Cindy Sheehan's Approval poll better than Bush's

[New2u]

Cindy Sheehan's approval poll is much better than Bush's. Another bad sign for Georgie boy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083000302.html

Slight Majority Say Bush Should Meet With Sheehan
Survey Suggests Mother's Actions Have Little Impact on War Views

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 30, 2005; 7:00 AM

Slightly more than half of the country says President Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed last year in Iraq, who is leading a protest against the war outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 52 percent of the public says Bush should talk to Sheehan, who has repeatedly asked for a meeting with the president, while 46 percent said he should not. Fifty-three percent support what she is doing while 42 percent oppose her actions, according to the poll.

Photos
Standoff Continues in Crawford
Both the president and Sheehan returned to Crawford on Wednesday to find the protests larger and more organized than when they left.

Sheehan began her protest three weeks ago, four days after Bush began a five-week vacation at his Crawford ranch. She has repeatedly demanded that Bush meet with her to discuss the war. The two met last year at an event for military families, and Bush has repeatedly declined another meeting. Recently Sheehan announced plans to embark on a bus tour after protesters break camp later this week. The bus tour will end in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 24 with a 24-hour vigil.

Like the war and Bush's overall handling of the situation in Iraq, attitudes toward Sheehan divide along sharply partisan lines. Seven in 10 Democrats say they support Sheehan's position on Iraq while an equal proportion of Republicans oppose her.

In the three weeks since she began her protest, Sheehan has quickly become the most visible symbol of the anti-war movement. Fully three in four Americans say they have read or heard about Sheehan and her protest.

The survey also suggests, however, that Sheehan's anti-war vigil has failed to mobilize large numbers of Americans against the war. If anything, her opposition has done as much to drive up support for the war as ignite opponents, the survey found.

Eight in 10 Americans--including overwhelming majorities of Democrats, Republicans and political independents--say Sheehan's protest has had no impact on their attitudes toward Iraq. While one in 10 say she has made them less likely to support the war, the same proportion say she has made them more likely to back the conflict.

A total of 1,006 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone Aug. 25 through 28 for this national survey. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Additional results from this Post-ABC News poll will be available at 5 p.m. today at washingtonpost.com.

[maniactickler]

She will soon fade away into oblivion. shes starting to look like a wacko now. interest in her will pass shortly. the libs will squeeze as much use as they can out of her and toss her to the curb. only so many people can continue listening to a nutty left wing Bush hater for so long.

[milagros317]

For what it's worth, here is my opinion of Cindy Sheehan: She is a foaming-at-the-mouth, fanatic anti-Zionist.

Her rants against Israel have been largely ignored by the mainstream media, but here is a sample, from a letter she wrote to Nightline on March 15, 2005, and later made public:



Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/

She is free to speak her mind, and I am free to speak my mind about her.

[Robace252]

This is just too funny. Of course shes more popular than Bush, with liberals. The Micheal Moore, Daddy Sheen, left-whacko crowd.
Explain to me this, if she is soooooo loved, why has the rest of her own family not supporting her? Her kids, husband (former I think), and reletives are not in support of her. Why?? Because they know shes a nutcase created by the left side and the media. Everything else the left tried to bring down Bush never worked. So they use a "grieveing" mother to do it for them and watch the poll numbers drop...but they will go back up, and what does it matter...its not like he can run again anyways. Youd think if the democrats were serious about getting back into the White House, theyd find another way besides attacking Bush who wont run in 2008 anyways. They lose because they never learn that before elections oh yes the public eats up the drama, but when it comes to voting time voters need to see solutions and plans of action, not critism loaded with hate and loathing and a lot of sour grapes.

Thats my dollar and 2 cents worth.

[mabus]

She thinks we're fighting a nuclear war in Iraq! That says it all. If we were fighting a nuclear war, we'd be done in, like, 3 minutes!

Yes, it's sad that her son died. But that doesn't give her a free pass for all time against criticism. A lot of other mothers and fathers and wives and husbands have lost loved ones in Iraq, and they are proud that their family members died trying to free others.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible mess, but look at the good the US has done so far - Saddam is in custody for Godsakes! His two bastard sons who tortured and killed so many or dead and gone. (I mean, folks, Uday was near the top of the list of suspects for who will become the AntiChrist, I don't think many are mourning his death.) Iraqi citizens are voting on their first constitution in an actual election, not in some shitty, corrupt - vote for Saddam or we'll cut your arm off election. Imagine - an election were the vote won't be 100% for one choice!

[Dr. Vollin]

"I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support [President Bush] and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves," Sheehan said.

"How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it," Sheehan stated. "I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these 'continue the murder and mayhem' moms to see the light."

I don't think any further comment on this woman is necessary; the above quotes speak for themselves. I wonder how anyone who continues to defend her views sleeps at night. And don't come back with "she has the right to speak her mind"; while it's true, that old saw doesn't excuse her bullshit or give her a free pass from criticism. I hope she goes away and soon.

Oh, and New - you don't really care about the poll numbers for a last-term President, do you? If you do, it's kind of sad.

[drew70]

Hey New2u....evidently Cindy Sheehan's beginning to wear out her welcome, at least on this forum! :blaugh:

[New2u]

She will soon fade away into oblivion. shes starting to look like a wacko now. interest in her will pass shortly. the libs will squeeze as much use as they can out of her and toss her to the curb. only so many people can continue listening to a nutty left wing Bush hater for so long.

maniac, your posts have no credibility

[New2u]

Hey New2u....evidently Cindy Sheehan's beginning to wear out her welcome, at least on this forum! :blaugh:

Don't think so, drew.

[drew70]

Better read the first six responses again, then. lol

[New2u]

I don't think any further comment on this woman is necessary; the above quotes speak for themselves. I wonder how anyone who continues to defend her views sleeps at night. And don't come back with "she has the right to speak her mind"; while it's true, that old saw doesn't excuse her bullshit or give her a free pass from criticism. I hope she goes away and soon.

Oh, and New - you don't really care about the poll numbers for a last-term President, do you? If you do, it's kind of sad.

vollin, I wish Sheenan the best. I hope she really stirs things up.

What's sad is having Bush for a President. What an embarrassment.

[New2u]

This is just too funny. Of course shes more popular than Bush, with liberals. The Micheal Moore, Daddy Sheen, left-whacko crowd.
Explain to me this, if she is soooooo loved, why has the rest of her own family not supporting her? Her kids, husband (former I think), and reletives are not in support of her. Why?? Because they know shes a nutcase created by the left side and the media. Everything else the left tried to bring down Bush never worked. So they use a "grieveing" mother to do it for them and watch the poll numbers drop...but they will go back up, and what does it matter...its not like he can run again anyways. Youd think if the democrats were serious about getting back into the White House, theyd find another way besides attacking Bush who wont run in 2008 anyways. They lose because they never learn that before elections oh yes the public eats up the drama, but when it comes to voting time voters need to see solutions and plans of action, not critism loaded with hate and loathing and a lot of sour grapes.
Thats my dollar and 2 cents worth.

That's your opinion, it doesn't make it true. May she be a huge "thorn" in Bush's side.

[kurchatovium]

Cindy Sheehan certainly has the right to speak her thoughts but as is often the case with the right of free speech just because you have the right to say something does not always mean that you should. Just my humble opinion.

[drew70]

Bush ignores her. She's no threat. She's a windbag who is rapidly losing steam. She's going down in flames. Won't be long before all her media buddies abandon her for some other brainless puppet.

[New2u]

She thinks we're fighting a nuclear war in Iraq! That says it all. If we were fighting a nuclear war, we'd be done in, like, 3 minutes!

Yes, it's sad that her son died. But that doesn't give her a free pass for all time against criticism. A lot of other mothers and fathers and wives and husbands have lost loved ones in Iraq, and they are proud that their family members died trying to free others.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible mess, but look at the good the US has done so far - Saddam is in custody for Godsakes! His two bastard sons who tortured and killed so many or dead and gone. (I mean, folks, Uday was near the top of the list of suspects for who will become the AntiChrist, I don't think many are mourning his death.) Iraqi citizens are voting on their first constitution in an actual election, not in some shitty, corrupt - vote for Saddam or we'll cut your arm off election. Imagine - an election were the vote won't be 100% for one choice!

mabus, yes, the war is a huge mess and one based on "Lies" by Bush. She has the right to question Bush and for him to give a real answer, not the standard, "Mom, apple pie and chevorlet" bullshit.

[New2u]

Bush ignores her. She's no threat. She's a windbag who is rapidly losing steam. She's going down in flames. Won't be long before all her media buddies abandon her for some other brainless puppet.

Nope, it's not sheenan, it's Bush who's the windbag, b.s.'er. She's not losing steam, she's gaining it and she is not going down in flames (in your dreams, drew).
No, the brainless puppets are the ones who voted for Bush back in November.

[drew70]

Bush has absolutely no responsibility to give Cindy Sheehan the time of day. She has no right to his time any more than you do, New.

[New2u]

Better read the first six responses again, then. lol

Why? Those posts are not necessarily intelligent ones. But heck, everyone has a constitutional right.

[maniactickler]

New, this thread is rapidly failing for you. id say move on before this leads to more embarrassment. cut your losses like cindy should. :sowrong:

[Dr. Vollin]

I'm noticing a real lack of an answer to my question from New. Why doesn't that surprise me? And notice how he didn't address those lovely Sheehan quotes about other mothers. :rolleyes:

[New2u]

New, this thread is rapidly failing for you. id say move on before this leads to more embarrassment. cut your losses like cindy should. :sowrong:

maniac, like I said, you have no credibility.

[Robace252]

I also notice this thread going down in flames, and again I ask...why is only Cindy comming out, where is rest of her family?? Embarassed by her actions. ALL OF THEM! Not one of her relatives have come out in support of her. Now thats embarrassing when your own family doesnt support you in your "CRUSADE!" for a "noble cause". I just assume you have no answer to why her family has abandoned her and only her leftist friends from Moveon dot org (I wont type it right cause I think they are whats ruining America and I dont want ot see a link of theirs in my post) and the Micheal Moore crowd.
And oh by the way, the last rally that was there, 800 Sheehan supporters, 1500 Military and Anti-Sheehan supporters. Which number looks bigger to you? Thats right 1500 is bigger than 800.

Thats just my dollar and 2 cents worth.

www.redcross.org
please help those affected by Hurricane Katrina.

[Cosmo_ac]

Rob, do you have any news articles where her members of her family say they are ashamed of her?

[New2u]

For what it's worth, here is my opinion of Cindy Sheehan: She is a foaming-at-the-mouth, fanatic anti-Zionist.

Her rants against Israel have been largely ignored by the mainstream media, but here is a sample, from a letter she wrote to Nightline on March 15, 2005, and later made public:



http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/

She is free to speak her mind, and I am free to speak my mind about her.

Well, it appears that the conservatives (or neo-cons) are after Cindy, I wish her all the luck because they are out to discredit her.

[Dr. Vollin]

Denying she made those comments about other women who've lost sons, but "refuse to see the light" according to Cindy, are you, New?

[Robace252]

Cosmo here is the information you wanted...if you do a search on "Cindy Sheehan's family comments" you will get this on many websites, here is the AP report from their released statement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP-Crawford Texas
Cindy's family responds to media.

Here is a statement released by the family of Cindy Sheehan to the AP and all other media outlets:
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

You can again find this on many websites including the AP, UPI and all major media webisites...you just have to hunt for it on CNN, and other major left wing publications, but it is there. And yes, I will admit that maybe my use of the word embarrassed was strong and probally incorrect. But it is evident they dont approve of it. Im sorry this info isnt in the "mainstream" media..they just to oppress the ones with the most common sense sometimes.

[hivoltage]

New, I think you'd be better off pointing out the part that Cindy Sheehan played that was reasonable.

She's a mom who lost her son in Iraq, and she has a right to be pissed off about it. She even has a right to say she thinks the President sucks, or whatever.

She also shines the light on the fact that the administration underestimated significant aspects of the post-war. Oh, that "Mission Accomplished" thing was premature.

But the President doesn't owe her any more than his sincerest thanks that her son served his Country. The troops and their Moms don't set policy, and they shouldn't.

If Iraq turns into something like Vietnam, no Cindy Sheehan will be needed anyway.

[asutickler]

Cindy Sheehan has my sympathy... As would any mother who lost their son in such a fashion.

I must say, though, that she's beginning to sound just a bit deranged. Bashing the mothers of other fallen soldiers like that, well... :wow:

[maniactickler]

Well, it appears that the conservatives (or neo-cons) are after Cindy, I wish her all the luck because they are out to discredit her.

She doesnt need any help doing that.

[Robace252]

As much as I agree with everyone's right to call Bush a "liar" and to dislike him immensely, I for once wanted to print a FACT! This once and for all will show that Bush while maybe not being a 100% honest person certainly did not lie, he was misled by EVERYONE...this is a report from an AP newswire prior to the Iraq War that shows excatly what most people here have forgotten about what was going on prior to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------
(AP) United Nations, New York, New York
Security Council agrees on Iraq, but no course of action

14 Dec 2002

As behind the scene negoations go on about what kind of action needs to be taken on Iraq, the UN Security Council does at least agree on one thing. The Security Council in a joint statement from the representives from the countries of China, Bulgaria, France, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Mexico, Spain all agree that Iraq led by Saddam Hussein has the capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destructions against their neighbors as well as the desire to sell such weapons to terrorist orginizations such as Hamas and al-Qaeda. "The weapons that Saddam Hussein has in its hands and are willing to use or sell for personal gain are staggering. We of the Security Council agree with all the current sanctions, and are investigating other ways to force Hussein to comply with the resolutions he has ignored for 10 years."
Intelligence information provided to the UN Security Council from not only its own members but from the nations of Germany, Italy and Japan all indicate that Iraq has many unknown weapons programs and include the ability to use them mounted to long range missles which are banned for Iraq to possess.
"The ability of Iraq to use devestating chemical weapons on nations by way of their expanded rocket program include missles that can deliver such weapons as far away as Israel and possibly Western Europe. We must ensure that Iraq never has the chance to use such weapons or the results would be disasterous." stated a French Intelligence offical as the Security Council members asked him questions on intelligence gathering.
"If it was just our intelligence I could see how the Council could doubt such reports, but our reports have been verified by every member of this Board." stated US intelligence officals.
While the US prefers and suggests a military option if Iraq does not comply with adhereing to the Security Council resolutions, most on the Council still want a diplomatic solution.
"While the Council agrees with all intelligence gathered about the threat that Iraq possesses and agree that something needs to be done, we would still hope that a diplomatic solution is possible, but Iraq must comply with all of the resolutions passed by this body."
This joint statement released after the closed door session is not the strong language that the US wanted but a US spokeman for the US Congress believes that this is a step in the right direction to force Iraq to comply.
"Iraq now knows that they can no longer just thumb their nose at the world body without action being taken."

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I certainly hope this helps dispell the myth that Bush lied about the intelligence, and if he did, I again say to you...so did everyone else. Dont blame just one, when they all were wrong. All of them.
Its just a shame that just because you hate or intensely dislike Bush you would be blind to the facts that the entire world agreed and supported the incorrect facts prior to war.

[MrMacphisto]

For what it's worth, here is my opinion of Cindy Sheehan: She is a foaming-at-the-mouth, fanatic anti-Zionist.

She is free to speak her mind, and I am free to speak my mind about her.

I'm not a big fan of Sheehan, but I'm not a big fan of Israel either. Sheehan is being used as a pawn, and Israel uses America as a pawn... to a point. If we stopped aiding Israel, we'd greatly improve our attempts at "neutrality" in the Middle East. Otherwise, the Palestinians and the Islamic World in general will never trust a country that befriends Israel. Saudi Arabia only does so, because they are our bitch.

[MrMacphisto]

This is just too funny. Of course shes more popular than Bush, with liberals. The Micheal Moore, Daddy Sheen, left-whacko crowd.
Explain to me this, if she is soooooo loved, why has the rest of her own family not supporting her? Her kids, husband (former I think), and reletives are not in support of her. Why?? Because they know shes a nutcase created by the left side and the media. Everything else the left tried to bring down Bush never worked. So they use a "grieveing" mother to do it for them and watch the poll numbers drop...but they will go back up, and what does it matter...its not like he can run again anyways. Youd think if the democrats were serious about getting back into the White House, theyd find another way besides attacking Bush who wont run in 2008 anyways. They lose because they never learn that before elections oh yes the public eats up the drama, but when it comes to voting time voters need to see solutions and plans of action, not critism loaded with hate and loathing and a lot of sour grapes.

Thats my dollar and 2 cents worth.

Democrats have been losing for two reasons. Conservatives vote more regularly than liberals, and the Republicans have produced better ad campaigns than Democrats. Kerry was a very weak candidate, and while Bush wasn't that strong either, Bush was able to win re-election because his message was clearer and better advertised. People "eat up the drama" during election periods or otherwise; they just do it in different ways during different times.

[MrMacphisto]

Yes, Iraq is a horrible mess, but look at the good the US has done so far - Saddam is in custody for Godsakes! His two bastard sons who tortured and killed so many or dead and gone. (I mean, folks, Uday was near the top of the list of suspects for who will become the AntiChrist, I don't think many are mourning his death.) Iraqi citizens are voting on their first constitution in an actual election, not in some shitty, corrupt - vote for Saddam or we'll cut your arm off election. Imagine - an election were the vote won't be 100% for one choice!

All the good we have done is for naught. If you don't believe me, then get back to me by the end of Bush's term. You'll see....

[MrMacphisto]

Bush ignores her. She's no threat. She's a windbag who is rapidly losing steam. She's going down in flames. Won't be long before all her media buddies abandon her for some other brainless puppet.

The only difference between Sheehan and Bush is that Bush is a windbag that is a threat.

[MrMacphisto]

I also notice this thread going down in flames, and again I ask...why is only Cindy comming out, where is rest of her family?? Embarassed by her actions. ALL OF THEM! Not one of her relatives have come out in support of her. Now thats embarrassing when your own family doesnt support you in your "CRUSADE!" for a "noble cause". I just assume you have no answer to why her family has abandoned her and only her leftist friends from Moveon dot org (I wont type it right cause I think they are whats ruining America and I dont want ot see a link of theirs in my post) and the Micheal Moore crowd.

The fatal error that moveon.org makes is that they assume most Americans are activist-minded and disturbed by endless war. If anything, America is very warlike. Pacifism is almost as dead in this country as accountability is.

[drew70]

The only difference between Sheehan and Bush is that Bush is a windbag that is a threat.I agree. He's a threat to Al Qaeda, to terrorism in general, and to most liberal agendas trying to gain a political footing.

[MrMacphisto]

I agree. He's a threat to Al Qaeda, to terrorism in general, and to most liberal agendas trying to gain a political footing.

...and a threat to the American economy and global reputation.

[drew70]

The economy is a legitimate concern, I'll agree.

[Deuce]

I don't think he needs too, she meet him once already and then were do you draw the line,what, then have ever mother and father and sibbling from this war want to meet with him then the families from past war then want too meet with him ,give her the 15 minutes of fame with her protest group so her point can be made and let the group from Cal. voice heard and call it a day do we want the president seeing families for 7 hours a day instead of what he should be doing. Yes I do feel for her and every parent or sibbling who lost a brave soiler during any war but if you allow her to meet then it just says if you yell loud and long you meet the President, my view is what is she going too say to him that after she walks out of the door he's going too withdraw all the troops NOTTA so let her be heard in the format she has now and when you want to post your opinion on how much of a ass I am for this view go ahead but it is the opinion of this person that's what makes this the greatest country in the world are rights to free spceeh

[milagros317]

Well, it appears that the conservatives (or neo-cons) are after Cindy, I wish her all the luck because they are out to discredit her.

As far as I am concerned, she has already discredited herself with her ranting against Israel.

Do you agree with her, New2u, that her son died to protect Israel?

[New2u]

I agree. He's a threat to Al Qaeda, to terrorism in general, and to most liberal agendas trying to gain a political footing.

Nah, Bush is more of the "punchline" to a joke for them. Bush has only made the terrorist situation worse.

[New2u]

As far as I am concerned, she has already discredited herself with her ranting against Israel.

Do you agree with her, New2u, that her son died to protect Israel?

There is a possibility that he did. Israel is extremely important to the U.S.

your feeling that she "discredited" herself is only your opinion and probably that of other Neo-Con Bush supporters too. There are many others who do not feel that way.

[New2u]

...and a threat to the American economy and global reputation.

Mac, you sure got that right. The Bush deficit is soon (if not now) going to be a huge problem for the American AND Global economies along with the huge void caused by Bush's tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

Bush will leave the his huge economic problems to the next President, which by then the Repubs may perfer to put a Democrat in as the next President so they can start pointing fingers at the whitehouse again.

[milagros317]

There is a possibility that he did. Israel is extremely important to the U.S.

your feeling that she "discredited" herself is only your opinion and probably that of other Neo-Con Bush supporters too. There are many others who do not feel that way.

Iraq was not a threat to Israel at the time her son died. Whether Israel is important to the U.S. or not (and I agree that it is) is not relevant.

He died on a mission for the U.S. military, sent by the U.S. Commander in Chief, authorized by the U.S. Congress. (Obviously, you are free to believe that the C. in C. is a fool, or a liar, or both. You are free to believe that the members of Congress who voted for military action in Iraq were also fools, or scoundrels, or gullable.)

I am neither a conservative nor a neo-conservative. I am a libertarian. By the way, I neither voted for Bush in 2000 nor in 2004. I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates in both elections.

One doesn't have to be a Bush supporter to have a bad opinion of Cindy Sheehan.

As far as I am concerned, Cindy Sheehan is at best a babbling fool, driven over the edge by grief.

She has the right of free speech, and I have the right to conclude that she isn't worth listening to.

You are welcome to listen to her rantings and cheer her on.

[isabeau]

i admire her for what she is doing and feel for her also very much. today though i heard she blamed bush for hurricane katrina. did anyone else hear that? i thought it was tooo hilarious. i wrecked my bike back in june should i blame bush?

isabeau :confused:

[New2u]

The only difference between Sheehan and Bush is that Bush is a windbag that is a threat.

Mac, it's also been mentioned that the hot air and political bullshit coming from Bush might also be effecting Global weather patterns, maybe that's the reason why Bush is trying to weaken Environmental laws, The EPA might have to put a "ban" on him.

[New2u]

Iraq was not a threat to Israel at the time her son died. Whether Israel is important to the U.S. or not (and I agree that it is) is not relevant.

He died on a mission for the U.S. military, sent by the U.S. Commander in Chief, authorized by the U.S. Congress. (Obviously, you are free to believe that the C. in C. is a fool, or a liar, or both. You are free to believe that the members of Congress who voted for military action in Iraq were also fools, or scoundrels, or gullable.)

I am neither a conservative nor a neo-conservative. I am a libertarian. By the way, I neither voted for Bush in 2000 nor in 2004. I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates in both elections.

One doesn't have to be a Bush supporter to have a bad opinion of Cindy Sheehan.

As far as I am concerned, Cindy Sheehan is at best a babbling fool, driven over the edge by grief.

She has the right of free speech, and I have the right to conclude that she isn't worth listening to.

You are welcome to listen to her rantings and cheer her on.

Oh, and I will.

[maniactickler]

Mac, it's also been mentioned that the hot air and political bullshit coming from Bush might also be effecting Global weather patterns, maybe that's the reason why Bush is trying to weaken Environmental laws, The EPA might have to put a "ban" on him.

We should weaken some environMENTAL laws. if it wasnt for the wacko left wing tree huggers, the oil situation wouldnt be so bad right now.

[maniactickler]

i admire her for what she is doing and feel for her also very much. today though i heard she blamed bush for hurricane katrina. did anyone else hear that? i thought it was tooo hilarious. i wrecked my bike back in june should i blame bush?

isabeau :confused:

Sure, you might as well jump on the liberal bandwagon and blame Bush for everything. Hell, i had some bad gas pains last night and i even considered blaming Bush for those!

[New2u]

We should weaken some environMENTAL laws. if it wasnt for the wacko left wing tree huggers, the oil situation wouldnt be so bad right now.

maniac, you have no credibility.

[New2u]

Sure, you might as well jump on the liberal bandwagon and blame Bush for everything. Hell, i had some bad gas pains last night and i even considered blaming Bush for those!

maniac, you have no credibility

[isabeau]

i'm already on the liberal bandwagon but this was carrying things a bit too far. but the source of this newsworthy piece of trivia was fox, need i say more?? or is that as i like to say and others i know , faux news. fair and balanced my eye.

isabeau :illogical

[maniactickler]

maniac, you have no credibility

Is that how you get to sleep at night? instead of counting sheep, you keep uttering the phrase "maniac you have no credibility"? :yawnface:

[New2u]

As much as I agree with everyone's right to call Bush a "liar" and to dislike him immensely, I for once wanted to print a FACT! This once and for all will show that Bush while maybe not being a 100% honest person certainly did not lie, he was misled by EVERYONE...this is a report from an AP newswire prior to the Iraq War that shows excatly what most people here have forgotten about what was going on prior to the war.
----------------------------------------------------------
(AP) United Nations, New York, New York
Security Council agrees on Iraq, but no course of action

14 Dec 2002

As behind the scene negoations go on about what kind of action needs to be taken on Iraq, the UN Security Council does at least agree on one thing. The Security Council in a joint statement from the representives from the countries of China, Bulgaria, France, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, Mexico, Spain all agree that Iraq led by Saddam Hussein has the capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destructions against their neighbors as well as the desire to sell such weapons to terrorist orginizations such as Hamas and al-Qaeda. "The weapons that Saddam Hussein has in its hands and are willing to use or sell for personal gain are staggering. We of the Security Council agree with all the current sanctions, and are investigating other ways to force Hussein to comply with the resolutions he has ignored for 10 years."
Intelligence information provided to the UN Security Council from not only its own members but from the nations of Germany, Italy and Japan all indicate that Iraq has many unknown weapons programs and include the ability to use them mounted to long range missles which are banned for Iraq to possess.
"The ability of Iraq to use devestating chemical weapons on nations by way of their expanded rocket program include missles that can deliver such weapons as far away as Israel and possibly Western Europe. We must ensure that Iraq never has the chance to use such weapons or the results would be disasterous." stated a French Intelligence offical as the Security Council members asked him questions on intelligence gathering.
"If it was just our intelligence I could see how the Council could doubt such reports, but our reports have been verified by every member of this Board." stated US intelligence officals.
While the US prefers and suggests a military option if Iraq does not comply with adhereing to the Security Council resolutions, most on the Council still want a diplomatic solution.
"While the Council agrees with all intelligence gathered about the threat that Iraq possesses and agree that something needs to be done, we would still hope that a diplomatic solution is possible, but Iraq must comply with all of the resolutions passed by this body."
This joint statement released after the closed door session is not the strong language that the US wanted but a US spokeman for the US Congress believes that this is a step in the right direction to force Iraq to comply.
"Iraq now knows that they can no longer just thumb their nose at the world body without action being taken."

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I certainly hope this helps dispell the myth that Bush lied about the intelligence, and if he did, I again say to you...so did everyone else. Dont blame just one, when they all were wrong. All of them.
Its just a shame that just because you hate or intensely dislike Bush you would be blind to the facts that the entire world agreed and supported the incorrect facts prior to war.

robace252, I noticed there was no mention of the "Downing Street Memo" where Bush and Blair met in July 2002, looking for a reason to attack Iraq. Of course, this AP was dated 2002, and the information coming from the "Downing Street" came out May 1st, 2005 which proved that Bush is a "Liar".

[New2u]

Is that how you get to sleep at night? instead of counting sheep, you keep uttering the phrase "maniac you have no credibility"? :yawnface:

Since you always make accusations but never back them up, that's why I say that. You have no creadibility.

[Robace252]

New2U, I agree it didnt mention the Downing Street Memo but again as you correctly pointed out the AP report was from 2002, and no one knew about the Downing Street Memo until just recently.
But in that same aspect was there a "Arc de Triumph" Memo, "Red Square" Memo, a "Chinesse Memo", a "Heir Germany" memo?
While the Downing Street Memo might show (again might I still have some issues with it, but no need to discuss those here..my personal belief is that of course Bush planned on attacking Iraq from day 1 of his presidency, Im not that eaisly fooled by my government. Iraq had been not regarding UN Sanctions from the Peace Treaty after Persian Gulf 1, and actaully during the time periods of 1992-2000 they shot at our planes defending the no-fly zone many times which in itself was an act of war...but everyone seems to forget those little tidbits.) but back to my main point that yeah, maybe Bush did want to attack but the WORLD BODY AGREED that Iraq was a danger and had WMD's which we NOW KNOW (not then when the decision was made) was wrong. And until I see that secret memo's from France, Germany, China, Russia and other nations in the Security Council lied about their intelligence I will still stand by the FACT and not blinding hated that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD BODY AGREED THAT IRAQ HAD WMD's AND WAS A THREAT. Just answer the question Yes, that you agree that rest of the world was fooled by Iraq and then we have an understanding. Bush didnt lie, he was decieved by faulty intelligence and made a "quick" and "rash" decision to attack before thinking it all the way through. But then again if you had your whole family telling you someone wanted to kill you and had a gun, and that persons neighbors telling you the same and everyone in your circle of friends agreed with that...you wouldnt call the police or protect yourself would you? But if you did call the police and find out after searching his home that he never had a plan or anything to kill you with....YOUD BE THE LIAR. See how if you break it down to simplier terms its eaiser to understand.
Also, In August 2001 Bush had a memo non-specific about threats to the US by terrorists. He did nothing and then BOOM! 9/11. So do you think that maybe he was human like the rest of us and saw non-specific intelligence hyped up by the CIA and rest of the world and was still reeling from not doing anything about the intelligence he might have had over 9/11 and thought that he didnt want to make the same mistake twice? Of course not, the leftist would rather think of Bush as a monster, not as a human being who made a judgement call and has the fortitude to stick by his decision.
But then again its Bush's fault that Hurricane Katrina came, its Bush's fault that the tsunami happened, and its Bush's fault that the Eagles lost the Super Bowl. Go figure.
I actually like all this Bush bashing...he cant run in 2008 anyway..so when in 2008 we all say "President Ruldolph Guiliani" you can all look back at all the Bush bashing and wonder how the time could have been better spent in propping up a democratic canidate and having a plan to get them elected.
But instead liberals will attack Bush, and not offer anything more than the same "Doom and Gloom" they've been spouting for years.

www.redcross.org

[drew70]

robace252, I noticed there was no mention of the "Downing Street Memo" where Bush and Blair met in July 2002, looking for a reason to attack Iraq. Of course, this AP was dated 2002, and the information coming from the "Downing Street" came out May 1st, 2005 which proved that Bush is a "Liar".At the very worst, this memo casts some doubt on Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq. It proves nothing. I still maintain that all who persist in calling President Bush a liar are themselves liars.

[New2u]

At the very worst, this memo casts some doubt on Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq. It proves nothing. I still maintain that all who persist in calling President Bush a liar are themselves liars.

drew, it proves a lot. You're a "Bush" man who supports him so your outburst would be expected.

[drew70]

drew, it proves a lot. You're a "Bush" man who supports him so your outburst would be expected.Whom I choose to support has no bearing on the validity of the Downing Street memo, nor the impact of it's significance. You're still left with no proof that Bush lied about anything. In short, you have no credibility.

[MrMacphisto]

Mac, you sure got that right. The Bush deficit is soon (if not now) going to be a huge problem for the American AND Global economies along with the huge void caused by Bush's tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

Bush will leave the his huge economic problems to the next President, which by then the Repubs may perfer to put a Democrat in as the next President so they can start pointing fingers at the whitehouse again.

Which is why I hope that the Republicans win in 2008 -- so they get to clean up the mess they've made (and will continue to make while Bush is in office).

The only bright side to all of this is that, no matter which party wins in 2008, the next president will likely be much better than Bush. I may not have as much respect for McCain as I used to, but he'd be so much better as the leader of this country....

[MrMacphisto]

We should weaken some environMENTAL laws. if it wasnt for the wacko left wing tree huggers, the oil situation wouldnt be so bad right now.

Wow... you're truly clueless, aren't you? The oil situation has nothing to do with environmental laws. There are three major reasons for the current oil price hikes: first, our demand and the Third World's increasing demand for oil are increasing the prices of oil; second, the military's increased use of oil with the Iraq operation has also brought up demand and prices; third, Katrina caused a halt in production in some major refineries in the Gulf, thereby tightening our supply of ready-to-consume oil.

Notice that NONE of this has to do with environmental protection.

[maniactickler]

Wow... you're truly clueless, aren't you? The oil situation has nothing to do with environmental laws. There are three major reasons for the current oil price hikes: first, our demand and the Third World's increasing demand for oil are increasing the prices of oil; second, the military's increased use of oil with the Iraq operation has also brought up demand and prices; third, Katrina caused a halt in production in some major refineries in the Gulf, thereby tightening our supply of ready-to-consume oil.

Notice that NONE of this has to do with environmental protection.

nothing to do with it my ass. I realize the other reasons, but environMENTALists play a part in it to.

[Robace252]

Actually maniac and Macphisto you are both right.
Macphisto is correct in his 3 reasons why the price of oil is high.
Maniac is correct that is also fault of the enviromentalist, he just didnt give reasons.
Why is it partially the enviromentalist fault..simple, during the Clinton Administration when Al Gore was on his Enviromental Crusade he was responsable for shutting down many of the refining plants the administration deemed not necessary, and preventing new ones from being built.
While yes thats good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed in diffrent states force refiners to produce up to 20 diffrent types of gasoline for use in diffrent states.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed also forced refinaries to curb or halt production on certain days when the air tempature was at a certain level and ozone levels were deemed dangerous.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

Enviromental protection laws prohibited (I believe we have now since gotten rid of this law) drilling in area's of Alaska that had reportedly more 5 times more oil than we currently produce. But it will take time to build the new drilling sites now and connect the pipeline. Work was ongoing but now those workers have been recalled to fix the colonial pipeline that was damaged.
Again, good for the enviroment...bad for oil production.

Coastal laws prohibited building any more ports capable of handing Supersize oil barges, except for the existing one in or near New Orleans.
Again good for the enviroment, bad for oil production.

There are many more examples but I think those should suffice.
Now Im not saying protecting the enviroment is not important, or am I saying should we only use fossil fuels and not research other means of energy. But until we found something else we should make the best and most use of what we have. The money the enviromental and oil lobbist spent in Washington DC on having their viewpoints heard could have been spent on finding new sources of energy and technology and left the current past levels of production alone and created more refinaries to alleviate the stress of the refinaries we currently have operating at 98% capacity.
So you both are right. Were in a crisis and we need solutions not finger pointing or blame. There's plenty of time left in human history to point blame.

www.redcross.org

[New2u]

Whom I choose to support has no bearing on the validity of the Downing Street memo, nor the impact of it's significance. You're still left with no proof that Bush lied about anything. In short, you have no credibility.

drew, I've grown weary of your "Pee Wee Herman" antics. The proof is in the pudding and like maniac, you continually practice denial of the facts which is Bush lied and continues to lie.

When you're ready for a real debate, fire a flare.

[New2u]

Actually maniac and Macphisto you are both right.
Macphisto is correct in his 3 reasons why the price of oil is high.
Maniac is correct that is also fault of the enviromentalist, he just didnt give reasons.
Why is it partially the enviromentalist fault..simple, during the Clinton Administration when Al Gore was on his Enviromental Crusade he was responsable for shutting down many of the refining plants the administration deemed not necessary, and preventing new ones from being built.
While yes thats good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed in diffrent states force refiners to produce up to 20 diffrent types of gasoline for use in diffrent states.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed also forced refinaries to curb or halt production on certain days when the air tempature was at a certain level and ozone levels were deemed dangerous.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

Enviromental protection laws prohibited (I believe we have now since gotten rid of this law) drilling in area's of Alaska that had reportedly more 5 times more oil than we currently produce. But it will take time to build the new drilling sites now and connect the pipeline. Work was ongoing but now those workers have been recalled to fix the colonial pipeline that was damaged.
Again, good for the enviroment...bad for oil production.

Coastal laws prohibited building any more ports capable of handing Supersize oil barges, except for the existing one in or near New Orleans.
Again good for the enviroment, bad for oil production.

There are many more examples but I think those should suffice.
Now Im not saying protecting the enviroment is not important, or am I saying should we only use fossil fuels and not research other means of energy. But until we found something else we should make the best and most use of what we have. The money the enviromental and oil lobbist spent in Washington DC on having their viewpoints heard could have been spent on finding new sources of energy and technology and left the current past levels of production alone and created more refinaries to alleviate the stress of the refinaries we currently have operating at 98% capacity.
So you both are right. Were in a crisis and we need solutions not finger pointing or blame. There's plenty of time left in human history to point blame.

www.redcross.org

robace, this thead is not about Gore's environmental sins. Please stick to the thread's subject or start yourself another thread.

[Robace252]

New2U, I was meerly adding into a subject that was brought up by someone else. I didn't change the topic, someone else did, I meerly saw what the conversation had changed to and responded to it.
If doing that insulted or bothered you in anyway, I do apologize and will take the sugesstion that if I have anything more to say on the subject I will start a new thread.
Please also note the others that started the subject, I wasnt the only one.
And you could ask a little nicer, geesh...

Excuuuuuuuuusssssseeeeeeee ME!

[mpeyton]

From the looks of it, Mrs. Sheehan( do I have the spelling right?) is leaving the public eye thanks to Hurricane Katrina. At least Bush is showing some interest in helping the victims. He's human after all! That's releiving news. If he keeps this up, he might score a few more points before his term is over. I'm just praying for a real leaders for America to step up to the plate instead more tyrants (the extremes on both sides) who are out for themselves.

[New2u]

New2U, I was meerly adding into a subject that was brought up by someone else. I didn't change the topic, someone else did, I meerly saw what the conversation had changed to and responded to it.
If doing that insulted or bothered you in anyway, I do apologize and will take the sugesstion that if I have anything more to say on the subject I will start a new thread.
Please also note the others that started the subject, I wasnt the only one.
And you could ask a little nicer, geesh...

Excuuuuuuuuusssssseeeeeeee ME!

robace, my mistake. I apologize to you for that. I checked the posts again and you were right. I "goofed up". I hope you're not too offended with me, I'll be a little more careful the next time.

Again, forgive me.

[MrMacphisto]

Actually maniac and Macphisto you are both right.
Macphisto is correct in his 3 reasons why the price of oil is high.
Maniac is correct that is also fault of the enviromentalist, he just didnt give reasons.
Why is it partially the enviromentalist fault..simple, during the Clinton Administration when Al Gore was on his Enviromental Crusade he was responsable for shutting down many of the refining plants the administration deemed not necessary, and preventing new ones from being built.
While yes thats good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed in diffrent states force refiners to produce up to 20 diffrent types of gasoline for use in diffrent states.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

The Clean Air laws that passed also forced refinaries to curb or halt production on certain days when the air tempature was at a certain level and ozone levels were deemed dangerous.
While its good for the enviroment, its bad for oil production.

Enviromental protection laws prohibited (I believe we have now since gotten rid of this law) drilling in area's of Alaska that had reportedly more 5 times more oil than we currently produce. But it will take time to build the new drilling sites now and connect the pipeline. Work was ongoing but now those workers have been recalled to fix the colonial pipeline that was damaged.
Again, good for the enviroment...bad for oil production.

Coastal laws prohibited building any more ports capable of handing Supersize oil barges, except for the existing one in or near New Orleans.
Again good for the enviroment, bad for oil production.

There are many more examples but I think those should suffice.
Now Im not saying protecting the enviroment is not important, or am I saying should we only use fossil fuels and not research other means of energy. But until we found something else we should make the best and most use of what we have. The money the enviromental and oil lobbist spent in Washington DC on having their viewpoints heard could have been spent on finding new sources of energy and technology and left the current past levels of production alone and created more refinaries to alleviate the stress of the refinaries we currently have operating at 98% capacity.
So you both are right. Were in a crisis and we need solutions not finger pointing or blame. There's plenty of time left in human history to point blame.

www.redcross.org

I'll put it this way... when your relatives and/or children start suffering from pollution-related illnesses brought about by increases in pollution, then I hope you feel good about your support of movements against the protection of the environment.

At some point, you and many others will have to look beyond the short run. Rising oil prices and tightening sources of oil are valid issues, but the depletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are much bigger than those. This isn't about alleviating our troubles nowadays, this is about making sure the planet is suitable for life in generations to come. Of course, since the dangers of pollution are usually gradual in their repercussions, most people fail to notice them until it's too late.

[maniactickler]

I'll put it this way... when your relatives and/or children start suffering from pollution-related illnesses brought about by increases in pollution, then I hope you feel good about your support of movements against the protection of the environment.

At some point, you and many others will have to look beyond the short run. Rising oil prices and tightening sources of oil are valid issues, but the depletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are much bigger than those. This isn't about alleviating our troubles nowadays, this is about making sure the planet is suitable for life in generations to come. Of course, since the dangers of pollution are usually gradual in their repercussions, most people fail to notice them until it's too late.


You believe that greenhouse effect crap?

[New2u]

You believe that greenhouse effect crap?

maniac, you have no credibility

[New2u]

There is no debate necessary . . . Bush has proven himself to be a greater lier than even Nixon! If anyone here does not have knowledge of that after 5 years of proof, I recommend evryone to avoid attempting any conversation with them on the issue. It would be like explaining a human's right to live to Jeffrey Dahmers.

Cabana, you've got a point. Bush is only part of the problem, the other is his "worshippers" who simply deny all facts that demostrat Bush lied to congress and to the American people. These people seem to live in a separate dimension from the rest of us, it's a mental state.

[MrMacphisto]

You believe that greenhouse effect crap?

Most of the world believes in that "crap," but you're free to be blissfully ignorant.

[New2u]

Touche', Mac, touche'

[asutickler]

Odd... I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that the Earth's current warming trend is abnormal in relation to weather patterns over, say, the last few millenniums. Oh, wait: They can't, because we've only been able to accurately measure temperature for a few hundred years. :rolleyes:

How did this thread get yanked over to global warming, anyway? :confused:

[MrMacphisto]

Odd... I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that the Earth's current warming trend is abnormal in relation to weather patterns over, say, the last few millenniums. Oh, wait: They can't, because we've only been able to accurately measure temperature for a few hundred years. :rolleyes:

How did this thread get yanked over to global warming, anyway? :confused:

ASU... has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of the First World acknowledges the relevance of the greenhouse effect?

[asutickler]

ASU... has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of the First World acknowledges the relevance of the greenhouse effect?


Yes... But the greenhouse effect has been around since before life appeared on Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be much MUCH lower. It has yet to be conclusively demonstrated that gasses produced by human activity enhance the greenhouse effect and thereby cause global warming. Its just a guess.

Kinda odd that you would use that particular line of argument: You've never really struck me as a "a lot of people think this, so it must be right" kind of guy...

[MrMacphisto]

How do you explain the recession of the polar ice caps then? Do you know much about the process of thermal currents throughout the ocean?

[asutickler]

The polar ice caps are receding because the Earth has gradually grown warmer over the last century or so... I don't deny that the Earth is currently in a warming phase: I'm just saying that nobody has proven that it isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon.

[MrMacphisto]

ASU... I'm starting a new thread, so as to prevent further digression. Please join in, if you'd like.

[asutickler]

Good idea. :D

[maniactickler]

Most of the world believes in that "crap," but you're free to be blissfully ignorant.

Then it appears most of the world are looney tunes.

[maniactickler]

i suppose you libs believe man has caused global warming too? :rolleyes:

[New2u]

i suppose you libs believe man has caused global warming too? :rolleyes:

maniac, You have no credibility.

[maniactickler]

maniac, You have no credibility.


keep stating that phrase and people are going to realize its really you that has no credibility. although i think most already realize it. :wavingguy

[New2u]

keep stating that phrase and people are going to realize its really you that has no credibility. although i think most already realize it. :wavingguy

maniac, you have no credibility

[kyle]

New,

you lost this round dude. The left-wingers get a tally in the defeat column. Maybe you should refresh yourself with some of the posts on WMD's to get a self-confidence boost.

Seriously, Go pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine (one with the white stripes on the cover) and read the article they have on cindy sheehan. Pretty interesting take on things, specially coming from a liberal publication.

[New2u]

New,

you lost this round dude. The left-wingers get a tally in the defeat column. Maybe you should refresh yourself with some of the posts on WMD's to get a self-confidence boost.

Seriously, Go pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine (one with the white stripes on the cover) and read the article they have on cindy sheehan. Pretty interesting take on things, specially coming from a liberal publication.

kyle, I don't necessarily look at threads as a "prize fight" like you do. I've won my fair share of debates and I don't see this one as any kind of loss, Sheenan has successfully awakened the "anti-war" movement which is building in strength and as this war continues on (Bush said it probably will last another 5 years) the anti-war movement will get even stronger.