Why I Think Cindy Sheehan is a NUTJOB.

:lol:

Funniest thing you've written in a while.

 

Let me remind you – the topic of this thread is “Why I Think Cindy Sheehan is a NUTJOB.â€

I accused nmgreen of being a Hugo Chavez fanboy because he ignorantly tries to extol Hugo Chavez as being some virtuous leader, and then accuses others of being ignorant with his, “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!â€

nmgreen asked , “What has he [Hugo Chavez] actually done that is evil and deserves the wrath of U.S. citizens?â€

I SHOWED HIM THE UNBIASED TRUTH, WHETHER HE CAN HANDLE IT OR NOT.

Then you and KMO childishly come up with trying to pin what Hugo Chavez is doing as conservative values and something President Bush is attempting to emulate. Paaaalllleeeeezzzzeeeeeeee!

Seriously, a fourth-grader could put up a better rebuttal.
Try redeeming yourself by going over all ten of the points one by one and showing us how President Bush or the Republican party is trying to do any of them.

Oh yea, and don't forget to include unbiased references. GOOD LUCK!

 

Leading a coup against an un-democratic regime wildly unpopular with the poor majority due to their neoliberal IMF-inspired structural adjustment program that put the economic burden primarily on the poor underclass does not make him a bad person (read up on our own revolution for independence).
1. Bush and the Proj. for a New American Century neocons are jealous, but they're pretty close with near-authoritarian control by the Republican Party (Frist and Rove are still trying).
2. We have it- why can't they? Republicans couldn't do too much damage if they needed 60 votes everytime.
3. Bush is packing his court with white men who believe the executive trumps pretty much everything else.
4. Bush is telling us right now he is commander-in-chief and can do whatever he thinks is necessary to fight his never-ending war, and Congress is not offering any oversight-- more like cover.
5. Bush would have a hard time doing that. Those that voted for him mostly "opt out" of military service (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Pearle, Wolfie, etc.).
6. The Republicrats control ours- and effectively block any kind of 3rd party representation of the rest of us.
7. So what- he's using it for his poor- unlike our oil-gopolies making the Bush-Cheney rich cronies richer.
8. "Our" state supervises media content. And, worse, our corporate "independent media" controls the content very effectively blocking meaningful discussion of the real issues or in-depth exposure of the flaws (i.e., lies) of the current regime.
9. You can't really point that out with a straight face, can you? Sheehan was ARRESTED FOR WEARING A T-SHIRT IN THE HALLS OF OUR CAPITOL, for chrissake. You are a jokester, aren't you? Thanks to the "Patriot" Act, protesters can be and are arrested for exercising our previous right of freedom of speech (e.g., Miami Wth mtg., New York convention, etc.).
The Bush administration has zero accountability (oops, sorry,what we just said was wrong, but we'll come up with more reasons to suppress your Bill of Rights if you want...You can't REALLY take what the president says "LITERALLY," you know--wait til the next day when his handlers tell us what he really meant to say)

Tool of the far-left? Funny. She just wants the president to stop lying and start living up to his oath of office, and uphold the Constitution, and work for the benefit of all the people of this great country, not just those who can donate $1,000,000 to his campaign...

 

Don't cry, Sufferin', at least you have Squid is in your corner.

 

1. “near-authoritarian control by the Republican Party†as you put is - was given by the votes of the people of the USA. Last time I looked, there is still a US Senate, unlike in Venezuela where Chavez's new “constitution†did away with their Senate -– which helped give him full authoritarian control. THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE!

2. Voting practices in the US Congress are provided for in the US Constitution. Bush or the Republicans did not change the requirements . . . Unlike Chavez. ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE!

3. The claim that Bush and the Republicans are packing the Supreme Court with ideologues is bogus. So W is “packing the court†with Samuel Alito??? And prey tell, what was Alito's first Supreme Court vote??? He voted opposite of what the conservatives did. He voted to refuse letting Missouri execute a death-row inmate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6020101840.html
HOW FREAKIN' IDOLOGUE CONSERVATIVE IS THAT????!!!
Do your homework. Seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents. So why is it that four members are considered liberal and one (Kennedy – a Reagan appointee) is the moderate swing vote???? If you want to talk ideologue, how about Clinton's appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a freakin' General Counsel for the ACLU! Yet she passed her Senate confirmation 97-3, compared to Alito's 58-42. And yet, we KNOW how Ginsburg will vote on everything! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Supreme_Co...itical_leanings

4. Bush IS the commander-in-chief, and and can do whatever the law allows. Disagreements on interpreting the law have gone on ever since this country was formed. That is why there are three branches of the federal government . . . and the leglislative branch is currently holding hearings on this exact subject . . .and I don't think it will be long before it is before the Supreme Court too.

5. YOU ARE SOOOO WRONG AGAIN, LIBERAL BREATH! The military leans strongly conservative! So much so that liberal Democrats try to throw up blocks to having overseas military ballots counted in a timely manner - “To the Gore team, the absentee ballots to be counted on Nov. 17, 2000, were a lethal threat. Bob Dole, who lost Florida in 1996, had won a hefty majority of absentee ballots and Mr. Bush was expected to prevail by 2-1. On Nov. 15, Gore campaign attorney Mark Herron circulated a memo to Democratic lawyers across the state providing a five-point guide to throwing out military votes. “ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...tml?id=95000829

6. MORE LIES!!!! The U.S. Election Assistance Commission is an independent bipartisan agency – http://www.eac.gov/mission_statement.asp

7. “So what- he's using it for his poor�?? You didn't read the article, DID YOU! "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.†http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3332
Nothing is stopping you from owning stock in US oil companies – at least nothing physical . . . like a dictator!

8. "Our" state supervises media content . . .†There is a MAJOR difference between censoring pornography, etc. on the airwaves and suppressing discordant political speech. The media here in the USA is the envy of the free world, and feared by the non-free world. How else can you explain having Fox News and CBS or Air America, or the New York Times and the Washington Post?

9. "You can't really point that out with a straight face, can you?" YES, I CAN! You can protest outside the gates of the White House all you want – and yell things like, “President Bush is a murderer.†Go down to Venezuela and yell, “Presidente Chavez es un asesino," and see how long it is till you disappear. I like my odds here in the USA.

10. WHAT NO REBUTTAL TO #10??? Couldn't find your voting record on the Internet? I guess you don't live in Venezuela, so, I'll just have to guess how you vote - if you vote. :huh:

Just as I figured, not one link to corroborate any of your major points . . . and I'm not talking about Cindy Sheehan being arrested by the capitol police.

 

Your assumption is one of the most R I D I C U L O U S I’ve ever heard. Anyone who sticks to blatant nationalistic chauvinism has no C R E D I B I L I T Y nor completely understands how media operates outside of the United States. The nationalistic chauvinism/propaganda hurts us in a long run as even our closest allies/friends have difficulties in understanding statements as yours. The envy is open to the debate it’s not a P A R A D I G M.

 

You know, you're right! Cindy was guilty of thought-crimes! Quick, get her out of sight, she might be a seditionist!

1984, what kept you?

 

Anyone who thinks the US media is "the envy of the free world" needs their head examined. Seriously. The times I've been in the US it absolutely did my head in trying to watch the American news. It felt like having my head wrapped in cotton wool.

I reckon if SPE watched something like "Channel 4 News" in the UK, his head would probably explode from information overload.

And as for some of the clips I've seen from the build up to the Iraq war? Oh. My. God. All the flag waving and slogans, and cheerleading from the anchors - it looked like the Third Reich all over again. (A bit like the Republican Convention coverage I watched a while back - seriously sick stuff - it looked like a North Korean or Soviet military rally). The Democratic one wasn't much better. :blink:

With that level of non-stop fascist propaganda being pumped out on pretty much all the channels over there, it doesn't seem so surprising that Bush managed to get in office twice.

 

By “envy of the free world†I am referring to the wide range of media available from and in the USA. It is unsurpassed in both range and depth. Television, movies, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, music, theater, Etc. . . . and of course content on the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Form...edia_by_country
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Countries/
[on the music front, I will definitely give Great Britten it's props for the likes of The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Elton John, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc . . .. http://www.onlineweb.com/rocklink/ ]

With any news story, US media will give you the same “news†with several different ideological bents. How else can you explain the differences between Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken - Fox News, CBS, Air America . . . or even Democracy Now? The ability to get discordant points of view or information is not a function of government repression here in the USA – unlike in many state-controlled media countries of the world.

Of course we will always have the conspiracy theorists who cry that they are being repressed here in the USA . . . but they are the same ones who are here on PriusChat and elsewhere on the Internet and in other media outlets informing the world about how oppressed they are. Funny how you never hear the same talk out of countries like China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Etc. :huh:
http://www.iwmf.org/features/6922

I CAN and sometimes do watch UK's "Channel 4 News" on cable TV here in California . . . I consider it one more source, and yes, they do pack in the news. :blink: I also enjoy watching Canada's CBC news program "The National" when I happen to come across it.
Like ALL news media, I consider the source and come to my own opinions. I don't limit myself to one or two sources and think I'm getting the whole story.

 

I like CBC News and would love to have it, along with a couple of sources (one private, one BBC) from England, and an English-language outlet from elsewhere in Europe, on my satellite array. Maybe if we "fair and balanced" news nuts got together and lobbied (I have DISH)...

 

Unsurpassed in what aspect? Quantity or quality? Who is the one who ultimately passes the judgment? You personally? Are you speaking on the behalf of the entire United States? Do you have any empirical data to prove it, or is this just your personal assumption?
You are continuing to judge global events from a skewed perspective with a dose of arrogance “The media here in the USA is the envy of the free worldâ€. All your assumptions so far are based on US perspective alone. If you have such beef with Chavez why aren't you screaming about King Abdullah, whose hands are being shaken very often by members of our administration; an incredible purveyor of social justice and freedom for his citizens in your mind, right?


P.S. Start at home http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa&c=usdom

 

Why do you hate the US so much? Is your perspective any less skewed than his? Who are you to be the judge of everyones perspective? I am sure that list of 'world media' you posted on here last week are all very unbiased. i know the BBC is always totally objective -- Give it a rest.

 

Jezus H....you folks still clamoring on about Cindy, the Prez, politics???...

If some of you guys cared as much about your personal lives as you do about a grieving mother who lashes out...you'd probably have invented a new alternative fuel by now :lol:

Leave her be..you are giving her the attention she craves...

 

Based on your analogy everyone who politically disagrees with you is the United States hater. Nice. I can see there are many of us here on the PriusChat. Perhaps you should list their names so we can all know who the United States haters are.
Stop slandering. I never claimed that the list of news agencies I listed was unbiased, I only claimed that it adds an additional dimensions to many issues - you are lying again.
How come you have not replied to any previous posters on this thread that seem to agree with my point of view?
Go away and stop stalking my posts, in other words...

 

<_<

 

No stalking, you are just the most recognizable lefty to me. Most PC'ers have treated me with some degree of respect, while you and your arrogant 'the US is always in the wrong' philosophy, treat me only with total disdain.

 

You are continuing to slander and label. Simply because on some issues my stance opposes your point of view doesn't make me the United States hater. This is a pretty hefty PERSONAL accusation based on your perception. I never said that the "US is ALWAYS in the wrong philosophy". I engage in issues that politically need addressing in my judgement for the benefit of our nation and I am not alone. That is far from being labeled and classified as US hater.
Stop putting words in my mouth and YOU give it a rest, or otherwise you are going to be ignored.