PDA

View Full Version : Cindy Sheehan is apparently stupid...




Brooklyn Red Leg
09-14-2011, 04:41 AM
Well, just lost all respect for her. Via her Facebook:


I saw a Ron Paul for President 2012 sign on my bike ride today--it said: "Restore America." My question is restore America to what?

The Constitution? LOL Restore it to where only white guys with property can vote? To where blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person?

Wow, about the most ignorant goddamn thing I've read in a long time. Apparently, she doesn't really give a fuck about ending the wars. Nope, she's a goddamn Big Government loving stooge.

Well Cindy, as far as I'm concerned, you can go fuck yourself.

http://www.facebook.com/cindyssoapbox

[Mod Edit - let's keep it civil .. no name calling]

Rael
09-14-2011, 04:45 AM
She's ugly too.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
09-14-2011, 04:46 AM
I remember she did a public chat sometime back and I managed to catch some of it. She made it pretty clear that she was not a Ron Paul fan at all. I am not sure why anyone ever thought she would be on our side at all. She is about as far left as you can get and would probably love life in North Korea.

jmdrake
09-14-2011, 05:10 AM
I don't do a lot of facebooking. Do you have to "friend" someone before you can reply to a comment on their wall? Anywho, she has the same basic fear of Dr. Paul many progressives have. That any of the good that's happened in the past century will be undone. It's a belief that the federal government is solely responsible for it all. She's better than some progressives in that she at least was willing to protest Obama on the war. If I could comment I would say this:

Restore America to before there was a Patriot Act
Restore America to before we did preemptive war
Restore America to before we bailed out banks
Restore America to a balanced budget
Restore America to where I could get on a plane without being radiated or groped
Restore America to when family farms could thrive with neither restriction nor subsidy
Restore America to when Amish could sell milk and eggs without worrying about S.W.A.T.
Restore America to when we didn't have millions in prison for non violent drug offenses
Restore America to when we had a manufacturing base
Restore America to where mom and pop businesses could thrive

In fact our "Restore America" signs should have some of that on there. Don't leave the message blank where your enemies can fill in what they want.

LibertyEagle
09-14-2011, 05:40 AM
I remember she did a public chat sometime back and I managed to catch some of it. She made it pretty clear that she was not a Ron Paul fan at all. I am not sure why anyone ever thought she would be on our side at all. She is about as far left as you can get and would probably love life in North Korea.

+1

Lafayette
09-14-2011, 06:07 AM
Apparently, she doesn't really give a fuck about ending the wars.


I guess she went pro war with the rest of the left, at least thats what take from her non support for the only anti war candidate.

Sola_Fide
09-14-2011, 06:21 AM
Philosophically, I don't even know how Marxists can be anti war....

vita3
09-14-2011, 06:24 AM
Not a Cindy Sheehan fan & she is very left, but has never wavered from her anti-war stance.

I get that the original poster loves Ron Paul & is upset that she is not a fan, but why go after an individual who lost a son in an illegal war? Who wouldn't been off kilter for life?

Keep it classy Ron Paulers.

matt0611
09-14-2011, 06:35 AM
It just cements my view that liberals HATE the constitution, hence they HATE america and all she stands for about limited government. They refuse to even acknowledge it if possible.

They wish we didn't have a constitution beyond a few things like protecting abortion.

They want full mod rule without any shackles on the power of government. They really are so transparent.

ItsTime
09-14-2011, 06:37 AM
This thread should be moved.

Peace&Freedom
09-14-2011, 06:37 AM
Well I am sure why I thought she could be on our side, because I once exchanged email correspondence with her, after reading a few columns she let LRC also post on its site. I asked her if she might come to NY to run against Hillary Clinton, as a show of objecting to that high-profile Democrat's pro-war stance. She politely declined, indicating she preferred to run closer to home (eventually, against Pelosi), but was resolved to remain anti-war to the point of not conforming to the two-party syndrome.

Do some here hate liberals, more than they hate the state? Look, the plain fact is most Democrats are conditioned not to support Republicans, and vice versa, even if they agreed with a candidate of the other party on some major issues. How many Republicans would support Paul if he had the same exact positions, but had chosen the Democratic party line to get into Congress? Sheehan is one of the few strong anti-war liberals to challenge both the Bush regime, and leading Democrats on the issue. It's disappointing for her not to support Paul but not unexpected, given her overall leanings. We need to encourage more Democrats to break with the party leadership and so deprive them of left-cover to continue war and tyranny, not less. More dialogue, less insults.

Badger Paul
09-14-2011, 06:38 AM
"Keep it classy Ron Paulers"

Exactly. Unlike some of you shoot your potty mouths off I've actually met her and she's a very nice person. But if this is the way she feels I'm very disappointed, because she seemed interested at the time in forming a "left-right" coalition around the war issue. And she also knows what's she's saying is bogus nonsense designed by the establishment to keep people like her from supporting Ron Paul. But now she's buying into it for whatever reason, either peer pressure or lack of funding.

Cindy, I've got news for you, Ralph Nader ain't walking through that door. There's no other antiwar candidate of any kind of stature other than Ron Paul. You don't back him that's fine, but the only "slave" then is you because you chose to stay imprisoned in the establishment's "left-right" jail instead of breaking free of it.

moostraks
09-14-2011, 07:31 AM
I don't do a lot of facebooking. Do you have to "friend" someone before you can reply to a comment on their wall? Anywho, she has the same basic fear of Dr. Paul many progressives have. That any of the good that's happened in the past century will be undone. It's a belief that the federal government is solely responsible for it all. She's better than some progressives in that she at least was willing to protest Obama on the war. If I could comment I would say this:

Restore America to before there was a Patriot Act
Restore America to before we did preemptive war
Restore America to before we bailed out banks
Restore America to a balanced budget
Restore America to where I could get on a plane without being radiated or groped
Restore America to when family farms could thrive with neither restriction nor subsidy
Restore America to when Amish could sell milk and eggs without worrying about S.W.A.T.
Restore America to when we didn't have millions in prison for non violent drug offenses
Restore America to when we had a manufacturing base
Restore America to where mom and pop businesses could thrive

In fact our "Restore America" signs should have some of that on there. Don't leave the message blank where your enemies can fill in what they want.

excellent points...esp. the bolded!!!

specsaregood
09-14-2011, 07:43 AM
I get that the original poster loves Ron Paul & is upset that she is not a fan, but why go after an individual who lost a son in an illegal war? Who wouldn't been off kilter for life?

Keep it classy Ron Paulers.

It isn't that we are upset that "she is not a fan", it is that she resorted to disgusting propaganda and strawman. It is dishonest.
But hey, I guess she has made her career out of being anti-war now, can't not try to push away support from the ONLY anti-war candidate, that would hurt her business.

Keep it classy, sheehan fans.

matt0611
09-14-2011, 07:45 AM
It isn't that we are upset that "she is not a fan", it is that she resorted to disgusting propaganda and strawman. It is dishonest.
But hey, I guess she has made her career out of being anti-war now, can't not try to push away support from the ONLY anti-war candidate, that would hurt her business.

Keep it classy, sheehan fans.

Lol yeah, not much for Cindy to do if Ron Paul were to be elected. She can't be having that! :D

Sweman
09-14-2011, 08:13 AM
"Keep it classy Ron Paulers"

Exactly. Unlike some of you shoot your potty mouths off I've actually met her and she's a very nice person. But if this is the way she feels I'm very disappointed, because she seemed interested at the time in forming a "left-right" coalition around the war issue. And she also knows what's she's saying is bogus nonsense designed by the establishment to keep people like her from supporting Ron Paul. But now she's buying into it for whatever reason, either peer pressure or lack funding.

Cindy, I've got news for you, Ralph Nader ain't walking through that door. There's no other antiwar candidate of any kind of stature other than Ron Paul. You don't back him that's fine, but the only "slave" then is you because you chose to stay imprisoned in the establishment's "left-right" jail instead of breaking free of it.http://www.nationofblue.com/content/attachments/7640d1313118844-rick-pitino-photo_256x322.jpg

Matthew5
09-14-2011, 08:33 AM
Why is this remotely surprising? She lists her inspirations as Che Guevara, Karl Marx, and Hugo Chavez among others. She despises everything Ron Paul (and us) stands for.

Plus how would she get anti-war speeches booked if there are no wars? Bad for business, my friend. lol

fletcher
09-14-2011, 08:54 AM
http://www.marxsite.com/chaVezsheehan.jpg

sparebulb
09-14-2011, 08:58 AM
Perhaps we should welcome the rejection of RP by Sheehan. This gives RP street cred with the Fox News brain-dead neocon Republican demographic. Those are the voters we need right now.

Valli6
09-14-2011, 09:02 AM
Many people forget that the constitution was written with an ammendment process, so that when we realize some part of it is inconsistent with freedom, we can correct it. Our troubles come from ignoring the required ammendment process, for the convenience of the current crop of legislators.

Matthew5
09-14-2011, 09:03 AM
Perhaps we should welcome the rejection of RP by Sheehan. This gives RP street cred with the Fox News brain-dead neocon Republican demographic. Those are the voters we need right now.

Good point, she would be a very toxic ally and the benefit of her anti-war support is far inferior to her leftist views.

PreDeadMan
09-14-2011, 09:29 AM
Look I like Ron Paul as a person who promotes and educates people about liberty on a mass scale.I found the comment to be sort of tongue and cheek kind of funny in a way because some people do have founding father and constitution fetishes. Don't get me wrong the founders were intelligent creative people, thinkers,inventors and what have you but you sort of have to grind your teeth that some of them owned slaves. Owning slaves= the opposite of freedom lol.

donnay
09-14-2011, 09:36 AM
I don't do a lot of facebooking. Do you have to "friend" someone before you can reply to a comment on their wall? Anywho, she has the same basic fear of Dr. Paul many progressives have. That any of the good that's happened in the past century will be undone. It's a belief that the federal government is solely responsible for it all. She's better than some progressives in that she at least was willing to protest Obama on the war. If I could comment I would say this:

Restore America to before there was a Patriot Act
Restore America to before we did preemptive war
Restore America to before we bailed out banks
Restore America to a balanced budget
Restore America to where I could get on a plane without being radiated or groped
Restore America to when family farms could thrive with neither restriction nor subsidy
Restore America to when Amish could sell milk and eggs without worrying about S.W.A.T.
Restore America to when we didn't have millions in prison for non violent drug offenses
Restore America to when we had a manufacturing base
Restore America to where mom and pop businesses could thrive

In fact our "Restore America" signs should have some of that on there. Don't leave the message blank where your enemies can fill in what they want.

Those are excellent ideas. I couldn't agree more!

Matthew5
09-14-2011, 09:37 AM
Look I like Ron Paul as a person who promotes and educates people about liberty on a mass scale.I found the comment to be sort of tongue and cheek kind of funny in a way because some people do have founding father and constitution fetishes. Don't get me wrong the founders were intelligent creative people, thinkers,inventors and what have you but you sort of have to grind your teeth that some of them owned slaves. Owning slaves= the opposite of freedom lol.

No one ever said the Constitution was a perfect document when it was created. However, its ratification process is exceptional and it has corrected itself as society has been more enlightened. No one would advocate pushing the reset button to the late 1700s, let's adhere to the Constitution we have now!

Todd
09-14-2011, 09:38 AM
Look I like Ron Paul as a person who promotes and educates people about liberty on a mass scale.I found the comment to be sort of tongue and cheek kind of funny in a way because some people do have founding father and constitution fetishes. Don't get me wrong the founders were intelligent creative people, thinkers,inventors and what have you but you sort of have to grind your teeth that some of them owned slaves. Owning slaves= the opposite of freedom lol.

I've always found that the term "standing on the shoulder of giants" can apply when thinking about the times we live in. We take it for granted today that certain things are immoral. But the majority of people living during that period believed differently. I sometimes wonder had I been born in an earlier era, would I not have had been as much of that world. I'd like to think I would have been a critical thinker and part of the minority. Will people in 200 years look back on us and not understand how we "missed" something?

brandon
09-14-2011, 09:45 AM
She does have a point. Of course not that Ron Paul promotes those things, but that maybe the Constitution and America were never great.

madfoot
09-14-2011, 09:48 AM
Look I like Ron Paul as a person who promotes and educates people about liberty on a mass scale.I found the comment to be sort of tongue and cheek kind of funny in a way because some people do have founding father and constitution fetishes. Don't get me wrong the founders were intelligent creative people, thinkers,inventors and what have you but you sort of have to grind your teeth that some of them owned slaves. Owning slaves= the opposite of freedom lol.

Ron Paul isn't perfect, sure. But her specific criticisms were so off the deep end - it's as if she thinks we never passed the Thirteenth Amendment.

matt0611
09-14-2011, 09:50 AM
She does have a point. Of course not that Ron Paul promotes those things, but that maybe the Constitution and America were never great.

Well, I don't believe the US Constitution is the be all end all. (I'm actually an anarcho-capitalist). All the things she mentions are no longer in our constitution, so she is really just being dishonest. The US Constitution is probably the best system in existence, not that it doesn't have its problems and couldn't be improved though.

AuH20
09-14-2011, 09:55 AM
These people hate any form of independence or living off the grid which the early Constitution provided. I wish such folks like Cindy Sheehan weren't so domineering, but that's the nature of the progressive movement.

madfoot
09-14-2011, 09:56 AM
These people hate any form of independence

What's it like living so far up your asshole?

AuH20
09-14-2011, 09:58 AM
What's it like living so far up your asshole?

Let me count the ways.

- Transfats.
- carbon emissions
- guns
- any sharp or blunt objects
- unregulated commerce
- lemonade stands
- produce
- seemingly any unlicensed activity not sanctioned by the accredited intellectual elite.

Progressives know what's best for all of us, down to brushing our teeth. They can go to hell.

madfoot
09-14-2011, 10:04 AM
I'm not defending progressives. I'm just saying, what you said was fucking stupid.

AuH20
09-14-2011, 10:06 AM
I'm not defending progressives. I'm just saying, what you said was fucking stupid.

But the shoe fits. Progressives are generally domineering "do-gooders" who don't realize that they're anti-freedom. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I'd say the people at the top really never had any. :)

Cowlesy
09-14-2011, 10:06 AM
I remember she did a public chat sometime back and I managed to catch some of it. She made it pretty clear that she was not a Ron Paul fan at all. I am not sure why anyone ever thought she would be on our side at all. She is about as far left as you can get and would probably love life in North Korea.

Exactly.

oyarde
09-14-2011, 10:24 AM
Ignorant ? Yes , as any Che and Marx fan is . Relevant ? No . If she wants me to help enlighten her , we may have to start with a list of her current meds :)

madfoot
09-14-2011, 10:26 AM
But the shoe fits. Progressives are generally domineering "do-gooders" who don't realize that they're anti-freedom. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I'd say the people at the top really never had any. :)

It's so much easier to be a rabid ideologue if you believe everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil.

AuH20
09-14-2011, 10:35 AM
It's so much easier to be a rabid ideologue if you believe everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil.

I didn't say stupid. misguided in some respects.

oyarde
09-14-2011, 10:39 AM
It's so much easier to be a rabid ideologue if you believe everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or evil. The evil are not stupid , they intend for the theft to happen , only the unenlightened are stupid , they do not understand.

RCA
09-14-2011, 11:03 AM
In a way she's right. The Constitution is just a piece of parchment. It's the ideals we should be restoring not a relic document from the past that never worked to begin with.

Rothbardian Girl
09-14-2011, 11:15 AM
Philosophically, I don't even know how Marxists can be anti war....
I have a few Marxist friends (believe me, I've tried converting them many times and at least gotten them to grudgingly accept some of my points), but I'm pretty sure they believe most war (at least its modern conception) stems from capitalistic interests trying to expand globally, or something like that. Basically they see the state as a racket that protects capitalist interests, which is somewhat true in today's society, but not in the one Austrians discuss when they talk about the free market. It irritates me how so many of them conflate the capitalism that actually exists with what the free-market agenda is.

E: I don't have too much love for the Constitution, considering it was a document written to protect the interests of a few over the interests of many, no matter how you slice it. There's stories about how the press and ordinary folk were deliberately kept out of the meetings where they would write the Constitution. That kind of stuff is in all likelihood being done today, if you accept some conspiracy theories, and most people on this very forum scream about something like that. Not to mention that the Constitution was trampled on only a few years after its inception during the Whiskey Rebellion. It has utterly failed in its purposes.

You'd probably need a document that was even more explicit in its prohibitions of growing government (as clear as it is to folks like us), so that statists can't have interpretation excuses to keep growing government. I'm all for achieving a more free society, and it's true that strict constitutionalism is better than what we have today, by leaps and bounds. But for many people, the journey probably isn't going to stop there.

dannno
09-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Don't get me wrong the founders were intelligent creative people, thinkers,inventors and what have you but you sort of have to grind your teeth that some of them owned slaves. Owning slaves= the opposite of freedom lol.

The problem was that slaves came with huge amounts of debt attached, so they couldn't be freed unless somebody paid off the debt. Otherwise they were essentially owned by the bank who would take back the slave and auction them off.

So if you owned slaves, you couldn't just let them go. You had to have them earn enough for you to pay off their debt.

If you owned slaves yourself you could either sell them or keep them. You could treat them in a way that you thought was better than how they would be treated on a major plantation if they were sold on the market.

I'm obviously very much against slavery, but in context I can see how someone back then who had slaves wouldn't feel as though they were adding to any problems if they treated what slaves they had reasonably well. It was just the reality of the situation they lived in.

emazur
09-14-2011, 11:32 AM
I remember she did a public chat sometime back and I managed to catch some of it. She made it pretty clear that she was not a Ron Paul fan at all. I am not sure why anyone ever thought she would be on our side at all.

Well she endorsed John Dennis for Congress in 2010, the same Republican Paul also endorsed

dannno
09-14-2011, 11:33 AM
It's too bad Cindy Sheehan won't watch the recent PBS interview with Ron Paul where he says that if he represented any of the colonies back during the founding of our Constitution he wouldn't have signed onto a union with a country that allowed slavery.

dannno
09-14-2011, 11:34 AM
Well she endorsed John Dennis for Congress in 2010, the same Republican Paul also endorsed

Huh, I don't recall that, awesome!

It seems she just has a fear of old white guys.

Philhelm
09-14-2011, 11:35 AM
Not a Cindy Sheehan fan & she is very left, but has never wavered from her anti-war stance.

I get that the original poster loves Ron Paul & is upset that she is not a fan, but why go after an individual who lost a son in an illegal war? Who wouldn't been off kilter for life?

Keep it classy Ron Paulers.

So, if she won't waiver on her anti-war stance, I take it that she's voting for Ron Paul? Who else is there? President Obama obviously wouldn't be her first pick...

Zap!
09-14-2011, 01:25 PM
Anyone who had any respect for her even before this is a moron. She's a left-wing hatchet face, just like Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Hugo Chavez are. Stop liking these people, they are all bad news leftist scumbags. Thankfully, those of us who are paleo-cons know better.

Napoleon's Shadow
09-14-2011, 01:54 PM
I feel bad for her loss, but no one ever accused her of bring particularly intelligent.

jmdrake
09-14-2011, 01:58 PM
It's too bad Cindy Sheehan won't watch the recent PBS interview with Ron Paul where he says that if he represented any of the colonies back during the founding of our Constitution he wouldn't have signed onto a union with a country that allowed slavery.

Interesting! Got a tube? I could use this.

emazur
09-14-2011, 02:41 PM
Huh, I don't recall that, awesome!

It seems she just has a fear of old white guys.

Yeah, Nader's 2008 VP (lives in San Francisco) also endorsed John Dennis

Brett85
09-14-2011, 02:56 PM
I never had any respect for her.

Humanae Libertas
09-14-2011, 03:07 PM
She always seemed like an opportunist to me. Let's not give her any attention...maybe she'll go away.

McBell
09-14-2011, 06:30 PM
The comment was kind of stupid, but it does raise a legitimate question. What are we restoring America to? When was it free?

Zap!
09-14-2011, 06:36 PM
I hate it when white people bring up all the problems of minorities. A black man is president. Let's stop mentioning our past. Thankfully, discrimination is frowned upon these days.

AbVag
09-14-2011, 08:22 PM
The comment was kind of stupid, but it does raise a legitimate question. What are we restoring America to? When was it free?

And it is a good question. If you look at it from a black person's perspective (if anyone reading this is black, then it's very easy to do :-) ), there has not been a moment in American history where it was free. We all understand what it's supposed to mean, but it should be understood how someone can look at that phrase wrong.

AbVag
09-14-2011, 08:23 PM
I hate it when white people bring up all the problems of minorities. A black man is president. Let's stop mentioning our past. Thankfully, discrimination is frowned upon these days.

Yup. We're all equally enslaved.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-15-2011, 06:19 AM
Cindy Sheehan is apparently stupid...

"Apparently"?

Rael
09-15-2011, 07:36 AM
I hate it when white people bring up all the problems of minorities. A black man is president. Let's stop mentioning our past. Thankfully, discrimination is frowned upon these days.

Thank you! I'm also tired of white people invoking MLK, the civil rights movement, etc. That stuff puts me to sleep and most white people really just don't care. That's not to say they are racist, it's just that it is of no interest to the average white person.

LopTarDaBoo
09-15-2011, 07:40 AM
I'd ask Paul fans to keep one thing in mind, and that is people have been given an extremely negative impression of Paul through major media outlets. They're not necessarily against Paul or liberty, but rather the image pundits have created of him.

I first came into contact with Paul supporters through an Audit the Fed rally. At the time I was joining protests of the bailouts, and HR 1207 was the only legislation being put forth that threatened to diminish banker welfare. I was not even in agreement at the time that the Fed should be ended, and frankly I was unnerved by the crowd. Some people recognized me as new and asked me where I had heard of Ron Paul and I told them I was there to support HR 1207 and was not part of "the Ron Paul thing". I was repulsed at the idea of being associated with Paul, and looking back I can't even remember exactly why. It was just an accumulation of hinted associations and impressions, knowing smirks by interviewers, etc.

It was thanks to basic friendly outreach efforts, and personal investigation and reading on my part, that ended with my being a Paul supporter. Cindy is not necessarily an enemy, or a stupid person. Keep the friendly interaction up and look for common ground with her. We may not win a convert but the potential is there to develop a Kucinich style rapport.

And she has a point that "Restore America" is a slogan that, sadly, can be read in many negative ways.

Johncjackson
09-15-2011, 10:34 AM
Sorry guys. She has a point. I've been supporting Ron Paul in some form long before his 2nd POTUS run but there is a legit criticism of the idea that we need to "Restore" something or turn back time to the "good ole days" that weren't actually that good for a lot of people. I generally support the Constitution but I think the reality of our goal is moving forward ( yes "progressing"- with apologies to those against progress) and embracing an idea of Freedom/Liberty that has NEVER really existed, despite all the nostalgia. A lot of good things to take from the Founders and the Constitution and ideas that are hundreds of years old, Yes. However, this country has never been the perfect land of liberty some claim. It takes a great deal of revisionist history. One can certainly be 100% anti-war ( AND limited govt, though this doesnt apply to Sheehan) while not waxing nostalgic for times with other problems.

sparebulb
09-15-2011, 10:36 AM
I'd ask Paul fans to keep one thing in mind, and that is people have been given an extremely negative impression of Paul through major media outlets. They're not necessarily against Paul or liberty, but rather the image pundits have created of him.

I first came into contact with Paul supporters through an Audit the Fed rally. At the time I was joining protests of the bailouts, and HR 1207 was the only legislation being put forth that threatened to diminish banker welfare. I was not even in agreement at the time that the Fed should be ended, and frankly I was unnerved by the crowd. Some people recognized me as new and asked me where I had heard of Ron Paul and I told them I was there to support HR 1207 and was not part of "the Ron Paul thing". I was repulsed at the idea of being associated with Paul, and looking back I can't even remember exactly why. It was just an accumulation of hinted associations and impressions, knowing smirks by interviewers, etc.

It was thanks to basic friendly outreach efforts, and personal investigation and reading on my part, that ended with my being a Paul supporter. Cindy is not necessarily an enemy, or a stupid person. Keep the friendly interaction up and look for common ground with her. We may not win a convert but the potential is there to develop a Kucinich style rapport.

And she has a point that "Restore America" is a slogan that, sadly, can be read in many negative ways.

I don't refute your ideas in any way. People will be introduced to RP's concepts sooner or later. My personal prediction is that it will be later. But one thing is sure, no amount of anti-depressants, video entertainment or government programs will shield the masses from the reality of the sudden-stop to our present standard of living that is coming.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the short game. Rand Paul and others are the long game. We need to set the stage of ideas without dumbing it down. The coming realities will be vindication.

Johncjackson
09-15-2011, 10:39 AM
I hate it when white people bring up all the problems of minorities. A black man is president. Let's stop mentioning our past. Thankfully, discrimination is frowned upon these days.

We all know that the racial identity of the President ( or even the office of POTUS itself) is SO meaningful as a measure of equal treatment. It is one thing to support the right of private discrimination. However, it takes a great deal of ignorance to pretend that state force/power is applied equally under the law.

Brooklyn Red Leg
09-15-2011, 10:44 AM
The reason she is stupid is because she should know better. One of her replies was whining about Justin Raimondo 'attacking the Anti-War Left'. Sorry Cindy, but your side threw all of us Anti-War types (Left and Right) under the bus and then promptly backed it up over us again with Obama's latest adventure in Libya. There is no way she is not familiar with Dr. Paul's positions. She's just a stupid cunt as far as I'm concerned. Piss on her and piss on people like her. She said something so blatantly fucking stupid that it deserves scorn.

CaptainAmerica
09-15-2011, 11:17 AM
Well, just lost all respect for her. Via her Facebook:



Wow, about the most ignorant goddamn thing I've read in a long time. Apparently, she doesn't really give a fuck about ending the wars. Nope, she's a goddamn Big Government loving stooge.

Well Cindy, as far as I'm concerned, you can go fuck yourself.

http://www.facebook.com/cindyssoapbox

[Mod Edit - let's keep it civil .. no name calling] Cindy Sheehan was always an idiot, and she still is. She really loves Hugo Chavez,that says it all.

heavenlyboy34
09-15-2011, 11:32 AM
Yup. We're all equally enslaved.qft :(

jmdrake
09-15-2011, 12:10 PM
Sorry guys. She has a point. I've been supporting Ron Paul in some form long before his 2nd POTUS run but there is a legit criticism of the idea that we need to "Restore" something or turn back time to the "good ole days" that weren't actually that good for a lot of people. I generally support the Constitution but I think the reality of our goal is moving forward ( yes "progressing"- with apologies to those against progress) and embracing an idea of Freedom/Liberty that has NEVER really existed, despite all the nostalgia. A lot of good things to take from the Founders and the Constitution and ideas that are hundreds of years old, Yes. However, this country has never been the perfect land of liberty some claim. It takes a great deal of revisionist history. One can certainly be 100% anti-war ( AND limited govt, though this doesnt apply to Sheehan) while not waxing nostalgic for times with other problems.

The problem your argument (and Sheehan's as well) is that the current constitution doesn't restrict votes to whites with property nor does it count blacks as "3/5ths" nor does it allow slavery. So that's a straw man argument. Yeah I know it resonates with many on the left. And I know that there are some on the right that feel that way. But that's not Ron Paul. If your sentiment is that we shouldn't just say "Restore American" and leave the rest blank for someone else to fill in, I agree.



We all know that the racial identity of the President ( or even the office of POTUS itself) is SO meaningful as a measure of equal treatment. It is one thing to support the right of private discrimination. However, it takes a great deal of ignorance to pretend that state force/power is applied equally under the law.

You're right. It isn't. And having a liberal black president hasn't helped in that matter at all. The banksters ripped of everybody and Obama bailed out the banksters. He's Robinhood in reverse.

I don't want to go back to pre-civil war America. How about going back 25 years? There was a report on (liberal) NPR today that said that wealth gap between blacks and whites is worse than it has been for 25 years. Progress? What progress? Blacks have lost more under Obama than any other group. And he wants more tax money to "help" us again? Ummmm....thanks but no thanks.

V-rod
09-16-2011, 04:10 AM
Everything she believes in can be found within the pages of the Communist Manifesto.

affa
09-16-2011, 10:43 AM
Let me count the ways.

- Transfats.
- carbon emissions
- guns
- any sharp or blunt objects
- unregulated commerce
- lemonade stands
- produce
- seemingly any unlicensed activity not sanctioned by the accredited intellectual elite.

Progressives know what's best for all of us, down to brushing our teeth. They can go to hell.

Painting everyone you disagree with with such a broad brush, assuming their opinions and stances on a variety of topics, and then damning them... man, that's just absurd. different people come to different conclusions on certain topics. yes, some people agree with everything you list above, but you act as if the 'enemy' is one giant hive mind, which is just absurd.

and even more importantly, these people -aren't- our enemies. they our our brethren, our american populace, our citizens. we all share a common enemy - tyranny. not everyone quite agrees with what tyranny is, or how to oppose it, but the answer is education, discussion, debate, and thought -- not hatred, name-slinging, and damnation.

as long as you present yourself like that, you will be divisive, a creator of hate and not truly working towards educating your fellow man, understanding that we're all in this together.

oyarde
09-16-2011, 10:48 AM
Painting everyone you disagree with with such a broad brush, assuming their opinions and stances on a variety of topics, and then damning them... man, that's just absurd. different people come to different conclusions on certain topics. yes, some people agree with everything you list above, but you act as if the 'enemy' is one giant hive mind, which is just absurd.

and even more importantly, these people -aren't- our enemies. they our our brethren, our american populace, our citizens. we all share a common enemy - tyranny. not everyone quite agrees with what tyranny is, or how to oppose it, but the answer is education, discussion, debate, and thought -- not hatred, name-slinging, and damnation.

as long as you present yourself like that, you will be divisive, a creator of hate and not truly working towards educating your fellow man, understanding that we're all in this together. They are not a hive mind ?

affa
09-16-2011, 11:17 AM
I'd ask Paul fans to keep one thing in mind, and that is people have been given an extremely negative impression of Paul through major media outlets. They're not necessarily against Paul or liberty, but rather the image pundits have created of him.

I first came into contact with Paul supporters through an Audit the Fed rally. At the time I was joining protests of the bailouts, and HR 1207 was the only legislation being put forth that threatened to diminish banker welfare. I was not even in agreement at the time that the Fed should be ended, and frankly I was unnerved by the crowd. Some people recognized me as new and asked me where I had heard of Ron Paul and I told them I was there to support HR 1207 and was not part of "the Ron Paul thing". I was repulsed at the idea of being associated with Paul, and looking back I can't even remember exactly why. It was just an accumulation of hinted associations and impressions, knowing smirks by interviewers, etc.

It was thanks to basic friendly outreach efforts, and personal investigation and reading on my part, that ended with my being a Paul supporter. Cindy is not necessarily an enemy, or a stupid person. Keep the friendly interaction up and look for common ground with her. We may not win a convert but the potential is there to develop a Kucinich style rapport.

And she has a point that "Restore America" is a slogan that, sadly, can be read in many negative ways.

I'm quoting this guys entire post because it's such an important concept. I too moved over from the 'left', though my left was far far left -- i've never supported a democrat for any position. i still don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I absolutely agree where it counts. We can all agree on liberty.

what many people here need to understand is really basic: you know that raw, visceral, hatred some of you have for 'liberals'? that knee-jerk disgust? many 'liberals' have that for you, and think you're the 'stupid' one.

this is because we're all victim to a lifetime of divisive media and politics, pitting us against one another. we've been raised to hate the 'other', because this breaks down communication and prevents us from working together. the truth is, we're allowed to have different opinions. it doesn't make someone 'stupid', though it might make them misinformed, or miseducated. but a perfectly intelligent, sane, reasoned, and educated person can still disagree with you. there are many paths to take.

my point is this -- the poster above is right on. for many, there is a huge leap of faith in order to get onto Ron Paul's side. Heck, if you think ex-neocons have a hard time jumping ship and admitting Ron Paul is right, then think about how hard it is for someone who supported Clinton and Obama. They hear 'Republican' and instantly think - rich, pro-business (in a bad way), possibly racist, possibly uncaring, pro-drug war, pro-war... they think of the tyranny of both Bushes. It's no different than the laundry list of reasons some people here 'hate' liberals.

Ron Paul often says that liberty brings us all together, that it's a message of unity. And he's absolutely right. So please, guys, gals, find it in your heart to stop being so divisive. Knee jerk insults of 'liberals' do nothing for us. Sure, some people will never listen to reason, but that's true everywhere. but you'd be surprised who does. i've converted my share of 'liberals' to Ron Paul. I didn't do so by insulting them and pushing them away. Rather, I did so by having discussions with them.

We are not Ron Paul, but we do represent him.

affa
09-16-2011, 11:25 AM
They are not a hive mind ?

absolutely not. we're all individuals.

think of it this way -- if they're a 'hive mind', then they are absolutely correct in their politics. not stupid, but correct. but in reality, liberals disagree among themselves just as much as any other set of people.

the media certainly tries to label groups and present them as a packaged whole - just think of the way they present 'Republicans' or the 'Tea Party' or any other group. The media doesn't create individuals (with the sole exception of celebrities), it creates packaged demographics.

One Republican can be extremely different from another -- just compare, say, Ron Paul to a Bush, a Cheney, or a Santorum or McCain. 'Liberals' can be just as different. Painting them all with a broad brush is divisive and detrimental, for it requires a lack of understanding of their varied opinions, thoughts, and positions.

Rothbardian Girl
09-16-2011, 11:38 AM
Sorry guys. She has a point. I've been supporting Ron Paul in some form long before his 2nd POTUS run but there is a legit criticism of the idea that we need to "Restore" something or turn back time to the "good ole days" that weren't actually that good for a lot of people. I generally support the Constitution but I think the reality of our goal is moving forward ( yes "progressing"- with apologies to those against progress) and embracing an idea of Freedom/Liberty that has NEVER really existed, despite all the nostalgia. A lot of good things to take from the Founders and the Constitution and ideas that are hundreds of years old, Yes. However, this country has never been the perfect land of liberty some claim. It takes a great deal of revisionist history. One can certainly be 100% anti-war ( AND limited govt, though this doesnt apply to Sheehan) while not waxing nostalgic for times with other problems.

I agree with the sentiment of this post. I don't like the whole "restoring America" phraseology either. I mean obviously no one here is going to want to return to slavery or the horrors of the Civil Rights era, but for liberals who automatically hate conservatives and Republicans (which was mentioned by another poster on here), the "restoring America" slogan makes it sound like we want to go back to Gilded-Age-style decadence and robber barons and when women and blacks couldn't vote, etc. etc. People can say "screw liberals" all they want, but the way things are framed makes a lot of difference, especially when we are trying to win. And I think more liberal Republicans would attack people like us for what they perceive as racist or overly nostalgic views, for those of you discounting this argument because we need to win the Republican primary first.

I agree that the Constitution shouldn't be looked back on with a whole lot of nostalgia. It failed in its stated goal. It couldn't have achieved its stated goals, either, just by how it was conceived. I recognize what we have now isn't better at all, though. So I am willing to accept constitutionally limited government by the standards we have now, where (at least in theory) there is less of a risk of women and blacks and other minorities being discriminated against.

I hate when people charge that Ron is racist, too. If they've ever heard the man speak, they could tell that this man doesn't have a hateful bone in his body. It's ridiculous how he is portrayed in the media.

CaptainAmerica
09-16-2011, 11:41 AM
http://www.anniemayhem.com/blog%20pics/SheehanChavez.jpg

Cindy Sheehan reminds me of "medea benjamin"

http://www.globalexchange.org/blogs/peopletopeople/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/medea-van-and.gif

they both love hardcore socialism.

TCE
09-16-2011, 11:57 AM
Think about how many GOP Primary voters she influences. That number is pretty close to zero. We have to let her say what she wants to say and let it go. All we're doing is drawing attention to her.

The important point to be drawn from this is that the whole "let's go back to the Constitution" is probably not good imagery. That brings the complaints about us wanting to make it 1789 again with slavery, women not voting, etc. We should reframe it. We need to go forward to an era of limited government and more freedom. In this new age where every technology is obsolete within a couple years, Ron is the only candidate who can be framed as an innovator.

AuH20
09-16-2011, 12:33 PM
I've talked to a few progressives extensively and many consider pre-Reconstruction America an era which should not even be discussed, never mind taught in our schools. Apparently, everything begins and ends with the 14th amendment. :D

hard@work
09-16-2011, 02:48 PM
This tells me two things:

1. Cindy Sheehan will compromise on her primary principles. She disrespects her fallen son with her ridicule of the only anti-war hope left for the highest office of political power.

2. Cindy Sheehan has not studied the only anti-war candidate's actual positions or plans to implement policy. She cannot argue for or against the actual intentions of Paul's economic and social policies because of this.

Just another showcase for the hollow-soul so-called "left" in this country. Willing to support war and cleptocracy in exchange for their beloved utopian vision. An America that goes to war is okay if it helps the poor. I would challenge her to put forth well thought and researched opinions on why Paul, who is adamantly anti-war, should not be president and who among those that are standing should take his place.

As an aside, I'd love to see her explain why she has photos indicating support of a murderous authoritarian dictator.

affa
09-16-2011, 03:15 PM
This tells me two things:

1. Cindy Sheehan will compromise on her primary principles. She disrespects her fallen son with her ridicule of the only anti-war hope left for the highest office of political power.

or...
she doesn't fully understand Ron Paul's positions yet and is reacting to a misunderstanding of his views, or at least, a misunderstanding of so-called 'tea party' goals as misrepresented by mainstream media. i'm sure if one of the more reasonable Ron Paul supporters sat down with her for a few hours, she would likely recant her negative view of RP, though I'm not sure she'd go so far as to support him (at least, not overnight).

Remember, most people that aren't well versed in Ron Paul misunderstand him. Give people a chance to catch up -- jumping on them and calling them names only pushes people away.

HOLLYWOOD
09-16-2011, 03:34 PM
Sheehan Video Protesting the FEDERAL RESERVE Nov 2009


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jodp7B8C0vM

Cindy Sheehan was also at the END THE FED protest which took place at the San Francisco FEDERAL RESERVE Nov 21, 2008

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/th_20110331_121.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/mzcmdr/?action=view&current=20110331_121.jpg)

Her latest protest article Cindy Sheehan is extremely BIPOLAR: http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2011/05/05/cindy-sheehan-to-protest-at-state-capitol/52521/

hard@work
09-16-2011, 05:04 PM
or...
she doesn't fully understand Ron Paul's positions yet and is reacting to a misunderstanding of his views, or at least, a misunderstanding of so-called 'tea party' goals as misrepresented by mainstream media. i'm sure if one of the more reasonable Ron Paul supporters sat down with her for a few hours, she would likely recant her negative view of RP, though I'm not sure she'd go so far as to support him (at least, not overnight).

Remember, most people that aren't well versed in Ron Paul misunderstand him. Give people a chance to catch up -- jumping on them and calling them names only pushes people away.

I think I addressed that with my 2nd point. :)

affa
09-16-2011, 08:42 PM
I think I addressed that with my 2nd point. :)

then you really oughta add an 'or' between them. or an 'and/or'. if she doesn't correctly understand his positions, you can't call her out to the degree you do in #1.

i think people who think she's attention mongering are being quite unfair. if i lost a child to a war, and had a chance to become a voice for the antiwar movement, i'd take it in a heartbeat. i have no desire to be famous, but peace is powerful.