I thought this thread was gonna be about Cindy Sheehan giving up on trying to post a message on TWW today with all the "OH SHIT! Internal Error" messages

5/31/2007 4:40:36 PM

I was hoping she was giving up on life

5/31/2007 4:43:35 PM

oh please, like you could possibly know what its like to lose a son in a needless war

5/31/2007 4:46:16 PM

like you could possibly know if the war is needless

5/31/2007 4:52:43 PM

^^ youre right. she is the only one.

5/31/2007 4:56:00 PM

^^ that seems to be the consensus

^ I'm sure there are a lot more, they just don't get the media coverage

5/31/2007 4:59:16 PM

the consensus should know the need of the war will reveal itself (or reveal itself as needless) in time

if the middle east is (relatively) peaceful and full of democracies in 50 years, you could hardly say the war was needless...but again, time will tell

5/31/2007 5:04:35 PM

It's ridiculous to assert that you cannot judge a conflict on its lack of merit four years into it. With a 160,000 US troops, 40,000 coalition troops, 144,000 Iraqi troops and 100,000 private military contractors the situation continues to deteriorate. You do not have to wait 50 years to see that something is a failure. If so, we would still be in Vietnam, which the nation decided was a wasteful failure after 10 years, 58,000+ deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars.

5/31/2007 5:17:09 PM

Quote :

"the consensus should know the need of the war will reveal itself (or reveal itself as needless) in time"

That is the most brilliant fucking foreign policy I have ever seen.

The question is, what if the exact opposite happens? What if the increasing consumption of petroleum feeds dictatorships who grow fat on expensive oil? Foreign Policy magazine did a study on this. In short, for countries whose economies are dominated by oil, individual freedom falls as the price of oil rises, and vice versa. So are you saying that if, 50 years from now, the middle east is a series of totalitarian regimes then that will have been the need of the war?

You get dumber every day.

5/31/2007 5:23:24 PM

^^thats not true

its even more ridiculous to think you can understand the overall effects of something so widespread and complex that interweaves the fabric of global economies and societies...trivializing it as simply a "needless war based on lies" is completely taking the half-assed way out...i'd think someone like yourself with a kid and job (unlike some of the students in TSB) would realize the timescale issue...it seems to me some of the students on here, who have been used to changing situations every year, think 4 years is an obscenely long time for a war...they're used to every year getting a new schedule, meeting a whole new group of people to work with, maybe living in a new place every year...I would've hoped an older adult like yourself wouldn't take the easy way out, but oh well

^oh look, somebody else who just doesnt get it

we overthrew a tyrannical dictator (saddam) and a tyrannical govt (the taliban) in the middle east...we put forth great efforts to create sustainable democracies over there (which OBVIOUSLY dont happen overnight)...we try to make the region better, yet when muslim terrorists kill other muslims we get blamed...i really dont know why i would expect anything different in TSB though

5/31/2007 5:25:25 PM

Quote :

"i'd think someone like yourself with a kid and job (unlike some of the students in TSB) would realize the timescale issue"

Haha I have a kid and a full time job? News to me.

Quote :

"it seems to me some of the students on here, who have been used to changing situations every year, think 4 years is an obscenely long time for a war..."

WW2 only lasted for four years on both fronts for the US. We have passed four years and have not even made progress. Deaths and internal strife are increasing. Regional stability is decreasing. We would have a safer world without having ever engaged in this conflict.

Quote :

"^oh look, somebody else who just doesnt get it"

Ever stopped to consider the possibility that you are the one who doesn't get it?

5/31/2007 5:31:00 PM

my mistake on the job and kid part...i must've been thinking of someone else

Quote :

"We have passed four years and have not even made progress."

i cant logically respond to a complete and flat-out lie...good day

5/31/2007 5:33:50 PM

Quote :

"its even more ridiculous to think you can understand the overall effects of something so widespread and complex that interweaves the fabric of global economies and societies"

To borrow from Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, but we don't elect a president to roll dice and hope for the best. This administration clearly had no solid plan for post invasion Iraq. That is criminal incompetence.

Quote :

"think 4 years is an obscenely long time for a war..."

Not at all, but it is an issue of momentum, not time. The administrations lack of an effective post war plan, refusal to admit that there were issues in Iraq, and dismissal of seasoned generals' (like Shinseki) advice that you would need several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq all ceded momentum to the insurgency. This cannot be simply dismissed as a "time will tell".

Quote :

"^oh look, somebody else who just doesnt get it"

Two tours in Iraq and possibly one coming up in Afghanistan. Nah I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

5/31/2007 5:35:45 PM

two tours in iraq and possibly one upcoming in afghanistan (god bless and good luck btw) yet you still dont realize global societal changes take decades, not a few years

5/31/2007 5:37:46 PM

I never disputed that change takes time, but when you get down to it, the only mission of the United States military on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is to provide a stable platform for the seeds of that change to germinate. This is not being done effectively. Could Iraq turn out peaceful? God, I hope so, but is it being done at a greater cost than necessary? I think so.

Lets also turn that statement on its head by pointing out that a military occupation of 4, 10, or 20 years will be unlikely to significantly impact a culture that predates every western empire.

5/31/2007 5:42:28 PM

Quote :

"that seems to be the consensus"

Scuba Steve

You love some goddamned consensus, don't you? What if the consensus were that you are an asshole--just a what-if scenario--would that make it correct?

5/31/2007 11:16:52 PM

Are you just trying to divert attention away from the fact that JCASHFAN and I have handed you your ass in this thread?

5/31/2007 11:34:28 PM

how come your political party abandoned cindy sheehan? i thought they cared about her and the end of the war

5/31/2007 11:38:41 PM

^^ You've done nothing of the sort. And I'm not trying to divert anything; I was simply making an observation--must've hit pretty close to home, too.

5/31/2007 11:49:53 PM

Quote :

"sheehan's major problem is that she was a political neophyte. she jumped into the political fire solely on a mother's passion to make sense of her sons tragic death. she didn't have the political savvy to protect herself against spinmasters from either side. there were definitely people on both sides who used her fame/notoriety to further their own goals"

I agree. She was used and abused. Some of it was her making though. A really sad story all around.

6/1/2007 12:35:24 AM

Quote :

"how come your political party abandoned cindy sheehan? i thought they cared about her and the end of the war"

If you're referring to me, I'm not even remotely a Democrat. If I had to attach myself to a party it would be the Libertarian party, so we can dispense with that now.

And of course the Democrats abandoned Cindy Sheehan, in truth, they never really adopted her, the sad thing is, she never even realized how much of a pawn she was until the end.

I'm not asking you, hooksaw or TreeTwista10, to agree with the "consensus" because it is the consensus, thats pretty flawed, but it'd be nice if you did something other than parrot Rush Limbaugh's ignorant blather. I thought he was cool, oh, in high school. Since I've developed critical thinking skills? Not so much.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 7:40 AM. Reason : []

6/1/2007 7:40:12 AM

why would you a) assume i was saying your party was the Democrats when that quote was in direct response and directly after a Scuba Steve post, and b) assume that all I can do is regurgitate "Rush Limbaugh blather"? for YEARS the Democrats used Sheehan under the completely false premise of care when in reality she was a political tool...and now that she is completley and emotionally spent, the Democrats figure her usefulness is also spent so they completely abandon her...a (now) poor person and someone really opposed to the war...and the Democrats just abandon her...yet this one thread over the last week is supposed to make up for the years that the Democrats completely used and abused Sheehan, and more relevant to TWW< the years that douchebags constantly sided with her? Fuck that...once again, another issue the Democrats are wrong on for years at a time, yet when the answer comes out, a few days worth of backpeddling in a thread is supposed to excuse the garbage they said about Sheehan for years? Fuck that weak bullshit

I argue shit for months just to be trolled...and years later when it comes out that I was right, the Dems like to backpeddle and change the subject to ignore what they've been spouting off about for so long...fucking WEAK

6/1/2007 10:05:40 AM

I don't think the Democratic party as a whole ever really did adopt Cindy Sheehan. I think more or less they permitted her voice to be heard because she was an asset, but not one worth becoming particularly linked to.

Second, most of your arguments read like transcripts from Rush Limbaugh whom I do actually listen to from time to time (probably once a week). So don't go throwing out the whole "you just picked this up from a liberal attack dog" bit that he likes to spin.

Third, people disagreeing with you isn't trolling. You throw that word around left and right whenever you come up against a point you can argue with. You're about the weakest debater on here though I'd place you slightly above hooksaw who can't go five posts without launching an ad hominem attack on someone because his dogmatic mind can't handle complex thought.

Finally, the war in Iraq isn't a Democratic issue only any more. Most people realize that it has been ineptly handled, whether or not it was justified. Because I believe that does not mean that I agree with the far left kooks, I'm just able to objectively analyze something and come up with my own opinion. If anything the Democrats are the ones who have the most to repent for because they threw away their convictions for political expediency.

6/1/2007 10:48:12 AM

sounds like you're the limbaugh fan

my only point is heres what happens too often in soap box:

- i argue "A is true"
- people vehemently argue "A is false"
- this happens for months and "A is false" is the consensus and I am apparently trolling
- months pass...
- the truth comes out, which is that "A is true"
- although I was right all along, and getting trolled all along, for months...a simple thread of backpeddling that lasts a day or two somehow resolves the issue and nobody admits they're wrong

3rd what the fuck does any of this have to do with you? your dumb ass cant even understand that when I say "your party" RIGHT AFTER a Scuba Steve post...that i am talking to SCUBA STEVE, NOT YOU

Why dont you look back at some Sheehan threads from 6 months - 1 year ago to see my position then...you probably won't want to because then your favorite "regurgitating Limbaugh" bullshit copout lines won't hold any weight

6/1/2007 10:53:00 AM

I'll say it again, people disagreeing with you (even if they are later wrong) is not trolling.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I was a Limbaugh fan?

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: it'd be nice if you did something other than parrot Rush Limbaugh's ignorant blather."

Yeah, I'm obviously a fan. You lose again. Sorry. I like how I mention something once, in one thread, and you automatically make it my "favorite".

The fact that I've got your ass by the tail and am not letting you go, means it has to do with me. I used to get angry at your ignorance, now I just feel bad for you.

But hey, I'll keep an open mind about this, show me where you've been right (in the real world, not your mind) and I'll back off. I've yet to see it happen.

[Edited on June 1, 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2007 10:58:57 AM

Quote :

"How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I was a Limbaugh fan? "

you're the one who keeps bringing him up, claiming (falsely btw) that I spout off his shit...when YOU (JCASHFAN) are the one who just admitted listening to him once a week

the fact that you have trouble understanding this simple point shows you arent nearly as smart as you think...i guess i shouldnt have been surprised that you somehow that i said YOUR party abandoned sheehan when i wasnt even really aware that you were even in the thread

Quote :

"I like how I mention something once, in one thread, and you automatically make it my "favorite". "

i like how i mention something ZERO TIMES and you simply imply that thats my source, since apparently you cant comprehend anything else

6/1/2007 11:05:19 AM

The fact that I listen to people I disagree with doesn't make me a fan. Or are you saying you shouldn't listen to any opinions other than those you agree with? Please man, you suck again.

6/1/2007 11:06:34 AM

IM SAYING I DONT LISTEN TO LIMBAUGH, YOU DO, YET YOU WANT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH

wow i didnt think you were this much of an idiot with no reading comprehension who puts words in peoples mouthes...but i guess you are

so are you trolling me right now, or are you really actually this stupid?

6/1/2007 11:07:23 AM

Ok, I'm not going to call you a liar since I have no means of determining your listening habits other than by observation of your typing, so I retract my observation that you're a Rush Limbaugh listener.

A third time just because people disagree with you, doesn't meant they're trolling but if it makes you happy, by all means, take a ride on the trollercoaster.

Either way man, getting upset on an internet forum is extremely bad form, roll one and come back when you're not so angry.

6/1/2007 11:18:04 AM

i could care less if people disagree with me or troll me, or do both...i only get angry when i say the same thing forever...get shitted on for saying it early...and get called some political mouthpiece when the truth comes out

my point is (i'll try this again), when issues come out...and i form my opinions...and argue them to deaf ears...and my views get called stupidity and trolling over and over again...

...but in the end it turns out i am right...i simply come into a thread like this and say "i told you so" which is fine for me as far as making up for the dozens of posts calling me an idiot and a troll based on my previous opinions, which turned out to be right...i get shit for that too? nah fuck that...i got shit early on when nobody else knew what the fuck they were talking about...not now too

over a year ago i said the dems were using sheehan and would abandon her once her purpose was filled...i got shit on for saying that...turns out i was right all along...then you have the nerve to completely dumb it down to some "you're repeating what you heard on limbaugh"...why wouldnt i get upset?

6/1/2007 11:21:22 AM

I've got better things to do with my day, so I'm going to do them, but come back to me with examples of when you were right and everyone else was wrong. In the case of this thread you yourself said it would take years to determine if you were right or wrong, you're self-satisfying assumption that you'll be proven right doesn't make it so. Yet.

Like I said, if you can prove to me where you've been consistently legitimately trolled for being demonstrably right, I'll retract what I said. When I say consistently, I mean consistently, not just onesies and twosies.

6/1/2007 11:25:29 AM

Quote :

"In the case of this thread you yourself said it would take years to determine if you were right or wrong"

about the war being needed or not...not about how dems used then left sheehan...holy shit relevant context is not your strong point is it

6/1/2007 11:31:29 AM

Yeah, Democrats never adopted/used Cindy Sheehan. Keep telling yourself that bullshit.

That is, UNTIL Sheehan started criticizing Democrats. Then, they had no more use for her (video is of Sheehan and other protesters shouting down House Democrats).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hm8Vy1hLEvQ

(Please embed.)

If there's an ideologue in this exchange, it's obviously you, JCASHFAN. As I have posted numerous times and as you and many others here have continually ignored, I am "unaffiliated," and I have NEVER voted a straight party ticket in my life--I've been voting since the '80s.

I consider your low ranking of me to be a badge of honor. I wear it proudly--piss off.

6/1/2007 11:56:55 AM

I didn't affiliate you, I just said your arguments were weak. This is a perfect example, photo-ops are not wholesale endorsements of policy. Dur. Not to mention that, other than Nanci Pelosi, pretty much everyone she was photographed with is pretty far to the left of the Democratic party. Weaksauce man. Bring something real to the table.

I'm not quite sure how you've made me out to be an idealouge, most of my opinions are pretty well thought out and based on observation not blind allegiance to anything.

6/1/2007 1:10:32 PM

^

Quote :

"Not to mention that, other than Nanci Pelosi, pretty much everyone she was photographed with is pretty far to the left of the Democratic party."

But they're all Democrats, yes? BTW, posting "weak sauce" is the new weak sauce.

6/1/2007 1:16:34 PM

and 40 is the new 30.

6/2/2007 2:49:28 AM

Quote :

"I'm not quite sure how you've made me out to be an ideologue..."

because you disagree with him.

welcome to hooksawland.

6/2/2007 2:53:07 AM

True. I let his last post stand on its own, he reiterated my own points and then insulted himself. *shrug*

6/2/2007 7:33:25 AM

Now people are saying the democrats had Bush by the throat. But at the time, the longer it drew out with both sides saying “the other side won’t support/fund our troops”, the more everyone was getting tired with the whole body politic.

It was the kind of competition that could have no winners, only losers. In the end the democrats settled for getting something done in the domestic spending department, because it’s something they could achieve now, and the republicans were going to have to swallow any war funding bill that didn’t include deadlines/timetables regardless of how much it helped democratic goals otherwise.

The democrats won domestic spending; the republican won a little more war. But an unpopular war that’s not really included in the regular budget, that will always require more emergency spending bills, is one the democrats will get a chance to go up against again.

6/2/2007 9:38:48 AM

PRESIDENT BARTLETT STANDS FIRMLY BEHIND CINDY SHEEHAN.

6/2/2007 2:45:38 PM

in addition to the reality of not being able to "cut and run" or be perceived as cutting of support for the troops, here's another reality most Congressional Dems understand:

(1) even though they took both houses of Congress, they only control the Senate by a very slim majority.

(2) the sweep in the House was closer than it might seem. many of the individual races that Democrats won over incumbent Republicans were close races. a lot of these races could be attributed to the so-called independent-minded voters. voters who, in other circumstances, might vote Republican.

so the Democratic victory of 2006 was on one hand a mandate for change and clear rebuke of GWB's leadership, but it's also was a caution to be careful in not speeding recklessly towards another extreme.

Cindy Sheehan is a tragic figure. most people can sympathize with her personally, to some extent -- but she really is kind of a liability for serious political players. she was influential only in that she was a focal point for a large group of people who are unhappy about the war. but she really has no political awareness. shes driven by a mother's grief. and allowed herself to be used by extremists who wanted financial access to the disaffected base of people the press liked to claim she "represented".

which is why you didn't see many successful mainstream congressional democrats or democratic nominees taking up her cause. politically speaking she was a loose cannon.

Hence the photo ops with the likes of Al Sharpton and Martin Sheen and other lesser-known entertainers. Totally meaningless, of course.






[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 5:38:13 PM

^

Quote :

"Hence the photo ops with the likes of Al Sharpton and Martin Sheen and other lesser-known entertainers. Totally meaningless, of course."

joe_schmoe

But it's not totally meaningless. The Democrats used/accepted Sheehan until she started attacking them for not fulfilling their alleged mandate. Once Sheehan tried to hold the Democrats accountable--as you often like to post, schmoe--they "threw her under the bus."

Quote :

"and 40 is the new 30. "

joe_schmoe

BTW, that post's dangerously close to an ad hom!

6/3/2007 2:46:00 AM

Quote :

"The Democrats used/accepted Sheehan until she started attacking them for not fulfilling their alleged mandate. Once Sheehan tried to hold the Democrats accountable--as you often like to post, schmoe--they "threw her under the bus.""

Sheehan was solely an anti-war advocate. she was not representative of the Democratic party, or of democrats in general. I think most democrats sympathized with her. I certainly sympathized with her. And I still do.

but so what? some Democratic Leaders and operatives "used" her as much as they "used" the anti-war movement people in general. But neither she nor they represent the Democratic Party as democrats.

so im failing to see what your point is. you're trying to gloat about something, and i'm missing what the importance is here.

Sheehan was a loose cannon, politically speaking. I'm surprised she lasted as long as she did. I still feel sorry for her. But i don't see how this affects Congressional Democrats or the average democrat in the street in one way or another. or how its indicative of Democrats in any general way.

Quote :

"But it's not totally meaningless."

but it *IS* meaningless. Al Sharpton and Martin Sheen are extremists, to the point of being completely irrelevant. Actually, Sharpton is more entertaining than Sheen ever was. and probably smarter too. I like to listen to Sharpton occasionally, but more for comic relief than substantial policy analysis. Martin Sheen, as far as Im concerned, can go eat a bowl of dicks.

At any rate, they're fucking out in left field. the only people who pay attention to them are Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. and who the fuck are the other people??? besides Clarke (the floundering and cash-poor presidential candidate) and Rangel (the eternal antagonizer of Republicans near and far)

not only are they meaningless, they're also completely out of context. as if any of those pictures represent the Democratic Part or an unqualified endorsement of Cindy Sheehan.

so all we got is a big fucking red herring from hooksaw. wow. whodathunkit.






[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 5:41 AM. Reason : ]

6/3/2007 5:28:28 AM

^ You usually fail to see the point--or claim you do--but that doesn't mean there is no point. Ignoring the facts does not mean that those facts cease to exist.

6/3/2007 11:56:04 PM

what was your point again? i dont think i got beyond this part:

"Democrats used Sheehan until she started attacking them"

which Democrats, please?

Martin Sheen? Al Sharpton? Star Jones?

okay... sorry if i remain underwhelmed.

6/4/2007 12:22:17 AM

^^ You're building up the importance of Sheehan in order to make your attack on her seem more meaningful (there's a term for this...).

No matter how you cut it, Sheehan faded from the limelight pretty quickly, and hasn't been relevant for a good long while. Her failure has practically no bearing on the democrats or republicans.

Joe_schmoe's analysis of her situation is much closer to reality than yours.

6/4/2007 12:30:52 AM

^ WOW! Shocker! You agree with joe_schmoe instead of me--hell's bells.

You two and others may not think that Martin Sheen and others matter to the Democrats, but you're ignoring the evidence.

The Democrat Party in Ohio thinks Sheen matters:

Quote :

"On 10 April 2006, the New York Times reported that members of the Democratic Party in Ohio had contacted Sheen, attempting to persuade him to run for the U.S. Senate in Ohio. Sheen declined the offer, stating that 'I'm just not qualified,' he said. 'You're mistaking celebrity for credibility.'"

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/globaltribe/voices/voi_sheen.html

PBS--a liberal nest if there ever was one--thinks Sheen matters (note well they aren't talking about his acting):

Quote :

"In a recent interview, I spoke with Martin Sheen about poverty, his faith, and his social activism. - Amy Eldon"

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/globaltribe/voices/voi_sheen.html

Howard Dean thought that Sheen mattered:

Fictional President Bartlett Stumps to Help Make Dean a Real One
by John Nichols

Quote :

"CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - President Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet's name cannot be found on the list of candidates contending on Monday for votes at Iowa's first-in-the-nation Democratic presidential caucuses. But he is the star of this campaign season."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-07.htm

Harry Reid thought that Sheen mattered:

Quote :

"In 2005, just before we started filming the last season of 'The West Wing,' I passed along an urgent phone message to our star, Martin Sheen. I told him that Harry Reid, then the Senate minority leader, wanted to talk to him about something very important. (You know it's very important when a senator leaves his cellphone number.) Martin later told me that the Democrat all but begged him to run for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, Martin's home state."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801648.html

Some of you folks continually underestimate the power of these celebrities--even if it's only power of the moment--and their connections to people and organizations. After all, what specific education and experience did Arnold Schwarzenegger have that qualified him to be governor of California, the most populous state in America?

BTW, are you really saying former Democrat presidential candidate Al Sharpton has no influence? Would you like to rethink that position? Just ask Don Imus where his $10 million-a-year job went.

6/4/2007 2:11:47 AM

^ You would save yourself a lot of time if you didn't build all those strawmen.

You said:

Quote :

""The Democrats used/accepted Sheehan until she started attacking them for not fulfilling their alleged mandate. Once Sheehan tried to hold the Democrats accountable--as you often like to post, schmoe--they "threw her under the bus."""

Then went on to claim that her photo ops with "the likes of Al Sharpton and Martin Sheen and other lesser-known entertainers" are proof of her great influence within the democratic party.

I said:

Quote :

"You're building up the importance of Sheehan in order to make your attack on her seem more meaningful (there's a term for this...). "

Then, for some reason, you tried to support your position by continuing to imply that somehow Martin Sheen is a leading figure in the democratic party. The West Wing has been off the air for a while, and Sheen has faded with it. That is why he was so popular.

The fact is that Sheen is not a significant political player, PBS is not a widely viewed (sadly) news source, and Cindy Sheehan didn't progress beyond her 15 minutes (as her recent announcement indicates).

And Imus wasn't fired for the comments he made, he was fired because advertisers pulled ads. If you remember, his bosses said they weren't going to fire him, advertisers pulled ads, THEN he was fired. Sharpton's only role was calling attention to his gaffe, and if he didn't do it, someone else would have. But please, don't let reality get in your way.

Quote :

"After all, what specific education and experience did Arnold Schwarzenegger have that qualified him to be governor of California, the most populous state in America? "

Our political system doesn't require elected officials to have and formal education OR experience (it was hoped for common people to be elected in fact). Arnold might not be doing the best job, but he's certainly at least an average governor. So at the least, he's as qualified as anyone else to be a governor.

6/4/2007 2:57:20 AM

^ Wrong.

6/4/2007 3:05:29 AM

Quote :

"She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life.""

surprise surprise

6/4/2007 10:19:20 AM