[NYCFarmboy]

By Joe Kovacs
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46919

Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "peace mom" on a crusade to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, is publicly blasting Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for her continued support of the ongoing conflict.

"I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys," Sheehan writes in an open letter posted on anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore's website. "I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican."

"I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq," Sheehan added.



The California woman, whose son Casey was killed fighting insurgents in Iraq, launched an anti-war movement in August when she camped outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch and demanded to meet with the commander in chief, drawing national media attention.

She was granted a meeting with Sen. Clinton to discuss the war effort, but says the Democrat "apparently" didn't listen, as the senator told a reporter for the Village Voice, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. ... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. ... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

"That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me," Sheehan said. "That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain."

"There's trouble in paradise out there on the far left extreme which has become the Democrat base," Limbaugh responded today on his national radio program.

"You don't do this, folks. You don't publicly as a Democrat disavow a Clinton and live to do it again. Well, you just don't do it again and again without something happening. So she's one gutsy lady or stupid, one of the two. But something's going to happen to this woman. Something's going to silence her."

On a political messageboard online, one writer notes, "Who would have thought that Hillary's candidacy could be in trouble because she's not far enough to the left?"

[Rolling Bones]

Why are all pubbies so paranoid of Cindy Sheehan?

There's probably more threads in here on her than Bush.

Every time she farts a new thread by the loony cons here pops up.

[loki74]

I dont think this is about fear of Cindy Sheehan. I, for one, am not afraid of her doing anything. She's ridiculous, and everyone knows it. If she was still in the mainstream, still a moderate, then she might be someone to fear. If she had a real argument and wasn't just an attention whore, she might be someone to fear.

I think that majority of the threads about Cindy are just to laugh at how ridiculous she is.


I think the more notable thing is this--If Sen. Clinton did not please Cindy, then clearly that shows that either one of two things:

-Cindy has gone farther off the deep end then I could ever have previously imagined; or,
-Clinton is trying to come off as more moderate and centrist and mainstream as an effort to change her image in time for the '08 election.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by loki74

I think that majority of the threads about Cindy are just to laugh at how ridiculous she is.

She lost a son. I don't think it's right to ridicule someone who is not handling her grief very well.

Remember that when you lose a son or daughter.

[mojo2]

NYCFarmboy, may I remind you of Rule 8 of the P/L?



Thank you.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

She lost a son. I don't think it's right to ridicule someone who is not handling her grief very well.

Remember that when you lose a son or daughter.

If your son or daughter were lost as a firefighter would you support arsonists?
If your son or daughter were lost as a policeman would you support armed robbers?

Her son was lost to terrorists and she supports terrorism.

She is not thinking. She is feeling. She can feel all she wants but it is not thinking. If she were thinking she would understand you don't do things to undermine your own cause.

She encourages others to undermine the US cause. Rolling Bones, we all know you are a terrorist supporter or a US hater or some variation of the two, but do a search, go through the archived threads. Educate yourself as to why very few are interested in re-hashing this subject.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by loki74

I dont think this is about fear of Cindy Sheehan. I, for one, am not afraid of her doing anything. She's ridiculous, and everyone knows it. If she was still in the mainstream, still a moderate, then she might be someone to fear. If she had a real argument and wasn't just an attention whore, she might be someone to fear.

I think that majority of the threads about Cindy are just to laugh at how ridiculous she is.

I think the more notable thing is this--If Sen. Clinton did not please Cindy, then clearly that shows that either one of two things:

-Cindy has gone farther off the deep end then I could ever have previously imagined; or,
-Clinton is trying to come off as more moderate and centrist and mainstream as an effort to change her image in time for the '08 election.

I REALLY think it's a combination of the two.

Sheehan has marginalized herself, or revealed herself to be, or have always been a creature who can and should only exist in the margins of American politics.

Hilary can be said to be lacking in several areas but NO ONE should mistake her for not being a skilled politician. AND WITH ALL THE GOOD AND BAD CONNOTATIONS THAT GO WITH THE TERM.

She's tough.

[Millennium]

I've come to pity Sheehan more than anything else. At one point I think she was in fact driven by nothing more than simple grief. Waiting outside the ranch was a little eccentric, but as someone who's been called eccentric by a teacher who dyed his beard a different color every day I've got no problem with eccentricity. The Peace Pilgrim walked back and forth across the US for almost 30 years as a peace protest, and if that's not insane then waiting outside a ranch for a couple of months certainly isn't.

However, at this point she has gone truly and impressively around the bend. I don't know whether it was just the grief or the instant celebrity or the constant attacks or the constant adoration that did this, and truth be told it was probably all of these things together, but calling her sane at this point is more than a little far-fetched. I used to hear grief in her words, but now I hear only hate. That is why she is doomed to fail; you can't build peace out of hatred.

It's sad that she has been twisted like this, and frankly we are all to blame for that. But at this point, she most certainly has been twisted.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Her son was lost to terrorists and she supports terrorism..

That's stretching things a bit don't ya think?

More like she lost her son in a war and now she is against that war would be more accurate.

[Randman]

Fcuk her. She's a media whore riding the death of her son for attention.

He served with honor and died. She's an embarrassment to her own son and everyone else. If she died today, I'd drink a toast to that scumbag opportunist.

Now, care to now how I really feel?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

That's stretching things a bit don't ya think?

More like she lost her son in a war and now she is against that war would be more accurate.

Thank you for noticing.

She BELIEVES she is merely opposing the war. That is a good thing, right? How can anyone be against peace?

But what she actually effects is support for terrorists.

The terrorists hope the anti-war movement results in the US government setting a date for the pull out from Iraq. They hope the anti-war movement results in the US government refusing to fund the war.

When that happens the terrorists will have won. And they will be thankful for the part Sheehan played in weakening US popular support for the war and for Sheehan's role in reducing government support for the war and for Sheehan's help in cutting off war funding.

Sheehan can do what the terrorists could NEVER do...provide them a sympathetic face. A persuasive defender for a unilateral peace in the eye of the American people and the American government.

AND Sheehan does it with NO communication with the terrorists and no compensation from them.

And to think they killed her son and she does all this to help them WIN THE WAR!

Of course she doesn't understand this. But the fact IS that if her protest is successful the terrorists WILL get a big boost!

Psychologically. Materially. Strategically. Operationally.

They ARE rooting for her.

Her efforts DO support them and their goal.

To defeat US.

[Millennium]

Be careful when you play the indirection game, mojo. That's the same tactic used to blame the US for the terrorist attacks against it.

[Y3a]

She'll say ANYTHING for attention. her family knows this and has left her and she still blathers on... obviously a nutcase, and obviously egged on by the press, who also want the WOT to fail.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Be careful when you play the indirection game, mojo. That's the same tactic used to blame the US for the terrorist attacks against it.

Sadly, I am aware of that. Yet, the other choices available in my assessment of her all seem less attractive, for what they would say about me, than this unattractive comparison you bring to light.

I'm afraid this is my story and I'm sticking to it.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

NYCFarmboy, may I remind you of Rule 8 of the P/L?



Thank you.

You are a bureaucrat then no?

[NYCFarmboy]

Rule 8 Post:

I find this article interesting and I am posting it to get other folks's interesting comments about it.

Isn't that interesting?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by loki74

If she was still in the mainstream, still a moderate, then she might be someone to fear. If she had a real argument and wasn't just an attention whore, she might be someone to fear.

That's a knee slapper!

If she were a mainstream critic of Bush you'd tell us she's a fanatic. If she had a real argument you'd tell us she's an attention whore.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

You are a bureaucrat then no?

Nah, if I knew you supported Sheehan I would speak out against it. If I thought you were opposed to Sheehan I would say nothing as I would think my assent would be unnecessary.

The rule exists because without it everyone sits waiting for someone else to declare their feeling, pro or con.

The rule makes sense after you've seen threads with good subjects just sit there for a while before they ignite.

You are correct in saying, 'mojo2 is a bureaucrat? No.'

[NYCFarmboy]

my own personal opinion...

and what I find interesting and why I posted that article:

so long as Sheenan was attacking Republicans the "old mainstream" media constantly whipped up stories about her...

once she started attacking Hillary the old line legacy media suddently fell silent.

That silence was deafening and revealing about how this person was used for the policital purposes of the legacy media.

Suddenly now she is completely banished from coverage after her attacks turn on Democrats.

This whole thing just further illustrates the plight of the mainstream media......as amply illustrated in the article.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

my own personal opinion...

and what I find interesting and why I posted that article:

so long as Sheenan was attacking Republicans the "old mainstream" media constantly whipped up stories about her...

once she started attacking Hillary the old line legacy media suddently fell silent.

That silence was deafening and revealing about how this person was used for the policital purposes of the legacy media.

Suddenly now she is completely banished from coverage after her attacks turn on Democrats.

This whole thing just further illustrates the plight of the mainstream media......as amply illustrated in the article.

(Phil Hartman's SNL imitation of Ed McMahon on the Tonite Show, to Johnny)

"You are CORRECT, sir!"

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Thank you for noticing.

She BELIEVES she is merely opposing the war. That is a good thing, right? How can anyone be against peace?

But what she actually effects is support for terrorists.

The terrorists hope the anti-war movement results in the US government setting a date for the pull out from Iraq. They hope the anti-war movement results in the US government refusing to fund the war.

When that happens the terrorists will have won. And they will be thankful for the part Sheehan played in weakening US popular support for the war and for Sheehan's role in reducing government support for the war and for Sheehan's help in cutting off war funding.

Sheehan can do what the terrorists could NEVER do...provide them a sympathetic face. A persuasive defender for a unilateral peace in the eye of the American people and the American government.

AND Sheehan does it with NO communication with the terrorists and no compensation from them.

And to think they killed her son and she does all this to help them WIN THE WAR!

Of course she doesn't understand this. But the fact IS that if her protest is successful the terrorists WILL get a big boost!

Psychologically. Materially. Strategically. Operationally.

They ARE rooting for her.

Her efforts DO support them and their goal.

To defeat US.

That's simply your point of view. Narrow as it is.

Perhaps you missed these peaceniks also advocating a US troop withdrawal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...presenceiniraq

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

You are a bureaucrat then no?

Hmmm?!? Whenever I call you on the rule 8 violation you accuse me of being a bureaucrat.
Do you think only bureaucrats or bureaurcratic types believe in following the rules of the forum?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

That's simply your point of view. Narrow as it is.

Perhaps you missed these peaceniks also advocating a US troop withdrawal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...presenceiniraq

My view is as narrow, figuratively, as the gap in the Space Shuttle Challenger's O-Ring that allowed hot gasses to escape and blow up the whole vehicle.

My view is with concern for our nation's vulnerability, as anyone who enjoys living (and living here the way they currently do) here should be.

From your quoted article about the generals favoring a US pullout.

"For the most part, [Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."

Apparently you just don't care. Let's keep a calendar and mark the days (if not the hours) between a US pull out (if it occurs before the Iraqi military can do the job WE'VE been doing) and the shixx hitting the fan.

Then let's wait to see how long it takes you to realize, 'Oh my God, We Are FUCXD!'

I can see it now but you'll need the help of hindsight. IF you have that luxury.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Hmmm?!? Whenever I call you on the rule 8 violation you accuse me of being a bureaucrat.
Do you think only bureaucrats or bureaurcratic types believe in following the rules of the forum?

me think you doth protest to much.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

me think you doth protest to much.

methinks you don't like following the rules.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

methinks you don't like following the rules.

moi?





well I did give my rule 8 posting requirement as required by the stated rules, thus following to the letter of the rule the requirements published here to publish articles of interest to my fellow macnn users so that both the letter and spirit of the regulations are followed henceforth and postwith as well as preforth to prevent any damages that would result from someone unknowingly making a post without first following the letter of the rule the requirements published here to publish articles of interest to my fellow macnn users so that both the letter and spirit of the regulations are followed henceforth and postwith as well as preforth to fully comply with said rule & regulation being administered post haste.

or something like that.

thus I happily comply.

[Gee-Man]

Never mind Cindy Sheehan, what was Rush smoking when he said this:

"You don't do this, folks. You don't publicly as a Democrat disavow a Clinton and live to do it again. Well, you just don't do it again and again without something happening. So she's one gutsy lady or stupid, one of the two. But something's going to happen to this woman. Something's going to silence her."

Seriously - Rush actually thinks Hillary Clinton is going to have Cindy Sheehan killed? Like she's some kind of mob boss or something like Tony Soprano?



Oh man... too funny...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

Never mind Cindy Sheehan, what was Rush smoking when he said this:


Seriously - Rush actually thinks Hillary Clinton is going to have Cindy Sheehan killed? Like she's some kind of mob boss or something like Tony Soprano?



Oh man... too funny...

You can laugh only because you DON'T see what Rush can see behind the scenes. In a comment like that he is giving you some insight and some people laugh, while others read between the lines and ponder exactly what Rush might know to make him say something like that. The general public really doesn't know the real Hilary. Did you see or read Primary Colors?

It's a caricature of course, but NO ONE who reaches that level is without a zealot fringe who believe so strongly that they would do very sneaky and mean spirited things for the cause or for their 'principal.'

Watergate? Iran-Contra? Karl Rove?

Why WOULDN'T Hilary have power of all kinds?

She plays for keeps and she's tough.

EDIT: On second thought, Rush said AS A DEMOCRAT... and that means your power and the favors you'd possibly expect to receive from on high within the Democratic party would be stopped dead in it's tracks. If you are hoping to have the Party throw you a bone you can forget THAT idea.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

My view is as narrow, figuratively, as the gap in the Space Shuttle Challenger's O-Ring that allowed hot gasses to escape and blow up the whole vehicle.

My view is with concern for our nation's vulnerability, as anyone who enjoys living (and living here the way they currently do) here should be.

From your quoted article about the generals favoring a US pullout.



Apparently you just don't care. Let's keep a calendar and mark the days (if not the hours) between a US pull out (if it occurs before the Iraqi military can do the job WE'VE been doing) and the shixx hitting the fan.

Then let's wait to see how long it takes you to realize, 'Oh my God, We Are FUCXD!'

I can see it now but you'll need the help of hindsight. IF you have that luxury.

Here's my original quote of you that started our conversation:

Her son was lost to terrorists and she supports terrorism.

and to put it in more context:

Her son was lost to terrorists and she supports terrorism.

She is not thinking. She is feeling. She can feel all she wants but it is not thinking. If she were thinking she would understand you don't do things to undermine your own cause.

To which I replied that it would be more accurate to say the woman lost a son in the war and now opposes that war. You can agree with her or not on her views but to say she supports terrorism because she opposes this war is disingenuous. You have no idea about her feelings towards terrorism, other than that she opposes something you support.

The link I provided was an article in which the top brass running the war in Iraq are beginning to change their view of the insurgency. They feel the presence of so many US troops is perhaps the main fuel for the insurgency, not Islamic fundamentalism.

You yourself supported this view by posting from Robert Pape's book Dying To Win.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=264782

Some excerpts from that post:

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

(...)

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

And from you:

Back to the subject of our gummint, the funny thing is that I harbor a fantasy that the administration is aware of Pape's findings and perceives his findings as being quite persuasive, making a lot of sense and showing up 'right on time."

Just when they were running out of answers.

Yes, you Muslim and liberal posters tried telling us, but what can I say? Better late than never, right?

OK, that quote wasn't relevant but damn, it was fun.

Anyway, you charge ahead and all but declare me a jihadist (apparently you don't care was the exact quote - I won't bother with the irony here of the grief I got for advocating that war supporters should be war participants from the board members but its fine for you to declare that I don't care about...what...America, the economy, our security from terrorist?? because I have a different view on how our geopolitical muscle should be used. ) for pointing out that there are others who also advocate a withdrawal from Iraq who aren't either currently drunk on celebrity, being manipulated by the far left or washed up hippies looking for a cause.

if we are to believe Pape and the conclusion of the generals then a gradual US withdrawal will be the most effective tactic to eliminating the insurgency. Does it happen immediately - no, the Iraqi's still need training but I think it is now becoming apparent that our presence fuels the fire, not douses it. I can't remember the link but I also read the other day that foreign fighters are less than 5-6% of all attacks in Iraq according to the US military, the majority are from those resisting the occupation - which also goes in line with Pape and the generals conclusion. Remove the US forces and you remove the cause for the insurgency.

How we'll be 'fucxed' in this, to quote you, is questionable.

[mojo2]

Freaking HAMSTER!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Here's my original quote of you that started our conversation:

To which I replied that it would be more accurate to say the woman lost a son in the war and now opposes that war. You can agree with her or not on her views but to say she supports terrorism because she opposes this war is disingenuous. You have no idea about her feelings towards terrorism, other than that she opposes something you support.

You are so intent on winning your point you seem unable to grasp the OTHER side of the argument.

She DESERVES to grieve. She has the RIGHT to her say without ANYONE trying to alter or affect her expression at all. HOWEVER, what she says can have consequences far beyond what she can understand.

Here it is on the most basic level as I can express it:

"For want of a nail" Nursery Rhyme & History

A clever set of lyrics in "For want of a nail" encouraging children to apply logical progression to the consequences of their actions. "For want of a nail" is often used to gently chastise a child whilst explaining the possible events that may follow a thoughtless act.

The History of Obligatory Archery Practise!
The references to horses, riders, kingdoms and battles in "For want of a nail" indicate the English origins of the rhyme. One of the English Kings did not leave anything to chance! In 1363, to ensure the continued safety of the realm, King Edward III commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays! The earliest known written version of the rhyme is in John Gower's " Confesio Amantis dated approximately 1390.

For want of a nail - rhyme

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

I doubt Sheehan considered this at ANY time since this all began up to and including the build up to meeting with Hilary.

In an odd moment I can imagine her as Neville Chamberlain but where the British PM KNEW he'd been hoodwinked on Oct. 1, 1939 with news that Hitler had invaded Poland, Sheehan would still be giving speeches yelling, PEACE! PEACE!

At some point you have to look at the cost of PEACE vs. the cost of war. She STILL doesn't see it. Maybe the whole concept is just too much for her to comprehend.

The link I provided was an article in which the top brass running the war in Iraq are beginning to change their view of the insurgency. They feel the presence of so many US troops is perhaps the main fuel for the insurgency, not Islamic fundamentalism.

After considering that point of view I came to a more important understanding, as you might if you read the whole thread.

Milennium & vmarks helped point out the importance of respecting the RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT of a country. Not the religious leader who has the most suicide bombers.
How would you like it if the Rev. Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson or Billy Graham were able to influence who the US was able to invite onto our shores?

That's NOT the way it works. If OBL has a problem with the govt. he should find peaceful ways of dealing with his disagreements. If we yield to such influence then we are making ourselves vulnerable to intimidation in the future, also we are a nation of LAWS and we want to ENCOURAGE the establishment and respect for LAW. OBL seeks to make his own laws and force OTHERS to go with HIS law.

Another thing is that we have to give this effort everything we can to assure it is successful. When history looks back will we be faulted for giving it everything we had? Or would the damning be from giving up...AGAIN?!

This is one of the reasons OBL decided he could take us on. Because of Viet-Nam. It told him HOW to beat us. And Sheehan is part of his plan to win. By relying on liberal anti-war protests to weken the resolve of the people and who will apply pressure on their elected officials the terrorists CAN win.

But instead of what happened in Viet-Nam, where the Vietnamese have pretty much put their country back in order and have minded their business and now hold no grudges against us, (can we all say the same about THEM? But that's another story.) and they are no danger.

We KNOW OBL has a different intent. He has said so. We know Islam has a different intent it's been written and is part of the Islamic way of being all over the world. Jihad. Peaceful jihad. Violent jihad. Jihad in Iraq. Jihad in Bali. Jihad in Russia. Jihad in Algeria. Jihad in the Philippines. Jihad in London. Jihad in Amsterdam. Jihad in the Holy Lands.

There's a peaceful jihad on these here pages. But, it is a struggle. And where you and others see it as fun and games and a light hearted past time, there IS a struggle going on.

I'm flattered that you would follow my postings so closely as to recall or research my "Pape" period. What you have done, though, is the equivalent of taking a snapshot as I was trying on an ill-fitting jacket and showing me the picture.

What I am saying is that it was something that appealed to my desire for a solution to this problem, but it lost it's appeal when reason prevailed.

We can't bow to OBL. We can't abandon the governments who look to us to respect and support GOVERNMENT not violently religiously fanatic fugitive millionaires.

Anyway, you charge ahead and all but declare me a jihadist (apparently you don't care was the exact quote - I won't bother with the irony here of the grief I got for advocating that war supporters should be war participants from the board members but its fine for you to declare that I don't care about...what...America, the economy, our security from terrorist?? because I have a different view on how our geopolitical muscle should be used. ) for pointing out that there are others who also advocate a withdrawal from Iraq who aren't either currently drunk on celebrity, being manipulated by the far left or washed up hippies looking for a cause.

Alright, so you DO care. And thanks for saying so.

if we are to believe Pape and the conclusion of the generals then a gradual US withdrawal will be the most effective tactic to eliminating the insurgency. Does it happen immediately - no, the Iraqi's still need training but I think it is now becoming apparent that our presence fuels the fire, not douses it. I can't remember the link but I also read the other day that foreign fighters are less than 5-6% of all attacks in Iraq according to the US military, the majority are from those resisting the occupation - which also goes in line with Pape and the generals conclusion. Remove the US forces and you remove the cause for the insurgency.

How we'll be 'fucxed' in this, to quote you, is questionable.

If we leave and the Iraqi military can do the job of maintaining the flow of oil to the world AND maintain the sovereignty of the fledgling Iraqi government, then THAT is all that counts. All's well that ends well. New Democracy in the M.E. The people become prosperous and free and self governing and are able to defend themselves from threats both, from without AND within. Able to keep the oil flowing to all their worldwide customers.

Hey, I'm a happy camper and we can sit back and enjoy our good fortune and our good works!

If we leave and it proves they can't do the job THEN we are ****ed.

[RAILhead]

I sure am glad I kept the animated GIFs I made...

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You can laugh only because you DON'T see what Rush can see behind the scenes. In a comment like that he is giving you some insight and some people laugh, while others read between the lines and ponder exactly what Rush might know to make him say something like that.

"Insight"?

More like paranoia. Rush doesn't know jack-squat. Yeah, I said it. If he did know something, he should figure out a way to use his connections to get the "criminal mastermind" Hillary Clinton ( ) into a courtroom, not spout baseless conspiracy theories on his radio show. Put up or shut up, I say - Rush needs to tell us about this "behind the scenes" evidence.

The general public really doesn't know the real Hilary. Did you see or read Primary Colors?

Primary Colors, as I recall, was fiction, not an unauthorized biography. But it was also a best-seller. Which is it, that the general public doesn't know, or that a best-selling book told us everything we need to know about the "real Hillary"? Can't have it both ways, you know.

It's a caricature of course, but NO ONE who reaches that level is without a zealot fringe who believe so strongly that they would do very sneaky and mean spirited things for the cause or for their 'principal.'

Watergate? Iran-Contra? Karl Rove?

Why WOULDN'T Hilary have power of all kinds?

She plays for keeps and she's tough.

By that standard, George Bush should also be thinking about having Cindy Sheehan killed. After all, he's at an even higher level than Hillary Clinton, and everybody would agree that he too "plays for keeps".

This is all pure conspiratorial nonsense. Of course people at the high levels of government have power. That doesn't mean that she can (or would) have people killed at the snap of her fingers. Rush is implying that this is some kind of habit or known fact, that she's done it before and it'll happen again... it's nutty.

IF Hillary Clinton was such a criminal mastermind as to be able to have opponents killed on a whim, how would she still have a job as a US Senator in an entirely Republican-controlled government? Wouldn't somebody else with power and a political axe to grind (and that's a lot of people) have her up on charges and in jail by now?

EDIT: On second thought, Rush said AS A DEMOCRAT... and that means your power and the favors you'd possibly expect to receive from on high within the Democratic party would be stopped dead in it's tracks. If you are hoping to have the Party throw you a bone you can forget THAT idea.

Cindy Sheehan isn't a Democrat. She has no power or favors to speak of. She doesn't belong to Congress, or hold any public office. In other words, none of this conspiracy stuff makes any sense whatsoever - you can't put someone "out" who was never "in" in the first place.

[moki]

I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum... if you don't view Sheehan as a loon, you have issues. What was that comment about "Occupied New Orleans"? The lady is just a raving lunatic.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

She lost a son. I don't think it's right to ridicule someone who is not handling her grief very well.

Remember that when you lose a son or daughter.

I have sympathy for her with regards to the loss of her son. But I also think that she is a hypocritical attention whore. It is my opinion that she is not doing justice by her son's bravery, loyalty, and sacrifice.

Tommorow (Friday) my cousin from Hawaii will be visiting us. He is in the reserves. In all likelihood, he will go to Iraq. Do not understimate my understanding and perspective on the seriousness of this war. This is partially why I have such distaste for Cindy. Frankly, I think that she is using the deaths on all the honorable service men and women who we have lost for the sake of her personal emotional well-being.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

"Insight"?

More like paranoia. Rush doesn't know jack-squat. Yeah, I said it. If he did know something, he should figure out a way to use his connections to get the "criminal mastermind" Hillary Clinton ( ) into a courtroom, not spout baseless conspiracy theories on his radio show. Put up or shut up, I say - Rush needs to tell us about this "behind the scenes" evidence.


Primary Colors, as I recall, was fiction, not an unauthorized biography. But it was also a best-seller. Which is it, that the general public doesn't know, or that a best-selling book told us everything we need to know about the "real Hillary"? Can't have it both ways, you know.


By that standard, George Bush should also be thinking about having Cindy Sheehan killed. After all, he's at an even higher level than Hillary Clinton, and everybody would agree that he too "plays for keeps".

This is all pure conspiratorial nonsense. Of course people at the high levels of government have power. That doesn't mean that she can (or would) have people killed at the snap of her fingers. Rush is implying that this is some kind of habit or known fact, that she's done it before and it'll happen again... it's nutty.

IF Hillary Clinton was such a criminal mastermind as to be able to have opponents killed on a whim, how would she still have a job as a US Senator in an entirely Republican-controlled government? Wouldn't somebody else with power and a political axe to grind (and that's a lot of people) have her up on charges and in jail by now?


Cindy Sheehan isn't a Democrat. She has no power or favors to speak of. She doesn't belong to Congress, or hold any public office. In other words, none of this conspiracy stuff makes any sense whatsoever - you can't put someone "out" who was never "in" in the first place.

Oh, you don't know how fortunate you are that the MacNN 4+/- hour break happened as I was hitting "submit."

I skewered your post, terribly!

Oh well, I've vented now and will have to wait to see if I get up enough steam to re-write it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by loki74

Just curious, Loki74, what is your sig? It sorta looks like a colorized negative image of the milky way galaxy or something.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

*snip*

Now wait a minute. The righties have already established that she's completely wacko. So her argument can't have an relivence on Hillary's character without here also being right about the war. You can't have it both ways.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Now wait a minute. The righties have already established that she's completely wacko. So her argument can't have an relivence on Hillary's character without here also being right about the war. You can't have it both ways.

Me? I think you have me mistaken with someone else, I don't really care what her opinion is on anything... the point I was referenceing is how unsurprisingly bemused some of us are that the reporting by the legacy media of her has now came to a screaching halt because of who she is attacking now.

It is just a very illustrative example of how the old line media has sidelined itself into irrevelence.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Me? I think you have me mistaken with someone else, I don't really care what her opinion is on anything... the point I was referenceing is how unsurprisingly bemused some of us are that the reporting by the legacy media of her has now came to a screaching halt because of who she is attacking now.

It is just a very illustrative example of how the old line media has sidelined itself into irrevelence.

Give me a glossary will ya?

Legacy media -

Old line media -

And if you have any OTHER terms for the media, please include those as well, ok?

Thank you.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Just curious, Loki74, what is your sig? It sorta looks like a colorized negative image of the milky way galaxy or something.

aaaahhhh nonononono! ...its supposed to be a highly stylized blood spatter. (very wholesome, I know)

I'll probably change it soon though... I've had it for a while.


hmm. I guess I better say something relevant.


olePigeon, I do not think that it is Sheehan's argument that has relevance towards Hillary's character in any case, even if she was right about the war. What reflects Hillary's character is her reaction to Sheehan's statements--clearly she either actually does have some sense, or she is trying to center herself in preparation for an 08 campaign. Personally, I think the latter is more likely.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by loki74

aaaahhhh nonononono! ...its supposed to be a highly stylized blood spatter. (very wholesome, I know)

I'll probably change it soon though... I've had it for a while.

I know you didn't ask, but IF you did ask how I'd change the sig yet retain the desired (If I'm not mistaken) effect here's my 'suggs' for your sig.

1. Make the splatter the color of FRESH blood and choose a complementary color for the "LOKI74".

OR

2. Leave the splatter the color it is but put in a yellow, "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS' tape, somewhere in there and/or maybe a chalk outline or a blunt bloodstained weapon (a Keyboard?). And choose a contrasting color (other than the splatter color) for the "LOKI74."

If you find the bright red a bit too unsettling, solarize it and make the image a negative.

Just some ideas. Don't feel obligated to even consider these. I just felt compelled to tell you. I'm never 'married' to my creativity. If it works, great. If not, oh well.