[Deepblue]

Cindy Sheehan was just arrested. I don't care who you are, she is not who you want as your spokes person.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/26/D8CS5JB00.html

"The Whole World is Watching..." That is incredibly sad and makes a mockery of the actual event.

Just look at her!



She is completely subverting and taking advantage of the people around her.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue


Cindy Sheehan was just arrested. I don't care who you are, she is not who you want as your spokes person.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/26/D8CS5JB00.html

"The Whole World is Watching..." That is incredibly sad and makes a mockery of the actual event.

Just look at her!



She is completely subverting and taking advantage of the people around her.

She was arrested for protesting without a permit*, and thus must be a bad person?  I mean, showing a - peaceful - anti war protester being forcibly carried away by black uniformed, black sunglassed Figures of Authority is a pretty effective statement, isn't it?  i'm not surprised she's smiling; that picture would be far more effective than any of 50 people in a protest group.

*Does the US Constitution not have Freedom of Assembly within it or something?  Or was that the UNCHR?

[Bobboau]

"hey evr'body I'm get'n arested! weeeee!"

[Deepblue]

The point is she did entirely as a stunt, she new what she was doing was illegal. Either that or she has let the stuff go to her head and thought she was imprevious to the law. It's not effective, it's a joke. It's like shes at some sort of party.

"*Does the US Constitution not have Freedom of Assembly within it or something? Or was that the UNCHR?"

Yes. They just have to get a permit for a certain area in order to keep them from disrupting the lives of other people.

[aldo_14]

Have you never heard of people protesting via disruption?  The suffragettes?  Or the Vietnam war protests?  Or Ghandi? Or Rosa Parks refusing to give up here bus seat? (or Martin Luther King for that matter)

Were they all ineffective and unworthy mouthpieces as a result?  I strikes me if your critcism is based on disruption, you're missing the whole point of protesting.

[Bobboau]

they weren't she is, see the diference?
she'd say Bush is eating babies if she had half an ounce of photoshop skills, she's just opertunistic, so much so that she used the death of her own son as a platform to preach retoric.

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Have you never heard of people protesting via disruption?  The suffragettes?  Or the Vietnam war protests?  Or Ghandi? Or Rosa Parks refusing to give up here bus seat? (or Martin Luther King for that matter)

Were they all ineffective and unworthy mouthpieces as a result?  I strikes me if your critcism is based on disruption, you're missing the whole point of protesting.

You can't even begin to compare Cindy Sheehan to MLK... If you believe that something is very, very wrong...

[aldo_14]

I'm pointing out that you're wrong to criticise the methodology on the basis of disruption, when it's a historically accepted method of protest.

If you want to criticise her, find something more solid as a ground.  Because otherwise you could use the same arguement to say Ghandi, MLK, etc were poor mouthpieces.

@Bobb; was she protesting before her son died?

[Bobboau]

MLK didn't pose for the cameras with a big'ole "look! I'm being defiant!" smile on his face.

[Styxx]

Hahaha, so you need a government permit to protest the government? Awesome!!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
MLK didn't pose for the cameras with a big'ole "look! I'm being defiant!" smile on his face.

And?

This affects the validity of the method how?  

I said before; if I wanted to make an impact (get on the news, etc) protesting, that's pretty much the best way you can.  I'd be chuffed to be photographed getting dragged away from a peaceful protest.

Presumably you'd be happy (with the choice of that sort of civil disobedience they presentation) if she was crying with blood streaming down her face?

[Bobboau]

actualy I'd probly respect her a little in that case. if she kept it up.

[TrashMan]

I think the whole permit thing is about where you want to protest.. If you wnatto protest in the middle of hte street you have to get a permit, so that hte police can arrange the streets cleared and re-direct traffic and all.

It does make some sense to be carefull where the protests are being held..

I mean - would you like a bunch of protesters blocking the road while you're rushing to wrok? Or protesting right next to your restourant?

[Bobboau]

or in front of a hospital blocking all emergencee vehicals?

[Styxx]

I'd probably not be very happy, but if I was the one protesting, I'd like to have the ability to do as much disruption as possible. It all depends on your point of view, really. And what if the government denies you a permit? You don't protest? Say "well, too bad" and walk home?

[redmenace]

depends why they denie your protest. If they denie it because they don't like your cause be it white supremacy or civil rights. I would think that it would be time to engage in civil disobedience.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I think the whole permit thing is about where you want to protest.. If you wnatto protest in the middle of hte street you have to get a permit, so that hte police can arrange the streets cleared and re-direct traffic and all.

It does make some sense to be carefull where the protests are being held..

I mean - would you like a bunch of protesters blocking the road while you're rushing to wrok? Or protesting right next to your restourant?

What I do or don't like has nothing to do with fundamental human rights issues, though.  I'm sure the Chinese government didn't like all those students clogging up Tianemen square, but that's not a pretext for what they did.  If someone is peacefully protesting in somewhere that is not causing harm (NB: this doesn't apply to streets/roads as they are putting themselves and drivers in harms way, ditto emergency vehicles), then let them have at it, I say.  

Whether I agree with that cause, doesn't matter, because you can't allocate and deallocate freedoms based on your own biases.  The only exception comes when that protest is aimed at inciting violence; i.e. white supremacist marches (likewise any - theoretical - march urging men to beat up women or people to blow up government buildings).

What I've read here has been arguements against this womans point of view based on 2 things; one that she lost a child (which to me would give her more justification than most bystanders, but there you go), and two that sho protested in a time honoured disrupted manner.  To me that's not addressing any issue behind this, just engaging in character assasination.  

We have the same thing in the UK - parents protesting against the war because they lost children (Reg Keys and Rose Gentle spring to mind) - and yet we don't see that sort of personal attack aimed at them; insinuating they're unpatriotic, that they're exploiting the death of their own child for personal gain and fame.  I can't help but wonder why that is.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I mean - would you like a bunch of protesters blocking the road while you're rushing to wrok? Or protesting right next to your restourant?

The core point of protesting isn't to make things fun for people. It's to get attention and generally be an inconsiderate ******* to make other people pay attention.

It's sort of like...would you rather be inconvenienced when you go to work, or would you like racial relations to be where they were 40-60 years ago?

[Deepblue]

Originally posted by aldo_14


What I do or don't like has nothing to do with fundamental human rights issues, though.  I'm sure the Chinese government didn't like all those students clogging up Tianemen square, but that's not a pretext for what they did.  If someone is peacefully protesting in somewhere that is not causing harm (NB: this doesn't apply to streets/roads as they are putting themselves and drivers in harms way, ditto emergency vehicles), then let them have at it, I say.  

Whether I agree with that cause, doesn't matter, because you can't allocate and deallocate freedoms based on your own biases.  The only exception comes when that protest is aimed at inciting violence; i.e. white supremacist marches (likewise any - theoretical - march urging men to beat up women or people to blow up government buildings).

What I've read here has been arguements against this womans point of view based on 2 things; one that she lost a child (which to me would give her more justification than most bystanders, but there you go), and two that sho protested in a time honoured disrupted manner.  To me that's not addressing any issue behind this, just engaging in character assasination.  

We have the same thing in the UK - parents protesting against the war because they lost children (Reg Keys and Rose Gentle spring to mind) - and yet we don't see that sort of personal attack aimed at them; insinuating they're unpatriotic, that they're exploiting the death of their own child for personal gain and fame.  I can't help but wonder why that is.

Maybe it's because she is exploiting the situation? Her son RE-UPPED, which makes it pretty obvious that he supported what he was fighting for. The Sheehan family has seperated themselves from Cindy because they believe that she is exploiting her sons death, and recently Cindy has not really even talked about her son (just carrying his picture), and instead constantly attacks Bush (biggest terrorist outfit in the world)/the US/Clinton (she called the Clinton administration the biggest war criminals ever, just to give you an idea of how extreme she is).

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue


Maybe it's because she is exploiting the situation? Her son RE-UPPED, which makes it pretty obvious that he supported what he was fighting for. The Sheehan family has seperated themselves from Cindy because they believe that she is exploiting her sons death, and recently Cindy has not really even talked about her son (just carrying his picture), and instead constantly attacks Bush (biggest terrorist outfit in the world)/the US/Clinton (she called the Clinton administration the biggest war criminals ever, just to give you an idea of how extreme she is).

1/  What her son believed doesn't impact what she believes.  Especially if she believes her son was fooled into re-enlisting for a wrong cause, or whatever.   Most of the similar background arguements I've heard in the UK have stemmed from the same complaint - that their children were fooled and blinded into thinking something wrong was right.

2/ Likewise, it doesn't matter what the rest of her family thinks.  Why should it?  If she believes in it, then that's her call.  Personally, I think it's part of a grieving process and I'm not sure how healthy it is, but it's not my position to say how people should and should not react to berevement.

3/ If she blames Bush for his death and the hundreds of other American (etc) deaths, why would she talk about her son?   If she believes the war is illegal, why shouldn't she say so?

4/Why is it exteme to call the Clinton administration war criminals?  I know a lot of Serbians would agree with that statement, as probably would some Sudanese, Somalis etc.  It's just a question of perspective and opinion.  Same as some people genuinely believe the current US government is doing a good job; is it also extreme if people host pro-war rallies?

5/  Why do you attack this particular person?  One who's actually lost something due to this war.  It used to be they'd attack anti-war protesters for being unpatriotic, or soft, or unwilling to sacrifice.  Now you're trying to character assasinate a person who has actually genuinely lost something and can speak of the hurt of loss.

I find it...distressing that the best arguement against this woman is insinuating that she's a publicity junkie exploiting her sons death like a cheap whore.  It's atypical of reactionary America to me - rather than look at the issue, or even accept a differing viewpoint, the arguement against breaks down to simple, cheap insults.  I've seen it with the Iraq war arguement, the elections in 04, the Schiavo case, and now this.  I think it's pathetic, cheap and disgraceful.

EDIt; hell, I've not seen a single reason given beyond 'I disagree with her view'.