Darn. And just one day before her son would have been honored again. Her 15minutes were long over and it was time. But she is bitter. Very bitter. At the democrats. For abandoning her.:rolleyes:

She decided it’s time to pitch one last attention-getting fit and then take her absolute moral authority ball and go home.

"I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…..

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it." :rolleyes:

Good riddance.

Yeah, and she was/is ugly, too. No, wait, ...she was more than ugly, she was so fuckin' ugly that clocks turned their faces away. She was so ugly that she probably only got laid once ....by a drunk who couldn't see!!

Oh, and she was/is stupid, too. Stupid plus ugly as a fence post adds up to ...whooaaaa, big time UGLY!

Baron Max

How can you say that:confused: :D

http://marknicodemo.mu.nu/archives/Useful%20Idiot.jpg

http://www.fotogblog.com/uploaded_images/WPN%20cindy%20sheehan-746467.jpg

http://www.playtah.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/8556860-R1-032-14A.jpg

http://www.ptgustan.com/oct06/pieceofwork.jpg

She looks like she has WAY too much testosterone too. :crazy:

Jesus would want you to love her even more now, sandy. Jesus doesn't like it when women talk out of turn though. Better be careful!

Love her? She's an anti-America, anti-Bush, treasonist, traitor, liberal POS embarrassment to America/humanity. Yeah, sure, I love her.:puke:

Matthew 22:36-40:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Echoing Leviticus 19:18, which said:

18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Matthew 22:36-40:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."


Echoing Leviticus 19:18, which said:

18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.


See also Matthew 5:43:

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Matthew 22:36-40:

Echoing Leviticus 19:18, which said:

Cindy what-the-fucks-her-name ain't no neighbor of mine!

Baron Max

Oh I love St. Cindy just fine. It's her personality I can't stand.;)

What do you have to say in response to these words of Jesus, sandy? Is Jesus more important to you than airing our your bile-ridden cavern on these forums?

Do as Jesus says, and love your neighbor as yourself. Turn the other cheek. :)

Do as Jesus says, and love your neighbor as yourself. Turn the other cheek. :)

Can't you "love" someone and still disagree with them?

Baron Max

Do you love someone whom you denigrate as a 'POS embarassment to humanity'?

I was threatened for mentioning Jesus/God on the abortion thread. I'm not hijacking my own thread.:)

Yes. I love Jimmy Carter and I would say the same about him.

So does Jesus like it when America disobeys Him and refuses to turn the other cheek as He commanded as to do in ALL instances? If sweet Jesus didn't turn the other cheek when the Romans blew their loads on his face, where would you be right now sandy?

:(

Why hate on Cindy Sheehan? It's Fox News and other media outlets that gave you all the coverage of her, ramming it down your throats. She's no special than any other war protester yet you guys need a scapegoat to target. Besides, there's no such thing as bad publicity, either way, her message was heard.

Personally, she's a greater American than most people here because she's actually going out and taking advantage of her rights and speaking her mind rather than being fat slobs typing away on a keyboard. Don't hate.

- N

Sheehan had more media coverage than FOX. She was EVERYWHERE for a while. I disagree with everything she said but she did have the right to say it. I do believe anyone who slanders an American president while we are at war and snuggles up to enemy Chavez is a traitor.

Sheehan had more media coverage than FOX. She was EVERYWHERE for a while. I disagree with everything she said but she did have the right to say it. I do believe anyone who slanders an American president while we are at war and snuggles up to enemy Chavez is a traitor.

She "slandered" the President after her son died in a war he should not have been sent to fight. Her son died in a war, reasons for which, were found to be a lie. I'd say she had a pretty good reason to "slander" HER President.

Yes sandy, Bush is also her President. While you may throw praise on what he says and does, she has just as much right to disagree with him.

He volunteered. He wanted to go. He's probably rolling over in his grave from her idiotic behavior. Yes she had the right to say what she did. I just find her an attention whore and abomination of a human being.

He volunteered. He wanted to go. He's probably rolling over in his grave from her idiotic behavior.
He's dead.

The dead don't roll unless pushed.

And yes he may have wanted to go. This was before he would have known that he was being sent to fight after his President lied to him. Would he have wanted to go after learning that? Well we can't know can we? He's dead and can't let us know what he would have done if he had in fact known.

His mother however, who knew him since the time he was born, might have known how he would have felt. But since he is dead, it is kind of a moot point really.

Yes she had the right to say what she did.
Yes she did.

Free speech sucks when it does not say what you want it to say, doesn't it sandy?

I just find her an attention whore and abomination of a human being.
This made me LOL coming from you.

Why do you always have to resort to personal attacks? There is always something snide in your comments to me. Can't you just state your opinion without devolving to snotty comments?:confused:

Sheehan had more media coverage than FOX. She was EVERYWHERE for a while.

Fox News started it. They have a tendency for picking up odd little stories that wouldn't otherwise be important if it's able to somehow make the president look good or "the left" as bad.

Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel. When something becomes a story on Fox, others have to follow suit. It's called the sensationalist media ratings war. Pay more attention sometimes and you'll notice most stories originate with them, usually the kind that make you go WTF are they talking about or why in the hell are we even discussing this? You know, kinda like useless stuff such as this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702050009

I just find her an attention whore and abomination of a human being.

Attention whore? Who gave her all the attention? The whores are the media.

- N

Why do you always have to resort to personal attacks? There is always something snide in your comments to me. Can't you just state your opinion without devolving to snotty comments?:confused:

Personal attack?

That's a big thing for you isn't it sandy? Every time someone disagrees with you, it's a personal attack.

And I am always snide and sarcastic. It is part of my apparent charm.:)

So does Jesus like it when America disobeys Him and refuses to turn the other cheek as He commanded as to do in ALL instances? If sweet Jesus didn't turn the other cheek when the Romans blew their loads on his face, where would you be right now sandy?

:(

Excuse me SouthStar, there is turning the other cheek and then there is being stupid. Jesus wanted us to turn the other cheek when wronged, not when openly attacked. Hell, whe was the one whipping moneylenders in Temple. He is the one who said he woul;d set brother against brother. He was the one who said "If you do not own a sword, sell you cloak and purchase one."

You can't blame Fox for Sheehan. She said and did things to get the media attention. She was driven/supported by Soros and Moore. When even they dumped her @ss for being such a moonbat, her 15 minutes were over. She desperately tries for attention but has given up. I loved the picture of her waiting to sign books and NO ONE showed up for the signing.:rolleyes:

You can't blame Fox for Sheehan. She said and did things to get the media attention. She was driven/supported by Soros and Moore.

Yeah, she was driven and supported by them after they saw how much attention she was given after the fact, thanks to Fox News. Fox created the story and the left tried to exploit it. Everyone here says tons of crap on these boards but you don't see us getting media attention, do you? Fox saw a mother who lost a son who was speaking out against the war in Iraq, so they made the story. The same reason why O'Reilly had Jeremy Glick or whatever his name was, the kid who lost a father during 9/11 and is still against the Bush administration. Fox gives them the attention that you seen to not like, then all of a sudden it's other people's fault. That's the thing I can at least admire about Fox News, how good they are at manipulating people into what to think.

I loved the picture of her waiting to sign books and NO ONE showed up for the signing.

Why would people show up to it? The media quit reporting on her so she was old news. People's attention spans are very short. We could all write a book, but would you expect tons of people to show up? I wouldn't. Now start giving tons of media exposure during her book release, and people would then show up again. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Not paying attention anymore is what does all the damage.

- N

Excuse me SouthStar, there is turning the other cheek and then there is being stupid. Jesus wanted us to turn the other cheek when wronged, not when openly attacked. Hell, whe was the one whipping moneylenders in Temple. He is the one who said he woul;d set brother against brother. He was the one who said "If you do not own a sword, sell you cloak and purchase one."

I've looked at that verse multiple times and I really haven't seen 1) where he said don't turn the other cheek when you're "openly attacked" (cite where it says that, won't you?) and 2) what "whipping moneylenders in Temple" has to do with him being attacked. False parallel, buddy.

Also could you CITE that last verse for me?

All I know is that sweet ol' Jesus said "Turn the other cheek". Period. :shrug:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/28/12530/1525

I thought it was a moving and heartfelt message to the fascist corporate wasteland.

Excuse me SouthStar, there is turning the other cheek and then there is being stupid. Jesus wanted us to turn the other cheek when wronged, not when openly attacked. Hell, whe was the one whipping moneylenders in Temple. He is the one who said he woul;d set brother against brother. He was the one who said "If you do not own a sword, sell you cloak and purchase one."

He also said (quoted above) "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." It was God in the Old Testament who set "brother against brother" (the Egyptians, in Isaiah).

But then there is also Matthew 5:5-9, blessing the weak—the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers—but no blessing anywhere for "the warriors who protect the weak" or "those who struggle against their enemies" or "hardships."

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth....Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.....Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Non-violence has a strong scriptural basis and theological history in the Christian faith. It is true that Jesus cast out the moneylenders, but it's not clear He actually seriously hurt anyone doing it.

I thought Christianity was about not saying rude and evil things about fellow human beings. I'm not a Christian, but as part of my morality I try to avoid saying things such as "Bush is such an idiotic twarp" or "I hate Pat Robinson". Instead I might say "I really disagree with what Bush has done in Iraq" or "Pat Robinson makes such misogynistic and hateful comments, I don't understand why people listen to him".

Where is the moral compass that allows a person to say such horrible things about fellow human beings? What happened to the high road?

He also said (quoted above) "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." It was God in the Old Testament who set "brother against brother" (the Egyptians, in Isaiah).

Praying for those who persecute you is far different than bending over and taking it. You can pray for your enemy even as you fight them.

But then there is also Matthew 5:5-9, blessing the weak—the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers—but no blessing anywhere for "the warriors who protect the weak" or "those who struggle against their enemies" or "hardships."

Those who fight and struggle against hardships don't need blessings. They make their own way. You'll also note that he dioes not condemn those who protect the meek, or those who face their enemies.


Non-violence has a strong scriptural basis and theological history in the Christian faith. It is true that Jesus cast out the moneylenders, but it's not clear He actually seriously hurt anyone doing it.

He overturned their tables and whipped them. You heard me right, whipped them. He may have not killed them, but I can't imagine it felt good at all.

But he "whipped" them with an whip made on the spot out of cords, and through their clothing. It might have stung, like a towel snap, but it's not clear that an impromptu whip was going to do any real damage.

Another version of the "pray for your enemies" maguage is that in Luke:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. Luke 6:27-28

I have some difficulty with your reading because th pacifistic elements are so much stronger. Jesus refused to condone violence against the Romans, allowed himself to be whipped and cruicified and all of his teachings—save potentially the cleansing of the temple—show strong pacifist streaks.

You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Matt. 5.38-41

If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it. Matt 16:24-25

Anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve. Matt 20:26-28

when you stand in prayer, forgive whatever you have against anybody, so that your Father in heaven may forgive your failings too. Mark 11:25

Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge, and you will not be judge yourselves; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned yourselves; grant pardon, and you will be pardoned. Luke 6:27

"Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing.Luke 23:34 (said from the Cross)

I have told you all this so that you may find peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but be brave: I have conquered the world. John 16:33

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:19-21

I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 2 Corinth 10-2-3

If you refuse to love, you must remain dead; to hate your brother is to be a murderer, and murderers, as you know, do not have eternal life in them. 1 John 3.15

But he "whipped" them with an whip made on the spot out of cords, and through their clothing. It might have stung, like a towel snap, but it's not clear that an impromptu whip was going to do any real damage.

They knew him froma distance to be a Nazarene. Correct? Well you should know that Nazarene's carried whips with which they herded their sheep

“ Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. ”

Luke 6:27-28

Well, we are trying. We're trying to build them a strong country with a strong democracy, give them freedom and peace. Now we can't do that if we're dead.

“ You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. ”

Matt. 5.38-41

Okay, so where is the part about. If he strikes you again take that, too? Where is the don't defend yourself or your loved ones? Where is the allow him to kill you? Oh that's right it ain't there. If Jesus had meant let them kill you he would have said it, this is all petty grievance BS.


“ If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it. ”

Matt 16:24-25

Meaning that one can't be a follower of Jesus and cling to their older ways


“ Anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve. ”

Matt 20:26-28


meaning Leader should recognize they are there to Serve those they lead.

“ when you stand in prayer, forgive whatever you have against anybody, so that your Father in heaven may forgive your failings too. ”

Mark 11:25

The whole forgive and be forgiven. That can only be done after the fighting and saving your own hide is done

“ Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge, and you will not be judge yourselves; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned yourselves; grant pardon, and you will be pardoned. ”

Luke 6:27

As above.

"Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing. ”

Luke 23:34 (said from the Cross)

Yes, and so?

“ I have told you all this so that you may find peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but be brave: I have conquered the world. ”

John 16:33

Funny you take that to mean nonviolence. I take it to mean that you should face your struggles with compassion and determination. That means fighting fairly and when you are vitorious showing mercy on the enemy and forgiving them for starting the ruckas.


“ Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. ”

Romans 12:19-21


Se above

“ I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. ”

2 Corinth 10-2-3

This is just an odd one.


“ If you refuse to love, you must remain dead; to hate your brother is to be a murderer, and murderers, as you know, do not have eternal life in them. ”

1 John 3.15

Like I said before it is possible to love your enemy even as you fight for your life.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Jesus could also have easily expressly said, "blessed are those who protect the innocent" or "blessed are those who fight for their brothers", but He didn't. So arguing from the standpoint of what Jesus "could have said" doesn't seem very compelling to me.

Jesus as the messenger of the God of Peace, is, I think, the more natural reading of the New Testament, rather than Jesus as advocate of the "Christian Warrior" ethos.

Of course you have said that that is "stupid", but Jesus was clearly not that interested in this world, and His message was that we should not be concerned with it either. That may be stupid, in your opinion, but I see it more as Jesus' advocating a non-violent non-material philosophy. In effect, He preaches that this world isn't the important one. If the world isn't that important, then it makes sense that there is no reason to fight over it (even to save lives).

That's a tough message, and most people fall short of it, but no one said being Christian means embracing your survival instincts or that it would be easy.

Your reading strikes me as very strained.

God created His children as unique individuals. He did not want us all the same. My 'turn or burn' routine works on those who need it. I am gentler with
those who are weak.

He doesn't want us all to be a bunch of meek, mild, softies. Some of us are more fire and brimstone. I could not learn from meek, mild, softie preachers. I need someone like John Hagee.

God made us all for different purposes. I could not fulfill mine if I was any different.

As far as Cindy goes, her 15 minutes are long gone but she will be replaced. I thought it was with Rosie but I could be wrong.

Sheehan called Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world." This during a time of war.:mad: She openly supports the goals of Islamic jihadists calling them "freedom fighters." And her best pal is Venezuela's anti-American, socialist leader Hugo Chavez. Sheehan said "I admire him for his resolve against my government and its meddling." What a freakin moron.

Some people look at America as a joke because of liberal moonbats like Sheehan undermining every ounce of respect for our military and country. If she wants to learn something about fascism, maybe she should take some lessons from her buddy Chavez.:rolleyes:

He volunteered. He wanted to go. He's probably rolling over in his grave from her idiotic behavior. Yes she had the right to say what she did. I just find her an attention whore and abomination of a human being.

As much as I'm seething for having to agree with Sandy here, I do. I told my mom that if my unit got sent to Iraq/Afghanistan and I came back in a body bag, DO NOT act like Cindy Sheehan. I would have rolled over in my grave over her stupidity as well.

As much as I'm seething for having to agree with Sandy here, I do. I told my mom that if my unit got sent to Iraq/Afghanistan and I came back in a body bag, DO NOT act like Cindy Sheehan. I would have rolled over in my grave over her stupidity as well.

Allow me to say 'thank you' for your service to the nation in it's time of need.

Baron Max

Me too. Thanks mike.:)

For all of those who say that Jesus didn't give permission to defend our selves, read the context of Luke 35-38, and you will see that when he was among the disciples and they were under his protection he required them to bring nothing, he told them at the last supper thet he was going to die and no longer be there to protect them and made it known that they did have the responsibility to defend themselves.


35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)

Darn. And just one day before her son would have been honored again. Her 15minutes were long over and it was time. But she is bitter. Very bitter. At the democrats. For abandoning her.:rolleyes:

She decided it’s time to pitch one last attention-getting fit and then take her absolute moral authority ball and go home.

"I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used…..

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it." :rolleyes:

Good riddance.
Yes. Let's kill hundreds of thousands of people for oil. Because Jesus loves us, therefore we must kill each other so that the rich oligarchic elite can have more money and enslave more people worldwide. :bugeye:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)
According to sandy, Jesus is a KKK member who wants us to support a government that sheds tons of blood for their own profit.:bugeye:

Why do you always have to resort to personal attacks? There is always something snide in your comments to me. Can't you just state your opinion without devolving to snotty comments?:confused:
It's frustrating to talk with someone who ...

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)
I thought the 'meek' would be going to heaven, and thus would not need the earth? I thought the 'left behind' and the antichrist would inherit the earth (provided it doesn't get destroyed by an asteroid or comet first)?

It's written that will happen for a little while. Then God will take over again for "a thousand" years.

It's written that will happen for a little while. Then God will take over again for "a thousand" years.
Then what happens in year 1001, does the earth revert back to shit like it is now?
I bet even during those 1000 years, there will be many Cindy Sheehans crying and bitching about this and that though.

I thought the 'meek' would be going to heaven, and thus would not need the earth? I thought the 'left behind' and the antichrist would inherit the earth (provided it doesn't get destroyed by an asteroid or comet first)?

Probably not. Heaven was described as something here and now. Peacemakers try to help bring this heaven about for all. The whole left behind thing is a corruption of Jesus, not that I believe he was a God or anything.

Probably not. Heaven was described as something here and now. Peacemakers try to help bring this heaven about for all. The whole left behind thing is a corruption of Jesus, not that I believe he was a God or anything.
Yeah, the left behind kinda plays off the rapture, which I've been told was thought up/made popular by a 19th century British minister or something. Some Xians believe Jesus will arrive with his posse blaring trumpets and some believe the rapture will happen. Who knows.

Allow me to say 'thank you' for your service to the nation in it's time of need.

Me too. Thanks mike

You're welcome, even though it's a bit late. I was in from '98-Jan '05. I pass that respect onto the servicemembers that are still in, and serving over there.

Then what happens in year 1001, does the earth revert back to shit like it is now?
I bet even during those 1000 years, there will be many Cindy Sheehans crying and bitching about this and that though.
It's said that the evil will be momentarily unleashed again and then finanlly thrown into hell for the rest of eternity.

You're welcome, even though it's a bit late. I was in from '98-Jan '05. I pass that respect onto the servicemembers that are still in, and serving over there.
You've been to war? How was it? How many people did you kill?

You've been to war? How was it? How many people did you kill?

Nope. Never got deployed myself. The closest I have is when I was in Okinawa when 9/11 happened, I had to do two months of gate guard duty, where we got to carry loaded weapons. Didn't shoot anyone though. My reserve unit was also deployed in '04, but I stayed back here because of the section that I was in.

Huuuumm.... I'm not surprised. You sound like a completely scareless person. I'm sure you would be having constant nightmares and be suicidal if you have been in war, like most people that do go...

Oh well. I'm sure it would be really interesting to talk with someone that has actually gone to war... You must know a few, eh?

I'm sure you would be having constant nightmares and be suicidal if you have been in war, like most people that do go...
Where did you get that little gem of nonsense?

I watched a documentary about the effects of war on people. I also watched movies about it, but those are movies, of course. Jacob's Ladder, for instance.

Here's something about it:
"War has always taken a toll. Accounts throughout history tell of nightmares and other emotional problems associated with the horrors of war. It seems that we repeatedly discover the effects of trauma on humans every time we go to war. Terms like "combat fatigue" and "shell shock" were used in the past to describe some of the effects of combat. These terms are misleading because they imply that the effects of combat are short term. In the DSM-IV the term "Acute Stress Disorder" is used for a similar syndrome lasting less than 30 days. "

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_5C0Boq_oQkJ:mentalhealth.about.com/cs/traumaptsd/a/trauma.htm+war+effects+psychological+suicide+night mares&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca

Here's more:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:zqWBlezljIEJ:www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/2002-2/lindorff.htm+war+effects+psychological+suicide+nig htmares&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

Yes, those things do happen. But not to "most people" that go to war, which is what you stated and I was querying.
I know Desert Storm vets and Falklands vets and I've met and spoken to a good few WWII vets in my time (from both sides). Not one of those people (or their friends) suffer from nightmares or are suicidal.

So you talked with a couple of people that don't have nigtmares and you are saying that most don't? Looks like you are the one that is committing a fallacy.

A few statistics:

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

U.S. PTSD incidence in the general population: 7.7 million
OEF/OIF troops who have/may acquire PTSD, Nat'l Center on PTSD: 40%
OEF/OIF vets being treated for PTSD, Sep. 2005: 20,394
OEF/OIF vets being treated for PTSD, through end of 2006: 39,331
...of above figure, receiving hospital care: 29,041
...of above figure, receiving counseling center care: 9,103
Of those treated for PTSD, enrolled in VA specialized care program: 27%
...in Wisconsin: 13%
...in Ohio: 45%


Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) - Evolution

OIF troops wishing for a 2006 exit of Iraq, Zogby early 2006 survey: 72%
...wishing to "stay as long as needed:" 1-in-5
...indicating they "felt in great danger of being killed" on DoD demob form: over 50%
...had thoughts of killing themselves while deployed: 2,411
Troops signing Appeal for Redress beseeching Congress support prompt withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as of January 2007: 1,171
Returning vets who had PTSD one month after returning home: 4%
...four months after returning home: 9%
...seven months after returning home: 12%
Seven-month vets showing no signs of PTSD/depression at one month: 78%
Troops meeting DoD criteria for PTSD, stigmatized from seeking help: 2/3
PTSD rate common to Army/Marine ground units vs. other units: nearly 4X
Non-OEF/OIF troops reporting mental health concerns: 8.5% (2004)
OEF troops reporting mental health concerns: 11% (2004)
OIF troops reporting mental health concerns: 19% (2004)

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:PkHWN6U4idoJ:www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/19/02319/0514+war+statistics+PTSD&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca


More on the site...

All I can say is that Brits and Germans must be made of sterner stuff. Probably less of of the "talk out your problems" and nanny culture. They just get on with it.
There was no incidence of nightmares among any of the guys I talked to, or their units.

You realize you talked with only a small portion of the relevant population, right?

Anyways... I don't know about the Brits and Germans... :shrug:

So you talked with a couple of people that don't have nigtmares and you are saying that most don't? Looks like you are the one that is committing a fallacy.

A few statistics:...

So you readily believe statistics from a biased, anti-war site, yet you won't believe anything for other sites?? Hmm? Okay ....just furthering your own bias, is that it?

Baron Max

You realize you talked with only a small portion of the relevant population, right?
Correct. I personally only talked to a small portion. But they all stay in touch with their units, even after demob. And like I said, none in their units reported it either. It would have been big news.
Anyways... I don't know about the Brits and Germans... :shrug:
Exactly. Bulldog breed... (except the bally Jerries of course. :D )

So you readily believe statistics from a biased, anti-war site, yet you won't believe anything for other sites?? Hmm? Okay ....just furthering your own bias, is that it?

Baron Max
Which other sites? I haven't seen any other sites. Are you talking about some weird invisible site an invisible poster posted? :rolleyes:

Yeah, the left behind kinda plays off the rapture, which I've been told was thought up/made popular by a 19th century British minister or something. Some Xians believe Jesus will arrive with his posse blaring trumpets and some believe the rapture will happen. Who knows.

The whole end times events are in the book of Revelation in the Bible. Nothing was made up by ministers.

According to sandy, Jesus is a KKK member who wants us to support a government that sheds tons of blood for their own profit..

Why did you have to come here and sh!t on/hijack my thread:confused:

And then go off and start another thread on the same topic:confused:
...

All I can say is that Brits and Germans must be made of sterner stuff. Probably less of of the "talk out your problems" and nanny culture. They just get on with it.
There was no incidence of nightmares among any of the guys I talked to, or their units.

PTSD has nothing to do about being strong. PTSD is an illness. Most people with PTSD don't talk about it.

Please do not suggest that people with PTSD are weak or don't "just get on with it". That is totally and completely false.

PTSD has nothing about being strong. PTSD is an illness. Most people with PTSD don't talk about it.

Please do not suggest that people with PTSD are weak or don't "just get on with it". That is totally and completely false.

There ya' are again, being a weakling and making excuses for weaklings.

Do you coddle everyone and everything with such pitiful excuses?

Baron Max

She's 21. When we were 21 we were kind of idealistic, no?:rolleyes:
Nevermind. I just remembered I was working for Reagan.

She's 21. When we were 21 we were kind of idealistic, no?:rolleyes:
Nevermind. I just remembered I was working for Reagan.

She may be only 21 years of age, but ....

There ya' are again, being a weakling and making excuses for weaklings.
No Baron. Here you are making excuses for .... PTSD is a known illness, one recognised world wide, both in military and medical circles.

Surely you are not so bold as to suggest that war does not affect the soldiers fighting in them?

PTSD would happen if the war was justified or not. Sheehan just wanted to know for what reason her son died, is that such a absurd request?

She's 21. When we were 21 we were kind of idealistic, no?:rolleyes:
Nevermind. I just remembered I was working for Reagan.

My IQ and life experience tend to make up for my age. When I am older like you, I hope I will be much wiser and more knowledgeable than I am now.

I have rarely been referred to as an idealist. Stubborn and occasionally unrealistic, but not an idealist. Idealism comes from innocence, I fear I lack innocence.

I am sure working for Reagan was a challenging and unique experience. It probably taught you a lot. In one of my internships I worked with high risk foster children, it was also a challenging and unique experience. It also taught me a lot.

I would hope, Sandy, that in the future you will attack my argument on it's merits. Apparently it is difficult to attack the argument that PTSD is a valid illness. I am sure you could find studies and evidence that PTSD is not a valid illness, but you have not presented this.

Please do not suggest that people with PTSD are weak or don't "just get on with it".

That was a tongue in cheek comment, with maybe some basis in cultural differences. (Stiff upper lip?) PTSD seems to be higher in the US than the UK.
Having met WWI veterans that suffer from "shell shock" I'm fully aware that PTSD is real.
But the guys I met (and their mates from their units) have no such symptoms.
Was the US army any more "involved" than that of the UK to cause the symptoms to show more? I doubt it.

That is totally and completely false.
So why the higher incidences? Why is it (seemingly) far more prevalent today than for WWII vets?

The whole end times events are in the book of Revelation in the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
The origins of the doctrine of the rapture are hotly debated. The Orthodox, mainline Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches, which represent the majority of Christians worldwide, have no tradition of such a teaching and reject the doctrine, in part because they cannot find any reference to it among any of the early Church fathers[1] and in part because they do not interpret the scriptures the way that Rapture-believers do.


Nothing was made up by ministers.
There exists at least one 18th century and two 19th century pre-Tribulation references, in a book published in 1788, in the writings of a Catholic priest Emmanuel Lacunza [9] in 1812, and by John Darby himself in 1827.[10] However, both the book published in 1788 and the writings of Lacunza have opposing views regarding their interpretations, as well.

The rise in belief in the "pre-Tribulation" rapture is sometimes attributed to a 15-year old Scottish-Irish girl named Margaret MacDonald (a follower of Edward Irving), who in 1830 had a vision that was later[11] published in 1861.

The popularization of the term is associated with teaching of John Nelson Darby, prominent among the Plymouth Brethren, and the rise of premillennialism and dispensationalism in English-speaking Churches at the end of the 19th century. In 1908, the doctrine of the rapture was further popularized by an evangelist named William Eugene Blackstone, whose book, Jesus Is Coming, sold more than one million copies.[12] The first known appearance of the word "rapture" in print occurs with the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909. [13]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rapture.htm
The rapture concept is essentially ignored by most other Christian faith groups. It does not form a part of any other religion. It is dismissed by essentially all liberal Christian theologians. Many Bible handbooks, commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedia do not even list "rapture" in their indices.

That was a tongue in cheek comment, with maybe some basis in cultural differences. (Stiff upper lip?) PTSD seems to be higher in the US than the UK.
Having met WWI veterans that suffer from "shell shock" I'm fully aware that PTSD is real.
But the guys I met (and their mates from their units) have no such symptoms.
Was the US army any more "involved" than that of the UK to cause the symptoms to show more? I doubt it.


So why the higher incidences? Why is it (seemingly) far more prevalent today than for WWII vets?
You need hard statistics. Without any statistics or even "estimated rates" you cannot, really, judge anything. I don't know what major differences the UK armed forces in Iraq have then the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. I know we have people from the U.S. on there third or fourth tours in a war zone. I also know that the shorter and less frequent the tours the less likely the person is to have psychological issues. I know plenty of Americans, including my cousin, who have come back with no outwardly apparent psychological issues. If I came even close to medically qualified to join the military I would have proudly enlisted- it's a culture where I come from.

WWII was a different war where people did different things. That said, there is no reason to think that people on the combat lines in WWII did not have PTSD at the same rate. There was more shame is having psychological problems back then, and PTSD hadn't even been designated a major disorder.

So the liberals interpret the Bible differently so they deny the rapture? I'm amazed they even know what a Bible is. And wiki is no source of anything Christian.

The Rapture is too complicated to explain here.

http://www.momentin.com/revstudy/chap03rapture.html

You need hard statistics. Without any statistics or even "estimated rates" you cannot, really, judge anything.
Trying to find them.
I don't know what major differences the UK armed forces in Iraq have then the U.S. armed forces in Iraq.
Essentially none.
If I came even close to medically qualified to join the military I would have proudly enlisted- it's a culture where I come from.
Snap.
WWII was a different war where people did different things.
How so?
That said, there is no reason to think that people on the combat lines in WWII did not have PTSD at the same rate.
Yes there is - the histories, the memoirs, the studies of men in combat.
There was more shame is having psychological problems back then
?? So you've never read any memoirs where some guy breaks and the rest of the unit say "Poor chap, he's had enough"? No stigma.
and PTSD hadn't even been designated a major disorder.
It doesn't need a fancy name to be be noticed. Shell shock? Combat fatique?

So the liberals interpret the Bible differently so they deny the rapture? I'm amazed they even know what a Bible is. And wiki is no source of anything Christian.

The Rapture is too complicated to explain here.

http://www.momentin.com/revstudy/chap03rapture.html

I figured you'd play the 'Wikipedia has no credit' card so that's why I quoted another site to back it up; I could just as easy go find many, many more sites to back those two up as well, but I really don't need to. Google 'bible rapture' and you can easily see; but then again, you do think you're Christie Brinkley. :rolleyes:

Trying to find them. the national center for PTSD in the U.S. might be a good starting point... i think the URL is www.ncptsd.org or .gov or something.

Essentially none. I am unsure of that, but wouldn't be surprised if there were no major differences.

Snap. Trying to seem hip, eh? Actually, I seem to have to constantly demonstrate that I am not a crazy liberal around here...

How so? We had larger amounts of people in non combat roles.

Yes there is - the histories, the memoirs, the studies of men in combat.

?? So you've never read any memoirs where some guy breaks and the rest of the unit say "Poor chap, he's had enough"? No stigma. That is not what I have heard from veterans of WWII- actually I heard something like "We didn't talk about that back then".


It doesn't need a fancy name to be be noticed. Shell shock? Combat fatique? Shell shock and combat fatigue were identified in different ways than PTSD or "disorder of acute stress" is identified today... but yes, the fact that we have these names confirms that PTSD isn't a sociological creation like, say, multiple personality disorder. We now know that PTSD is a fairly common disorder- actually more common in women than men. That wasn't known back then. It wasn't documented that rape survivors get PTSD, actually Freud was fairly talented at blaming the victim. I say this to demonstrate the flaws in psychological understanding and research back then.

the national center for PTSD in the U.S. might be a good starting point... i think the URL is www.ncptsd.org or .gov or something.
Found that but the UK is still notoriously under-informative. Bliar continues the traditions...
I am unsure of that, but wouldn't be surprised if there were no major differences.
None from what I know listening to guys who were there.
Trying to seem hip, eh? Actually, I seem to have to constantly demonstrate that I am not a crazy liberal around here...
Trying? :D I am a crazy liberal (or something), but I volunteered before I left school...
We had larger amounts of people in non combat roles.
Not substantially larger - logistics tails are still logistics tails, And I only read combat reports and memoirs... Currently 1:7 tooth to tail in the US. WWII ran about 1:10 or 11 IIRC.
That is not what I have heard from veterans of WWII- actually I heard something like "We didn't talk about that back then".
It wasn't talked about in "polite company", but among themselves, or in actual memoirs it certainly was.
Shell shock and combat fatigue were identified in different ways than PTSD or "disorder of acute stress" is identified today...
Regardless of what it's called it's still the visible and identifiable aspects of the effect of combat on human beings.
but yes, the fact that we have these names confirms that PTSD isn't a sociological creation like, say, multiple personality disorder.
Because it has a name means it's not a sociological creation? "god"? Sorry, couldn't resist.
We now know that PTSD is a fairly common disorder- actually more common in women than men. That wasn't known back then. It wasn't documented that rape survivors get PTSD, actually Freud was fairly talented at blaming the victim. I say this to demonstrate the flaws in psychological understanding and research back then.
Lots of things come under the rubric of PTSD now - googling gives "PTSD in the work place" for crying out loud... (I think Samcdkey mentioned something along these lines in another thread).

[QUOTE=mikenostic;1415433]I figured you'd play the 'Wikipedia has no credit' card so that's why I quoted another site to back it up; I could just as easy go find many, many more sites to back those two up as well, but I really don't need to. Google 'bible rapture' and you can easily see; but then again, you do think you're Christie Brinkley. :rolleyes:[/QUOT

You don't want to believe the Rapture, fine. I don't care.

AND I *NEVER* SAID I WAS CHRISTIE BRINKLEY. I SAID I "LOOK" LIKE HER. I HAVE MY WHOLE LIFE. I HAVE BEEN HEARING IT MY WHOLE LIFE. SO KNOCK THE "YOU DO THINK YOU'RE CB CRAP OFF!!!":mad:

So the liberals interpret the Bible differently so they deny the rapture? I'm amazed they even know what a Bible is. And wiki is no source of anything Christian.

The Rapture is too complicated to explain here.

http://www.momentin.com/revstudy/chap03rapture.html


Sandy, you realize the the "Rapture" isn't a widely held belief amongst Christians, right? Catholics, the Orthodox churches and most Protestants—most Christians worldwide—reject it.

In fact, it's not really until the 19th century, in America, that you see any undisputed following of people who believe in the Rapture, which suggests at least 1800 years of people "misinterpreting" the Bible (conservatives and liberal Christians alike) until John Darby came to embrace the notion and taught it to his congregation. (There is one vague reference to "the Rapture" amongst the works of early church leaders, but (i) it's not clear that the reference backs up Darby's expansive interpretation and (ii) Christianity did not incorporate that lone reference into doctrine prior to Darby.)

Even then, it was limited to a tiny subset of the fundamentalist movement influenced by Darby until the 1908 edition of William Blackstone's "Jesus is Coming" and the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible included commentary on it. At which point is exploded in popularity in America, but never really went very far outside the U.S., where the Scofield Reference Bible, and Jesus is Coming were not big sellers.

You don't want to believe the Rapture, fine. I don't care.

AND I *NEVER* SAID I WAS CHRISTIE BRINKLEY. I SAID I "LOOK" LIKE HER. I HAVE MY WHOLE LIFE. I HAVE BEEN HEARING IT MY WHOLE LIFE. SO KNOCK THE "YOU DO THINK YOU'RE CB CRAP OFF!!!":mad:
You're cute when you're mad. :p Wait, I can't make that statement because NO ONE here actually knows what you look like to begin with! :shrug:
Crap off? Never heard that one before.
You didn't merely say you 'look' like her, you said you were hotter than she was (typical Christian humility there). And when I said you think you are her, it was metaphorical. You do know what a metaphor is, don't you? You seem to know everything else (except for how to properly insert tags).


[QUOTE=Pandaemoni]Sandy, you realize the the "Rapture" isn't a widely held belief amongst Christians, right? Catholics, the Orthodox churches and most Protestants—most Christians worldwide—reject it.
The countless previous similar posts towards Sandy in these forums, that have obviously fallen on 'her' deaf ears, should be a clear indication that 'she' is not receptive to any form of logical or rational statements/advice/suggestions(and God forbid, corrections). Good luck with your persuasion.

The whole end times events are in the book of Revelation in the Bible. Nothing was made up by ministers.
The Bible has been changed many times over history. Some of it was even totally excluded from the Bible for a while. Other scriptures that exist are also not included in the Bible, like the Dead Sea Scrolls....

Why did you have to come here and sh!t on/hijack my thread:confused:

And then go off and start another thread on the same topic:confused:
...
Man... you are so lovable. (no, not being sarcastic)

Look girl, you support stuff that Jesus would never have supported and doesn't support what he would have. I have yet to hear any of your concerns for the welfare of People. That's why I don't respect you.

Maybe Cindy was not the best speaker. But she spoke in support of peace. Ever read Matthew 5? What does Jesus say about peacemakers in that chapter?

You don't respect peace. Nor do you support it. I don't see why you call yourself a christian.

So the liberals interpret the Bible differently so they deny the rapture? I'm amazed they even know what a Bible is. And wiki is no source of anything Christian.

The Rapture is too complicated to explain here.

http://www.momentin.com/revstudy/chap03rapture.html
Wrong. Study history.

I'm amazed YOU even know what a Bible is.

I just read that Sheehan is going to run for Pelosi's seat if she doesn't introduce articles of impeachment vs. President Bush in the next two weeks. :rolleyes:

LOL!:D

Good luck with that one St. Cindy. :rolleyes:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q8OG4O0&show_article=1

the rapture is never mentioned in the bible and bush does deserve articles of impeachment drawn up against him

Warning the rapture is near - Mat 24:44-46; 1 Tim 4:16.

http://www.tribulation.com/rapture.htm

http://bibleprophesy.org/rapture.htm

http://bibleprophesy.org/pretribrapture.htm

http://www.raptureready.com/rap50.html

http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/the_rapture_question_answered.htm

there are about a zillion more. ;)

the rapture is never mentioned in the bible and bush does deserve articles of impeachment drawn up against him

Ah... pjdude, perhaps the "rapture" is never said (it's a coloquialism) but the essense of what the common interpretation for "rapture" is definately spelled out. I won't bother debating you on the impeachment thing-- that's a matter of oppinion and has been beaten to death.

And sandy, anybody can contribute to wikipedia. Many, many christians do. It is, after many studies, still found to be very accurate and, no matter how you look at it, it's still the easiest way to start any research on any topic because it most likely has SOMETHING written on said subject.

~String

I would have supported Cindy if she hadn't drug her dead son into it.

I would have supported Cindy if she hadn't drug her dead son into it.

Her anti-war sentiment was because of her dead son.

Her anti-war sentiment was because of her dead son.

Yeah, apparantly she hated her dead son and what he believed and stood up for so much she had to make a spectacle of herself. She had to arrange protests at military funerals. She had to violate the dresscode for the State of the Union Address. She had to buddy up to an opressive dictator(Chavez) who is buying the elections and crushing any criticism.

Cindy was not a peacemaker in any sense of the term. She may have spoke of peace but her actions told a different story.

Who cares about a fucking dress code? Her son died over a pointless cause. That's why she was upset. She wasn't a peacemaker. She was just fed up over a pointless loss of life.

Her son CHOSE to serve. I have read stories/interviews of friends of his saying he's probably mortified at what she's doing and would be rolling over in his grave (if that was possible).:(
Of course we feel sad for anyone who has lost someone they love. But her behavior is despicable. :(

no here behavior is acceptable people like you who attack her and other anti-war and pro-peace protesters are the one's who's behavior is despicable. what she is doing is a very american thing to do attacking is a unamerican thing to do

She said President Bush was "the biggest terrorist in the world and that he was "waging a nuclear war in Iraq." :mad:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

Even her own family has disowned her. Her husband divorced the crackpot too.
"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

She actually called the evil muslim terrorists "freedom fighters." That's right. The very ones that killed her son.

She embraces America's enemies (Michael Moore, Chavez...)

Even her own party disowned her. She's nuts. :eek:

you say she is nuts yet you support ann coulter some who has adavocated the commiting of acts of terrorism and war crimes. who acts as if rabid i would think being nuts would be a quilifacation for you supporting them. there are freedom fighters in iraq and terrorists they are not one and the same bush can be considered a terrorist for exploiting the fear caused by 9/11 to undermine the constitution and you can make the case we had a nuclear war in iraq for we did use depleted uranium shells their which a slightly radioactive in addition to being toxic once used. moore is a great american why dissent few things are more american than that. you don't like the fact she is against bush and his well illegal war in iraq so you must belittle her grow up she may be missing a few marbles but that doesn't mean she does not have legitament complaints against bush and his adminastration.

America's enemies? Michael Moore? Wow, we have sunk pretty low. It used to be guys like Hitler, now it's just a guy that makes documentary movies.

Who cares about a fucking dress code? Her son died over a pointless cause. That's why she was upset. She wasn't a peacemaker. She was just fed up over a pointless loss of life.

When one verbally agrees to respect a dresscode, that by the way is an actual law for said event, then goes against their word, people should care.

Secondly the Iraq war is not a pointless cuase. Never has been. Saddam had repeatedly and grossly violated the treaty he had signed. Someone needed to educate the world that you cannot do that.

Way to defend the country against flying killer treaties.

Her son CHOSE to serve. I have read stories/interviews of friends of his saying he's probably mortified at what she's doing and would be rolling over in his grave (if that was possible).:(
Of course we feel sad for anyone who has lost someone they love. But her behavior is despicable. :(
Her behaviour is anything but despicable. The only despicaple thing here is hundreds of young people dying for a lost pointless cause.

What are they dying for? Please tell me.

I think Moore is a vile traitor/treasonist who should be deported to Cuba where he can get some free healthcare for his obesity.

I understand he was trying to go to Guantanimo, where our prisoners get better health care than our veterans.

No, her behavior is acceptable. People like you who attack her and other anti-war and pro-peace protesters are the one's who's behavior is despicable. What she is doing is a very american thing to do attacking is a unamerican thing to do


Edited for clarity

Listen pjdude and get it through your thicks skull. Yes it is the American thing to protest. However doing it in the name of someone that everyone else KNOWS would not support it, is not. Also note she is not anti-war, just against the americans being in the conflict.

Also note protesting against protestors is American as well.

She said President Bush was "the biggest terrorist in the world and that he was "waging a nuclear war in Iraq." :mad:
So that's not true? How many people Bush killed and how many the terrorists killed? And what cause is Bush defending after all? And he didn't want war with Iraq?

"We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."
So? If millions of people accept the ridiculous Bush administration's agenda for their own convenience and comfort, that doesn't make that agenda any truer.

She actually called the evil muslim terrorists "freedom fighters." That's right. The very ones that killed her son.
They are. They are fighting for THEIR freedom from american influence and imperialism.

Let's hope the US is the world's last empire....

She embraces America's enemies (Michael Moore, Chavez...)
Michael Moore is one of america's greatest assets. Or you prefer the non-dissentive blind flag-waving philosophy?

If you care about your country, why don't you question the wisdom of your leaders? Isn't that what a truly "patriotic" person would do? Or would they simply blindly accept whatever their leaders want them to accept?

Yeah, apparantly she hated her dead son and what he believed and stood up for so much she had to make a spectacle of herself. She had to arrange protests at military funerals. ....

She has to endure lies like that one.

Listen pjdude and get it through your thicks skull. Yes it is the American thing to protest. However doing it in the name of someone that everyone else KNOWS would not support it, is not. Also note she is not anti-war, just against the americans being in the conflict.

Also note protesting against protestors is American as well.

notice i said attack not protest i don't mind protest against protest as long as it does not strung along to the point of obserity and know knows if her son would or would not support what she is doing but i'm sure she has a better idea than the rest of us. my skull is not thick.

She has to endure lies like that one.

Hey Spidergoat, she arranged them, don't let anyone fool you. She's taken her shit on the road and arranged two successful ones and several failed attempts. Just ask the families of the soldiers.

notice i said attack not protest i don't mind protest against protest as long as it does not strung along to the point of obserity and know knows if her son would or would not support what she is doing but i'm sure she has a better idea than the rest of us. my skull is not thick.

pjdude you skull is thick, an irrational grieving mother partially estranged from her child before he died is not going to know as much as his close friends and other memebers of the family he actually talked to. And no one physically attacked these protesters, if you are referring to the written and spoken attacks that is a damned protest and actually a lot more truthful than she has been.

So that's not true? How many people Bush killed and how many the terrorists killed? And what cause is Bush defending after all? And he didn't want war with Iraq?

As far as I know President Bush has not killed a single person. Also note we have dropped no nuclear weaponry, so obviously sher statement was a bald faced lie.

So? If millions of people accept the ridiculous Bush administration's agenda for their own convenience and comfort, that doesn't make that agenda any truer.

But it does make it democracy, dumbass

pjdude you skull is thick, an irrational grieving mother partially estranged from her child before he died is not going to know as much as his close friends and other memebers of the family he actually talked to. And no one physically attacked these protesters, if you are referring to the written and spoken attacks that is a damned protest and actually a lot more truthful than she has been.

i said us refering to the american public. written and spoken protest and written and spoken attacks are two very different things. and i have yet hear prof that she was estranged from her son in fact this is the first i have heard of and if you read my posts you will see i admit she is a little of the wall. so i'm sorry to disrupt your attack against me but i am duty bound to defend my honor

When one verbally agrees to respect a dresscode, that by the way is an actual law for said event, then goes against their word, people should care.
Is image more important then the issues we are discussing here?

Secondly the Iraq war is not a pointless cuase. Never has been. Saddam had repeatedly and grossly violated the treaty he had signed. Someone needed to educate the world that you cannot do that.
Saddam was put in power by the US, and as long as Saddam was ffriendly towards US policy, the US supported him. When he turned unfriendly, the US attacked him.

i said us refering to the american public. written and spoken protest and written and spoken attacks are two very different things. and i have yet hear prof that she was estranged from her son in fact this is the first i have heard of and if you read my posts you will see i admit she is a little of the wall. so i'm sorry to disrupt your attack against me but i am duty bound to defend my honor

Hey if even a single person protests it is a protest.

As for her being estranged it is obvious. Everyone else who knew him, the rest of the family, his close friends, his unit all say that he would not agree with what she was doing. That makes even the thick skulled person take a step back and go "Oh, she's just using the martyr routine."

As far as I know President Bush has not killed a single person. Also note we have dropped no nuclear weaponry, so obviously sher statement was a bald faced lie.
When did she make that statement? And he ordered the war, didn't him? So you are saying he has no responsability, despite the fact he started the war!?

But it does make it democracy, dumbass
Are you saying democracy is flawless? Do you agree with following such ridiculous agendas?

Hey Spidergoat, she arranged them, don't let anyone fool you. She's taken her shit on the road and arranged two successful ones and several failed attempts. Just ask the families of the soldiers.

I won't let you fool me. She doesn't protest at funerals. You are thinking of the Westboro Baptists.

I won't let you fool me. She doesn't protest at funerals. You are thinking of the Westboro Baptists.

who are the westboro baptists?

When did she make that statement? And he ordered the war, didn't him? So you are saying he has no responsability, despite the fact he started the war!?

Actually he proposed the war congress made it official. Plus if the quoted material is correctly attributable to Cindy then she is a bald face liar. Since it sounds like her i have no doubt she said it.

Are you saying democracy is flawless? Do you agree with following such ridiculous agendas?

It is the rule of the land here, and nothing is flawless. As for the agenda, it is hardly ridiculous to liberate a people from an opressive/repressive regime that killed their own people. We just executed it badly is all.

I won't let you fool me. She doesn't protest at funerals. You are thinking of the Westboro Baptists.

Nope, unmistakably her image at one funeral during the newscast The Westboro bapatists might be doing it more often, but just becuase she did it less often doesn't exonerate her.

Plus there was one trying to get organized here, even had fliers advertising a speach from Cindy Sheehan. Luckily the local bikers do not like such disrespect of the fallen.

Actually he proposed the war congress made it official. Plus if the quoted material is correctly attributable to Cindy then she is a bald face liar. Since it sounds like her i have no doubt she said it.
At the beginning of the war, there were talks about using nuclear weapons. That's why Britain joined, if I remember it well... (they joined to stop Bush from using nukes)...

It is the rule of the land here, and nothing is flawless. As for the agenda, it is hardly ridiculous to liberate a people from an opressive/repressive regime that killed their own people. We just executed it badly is all.
It's good that it liberated them. But if that's what Bush wanted, he should have stated that- not just lied about WMD. It looks more like their gained "freedom" is just a bi-product of what Bush really wanted- oil.

Also, let's not forget that Saddam was an iron fist for the region, keeping different tribes on line. Now they are constantly fighting against each other, and the region is bound to be left unstable for a long while before new agreements are reached....

Nope, unmistakably her image at one funeral during the newscast The Westboro bapatists might be doing it more often, but just becuase she did it less often doesn't exonerate her.

Plus there was one trying to get organized here, even had fliers advertising a speach from Cindy Sheehan. Luckily the local bikers do not like such disrespect of the fallen.

Nonsense. Stop lying.

Nonsense. Stop lying.

Why would I lie about this? I honestly hope that people would have more respect for the deceased and their widows. For that reason i am sure Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter are cut form the same cloth.

why would you lie about it because it would further your goals and help your agenda not saying you are lying but you asked why would you lie so i answered

She is a freaking widow for christsake. Do you have any proof? Her aim is not to show disrespect for any soldiers or veterans, anyone can see that.

At the beginning of the war, there were talks about using nuclear weapons. That's why Britain joined, if I remember it well... (they joined to stop Bush from using nukes)...

There may have been talks about using nuclear weaposn, but in all likely hood just talk like it always is. Britian joined for two reason, they believed we were doing the right thing and to put an end to the discussion of nuke use.

It's good that it liberated them. But if that's what Bush wanted, he should have stated that- not just lied about WMD. It looks more like their gained "freedom" is just a bi-product of what Bush really wanted- oil.

Well, a person can only lie about what they know for fact. Intelligence at the time indicated WMD's and we made the mistake of giving him a month to hide them. A so Bush going after oil, have you seen where the oil contracts went?


Also, let's not forget that Saddam was an iron fist for the region, keeping different tribes on line. Now they are constantly fighting against each other, and the region is bound to be left unstable for a long while before new agreements are reached....

Yes, Saddam kept order, not with a iron fist, but a torutre rack and chemical weapons. The death toll under Saddam is no different than it is now. The difference is that now it is government sanctioned.

As for stabilizing the region, it can be done once people start getting behind the solution and not the problem. The American soldier is doing his part to be the solution, are you?

If Sheehan refers to Iraq as a nuclear war, she's talking about depleted uranium.

She is a freaking widow for christsake. Do you have any proof? Her aim is not to show disrespect for any soldiers or veterans, anyone can see that.

Hello, she lost a child in this war, not widowed by it. She has shown nothing but disrespect for every soldier who decided this was the good fight. That's her right. However in using her son's name against something he believed in and died for is beyond low. If she had left him out of it she could almost be respectable.

There may have been talks about using nuclear weaposn, but in all likely hood just talk like it always is. Britian joined for two reason, they believed we were doing the right thing and to put an end to the discussion of nuke use.



Well, a person can only lie about what they know for fact. Intelligence at the time indicated WMD's and we made the mistake of giving him a month to hide them. A so Bush going after oil, have you seen where the oil contracts went?




Yes, Saddam kept order, not with a iron fist, but a torutre rack and chemical weapons. The death toll under Saddam is no different than it is now. The difference is that now it is government sanctioned.

As for stabilizing the region, it can be done once people start getting behind the solution and not the problem. The American soldier is doing his part to be the solution, are you?

bush was told there was no CREDIBLE evidence for wmds and he still used it as a reason

If Sheehan refers to Iraq as a nuclear war, she's talking about depleted uranium.

Well then she is being horredously irresponsible, and still lying her ass off. Everyone has a set picture when you say nuclear war and she chose her words well to evoke the image she wanted.

so just because everyone has a set image about a phrase someone cannot use it to describe events accurately if they are different from the set image that doesn't seem right

bush was told there was no CREDIBLE evidence for wmds and he still used it as a reason

You have proof of that?

Becuase there is mountains of proof to supprot that everyone who had acess to the intelligence at the time believed Iraq had WMD.

Also the WMD were not the only reason. It's just the only harped on becuase we haven't yet found the evidence.

so just because everyone has a set image about a phrase someone cannot use it to describe events accurately if they are different from the set image that doesn't seem right

Okay, I say Hamburger and I can guarantee that 99% of the people in America are picturing a ground beef patty in a bun. But the term could describe some one from Hamburg, Germany.

However even the use of DU shells does not constitute a nuclear war by ANY stretch of the term.

She chose her imagery becuase she knew it would inflame people.

you cannot prove a general negative. the bushies kept on running through reasons untill they found one the public would buy. people in the intellegence feild who saw the intel that it was bogus. people with no training in the field believed it. like cheney who is probably off his rocker a wee bit.

You have proof of that?

Becuase there is mountains of proof to supprot that everyone who had acess to the intelligence at the time believed Iraq had WMD.

Also the WMD were not the only reason. It's just the only harped on becuase we haven't yet found the evidence.
What is the evidence, and how did the US achieve such evidence?

you cannot prove a general negative.

I asked you to prove that he had received, before congress voted for the war, reports that Iraq did not have WMDs. That you can prove. Provided such reports exist


the bushies kept on running through reasons untill they found one the public would buy.

Excuse me but you are stretching here. FIrst you have to prove they knew there were no WMD's

people in the intellegence feild who saw the intel that it was bogus. people with no training in the field believed it. like cheney who is probably off his rocker a wee bit.

Also believed it Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton. Most off the CIA. Everyone who voted for the war in Iraq, Obama, even though he voted against the war, the Italians, and qquite a bit of the world.

What is the evidence, and how did the US achieve such evidence?

We had several reports for up untill then completely reliable resources. It had the CIA convinced. it had the Senate convince. It had Italy, Britain, and slew of other nations convinced.

What are the facts that those reports present and how those facts were discovered?

Hello, she lost a child in this war, not widowed by it. She has shown nothing but disrespect for every soldier who decided this was the good fight. That's her right. However in using her son's name against something he believed in and died for is beyond low. If she had left him out of it she could almost be respectable.

She's only demanding that those who give their lives for their nation die for a good reason. She's still that solder's mother, which gives her more of a right than anyone to demand answers.

Her anti-war sentiment was because of her dead son.

I understand that. :rolleyes:
If I was the mother of a cop and he died while on duty,I wouldn't go around protesting his job. Her son was doing a job he signed up for and did with honor and pride.
If one of my brothers died and my mom did that, they would come back from the grave and smack her for embarrassing him in front of his men.

She could protest the war without saying "Well, I lost a son." "I've sacrificed because I've lost a son" "This war is bad because I've lost a son" "Look at me, I've lost a son" She pooped all over his sacrifice!!

I understand that. :rolleyes:
If I was the mother of a cop and he died while on duty,I wouldn't go around protesting his job. Her son was doing a job he signed up for and did with honor and pride.


She was not protesting that. Her protest was for the fact her son was sent to do his job under a pretext that was later discovered to be a lie. Her son went to fight for and ultimately lost his life for a lie. There were no WMD's, there was no link to Al Qaeda, there was no capacity to pose a danger to the US or her closest allies. She was not protesting "his job". She was protesting the reason he was sent to do his job.

She could protest the war without saying "Well, I lost a son." "I've sacrificed because I've lost a son" "This war is bad because I've lost a son" "Look at me, I've lost a son" She pooped all over his sacrifice!!
You still don't get it.

She was protesting because she lost a son. She will be forever connected to this war because she lost her son.

And I would imagine she, along with other mothers and fathers out there who have lost children in this war, has a right to protest, no? She did not poop all over his sacrifice. She was pooping over the reason he became a sacrifice. Huge difference.

I too, saw video of Sheehan protesting at funerals. Her comments were filth.
She also pulled some stunt with a bunch of grave markers with soldier's names on them. I think this was in Crawford. Some parents of fallen soldiers threatened to sue her for using their son's names/images. They did not want to be associated with the crackpot either.:rolleyes:

The wmd's were moved to Syria and Iran. The link between Saddam and alQaeda has been proven repeatedly. And Saddam needed to be destroyed.

Protesting war is a right. What Sheehan did was a freakshow.:(

...She was not protesting "his job". She was protesting the reason he was sent to do his job.....

was she protesting his job before he died? :confused: I will definitely cut her some slack if she was.

was she protesting his job before he died? :confused: I will definitely cut her some slack if she was.

No idea.

She was not protesting his job, but why he was sent to do his job in the first place.

No, she wasn't. They weren't speaking. He already thought she was nutty.

I feel sorry for her in a way. The grief of losing a child is horrendous. But I do think she went way overboard in the things she said.

No, she wasn't. They weren't speaking. He already thought she was nutty.


And you know this how?

I feel sorry for her in a way. The grief of losing a child is horrendous. But I do think she went way overboard in the things she said.
She is free to voice her discontent and dismay at why and how her son died. Her son died in a war, reasons for which were later found to be false. I can understand why she is angry and why she would want to say what she has said.

I can't imagine what she has and is going through. I hope I never have to go through it and do not even want to contemplate it.

She needs pity and understanding. Not abuse by those who have no idea what she is going through. As you admitted yourself, her grief is horrendous. So why do you call her "nutty"? Why do you mock her and her grief? Why did you say she looked like she had too much testosterone? Why did you call her a "POS"? You acknowledge her grief, but you refer to her in such terms only because her protests go against your own beliefs.

I read/watched/listened to a lot of what she said. She had our pity and understanding until she went over the top with her slander of my president/ country, embrace of our enemies, and the rest of her pathetic behavior.

I never mocked her grief. I believe that was real. But she went insane on us. Everyone has deserted her-- even her most ardent liberal fans. She's beyond pathetic.

She could redeem herself by saying she was overcome by grief. She could apologize for slandering my president and being a traitor/treasonist of my country. We are quick to forgive. But she won't. She is prideful and arrogant. A legend in her own mind. Her 15 minutes are up.

The only prideful and arrogant person here is you... :rolleyes:

I read/watched/listened to a lot of what she said. She had our pity and understanding until she went over the top with her slander of my president/ country, embrace of our enemies, and the rest of her pathetic behavior.

I never mocked her grief. I believe that was real. But she went insane on us. Everyone has deserted her-- even her most ardent liberal fans. She's beyond pathetic.

She could redeem herself by saying she was overcome by grief. She could apologize for slandering my president and being a traitor/treasonist of my country. We are quick to forgive. But she won't. She is prideful and arrogant. A legend in her own mind. Her 15 minutes are up.

it isn't slander if its true

Do we really want to go over the WMD thing again ?
Its been proven that Bush and Reagan supplied Saddam with the intel and weapons. Its good that she held the democratic part to the same standards as she did the republicans. I applaud her intergrity.

Like it or not grief is used as a weapon, everywhere, the fact that she didn't only let one side use it is a good thing.

I too, saw video of Sheehan protesting at funerals. Her comments were filth.
She also pulled some stunt with a bunch of grave markers with soldier's names on them. I think this was in Crawford. Some parents of fallen soldiers threatened to sue her for using their son's names/images. They did not want to be associated with the crackpot either.:rolleyes:

The wmd's were moved to Syria and Iran. The link between Saddam and alQaeda has been proven repeatedly. And Saddam needed to be destroyed.

Protesting war is a right. What Sheehan did was a freakshow.:(

Again, Sheehan never protested at a soldier's funeral. That was those religious freaks, the Westboro Baptists. She did set up memorials for dead soldiers using grave markers at Crawford, which some "compassionate conservative" ran over in his truck.

...She could redeem herself by saying she was overcome by grief. She could apologize for slandering my president and being a traitor/treasonist of my country. ....
It's not slander if it's true.

It's not true. He is not a terrorist and is not nuking Iraq. Sheehan's 15 minutes are so over I don't care anymore.

his policy use terror which make him a terrorist and a nuclear is a war when weapons that are radioactive are used depleted uranium is radioactive so the war in iraq was a nuclear war. and you clearly do care if you keep on bitching about it

It's not true. He is not a terrorist and is not nuking Iraq. Sheehan's 15 minutes are so over I don't care anymore.

He's a more subtle kind of terrorist, but his values are the similar. We did shoot so much DU ammunition in Iraq, that there will be higher cancer rates there for decades. This is arguably against Geneva Conventions.

She's only demanding that those who give their lives for their nation die for a good reason. She's still that solder's mother, which gives her more of a right than anyone to demand answers.

And you argue that the freeing of an opressed people living under a egomaniacal murderer is not a good cause. Yes i know the US was once his friend and we once gave him weapons. But then he turned, or his true colors shown through.

She can demand answers all she wants. The US government doesn't answer demands of a single person. Now if she had asked politely and not pulled the martyr card, someone might have sat down to explain to her that the WMD reason was incorrect, but we did not know untill after the fact. However the other reasons for invasion were valid.

He's a more subtle kind of terrorist, but his values are the similar. We did shoot so much DU ammunition in Iraq, that there will be higher cancer rates there for decades. This is arguably against Geneva Conventions.

DU is not radioactive in any kind of sense that violated the Geneva Convention. Hell even if you peppered you lawn wwith a few hundred 20mm DU rounds the local background count would only double. You'd get just as many rads if you wore an 80's luminescent dial watch.

However you will note the DU rounds are only used against Armor units. Not any of them left on the terrorist side.

none of the reasons given were valid. saddam never changed he was the same evil asshole he always was.

Again, Sheehan never protested at a soldier's funeral. That was those religious freaks, the Westboro Baptists. She did set up memorials for dead soldiers using grave markers at Crawford, which some "compassionate conservative" ran over in his truck.

Again, you obviously missed the news reports showing her. You also did not have to see her ugly mug on a flier in my hometown. If if he herself was not organizing it, she did plan to speak at it.

As for your comments about a 'compassionate conservative', do you have proof it was a conservative? Because it sounds more like some liberal stunt to me.

because it is conservatives who are the most rabid in attacking her and what do you mean sounds like some liberal stunt to me i am a liberal as well as most of my family and friends and i know of not one us to think or condone such an action. now as for the conservatives i know and met some of them would think its a wonderful idea if the person who put up the markers is a liberal like sheehan

none of the reasons given were valid. saddam never changed he was the same evil asshole he always was.

So his repeated violations of the treaty he had signed were not a reason?

His continual games of hide the stockpile with UN inspectors was not a reason?

The slaughter of his own citizens was not a reason?

Providing sanctuary to certain Al-Qaeda members, only certain members not the organization as a whole, was not a reason?

Violating UN sanctions continously is not a reason?

1. not a reason given
2. he was willing when he felt that bush really would declare war in fact the last few weeks before the war he bent over backwords to avoid war.
3. not a reason given
4.untrue
5. not a reason given

0 for 5

because it is conservatives who are the most rabid in attacking her and what do you mean sounds like some liberal stunt to me i am a liberal as well as most of my family and friends and i know of not one us to think or condone such an action. now as for the conservatives i know and met some of them would think its a wonderful idea if the person who put up the markers is a liberal like sheehan

Becuase, I am a conservative and conservatives honor the dead and fallen as a matter of principal. it's one of the things that defines us. Even the hipocritical conservatives do this.

As for Liberals, 99% couldn't give a shit about anything other than making other people pay for their ideas about how the world should be. They'll fake any stunt to get attention.

Personally I am glad you are part of that 1% that actually cares and isn't a giant flaming hipocrit.

BTW I tend to think 99% of conservatives are hipocrits too.

1. not a reason given
2. he was willing when he felt that bush really would declare war in fact the last few weeks before the war he bent over backwords to avoid war.
3. not a reason given
4.untrue
5. not a reason given

0 for 5

1. Was the VERY FIRST REASON given.

2 . He was given a month to do just one damn thing and do you think he did that one thing? Nope.

3. Also a reason given. At least those of us who actually listened to the presidential adresses caught it.

4. Is true and admitted by everyone today. Saddam my have had no links to Al Qaeda, but he certainly was not above hiding a few from the world for a while. Hell the Al Qaeda agents admit it themselves.

5 Was most definately a reason given. I guess you heard possible WMD's and forgot everything else huh?

Yep you have gotten them all incorrect.

And you argue that the freeing of an opressed people living under a egomaniacal murderer is not a good cause. Yes i know the US was once his friend and we once gave him weapons. But then he turned, or his true colors shown through.

She can demand answers all she wants. The US government doesn't answer demands of a single person. Now if she had asked politely and not pulled the martyr card, someone might have sat down to explain to her that the WMD reason was incorrect, but we did not know untill after the fact. However the other reasons for invasion were valid.

They have been free of that guy for several years now. What are we doing there?

Cleanin' up his messes

Cleaning up our mistakes

Cleaning up.

2. clean up - make a big profit; often in a short period of time; "The investor really cleaned up when the stock market went up" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clean+up)

1. Was the VERY FIRST REASON given.

2 . He was given a month to do just one damn thing and do you think he did that one thing? Nope.

3. Also a reason given. At least those of us who actually listened to the presidential adresses caught it.

4. Is true and admitted by everyone today. Saddam my have had no links to Al Qaeda, but he certainly was not above hiding a few from the world for a while. Hell the Al Qaeda agents admit it themselves.

5 Was most definately a reason given. I guess you heard possible WMD's and forgot everything else huh?

Yep you have gotten them all incorrect.
the very first reason given was he almost had nukes toward the end he was willing for inspectors to come in he even opened his palaces as for the third it was given after we were there which invalidates as a reason for going to war the fourth saddam hated al qaeda he was a seclurist and for all possible true is bullshit because we have never invaded or threated to invade any of the other countries that violate un mandates hell we violatre them ourselves

Becuase, I am a conservative and conservatives honor the dead and fallen as a matter of principal. it's one of the things that defines us. Even the hipocritical conservatives do this.

As for Liberals, 99% couldn't give a shit about anything other than making other people pay for their ideas about how the world should be. They'll fake any stunt to get attention.

Personally I am glad you are part of that 1% that actually cares and isn't a giant flaming hipocrit.

BTW I tend to think 99% of conservatives are hipocrits too.

conservatives only honor the dead when they think the person has their ideals they don't give a damn bout the others

We didn't say anything about Sheehan until she started her cr@p. We sympathized with her loss. We tried to help her. President Bush even met with her.

But when she started her outrageous behavior, slander, treason, traitor cr@p-- we gave up.

The liberal democrat, American pacifist, appeasement, anti-war movement, barking moonbat's 15 minutes should have been over years ago. :rolleyes: