Cindy Sheehan is being sued by the feds

[CaptUSA]

This lady is so off the wall on so many things, but I kinda have to respect her for this.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/240153/81/Anti-war-activist-


Sheehan said she's always been up front with the IRS and has no intention of paying her taxes. She says the government has already taken enough from her.

"If they (federal government), can give me my son back, I'll pay my taxes, but that's not going to happen," Sheehan said.

[kylejack]

Sounds good to me. Go away, IRS.

[hard@work]

I wish she wouldn't put her minor domestic policy beliefs ahead of her convictions.

[RiseAgainst]

I wish she would quit using the death of her son. He deserves better.

[angelatc]

I wish she wouldn't put her minor domestic policy beliefs ahead of her convictions.

She's a believer in the welfare state. This is a tantrum.

[fisharmor]

Stupid peasant, the boy never belonged to her to begin with.
They could have taken him at any point up until then for any reason and she would have to go pound sand.
Now she wants to make a big deal out of it, when he went voluntarily.

[specsaregood]

Now she wants to make a big deal out of it, when he went voluntarily.

She wants to make a big deal out of it because her son is dead. Whether he went voluntarily or not matters little I'm sure.

[Sublyminal]

Stupid peasant, the boy never belonged to her to begin with.
They could have taken him at any point up until then for any reason and she would have to go pound sand.
Now she wants to make a big deal out of it, when he went voluntarily.



Who else would he have belonged to? And don't say the US Government. The US government didn't go through the labor pains to have him. Your post is filled with complete idiocy.

[Paul Fan]

That seems fair to me. No more tax for her. I support that.

[RiseAgainst]

She wants to make a big deal out of it because her son is dead. Whether he went voluntarily or not matters little I'm sure.

She wants to make a big deal out of it because HIS DEATH, helps HER CAUSE. She uses him. Instead of standing on principle, and arguing from a point of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc. all you get is "My dead son, my dead son, my dead son."

I lost brothers and sisters as well, but I would never use their deaths in such a ridiculous fashion as she uses the death of her own son.

[specsaregood]

She wants to make a big deal out of it because HIS DEATH, helps HER CAUSE. She uses him. Instead of standing on principle, and arguing from a point of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc. all you get is "My dead son, my dead son, my dead son."

I lost brothers and sisters as well, but I would never use their deaths in such a ridiculous fashion as she uses the death of her own son.

And I'd hesitate to pretend to know what goes on in the mind of somebody else suffering from such grief.

[Sublyminal]

She wants to make a big deal out of it because HIS DEATH, helps HER CAUSE. She uses him. Instead of standing on principle, and arguing from a point of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc. all you get is "My dead son, my dead son, my dead son."

I lost brothers and sisters as well, but I would never use their deaths in such a ridiculous fashion as she uses the death of her own son.


Us losing brothers and sisters doesn't come anywhere close to a mother losing her own son. You trying to compare our brothers and sisters deaths to the death of her own child is completely idiotic.

[RiseAgainst]

And I'd hesitate to pretend to know what goes on in the mind of somebody else suffering from such grief.

I made no comment on what is going on in her mind. I made a comment on what is coming out of her mouth. It's not "War is bad for these philosophical reasons." It is "War is bad because my son is dead." It's not "I'm not paying my taxes because they violate my individual soveriegnty." It is "I'm not paying my taxes because my son is dead.". It's not "I am arguing for position X because I believe in reaoning string Y." It is "I am arguing for position X because my son is dead."

Do you see a pattern here? Her son's death, while tragic, is not something that should be used in such a manner.


Us losing brothers and sisters doesn't come anywhere close to a mother losing her own son. You trying to compare our brothers and sisters deaths to the death of her own child is completely idiotic.

I didn't compare our grief, I compared her USE of her sons death for her OWN ends. See above.

[NidStyles]

I made no comment on what is going on in her mind. I made a comment on what is coming out of her mouth. It's not "War is bad for these philosophical reasons." It is "War is bad because my son is dead." It's not "I'm not paying my taxes because they violate my individual soveriegnty." It is "I'm not paying my taxes because my son is dead.". It's not "I am arguing for position X because I believe in reaoning string Y." It is "I am arguing for position X because my son is dead."

Do you see a pattern here? Her son's death, while tragic, is not something that should be used in such a manner.



I didn't compare our grief, I compared her USE of her sons death for her OWN ends. See above.

Her argument is sound for her rational.

There need not be an externality by which she should be measured. Even if you could measure morality, it's still different for everyone. Ethically what she is doing is right. Her son wasn't only taken from her, he was killed by his own unit. He was killed in actions that were in efforts of the state without accountability on why he was there in the first place.

[kylejack]

Stupid peasant, the boy never belonged to her to begin with.
They could have taken him at any point up until then for any reason and she would have to go pound sand.
Now she wants to make a big deal out of it, when he went voluntarily.
Taxation is theft, and the government sent her son to death on lies. She owes them fuck-all.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Taxation is theft, and the government sent her son to death on lies. She owes them fuck-all.

Agreed. Good for anyone who doesn't pay their taxes. More power to them

[RiseAgainst]

Her argument is sound for her rational.

There need not be an externality by which she should be measured. Even if you could measure morality, it's still different for everyone. Ethically what she is doing is right. Her son wasn't only taken from her, he was killed by his own unit. He was killed in actions that were in efforts of the state without accountability on why he was there in the first place.

Again, I said nothing of JUDGING her goals, or the lines of reasoning she may use to support them, save that they only appear to be the death of her son.

She could tell me she believes in 100% state ownership, a completely centralized economy, and a state police force to round up all dissidents, if only she would use something, ANYTHING, other than "my son died" as the basis for her claim. It's an appeal to an outrageous and emotional event, the death of her son. It's not a reasoned approach, it's dishonest, and again not well representative of the tragedy of her son's death.

Use your son's death as the INSPIRATION for why you fight, why you RESEARCH, and base your views on rational and inteligible basis. That is WHOLLY different from simply using his death as an emotional appeal to garner support and attention to your views, rather than the views themselves garnering the attention.

[kylejack]

Again, I said nothing of JUDGING her goals, or the lines of reasoning she may use to support them, save that they only appear to be the death of her son.

She could tell me she believes in 100% state ownership, a completely centralized economy, and a state police force to round up all dissidents, if only she would use something, ANYTHING, other than "my son died" as the basis for her claim. It's an appeal to an outrageous and emotional event, the death of her son. It's not a reasoned approach, it's dishonest, and again not well representative of the tragedy of her son's death.

Use your son's death as the INSPIRATION for why you fight, why you RESEARCH, and base your views on rational and inteligible basis. That is WHOLLY different from simply using his death as an emotional appeal to garner support and attention to your views, rather than the views themselves garnering the attention.
Don't care. Use whatever specious argument you want to prevent the government from robbing you. I do have sympathy for her, as the people currently trying to take money from her are from the same organization that sent her son to his death on a pack of lies.

[RiseAgainst]

Don't care. Use whatever specious argument you want to prevent the government from robbing you. I do have sympathy for her, as the people currently trying to take money from her are from the same organization that sent her son to his death on a pack of lies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for her not paying taxes. Just as I'm all for her anti-war stance. I just wish she would articulate a message behind it other than "My son died." It detracts from, rather than adds to, her credibility on the issue, and is, IMO a dis-service to the memory of her son.

I know that had I died when I was in combat, I would not want my mother using my death in the ways that Cindy has used her sons.

[Athan]

Good luck to her is all I can say. The feds like making an example of celebrities.

[HOLLYWOOD]

She's a believer in the welfare state. This is a tantrum. Yes, BUT she did protest against the San Francisco and Charlotte FEDERAL RESERVE branches and realizes the big DC game.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uscl4WSChU

[Brian Coulter]

And I'd hesitate to pretend to know what goes on in the mind of somebody else suffering from such grief.


I would be irreversibly insane. She's making noise and her son damn sure earned her the right.

[RiseAgainst]

I would be irreversibly insane. She's making noise and her son damn sure earned her the right.

Incorrect. Her son earned the right, not her. Do you know that this is what her son would have wanted? If you died and your mother used your death to promote State Communism, would that be alright with you?

It is one thing to argue a position for X,Y,Z reasons. It is another completely to simply use the death of a loved one (appeal to emotion). It's got nothing to do with the base of the issue, and is designed only to garner sympathy, rather than reasoned and logical support.

[jmdrake]

She wants to make a big deal out of it because HIS DEATH, helps HER CAUSE. She uses him. Instead of standing on principle, and arguing from a point of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc. all you get is "My dead son, my dead son, my dead son."

I lost brothers and sisters as well, but I would never use their deaths in such a ridiculous fashion as she uses the death of her own son.

Philosophy? Ethics? Morality? Do you think that a public which booed the golden rule gives a rats ass about any of that stuff? We live in an emotionally driven society. That's why we are continually given 9/11 memorial tributes and tearful "Let's remember the fallen soldiers" tributes etc. It's not laudable to take emotion off the table when arguing against empire. It's stupid.

[RiseAgainst]

Philosophy? Ethics? Morality? Do you think that a public which booed the golden rule gives a rats ass about any of that stuff? We live in an emotionally driven society. That's why we are continually given 9/11 memorial tributes and tearful "Let's remember the fallen soldiers" tributes etc. It's not laudable to take emotion off the table when arguing against empire. It's stupid.

So now the story is we need to stoop to their level? Hey, they use guns and thugs to make people do things to, why don't we start doing that?

[jmdrake]

Incorrect. Her son earned the right, not her. Do you know that this is what her son would have wanted? If you died and your mother used your death to promote State Communism, would that be alright with you?

According to the Bible the dead know not anything so I wouldn't care. But that's a ridiculous counter argument. Not unless you believe that a lack of state communism leads to death. The Iraq war directly lead to her son's death. In a certain way she's no different than the mothers who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving or Adam Walsh starting America's Most Wanted. I strongly disagree with some of the laws M.A.D.D. and Adam Walsh have helped pass. But I'm not mad at them for being public about their grief or using their grief to advance a cause that they think might save others from their pain.

[kylejack]

Incorrect. Her son earned the right, not her. Do you know that this is what her son would have wanted? If you died and your mother used your death to promote State Communism, would that be alright with you?
Nothing is alright or not alright with dead people as they are dead. She's using her son's death to try and stop the government from robbing her. I haven't seen her say something like "My son died, therefore we should have universal healthcare", but even if she did, I doubt her son will object. He's dead, deceased, passed on.

[jmdrake]

So now the story is we need to stoop to their level? Hey, they use guns and thugs to make people do things to, why don't we start doing that?

So you're saying now that you are against guns? :confused:

Edit: And making a judicious use of emotion isn't "stooping" at all. It's only that way in your mind. The "compassion" ad Ron Paul ran to debunk the racism charges against him was all emotion.

[RiseAgainst]

According to the Bible the dead know not anything so I wouldn't care. But that's a ridiculous counter argument. Not unless you believe that a lack of state communism leads to death. The Iraq war directly lead to her son's death. In a certain way she's no different than the mothers who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving or Adam Walsh starting America's Most Wanted. I strongly disagree with some of the laws M.A.D.D. and Adam Walsh have helped pass. But I'm not mad at them for being public about their grief or using their grief to advance a cause that they think might save others from their pain.

Again, you're not seeing the difference. The people at MADD and John Walsh don't use their loved one's deaths as the ipso facto justification for their stances. They say "the death of loved ones inspired us" to do what they do. They don't say "My loved one is dead, therefore you should do this." The appeal to emotion is separate from a difinitive argument. The loved ones lost are not propped up as a central theme, they remain only the inspiration.

Cindy does the reverse.

[RiseAgainst]

So you're saying now that you are against guns? :confused:

Edit: And making a judicious use of emotion isn't "stooping" at all. It's only that way in your mind. The "compassion" ad Ron Paul ran to debunk the racism charges against him was all emotion.

Yes, clearly that is what I said. :rolleyes:

Appealing to emotion is a tool of a weak argument. And when it becomes your one note song, it can be nothing more than obvious to me that you are USING the death rather than honoring it.

[kylejack]

Sorry, but you're not more entitled to be more concerned about the legacy of her son who you have never met than his own mother.

[RiseAgainst]

Sorry, but you're not more entitled to be more concerned about the legacy of her son who you have never met than his own mother.

Actually, I'm entitled to be concerned about anything I'd like to be concerned about. And you are entitled to disagree. None of this changes the fact that she is using his death.

[LibForestPaul]

So if the gubermint shoots ma dawg, I do not have to pay taxes, kewl!

[kylejack]

So if the gubermint shoots ma dawg, I do not have to pay taxes, kewl!
Sounds fair to me.

[moderate libertarian]

Not sure if it is related but she had started to turn on Obama lately.

Intewresting that Obama regime dropped espionage prosecution of pro-war aipac lobby leaders and is suing anti-war activist.

[Pericles]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for her not paying taxes. Just as I'm all for her anti-war stance. I just wish she would articulate a message behind it other than "My son died." It detracts from, rather than adds to, her credibility on the issue, and is, IMO a dis-service to the memory of her son.

I know that had I died when I was in combat, I would not want my mother using my death in the ways that Cindy has used her sons.


That ^ Her son signed on for another term of service after the stupid GWOT started, and he could have taken his discharge and honorable service home - he didn't - so there was obvious political disagreement there, and her son does not have the ability to get his wishes in the matter put before the public.

[asurfaholic]

How did her son die? And if I have an abortion, can I get out of paying taxes too? Dead babies = no taxes?

Edit... someone posted the answer while I was reading the thread looking for how her kid died.

[angelatc]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for her not paying taxes. Just as I'm all for her anti-war stance. I just wish she would articulate a message behind it other than "My son died." It detracts from, rather than adds to, her credibility on the issue, and is, IMO a dis-service to the memory of her son.

I know that had I died when I was in combat, I would not want my mother using my death in the ways that Cindy has used her sons.

I agree with you here. Her son was a grown man, who joined the service as his own free will. If he believed in what he was doing, his mother is pretty horrible to use his death to promote her agenda.

How many years has it been? My grandmother lost a couple of kids, and she's not nuts about it. Cindy is mentally unstable.

[jmdrake]

Yes, clearly that is what I said. :rolleyes:

I know what you said. I was making a point off of it. You mentioned "they use thugs and guns". Well what's wrong with guns? Nothing obviously. It's just how it's used. For that matter there's nothing wrong with "thugs" either. It's just how they are used.



Appealing to emotion is a tool of a weak argument. And when it becomes your one note song, it can be nothing more than obvious to me that you are USING the death rather than honoring it.

Except that it isn't Cindy's "one note song". For instance she had a great speech about how the left had betrayed the antiwar movement by instead focusing all of their energy on what she called a "crappy" healthcare plan. (Obamacare). Now yea, she does support free healthcare. But she's at least smart enough to recognize Obamacare as the corporate bonanza/ripoff the common man that it is. And also she realizes that the focus on Obamacare was a betrayal of the reasons why Obama got elected in the first place. But hey, you want to mischarecterize what she says and does and hate on it? It's a free country and you can do that.

[jmdrake]

Again, you're not seeing the difference. The people at MADD and John Walsh don't use their loved one's deaths as the ipso facto justification for their stances. They say "the death of loved ones inspired us" to do what they do. They don't say "My loved one is dead, therefore you should do this." The appeal to emotion is separate from a difinitive argument. The loved ones lost are not propped up as a central theme, they remain only the inspiration.

Cindy does the reverse.

No she doesn't. That's your claim, but your claim is wrong. She says the war is wrong, it was fought for illegitimate reasons, and once those illegitimate reasons were found out the war should have ended. Really John Walsh is a much more despicable person than Cindy Sheehan. Cindy isn't trying to destroy the fourth amendment. John Walsh is. He's pushing to pass laws in every state to collect DNA for everyone arrested for any felony, instead of those convicted of violent felonies. And he wears he's son's death on his sleeve. Horrible person.

[jmdrake]

That ^ Her son signed on for another term of service after the stupid GWOT started, and he could have taken his discharge and honorable service home - he didn't - so there was obvious political disagreement there, and her son does not have the ability to get his wishes in the matter put before the public.

When her son re-upped did he know that the WMD evidence was a farce? Or did he go to Iraq still believing that Colin Powell had told the truth to the U.N. and that the intelligence was sound? Did he die before or after Bush tried to make a big joke about the WMD stockpiles not being there?

It's a rhetorical question. Casey Sheehan died April 4, 2004. Bush joked about the WMDs not being found on March 24, 2004. Casey might have heard about the joke before he died, but he was already in the middle of operations when the joke came out. Cindy Sheehan didn't make any public statements about the war until June 2004. You know what she said in her first interview?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled. The President has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." She also stated that President Bush was "... sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know [he] feels pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of God."

So all of the people claiming that she only appeals to emotion are simply misinformed. She was trying to say what we are all saying. The Iraq war was a bad idea. It was done based on bad reasons. But she was more respectful of President Bush than any of us would be. (Certainly more than I would be). I don't think Bush was sincere nor do I think he is or was a "man of God". And note, this was after Bush's crude jokes about the reason for going to war in Iraq (the WMDs).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1U7qgudyww

Those hating on Sheehan don't really know her story.

[jmdrake]

I agree with you here. Her son was a grown man, who joined the service as his own free will. If he believed in what he was doing, his mother is pretty horrible to use his death to promote her agenda.

How many years has it been? My grandmother lost a couple of kids, and she's not nuts about it. Cindy is mentally unstable.

Maybe your grandmother should be "nuts" about it. Maybe if she was less children in American and around the world would die. We don't know what Casey Sheehan believed. We have no clue what he would say if he, like Adam Kokesh, had made it home and had a chance to speak out. And say if he was still committed to the war? And? So if a gangmember dies a mother shouldn't be able to speak out against gangs because her son was "true to the colors" until death? Sorry but I just don't agree.

[jmdrake]

How did her son die? And if I have an abortion, can I get out of paying taxes too? Dead babies = no taxes?

Edit... someone posted the answer while I was reading the thread looking for how her kid died.

:rolleyes: How about if you don't support what our government is doing with the money you should get out of paying taxes? What she is doing is a form of civil disobedience that is talked about here at RPF on a continual basis. She just had the courage to actually do it. She isn't "getting out" of anything. She's being federally prosecuted, which is what you hope will happen when you engage in an act of civil disobedience.

[Danke]

:rolleyes: How about if you don't support what our government is doing with the money you should get out of paying taxes? What she is doing is a form of civil disobedience that is talked about here at RPF on a continual basis. She just had the courage to actually do it. She isn't "getting out" of anything. She's being federally prosecuted, which is what you hope will happen when you engage in an act of civil disobedience.

Ron Paul supports civil disobedience.

"I’m not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero — because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence."

“I think civil disobedience, if everyone knows what they’re doing, is a legitimate effort. It’s been done in this country for many grievances… The solution is to get a healthy economy back.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O7sE1f8NA8&feature=related

[fletcher]

Cindy is all over the place and not very rational. She supports Hugo Chavez but is against paying taxes? I'm sure she favors raising taxes on everyone that hasn't lost a child in war in order to support the socialist healthcare that she wants.

[Philhelm]

:rolleyes: How about if you don't support what our government is doing with the money you should get out of paying taxes? What she is doing is a form of civil disobedience that is talked about here at RPF on a continual basis. She just had the courage to actually do it. She isn't "getting out" of anything. She's being federally prosecuted, which is what you hope will happen when you engage in an act of civil disobedience.

That's great and all, but assuming that it's true that she would support government healthcare, even if she opposes Obamacare, it is clear that she isn't philosophically against taxation. I'm all for her using civil disobedience against taxation, no matter the personal motivation, but let's not pretend that she believes taxation is armed theft. She's more than happy to have armed government agents come and take money from you and me.

[CaptainAmerica]

She's a believer in the welfare state. This is a tantrum.

^this

[jmdrake]

That's great and all, but assuming that it's true that she would support government healthcare, even if she opposes Obamacare, it is clear that she isn't philosophically against taxation. I'm all for her using civil disobedience against taxation, no matter the personal motivation, but let's not pretend that she believes taxation is armed theft. She's more than happy to have armed government agents come and take money from you and me.

One of the greatest flaws of people in the liberty movement is that we judge others by our own standard of ethics instead of taking into account their frame of reference. The above is an example. It is possible to agree with taxation in principle and still disagree with how a particular government is taxing and spending. I'm not pretending that she agrees with your view on taxation or with my view for that matter. I'm making the point that she is engaging in civil disobedience because she doesn't think these wars are a good use of our tax dollars. Not even everyone in the Ron Paul movement is on board with the "all taxation is theft" argument. Some feel that some moderate amount of taxation to provide for the common defense (as opposed to aggressive wars) and the common good (like roads and bridges etc) is acceptable. But such a "tax minarchist" shouldn't be criticized for saying "While I agree with some taxes, I'm going to stop paying taxes because I don't want to subsidize aggressive wars". And no, I'm not saying Sheehan is a tax minarchist. Just making a point.

Hey, let's look at the "tea party" itself. (As in the 1773 Boston Tea Party). That was a protest against taxes. Those who engaged in it were not opposed to ever paying any taxes. When the U.S. government was set up it engaged in levying taxes.

[jmdrake]

Cindy is all over the place and not very rational. She supports Hugo Chavez but is against paying taxes? I'm sure she favors raising taxes on everyone that hasn't lost a child in war in order to support the socialist healthcare that she wants.

Goodness! Is everybody here not understanding the article? Sheehan is not claiming to be "antitax". She's claiming that she thinks this war is immoral and she is engaging in an act of civil disobedience that might find her in prison next to Ed and Elaine Brown. For Sheehan it's not about being against taxes per se nor has she claimed it to be so. It's another way to protest the war. And I'm glad she's doing it.

As for your point about Hugo Chavez, do you realize that Venezuela's tax burden is lower than that of the United States according to the Heritage Foundation? Venezuela's top tax rate is 34% and taxes take up 14% of GDP. In the U.S. the top tax rate is 35% and taxes take up 22% of GDP.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/venezuela

And no. Cindy Sheehan is not lobbying to end taxes on people who lose children in a war. She's trying to draw attention to the war by begging to be arrested. It's really not much different than Adam Kokesh's dance in D.C.

[jmdrake]

Here's a crazy thought. While I'd rather get rid of taxation altogether, let's say if that was just not in the cards. What about a system where the taxpayer, rather than the congress, got to allocate how our taxes are spent? Cindy Sheehan could allocate 100% of her taxes to social spending. Rush Limbaugh could allocate 100% of his taxes on war and research on stronger prescription pain medication. Glenn Beck could allocate 100% of his taxes on war, foreign aid Israel and a border fence etc.

[specsaregood]

Here's a crazy thought. While I'd rather get rid of taxation altogether, let's say if that was just not in the cards. What about a system where the taxpayer, rather than the congress, got to allocate how our taxes are spent? Cindy Sheehan could allocate 100% of her taxes to social spending. Rush Limbaugh could allocate 100% of his taxes on war and research on stronger prescription pain medication. Glenn Beck could allocate 100% of his taxes on war, foreign aid Israel and a border fence etc.

We'd probably end up with giant sports stadiums on every corner of every block.

[Kluge]

We'd probably end up with giant sports stadiums on every corner of every block.

Far better than a drone over every neighborhood....

I do like the idea of taxpayers allocating where their money goes, though I'm cynical enough that I'm sure such a system would be wholly corrupt even before the ink dries on the laws.

[unknown]

Just wish and pray that everyone would stop paying their taxes.

Would bring the system to their knees overnight.

[NidStyles]

Again, I said nothing of JUDGING her goals, or the lines of reasoning she may use to support them, save that they only appear to be the death of her son.

Denying a person has a right is judging. Morality is based upon an Individual's Judgement. There is no such thing as Universal Morality. The term for something like that would be "Ethic".


She could tell me she believes in 100% state ownership, a completely centralized economy, and a state police force to round up all dissidents, if only she would use something, ANYTHING, other than "my son died" as the basis for her claim. It's an appeal to an outrageous and emotional event, the death of her son. It's not a reasoned approach, it's dishonest, and again not well representative of the tragedy of her son's death.

Strawman. You do not have the right to take her right's away. She has the right to refuse taxation, just as the rest of us. Her reasoning is sound in that she doesn't feel it's moral to keep paying the same system that took her son from her. The action is moral in that she refuses to let another person suffer the same through her wealth. Her way of explaining it may be vague, and provoke a knee-jerk reaction from you, but it's grounded solidly in her morality.


Use your son's death as the INSPIRATION for why you fight, why you RESEARCH, and base your views on rational and inteligible basis. That is WHOLLY different from simply using his death as an emotional appeal to garner support and attention to your views, rather than the views themselves garnering the attention.

I use the death of my Mother as my basis for my understanding of Morality and Liberty. There is no difference between my reasoning and her's.

You are complaining about the way she goes about it. That's fine, but your assessment of how she is going about it is off. Cindy is not the most eloquent speaker as we all know, and her simplifying her reasoning to just, her son was killed, is completely rational. Did this traumatic loss bring her to the point she is at today? Obviously, the answer is yes. She uses this as her motivator to come to the conclusion she is arriving at. You can't fault her for not being able to rationally explain the in a way that is easier for you to digest.

In reality, what I think the issue you are having is that you see only what the Media is displaying of her position and taking that as the very core of how she arrived to where she is at, with protesting the taxes. We are not getting the whole message behind her rational, and we are only able to interject from our own experiences to supplement where she is coming from.

As a side note, I would further this by pointing out that an emotive reasoning would be based upon scare tactic of sorts. For example, the recent usage of child pornographers being the grounds for SOPA/PIPA.

You are probably aware that the majority of the porn on the Internet is not of children, as most adults do not find children attractive. Those that do find children attractive do not generally use porn to find them. They quite typically stalk areas where children are present, or go to a country where children are found in sex slavery quite easily. These simple facts point out that it's merely a scare tactic, or emotive based rational. It's meant to scare people into accepting the proposal. For the most part Individual's in general do not use emotional leverage or reasoning. Only a state readily has this ability, as it requires a lie that can not be readily disputed to push it. Unless it's from a delusional Individual, Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.....

Individuals in general are irrational, but most of the time they are not emotionally driven. They are motive driven, and emotions may hinder them at times, but most of the time emotions have little bearing on their actions. Humans sort of left that behind when they became civilized.