Cindy Sheehan lies and deception!

You're not arguing the politics because it would be a losing proposition. You're hoping to gain political points though by attacking the person's character instead. This is a classic - and by now predictable - conservative maneuver.

what is meant by this?

Richie agrees - WBC are looney tunes.

They cannot argue that.

who tried?

I don't see how you can compare people picketing a funeral with somebody using their constitutional right to petition against a specific government policy. I don't see how invading the personal grief of a family is the same as protesting the government in a public place. The WBC is hijacking the funerals of soldiers to make their own political statements. Ms. Sheehan is protesting on the side of a public road.

The only connection is that Ms. Sheehan's motivation to protest was the loss of her son in Iraq, and the funerals that the WBC are abusing are the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq. The deaths of Americans isn't what motivated the WBC to picket their funerals. They were picketing funerals long before the war started. It is their way to get media attention. Ms. Sheehan isn't picketing private events. She is demonstrating in a public place against the policies of the government. There's a huge difference. Even if you don't like what she's saying. The idea that she can't protest because her son died is one of the stupidest things I've heard from the right. And they've said quite a few stupid things over the years.

Maybe - MAYBE - if you could articulate /precisely why/ using the memory of a dead son to further a message is Immoral, maybe this can get somewhere. I've never seen an argument about how it could possibly be immoral, and I have fairly well-thought-out and well-articulated reasons for why her goal is the same as Casey's goal and that her message /is/ his message - that he took a vow to do exactly what she's doing now, except that she's not bound to obey the orders of an unjust leader.

So, exactly /how/ is it immoral for her to use the memory of her son dying unjustly to point out that the unjust war he died in was caused by an unjust president?

One of my favorite songs is "The Minstrel Boy". How is this immoral? I want to hear this argument.

I can't conceive of how it is immoral.

[edit - MINSTREL not MISTRAL]

heh.. clear up my train of thought typing

Its safe to say they are insane.
Does Cindy Speak as though god is on her side, with such lines as "god is on my side" ?

People so instantly loose credibility when they start that bible crapola. <---dig at bush

no one. The conservatives started with the character issues, and the liberals passed on the defensive. Nice, huh? My money is on the conservatives, again.

they are both using the deaths to garnish media attention. Yes the WBC are loony toones but how is them using the death of soldiers to gain media recognition any different from Cindy Sheehan using her sons death to gain media attention?
Protesting = perfectly fine
using the death of someone to gain media attention = immoral
Now, I have put it in as simple a terms as I can, lets see if you can understand my point.

there aren't any conservatives in this thread, that I know of. So who started what with whom?

well I can see clear daylight difference between a band of merry fucktards proclaiming gods wrath against a country for the mistreatment of a subset of individuals to a mother loosing her son to a warmongering fuckwit.. call me crazy..

I want to know how using her son's death is immoral, /precisely/. Give me a well-thought-out and articulated argument.

My argument is that it /isn't/ immoral, and is in fact her duty as a citizen of the united states - her son swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He was sent to die by a domestic enemy of the constitution, in furtherance of his aims to violate an international accord, the rule of law, and the sovereignty of nations. There is a time when silence is betrayal. Is it immoral to ask people to sympathise? Is it immoral to ask people to identify with her pain? Or is it immoral because her son isn't alive at this point in time to consent and join his mother explicitly in her actions? The vow he took then - means nothing? Do the vows we take not survive death?

Please, if you want us to believe that it's /immoral/, don't just say so - articulate /why/.

for two reasons
1. its disgraceful to the dead, to be trumpetted out like this
2. There are valid reasonable points that don't need the death of someone to gain recognition

you can't take their views out of it and just look at their tactics can you? I agree they are fucktards, however they are following the same tactic of using the dead to gain attention.

I'm quite sure that everyone whose pushing with character issues in this thread is bread-and-butter conservative. Even if they are in silly denial.

I'm the conservative. (Most people are unaware of this, and of why, or even what 'conservative' means.) There are also some radicals, some liberals, some theists, some anarchists ...

I'm conservative - I like the Bill of Rights, small government, and the Rule of Law. Up until the 1950's, that's what being "conservative" meant, politically. I'm also socially conservative - I like my particular society, and I wish to conserve it. I could give two figs for Neo-Cons and their idea that "conservative" means "rich white theocrat warmongerers". I'm also politically liberal - I could give two figs what other people do in their own homes, on their own land, when consenting adults, what they eat drink or smoke. I am also conservative in that I'm not paying for their heath care or mental care when they burn themselves out, nor housing, food, or anything else. I'm rather sick of "liberal" being used as a mudslinging term, that the media and society in general are using it synonymously with "godless communist anti-american". Bullshit. I'm not your liberal nor am I a conservative. I'm a thinker, and I refuse to let people persuade me that I am otherwise or ought to be otherwise.

I fail to see how a $1500 rock is more important than visiting her son's grave daily.

I fail to see how it is immoral - when our society has done it as part and parcel of its' traditions for time out of mind - to call on the memory of the dead killed unjustly in a message that our leaders are unjust (SEE: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES) - and that peace should reign.

Gimme. I want this argument, and if it's just your emotions, you should know that your personal disgust is /personal/. Articulate a difference.

You want to know why it is immoral?

I think it is disgraceful to the dead to be trumpetted out to gain media attention for something that their mother dislikes. Yes I think it is immoral to assume your views are the same as the deceased. People on these forums have assumed they know my position on MANY things, but they don't. Unless you can know FOR CERTAIN someone's views on everything, you can't speak on behalf of the dead. You can steer their reputation and honor towards what you want, I've seen it happen.

Maybe Casey was a Bush supporter? Your taking his vow and adding YOUR slants to it. This is only discrediting your arguement

A good arguement doesn't need a foundation on an emotional response from the audience. You are in effect saying "We can't win with reason, so lets get sympathy support."

::::wild applause:::

I do believe I am becoming smitten.

that would be me but I'm actually very centrist.

Read "Not Another Mother's Child" by Cindy Sheehan. Maybe you'll actually get to know who Casey was and who Cindy is instead of running off at the mouth about things you have no idea about.

irrelevent actually, since her tactics are the problem not her message.

It's disgraceful to the dead to have sent them to die in an unjustified war. It's disgraceful to the dead to send them to die for oil, in violation of an international accord, the Rule of Law, and while violating one's oath of office.

If everyone saw that peace was a valid, reasonable point - she wouldn't have lost her son. We'd not be here now. Her point is that /her son shouldn't have died/. Obviously, the people who need to recognise that fact haven't yet done so. So, if she can't point out that her son died unjustifiably, how does she convince the people in power that he died unjustifiably?

To /you/, it would be immoral to speak of the dead. Our society has done it for time out of mind. It's a part of a long tradition of satire, of calling kings to account for the dead in their campaigns.

It's a disgrace to the dead to let the Bill of Rights, Rule of Law, freedoms, Constitution, and Country they died in defense of, get flushed down the drain by an incompetent who repeatedly pushes and bends and breaks the oath of his office.

I'm not telling her anything, I'm commenting on it from the outside.

Last I checked, I had every right to do that.

As long as I give a shit, which I do, that's all that matters.

what's wrong with her tactics?

Do you even know what her tactics are?