It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cindy Unleashed !!!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Truelies,

I'll get to your post as soon as I get back from class
.




posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Truelies,

I'll get to your post as soon as I get back from class
.


Just remember that I have SERIOUSLY taken into account George Washington's farewell address concerning political parties...
I am very pissed off that throughout the years people didn't give a # about that... And because they didn't take what he had to say seriously (as he spoke from wisdom and experience) we are now living in a modernized version of what he went through.

A two party dominated political system funded by corporate entities, with politician's who are anything but statesmen and american.

Just remember that when you respond to what I have to say republican lover.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Herman I am only going to answer you with this one, you can make out of it whatever you want and can attack my character just like you are attacking Cindy's.

Because I know myself better than anybody else, I will tell you that if it was my son of husband the one that die in Iraq, I will be doing the same thing that Cindy is doing not only I would take my struggles to Texas but I would take it to Washington and camp outside the White House when he is in Washington too.

That much. . .I know

True lies your post is very impressive.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Truelies,

The part about the political parties, I mostly agree with you on. You've probably seen through some of the threads I've started, my disgust with the way these two parties act towards each other. There is partially a reason for this, the watchdog function (Have 2 parties against each other so that neither one gains too much control over the country), but I think we've taken it too far.

The part that I most disagree with you on is the whole "America is falling apart" thing. I'm a little more optimistic. Yes, bad things have happened, but you have to look back to how this country was when it was first founded. People complain about a small number of reports of voter intimidation, but think about who could vote back when this country was founded: White male land owners. Now citizen over the age of 18 can vote! Slavery. When our country was founded, slavery was allowed! In fact, one of the founding fathers (Was it Jefferson?) was actually accused of having love affairs with slaves. Now, any racism what-so-ever is highly frowned upon, and rightfully so. While I don't agree with affirmative action, we've come a long way. Women's rights. Up until not long ago, women couldn't even vote! That's since been changed, and we make all kinds of efforts towards gender equality. The civil rights movement. Before the 60s, people could get away with things like lynchings, beatings, and even murder of African Americans. The great depression - what a sad time in our history. That's over. When our country first started, there were actually state religions. Now we've practically got the ACLU on everyone's ass for saying "Merry Christmas" haha.
My point is that there will always be bad things going on in this country, just as in any other country. We've made vast improvements over the years, despite minor setbacks. Yeah, we've gone a little too far on the P.C. stuff, but it's a whole lot better than slavery and discrimination.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Drudge is exposing the things she's saying that the main stream media has not been saying. All you hear on the news is that a crushed mother is protesting Bush and protesting the war. They're not reporting when she calls terrorists "freedom fighters", and they're not reporting what the rest of the family has to say. That doesn't matter, it doesn't fit the agenda. You want to know what the rest of the family is saying, you have to go to conservativly biased news sources like World Net Daily. But then, if it comes from a conservative source, it must be bunk because they're not held to libel laws.


www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman Yes, you don't agree with what Bush is doing, so let's just impeach him. What about the other half of the country who does support what Bush is doing? I guess we don't because we're close-minded, blind, ignorant


Why, that's the first cogent observation you've made on any political topic!



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

And that has got to be one of the most back-handed complements I have ever read


Ever, ever???


I thought Herman did a good job of admitting injustices and flat out un american ways of doing politics...

He also admitted it's gone too far... Maybe it wasn't as back handed after all... It was very big of him to come out with it...



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HermanMarg, you're making it sound like this woman is politely sending an email, or making a phone call to the white house in order to request Bushes attention to talk about her son. That's not the truth.

Back when you were in 7th or 8th grade, during Bush's first year, he refused to meet with his Terrorism Expert (Clark)....and he WAS ON HIS PAYROLL, so what's poor old Cindy to do?

She's got a whole gaggle of people with her camped outside of his ranch making a scene, and requesting he meet with her a second time. Good lord, he's the president! Most people never even get to meet him once!

Not true - anyone willing to shell out $5K a plate plus can meet him to their hearts content

And what about the 2,000 other parents that's children have died?? Answer me that one Marg. What about the other parents who support what their children have done for this country, and feel their death was an honorable thing? What about them? You have to think about the other side of the coin here. Yours isn't the only one, Marg. Sheehan is trying to make everybody think that she speaks for everyone, and that she's just finally rising up and speaking out. Well there's a Hell of a lot of people who don't agree with her, does she give a crap about them? Will the mainstream media pay attention to them? No, because they're not on their side.

So, this poll that shows a "hell of alot of people who don't agree with her" and have fallen warrior offspring.....where is it, exactly? The polls showing disfavor of this war, and the lack of trust in this president, are all predominately negative.........your argument that those with a dead son are counter that trend is just not logical.
Honoring service & the ultimate payment of such does not mean they honor the cause in which he died. Now famalies have to be counted, even though the dead is not - look at the casualties......the dead is probably closer to 10,000 ( since those who made off the field & died under care are TA-DA!!! not tallied, and the maimed & injured can tack on 25K more


I heard a story on Limbaugh the other day. .....

Think of that opening as having analogous to " I'm not gay, but is Jimmy looking good in those 501's or what!?!?" , .....that Drug Addict has zero cred in even presenting the most mundane of information, and entering anything into discussion from him as a source is just , well, D'uh!.

Forgot to ask.......which branch did you enlist in?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by Herman Yes, you don't agree with what Bush is doing, so let's just impeach him. What about the other half of the country who does support what Bush is doing? I guess we don't because we're close-minded, blind, ignorant


Why, that's the first cogent observation you've made on any political topic!


Thank you. But I was supposed to throw in a "count" after don't. The sentence was supposed to look like this:

I guess we don't count because we're close-minded, blind, ignorant


I don't know if you picked up on my sarcasm or what, but thanks for the compliment.



Not true - anyone willing to shell out $5K a plate plus can meet him to their hearts content


What I was saying is that people should just drop the whole "He's afraid to meet with her because she might expose him" thing, because it's ridiculous to think that the president is going to meet with you a second time, especially with the way she's presenting herself. So in a while, your post almost validates my point. Thanks!



So, this poll that shows a "hell of alot of people who don't agree with her" and have fallen warrior offspring.....where is it, exactly? The polls showing disfavor of this war, and the lack of trust in this president, are all predominately negative.........your argument that those with a dead son are counter that trend is just not logical.
Honoring service & the ultimate payment of such does not mean they honor the cause in which he died. Now famalies have to be counted, even though the dead is not - look at the casualties......the dead is probably closer to 10,000 ( since those who made off the field & died under care are TA-DA!!! not tallied, and the maimed & injured can tack on 25K more


It's funny, I searched for the word poll in my post, and didn't find one. Interesting. Perhaps I deleted it or something. Or maybe it's because I don't believe that your political stance should be based on meaningless polls! Let me ask you this: have they polled all of the parents that who have sons who died in the war? I'm pretty sure they haven't, which I think brings us back to my original point: what about the people who did support what their sons died for? Does Cindy Sheehan care about them? Or is she going to keep insulting them by saying that their sons died for a lie? And your estimate of how many soldiers have died contrary to what our media tells us is ludicrous. You can't just make up a number like that and then try to use it against me in an argument. Next time you're going to tell me that the majority of soldiers in this war don't support what they're doing... Maybe you'll back that up with a poll where they asked 200 soldiers, and 100 of them said they didn't support it. I guess that number would represent ALL of the soldiers, right?



Think of that opening as having analogous to " I'm not gay, but is Jimmy looking good in those 501's or what!?!?" , .....that Drug Addict has zero cred in even presenting the most mundane of information, and entering anything into discussion from him as a source is just , well, D'uh!.


Alrighty. Don't try to counter the point, just destroy the credibility of the source... Brilliant!



Forgot to ask.......which branch did you enlist in?


I haven't enlisted in any branch, but am currently considering it. I've got about 10 more years to decide, I'm in no hurry.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Herman]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
I haven't enlisted in any branch, but am currently considering it. I've got about 10 more years to decide, I'm in no hurry.


I thought you were in the marines?


you made good points herman, the arguments are always the same though...It really isn't that big of a deal if she wants to meet with him twice and disagrees w/ the war in iraq... let her speak, allow her to ask questions that have yet to be answered...

And if her (or rather every thinking person who smells bs) questions aren't answered by evidence/facts, what would you say then?

They don't need to know? It's none of their business? Please tell me, what would you say/think about it?



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by Herman
I haven't enlisted in any branch, but am currently considering it. I've got about 10 more years to decide, I'm in no hurry.


I thought you were in the marines?


Nah, you must have me confused with someone else. Although I'm really considering going into one branch or another. It almost seems like destiny. My grandpa was a captain Navy pilot, my uncle was the Captain of an a-team special forces unit... I'm pretty sure all of the men (on my mom's side) have been either priests or soldiers. Plus I'm pretty much built for it.



They don't need to know? It's none of their business? Please tell me, what would you say/think about it?


Here's the way I look at it: She has the right to protet, I (as well as the rest of the American public) have the right to call it for what it is, and debate it. We also have a right to counter-protests. There's currently a caravan going around called "Cindy you don't speak for me". I can't wait to see how this plays out...

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Herman]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I am loving the Anti-American Cindy Sheehan show! Glad her mom is doing better, so she can get right back out there!

One question, where are the elected Democrat officials? Why aren't they by her side protesting with her? Where is Hillary, Teddy Kennedy or Harry Reid?

Maybe they realize that they are dealing with someone who is so out of touch, that they don't want to compete with the lunacy?

The more people see Cindy, the more they don't like her. I'd personnally like to see more of this great Pro-American mom...

www.washtimes.com...

The president singled out Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, who now has four sons in Iraq and whose husband and another son returned from war last year.
"Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country,' " Mr. Bush said.
"And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts." The crowd, made up mostly of military family members, broke into cheers and "USA" chants.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
and they're not reporting what the rest of the family has to say. That doesn't matter, it doesn't fit the agenda.
www.worldnetdaily.com...


I don't think it's because it doesn't fit the agenda, but you may be right. I don't watch TV news as it is worthless.


I think it's because it doesn't matter what some of the family thinks... What does that have to do with anything? My family disapproves of many things I've done in my life, many choices I've made. So what? She's a grown woman. Who cares what her godmother thinks? I mean really. So some old lady disapproves. Her (soon to be ex) husband and children support her. Not that that matters, either. She's doing this with or without the support of anyone in her family. She's doing this on her own impetus. I think that's pretty clear.

And just for the record, most of the insurgents are freedom fighters. There I said it, too! Arrest me.

I mean, she isn't the first person who has said the stuff she's saying. This has all been said before, and publicly. People just want to demonize her so they shout, "
Listen to what she said!"



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

I haven't enlisted in any branch, but am currently considering it. I've got about 10 more years to decide, I'm in no hurry.



Between you and Jake getting all of your information from Rush & Worldnetdaily, it's funny how little you read ATS - the things I refrenced are all of this weeks topics from various threads. "Common knowledge" is assumed; meaning, that a board poster framing points should be knowledgeable of what's going on in the forum, and/or can reference it as such.
You are 17 or 18, claiming that this is a just war to protect our beloved country from a clear & present danger, and you want to take a 10 year stroll towards putting you butt where your mouth is!?!? After all, all your family's men are soldiers or clergy.
I guess you follow Rush much closer than you thought, huh?


"Sarcasm" - swing & a miss....of course your disclaimer was left off, hence sarcasm.
Tell me: a president refusing to meet with opposing camps of thought ( this includes Clark, Powell, O'Neill, Whitman, Zinni, White, et al - all senior Republicans in his own administration) is emblematic of a Republic or an authoritarian state? Focus on that & not the tenor of her protest. Focus on just Republican reservation/question/disagreements about this war & shelf Democrat or Independent reservations/arguments, if your so gosh darn worldly and intune to the American experience at this point of your life.

Which one was "elected" , Sheehan or Bush? Which one is it incumbent upon to validate their action by law, as well as by public opinion? Which one is required to represent all hues of opinion and make a best effort at accomodation?
Just as the Sierra Club should have had an audience in drafting our energy policy ( which gives $billions to energy firms that make record $7B profit per quarter, every quarter and did nothing toward reducing dependence or standards), Gold Star ( do you know why these are given?) Famillies should be at the table discussion on how we end this illegal and immoral war.
The argument that she "does not speak for all of them", again, is moot - she doesn't have.

Cindy Sheehan, "meeting Bush already":
- a few minute audience amongst several in a cattle call
- didn't bother to learn her name, refered to her as "mom"
- numerous legitimate sources have been discovered since stating the predermination of the invasion, the cooked data, the false data, the withholding of information from Congress

Here is that orgaizations charter:

GSFP MISSION




We as families of soldiers who have died as a result of war (primarily, but not limited to the invasion/occupation of Iraq) are organizing to be a positive force in our world to bring our country’s sons and daughters home from Iraq, to minimize the “human cost” of this war, and to prevent other families from the pain we are feeling as the result of our losses. We are also hoping to be lifetime support for each other through our losses.

PURPOSE

-To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq.
-To be a support group for Gold Star Families.

WAYS TO ACHIEVE OUR PURPOSE:

-Provide support and to empower those who have been victimized by the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
-Raise awareness in the United States about the true human costs of the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
-Reach out to families who have lost a loved one as a result of war.




What within the above are you & all the Bush syncophants actually opposed to? Her being vocal? Well, if that's all, get over it - a polls driven president who has manipulated them and/or survived them via meticulous damage control via distraction by his cabal is ONLY going to feel pressure by a critical mass of opinion that forces the hands of his underpinnings ( i.e. the Republican & Democrat traitors who have allowed rubber stamp rule and made a mockery of the checks & balances inherent in 3 branch gov.)



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Bout, I think you're taking this a little too personally and getting angry over something so simple as politics. What do you expect to do here, change our minds by insulting us?

Step back, take a breath, and realize that it really isn't that important. There is no reason to stress and get angry (increasing many risk factors for a ischemic event, by the way) because someone doesn't agree with you or doesn't use the same sources for information you do. That's life, that's the world, and that's our right in this country. What you say about, at least in my case, news sources may not be true, but I don't care if you believe it is. Life is too short to be upset over something so insignificant. As soon as PTS stops being fun and becomes a tooth and nail fight, you really need to take a breather. I've had to several times. Politics is a very volitile subject that stirs passion in those of us who are interested in it. Have fun with this, don't have hate.

Also, the point of this site is to deny ignorance, not come here with full knowledge. If a prerequsite to be able to enter a political debate or even be able to have an opinion is to know everything about everything as it relates to the discussion, none of us have a right to say a thing here. We are here to learn, and to share that which we have already learned.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I never take anything in cyber serious Jake, I think you know that. How can anyone?
I do have a wealth of real life experience in the areas I comment on, however, and know sheep by the maw!

I'm also involved in politics, in real time.
This is a work day guilty pleasure, nothing more, and educating people is part of the allure & buzz from that. The serious side to it is that young folks are doing nothing to bridge the reality ( via their actions) that politics is life because politics = power, power = decision authority over resources, decision authority = direct effect to you.
You guys want to consider Rush & Worldnet & Drudge legit, so be it.....that discredits whatever you say that's based on or in support of them.
The Twain-ism of thinking one's father a fool at 15 and being astounded at how "much he learned" by you turning 20 is applicable as an anology to so many posters.........it's important to have pride in oneself, but also to be smart enough that time is the absolute teacher & one who hasn't spent that much of it should be mindful ....and learn that concrete perspectives NOW are like pouring cement on the low tide.
I also would luv that insult crap call to go out the window.....you enter the ring, you are gonna get hit! It's regs here too; I as well as all other have offer insights into their jobs/family/education/hobbies......do you talk to someone with full amnesia of their disclosures every time you engage them in real life?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Eh, call me crazy, but I try to go after the information and the sources themselves with counter information. No matter how many times I say a source is BS, it doesn't make it true; I try to give substance to the claim, instead of just making a "zinger" against the source or the person quoting the source. There are times, of course, when I should have stepped back and taken a breather, but didn't. Those time I often really screw up and attack the individual or some other ignorant approach to debating an issue. Case in point, you never saw my original post that you just responded to, and you didn't see the U2U, either. I had to step back because of what you said. Thankfully, I realized it before I hit post reply.

I could say in response to someone's post that they get all their news from MoveOn.org, but what purpose will it serve? If I believe it, all that means to me is they'll be easy to crush in debate, because they don't know where the other side is coming from. Just because I don't quote DailyKos doesn't mean I don't read it. Just because I don't quote MoveOn doesn't mean I don't read it. Know your enemy, and don't rely on others to give you talking points about your enemy because they may know you.


I do have a wealth of real life experience in the areas I comment on, however, and know sheep by the maw!


And yet you say I get all my news from Rush? I've been in several threads where you have been, too (I don't believe you read everything I have to say even when you don't comment on the thread because I'm not that profound or insightful, I'm just some guy with an opinion), where I have told you exactly what I think of rush. I'll do something unprecidented, now, and actually give examples instead of expect you to just take it on faith:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...
(on that one, you directly commented on what I said)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Do a search for posts by junglejake with either the word Rush or Limbaugh to get an even clearer idea of how I feel about the guy on threads that you haven't commented on. You made an assumption and, in my mind, an attack in so doing. As it turns out and has been shown to you, it was a false one, too.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Bout,

Let me start by saying that you are nobody to be judging my character in the fashion that you are. All these assumptions about how I think and feel are really starting to get insulting. You don't know me, so don't assume that you do. Your constant attempts to discredit me because of my age are just showing your own insecurities. Maybe you were a pompous know-it-all when you were my age (Which is 18, by the way, the legal voting age), and realized your faults, but that does not apply to me. I have every right to be stating my opinion on this board, and have made a concious effort to do so in a polite and respectable manner. I would really appreciate if you would show me the same courtesy. That being said...


Between you and Jake getting all of your information from Rush & Worldnetdaily, it's funny how little you read ATS - the things I refrenced are all of this weeks topics from various threads. "Common knowledge" is assumed; meaning, that a board poster framing points should be knowledgeable of what's going on in the forum, and/or can reference it as such.


I'm not so sure what you mean by "The things I referenced", so maybe you can ellaborate. If you were referring to the sentences that you bolded, maybe I don't have time to be surfing these boards and taking note of every other thread that's being put out. Maybe I get my news from other sources, or maybe I just like to make the occasional post in my leisure. What does being more "Ats Savvy" have to do with what we're debating? There are other places to get news, and they're not just Libaugh and worldnetdaily. In fact, I don't even read worldnetdaily, but there you go again with your assumptions.


take a 10 year stroll towards putting you butt where your mouth is!?!? After all, all your family's men are soldiers or clergy.
I guess you follow Rush much closer than you thought, huh?


*Ahem* 18! My not signing up to go to Iraq (yet?) doesn't invalidate my supporting this war at all. That's like saying if you're against the war, but don't go down to crawford and protest, you're being a hypocrite.


Which one was "elected" , Sheehan or Bush? Which one is it incumbent upon to validate their action by law, as well as by public opinion? Which one is required to represent all hues of opinion and make a best effort at accomodation?


Is the president required to meet with everyone that disagrees with him? Is he required to meet with them twice?
. If the president just went around meeting with every person who was opposed to what he was doing, well he'd...pretty much never stop meeting with people. There are always going to be people who disagree. Did Clinton meet with everybody who disagreed with what he was doing? When he sold nuclear info to the Chinese? White water? When he was screwing around in the oval office? What about the families of the rangers that were drug through the streets of samalia? Did he have private meetings with all of them? By the way she presents herself, it's clear that Sheehan's intent isn't to politely sit down and discuss what happened with Bush, and go in there with an open mind. She just wants to blast him.


Famillies should be at the table discussion on how we end this illegal and immoral war.


Perhaps there are families that don't this war is illegal and immoral, and don't support immediate withdrawl of our troops. Since you are so all-knowing and above my level of intellect, you should know that these things take a while. The president and his administration are working on plans to get us out of Iraq, but we can't just do it immediately. What about Clinton's troops is Bosnia? The ones that were going to be home by Christmas...



The argument that she "does not speak for all of them", again, is moot - she doesn't have.


I'm going to assume that you meant to include the word to in there at the end. She doesn't have to speak for all of them, but she's sure trying to make it seem like she does.

Gee you put a good spin on the things Sheehan's group is doing! You make it sound as if she simply supports the troops and their families. I guess the whole "Your son died for a lie" isn't supposed to offend people who don't think it was a lie, and support what their son has done for his country.



-To bring an end to the occupation of Iraq.


We're trying to set a country free from tyranny. What part of this does she not understand? Does she think that Bush plans to stay there forever? I'm pretty sure, when he feels it's save, that we're going to get out of there. Since when does Sheehan know more about this stuff than Bush and his administration?


-To be a support group for Gold Star Families.


Unless you support what your son died for, that is.


-Provide support and to empower those who have been victimized by the invasion/occupation of Iraq.


Again, what if a mother doesn't feel "victimized", and feels that her son died for a noble and honorable cause?

There you are. I hope you're happy. Now I must rest so that my eyes will stop hurting.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Herman]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Okay, now that we have all of thata out in the open, perhaps we can get back on the subject. There was quite a lively debate going on, but the subject is
Cindy Unleashed

Let us return to it, please, k?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Okay, now that we have all of thata out in the open, perhaps we can get back on the subject. There was quite a lively debate going on, but the subject is
Cindy Unleashed

Let us return to it, please, k?


Will do, boss!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join