuts, tool of the anti-war movement, who believes she doesn't have to pay taxes for 2004 because her son died, Israel is the cause for all terrorism in the world, Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist, and that Islamic terrorists are "freedom fighters." If you consider pointing all that out "smearing," then that's what I'm doing.

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
And, nimh, I believe you'll find it you check that most of the cheap shots in this thread are coming from the left, and are directed towards me, a fellow A2K'er who happens to disagree with them. :wink:

I think we're basically down to repeated expressions of frustration now... but for you, its a game, you think you're playing a fencing match, and winning if people give up the arguing match...

In all of my posts in this thread, I don't believe I've attacked anyone on a personal level. (Well, I might have told Setanta what I think of him, but that was only after he accused me of lying when he admitted he knew I wasn't.) I've been talking about Cindy Sheehan. Yet I find if very telling that the leftist, anti-war, anti-Bush, Cindy Sheehan supporters are not able to limit their discourse to the subject matter of this thread, and instead find themselves compelled to try and attack Ticomaya, who they apparently view as their enemy here. If you think I'm playing a game, then you folks are playing the game with me, but by different rules. Whether one engages others civilly or not is a personal choice. If I've been less than polite in my responses to any particular poster, it's reactionary only.

0 Replies

tico said:

Quote:

In all of my posts in this thread, I don't believe I've attacked anyone on a personal level.... I've been talking about Cindy Sheehan...If you think I'm playing a game, then you folks are playing the game with me, but by different rules. Whether one engages others civilly or not is a personal choice. If I've been less than polite in my responses to any particular poster, it's reactionary only.

Of what possible relevance might your manners be in this matter? I don't care at all what you might say about me, and I doubt nimh or setanta or others care what you say about them. When we speak about ad hominems and messenger-shooting we aren't speaking about your address to a2k members, but your address to the subjects regarding whom we are all speaking.

Your use of the term 'channeling' carries with it all the smarmy covert baggage you know it carries, and that's why you used it. Your justifications and denials which followed merely demonstrate that you don't have the courage of character to lift yourself past your silly partisan game. You meant it as a slime.

You assume everyone goes about this political discussion pasttime in the same manner and with the same goals as you. It's an incorrect assumption. You use the same assumption as regards all political media and commentary. And you're wrong there too, but you are just too fukking lazy to spend any time investigating the question. Or, you you don't want a world that unsimple.

All of which is a real pity. I like you - you're bright and have a fine humor. But in this arena, you function as a party hack and any of us might turn to newsmax to know precisely what will come out of your mouth.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Deb insists I shouldn't bring it up. Shouldn't talk about the fact that Sheehan thinks she's "channelling" her son.

nooooooooo, me boyo. this is not a fact.

it's a question posed by wnd. i've proven that to you already.

and without mentioning bush, i showed in a very non-partisan way how the average person of faith has expressed having/had a conversation with a deceased person, a belief that they will again speak with a deceased person in heaven and a belief that their are divine beings who can either support or hinder us.

you stated that you indeed believed in the spiritual criteria i outlined.

so what's the hubub, bub ? Very Happy

0 Replies

i've noticed this in blatham's sig line before, but it seems pretty relevant to the current discussion;

"WE ARE ENGAGED IN RESHAPING THE WHOLE NATION THROUGH THE NEWS MEDIA". - Newt Gingrich

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Deb insists I shouldn't bring it up. Shouldn't talk about the fact that Sheehan thinks she's "channelling" her son.

nooooooooo, me boyo. this is not a fact.

it's a question posed by wnd. i've proven that to you already.

Okay, let's say she doesn't think she's "channelling" Casey, she just thinks she's having a conversation with him .... what is the distinction you're trying to parse?

DTOM wrote:

and without mentioning bush, i showed in a very non-partisan way how the average person of faith has expressed having/had a conversation with a deceased person, ...

Okay, perhaps I'm not the "average person of faith," but I've never had a conversation with a dead person.

DTOM wrote:

... a belief that they will again speak with a deceased person in heaven and a belief that their are divine beings who can either support or hinder us.

you stated that you indeed believed in the spiritual criteria i outlined.

Yes.

DTOM wrote:

so what's the hubub, bub ?

I don't think Momma Sheehan conversed with her dead son. Do you?

I think Momma Sheehan will say anything if she thinks it will promote, foster, or encourage her goals and objectives, including stating that she has the ability to hear what Casey is saying in heaven, and he agrees with her.

My belief is she's a liar (for we know that already), and I don't think she believes she's talking with Casey.

What do you think?

0 Replies

I think that if my daughter was killed, as part of my grief I would very likely talk with her, and I'm not even religious.

And if I thought she died in an unjust war, I'd likely speak up -- loudly.

0 Replies

Plus, I hardly think "I can just hear X. say.." or "And I just know that when I meet X up in heaven, he's gonna say..." counts as "conversing with her dead son", as Tico chooses to put it, in the first place. I mean, come on. Its a way of speaking, a turn of phrase. Something someone would say (hell, I can imagine myself saying something of the like, as I already mentioned).

To try to make that into it being about a freak who claims to be "channeling" dead people takes more than a few swallowed scruples and incredulities. Especially if you dont even believe it yourself. Talk about ethically bankrupt.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

tico said:
Quote:
In all of my posts in this thread, I don't believe I've attacked anyone on a personal level.... I've been talking about Cindy Sheehan...If you think I'm playing a game, then you folks are playing the game with me, but by different rules. Whether one engages others civilly or not is a personal choice. If I've been less than polite in my responses to any particular poster, it's reactionary only.

Of what possible relevance might your manners be in this matter? I don't care at all what you might say about me, and I doubt nimh or setanta or others care what you say about them. When we speak about ad hominems and messenger-shooting we aren't speaking about your address to a2k members, but your address to the subjects regarding whom we are all speaking.

And when I refer to YOUR ad hominems and messenger-shooting, I'm speaking about your address to me. That's the relevance.

blatham wrote:

]Your use of the term 'channeling' carries with it all the smarmy covert baggage you know it carries, and that's why you used it.

So you take issue with my use of a word, because you think it carries a "smarmy" connotation? Laughing

Okay, I apologize for saying Sheehan think's she can "channel" her dead son. Instead, I should have simply said Sheehan think's she can have a conversation with her dead son. There, smarm-free.

Better?

blatham wrote:

Your justifications and denials which followed merely demonstrate that you don't have the courage of character to lift yourself past your silly partisan game. You meant it as a slime.

I think she's a politically motivated, manipulated, lying, possibly nuts, tool of the anti-war movement, who believes she doesn't have to pay taxes for 2004 because her son died, Israel is the cause for all terrorism in the world, Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist, and that Islamic terrorists are "freedom fighters." (Maybe you didn't see that in my earlier post.)

If you consider pointing all that out "smearing," then that's what I'm doing.

blatham wrote:

You assume everyone goes about this political discussion pasttime in the same manner and with the same goals as you. ...

That's a bizarre and completely false statement ... the kind you've been prone to lately. Since your wrong there, what you type next is wrong also, whatever it was intended to mean ....

blatham wrote:

It's an incorrect assumption. You use the same assumption as regards all political media and commentary. And you're wrong there too, but you are just too fukking lazy to spend any time investigating the question. Or, you you don't want a world that unsimple.

I'm also too lazy to try and figure out what you're trying to say here.

blatham wrote:

All of which is a real pity. I like you - you're bright and have a fine humor. But in this arena, you function as a party hack and any of us might turn to newsmax to know precisely what will come out of your mouth.

Reading Newsmax might be a nice change for you, Bernie. I can recommend a few other places where you can read good conservative writing ... I don't actually read Newsmax on a regular basis. Well, just let me know.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think that if my daughter was killed, as part of my grief I would very likely talk with her, and I'm not even religious.

And if I thought she died in an unjust war, I'd likely speak up -- loudly.

Well, then by all means consider Cindy Sheehan as a rational and honest women. I'm not trying to tell you how to think. If you think talking to her dead son is perfectly normal and fine, great.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Okay, let's say she doesn't think she's "channelling" Casey, she just thinks she's having a conversation with him .... what is the distinction you're trying to parse?

it's not parsing here, dude.

if one were to stand at the grave of a loved one and have a conversation, such as, "well, martha, i'm sad that you left us so soon. i'm doing my best to raise tad and buffy." and you believed that martha indeed responded with "yes ed, i miss you too. and btw, ed, tad stashes his playboys under the clothes hamper.", it is not considered "channeling". rather it's having a spiritual conversation. as is prayer.

"channeling" is an entirely different event. a channeler is a person who acts as a mere mechanical device for a disembodied spiritual entity. the channeler has no concious involvement in the event, be it content or physical.

just a player for a cd from the other side.

one of the more well known cases is documented in "the seth material" series by jane roberts.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Plus, I hardly think "I can just hear X. say.." or "And I just know that when I meet X up in heaven, he's gonna say..." counts as "conversing with her dead son", as Tico chooses to put it, in the first place. I mean, come on. Its a way of speaking, a turn of phrase. Something someone would say (hell, I can imagine myself saying something of the like, as I already mentioned).

To try to make that into it being about a freak who claims to be "channeling" dead people takes more than a few swallowed scruples and incredulities. Especially if you dont even believe it yourself. Talk about ethically bankrupt.

Y'all doing an awful lot of spinning. "Channeling's okay," "Channeling's a smarmy word," "Talking to a dead relative is okay," "She didn't really mean she was talking to him."

We've already discussed this, nimh. Are you suggesting you would ever try and tell someone, "Well, T. would say __________" as a means of furthering your political argument? Does that sound rational to you? Why would you try and speak for your dead relative. Isn't that wrong on many levels?

0 Replies

I was wondering about that, nimh, I don't even know what the original statement was, and can imagine it was a lot more rational than this "channeling" business.

Tico, I don't know anything in particular about Cindy Sheehan. I am late to these threads, and am reacting more to internal breakdowns of logic in arguments I'm seeing than anything else. I have no particular dog in this fight.

I just see nothing nefarious about the following progression -- a woman loses her son in a war she believes to be unjust. The woman is grieving and angry. The woman decides to do something. Her stand gets attention, and the support of major organizations. She becomes the public face of the anti-war movement -- for a while, anyway.

<shrug>

That all makes sense to me. And something about the woman guessing at what her dead son would think about it, or whatever it was that she actually said, doesn't seem nearly enough to convince me that she is doing anything nefarious. I don't know how rational and logical she is -- I don't imagine I'd be at my most rational and logical after the death of my child. But even if not, does it matter? What she is doing is a cri de coeur -- she's not an elected official in charge of leading a nation or a state or a county or a tiny little town, she's saying, why did my son die? And because this ties in with what a lot of people are asking about this war, she's becoming the focus of a lot of anti-war sentiment. Makes sense to me.

0 Replies

Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?

0 Replies

She gave birth to him. She knew him all of his life. Why wouldn't she have a good idea of what he would think about this?

If my husband died tomorrow (knock on wood), I'd be able to "see" him saying all kinds of things about situations he'd never actually faced, simply because I know him very well.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?

hah! no. i'm not gonna let you off that easy.. Laughing

not "because it has a smarmy connotation". because calling her activities "channeling" is inaccurate. i've explained the difference to you.

now, repeat after me; "sheehan's spiritual conversation with her son is not channelling because they are two different events. and cindy sheehan has never publicly claimed to channel her dead son."

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I disagree, and I explained why in my last post to you.

Ticomaya wrote:

You claimed a double standard, and I pointed out the distinction, and explained why it wasn't a double standard. A huge distinction in my mind

Ticomaya wrote:

Deb insists I shouldn't bring it up. Shouldn't talk about the fact that Sheehan thinks she's "channelling" her son. The double standard is the leftists think its fine to criticize the President for saying in private he believes he's been called by God to be President (and I discussed the differences in my view between Bush and Sheehan on this subject in my last post to you)

Hardly, no matter how many times you repeat that you did.

In that much-referenced post, you discussed why you thought that GWB saying he believed God wanted him to be president didn't amount to him being nuts, the way dlowan saw it. That its just a thing "some people say", when they're religious.

I agree.

The only thing you then wrote to assert how the thing Sheehan said is different - to assert that when she went, "I can just hear him say", it's not just something "some people say" when they talk of a loved one who passed away, but a sign of something potentially more serious, yeah, proof that she needs therapy, was this:

Quote:

But if Sheehan thinks she is having a conversation with her dead son, I think it's an important point to discuss. Don't you?

Thats it. That was the extent of the "huge distinction" you made.

Now the problem with that distinction is that you yourself already negated it already in the very same post:

Quote:

Frankly, I don't think she hears her dead son talking to her, and I don't think she believes she heard her dead son it talking to her.

Basically, you DONT believe she has conversations with her dead son, but you want us to discuss it anyway because its an important point to discuss if she does.

You're biting yourself in your tail here.

(Coming soon in a circus near you: Nimh insisting that conservatives discuss his thesis about massive voter fraud, even though he doesnt actually even believe it himself, and then claiming they are hypocritical and idealising their frontmen if they dismiss the issue out of hand the way he would have, himself. And other surreal spectacles.)

Summarising, your argument now appears to consist of two planks:

1) If a man says, "God told me to do that", thats just something "some people say", a way of speaking if you're religious. (See this post).

But if a woman says, "I can just hear Frankie say" and "I just know that when I meet Frankie up in heaven, he's gonna say...", then they're "having conversations with a dead man". Which would only to a parser be different from "channeling" a dead person.

And someone who says something like that is obviously "ripe for therapy".

Now with the man, if folks like him claim "to hear a small voice that guides them", then obviously, you gotta reflect that you "don't know whether they actually hear a voice at all, or are just being pushed and pulled by their consciences."

But when the woman talks of feeling that her son is with the angels and they're on her side, then no such benevolent assumptions of metaphor apply: she must literally mean her son is speaking to her.

There's your double standard.

Then, the kicker: 2), the resulting assertion of the woman "having conversations with a dead man" is then presented as "an important point to discuss" even though you dont actually believe it yourself.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The double standard is the leftists think its fine to criticize the President for saying in private he believes he's been called by God to be President [..] but chastizes the right for pointing out that Sheehan is claiming to have a conversation with her dead son. You don't find that to be a double standard? Huh?

"Huh?", indeed.

Eh, yes, as a matter of fact I do find that to be a double standard. Thought I already said as much, literally (Well, next time I see "the left" doing that, I'll call it on that too, and all that).

But as I already pointed out, your problem here is that none of the many "leftists" here actually made that point, in any of the 32 pages of this thread. You're the only one who applied said double standard here, the other way round, which was remarked upon.

Circus of the surreal. Deflecting someone who calls you out on a double standard by indignantly accusing him of not speaking up about an equivalent double standard, which wasnt actually used on the thread and that he had actually already rejected.

Ticomaya wrote:

Y'all doing an awful lot of spinning. "Channeling's okay," "Channeling's a smarmy word," "Talking to a dead relative is okay," "She didn't really mean she was talking to him."

It might help to distinguish between who said what. Just cause Blatham, say, argued something and I argued something else, doesnt mean we are "doing an awful lot of spinning" - we might just be individually making separate arguments that each may well be fully consistent.

I, for one, have been arguing the same line consistently here. I think that what she said is something I can imagine a buncha folks saying like that without meaning they believed they were having a literal conversation with a dead man at all. In fact, I've argued it takes a particular malevolent and tunnel-vision perspective to get that out of what she said at all.

And yes, the same goes for Bush and the God thing. I've never joined the line that his remark showed he was nuts. So I have a pretty straightforward line here.

You, though...

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting you would ever try and tell someone, "Well, T. would say __________" as a means of furthering your political argument?

Your problem here: thats not what she said. If yer gonna paraphrase her, use the actual quotes like I did, 'k? Again, these are those fearsome "conversing with a dead man" phrases:

"When I get up [to heaven], he's gonna say, ..."
"And I can just hear him saying, ..."

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Okay, DTOM. I think I've addressed this by now. I've promised to not call it "channeling" because it has a smarmy connotation.

How about this: Sheehan thinks she knows what her dead son is thinking? Will that work for everyone?

hah! no. i'm not gonna let you off that easy..

not "because it has a smarmy connotation". because calling her activities "channeling" is inaccurate. i've explained the difference to you.

now, repeat after me; "sheehan's spiritual conversation with her son is not channelling because they are two different events. and cindy sheehan has never publicly claimed to channel her dead son."

She has claimed to know what he is thinking. Please tell me how she is able to do this if she isn't "channeling."

Quote:

"When I get up [to heaven], he's gonna say, 'Good job, mom,'" the California woman said in a speech last night upon her return to Crawford, Texas. "He's not going to say, 'Why'd you make me spin in my grave?' you know. And I can just hear him saying, 'George Bush, you are really an idiot. You didn't know what you were doing when you killed me. You didn't know what you were getting into.'"

I agree Sheehand has never publicly claimed to "channel her dead son."

0 Replies

Thanks for the exact quote, I've been curious. That's what you're het up about?? Again, I can easily imagine saying something similar about my husband -- I know him very well, I can easily imagine how he would react to any given situation. I don't believe in the afterlife, so that specific part doesn't apply, but the point is clearly that she thinks that he would approve of what she is doing. As his mother, I think she has some basis for assuming she would know what he'd think.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know