[Cody Dawg]

I hope they lock her up for a long time. She's now been arrested.

I'm glad. She's a menace to society because she's crazy.

[production_coordinator]

While I fall more right leaning... and have a great amount of sympathy for the loss of her son, I think the left needs to take a long hard look at this lady before supporting her as the poster child for the anti-war movement. I find many of her "selling points" and comments to be rather extreme.

[OldManMac]

They won't lock her up for a long time; it's a misdemeanor. Fortunately for her, this is still America (at least for a while yet), so she has some rights, including those of speaking her mind. Some people really feel threatened by that.

[Cody Dawg]

I don't mind her speaking her mind. That's not it.

I think that she's attracting the extremists - she courts them and vice versa. Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

She needs to be more restrained, concise, and do things that do not endanger others.

Personally, I think she's crazy.

[cpt kangarooski]

Cody--

Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

That's remarkably stupid. People are rarely responsible for what other people do, when the connection between them is so tenuous. Criticizing Bush, the war, etc. simply isn't enough. Besides which, there has been strong criticism of Bush for years now, and nothing you claim to be concerned about has happened, so it seems that they're pretty unfounded fears.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't mind her speaking her mind. That's not it.

I think that she's attracting the extremists - she courts them and vice versa. Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

She needs to be more restrained, concise, and do things that do not endanger others.

Personally, I think she's crazy.

CodyLogic ®, now in FascistVision™

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't mind her speaking her mind. That's not it.

I think that she's attracting the extremists - she courts them and vice versa. Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

She needs to be more restrained, concise, and do things that do not endanger others.

Personally, I think she's crazy.

That's a fancy way of saying that you do in fact mind her speaking her peace. She isn't responsible for the actions of others.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't mind her speaking her mind. That's not it.

I think that she's attracting the extremists - she courts them and vice versa. Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

She needs to be more restrained, concise, and do things that do not endanger others.

Personally, I think she's crazy.

She's not crazy (from what I can tell). She's distraught over the loss of her child (what parent wouldn't be?), and she feels strongly about how bad the situation in Iraq is. She has every right to protest the situation, and you would likely be up in arms if the situation were reversed (say, Sheehan was for the war, and being vilified and arrested for speaking out).

It's ridiculous to make Sheehan (or anyone) responsible for the potential actions of someone else. If someone were to make an attempt on the president's life, they'll do it whenever they get the opportunity, whether Sheehan is around or not. I think it is very narrow-minded how you equate someone exercising their constitutional rights to a threat to national security, simply because you don't agree with their view.

[Cody Dawg]

She's not crazy?

Well, she's certainly manipulative at the very least - and I still think she's crazy.

This is a nice shot of her:

[placebo1969]

She was arrested because she broke the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cody Dawg]

Our tax dollars are being used for the likes of Cindy Sheehan.

She should be ashamed of herself.

Oh, and it looks like she has a little tattoo on her ankle. Pretty sad in a woman her age.

[BRussell]

That officer on the left - where's his right hand? And why is Cindy smiling so broadly?

[Monique]

She is not crazy but courageous who is ready to take down some Bush lies.

And she did not kill anyone just stood where she was not supposed to.

You conservatives would have applauded her actions if she would have protested against President Clinton sexual life saying how horrible.

But, since she wants to stop a war out of control saying that I experienced the worst lost anyone could have, and I do not want anyone to feel like I do; she is now a terrible person.

Funny how you conservatives evaluate things, losing a child is nothing; but be gay, or have an affair and it is the end of the world.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

CodyLogic ®, now in FascistVision™

[cpt kangarooski]

Cody Dawg--

Our tax dollars are being used for the likes of Cindy Sheehan.

Well, it's not as though there was any actual need to arrest her. And it's nothing compared with the money the government wastes elsewhere on the war, on ineffective 'security' measures, and so forth.

I'd say you were penny wise and pound foolish, but I think you're probably penny foolish too.

[Cody Dawg]

bluesky:

I don't think you know what fascism is, little boy.

Now run along and go play with yourself.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't mind her speaking her mind. That's not it.

I think that she's attracting the extremists - she courts them and vice versa. Some sympathizer to the Sheehan cause may end up making a very grave attempt at harming our president and/or national security and for that I think she is culpable.

She needs to be more restrained, concise, and do things that do not endanger others.

Personally, I think she's crazy.

In Washington alone, there were at least 100,000 people on her rally (the estimates go up to 300,000). I think the only harm Sheehan and her supporters do is to Bush's publicity and his ratings. Last time I checked, this was legal

I'm not in favor of an immediate pull-out, but her point of view is as valid as the opposite. But I don't think she's crazy.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

bluesky:

I don't think you know what fascism is, little boy.

Now run along and go play with yourself.

While your post(s) wouldn't strictly adhere to all definitions of fascism, it kinda has that aroma, noam sayne? Has a snappier twang than

CodyLogic ®, now in BusyBodyGossipVision™

[Chuckit]

People who think a nutty mom who likes to make crap up poses a threat to national security really need to just move to a fascist Middle Eastern country already. I feel very sorry for Cindy Sheehan. The woman is obviously cracked and she's being abused by leftist media hogs to get their viewpoints heard. But she's hardly done anything to indicate she's dangerous unless you are so insecure that you can't deal with dissent.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Oh, and it looks like she has a little tattoo on her ankle. Pretty sad in a woman her age.

God, you're ridiculous. You probably wouldn't care if Laura Bush had one.

And really, tattoos are forever. Or do you expect het to pay to get it removed once she passes some magical age?

[hyteckit]

Um... laura bush has a tatoo too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Oh, and it looks like she has a little tattoo on her ankle. Pretty sad in a woman her age.

Come on, Cody, you can do better than this

[Cody Dawg]

Why?

I won't hire people if they (tattoos) are visible when wearing normal corporate clothing.

In fact, a lot of companies are that way - whether you believe it or not - sorry to let you know. I find them vulgar and tasteless and not the least bit attractive.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why?

I won't hire people if they (tattoos) are visible when wearing normal corporate clothing.

In fact, a lot of companies are that way - whether you believe it or not - sorry to let you know. I find them vulgar and tasteless and not the least bit attractive.

OK, you don't like them. My mother thinks bikinis are indecent, but I've seen photos of you wearing those — I guess you're excepted from the obligation to bow to the aesthetic whims of some woman somewhere who doesn't know you?

Unless you can provide some logical reason tattoos are bad, it's unreasonable to expect somebody not to have them just on your say-so.

Anyway, a tattoo on the ankle is not necessarily visible when wearing normal corporate clothing, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

[Cody Dawg]

Most tattoos that I've seen are of skulls or some other design that is incompatible with average mentality.

Skulls, blood, knives, you name it and there's a lot of it. Most of it isn't of something warm and fuzzy.

Here's the thing: In my opinion it takes a masochistic personality to get a tattoo. Just sitting there and subjecting oneself to pain and infection for the benefit of wearing a "design" that, frankly, looks like crap. We're not talking about a Van Gogh or Monet painting here. We're talking about ugly colors that are on the skin and when the person gets old the design sags and looks even worse.

What's so nice about that?

I find them symbolic of people who have low self esteem, to be honest, people who subjected themselves to tattooing as a means to "fitting in" with a particular type of crowd.

Same as people who do piercings. It's just weird.

[nredman]

you're weird, people who are different are weird...they suck. pull your head out of your ass

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Most tattoos that I've seen are of skulls or some other design that is incompatible with average mentality.

Skulls, blood, knives, you name it and there's a lot of it. Most of it isn't of something warm and fuzzy.

OK, but that's not an argument against tattoos — it's an argument against art depicting skulls or knives..

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Same as people who do piercings. It's just weird.

You don't have pierced ears? Most women do. Are most of the women in America masochists because they go through pain in order to change their appearance in a way that other people may or may not like?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by himself

She's not crazy (from what I can tell). She's distraught over the loss of her child (what parent wouldn't be?), and she feels strongly about how bad the situation in Iraq is. She has every right to protest the situation, and you would likely be up in arms if the situation were reversed (say, Sheehan was for the war, and being vilified and arrested for speaking out).

It's ridiculous to make Sheehan (or anyone) responsible for the potential actions of someone else. If someone were to make an attempt on the president's life, they'll do it whenever they get the opportunity, whether Sheehan is around or not. I think it is very narrow-minded how you equate someone exercising their constitutional rights to a threat to national security, simply because you don't agree with their view.

She's calling the President a murderer. With all due respect, she's a bonafied nut-job and guaranteed way to not meet with the President. She knows this. She's not interested in a second meeting with the President. She's interested in fashioning herself some sort of hero on the back of her son. While it's legal to exploit your dead son who volunteered to join the forces out of support for the cause, it's despicable. She should be ashamed and because she's not familiar enough with law, she'll sit and hopefully think about things for a while. It'll do that nut-job some good.

[waxcrash]

The only reason Cody Dawg/iWrite thinks she is crazy is because she is anti-Bush.

Cody, do you like anyone who has voiced negative views of Bush?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Most tattoos that I've seen are of skulls or some other design that is incompatible with average mentality.

Skulls, blood, knives, you name it and there's a lot of it. Most of it isn't of something warm …

It looks like an ornament, a friend of mine got one while she was living in South America. No skulls, no knives, no nothing.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Most tattoos that I've seen are of skulls or some other design that is incompatible with average mentality.

Skulls, blood, knives, you name it and there's a lot of it. Most of it isn't of something warm and fuzzy.

Here's the thing: In my opinion it takes a masochistic personality to get a tattoo. Just sitting there and subjecting oneself to pain and infection for the benefit of wearing a "design" that, frankly, looks like crap. We're not talking about a Van Gogh or Monet painting here. We're talking about ugly colors that are on the skin and when the person gets old the design sags and looks even worse.

What's so nice about that?

I find them symbolic of people who have low self esteem, to be honest, people who subjected themselves to tattooing as a means to "fitting in" with a particular type of crowd.

Same as people who do piercings. It's just weird.

Your views are just ****ed. I can't even begin to argue your points because they are so ridiculous, I'd be wasting my time.

Seriously I think you're the 'crazy' one.

Majority are skulls and knives... Good lord. In case you've been under your rock too long, most are cutesy, or symbolic, not hate and murder linked.

[Cody Dawg]

Why get them at all?

Anyway, you're the one that feels compelled to link Jesus with sexuality in your signature. That tells me that you're screwed up, or, that's - what did you call it - "****ed."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

The only reason Cody Dawg/iWrite thinks she is crazy is because she is anti-Bush.

I actually agree with Cody on this point. Sheehan went off the deep end and is now just an unfortunate tool for people who actually understand what they're doing. Just listen to the stuff she says. She parrots Michael Moore's talking points, but hers have this really disturbing disconnect with reality that basically casts Bush as possessing demonic powers.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Why get them at all?

Anyway, you're the one that feels compelled to link Jesus with sexuality in your signature. That tells me that you're screwed up, or, that's - what did you call it - "****ed."

Errr, My sig states that Jesus loves gays, as he loves everyone. This is a love and hope filled message, not an attack on everything and anyone who doesn't share my exact same views. You need help cody.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Oh, and it looks like she has a little tattoo on her ankle. Pretty sad in a woman her age.

Gonna pull out an old one for this.
The Tool of the Day Award goes to: CodyDawg



Tattoos are permanant, ya know? Maybe it's been there since an age when getting a tattoo was appropriate.

Look for something more substantial next time, mmmkay?

[Moderator]

not understanding the right's obsession with this one woman. She opposes the war..like half the country does. So she got a little publicity...why does this scare everyone so much?

Lock her up! She's crazy! Where's my pitchfork!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Lock her up! She's crazy! Where's my pitchfork!

She's crazy because she says we're waging a nuclear war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina happened because Bush doesn't read the Bible enough, and he's doing the same thing to New Orleans that he did to Iraq in turning it into a police state. The woman seriously doesn't seem to be aware of what's happening around her.

I disagree with a lot of people's opinions of the president on both sides, but I think Sheehan really needs treatment. She sounds like a crazy person you'd hear on a street corner.

[himself]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

She's calling the President a murderer. With all due respect, she's a bonafied nut-job and guaranteed way to not meet with the President. She knows this. She's not interested in a second meeting with the President. She's interested in fashioning herself some sort of hero on the back of her son. While it's legal to exploit your dead son who volunteered to join the forces out of support for the cause, it's despicable. She should be ashamed and because she's not familiar enough with law, she'll sit and hopefully think about things for a while. It'll do that nut-job some good.

Who cares what she's calling him? I don't give a shıt. It isn't even the point. The point is, she has every right to say it, whether you like what she has to say or not, or whether you think she is a "nut-job" or not. It is petty and narrow-minded for folks here to conjure up reasons why she should be silenced [as if this were a fascist state] and to play arm-chair psychiatrist and condemn her as a "nut job," without even knowing her.

You many feel her dissent is despicable, but that's your opinion. For every individual who agrees with your view, there are probably just as many who believe that her cause is a noble fight to prevent other parents from experiencing what she has. Which one is right?

So, she has a teeny-weeny tattoo on her ankle. And...? What in the hell has that got to do with anything? If you can't make your point with arguments of substance, resist the urge to make a fool of yourself.

[Kerrigan]

I used to sympathise with this lady (as you may know from earlier posts in other threads) but she's just a bit too much now.

Those of us aware of the realities of power know that the troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq until the job is done, so to speak. Until the mission in Iraq has reached some sort of end, there will be a massive troop presence. You can't honestly expect that Bush (or any other president) would suddenly say "OK, Cindy Sheehan, we'll bring them home now for you and your supporters".

The troops are there for the long haul, and you should support them. If you say "I support the troops but I oppose the cause" then you are implying that you do not think the soldiers are doing anything worthwhile, and as such you are lowering their morale. Imagine how depressing it is for the soldier who is in a foreign land risking his life to contemplate the fact that people at home are opposing his mission and condemning his actions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The troops are there for the long haul, and you should support them. If you say "I support the troops but I oppose the cause" then you are implying that you do not think the soldiers are doing anything worthwhile, and as such you are lowering their morale. Imagine how depressing it is for the soldier who is in a foreign land risking his life to contemplate the fact that people at home are opposing his mission and condemning his actions.

So if our troops were being ordered to rape people, we should come out in favor of the rape so we don't lower the morale of these poor lackies?

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I used to sympathise with this lady (as you may know from earlier posts in other threads) but she's just a bit too much now.

Those of us aware of the realities of power know that the troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq until the job is done, so to speak. Until the mission in Iraq has reached some sort of end, there will be a massive troop presence. You can't honestly expect that Bush (or any other president) would suddenly say "OK, Cindy Sheehan, we'll bring them home now for you and your supporters".

The troops are there for the long haul, and you should support them. If you say "I support the troops but I oppose the cause" then you are implying that you do not think the soldiers are doing anything worthwhile, and as such you are lowering their morale. Imagine how depressing it is for the soldier who is in a foreign land risking his life to contemplate the fact that people at home are opposing his mission and condemning his actions.

This kind of argument has a scary component because it means all a president has to do to get rubber stamp support for something is involve the military. Calling the opposition unpatriotic or treasonous is a tried and tested technique.

Cindy's use to both sides of the debate is waning and she'll fade into obscurity soon. I wish the media would lay off her and get back to really covering the war itself.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So if our troops were being ordered to rape people, we should come out in favor of the rape so we don't lower the morale of these poor lackies?

Nonsense.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

The arrest was just a publicity stunt. They had a kind of 'pre-registration' for the arrest, checking for warrants and how to post bail.

Stunt. Nothing more.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

Nonsense.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

No, it's reductio ad absurdum.

You just don't believe in the principle when it's applied to things that you consider to be immoral rather than things other people consider to be immoral. If we are obligated to support a war that we consider to be immoral because doing otherwise would lower morale, then you must agree with my scenario. Otherwise, you must agree that the concept I was arguing against is wrong, and it does not prove that liberals are obligated to support a war they feel is wrong. Having it both ways is a logical contradiction.

[Cody Dawg]

Okay, so I gave a lot of thought to the tattoo thing. It's wrong of me to discriminate against people who have them. So, if they can cover them up while in the workplace I think they're fine. It's none of my business. I'm just prejudiced against women having them. I think that they're declasse.

Now, this is a great post:

She's crazy because she says we're waging a nuclear war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina happened because Bush doesn't read the Bible enough, and he's doing the same thing to New Orleans that he did to Iraq in turning it into a police state. The woman seriously doesn't seem to be aware of what's happening around her.

I disagree with a lot of people's opinions of the president on both sides, but I think Sheehan really needs treatment. She sounds like a crazy person you'd hear on a street corner.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I hope they lock her up for a long time. She's now been arrested.

I'm glad. She's a menace to society because she's crazy.

Right. She's voicing her opinion without hurting anyway. She should be locked up for that.

Whatever your opinion on her viewpoint, how does that make any sense?

I think we should lock up Cody Dawg for her posts. She's a menace to society because she's crazy.

[Kerrigan]

No, my argument is not to be subjected to absolute interpretations as you and Chuckit have done.

If a soldier is ordered to rape someone then obviously that is illegal and detestable and it should not be supported at all.

If the US military was ordered to invade a neutral country or to attack helpless people, then this should not be supported at all by citizens.

But this idea that we should smear the war effort while it is going on makes no sense. The war is what it is: it falls within reasonable expectations for a military conflict, the cause is justifiable, and the majority of the citizens supported it at its outset. A war that meets these conditions, once started, should be finished properly. It is irresponsible to send soldiers off to fight and then, halfway through it, celebrities and protesters and pundits start vehemently denying their support for the cause. Soldiers know what is going on in the US, they read articles on the internet and they watch US TV, and their morale is deeply effected by whether or not they feel their nation is supporting them.

I am not saying that you have to unconditionally support wars no matter what, I am saying that when a war is going on which is reasonable by all standards, then you should not try to publicly hamper the war effort. Intellectual dissent is fine, but when you get on TV and sensationalize the anti-war movement like Cindy Sheehan has, you are really doing more harm than good.

[Cody Dawg]

Cindy Sheehan is doing a LOT more than "just voicing her opinion."

Cindy Sheehan is a hyprocrite. Got that? She was content to stay quiet and let other soldiers die. It wasn't until her son died that now all of a sudden she needs to protest. She should have been protesting all along.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

But this idea that we should smear the war effort while it is going on makes no sense. The war is what it is: it falls within reasonable expectations for a military conflict, the cause is justifiable, and the majority of the citizens supported it at its outset. A war that meets these conditions, once started, should be finished properly. It is irresponsible to send soldiers off to fight and then, halfway through it, celebrities and protesters and pundits start vehemently denying their support for the cause. Soldiers know what is going on in the US, they read articles on the internet and they watch US TV, and their morale is deeply effected by whether or not they feel their nation is supporting them.

A majority of people do not support the war. A lot of soldiers do not even support the war.

I will not change my opinion to a lie based on supporting moral. If Bush does not have the balls to sit down and talk about issues in this country, he shouldn't be President. This is like the garbage man. No one likes what the garbage man does. It's a horrible detestable thing. That doesn't mean you hate the garbage man. Most soldiers understand that being able to protest actions that you do not agree with in the government is a basic part of Democracy that they are working to defend. They are working to defend people like Cindy Sheehan, and their right to freedom of speech. If they don't understand they are fighting for a government based on these principles, they need to rethink being a soldier.

[cpt kangarooski]

Kerrigan--

Those of us aware of the realities of power know that the troops will not be withdrawn from Iraq until the job is done, so to speak. Until the mission in Iraq has reached some sort of end, there will be a massive troop presence. You can't honestly expect that Bush (or any other president) would suddenly say "OK, Cindy Sheehan, we'll bring them home now for you and your supporters".

The troops are there for the long haul, and you should support them. If you say "I support the troops but I oppose the cause" then you are implying that you do not think the soldiers are doing anything worthwhile, and as such you are lowering their morale. Imagine how depressing it is for the soldier who is in a foreign land risking his life to contemplate the fact that people at home are opposing his mission and condemning his actions.

Meh. We pulled out of South Vietnam before the job of safeguarding it was done. There is precedent for abandoning a stupid war, and even if there were not, that doesn't invalidate the idea. You're essentially saying that once the decision to begin has been made, however wrong it turns out to have been later, we cannot deviate from it.

As for troop morale, two things. First, the military is sworn to protect our freedoms, and should be strongly in favor of debate about the war. If opposition were silenced, they would simply have nothing worth fighting for to begin with. Second, it is good when troop morale roughly mirrors the morale on the homefront; it indicates that the troops are thinking about the situation as well. There's nothing wrong with soldiers not wanting to go to war. In fact, it's pretty good, as we should always be reluctant to go to war or to remain at war. It's an option of last resort.

Chuckit's point is also good. It's often scoundrels that like to cloak their misdeeds or silence criticism with talk of patriotism. If you have an argument that is itself convincing, you don't have to bother with it.

Cody--

Cindy Sheehan is a hyprocrite. Got that? She was content to stay quiet and let other soldiers die. It wasn't until her son died that now all of a sudden she needs to protest. She should have been protesting all along.

Why? People change their minds about things all the time. Your position seems to be similar to Kerrigan's in that you both seem to have a policy of making a decision and sticking with it even when it is no longer sensible to do so.

The responsible thing to do is to constantly engage in self-scrutiny. Are your positions still the best ones to hold? What are the alternatives, and why aren't they better? If they are better, why aren't you switching to them? It's not difficult.

As for Sheehan, perhaps her son's death opened her eyes. It's unfortunate when people drift along, oblivious. If that's what it took for her to start thinking, then don't fault her for doing so.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Cindy Sheehan is doing a LOT more than "just voicing her opinion."

Cindy Sheehan is a hyprocrite. Got that? She was content to stay quiet and let other soldiers die. It wasn't until her son died that now all of a sudden she needs to protest. She should have been protesting all along.

Great. She's a hypocrite. Tell me where in the Constitution hypocrites are excluded from free speech.