Cindy on Ebay?!?!

[rush07]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Speaking-Engagement-with-Cindy-Sheehan_W0QQitemZ6034322259QQcategoryZ50341QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

You are bidding on a speaking engagement with Cindy Sheehan. Cindy will come speak to a group of your choice (within the continental US)*, and any speaking fees and transportation costs will be waived (your group will only need to provide lodging for the night).



Could this possibly be for real? I hope not. Doesn't she want to be take seriously?

[NYCGirl]

1. What's the problem with it? She's donating the fee to this:

The proceeds of this auction benefit the YearlyKos organization. YearlyKos is dedicated to organizing and supporting an annual meeting of progressive netroot activists. The first YearlyKos will provide 1500 convention attendants and tens of thousands of online participants (via webcasting and live blogging) with training sessions, panel discussions, and lectures by leading lights of the blogosphere (including activists, politicians, and technical experts). Most importantly, it will provide the opportunity for progressive citizens to meet with each other and form connections. Our auction proceeds will go toward our effort to keep the registration cost at an affordable level and include as many people as possible in this important meeting-of-minds. Non-profit status pending in the state of Pennsylvania.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. She has 7 bids! It's for a GOOD CAUSE

The proceeds of this auction benefit the YearlyKos organization. YearlyKos is dedicated to organizing and supporting an annual meeting of progressive netroot activists. The first YearlyKos will provide 1500 convention attendants and tens of thousands of online participants (via webcasting and live blogging) with training sessions, panel discussions, and lectures by leading lights of the blogosphere (including activists, politicians, and technical experts). Most importantly, it will provide the opportunity for progressive citizens to meet with each other and form connections. Our auction proceeds will go toward our effort to keep the registration cost at an affordable level and include as many people as possible in this important meeting-of-minds. Non-profit status pending in the state of Pennsylvania.

GO CINDY! I see nothing wrong with this. It's a SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT. What's wrong with that, rush07??????

[rush07]

5. I YK well and have financially supported the cause, but.......

It just looks a little desparate to me. Is she having trouble booking engagements?

[ET Awful]

7. How exactly is auctioning off an appearance to benefit a charity

"desparate"?

Please enlighten us.

[rush07]

12. Maybe a bad choice of words,

but it was my first reaction when I saw this. I would have guessed that she would be able to book a speaking engagement 365 days a year if whe wanted to and for a lot more than $1000 (though I know the auction is not over). It just struck me as funny, thats all.

[ET Awful]

21. Yes, but would someone who wanted to donate to the charity

in question be able to pay a standard appearance fee?

This benefits the person bidding because they get her speaking appearance, it benefits the charity because they get the proceeds.

In fact, the only one NOT profiting by it is Cindy Shehan.

So, I ask again, what is wrong with it?

Or is this just another attempt to slander Mrs. Shehan?

[rush07]

26. No one supports Cindy

more than I do as well as other organizations opposed to the war and the administration. I just found it very odd. I was not trying to slander Cindy in any way don't see how it could have been interpreted that way. I am fairly new here and maybe don't quite have the gist of it yet.

[ET Awful]

28. LOL . . . someone who "supports" Cindy wouldn't say she's "desparate"

for contributing her time to charity.

[rush07]

29. I questioned the method,

not the charity or her motives. Did not mean for this to go this direction.

[ET Awful]

32. I just have to ask, why the hostility towards her in your original post?

Why the insinuation that because she's donating her time she can't be taken seriously?

I'm just trying to figure out why someone who is very new to DU would start their postings here by attacking Cindy.

[rush07]

42. I have no anomosity towards Cindy

and apparently do not express myself well. I have never used ebay and know little about it, but this just struck me as odd. I cant think of a larger draw and a person that could bring in more money to a cause than Cindy. Because of that it struck me as odd that she would need to put her fundraising services on Ebay. Did not mean for this post to go this direction.

[ET Awful]

3. I see no problem with auctioning off an appearance for charity.

It's better than a Limbaugh "special" of letter people "adopt" a soldier for $50. What does that $50 buy? A subscription to his newsletter for some poor soldier far from home. . . yup, that's it, a newsletter subscription.

I'll stick with Cindy auctioning off an appearance for charity.

[One_of_8]

4. What do you find wrong with this?

The auction clearly states that the proceeds go to a specific cause. You can look at the seller's feedback and see the other auctions that have taken place. Some were for jewelry, one was for a "cool user name." It doesn't appear that Cindy is making any money off this, and that she is donating her time for a cause she supports. It's no different than any other fundraiser a group might do. My son's school does fundraisers and local businesses are always donating items or services. No one says "Now who will take them seriously?" It's a generous thing to do on her part.

[rush07]

9. I am sure that Cindy is not making Money off it

and I don't think that I implied that she is. I am not questioning the cause or motive, only the method. Just found it odd, I guess.

[Christa]

6. Go Cindy, go

good to see her so outside the box :toast: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[Che_Nuevara]

8. What's wrong with it?

She could do more than one.
She could do them for free.
She could do something that didn't look like a publicity stunt.


ON EDIT: After she tried to claim that her actions at the SOTU were completely innocent, I lost faith in anything this woman has to say as anything other than a publicity stunt. She has a just cause. But she has ZERO credibility.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. edited to remove snarky comment.

I really shouldn't let myself be baited like that. shame on me.

[Che_Nuevara]

38. I like your handle :)

Just wanted to put that out there.

[karlrschneider]

11. What exactly was wrong with her "actions" at the SOTU?

Attempting to exercise the First Amendment?

[Che_Nuevara]

15. Read my post again.

I didn't say that her actions were wrong. I said that her claim that they were completely innocent was BS.

She tried to claim in her e-mail (which I read, word for word) afterwords that she "didn't expect it to be a big deal" or some BS and that she thought "maybe the camera would show me every now and then."

She KNEW the rules of the House Visiting Bay and she DELIBERATELY broke them in order to get thrown out to make a publicity stunt.

That is honorable. I love that. Go civil disobedience.

But then, afterwards, she tried to claim that she didn't know, and that it was a surprise that she got thrown out.

That makes her a shameless liar.


ON EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I think the pressure she's putting on Bush is BRILLIANT and well deserved. But owning up to them is better.

[karlrschneider]

17. Well, perhaps you failed to note that House officials (and the Capitol

police) admitted after the fact that she had NOT violated their rules.

[Che_Nuevara]

18. Perhaps you failed to notice

that they threw several OTHER people out and did NOT apologize to them.

If had been anyone other than Cindy, they would not have apologized. In fact, there WERE several other people who took their ejections without whining about them.

[karlrschneider]

19. I am aware that ONE other person (a Republican congressman's wife)

was removed (but not arrested). I also heard they apologized to her as well. Perhaps I have been hallucinating.

[Che_Nuevara]

23. People get thrown out every year,

mostly without apologies.

The Clinton administration threw plenty of people out for far less.

[ET Awful]

24. How many of them were handcuffed, manhandled, detained for 4 hours

and charged with a crime until public outcry forced the charges to be dropped?

What is your source for information on these events? Rush Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Hannity?

It sure as hell isn't anything based in fact.

[Che_Nuevara]

Rather few, I give you that.

But technically it IS a crime to break dress code at the House of Representatives. It is rarely charged, but it IS a crime, and I REFUSE to believe that she didn't know that.

As for my sources? I have never, I repeat NEVER watched O'Reilly / FOX News, nor have I ever listened to Limbaugh. (And I would be careful with such accusations, as they sound awfully close to a personal attack on me, which we all know is against the rules of this forum.) I do, however, have a good friend of the family who is an official speech writer for the House of Representatives. I do know a thing or two about the organization.

[ET Awful]

BULLSHIT, please provide the statute.

If that was the statute, they would not have charged her with the exceedingly vague "unlawful conduct".

As to your "rather few," if by "rather few" you mean "absolutely none" then you would be correct. None were handcuffed, none were charged with a crime, none were manhandled and bruised by law enforcement officers.

An official speech writer for the House of Representatives? I don't buy it, sorry. In fact, I don't believe the "House" has it's own speech writers, each house member may well have them, each party may well have them, but sorry, the House as a whole does not have them.

[Che_Nuevara]

47. He has a couple of Reps he writes for.

If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. Better language would have been "for House Representatives", but excuse me for not using the perfect language. We all make mistakes, you know.

And the way I would have worded your post was "none CLAIMED to be manhandled and bruised by the police". I hardly believe that no one has even been handcuffed and escorted out of the HoR visitors bay.

[ET Awful]

52. Please provide substantiation.

You have yet to provide proof for anything you've said.

What was that statue you claim she violated again?

[Che_Nuevara]

81. Please stop posting the same messages in several places.

It wastes server space.

[ET Awful]

86. LMAO . . . are they your servers? Did you donate to support them?

I don't see a star indicating such.

What wastes server space is outrageous claims by someone who refuses to back them up with facts or evidence.

[Beaverhausen]

39. There are no rules so how could she break them?

Again, those that were thrown out were apologized to and Capitol Police admitted that they broke no rules.

I'm beginning to smell pizza...

[Sydnie]

43. How does someone write speeches for a building?

:shrug:

[Che_Nuevara]

51. How does one waste his time

writing such inflamatory posts as this one? You clearly knew what I meant.

[ET Awful]

54. Only if what you meant was "I'm making it up as I go along" n/t

[Sydnie]

58. No I didn't. I read what you wrote and asked a question about it so

Here's another question for you. Which representatives take advantage of his skills? Who, exactly, does he write speeches for?

[ET Awful]

60. Yes, and if you could please provide samples of speeches he's

written, it would greatly benefit your credibility.

Also, we're still waiting on that specific statute that says violating the "dress code" is a "crime," and why the CSPAN camera crews have never been charged, nor has the public allowed in for viewing during open sessions.

[Che_Nuevara]

63. I would call him and ask him for the details,

but it costs me around $4 / minute to call the USA. Besides, even if I named names, you would say "You're making this up as you go along". So, I'll save my 20 bucks and say, take my word for it, or don't, I don't really give an RA either way.

[Sydnie]

65. "Just trust me" doesn't cut it anymore.

Sorry. :hi:

[Che_Nuevara]

79. That's fine.

Don't care all that much.

[ET Awful]

67. LMAO, so now you don't even live in the US?

Amazing how quick you can make this stuff up.

[Che_Nuevara]

78. Um, really.

I'm a junior in college and I study at Georg-August University in Goettingen, Germany on a year abroad. I could come up with a host of people to attest to that, but you're not really worth the effort.

[ET Awful]

83. You haven't substantiated a single thing you've said yet, why start

now. A little hint . . . when making outrageous claims in life, it's advisable to have supporting evidence.

I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in college.

[Che_Nuevara]

95. They did.

You just bore me too much to make the effort to do so.

[Steve A Play]

49. Please produce a link to that

"The Clinton administration threw plenty of people out for far less." I guarantee that you can't. :)

Someone lied! And it wasn't Cindy! :rofl:

Steven P. :kick:

[Che_Nuevara]

53. Could that be because

no one ever made a stink about it, because they knew they broke the rules?

[ET Awful]

55. So what you're saying is NO, you can't provide any evidence or

examples.

Thanks for playing.

[Che_Nuevara]

59. You don't have to believe me.

Honestly, I don't really expect you to.



Your loss.

[ET Awful]

61. Actually, not believing lies is a gain, not a loss. n/t

[Che_Nuevara]

66. If you think so,

then good for you.

Congrats. You beat me in the giving a sh*t game.

:)

[ET Awful]

68. What was that statute again?

I'm still waiting.

[Che_Nuevara]

76. The statute is "unlawful conduct"

Representatives are instructed to inform their guests that there is a dress code. It's unwritten but customary, much on the par of interpretive case law.

[ET Awful]

80. "Unlawful conduct" is not pertaining to dress code, that's why they

couldn't actually charge her with it.

Please provide us with this alleged dress code she violated, and the pertinent statute.

You won't find it, it doesn't exist.

You also haven't explained the thousands of tourists who flock through in touristy clothes daily.

Sorry, but if it's "unwritten" then it isn't law.

[Sydnie]

93. If that really was the case, why didn't the Congressman inform

his wife? Unwritten rules are not worth the paper they aren't written on. :rofl:

Unlawful Conduct could be many things and anything that there is not a specific law about. If it had really been "unlawful conduct", they would have arrested BOTH women that night instead of just one. If it had really been "unlawful conduct" they wouldn't have dropped the charges, admitted that there was no such rule to enforce (thus NO unlawful conduct to press charges for) and apologize for their gross over reach as they did the following day, would they?

[Che_Nuevara]

97. You'd be amazed at the things

that federal police do not do, even though they're supposed to. Or the apologies they make just to say political face.

[Steve A Play]

36. She broke NO rules and did NOTHING ILLEGAL

That's why they dropped the charges and apologized for their "mistake". :eyes:

That's also why she's filed suit against the police for the false arrest. :)

Ironic that you plead "Don't get me wrong", while spreading misinformation about what happened to her. :crazy:

"Shameless liar"? Hardly.

Steven P. :kick:

[Che_Nuevara]

57. THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL

in the House of Representatives Visitors' Bay:

1) Failing to meet dress standards (which includes wearing a t-shirt)
2) Protesting (which includes silent protest, i.e. carrying signs)


... BOTH of which she was doing, just by opening her jacket. Sorry, Ms. Sheehan, you lose this round.

[titoresque]

62. Oh yeah.....

it's so hard to hide isn't it? Anyhow...I asked a question, will you please answer? What do you think about Camp Casey? Then and Now.

[Che_Nuevara]

71. I think it's not really relevant to this thread.

I also think that every military installation should give automatic hardship pay, not just the ones in Southeast Asia.

I think having more than 40 camps north of Seoul is a little excessive.

I think you're trying to bait me. ;)

[titoresque]

72. Bait you?

if you had anything good to say, without choking on it you would have, and you would have left out the word "bait" .......

[ET Awful]

73. I think you still haven't told us the statute. n/t

[Che_Nuevara]

82. See my comment above (n/t)

[ET Awful]

64. Once again, WHERE IS THE STATUTE?

You have yet to provide the statute she violated, and you have yet to explain why thousands of tourists flock through the House every day, and none are arrested for wearing t-shirts.

[NYCGirl]

69. I find dress codes for Reps, and dress codes for pages, but none for

people in the gallery. Want to provide a link?

[Sydnie]

70. They bring tour groups in there all the time

You think they keep out the tshirt wearing public? Most tourist don't go around the city in a suit and tie, do they?

Even the Capitol Police stated that there is no such rule. Why is that so hard to grasp?

If it had been a rule, don't you think the Congressman's wife would have been well aware of that rule, considering the years he has served and all? :banghead:

[ET Awful]

74. Why because he's related to the Official Speechwriter for the House

of course.

[Beaverhausen]

85. Maybe you should inform the Capitol Police- they are unaware of the rules

They admitted that they were wrong to throw her out.

[titoresque]

16. hmmmmmmm,

hmmmmmmmmmmmm....that's all I'm gonna say.
Oh and, Republican Bush supporters are the scum of the earth. Dont ya think? Just thought Id throw that out there.

[Che_Nuevara]

20. Do YOU think it?

You're the one who said it. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I did vote for Kerry. I do oppose Bush.

But I also oppose shameless lying. Which, y'know, is part of the reason I oppose Bush.

[NightOwwl]

30. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-

:nuke:

[titoresque]

33. Im curious...

What do you think about Camp Casey? Now and then.....

[NoSheep]

75. Alright. I'm baited. Who the fuck do you think YOU are to question the

motives of a woman who turned this country around by her personal sacrifice? You are obviously a serial dip-shit without a conscience.

[Che_Nuevara]

92. I'm not really sure what a "serial dip-shit" is ...

and I'm not entirely sure I want to.

I've got as much right to question her motives as I've got to question Bush's motives. There was an assassination attempt on his father, remember?

I've also got as much right to question her motives as does anyone who is close with / related to

a) a sniper in Fallujah
b) an operative in Naval Intelligence
c) New York City homocide detectives who were operational as of 9/11


I hate Bush. I really do. But I want to go about this the right way.

[ET Awful]

96. I see, and the right way is making up outrageous claims about

non-existent statutes regarding non-existent dress codes in the House of Representatives?

[ET Awful]

25. LOL. What actions? Taking off her coat because she was hot?

Do you get all your news from Fox or do you actually look for facts?

[Che_Nuevara]

35. Never watched FOX news.

I read her e-mail.

I'm also familiar with the HoR dress code. Are you?

[ET Awful]

46. Mmmmhmmm, please provide this statute you boast of earlier.

There is NO statute. Little hint for you - they would be arresting hundreds of people a day for violating this "dress code" during open sessions when the public is allowed in for viewing. They'd also arrest dozens of camera men from news crews every day who are wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

Give it up, you aren't convincing anyone.

[Steve A Play]

Got a link to them? I do!

There are none!



Doesn't Congress have a dress code? I just saw a shot of a female member on the House floor wearing sneakers. I have also seen Members wear sports team t-shirts. Are those considered appropriate attire? Washington, D.C. - 5/3/00

House rules do not spell out what is or is not appropriate attire, except for prohibiting the wearing of hats on the floor. This omission of specifics leaves the question of what is appropriate to the presiding officer at the time a challenge is made. The last time the Chair ruled on this question was in 1979 during the energy crisis. President Carter had ordered all government thermostats to be turned up high. With minimal air conditioning, Members and staff were dressing to ward off the heat. The presiding officer refused to recognize a Member, citing his clothing, and asked that he leave the floor and not return without appropriate attire. The record does not show what that Member had -- or did not have -- on. The Chair stated that "appropriate attire" for men meant coats and ties. In a later ruling, the Chair stated that Members could not wear overcoats on the floor.

What constitutes appropriate attire for women has never been spelled out. Sneakers are not at all unusual. Many women Members wear them to the floor, given the need to move quickly from their office buildings to the Capitol to make a vote. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia), for example, is famous for wearing only variations of glittery gold sneakers.

<more>

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly37.asp

You were saying? :shrug:

Steven P. :kick:

[titoresque]

84. Burn!!!!

:popcorn::toast:

[Che_Nuevara]

88. Does this count as flaming?

If so, I'm too nice to report you :)

[ET Awful]

89. So tell us again about those rules for the House you know so well

What was that statute again? Or am I "wasting server space" that I donate to pay for?

[titoresque]

91. Flaming?

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

[Che_Nuevara]

94. Get it?

"Burn"? "Flaming"? That was a joke.

[ET Awful]

87. LMFAO . . .

:rofl: :spray:

[Child_Of_Isis]

13. I am under the impression

that Cindy doesn't sit around and worry about what others think of her. If she did, the freeps would have destroyed her a long time ago.

[Steve A Play]

14. Can you name one right wing 'talking head' out there

who doesn't have an agent trying to get them paid speaking engagements? They tend to keep the money for themselves rather than donate it to a worthy cause. Here's where the money raised by this auction is going.

YearlyKos

The proceeds of this auction benefit the YearlyKos organization. YearlyKos is dedicated to organizing and supporting an annual meeting of progressive netroot activists. The first YearlyKos will provide 1500 convention attendants and tens of thousands of online participants (via webcasting and live blogging) with training sessions, panel discussions, and lectures by leading lights of the blogosphere (including activists, politicians, and technical experts). Most importantly, it will provide the opportunity for progressive citizens to meet with each other and form connections. Our auction proceeds will go toward our effort to keep the registration cost at an affordable level and include as many people as possible in this important meeting-of-minds. Non-profit status pending in the state of Pennsylvania.

Please bid generously!

The 2006 YearlyKos convention will be held in Las Vegas at the Riviera Hotel, June 8 - 11. You can find out more at www.yearlykos.org.

Why would anyone not take her seriously for doing a fundraiser? :shrug:

Steven P. :kick:

[rush07]

22. I could not agree more.

As I stated earlier I am sure that she is personally not making any money off of this and have re-read my post and don't see where I said or implied that she was. I am very aware of the YearlyKos organization and have and will continue my support of them. It just struck me as an odd way to raise funds. All I was saying.

[ET Awful]

27. Really? So what exactly did you mean when you said

"I would have guessed that she would be able to book a speaking engagement 365 days a year if whe wanted to and for a lot more than $1000 (though I know the auction is not over)."

Certainly sounds to me like you're implying that she's doing it for her own gain.

[rush07]

31. I just ment

that if I have people lining up to have me speak I would not go one ebay. I do not feel that Cindy has made a cent from her activism and did not mean to imply that she has.

[Sydnie]

37. This gives an opportunity for any group that would want to hear her

speak to do so by bidding on it. Especially if you have an agent, it might make it more difficult to gain access. This way, you gain access and donate to a good cause too.

[ET Awful]

41. Gee, maybe there's a reason people aren't lining up to have you speak.

Perhaps because you don't understand charities and such.

MANY people auction off speaking appearances. Most do it through more subdued and less public venues. To do it via E-Bay is simply to take advantage of new forms of visibility.

[rush07]

50. I would agree that

I don't know much about fundraising and charities (from the side of raising the money) and this might be a very effective way to do it. I was just not aware of it if it is.

[blogslut]

34. I think it's quite clever

Cindy is using the tools of the Internet to gain notoriety and spread a message. No corporate sponsorship. No cow-towing to rich donors and she manages to get the job done.

Go Cindy!

*edit* spelling

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. I think it's way cooler than Babs Bush skipping Coretta's funeral to do

a speaking engagement on renting things, cause her George loves a good party so they need to rent a lot of stuff. :eyes:

[ET Awful]

44. It's even cooler than Condi's trip to Farragamo during Hurricane Katrina

Couldn't have her doing her job in shabby footwear.

[GreenPartyVoter]

48. So very true

[Sydnie]

77. Is that where she was?

Dish the dirt girlfriend ... I haven't heard any of this. :)

[WePurrsevere]

45. Celebrities auctioning time, items, etc on eBay for charity is very common

and Cindy is now a celebrity. B-)

eBay's an awesome venue for this since it reaches millions.. I hope they get tons of LEGIT bids and do well with this. I'm going to spread the word to a group of ebayer friends who I know will help get the word out and maybe even bring in more bids. :)

If someone is associated with the seller (yearly KOS) maybe they would pass this suggestion along: as a long time eBay buyer and seller I would suggest using the ebay "me" page to help describe in more detail, further their cause, etc. It's very easy and relatively fast to set up.. I've helped many do it and I'm not extremely HTML savy. :-)

[rush07]

56. I was not aware of this

and apparently most people are. It struck me as odd and probably should not have.

[Beware the Beast Man]

90. She's a great spocksman.

[Midlodemocrat]

98. Locking.

The original poster is no longer among us.