Australia predicts China passes US by 2015

  • #51
Archon
kat said:
lol, she is manipulating the facts. She's suggesting her grown son would not have re-enlisted to fight in Iraq...a second time had she known what she "knows now". Sorry, but her son..went to Iraq once, chose to go twice and then CHOSE to volunteer for a very risky mission, even after being asked if he was sure he wanted to. Her political outlook hasn't changed based on her sons death, it's always been exactly where it is know. She's not new to the side that she's speaking for. Is there any proof that she...ever supported the war, lol :yuck:
OK, I'm sure you know her son better than she does.

Anyway, what does her son have to do with the statement "if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada?" She says she would have taken her son to Canada. She's not saying her son wouldn't have wanted to enlist. (Incidentally, she explains his enlistment earlier in the passage: "I passed on that bull**** to my son and my son enlisted." He enlisted because of...you guessed it (hopefully, given the current topic)...propaganda. How appropriate.)
 
  • #52
kat
26
0
Lol, Archon..what you're really trying to say is it's only propaganda when it doesn't jive with your own world view. Come on, a little self examination is due here.
 
  • #53
221
0
Archon said:
p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. See?
I know....you missed the sarcasm too.
 
  • #54
Archon
Townsend said:
I know....you missed the sarcasm too.
Probably. We need that smiley...
 
  • #55
Archon
kat said:
Lol, Archon..what you're really trying to say is it's only propaganda when it doesn't jive with your own world view. Come on, a little self examination is due here.
Hardly. I'm saying that it fails to be propaganda just because it doesn't jive with yours.

I'm saying that she's not suggesting her son wouldn't have re-enlisted to fight in Iraq. She's suggesting that she wouldn't have supported his re-enlistment. These are two different things. The first, she doesn't know for certain unless she's capable of speaking to the dead. The second, however, is a statement of personal beliefs. It's true becuase she believes it, and you can't tell her otherwise.

She's not "manipulating facts" in order to deceive people into joining her cause: she's telling them that, had she known back then what she knows now, she would have tried to stop her son from re-enlisting. It's like saying "Well, if I had known back then what would happen if I drove while drunk, I wouldn't have done it." You can't call this misleading, can you?
 
  • #56
60
0
kat said:
good example of leftist propaganda. She was going to take him to Canada to prevent him for volunteering to fight in Iraq..twice..and then further volunteering...even when asked whether he was sure he wanted to...volunteering to go on the mission that killed him.
Why is she paralleling her sons volunteer actions in something he believed in with the vietnam war when people were beating the draft by going to Canada? Nice bit of propoganda at your sons expense there mz sheehan.
What I find particularly vile propaganda is the smearing of a grieving mother who's lost her son. That's propaganda of the worst sort. :yuck:

As for Casey Sheehan's volunteering, since Bush obviously lied to him and every other American as to why we're fighting and dying, then his "volunteering" is irrelevant.

That's a bit like a child getting lured into a molestor's van with promises of candy and then saying "well, she volunteered.
 
  • #57
kat
26
0
Archon said:
Hardly. I'm saying that it fails to be propaganda just because it doesn't jive with yours.

I'm saying that she's not suggesting her son wouldn't have re-enlisted to fight in Iraq. She's suggesting that she wouldn't have supported his re-enlistment. These are two different things. The first, she doesn't know for certain unless she's capable of speaking to the dead. The second, however, is a statement of personal beliefs. It's true becuase she believes it, and you can't tell her otherwise.
I'm sorry, I need some clarification from you. Are you saying that....he didn't re-enlist? are you saying she supported his re-enlistment? or she doesn't know if she did? Which "second" statement is of personal beliefs"? are you really saying personal beliefs are true...if you believe them to be?

She's not "manipulating facts" in order to deceive people into joining her cause: she's telling them that, had she known back then what she knows now, she would have tried to stop her son from re-enlisting. It's like saying "Well, if I had known back then what would happen if I drove while drunk, I wouldn't have done it." You can't call this misleading, can you?
I didn't read " if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have" as I would have "tried" to stop him, but that she would have stopped him...definatively. Further more it seems to ignore the fact that her son was a grown man who made an educated decision based on experience. If anyone has the opportunity to judge whether their actions in Iraq are worth dying for...it's someone who's been there and then...volunteers to re-enlist and go back. More so then someone who's based their beliefs and opinions on what Iraq is about on the left slanted msm news or someone who has taken in by the propaganda of the lefts talking points hook, line and sinker.
Also, she appears to be suggesting that she was not against his going before the war started..and my understanding is that she's held this stance prior to the Iraq war and prior to her son being sent to Iraq, the first time.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
kat
26
0
TRCSF said:
What I find particularly vile propaganda is the smearing of a grieving mother who's lost her son. That's propaganda of the worst sort. :yuck:
Normally I would agree with you. Then I saw the photo's of Cindy Sheehan prepping for the media and posing setting up a pose and grieving for the cameras. Her and Casey's own family members are denouncing her personal use of his death for her own political motives.

As for Casey Sheehan's volunteering, since Bush obviously lied to him and every other American as to why we're fighting and dying, then his "volunteering" is irrelevant.

That's a bit like a child getting lured into a molestor's van with promises of candy and then saying "well, she volunteered.
Lol, he's a grown man with access to the same information as you. Actually, with access to more information then you as he had already been to Iraq once and chose to return. One thing he was NOT was an innocent child who doesn't understand evil men offer you candy from dark vans to do bad things to you. Spare me the hyperbole. He was a hero, who knowingly risked his life for something he believed strongly to be the right and moral thing to do.
 
  • #59
alexandra
Errr... what was this thread about? It seems to have been well and truly hijacked. I was interested in the original topic and wonder if anyone wants to get back to that discussion?
 
  • #60
Skyhunter
kat said:
Lol, Archon..what you're really trying to say is it's only propaganda when it doesn't jive with your own world view. Come on, a little self examination is due here.
The first step to resisting propaganda is knowing how to recognize it, in all it's forms.

What Cindy is doing is propaganda because she is trying to influence opinion. What we are doing on this forum is also propaganda. Even the truth is propaganda when it is used to influence opinion.

What FOX did was deceptive. They took her statement out of context in order to change the meaning, distort the truth, you know, lie.

Kat your argument is that she is being deceptive and that is not so. She is stating her opinion and what she would have done if she were more informed and less influenced by deceitful propaganda, ie the lies told by her government.

Here is some good reading to learn how to recognize propaganda in all it's forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

http://www.propagandacritic.com/

This is Hitler's Mein Kampf, Volume 1 Chapter 6 War Propaganda
See how many examples you can find in the administrations media blitz in the build up to the Iraq "struggle".

http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/mkv1ch06.html
 
  • #61
60
0
kat said:
Normally I would agree with you. Then I saw the photo's of Cindy Sheehan prepping for the media and posing setting up a pose and grieving for the cameras. Her and Casey's own family members are denouncing her personal use of his death for her own political motives.

Lol, he's a grown man with access to the same information as you. Actually, with access to more information then you as he had already been to Iraq once and chose to return. One thing he was NOT was an innocent child who doesn't understand evil men offer you candy from dark vans to do bad things to you. Spare me the hyperbole. He was a hero, who knowingly risked his life for something he believed strongly to be the right and moral thing to do.
Yes, Sheehan is doing interviews. She's also lost her son. Her grief is sincere and for you or anybody else to pretend otherwise is just plain disgusting.

As for reenlisting, it can hardly be said that Casey Sheehan had much choice in the matter given the stop loss. He was lied to about the war and is life was wasted and thrown away by people who, obviously, don't care.
 
  • #62
kat
26
0
TRCSF said:
Yes, Sheehan is doing interviews. She's also lost her son. Her grief is sincere and for you or anybody else to pretend otherwise is just plain disgusting.
..yes, all the grief laden parents I know spend time in makeup and pose for cameras..crying on command. No pretending needed. Even her family agrees.
As for reenlisting, it can hardly be said that Casey Sheehan had much choice in the matter given the stop loss. He was lied to about the war and is life was wasted and thrown away by people who, obviously, don't care.
stop loss didn't send Casey Sheehan on the volunteer mission that he that he volunteer to take part in and was killed participating in. Nor was he a victim of any "stop loss" but you're welcome to try to prove your statement if you'd like.
 
  • #63
60
0
kat said:
..yes, all the grief laden parents I know spend time in makeup and pose for cameras..crying on command. No pretending needed. Even her family agrees.

stop loss didn't send Casey Sheehan on the volunteer mission that he that he volunteer to take part in and was killed participating in. Nor was he a victim of any "stop loss" but you're welcome to try to prove your statement if you'd like.
What grief laden parents should be doing is demanding answers for why their kids had to die for no good reason. Again, you're just a conservative making a partisan attack on a woman who's lost her son. Makes me sick.

As for Casey, he had two choices. Reenlist and get the reenlistment bonus, or get called back via stop loss and get no bonus. To call him a volunteer is a sick joke.
 
  • #64
kat
26
0
Talking points! talking points! get your talking points!

Be real, this is a volunteer army. Casey was a hero who VOLUNTEERED for a dangerous mission. Stop trying to undermine his heroism.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
kat
26
0
oh..yes..a little informative tidbit..mothers who suffer the death of their children do not suddenly become beyond reproach for unlimited amounts of time and for actions that go beyond....simple grief, particularly when they voluntarily become political hacks.
 
  • #66
Archon
kat said:
I'm sorry, I need some clarification from you. Are you saying that....he didn't re-enlist? are you saying she supported his re-enlistment? or she doesn't know if she did?
I'm saying that she isn't talking about her son at all. She said that she would have taken her son to Canada had she known what she does now.

Which "second" statement is of personal beliefs"? are you really saying personal beliefs are true...if you believe them to be?
The statement that she wouldn't have supported his re-enlistment (to the point of taking him to Canada). A certain kind of personal belief is true if you say it is, because you are responsible for defining it. For instance, if I say, "I like the color blue," then it is true because I believe it and because I say it is. Nobody can tell me otherwise. The situation is similar here.

I didn't read " if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have" as I would have "tried" to stop him, but that she would have stopped him...definatively. Further more it seems to ignore the fact that her son was a grown man who made an educated decision based on experience. If anyone has the opportunity to judge whether their actions in Iraq are worth dying for...it's someone who's been there and then...volunteers to re-enlist and go back. More so then someone who's based their beliefs and opinions on what Iraq is about on the left slanted msm news or someone who has taken in by the propaganda of the lefts talking points hook, line and sinker.
So you're proposing that we ask her dead son?

The problem with calling what she has done propaganda is that she isn't trying to imply that she knows better than her son about conditions in Iraq. She says that she, personally, would have prevented him from re-enlisting had she had a more complete knowledge of the situation. She isn't saying that her son wouldn't have re-enlisted.

Also, she appears to be suggesting that she was not against his going before the war started..and my understanding is that she's held this stance prior to the Iraq war and prior to her son being sent to Iraq, the first time.
Nowhere does she say (or even imply) that she wasn't against the war when it first began. She says that had she known that "9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through," she would have stopped her son from re-enlisting.
 
  • #67
60
0
kat said:
Talking points! talking points! get your talking points!
The talking points is the brain dead arguments coming from right wing talkshow hosts about how Cindy Sheehan is just posing for the camera and doing it for self promotion, how some distant family members don't like what she's doing (as if that's somehow relevant) and how Casey Sheehan volunteered and therefore it's OK that he died for no good reason.

I means it's right out of the script.
 
  • #68
Skyhunter
kat said:
Talking points! talking points! get your talking points!

Be real, this is a volunteer army. Casey was a hero who VOLUNTEERED for a dangerous mission. Stop trying to undermine his heroism.
One of the soldiers in his unit talked to Cindy, and told her how much he was liked by everyone. He said that Casey didn't want to go on that mission, but decided to go because of the comraderie he had with the soldiers of his unit.

He was a hero.

And how do the right wingers honer his service?

By smearing his mother.

Shame on you!

[edit]
What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?
"Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."
- Iraqi Constitution supported by Iran-backed Shiites and the Bush Administration (but opposed by Sunni leaders)
Care to try and spin that one Kat?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
63
0
alexandra said:
Errr... what was this thread about? It seems to have been well and truly hijacked. I was interested in the original topic and wonder if anyone wants to get back to that discussion?
nope, its not coming back.
 
  • #70
63
0
Skyhunter said:
[edit]


Care to try and spin that one Kat?
Just like christianity was the majorly accepted religon of the US before it was attacked by the liberals and the bible/ten commandments were/are a guide for legeslation.
You represent the party that says it accepts everyone, the party that defends the koran because of the rights of Americans who practice Islam, and attacks the bible because you say it offends Muslims, so what is wrong with Islam being the religion of state in Iraq? For the most part, the Koran provides a good moral guideline for Muslims, it is extremests who mis-interpret it and kill.

Edit: is it because you say bush supports it that it is wrong?
Edit: the sunnis are the minority, so they don't have as much power.


Fibonacci
 
Last edited:
  • #71
Skyhunter
1 said:
Just like christianity was the majorly accepted religon of the US before it was attacked by the liberals and the bible/ten commandments were/are a guide for legeslation.
You represent the party that says it accepts everyone, the party that defends the koran because of the rights of Americans who practice Islam, and attacks the bible because you say it offends Muslims, so what is wrong with Islam being the religion of state in Iraq? For the most part, the Koran provides a good moral guideline for Muslims, it is extremests who mis-interpret it and kill.

Edit: is it because you say bush supports it that it is wrong?
Edit: the sunnis are the minority, so they don't have as much power.


Fibonacci
I think you make way to many assumptions and ask loaded questions.
 
  • #72
24
0
1 said:
Just like christianity was the majorly accepted religon of the US before it was attacked by the liberals and the bible/ten commandments were/are a guide for legeslation.
You represent the party that says it accepts everyone, the party that defends the koran because of the rights of Americans who practice Islam, and attacks the bible because you say it offends Muslims, so what is wrong with Islam being the religion of state in Iraq? For the most part, the Koran provides a good moral guideline for Muslims, it is extremests who mis-interpret it and kill.

Edit: is it because you say bush supports it that it is wrong?
Edit: the sunnis are the minority, so they don't have as much power.


Fibonacci
First of all, Skyhunter asked Kat to spin it... you are not kat... Second of all, whatever you just said makes little sense to the discussion of which you were trying to continue on behalf of kat... 3rd, it's not a matter of opposing what Bush does... if he did something right, I would support it.
 
  • #73
356
3
Skyhunter said:
[edit]


Care to try and spin that one Kat?
People keep bringing that up. Frankly I really don't see anything especially or extraordinarily wrong with using Islam for a basis of a constitution.
 
  • #74
Skyhunter
Smurf said:
People keep bringing that up. Frankly I really don't see anything especially or extraordinarily wrong with using Islam for a basis of a constitution.
You are not a woman I guess.

The role of women in Islam
Main article: women in Islam

Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of caring for house and family for both parents. Traditionally men have been able to prevent their wives from working by forbidding them to leave the house. In theory, Islamic law allows men to divorce at will, by saying "I divorce you" three times in public. In practice divorce is more involved than this and there may be separate state proceedings to follow as well. This practice is valid within most of the Muslim world today. Usually, the divorced wife keeps her dowry from when she was married, if there was one, and is given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father. There are only two ways of getting a divorce for women. In the case of a khü divorce a woman can give her husband a sum of money in exchange for him divorcing her. There is no minimum or maximum amount set for this form of divorce. In some schools of Islamic law a woman can petition a qadi for a divorce if her husband has abandoned her or is unfit to fulfill his duties as a husband.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#The_role_of_women_in_Islam

In practice it does not necessarily mean that Muslim nations are any worse than Christian nations. However slavery is not forbidden in the old testament and there are a number of practices in Leviticus that I would not like to see part of the law of the land. The problem is the constitution of Iraq is calling for Islamic law to be the law of the land, and that means the chief adjudicators of the law will not be judges, they will be clerics.
 
  • #75
356
3
But none of that is required by Islam, it's all just traditions that, even without islam, could very well have been sources for legislation. Besides, have you read the Iraqi constitution? It's as good as ours.

Article 12 said:
All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
I still see nothing wrong with using Islam except for a bit of fear mongering that it's going to turn into a tyrannical women-oppressing regime. Which I've heard no support for at all.

What we should really be worried about is all the federalist aspects.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Australia predicts China passes US by 2015

  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
878
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
615
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Top