Sheehan Move/Locals Not Amused/ KXXV TV

[White_Male_Canada]

KXXV TV Waco.Texas

http://www.kxxv.com/main.cfm?ID=1&NewsID=3110&Type=Full

Cindy Sheehan Moves to Crawford, Locals Not Amused — (07/28/2006)

Crawford- Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan is going to become a neighbor of President Bush, and local residents are not happy about the mess.

On the Gold Star Families For Peace website, Sheehan explained how Central Texas had grown on her. She now wants a permanent place where she and fellow protestors can go to demonstrate against President Bush.

Peace Supporter, Gerry Fonseca, says he purchased the 5-acre parcel, which cost more than $52,000. It was bought with the money frome her son, Casey's, life insurance policy.

"I doubt they would have sold her the property if she tried to buy it herself," said Foncseca.

"I feel deceived," said Celia Ramsey, who sold the land to Cindy Sheehan through a third party. She talked to News Channel 25 exclusively on the matter. "I would have never sold it to Sheehan. Nobody wants them here."

The Ramsey's claim Fonseca told them he was an evacuee from Hurricane Katrina.

Fonseca told News Channel 25 he "apologized to the Ramsey's for the inconvenience, but we (Gold Star Families For Peace) are going to do everything in our power to not disturb them."

Ramsey told News Channel 25, she plans on talking to a lawyer over the matter.

"I am very sad it came to this point where we had to buy a permanent home," said Sheehan. "I thought President Bush would have resigned by now. But I am happy about a permanent home in Crawford."

Anti-war protesters are scheduled to gather on the Sheehan property in August, when the president vacations in Crawford for the first couple of weeks next month.

Last fall, McLennan County Commissioners passed an ordinance, banning parking on roadways and other traffic and crowd control measures.

A lawsuit has been filed over the matter by Cindy Sheehan and fellow protestors, alleging the ruling by county commissioners violates their First Amendment rights.

[specialk]

here's one for the pinhead

[chefmike]

Well we know now that there is at least one good citizen who resides in Crawford...Cindy Sheehan...her son wasn't a chickenhawk, like shrubya and his gang of neocon chickenshit chickenhawks...and I think it's safe to assume that she won't be wiping her ass with the Bill Of Rights, like the chimp-in-chief and his gang of war-profiteering cowards...

[White_Male_Canada]

Well we know now that there is at least one good citizen who resides in Crawford...Cindy Sheehan...her son wasn't a chickenhawk, like shrubya and his gang of neocon chickenshit chickenhawks...and I think it's safe to assume that she won't be wiping her ass with the Bill Of Rights, like the chimp-in-chief and his gang of war-profiteering cowards...

Good to know phonies like you still believe in a junta where only those in the military set foreign policy.

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

[Nowhereboy]

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

This is simply amazing. The comment, "It is never aimed at those who oppose military action", is staggering, and it clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding. Of course the term is never 'slung' at those who oppose military action, because people that oppose military actions are NOT hawks. The term 'chicken hawk' is, indeed, derogatory. It does not, however, imply a belief that only people with military experience should make these decisions nor does it imply that military experience is a prerequisite. That leap comes from you, and you alone. A 'chicken hawk' is not merely one who has not served. A 'chicken hawk is one who believes in sending the youth of this nation overseas to die in questionable causes, yet, when their time came to serve, they all found ways out of service. Get it? 'I am not going, but, it is perfectly alright for me to send your son or daughter to go and die'. Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary.

[White_Male_Canada]

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy. Only in juntas do we see societies where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a nation. The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

This is simply amazing. The comment, "It is never aimed at those who oppose military action", is staggering, and it clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding. Of course the term is never 'slung' at those who oppose military action, because people that oppose military actions are NOT hawks. The term 'chicken hawk' is, indeed, derogatory. It does not, however, imply a belief that only people with military experience should make these decisions nor does it imply that military experience is a prerequisite. That leap comes from you, and you alone. A 'chicken hawk' is not merely one who has not served. A 'chicken hawk is one who believes in sending the youth of this nation overseas to die in questionable causes, yet, when their time came to serve, they all found ways out of service. Get it? 'I am not going, but, it is perfectly alright for me to send your son or daughter to go and die'. Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary.

Many of the critics of the war on radical islam come from those who actively dodged a compulsory draft . Bill Clinton dodged the draft,disappeared behind the iron curtain, and made war on Christian Serbs.

There is now no draft or any compulsory military duty required in the USA. The armed forces are an all volunteer one. No one is forced to serve and the US Constition was written so that civilians have authority over the armed forces.

Read your own Constitution numb-nuts.

The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

[Nowhereboy]

Many of the critics of the war on radical islam come from those who actively dodged a compulsory draft . Bill Clinton dodged the draft,disappeared behind the iron curtain, and made war on Christian Serbs.

There is now no draft or any compulsory military duty required in the USA. The armed forces are an all volunteer one. No one is forced to serve and the US Constition was written so that civilians have authority over the armed forces.

Read your own Constitution numb-nuts.

The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

I have read 'my' Constitution, several hundred times. Now explain this to me. Where did I ever state that civilians do not have authority over the military. The only person in this ongoing debate that brings up the question of civilian authority is you, yet you continue to use it as a 'strawman' to divert attention from the fact that you have no answer to the questions that are repeatedly posed to you.

As to exposing an intellectual shallowness by calling opponents names...

Oh and could you please explain to me (numb-nuts, remember) the phrase "Bill Clinton dodged the draft, disappeared behind the iron curtain, and made war on Christian Serbs." I am particularly interested in the iron-curtain reference and the reference to making war on 'Christian Serbs'. By this, are you referring to Slobodan Milosevic and his firends?

[White_Male_Canada]

Many of the critics of the war on radical islam come from those who actively dodged a compulsory draft . Bill Clinton dodged the draft,disappeared behind the iron curtain, and made war on Christian Serbs.

There is now no draft or any compulsory military duty required in the USA. The armed forces are an all volunteer one. No one is forced to serve and the US Constition was written so that civilians have authority over the armed forces.

Read your own Constitution numb-nuts.

The same people who sling this insult are the first to turn around and call their political opponents "fascists", exposing an intellectual shallowness that colors the rest of their writings.

I have read 'my' Constitution, several hundred times. Now explain this to me. Where did I ever state that civilians do not have authority over the military. The only person in this ongoing debate that brings up the question of civilian authority is you, yet you continue to use it as a 'strawman' to divert attention from the fact that you have no answer to the questions that are repeatedly posed to you.

As to exposing an intellectual shallowness by calling opponents names...

Oh and could you please explain to me (numb-nuts, remember) the phrase "Bill Clinton dodged the draft, disappeared behind the iron curtain, and made war on Christian Serbs." I am particularly interested in the iron-curtain reference and the reference to making war on 'Christian Serbs'. By this, are you referring to Slobodan Milosevic and his firends?

There is no "ongoing debate" with those who are irrational. I merely expose their childish nonsense as they continue to argue in favor of a military junta when,by logic,they slur those duly elected with Constitutional powers over the armed forces ,clearly implying only those who served in battle should create and set foriegn policy. A laughable ridiculous notion.

Clinton DID dodge the draft and DID disappear behind the iron curtain and DID side with radical islam in europe as much as i disagree with Milosevic.The "chickenhawk" slur whipsaws.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?offset=135&s=oldest&inline=nyt-per

http://www.historyofjihad.org/serbia.html

[chefmike]

Ongoing debate? Perhaps the ongoing debate that White_Pinhead_Chickenhawk and his ilk need to be concerned with is the debate between themselves and their own hypocrisy...

As the learned and lovely Ms. Starr put it...


I have said it before and I will say it again.

If you are ON THIS SITE, ANY PORN SITE, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE SITE, or you practice any form of an alternative sexual lifestyle and you support Dubya and THIS ADMINISTRATION and consider yourself to be part f the right wing or moral majority-

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GOOD OLE' HYPOCRITE, IN THE CLOSET, YELLOW COCKSUCKER WHO LIKES TO TAKE IT IN THE ARSE, SWALLOW JIZZ, then politely wipe your mouth go home and kiss your wife- and then HAVE NERVE to talk shit about the homos and all the other rhetoric the right wing loves to spew out.

I know this type very well, because I have lived it. Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind closed doors.

HYPOCRITES. Nothing but HYPOCRITES is all I can say.


:lol: 8) :lol: 8)

[specialk]

["][quote=White_Pinhead_Canada]



. A laughable ridiculous notion.



Now this is laughable :lol: :lol: :lol:

[chefmike]

["][quote=White_Pinhead_Canada]



. A laughable ridiculous notion.



Now this is laughable :lol: :lol: :lol:

LMFAO...

You are obviously just another neo-marxist who doesn't realize that shrubya gets his marching orders directly from JESUS...when he isn't getting them from Rove, Cheney and Wolfowitz, that is....

[Nowhereboy]

It is a tactic as old as time. when some person, or group of people disagree with you, and you are unable to refute their claims, simply accuse them of some nefarious act or belief. Then, in order to make it seem real, repeat the charge loudly and often without regards to the truth or falsity of the charge.

To wit:

Whiite_Male _Canada wrote;


"People who toss around that slur mindlessly endorse the idea of military autocracy over a broad representative democracy."


When challenged to justify this somewhat logically tortured statement, you, sticking to the script, reply;


"and the US Constition was written so that civilians have authority over the armed forces."


While this is absolutely true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. How does this support your position that critics of the 'chickenhawks' favor a system where prior military service would be required before deciding on foreign interventions. I will ask you again, show evidence that anyone here referring to Bush, Cheyney, et. al. as chickenhawks has espoused anything approaching a military junta.

Your next response, again sticking to the script, states that;


"...they slur those duly elected with Constitutional powers over the armed forces ,clearly implying only those who served in battle should create and set foriegn policy."


You are doing a very good job of ignoring the questions and simply restating your claims.

Now I ask you what should be a simple question. How do you justify this staggering leap of illogic, a leap that Evel Knievel would not attempt. I eagerly await your reply.