Wacko Cindy Sheehan cozies up to leftist dictator Chavez

Well she is straight so I would assume she does.

 

That about sums it up.

 

LOL! are you just naive or gullible

 

Chavez has won multiple elections by large margins that have been certified by international monitors.

Chavez enjoys huge popular support in Venezuela.

Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won with an extremely narrow margin in 2004.

The % of the population that approves of the job Bush is doing as president has been below 50% for months and has dipped into the 30's.

I would say Chavez measures up pretty well against Bush on the democracy scale.

As much as the wingnuts wish it were so, opposing the Bush administration still does not make you a "dictator".

 

i know you don't like bush and all...that is perfectly fine, but you need to do some research before talking about chavez like he is some model of democracy compared to "shrub".

 

You should do more research on Chavez. Your statement is false. Chavez has gone through. He has been elected multiple times, in elections observed by impartial electoral monitoring groups.

In fact there was even a recall election against Chavez. Not many dictators allow unscheduled elections with the potential of removing them from power. Chavez won that election as well.

Not once has there been indications that he wouldn't have won any of his elections despite the irregularities that were present from both sides. The elections were closer to those that recently happened in Iraq than to those in China. His approval rating in the country remains over 50%. The standard of living has gone up for Venezuelans by 17% overall, and by 33% for those in poverty.

You make claims about him not being able to be removed, but that is due to his popularity not due to his seizing control and disallowing fair elections.

Where have you been getting your facts about Chavez? If you don't want to stop using that source all together you might think about at least using other sources as well. It might help you find more accurate information the future.

Chavez isn't my favorite politician, but he is far from my least favorite. I like a lot of the reforms he has done, and the good he has done for the poor of Venezuela.

I don't like that he jailed some journalists in the past. I don't like that in the past he tried to take over the govt. As long as he steers clear of those activities he will be ok.

I do enjoy the fact that he puts up huge murals of himself in places. I would like it if American leaders would start doing the same thing.

 

Respect the troops and their sacrifices.

Respect the troops' families and their sacrifices.

UNLESS MOMMY IS A LIBERAL.

 

Does anyone else find it disturbing that the same people who proclaim the "spread of democracy" as the motivation for war in the middle east and the altruistic goal of neocon ideology are the same people who call any elected official critical of Bush some sort of "communist terrorist sympathizer"?

What sort of delusion do these people live under? Still waiting for the "flowers" promised in Baghdad too? I hate to break it to you, but these elections are simply affirming what any sane person could have told you for the last twenty years:

American foreign policy has not made for foreign popularity. It's a rather sad story for the Bush Junta - they use the "democracy" excuse, only to find that, if given the chance, these people will vote for leaders that oppose US policies which do not benefit them or their country. Duh. I guess Yale can't teach common sense...

 

truer words have never been spoken.

the neocons have invaded and taken over the Republican party like the body snatcher aliens. We are now literaly dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing. The problem is, the people are so blind and willing to give up freedoms and liberty for safety that all the Neocons have to do every election is raise the terror alert, release a Bin laden tape from 2 years ago and boom they're guaranteed the election again. pathetic. I'd vote Republican anyway, but there's no need to keep playing the terror card. Then again, with all the scandals and the pork barrel projects they've been doing, I guess that's really the only card they have left.

Ahh Mr. Frannklin, where are you?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

 

Why? And I am not meaning to imply you should vote democrat. But why republican, given your statement above and similar comments you have made in the past?

 

Sorry if Cindy is not resigning herself to only the crying mommy role. This apparently is all that is allowed among moderates. Of course, just the grieving mother role,to the extent that it embarassed Bush was not allowed by the pro-war conservative crowd.

In her search for why we went on a fruitless war in Iraq where her son was needlessly killed, Cindy can't question the underlying consensus that all who oppose conservative capitalism with its billions of victims are evil, while we are always good--the consensus that allows moderates again and again to be swept up into war fever so easily.

We see the demonization of Cindy with the confused moderates jumping on. We saw this with Dean or anyone else who doesn't p***y foot around in their opposition to Bush and the iimperialist consensus.

 

Well said.

 

Your post upsets me just like every other about Mama Sheehan. Why? Because you've made HER the most important aspect of this story. We should be talking about her son and not her. He's the story. Her entire family has disowned her over this and its obvious that her son didn't feel the way that she does. Why does HER opinion matter more than her son (you know, the one who actually gave his life). It's obvious that she's nothing more than a once grieving mother who has become addicted to fame. She'll do anything she can to stay in the spotlight (including cozying up to Chavez).

 

I agree that the son is the most important. I also believe that Sheehan in her grief has found something to keep herself busy. That is a good thing. But it has ballooned into an inflated feeling of self-importance.

However, her whole family didn't disown her over this. It was only one side of the family that wasn't as close with her son as she was too begin with. The family disowning thing was a tactic to discredit her early on in her struggles to find out why her son was sent to his death.

Also I do think the families are part of the story. Every family that has someone in service is making a huge sacrifice, and when that person loses their life in service then the family also pays a price that is hard to deal with. Cindy Sheehan is a mother who has lost a son. Her son's service should be the first to be honored, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't respect her sacrifice, and honor the families of the military as well.

 

I think that Cindy is representative of families throughout the US that are wondering why their sons/daughters/family members died in Iraq. I agree that the real tradegy is her son's death - not Cindy. But that should not cheapen the emotional distress of mother's like Cindy. And I think that's why people are transfixed with this story - it is a reality that for the most part America has been shielded form during this conflict.

I don't understand why you are so angry about people like Cindy. If her son fought and died for an illegitimate or unnecessary rationale shouldn't she be allowed to be upset and bitter?

 

Because, I believe that once the neocons are exorcised from the party, the Republicans will be able to go back to its core ideology. That and I also don't see any viable Democrat candidates. The one possible Democrat I might vote for is Spitzer for NY governor. The best candidates that the Republicans can put out to challenge him is a billionarie who is plnning ot spend $130 million on his run for gov, and some carpetbagger from Massachusetts. Spitzer has cleaned up Wall Street, and is a New Yorker who is always fighting the rich. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for him.

My vote for president lies squarely with McCain. It would take ALOT for me to change my mind.

BTW The only time I ever voted Democrat was '04 against the puppet moron.

 

she's been given a podium. in our voiceless society she has been granted the ability to be heard. she is exercizing that democratic right.

 

you got a good point.. bush was elected as well..

in jan 2001, 5-4 by ussc..

 

I disagree strongly with this. Argue about her tactics if you want, but what makes her sense of self inflated? She seems like a smart intelligent woman who has been pretty media savvy and has brought a lot of useful attention to the issue she is interested in.

Hopefull you would not consider Rosa Parks or any other ordinary person who is suddenly thrust into the limelight and grows with a movement she is helping to create to have an inflated feeling of self importance.

 

Then I guess we're not in a 'voiceless' society.

Rosa Parks didn't move to become a media darling, nor cavort with external anti-american influences.