MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-22-2005, 07:43 PM   #151
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Interestingly enough...I am not sure your commentary is about my post or not, but I think you would not say I am in lock step either.

Also, during Rosa Parks time, many Civil Rights leaders viewed the Republican party as more on their sides, so I am not quite sure what you are saying.......

If you have done your research, and I am sure you have, you would agree I think, that based on her comments of the past year NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT, I would not want him to meet with her.

The President has said she is entitled to her point of view.

I personally find it way out of the ballpark to equate Cindy Sheehan with Rosa Parks.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 09:01 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Also, during Rosa Parks time, many Civil Rights leaders viewed the Republican party as more on their sides,

this is a myth

sure there were dixiecrats in the South against Civil rights in the Democratic Party


but the GOP was not at the fore front of Civil Rights,

Goldwater was not pro civil rights in 64
nor Nixon in 68

after Wallace shocked the system in 68
the GOP came up with their Southern strategy to split off the disaffected white Democratic voters
and have been working it ever since
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:06 AM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:32 AM
I vaguely admire Cindy Sheehan (I like anyone who nips at the President's heels. Any President who sends men and women to die (for whatever cause) should feel some discomfort over it and this woman's pissed off words should be a small price to pay. But I think this is a media event driven by reporters who have nothing to do in Crawford all day and head off after a few drinks in the local tavern to interview the lady. It'll disappear when vacation is over. I think the people feel sorry for the woman, but are not energized by her.

There won't be an effective anti-war movement unless more soldiers come back speaking out against the war in public in anger, there are more Gold Star fathers speaking out or until the images on TV are horrific enough. Words are not enough, not from peace activist women. Right now, Americans are not angry, they are just disgruntled. If they start getting angry, they'll begin to listen.

But in the meantime, I hope all the needling continues, just to keep focus on there is opposition to this war. Going to war should not be a pleasant job for a President and we should not be making it pleasant for him.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 07:33 AM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Interestingly enough...I am not sure your commentary is about my post or not, but I think you would not say I am in lock step either.

Also, during Rosa Parks time, many Civil Rights leaders viewed the Republican party as more on their sides, so I am not quite sure what you are saying.......

If you have done your research, and I am sure you have, you would agree I think, that based on her comments of the past year NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT, I would not want him to meet with her.

The President has said she is entitled to her point of view.

I personally find it way out of the ballpark to equate Cindy Sheehan with Rosa Parks.


it was sort of related to your post. no, i don't think you march in lockstep with the administration, but i don't think it's fair to dismiss Cindy Sheehan because she might hold some far left political views.

the Rosa Parks comparison was meant to deflate some sort of expectation we have that mothers or activists-by-accident are somehow apolitical people who happen to get caught up in circumstance and are swept to the forefront of history, the common person doing extraordinary things. while i think this is the narrative that Cindy Sheehan herself is trying to put forward, i think it's wrong to discount her either because of this or because she happens to be very media savvy. basically, she knows exactly what she is doing in the same way that Rosa Parks knew exactly what she was doing.

the point that she is making is not that she wants to necessarily meet with the president, but that his refusal to meet with the president makes a grander, more illuminating statement on the callousness and closed-off yes-man world that Bush inhabits.

i suppose what i'm saying is that she's misunderstood, intentionally, and that she's far more savvy than we know.

she is taking her moral authority as a mother who has lost a child and simplified it like a laser to ask a very poignant question around which there's a growing anti-war movement: why, Mr. Bush, did my son have to die in a war of choice built on an assembly of half-truths and shaded reality in a country that has never attacked the United States?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:37 PM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:32 AM
I clearly disagree with this position and the belief that she has any more moral authority than any other citizen is wrong.

You say extreme left. When you stand with a person convicted of sending terrorist organizations (World Trade Center Bombing) money...and call them your hero....I find that more than extreme, more than left.

She loses all credibility to me.

Does the father who lost his son, supports the war, and hopes his other children would serve their country have less moral authority than her? Should she have the right to plant a cross in his son's name, when he has asked her not to? Where is the respect for his moral authority?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:41 PM   #156
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I clearly disagree with this position and the belief that she has any more moral authority than any other citizen is wrong.

You say extreme left. When you stand with a person convicted of sending terrorist organizations (World Trade Center Bombing) money...and call them your hero....I find that more than extreme, more than left.

She loses all credibility to me.

Does the father who lost his son, supports the war, and hopes his other children would serve their country have less moral authority than her? Should she have the right to plant a cross in his son's name, when he has asked her not to? Where is the respect for his moral authority?


i think we're talking past each other.

they both have moral authority. but the fact that she holds political beliefs that you may or may not disagree with does not disqualify her or make her illegitimate. you might disagree with her position, but she has every right to make a stand, to say what she wants, and to be on TV demanding an audience with the president. she may not get it, but she warrents the attention she has been given -- and she knows exactly what she wants to do with that attention, much in the way that Rosa Parks knew exactly what she was doing when she refused to give up her seat to a white person.

i think nitpicking over crosses misses the point.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:42 PM   #157
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I clearly disagree with this position and the belief that she has any more moral authority than any other citizen is wrong.

how about this: she has moral authority over the president.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:44 PM   #158
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



this is a myth

sure there were dixiecrats in the South against Civil rights in the Democratic Party


but the GOP was not at the fore front of Civil Rights,

Goldwater was not pro civil rights in 64
nor Nixon in 68

after Wallace shocked the system in 68
the GOP came up with their Southern strategy to split off the disaffected white Democratic voters
and have been working it ever since

Ok...I will take my history degree and chuck it.

When exactly did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:45 PM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



how about this: she has moral authority over the president.
How about they are equal?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:46 PM   #160
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i think nitpicking over crosses misses the point.
I think nitpicking is my cue that we are through talking.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 02:48 PM   #161
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


How about they are equal?


nope.

her son is dead.

last i heard, Jenna was really drunk over the weekend at the Blue Gin.

(making that last sentence up, but you get my point)

she lost her son for this war. Bush might have lost an election.

what's the greater loss? and who needs the greater justification for the loss?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 03:16 PM   #162
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:32 AM
she is so pathetic...


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF By Ann Coulter
Wed Aug 17, 8:05 PM ET



To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 05:32 PM   #163
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
Of course, Ft Worth Frog, nothing publicly points to that conclusion. Bush has done a VERY good job of diverting public attention from the dubious and questionable activities of such luminaries as Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, from the nation's attention. He has very successfully invented the fabrication of "democratic nation building" as a purpose in invading Iraq. Outwardly, we seem to be trying to do it, and the Iraqi people tragically believe in it too, wait until they learn the truth, when they find they're no freer in the international spere, and still have little rights--Why didn't he initially come out and say, right from Day One, that we are in Iraq to build democracy there? Why the lies about the WMD's? Did he think that we would not love supporting such a noble cause as nation building, esp as we have enthusiastically done so before? Or was it b/c that was never the real intention, and at the time he could think of nothing else that would galvanize our support?

The only public buildings the US has consistently guarded from Day One are the governmental complexes and the Oil Ministry. Such facts as these were much remarke don in 2003 but seemed to get lost in the constant media drumbeat of "democracy, democracy." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only kind of "democracy" we want to build is a nation with a heavy-handed, pro-American puppet gov't that can keep the lid on its volatile and unpredictable "man in the street" (which generally tends to be anti-American, in the Moslem world--this is why we weren't greeted as heroes) while the US puts in place an apparatus with which to exploit to the maximum its natural rescources. Namely, its oil. When we speak of "which party gets to control the oil" with regards to the Constitution, that is a sham. What we really mean is, 'Which party gets the hallowed privalege of staffing and working the wells whose largesse goes not to a strong, independent, Iraq which is the politcal equal of is, but instead mostly to us." The ideal we are striving for is NOT Japan or Germany but a milder version of Saudi Arabia. We were quite happy in the 1950's to let the autocratic and despotic al-Saud family consolidate its power while the employees of U.S. Oil Giant Aramco lived in isolated luxurious compounds and carried out their work while the not giving a damn about the local population. That was the way BOTH parties wanted and continue to want it. Bush's and Cheney's cronies live in the same type luxurious walled compounds. And the American employees of these companies get 10 times better health care and benefits than their Iraqi staff. Nobody can possibly be as bad as the al-Saud branch of the Royal Family, but we want an semi-autocratic gov't that will have no real true independent power (if it did, it would have the power to criticize our corporate actions there and limit corporate prescence ands military actions, much as Japan was able to throw out the Portugese Jesuits who controlled the Japanese silk trade in the early 1600's) and would not be able to confront us is, for example, in the future they think we are taking too much oil.

Democracies are fluid, unpredictable things. But they are democracies and equal to us, and when they make decisions we don't like, or say things to us we don't like, there's not a damed thing we can do about it. Except diplomatic protests, maybe a tarriff or two, etc. When France criticized our decision to go to war, did we send in 20,000 troops to make sure Chriac behaved himself, changed his tune, and continued to export the same French products to America in the same volume? ? No. There was media bashing and some boycotts, and that was it.

Tell me: If a"democratic" Iraq turned around 20 yrs from now and decided that the US was getting a bit too much of its oil, ot the amount that was being exported had to be drastically reduced to meet domestic needs, due to pressure from the public, who felt the US was getting too much, and they wanted to pressure us by closing the miltary base on the Euphrates, would we just be content to do some media bashing and light boycotts? Would we accept Iraq as an equal, as we accept France, ("Damn , there' nothing we can do, excoet boycott or slap down some tariffs") OR would we threaten to send in the troops and in fact do it, just to safeguard our continued oil supply, bypassing regualar channels of diplomatic communication like the UN, feeling it was out exclsuive right and privalege, as Iraq's "liberator" , to do so? Would we thus feel it was our right to treat Iraq like a child that must be "disciplined" by its parent, whne it gets "too uppity", and NOT as an adult we are having an argument with, and is therefore "undisciplinable", since it outgrew us long ago, and which we just have to learn to live with?

I doubt it. I think we will always see Iraq as our child, to do with as we please, regardless of who or what her government is, and regardless of input or advice or action from others. THAT , folks, is my defenition of a colony. To feel we have a right to "control" a place. Which I am sure Bush feels America should have.

As for the "Resolutions"..the first 3 were pre-2003, aftermaths of 1990. They were the loosly cited "precidents" looselt interpreted to got war. Tonkin all over again....The last ones were done by the UN b/c it had no choice. It wasn't "You were right to do this, you have authorization to conquer and occupt Iraq." It wasm "well, we have no choice at this point, sunce you're obviously not getting out." But do resolutions s like this have any real power, are they morally advisable? Say tomorrow China decided to attack Japan to revenge itslef for WWII. After the war goers on 3 months, and the UN reluctantly passes resolutions saying it agrees,since it can't stop it, does it really agree? Does an "After the fact" resolution have legitimacy? we may as well accept the law of the jungle. BUT we still went into Iraq alone, agaisnt the wishes of the entire world. The foreing troops stilwith us are under the command of US officers, NOT their own, and that is a crucial difference. Neither are the under the command of UN personnel, which truly consitutues an "inernational" force. With regards to Bosnia" : "Invaded" was perhpas the worng word. What I meant was that the UNited Nations eventually got involved and passed a globally-supported resolaution authorizung the use of a body UN peacekppers ans troops made up of troops sefing under US commanders, to go in and keep the peace. And Kosovo, yes, had no UN mandate, but you have to remember that this was an extremely rare case when SOMETHING had to be IMMEDIATELY, within days, or a genocidal situation was at hand. Do you remember what happened in Kosovo? Radovan Kadic, Milosovh's chief henchman, decided to continue to try for his "greater Serbia" by literally forcing out the entire Bosnian Moslem population of the province out at gunpoint. They were being force dout fo their towns and herded to the borders, where Serb miltary forced them to surrended their passports and ID, this renoucing clains on land and property. And htis was being done in a real time of DAYS and HOURS. NOT weeks and months, like in Rwanda or Darfur. I remember the news Special Reports on TV. "Peter, how many more people have crossed the border in the last 24 hours?" "Um, unconfimrned reports say another 500,000 since yesterday afternoon.They have no food, no water..." And so on. And Europe was doing not a damed thing. THis initelsf was nothing new but the FANTASTIC SPEED with which events unfolded WAS. Clearly Clinton felt guilty aoubt Rwanda and decided "not again." Bush would have ingnored Rwanda too (hey African ,livces are worth less after all), but he would have ignored Kosovo too....

IN the meantime, while we wait for Cindy's mother to stabilize (strokes are hell, my aunt had two of them....God bless both or them and the family...pray for them, .I hope this will help the Sheehan family to a temporary truce if not some reconcoilation..and if some nutjob even DARES to suggest this is Divine payback to Cindy--I wouldn't pu tit past some wackos out there, I don't mean posters on here..well, I hope they get what they wish on her).

Here are the artickes..which I think shoukd be required reaidng for all following this conflict.

The first one I had a problem linking with. It has been up since August 12 and already shows signs of becoming a classic article. Henry Kissinger weigns in on Iraq. "Lessons For An Exit Strategy." You need to register at the Washingotn Post website ,it;s quick and free, only a couple of bozes to fill in, and you'll find it in the "most Emiled Articles" box. Could domeone PLEASE post the whole thing on here, I don't know how to do this.

KIssinger talks of international solutions. Ha. I'm sure he means the UN. When the UN is borught in to keep the peace, THEN I'll know the US is sincere. But I don't think Bush wants the rest of the world to have any poitical say in dealing with Iraq--like IT will.


The second article's title says it all: "Philadelphia 1789 Vs Baghdad 2005." It's along scholarly contrast in COnstitutional situations. This link does work.
www.Slate.com/id/2124691?nav=wp

I hope someone can print this too. People tend not to comment on linked articles, and these are ome OF THE best american writing on Iraq, IMO.
The Bush administration has not lied about anything and its central case for military action against Saddam was laid down in resolution 1441! The United Nations had already passed mulitple UN resolutions required Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD and he failed to. The planet cannot tolerate such a huge threat in such close proximity to the planets major energy reserves, especially in light of Saddam's previous history.

The energy reserves in the Persian Gulf benefit the entire planet and can help control the cost of energy when the supply is increased relative to global demand. This has many economic benefits for the entire planet. Cheaper energy means cheaper cost of doing business and cheaper cost of living. The average person on the street benefits when the cost of energy is held down or drops. The recent increase in energy cost worldwide make coalition goals for Security stability in the Persian Gulf region even more vital.

The United States is not the only country that benefits from a greater and more secure supply of oil from the Persian Gulf region. Everyone on the planet is effected by the market value of oil and the greater supply of oil from the Persian Gulf has a beneficial impact for the entire planet in terms of what people pay for their energy needs.

Germany and Japan benefited from US help after World War II and both countries have kept US troops on their territory continuesly over the past 60 years. The United States wants to establish a democracy in Iraq because that is the form of government that would most likely be respectful towards its neighbors and be less likely to start a war. That benefits the USA and the planet because it will enhance the security of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which border Iraq just to the south. Anything that enhances the security of these two countries enhances the security of the whole planet. It was a necessity that Saddam be removed and new government established. The best form of government to establish in Iraq in order to enhance the security of the rest of the region is a democracy.

Democracies typically do not wage unprovoked war on their neighbors which is why increasing the number of them in the world benefits the planet greatly. Notice back to your French example that although France decided to protest the coalition invasion, they never sent troops to stop it. They would in fact months later vote for a resolution approving the occupation.

In regards to your Iraq of 20 years example, Iraq would never have to cut back on its exports of oil to meet domestic demand, the supply of oil in Iraq dwarfs the needs of the population there. On the contrary, Iraq needs to export more OIL in order to reach its full economic potential. Iraqi's can't eat the oil, its value to them is the vast amount of money they earn from exporting it to the planet for its energy needs. You need to remember that every country is effect by the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf even if they don't actualy import oil from the Persian Gulf. That is because the global market price for oil determines the price of oil all over the world, regardless of where that specific country or region extracts the oil. When the global supply of oil is increased relative to global demand for oil, the price of oil drops and everyone benefits regardless of where they live.

Under your interpretation of a colony, one could consider most of Europe and Japan to be colonies of the United States as well.

In regards to the UN resolutions, the countries that make up the UN ALWAYS have a choice about whether they want to support a given resolution or not. The UN did not have to pass 3 different resolutions authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, nor did they have no choice in authorizing 3 different resolutions authorizing the occupation. All it would have taken was one veto by a permanent member of the Security Council and those resolutions would not have been passed. In addition, resolutions could have been presented to the council for a vote, resolutions that condemned the invasion or called for a withdrawal, but none ever were. While its true the United States could veto such a resolution, it has never stopped countries from attempting to pass resolutions against Israel.

The UN does not pass resolutions to approve actions they cannot stop. The UN could not stop the initial Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, yet they passed numerous resolutions condemning and opposing it. Iraq occupied Kuwait for 7 months, but the UN never passed a resolution approving the occupation.

If any country on the security council did not approve of the coalition occupation of Iraq, they could have voted against the resolution. Countries vote against resolutions all the time, and permanent members of the Security Council have the power to veto resolutions.

The United States did not go into the war in Iraq alone with dozens of countries sending troops. The United Nations approved the action as well as the occupation. There have been few multi-lateral operations as large or involving as many countries as the one in Iraq.

The US/NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo did not actually have UN resolutions authorizing them. The United States led NATO into both operations, but that is a 26 nation military alliance, not the UN. Also, there was plenty of time in both cases for a UN resolutions to be passed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 05:55 PM   #164
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
she is so pathetic...


CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF By Ann Coulter
Wed Aug 17, 8:05 PM ET
I am confused, are you saying Cindy Sheehan or Ann Coulter is pathetic?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 06:10 PM   #165
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Since when is exercising one's right to free speech and political protest "Stalinist agitprop"?

Oh, wait, I expected reasoned, logical argument from Ann Coulter. My mistake.
__________________

__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com