Why I Think Cindy Sheehan is a NUTJOB.

I am not comparing Sheehan's agenda at large to Parks, Street and others exactly, and expect same caliber of recognition. I said they were considered NUTJOBS by many. As far as Sheehan goes I am only talking about the fact that she goes against the odds. How exactly one can dissect her agenda and motivation is another issue.

 

Many in the military are motivated by honorable intentions to serve their country and defend the freedoms and liberties that make it so great. True, that is their choice, for the most part (without opening up debate of the "poverty draft"). But they did not join to be put in the service of whatever irresponsible plundering adventures the so-called leaders of our country decide they want to pursue. It is the sworn duty of those in the govt. deciding foreign policy to abide by the Constitution and make decisions that are in the best interests of our entire country, not just the interests of the corporations that lavishly contribute to their campaigns. Honorably enlisting should not doom you to slavery and death in a war that was wrong from the lying start. The high numbers of soldiers returning with major mental problems due to what they have had to do, often against their better judgement, and the number of suicides because of the same, I think, is strong testimony to how wrong it is. (And the "strong supporters of our troops" slash the VA budget.)

Is Ms. Sheehan "a tool of other forces" because she is voicing what many millions of Americans, and people around the world, know to be true? Or because she met with President Hugo Chavez, who won't bend to the will of US corporate interests and who is using much of his petrodollars to actually raise up the poor of his country instead of taking the course of action that so many of his predecessors have done to plunder South American resources for the enrichment of the wealthy few in their countries and the US? He may be overreaching in his goals, but I hope he even partially succeeds. What has he actually done that is evil and deserves the wrath of U.S. citizens? He is not antagonistic to the North American people- he is putting in place a program to sell gas to poor US neighborhoods at discounted rates! What he is actively opposed to is any EMPIRE, and that is what the neocons running the Bush Administration are pursuing with our military, to the detriment of 98% of the world's populace.

People need to get their heads out of FOX's arse and find out some truth about what is really going on in the world. Dittoheads Revolt!

 

BullsEye, right on the mark, 100% with you on this Good Buddy!

 

OK everyone lets not forget that another woman wearing a shirt supporting Bush was also removed from the same place as Sheehan. Political messages for or against are not allowed in those forums as it seems some adults can not state there message with civility and disrupt the exercise of anothers First Amendment Right of Expression.

Wildkow

p.s. My favorite Sheehan quote. . . "And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush." Interview with Ronan Sheehan

 

You are partially correct.

The other woman, a congressman's wife, was simply asked to leave the gallery. Ms. Sheehan, on the other hand, was arrested, charged with a crime and spent time in jail before the chief of the capitol police department realized that no laws or rules were broken and neither woman should have been banned from the visitors' gallery during the President's speech.

 

I take umbrage to your reply my good man. I am as usual 100% correct! <_< If you can please point out in particular my mistake?

Since the Woman's Suffrage movement in 1916 a House Rule has prohibited protest and/or demostration in the Gallery. It matters not the message for or against, Rep. Young's wife was a supporting message, which shows that the Capital Police acted in a fair unbiased manner. However, as admitted by Capital Police simply wearing a T-shirt with a statement on it may not come under that rule.

Sheehan, OTOH, was handcuffed and arrested when instead of leaving as the Capital Police requested, she got vocal and I suspect refused to comply. Young did leave but tossed in a "you're an idiot" remark on the way out. Although no media and especially the Liberal Media has so reported. Even though many with a leftward lean have blamed Bush, his administration, Rove, republicans in general and his Patriot Act for the arrest, the rule has been around for quite some time and was enforced without prejudice. In fact just to even things out they arrested one miniority brown skinned male for looking suspiciously like a known terrorist. But not before letting him sit through the entire speech. It's good to be a man ain't it?

Wildkow

p.s. CM's Rule!!!

 

If no media have reported it, how do you know it's true? Were you there, or do you personally know someone who was there? Is this article innacurate when it reports:

And could someone please post a reference to an article or official statement that says that Cindy Sheehan was asked to leave and refused? I've seen several posts here asserting that this is the case, but I haven't seen that mentioned in any news article; I've seen quotes from police that say she refused to cover up the shirt, but I haven't seen any quotes from police or other officials or witnesses that say she was asked to leave before she was arrested.

 

Sheehan stated unequivocally that she was not asked to cover up her shirt. She stated that, in fact, if she had been asked, she would have put her jacket back on. She did not make a scene.

The cops who arrested her, on the other hand, stated later that they made a mistake and should not have arrested her or the other lady.

 

Let's see why nmgreen is a Hugo Chavez fanboy . . .

As a lieutenant colonel, Hugo Chavez attempted a coup in 1992.
He was elected 1996.
Chavez has since achieved absolute control of all state institutions that might check his power by:
1. Engineering a new constitution that did away with the Venezuela Senate.
2. Revising the rules of congress so that major legislation can pass with only a simple, rather than a two-thirds, majority.
3. Expanding the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices and filling the new posts with unabashed “revolucionarios.â€
4. Becoming commander in chief of the military with no congressional oversight . . . allowing him to purge disloyal generals and promote friendly ones.
5. Assembling a parallel army of urban reservists, whose membership he hopes to expand from 100,000 members to 2 million.
6. Commanding the National Electoral Councel - the institute that supervises elections.
7. Taking control of the gigantic state-owned oil company, PDVSA, which provides most of the government’s revenues.
8. Creating a new media law which allows the state to supervise media content.
9. Revising criminal codes to permit the state to imprison any citizen for showing “disrespect†toward government officials.
10. Compiling and posting on the Internet lists of voters and their political tendencies—including whether they signed a petition for a recall referendum in 2004. :blink:
—Venezuela has achieved reverse accountability.

“And yet, Chávez has failed to improve any meaningful measure of poverty, education, or equity. More damning for the Chávez-as-Robin Hood theory, the poor do not support him en masse.â€
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3332

Oh yea, what a wonderful utopia that would be to live in . . . FOR YOU!

P.S. Before you go and shoot the messenger and his “regurgitating propaganda from a neo-con website†. . . let me save you the embarrassment and inform you that foreignpolicy.com is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - which is rated “Centrist†by Fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

Or how about Human Rights Watch?
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

Ms. Sheehan IS a tool of the far left! Why else would she be in South America at the World Social Forum trying to give a tyrannical, authoritarian, leftist any credibility.
If you believe so strongly in what Hugo Chavez is doing, buy all your gasoline at Citgo . . . it is controlled by him.

 

From that list you made, it sounds like Chavez would make a good neo-conservative Republican. All Chavez needs now is some Deibold machines and an equivalent to Patriot Act Part II, and your jealousy of him will be palpable.

 

Yes, that struck me too. I don't know enough about Chavez or Venezuela to comment on the list of allegations (the magazine in question seems reputable, so I'll assume there's truth to them), but it's certainly Bush seems to have been working quite hard towards most of the goals in that list, albeit with different techniques.

As far as I can see, the only real problem the US government has with Chavez is that he's standing up to US interests. Dictatorships that either kowtow to the US (like Uzbekistan) or have the US over an economic barrel (like Saudia Arabia) are fine by Uncle Sam, but democratic states that stand up to the US like Venezuela or Chile under Allende just get US-sponsored military coups. Nice.

 

Please, do try to at least engage your brain a little.

 

I don't agree with Cindy but, we all know Bush admitted that the reasons for the war were based on flawed intelligence. And then people still say that I am glad my son died in this war, I still beieve Bush is doing the right thing, We need to be there in Iraq. Sheeple.

 

"As much as I oppose the war, we simply cannot just pack up and leave behind a vacuum to be filled by the radical Shite Ayatollahs allied with Iran and Osama Bin Laden and his ilk."

Uh, yes we can pack up and leave...we just won't because of the whole oil thing. Unless there's money in it, our gov't won't be there. Freedom aside, what other parts of the world really need is the US to get the hell out. To stop terrorism, stop being the terrorist. We can't seem to practice that, since we are so dependent on other countries to give us cheap goods...

 

Nice enthymeme there Subversive and KMO.
“Bush is bad because he tries to do the bad thighs Hugo Chavez does. Therefor Cindy Sheehan is credible because she is pro-Chavez.�???

That is right up there with a third-grader's rhetoric of, “But teacher, Johnny did it too, so I'm not guilty.†No proof given that Johnny did it, except for the incrimination from a child who's integrity is suspect.

I'm finding more logic in Mystery Squid's last two posts. Rather than go for syllogism in his rhetoric, he has gone the sillygism route . . . with the final product being ridicule. But then, sometimes ridicule misses its mark. Oh well, I appreciated it Squid. :lol:

 

Neither of us were responding to whatever point it was that you were trying to make about Sheehan meeting with Chavez. We, and I don't mean to speak for KMO, were merely responding to that silly nonsequitor "Let's see why nmgreen is a Hugo Chavez fanboy" list you produced. In reading through the list it sounded remarkably similar to George W. Bush, and that alone was the sole point of the remark. (Perhaps you should consider reducing your coffee consumption, because you seem a little twitchy there, making such great leaps in your analysis.)