southsider2k5 Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=3382521 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 sounds about right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Them involved makes her look like an attention seeker. I think I'm just gonna keep thinking she is sincere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 howard stern said it best the other day... if president bush has time to meet with jerry falwell and ride bikes with Lance armstrong, how come he doesnt have time to meet with a mother who's son died fighting in the war. the b.s. answer is that if he met with her, he'd have to meet with everyone... blah, blah, blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 09:24 PM) howard stern said it best the other day... if president bush has time to meet with jerry falwell and ride bikes with Lance armstrong, how come he doesnt have time to meet with a mother who's son died fighting in the war. the b.s. answer is that if he met with her, he'd have to meet with everyone... blah, blah, blah. Because Lane and Falwell didn't call him a liar, evil doer, hitler, etc. Get real. Noone in their right mind would meet with her now. If he was going to do it, he should have doen it right when she started. But now, no way in hell. And yes, if he met with her now, you would have a new group of people camped out there evry other week looking to talkwith the pres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 The last thing she wants now is to meet with the President. The world tour would end, the cameras would go home. Interesting the party that kept saying if Clinton had just admitted his affair with Monica, it all would have gone away fast, isn't taking their own advice and making a bad scene go away fast. And I am in favor of the President waving to her as he drives by. Maybe she could meet with the junior undersecretary's assistant to the junior chief of army intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 03:24 PM) howard stern said it best the other day... if president bush has time to meet with jerry falwell and ride bikes with Lance armstrong, how come he doesnt have time to meet with a mother who's son died fighting in the war. the b.s. answer is that if he met with her, he'd have to meet with everyone... blah, blah, blah. Why should Bush meet with a woman who has spewed all sorts of vile invective in the national media against him? Why? This b**** said America is not worth dying for. She can kiss my ass. Edited August 27, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 So, people with money, heard a media savvy mother's story and chose to support it by making her ordeal more bearable. So what? This is just another way to spin Cindy Sheehan as being some sort of "enemy of the state" which is bulls***. She might be bats***crazy, but she's not unpatriotic. She's not an enemy of the state - she's just weird. But she has a story that a lot of people attached to. This happens all the freakin time. It's a nonstory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 07:24 PM) Why should Bush meet with a woman who has spewed all sorts of vile invective in the national media against him? Why? This b**** said America is not worth dying for. She can kiss my ass. Bush should only meet with people who agree with him. That way he will know he is doing a great job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 06:46 PM) Bush should only meet with people who agree with him. That way he will know he is doing a great job. Explain why Bush should meet with people who insult him in the media. Why should he?! Dissent is fine. Insults and personal attacks are not............whats good for a message board is good for our president right?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 08:22 PM) Explain why Bush should meet with people who insult him in the media. Why should he?! Dissent is fine. Insults and personal attacks are not............whats good for a message board is good for our president right?! The fact is that he doesn't meet with people who dissent against his policies. The crowds for his PR gatherings are almost always screened sometimes so intensely so that people are barred from the public events (even if they just wanted to ask a question during Q&A that would be perceived as criticizing the Patton of Crawford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 27, 2005 Author Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 07:29 PM) So, people with money, heard a media savvy mother's story and chose to support it by making her ordeal more bearable. So what? This is just another way to spin Cindy Sheehan as being some sort of "enemy of the state" which is bulls***. She might be bats***crazy, but she's not unpatriotic. She's not an enemy of the state - she's just weird. But she has a story that a lot of people attached to. This happens all the freakin time. It's a nonstory. For me its what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is she just another Willie Horton production put together by a partisian PR machine? You can tell by the words she uses that part of her motivation is to take down Bush, heck she has called for his impeachment, if she is someone's mouthpiece should we know that? QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 09:52 PM) The fact is that he doesn't meet with people who dissent against his policies. The crowds for his PR gatherings are almost always screened sometimes so intensely so that people are barred from the public events (even if they just wanted to ask a question during Q&A that would be perceived as criticizing the Patton of Crawford. And I am sure that he is the first President to ever try to make himself look better by throwing himself BP fastballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 09:22 PM) Explain why Bush should meet with people who insult him in the media. Why should he?! Dissent is fine. Insults and personal attacks are not............whats good for a message board is good for our president right?! There are so many reasons for him not to meet with her, I just think the fact that she insulted him isn't as valid as the others. If politicians stopped meeting with people who insulted them, they couldn't hold a meeting in Washington. Do we really want a President so sensitive that he says "She's a meany. She insulted me, I don't like her. Make her go away, I'm not seeing her! la la la la I can't hear you, la la la la I can't see you" I give the President a little more credit than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 26, 2005 -> 09:22 PM) Explain why Bush should meet with people who insult him in the media. Why should he?! Dissent is fine. Insults and personal attacks are not............whats good for a message board is good for our president right?! If that was his policy he'd never be able to meet with anyone.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 08:01 AM) For me its what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is she just another Willie Horton production put together by a partisian PR machine? You can tell by the words she uses that part of her motivation is to take down Bush, heck she has called for his impeachment, if she is someone's mouthpiece should we know that? And I am sure that he is the first President to ever try to make himself look better by throwing himself BP fastballs. This President is quite rare in the amount of times that he actually goes out and takes a shot where the even may not be staged. For all that Clinton did, at least he'd put himself in situations where they may have been (and was) a hostile audience (i.e. his speech at the Vietnam memorial) It is a scary idea at how insulated this President is from anybody who may even have the slightest disagreement with him. Hell, even look at the article from Capitol Hill Blue discussing his recent activities: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7267.shtml It is a disurbing (yet funny to me to see him be so hypocritical) trend for American life and politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 (edited) Putting aside the lib-speak please educate me as to when JFK, LBJ, Carter, or Clinton met with such a woman under similar circumstances. If there are no such cases that were met favorably by the press such that they bolstered public opinion of the guy then put the issue to bed already. Having to rally behind such a woman to make a point sure is making the lib-speakers look desperate. Can't you make a single argument that resonates with the American voter that doesn't involve grandstanding personal stories? Don't you feel ashamed when the highest rated & most notable viewer program discussing lib-speak issues is HBO's Real Time? The scary thing is that lib-speakers take that show seriously! :rolly Edited August 27, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 10:09 AM) Putting aside the lib-speak please educate me as to when JFK, LBJ, Carter, or Clinton met with such a woman under similar circumstances. If there are no such cases that were met favorably by the press such that they bolstered public opinion of the guy then put the issue to bed already. Having to rally behind such a woman to make a point sure is making the lib-speakers look desperate. Can't you make a single argument that resonates with the American voter that does involve grandstanding personal stories? Don't you feel ashamed when the highest rated & most notable viewer program discussing lib-speak issues is HBO's Real Time? The scary thing is that lib-speakers take that show seriously! :rolly This isn't a right/left issue. If a Dem. president at best used monumental incompetence (and at worst lies) to get us involved in a war, then I'd be all for the bastard to take some s*** and rightfully so. It is an issue of another spoiled little rich kid that thinks he is above having to explain himself to the American people. The same goes for LBJ -- f***er lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us involved in Vietnam. And since you asked: LBJ -- The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam. He met with the family and friends before and after the service there. Clinton - After the Oklahoma City bombing and what was seen as a large domestic faux pas to have happen (the bombing, that is), he grieved publically with the families and spent time talking with them. And there were no combat deaths during the Kosovo war so Clinton could not talk to families of fallen US soldiers from that war because there were none to speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 09:23 AM) If that was his policy he'd never be able to meet with anyone.. That's an exaggerated statement with no laugh value at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 09:01 AM) For me its what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is she just another Willie Horton production put together by a partisian PR machine? You can tell by the words she uses that part of her motivation is to take down Bush, heck she has called for his impeachment, if she is someone's mouthpiece should we know that? Yeah, we should. But - the first week she was there, it was her and a tarp. As crazy as she may be, people were touched by her story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 02:06 PM) Yeah, we should. But - the first week she was there, it was her and a tarp. As crazy as she may be, people were touched by her story. Yeah, the leftist "bash bush" crowd really was touched by her story. Anything to score points against the President. :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) Yeah, the leftist "bash bush" crowd really was touched by her story. Anything to score points against the President. :rolly Actually I thought they were idiots that actually cared if a soldier was killed. Silly liberals, with so many soldiers being conservative, sending them off to war seems like a great way to win elections. So much easier being a conservative in times of war. Just wave an American flag and blindly accept whatever Washington tells you. Yippee! More leftist dribble Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Vietnam So put down your books and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Well, come on generals, let's move fast; Your big chance has come at last. Gotta go out and get those reds — The only good commie is the one who's dead And you know that peace can only be won When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Huh! Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow, Why man, this is war au-go-go. There's plenty good money to be made By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade, Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb, They drop it on the Viet Cong. And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Well, come on mothers throughout the land, Pack your boys off to Vietnam. Come on fathers, don't hesitate, Send 'em off before it's too late. Be the first one on your block To have your boy come home in a box. And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 This isn't a right/left issue. If a Dem. president at best used monumental incompetence (and at worst lies) to get us involved in a war, then I'd be all for the bastard to take some s*** and rightfully so. It is an issue of another spoiled little rich kid that thinks he is above having to explain himself to the American people. The same goes for LBJ -- f***er lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us involved in Vietnam. And since you asked: LBJ -- The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam. He met with the family and friends before and after the service there. Clinton - After the Oklahoma City bombing and what was seen as a large domestic faux pas to have happen (the bombing, that is), he grieved publically with the families and spent time talking with them. And there were no combat deaths during the Kosovo war so Clinton could not talk to families of fallen US soldiers from that war because there were none to speak of. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WRT LBJ, that is not a similar circumstance nor can it be said it bolstered the public's opinion of him. WRT to Clinton, Bush met with plenty of victims from 9/11. You see what you want to see & ignore everything else. I'm checking to see if there were any KIA's during Clinton's two terms from overseas action. I'm sure there were. Did Clinton apologize to the people of Kosovo for bombing the s*** out of them? Did he apologize to them for wrecking their economy at the time? Did you ever once wonder how quickly the world jumped to the beat of a German drummer in that part of the world but turned a deaf ear on Iraq prior to 9/11? Was their sufficient reason to justify bombing the s*** out of them? More so than bombing Iraq? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 01:56 PM) That's an exaggerated statement with no laugh value at all. Yea.. my bad. I totally forgot the disclaimer... Attention: The following is a joke, only a joke, and should be intrepreted as such as I do not not know all the people on the Earth that might have a negative issue with Bush and been denied the opportunity to speak with him about those issues. Thank you, and have a wonderful day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Aug 27, 2005 -> 03:06 PM) Yeah, we should. But - the first week she was there, it was her and a tarp. As crazy as she may be, people were touched by her story. But see that is where is becomes interesting. When you start to have money involved, you have to question where it becomes an influence and how much of an influence it is. No one had any problems connecting the dots with the Swift Boat Vets and seeing who was financing that mess, and then using it to define their message as partisian. I don't think this is much different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I do. The Swift Boat Vets started with money. They were well funded out of the gate. Are there people latching onto Cindy Sheehan? Yes. Does that change what she's out there to do? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.