Of Orcs and obsessions
I've been taken to task over Cindy Sheehan. Now there's a blast from the past.
It's been ages since I spent any serious time on Cindy Sheehan, but it's nice to know that some people have not forgotten. Take, for instance, Samuel Bostaph, a professor of economics at the University of Dallas.
I rank an entire section (see point 4) in his essay praising Cindy Sheehan.
Now that's recognition.
Janke has made a cottage industry of scurrilous attacks on Cindy Sheehan’s mental health, veracity, marital situation, personal finances, political views and true regard for her dead son.
I've been dilligent, but Cindy Sheehan provided all the information.
Janke has no information on why there is no gravestone; he has no information on whether Cindy Sheehan paid cash for the car and, if so, from whence the cash; he has no information on exactly what insurance amounts were paid to Sheehan and when. So, he takes this absence of knowledge and uses it to libel a woman he has never met, and knows virtually nothing about, except what he reads in newspapers or receives in gossip.
Actually, I had a lot of that information based on conversations with family members, neighbours, and a reporter from the area. I also researched the dates and payout schedule of the insurance policy available at the US military website.
Bottom line is this: Cindy Sheehan bragged about her new car to a reporter who dutifully quoted her. The grave remains unmarked. Money for one thing and not for the other. Draw your own conclusions.
Sludge from Janke’s pit is still being circulated on the web despite origins that are reminiscent of the harvesting of the orcs from the mud in The Lord of the Rings.
I'm amazed at the constant stream of hits I get to old Cindy Sheehan stories. Thanks for noticing, Professor.
As for the mud thing, well, Samuel Bostaph has attempted before to make tortured and bizarre analogies to movies:
In 2001, an animated film from Pixar Animation Studios was released and became extremely popular with both adults and children. Monsters, Inc. is set in the city of Monstropolis, where all monsters live. A corporation that gives the title to the movie employs "scarers," monsters who venture out of the city every night to enter the human world through the closets of children. Their job is to scare children into screaming because the screams can be collected and used to generate the electricity that powers Monstropolis.
Monsters, Inc. is a useful analogue for understanding the main purpose that President George W. Bush’s "war on terror" serves. Since September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have served as useful monsters in generating screams from the American public. The resulting enhancements in federal government power have enabled the Bush administration to use the military forces of the United States to invade and occupy both Afghanistan and Iraq and to install puppet governments in both countries.
Uh, yeah. I like the way Professor Bostaph stays a hair's breadth away from saying that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the neo-con cabal in Washington. Almost, but not quite.
The result has been the killing without distinction of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi men, women, and children.
Old number, long since dismissed as a statistical fantasy.
George W. Bush is our Mr. Waternoose (although the cartoon character looks more like Dick Cheney). Unfortunately, he and the "scarer" monsters in his administration have succeeded in strapping the American public to a scream machine and are extracting more screams to provide more power to the executive branch. Their latest ploy is the demonizing of Iran, the creation of yet another monster for further power enhancement.
I saw Monsters, Inc. as a fable concerning nuclear power. And refreshingly, the solution was not to eliminate nuclear power and to return to living in the trees, but to discover a new and more powerful form of nuclear power that allowed the technological society on Monstropolis to flourish and continue to grow without sacrificing economic prosperity.
But then as a product of the orc-breeding sludge pits of Isengard, I can be expected to lack imagination. Let's return though to the issue at hand -- my unfair treatment of Cindy Sheehan. Does Professor Bostaph, who sees the evil President Bush lurking in a children's animated cartoon, have a point? Besides that I'm a bad person, that is.
Cindy Sheehan is a liar, and a serial one at that. Over and over again she has been caught. She says her family is behind her, but in truth they will have nothing to do with her. She says her husband supports her but in truth he filed for divorce while she was on the road and demanded significant financial compensation. She says she wants only peace but when she complains that the media is spending too much time covering Hurricane Katrina and not enough time covering her latest protest, she reveals herself to really be after publicity. She praises terrorists who slaughter Israelis, and then denies ever saying any such thing, even though the speech is caught on tape. Her denials depend on paranoid claims of faked emails and fraudulent message board postings and media conspiracies.
She has long since faded away, coming into focus only as a curiousity from time to time, usually when she is caught cavorting with America's enemies on foreign shores.
She still helps out with the anti-war movement, as Professor Bostaph proudly explains:
In the past few months, Cindy Sheehan and I have co-authored two anti-war articles that have appeared in online journals as politically diverse as LewRockwell.com, Michaelmoore.com, palestinechronicle.com and political affairs.net – a Marxist online journal.
But here is where Professor Bostaph makes an interesting point. He himself is no Marxist. Quite the opposite. He is an economic libertarian, severely critical of "progressive" theories and practices.
But he and Cindy Sheehan can make common cause over their opposition to George W Bush:
The point is that mere association in a common cause does not connote a commonality of views on other matters. I would add that anyone who knows Cindy Sheehan is very much aware that she is not liable to be "hijacked" by anyone – she is an implacable foe of Bush’s war and accepts all allies in that fight, despite other differences in views. Her allies stand with Cindy Sheehan; none of them "run" her.
Fair enough. But then let's consider that notion as applied to the other side. Would it be acceptable for George W Bush to be seen at a neo-Nazi rally as long as he made it clear that he only shared with them deep suspicions about Iran's nuclear intentions and nothing else? Of course not. Nor would the media or the political establishment give that excuse more that a second of consideration before attacking the president like piranhas smelling blood in the water.
And rightfully so. Picking and choosing elements here and there of a person's beliefs or of an organization's goals is not balance, as Professor Bostaph would have us believe.
It is rank opportunism.
When Cindy Sheehan is seen arm-in-arm with Castro-wannabe Hugo Chavez, congratulating the strongman "for his strength to resist the U.S.", you can't reasonably suggest that it is unfair to be concerned that Cindy Sheehan is supportive of Chavez's scheming with terrorists from the Middle East (he is known to be providing support -- usually official identity documentation that could then be used to secure US visas). When Cindy Sheehan marches with Code Pink activists, can any person reasonably square Code Pink's active support of anti-American insurgents with financial donations (founder Medea Benjamin managed to get $600,000 in supplies and cash to Iraqi insurgents, the same insurgents who killed Casey Sheehan) with Cindy Sheehan's disavowal of violence?
But these niceties are not important to Cindy Sheehan, as long as Chavez and Code Pink and Michael Moore help get her the attention she craves (the attention she so pitifully cried out for during the Hurricane Katrina episode). Left or right, it doesn't matter -- as her work with Professor Bostaph shows. That fact that she has no qualms about the people who can help her stay in the spotlight makes me wonder if she believes in anything at all. The fact that she and supporters like Professor Bostaph think we ought not to be concerned about the company she keeps and what that says about her true motives and goals is rather patronizing.
Cindy Sheehan has a goal. Whether it is to stop the American action in Iraq, or to impeach the president and every member of the government above the level of congressional page, or to get back on the front pages of the newspapers in the US, it is hard to tell. She might not even know for certain. But Cindy Sheehan will use any person to advance that agenda, no questions asked. Professor Bostaph tries to cast this as a virtue. It is not. Her non-stop mourning borders on lypemania, while the casual and non-critical means by which she selects and discards allies suggests monomania. If you are in a position to help her, she will use you. If you get in her way, well, that's not likely to go well for you, as Democratic senators who have declined to do Cindy Sheehan's bidding (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Diane Feinstein, for example) have learned.
If I were Professor Bostaph, I'd be nervous about the moment when I accidently disagree with Cindy Sheehan.
Pretty good for a bit of orc-sludge, eh?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I think the Prof has called you a spineless piece of shit. Relax.
Anyone who attacks an (admittedly confused) mother who has buried a son must surely be one. No?
Posted by: anonymous at April 20, 2006 11:18 PM
Hey... 'Anonymous'... there's a word I'm searching for here... IRONY. Today it's defined as "Calling someone spineless in an anonymous blog comment."
Posted by: Heather Cook at April 20, 2006 11:34 PM
Right you are Heather Cook.
However, I do not wish to be on the receiving end of AGWN's never-ending obsessions, or indeed, that of the other knuckle dragging trolls who may find his Sheehan-related POVs appealing.
I do not need to reveal my identity to make my point: Janke does not know the grief of a mother who has buried a son. I hope he never finds out.
Therefore, he should NOT be using Sheehan's grief - or her confused ramblings - as his personal trampoline in order to get a few extra google hits.
Irony or not, it is a point worth making.
Posted by: Still_Anonymous at April 21, 2006 12:01 AM
So let's just hypothetically say that I have lost a son.
Do I get to criticize Cindy Sheehan carte blanche? Would you say, "Oh, Heather Cook, now she's credible, she lost a son so it's ok for her to say these things about Cindy Sheehan."
Does this mean that I have to run the country before I can criticize the government? Or should I have an abortion so that I can be credible when I say I'm pro-choice?
Personally I'm in favour of sleeping with Tom Cruise so that my long-held opinion that he's a wack-job can finally be validated because I've 'been there, done that'.
Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 12:09 AM
Hmmm.. no.. just irony. sorry Anonymous. Your screen must have had a reflective property about it while you were writing your comment.
Posted by: David at April 21, 2006 02:23 AM
Hey Steve,
Great post. Some tough language. Love it.
You used the name "Cindy Sheehan" so many times that I thought Google must love you. So I Googled "Cindy Sheenah" to see if you would come up.
By page 7, I quit. I guess she's more famous than either you or I.
Blog on.
Posted by: Bowie at April 21, 2006 03:29 AM
My favorite line from her (and the one that proved her insanity, if there was any doubt) is still her demand that Bush withdraw the troops from "occupied New Orleans".
Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2006 05:58 AM
Heather Cook: No.
Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN does not just attack Cindy Sheehan's views - he attacks her personally, bringing here family &c into his diatribes. I find that repugnant.
I would find it equally repulsive if folks on the left would attack Charles Krauthammer's disability (or Stephen Harper's girth) because they disagree with their views.
Posted by: Anonymous_Again at April 21, 2006 07:57 AM
I believe "Steve Janke a.k.a. AGWN" only comments on what Cindy Sheehan herself brings into the news.
Now if Stephen Harper wants to open up a debate by bringing his girth (am I missing something? is he fat?) into the news, well then fair game.
No one can expect to keep their personal life private and contained if they are using it to make the nightly news. Sorry.
Posted by: Heather Cook at April 21, 2006 10:51 AM
Any coverage of Sheehan is unfortunate, but I appreciate your clarity, AGWN. The MSM pours on the emotion while ignoring or distorting the facts that provide context for her actions. I'd say her choice of a car over the headstone is certainly a valid line of reasoning worth some contemplation.
Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at April 21, 2006 10:59 AM
Steve Janke is a rarity up here in the Great White North. He can only be explained as a knuckle dragging sasquatch, devoid of facts, intellect and any semblance of humanity. Picture a scarecrow with straws for gray matter and you get the idea of what you're dealing with. He is a neocon wannabe.
Next time send him a point by point questionaire and ask him to provide answers, backed by facts, and watch him squirm.
Your 15 seconds of fame is over you phoney.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 11:36 AM
Amazing! This phrase "mental sludge pit" which he used is a first for me. I have a seen and heard million derogatory phrases in my time. I have been on the receiving end of many such phrases so to discover a new one that is so descriptive while unique is quite something. If I were you Steve, I would e-mail him and congratulate him on that phrase alone.
Posted by: steve d. at April 21, 2006 01:02 PM
Why should she pay for a headstone. Why is your favourite cabal, that sent him to die, not providing a headstone? Or may be they're waiting for congress to provide some funds so that Haliburton can get into the headstone business.
Or better yet you should provide him with one. Afterall "he died defending your freedom".
Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 01:03 PM
Pay for the headstone because he is her goddam son.
enough
Posted by: enough at April 21, 2006 01:31 PM
Mr. Sheehan is taking care of the headstone. One is provided free of charge IF asked for. The money the soon-to-be-ex-Mrs. Sheehan received for her son's death would have equalled up to US$256k (upper limit) - depending on how Specialist Sheehan allotted the money. She could have bought a better marker had she wanted to, but given her schedule, who has time for children?
Posted by: DaveO at April 21, 2006 01:49 PM
So Steve,
When are you going to sue Samuel Bostaph for libel and defamation? You obviously have your facts straight, and he doesn't. And he accuses you of lying. Sue the guy.
Posted by: dino at April 21, 2006 02:43 PM
Steve,
Good job luring the gaggle of trolls out of their 'mental sludge pits.' Seems you struck a major chord in their dissonant brains.
Wonder what the Vegas bookie odds would have been back on September 12 that the US would not suffer another terrorist attack on its soil in four and a half years? Bet $1000, you'd probably be a millionaire.
Stick that in your craw Citizen of the great white north, Anonymous, Striker.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 02:49 PM
Enough,
You are right. He is her godamned son. Not yours! Not Uncle Sams! And definitely not Steve SKD Janke's! Only Cindy Sheenan can mourn her son. In any goddamn way she pleases. She's earned it. Including confronting those who sent him to die.
So why the attacks from Sasquatch Janke and his minions?
Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 02:59 PM
Irwin Daisy,
Good word 'dissonance'. Now define it!
You and your Furher are the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance. To a point where you insult a grieving mother so you can continue to wallow in your filth and grunge.
Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:03 PM
Hear Hear! Couldn't have said it better. Wallow in their 'mental sludge pits'
Posted by: Striker at April 21, 2006 03:05 PM
Citizen of the Great White North:
That's a lot of vitriol you have unloaded. Seeing that AGWN has managed to successfully and lucidly present his arguments thus far, why not pose some of those "tough" questions you have instead of making nebulous references to them? Until we see some of your "gotcha" questions, we know who the real phoney is...
I'm with Steve D - although the rest of the Professor's musings are fishwrap - the whole sludge pit thing should be commended as a clever insult.
Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 03:18 PM
steve a,
I don't speak Sasquatch-ese. Perhaps you can serve as an "objective" translator and pose all the questions that Cindy Sheenan raised to him, in point form, and let him answer them without resorting to 'headstone', 'insurance money' and 'Hugo Chavez' charges.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:26 PM
Steve a,
I'm going to help you help yourself. Here are Cindy's questions. Translate them for the so called AGWN;
"Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to "complete the mission" when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is?"
I hope you can really speak sasquatch-ese. Best of luck
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 21, 2006 03:32 PM
Whoever:
Discordant, incongruous. By the way, nice hissy fit screamer on the end of 'it!'
Furher - leader of a socialist party and a vegetarian. Perhaps like you?
Insult a grieving mother? When did I do that?
"...so you can continue to wallow in your..."
That place is on your side of the park. Fortunately for the rest of us, there's a big sign saying 'Toxic Waste. Keep Out.'
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 03:33 PM
Irwin Daisy,
Good job finding the definition. I take it I have wikipedia to thank for the sudden jolt of energy into the moldy quarters of you brain? Well done. Now spell it!
PS:Hitler was no socialist. So I'm afraid your definition of furher doesn't work. Much like your thought process.
Posted by: at April 21, 2006 03:44 PM
Whoever,
It's difficult to argue with a blank (in so many ways).
or,
Never argue with an idiot. They'll pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.
National Socialist Party ring a bell?
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 21, 2006 04:00 PM
Citizen of the Great White North:
There is the matter of the following:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1
or
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
For your reading pleasure, I have gone to great pains to give you links that are not in Sasquatch-ese...
Posted by: steve a at April 21, 2006 04:03 PM
Political life should be like the gong show, when someone has embarrassed themselves enough, there should be a giant hook coming from stage left, to yank them away to obscurity. The hook is overdue for Cindy.
I think she wants to ride her dead son, into a seat in congress. So unfortunately for her, she wont go away.
Posted by: Curtis at April 21, 2006 04:04 PM
What a stunning level of righteous sanctimony coming from some of the commenters here. Cindy Sheehan has been using her son's death to draw attention to herself. The anti-Bush crowd can use prurient and appropriating references to "a mother's grief" all they want, but the fact is it's not all about her. Her son voluntarily fought for a cause he believed in. His choice, not hers.
Posted by: EBD at April 21, 2006 10:32 PM
Whomever:
First, it's "Fuhrer". If you're going to call someone a Nazi, at least get it right.
Second, the way you lefties bandy about references to Nazism, it's no wonder nobody takes your histrionics seriously. You guys call anybody to the right of Ted Kennedy a Nazi at the drop of a hat.
Third, and last, the claim that National Socialism was not really actual socialism is a lie that has been propogated by the left because Nazism was a public relations disaster for them. While industry in wartime Germany wasn't government-owned, there was a command economy in place - defy the government by producing refrigerators instead of tanks like they want, & see what happens to you. So it was de facto socialism, & called itself as such.
Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 21, 2006 11:41 PM
--Code Pinko-- the Cindy Sheehan affair-
Posted by: backhoe at April 22, 2006 03:18 AM
Who instead of whomever.
Furher instead of fuhrer.
See what happens when you have discourse with weasels? Mouth breathing is a disease.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 22, 2006 07:36 AM
A left! And a right! A left! And a right! This is so cool watching you guys go at it. No matter what, before anyone continues, you should stop right now and truly thank God that we live in a society where this type of discussion(?)can go on.
Citizen and Anonymous: Your views are simplistic and hysterical. They would be one of those "left"s. OKay....back to it!
Posted by: Cameron at April 22, 2006 11:56 AM
Steve a,
I see you did not answer my posting. Should have known that. Instead you posted a link to stories that have nothing to do with the questions I posted. You'd make Goebbels proud!
For the rest of you brownshirts here who believe National Socialist Party was actually a socialist, as in a left wing party, read a history book.
If the Nazis were left wing, I'm the pope! OR better yet I have a bridge in Bostwana to sell.
As for the numbskulls calling me a left wing/vegetarian etc, you make me laugh.
I believe all you statist pricks(both left and right wing shills) deserve to be sent on a collision course with the sun along with your "fuhrers", limbaugher,oreilly and the rest of the loudmouth twats.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 22, 2006 12:44 PM
Citizen:
What a thoughtful, lucid, well put together argument you present. Clearly, you are the intellectual superior of us all.
So, please, explain to me why National Socialism wasn't really socialism. Apart from the say-so of lefties who don't want Nazism giving the socialist cause a bad name, I mean.
Socialism is essentially statism. Statism is the hallmark of socialism. You allude to statists on both the left and right, but that's a fallacy. There aren't really any right-wing statists. We right-wingers are actually rather opposed to state intervention and control - haven't you noticed?
The Nazi party was most definitely statist. Ergo, National Socialism was a form of socialism.
If you're still on this thread, I'm clearly in for an outpouring of vitriol. But, a reasoned refutation would help allay my suspicions that you're really just a kneejerk crank. I just don't think you have it upstairs to construct one.
Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 22, 2006 07:39 PM
Citizen of the Great White North:
"Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?"
That was cut and pasted directly from your post.
My first link is to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire.
In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq -
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own?
I know you equate the personal attack as a form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance?
It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...
Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:13 PM
Citizen of the Great White North:
"Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't?"
That was cut and pasted directly from your post.
My first link was to a headline titled "Tapes Show Son-in-Law Admitted WMD Deception". You didn't even have to read the rest of the article to get the gist of the story. I know there is no WMD smoking gun, but it shows that your "Bush is a liar" contention is at best a simplistic analysis of what likely transpired leading up to the Iraq quagmire.
In the second link I provided, part of the article read "Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq -
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein." Do I have to explain who Osama is and how he ties in with Al Qaeda or can you stop your histrionic ranting long enough to connect those dots on your own?
I know you equate the personal attack to a higher form of reason worthy of Voltaire or Payne, but why not read first read my links prior to pontificating over their relevance?
It is ironic that with all of the "statist pricks" in this forum, it is you the "moderate" that is the most belligerent and unhinged...
Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:16 PM
Sorry for the double post everyone - computer troubles.
Posted by: steve a at April 22, 2006 08:18 PM
Citizen of th GWN and Sriker, Where is your calm intelligent logic? Children call others names when they are confused, miffed and petulant.
Take a look at this site:
http://www.ReligionOfPeace.com
Tell me you want the troops withdrawn as Sheenan demands and this to spread to North America.
If you say yes, then would that not be a public declaration of idiocy? TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 23, 2006 11:35 PM
Ian and the rest of you jokers,
Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington.
Musollini and his fascist party were also right wing statists.
Labels are cheap. Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head,like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger.
You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others.
A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th).
The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spying,detaining and torturing people.
The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss.
Stick that in your pipes and smoke it!
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:29 AM
To "Ian in cowtown" and the rest of you jokers:
Is that what "el Drugo' limbaugh is saying these days? That the nazis were socialist? Lookup "sozi" and the "nazism" on the web. Find the difference then perhaps you'll understand that the nazis were statists right wingers just like the present occupants of washington and Musollini and his fascist party.
Just like Pat Robertson calls himself a "christian". Or bush calls himself a "conservative". Labels or monikers are cheap. Your deeds determine what you are. And you my simple minded ditto head, like the rest of the jokers here, are no right winger.
You are a statist who believes in using the state apparatus to force your objectives on others.
A true right winger believes in no government, individual rights and the markets. He/she believes the government's only function should be collecting garbage,postal service and defending our borders(which they failed miserably on Sept 11th).
The problem with you wannabes is that in your zeal to score an ideological point you've become what you claim to oppose; the lefties. You've become shills for the state. Ignoring the fact that the state is the problem. That it is the state that spies,detains and tortures.
The irony,Irwin Daisy pay attention, in this is that a group of so called right wingers, you jokers here, have become apologists for a state whose ideological leanings is not from Edmund Burke but rather from the shenanihans of Wilson, Trosky and Strauss.
Stick that in your pipes and smoke it!
PS Ian: Here is a link for your viewing pleasure http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859884.html
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 09:45 AM
Steve A,
Tsk tsk. You bad boy. Trying to pull fast one. You're a good cherry picker of facts. But lets recap;
Do you remember these;
1) Iraq intelligence officer met with Attah(sept 11th hijacker) in Prague.
2) Iraq bought yellow cake in Niger
3) Mobile WMD stations
4) Tubes for centrifuges
5) Iraqi UMV
6) 45 seconds launch capability
7) Ahmed Chalabi
8) Judith Miller
9) Mylorie Lauren
10) Oreilly
11) Hannity
12) Kerry
13) Liberman
14) Hillary Clinton
etc etc.
What do they have in common? They were all lies and liars.
Remember the following people?
1) Scott Ritter
2) Hans Blix
3) Richard Clark
4) Treasury Secretary Oneill
5) David Kay
6) Karen Kwaitowski
etc etc
They were the truth tellers. And they did so at a great cost to their lives and reputation. And no decent person, let a alone a right winger, will take the word of Saddam Husseins son-in-law over any of these experts.
So you see your links were a diversion as I believe you are already in possession of these facts but threw in those links in an attempt of obfuscate.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:15 AM
TonyGuitar,
Lookup "Non Sequitur"! Or "Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect "
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 10:56 AM
And before you use the spelling of "Trotsky" as a diversion.. Its TROTSKY!
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 25, 2006 12:54 PM
Citizen:
I guess I don't really know what Limbaugh is saying, as I have never listened to his show. My point is my own insofar as I have never heard it argued before.
It comes from combining the following: a) a true right-winger believes in limited government, which you appear to agree with; & b) what the Nazis provided can hardly be considered limited government. Which leads me to the conclusion that Nazis were not right-wing.
This is contrary to the apparently deeply-held view of the far left, which seems to go something like: Nazis were right-wing, therefore, all right-wingers are Nazis.
Seriously, I know what "socialism" & "Nazism" are. I just don't agree with the conventional wisdom that the Nazis were right-wingers, for the reason I have stated. Their statism is evidence that they were more left-wing than right-wing.
That is the one & only point I addressed in my post. But you have taken it upon yourself to attribute a whole range of opinions to me, when in fact you have no idea how I feel about those issues. I don't know what hypocrisy you think you've caught me in.
I do feel it's rather hyperbolic to equate the Bush administration with the Hitler & Mussolini dictatorships. It indicates that you really have
no sense of either history or perspective.
And, I guess it's better than being called a Nazi, but "simple-minded dittohead" is still rather rude, I think. Oh well, perhaps it's the best you can do. But one shudders to think of the parents who would raise a child to be so ill-mannered.
You must be a charming & lovable individual, with many friends, I'm sure.
Posted by: ian in cowtown at April 25, 2006 07:46 PM
Great posting. Every time I read something new about Cindy Sheehan she seems to slip an extra rung on the crazy meter.
Is Cindy really crazy though, or just very very ambitious.
Rather than a "Peace Mom" Cindy is pimping out the memory of of son in order to buy the things she wants in life. Money, power, respect, relevance. She has dishonoured the memory of her son by hijacking his legacy. Rather than being remembered as the fine young man he was, he will be remembered as 'the son of that nut, who died in Iraq for no good reason'. If Cindy had ANY shame, she would simply apologise and go away.
Posted by: Donald Walker at April 25, 2006 07:55 PM
Ian,
"Ill mannered"? Considering the raison de etre of this blog(i.e.: to attack a grieving mother), I'll wear that "ill mannered" badge with honour.
Do you see any semblance of 'conservative' ideals in the present government in Washington?
Have they reduced the government? Are they not running huge deficits? What of the spying, unlawful searches and detention? Are you in the future going to say this government (republican controlled houses) was leftwing?
Hitler and his Nazis were just like the present government in many ways. See "Germany from 1939 onwards" and compare it to atmosphere in America today. Power politics, deliberate misinformation and the use of the aristocracy as a tool to dominate the masses, militarism, propaganda(fair and balanced) and crushing of dissent(see Valerie Plame,Richard Clark, Treasury Secretary O’Neill and General Anthony Zinni).
Here is quote from the man himself that will put your "the Nazis were left" to sleep;
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)
Did you check the link?
The 'Socialist' label was a trick to get the disillusioned workers to support them. And soon as they got the country they purged the socialists/Marxists, see Strasser, and sent the communists to concentration camps and abolished unions and workers rights. See "charter of labor".
Their nationalistic, racist, economic (Capitalism) and pre-emptive warmongering ideals were in line with the far right. And the fact they harnessed the power of the state to do this is what makes them statists.
The problem with the so called "right wing" these days is that they are just like the "lefties". They believe they are entitled to ride the bull, i.e. the state, as oppose to shooting it and having steaks for dinner. And since historically the "right wing" and the "left wings" have proven incapable of safeguarding the rights of individuals (see Stalin and Hitler) or modern times (Blair and Bush), they cannot be entrusted with "societal contract".
PS: Look up Lysander Spooner, my favourite rascal H.L Mencken and Old Tom Sawyer himself Mark Twain.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 10:59 AM
Cindy Sheenan is looking for fame, money and publicity just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD) are just fishing for huge settlements from the courts.
I know since the inception of "American Idol" and "Reality TV" the level of stupidity is at an all time low in most people but does the above statement seem sensible to anyone?
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 11:06 AM
If Cindy isn't looking for fame, money, and publicity then she isnt looking for it in the weirdest way possible.
She is a pimp and an opportunist and a liar. Her own family has disassociated themselves from her because of what she is doing. She pimps her sons memory as the currency for her cause (A cause may I note that Casey was adamantly opposed to). Its disgusting and Casey deserved better. I don't doubt that Cindy is firmly committed to her beliefs (to the point of fanaticism) and that in that sense, she is sincere...but she is dishonest as to her motivation. She wants to pretend she is the "Peace Mom" when in fact she is a committed partisan to her extreme left wing causes. She is using the memory of her son to buy herself credibility, and that is what is wrong, because deep down...she knows what she is doing, but to her the ends justify the means.
Also a Citizen of the Great White North and glad I found this blog.
Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 11:46 AM
Donald Walker,
Ditto MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Drivers)? Are they opportunistic liars? How about John Walsh of American Most Wanted? Is he on a vendetta against criminals?
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 26, 2006 01:12 PM
I have no evidence or reason to believe that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars. Same goes for the Salvation Army and the Canadian Cancer Society if that is the direction you plan to go. If you have evidence that MADD or John Walsh are opportunistic liars, then please present it, but if not then I dont see how they are relevant to the question of Cindy Sheehan since there IS evidence based on her statements and actions, that SHE IS an opportunistic liar. Namely her lies.
Posted by: Donald Walker at April 26, 2006 03:33 PM
Donald Walker,
You missed the point.Canadian Cancer society may be but Salvation Army? What have they lost? The point is Cindy Sheenan, like John Walsh, MADD et al have lost loved ones and have channelled their grief into preventing others from similar loss and suffering.
List some of Cindy Sheenan's lies.
I doubt it very much that you'll be this cavalier if you lost a brother, son, mother, father in a god forsaken land through no fault of theirs.
Her son signed up to defend his country, when attacked, no to be sent as an occupational army.
His superiors, namely the government, failed him.
Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at April 27, 2006 10:58 AM
Casey reenlisted knowing he would be part of an occupying army.
Losing a son is terrible. But it doesnt give one the right to lie, even if they feel the ends justify the lies.
Detailed lists of Cindy's lies are posted all over the place including here. You can google them yourself. Cindy is a liar and is far more interested in her own future, than her son's past.
Posted by: Donald Walker at April 27, 2006 08:10 PM
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
Posted by: Lori at May 8, 2006 12:52 AM
 
|
|
