Sheehan: Dems Party of Slavery

[knowledgeispwr]

I posted a similar thread in GD which quickly sank.

I was a life-long Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal (and unconstitutional) income taxes, Japanese Concentration Camps and, not one, but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan were brought to us via the Democrats. Don’t tell me the Democrats are our “Saviors” because I am not buying it especially after they bought and purchased more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of George’s abysmal occupation and they are allowing a melt down of our representative Republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity. Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians.

To read more, see her diary on challenging Pelosi at dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

----------------

I certainly can't her independent run after reading that.

[Mz Pip]

1. So start your own party Cindy

Oh wait, she's trying to. :eyes:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Land Shark]

57. Photo of Sheehan in today's paper with shirt "Arrest Cheney First"

So, Sheehan is thoroughly disgusted by slow action or inaction to end the war and doesn't think loyalty to party trumps the importance of ending the war.

In that regard she seems consistent with LBJ who said in 1958 "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order."

[Mz Pip]

67. There weren't the votes

to just end the war or cut off the funding. There. Weren't. The. Votes.

Maybe there will be next time this comes up for a vote but when it did originally, there just weren't the votes. That is not Pelosi's fault. And in the grand scheme of things there were a whole lot more Democrats voting for defunding the war than there were Republicans.

Cindy is free to do what she wants. I am free to criticize her, also.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Tigress DEM]

237. But before they had majority they would vote together to make the point.. at least once.

If all we have is 51 votes to end the war then keep casting those 51 against the war.

I'm looking at Cindy the same way I see Mike Malloy.. they are really "out there" because SOMEONE has to be OUTRAGED over this crap.

It isn't that I don't understand that the DEMS have a lot of cards they aren't showing and maybe they are doing this so the public outrage builds to such a point they have us to point to and say, WE HAVE TO VOTE THIS WAY OR THE PEOPLE WILL COME UP AND whatever... tar and feathers might be mentioned.. vote us out and progressives in.. etc.

[John Q. Citizen]

250. Doesn't take a vote to cut funding. Congress has to vote FOR funds not against them

If Pelosi or Reid just didn't schedule a vote, there would be no funding bill.

Read your constitution. It's easy, and it will clear up your misconceptions

[Usrename]

257. There were the votes.

You should buy a clue.

Bush vetoed the bill.

There had to be the votes or there would not have been a bill to veto.

You need some remedial work on your logic skills.

[Mz Pip]

259. Logic skills

The didn't have the votes to over ride the veto. This was a three step process. Submit the bill. Bush vetos bill. Have enough votes to over ride veto. They didn't have the votes.

Buy a clue indeed. Duh.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Usrename]

261. Why?

Why is it necessary to override the veto?

That's only necessary if you want to stay the course.

[polichick]

91. "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator,...

...and a Democrat, in that order."

Great quote! ~ imo none of us should put a political party over the country. That's what Bush has done. Even worse, he's put a fraction of a political party over the country.

[Yukari Yakumo]

178. Now if only 20-ish Repug Senators would similarly follow that mantra... nt

[grytpype]

134. The Crazy Lady Party.

The CLP!

[Cooley Hurd]

2. She's losing me...

:(

[Ian David]

25. Me too.

I'm not QUITE ready to throw her under the bus just yet, but I'm testing the door.

[AZBlue]

139. Me three!!

She's in way over her head.

[Old and In the Way]

Fourth.

I can hear the Republican noise machine now, quoting this every chance they get.....thanks Cindy!

[Imagevision]

168. Pelosi needs volunteers to clean her airplane, anybody?!!

you guys forget alot quickly, I remember when DU. used to support Moore, but not anymore, the new generation of know it all's??

[Old and In the Way]

169. Were you cheering when the Republicans were making that stupid allegation?

Be honest now.

[Ian David]

174. When did DU stop supporting Michael Moore? n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

244. You sure like repeating those right wing talking points.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnykmarshall]

249. Uhhhh

Where did I say ....

Democrat good - Cindy bad.

Democrat good - Progressive bad ???

You read a lot of horse shit into one single post.

[JudyM]

216. Fifth. nt

[Turn CO Blue]

255. 6th. Cindy has jumped the shark. Repeat: she's jumped the shark

Nancy Pelosi may need a little kick in the patootie, but this batshit insane woman is not the one to do it with her whole Democrat-bashing message.

edited to add: that I am very sorry for her loss, and still believe she has the moral authority to speak out against the war - but I recommend that she take a break from the spotlight for awhile and gain a little balance and perspective. She was a very powerful voice that threatens to become as tinkling brass. And for the love of God, she should get a history book and read up on the wars of the century, progressive ideals and on the 16th amendment.

[Cameron27]

256. 7th

[closeupready]

212. Yeah, I agree. I like her, btu

this is over-the-top. I'll just remember the good times, and tune her out from here on. ;)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

309. Ditto.

I feel for her loss, but now she is just using the same rhetoric as the repukes, and with the same aims.

Sorry, but that ain't kosh.

[Greeby]

3. "started every war in the 20th century"

Err, my history isn't perfect, but I'm pretty sure that both World Wars were already raging and claiming millions of lives way before any American got involved

[NoPasaran]

10. Yeah, but none of that's important when you're blaming Democrats

Damn them for sinking the Lusitania and bombing Pearl Harbor!

[rinsd]

50. No way. The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

[CitizenLeft]

147. ROTFL!

Thank you for that! :rofl:

[rinsd]

17. Not to mention the dozens of small wars the US wasn't involved in.

[Chulanowa]

73. And the many small wars we were involved in

Cambodia with Nixon
Latin America, Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq with Reagan
Iraq and Somalia with Bush the first.

(I love bringing up the fact it was H.W. that put us in Somalia with the Righties. Makes their eyes spurt blood like the lizards htey are)

[WCGreen]

107. They always forget the Somalia thing....

Unfortunaly, so does the MSM...

But you have to give Clnton a lotCredit, he never once, that I know of, blamed Bush for the soldiers being in Somalia in the first place...

[ruggerson]

4. This idiot needs to go away

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

189. Harsh language *shaking head*

[Virginia Dare]

199. I'd say Ms. Sheehan was equally ,if not more, harsh...n/t

[rubberducky]

5. I really respect all that Cindy has been through, but

she is really wrong on this. I feel bad to see her starting down this road.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. Er....She hates the Fed? Taxes?

Oh dear, i don't even know where to begin with this... :crazy:

[Cameron27]

18. Sounds like a conservative libertarian point of view.

I'll stand with Pelosi.

[rinsd]

29. No one likes taxes but who still claims taxes are unconsititutional?

Beyond the odd libertarian nutter?

Th 16th Amendment seems very clear on this

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[razors edge]

78. "Th 16th Amendment seems very clear on this"

But things are not always as they seem, The argument is that the amendment was not worded the same in all the states who voted for it, and in some cases the wording said the exact opposite. I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if you think that a constitutional amendment cannot be screwed around with, Google the original thirteenth amendment, the history of that one is always interesting.

But beyond the 16th, there is the question of just exactly where in law it is stated who has to pay the income tax, and some other vague wording that calls it a voluntary tax. The 16th does not place dollar amounts or specifics like that, so the laws relating to that are also somewhat in question. Some of the most vehement opponents of the tax code are former IRS enforcement people who could not find the laws they were enforcing.

Since the IRS refuses to show the protesters exactly where in the code they are required to pay the income tax, they do not seem to be helping to put an end to the debate, other than through the end of a gun.

[struggle4progress]

84. Can't figure out the legal authority?

:rofl:

"Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

"U.S. Code Title 26 Income Taxes"

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=98137,00.html

Doh!

[razors edge]

101. So

just where exactly is "income" described in the tax code you have linked? Legal definitions have meaning and a lack of reference in law is taken to mean a clear distinction from or intentional exclusion.

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Maybe you are not familiar with the many discrepancies with tax law in this country, I have read allot on them and find them interesting to say the least.

I do not believe anything someone asserts, I feel sorry for those who do and think they know something about a subject, but have obviously never researched in depth the arguments of the opposition. It is simple to point to a law and assert meaning, I could say that title 26 allows for slavery, but if it isn't in there it don't make it so now does it?

[struggle4progress]

119. TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B —Computation of Taxable Income

# PART I—DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.
# PART II—ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
# PART III—ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME
# PART IV—TAX EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL BONDS
# PART V—DEDUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS
# PART VI—ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS
# PART VII—ADDITIONAL ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS
# PART VIII—SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS FOR CORPORATIONS
# PART IX—ITEMS NOT DEDUCTIBLE

&c&c

[whopis01]

208. yes, you could say "could say that title 26 allows for slavery"

and it would not be true, just because you claimed it to be so.

Likewise just because you claim the "IRS refuses to show the protesters exactly where in the code they are required to pay the income tax" does not make that true either.

Nor does saying that "Some of the most vehement opponents of the tax code are former IRS enforcement people who could not find the laws they were enforcing." make it true, or show that the laws in question do not exist.

The law states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived". Don't take my word for it, it is right there in Title 26.

You do make the point about the definition of the word income. However, you seem to be taking Mr. Mitchell's word for what the decision in Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka is actually saying. Mr. Mitchell has a rather slanted and misleading interpretation of that decision. The question before the court at that time was whether or not gains from the appreciation of capital assets could be considered income. Nowhere did the court rule that income is limited to only corporate profits. The question before the court was concerned with determine whether or not inheritance left in a trust could be considered income to those receiving it. The court clearly decided that they inheritors were taxable persons and concentrated on the question of "whether this gain in four years of over $700,000 on an investment of about $500,000 is 'income' within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Note, that at no time are they discussing whether or not wages are considered income. This is really more of a question as to whether or not capital gains are income.

In arguing this, the court refers to several definitions of income that it has agreed with an upheld. This being "Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets." from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert and upheld in Eisner v. Macomber.

Clearly this states that that income may be defined as gain from labor (among other sources).

When telling others that "I do not believe anything someone asserts, I feel sorry for those who do and think they know something about a subject, but have obviously never researched in depth the arguments of the opposition." you should be careful to not blindly accept things stated by those who you wish to agree with such as Mr. Mitchell.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/252/189/case.html#207
http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/399/case.html#415
http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/509/

[razors edge]

282. Great post, informative.

I never said I thought the protesters arguments where 100% valid, only that I find them interesting.

As for the former IRS employee protesters, I take that from their own words, in Arron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism".

My whole interest in the subject does not rise and set on the single link I provided, it was merely the only one I had not deleted from my bookmarks.

Who I agree with, if anyone, is irrelevant, since the law of the land is still the man with a gun who takes your land if you get out of line.

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sounds prophetic to me. I don't see how clinging to the system our founders knew would enslave us is a progressive approach to solving the problems we find ourselves in. Maybe you could explain how something known to these men hundreds of years ago to be the instrument of slave building by the elites, has somehow changed into our salvation, when all evidence to the contrary has been slapping us in the face for a long long damn time.

[Bullet1987]

156. Libertarians aren't against taxes...only certain ones that ARE very much unconsitutional

[Perry Logan]

291. Doesn't it depend on the libertarian? Some of them are against public roads!

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. The zeitgeist movie is an interesting watch

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

One of the prominent topics is the Federal Reserve - but I don't know what to think about it either. I don't think she'd be able to get much done while spending all her time tilting at windmills.

[Marrah_G]

290. OMG

The owner of a large insurance brokerage just emailed that to my boss this morning. He said it was "fascinating" I stuck the link in my favorites to check out later.

[snowbear]

7. Hard to belive Speaker Pelosi actually has her photo on her website!

-------

Website: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/photos/sheehan.html

[KingFlorez]

8. She's nothing but a right-winger

Only they use this kind of inane logic.

[derby378]

13. Oh, sure, make the Camp Casey crowd hate us all over again...

You may disagree with Cindy as strenuously as you like, but "right-winger?" Sheesh.

[knowledgeispwr]

19. I don't know about "right-winger"...

but some of these talking points are definitely straight from the right-wing.

[Land Shark]

49. Today's paper has a photo of Sheehan and shirt reads "Arrest Cheney First"

I don't imagine facts like those will change opinions here. It would be fairest to say she's disgusted by the lack of action by both parties.

What, does she have to have a son killed in Iraq before she has the right to say enough is enough, end the War NOW?

If not, at what point does someone have the right to be thoroughly disgusted with the party they otherwise prefer?

[knowledgeispwr]

70. She wore a shirt, so what?

She can be frustrated with the Democratic party, that's within her rights.

Should we laud her for spouting off inaccurate talking points about the Democratic party? Why not use facts to criticize? So much of our problems in the last 7 years are due to lies. Do we really need more lies to end the war in Iraq?

[Land Shark]

204. So What? Who else is going to get that message in the paper? Not many.

I presumed that some of the critics of Sheehan here would be more inclined to agree with the message on her shirt, but perhaps that too is too overboard in terms of criticizing our vice president. ;)

[last_texas_dem]

148. I was thinking the same thing

Reading the "Democrats are the party of slavery" line reminded me of when I used to argue politics with my not-too-sharp right-wing friend back in high school. Besides his favorite "How are Democrats really any different from communists?" line, his favorite line was always, "Doesn't it bother you that you support the party of slavery?", even though he was one of the biggest racists you would ever meet, who probably would have claimed that he would have no problem with slavery being legal.

This kind of rhetoric from Sheehan is disappointing and not helpful to the cause that, I assume, is the most important to her.

[AZBlue]

140. Yeah, these are scary GOP talking points.

I could see them coming out of any GOP/crook's mouth!

[bunkerbuster1]

194. Horse poop.

She writes inelegantly sometimes. She certainly mis-wrote in her Kos diary.

But right-wing? Cut me a fucking break.

[Marrah_G]

292. Mis-wrote?

She knew exactly what she was writing. And if she doesn't want to be called one perhaps she shouldn't use a bunch of well known right wing memes.

[John Kerry VonErich]

239. Sorry everyone, but thats funny

I have never heard of anyone calling Ms. Sheehan a troll.

[Schema Thing]

9. :heh: our bad :shrug:

[snowbear]

11. You must be the guy who just rated this thread up?

....

[Schema Thing]

23. lol, no.

but please try to have a sense of humor about it. Bat shit crazy as she may have allowed herself to become, she's right on the facts, and they are facts that should induce no small amount of humility and caution in our democratic souls, imo.

I was thrown into the political waters just 4 years ago, bright-eyed bushy-tailed and wet behind the ears. I chose to be a Democrat instead of an Independent because it was a party holding :slighty: truer to it's values than the alternative, and the alternative needed harsh repudiation. The republican party still needs harsh repudiation, but that doesn't change that the Democratic party needs to be kept on a very short leash as well.

[knowledgeispwr]

26. Except she's not right on the facts

The Democratic Party of today isn't the same as it was 150 years ago.

The Democratic Party isn't responsible for every war in the 20th Century except the first gulf war.

Federal income taxes unconstitutional?

No, facts are few in that post of hers.

[Schema Thing]

37. point taken

she's right on *some* of her facts.

[tblue37]

41. The Dems that supported slavery are the same

southern Dems that became Republicans in order to punish the Democratic Party for pushing through the Civil Rights Bill. Calling them Dems is the worst sort of nonsense. They were the basis of Nixon's and Reagan's Southern Strategy, and they still form the core of the Republican machine and Bush's base.

I admire and respect all that Cindy has done to help the peace movement coalesce and get the attention of the media and the American people, but this is just playing fast and loose with facts, and I cannot admire or respect this sort of demagoguery.

[LittleClarkie]

114. It would be like praising the Republicans because of what Lincoln did

Ignoring that Dems and Repubs pretty much switched places after a while.

[rinsd]

12. She complaining about income taxes?

Also how did the US start WW1, WW2 and the Korean War?

[William769]

16. It's Clinton's fault!

[Cameron27]

21. I'm surprised she didn't blame Clinton for WWII

[rinsd]

30. The Clenis is mighty enough to time travel!

[fujiyama]

90. LOL

A phallic shaped time travel machine!

[LisaM]

20. Didn't Vietnam start under Eisenhower's watch?

I'm fairly certain it did - or at least, I should say, our involvement, because I think that war, too, started before we joined our forces.

[rinsd]

27. The first advisors did arrive on Eisenhower's watch.

There were 500 to 1000 advisors doing all the training of the South Vietnamese army.

Kennedy boosted that to 16K. Johnson obviously saw a huge surge of combat troops.

[Thothmes]

310. Advisors

The first American military advisors sent to Viet Nam were logistics types sent to aid the French military effort. Truman did that in the late 1948,early 49.

[mzteris]

40. Truman

I spent hours and hours and days and days back in highschool trying to prove my old social studies teacher "wrong".

Back then I was a Republican (or thought I was) and he was a Democrat (only an 'old style one') - and he tried to blame the war on Eisenhour and I tracked down going back to old year book encyclopedias and found the very first mention of "Vietnam" and the US under Truman. Very limited - advisors, I think, but Eisenhour did escalate that.

[ProudDad]

102. You're not really right

The Democrat Truman made the first decision to back the French.

"In May 1950, after the capture of Hainan island by Chinese Communist forces, President Harry Truman began covertly authorizing direct financial assistance to the French, and in June 27th 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, announced publicly that the U.S. was doing so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War

Eisenhower sent the first 2 advisors: 8 July 1959 — Charles Ovnand and Dale R. Buis become the first two American Advisers to die in Vietnam and did some minor escalation.

Kennedy began the buildup, Johnson promised "Not to send American boys to fight an Asian war", then he went apeshit sending American Boys to fight an Asian war...

Nixon/Kissinger upped the ante, committed enough war crimes to destabilize the whole region for decades and bullshit the people while blocking a final peace.

We withheld our consent and along with Watergate that ended the war...

[Tigress DEM]

241. Technically labeled the "Korean Conflict" when we sent soldiers over.

My dad fought in that but it was definitely before and considered something different than the Vietnam War.


Outbreak of hostilities began June 25, 1950. The armistice was signed, July 27, 1953***
more>>> http://korea50.army.mil/history/chronology/index.shtml


Still, Cindy is painting with a broad stroke. I wish she had actually put some research into it and help really educate instead of muddying the water and blaming DEM'S.



***
July 27
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. A total of 33,651 service members died in battle during the Korean War; 27,709 U.S. Army; 4,269 U.S. Marines; 1,198 U.S. Air Force; and 475 U.S. Navy. 7,140 service members became prisoners of war.

[frankenforpres]

164. kennedy invaded vietnam (n/t)

[Bullet1987]

160. The law does NOT give the government the right to tax labor!!

[rinsd]

207. Yes. it does. Read the 16th amendment.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[Bullet1987]

209. No..if you think it were that simple there would be a contreversy?

In 1894 the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax on your labor is unconstitutional. Under the Constutition there are only two types of taxation...direct and indirect. Direct taxes have to be apportioned equally. The 16th amendment created a third form of taxation on your labor, that it NOT apportioned. But here's the catch...not only has it been shown that the amendment wasn't ratified properly. But even if it were ratified properly, on 8 separate Supreme Court decisions...the Courts said the 16th Amendment gave NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION! In 1917, they stopped because of that (until the IRS code). But the IRS code is irrelevant, because legally it can't trump the Supreme Court decisions.

[rinsd]

211. And every single person who has refused to pay their taxes has LOST in court

[Bullet1987]

217. If you don't pay taxes you go to jail...which is why what has been going

on for damn near a century is criminal. People have tried to challenge this in court, but the judges always ignore the previous 8 precedent cases from the early 1900's. Aaron Russo actually shows this in America: From Freedom to Fascism. He also talks to the IRS Commissioner who says the Supreme Court decisions are irrelevent!!! :wtf:

So the next logical question should be, since when does the IRS trump the Supreme Court? Look at the Aaron Russo vids I posted in the video section.

[rinsd]

225. Aaron Russo? LOL! That libertarian nutjob!

Also before they go to jail, there is actually a trial.

Oh and courtesy of wiki, here are some cases where taxes have been ruled consititutional by the Appeal courts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Cases_where_wages_or_labor_ruled_taxable

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

294. You will never win this argument...

For tax protesters, there is no amount of logic, evidence, or legal predecent that you can present that could possibly change their mind. I only invite them to stop paying their taxes and then send my a post card from Fort Leavenworth.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. She's gone 'round the bend.

those are pure right-wing talking points.

[pnwmom]

38. I'm afraid she has.

So sad.

She reminds me of Nader, in a way -- feeling betrayed by the Dems for not being able to stop Bush, she's angrier at them than at the real enemy. Just as Nader often seems more furious with the Dems than with the Repubs.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Unfortunately,

we have a lot of people here who expend much more energy attacking Dems than attacking Republicans. It's sad.

[pnwmom]

55. You're right.

I think many come here to try to peel off Democratic support, usually for third parties.

[assclown_bush]

63. Ain't that the truth...n/t

[ProudDad]

103. Nope, not the truth

We come to reform the Democratic Party, not to demolish it.

The DLC is doing a great job of demolishing the party -- we want them to stop!

Under the current rigged system the Democratic Party is our only hope but not the way they've been going since '82...

[assclown_bush]

154. Yes the truth...

If you don't like the Democratic Party go to Russia or Cuba or join up with Nader. You are not a Democrat if you want to destroy the party.

[ProudDad]

227. Simplistic blather

Did you mean me when you said "you don't like the Democratic Party go to Russia or Cuba or join up with Nader"?

If so, you're displaying an amazing lack of ability to read simple English...

We want the Democratic Party to live up to the ideals it nearly represented in the 1930s and 1940s. The Dems promoted and passed a little of the Progressive platform under duress caused by the Depression and the dangers inherent in the failure of capitalism in the early 1930s. But, they were co-opted by the military industrial complex and the corporations (same thing somewhat) in the 1940s and have never returned completely to the humane values they nearly represented.

We want the Democratic Party to get better than it is. We want the Democrats to begin again enacting Progressive legislation and serving the People instead of their corporate masters, to rein IN the capitalist evil and to END WAR and begin an era of REAL peaceful co-existence with the other nations on Earth and with the environment of Earth itself.

We don't expect it from the republicans. That's why we are seriously hurt when the Dems don't do the right thing. It's because we expect more of them.

And frankly, the fucking political deck is too stacked in favor of the two right-wings of the business party that we realize that a viable 3rd party in this day of corporate financed and managed "elections" is impossible...

As for this: "You are not a Democrat if you want to destroy the party", guess what bunky, you're a Democrat if you're registered as a Democrat... That's the only freekin' requirement under law...

If you're talking about being a democrat, well WE come in all kinds of party affiliations and none. A democrat is someone who supports We the People against them the Corporations. A democrat is someone who believed that "as you do to the least of us, you do to me." and demands that every person be valued. A democrat, like Ralph Nader and Thom Hartmann and Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee want democracy to reign -- We the People in charge.

I pray that someday we get a Democracy. But we won't as long a blind "party loyalty" trumps actual work toward the goal of democracy...


In case you've forgotten here's the definition of democrat...

dem·o·crat·ic adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" George du Maurier.
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.

Hmmm, member of Democratic Party is number 4 -- just like Lyndon...

[Virginia Dare]

192. She didn't just trash the DLC though..

she trashed the entire institution of the Democratic party. Serious bridge burning, and she will come to regret it one day I'm sure.

[mzteris]

42. been gone for a while now - n/t

[Virginia Dare]

191. Yes, she needs to put politics aside and get some counseling..

I really feel deep sympthathy for her.

[treestar]

252. Amen, you are absolutely right

Does she live in Pelosi's district, even?

This is a misguided personal vendetta.

[SaveElmer]

15. When you combine absolutism with an ignorance of history...

You get the stuff Cindy Sheehan has been spewing...

She long ago ceased to be relevent...

[ProudDad]

104. If she's so irrelevent

why are you reacting so irrationally to what she's saying?

She makes you soooooooooo mad, eh?... :grr: :grr:

:rofl:


Most of what she's said is fact. They ARE incomplete facts 'cause the pukes are just as much a tool of the military-industrial complex as the Dems. But last time I looked it's the Dems who are allegedly "in charge" of the purse now so who else can she go after to end the war???

[SaveElmer]

111. Weird...

A. I suggest you take a look at a history book...and

B. If you think responding on a chat board translates into relevancy for the subject, well you might want to get out more...

[ProudDad]

302. Weird

Your point B doesn't "scan" at all -- it makes no sense...

You might want to invest in a copy of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X

[LoZoccolo]

22. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE

[knowledgeispwr]

43. LOL...

that about sums it up, doesn't it?

Seriously though, Ms. Sheehan's diary shows, as friend of mine put it, "ignorance and arrogance." I feel sorry for her.

[mzmolly]

82. Best response EVER!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

24. Why does she speak for Democrats one minute

then insult the party the next. I don't get it.

She said in the yahoo news article that "Democrats are getting tired ..." But why should she be considered with speaking for us, when she thinks we are the party of slavery.

Cindy, shugah, kiss my grits.

[melody]

28. Cindy just lost me -- she's fighting hardest against the Dems, not the GOP

Why is she doing that?

[LittleClarkie]

31. Well, we started more wars, so the Republicans must be better

Why doesn't she just become one then.

[melody]

33. exactly n/t

[Virginia Dare]

200. She seems to be alienating those that are already on her side..

it defies logic.

[Tigress DEM]

242. I'm wondering if she's trying to shame them into getting it right because the GOP have no shame.

I think Cindy was in the heart of the beast and she's been attacked by people who claim to be DEMs enough that she's lost perspective.

However, she could also simply be about promoting a new and separate Progressive Party which is about where Michael Moore started.

Still going public with erroneous facts against DEMs isn't very wise.

[TwilightGardener]

32. I was right about her. Cindy's all about Cindy. She ain't right in the head, either.

And obviously no student of history--blaming Democrats for slavery, as if the political parties today are characterized by the same philosophies and issues as in 1861 (yeah, the Republicans today are Lincolnesque--LOL!). Blaming Dems for all the wars of the 20th century--yeah, Cindy, guess we shouldn't have "started" WW2. What an ass. Go away.

[assclown_bush]

68. I agree with you that she is wrong in some of her statements...

but I find it offensive to question her sanity. The woman has lost a son to war and she has devoted her life and energy to fighting for peace. Her actions have caused great consternation to republicans and have helped Democrats. We should not rush to call her names or claim she is crazy because she no longer is espousing our own ideas.
I disagree with her but I still believe her to be a noble person.

[TwilightGardener]

88. I don't find it offensive at all to question someone's mental state, when

they make very vindictive-sounding, and just plain factually incorrect, statements about an entire political party and its adherents (myself included), when that party has been the key support of one's mission. I don't see where she ever helped Dems. And now, she's on an all-out attack against my party. I think she's vengeful, and yes, a little unstable perhaps, and is misdirecting her anger. You may not agree, but that's how I see it. I don't respond well to people who simply act or lash out from whatever emotion they happen to be feeling--it's not an effective technique, and can be downright detrimental to one's purposes.

[assclown_bush]

93. The exact same thing can be said about you and your post...

you too are lashing out from an emotional basis, and it too is detrimental to your own purpose.

[TwilightGardener]

96. Lashing out? Or giving my assessment/opinion? I have no other purpose here.

Just calling it as I see it.

[assclown_bush]

100. Thank you Dr. Wiener for your medical assesment of Sheehans sanity...

I am sure she gives one fig about what you have to say.

[TwilightGardener]

112. LOL! No problem--glad I could help! Next?

[knowledgeispwr]

117. hehe, great attitude! n/t

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

276. Eh, I know I've won an argument when the other poster gets personal.

Last resort of the loser--gotta hurl that final insult.

[Virginia Dare]

193. Didn't she originally quit because of something somebody on DU

said about her? Obviously, she does care.

[treestar]

253. People aren't noble/not crazy merely because they lost a child

We can feel sorry for them, but it doesn't automatically make them right/noble or save them from being crazy.

It could drive them crazy, and it's not a criticism to say so.

This lady needs to attend to her personal feelings - but she's no leader. That's not a criticism, just a fact. Just a reflection of how the right wing has been allowed to frame all issues in terms of the troops personally.

We are entitled to be anti-war without the agreement of troops or survivors of troops. Leaning on this poor lady who lost her son, just because that gave her more credibility under right wing framed arguments, was a mistake.

[assclown_bush]

258. Your opinion as to her mental state is just that: an opinion.

It's value is that of any opinion of a lay person making a medical diagnosis of someone they have never evaluated: worthless.

If you made a mistake of "leaning on this poor lady", own it. Don't blame her for your own error in judgement.

[Mike Daniels]

202. I quit listening to her after her Katrina remark

That's when she first showed that something was going to her head.

[knowledgeispwr]

205. I missed that...

If you don't mind, what was her Katrina remark?

[NaturalHigh]

34. She gets nuttier by the day.

You'll never hear me say that the Democratic party is perfect, but I'm not going to trash all the good things we've done to get a brief sound byte on the news, either.

[rinsd]

35. Wow, that's the fastest I've ever seen a campaign flame out.

[LittleClarkie]

47. We may find that the biggest benefit of the whole affair was getting publicity for the word

impeachment. The rest of it won't amount to a hill of beans.

[rinsd]

51. I think that was the ultimate goal.

Good to see you around. Its been awhile.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Thanks. I just had to take a break

Didn't announce it. Just did it. Glad to be missed.

[NotGivingUp]

36. Holy crap! What's wrong with all of you people? BOTH parties are screwing us! nt

[ruggerson]

39. Why are you here then? n/t

[slay]

59. You are right - both parties are indeed screwing us!

However, the Democrats are in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. Yet, I do not like, and probably would not vote for, Hillary or Obama - they seem much too comfortable with the current situation and not NEARLY outraged enough. I would love to see Kucinich or maybe Gravel get the Dem nomination as things stand now. What I would REALLY like to see would be Al Gore decide to run.

All of that aside, it is more and more obvious to me that you are correct, the Dems are screwing us as well. Most of them voted to take us to war with Iraq, and most of them signed off on the original patriot act WITHOUT EVEN FULLY READING IT! Anyone who thinks the Dems aren't up to their hips in this shit are either blind or brainwashed. It helps me to think of it this way - The Republicans are the brutal thugs who do the dirty work, while the Dems are their apologizing enablers - allowing them to do all this shit - only when the public gets really pissed do they start to change their tune. In the end, the Dems MUST show some backbone and admit that the situation we are in these days with the Bush regime is NOT business as usual. The Dems need to hold press conferences and scream IMPEACHMENT at every single occasion. Yet they do not. I mean seriously, the Dems won't even talk about the RIGGED ELECTIONS, or Sybil Edmonds, or a new (real) 9/11 investigation. If the Dems let Bush and Cheney just stroll through the rest of their term without REAL SERIOUS challenges to them, then they may well be finished as a party. True liberals, like myself, will not tolerate the rich corporate chickenshit Dems we have in office today much longer. Cindy Sheehan may "seem crazy" to some people, but I think unlike most people, she sees past the politics to what is important and that is DOING SOMETHING, an act the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to do. The clock is ticking Dems - do something by 2008 or risk losing true grassroot liberals like me forever.

[NotGivingUp]

83. Thank you. It was so nice to come back here and 'hear' a voice of reason.

I feel just like you do. I've expressed it as the good cop/bad cop syndrome...with both parties working against the citizens of the United States AND against the people of the rest of the world. The corporate elite are constantly busy...building themselves an empire on the backs of all of us. It matters not to them how many people they kill or how much suffering they cause...just as long as they keep lining their pockets. Both political parties are complicit. They have done more than enable them...they have paved the way, and all along they pretend that we have a 'democracy'. The shows over for me. I don't know what it will take for the rest of these folks here to see the light.

[slay]

143. If you and I can see through it, others can too...

It's just a matter of if they will or not. I mean, the shit really does run deep and you have to have an understanding of the corporate elite and how they operate to truly understand what goes on behind the scenes in Washington. It's way deeper than 30 second campaign ads, and way deeper than even the debates can (or even would) get into. I read earlier today or maybe it was yesterday that what we really have is a ONE PARTY SYSTEM with the Dems controlling the liberals, and the Republican's controlling those that are of a more conservative nature. I know some "true conservatives" who are just as pissed about the current situation as you and I are. Hopefully people will start wakeing up to this reality soon, otherwise it's just going to be more of the same old bullshit over and over again. :grr:

[GreenPartyVoter]

190. Agreed on all counts.

[cassiepriam]

44. As an Irish Catholic JFK Dem to the core, like my father before me, there is only one thing to say

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK CINDY.
KICK EVERYONE'S BUTT UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER....

That is all.... flame away fellow Dems.
I don't care, I speak for the Iraqis and
Americans who are being murdered, tortured
and maimed.

And that my friends is what my Irish family
always did. Stand up for what is right.
No matter who slugs away at you.

Excuse me now. Time to say a Hail Mary while the
flames begin.

[NotGivingUp]

85. Whoo-haa! STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT! No flames here, my friend! nt

[cassiepriam]

269. It is a concept isn't it? DOING THE RIGHT THING. What a novelty for Americans.

Thanks :)

[cassiepriam]

271. KEEP DOING THE RIGHT THING CINDY. I LOVE YOU.

The bravest woman in America.
Some day we can say we knew an American saint!

[Greeby]

45. Why do I feel like this screed has been ripped

lock, stock and barrel from Ron Paul's campaign site? Certainly that's what it sounds like

[ellisonz]

48. Cindy Sheehan reminds me of a duck.

[NoPasaran]

52. Why a duck?

[ellisonz]

77. Content to float a lake and take make annual migrations.

She quacks too;-)

[TreasonousBastard]

53. She's just pulling a Nader...

trying to regain relevance after the world passed on by.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[assclown_bush]

69. Shame on you for saying that about the woman.

She lost a son to this ignoble war and she has devoted her time and energy and even life for the peace movement. Now that she questions Democrats (and I disagree with her on this), she is now a "Whore"?

Shame on you.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Do you give freeper moms who lost children the same consideration when they speak?

?

[assclown_bush]

95. The subject at hand is Cindy Sheehan...or did you fail to read the OP...

?

[LittleClarkie]

97. Just asking a question. If one is not to say certain things about Cindy

because she is a grieving mother, I ask if you would give the same consideration to a grieving mom who's ideology is wildly different from yours.

Do you have an answer?

[assclown_bush]

105. Would I call a grieving mother an "attention Wh*re"?

just because she is a republican? Not on your life. Common decency forbids such ad hominem attacks. You don't find it odd that someone on this site would refer to Sheehan as a "republican attention Wh*re"? Does that not seem too harsh for you? Is my post the proper one you should be dissecting?

[treestar]

254. It's not impossible for one person to be both a grieving mother

and an attention whore.

Which could be true of freeper mothers, also - though none of them has tried to lead a pro-war movement.

Cindy does not make a good leader, period. We need a good one, even if they never went to the war or lost a child in one. One who is more interested in wars started by repukes in the 21st century (one would think this one would interest Cindy most, also) rather than 20th century wars and 19th century politics.

Her statements show she is no political leader, and that is true of many people, those who lost sons in the war and those who haven't.

[assclown_bush]

260. I have never looked to Sheehan to "lead" me anywhere.

The people who looked to her for leadership and now feel let down by her actions or statements need to accept the fact that they have followed someone whom they put on a pedestal. Obviously, the woman has come crashing down in the eyes of many on DU. I don't agree with her statements but I think it crass, vulgar and quite common to call her "crazy" or an "attention Whore" as some people have on this thread. If you don't agree with her it is unnecessary to resort to ad hominem attacks to get your point across.

I say good luck in finding a leader who won't "jump the shark"...in the end it is human nature to falter and it's sadly human nature for a mob mentality to overtake a site even here on DU and unleash it's disappointment on it's fallen idol.

Sad.

[MelissaB]

131. Alert is your friend.

I just hit it for one of the first times.

[barack4prez]

113. See that signpost, up ahead?

You are now entering the Twilight Zone.

[wyldwolf]

58. irrelevant pariah

[Zodiak]

60. Looks okay to me

If a little simplistic with the war statement (the start of wars nor the purpose of said wars were indicated here..which would qualify much). I do not think that her overall thrust was to impeach the Democratic party in particular, but to impeach the 2-party system that limits choices. After all, none of the wars she refers to would have been possible without both parties' involvement. It is not party that should drive politics, but issues. But it is a subtext that I already know to be true, so I could be accused of bias here.

Whew, the long knives come out and the with-hunt begins, eh? Please understand the impetus for this thing would not be there if an issue vacuum was not created by bad politics on the part of Democrats. We all know they have squandered the power they have on this war with their "bipartisanship". Let's hope September produces smarter strategy on the part of Democrats. No one wanted biapartisanship save the media and the beltway advisors.

(also no one considered American's revulsion for "partisan politics" comes from putting the party before country instead of the issues?...maybe that is why the current strategy doesn't resonate?)

All this will go away if the party would stand up for what the American people are screaming for....and end to this Bush nightmare that is careening us off the cliff.

When we go over the cliff, it will take the Democratic party, too. None of us want this to happen.

I wold say the 50%+ who are for impeachment now would include all of the rank-and-file Democrats and quite a few independents, as well. Under those circumstances, it is monumentally stupid to ignore your entire party and a bunch of independents, as well. That dim sliver of Americans who don't know enough about politics and call themselves "moderates" are not worth this srategy.

[tinrobot]

61. She sounds like a freaking Republican.

Did she steal that tripe from Rush Limbaugh or something?

Jeeez.

[UrbScotty]

62. Call her Mrs. Ralph Nader. Blame Democrats First.

She's lost my support.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. WTF?

Taxes unconstitutional? Says who?

[maximusveritas]

65. Say it ain't so Cindy

This sounds like a bad imitation of a Freeper. Even Nader supporters aren't this bad.

[radicalcapitalist]

66. "Good change has happened during Democratic regimes,...

but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people not the politicians."

She's right; unfortunately, nowadays most people sit around waiting for politicians to change things for them.

And the politician smiles, for he knows that the people are fooled.

[RestoreGore]

71. I suggest she read a history book

before she embarrasses herself again.

[RestoreGore]

74. Here, Ms. Sheehan... WW1

I learned this in grade school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo

[RestoreGore]

76. WW II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[Yukari Yakumo]

179. And Korea wasn't exactly started by the Democrats either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

American action was taken for a number of reasons. Truman, a Democratic President, was under severe domestic pressure for being too soft on Communism by, among others, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. Especially outspoken were those who accused the Democrats of having "lost" China to the Communists. The intervention also was an important implementation of the new Truman Doctrine, which advocated the opposition of Communism wherever it tried to expand. The lessons of Munich in 1938 also influenced the American decision, leading them to believe that appeasing aggressive states would only encourage further expansion.

Instead of pressing for a Congressional declaration of war, which he regarded as too alarmist and time-consuming when time was of the essence, Truman went to the United Nations for approval. (He would later come under harsh criticism for not consulting Congress before sending troops.)

The same day the war had officially begun (June 25), the United Nations immediately drafted UNSC Resolution 82, which called for called for three things <5>:

* for all hostilities to end and North Korea to withdraw to the 38th Parallel;
* for a U.N. Commission on Korea to be formed to monitor the situation and report to the Security Council;
* for all U.N. members to support the United Nations in achieving this, and refrain from providing assistance to the North Korean authorities.

The resolution was unanimously passed in the Security Council thanks to the temporary Soviet absence from the Security Council — the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council, protesting that the Chinese seat should be transferred from the (Kuomintang-controlled) Republic of China to the Communist People's Republic. With the Soviets absent and unable to veto the resolution, and with only Yugoslavia abstaining, the U.N. voted to aid South Korea on June 27. The resolution led to direct action by the United States, whose forces were joined by troops from 15 other U.N. members: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

So let's summarize.

Truman got involved because of (a) Rethug pressure, and (b) UN support instead of congressional approval.

[ProudDad]

108. WW I

Wilson lies to the public (like Johnson) about not sending American boys to that European war -- then he does.

[ProudDad]

109. WW II

FDR expands the Monroe Doctrine to include all of Southeast Asia to squeeze the Japanese off from access to oil and resources...

Japanese predictably react by initiating hostilities...

Not defending the Japanese -- their govt was Fascist at the time -- but this shit don't happen in a vacuum..

Check real history not the bogus "history books" they spoon feed folks in school...

[RestoreGore]

110. Democrats didn't "start" either war

Which is the point of contention. Maybe you should then read along with her.

[Hippo_Tron]

165. When you don't approve of a government's actions, you use economic sanctions

FDR absolutely did the right thing by cutting off resources to the Japanese when they illegally invaded China. His cutting the resources also didn't make an attack on the US inevitable. Certainly that was one option for the Japanese but many of their leaders didn't agree with the logic that America wouldn't have the will to respond to an attack.

[rinsd]

206. "this shit don't happen in a vacuum."

"FDR expands the Monroe Doctrine to include all of Southeast Asia to squeeze the Japanese off from access to oil and resources"

Which was a response to Japanese invasion of Indochina.

[ProudDad]

218. Ah yes

the Doctrine of Pre-emption...

Or the "Big Brother Doctrine"...

bush is using that one too to invade and occupy Iraq....

[rinsd]

220. Much better to let imperialism run rampant?

I'm kind of at a loss here as to why Japanese aggresssion which goes back to the Russo-Japanese war is somehow ok?

The oil embargoe was a drastic step against Japan after we had embargoed other natural resources for their vicious endeavors in China.

But I have to ask, do you have problems with countries using economic sanctions to prevent naked aggression?

Or is it your contention that Japan was not aggressive or imperialistic?

[ProudDad]

228. While our capitalist masters supported Hitler

"The oil embargo was a drastic step against Japan after we had embargoed other natural resources for their vicious endeavors in China" and because they were not white...and we were "protecting" the properties of our WHITE European Allies in Indo-China, Indonesia, etc...

Japan was NOT a danger to the U.S. in the 1930s... Just as Iraq was no danger to the U.S. in 2002.

Follow the money, bunky...

[rinsd]

240. You seem to be into alternative history.

"The oil embargo was a drastic step against Japan after we had embargoed other natural resources for their vicious endeavors in China" and because they were not white"

Except the Japanese put the Vichy French in charge.

There seems to be a sickness in some corners of the left that go to great lengths to justify any actions by blaming the United States.

What's next? The Jews caused the Holocaust?

"Japan was NOT a danger to the U.S. in the 1930s"

So we had to trade with them? Is it not our right to refuse trade with countries that we disgree with politically?

Put it this way. If an oil rich nation cut off our oil supply tomorrow, would we somehow be justified in attacking that country because that is what you are rationalizing.


Or forget justification, would the fault then lie with the oil rich country?

[ProudDad]

245. I've been an avid student of history

especially the history of the mid-20th century, World War II in particular probably since before you were born.

The difference is that I have analyzed the root causes of events, you just throw out red herrings and illogical extensions as "history".

You also seem to have a difficulty with the English Language. Show me where I said anything remotely like:

"The Jews caused the Holocaust?"

"So we had to trade with them? Is it not our right to refuse trade with countries that we disgree with politically?" <-- Shit, when has that stopped us from trade (Cough, CHINA)

"If an oil rich nation cut off our oil supply tomorrow, would we somehow be justified in attacking that country because that is what you are rationalizing."

That's an Amazing stretch, bunky!!!

Take a chill pill, pal and curl up with a History Book with perspective:

http://howardzinn.org/default/

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/0060528370

[rinsd]

247. Usually in years of study one loses the ideological tinge to their history

"especially the history of the mid-20th century, World War II in particular probably since before you were born. The difference is that I have analyzed the root causes of events,"

Funny how those root causes all stem from an ideological perspective. That's the problem with Marxist history.

"You also seem to have a difficulty with the English Language. Show me where I said anything remotely like:"

"The Jews caused the Holocaust?"

Where did I say you said that? It was merely pointing out how ridiculous your claim is that we were at fault for Japan's aggression because we cut Japan off in response to their aggression.

""So we had to trade with them? Is it not our right to refuse trade with countries that we disgree with politically?" <-- Shit, when has that stopped us from trade (Cough, CHINA)"

But the decision whether to trade or not remains ours does it not?

[rockymountaindem]

267. Hardly

We cut off trade following the reignition of Japanese hostilities with China in the mid 1930s, before Japanese moves into white-controlled territory.

[Infinite Hope]

72. Sheehan: "I can't get no...Sa-tis-fac-tionnnnn...."

Republicans dislike her. Democrats dislike her. You have to really be tactically-incompetent to accomplish that in this day.

Though, as someone whose brother barely escaped death in Iraq, I sympathize with her passion for her cause. I think she's just lacking tact, skill, and judgment in her process.

[CitizenLeft]

153. exactly what I was going to post

...I certainly sympathize with her for the loss of her son. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, no matter what their political leanings. And I appreciate her message - that's not the problem, I agree with her. The problem is her "voice." She's no politician, that's for sure. And that's a double-edged sword. A fresh from-the-heart anti-war voice lacking political savvy is refreshing... but someone unable to tactfully get her message across is bound to eventually alienate the very people she needs to support her cause, and that's what's happening. While having a "consultant" would've tainted her message, a consultant would never have "allowed" her - if that's the correct term - to make either of these last two pronouncements. They have seriously hurt her credibility. :(

[ProudDad]

219. I see, one has to be rich to be a politician, eh?

or, like Nancy Pelosi, born into politics...

If you're just a civilian with a dead son, you aren't allowed to run, hum????

[CitizenLeft]

281. what the hell are you talking about?????

I said she lacks TACT because she's not a politician, and alienates people because she makes moves that aren't politically savvy - WTF??? Who said anything about being rich? Where did I say anything at all about money? She can run all she wants, I never said she couldn't. Of all the inflammatory remarks on this thread, you picked mine to say something about her dead son - like THAT? What a jackass thing to say.

[Doctor_J]

75. Will she be speaking at the RNC?

sounds like she's auditioning for a spot

[mzmolly]

89. Indeed, she sounds a bit like Hannity in that rant.

:(

[Virginia Dare]

195. They'll put her up there next to Zell Miller next year no doubt...n/t

[ProudDad]

222. Bizarre logic

by this reasoning anyone who's anti-war is a republican???

Very weird.. :shrug:


Or is it, if you're Cindy Sheehan and anti-war you're a republican?

Still too weird... :crazy:

[bluedog]

80. ?did she want to run

for office when the GOP had control these past years?...why did she pick to run against a Democrat and not a republican?
what is (in her mind) the resone and logic for this?

[ProudDad]

223. We answered this question already

to get Pelosi's attention and direct it toward ending the war...As Soon As Possible by Any Means Necessary...

[tritsofme]

81. She is proving every negative stereotype about her to be truthful.

And she's doing it all by herself, with no help from anyone else.

[Melynn]

122. No, no, no.

She's not like that. Really, she's not.

Somethings wrong. Drastically wrong.

[fujiyama]

She's completely lost it

It's too bad. She got really good at burning a lot of bridges...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

86. Sheehan = Chance the Gardener

Occasional small kernels of wisdom buried in the midst of much foolishness

[NotGivingUp]

87. You tell 'em Cindy! I'm behind you 100%! Keep up the good work! nt

[fujiyama]

98. What good work?

And being 100% behind ignorant and untrue statements is foolish...

And BTW, at this point what is her cause? She seems to have become a cult of personality for some extreme elements, and is seemingly full of her own ego.

Honestly, if one person could explain how she is positively furthering the cause of impeachment or even accountability in the least of this administration, I'd love to hear it.

[kikiek]

118. Seems to be doing a great job getting people fighting.

[AZBlue]

141. And that's so productive!

:sarcasm:

[Zandor]

92. Fuck you, Cindy

If you're determined to lose every ally in the world, you are well on your way.

[NotGivingUp]

94. The corporate PIGS are building an empire, and the Repukes AND the Dems are helping them do it. nt

[RestoreGore]

115. Then where is her rebuke of Republicans in Congress?

Do they not have responsibility to bring up impeachment? Maybe even more so? If you are an "independent" you criticize all sides not just one. Should she not then say she is running against BOTH sides if it isn't done? If you only criticize just one side it makes your motives look mighty suspicious. If she wants to run against just Pelosi then at least have the guts to do it as a Democrat. And since I read somewhere she voted for Bush in 2000, if true I don't trust her motives. Anyone who would vote for Bush against Al Gore gets no respect or support from me.

[struggle4progress]

99. We talked of the end of the world -- and then we'd sing a song and then sing it again.

We'd sit for an hour an not say a word -- and then these words would be heard:
So long -- it's been good to know yuh ...

-- Woody Guthrie

[Odin2005]

106. Sorry Cindy, you just lost my support. Go read up on your history.

The 2 parties have changes a lot in 150 years. The Democrats used to be the conservatives and Republicans used to be the liberals. The two parties switched ideologies during the late 1800s and early 1900s when the Populist movement fused with the Democratic Party and the Republicans dumped Teddy Roosevelt-style Progressivism.

[eridani]

116. LBJ decided that giving in to racists had to stop--

--and by signing the Civil Rights Act, the Dems left the Repubs with the racist vote. An amazing act of political courage--too bad he didn't go 2 for 2 and display the same courage about the Vietnam war.

[barack4prez]

121. Really? Take a look at the voting on the Civil Rights Act:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

So, the best that the Dems could get was 68%, and the least the Republicans could get was 80%.

[SaveElmer]

125. This misrepresents things...

The Civil Rights bills were pushed through by Democrats...LBJ and Hubert Humphrey primarily...

They made a deal with Everett Dirksen to deliver Republican votes to break the filibuster by Southern Dixicrats (who now comprise the southern wing of the Republican Party)...

Republicans did not initiate this legislation, nor did they agree to it without concession...

Everett Dirksen however has to be given credit, he was a particularly courageous and effective Republican leader (and pretty liberal)...I doubt he would approve of the modern Republican Party...

[eridani]

130. Dirksen and Charles Percy are probably spinning in their graves n/t

[SaveElmer]

132. No doubt about that!!!...nt

[DemBones DemBones]

284. Barry Goldwater as well. He saw the GOP selling

out to the religious right before he died.

BTW, did y'all know Hillary Clinton campaigned for Goldwater and Nixon? Bizarre bits of history. . .

[Hippo_Tron]

167. Plus the segregationists hadn't flooded to the GOP yet

The GOP under the leadership of Dirksen hadn't really begun the southern strategy yet. Only when Nixon was in charge did the Dixiecrats go over to the GOP.

[SaveElmer]

201. Exactly...however

It was the LBJ/Hubert Humphrey wing of the Party that pushed through Civil Rights legislation. In order to overcome Dixiecrat filibusters they enlisted the aid of Republicans...but it was LBJ/HHH et al that were the prime movers of this effort...not Republicans

[ProudDad]

221. Lyndon still couldn't have done it without those republicans

And now, we still have Dems like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

But now we don't have very many "liberal" republicans to counterbalance them...

That's why we're screwed, and at "war" on everything, and afraid and still...without Universal Health Care or a decent Safety Net...

Iraq -- 12 BILLION dollars a month -- on my grandson's credit card

That's why I say, "Go, Cindy! Whatever it takes to get those fucking Dems and the few decent pukes off their asses is OK by me!"

Don't get me wrong. It IS happening. I can see it even though it's occurring in the Congress at a glacial pace. Everything the Congress does is at a glacial pace but even so I think the worm's turning.

BUT, if Cindy Sheehan and millions of others of us hadn't kept the pressure on for the last 5+ years it WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Someone has to be right first. Someone has to continue the pressure even when the "smart ones", the "ones in the know" and the nay sayers keep pounding on the message "You'll never win, you haven't got the votes!"

So you nay sayers (and you know who you are) owe us an apology.

[blondeatlast]

145. Your source? Newness doesn't give you a pass on a reliable source. nt

[SaveElmer]

149. I don't know what their source is... it is probably correct...but does not convey accurately...

Who was responsible for the Civil Rights legislation that passed in the 1960's..

The Democratic Party, as represented by LBJ and Hubert Humphrey are responsible. In order to get past a Dixicrat filibuster they enlisted the aid of Republicans, led by Everett Dirksen, who to their credit did help (not without concession however). But the Republican Party was not the driving force behind the move...and those Democrats that voted against it, are the immediate precursors to the SOuthern wing of today's Republican Party...

[ProudDad]

230. The primary drivers of the Civil Rights Legislation were

In order of importance:

Medger Evers, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Fanny Lou Hamer, Martin Luther King and the rest of the men, women and children of the Civil Rights Movement -- The Good, Progressive, much reviled PEOPLE of the United States.

The Media - they showed the deprivations in the South on TV and mobilized most of the rest of the country to oppose segregation in the South. Of course, this was in the days of the Fairness Doctrine and corporate media accountability to the public. Couldn't happen now...

Lyndon Johnson -- was forced by the above events to propose the legislation MUCH earlier than he wanted to but, to his credit, used his powers of "persuasion" to pass it.

Some Dems and a lot of Republicans for voting for it...

The Supreme Court for forcing the Executive to slightly enforce its provisions -- until 2007...

and mostly the People who continue to strive towards justice for all in spite of the best efforts of our politicians to block what's right...

[SaveElmer]

262. No....

You listed prime movers of the Civil Rights movement....

And don't forget Hubert Humphrey was calling for an emphasis on human rather than states rights as far back as the 1948 convention...in fact it was his speech which induced Strom and the rest of the dixicrats to walk out...so a mention of him in that list is warranted...

LBJ and Hubert Humphrey were the prime movers of the legislation through Congress...and they should be given the credit that is their due...HHH was a long time proponent of such legislation, and though LBJ came later to the party, he came sincerely...

[ProudDad]

277. I think we've arrived at our major point of disagreement

I happen to believe that the People, We the People have the power if we recognize it and exercise it.

You, on the other hand seem to subscribe to the Leader Prinzip... That old meme that it's the Leaders that drive everything and drag the people along.

The "founding fathers" understood that power derives from the people, the Mexican government learned that principle when the Zapatistas withheld further consent to be governed by them in Chiapas.


It was the Civil Rights Movement's REFUSAL to slow down or stop their efforts after Johnson begged Martin Luther King to give him time and space to get reelected, to not piss off the red neck Dems, that caused Lyndon to push the legislation through earlier than he wanted to...

As for Humphrey, I agreed already that he was one of the good guys, a great loss that he didn't get a chance but
Hubert had as much direct effect on Lyndon Johnson as a fart in Nicaragua...

or Dan Quayle did on G.H.W.bush...

[Hippo_Tron]

166. Many of those Democrats that voted against became Repubicans within a decade

And almost all of them, if they hadn't died by then, became Republicans after Raygun was elected. The only remnants we have of the segregationist Democrats in our party is Robert Byrd.

[CTLawGuy]

184. that's because a good chunk of the dems were southerners

They are the ones who left because of bills like that one. LBJ basically destroyed the Democratic majority in order to fight for civil rights and equality. He is to be greatly commended for that. (Good thing the DLC wasn't around back then...)

The Repubs tended to be wealthy, moderate northerners who were more socially progressive than southern dems, but more fiscally conservative.

[SaveElmer]

123. Have to give props to Hubert Humphrey on this...as far back as 1948...

IN his convention speech exhorting the Democratic Party to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

He also shepherded the Civil Rights bills of the 60's through the Senate...


And a bit of a prop has to be given to Everett Dirksen who lined up enough Republican votes to break the Dixiecrat filibuster...

A great book on this called "The Walls of Jericho:Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the struggle for Civil Rights" gives a very good account...

[ProudDad]

233. Hubert was one of the good guys, for sure!

I had the opportunity to hear him speak to the California Legislature just before he died. I was standing at the edge of the floor of the Assembly and marveled at how right-on he was. This was in '70 or so and he was definitely anti-Vietnam war and for economic justice.

It's too bad that just like Gore was tainted by Clinton, Hubert was tainted by Lyndon's dirty fucking little war -- and we got nixon...

I also saw that fucker ronny ray-gun the same day -- from about 8 feet away and ray-gun was all pasty faced, caked with make-up. Hubert was dying of cancer and he looked better than ray-gun...

[Melynn]

120. How could Cindy do this to us?

We have supported her through thick and thin. Now she comes out against us. I'm almost in tears.

Please, please, please, someone talk to this person and talk some sense to her. Someone, anyone.

Will Pitt. You are a good friend of Cindy. Talk to her. Comfort her and tell her who her real friends are.

[LittleClarkie]

124. And just two days ago she was acting as our spokesperson

talking about how Democrats are sick of what's happening. Well, what does she care what we're sick of if this is what she thinks of us?

[RestoreGore]

182. She doesn't and never has spoken for me

I can speak for myself very well. I feel for her personal loss as I do for any mother who loses a child, but this idolization of her to me was always a bit suspicious.

[OHdem10]

126. Would someone please remind or teach whoever

said the Democratic Party of Slavery. Modern Update.
In the 70s, the Republican Realignment in the South. Many of those
Democrats are now Republicans.

[beaconess]

127. The good things that happened on the Dems watch were "because of the people" - the bad things were

caused by the Democrats.

Right, Cindy.

I'm sorry for your loss and empathize with your pain. But please go away now and address your issues in private.

[senseandsensibility]

128. She is factually wrong

She needs to be called on her factual errors. I am disappointed in her statement, and I have been a supporter.

[eridani]

129. She's just the latest in a long line of anti-imperialist dropouts

I heard it all back in the early 70s. Give up on the Dems, it doesn't matter who holds political office, the revolution will happen in the streets and in our personal lives, yaddayaddayaddayadda. Leave elections to the Repubs and the corporate Dems. Say, how's that been working out for us over the last 30 years or so? :sarcasm:

In 2003-2004, doing a lot of doorbelling cured me of the very common lefty delusion that people are paying attention. People don't get disenfranchised for being ignorant, and politicians who want to be elected pay as much attention to the ignorant as to the informed because they have to. Changing that starts in your own precinct and LD. As for myself, I'm not giving up on that process this time--I already made that mistake myself back in 1974.

[LittleClarkie]

135. Thanks for your perspective

I've been doing some canvassing and phonebanking myself since 2004. I was never so involved before that. And this year I went to my first Dem Convention, as a delegate no less.

[bling bling]

133. That was interesting. Though not interesting enough to click on the link.

I disagree about the part of the Democrats starting all the wars in the 20th century.

She seems to have a lot of animosity towards the Democratic Party. I think she feels let down and disappointed. She probably never had any expectations of the GOP in the first place so they didn't really let her down.

[Mojorabbit]

171. She must be still exhausted

I don't know if she has ever taken the time to truly grieve.
I myself feel let down and disappointed esp after the euphoria of the last election. My expectations were way too high it seems. In the big picture though, her post is a blip on my radar. This country is in a world of trouble financially and we have climate change and peak oil on the horizon. Work needs to begin to address these problems and it needs to be done yesterday. First we need to quit hemorrhaging money and lives on this war then start from there.

[grytpype]

136. Quit saying she is an attention whore because she is totally not! n/t

[MODemocrat]

137. I'm sure the Republican Party will welcome you back with open arms

Cindy voted for Bush, so she owns part of this debacle. I certainly would not support her candidacy as an Independent, even if I lived in California.

[LittleClarkie]

138. Has she explained why she voted for him in any of her speeches

or articles? Just wondering. She says she was a lifelong Dem. Why would a lifelong Dem vote for Bush?

[rinsd]

231. I think that is a misunderstanding.

One, I have had myself.

The source for that is Kos article in which Cindy relays a letter from another grieving mother who did vote for Bush.

[bling bling]

142. Cindy voted for Bush?! Are you serious???

I had no idea. I don't pay that much attention to her really. Just throw my .02 in here and there.

That changes things for me tho. No more benefit of the doubt.

[bling bling]

210. Since you didn't respond I did a search and couldn't find any evidence to back your claim.

Seems like a google search would have turned up something.

[unkachuck]

144. bless you, Cindy....

....for telling it like it is....and the truth shall set us free!

[rasputin1952]

146. I didn't know that Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini were democrats....

I must have missed that day in school.

I didn't know that Kaiser Wilhelm and others in Europe were democrats either.

I guess that because Wilson and FDR were in office during WWI & II, let's see...the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, drew us into those wars...but they both "started" those wars?

Eisenhower was the first to send men into Vietnam, not many, but a foothold was established.

N. Korea invaded S. Korea, and Truman went in with the UN, but he didn't "start" the war.

Gulf War I...GHW bush...GWII...bush

I just don't see the connection.

If Cindy thinks she is going to "beat" Pelosi, she better start a 3rd party, and hope the good people of SF decide to back her....:)

on edit: The Democratic Party was indeed the "party of slavery"...135 years ago, and those were Southern D's...who eventually became the "Dixiecrats". There was a 18o done between the parties, where both switched priorities and platforms about 1925...The R's set up every financial and international fiasco in the 20th century....the D's have gotten us out of just about everything the R's have done, since then...:)

[AlGore-08.com]

170. Just F.Y.I. the flight of the Dixiecrats to the GOP happened in the 1960s and 1970s, not the 1920s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

[rasputin1952]

175. FYI...which is why I used the phrase...

"...135 years ago, and those were Southern D's...who eventually became the "Dixiecrats". "

I did not state that they became the Dixiecrats in the 20's....:D

[Virginia Dare]

197. Yes, they were DLC...

:rofl:

[Yukari Yakumo]

305. Now that I think of it...

Didn't O'Lielly or someone similar compare the Democrats to Nazis not too long ago?

[Drum]

150. I think that Ms Sheehan---

---like W---listens to an awful lot of bad advice.

Time to get out of it and just write the book. Elected office? I don't think so.

[jefferson_dem]

152. Certifiably *Loony Toons*...

It's sad, really.

[Mz Pip]

157. If she keeps up with this kind of talk

she'll start to be known as the Ann Coulter of the left. Lots of hyperbole, history out of context and just plain dumb statements.

It really is sad.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Marrah_G]

295. Actually not "of the left"

If she was the Coulter of the left she would be viciously attacking the right with lies. Instead she is attacking the left with lies and partial truths.

But I knew what you meant :)

[Mz Pip]

158. delete

[Bicoastal]

155. Bumped until it makes it to the top of the "Greatest!"

This woman has NO grasp of history or how our political system works.

I thought this was a bluff at first--you know, something to fire up Pelosi. Well, not anymore--this is a war of egos, plain and simple. The last time the left tore itself to pieces, the Terminator was reelected.

[knowledgeispwr]

161. Thanks for the bump...

the reason why I posted this tidbit is because I think that many who found out today that Sheehan plans on running are unaware of the things she has said about the Democratic party and her intentions to run as an independent. For a website that's about supporting the election of Democrats, this is important information to know.

I really do sympathize and feel sorry for Ms. Sheehan, but I believe that she is misguided and uninformed to go about it in this manner.

[ProudDad]

278. Ah, I see

"our system works" only when the big money, corporate candidates are allowed to run.

I've got it now :sarcasm:

[MiserableFailure]

159. Ignorant Cindah- she has gone off the deep end

The Democrats of today were the Republicans of yesteryear, and vice versa.

[DeepModem Mom]

162. Very sad.

[philosophie_en_rose]

163. Aren't you inspired by such persuasive rhetoric?

:rofl:

[farmboxer]

172. Dems are better than Repubs anyday though!!!

I will "never" cut off my nose to spike my face! I understand Cindy's feelings, I really do, but I am not going to vote for a Republican, they are so much worse. Repubs, party of Bush/Prescott Bush crime family. Repubs party of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rev. Moon, Dobson, Ralph Reed, and the rest of their ilk. The only way to change our politicians is to finance "Real" campaign finance reform, nobody can run for office without big money, so we fight to get rid of big money, I think most Dems would love to get rid of their chains to big money, but if they do not collect campaign money, they will lose, and we will have a one party system, Rove would love that.

[calteacherguy]

173. The woman is mentally ill, I feel so sorry for her and her loss. She's being taken advantage of

by those on the far left to advance their lunacy. They are using her and her grief and it sickens me.

[Virginia Dare]

198. Well said...n/t

[MessiahRp]

176. Okay so my opinion of Cindy just tanked a bit...

Dixiecrats were DINO, the parties switched quite a bit during the Civil Rights movement.

Rp

[CGowen]

177. Cindy starts to think on her own, wow...Federal Reserve

Maybe additionally have look at stuff like the Carnegie Foundation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7373201783240489827&q=dodd+carnegie+griffin&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Yukari Yakumo]

180. Cindy, you need help

Cindy really, really needs to see a good shrink.

I'm not sure if she's attention mongering or simply has delusions of grandeur. I'm guessing both.

But she needs help. Mental help. Probably some pills too.

But seriously, Cindy is fucking out of her mind.

[robcon]

181. As I've written on other threads, she dopey.

I think Cindy is easily convinced without evidence that things are the way she wants them to be. She's a dope, although she was a great source of publicity in the anti-war movement, she's no leader of anything.

[Greyhound]

183. ...started, or brought us into, every war... would be accurate.

Otherwise she's right. This bizarre notion that so many have that somehow placing a 'D' after your name makes a person good or right is just that. Ignoring our history, we are doomed to repeat it.
:kick: & R

[kikiek]

185. Which WW should we have not become involved in, and what alternative solutions could have been used?

[Greyhound]

186. Well, our participation in WWI was irrelevant, and the American People

were adamantly opposed to entering WWII until Pearl Harbor.

Now, how about addressing the other wars?

[kikiek]

196. WWI Germany was trying to get Mexico to attack and we were once again drawn in

by attacks on cargo ships etc. I didn't ask about the other two, and from the tone of your message I can tell you aren't looking for a discussion. I don't believe the Democrats are war mongers however.

[ProudDad]

303. ALL Capitalists are war mongers

That's how they make their fortunes...

[lynne]

187. I think that Cindy may need some grief counseling -

- I hope that she is able to get herself well.

[erpowers]

188. Pretty Uninformed

I contend Mrs. Sheehan should do a little research instead of listening to the Republican talking points. Republicans like to claim they are the party of liberation of slaves, but that is not completely true. There were a number of Democrats who called for the end of slavery years before Abraham Lincoln. For instance, Thomas Jefferson wanted to put a passage about ending slavery in the Declaration of Independence and Martin Van Buren called for an end to slavery when he was President of the United States.

In addition, Republicans may have started less wars (George H. W. Bush started the first Gulf War), but they have supported policies and regimes that have hurt many people. Ike supported the overthrow of the Iranian president. Reagan and Bush supported the Saddam for years while he supposedly hurt many people in the Middle East region. In addition, they supported a number of brutal regimes in Latin America. In addition, Bush II still supports dictators who treat their people horriblly.

Maybe I am wrong but it also seems that she is completely uninformed about taxes. As far as I know the Constitution gives Congress the right to levy taxes. This is what my copy of Article 1 Section 2 says:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.

Article 1 Section 8 says the following:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So can someone tell me how the federal income tax is unconstitutional?

[ProudDad]

232. Just a quick guess

"Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

They aren't applied equally -- aren't "uniform"? -- corporations pay little or none (even though they're classed as "persons"), the rich pay little or none, the rest of us get screwed... Regressive sales and use taxes hit the lower classes harder than the rich...

The bottom line is that what 5 assholes in black robes in Washington D.C. think at any particular minute is "constitutional"...

[onenote]

235. income taxes once were found to be unconstitutional, which led to the 16th amendment

which states, simply: "The Congress shallhave power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Its as clear as it can be. Yet, there are fringe players out there who concoct arguments that somehow the income tax isn't really constitutional, or that Congress never actually passed a law to implement the income tax. Nonsensical, readily and often debunked arguments.

Cindy is free to spout these arguments, but she shouldn't expect many people to take her candidacy seriously if she does.

[kwolf68]

213. Now...

Cindy's words will be plastered all over far-right websites today. Nice going. Dumbass.

[knowledgeispwr]

214. Huh?

Your "dumbass" comment is misguided. Sheehan publicly posted all those statements. Your comment is like saying we shouldn't point out what our "own people" say or criticize "our side" because of fear of what the right-wing will say. Many people believe that Cindy Sheehan speaks for them, so it makes sense that they know what she is saying. Many of us consider ourselves Democrats and/or support the party despite its faults and want to improve the party. If someone who many think "speaks for them" insults the party with factual inaccuracies instead of offering constructive criticism, I believe it's perfectly fine to point it out.

[churchofreality]

215. She's tapped

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveElmer]

236. Not amazaing at all...

This is not LeftWingUnderground, or ProgressiveUnderground, or LiberalUnderground...it is DemocraticUnderground...and while most members (though not all) could be placed in one of those three categories, for the most part people here are loyal Democrats...and when the Party is attacked with such venom and with such a stunning ignorance about its history by a public figure, people are going to attack back...and justifiably so...

[ProudDad]

243. Alas, it was once

DU was "LeftWingUnderground, or ProgressiveUnderground, or LiberalUnderground" when I joined after the 2000 debacle.

Now it's riddled by un-progressive, pro-corporate voices -- dragging us back into the dark ages...

Alas....

[cassiepriam]

272. Yes. All against a woman who wants to stop the killing of innocents.

She is a saint in my book.

[Zavulon]

226. She lost me ages ago, and she IS an attention whore.

I met her a couple times in D.C, saw her hobnobbing with Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney and others, and let me tell you something: that woman showed NO signs of being a grieving mother. You can tell by looking at people - she loved the attention. LOVED it. Even my boss's wife, who is as liberal as anyone I've ever met and who was a big fan of Cindy's, met Cindy once and the next day said something along the lines of "Christ, you'd think she was GLAD Casey died." Sheehan's behavior disgusted quite a few people around here.

Originally she started as one of my heroes. As she started believing her own press, she started to lose me. She has long since lost me - even though I want the troops home now, she isn't the one I want pushing the cause.

Now I see this shit from her after Democrats were her biggest supporters? When Cindy was raising hell in Crawford I NEVER thought I'd think this or say it, but FUCK Cindy Sheehan.

[ProudDad]

234. You're so easily disallusioned...

Why not treat folks as part right and part wrong.

If they're 51 percent right about something you believe in, they can be an ally. If they're 51 percent wrong, probably not.

"Even my boss's wife, who is as liberal as anyone I've ever met and who was a big fan of Cindy's, met Cindy once and the next day said something along the lines of "Christ, you'd think she was GLAD Casey died." Sheehan's behavior disgusted quite a few people around here."

Sounds like an Elvis fan who finds out he wasn't perfect. This says more about your boss's wife than it does about Cindy Sheehan....

[Zavulon]

238. Not when this degree of transparency is the issue.

Further, if you compare her "get the troops home now" (which I agree with) to all of the shit she just said about the party, I say she's well above 51% wrong.

As for my boss's wife, my boss (a Repug) rags on her non-stop because she NEVER admits when a Democrat is wrong. I wish you knew her well; you'd know how wrong your Elvis analogy is and how shocking it was to hear her say that. Cindy was sucking up the spotlight like a Hoover DeLuxe and salmost breaking her neck sticking her face in front of a camera any time she could sit or stand next to anyone prominent. Such an attention whore I've never seen, and I'm old enough to have met Reggie Jackson in person.

She and I agree on one issue, bringing the troops home, but for all I know that's it. In any case, after she shot off her blowhole about the party she's no ally of mine.

[ProudDad]

246. Party Ubber Alles, eh? Somewhat limited view (n/t)

[Zavulon]

251. After that sort of attack?

If you want to go "Cindy uber Alles," feel free. The party is about more than just stopping Bush's war. I'd say your view is the limited one.

[michael.098762001]

263. Cindy the paleo-conservative?

     She has been dating Lew Rockwell, the crankish
"paleo-libertarian." Follower of the right-wing
pro-capitalist free market views of Hayek and von Mises. She
picked up her views on abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank and
Democrats being the party of slavery from him? Check out his
website.

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

265. WTF? Sheehan was dating Lew Rockwell?

You have a link for that perhaps.

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

287. Oooooooh, an Attack!!!!

"If you want to go "Cindy uber Alles," feel free" :wtf: does that mean???


"The party is about more than just stopping Bush's war"

Yup, the last decades the party's also been about corporate subsidies, NAFTA and GATT, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", no Universal Health Care, "balancing the budget" on the backs of the poor and middle class, the bloody Bankruptcy bill, Don't filibuster fascist SCOTUS justices, "End welfare as we know it" and replace it with McJobs and homelessness, subsidize job outsourcing and H1B Visas, continuing to finance bush's war

Yeah ...all sorts of good shit...


But WOW!!! Cindy Sheehan has a couple of negative opinions about Democrats, mentions a couple of historical facts, True but un nuanced, and the knee-jerk Anti-Sheehan cabal gets their panties all in a twist...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zavulon]

293. If you have such trouble with the party,

why the hell are you here? I'm sure there are plenty of other boards that would love your razor-sharp wit, your refined debating style and your adult use of emoticons.

By the way, my "Cindy uber alles" comment was a direct response to something you said. If you don't know what it means, your panties might be on too tight.

Respond if you want, but you'll be on ignore by the time you read this. You bore the hell out of me. Best of luck working on Cindy's campaign; it sure would be great if we could replace a ranking Democrat with a first-term attention whore. With enough people like you, maybe we can make that happen. The GOP will thank you.

[ProudDad]

304. Ah, the Ignore List

the last refuge of the Coward...

-----

No one's on my ignore list. No one ever will be...


I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in my freedom to read anyone's opinion.

I'm not ignorant enough or cowardly enough to let a machine filter what I can see or read...


Hell, I even believe in Cindy Sheehan's right to free speech, freedom of association and right to run for elected office...

-----

Lucky for me, I won't be missing your right-wing, pro-DLC rants. Your loss...zav...

-----

On Edit: Oh Yeah, since I'm on his "ignore list", someone tell zavulon for me -- I've been here for years - long before he got here, it's interesting and fun to read and interact on this board and because I'm a registered Democrat.

I come not to bury the Democratic Party, nor praise it, but to reform it :shrug:

[MickeyVA]

268. This is very sad.

If she and those around her think this will put pressure on Pelosi, they may find it backfiring in their faces. This will put Pelosi in a very bad place--she can't appear to be bringing impeachment back to the table in order to save her own skin. It's credibility-damaging all around. It just adds a question mark in the eyes of the public for anyone who tries to push forward with this in the future--is there really something there or are they just trying to save their careers. What a dumb, stupid move this is.

[cassiepriam]

273. Nancy needs to be put in her place. People are dying every day.

Killed maimed tortured.

[Alexander]

270. The Democrats haven't supported slavery in over 140 years...

And her war nonsense sounds like Bob Dole.

I am sorry that she lost her son, but there reaches a point where people tend to undermine their own causes.

[ProudDad]

288. OK, one more time for those who missed it...

World War I - Wilson's watch (D)

World War II - FDR (D)

Secret Support of the French in Vietnam - Truman (D)

Korea - Truman (D)

Vietnam Buildup - Kennedy/Johnson (D)

Gulf War I - as Sheehan correctly said...G.H.W.Bush (R)

Slave Owners - Nearly ALL (D)

Jim Crow - (D)

She's bringing up this stuff to notify folks that the Dems aren't perfect and need to be held to account as much as the repukes. I tend to agree.

[cassiepriam]

274. We need to thank God every day for people like Cindy.

Who put everything on the line to stop the killing.

[Placebo]

275. She's officially a CRAZY.

She has my sympathies for her son, but I think this pretty much ends any sort of credibility she has when it comes to matters of policy.

[ProudDad]

279. So now you DON'T want the war to end?

That's all Sheehan wants...

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

283. Isolationist, pro-fascist rubbish.

Fuck Cindy with Tojo's moldy dick.

[DemBones DemBones]

285. Looks like she's going after the GOP voters in San Francisco!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I would have thought a woman her age would be better educated about U.S. history.

[ProudDad]

286. The majority of voters in San Francisco

are appalled at Pelosi's "off the table" crap. The majority of voters in S.F. wanted impeachment on January 21st of 2007 -- the day the Dems took "control"...

[ProudDad]

289. For those not blinded by hatred

who have been unfortunate enough to come into this thread, please read EXACTLY what Cindy Sheehan actually wrote... It's pretty tame...

Please don't stop with the misinterpretations of the blind haters...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/92356/44191

"I have nothing personally against Nancy and have found our previous interactions very pleasant but being “against” the occupation of Iraq means ending it by ending the funding and preventing future illegal wars of aggression by holding BushCo accountable. Words have to be backed up by action and if they aren’t they are as empty as Cheney’s conscience."

<clip>

"I don’t have the power to destroy the Democratic Party as some people have written. The Dems themselves are doing a good job of that and if they don’t wake up and distance themselves from George faster than the Republicans are and if they don’t realize that people are more important than politics, they will go the way of the Whigs and sometimes endings are as appropriate and constructive as beginnings."

[knowledgeispwr]

297. There have been some nasty comments, yes...

but I bet few actually hate Sheehan although they may disagree with her or even be disappointed in her. Calling people who disagree or are disappointed "haters" is no better than Bush supporters calling us "haters" and responding to any of our concerns with "You just hate Bush/Why do you hate the president?" All that does is shut down the debate and distract from actual discussion of the issues at hand.

The original post contains Sheehan's own words in an entire paragraph and contains a link to the rest of what she wrote. Those words ARE EXACTLY what she wrote. I wouldn't call the paragraph that I originally cited as "tame" but of course, that's my personal opinion.

[LittleClarkie]

298. Indeed and exactly

That's the thing that bugs me. Shutting down debate. I've seen people be pretty insulting re: Cindy. I hope I haven't been, myself. But I've seen some people says some pretty mild stuff, civilly saying what they think about Cindy's latest comment or action, and get shot down by "do you know what it's like to lose a child!"

Really, what would people expect when she outright insults the party many of us belong to. People are going to get steamed, and rightly so. When a public figure makes a public statement, esp. one meant to be controvercial, there will be reaction, good and bad. And like it or not, whether she wanted to be or not, Cindy is a public figure and fair game, comment-wise.

[Cameron27]

307. To be perfectly honest, the vindictive personal attacks thrown

at anyone who's legitimately criticized Cindy are far more common than the mean petty insults used against her. (I caught the attack against you last night, but was too tired to make any comments...Wowza)

You're right, she's a public figure who went into a completely unnecessary diatribe against the Party a lot of us are working for, so she'd better expect to be called on it.

[LittleClarkie]

308. Most of that mess was deleted thank God.

What a meltdown, against me and others, no matter how civil.

I can see the problem people have with calling her an idiot or a clown, but those are rather in the minority. But people get attacked for just saying they're sick of her, or that they don't support what she says anymore and wish she'd stop. I hate it when folks try to limit debate, regardless.

[ProudDad]

300. Two Points...

Those words in the OP were NOT IN CONTEXT.

One big problem with Forums like this is that it's way too easy to pick out one or a few sentences and extrapolate an entire cosmology from that to prove your point. I've been guilty of that myself as has probably everyone else here.

My post was to urge people to read what she wrote and get the entire context. After that, you are certainly free to disagree with her philosophy or methods or opinions (but not her FACTS) but at least you've given her points a sincere, honest reading.

As for the haters, there are a few and they are rather virulent. I've been through most of the anti-sheehan threads the last couple of days and have been amazed and sickened at some of it.

Luckily, it IS a minority, a tiny, sick minority of DUers. I probably shouldn't have hit on it so hard in my post above -- I see now how folks who hadn't made up their minds might think I was calling them haters -- damn imperfect medium this -- for that misunderstanding, I am sorry.

As for my view of Cindy Sheehan's basic desire - begin the process of Impeachment NOW, Pelosi put it back "on the table" - I 100% support it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1296801#1305479

Thanks :hi:

[bluestateguy]

296. She's really ignorant about history

Slavery in this country goes back to Jamestown, long before there ever was a Democratic Party and the Whigs were complicit in and supportive of slavery too.

The income tax is unconstitutional?! Has she been getting secret support from right wing militias that we don't know about?

[knowledgeispwr]

299. And yet...

some on this board try to explain away all the inaccuracies she wrote. Some of those won't bother trying to explain, just will say that it's "not nuanced" but that they "know what she means." Others will just say simply "she speaks for me!" enthusiastically and seemingly without consideration. It's scary.

[ProudDad]

301. Innaccuracies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3365802&mesg_id=3368941

[Monty_]

306. Give me a break Cindy

Is she really that ignorant to think that the present Democratic Party has any relationship, except name, to the one which existed in the 1840's, 50's and 60's? Give me a freakin break. As a college history professor I'm appalled anyone who make that connection. That's like calling the Modern Republican Party they party of Lincoln.

Also, I'm as anti-War as the next guy (or gal) but I won't apologize for FDR's entrance into WWII or even Wilson and WWI for that matter (although to a lesser degree).

[slackmaster]

311. Cindy, we're really very nice once you get to know us

:nuke: