i read that this morning on MSN.  I cant remember which post is was, but someone mentioned something about asking Sheehan tough questions and her ‘PR advisor’ (or whoever) pulled her away.  I see this as kinda of like that, except, the ‘PR assistant’ was missing. 

Sheehan is wrapped up in the anti-Bush/ Anti-America hype, that she wants the most attention as possible, even if that means not oringal demands met.  Unfortunately, she’s not too keen on the way of the ‘professional protestors’.

I see Sheehan as a kid being told the ‘game plan’ by the ‘big dogs’, but not knowing any better, and wanting to brag that their plan is ‘working’, she tells anyone she can.  Of course she’s going to admit that she didnt want to meet with Bush, she’s too stupid to know otherwise.

way your son’s death was the best thing that ever happened to you, because it gave meaning to your otherwise wretchedly average life.

Does anyone here really believe if she had the choice of her son still being alive, or the attention she got from her sons death, that she would actually choose the attention?

I don’t think anyone believes that, I think he’s speaking from hindsight.

On the other hand, I would also assert that Casey’s mom’s comments about not meeting with the president would also point to hindsight rather than premeditation.

I’m not saying she DIDN’T have an ulterior motive, just that the quote by itself doesn’t point very strongly to one.

Does anyone here really believe if she had the choice of her son still being alive, or the attention she got from her sons death, that she would actually choose the attention?

No, of course she would choose her son.  But I also think that she has been a barking leftist moonbat for years, and has most likely felt isolated from most of the members of her own family because of it.  Then her son dies in Iraq, and the radical leftists (Code Pink, MoveOn, Michael Moore, etc.) got to her and told her how invaluable she was to the left-wing movement.  And now her life has meaning and purpose.  She’s not a nobody any more, she’s Casey’s Mom™!

Given her druthers I’m sure she would rather have her son back.  But it can’t be denied that this detestable woman is milking that death for all she can.

Could someone please define “peace” from a liberal perspective for me?

From everything I have heard or read this is how I see a liberal defining peace.

On a map there are lines that define countries.  Within those lines there is a ruling government.  That ruling government can do whatever it likes as long as it stays within those lines.  Once a government does something that crosses one of those lines there is a problem.

So it is ok for Saddam to murder as many people as he likes as long as he stays between the lines.  So killing 100k a year is still peaceful as he does it within the confines of his territorial lines.  If we intervene and kill 10 people that is not peace because we crossed over the territorial line.

Am I understanding correctly?  If I am wrong, how can a liberal define Iraq as peaceful before we got there?

Does anyone here really believe if she had the choice of her son still being alive, or the attention she got from her sons death, that she would actually choose the attention?

Do you really believe someone here ever said that?  I certainly don’t see it in the quote you posted.

Could someone please define “peace” from a liberal perspective for me?

Peace looks good on a T-shirt worn in the comfort of a college campus.  When the terrorists start wearing them, it’ll mean something.

Peace looks good on a T-shirt worn in the comfort of a college campus.  When the terrorists start wearing them, it’ll mean something.

Agreed...they’re the ones challenging the possibility of peace.

On a map there are lines that define countries.  Within those lines there is a ruling government.  That ruling government can do whatever it likes as long as it stays within those lines.  Once a government does something that crosses one of those lines there is a problem.

RONIN - If I’m telling you something I already know, I apologize.

What you’re describing is the system of “Westphalian Sovereignty” that emerged in Europe following the conclusion of the 30 years war in 1648.

Under Westphalian Sovereignty, no state has the right to begin a war with another state based on actions which are solely of a domestic nature.

This system prevailed until the end of WWII, where the allies concluded (rightly) that if they had intervened with the domestic Nazi agenda, the would have not had to battle the Nazi’s international agenda.

Ironically, it is the environmentalist lobby that is one of the strongest advocates for the destruction of Westphalian sovereignty.  They argue that the global effects of pollution demand a new paradigm by which states can “legally” (maybe “morally” is a better word) influence domestic policy.

RONIN - I meant “......you already know....”

Pardon my saying so, but I think that this site (and all those covering Cindy’s every move and comment) is still giving her way too much attention.  Maybe some more direct attention should be turned to the main subject “person” of this site, and maybe how he and she are feeding each other’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

(Boy, the sparks that are gonna fly when those two have a falling-out....)

Pardon my saying so, but I think that this site (and all those covering Cindy’s every move and comment) is still giving her way too much attention.  Maybe some more direct attention should be turned to the main subject “person” of this site

I agree.  Perhaps it is time to let the story of Casey Sheehan’s mom go away.  The MSM is now focused on different stories (e.g. Hurricane Katrina).  Perhaps we are the ones now giving this story more life than it deserves.

What you’re describing is the system of “Westphalian Sovereignty”

Thank you, I knew of the concept I didn’t know the name.  But could you expand on something for me?

I have quite a bit of confusion about some groups on the left and the way they define things.  To sidebar a bit, (rhetorical question coming, it is being used to illustrate something not sidetrack my point) why are groups like NOW not excited about women being free in Afganistan and Iraq?  It’s sort of thing that confuses me.

To tie that in with my question.  If peace movements are really about “peace” why do they sit silent when despots slaughter people?  Why do they only speak out when some border is compromised?  From my position, Saddam slaughtering people is evil, the US removing him is good.  Yet they defend Saddam’s right to slaughter using the word “peace”.  They attack our liberation of Iraq using the word “peace”.  I am really lost with sequiters here.

That’s simple.  If we are peaceful and never attack anybody, then everyone will see our shining city on a hill and stop fighting themselves.

Come on, people, now
Smile on your brother
Everybody come together
Try to love one another right now

/regrettably jaded

I just feel like I am not articulating myself properly.

I do not see how anyone could a government “peaceful” if that government slaughters people wholesale.  To me, as long as their is tyranny, that is not peace.  So to allow Saddam to stay in power does not equal peace, yet that is exactly what they advocate(d).  They spoke out against removing him.  They spoke out against our troops invading.  They spoke out about every action taken EXCEPT the action taken by Saddam himself.

Iraq was not at peace before we invaded.  We are not adding to the body count over there.  By average the number of innocent deaths is down by orders of magnitude since Saddam was removed, yet they call themselves a “peace movement” for advocating the removal of our troops, who by being there has lessened the number of innocent dead.

I think they all need prozac, because their logic (for lack of better terms) is really hard to follow.

man I have to start previewing, sorry for the there/their and missed words. :roll:

I just feel like I am not articulating myself properly.

You did.  I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.  I even pointed out I was a bit jaded towards this “people will follow our model” idealism, though I don’t wish to be that way.  You’re fine.

I heard some clip of Casey’s mom talking the other to some of here followers and she said (this is from memory so it isn’t exact) “Just think.  In a few years, when you read about Camp Casey in the history books you’ll be able to say ‘I met Casey’s Mom’”

Talk about deranged and self centered.  I thought this wasn’t about her.

Oh well.  August is over, the hurricane is the big news now, I’m betting this loon is forgotten very soon.

“Just think.  In a few years, when you read about Camp Casey in the history books you’ll be able to say ‘I met Casey’s Mom’”

To agree, I doubt this wil ever make a history book.  A doubt she will even be remembered a year from now.  She is the left’s “flavor of the week” and will soon be forgotten.

To agree, I doubt this wil ever make a history book.  A doubt she will even be remembered a year from now.  She is the left’s “flavor of the week” and will soon be forgotten

I think Sharpton will find his way back into the spotlight

Bush is home from Crawford, so I won’t complain if we never talk about her again.

Ronin,
Nice way of putting your questions.  I think their attitude is that any type of war is wrong.  That violence and war never solved anything.  (This is such a silly statement.)

It lacks a level of sophistication that the majority of us gained by age 18.  It is the type of statement that you say to a bunch of fighting 4 year olds.  “Johhny stop fighting with Joey, fighting never solved anything!” (Well it did, Joey gave back the action figure and isn’t going to mess we me again, Mom.)

The whole NOW thing et al. not addressing more freedom women in Afganistan have.  Well, it doesn’t put forth their agenda.  It doesn’t have enough hyperbole, enough sex.

“I thought our country was going down, down, down. I thought nobody cared about our children killed in the war, but millions care, and millions care about our country and want to make it better,” she said. “The love and support I’ve received give me hope that my life can someday be normal.”

Before we end the conversation altogether, I wanted to post another example of how this was all about her and not Casey.  As the quote above says, maybe HER life can be normal someday now thanks to all of the support from the left wing lunatics. 

“Casey’s mom has got it all wrong
She’s a waste of space, and i’m glad that she’s gone
Casey can’t you see, that your mom is nuuutttyy
I know it might be wrong
But I just want to kick your mom”

kenjmack wrote

This system prevailed until the end of WWII,

That is not, totally, true.  Look at the conflicts Louis XIV put France into, not to mention Napoleon’s endeavor to conquer Europe.  Perhaps outside of legendary, egotistical leaders with hopes of grandure that statement does hold some merit.

I think their attitude is that any type of war is wrong.  That violence and war never solved anything.  (This is such a silly statement.)

I think it is more convaluted than that.  They are perfectly willing to condone any murder done by Saddam.  They do not go out a protest Saddam killing 100k people a year.  I don’t even think that is on their radar screens.  So they cannot be against violence, as they will condone it when it is perpetrated by a despot onto people under his control.

To further illustrate my confusion, where were the “peace” activists when Saddam invaded Kuwait?  Again they were silent. 

So my theory that it has to do with staying within one’s lines on a map has just been disproved.  It has nothing to do with violence and apparently nothing to do with territorial lines.

What does it have to do with?

Answer: Anything the US decides to do anywhere.  That is the only time the “peace” movement kicks into gear.  They don’t care if despots kill people.  They don’t care if despots invade other countries.  But they do seem to care if the US decides to intervene in any action.  They do seem to care if the US flexes it’s muscles no matter against who.  So the only time that “peace” is an issue is if the US gets involved in something?

This isn’t a movement for peace.  This is a movement against the United States plain and simple.  I think I have conclusively proved that in my last several posts.

If peace movements are really about “peace” why do they sit silent when despots slaughter people?  Why do they only speak out when some border is compromised?

Westphalian Sovereignty defines “peace” as the absense of war between states - thus when despots repress their own people, it is not seen as a disruption of peace.

The momentum seems to be shifting away from this paradigm.

why are groups like NOW not excited about women being free in Afganistan and Iraq?  It’s sort of thing that confuses me.

I don’t know much about what NOW is doing, but I believe that they are much more concerned with domestic issues (abortion in particular) than they are with global women’s rights (I could be wrong about that).  Any kudos they give W for women’s rights abroad (by the way, Afghanistan MUCH more than Iraq, where women’s rights may be taking steps backwards) would hurt their domestic agenda.

That is not, totally, true.  Look at the conflicts Louis XIV put France into, not to mention Napoleon’s endeavor to conquer Europe.  Perhaps outside of legendary, egotistical leaders with hopes of grandure that statement does hold some merit.

The idea of Westphalian Sovereignty was supposed to help classify “just” and “unjust” wars.  It means that one state cannot rightfully engage another state in a war based solely on domestic policy.  Of course, states did (and perhaps always will) engage in aggressive war.  When I said that the system persisted, I meant that the European states agreed to it in principle, if not always in practice.

Westphalian Sovereignty defines “peace” as the absense of war between states - thus when despots repress their own people, it is not seen as a disruption of peace.

Very helpful Kenjmack, that answered a lot for me, and confirmed I was correct.

So a civil war within the confines of a predetermined country does not qualify as a breaking of peace.  A despot slaughtering people doesn’t either.  Only the violation of borders is something that would “break” the peace.

So, in that paradigm, everything is relative, there is no good or bad, right or wrong as long as you stay within pre-defined borders.  As soon as you cross, you become the “bad” guy no matter what your motivation.

So in the case of Saddam, even though we are doing the “right” thing by removing a genocidal maniac, we are considered the ones who broke the peace because we violated the boundries of his country.

Hmm, I think I get this now, with the exception of why these same “peace” protestors were silent when Saddam entered Kuwait.  Could that simply be because they feel that Iraq invading Kuwait is an issue for those two countries to work out or possibly the UN and NOT the US?

The scary part is that I think I am actually starting to understand this stuff...does that make me crazy?

Sorry to be off topic but I just remembered something;
JimK on 08/27 at 08;47 said;

i’ll have you knwo i am struggling with posting this from the couch, jacked on tramadol,

If it’s not too indiscreet, What has happened to JimK for him to be on tramadol??

And how is he doing now?

I knew she was nothing but another attention whore.

I wonder if she made any money off this. I hope not, because then she might have to pay taxes; which she claimed she wouldn’t. Zoinks!

Now she’s buying into the crap that Bush’s environmental policies (all five years of it!) are responsible for the hurricane; of course, everybody knows without question that she has absolute moral authority on weather issues, too.

Cindy Sheehan is a cross between Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and John Kerry.  Do I need to say anything more?

I don’t care if she’s done.  Unless she gets killed by the Feds I will not post anything further on her on my blog.  Period.

From Casey’s mom’s post today on Moore’s website:

And, should I dare say “global warming?” and be branded as a “conspiracy theorist” on top of everything else the reich-wingers say about me.

Reich-wingers?!?  She’s going further and further into planet moonbat.  Poor woman.  She drank the Kool-Aid.

What has happened to JimK for him to be on tramadol??

iirc JimK has a back problem, like me. It is probable that this would require the use of heavy painkillers sometimes. Just guessing btw.

Well IMO based on everything I have heard her say and write, it is clear that she has handlers.  The puppetmasters got a hold of her and she is just mouthing the words. 

The sad part is that this business about “reich-wingers” and Bush policy creating Hurricanes, seriously gimps any cause that the left has.  I will say this again, why aren’t the non-moonbat liberals distancing themselves from this?  She claims to be speaking for you...does she?

This is just sad and pathetic.  Any sense of credibility went out the door long ago.  She has run the whole spectrum now from the Jews are the root cause of all problems to Bush causing hurricanes.  It would be laughable if she weren’t so serious.

iirc JimK has a back problem, like me. It is probable that this would require the use of heavy painkillers sometimes. Just guessing btw.

Actually he gave his ankle a bad turn just last week.  He talked about it on his Starkcast.

Ronin,
I think what you are seeing as the “peace” movement’s hypocrisy is actually the result of their “by any means necessary” approach to obtaining their goal. Moreover, many of the peace movements are run by marxist organizations (set up during the cold war to run the anti-vietnam protests), and their goal remains the destruction of the capitalist (or corporatist) system, of which the US is the cornerstone.  As the movers and shakers in the “peace” movement are really only interested in containing Anglo capitalistic aggression, and adhere to an “any means necessary” approach, they will willingly turn a blind eye to Hussein’s acts, in order to maintain their consistent opposition to the US. In their minds, that does not mean they support Hussein, only that they view him as the lesser of two evils (on a global scale).

The everyday peacenik is not a marxist, but when surrounded and directed by highly experienced anti-capitalists, it can start to rub off.

I figured JimK was just trying to become the Rush of the internet with right-wing propoganda and a drug addiction.

wooga-thanks.

I think that you are correct as is kenjmack.  I think that the “peace” movement runs the spectrum from pot smoking pacifists to those that believe in westphalian sovereignty to those that are Marxist and advocate the overthrow of capitalism. 

In the aggregate I think the pot smoking pacifists lose out.  I think the majority of these groups are more toward the Marxist/westphalian end of the chart.

I really wish the American public would see these groups for what they really are, America hating socialists who will do anything to ruin the US.  Unfortunately the pot smoking pacifists are used as “useful idiots” to hide the true undertaking of these groups.

I figured JimK was just trying to become the Rush of the internet with right-wing propoganda and a drug addiction.

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.  Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

I was looking for something else but found this;

On November 21, 1970, Fonda told a large University of Michigan audience, “If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become Communist.” At Duke University, she elaborated, “I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to Communism.” The dual villains of Southeast Asian conflicts were, in her view, “U.S. imperialism” and “a white man’s racist aggression.”

It almost makes you like Cindy Sheehan!

I was on a Metro subway train in Washington, D.C. last weekend. My friend found a seat but I had to stand. I was telling him about Casey’s mom (he doesn’t watch the news). While I was explaining who she was an anti-Bush woman said something about Bush (I honestly don’t know what because she was trying to butt into our conversation and I was ignoring her). When I finally got around to saying how she really doesn’t want to speak with Bush and that it’s all a show, the woman put her hands over her ears and starting going, “La la la la la...”

If she reads those articles, she should feel like a fool. About how someone at least a decade her junior owned her. Her covering of the ears were quite symbolic in what the left often does to cold hard facts...ignore them.

Instead of reporting on the recent coup in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where the pro-Israel, pro-U.S. leader was ousted by a 17-soldier brigade, the U.S. media has been giving undue voice to Angry Mother Cindy Sheehan.

What can I say…

To agree, I doubt this wil ever make a history book.  A doubt she will even be remembered a year from now.  She is the left’s “flavor of the week” and will soon be forgotten.

Uhhhh… I am sorry but you are wrong on this one Ronin.

She will obviously be in the “100 wackiest people in American History” book. I would say, top 5 anyways.

Just what I think of this loony moonbat and what she stands for.(if only it REALLY was for her hero of a son).

Hey guys...just checking in.

I’m doing much better.  I hurt my ankle pretty badly, and like a dumbass I fell twice while trying to navigate my way to the little boy’s room.

Hence the tramadol.  I’ve spent the last week on teh couch, though, and am doing much better!

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.  Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

well that responce just rocks

She will obviously be in the “100 wackiest people in American History” book. I would say, top 5 anyways.

No way would she be in top 5. she’s insignificant. She had her attention for a very brief period.

Sorry for this OT, but this subject has been coming up alot and I thought I would pass it along.

Census: Uninsured Can Afford It

Countering the commonly held notion that Americans who don�t have health insurance can�t afford it, the Census Bureau reports that nearly one-third of those without insurance live in households with an annual income of $50,000 or more.

About 16 million Americans in $50,000-plus households � more than 13 percent of the total � lack insurance, as do 8 million earning more than $75,000 a year.

Story Continues Below

The number of uninsured people in $75,000-plus households actually went up by 114 percent over a recent 9-year period, while those in households with incomes under $25,000 fell by 17 percent.

The new Census Bureau report also reveals:

# About 14 million uninsured adults and children are currently eligible for government medical coverage, such as Medicaid, but have not enrolled in any program.

# The parents of 5 million eligible children have failed to enroll them.

# For people who lack insurance for a period of time, about 75 percent are without it for less than a year.

# 11.8 million of the uninsured are foreign-born, and 9.5 million of those are non-citizens.

Hmm so let me do some math for all you people out there claiming the US lets people die in the streets.

43-45 million Americans uninsured
-16 mil who can afford it but don’t get it
-14 mil who are eligible for free insurance but don’t sign up
-12 mil who arent citizens
-----
0 to 3 mil without insurance who arent’t eligible for some reason

Seems like that falls within the margin of error if you ask me.

Ronin, got to disagree here. On this: “-12 mil who arent citizens"… thats the foreign-born number, not the non-citizen number. Should be like 5.5 million AT MOST without insurance that are not covered....and thats assuming the 5 million children are covered in the 14 million uninsured that was the first stat.

Well my overall point is that the census numbers quoted demonstrate IMO that the 45 million uninsured number is a strawman.  I have stated that several times and now here is the data to back it up.  I will spare everyone the “everyone gets treated stuff”, but once you subtract those who do not get the free insurance they are eligible for, those that can afford it and don’t get it and those who are ineligible because of immigration etc, you are at a fraction of the 45 million number bandied about.

Totally agree with your point there, I just was pointing out the mistake because agreeing with a point isn’t reason to not be any less critical of the support for it than I would be of a point I disagreed with. Accuracy first and foremost.