Home > War > Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan coming to Bayside

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan coming to Bayside

[Press Release from Veterans for Peace]

Come get your peace groove on when famed mother-turned-peace activist Cindy Sheehan arrives at the Bayside Grange, 2297 Jacoby Creek road, Thursday, August 25, at 7:30 p.m. Come enjoy a savory vegetarian dinner with wine and reconnect with old friends while Cindy shares what she is learning on her RevCom tour down the west coast.

The focus of her tour is the urgent need to escalate environmental activism and awareness while looking at more effective ways of stopping the wars.  Cindy will have copies of her book “Not One More Mother’s Child” on hand for signing.  This is a fundraiser for the Humboldt Bay chapter of Veterans For Peace. Cost is just $15 at the door, $10 with student ID.  For more information call (707) 826-0556.

[Image source.]

  1. High Finance
    August 18, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Sorry, I’m laughing too hard to think of anything to say right now !

  2. Migh Finance
    August 18, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    …just in case there was any doubt remaining about the hateful, lying bastard I truly am, I plan on attending so that I may laugh at this grieving activist in person.

  3. Fact Checker
    August 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 18, 2011 at 11:49 am

    “Sorry, I’m laughing too hard to think of anything to say right now !”

    You are a nasty little troll.


  4. High Finance
    August 18, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Still laughing !

  5. Anonymous
    August 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Just what we need, one more left wing-nut.

  6. Ed
    August 18, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    It is pretty funny HiFi. Here’s a woman who dedicated her life to exposing a war sold to us with lie upon lie, and what has she got to show for it? The loss of her son fighting in Iraq. It’s nowhere near as effective as starving the government by providing guidance to corporations looking for tax loopholes. Right?

  7. Cheers
    August 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    And with this, Hi-Liar truly put “funny” on all his past posts about those “hateful” Heraldites.

  8. August 18, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Hey, we are stoked, we are in bayside and her partner in streaming.
    You can reach her site here: http://www.cindysheehanssoapbox.com/

  9. Anonymous
    August 18, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Hi Fi, the true American, laughs at the mom of a soldier killed in action. Ya, pretty funny…

  10. Decline To State
    August 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Hey, this is an important perspective, not necessarily my perspective but I welcome her input. Bring it on!

  11. Anonymous
    August 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    I imagine Hi Fi served his country the same way as Dick Cheney – avoiding military service but expecting others to go and die instead.

  12. Who Cares
    August 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    both you lefty’s and right’s can “eat me”, you aren’t her and she ain’t you and she has the right(s)! pretty close to Decline to State, but not as nice.

  13. August 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    So, HiFi, what’s so fucking funny about a mother who lost her son in an imperial adventure that you probably supported?

  14. Walt
    August 18, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Her son was killed seven years ago in Cheney’s war for oil, but she’s still on the road trying for peace. My hat’s off to you, Cindy: you’ve got guts.

  15. Cheers
    August 18, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Thank you all for banishing the evil-one again.

    Merely ask a question he dare not answer.

  16. Anonymous
    August 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Cindy…you should camped out at Martha’s Vineyard heckling, and harassing you know who ???

  17. Jack Sherman
    August 18, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “More hate speak by cyber bully Jack Sherman”.

    Written by an expert.

  18. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 8:13 am

    I wonder if Larry and Cindy will pose for a picture? That would be nice.

    ha ha ha ha ha

  19. High Finance
    August 19, 2011 at 8:16 am

    Cheers, do you ever post a non lie ?

    Joel, Cindy Sheehan is a total nutcase. She’s milking the death of her son for all its worth. From what I read years ago she wasn’t even that close to him while he was alive, he was raised by his father.

    The funny thing about it is all you lefties treating her like some kind of worthy demi God.

  20. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 8:32 am

    High Finance – which golf course were you on while Cheney started the Iraq war? Did you volunteer for service, or did you duck any service like your pal Dick?

  21. August 19, 2011 at 8:33 am

    you lefties treating her like some kind of worthy demi God.

    HiFi couldn’t have an honest argument if his sorry life depended on it.

  22. August 19, 2011 at 9:16 am

    HiFi wrote, “She’s milking the death of her son for all its worth. From what I read years ago she wasn’t even that close to him while he was alive, he was raised by his father.”

    Exactly, although I don’t know that many of us can blame her as I’m sure we can all think of someone we know and might like that makes their living from their fame or infamy- whether deserved, or not.

    I’m wondering what she’ll have to say about our attacks on Libya, if anything?

  23. August 19, 2011 at 10:28 am

    How closedo you need to be to yr son to mourn his death

    an try to speak out against such deaths repeating.??

  24. tra
    August 19, 2011 at 10:42 am

    She’s milking the death of her son for all its worth.

    That claim is just unbelievable. Literally.

  25. Fact Checker
    August 19, 2011 at 10:54 am

    High Finance says:
    August 19, 2011 at 8:16 am

    “Cindy Sheehan is a total nutcase. She’s milking the death of her son for all its worth. From what I read…”

    The nerve! A parent honoring their child’s life and fighting for the lives of other future cannon fodder. Where did you read this Hi Liar? Rush Limbaugh’s website? Fox News (Fair & Balanced)? Do you believe everything you read? Worse, do you believe everything you think? You are a pathetic little troll. Are you aware of any “facts” of the matter at hand or do you just barf hate and opinion all day? I feel sorry for any human who has the misfortune of living with you.

  26. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 11:15 am

    The kid joined the military knowing full well that he is risking his life to fight for his country…What wld happen if all mother’s of war victims did what she is doing. It is ridiculous that she is making money off her son’s death (yeah, I know she’s sacrificed her own money also so don’t go making some idiotic comment about that). Cindy, be a proud Mother and get a life of normalcy like the rest of us. There will always be war…ALWAYS, whether we like it or not.

  27. tra
    August 19, 2011 at 11:43 am

    What wld happen if all mother’s of war victims did what she is doing.

    There would be a lot fewer wars and a lot fewer war victims.

    There will always be war…ALWAYS, whether we like it or not.

    As long as there are enough people who believe this, their prophecy will continue to be self-fulfilling.

  28. The Big Picture
    August 19, 2011 at 11:48 am

    “What wld happen if all mother’s of war victims did what she is doing.”

    The mothers of thousands of disappeared “suspected leftists” in Argentina protested for decades until the generals were finally held to some accountability.

    Our nation began in a revolution against the usual excesses of imperial power. Apologists for imperialism are traitors.

    The imperial military cause is neither just nor heroic in any of the past and present empires fighting to enrich their elite and that impoverishes their citizens, prior to the inevitable collapse. There are no exceptions to date.

    The U.S. bombing of 25 impoverished nations since WWII were unconstitutional and certainly no real threat to the Homeland.

  29. Apologist Not
    August 19, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Thousands of U.S. soldiers are victims of suicide, far beyond any previous conflict.

    This nation’s media, like this blog’s traitors, enforce a silence upon our own soldier’s final act of protest, and the outrage of a mother over her son’s sacrifice in another illegal, imperial occupation.

    Fell safer now, Chicken-Hawks?

  30. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    The chicken hawks need to denigrate those protesting the war to distract from the fact that they supported a failed Iraq War policy. Talk about debt – and one with very little to show for it, other than dead civilians and soldiers.

  31. August 19, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    “There will always be war…”

    And there will always be wars that are not worth fighting.

  32. August 19, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    I thought the god of the narrow minded who promised them change and an end to the wars was gonna stop the multiple conflicts our occupied country is fighting.
    America has no left or right- only bought and paid for media spokespersons that so many of you believe were elected.
    A few years back when Nancy P. was “elected” as speaker- her CONgress came in with a mandate to end the wars and they expanded them.
    Far too many of you need to wake up and see government as an instrument to kill people and nothing more. Disbandment is the only answer to stopping an out of control machine, not a rigged vote.

  33. Walt
    August 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Joel, it WAS worth it for the oil companies, and Haliburton, who lost little money and no casualties. They still may reap HUGE profits. Was it worth it for Casey Sheehan or the tens of thousands of other soldiers killed or wounded? For you? For me? I don’t think Cheney and Co (and now Obama and Co) had us in mind when they signed US up.

  34. anoni-truth
    August 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    Hi-Fi is a moronic piece of shit.

    Ooooops. did I say that out loud?

  35. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    We should listen again to John Lennon’s “Imagine”. “Imagine there’s no country…..” and realize that wars are essentially fought because of the concept of nationalism. (Economic issues also play a part in wars.) But I think the root cause of wars is nationalism as in “our country’s more righteous than yours” and “God is on our side”. We must look at the world as one people all struggling to survive; with no one people having all the answers. We must embrace the dialectic and work toward a synthesis of thought as neither the thesis nor the antithesis is the answer.

  36. Anonymous
    August 19, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Sure Hi Fi is a moronic piece of shit, I’ve called him worse in this forum and will again, but has protesting done one lick of good in the past 30 years. The real war is over and we lost, the people in power just don’t give a shit about the squacking masses. Doesn’t mean anyone should poke fun at a parents loss. HiFi must not have kids. BYW – Any one laying odd on us leaving Iraq next year?

  37. August 20, 2011 at 12:20 am

    I’m not going to see Cindy Sheehan. I admired her efforts tremendously she started Camp Casey when she first came on the scene. However, perhaps it’s her still grieving from sons death or the pressures of political the fact that the war is still happening fame,.Maybe COINTELPRO slipped her some bad acid Whatever the reason .Ensuing years have not weighed well upon Cindy Sheehan . at this point I think she’s doing more to undermine rather than promote any anti -war sentiment or movement

    . I get her updates on my facebook page I was pretty stoked when she “friended” me . I’ve been disappointed in my friend since then
    Frankly, some of her posts are just plain fucking whacked She pushes a knee jerk brand of southpaw bagger leftier-than thou politics which is tiresome and alienates way more people than it converts
    She’s someone who just literally does not know when to stop talking . And when she’s talking she says some very ugly unproductive divisive things apparently just for shock value Sad to say she seems to me like crazy cat lady caricature of her old self . She’s screeching nails across 8:13’s pristine “Imagine” LP

  38. Mitch
    August 20, 2011 at 6:19 am


    Thank you, thank you, thank you! Cindy Sheehan may be one of the most wonderful people ever born, and nobody should have to go through what she has gone through.

    That said, I couldn’t agree more with your comment about “leftier-than thou politics which is tiresome and alienates way more people than it converts.”

    The “left” (whatever that actually means) urgently needs to discover new approaches to involving new people. It could start by actually listening to and hearing comments like that you made above, rather than shutting its ears to friendly criticism a la W.

    What’s been on offer for the last few decades simply has not worked.

  39. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 8:57 am

    FactLess Checker is wrong again. She is not “honoring her child’s life” by demonstrating against every thing he believed in and gave up his life for.

    11.06pm. You are one brave dude hiding your insults behind “Anonymous” as you do.

  40. Walt
    August 20, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Hi Fi: a serious question. . .What did Casey give up his life for? Certainly not to defend you and me from harm.

  41. August 20, 2011 at 9:52 am

    War is murder. And just like other sanctified crimes of the ruling class; it’s justified if those who profit from it declare it justified.
    To study history is to study war. We have never gone more than fifty years without a major conflict killing huge numbers of working-class and middle-class people.
    War is one huge “Murder-Party.”
    There is always a “valid” reason. It’s based on fear.
    It’s long been a pastime of royalty to massacre “their” people in petty fights with their cousins.
    It’s amazing that a person would follow any laws set down by those who create “theater” where unspeakable horrors and atrocities are committed. And they’re most often committed against human beings in the name of economic dictatorship forced on societies and cultures who resist enslavement.
    Resisting slavery is a great justification for murdering human beings.
    Protecting your culture is another.
    If you dare to suggest that creating hell on earth is unnatural; then it’s all about: “…but what would you do if someone came into your house and raped your wife and killed your children?”
    Ah, yes; the same ol’ story. and who’s doing the convincing? Why it’s the same guy who really would rape your wife and kill your child.
    It’s all fun-n-games for the psychopaths once they’ve declared you an enemy.
    I want to scream when I hear the killers talk about “honor” and “courage”. Where is the honor in blowing the limbs off of children? How much courage does it take murder an innocent family at a picnic with a model airplane from three thousand miles away? In the New-American-Century, we give medals for that kind of thing.

  42. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 10:21 am

    Walt. Casey Sheehan was an Eagle Scout. He joined the army in 2000 when he was 21. His enlistment was up and he wasn’t going to reenlist until he heard his unit was going to Iraq.

    Casey was a mechanic, a noncombatent. He volunteered to go on the mission that he died on. He was killed trying to rescue other soldiers under attack.

    He wanted to serve his country. You may not agree with it but that is what he died doing..

  43. August 20, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Everyone has had to face the loss of a loved one probably several times during the course of our lives . Sometimes we lose them in even more pointless and avoidable ways than Casey Sheehan . Too much gratuitous public grieving comes off as narcissistic and manipulative . Just because she experienced a tragedy in her life does not automatically sanctify everything she says. Some of her recent statements have been incredibly insulting to the families of the other troops killed during the war . I guess those folks just aren’t as “evolved ” as Cindy Sheehan so who gives a fuck about their feelings , right?

  44. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Some facts about Cindy Sheehan. She is using her son’s death to push her political agenda. She is a member of the Socialist party.

    She has made anti-Sematic comments about Jews instigating the war. She has said that her son do not enlist in the army to die for Israel.

    Grieving parents go to their clergy or family or counselors for their grief. She went to a public relations firm paid for by Moveon.Org. She ran for congress (aginst Nancy Pelosi?) in 2008.

  45. Walt
    August 20, 2011 at 11:13 am

    But, Hi Fi, what were we doing there in the first place? You could argue he was trying to save his fellow soldiers, but why were any of them sent there? And why are they STILL there? How is putting them at risk “serving our country”? This is the 800 pound gorilla nobody, left or right, wants to talk about. These young people may or may not “believe” they are somehow doing a good thing for their country, and nobody now wants to spit on them for that, like they did in Viet Nam days, but just because they are “following orders”, how does that obligate me to support what they are doing (shooting people who never harmed me OR MY COUNTRY and trying not to get killed themselves)?

  46. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Walt, I disagreed with sending troops to Iraq in the first place and wish Obama had the balls to follow through on his campaign promise to pull them out.

    HOWEVER, Saddam was a thug who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen and caused the deaths of millions in his war against Iran. The first war with Iraq was wholly justified to stop his plans to take over Mideast oil. Once Sadaam was hanged there ceased to be any pretense for staying there.

    None of that changes the fact that Cindy Sheehan is a kook using her son’s death for personal glory and to push her political agenda.

  47. August 20, 2011 at 11:23 am

    I’m also On the Humboldt Tea Party Patriots mailing list and the tone of thier emails I get from them and the ones Ie gotten from Cindy Sheehan are exactly the same…..Not the side issues but the way she presents herself …

  48. suzy blah blah
    August 20, 2011 at 11:39 am

    As long as there are enough people who believe this, their prophecy will continue to be self-fulfilling.

    A pathetic and naive fantasy. You wouldn’t know a real prophecy if it slapped you in the face.

  49. August 20, 2011 at 11:58 am

    The difference between me and a punk like High Finance is that he would never ever call out and abusive person on his own side.. In case someone wants to make the mistake of lumping us together.

  50. August 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    I smell some bullshit here. I hear HiFi’s story of opposition to the Iraq invasion from every conservative I know, save one. Virtually all “conservatives” supported the goddamned invasion. With public support at about 80 percent, those of us who actually did oppose the invasion were feeling a little lonely. Now everybody thought it was a stupid idea.

  51. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    The big difference between us Joel, was that once we invaded I wanted to win.

    I also thought Mike Thompson’s last minute friendly visit to Iraq with the other two peaceniks was near treasonous.

    Big talk makes you look foolish Robash, hiding behind the computer. You wouldn’t have the guts to say that to my face.

  52. August 20, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    “Win”? Win what?

  53. Ed
    August 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Perfect comment Joel.

  54. August 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    You wouldn’t have the guts to say that to my face.

    Tell him where to find your face and we will see what happens.

  55. black flag
    August 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    anti war people starting street fights….what’s next?

  56. August 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    If we were lucky, no comments from Black Flag would be next.

  57. High Finance
    August 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    We won the war Joel, in just three weeks.

  58. Anonymous
    August 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    George Bush said so—–“Mission Accomplished”

  59. August 20, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    We won? That would come as a surprise to our soldiers over there.

  60. Walt
    August 20, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Don’t people generally stop being killed when you’ve won?

  61. August 20, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    The war profiteers are still winning.

  62. mresquan
    August 20, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    “Don’t people generally stop being killed when you’ve won?”

    No.And hifi is right,we had it won in just three weeks,hell in just 3 hours really,I mean considering that U.S. foreign policy over the past thirty years has involved constant fucking of Iraqi’s on a continual basis.

  63. Anonymous
    August 20, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Hifi @ 8:57
    How is posting as anonymous any different then the pen name High Finance? You’re starting to sound like Joel, whining about people who don’t use their proper names. Still say you’re childless.

  64. August 20, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    When have I been “whining about people who don’t use their proper names”?

  65. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 12:08 am

    A very sad and disfunctional woman driven by a horrible loss and tossed to the side by the big lib politicals who used her till she she had no capital left for them. Then they tossed her to the side of road. O, that’s OK hey they had Obama to elect. LOL!LOL!LOL! Actually as said in the beginning , very sad.

  66. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Wow 12:08, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the woman.

  67. August 21, 2011 at 8:57 am

    Sadly, Anonymous 12:08 has a “fundamentally flawed understanding” of lots of things, not the least of which would be wit.

  68. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Who are these big lib politicians who used Cindy Sheehan? From my perspective, they all pretty much ignored her in favor of getting the votes from people (80%) who were in favor of the war. Some of us were opposed to trading with a brutal dictator who was known to have committed war crimes against Iran (the Reagan administration at the time blamed Iran for the use of the gas that killed the Kurds against all evidence), opposed both Gulf wars, the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent children, and the invasion of Afghanistan. We were, of course, right.

  69. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Head. Sand. Hum mini libs. JOKE!

  70. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 10:54 am

    And Joel talks about wit ? Well how about that ! And talking about someone fundamentally flawwed why do my thoughts got to Joel ?

  71. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Anonymous 10:38: A drive-by shooting blanks.

  72. Cheers
    August 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    “HI Fi” says:

    “We won the (Iraq) war in three weeks.”
    (War was never declared by Congress).

    “Cindy Sheehan is a kook.”
    (Cindy Sheehan is what average Americans with courage look and sound like, they aren’t polished sophists, nor does MoveOn.org provide makeup).

    “Mike Thompson’s trip to Iraq was traitorous.”
    (Unconstitutional invasions and occupations are traitorous).

    “Cindy Sheehan is not honoring her son.”
    (I know Republican homosexuals who make similar ignorant and insensitive prejudicial claims).

    “I was against the war from the start.”
    (War was never declared by Congress. 911 victims were joined in NY by resigned U.S. Generals, and other newly retired high-ranking military officials pleading against retaliatory quagmires).

    “The Eureka Chamber of Commerce financial records are public.”
    (Ha Ha Ha)

    Psychotic liars cannot help themselves.

    Have pity.

    Casey Sheehan was well-aware of his mother’s opposition to an illegal war and occupation. He respected her for it, along with thousands of other soldiers who understand and oppose imperial occupations, but have a deep commitment to their comrades. Many thousands have committed suicide, many more are joining them.

    Nevertheless, “HiFi” *** BELIEVES*** that ***HE*** is the one honoring Casey Sheehan’s heroism.

    Claiming that HiFi isn’t, would also make me a liar.

  73. High Finance
    August 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Cheers, your obsession is a little bit sick. Perhaps you should put some pants on, shower and go outside once in awhile ?

  74. August 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    You might want to consider HiFi’s advice, Cheers. At least go out and get some fresh air.

  75. Anonymous
    August 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    I’m as aganist this BS war as anyone, just saying Cindy was a tool for other BS and Joel is just a tool!

  76. August 21, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    I have no problem with Cindy Sheehan being against the war or attacking the military industrial complex all she wants. However, when she starts to disrespect and demean the people who actually serve then she has crossed a line that she ought not have crossed. All this “baby killer” and “mercenary ” shit she’s been talking recently is totally unacceptable. . Cindy Sheehan wants to have it both ways She want’s that special status that comes from being a martyr military mom but at the same time she denigrates and demeans the very people and institutions which accord her that special status..

  77. August 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    BTW I would never go one foot out of my way to pester High Finance even If I I knew his identity. I’m just a peaceful peace loving citizen exercising my Constitutionally protected rights of Free Speech..
    If High Finance , for whatever reason, feels compelled to disprove his punk -assedness by accosting me Then I would say that it would be a bad decision for him to make.

  78. Walt
    August 22, 2011 at 5:56 am

    “However, when she starts to disrespect and demean the people who actually serve then she has crossed a line that she ought not have crossed.” That’s the part I don’t get: if even Hi Fi says the US shouldn’t be there, and that he opposed invading in the first place, WHY does the soldiers’ killing and being killed FOR NO GOOD REASON make them somehow holy? Wouldn’t the BEST way to respect them be to bring them home and give them meaningful, well-paying jobs? Wouldn’t the WORST thing you could do for them be to make them kill and be killed? Sounds to me like Cindy is looking after their interests FAR MORE than Bush or Obama, and forget the rhetoric.

  79. Mitch
    August 22, 2011 at 7:35 am

    “Cindy Sheehan is not honoring her son.”
    (I know Republican homosexuals who make similar ignorant and insensitive prejudicial claims).

    Huh? Cheers at 12:57 is correct in most of his/her statements, but I’ve got to say this one left me stumped. I’m sure Republican, Democratic, and Green homosexuals make ignorant and insensitive prejudicial claims from time to time, but I fail to see what that has to do with the allegation that Cindy Sheehan is not honoring her son.

    Wouldn’t a simpler response have been along the lines of “(Cindy Sheehan lost her son to a fight she felt had no legitimate purpose, and has devoted her life to trying to prevent its continuation and the continuation of the policies which lead to such losses. What more noble action could a grieving mother take to honor her son’s life?)”

    Note that this statement is undeniable, even for those who feel Ms. Sheehan’s approach has turned counterproductive.

    If the “left” is to gain any traction, at least a few leftists are going to have to learn how to speak to people not already in the club. As it happens, Brian Willson serves as a great example of how to do exactly that. He’s the activist who lost a leg blocking a government weapons train, who spoke at Northtown a month or two ago.

  80. August 22, 2011 at 7:48 am

    No recently she has been calling them “baby Killers” and “mercenaries” far as concerned that’s beyond the pale I was against this war along time before I even heard of Cindy Sheehan .What she saying is just vile trash talk It serves to alienate a lot more people than it wins over.Whatever cynical games the politicos are playing the service people are doing it for real..

  81. August 22, 2011 at 8:36 am

    I’ve never kept up with Sheehan’s statements — she was always unpleasantly shrill — so I trust Robash141’s take on her. Still, I’d like HiFi’s to answer my question. If he was against the war in the first place (an extremely unlikely claim), then why would he have been in favor of “winning” a misguided war, and what would a”winning” in Iraq mean?

  82. High Finance
    August 22, 2011 at 9:35 am

    That question is easy Joel.

    Once we committed the troops I was supportive of going all out. But like I have said before, once Saddam was hanged we should have left pronto.

  83. Anonymous
    August 22, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Double down on colossal mistakes HiFi! Bomb a country to smithereens with “shock and awe,” kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and then let the victims pick up the pieces. Of course, when another despot took over in the chaos we would have another opportunity for profit in a few years.

  84. August 22, 2011 at 10:56 am

    So, HiFi, how would “going all out” be different from the mayhem that we committed there, and why would the killing of Saddam make any difference to us?

  85. August 22, 2011 at 11:49 am

    We did go all out Joel. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers.

  86. August 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    “Saddam was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers.”?

    Oh my God, he killed “hundreds” of the soldiers who were invading, bombing and occupying his country? How thoughtless of him.

  87. Fact Checker
    August 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    High Finance says:
    August 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    “We won the war Joel, in just three weeks.”

    Yeah right, three weeks. Nothing Accomplished!!

    “March 20, 2003: U.S. attacks Baghdad, Iraq, with missiles and bombs. U.K. and U.S. ground troops move into Iraq. Military occupation begins.
    August 18, 2010: American combat operations in Iraq end as its last combat brigade departs for Kuwait.”


    “U.S. permanent facilities

    In October 2004, Iraq’s interim government transferred to U.S. ownership 104 acres (0.42 km2) of land beside the Tigris River in Baghdad for construction of a new U.S. embassy. The new facility will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water. A few details of the embassy complex are available from a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, though many of the details remain secret. Its construction is budgeted at $592 million.[122]

    Besides the embassy complex, four “super bases” are being built for permanent deployment. One would be adjacent to Baghdad, two would be close to the southern and northern oil fields and the fourth would be in the west towards Syria.[123]

    The U.S. is in the process of building 14 bases known as enduring bases. Four are unknown as to name and location. The other ten are: Green Zone in Baghdad, Camp Anaconda at Balad Airbase, Camp Taji in Taji, Camp Falcon-Al-Sarq in Baghdad, Post Freedom in Mosul, Camp Victory-Al Nasr at Baghdad Airfield, Camp Marez at Mosul Airfield, Camp Renegade in Kirkuk, Camp Speicher in Tikrit and Camp Fallujuh”


  88. Cheers
    August 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Thanks for your patience Mitch.

    I called-out HiFi’s laundry list of lies and made a dumb comment that, of course, immediately became the focus, (to HiFi’s intent and delight. All else can be ignored).

    My apologies.

    Once again, Mitch nailed the central issue:

    “If the “left” is to gain any traction, at least a few leftists are going to have to learn how to speak to people not already in the club”. (Mitch 7:35).

    Our problem is our failure to take power from the powerful. Instead, we’ve become obsessed to try to convince our adversaries to change their ways for their own good. Party leaders should have been fighting hard to “talk to”, organize, and demand media to assist in motivating the participation of the majority of Americans to get out and vote!

    Ludicrous blog banters with a lying sophist called “HiFi” illustrate this point. Democrats tying to appease and negotiate with Sacramento and Washington’s more sophisticated sophists will end with the same results:

    Citizens ignored by national and local media and politicians, while being cannibalized by “free-market” corporate predators in communities bankrupted by perpetual war and political corruption.

    At this rate, Joel can expect average people to start sounding far more “shrill” than Ms. Sheehan.

  89. August 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    “…Joel can expect average people to start sounding far more “shrill” than Ms. Sheehan.”

    Don’t hold your breath, Cheers, and if you intend to rally people with your bloated prose, you’re in for a disappointment.

  90. August 22, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    “Not One More Mother’s Child” even the title of this book is disingenuous Casey Sheehan was 24 years old when he enlisted . He wasn’t a child.. Even though he was an adult capable of making adult decisions Casey’s mother obviously did not agree with that decision The son’s decision , as we all know resulted a tragic outcome
    I think Cindy Sheehan is living what a lot of folks fantasize about. She is getting to live out her own private family drama upon the world stage.
    A congenital chiseler like High Finance is only capable of seeing it in crass commercial terms but I think it’s more narcissistic than anything else. These days Cindy just appears to be all about Cindy. She want’s to give a big “I told you so”to her dead son and the world.. It’s not necessarily that she’s wrong it’s that she’s wrong to think that it’s all about her..
    And when she attacks the service people themselves whatever moral authority she has from being the mother of a slain serviceman evaporates. That is because she is attacking the very people from which her strength derives. She can talk smack about the war and jingo politicians all day long. I’ll even cut her a loads of slack if she wants to talk bad about Generals. A lot of them only got to be Generals because they were willing to be some politicians sucking boy. She can rhetorically blast those people to Kingdom Come and I will applaud her just don’t fuck with the ranks.

  91. August 25, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Arcata has a long a proud relationship with Cindy and The Peace movement she inspired. Did you know the Impeachment Tour Bus she road to Crawford Texas was built by a US Navy Veteran that grew up in Arcata? The Impeachment Tour actually started from Has Beans coffee on second street and ended up taking Cindy to Bush’s ranch and went on to provide disaster relief in New Orleans in September of 2005. That relief effort raised over $500,000 which funded the Common Ground Medical Clinic and many more projects that benefit New Orleans to this day. Be proud Arcata!

  92. Cheers
    August 25, 2011 at 10:41 am

    You couldn’t be more incorrect.

    All Cindy’s “flaws” notwithstanding, ANYONE who shoves this nation’s tyranny back in our faces is heroic.

    Our daily newspapers once thrived on exposing a nation’s uncomfortable truths, it took down a U.S. president and showed us the grim pictures of Vietnam every day, front page.

    Sorry to discomfort you Joel.

    Everyone knows that it’s clever blog quips that rallied historic change in the past.

    See you at Cindy’s fundraiser tonight for local Veteran’s For Peace?

  93. Anonymous
    August 25, 2011 at 11:56 am

    people like cindy sheehan and her supporters are why democrats are losing elections.

  94. August 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    It’s not “clever quips” more like blood libels is what Cindy Sheehan . Something tells me You wouldn’t be so quick shine it on if she was up there spewing racial or anti-Semitic slurs..To me it’s just as offensive.
    I’m not objecting to her helping out health clinics or with disaster relief or being against the war mind you . Just about her disparaging remarks about people who serve in the military.

  95. Cheers
    August 25, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    It is an illegal invasion and occupation.

    Difficult as the decision may be, it’s every soldier’s responsibility to decide whether or not to participate in illegal wars or crimes against humanity.

    It is every patriotic American’s responsibility to call it out, and join others in protest.

    Whining over personality “flaws”, is why today’s democratic party can rarely unite, (especially locally) over ever-deepening local, international, economic, and environmental disasters.

    Eventually, these disasters will dwarf inconsequential cries from the “offended”, if history is any indication.

  96. August 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Cheers has it all figured out. Why aren’t people following him?

  97. August 25, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    It isn’t about “personality flaws” or vague stuff like that I’m objecting to specific public statements she has made that were disparaging towards US Military personnel who were serving country honorably . Veterans for Peace ( those of you who actually served in the military ) should know exactly why this kind of talk is utterly unacceptable.

  98. Cheers
    August 27, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Joel knows better!

    If this nation’s “Sheehan’s” were sought-out by local media, maybe half of the eligible voters who don’t vote would begin to participate.

    Similarly, if local media demanded to know how and why a tiny handful of monied interests control local politics, Joel’s candidates might stand a chance.

    Only then, when outraged people lead, the leaders follow.

    Joel knows this.

    But if you can’t even show up….because you think a heroic mother, (who has, IN FACT, delivered some of the rare media attention against another illegal invasion and occupation), is too “shrill”, then, you have no credibility whatsoever to criticize those who do show up.

    About 100 people attended Thursday night.

    No reasonable person could classify Cindy’s long speech as “shrill.” It was on-target and moving. There wasn’t one indication that her efforts include the denigration of individual soldiers.

    Not even close!

  99. Anonymous
    August 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Too bad Joel, you could have gained some brilliant humor that Sheehan offered repeatedly throughout her unscripted presentation.

    Right up your ally.

  100. August 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    With such a warm invitation from Cheers, I don’t know how I resisted attending the event.

  101. SmokeMonster
    August 27, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    I’m sure Joel was diligently observing more of the local subcultures to make fun of and stereotype,helping further divide the communities he is not from nor has any true connections to,move along you are way to cool for Humboldt.

  102. The Big Picture
    August 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    While liberals squabble and boycott an effective activist’s event, local and national republicans put personalities aside and grow more powerful despite smaller numbers.

    Ironically, Joel appears to out-shrill Sheehan. Nevertheless, I would attend his rally if it were a good cause, or if he were to run for office.

    A candidate that Joel supported in 2008 told me this old quote: “It takes two people to truly hurt you, an enemy who says bad things about you, and a friend to tell you what was said”.

    Local libs will continue to lose ground until we take a clue from our opponents, have some humility, hold your nose, and fully support the efforts of like-minded citizens, activists and organizations.

  103. Cheers
    August 29, 2011 at 11:13 am

    You’re wasting your time.

    Joel and HiFi are above humility. Catch ’em in a moment of stupidity and they vanish.

  104. August 29, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Big Picture’s comments are worth reading, but Smokemonster is little more than a troll.

    Sorry I didn’t “vanish,” Cheers, but making things up will never strengthen your arguments, unless you own a news network.

  105. Cheers
    August 30, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Yeah, two days later, and two dollars short.

    After numerous posts, you remain silent on the stupidity of boycotting a critical V.F.P. fundraiser because you feel that an effective activist is too “shrill”!?

    Have a little humility, as 12:08 suggested!

    Your silence is absence, and “making things up” is right out of HiFi’s playbook.

    I was at this event, Sheehan is not shrill. Her focus was on localization to recreate revolutionary communities that diminish oil consumption. She’s even learned to appeal to mainstream sensibilities by interjecting humor into the rising (obscene) costs of an immoral and bankrupt imperial economy.

    She used the terms “hopenetized” on “hopium”. Hilarious, and worthy of local media coverage, that, like you, were AWOL.

    Had you gone, you could have saved your quip-lashing for worthier demons.

  106. August 30, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    So, Cheers, who’s “boycotting?” I simply said that she’s too shrill for me. I’m happy that her presentation was useful, and I hope that she’s successful in her endeavors. I’m sorry that “hopenetized” and “on hopium,” are not the sort of drollery that I enjoy, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with her message.

    And don’t hide behind HiFi to obscure your bullshit. If you’re going to criticize me for some sort of behavior (“Catch ‘em in a moment of stupidity and they vanish”), then at least provide an example.

    I welcome criticism, but be specific.

  107. Cheers
    August 31, 2011 at 12:24 am

    First “shrill”, now “droll”?

    Do your team a favor Joel.

    Next time an effective, internationally known activist announces a local effort to raise interest, awareness, donations, and involvement for our VFP, (during a depression), retain your petty, vague, and clearly useless insults for your opponents! (Read:stupidity! Man-up and take some responsibility).

    Most liberals I know are agnostic, yet, their loyalty is reserved for “Jesus”.

    Most right-wingers I know are religious, yet, their unflinching loyalty is reserved for their political causes.

    The specificity of this criticism is now repeated by several different posts above.

    Man-up, then get back on your horse a better rider.

  108. August 31, 2011 at 8:49 am

    Sorry, Cheers, but I don’t have a “team.”
    Nice dodge. Thanks for the drivel.

  109. Cheers
    August 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    You are the dodger Joel, no need to compound your lies with more quips.

    You have a “team” every time you assist a liberal campaign, thus, you have an understanding of the petty personality slapfest that paralyze liberals from working together politically in Eureka.

    And yet, you slapped another liberal team’s critical event with a petty and pointless insult before it even occurred!? Your only reference defers to another anonymous post (8:36) claiming Sheehan had indeed said something “shrill” once!?

    This specific criticism of your comment was already pointed out several times above, but your belated response is to “welcome specific criticism”!?


    You conceded your agreement with Sheehan’s message which leaves only her “shrillness” as the reason you wouldn’t attend.

    Inability to take responsibility for a stupid comment should make you suspicious of ANY liberal group that would have you on their team.

  110. August 31, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    “Shrillness” is reason enough for me not to want to listen to Sheehan, just as inanity is reason enough to reject the obtuse comments of Cheers.

  111. yer pal
    August 31, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    With allies like Gordon Soderberg, Sheehan needs no enemies. By the way, I’m glad your meth head ass left Humboldt. It’s a nicer place without you.

  112. Cheers
    September 1, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    You may be right, I’m insane to keep repeating the same specific criticism YOU ASKED FOR, without a response.

    Silly pea-brain, all you can do is squirm and quip.

    Instead of taking responsibility for a stupid, baseless remark, you went ahead and did what little damage you could on Heraldo prior to a VFP fundraiser. This is the SAME kind of crap that divides and weakens our under-represented liberal community in Eureka.

    Had you attended Sheehan’s event, you would know that she is NOT SHRILL…not that every other effective activist in U.S. history hadn’t suffered the same OBTUSE critique.

    Return to quip-lashing your opponents, it suit you and HiFi, who is now shamed into posting Anonymously.

  113. September 1, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Sorry, Cheers, but all I said was that she doesn’t appeal to me. I’m entitled to an opinion, no matter what the self-appointed leader of the vanguard of the left thinks. Try harder, you intellectual sad sack.

  114. Cheers
    September 2, 2011 at 1:56 am

    Sorry Einstein, but you’re the one that couldn’t resist posting baseless epithets against a nationally-known guest speaker, (who shares your political values), providing a fund-raising event, (for an organization you support)….on a popular left-wing blog (that promoted it)…


    So much for that Intellect-sack you thought you had.

    Alas, you’re irresponsibility epitomizes the ridiculous personality BS that drives larger divisions between like-minded political teams…contributing to the losses your local and national candidates and issues keep suffering.

    OF COURSE you’re entitled to your opinion….and with it, an honorary membership to the moron vanguard.

  115. September 2, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Get it all out of your system, Cheers? Oops, I think you got some on your shirt.

  116. Cheers
    September 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    You and HiFi must be twins.

    You’re not denying your stupidity, I’m not denying it made me ill.

    It’s always encouraging when intelligent people find common ground.

  117. September 2, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Seek help, Cheers. And please shut the fuck up on the Stand Down thread, for God’s sake.

  118. Cheers
    September 2, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Don’t like the stink of your own duplicitous shit?


  119. September 3, 2011 at 9:07 am

    I also objected to that Homophobic Reggae guy that was trying to play here awhile ago ago for very similar reasons that I objected to Cindy Sheehan. Maybe that guy was a talented musician with a nice fan base and whatnot but some of his public statements were just outrageous and unacceptable.

  120. September 3, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    I’m flattered that Cheers would compare me to Einstein. And I’m with Rob Ash on the homophobic reggae numbskulls . Perhaps Cheers would jump to their defense, because they oppose the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

  121. Cheers
    September 3, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    And Cindy’s Homophobic statements are posted where?

    Your desperation is embarrassing.

    This nation would still be living in barbarism if activist’s dumb statements were made to take precedence over their actual, historic accomplishments….by petty, ignorant fools.

    You know, like Joel, who couldn’t save his prejudicial, BASELESS epithet until AFTER the VFP event!?

    This was always a very simple and clear criticism that never deserved the mind-numbing contortions to try to defend.

    Amid the desperation of digging his own grave, Joel proudly defended his rights to his opinion…then attacked my same right the next day! “For God’s sake” Joel!! (Although, I wasn’t offering epithets before the NCVSD event!).

    Using your twisted logic, I could train my parrot call Joel “duplicitous forever more”.

    Had either of you joined the crowd at the VFP event, you would have no evidence whatsoever that Sheehan is either “Shrill” or “droll”. But, that doesn’t seem to matter once you’ve buried yourself head-deep in your own doo.

  122. September 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Poor Cheers. He says so little with so many words.

  123. Cheers
    September 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Poor Mielke, having to dig into a shallow sack of quips to avoid answering the “clear criticism” HE DEMANDED!

    Silly duplicitous fool!

    In for a penny, in for a pound.

  124. September 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    “In for a penny, in for a pound.”

    What was that about a “shallow sack of quips”?

  125. Ed
    September 3, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Speaking of shallow sacks, has anyone seen what Obama did with the clean air act?

  126. Plain Jane
    September 3, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    He knows we aren’t going to vote for Perry or any of the other conservative clowns so what we think isn’t at all important to him.

  127. Ed
    September 3, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Damn Jane, you’re right! We gotta get Cyndy Day-Wilson on this ASAP!

  128. September 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Bottom line is Cindy Sheehan makes unacceptable comments about the people who serve in the miltary she has called them “\baby killers ,mercenaries and said that all US troops are War Criminals .
    As I said before she can bash the politicians or the military-industrial complex all she wants . Once she starts bashing and disparaging the people who actually serve, then she’s wrong.
    Being the mother of a dead soldier does not excuse some she says .
    The fact that she’s a famous celebrity activist makes her comments much MORE unacceptable not more forgivable .
    I think I could be much more inclined to be forgiving towards the neighbor lady who was saying that kind of stuff than I would be to some famous person saying something hateful. because that famous person has a much larger platform to influence other people. . .

  129. tra
    September 3, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    …she has called them baby killers,mercenaries and said that all US troops are War Criminals …

    Do you have a link to an article with that quote?

    I don’t necessarily doubt that she may have said those things, it’s just that in a brief internet search and a scan of her wikipedia page I didn’t spot them. I’d be interested in seeing what she actually said, word-for-word, and in what context.

    She does seem to be a bit wiggy, with a somewhat paranoid outlook, but I’m actually kind of surprised to hear that she would say that all U.S. troops are War Criminals…because, for one thing, that would include her son, and presumably she doesn’t actually believe her son was a War Criminal.

  130. September 4, 2011 at 9:48 am

    She says that stuff on her personal facebook page. Notice that Cheers herself is not disputing that Cindy Sheehan says that stuff

    I was an admirer of her early efforts with Camp Casey and how she was the first to be able to successfully put the human cost if his war right back in George W Bush’s smug face.

    I was actually pretty stoked when she accepted my friend request a while back ,
    However I have been pretty shocked and disappointed at some of the things my “friend’ has said. She appears to have gone very far off track .
    Perhaps she only says that stuff for the consumption of her own groupies.. I’m a former admirer not a groupie.

    It’ makes no sense to confront her her on her page because Cindy’s brook no criticism whatsoever and I’d either get deleted immediately or get dogpiled by her claque of applauders I’d have to argue simultaneously with 40 people just like Cheers all righteously denouncing me as a fascistic imperialistic baby killing, planet killing tool for daring to criticize their hero. Does not seem like a productive way to spend my afternoon.

  131. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Well I’m not her Facebook “friend,” so I guess that’s why I haven’t seen those statements.

    Perhaps you could provide an actual quote (in context, please) where she said that all U.S. troops are War Criminals?

  132. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2011 at 10:17 am

    I found this Sheehan quote, “This war is a war crime, and our soldiers trying to survive are committing war crimes. We need to bring our troops home. We need to do everything we can to save our soldiers and to save the people of Iraq from our George III.”

  133. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 10:39 am

    I don’t interpret that as saying that ” all U.S. troops are War Criminals.” I would interpret it as an acknowledgement that the decision of the leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) to invade a country that hadn’t attacked us was, indeed, a War Crime, and that as a result of that decision many of our soldiers have been placed into a horrible situation where some of them have committed War Crimes.

  134. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Sorry, there should have been a tag to end the bold after the word “some,” as in:

    as a result of that decision many of our soldiers have been placed into a horrible situation where some of them have committed War Crimes.

  135. September 4, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I agree with TRA’s interpretation of what Sheehan has said about the troops.

    I’m glad that she’s actively opposing the wars, and I wish that we could find an effective strategy for ending them.

    Our political leadership started to abandon our imperial adventure in Vietnam even before the majority of citizens had turned against it. But we are now faced with a situation in which even the most fervent advocates of the war (e.g., HiFi and his fellow conservatives) are now embarrassed by ever having supported it (and, in fact deny having supported it), and the vast majority of Americans oppose the continued occupations, and yet we are still there.

  136. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Oh, it looks like somebody (Heraldo, I guess) fixed the end tag for the boldface in my 10:39 comment.


  137. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2011 at 11:20 am

    I agree with Tra and Joel. But that statement was spun by the right wing media into an indictment against all soldiers to deflect from the truth of what she said. Maybe Robash can give his interpretation of that statement or provide a quote where she actually said that all soldiers are war criminals. I can’t find one.

  138. September 4, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Ok I’m having a hard time finding one as well that’s not filtered through redstate.com or some such place So I’ll cut her the benefit of the doubt on Some of her other statements particularly the ones on her facebook page that i Saw statements that were not nearly so ambiguous…

  139. Plain Jane
    September 4, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    My quote was lifted from Fox and Hannity and North were spinning into a smear of all soldiers. I doubt she ever said all soldiers are war criminals since her own child was a soldier. I would hope those who give leeway to veterans because of their sacrifice would be so tolerant of a mother who lost even more.

  140. Cheers
    September 4, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    None of this nation’s most effective activists were free from dumb comments, it’s their achievements and their salient comments that endure, despite the tenacious objections of a few.

    I remain astounded that ANY individual would bother to post an epithet against ANY speaker they claim to agree with, who is raising local cash for ANY group they claim to support, on ANY blog that appeals to their sensibilities that is announcing the event…BEFORE THE EVENT TAKES PLACE!!??

    That Joel now queries why social change takes so long is beyond belief.

    Failure to take responsibility for misjudgments that injure others and themselves is perplexing, but clearly an American value today.

    You may now resume quip-lashing your critics to avoid their critique.

  141. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    robash141 said: I’m objecting to specific public statements she has made that were disparaging towards US Military personnel who were serving country honorably. (August 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm)

    So far I just haven’t seen any actual quotations from Sheehan that were “disparaging towards US Military personnel who were serving country honorably.”

    Sheehan shouldn’t be beyond criticism, not any more than anyone else should. But fairness dictates that if you’re going to attribute certain phrases to her, and make that the basis of some pretty harsh criticisms, you ought to be able to to provide some way for the rest of us to confirm her use of those phrases, and to see what context they were used in.

    A lot of harsh judgements have been piled on Ms. Sheehan on this thread — such as claims that she’s dishonored her son’s memory and insulted the families of other servicemembers, and there have also been lots of gratuitously cruel remarks about her supposedly being motivated by a unhealthy desire for fame and attention — and much of this seems to be based on this idea that she’s going around dissing U.S. troops as all being a bunch of mercenaries, “babykillers” and war criminals. But so far, nobody’s been able to point to any examples of her actually saying those sorts of things.

    Basically it seems like an awful lot of angry rhetoric resting on a pretty shaky foundation. If the quotes that justify all that rage are actually out there somewhere, I’d like to see them — but in the meantime, based on the quotes I’ve seen so far, I don’t see a problem with Ms. Sheehan’s attitude towards our troops.

  142. robash141
    September 4, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Tra, my mastry of social ettiqutte may be open to question, but my reading skill is just fine. I know what she wrote

  143. robash141
    September 4, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    There was one particular offending passage written a few months ago where Cindy Sheehan was at some airport waiting for her flight and the PA annoucer recognized some soldiers returning from and everyone in the terminal applauded save for Cindy who rightgeously states that she does not applaud for “mercenaries”
    Can’t remember the exact context of the “baby killer O quote except thatg was pretty recent, directed at our service people and pretty difficult to spin in a positive context.

  144. tra
    September 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    Well I don’t blame you for feeling the way you do after reading what you say you read… but since you can’t point me to the actual quotation, I’m not about to condemn Ms. Sheehan on the basis of something I can’t check out for myself.

  145. September 4, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    I know from my own family that sometimes really ugly stuff comes out when someone is in the throes of grief, sometimes people just can’t help themselves, I get that. . However Cindy Sheehan has made the conscious decision to be very public with her grief.
    If she is so distraught about her son’s death that she can’t control her public statements then perhaps she should refrain from making those statements until she can.
    Again my beef with Cindy Sheehan is not about her opposition to the war just about some of the irresponsible rhetoric she uses to convey her opposition. I don’t believe it will encroach on her freedom or irreparably damage her activism to check herself in this regard . Quite the opposite, I think it will help her and the anti war effort immensely .

  146. Anonymous
    September 4, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    We delude ourselves if we think we can excuse ANYONE who consents to, and partakes in, perpetual conflicts that circumvent the U.S. Constitution, international law, human rights, Treaties, and Conventions, while thinking this ugly genie can be returned to its bottle and won’t inevitably turn it’s appetite onto its own people….if history is any indication.

    Witness the U.S. soldiers who murdered U.S. civilians protesting Vietnam, and the U.S. police who illegally and systematically beat and murdered U.S. citizens demanding their Constitutional civil rights, the right to unionize, the right to vote, and on and on.

    In every case, it is the “unpleasant” protests that force America to see itself anew, causing a groundswell of popular public consensus to hold individuals responsible for their actions and compel elected leaders to enact social reforms or end illegal conflicts.

    Every parent has every right and duty to publicly call-out another illegal imperial invasion and occupation where civilians are the predominant casualties. It’s also every soldier’s right to honor the U.S. Constitution and refuse to take part.

  147. Cheers
    September 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    Sooo, it turns out that Joel dissed Cindy Sheehan before the VFP fundraiser based upon Rob Ash’s sketchy recollection that she had said something stupid. (See Joel @ 8:36).


  148. September 4, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    “That Joel now queries why social change takes so long is beyond belief.”

    Poor Cheers spins nutty turds out of whole cloth. I’d take Rob Ash’s “sketchy recollections” over Cheers’ brand of bullshit any day of the week.

  149. Cheers
    September 5, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Joel took Rob Ash’s baseless and prejudicial recollections to justify doing careless damage to VFP….days elapsed and neither Cheers, other posters, (and probably his own mother) can hold him to his promise to reply to a specific criticism.

    It’s taken him days of spin to pull that off.

    How “nutty” is it to defend his “right to an opinion” on the VFP post, then challenge my right to an opinion on the NCVSD post the next day?

    Fabricating my “love for Sheehan” was pure desperation.

    I don’t know if there’s such a condition as chronic duplicitosis or a psychotic spinnaholic, but it’s clear that sad Jo is caught deep in his own quipsand that he seems to enjoy waaay too much.

  150. September 5, 2011 at 8:20 am

    No not baseless and prejudicial. i actually had a postitive opinion about Cindy Sheehan up to that point
    I know what I read . Perhaps that kind of talk was only intended for people “in the club”
    Hey Cheers since you and Cindy are so tight, why don’t you ask her what she said ?
    Are you afraid of what she might say?
    Again I’m fine with her trashing The President, the Pentagon. and the politicians all she wants. However When she demeans or disparages service people who are serving honorably then she is against me too
    .I would be content if Cindy Sheehan and all the other would-be anti-warriors just STOP! saying that kind of shit and if you were considering saying that kind of shit please spare yourself the embarrassment by refraining beforehand.
    You’ll be helping your self esteem and whatever cause you are purporting to espouse..immensely by doing this
    Cheers just can’t admit that her hero is anything less than perfect sad really.
    To me Cindy Sheeehan is just a fun-house mirror version of Rush or Ann Coulter like them she only speaks to a tiny group of hardcore ideologues to whom she titillates with ever-more outrageous statements . Rather being a victim of censorship she is actually the beneficiary of a deliberate media strategy to promote only the nastiest most divisive voices as political celebrities .

  151. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2011 at 8:38 am

    I won’t call you a liar, Robash, but after extensive searching I can only find accusations that Sheehan called soldiers “babykillers” and not a single quote anywhere that she actually did. I’ll assume that after reading the accusation so many times your brain decided there must be truth to it. We’ve all seen how the right wing echo chamber works when they set out to target someone for destruction. They start with a statement, spin it to its worst possible interpretation and repeat it nonstop in all their chambers until the lie becomes “common knowledge” across the right wing, and sometimes even into the mainstream.

  152. September 5, 2011 at 8:59 am

    I simply stated the obvious on the NCVSD, that Cheers, a rank hypocrite, was on the wrong thread.

    Cheers is infuriated with me for not waiting to mention my opinion of Sheehan “..UNTIL AFTER THE EVENT!!!!,” and he then promptly craps on a post from the organizer of the Stand-Down weeks before their event, with an irrelevant attack on me.

  153. September 5, 2011 at 9:41 am

    I saw what I saw Plain Jane and believe me I’m no fan of the right wing echo chamber. These were not statements filtered through Bill O’Reilly or Word Nut Daily (which btw Cindy Sheehan’s was just citing in her latest Obama bashing screed.) This was straight and unadulterated from Cindy’s own keyboard.. . Perhaps she has quite sensibly removed those passages .

  154. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2011 at 9:47 am

    That wouldn’t remove any of her detractors’ posts, one of which should at least have had the direct quote and non-working link to the statement. The complete absence of anything to support this accusation leads me to believe she didn’t say it.

    However, I did come across a quote (complete with video) of another anti-war activist mom calling soldiers baby killers and Sheehan was mentioned in the article, but not as the source of “baby killer.” I think her name was Broward (?).

  155. Plain Jane
    September 5, 2011 at 9:50 am
  156. Cheers
    September 5, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    I never dissed the NCVSD event as Joel did the VFP event. “Irrelevance” on a blog, “Oh dear”!

    Offering epithets (read:CRAP) before an event occurs always does harm to it. Taking days to painfully avoid that simple admission by flinging quipturds isn’t “infuriating” it’s astounding.

    Big difference.

    As for “J. Edgar Robash”, best of luck on your research to find some trash on Sheehan.

  157. September 5, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Cheers reminds me of Rose. Rank hypocrites.

  158. Cheers
    September 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Joel, you’re a laugh-riot!

    By (wrongly) accusing me of being a hypocrite via my post on NCVSD, you’ve inadvertently admitted that you caused injury via your earlier post on VFP!

    I guess that will have to do!

    For you and HiFi, even the least humility and personal responsibility segue into who can squeeze the most stinging insults into the fewest words. I entered your dark netherworld with a single goal that I finally achieved ONLY due to your addiction to insult that finally caused you to fumble.

    Had you simply admitted the petty, self-indulgent damage you did to VFP, I would never have continued this ludicrous exchange on the NCVSD post….and FAR BEYOND….

    Again, you are just like HiFi who also dares others to point out his error, only to dodge the response with a more pressing need to mis-characterize and insult opponents.

    Hope you saved some turds for future contortions, some lives are meant to serve as a warning to others.

  159. robash141
    September 6, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Reading Cindy Sheehan makes my head hurt so probably won’t be wasting much time on that project. As long a she refrains from that kind of talk in the future I’ll be content. She needs to know it’s not Ok even when she’s just talking to “the. Club” Maybe the next time “Veterans” for Peace wishes to raise some money they should find someone less divisive to be thier featured attraction.

  160. Plain Jane
    September 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Maybe if veterans admitted that the military has psychopaths (like any large group of individuals) who use war to disguise their evil deeds, critics wouldn’t be automatically attacked as unAmerican and wouldn’t have to get so shrill to be heard. Maybe if fellow soldiers and commanding officers didn’t cover up for the psychopaths, the criticism would be less. Just a thought.

  161. The Big Picture
    September 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm


    The U.S. lost the guts to declare war half a century ago, hiding behind America’s impoverished enlistees to engage in illegal conflicts for oil, uranium and other dwindling resources.

    Every major social advance included detractors seeking to diminish activist’s accomplishments by denouncing effective and heroic individuals as being “too shrill”.

    That the advocates for social change unwittingly join them is a testament to a historically unparalleled propaganda machine.

  162. tra
    September 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    robash141 said: As long as she refrains from that kind of talk in the future I’ll be content.

    With all due respect you still haven’t provided any evidence that she ever made the sorts of statements you have attributed to her.

    I haven’t been able to find any quotes — anywhere — that show her referring to U.S. troops as “babykillers” or “mercenaries” or any claims that all U.S. troops are “war criminals.”

    I didn’t see any direct quotes to that effect even on the right-wing-leaning sites. I did see plenty of attempts by right-wing bloggers to conflate her criticism of the war with criticism of rank-and-file troops, but that’s about it.

  163. September 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    Cheers declares himself not to be a hypocrite. What a surprise.

  164. Cheers
    September 7, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    It was your (unsubstantiated) accusation that betrayed your petty (unsubstantiated) injury to VFP.

    I’m still laughing.

    Sad though, that you invited “specific criticism” that’s been repeated ad-nauseum, yet, you lack the Balls to address directly.

    Aside from a hyper-ego abnormality, why bother?

  165. September 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    That Sheehan is shrill is unsubstantiated. It’s just my opinion. I also think that she’s uninteresting. If others disagree, that’s great.

    Cheers, on the other hand, is a flaming hypocrite. This thread and the Stand-down thread are proof of that.

  166. Cheers
    September 7, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    And yet, another dodge?

    For the bigzillienth time….

    If you were the notable speaker trying to raise funds for NCVSD and I tagged an opinion on the announcement calling you “shrill” prior to the event…it would cause damage.

    That you have used-up every conceivable dodge you could conjure to avoid addressing this simple fact, is now legendary.

    That you are the only one claiming I also (somehow) dissed the NCVSD event before it occurred, is hardly surprising.

    Another pathetic distraction by Quip-Dodge McGraw.

    Maybe you can get your dog to bite you for awhile and give me a break?

  167. September 7, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Cheers like to write. He just needs to work on content.

  168. Cheers
    September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Joel has huge problems dodging small misjudgments.

    Being unaware of it is psychotic.

    Please get some help.

  169. September 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    “Joel has huge problems dodging small misjudgments.”

    That makes about as much sense as the other nutty drivel Cheers has posted here.

  170. Cheers
    September 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Once again, Joel’s misjudgment:

    Joel posted an epithet dissing a speaker who Joel claims to agree with, who is raising cash for a local group Joel claims to support, on a blog that appeals to Joel’s sensibilities that is announcing the event…BEFORE THE EVENT TAKES PLACE!!

    Joel’s countless dodging is fascinating, and sad.

  171. September 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Guilty as charged. I posted my opinion of Sheehan.

    Cheers, on the other hand is a loud hypocrite, stinking up the thread for the Stand Down’s event with complaints about me (which have nothing to do with the Stand Down).

  172. Cheers
    September 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Joel’s “opinion” was a baseless epithet offered prior to an event.

    Amazingly, he’s still dodging the harm this causes.

    I offered no such epithets against NCVSD, but I understand Joel’s cowardice in offering another dodge, amid countless others.

  173. September 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Who’s the coward, you anonymous piece of shit?

  174. Cheers
    September 9, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Stay tuned and watch Joel play dirty with the nuclear blogger-identity card to cower behind.

    Anonymous bloggers become “shit” when we dare to hold the great and error-less Joel to his own offer to respond to “specific criticisms”!

    With his turds now crusted upon his face, Joel never has to see that anonymous bloggers have far more integrity on this string than he:

    Cheers says:
    August 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    “Thanks for your patience Mitch…my apologies”.

    Man-up, twit.

  175. September 9, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Don’t worry Cheers. You are “shit” because of your comments, not because you are anonymous.

  176. Cheers
    September 9, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Another dodge?

    (Thanks for the correction, I accept your “apology” for 6:15).

    But, you’re still a jackass for your early epithet against a VFP event, and the lie that you would respond to that “specific criticism”….(instead, you offer perpetual dodging, or, I would have stopped repeating my specific criticisms a week ago!).

    Your prolific perfidy, lack of integrity, and the punishment that accompanies it, makes for interesting sport.

    There’s obviously enough moist crap on your face suitable for fling.

    Can’t wait for the next dodge….

  177. September 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    It’s impossible to argue with Cheers. He so seldom makes sense.

  178. Cheers
    September 10, 2011 at 10:39 am

    And yet, you’ve resonded to ALL of it!?

    Hilarious, silly fool!

    Another dodge AND another lie!

    Here at the office Joel’s cartoons are known as “Mielketoast” and his petty cowardice on this thread is consistent with that label.

  179. Anonymous
    September 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Cheers, at what point does your persistent tit-for-tat insults become the same damage to a like-minded individual, that you accuse your opponent of doing?

    Joel, do you agree, or disagree, that posting a criticism of a like-minded speaker before an event is damaging?

  180. September 10, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    I agree. My apologies.

  181. Cheers
    September 10, 2011 at 8:58 pm


    Quiptous Interuptus.

    I concur and look forward to a time when the local Left can finally withhold disparaging comments against like-minded organizations trying to raise funds, or local candidates running for office.

    When/if Joel tries to raise money, or runs for office…this thread never existed.

  182. September 10, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    I won’t run for office (though I admire people who do), and I certainly will try to raise money for causes, as I have done my entire adult life. And I hope that I’m not thin-skinned when the projects I work for face criticism.

  183. Anonymous
    September 10, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Now girls, make nice and go play…

  184. Cheers
    September 11, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Obviously, I disagree.

    Thick skin is useful against one’s enemies, self-defeating with “friends”.

  185. September 11, 2011 at 9:08 am

    You are no friend, Cheers. Grow up, and get a thicker skin.

  186. Cheers
    September 11, 2011 at 11:38 am

    What makes you think you can discard something you don’t have?

    Sophist quipery aside….

    Grown-ups shed their personal dislikes, (along with publishing their injurious opinions), in order to achieve a common goal.

    Despite your apology, you still don’t get it.

    Quite daft Mr. Trickster.

  187. September 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    You are an idiot, Cheers. You’re also a hypocrite.

  188. Cheers
    September 11, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    After spending 2 weeks desperately dodging the inevitable, your assertions now read like pathetic buffoonery.

    What a sad bore.

  189. Cheers
    September 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    After spending two weeks dodging the inevitable, you assertions now read like pathetic buffoonery.

    What a sad bore.

  190. September 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    “dodging the inevitable”?
    I cannot imagine what it’s like in your little world.
    Good luck.

  191. Cheers
    September 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Yes, the little world you’ve been desperately squirming in until you finally acknowledged your mis-judgment @7:32.

    Luck? No, it took a 2-step program of persistent quip-for-tat, and a little treachery, to wean you off your chronic dodgaholism.

    Call it tough love.

  192. September 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    “the little world you’ve been desperately squirming in”?

    You are a complete, fucking nut.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s