| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39305 Activity:high |
8/27 There are 3000 pro-war anti-Sheehan protestors on tour, with lots
of television broadcasts paid for by moveamericaforward. So, where
are Cindy's ads? Poor liberals can't afford expensive broadcasts?
Secondly Cindy's campaign seems so disorganized, with no clear
financial backers. The first link to her web site says "Donate."
This is sad. We fucking liberals are apathetic and pathetic need to
get out and counter moveamericaforward's mega Cindy-bashing campaign.
\_ Nonsense. She's got a catered camp funded by http://moveon.org and the
rest of the usual suspects. Go STFW for 5 seconds to find out
who is funding her.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and character assassinate her, too.
\_ Cindy was camping out in a ditch for the first week before people
started to organize around her. No one is "funding" Cindy. If
there were no one else there, she would still be.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and assassinate her, too.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and character assassinate her, too.
Let's see if that works out for them. So far, it has not:
http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm#Bush
\_ Honestly, what's there left to assassinate with Ms. We Are
Waging Nuclear War In Iraq? She's her own worst enemy, imo.
-- ilyas
\_ And so is our ilyas, but we still lurve him so!
\_ People tend to see in her what they want to see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466555/posts
You are pro-War, right?
\_ I am pro-yermom. I think the characterization of that lady
as a nut is pretty spot on. This 'people see what they
want to see' line is weak. She is a nut. Do I get to
call you a liberal nut apologist now, ausman? -- ilyas
\_ Sure. Liberal nut apologist is a fair
characterization of me. -ausman
characterization of me. Did you even read the
Freeper article? -ausman
\_ I think you should give it a rest. I remember you
were calling Cato right-wing big business lackeys
due to their funding sources. Since people's agendas
are fully determined by their funding (according to
you), we have all we need to know about Sheehan just
from that, right? Except you seem strangely
silent about Sheehan's funding, preferring to talk
about public opinion being split. I mean if you
want to know the reasons people aren't even-handed
or 'see what they want to see,' I don't think you
have very far to look. My characterization of
Sheehan is that she is a nut exploiting her son's
death for political ends, who in turn is being
exploited for political ends. For the record, I had
not a single bad thing to say about Sheehan until
she finally opened her mouth. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, she's been in the media since at least May.
She spoke to Conyer's meeting on the Downing St.
memos. You've complained about a couple of
passages. If you think that's the sum total of
what she has said, you're jumping the gun.
\_ In the political world, I think it's usually
pretty telling where the money comes from,
especially when its origin is from large,
politically charged entities. To be in denial of
this is to be in denial about the realities of
how politics work in this country. Of course,
I think you probably aren't in denial, but you
seem a little hasty in your accusation of ausman's
how politics work in this country. Of course, I
don't think you are in denial, but you seem a
little hasty in your accusation of ausman's
hypocrisy wrt bringing up sources of funding.
(in Sheehan's case, it's so blindingly obvious
In Sheehan's case, it's so blindingly obvious
where her political bias is, I have a hard
time seeing why any sane person would need
confirmation via her monetary backing. -mice
\_ To tell you the truth, I have not really bothered
bothered to do any serious research on Sheehan's
positions. All I really know about her is that
she lost a son in Iraq and is now protesting the
War outside of Bush's ranch. Which is a perfectly
legal and acceptable thing to do. If she starts
to write something of serious intellectual note,
say in the New Yorker or The National Review,
I will read it and decide what I think of her ideas
As far as I can tell, you think anyone opposed to
the Iraq war is a "nut" which means about 2/3
of the populace now. Sure, she is supported
by http://moveon.org and Michael Moore, they are on
the same page politically, at least with regard
to the War in Iraq. Is everyone supported by
http://moveon.org a "nut" in your book? John Kerry,
for example? And how the heck is she being
"exploited for political ends"? Who is exploiting
her? If you willingly work with someone else
for the same political end, you are not being
exploited, you are forming political coalitions.
One further thing and why I will not "give it a
rest." If you disagree with Sheehan then attack
her positions. Do not follow the tried and true
Right Wing tactic of character assassination.
This is what they did to Clinton, Kerry, Schiavo's
husbande and now they (and you) are trying with
Sheehan. If her ideas are so weak, you should be able
to demolish them without resorting to questioning
her sanity. -ausman
husband and now they (and you) are trying with
Sheehan. If her ideas are so weak, you should be
able to demolish them without resorting to
questioning her sanity. -ausman
\_ No, I think someone who says we are waging a
nuclear war in Iraq is a nut. I actually have
no problem with her position per se (being
anti-war), I have a problem with _her_, more
specifically what she says. As I said, I had
no problems with her at all until she opened
her mouth. My position is similar to someone
who doesn't like freepers because they are nuts,
not because what they believe in is stupid
(freepers can hold perfectly defensible
positions on a number of issues). -- ilyas
\_ Okay, now that I think about it some more,
I can see that if you honestly think she
is insane, that it is obvious how she is
being exploited. I haven't read enough of
her to know if she is or not. Do you base
your assessment of her on extensive readings
of her ideas or on one out of context
quote on the motd? -ausman
\- believeing we are waging nukular war
in iraq as am epirical fact is about as
in iraq as an empirical fact is about as
insane as believing in changing water
into wine, transubstitution, astrology,
creationism, or fat reducing creams,
and is about as ignorant as not being
able to locate the pacific ocean on a
globe ... in fact know knowing the diff
globe ... in fact not knowing the diff
between DU bullets and nukular weapons is
probably more forgivable. so sheehan
is in a lot of company if not necessarily
quality company. pat roberson is who is
shocking, not cindy sheehan. --psb
\_ The people that generally refer to DU
use as nuclear warfare know the
difference. It may be a crudish over-
statement, but they've at least got
some research to back up their health
concerns over its use.
\_ This is not an excuse an english
speaking american could use, but
Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. had
used a nuke at one point in Iraq. It
was the same bullshit as typical lies
on foxnews: put it up long enough
for morons to believe, but take it
down in time to still make it look
like a mistake. I did not personally
see this, as I don't know arabic,but
it was pretty well documented at the
time(shortly after the initial
invasion).
\_ I don't think everything lumped under
astrology is necessarily insane, the
influence of the moon on the biosphere
is pretty well documented. -- ilyas
\- and this needs no response. --psb
\_ Do we know Sheehan actually had DU
bullets in mind when she talked about
nuclear war? Do we cut her slack
nuclear war? Or do we cut her slack
because we are sympathetic to her
cause? Would we be as forgiving of
some freeper bogeyman or even jblack?
\- you can be too stupid to be put
to death by the state, but not
too stupid to vote or have a
right to free speech.
\_ The question is not whether one
can be too stupid to have a
right to free speech. The
question is whether one can be
too stupid to be taken
seriously. The question is also
whether we invent excuses for
Sheehan because we agree with
her.
\- i dont think she is an
expert on middle east
policy. is she any more
clueless than the large
numbers who believe WMDs
were found or saddam and
osama sed to have pool parties
together? or is she any more
insane than the "a zygote
has a soul" crowd? i dont
think so. she is a figure
of pathos, not logos, to
put it in "greek" terms.--psb
\_ Are motd types apologists
for WMD-believers? For
Osama/Saddam theorists?
For soul zygote types?
Then why excuse Sheehan?
All animals are equal, but
some animals are more
equal than others?
\- the "excuse" isnt
categorical. i doubt
sheehan knows anything
about measure theory
but i have no problem
with her right or
inclination to sit at
the side of the road
ranting. micahel moore
probably isnt much of
a historian but as an
film maker he has a
certain talent as a
rhetorical terrorist.
i think the immediate
pullout view point is
dumb and unethical
but i think the ethical
position is to have
BUSHCO consigned to the
dustbin of history but
since that is not going
to happen, i'm not
displeased to see things
a little hot for BUSHCO
\_ Hey ilyas, don't tell us about
the stars.
\- "Various polls have shown that erosion of war support has been
faster in Iraq than during the Vietnam War in the 1960s."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/page/2
What do you guys have to say about this? |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.pollingreport.com/national.htm#Bush National Barometer: Major Political Trends All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older. |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466555/posts August 19, 2005--Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who maintained an ant i-War protest outside of President Bush's ranch, is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%. Sheehan is viewed favorably by 34% of men and 35% of women. Forty-two per cent (42%) of men and 34% of women have an unfavorable view. In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about Sh eehan is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about th e woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opi nion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Tho se not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided. People who think we should withdraw troops from Iraq now have a positive opinion of Sheehan (59% favorable , 12% unfavorable). Those who do not t hink we should withdraw at this time have a negative view (15% favorable , 64% unfavorable). Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%. Forty-two percent (42%) of Married Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Sheehan while 33% have a favorable opinion. Among those who are not m arried, Sheehan's numbers are 38% favorable and 30% favorable. Fifty-five percent (55%) of Americans say they are following the Sheehan story somewhat or very closely. That is a lower level of interest than A mericans have in stories about Iran's nuclear capabilities. It is roughl y comparable to the interest in stories about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. News reports said that Sheehan left Texas yesterday (Thursday) to be with her mother who had suffered a stroke. Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the co llection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling inform ation. Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To keep up with our latest releases, be sure to visit the Rasmussen Repor ts Home Page. View Replies To: The Sons of Liberty I can't bring myself to feel the least bit sorry for this woman. She's vi rtually destroyed her son's legacy as well as her family through her lib eral antics. View Replies To: slowhand520 Yeah, since the MSM can't seem to report the news accurately. I was watch ing traffic and weather this morning and found myself screaming at the T V when in a blurb they announced she had to leave her vigil waiting for a meeting with the President after losing her son in Iraq. View Replies To: slowhand520 Those who do not think we should withdraw at this time have a negative vi ew (15% favorable , 64% unfavorable). Is it possible that 15% "favorable" reflect the feelings of those who bel ieve that Cindy's antics are exposing the true nature of the left? View Replies To: BibChr "Oh merciful heavens, she's subject of a poll. it's perfectly natural to poll about reactions to her, same as polling about reactions to Howard Dean or Karl Rove. Just because it's a crackp ot, perfidious political movement doesn't mean it's not a real movement that's worth tracking. View Replies To: Mygirlsmom I think the other-looking stat is interesting, too: People who think we should withdraw troops from Iraq now have a positive opinion of Sheehan (59% favorable , 12% unfavorable). So, then, 12% of the Pull-em-out moonbats don't like her? Might be because they see her doing more harm than good to their cause? View Replies To: slowhand520 This poll isn't about Cindy, it's about the MSM They've poured their hearts into an illusion and still lose. What is espe cially interesting is the people unfavorable that are still larger than the Dems, just as on election day. into severe question (again) because th ey don't even rank Dem/Rep equally yet alone favor Reps slightly. View Replies To: slowhand520 This poll (assuming it is accurate and you never know) tells much. First off, despite all the positive coverage, somehow the other side of the st ory is getting out. Wonder if anyone in the MSM will get the message tha t their monopoly is ovah! Secondly, despite the MSM trying to tell us th at this is a clear indication of a growing anti-war movement, there have been no converts. Finally, this seems to demonstrate that the MSM is misreading their own b ogus polls. Lack of support for the handling of the war does not equate for lack of support for the war. View Replies To: Rebelbase I don't think a Sheehan poll is inappropriate. Hmmmm, I wonder if this poll had anything to do with her leaving Crawford , despite her publically stated reason. View Replies To: slowhand520 The true unfavorables are probably much higher. Rasmussen was good in the last election, but his rating for Bush have been in the 43-44% range la tely, so he's obviously been infected with the MSM bias too. View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/page/2 Three-fourths of Republicans and only 15 percent of Democrats in the poll approve. Support for Bush's handling of the war was stronger among those who know someone who has served in Iraq - almost half - compared with about a qua rter of those who don't know someone who served in Iraq. More than half of those polled, 53 percent, say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq. That level of opposition is about the s ame as the number who said that about Vietnam in August 1968, six months after the Tet offensive - the massive North Vietnamese attack on South Vietnamese cities that helped turn US opinion against that war. Variou s polls have shown that erosion of war support has been faster in Iraq t han during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. "Our attention span is simply shorter," said Charles Franklin, a politica l scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Our willingness to put up with a difficult military situation and losses isn't what it used to be." With anti-war protesters getting increased attention, the president has b een defending his war policies in speeches in Utah and Idaho, warning th at an early withdrawal from Iraq would hurt the United States. While disagreeing with Sheehan's call to pull troops out of Iraq, Bush sa id, "I strongly support her right to protest." Six in 10 in the poll support keeping troops in Iraq until it is sta bilized rather than pulling them out now. Iraqi political leaders have been struggling to reach agreement on a cons titution that would be acceptable to Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Vivian Snyder, a Republican from Staten Island, NY, said she disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but doesn't want troops to leave yet. This material may not b e published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
| moveon.org -> www.moveon.org/front/ The Movie the White House Doesn't Want You to See On Memorial Day weekend, Hollywood is releasing a summer blockbuster movie that's making the Bush administration very nervous. Because it's a disaster movie about a potential climate crisis. While "The Day After Tomorrow" is more science fiction than science fact, everyone will be talking about it -- and asking "Could it really happen?" This is an unprecedented opportunity to talk to millions of Americans about the real dangers of global warming and expose President Bush's foot-dragging on the issue. Responding to Torture Reports and photographs of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and abused by US and British troops have shocked the world. We've got to support an immediate, independent, impartial and public investigation into all allegations of torture. To be credible, the investigation should be done by an international body, including representatives of Arab nations. We've got to get to the bottom of this, and we've got to do it now. Censure Bush for Misleading Us In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country How to Find Your Political Voice and Become a Catalyst for Change Written by MoveOn members across the country, from Hawaii to Maine, from political figures to teachers, this collection of essays shares compelling personal stories and action items with resources for taking inspiration a step further. Simple ideas are illuminated, such as "His Last Vote," about a dying man's wish to cast a ballot, as are more dynamic actions, such as "Start a Petition," which chronicles a couple's quest to protect wolves from trappers in Alaska. MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country answers the question that more and more citizens are asking: "What can I do?" Protect our Kids from Mercury Pollution Under energy industry pressure, President Bushs EPA plans to defer controls on mercury emissions by power plants for at least a decade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 49 million women of childbearing age in the US -- that's 8 percent -- have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants -- every year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage. We have just a few weeks to get public comments to the EPA on this plan to defer mercury controls. It's time to tell the EPA and the White House that our kids come first. Al Gore Speaks on Global Warming and the Environment Beacon Theater, New York January 15, 2004, Noon In this, his third major speech sponsored by MoveOn, Mr Gore issued an indictment of the Bush administration's inaction on global warming, linking the issue to national security. He showed that global warming is not a future threat -- it is happening now. And yet, the President is choosing to help his coal- and oil-company supporters rather than advance modern technologies that can affordably solve this critical problem. Support Kerry's call to fire Rumsfeld May 7, 2004 In the wake of revelations of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, John Kerry has launched an important petition calling for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy, and Kerry needs to hear our support. Help win the election this Saturday May 3, 2004 This Saturday, we're joining other grassroots groups in the largest day of voter mobilization in American history. MoveOn members will gather at parties across the country to make over 100,000 phone calls in one afternoon to swing state voters. In an election that could be won or lost with a handful of votes, we'll work to turn out every last progressive voter and send George Bush packing. |