Redstate

Media Mutha Shee(ite)han is scheduled to appear in my hometown this evening at 5 PM.

Must. Fight. Urge. To. Drive. My. SUV. On. The. Sidewalk.

want to fight the urge? :)

1. Vehicular manslaughter carries a hefty penalty in the Old Dominion.
   
   
2. It would probably dent my bumpers.
   
   
3. Why make a martyr out of a deserved object of ridicule?

Mans laughter is just a space away from manslaughter. Anyone ever notice the similarity between Mutha Shee(ite)han and Mrs. Billy Jack?

It's the insult that keeps on giving.  It's like the  salt and pepper.  You can use it in almost any occasion.

to the term reactionary right.

I find it hilarious (and quite telling) that on a weekend nominally organized to "support the troops", the only real events involving bashing Cindy Sheehan.  

If you feel the war isn't going well, there are many things you could do to support our troops.  You could protest and demand more and better armor, better civilian leadership, a more effective rebuilding effort, or a more focused foreign policy.

Conversely, if you feel the war is going well, there are also many things you could do to support our troops.  You could rally and present evidence of our success (number of people freed, enemies killed or captured, strategic objectives met).  Of course, you could also have an enlistment rally.

However, you choose none of these.  Instead, you focus all your energies on counter protests: bashing one woman and her quixotic cause.  

The fact that you choose this rather than anything else as your focus reveals much about you: you have little to no positive feelings about the war, you're not really sure what its goals are, and you really have no idea how to improve our performance.  Rather than admitting the painful truth - that the political leadership and ideology you support has led us into this - you desperately look for something, ANYTHING to focus your hate and rage on.  

And you settle on:  the mother of a dead soldier, and you talk about running her over with your SUV.  

How exactly does that support our troops?

Thanks for your input. We'll be sure to pass that along.

swell.

Dissenting viewpoints should not be ridiculed when they point out valid points.  There are far more productive ways to support the troops/war than playing reactionary to one lady with an opinion who can't seem to shut up about it.

I'd suggest you next focus those powerful mental energies on rational thought. From the looks of things, that's a ways off.

Good luck.

Dissenting viewpoints should not be ridiculed when they point out valid points.

Dissent is not being ridiculed here - barking moonbattery (BLOOD FOR OIL!  BUSH LIED!!!!!  HALIBURTON!  PNAC!  NEO-CONS!!  ISRAEL/JEWS!  9/11 COVERUP!!  KNIGHT'S TEMPLAR!!!! - OK, kidding on the last one) is.

Mother Sheehan is free to preach whatever version of reality she sees at the moment and we are free to mock her openly as she continues to spiral into lunacy.  That's kinda the way it works in these parts.

Great country, eh?

1. Wants to throw out the military ballot.
   
   
2. Thinks the military shouldn't carry guns in dangerous areas.
   
   
3. Thinks the military should be subject to the world court.
   
   
4. Thinks the military should be run by the UN.
   
   
5. Thinks the military should be in New Orleans (oh, wait - now that they're there they should be kicked out.)
   
   
6. Immediately accepts lies about military abusing prisoners/commit war atrocities as fact without even looking at the evidence.

But in spite of everything above, the left still claims to "support the troops."

Wow, could have fooled me.

to mock her openly.  But that has nothing to do with supporting our troops.  That's just about satisfying some urge to blame, and finding someone to focus hatred for the left and liberals on.  

Again, I ask how does bashing Cindy Sheehan support our troops?

I'm not discussing mocking Sheehan, I'm discussing mocking RedState posters who point out the futility of attacking one lady in order to 'support the troops.'

It demeans the cause and weakens the response into reactionism.  If there exists strong reasons to support the troops and adequate, tangible ways

to do so, those are the steps that should be taken; their validity is not lessened by the opinions of one lady.  Yet she recieves a majority of the focus.  Don't you realize that's what she wants?  People to be counter-protesting her?

If her opinions truly were irrelevant, you would ignore her.  By addressing them in such an obvious manner you add validity to her cause and remove it from the pro-troops cause...

This should be obvious, really

He somehow replied to your comment before you even wrote it! Talk about telepathy...

That's just about satisfying some urge to blame, and finding someone to focus hatred for the left and liberals on.

Funny, I hardly know a thing about you and yet you've managed to figure out that I harbor hatred for "the left and liberals".  Those must be some powerful mindreading abilities you have there.

The technical term, by the way, is projection.  You practice it well, it seems.

To answer your snark, let me simply suggest that a counter-demonstration against a protest sponsored, organized and supported by groups that are openly rooting for America to lose a war in which Our Troops are engaged is a perfectly legitimate and appropriate way to Support the Troops.  YMMV.

It seems to me that this kid is looking to do nothing more than say outrageous people as a way to shill for his web show.

That should read say ridiculous THINGS.

includes the (inconvenient, in your case) factoid that Mother Sheehan is now, in her most recent manifestation, a small, annoying part of an otherwise unctuous and stinky gathering of the professionally pissed-off known as the Blame America First Crowd™.

As such, it is completely fair for us to point-out that the woman who was given "absolute moral authority" vis-à-vis Iraq and all issues military by elected and wanna-be elected Democrats, the MSM, and the left blogosphere not more than a month ago has now thrown-in with a group of certified America-haters (check out ANSWERs web site if you don't trust me).

To the extent that we marginalize her supporters (and their "cause") by marginalizing her, that's just fine - and (as outlined in another comment just above or below this one) goes a long way toward Supporting the Troops in my book.

Conveniently for us, by choosing her friends so poorly she has made herself a big, fat, lumbering, stupid target for those of us who would prefer to not lose the War in Iraq or the broader War on Terror, for that matter.

That said, I can't say I blame y'all for trying.  If I had Sheehan hung around my neck like a lodestone I would probably wish she would just be ignored as well.  

is "ya'll?"  I'm no fan of Sheehan.  But you are dead wrong here:

To the extent that we marginalize her supporters (and their "cause") by marginalizing her, that's just fine - and (as outlined in another comment just above or below this one) goes a long way toward Supporting the Troops in my book.

You aren't marginalizing them by continuing to draw media attention to them; you are strengthening them.  They NEED opponents to make good soundbytes on the news, and you are lining up to give them to her.  Remember what media you are dealing with; do you honestly believe that a pro-troops counter-protest is going to recieve fair attention?  Do you believe it is going to lessen her cause?  Because you are just plain wrong if you do.

Talk about not getting it; instead of playing stupid games with stupid people like Sheehan, why aren't you advocating spending the time more productively in support of the troops?

on the head.  Attacking Cindy Sheehan is actually counter-productive to supporting the war.  The ensuing controversy attracts media and lends credibility to her cause.  

Furthermore, the fact that war 'supporters' are more interested in attacking Cindy Sheehan than actually supporting the war DOES show how misguided their support is.  No telepathy required, just simple logic.

And it's so true!

His show is actually here  

That's not a compliment

(snicker, snicker, guffaw, chuckle, I crack myself up!)

That's not such a great strategy -- minimizing the numbers, I mean.  Isn't what's important in front of the cameras that you can show a large number of people?  Isn't it important that if you have reasonable disagreements between people that they should be covered because a lot of citizens are there on both sides of the issue?

The basics of activism will tell you that the larger a presence you have at any single event the more media coverage you'll get, and wouldn't it be great to have a pro-Iraq, pro-Administration group of people who were there to counterprotest?

How is being a counterprotest to what Sheehan is representing amount to attacking her personally?  Isn't what she is doing there part and parcel of an ideology of protest that people might disagree with?  

for the war and the troops was the re-election of the President and additional seats in congress for war supporters.

If someone slanders the troops and their work in this war, it is an act of support to defend them against the slander by discrediting the arguments made by the slanderer with the truth.

Then, in November 2006, we will again support the troops in the election.

I do recognize that a strategy of ignoring follish burnt out hippies like Cindy, Kerry and Bill Clinton is also effective due to the contrasts in class, but

we get bored having the msm supported mcgovernism dominate the air waves unchallenged.

Neo-con

Right-wing

'Constitution-in-exile'

Both sides have derogatory terms for each other and we use them with abandon.

The difference with Communist, though, is that there really are folks who long for the halcyon days of the Soviet Empire.

Get 5 real live 'neo-cons' in the room and they don't agree on much at all.

First, "y'all" meant to imply folks on the other side of the Big Ditch, not fans of Sheehan.  Didn't mean to allude otherwise.

You aren't marginalizing them by continuing to draw media attention to them...

And when they show-up on the Mall on Saturday with a couple thousand strong of the great unwashed, you somehow think the media were just going to ignore them but for the counterprotest?  So your strategy is that we just ignore them and maybe, just maybe, the media - who already smell blood in the water surrounding a President they cannot stand all voted against - are just going to show up, say "Gee, no news here" and walk away?  Sorry, no dice.

Besides, perhaps shining a little daylight on this particular group of "anti-war" protesters is not exactly a bad thing for those of us on the "Victory - then Peace" side of the fence.

Finally, I hope you'll forgive me if I think the whole "Why aren't you right-wingers ignoring this fool" stuff is a little overblown on your part.  After all, it wasn't our side of the wall that bestowed "absolute moral authority" on Mama Sheehan, is it?

And please, drop the canard about "spending the time more productively in support of the troops".  You have no idea what some of us do for a living.

I'm sure there are some people who consider themselves Communists.  However they aren't exactly a significant portion of American.

Neo-con, as long as it is limited to the appropriate scope, is a relevant term.  

Right-Wing or no different than Left-wing.

Constitution-in-exile is certainly a derogatory term.  I still don't know who first came up with it.

I would say that Neo-Con and right-wing are pejoratives in the same sense that Liberal is a pejorative.  Communist is more a kissing cousin of Nazi and Fascist.  

I've known a huge number of Communist Americans, but I've known enough to affirm the idea they are most easily identified by the high decibal at which they argue with themselves.

little about the media.

The fact is that there have been many, many anti-war demonstrations that have recieved little or no coverage from the MSM.  But, anti-war and Pro-troops supporters facing off in an ideological battle with lots of yelling?  That's guaranteed time on the news.

Both the left and right leaning news cover the event.  Counter-protesting adds legitimacy to the concept of protesting in the first place...

Finally, I hope you'll forgive me if I think the whole "Why aren't you right-wingers ignoring this fool" stuff is a little overblown on your part.  After all, it wasn't our side of the wall that bestowed "absolute moral authority" on Mama Sheehan, is it?

If you bothered to read polling numbers you will note that the vast majority of Americans don't believe that Mama Sheehan has 'absolute moral authority.'  By responding to her in these terms you are allowing the Liberals to dictate and frame the argument; by counter-protesting instead of ignoring you bring legitimacy to their statements.  And you pull people away from more legitimate causes that need attention, by focusing on the lightning-rod the left has thrown out there.

And, btw, I really don't care what some of 'you' do for a living.  People who bring up vague 'details' about their personal lives online always make me laugh.  I really could care less.  The point is that if you wish to spend time on a weekend supporting the troops, you can find far better ways to do it than trashing someone.  

that you will see anywhere close to the numbers of hippies that will show up on the pro-troops side.  Because, frankly, many conservatives just don't go protest (and who can blame them?)

It does no good to have a crowd of 100k anti-war people shown next to a crowd of 2k pro-troops protestors.  It is practically an advertisement for their cause.  I mean, these people [B]live[/B] to protest stuff and are travelling from all over the country to participate.  I highly doubt that a group which is much less likely to show up and protest can mount an effective anti-protest, especially given that there is no one relevant rallying issue going on in order to stir people up.

I mean, kudos for having a good idea, but the focus on Sheehan is unnessecary and destructive to the cause; we should attempt to continue to carry a postive message at all times...

Well, I suppose I've just imagined the almost nightly news reports (pre-Katrina, of course) of anti-war demonstrations around these parts (Kerry's home - well, the one he nominally representes in the Senate anyway) - far, far smaller than what is proposed for this weekend - in my daily paper (that would be this one) and my local TV stations.  Yep, that's it - I'm just delusional.  Thanks for pointing it out.

As to the rest, you either have it entirely backward or you didn't get at all what I was trying to say.

Feel free to take the last word on this - I have a feeling we're not going anywhere from here.

Cheers.

I dislike Sheehan. We need a war against terrorists.

We can support the troops while admitting that Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz etc. are foolish. The idea that we can install a stable government in Iraq before we leave is a mirage. And, let's remember the costs of this losing strategy. As you visit www.costofwar.com, remember, it is Islamist strategy to bankrupt the US. Of course, they welcome an administration that cuts taxes during the war, which is unprecendented foolishness.

Look down, what are you standing on? I want to know. It is the only thing in your post that you may be able to substantiate.

So Osama really just cares about our short term financial issues, tax policy, and the prescription drug benefit?  I don't think so.

I left the last part of the quote off and I am sorry if it caused confusion. The "good intentions" are in fighting a war against terrorism. If you disagree with my analysis of US policies/strategy, fine, but I am not obligated to provide primary sources. The blogs are not about investigative reporting. I had my doubts about the validity and efficacy of the Vietnam war, too.  

With Al Queda accusing us of being Crusaders, I doubt that their memory and methodology is short term. The following quote can be found in a variety of news sources. bin Laden may or may not have really said it but I believe they do want to kick us in the financial balls. The terrorists have not a shred of decency or religious integrity, but they are not stupid.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

Greetings, salutations. I do not come in peace.

I am here to boot you off our site. I am going to do that because you are about as rude a visitor as we have seen in these parts.

Had you bothered to read it, you would have noticed that Erick's article here is not an exposition of his opinions. It is an announcement, of an event, which we support, and want people to come to.

The thread is not a place for you to come to tell us how stupid it is, and to regale us with your armchair generalities.

Nobody here just fell off a turnip truck. You haven't thought about anything that we haven't thought about. We decided to support this event anyway. That you disagree is, I am certain, an extremely interesting thing to many, many people. And there are undoubtedly many places on the web for you to go tell people your opinion. The thread where we are asking people to come to the event was not that place.

And now, off to The Pile™ with you. Have a nice life, and may you be in Heaven for an hour before the devil knows you're dead.

I'll admit I didn't see that quote before and I was wrong.