Oh, sorry. You are so right. I mean, claiming that a woman who lost her son for a war in which she can find no reasonable purpose is crazy and only looking for attention is the epitome of logical thought. Thanks for setting me straight.
soo, its only alright to protest losing your child to war if you are a republican? What say you sheehan critics? If the shoe was on the other party, would you be ok with her protesting about the democratic leadership? seems kinds odd that the only people uncomfortable with her protesting are the supporters of the administration and/or war. new memo to everyone : the only military families worthy of support are ones that keep their mouths shut about their pain. Learn it, Live it.
this has nothing to do with politics, or for me it doesnt. like others have said, she bashed both sides.
Bearing in mind that none of your posts in this thread are anything more than disgustingly narrowminded opinion, lets do some donkey translation. Heeeee-Haaaaaaw. Being angry about her son's death = using him and being crazy. She looks crazy and only wanted attention. All radicals are crazy. Loving a child sucks. Even though she is obviously crushed by the loss of her son - she is still a crazy b**** because she is radical. Ok. So now she's no longer crazy - she's just delusional in thinking she gave up anything for her country when her son died in a war for the USA. Thanks Donkey! So now she's crazy again. But we still don't know why. According to donkey, it's not because of the loss of her son, but she is delusional about that. Everyone following? She did things. Therefore she is crazy. Note that again she is delusional about her son's role in her life, but that apparently does not make her crazy. It's those darned "things". You see donkey - my original point here was not to debate what constitutes someone as "crazy". But to point out that your complete lack of sympathy for her plight, and your obvious disdain for her point of view bordered on being "crazy ramblings" themselves. I hardly think it difficult to fathom how one would view the loss of a child in war as a "sacrifice", but i digress.
Actually, that's not quite true. Some of her frustration seems to come from the reaction of the 'left' when she criticized the Democrats. I don't really think this is cause for the Republicans to gloat that -- see! she thinks you guys are just as bad as us!! -- but it is telling of politics. She was a pawn. A prop. Probably got in deeper then she intended, fully buying into some of the hype behind her -- thinking it was about the 'cause' rather than partisanship. Or maybe she just got burned out about the whole thing. Between losing her son, the media roller coaster she rode, and the crap she put up with -- I just can't imagine what she's gone through. And even now....we paint her as we want her so she best supports our 'side.' --- or makes the other side look bad. Ain't politics grand.
so do I does that make me crazy, or does it make anyone uncomfortable? I guess freedom of speech is only celebrated when the speaker is saying what you want to hear. bnb I wanted to speak on what you referenced(re: pawn of the ultraleft), but sometimes words fail me, and I sound disjointed. I pretty much agree with you afatg.
Not just of the ultra-left. Of the right. Of the sensible left. And of the 24 hour cable news too. We forget that these are people with lives, emotions etc. I don't agree with all that she did.....but I have HUGE respect for her...and am extra cautious when passing judgement on someone who's life was thrown into the media playpen, and political sludgefest.
The difference would be in that God knew that Jesus would die on the cross when he created him, even though the decision to do so lay with Jesus. Sheehan did not have her son for the purpose of him dying in Iraq (presumably).
didnt say that nor did i imply. your translation skills suck. see above comment. again, sucks. you're not understanding, nor does it seem you really wish to. no. so save your breath. wrong again. i didnt want to debate her looney-ness either, but i said what i felt...which isnt what you were bashing me for earlier..for not saying what i felt? If you dont like my comment, fine say so and get on with it. i sure hate to offend anyone...just like the saying goes, stick and stones, etc My lack of sympathy? im sorry that any parent losses their child, its not natural. that being said do i have to kiss her arse to 'prove' my sympathys for the loss of a loved one? of course not. you are assuming that b/c i called her crazy that i am heartless and dont care, well thats just wrong. Am i a little blunt and to the point. sure, but that doesnt mean i dont have feelings too!!! as for her sacrifice, i explained that and thats how i feel. It doesnt mean that i dont care about her loss, it just means that i dont really think that, technically, SHE sacrificed. I thought i made it a clear point earlier but im sure you missed it. Purposely making up weak arguments as to what i "really mean" isnt going to cut it. i say what i say and even though you may think there is some deep meaning or some side mouthed comment in there, it does not mean thatreally was. maybe you dont need to translate...maybe you should just take it as it really is.
I did not know it was that hard for you to just acknowledge that your posts were unsubstantiated and insensitive to the point of being ugly and perturbing, donkey. Carry on.
well maybe we should all hold hands and sing songs. And lets only say nice things to eachother and only talk about the positives in life. sorry that i may have appeared like a big meanie . its ok...that meanie wont hurt you
Im not really aware of the particular usings of the right or sensible(?) left...I guess after the initial news coverage of her protests,I really didnt pay that much attention to what else was going on with her.....fell off my radar if you will. All I do know is that her son died in a war that she (and a majority of this country now) deem as useless and a waste of our resources(human and otherwise) I know her anger was manifested in very public protests against the war and the politicians that caused it. I know the farleft took advantage of her anger and made her a national spokesman for their cause...adn not surprisingly, took it to the extreme. I also know that the main people I see denigrating her for these protests are rightwingers who are offended that she dare criticize the admin. I also know that their MO when they feel "uncomfortable" with someone's criticisms they lash out with nasty innuendo and flatout lies to make that person look unstable or unpatriotic. those were the main things I initially commented on...and therefore, wondered aloud if the critics would be the same way if the admin was not "their party" and eventho refman thinks this isnt a valid point....I do know that Im a totally different person as far a being sympathetic about her loss than I would have been before I had kids. Before: ok, sorry you lost your kid, now get off my tv After: man, thats gotta suck to lose you kid, I really feel for her. and eventho I still want her off my tv, I certianly wouldn't have tried to minimize her loss or pretend like she has no reason to be pissed and vocal in her protests against the war.
do you actually read what i type??? i said "sorry that i may have appeared like a big meanie " give it a break dude. you arent getting anywhere what the hell? did i say she couldnt protest? pull your head out for petes sake.
Did you go on a random swing visiting with Hugo Chavez and the like to make your case? If so, yeah, it makes you a little crazy. Her mission went from "end the war" to "I hate Bush and am going to mingle with enemies of the US". At that point, it became political.
"enemies of the US" or enemies of the bushies and cons? Are you implying those low-income American families that received cheap heating fuel from Chavez are not part of the US?
Enemy of the US. Both parties agree that Chavez is on a path towards dictatorship and have condemned him multiple times. He uses Bush as an easy target, but rhetoric doesn't decide whether one is an enemy of the US or not. He has purposely formed alliances with enemies of the US (or do you think it's a coincidence that he's partnered with Iran and Cuba?) and is anti-democracy, locks up political dissidents, etc. He has pretty much come out and stated the US & its philosophies are the enemy. Whether a person does any good things doesn't determine whether he's an enemy of the US. If that's your standard, then if Bin Laden gives some money to the poor, I assume he's no longer our enemy? http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.aspx
“The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing." Hmm, yeah, I'd say he's probably anti-US.
