|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hey. We agree about something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
September 28, 2005
Why I Was Smiling and Hurricane Rita
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan
I had a huge grin on my face when I was getting arrested. I have received a lot of flak for smiling. Apparently I am not supposed to smile, but I had some really good reasons for doing so.
First of all, I was having fun. I was with a group of good-humored, cheerful, happy people. We were singing old protest songs and old Sunday school songs and clapping. I felt I had to be cheerful to set the tone. We didn't want any trouble or to do anything non-peaceful. Secondly, when I got arrested and the officers lifted me out I was afraid that America would see my underwear and that tickled me.
There is another and more important reason that I was smiling. I had not genuinely smiled since Casey was killed in Iraq. I thought my hope was buried along with my son and I was in a pit of hopeless despair. Camp Casey gave me back my hope because America came out in huge numbers to support us and they raised their voices with ours in unison to take our country back and to hold this administration accountable for the lies and mistakes that are killing tens of thousands of innocent people. There were hundreds of thousands of regular Americans who came out to protest the war and Bush's policies this past Saturday. Hundreds of faithful Americans turned out for our interfaith religious service Sunday night next to the Washington Monument. The so-called religious right doesn't have a monopoly on God. I am so pleased that the people of America are becoming active participants in Democracy and America is ready to put their money where their collective mouths are: to bring our troops home and hold BushCo accountable. It is a wonderful thing to be doing something that makes a difference and it is a wonderful and miraculous thing to have my hope back. That is why I am smiling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hanson
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Y'know, Bobster & Joo, with time well spent, instead of arguing with each other, you'd both have completed a (or another) MA degree by now... 
Last edited by Hanson on Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:16 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Radical left discredits war protests
By Robert J. Caldwell
October 2, 2005
Most Americans have never heard of International ANSWER or United For Peace and Justice, the organizers and joint sponsors of last weekend's anti-Iraq war protests in Washington and other cities. Indeed, it's a safe bet that many thousands of the protestors themselves knew next to nothing about IA or UFPJ.
Press coverage of these protests, the largest yet against U.S. policy in Iraq, might have – should have – told us something useful about the two groups that organized them. Instead, we got only journalistic pablum from the nation's supposedly elite newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The Times' dewey-eyed coverage described the ANSWER coalition as encompassing "a wide range of progressive political objectives." The Washington Post's cursory description of both groups was so deficient and misleading that it was bravely denounced by that newspaper's own media critic, Howard Kurtz.
Wrote Kurtz: "I wonder if the media would have resorted to such shorthand in covering a group as far to the right as ANSWER is to the left."
So, just what is International ANSWER and United For Peace and Justice? Not what you might think from reading the New York Times and the Washington Post.
ANSWER is an acronym for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. If that sounds reasonable enough (the ideologically savvy, however, will already smell the radical left), there is something else you should know. ANSWER's parent organization is the Worker's World Party, a hard-line communist faction that split off from the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.
Journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, an acknowledged authority on the left, describes the WWP thusly in a recent online article for Slate: "...openly supports (North Korea's) Kim Jong-Il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the 'resistance' in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In his Slate essay, aptly entitled "Anti-War, My Foot," Hitchens flays the WWP and its clone, ANSWER:
"To be against war and militarism...is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as 'anti-war' when in reality they are straight out pro-war, but on the other side."
ANSWER was founded immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. It's declared purpose – oppose America's war on terror, including the elimination of Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. ANSWER depicts the United States and the Bush administration as the real terrorists threatening the world. The jihaddist killers deliberately slaughtering Iraqi civilians get a pass, if not an endorsement, from ANSWER's cadres and comrades.
Some on the liberal-left may denounced these unsettling truths as latter-day "red baiting." Not so. Two of the best reported early exposes of ANSWER were written by David Corn and Marc Cooper, left-leaning journalists who argued that the radical left was hijacking and discrediting the anti-war movement.
And what of ANSWER's coalition partner, United For Peace and Justice?
Like its partner, UFPJ is ostensibly anti-war, specifically anti-Iraq war and anti-war on terror. But its visceral motivations are clearly broader – anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Israel. UFPJ's co-chair and principal leader is Leslie Cagan, an avowed socialist and, for the past 35 years, a staunch defender of Castro's communist dictatorship in Cuba.
Like ANSWER, UFPJ opposed not only the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein but also ouster of the terrorist-harboring Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
United For Peace and Justice bills itself as a coalition of more than 800 local organizations. It was founded in 2002, reportedly to put a less militant, less radical face on the anti-Iraq war movement. Hitchens calls UFPJ an alliance between the "Old and New Left." Whatever its ideological pose, its hate-America, hate-Bush message betrays it as far out of the American mainstream.
It's on this point, precisely, that International ANSWER and United For Peace and Justice are hurting, not helping, the anti – Iraq war cause. So long as this so-called anti-war movement is dominated by the hard left, and personified by extremist flakes like Cindy Sheehan, it cannot appeal to the broad middle ground of American politics from which policy is made.
Not a single U.S. senator and only a handful of members in the House of Representatives favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq; the goal of both International ANSWER and United For Peace and Justice. Despite the estimated 100,000 protestors mobilized in Washington last weekend by ANSWER and UFPJ, the hate-America message doesn't sell beyond the marginal fringe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caldwell is editor of the Insight section and can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051002/news_mz1e2caldwel.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| So long as this so-called anti-war movement is dominated by the hard left, and personified by extremist flakes like Cindy Sheehan, it cannot appeal to the broad middle ground of American politics from which policy is made. |
Congratulations. You posted a long article about the demonstrations and managed to find ONE SENTENCE in it that mentioned Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately, the sentence contains, not one, but two lies, and possibly more ...
ONE - No evidence is given that ANSWER or any other group that one might call extremist or hard left "dominates" the anti-war movement. The author makes no attempt to do so, and neither have you.
TWO - The author is free to call anyone he likes an "extremist flake," but he's betterf off - as are you - to attempt to show it in some way. He didn't even bother to try, and as for you, every attempt you have made on this thread to do so has failed terribly, and in the end it is you that has ended up looking rather extremist yourself. (David Duke, indeed.)
The concluding clause of the above quote also offers no support, nor even attempts to provide any clue that such exists. The "broad middle ground" it speaks of is very, VERY far from the policies and actions perpetrated by the Bush administration. VERY far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster
| Quote: |
| Congratulations. You posted a long article about the demonstrations and managed to find ONE SENTENCE in it that mentioned Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately, the sentence contains, not one, but two lies, and possibly more ... |
that is the Bobster taking. Huh
bob
| Quote: |
| ONE - No evidence is given that ANSWER or any other group that one might call extremist or hard left "dominates" the anti-war movement. The author makes no attempt to do so, and neither have you. |
| Quote: |
| ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice are the main anti-war organizers.... |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/war_protest
| Quote: |
| TWO - The author is free to call anyone he likes an "extremist flake," but he's betterf off - as are you - to attempt to show it in some way. He didn't even bother to try, and as for you, every attempt you have made on this thread to do so has failed terribly, and in the end it is you that has ended up looking rather extremist yourself. (David Duke, indeed.) |
| Quote: |
Rhetoric
In her anti-war speeches and writings, Sheehan is blunt and often vitriolic, a characteristic that has been noted by observers on both the left and right, and which Sheehan herself does not deny [21]. Some of her statements have caused controversy.
Of greatest controversy is an incident about which Sheehan's detractors claim she has lied. In March, 2005, James Morris sent an e-mail, written by Sheehan, to ABC's Nightline that allegedly included the statements that Casey "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and that he had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan claims that the email was modified by James Morris to support his own personal agenda, and that she did not write the statements about Israel and a "PNAC Neo-con agenda." [22] [23] However, James Morris denies altering the email before sending it along to Nightline [24] on Sheehan's behalf (per her request for him to do so). Two other individuals, Tony Tersch and Skeeter Gallagher, received a copy of Sheehan's email directly from her; both claim that the e-mail they received is consistent with Morris's story, rather than Sheehan's. Tersch posted the email he received to the "bullyard" Google group [25]. Opponents of Sheehan assert that this essentially proves that she has repeatedly lied about the content of her original e-mail[26].
Sheehan also gave a speech on August 5, 2005, at the Veterans for Peace convention in Texas, stating, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine". [27] http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html]
In a letter to author William Rivers Pitt, she stated, "And most importantly and devastatingly, this war is based on lies and betrayals. Not one American soldier, nor one Iraqi should have been killed. Common sense would dictate that not one more person should be killed for lies. One of the people, my son, was more than enough for me and my family. I will live in unbearable pain until I die. First of all, because my first born was killed violently, and second of all, because he was killed for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world. This agenda and their war machine will chew up and spit out as many of our children as they can unless we stop them now." [28]
In a column relating her experience on a June 28, 2005 Larry King Live show, Sheehan described President Bush as having "moronic and callous foreign policies" and said Senator John Warner "fell in lockstep behind his Führer." She said, "this war is a catastrophe" and "we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide." [29]
In an August 15, 2005 interview [30] on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Sheehan told Matthews that she thought she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was "almost the same thing" as the Iraq war and that in both cases it was wrong to invade an entire country to fight an ideology that did not necessarily represent all of the people of that country. When Matthews pointed out that "...Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11," Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan." Sheehan also argued that American efforts in Afghanistan were not "having any success" and that "our troops should be brought home [from both Iraq and Afghanistan]."
In a speech given on April 27, 2005 at San Francisco State University, Sheehan is quoted as stating "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We��re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." [31] Similarly, Sheehan wrote that "Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal." [32]\
At the same speech, Sheehan also claimed that "We (the United States) are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now."[33].
In an interview given to Mark Knoller of CBS, Sheehan states her belief that the Iraq War has made terrorism worse and referred to the foreign insurgents coming to Iraq as "freedom fighters". "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in..." [34]
On August 31, Sheehan wrote that "George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego, so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused. Recovery would be easier and much quicker if almost �� of the three states involved National Guard were not in Iraq." [35]
On September 16, Sheehan likened the National Guard presence in New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina relief to that of occupied Iraq stating, "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power." [36]
On September 24, Sheehan wrote "i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!"[37] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ONE - No evidence is given that ANSWER or any other group that one might call extremist or hard left "dominates" the anti-war movement. The author makes no attempt to do so, and neither have you. |
| Quote: |
| ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice are the main anti-war organizers.... |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050923/ap_on_go_pr_wh/war_protest
|
For whatever reason, the link above doesn't seem to connect to anything. Seems dead, in fact, not unlike your powers of reasoning, and your credibility around here.
While I cannot access it to find the entire context, what I suspect is that the words that come after the ellipsis (...) are likely something like " of the demonstration." I have to guess that but it seems logical because the url above seems clearly to link to an article about the demonstration rather than anything speaking of the anti-war movement as a whole.
No one has disputed what is true, that these organizations filed the paperwork to get permits for the event - that is a far cry from saying that the anti-war movement, which is wide-ranging and encompasses Quakers and military families and unrepentant communists, is "dominated by the hard left." Again, he has asserted it, and offered no proof. Neither have you.
Just as he, and you, have done in calling Cindy an "extremist flake." Assertions are made, names are called - there is no argument given, no evidence suggested.
It is important to a lot of people to make Cindy look like other than what she is - when I look at who those people are and notice the stake they have in squashing public debate about the soundness of this war, I can very easily see why they are afraid of her.
I don't see much in the wiki article about her that has not been said elsewhere by other people who are usually not considered extremists. I really don't know why you wasted bandwidth quoting large parts of an article that has already been quoted on another page of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| For whatever reason, the link above doesn't seem to connect to anything. Seems dead, in fact, not unlike your powers of reasoning, and your credibility around here. |
Bribe a poster bob.
| Quote: |
| No one has disputed what is true, that these organizations filed the paperwork to get permits for the event - that is a far cry from saying that the anti-war movement, which is wide-ranging and encompasses Quakers and military families and unrepentant communists, is "dominated by the hard left." Again, he has asserted it, and offered no proof. Neither have you. |
| Quote: |
| Just as he, and you, have done in calling Cindy an "extremist flake." Assertions are made, names are called - there is no argument given, no evidence suggested. |
Rhetoric
In her anti-war speeches and writings, Sheehan is blunt and often vitriolic, a characteristic that has been noted by observers on both the left and right, and which Sheehan herself does not deny [21]. Some of her statements have caused controversy.
Of greatest controversy is an incident about which Sheehan's detractors claim she has lied. In March, 2005, James Morris sent an e-mail, written by Sheehan, to ABC's Nightline that allegedly included the statements that Casey "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and that he had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan claims that the email was modified by James Morris to support his own personal agenda, and that she did not write the statements about Israel and a "PNAC Neo-con agenda." [22] [23] However, James Morris denies altering the email before sending it along to Nightline [24] on Sheehan's behalf (per her request for him to do so). Two other individuals, Tony Tersch and Skeeter Gallagher, received a copy of Sheehan's email directly from her; both claim that the e-mail they received is consistent with Morris's story, rather than Sheehan's. Tersch posted the email he received to the "bullyard" Google group [25]. Opponents of Sheehan assert that this essentially proves that she has repeatedly lied about the content of her original e-mail[26].
Sheehan also gave a speech on August 5, 2005, at the Veterans for Peace convention in Texas, stating, "You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine". [27] [28]
In a letter to author William Rivers Pitt, she stated, "And most importantly and devastatingly, this war is based on lies and betrayals. Not one American soldier, nor one Iraqi should have been killed. Common sense would dictate that not one more person should be killed for lies. One of the people, my son, was more than enough for me and my family. I will live in unbearable pain until I die. First of all, because my first born was killed violently, and second of all, because he was killed for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world. This agenda and their war machine will chew up and spit out as many of our children as they can unless we stop them now." [29]
In a column relating her experience on a June 28, 2005 Larry King Live show, Sheehan described President Bush as having "moronic and callous foreign policies" and said Senator John Warner "fell in lockstep behind his Führer." She said, "this war is a catastrophe" and "we should bring the troops home and quit forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our government's hubris and quit forcing innocent children to suffer so we can allegedly fight terrorism somewhere besides America. How absolutely racist and immoral is it to take America's battles to another land and make an entire country pay for the crimes of others? To me, this is blatant genocide." [30]
In an August 15, 2005 interview [31] on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Sheehan told Matthews that she thought she would not have responded differently to her son's death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was "almost the same thing" as the Iraq war and that in both cases it was wrong to invade an entire country to fight an ideology that did not necessarily represent all of the people of that country. When Matthews pointed out that "...Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11," Sheehan replied, "Well then we should have gone after Al-Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan." Sheehan also argued that American efforts in Afghanistan were not "having any success" and that "our troops should be brought home [from both Iraq and Afghanistan]."
In a speech given on April 27, 2005 at San Francisco State University, Sheehan is quoted as stating "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We��re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." [32] Similarly, Sheehan wrote that "Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal." [33]\
At the same speech, Sheehan also claimed that "We (the United States) are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now."[34].
In an interview given to Mark Knoller of CBS, Sheehan states her belief that the Iraq War has made terrorism worse and referred to the foreign insurgents coming to Iraq as "freedom fighters". "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in..." [35]
On August 31, Sheehan wrote that "George is finished playing golf and telling his fables in San Diego, so he will be heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused. Recovery would be easier and much quicker if almost �� of the three states involved National Guard were not in Iraq." [36]
On September 16, Sheehan likened the National Guard presence in New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina relief to that of occupied Iraq stating, "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power." [37]
On September 24, Sheehan wrote "i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!"[38]
| Quote: |
| It is important to a lot of people to make Cindy look like other than what she is - when I look at who those people are and notice the stake they have in squashing public debate about the soundness of this war, I can very easily see why they are afraid of her. |
I think the democrats are afraid to be too close to her. They should be
| Quote: |
| I don't see much in the wiki article about her that has not been said elsewhere by other people who are usually not considered extremists. I really don't know why you wasted bandwidth quoting large parts of an article that has already been quoted on another page of this thread.[ |
Has anyone all together said what she has?
What she says alltogether tells what she is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What she says alltogether tells what she is. |
I think that is quite right - and we've also seen, from the very first page of this thread, that just about everything she has said has already been said by others besides her. The tactics have been those of looking for minutiae within the many thhings she has said and written and then trying to put them into a context of convenience - because the right has decided she is dangerous.
Here is a recent piece from her that I doubt her detractors are interested in quoting from ...
From Despair to Hope
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Cindy Sheehan
We realized that at Camp Casey we remembered something after almost 5 years of a virtual dictatorship of control we have in America now: we the people have all the power. We the people NEED to exercise our rights and responsibilities as Americans to dissent from an irresponsible, reckless, ignorant and arrogant government. We realized, a little late, but not too late, that when George said: "If you're not for us, your against us," we all should have risen in angry, righteous and patriotic unison and said: "You are damn right you lying, out of control madman. We are so against you and your insane rush to invade Iraq."
We didn't rise up then, but Camp Casey taught us that it is okay to raise your voices against the government. Not only is it "okay" but it is mandatory if your government is responsible for killing innocents. It is mandatory if there are no other checks and balances in place that we the people be the checks and balances on the media and government.
I thought all my hope was KIA on the same day Casey was KIA. Carly's poem gave me a reason to live. Camp Casey with its wonderful feelings of love, acceptance, peace, community, joy, and yes, optimism for our future, gave me back my desire to live. I can now smile and laugh and even mean it most of the time. These things we often take for granted but I never will again.
Living with hope that our world will one day exist in a paradigm of peace, love, and non-violent conflict resolution is a very good way to exist. I love being alive now and will devote my life to peace with justice so our children will never, ever be misused by the war machine again.
Thank you, America.
Thank you, Casey
Yes, militia leaders talk like this all the time ... 
The right is correct to be afraid of her. The polls tell us that more and more are coming to see things her way, and fewer and fewer Bush's way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But we know her opinion of Iraq and when she compares it US actions to those NO she very well could be saying that Occupation = War . In other words she is implying that US troops in New Orleans = aggression by the US government against Americans. That the danger is not from Al Qaida but from the US government and that Bush is using the army to take over.
That is kind of what Militas think, they think the real threat is from the US government that is why they insist of being armed
She has such hatred for Bush that she is now using the New Orleans tragedy as a way to promote her anti US government agenda. Remember she is a fan of Lynn Stewart someone who also hates the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| She has such hatred for Bush that she is now using the New Orleans tragedy as a way to promote her anti US government agenda. |
There is nothing in the above-posted article that refers in any way to New Orleans, and therefore, I think you are wierd - or does the word "now" have some other meaning besides October 10, 2005?
Clue : the out-of-context quote that provided the initial set of misleading innuendo that made up the OP was published in Michael Moore's blog on September 16. This is not "now." It was almost a month ago. Since then, she has said a lot of other stuff, and a lot of other people have said things not terribly different from what she says.
She has never promoted an "anti-Us government agenda." She is against Bush, one very particular president, and against Bush's war.
What has not yet been commented on is just why this single adult woman is seen as so dangerous to the right that they devote so much energy to smearing her person rather than discussing the merits of the questions she asks - the answer is clear : what is most desired by them is that the questions never be asked at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is nothing in the above-posted article that refers in any way to New Orleans, and therefore, I think you are wierd - or does the word "now" have some other meaning besides October 10, 2005? |
Your opinon doesn't mean much.
| Quote: |
| Clue : the out-of-context quote that provided the initial set of misleading innuendo that made up the OP was published in Michael Moore's blog on September 16. This is not "now." It was almost a month ago. Since then, she has said a lot of other stuff, and a lot of other people have said things not terribly different from what she says. |
Bob let the mayor of New Orleans call for the withdrawal of US forces. No one mainstream has called for it, even suggested it.
Only she has , and it is pretty clear why she has.
But I did it the same way Wikipedia did it
| Quote: |
| On September 16, Sheehan likened the National Guard presence in New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina relief to that of occupied Iraq stating, "George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power." |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
IF it is good enough for them then it is good enough for me.
Bob has a problem with this yet a unbiased source did likewise .
More proof that the Bobsters' views are out side the mainstream
| Quote: |
| She has never promoted an "anti-Us government agenda." She is against Bush, one very particular president, and against Bush's war. |
She compares the US army in NO to the US army's role in Iraq. we know her opinon about that.
| Quote: |
| a speech given on April 27, 2005 at San Francisco State University, Sheehan is quoted as stating "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We��re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush." [32] Similarly, Sheehan wrote that "Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal." [33 |
She thinks the insurgents are freedom fighters (well she is not the only moonbat who thinks so - right? )
| Quote: |
| an interview given to Mark Knoller of CBS, Sheehan states her belief that the Iraq War has made terrorism worse and referred to the foreign insurgents coming to Iraq as "freedom fighters". "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in..." [35] |
she likes Lynn Stewart.
| Quote: |
| What has not yet been commented on is just why this single adult woman is seen as so dangerous to the right that they devote so much energy to smearing her person rather than discussing the merits of the questions she asks - the answer is clear : what is most desired by them is that the questions never be asked at all. |
What is interesting to is that the democrats don't want to be close to her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is nothing in the above-posted article that refers in any way to New Orleans, and therefore, I think you are wierd - or does the word "now" have some other meaning besides October 10, 2005? |
Your opinon doesn't mean much. |
How does September 16 equal "now?" That is why you are wierd.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Clue : the out-of-context quote that provided the initial set of misleading innuendo that made up the OP was published in Michael Moore's blog on September 16. This is not "now." It was almost a month ago. Since then, she has said a lot of other stuff, and a lot of other people have said things not terribly different from what she says. |
Bob let the mayor of New Orleans call for the withdrawal of US forces. No one mainstream has called for it, even suggested it. |
Perhaps they ought to have listened to her ... have you read the news today?
New Orleans Cops Charged in Taped Beating
By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 34 minutes ago
Two of the officers in the video appeared to be federal officers. Numerous agencies have sent police to help with patrols in the aftermath of Katrina, and Defillo said it would be up to their commanders to decide if they would face charges.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but one of the many points I've made on this thread which you never even came close to addressing was the question of what might ensue if video footage came out of a shooting by American military upon a black citizen of N.O. That still hasn't happened yet, but it appears we came close ...
What really is the use of armed military men trained in the use of force in a war zone - in an American urban center that has just suffered an enormous disaster. Soldiers are not often trained for disaster-relief, you know, more along the lines of disaster-creation.
| Quote: |
| But I did it the same way Wikipedia did it |
Untrue, definitely untrue, as I pointed out earlier. Wiki says a lot of things about Cindy, not all of it negative - unlike them, you posted exactly ONE thing and several people here later amended or retracted statements they had made about her after being shown more context ... and I was the one who had to do that, since you are completely uninterested in giving a clear picture.
But, Joo, even when you quote from wiki, you concentrate on the negative and ignore the other things about Cindy that don't fit your little game. And you compare yourself?
| Quote: |
| IF it is good enough for them then it is good enough for me. |
You really ought not to be comparing yourself to an "unbiased source" like wikipedia. It's only good for laughter at your expense.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| She has never promoted an "anti-Us government agenda." She is against Bush, one very particular president, and against Bush's war. |
She compares the US army in NO to the US army's role in Iraq. we know her opinon about that. |
Is it really anti-US government agenda" to oppose Bush and his failed adventurism in Iraq? No, it is not, because George Bush is not the US govt - it is actually far more patriotic to do oppose bad leadership than to do otherwise, my friend.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| What has not yet been commented on is just why this single adult woman is seen as so dangerous to the right that they devote so much energy to smearing her person rather than discussing the merits of the questions she asks - the answer is clear : what is most desired by them is that the questions never be asked at all. |
What is interesting to is that the democrats don't want to be close to her. |
Not taking a definite and coherent stand on the Iraq War is a large part of why the Dems lost last time. It's long past time they got wise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How does September 16 equal "now?" That is why you are wierd. |
but we know her opinion of Iraq and we know what she said then.
anyway your opinion doesn't mean much.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps they ought to have listened to her ... have you read the news today? |
that one event means ? Let the mayor call for it. He has the best interests of the people there at heart unlike Cindy Sheehan
[size=24
| Quote: |
| Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but one of the many points I've made on this thread which you never even came close to addressing was the question of what might ensue if video footage came out of a shooting by American military upon a black citizen of N.O. That still hasn't happened yet, but it appears we came close ... |
Cops did it not soldiers.
| Quote: |
| What really is the use of armed military men trained in the use of force in a war zone - in an American urban center that has just suffered an enormous disaster. Soldiers are not often trained for disaster-relief, you know, more along the lines of disaster-creation. |
Let the mayor decide.
| Quote: |
| Untrue, definitely untrue, as I pointed out earlier. Wiki says a lot of things about Cindy, not all of it negative - unlike them, you posted exactly ONE thing and several people here later amended or retracted statements they had made about her after being shown more context ... and I was the one who had to do that, since you are completely uninterested in giving a clear picture. |
they put it all into a catagory called her Rhetoric. It tells what she is about.
and lets remember she is also a friend of the terrorist supporter Lynn Stewart.
| Quote: |
| But, Joo, even when you quote from wiki, you concentrate on the negative and ignore the other things about Cindy that don't fit your little game. And you compare yourself? |
that is the important stuff.
| Quote: |
| You really ought not to be comparing yourself to an "unbiased source" like wikipedia. It's only good for laughter at your expense. |
Her rhetoric tells about her.
| Quote: |
| Is it really anti-US government agenda" to oppose Bush and his failed adventurism in Iraq? No, it is not, because George Bush is not the US govt - it is actually far more patriotic to do oppose bad leadership than to do otherwise, my friend. |
she calls the insurgents freedom fighters.
Anyone who is worried that the US is too powerful and thinks that any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned isn't pro US.
| Quote: |
| Not taking a definite and coherent stand on the Iraq War is a large part of why the Dems lost last time. It's long past time they got wise. |
where is the proof?
| Quote: |
Sheehan-igans
The anti-war ranting may drown the sympathy for a mother's grief
Oct. 10, 2005 12:00 AM
Yes, it was commendable of Sen. John McCain to meet recently with grieving mother and anti-Iraq war activist Cindy Sheehan.
But the results of that meeting, as well as other Sheehan meetings with lawmakers of obvious patience and goodwill, provides a window into what might have occurred had President Bush agreed to meet Sheehan.
The results were far from pretty.
Sheehan's comments have proved anything but civil. There is good reason to doubt she even recounts the dialogues fairly. And they certainly could not be construed as progressive in any meaningful sense.
McCain met with Sheehan and her contingent for about 20 minutes.
According to Sheehan, McCain told her that he feared the death of her son, Casey Sheehan, in Iraq was "like his buddies in Vietnam," and that he also feared Casey's death was "for nothing."
Considering how grossly improbable it was that McCain would have said such a thing, it was not surprising to hear his bristling comments in response: "That's ludicrous. I've never said anything like that."
Not surprising, too, was the fact that Sheehan's camp followers appear to have misled the senator into believing she would bring with her a cohort of Arizona constituents. She did not.
In a letter on the online Huffington Post, Sheehan later attacked McCain, two other GOP lawmakers who also met with her, Democrats who have voiced support for the war and even anti-war Democrats who are (in her view) insufficiently sulphurous in their condemnation of "George and his cabal of liars."
By now, the nation is becoming just as familiar with Sheehan's often-profane intemperance as they are with her tragic loss.
Her screeds against Israel, her astonishing references to the "occupation" of New Orleans by federal troops and a fast-growing list of other vituperations wholly unrelated to Iraq suggest more political zealotry, and less the absolute moral authority of her loss.
No doubt it thrills her MoveOn.org base of radicals to exit a meeting with Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and snidely dismiss her as a "patronizing war-hawkette."
But it does nothing for resolving the complex and difficult choices that lie ahead regarding Iraq.
And it certainly does nothing to bolster the fundamental premise for her celebrity, which is her insistence that Bush should have met with her for a second time. |
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1010mon2-10.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| anyway your opinion doesn't mean much. |
How is September 16 equal to now? And was it not a wierd thing for you to say?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Untrue, definitely untrue, as I pointed out earlier. Wiki says a lot of things about Cindy, not all of it negative - unlike them, you posted exactly ONE thing and several people here later amended or retracted statements they had made about her after being shown more context ... and I was the one who had to do that, since you are completely uninterested in giving a clear picture. |
they put it all into a catagory called her Rhetoric. It tells what she is about. |
It's a necessarily selective assortment of some things she has said that have been controversial. When she says, "I am with Dr King" there is nothing to dispute, so there is no discussion - likewise, when she as, as in the article I quioted above, "we the people have all the power. We the people NEED to exercise our rights and responsibilities as Americans" this dopes not constitute rhetoric, does it? No, nothing for people like to get their hands on with that ...
| Quote: |
| and lets remember she is also a friend of the terrorist supporter Lynn Stewart. |
As for Lynne, why not click over here, and let's have some fun ...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| But, Joo, even when you quote from wiki, you concentrate on the negative and ignore the other things about Cindy that don't fit your little game. And you compare yourself? |
that is the important stuff. |
Haha, important to you, apparently ...
There's a lot else that is actually important but is not "important" to you - I'll get around to that when i have some extra time ...
| Quote: |
| Anyone who is worried that the US is too powerful and thinks that any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned isn't pro US. |
Are you SURE? Or is that your subjective opinion being offered as fact?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Not taking a definite and coherent stand on the Iraq War is a large part of why the Dems lost last time. It's long past time they got wise. |
where is the proof? |
Um, the proof is they lost. Duh.
You quote a biased editorial from a Republican-slant newspaper, and what are you showing us? That this particular editor disapproves of Cindy? Whoa, stop the presses ... on the other hand, I quoted Cindy herself - odd the distinction, wouldn't you say?
Last edited by The Bobster on Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
