I'm no fan of Cindy Sheehan but

joefromchicago wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I see Joe is still enjoying Communois as well.

Hahahahaha! Making up words that sound like insults is pure comedy gold!

Really, cjhsa, you are a laff riot. Why don't you ask McGentrix to teach you all the comical variations on Hillary Clinton's name (starting with my favorite, "Hitlery").

I don't know how I got pulled into this, but always ready to help a brother out.

Hildabeast is a good one. Shrillary as well.

0 Replies

Nice personal attack. See ya!

Note: As far as the armed forces go, no, but I did work in the defense industry for many years. I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

0 Replies

Why would you need a permission slip from anyone to say anything? Noone suggested anyone shouldn't say what they want, when they want it, did they?

Those who advocate violent paths but are loathe to take up arms themselves are hypocrites and cowards, and I'll call them out every single time I see it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nice non-response, coward. You're quick to call others gutless but slow to take action yourself.

I can't remember if I've asked if you've joined the Armed Forces lately. Have you? Or are you all talk?

Cycloptichorn

Previous post in response to this nicety.

0 Replies

put your dicks away boys, none of them are that big. live with it.

0 Replies

Dang, you're right, it is pretty small, sheesh.

Thanks for reminding me the pointlessness of this thread of conversation, tho, bvt.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dang, you're right, it is pretty small, sheesh.

Thanks for reminding me the pointlessness of this thread of conversation, tho, bvt.

Cycloptichorn

I'm keeping mine out of sight by God. Laughing

0 Replies

Good God! Some of the best things humanity has ever done, have been done using forms of non-violent protest. Where better to make a simple statement than at a state of the union address? Her shirt, an apt statement, could have been covered easily, with little confrontation. It should have been the first consideration. This incident is wrong on so many levels.

Defending it is scarier.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why would you need a permission slip from anyone to say anything? Noone suggested anyone shouldn't say what they want, when they want it, did they?

Those who advocate violent paths but are loathe to take up arms themselves are hypocrites and cowards, and I'll call them out every single time I see it.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Nice non-response, coward. You're quick to call others gutless but slow to take action yourself.

I can't remember if I've asked if you've joined the Armed Forces lately. Have you? Or are you all talk?

Cycloptichorn

Those ARE your words,arent they?
The implication is that only those who served can talk.

0 Replies

Ceili wrote:

Good God! Some of the best things humanity has ever done, have been done using forms of non-violent protest. Where better to make a simple statement than at a state of the union address? Her shirt, an apt statement, could have been covered easily, with little confrontation. It should have been the first consideration. This incident is wrong on so many levels.

Defending it is scarier.

and dickless..... Laughing

0 Replies

My dad served, my kids may have to as well. I did my time in other ways.

0 Replies

Well, it isn't that only those who have served, can talk; just that those who advocate America taking up arms against an enemy who did not invade or attack the US should be willing to take up arms personally if they feel that way. Especially someone who is willing to call peace activists and mothers of dead soldiers 'gutless' and 'the reason we are going to have another 9/11.' It's insulting and hypocritical.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

who advocate America taking up arms against an enemy who did not invade or attack the US should be willing to take up arms personally if they feel that way.

Ok,I gotta ask.
Did Bosnia attack us,or invade us?
Did Haiti attack us?

0 Replies

I thought it was/is wrong for the US to intervene in either of those cases, so you have made my point for me.

Besides, this has nothing to do with the current discussion at all, except that I would say that someone who supported those conflicts should have been willing to pick up a rifle and go fight over there for what they believe in.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Including the President?

0 Replies

I don't believe military service should be a pre-requiste for presidency, if that's what you mean. It certainly isn't in the constitution.

The President is the CIC of the armed forces, and therefore has no business holding a weapon of any sort. He does have a responsibility to his troops, however, to take care of them and prosecute the war/conflict effectively. We could argue whether or not the current guy is doing a good job of that, but it most certainly isn't a good idea for any high-ranking officer to act in this fashion, let alone the CIC.

Everyday citizens, on the other hand? Well, everyone has an opinion, and an excuse for why 'they' can't go fight. And yaknow what they say about excuses.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Please allow me to change the subject.

While it is certainly disrespectful to disrupt the SOTU (not saying either woman was doing that), what's wrong with a little disrespect? Is the pres immune from dissent? Didn't he bring this on himself? America is America because we have little respect for authority. I'm proud to be an American with little respect for authority, and see it as my duty to show that disrespect whenever and wherever it is warranted. I'm carrying on a proud tradition. If the president gets his feelings hurt, tough ****.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't believe military service should be a pre-requiste for presidency, if that's what you mean. It certainly isn't in the constitution.

No,I wasnt refering to that at all.
I agree that it shouldnt be a pre-requisite.
I was refering to this...

Quote:

someone who supported those conflicts should have been willing to pick up a rifle and go fight over there for what they believe in.

So I guess my question,which you already answered,is should the President also go fight in a war if he believes in it?
I do wonder why you would exempt the President from fighting in a war he believes in.

I'm not trying to argue,I am truly curious.

0 Replies

I don't worry about the president getting his feelings hurt... it's all his ultra sensitive followers around here I'm worried about....

0 Replies

I agree, FD. It seems to me that the ability to continue one's narrative in the face of opposition/heckling/dissent was once considered one of the great skills of statesmanship. I know the Brits (LE's example notwithstanding) have a much stronger tradition of having to defend one's choices in front of a hostile group.

I think that Bush speaks so badly to begin with, that they are afraid that if he is heckled (the way Clinton used to be, btw) that he will completely lose his thread.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm no fan of Cindy Sheehan but

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know