Here, for instance, is author and Vogue TV critic Joan Juliet Buck, who pens a lovely piece suggesting how Cindy Sheehan—a woman trading on her grief to help legitimize leftist groups such as the virulently anti-Zionist Crawford Peace House—is just like that brave student protester who in 1989 famously refused to budge before the rolling steel monster of China’s tyranny. From “Simple Actions That Can Change the World”:
There are simple actions that can change the world. In Tiananmen square on June 4, 1989, as the tanks rolled in the quell the protests that had united students and workers, everyone scattered. Except one man who came out of the crowd and stood, calmly in front of the tanks. On CNN you couldn’t tell if he was purposeful , or dazed, but he did not move. The tanks did not roll over him. That moment was the signal for all the changes that followed.
All of which is very poignant until you stop to consider that China is still a communist dictatorship, and that the tanks Cindy Sheehan is trying to block laid to waste two tyrannical regimes and replaced them with incipient democracies—freeing 50 million people from the yoke of totalitarianism in regions long hostile to individual rights.
Then, y’know, the bloom is sorta off the rose…
Similarly, here’s noted Hollywood thinker Christine Lahti, who wants us to know that
Cindy Sheehan is my hero. She is the hero of all Americans who make up the 62% of us who oppose this war. As an American exercising her right to free speech, she is a brave, passionate, living example of democracy, and she has the undeniable force and the moral authority of a grieving mother. Being a mother of three, I can’t even imagine the depths of the grief she must feel having lost her son in this horrific war. But I can imagine that her grief and rage—her demand for justice and action—is a force that is unstoppable.
Or, to translate: “You go, girl!”
Of course, one could ask what Ms. Lahti thinks of all those grieving mothers who believe that their children died for a noble cause; or of those future grieving mothers whose sons and daughters could very well be killed as a result of the kinds of PR victories the anti-war left continues to hand terrorists and ex-Ba’athist thugs like the ones that killed Casey Sheehan—but then, one suspects such questions are beyond Ms. Lahti’s purview.
****
(h/t Allah)
Cindy Sheehan is Christine Lahti’s hero. Not Casey Sheehan. Cindy.
Dissent: the most heroic virtue of all.
One wonders what Ms. Lahti thinks of all those grieving mothers who believe that their children died for a noble cause…
One also wonders what Ms. Lahti thinks of all the grieving Kurdish mothers whose children were fed into industrial plastic shredders for Saddam Hussein’s personal amusement.
Did I tell Cindy Sheehan to go to Hell yet today?
Yeah, I just think I did.
Well, did I compare her to a certain Old Testament prostitute?
Check.
Did I mention that she an anti-semetic moonbat?
Uh-huh.
Did I mention that one too many black-and-tans ames me more obnoxious than normal?
And it makes you speak in the third person, Like Bob Dole. Say “Goodnight,” Bob.
“Marsupials do.”
Did Imnetion your web-linky thing sucks?
Bracket dyslexia ia a terrible thing.
The tanks did not roll over him. That moment was the signal for all the changes that followed.
Um, which changes would those be? I mean, unless I missed something, the People’s Republic of China isn’t any more of a democracy now than it was back in June of ‘89.
Still, good on the fella who stood in front of the tanks. It takes a special kind of bravery to risk your life for an ideal. I guess we’re supposed to believe that camping out in Texas with a bunch of moonbats and reporters is just as brave.
Well, I guess it is pretty hot out there this time of year…
sean, i was thinking the same thing. china is such a bastion of democracy now.
Years ago Christine Lahti was in Chicago Hope playing a heart surgeon. I remember a quote in TV Guide where she was saying what a boost to feminism that she was showing that a woman is a heart surgeon (or something like that)
I remember thinking that it’s a lot harder for a person to be a heart surgeon than to pretend to be one on TV.
Hell, I could play the part of someone who is pregnant – I have the belly for at least 7 months along.
Seriously, who are these people?
SW: I’m such a “square” for not knowing these people.
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
http://drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm
As brave as standing in front of Chinese tanks. As Emmanuel Kant might have said: ya, right.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe Cindy Sheehan isn’t brave at all. I mean, she can’t exactly be afraid of the secret police showing up in the middle of the night to haul her off for a pre-dawn impromptu judicial action followed by a pistol-behind-the-ear execution.
Which makes her as “brave” in the same way Michael Moore was “brave” to appear at the DNC convention.
‘Cause, y’know, that took a lot of courage, being surrounded by adoring sychophants like that. I mean, those people simply reek of pate de foie gras, 24×7. It’d be enough to turn any stomach.
Though admittedly, in Moore’s case that might be a life-threatening state of affairs.
Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy, Lincoln, Jefferson, Jesus………….Sheehan….
See? It just rolls off the tongue. Like buttah.
You wonder some days can the left get any further untethered, and then, well….
At least there will be pie, right Jeff? Please tell me there will be pie even though the revolution won’t be televised…
I can think of a simple action that could change Arianna’s world, but I suspect it’s illegal…
Oh, and I saw a documentary on North Korea this evening and how the whole land looks like an abandoned parking lot and the people in the countryside are cannibalizing each other’s flesh and I said to myself,’Now that’s a peaceful nation!’ Why can’t we all just learn to live together? Perhaps the editors of Vogue can see their way to sending Ms. Buck and Ms. Lahti up there on a fact-finding mission to see what the North Koreans are wearing this year…
All my respect and admiration to the late Mr. Sheehan and his family.
but Russ, the MOSQUITOS!!!!! people are contracting west nile out here! tell me that’s not dangerous.
I mean, she can’t exactly be afraid of the secret police showing up in the middle of the night to haul her off for a pre-dawn impromptu judicial action followed by a pistol-behind-the-ear execution.
Actually, that is exactly what she expects:
“Cindy says that the protesters will be killed if they stay the night.
“We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that
the Secret Service killed us.â€Â
Nurse? Meds, please…
If it weren’t primarily autonomic , I think breathing might be
.
The left is beyond parody.
Cindy Sheehan is a great America hero. The Drudge atory about her relatives is all based on a single email from an obscure aunt and then a godmother of Casey Sheehan. Who would be better qualified to speak for Casey; an aunt and a godmother he hand’t seen in years or his mother? Ask yourself, and let me know what you think.
It’s soothing to say our tanks brought down these dictatorships, but what is waiting in the wings is simply an Iranian-style theocracy devoted to the destruction of Israel and of America. And possibly the next errorist state. Is this what young Mr. Sheehan died for? Is this what he wanted to give the world through his death? I really don’t think so. The war is a canard, the “freedom” meme is a canard, and the entire shady operation was an excuse to settle an old grudge the Bush family has held for 15 years with Saddam. Would you sacrifice your son for that? Would you? I know I wouldn’t.
Ah yes, another positive breath of optimism from the progressive side of the table.
How do you keep the sand out of your nose down there, Richard?
“Who would be better qualified to speak for Casey; an aunt and a godmother he hand’t seen in years or his mother?”
Casey doesn’t need anyone to speak for him; his re-enlistment during a time of war when he could have easily separated says all that anyone needs to know. She obviously didn’t know her son well enough to convince him to not sign up again.
Just because Cindy is Casey’s mother doesn’t make her opinion any more correct, it just means she’s pissing on her son’s service to get people to pay attention to her.
Turing word: maybe. As in, Maybe the left should stop encouraging Cindy Sheehan’s narcissitic behavior.
I don’t have a son, Dick, but if I did I’d be proud if he followed in my footsteps and served in the military.
But you know, it wouldn’t be my decision to sacrifice the theoretical him. No one sends their sons or daughters off to die; they are neither chattel nor children. They’re adult men and women who freely choose to take the risks and serve their country, Dick.
Turing: social. As in, I feel like exhibiting none of the social graces tonight.
We’ve all made mistakes. We’re all errorists.
More chickenhawks, posting from their fur-lined potty seats on their wireless laptops. Yes, I definitely believe that you would be delighted to see your children die so that Iraq can become an Iranian sister terrorist state and enemy of both Israel and America. If that’s not worth dying for, what is?
“Who would be better qualified to speak for Casey; an aunt and a godmother he hand’t seen in years or his mother?â€Â
Maybe his father?? Haven’t heard much from him.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
More chickenhawks, posting from their fur-lined potty seats on their wireless laptops.
Damn; I thought I’d turned the camera attachement off. And Rich, I love the chickenhawk appellation. Did you make that up yourself?
Free Mumia!!
“posting from their fur-lined potty seats on their wireless laptops”
Boy you really know how to hurt a guy.
How did you know?
I am so deeply embarassed I must now commit hari-kari with my 24k gold Ginzu knive with the ivory handles and baby seal skin sheath.
Oh the humility.
Here’s my take on people who level the chickenhawk charge. Incidentally, there are plenty of ex-military and military commenters here, Richard.
If they say Cindy Sheehan is a seditious shit who’s putting the troops in danger, can I take it from your commitment to the authority of soldiers that you’ll apologize and promise never to speak on foreign policy again?
Or is it okay for you to speak on foreign policy, just not those on the right who support the Iraq strategy?
Well, I installed that fur lined potty seat because I thought I deserved some pampering after I returned from deployment to Afghanistan. The wife installed the wireless network while I was away.
I don’t have children, I serve myself, and while I’d be proud to have my nephew (or children should I ever have any) join the service, but more than a little of the reason I do this now is in hopes that he won’t have to.
Or weren’t you speaking to me and my brothers and sisters in arms?
*crickets*
So I think the chickenhawk refers to Jeff, not to you RTO. Unless there’s a transitive relationship I’m unaware of. His is the post, ours are comments. Thus, unless Jeff is a brother in arms, it’s pretty clear he wasn’t talking to you.
Its a publicly accessable webpage and as Richard didn’t state an audience, I conclude, reasonably, that he was addressing all who read it.
Geeze. People call me a literalist.
The key word is “post”. Unless you are posting to this weblog, I don’t think you can construe it to include you.
Unless, that is, you’re just spoiling for a fight.
hal, that is just hilarious coming from you.
I’m a Soldier. My job is to kill people and break things.
Fighting falls in there I think.
If Richard doens’t want to suffer the slings and arrows, he should consider e-mail. As it is I recommend and enhanced dermal layer for you and diminshed cranial structure for Richard.
Yea, that’s me. I’m the one challenging people for insults of honor not directed at them.
Hey, while I’m at it, anyone here note the bunch of Nazis that are fetishizing and showing their strong support for the brave militia protecting our borders. Seems that if I apply the logic exhibited by this post…. Oh, and that’s “post” not “comments”. Just in case there’s any unnecessary ambiguity.
Right. Because digital images rendering text are so effective at flaying flesh from bones.
Words. They don’t quite have all the effect you might expect.
As Richard’s original comment didn’t refer to me as a chickenhawk, I’m going to assume his chickenhawk comment addressed all those who responded to him comment—and anybody else who happens to be reading here.
You may not like that, Hal—and you may not like the fact that Richard commits himself to obeying the will of soldiers like RTO Trainer when it comes to what we should be doing in Iraq and elsewhere (he wants either a committed pacifism, or else a military to run our foreign policy; those are the only practical conclusions one can draw from the chickenhawk argument)—but there you have it.
As to what the logic of this post is, and how it applies to a couple of neo-Nazis, please enlighten me.
Incidentally, I already discussed that Nazi pic—and the Minutemen, and paleocons, and the convergence of Paleocon nativism, Nazi racialism, and the new left’s isolationism —with a couple of your fellow travelers in the comments here.
Be back later. Going to watch one of the Thin Man movies.
Well, let’s see. You are tarring person X with the actions of person Y which “fetishizes” person X. So, using the same logic, Nazis Y tar the millitia X. In fact, I think this may even apply to you as I believe your radio hosts supported the millitia (as well as you). So, by the same logic, I guess you’re a Nazi as well.
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tommy.html
Actually, the sanitary implications of a fur lined potty seat are greater than I’d likely be willing to underatke. (full disclosure)
Hal,
Don’t quite your day job. You’ll never make it as either a psychic or a logician.
Yea, that’s the beauty of this site. The brilliant come backs.
Sorry, Hal. The glib X Y X stuff doesn’t work; I’m too dense to follow such indexical and nuanced thinking.
Spell it out for me. I’ve only mentioned a few people in this post. Draw me the diagram.
Christine Lahti has turned someone she’s likely never met into her “hero.” Joan Buck has compared this woman to the student who stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen square to protest the communist dictatorship in China.
Cindy Sheehan is one of 1800 (give or take) US mothers who lost a child in the Iraq war. And yet Huffington Post had something like 20 or more posts in a row all about Cindy.
I was critical of those on the right who fetishized Terri Schiavo. Now I’m critical of those on the left who are fetishizing this woman. Tell me how I’m wrong.
You are easily confused, aren’t you. You use people who are fetishizing someone to denigrate and discredit them.
I’m torn. Should this be classified as the fallacy “appeal to ridicule” or is it just plain and simple poisoning of the well? Maybe it’s just guilt by association. That doesn’t seem right because there really isn’t any association (there is in the millitia case, though).
Please forgive me for assuming you had a job.
You should be careful there, RTO. You never know who your poking with that sharp stick.
Y’know, Richard. You have a deathly attitude toward life.
Like many other ‘Progressives’, you appear to believe that the only circumstances under which a thing is worth struggling for is when the outcome is clear. You won’t play unless you can win.
Children think that way.
If we follow your thinking to its logical conclusion, we find ourselves living in a world in which humanity never takes risks, in which the progress that separates life in our century from life as it was ten thousand years ago becomes impossible. While there is certainly no risk of defeat, there is, just as certainly, no possibility of victory.
And, yet, we seem to have made such progress. Clearly, your logic is flawed.
You are a pessimist and a defeatist. If the fate of humanity were in your hands–and, thankfully, it’s not–it would make more sense to kill ourselves now and get it over with. After all, there’s hardly any point in taking another step forward or drawing another breath. Hope is for chumps.
You are the last person I would ever want to count on for help. And I know that, if I were suffering, you’d be the last person to offer assistance. You just don’t believe it makes a difference.
Some day you may need help badly. I hope you run into someone who believes you’re an idiot.
john constantine?
Seems to me that was the point I was trying to make to Richard before you leapt to his defense.
No worries. I’m trained and fully proficient with sharp sticks among other munitions.
I’d also have to expect that the target of my prodding were capable of effective retaliation before trepidation would set in. So far you haven’t shown much.
Yea, I’m a fictional character. Geez.
RTO, you puff up your chest at someone’s attack on Jeff, taking the comments directed at him as an affront to your personal honor. You, on the other hand, just plain out attack me personally – no ambiguity involved. Interesting logic there.
If you’ll note, I haven’t attacked you back in kind. I’m just saying you really don’t have a clue as to who you’re poking at with a sharp stick. Which means you’re just blowing smoke, lashing out in a purely childish name calling fashion.
Which is kind of silly, really.
Myself, I know who I am and what I do, so in the end it doesn’t really matter. Something about sticks n’ stones as I recall.
Whoah! Watch the pronoun usage there, pal. Still not following you.
Let me see what I can do to parse this: I am easily confused because I use people (Lahti and Buck, presumably?) who are fetishizing someone (Cindy Sheehan?) to denigrate and discredit those people whom I’ve used (Lahti and Buck?)
Yes? Or, to put it in less confusing terms for my simple brain: I used two people’s writings about Cindy Sheehan to criticize their writings about Cindy Sheehan.
Am I close?
The rest has me stumped. How am I using guilt by association? I didn’t make the association, after all. Lahti and Buck did. I just pointed out that the associations they drew were ludicrous.
You call that ridicule. But I didn’t know I was obligated to pat them on the head and tell them that because they bothered to type it out, they deserve uncritical praise.
RTO,
You may be proficient in defending yourself against assailants weilding pointed sticks, but what about someone armed with a banana?
That Hal can be crafty, y’know.
Just like a “progressive,” Hal—repeating the same accusation even after you’ve been shown the error of your ways, while pretending you were never corrected. You write:
And yet, the first time you made that claim, I quite cordially corrected you.
Why do you then repeat the charge?
Really. I find that fascinating. I mean, it’s all only a few comments up the thread.
well, you picked the domain name.the character’s only been around at least ten years.
Ah, sorry. Robot fingers, you know. My mistake.
You’re really just criticizing everyone but Cindy. Bringing up people who you can ridicule easily isn’t designed to undermine Cindy’s position. That’s what Allah’s comment was clarifying.
Understood now. Have the secret decoder ring dialed in.
Oh, sure Sean. I give you Kipling and you counter with Python? Not quite reciprocal is it?
okay, i’m a nerd.
Yea, we’re all in this together.
wait, wait, wait here. allah is a COMMENTER not a POSTER to this site. why bring him into this?
Jeff, as you quite often do, you merely made an assertion without proof. I rejected the appeal to authority without comment, as is my wont.
Again, I don’t follow you, Hal. In my post, I wrote: “Cindy Sheehanâ€â€a woman trading on her grief to help legitimize leftist groups such as the virulently anti-Zionist Crawford Peace House” (clearly a criticism of Sheehan)—then I criticized two writers for fetishizing someone undeserving of such fawning adulation.
Which leaves me confused, yet again: what exactly is your point? I mean, I’ve already written what I think of Cindy Sheehan. Do I need to reiterate it every time from here on out because you can’t be bothered to scroll?
Am I not allowed to criticize the cottage industry that seems to springing up around this woman’s grief?
Seriously. YOu need to figure out what it is you’re indignant about here, Hal.
Right, because commenters aren’t part of the conversation. Especially those that are hat tipped in the post.
Pretty silly category error.
I made an assertion without proof? Huh? What are you talking about? Sure, I can’t read Richard’s mind—but I gave reasons for my assertion, which you simply ignored and decided to repeat your own assertion, for which you provide no argument.
Are you that confident, Hal? Or do you just need more practice at this?
Hey, I get the spew via RSS, so I’ve already saw it. My point is, the only reason you’re bringing this up is so that the ridicule you heap on the “cottage industry” tars Cindy. It’s a pretty transparent rhetorical technique that is time tested and propaganda approved. You can act the surprised school marm, but really now… Is there anyone fooled by the act?
The commenter was hat tipped in the post because he sent me the link. But (and I’m making another assertion without proof here, because I can’t be absolutely certain there wasn’t some glitch in the system) Allah didn’t make that comment until AFTER I wrote my post. Which would suggest that it (being post hoc and all) had no bearing on the thoughts in the post.
Uh, that’s an assumption Jeff. As I said, you assert, I rejected the assertion. It’s a simply appeal to authority (your’s, of course). My argument is that a) he’s clearly in a conversation with you and b) he’s talking about chicken hawks posting which is pretty clearly not to be confused with chicken hawks commenting. And in any event, since RTO wasn’t even part of the conversation at the time, it clearly wasn’t directed at him at all. So his showing up and saying “you talking about me buddy” was clearly just a chest puffing intimidation tactic.
What part of “Cindy Sheehanâ€â€a woman trading on her grief to help legitimize leftist groups such as the virulently anti-Zionist Crawford Peace House†was not a direct tar of Sheehan?
You act as though I’m hiding something. You see conspiracies everywhere. The “transparent rhetorical technique” I’m using is criticizing a woman directly while also criticizing those who are fawning all over her in stupid ways, using dumb analogies (Tiananmen) or hyperbolic praise (my “hero”).
I don’t understand where you get this idea that you’re so clever, Hal; I mean, others don’t need to do any detailed rhetorical analysis to see what is right there in plain site.
So, how is Cindy legitimizing Crawford Peace House? Did she issue a statement of support that I missed?
Did somebody buy you a textbook of fallacies of argument, Hal? Because it’s really got you confused.
And no, Hal, you didn’t just “reject the assertion,” you ignored it. Without addressing it.
My assertion is that his initial comment was likely in conversation with me. But since I didn’t reply, and others did, and his tone changed dramatically, and he used the plural, and he addressed things said directly in the interceding comments, I concluded (with no “proof,” mind you, but the hypothesis certainly raises some points that you haven’t rebutted, except to point out again and again that his must be addressing the “post,” even as you’ve spent the last few hours addressing comments and commenters—proving that such a thing is at least possible) that Richard was addressing “rightwingers” in general, and those that answered his first comment in particular.
I was not among them.
Also, because it is my assertion that Richard on some level was addressing rightwingers more generally, it makes perfect sense for someone like RTO reading this thread to respond. Which he did.
Why it’s chest thumping to point out that he, too, agrees with the post, and he does so even though he is not a chickenhawk—which throws into question Richard’s entire point (which appeared to be that the people commenting here were all chickenhawks).
Now, if you can do me a favor and sum up all your criticisms about my post and all your assumptions about my motives into one easy to follow comment, I’d be much obliged.
So I guess the “you” in his comment should have been a plural of some form if your argument is to hold. Perhaps he meant to say “you all” or some such.
Again, there’s that pesky decoder ring.
Well, according to Christine Lahti in the post I quote (and keep in mind, she is parroting talking points from Democrat legislators), Cindy Sheehan “has the undeniable force and the moral authority of a grieving mother.”
Undeniable force and moral authority is quite something to have, Hal. And she is lending that undeniable force and moral authority to the Crawford Peace House—that is, she is helping legitimize it by making it appear like a mainstream organization out to support a grieving mother without drawing attention to the fact that it is an anti-Zionist organization that leans far left politically—simply by rallying alongside it and giving her name to its cause.
Just like when President Bush lent legitimacy to Bob Roberts university, or ID as somehow coequal to evolution as a scientific theory. Remember? How you all howled?
Now, I’m going to drink a beer and watch a movie. But you keep plugging away, buddy! You’re this close to making a coherent argument.
Most people wouldn’t need a decoder ring, Hal. They’d realize that he was likely addressing me with his first comment, then likely addressing his respondants with his second comment. Otherwise, why not include the content of his second comment in his initial comment and save us all (okay, you) the confusion?
I’m simply fascinated by how you won’t cede even the smallest point, Hal. Seriously. I only argue with you because from a sociological standpoint I find your kind quite intriguing—how you’ll go on and on and on and never admit you’ve made the tiniest mistake, and yet then you’ll lie in your bed at night praising yourself for your open-mindedness and your “reality-based” approach to politics.
Astounding.
But I’m really done now. Guinness awaits.
Wow Jeff. That’s a pretty neat trick.
Oh and “remember” how “I” howled? Got a link or are you just snorting more Tiffin?
And Bush actually did lend his support to ID by – you know – actually endorsing it. Actually saying “I endorse ID”. Not through some psychic transfer of moral authority…
Your rather interesting logic says that because Lahti says she’s a moral authority, Cindy is lending her support. Again, a rather neat rhetorical trick you have there. Amazing how that works without – you know – Cindy actually lending her support. I suppose any grieving mother – whether they are even in any way connected with Iraq – lends the same moral support to Lahti.
Ta. Enjoy.
From Richard’s first comment…
<style theocracy devoted to the destruction of Israel and of America. And possibly the next [t]errorist state.</i>
I’m pretty sure Iraq was already devoted to the destruction of Israel and America and already was involved in terrorism.
Not going to rely on those buttons any more.
You people are fucking losers. Casey Sheehan gave his life for something he believed in, and that’s not even what he will be remembered for. In the end, his death is actually going to be a fucking sidebar to political history and arguments like this one. It should be the other way around. All this shit is doing is stripping Casey’s life, and the way in which he died, of almost any significance at all. Way to go, yay spin.
Your rather interesting logic says that because Lahti says she’s a moral authority, Cindy is lending her support. Again, a rather neat rhetorical trick you have there. Amazing how that works without – you know – Cindy actually lending her support.
That’s a pretty disingenuous bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Jeff plainly stated that “And she is lending that undeniable force and moral authority to the Crawford Peace House”. You were the one who brought in the idea of Sheehan lending Lahti support, not Jeff or anyone else. Seems you left your decoder ring set to “straw man”.
“I only argue with you because from a sociological standpoint I find your kind quite intriguing…”
Ya know, Jeff, this is how these engagements strike me these days, also. What these folks write is always so off-key that I start trying to figure out how a mind gets that way. Because either I do that, or just assume they really are from K-Pax.
Yes, Guinness is good for you.
I’m just hoping Sheehan doesn’t use Cleland as a battering ram. That would render the ranch completely defenseless.
Just curious… what happened to Richard?
Hello! Hello!
I’m here to expose some scumbaggery … mainly because I was invited to by Jeff Goldstein via his inviting Gandhi:
So bring out your best. In the meantime I want to expose the fucker from this blog who came into Gandhi’s blog, and in a false-flag operation ignited some racially motivated bullshit that followed him back to this blog to get a whole gluttonous bunch of the regulars gourging themselves on their collective indignation at Gandhi’s supposed anti-Semitism. So what started this crap? This foul non-sequiter left by one of the blog’s own:
What the?
So that’s the context, and while Gandhi was being attacked no one from protein wisdom stepped up to say, er, I actually started this. False flag fag, did you enjoy stirring up all that ugliness?
sorry about the broken links .. but my point still stands
if you want to follow it then cut ‘n paste
Just curious… what happened to Richard?
Dick appears to have limped away.
You argue with success? Richard hasn’t had the courage and strength of his convictions to support his assertions since.
So now the loyal opposition remains dickless?
Wadard—It’s a regular joke on this blog. It refers to O.J. See, like “The Juice” did it, but we sometimes say it “JOOOOOS.” See?
Here:
Supposed anti-Semitism??
As for the topic; I think it is pretty sick that pw, which I presume is Jeff Goldstein, attacks the a woman who had her son’s life taken away for the US when she want to take her conversation with Bush further.
She has the right to have that chat earned by the blood of her loins. I think Bush doesn’t want the chat because he does not have the answers. Shadow of a man now, isn’t he? Where’s Karl when you need him?
”…attacks the a woman who had her son’s life taken away for the US when she want to take her conversation with Bush further.”
Who’s the “‘A’ woman?” Her son’s life was taken away because she wanted to talk with Bush? Jesus. I’m not following this.
Yes, she just wants some honest, open dialogue with the man she calls the Liar in Chief. It’s all about the communication. Why can’t Bush understand that?
Man, how come I always miss the good troll invasions? Blood of her loins?
I mean, come on!
I’m never gonna get to try out this elephant gun at this rate…
So what is the in-joke doing out-house, out of context?
Stirring, I think. Not very admirable.
Well, maybe she wants to talk about his honesty. peerhaps it is a case of if Bush had it to defend he would. But Liar in Chief? She’s nailed him – he got da form baby. WMD, Plume, etc
“So what is the in-joke doing out-house, out of context?”
I don’t know, Wad. That does indeed look pretty bad. Why is ghandi quoting Hitler? Are you sure that is an original quote? I didn’t realize they even knew each other. But wasn’t the Swastika Indian in origin? This is very confusing.
Wadard,
So why seek to talk to him? She, as you, already know all the answers.
Why don’t we just drop the ridiculous “she just wants to talk and ask him some questions” pretense, for chrissake.
Just stick to your worn-out in-jokes Lickyboy.
You’re right about Plume, Wad. Plume is a very mysterious situation. I hope Carl Novak gets his ass reemed for Plume.
The in-joke would probably die out if there were less people thinking that a secret group of paid Jews are out to get them.
Just a thought.