Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

'Peace Mom' Cindy Sheehan Exposed

mrplunkey

mrplunkey

New member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221519,00.html

During the Bush/Kerry election, John Kerry and Michael Moore contacted Sheehan just days after her son's death and offered her a job as a Kerry operative. Campaign records show that Sheehan recieved payments from Kerry to create "media events" as well as to attend funerals of other soldiers and recruit their surviving family members to their cause.

Gotta love it.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Obviously. And the GOP plants fake reporters in news conferences. What is your point?
Click to expand...
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.

I guess my second point would be how sad it is that some people don't see the difference.
 
mrplunkey said:
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.

I guess my second point would be how sad it is that some people don't see the difference.
Click to expand...


We'll said...
 
mrplunkey said:
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.

I guess my second point would be how sad it is that some people don't see the difference.
Click to expand...


You cannot be serious here.
 
mrplunkey said:
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.

I guess my second point would be how sad it is that some people don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

The Republican party's single most important and main platform for the last 5 years has been the exploitation of 3,000 civilians deaths on 9-11 to gain politically by instilling fear into the common person. If you do not agree with us or re-elect us, you will die in a terrorist attack.
 
Cindy Sheehan's son believed in what he was doing. By contradicting that, she dishonors her own son's memory. Getting paid for that is even more heinous. As a war vet, I'd hock a lugie on her if given the chance, she deserves nothing but contempt.
 
mrplunkey said:
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.

I guess my second point would be how sad it is that some people don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
Nicely put bro but the bed-wetting liberals will never see it that way.
 
redguru said:
Cindy Sheehan's son believed in what he was doing. By contradicting that, she dishonors her own son's memory. Getting paid for that is even more heinous. As a war vet, I'd hock a lugie on her if given the chance, she deserves nothing but contempt.
Click to expand...


Finally....... :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
 
I was even more disgusted at her shilling for Chavez. I'm sure she would have propped up Idi Amin if he sent her a buck and a plane ticket.
 
So she's pissed because her son died at war ? Well last time I checked, soldiers were paid to risk their lives at war so whats her point ?
 
The woman is a disgusting pawn, who, for money, has dihonered her son's memory for her and a political's party's gain.

The most enlightening part is the support she gained from certain people. Open your eyes.
 
mountain muscle said:
The woman is a disgusting pawn, who, for money, has dihonered her son's memory for her and a political's party's gain.

The most enlightening part is the support she gained from certain people. Open your eyes.
Click to expand...
She's always been a pawn. What we now know is that she's a well-paid pawn funded by John Kerry and Michael Moore.
 
slat1 said:
She should be charged with Treason. Get her out of the country. She can go live in Venezuala.
Click to expand...

Treason = the death penalty.

But The USA today is too weak for enforcing it, damn we have people fighting for peoples rights in Gitmo who want them dead and have no affiliation with the US.
 
mrplunkey said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221519,00.html

During the Bush/Kerry election, John Kerry and Michael Moore contacted Sheehan just days after her son's death and offered her a job as a Kerry operative. Campaign records show that Sheehan recieved payments from Kerry to create "media events" as well as to attend funerals of other soldiers and recruit their surviving family members to their cause.

Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

Nothing surprising here. Thanks to Fox News for shedding light on this.
 
mrplunkey said:
My point would be that being politically opportunistic over the deaths of of US soldiers is a bit more disgusting than having a friendly reporter at lob a softball question at a politician during a press meeting.
Click to expand...

I can see your point there, that using the death of soldiers to create a mindless 'anti-Bush' tirade is pretty repugnant. I have never jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon, I don't agree with all his policies but he is the elected president and I agree with him on several issues.

My point is all sides do that, and that this is all this thread is. THis thread is a bunch of republicans getting mad that an anti-republican activist was funded by the non-repulican party. I have seen the smearing 9/11 victims like Ann Coulter does w/o any real protest from republicans, and I didn't see liberals protest the NYT report on banking the same way they got mad about Rove and the CIA agent. Do you honestly think you'd care about the soldiers if Sheehan went after Clinton and her son had died in Somalia, and she was being funded by Newt? Both sides do it, it comes with the territory. In actuality, political smearing is alot more polite now than it was 100 years ago.

I find it hard to believe that any of the conservatives here would have anything but love for Sheehan if you replaced 'Bush' with 'Clinton' and 'Iraq' with 'Somalia'. It is just how politics works, and that is my point. the only thing sad is that some people are so enamored of their particular viewpoints that they can't put their own activity in context.
 
Lao Tzu said:
My point is all sides do that, and that this is all this thread is. THis thread is a bunch of republicans getting mad that an anti-republican activist was funded by the non-repulican party. I have seen the smearing 9/11 victims like Ann Coulter does w/o any real protest from republicans, and I didn't see liberals protest the NYT report on banking the same way they got mad about Rove and the CIA agent. Do you honestly think you'd care about the soldiers if Sheehan went after Clinton and her son had died in Somalia, and she was being funded by Newt? Both sides do it, it comes with the territory. In actuality, political smearing is alot more polite now than it was 100 years ago.

I find it hard to believe that any of the conservatives here would have anything but love for Sheehan if you replaced 'Bush' with 'Clinton' and 'Iraq' with 'Somalia'. It is just how politics works, and that is my point. the only thing sad is that some people are so enamored of their particular viewpoints that they can't put their own activity in context.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I think I understand. I guess it's like that Republican that got caught doing disgusting things with an underage male congressional page. The Republicans quickly closed ranks, cast the congressman as a victim, and let him serve another 13 years as a Republican in congress. Wait... no... I'm mistaken. That was Democratic congressman Gerry Studds in 1983. And yes, he served the Democratic party for another 13 years after getting caught screwing a 17-year old male page -- it was his own "private relationship" as he described it.

Now let's see what happened to a Republican named Mark Foley when he decided to send disgusting IM's to a male page. The Republican leadership told him to get the fuck out or be kicked out -- no options, no debate, no censure, no discussions. Then they lined-up one-by-one and condemned him. Good riddance Mark.

So to address your claim that things would be no different if you switched "Bush" to "Clinton", my counter-argument would be they would be just as different as when you switch the names from "Studds" to "Foley".
 
mrplunkey said:
Hmm... I think I understand. I guess it's like that Republican that got caught doing disgusting things with an underage male congressional page. The Republicans quickly closed ranks, cast the congressman as a victim, and let him serve another 13 years as a Republican in congress. Wait... no... I'm mistaken. That was Democratic congressman Gerry Studds in 1983. And yes, he served the Democratic party for another 13 years after getting caught screwing a 17-year old male page -- it was his own "private relationship" as he described it.

Now let's see what happened to a Republican named Mark Foley when he decided to send disgusting IM's to a male page. The Republican leadership told him to get the fuck out or be kicked out -- no options, no debate, no censure, no discussions. Then they lined-up one-by-one and condemned him. Good riddance Mark.

So to address your claim that things would be no different if you switched "Bush" to "Clinton", my counter-argument would be they would be just as different as when you switch the names from "Studds" to "Foley".
Click to expand...

Thats silly. They knew about Foley back in 2000 and did nothing. You are missing the point of what I'm saying.
 
Lao Tzu said:
Thats silly. They knew about Foley back in 2000 and did nothing. You are missing the point of what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
No, I think your point is: "Both parties politicize things"

And my counter-point would be: "Politicizing things isn't a binary proposition -- it's an issue of degree and and issue of who they choose to use politically."
 
mrplunkey said:
No, I think your point is: "Both parties politicize things"

And my counter-point would be: "Politicizing things isn't a binary proposition -- it's an issue of degree and and issue of who they choose to use politically."
Click to expand...
He gave you a valid parallel with clinton, and you start talking about child molestors. Stay on topic.
The topic was politicizing war.
 
mrplunkey said:
No, I think your point is: "Both parties politicize things"

And my counter-point would be: "Politicizing things isn't a binary proposition -- it's an issue of degree and and issue of who they choose to use politically."
Click to expand...


Actually no, its not. Politicizing death is politicizing death no matter if its Democrats & Sheehan with one death (son) or GOP's (3,000 dead americans).
 
patsfan1379 said:
Actually no, its not. Politicizing death is politicizing death no matter if its Democrats & Sheehan with one death (son) or GOP's (3,000 dead americans).
Click to expand...
for someone who claims to be a republican you sure do ride a lot of dem dick
 
patsfan1379 said:
Actually no, its not. Politicizing death is politicizing death no matter if its Democrats & Sheehan with one death (son) or GOP's (3,000 dead americans).
Click to expand...


Horseshit. Don't even compare the soldiers who signed up and died to this woman who is banking on her son's death. Yes he signed up too. But 3,000 other mom's aren't getting paid pulling the shit she is for one party.
 
mountain muscle said:
Horseshit. Don't even compare the soldiers who signed up and died to this woman who is banking on her son's death. Yes he signed up too. But 3,000 other mom's aren't getting paid pulling the shit she is for one party.
Click to expand...


Dude, 3,000 civilians died in 9-11. Including Police and Firemen.

THE GOP POLITICIZES IT FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
 
Gambino said:
for someone who claims to be a republican you sure do ride a lot of dem dick
Click to expand...

shut the fuck up you snippet quoting sound-bite memorizing neo-con wannabe. I am Republican. Because I do not support the Bush administration does not make me any less American or Republican.

I think the Democratic party is a bunch of finger pointing pussies who couldnt make a tough decision, or any decision to save their lives.
 
mrplunkey said:
No, I think your point is: "Both parties politicize things"

And my counter-point would be: "Politicizing things isn't a binary proposition -- it's an issue of degree and and issue of who they choose to use politically."
Click to expand...

My point was also that your outrage about the family members of soldiers being used for gain wouldn't exist if it benefited the republicans, so your offense strikes me as hollow. When Ann Coulter insults the wives of 9/11 victims I don't hear protests, anymore than I hear protests from Muslims when muslims are torturing other arabs (instead of americans). So again, this is all politics. Your response (which can be summarized as 'the party that I'm not a part of is evil') is politics.
 
Lao Tzu said:
My point was also that your outrage about the family members of soldiers being used for gain wouldn't exist if it benefited the republicans, so your offense strikes me as hollow. When Ann Coulter insults the wives of 9/11 victims I don't hear protests, anymore than I hear protests from Muslims when muslims are torturing other arabs (instead of americans). So again, this is all politics. Your response (which can be summarized as 'the party that I'm not a part of is evil') is politics.
Click to expand...
Then you have missed my point. If Republicans had hired and paid a dead soldier's mother to be a political operative I would be just as disgusted.

The Republicans do things from time-to-time that I don't care for either (like their current leaning toward big government). Getting back to my other example: Had the Republicans handled Foley like the Democrats handled Studds you can bet your ass I would be on this board posting about what a bunch of scumbags they were.
 
patsfan1379 said:
shut the fuck up you snippet quoting sound-bite memorizing neo-con wannabe. I am Republican. Because I do not support the Bush administration does not make me any less American or Republican.

I think the Democratic party is a bunch of finger pointing pussies who couldnt make a tough decision, or any decision to save their lives.
Click to expand...

and i bet you couldn't even give a description of what a neo-con is
 
jestro said:
He gave you a valid parallel with clinton, and you start talking about child molestors. Stay on topic.
The topic was politicizing war.
Click to expand...
No, he tried to argue that Democrats and Republicans are similar and that my outrage over "commie mommie" was simply because she was anti-Bush. My point is disgusting is disgusting whether its done by Democrats or Republicans.
 
mrplunkey said:
The Republicans do things from time-to-time that I don't care for either (like their current leaning toward big government).
Click to expand...


Rampant overspending.
Fiscally liberal.
Huge government.
Federally mandated bloated programs.
Civil liberties gone.

The administration we have in there now is not Republican, it is conservative. Socially conservative, that is it.
 
is there a significant difference in the character of one party or another? i don't necessarily mean the approach to underhandedness that one group or another uses, but the overal quality found therein...in terms of being ethical, honourable, good, etc...as you define it. individual examples are nice and stuff, but in and of themselves won't paint the big picture. if you've responded to lao tzu or patsfan's posts without firmly agreeing that the republican party is associated with the same amount of negativity, crap, etc...is that because you think the republicans are significantly better in that they won't stoop to the levels that democrats will (taking into account all the shady shit that either party does)?
 
Personally, I feel sorry for her. She lost her son. I can see how some may complain about her action. I hope that you're more nobel if your offspring dies in a war that you don't believe in. I'm not quite sure I would be.
 
Lao Tzu said:
I can see your point there, that using the death of soldiers to create a mindless 'anti-Bush' tirade is pretty repugnant. I have never jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon, I don't agree with all his policies but he is the elected president and I agree with him on several issues.

My point is all sides do that, and that this is all this thread is. THis thread is a bunch of republicans getting mad that an anti-republican activist was funded by the non-repulican party. I have seen the smearing 9/11 victims like Ann Coulter does w/o any real protest from republicans, and I didn't see liberals protest the NYT report on banking the same way they got mad about Rove and the CIA agent. Do you honestly think you'd care about the soldiers if Sheehan went after Clinton and her son had died in Somalia, and she was being funded by Newt? Both sides do it, it comes with the territory. In actuality, political smearing is alot more polite now than it was 100 years ago.

I find it hard to believe that any of the conservatives here would have anything but love for Sheehan if you replaced 'Bush' with 'Clinton' and 'Iraq' with 'Somalia'. It is just how politics works, and that is my point. the only thing sad is that some people are so enamored of their particular viewpoints that they can't put their own activity in context.
Click to expand...

excellent post!
 
mrplunkey said:
No, I think your point is: "Both parties politicize things"

And my counter-point would be: "Politicizing things isn't a binary proposition -- it's an issue of degree and and issue of who they choose to use politically."
Click to expand...

The above can be summed up into one word, POLITICS. Both sides do it to varying degrees and they are both wrong, even if it's my side doing it.
 
patsfan1379 said:
shut the fuck up you snippet quoting sound-bite memorizing neo-con wannabe. I am Republican. Because I do not support the Bush administration does not make me any less American or Republican.

I think the Democratic party is a bunch of finger pointing pussies who couldnt make a tough decision, or any decision to save their lives.
Click to expand...

I am about as conservative as they come and both parties want to make me vomit and gag at the same time. But like I always say, politics is just picking the lesser of the evils. I may not agree with all that bush does, but imagine 9-11 with gore as our leader. Pardon me, I have to go gag/vomit again.
 
jackangel said:
is there a significant difference in the character of one party or another?
Click to expand...

The issues are different but anymore, I challenge anyone to find me an honest or stand up politician on either side. We so need a third of fourth party to gain a foothold to stir things up. I with that the independents would get it going or that the constitution party would as well.
 
rykertest said:
The above can be summed up into one word, POLITICS. Both sides do it to varying degrees and they are both wrong, even if it's my side doing it.
Click to expand...
I'd never argue that both sides of the isle are very political and seek advantage all the time. I would argue, however, that there is an issue of degree between the two parties.
 
mrplunkey said:
I'd never argue that both sides of the isle are very political and seek advantage all the time. I would argue, however, that there is an issue of degree between the two parties.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be a jerk here but it will sound that way when I tell you that you would be wrong. I strongly oppose about 95% of what the deomocrats stand for, but I'm not so blind to see that my own party pulls the same stunts and political tricks that they do, just dressed up different. It's so engrained in politics anymore you cannot escape it. Whats sad is that if a really honest and true person was to enter politics, most people would either not beleive a word they would say or they would quickly become corrupted by the system. It's sad but true.
 
rykertest said:
I don't mean to be a jerk here but it will sound that way when I tell you that you would be wrong. I strongly oppose about 95% of what the deomocrats stand for, but I'm not so blind to see that my own party pulls the same stunts and political tricks that they do, just dressed up different. It's so engrained in politics anymore you cannot escape it. Whats sad is that if a really honest and true person was to enter politics, most people would either not beleive a word they would say or they would quickly become corrupted by the system. It's sad but true.
Click to expand...
Bah! I meant to say "I'd never argue that both sides of the isle aren't very political and seek advantage all the time"

p0wned by my own lack of typing skilz :(
 
patsfan1379 said:
Actually no, its not. Politicizing death is politicizing death no matter if its Democrats & Sheehan with one death (son) or GOP's (3,000 dead americans).
Click to expand...

It's those who oppose the war who have politicized the deaths of service men and women. They marked the 1000, 2000 and 3000 counts with protests and speeches as if they were some sort of holidays.

Ironically, you couldn't have found anyone before we invaded Iraq who would have predicted that we'd have any less than 10K dead BEFORE the fall of Saddam Hussein's govt.
 
Last edited:
Gambino said:
and i bet you couldn't even give a description of what a neo-con is
Click to expand...

You want a military state that aggresses other nations? You want to spread Americanism across the globe through military means???

I've heard of this before... It's called Facism. Totalitarianism. Imperialism.
 
patsfan1379 said:
You want a military state that aggresses other nations? You want to spread Americanism across the globe through military means???

I've heard of this before... It's called Facism. Totalitarianism. Imperialism.
Click to expand...
this is why i know you are full of shit.
this has absolutley nothing to do with being a neo-con, which i am def not.
go protest some sort of cause you liberal nancy
 
Longhorn85 said:
It's those who oppose the war who have politicized the deaths of service men and women. They marked the 1000, 2000 and 3000 counts with protests and speeches as if they were some sort of holidays.

Ironically, you couldn't have found anyone before we invaded Iraq who would have predicted that we'd have any less than 10K dead BEFORE the fall of Saddam Hussein's govt.
Click to expand...


Frankly I don't understand what you are saying here.
 
Gambino said:
this is why i know you are full of shit.
this has absolutley nothing to do with being a neo-con, which i am def not.
go protest some sort of cause you liberal nancy
Click to expand...


http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

and a snippet

Critics criticize neoconservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy, especially what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanselthecaretaker
Thought this was a pretty good critique of contemporary America
Replies
22
Views
5K
binö
binö
chefbone
Dearest Cindy Sheehan....
Replies
12
Views
809
BigRupe
B
Lao Tzu
Bill O'Reilly lies 3 times in one week
Replies
27
Views
3K
Lao Tzu
Lao Tzu
V
Danielle: The girl in the window
Replies
8
Views
3K
hanselthecaretaker
hanselthecaretaker
75th
Cindy Sheehan: Media Whore, Part II
Replies
14
Views
778
75th
75th
Top Bottom