Someone else 'using' their dead son

[rushmc 18]

Well, one of these "wacko's", pulled a cross bearing the name of his son, from the group of crosses Cindy Sheehan and here group had set up. He said he did this (he started the Fort Qualls your post talks about) because Cindy says she speaks for all mothers and fathers that have lost children in this war. He says she does not speak for me.

She doesn't speak for many families at all .........

BTW, I have yet to condem Sheehan. I have said she is a pawn being used buy the media and the wackos.

What is the matter billvon, don't believe in free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Everon 0]

But, then again, does this imply she's not going to use the money solely for her's and all the other's cause?

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117927790?categoryid=14&cs=1&s=h&p=0


<------(Rolls over and goes back to sleep.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, maybe they had a right to do it. I don’t know. However, I dare say that the Vietnam Memorial is sanctioned by the majority whereas Sheehan’s left-wing fringe movement is not.

RIGHTS are independent of public or government opinion. This isn't China, right?

I laughed pretty hard with the remark that I had the
'narrow and partisan' viewpoint. I'm not the one that is upset and thinks someone is abusing RIGHTS because the viewpoint doesn't agree with mine.

So let's hear all the examples of people abusing their 1st Amendment rights. The only one I can think of that comes close is intrusive media types not allowing people their privacy. Those guys aren't making a political statement, they're just trying to score a scoop.

If you think displaying the names of American's killed in Iraq is wrong, I'd hate to imagine what else shouldn't be done. With people's lives in the balance, we should be having nothing but fully open debate.

[billvon 2,433]

>I have to agree with Rehm because people in this country abuse
>these "rights" and don't so much as look as them as rights but as
> entitlements. Common courtesy has gone out the door in this country.

They are entitlements; we are entitled to them. The minute you start looking at them as gifts from the government, you will begin to lose them.

People should be courteous to one another. But what people should do and what you have a right to do are two completely different things. It's like the difference between "you should be careful" and outlawing skydiving.

[billvon 2,433]

>He said he did this (he started the Fort Qualls your post talks about)
> because Cindy says she speaks for all mothers and fathers that
> have lost children in this war.

And Sheehan has said she is doing this to try to save the children not yet dead, which is about as noble. Not suprisingly, you defend one but not the other. Ah well.

>What is the matter billvon, don't believe in free speech . . . .

I think everyone should have the right to say whatever they want - whether it's this guy or Cindy Sheehan. If it offends you, don't listen.

[Everon 0]

I think if I were a father and I had lost my son in a war that is illegal, I'd be in Sheehan's camp. Should be "god bless our murderer!"

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

It would bother me greatly, but it's still well within their right to do so. How ridiculous would it be to demand that war protesters listing the fallen ask each soldier's family for a blessing to do so?

I don't know if they have a *right* to use a soldier's name without permission from his family. I believe they should have gotten an OK from the family of each of the soldiers whose names they wanted to use, and should take down a name if requested by the family to do so. I believe the father was well within his rights to take down his son's name and demand it not be used.

That said, I think driving one's truck over another's lawful protest, no matter how much one disagrees with that particular protest, is a bad move.

I think she would have gained more support for her cause had she shown the same sympathy for this father as she hopes the rest of the nation will show to her. If she's going to use the fact that she lost her son as a tool to affect people's emotional response to our involvement in Iraq, her being sympathetic to another parent's loss would have been appropriate.

As far as rights go....I hope that the extent of our behaviors is not limited only by the boundaries dictated by our legal system and the Constitution.
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[wmw999 2,148]

Good post. Just the whole thing. I really sympathize with the family of a soldier whose name was just picked out of a hat apparently (if CS really didn't get permission from anyone). I also really sympathize with CS.

There aren't any winners here, are there? Just sad, devastated people.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Good post. Just the whole thing. I really sympathize with the family of a soldier whose name was just picked out of a hat apparently (if CS really didn't get permission from anyone). I also really sympathize with CS.

There aren't any winners here, are there? Just sad, devastated people.

I think that's my take on the whole thing, as well. It seems that while both sides have a genuine message they want to put forth, there is too much extra baggage for either message to have any weight. Rather than create a worthwhile dialog or debate on the topic, I think the end result here has been most people simply getting tired of it and turning off the TV.

[wmw999 2,148]

Quote

I think the end result ...turning off the TV.

There's a bright side to everything, isn't there

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,433]

>I think she would have gained more support for her cause had she
> shown the same sympathy for this father as she hopes the rest of
> the nation will show to her.

A picture of the two of them at their first meeting is attached.

>her being sympathetic to another parent's loss would have been appropriate.

Agreed. I think it was.

[rushmc 18]

I haven't got a clue where you are coming from. You say I condem her, I haven't, so, when I point that out you change the perspective (I think). The others that are down there are saying to the "noble" Ms Sheehan that "You do not speak for us".

Seems to me you are the one with the double standard.

Buy the way, there are now 13 other parents that have come forward and requested the the Crowford county sherif check to see if she (Ms Sheehan) has any crosses with thier sons names on them. If they do they have asked that they be removed from here display. (I do not know the legality of this from any point)

She can be down there for all I care. The only point I was trying to make in my earlier posts that she is being used and that because the other parents do not support the medias agend they are not reported on.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>I think she would have gained more support for her cause had she
> shown the same sympathy for this father as she hopes the rest of
> the nation will show to her.

A picture of the two of them at their first meeting is attached.

>her being sympathetic to another parent's loss would have been appropriate.

Agreed. I think it was.

I hope that you're right, but being photographed hugging doesn't tell a very reliable story. While I have been opposed to our occupation of Iraq since the beginning, I would not be pleased if she were to use my brother's (who is serving in Iraq now) name on one of her crosses unless she had the blessing of my family. I think the names that she uses would also mean a lot more if she asked for families to contact her who supported her cause and were willing to have their child's, or brother's, or sister's name on a cross. But to so boldly use other people's children in that manner impresses me in a very negative way.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,433]

>You say I condem her, I haven't . . .

I do not claim you condemn her. However, you've been quite vocal about not taking her seriously. You have called her shrill and insignificant, while defending the actions of this guy.

>Seems to me you are the one with the double standard.

Right! Because I think they should both be entitled to say whatever they want.

>She can be down there for all I care. The only point I was trying to
> make in my earlier posts that she is being used and that because
> the other parents do not support the medias agend they are not
> reported on.

You must not have looked at the news over the weekend then. His story was front page on CNN, MSNBC and ABC - Sheehan's story was nowhere to be seen (other than as a mention in Quall's story.) Apparently the right wing is now using Qualls just as heavily, and the media is using them to further their pro-war agenda.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The media was trumpeting this story over the weekend:
---------------------

To use the right-wingers logic on this, apparently a man is using his dead son to support some activist's radical right-wing agenda, and apparently is willing to see his whole family killed to support his politics. Remhwa? Pajarito? Dorbie? Rushmc? Waiting on your condemnation of this sick wacko.

I'm pretty in touch with the news and this is the first I've heard of it. Meanwhile, I heard no fewer than three stories today about Cindy Sheehan.

So, no, the press isn't trumpeting this.

Understand this, this guy isn't a tool of the media to advance an agenda. Nor is he demanding an audience with the President, or smearing his son's service the way Sheehan is.

If you can't see the difference between the two behaviors, then, well...I don't know what to tell you. I'll think of something after dinner.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,433]

>this guy isn't a tool of the media to advance an agenda.

No, he is a tool of the right wing. The media is just doing their usual job of reporting whatever people want to read.

>Nor is he demanding an audience with the President, or smearing
>his son's service the way Sheehan is.

Cindy Sheehan is not willing to see her whole family killed to make a political point, as he is. Who is the more extreme?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>You say I condem her, I haven't . . .

I do not claim you condemn her. However, you've been quite vocal about not taking her seriously. You have called her shrill and insignificant, while defending the actions of this guy.

>Seems to me you are the one with the double standard.

Right! Because I think they should both be entitled to say whatever they want.

>She can be down there for all I care. The only point I was trying to
> make in my earlier posts that she is being used and that because
> the other parents do not support the medias agend they are not
> reported on.

You must not have looked at the news over the weekend then. His story was front page on CNN, MSNBC and ABC - Sheehan's story was nowhere to be seen (other than as a mention in Quall's story.) Apparently the right wing is now using Qualls just as heavily, and the media is using them to further their pro-war agenda.

I have been quite consistant about how I feel about people in debates using names.

You are right, I did not see the news this weekend.....I was jumping!!
I too think she can say what ever she wants too but, the argument was she should be left along because she lost her son. So have many others and it is quite clear she is in the very small minority.

I do not take her seriously. Neither doesn anyone in politics that have been preaching the same hate dripping, lying BS as she. I make that assumtion because I have not seen any big namers down there supporting her cause. Not even Dean or the Rev Jackson

As for Quall's story, does one or two days match the coverage Sheehan has gotten???


billvon, this one isn't even close

Oh, and by the way, I haven't defended Quall either, I just posted what I have heard about what has happened down there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>this guy isn't a tool of the media to advance an agenda.

No, he is a tool of the right wing. The media is just doing their usual job of reporting whatever people want to read.

>Nor is he demanding an audience with the President, or smearing
>his son's service the way Sheehan is.

Cindy Sheehan is not willing to see her whole family killed to make a political point, as he is. Who's the more wacko, again?

I can hear but I can't see the black helicopters

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,433]

>I too think she can say what ever she wants too but, the argument
> was she should be left along because she lost her son.

She should not be left alone because she lost her son. She should also not be attacked because she lost her son. If her message offends you, ignore it.

>I do not take her seriously.

You must take her sort of seriously; you've posted a dozen times on the topic and started a thread that demonstrates your disdain for what she is doing.

>Neither doesn anyone in politics that have been preaching the same
> hate dripping, lying BS as she. I make that assumtion because I
> have not seen any big namers down there supporting her cause. Not
> even Dean or the Rev Jackson

You are going to tell me that you don't take her seriously because Jesse Jackson isn't there? Dude, if he was, you'd use THAT as a reason not to take her seriously!

I think you're trying your best to trivialize her message by claiming she's a hate-filled liar, as a lot of right wingers are - because the message is both powerful and dangerous. It's spawned over a thousand parallel protests across the US, and it's starting to resonate. Republicans are starting to compare Iraq to Vietnam. The mayor of Salt Lake City called for an anti-war protest during Bush's speech. Most americans now agree with her that the war is going badly, that it has made americans less safe, and that it was a mistake to send US troops to Iraq.

As a suggestion - it might be better at this point to start arguing about what she's saying, rather than going after her personally. I think republicans are in danger of looking like they are deathly scared of this woman, especially if the best they can do are personal attacks.

>Oh, and by the way, I haven't defended Quall either, I just posted
>what I have heard about was has happened down there.

Hmm. Yet you defended his words. "He says she does not speak for me. She doesn't speak for many families at all ......... "

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

You must not have looked at the news over the weekend then. His story was front page on CNN, MSNBC and ABC - Sheehan's story was nowhere to be seen (other than as a mention in Quall's story.) Apparently the right wing is now using Qualls just as heavily, and the media is using them to further their pro-war agenda.

Sure, CNN, MSNBC, and ABC might cover his story, but how do they portray him? Do they imply that he has the same rights as Mrs. Sheehan, or do they portray him as a trouble-maker for that poor mother, Mrs. Sheehan? Their bias isn't so much in WHAT or WHO they cover as it is in their portrayal of who they cover.

(It's funny how media-bias is in the eyes of the beholder-- to "left-wingers" the media has a bias to the right... Whereas, the right-wingers, well, we see it correctly. )

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sure, CNN, MSNBC, and ABC might cover his story, but how do they portray him? Do they imply that he has the same rights as Mrs. Sheehan, or do they portray him as a trouble-maker for that poor mother, Mrs. Sheehan? Their bias isn't so much in WHAT or WHO they cover as it is in their portrayal of who they cover.

So how did they protray him? Are you leaping to conclusions, or did you watch em?

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

It seems that while both sides have a genuine message they want to put forth, there is too much extra baggage for either message to have any weight.

Their 'baggage' is what lends their arguments credibility, unfortunately. Had they not lost a member of their own families, their protesting would not have been from a position of authority on the subject of loss for country.

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

In Reply To
Sure, CNN, MSNBC, and ABC might cover his story, but how do they portray him? Do they imply that he has the same rights as Mrs. Sheehan, or do they portray him as a trouble-maker for that poor mother, Mrs. Sheehan? Their bias isn't so much in WHAT or WHO they cover as it is in their portrayal of who they cover.

So how did they protray him? Are you leaping to conclusions, or did you watch em?

I must confess, in this instance I am jumping to conclusions... but with many previous instances in mind. Just because ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC does a report on this man's counter-protest does NOT mean that their coverage of him is not cast in a negative light. On the contrary, I will bet dollars to donuts that they made him look either mean or insensitive to the poor grieving (but bitter and profane) mother, either by implication or by showing video footage of some weird off the wall thing he said or did. If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it. Really.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[rushmc 18]

You know, my original post was more about the media than her.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln