Coulter criticizes 9/11 wives...

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Bah! Nevermind FH. The particular quote I was thinking of seems to be surrounded by some controversy. Evidently Carlin denies writing it! Or so somebody says. He probably didn't, people are liars.

You might be right after all.

Oh well the atheist part doesn't really matter, the major issue is that Ann Coulter is a major bitch and if George Carlin really believed in any of the other things than he would have stood up to that ungrateful sack of ****.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't buy that.

Why do the Democrats have to be using the victim? Why is it assumed the victim is being used by anyone? Why can't the victim just be the victim, and have something to say about being the victim without someone automatically saying they are being manipulated by a political party? I know why they can't just be the victim -- because then someone would actually have to come up with answers.

Secondly, "the points can't be attacked" is simply not true. The points can be attacked and I know this because the points are attacked. I've seen it on the television and read it on the interweb. The points are attacked. The victims themselves are attacked. Their patriotism and even sanity are questioned and they are all labelled stooges. The point is not a point at all because it's not true.

Why was Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union Address? Did she go there of her own will or was she invited by a prominent liberal Senator? She was not just being a victim. Initially, probably she was. Somewhere along the way her pain and grief was hijacked by politicians. You can say it doesn't happen all you want and you'll be wrong.

The points are attacked and the attackers are villified for it. That was exactly her point, and you just strengthened it. When the democrats use the victims to make their points the attacks/rebuttals are dismissed as mean spirited hate speech. Coulter's uproar this week is proof of exactly that.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Oh well the atheist part doesn't really matter, the major issue is that Ann Coulter is a major bitch and if George Carlin really believed in any of the other things than he would have stood up to that ungrateful sack of ****.

Yes and no. I know what you are saying, but Carlin took the high road. Does she really need to be stood up to in order for her words to be rendered meaningless? Maybe he figured, and rightly so IMO, that she had already hung herself and was continuing to do so.

One thing I hate about liberals and activists is that they seem to need confrontation to further their views. All one must do is listen to Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer and Daschle to see that. I'd love to see them disagree with the administration without making it personal.

Maybe that's just all politicians anymore though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't buy that.

Why do the Democrats have to be using the victim? Why is it assumed the victim is being used by anyone? Why can't the victim just be the victim, and have something to say about being the victim without someone automatically saying they are being manipulated by a political party? I know why they can't just be the victim -- because then someone would actually have to come up with answers.

Maybe because those victims, like Cindy Sheehen used their situation for political gain. And in doing so, completely trash any credibility they have gained.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why was Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union Address? Did she go there of her own will or was she invited by a prominent liberal Senator? She was not just being a victim. Initially, probably she was. Somewhere along the way her pain and grief was hijacked by politicians. You can say it doesn't happen all you want and you'll be wrong.

Is it not possible that she was both "there of her own will" and "invited by a prominent liberal senator"? Who are you to say she was not just being a victim? She's an American -- why shouldn't she be at the state of the union address? If she's there to make a political statement, why is that a bad thing? What is wrong with a political statement?

Bah. This is typical. Someone raises questions about the war and instead of answering the questions the conservatives challenge the motivations of the questioner.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The points are attacked and the attackers are villified for it. That was exactly her point, and you just strengthened it. When the democrats use the victims to make their points the attacks/rebuttals are dismissed as mean spirited hate speech. Coulter's uproar this week is proof of exactly that.

I don't know if she attacked the "points", but I do know she attacked those women. Suggesting someone is happy that their husband is dead is about as mean-spirited as you can get. Don't turn it around.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'll grant you she was there of her own will and invited. That doesn't change the fact that prominent politicians sought her out to further THEIR causes through her. You honestly can't see that?

I didn't turn anything around. I've maintained from the beginning that her words and spirit were horrific at best. Don't try to turn this into a DFF loves Anne Coulter debate!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'll grant you she was there of her own will and invited. That doesn't change the fact that prominent politicians sought her out to further THEIR causes through her. You honestly can't see that?

I didn't turn anything around. I've maintained from the beginning that her words and spirit were horrific at best. Don't try to turn this into a DFF loves Anne Coulter debate!

Maybe the politicians cause and Sheehan's cause were one in the same? I really don't know. From where I sit, it looks to me like she used the politicians about as much as they used her.

If the Politician Bob wants to bash George and question the war and Cindy Sheehan wants to bash George and question the war, what's wrong with Politician Bob and Cindy Sheehan getting together and making a little more noise than they normally would?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe the politicians cause and Sheehan's cause were one in the same? I really don't know. From where I sit, it looks to me like she used the politicians about as much as they used her.

If the Politician Bob wants to bash George and question the war and Cindy Sheehan wants to bash George and question the war, what's wrong with Politician Bob and Cindy Sheehan getting together and making a little more noise than they normally would?

Because Bob is an elected official. As such, his opinions are subject to scrutiny from the public and from the media. Bob is using Sheehan as a shield. With Sheehan there his opinions are far less likely to be torn apart and spun in a negative light. Everyone feels sorry for Cindy, so in turn they are sympathetic to Bob....and if they aren't, they certainly aren't cold enough to call out Cindy for her and Bob's opinion....save a few folks like Coulter who have ended up looking like big asses for doing so.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Because Bob is an elected official. As such, his opinions are subject to scrutiny from the public and from the media. Bob is using Sheehan as a shield. With Sheehan there his opinions are far less likely to be torn apart and spun in a negative light. Everyone feels sorry for Cindy, so in turn they are sympathetic to Bob....and if they aren't, they certainly aren't cold enough to call out Cindy for her and Bob's opinion....save a few folks like Coulter who have ended up looking like big asses for doing so.

You mean like when people equate questioning the war = you don't support our troops?

It happens on both sides.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You mean like when people equate questioning the war = you don't support our troops?

It happens on both sides.

You think Cindy Sheehan supports the troops? When she calls the terrorists "freedom fighers?"

Her situation has turned into a political movement. If you can't see that, you're blind. Many, many liberal people have jumped on her bandwagon, using her situation as a victim to further their cause.

[MarchHare]

You think Cindy Sheehan supports the troops?

I think she does support the troops much more than anyone who supports the war in Iraq. She supports the troops by wanting to bring them home, so other military families won't have to endure the loss of their children as she did.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Her situation has turned into a political movement.

That was the point. "Mission: Accomplished".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think she does support the troops much more than anyone who supports the war in Iraq. She supports the troops by wanting to bring them home, so other military families won't have to endure the loss of their children as she did.

I have a couple brothers in Iraq, and they both think Cindy Sheehan is a idiot that will do anything to undermine the efforts in Iraq. When you start calling terrorists "freedom fighters" you don't support the troops. The guys in Iraq here that, and most of whom I have talked to or am in communication with say they believe Cindy Sheehan is trashing the image of the US Military.

To you she may support them by asking to bring them home, but to me she is an idiot looking for attention. Everyone listened to her during her intial campaign, even I thought she had a point, but considering she has completely tarnished the name of her son, and used his goodwill to further her agenda, I don't think she has a point anymore.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That was the point. "Mission: Accomplished".

She had her 5 seconds of fame. Its time to quit now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

She had her 5 seconds of fame. Its time to quit now.

For all I know, she has quit. Do you really think it's about fame?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

For all I know, she has quit. Do you really think it's about fame?

Like I said, initially I thought she had a very good point, and knowing many military moms, I grieved for her, or along with her. But eventually it got a bit pathetic, as it seemed that she completley forgot about the service her son did, how he volunteered to go to Iraq, and she simply used his tragic death to further her means.

Having gone through what she did, I don't think it was right for her to use that experiance as political insight.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think Cindy Sheehan supports the troops? When she calls the terrorists "freedom fighers?"

Her situation has turned into a political movement. If you can't see that, you're blind. Many, many liberal people have jumped on her bandwagon, using her situation as a victim to further their cause.

I actually wasn't talking about Sheehan specifically, but those labels seem to get tossed around.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Having gone through what she did, I don't think it was right for her to use that experiance as political insight.

Why not? Why should her experience nullify her political insight?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I actually wasn't talking about Sheehan specifically, but those labels seem to get tossed around.

You have a valid point. But too many times victims turn into political pawns, not of their own fault, but because a certain party hijacks them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Why not? Why should her experience nullify her political insight?

Because many, many other military moms have had the exact same experiance, yet they believe exactly the opposite.

Why wasn't Cindy Sheehen so vocal about the war and bringing the troops home prior to Casey being killed?