| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 14895 Registered: 1-2003  |
Some of us have condemned her anti-Israel statements. How many do you want? I think you're having trouble recognizing when people agree with you. Maybe it's because we don't agree 100%. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1973 Registered: 7-2004  |
This feels like the fifth or sixth time I've read this thread topic, some right-wing nutjob going all Swift Boat on Sheehan. She must be doing something right (correct) then. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 893 Registered: 4-2006 |
Robert Livingston- Your a good example of why I worry more about the left than the right in this country. Tom Reingold- I don't see that in the above posts. Do you? Clearly Cindy Sheehan should not be made into a political icon or political force in this country given this sort of statement. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1974 Registered: 7-2004 |
Right back at ya, facts. Have you moved south of the Mason-Dixon line yet? What's stopping you? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14897 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes, I do. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1598 Registered: 10-2004  |
I fail to see who on MOL has given Sheehan any credence except as an Iraq war protester. Speaking only for myself, I seldom think about Cindy Sheehan, except when she is on the news at some political rally or other protesting Iraq. I feel sympathy for the loss of her child and am grateful to her for carrying the message to the president that he is the cause of quite a lot of pain in this country. What her views are on other issues dont concern me. I would be surprised if she was an anti-semite in the strict sense of being prejudiced against jews. She may indeed see Israel as a problem in the middle east but that would be her view on the state of Israel and not the people of Israel. I dont buy any of fvf's claims of being less then serious in any of his above posts. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1975 Registered: 7-2004 |
It's simple. Facts disagrees with Sheehan, therefore he must vilify her. The Bush White House perfected that strategy and all their little minions have adopted it. Quite sad, really. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 894 Registered: 4-2006 |
Robert Livingston- Ah,the moral certainty of the true believer. Who will always be in the extreme minority. Tom Reingold- Only you, Paul, and Libertarian ( who is on the other side) out of how many posters? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3072 Registered: 12-2001  |
When someone starts using the word "hypocrite" a lot it usually means things are about to get really stupid. Like this: hemp- How about accusations of racism or sexism as well? Do "progressives" apply the same standards you wish to apply to others? Or are they exempt as they are so obviously right about everything? What are you even talking about? "Progressives"? "Racism"? "Exempt"? All this stuff is just bubbling inside you skull, looking for a vent, I guess. Like the juice around a rump roast. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2212 Registered: 8-2003  |
Cindy Sheehan has denied writing the words you attributed to her. Last year she was interviewed about it by Anderson Cooper on CNN:
Maybe she's lying and she really did write that email, who knows? Most people are inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they deny having written something and there's no clear proof she did. But maybe the reason there's no uproar over Sheehan's alleged anti-Semitism is because it doesn't seem all that clear that she is. She's a critic of the Israeli government, but as others have pointed out, that doesn't make her anti-Semitic. If anything, it appears that right-wingers who advance the idea that "progressives" are anti-Semites are looking for straw men to beat up on. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 895 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- You should stick to basketball. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1976 Registered: 7-2004 |
Ah, the hiding behind groupthink's talking points. Too terrified to think for yourself. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14898 Registered: 1-2003 |
Back to my question: how many do you want to agree with you? I'd like a numeric answer, please. I'm glad I got you to read back so you can see that some agree with you. I don't know what you mean by other side. On this issue, libertarian is on your side. What's wrong with that? | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 142 Registered: 2-2006  |
Fracturefiction- I think you should check in someplace...now. "All this stuff is just bubbling inside you skull, looking for a vent, I guess. Like the juice around a rump roast." Take it seriously, Fact, this is your brains we're talking about. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 897 Registered: 4-2006 |
Tom Reingold- I think all fair people should. Libertarian is not on the left, as most people are on MOL it seems. O'Boogie- I believe that Sheehan's usenet comments were substantiated as coming from her. I would think that otherwise she could bring a successful lawsuit for slander or libel. It seems people always try and take back or disavow things that has been said, later. Winston, I don't care whether your left or right if you are making such a statement. Read up as to my comments about Pat Buchanan. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 898 Registered: 4-2006 |
a3- If you can't succesfully make your argument or point to refute someone, you must attack them personally. That's a sign of a weak intellect. And a parochial and doctrinaire world view. Sad. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1600 Registered: 10-2004 |
fvf - see your post to me #895. It seems to apply directly to your post #898. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1977 Registered: 7-2004 |
"If you can't succesfully make your argument or point to refute someone, you must attack them personally. That's a sign of a weak intellect." That is so freaking hilarious I don't even know what to do with myself. Do you mind if I cut and paste and send to my blogger friend? Something like this could only come from a Bush supporter. Thanks for this. It seriously made my day. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 143 Registered: 2-2006 |
a3- "If you can't succesfully make your argument or point to refute someone, you must attack them personally." Fact- You're right. I'm reduced to that with your posts. I respond to you, and you respond to the voices in your head..... | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2213 Registered: 8-2003 |
You choose to believe Sheehan is an anti-Semite. I don't know what to believe. I do know that if I'm going to call someone an anti-Semite, I prefer to have something more than an allegation based on a message that some people "believe" has been substantiated. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1978 Registered: 7-2004 |
And just because someone didn't sue for libel or slander doesn't mean they weren't misquoted. Perhaps Sheehan isn't very litigious. Do you know her? And it's your estimation that "people always try and take back or disavow things that has been said, later"? Is that ALL people? Everybody? If so, then, yes, Sheehan is a person ergo Sheehan disavows things, as all people do, in your estimation of course. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest SOME people don't try and take back what they say. Perhaps, for instance, they were wrongfully quoted. The point is, you want/need Sheehan to be an anti-Semite. Just admit it. It messing up your myopic worldview otherwise. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 637 Registered: 2-2003 |
FactsvsFiction, You cite Cindy's criticism of Israeli Government policy (occupation) as one reason why you suggest that she's anti-semitic. Last summer, many Gaza settlers and their supporters criticized the Israeli Government's policy to evacuate the Gaza settlements. Many of these critics defied and resisted the Israeli Government's orders to evacuate and some physically attacked Israeli soldiers, throwing acid at them, among other things. These critics also verbally abused the Israeli Government and the Israeli Army by calling them "Nazis.". Do you assert that these settlers and their supporters are also anti-semitic? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-18-gaza-eviction_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12038 Registered: 5-2001 |
Paul, the way FvF's mind works he probably thinks the troops are anti-semitic. With that said, Cindy was a great, effective and very sympathetic symbol for the anit-war movement. However, her involvement with the far left has hurt her credibility with most of us who are somewhere in the middle. In the end, I have very little use for either the far left or the far right. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2037 Registered: 5-2001 |
"facts"
I guess this is the point where I'm supposed to say that some of my best friends/grandparents are Jewish. Where you will doubtless come back that I'm a self-hating Jew/atheist, and on and on. It's been said over and over, people can disagree with political policies without being anti-semitic. I think Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to the USA, but that doesn't make me anti-American. Sometimes I really do think we're coming close to the end of days - we (the human race) still doesn't get that killing people over land rights and religion doesn't create peace. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 649 Registered: 1-2006 |
I think the Japanese Imperial Navy and Army, and the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic were the worst things to ever happen to the USA. jd | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2039 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joel - Gotta disagree with you on this one. Spanish flu was a virus, not capable of rational thought - skipped from host to host and killed a lot of people - opportunistic. Japanese were rational and opportunistic, but also outsiders, and incapable of thwarting our constitution. President Bush has brought us into a war without any solid proof, and systematically eroded our rights to privacy, due process, and separation of church and state. All this working from the inside. Yes, I think he's the worst threat the USA has ever faced. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15254 Registered: 10-2001  |
May I interject here? The worst threat the USA ever faced was the secession of Southern states in 1860-1861 leading us into the Civil War. Do I win? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5579 Registered: 10-1999  |
Well, to save us from the threat of Southern secession in the Civil War, we had the leadership of President Lincoln. To save us from the threat of President Bush, we have --- President Bush. Man, I hate when that happens ... | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7468 Registered: 10-2001 |
If Nohero were alive in 1861 he would have been leading the impeach Lincoln movement. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15255 Registered: 10-2001 |
The Bush Presidency is not in the top 50 threats this country has faced. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2041 Registered: 5-2001 |
S - Is too. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15256 Registered: 10-2001 |
Hmmm. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2006  |
This is way off topic but here it is anyway. It’s ironic this comparason has been made because the vitriol that President Lincoln faced until about mid 1864 was not that different from what President Bush is facing. Until General Sherman captured Atlanta in September 1864, splitting the South, Lincoln was hugely unpopular and his reelection was very much in doubt with former General George McClellan running on a platform calling for an immediate cease-fire. Seemingly endless, nightmarish casualties figures, draft riots, changing reasons for the war (The Emancipation Proclamation effectively made the war about slavery, not preserving the Union as Lincoln had sold it. If Lincoln had told the North in 1861 that we were going to war to end slavery in the South, he would have been told to go jump in the lake) even the Gettysburg Address was at the time ridiculed by some: The Chicago Times wrote that the “cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dish-watery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.” The Harrisburg Patriot and Union wrote, “We pass over the silly remarks of the President; for the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be repeated or thought of.” The London Times wrote that the “ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the sallies of that poor President Lincoln...Anything more dull and commonplace it would not be easy to produce.” Lincoln of course won with 55% of the popular vote against a Democratic Party split between pro-war and anti-war. Sound familiar? | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15257 Registered: 10-2001 |
Of course a huge difference in terms of the elections of 1864 and 2004 is the fact that Lincoln's vote totals did not include a huge portion of the population - namely the South. I always get a real kick out of the Electoral College figures for the 1864 election. Nevertheless, I love your post. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 144 Registered: 2-2006 |
Strawberry- Did you manage to work one hand free from your straight jacket or did they take it away entirely and give it to Fact? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14902 Registered: 1-2003 |
sbenois, you win. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2819 Registered: 6-2002 |
The worst threat the USA ever faced was the secession of Southern states in 1860-1861 leading us into the Civil War. Do I win? You win! I was thinking the very same thing, that is, about the Civil War being the worst threat a second before I read your post. (Of course lately I've been engrossed in a book about Lincoln) | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 558 Registered: 3-2005 |
S wins what? The MOL Shallow Thinking Award of the Night? (Giving out how many times a night?) I guess it depends on whether you find loss of territory more threatening than loss of human liberty or the gutting of the constitution itself. The worst threat to the US at the time of its founding was slavery, which the civil war abolished. Once slavery was abolished, the worst threat to the US was segregation, and later the threat posed by nuclearized intercontinental ballistic missiles, a threat shared by the world. But the increasing disregard for the American constitution by its own executives and the ongoing tendency of even educated people to devalue it or misunderstand the Constituion and its value is a threat to the very essence of what the American nation was created to be. A territorial division or loss is always far less of a threat to our nation than a complete loss of the protection of the Constitution, which was written and enshrined in democratic law to protect human libery, not borders. Belated best wishes for the 4th of July. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 899 Registered: 4-2006 |
Back to the thread people. I find the responses that I have gotten so far to this thread hilarious. And one that has hit a very raw nerve among the " right-thinking" people here on MOL, (at least in their own minds). What I have learned is that a progressive by definition cannot be an anti-semite. Especially a sacred cow progressive like Cindy Sheehan, so important to the anti-war and anti-Bush movements that are supported by many here. You would think she is Mother Theresa. Raising such a possibility unleashes a stream of personal attacks and invective that hopefully drowns out the questions asked. And unleashes a good amount of intellectual fraud and basic bull#%*& in good measure. Adding a bit more : On August 14, 2005 Cindy Sheehan was quoted as saying: "... you get Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop terrorism." The Jewish people of course are the original " Palestinians", if one wishes to quibble but, how will this end terrorism ? And what exactly constitutes "Palestine" to Cindy? Islamic fundamentalism envisions a worldwide caliphate, not simply a Palestinian nation,and by millitant struggle if necessary. In arabic the non-muslim world is called "the house of war" while the Islamic world is termed " the house of peace". Cindy Sheehan, someone who has experienced personal loss and tragedy, has made not one comment about 1,000 Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorism or condemned Palestinian terrorism itself. How come, you " right-thinking" people? In her pamphlet " Dear President Bush" Cindy Sheehan has stated: " he died for oil" about her son. However she also states " we need to be more fair with policies that way too heavily favor Israel." Now I am really confused, because if we are in fact in it for the oil the last thing we want to do is support Israel to begin with. That stuff about Israel then seem strangly gratuitous to you? Finally Cindy Sheehan's supporters, the Crawford Peace House, have been active in anti-Israel politics. At a April 11, 2005 protest on behalf of Palestinians in which Crawford participated, it's founder,John Wolf, attacked Israel's continued occupation of Lebanon and Syria. Problem is, Israel withdrew from Lebanon years before, and the areas referred to as being Syrian contain no Palestinians and came into Israel's possession as a result of Syria's involvement with a war against Israel. Crawford director Hadi Jawad also said a prayer for Palestinian youths killed in the conflict. No such prayer was offered for Israelis who were the victims of Palestinian terrorists. Going back to the original point of this thread, Cindy Sheehan apparently WROTE that this country went to war for Israel. In essence saying our government does not represent us, but rather the Israelis and by extension, the Jews. Any of you " right-thinking" people who have been evading the substance of that quote finally want to address it? And can you wonder why I am disdainful of a number of the posters here for their group think mentality and lack of intellectual independence? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 638 Registered: 2-2003 |
FactvsFiction, [You apparently missed this, so I'm re-posting]
|
