Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[ThAnswr]

I so dare. She's not grieiving; she protesting based on her politics. No free pass.

Anyone who believes or condones the "no blood for oil" nonsense is insulting our nation and all the troops serving in Iraq. Her behavior is shameful.

Some more indication of the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted".

 

[Tigger_Magic]

So using your form of logic, freedom of religion is just an opinion, or the right to bear arms is just an opinion?

LOL!

Sorry... it's just the picture of "logic" and SCOTUS together just made me bust out laughing. Sort of the ultimate oxymoron.

Unfortunately, given the way SCOTUS may occasionally operate, I sometimes do fear that some freedoms we used to accept as givens may indeed just be opinions after all. I guess that makes me one of those neo-con red state judicial activism hating fear-mongers.

 

[cardaway]

Finally, someone on the other side that will admit the truth - President Bush NEVER said that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Got to love the outs these guys give their fans. Bounce around the subject for an hour, all but winking at the audience, while giving a speach that would make Kevin Nealon's 'Subliminal Man' proud.

And it's amazing what some people will cling to. LOL

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I am not saying that the right of a free press is being thwarted, only stating that I appreciate it in keeping checks on the government. That's all. No paranoia from me, my friend. Only a healthy suspicion of those who we elect to higher office.

Well, my friend, on this point we wholeheartedly agree. I may complain from time to time about the various agendas the media may pursue, but I believe that a free press (media) is an absolute essential check/balance on politicians and even non-elected officials like judges. No one, no matter who they are or what position they hold, gets a free pass from healthy scrutiny.

 

[wvrevy]

LOL!

Sorry... it's just the picture of "logic" and SCOTUS together just made me bust out laughing. Sort of the ultimate oxymoron.

Unfortunately, given the way SCOTUS may occasionally operate, I sometimes do fear that some freedoms we used to accept as givens may indeed just be opinions after all. I guess that makes me one of those neo-con red state judicial activism hating fear-mongers.

No...It just makes you uninformed. The Court's job is to interpret law in relation to the constitution. Just because the right wing doesn't like some of the interpretations, they claim that the court is somehow overstepping their authority.

It's really amazing that a group of people that claim to hold the constitution in such revered esteem know so little about it.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Some more indication of the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted".

First, this is a misuse of this verse; you might want to study the context and theology before throwing it out as a debate point.

If Ms. Sheehan were truly mourning her loss, I would join her and offer my condolences. But sadly, that is a far cry from what she is doing in TX. Her's is nothing more than a political protest.

 

[BuckNaked]

Got to love the outs these guys give their fans. Bounce around the subject for an hour, all but winking at the audience, while giving a speach that would make Kevin Nealon's 'Subliminal Man' proud.

And it's amazing what some people will cling to. LOL

I'm not clinging to anything - he gave a number of speeches over the past 4 years saying that we needed to do whatever was necessary to prevent another 9/11. That included invading Iraq to get rid of the MWD that the intelligence agencies of both the U.S. and Britain said were there. How anyone with an ounce of common sense could take that and say "The President said that Iraq was behind 9/11" is beyond me. But then again, look at the number of Bush opponents that claim he said that Iraq was behind 9/11...guess that answers my question re: common sense.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

No...It just makes you uninformed. The Court's job is to interpret law in relation to the constitution. Just because the right wing doesn't like some of the interpretations, they claim that the court is somehow overstepping their authority.

It's really amazing that a group of people that claim to hold the constitution in such revered esteem know so little about it.

Like most Americans, I know full well what SCOTUS constitutionally defined role is. That I choose to ascribe judicial activism to some of their opinions is my right as an American; just as it is anyone else's right to agree/disagree with their rulings. The nine justices that comprise SCOTUS are not gods and are not the ultimate embodiment of all knowledge and wisdom. But feel free to elevate them to whatever status your heart desires.

 

[ThAnswr]

First, this is a misuse of this verse; you might want to study the context and theology before throwing it out as a debate point.

If Ms. Sheehan were truly mourning her loss, I would join her and offer my condolences. But sadly, that is a far cry from what she is doing in TX. Her's is nothing more than a political protest.

First off.........have you retracted post #325 where you apologized to the CB for thowing this thread OT? Good bit of theatrics.......LOL.

Second, who are you to decide how someone should mourn?

Third, a little advice. Sliming mothers who's children were killed fighting in Iraq is very bad public relations especially when it only comes from those your side of the poliltical aisle. I've seen this before when people on your side of the aisle slimed the families of the victims of 9/11 and called them "professional widows" because they dared ask questions of this administration and just wouldn't go away. Would like to open that chapter again.

What goes on here doesn't stay here. It's read by thousands who read where a grieving mother is slimed and walk away shaking their heads wondering just what kind of decency and family values those on your side of the aisle really have.

 

[escape]

This article basically sums up my feelings on whether Bush implied there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11. I'm guessing many others feel the same way.

It Depends What the Meaning of "Relationship" Is


ThAnswr....I'll be ready for that drink and popcorn later. I have a business meeting to attend for now. Adios!

 

[cardaway]

I'm not clinging to anything - he gave a number of speeches over the past 4 years saying that we needed to do whatever was necessary to prevent another 9/11. That included invading Iraq to get rid of the MWD that the intelligence agencies of both the U.S. and Britain said were there. How anyone with an ounce of common sense could take that and say "The President said that Iraq was behind 9/11" is beyond me. But then again, look at the number of Bush opponents that claim he said that Iraq was behind 9/11...guess that answers my question re: common sense.

It's clinging to it when it's quit eobvious what the intent of those speaches was.

Want to break a lie detector for good... put W. on one and ask him if the intent of his speach was to connect Iraq and 9/11. Like you did, he'll say he never said that directly, and the machine will blow. Just like most of the American public, those machines can get past the carefully chosen words and look at the big picture.

Not as bad as coming on TV and saying he has no memory of the event, but close.

 

[Teejay32]

Yada, yada,yada..........I've heard all the excuses "is he responsible for what people believe", "people heard what they wanted to hear", etc. Yes, people heard what the administration wanted them to by carefully words, and yes, Bush is reponsible for what people believe. He never corrected the falsehood, but used it for his own political purpose.

Even if so, (which I doubt) there are other examples in play...say anything about Saddam's involvement in terrorism and someone from the left will point out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, so therefore Bush lied again and terrorism wasn't an issue. For what purpose except politics do people do this?

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Okay, I am new to the boards, so please don't tear me apart!!!

My only thought about this, and other people posted about why should she be able to meet with President Bush, why should the President waste his time meeting with war protestors, and not everyone can meet with the President. If that is the case/argument, then President Bush should not during his State of the Union addresses have parents of fallen soldiers in the audience who he singles out while saying that they represent why the war is so needed, why we must "stay the course". He also should not then meet with parents/spouses/siblings of other fallen soldiers who support him and the war and have photos taken, interviews given, etc. If he is going to meet with one side then the only fair thing would be to meet with the other side.

I truly do not understand how people want to take a mother's grief over the loss of her son and say that she must have some other agenda. Of course she has another agenda, she wants to get honest answers about why her son died. She has stated that when she first met with the President that all of the reports about there not being any WMD's found, etc. were not out yet, so why would she question him at that time? And regardless of whether you feel she is some left wing activist who is just trying to bring down President Bush, she still has lost a son and I believe deserves some respect for that.

[I'm not RIpping on you - just making a sort of joking point here] But, unlike most other presidents, nealy all of Bush's speech's have been for exclusive pro-Bush audiences, instead of the general public anyhow. Does anyone really think he'll start discussing this issue with the other side now, when his rating are dropping? (I'm only asking rhetorically)

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Second, who are you to decide how someone should mourn?

I'm not telling anyone how to mourn. I am drawing a clear distinction between mourning and political protest. It's sad you choose not to see the difference.

Third, a little advice. Sliming mothers who's children were killed fighting in Iraq is very bad public relations especially when it only comes from those your side of the poliltical aisle. I've seen this before when people on your side of the aisle slimed the families of the victims of 9/11 and called them "professional widows" because they dared ask questions of this administration and just wouldn't go away. Would like to open that chapter again.

So when you "slimed" all the Americans who died in Iraq by saying their sacrifice was "wasted", that is OK? In some circles that would be considered a double standard.

What goes on here doesn't stay here. It's read by thousands who read where a grieving mother is slimed and walk away shaking their heads wondering just what kind of decency and family values those on your side of the aisle really have.

You are right and when you slimed every American who died in Iraq by calling their sacrifice a waste, it shows the level of decency and family values those on your side of the aisle really have. Pot... kettle...

 

[ThAnswr]

I will after you step down from your self-appointed moderator pedestal.

You really do have problems with simple questions that only require a yes or no answer.

I'm not telling anyone how to mourn. I am drawing a clear distinction between mourning and political protest. It's sad you choose not to see the difference.

You just don't like the idea she's not waving the flag for Bush which doesn't for one second change the fact that she's a grieving mother who lost a son in Iraq.

So when you "slimed" all the Americans who died in Iraq by saying their sacrifice was "wasted", that is OK?

You can pontificate about this canard all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are only telling half the truth, are taking the statement waaay out of context, and anyone who wants to can go back a look at the truth.

But, to save the lurkers a little time, let me restate what I said:

If Iraq ends up with a Shiite religious theocracy, allied with Iran, yes the deaths and maiming of American soldiers will have been wasted.

I will stand by that statement.

Now, will you stand by your statement that if the US imposes basic human rights on the Iraqis, we're no better than Saddam Hussein? Yes or no? Btw, in some circles this would be considered lunacy.

I realize I've been down this charming "yes or no" path with you, but hope springs eternal.

In some circles that would be considered a double standard.

In some circles, taking my post out of context to give a whole new meaning to suit yourself would be considered lying.

Since I've already restated what I actually wrote and in what context, I'll let the peanut gallery decide this one.

You are right and when you slimed every American who died in Iraq by calling their sacrifice a waste, it shows the level of decency and family values those on your side of the aisle really have. Pot... kettle...

Rolling eyes, indeed.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

First, this is a misuse of this verse; you might want to study the context and theology before throwing it out as a debate point.

If Ms. Sheehan were truly mourning her loss, I would join her and offer my condolences. But sadly, that is a far cry from what she is doing in TX. Her's is nothing more than a political protest.

Exactly!

Look at the crowd she now assocciates with as she protests.

http://www.nysun.com/article/18436

 

[lyeag]

Exactly!

Look at the crowd she now assocciates with as she protests.

http://www.nysun.com/article/18436

This what I was gently referring to yesterday when I said she wasn't doing herself anygood.

 

[cardaway]

I heard that woman on the radio this week. I'm sorry for her loss, I and agree with some of her position, but I heard her on the radio. This stopped being about her loss the same day she took a phone call from a DJ in Seattle WA.

She's doing more harm than good at this point.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Look at the crowd she now assocciates with as she protests.

http://www.nysun.com/article/18436

I don't think that the people she associates with in any way denigrates her. This is her choice and I would respect that. What I disagree with is labeling what she is doing as "mourning."

This what I was gently referring to yesterday when I said she wasn't doing herself anygood.

Some may not feel she is doing herself any good, but she obviously feels she has a purpose for protesting. More power to her. She's free to legally do whatever she wants. I simply believe it is sad that she chooses to turn her grief into bitterness when there are more constructive ways to deal with it. But this is her right as an American.

 

[ThAnswr]

Exactly!

Look at the crowd she now assocciates with as she protests.

http://www.nysun.com/article/18436

No matter what you think of this woman's politics, she is still a mother who's son was killed in Iraq.

You think you have the right to throw bricks at her because you don't like her politics.

I don't care what side of the political aisle you come from, when someone loses a child during wartime, I don't throw bricks. I say there but for the grace of God go you or I.

Whether you're in favor of this war or not, there comes a point in the middle of the night when you see your dead child's face and then it becomes a slideshow: the day you brought them home from the hospital, the day they took their first steps, their first bicycle, their first day of school.

And then the realization sets in, you'll never see them again. There will always be an empty chair at the dinner table and a hole in your heart that will never heal.

Think about that when you throw bricks at Cindy Sheehan because of her politics.

There but for the grace of God go you or I. End of story.