Discussion in 'Current Events' started by CSM, May 29, 2007.
The "face of the anti-war movement" calls it quits yesterday and no one comments? Wassup wid dat?
What'd she quit?
LOL...being the face of the anti-war movement I guess:
She can't quit being a loser though. She claims she's going home to be "normal?" Just going home won't accomplish that, and after 3+ years of ignoring them, suddenly she wants to be "Mom" to her kids again?
What a piece of work.
Hey she took a principled stand at great personal expense. She got up off her ass, turned off the computer and did something real.
It didn't work. It didn't change the world. It ran her face smack dab into the realiity that when it comes to putting politics above Governance the Dems are every bit the lying scoundrels that the Republicans are.
I think Cindy is now emblematic of a true watershed. The Dems fucked up and to a giant extent by caving on the way the supplemental funding was granted.
I don't think the Dems will ever recover. And if they were the first thing they would have to do is stop the funding in Sept. And the odds that they will are slim and almost none.
I really have to wonder if the dems are paid to take a fall or actually trying to lose.
I mean our national politics is becoming so vacant of legitimacy anymore it is begining to look more like the WWF than a democratic government.
I still don't know what to think of her. Sometimes I think she used her son, perhaps on an unconcious level, for selfish reasons. Does anyone believe she would have been as vocal of her son hadn't died? I think she would have been better received had her protesting been more reasoned.
On a side note and as a fan the WWE as it is now known (it was sued for its abbreviation by, of all groups, the World Wildlife Fund) has long since stopped claiming to be 'real'.
The principle in her stand was well-hidden behind a smokescreen of BS and politicizing the death of a son who didn't live with her, defied her to go into the army, and made his own way.
I have no problem with taking a stand on principle, and I can even respect one I disagree with as long as it is a solid argument. There ARE people who completely oppose war and are entitled to their opinion.
But I have NO respect for the way she went about it, nor some the things she said and/or antics she pulled such as hanging out with Hugo Chavez.
The Democrats aren't done. That funding is a no-brainer "blame it on Bush." Look how many threads popped up on message boards accusing Bush of cutting off funding for the troops because he wouldn't sign the original bill.
Well you are entitled to your opinion as well.
The reason the dems are done has not a damned thing to do with blaming anything on Bush. The war has always been Bush's baby.
The reason the dems are done is because people are separating themselves from the party in record numbers now that we can all see what they think of those whom helped elect them into a majority placement in Congress.
They acquiesced, needlessly, and without an excuse.
They have given merit to labels like spineless, feckless and incompetent. They played games with all of us.
Let's be real. And lets remember some of the few things Ayn Rand brought us that weren't merely justifications for greed and self service.
Principled stands and charity are also acts motivated by selfish motives.
I do this for you because it makes me feel good, or it satisfies my own value system, or morals whatever.
It is still all selfish.
Cindy took a stand on principals and at great personal expense. She made it a crusade, risked much of her self and what she loved motivated by the irreversable loss of her son. Maybe she did feel somewhat responsible for that.
She did a good thing. And she got hacked at from virtually every partisan camp in the nation.
You really don't get Ayn Rand do you? She has nothing to do with selfishness and greed.
She chose to let her son's death motivate her in this fashion, that is why she is so maligned.
Separate names with a comma.