• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

All hail the time of the bunny!

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

T R E 4 5 O N

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

“Facilitate” is an active verb, not a weasel word.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

Republicans in disarray!

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Human rights are not a matter of opinion!

I really should read my own blog.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

The unpunished coup was a training exercise.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Humorous / Things That Make Me Laugh (a continuing series)

Things That Make Me Laugh (a continuing series)

by John Cole|  November 29, 200510:54 am| 144 Comments

This post is in: Humorous, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

This:

Dear Friends,

As publisher of Cindy Sheehan’s new book, Not One More Mother’s Child, I need to set the record straight about a lie circulating right-wing websites that has even made it onto amazon.com.

I donated 100 copies of Not One More Mother’s Child to Crawford Peace House, encouraging them to sell these copies to benefit their work. During her Thanksgiving Vigil near President Bush’s ranch, Cindy agreed to sign copies for those who bought them, as a benefit for Crawford Peace House. AP and Reuters posted photos – I can’t imagine why – of Cindy sitting at the book table between signings, rather than while someone was at the table. And now the smear websites are circulating an article, with these photos, that Cindy gave a signing and nobody came. It’s simply not true! She not only signed all 100 copies and raised $2,000 for Crawford Peace House, she got writer’s cramp!

Apparently that is a response to this.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Shape Up or Ship Out
Next Post: As Crooked as Forrest Gump’s Back »

Reader Interactions

144Comments

  1. 1.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 10:59 am

    Get a grip, John.

    If you’re trying to break ground on what constitutes cyberstalking, you’re doing an excellent job.

    If Sheehan audibly farted, you’d find a way to do a send up on her.

  2. 2.

    cd6

    November 29, 2005 at 11:00 am

    Sheehan now barely gets mentioned on liberal blogs, but gets tons of notice on conservative blogs and they try to stress that she’s no longer a story. Does that make sense?

  3. 3.

    neil

    November 29, 2005 at 11:09 am

    cd6, I have a couple of theories. One is the ‘straw man’ theory — Sheehan is an easier anti-war target than Dem politicians, so they take aim at her instead. This doesn’t apply, of course, to Mr. Cole’s posts.

    Second theory is that, although vapid, she is actually a _tougher_ target to deal with, and this makes the warbloggers crazy. They can’t deal with it so they keep flailing away at her in hopes that she’ll vanish like Howard Dean and Richard Clarke did. The Democrats, meanwhile, have gotten bored of her act (even Huffington Post!) and have moved on.

  4. 4.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 11:11 am

    Sheehan may make John laugh, but John’s obsession just makes me shake my head and wonder what the hell he’s trying to prove.

  5. 5.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 11:12 am

    Sheehan now barely gets mentioned on liberal blogs, but gets tons of notice on conservative blogs and they try to stress that she’s no longer a story. Does that make sense?

    Heh, I was just thinking the same thing. If I ever wanted to know what Sheehan was up to, this site would be my first stop.

  6. 6.

    p.lukasiak

    November 29, 2005 at 11:14 am

    Sheehan now barely gets mentioned on liberal blogs, but gets tons of notice on conservative blogs and they try to stress that she’s no longer a story. Does that make sense?

    it does to people like our host.

    see, right wingers know they can’t win a rational argument with liberals, so they go out and find someone to demonize like Sheehan, then criticize her relentlessly.

    Why do you think Al Sharpton is now a national figure? It isn’t because the mainstream of the civil rights movement promoted him. Sharpton was never a mainstream civil rights leader, and in the aftermatn of the Tawana Brawley debacle, no one wanted to have anything to do with him. Except, of course, the right-wing media, which found him to be a useful idiot.

    The fact that John obsesses about the Cindy Sheehans and George Galloways and Ted Ralls, rather than deal with the real issues and ideas being promoted by progressives, is a demonstration of the paucity of his own ideas.

  7. 7.

    Another Jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 11:20 am

    Why do you think Al Sharpton is now a national figure?

    Uh, maybe because in 2000, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and Hillary Clinton all bowed down in front of him.

    Or, it could have to do with that prime-time speaking slot at the 2004 DNC.

    Or it could have to do with him sharing a stage with all the other Democrats during the 2004 primaries, and apparently being so powerful that not one of the other candidates had the stones to call him on his racist, anti-Semitic, riot and murder-inciting past.

  8. 8.

    Steve S

    November 29, 2005 at 11:27 am

    Gotta agree. The link to the sweetness-light blog is probably one of the more pathetic things I’ve ever seen.

    Thanks for pointing out to what extent the lameness of the right will go to try to attack someone.

  9. 9.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 11:38 am

    see, right wingers know they can’t win a rational argument with liberals, so they go out and find someone to demonize like Sheehan, then criticize her relentlessly.

    Can I get a little mindreading with that delusional arrogance? Thanks.

    The reason you don’t read about Cindy on leftwing blogs is because the more you read about her, the more embarrassing she becomes. The reason you do read about her on rightwing blogs is that the more you read about her, the more embarrassing she becomes. Was that so hard to figure out?

  10. 10.

    Mason

    November 29, 2005 at 11:42 am

    I’m glad John doesn’t submit his posts for the approval of the rogue’s gallery on the left. Some of us just might, maybe, sorta find this kind of post… funny?

  11. 11.

    jack

    November 29, 2005 at 11:42 am

    Funny, when I saw those pictures I was wondering where all these people who the polls claim are sooooo dissatisfied with the WoT were.

    Surely some of the millions upon millions who have expressed their serious reservations would have shown up.

    I mean, that is what all you leftists have been saying, that there’s this massive groundswell of support for your position.

    And yet there sits Cindy, all alone…..

  12. 12.

    Steve

    November 29, 2005 at 11:54 am

    You’re right, everyone is for the war, it’s just a couple of lunatic moonbats who are on the other side. Make sure all the Republicans keep running on how great the war is and how well we’re doing. By the way, there is no “T” in Iraq.

  13. 13.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 11:56 am

    She not only signed all 100 copies and raised $2,000 for Crawford Peace House, she got writer’s cramp!

    I’d worry about her getting enough calcium, if she can’t write her name 100 times without getting writer’s cramp. Unless she signs every book with a four-page rant on the Joooos and Occupied New Orleans.

    BTW, for a Press Release from her publisher, isn’t the note very grammatically and syntactically unprofessional? I’d fire my assistant for sending out a PR like that one. I’m not suggesting a hoax, but…OK, I guess I am.

  14. 14.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 12:01 pm

    Steve, I think your comment is too subtle for little Jack so let me see if I can spell it out.

    YO! Numbnuts! The ongoing military excursion in Iraq has little to nothing to do on the War on Terror. Those that are dissatisfied with Operation Iraqi Liberation are usually not sympathetic towards terrorism, and would like to see a better plan for dealing with worldwide terrorism.

    Simplifying it may satisfy the extreme right-wing that is content will labelling and lumping anything left of Reagan, but thats the type of thinking that will encourage party extremists to run for national office, hurting Conservative ideals further.

    And for Mac and Cheesy: I’m proud of Sheehan for standing up for what she believes, and I would encourage anyone to do the same. There is no embarassment, except for people like John that feel the need to point and laugh at people like her.

  15. 15.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:04 pm

    Hey Mac, do you want to substantiate the anti-semetic implication of Sheehan or do you guys want to keep talking out of your ass?

    I don’t know why I have to repeat this so many times but criticising our blind relationship with Israel is not necessarily anti-semetic. I’m sick and tired of morons calling any and all criticising of Israel and out relationship with them “anti-semetic”.

    I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence of anti-semetic claims by Sheehan. Now, if you would be so kind, either provide some evidence or stop making unsubstansiated claims

  16. 16.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:05 pm

    *criticism of Israel
    *unsubstantiated

  17. 17.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 12:10 pm

    Lets use Mac Buckets as the canvas by which we paint the entire right wing.

    So here all of the right-wing is full of people that are knee-jerk reactionaries that latch onto a single talking point (the Democrats knew Saddam has WMD’s! or Cindy Sheehan hates the Joooos!) about any single topic, then they mindlessly repeat that point until people get tired of arguing with them.

    So essentially, by using Mac like this, we show that the right wing is full of mindless drone idiots without the capability to adjust their thinking. They like to obsess on single issues and single talking points that do nothing to forward discussion of issues because they really never understand the issues.

  18. 18.

    Gratefulcub

    November 29, 2005 at 12:11 pm

    The reason you don’t read about Sheehan on left wing blogs anymore is because she served her purpose. They/we rode her as long as she was useful to get a point out. Then, as more people heard of her, the more famous she became. Obviously, no one on the left wanted her voice out there. So, they ditched her. It is standard operating procedure for both sides.

    I don’t see the right talking about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman today.

  19. 19.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    I don’t know why I have to repeat this so many times but criticising our blind relationship with Israel is not necessarily anti-semetic.

    Talking about Israel is not what Cindy was designed to do. I never said she was anti-Semitic — you are imagining things. Get your panties unwadded, DV.

  20. 20.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    So here all of the right-wing is full of people that are knee-jerk reactionaries that latch onto a single talking point

    If the Bushies used my posts for Talking Points, they’d be in much better shape. But then again, they are just government workers, so what can you expect?

    So essentially, by using Mac like this, we show that the right wing is full of mindless drone idiots without the capability to adjust their thinking.

    What stunning logic. What a superior mind.

  21. 21.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Talking about Israel is not what Cindy was designed to do. I never said she was anti-Semitic—you are imagining things. Get your panties unwadded, DV.

    You clearly were implying she was anti-semetic…

    Unless she signs every book with a four-page rant on the Joooos and Occupied New Orleans.

    Glad to see that you are backing off your baseless implication.

    :)

  22. 22.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    Poor Mac doesn’t like it when the same generalization methods he uses to denounce the horrible “left” is turned around to exagerate his side of things, does he?

  23. 23.

    Mike

    November 29, 2005 at 12:33 pm

    “p.lukasiak Says:

    Sheehan now barely gets mentioned on liberal blogs, but gets tons of notice on conservative blogs and they try to stress that she’s no longer a story. Does that make sense?

    it does to people like our host.

    see, right wingers know they can’t win a rational argument with liberals, so they go out and find someone to demonize like Sheehan, then criticize her relentlessly.

    Why do you think Al Sharpton is now a national figure? It isn’t because the mainstream of the civil rights movement promoted him. Sharpton was never a mainstream civil rights leader, and in the aftermatn of the Tawana Brawley debacle, no one wanted to have anything to do with him. Except, of course, the right-wing media, which found him to be a useful idiot.

    The fact that John obsesses about the Cindy Sheehans and George Galloways and Ted Ralls, rather than deal with the real issues and ideas being promoted by progressives, is a demonstration of the paucity of his own ideas.”

    Cindy Sheehan gets attention because she is the face and much of the focus of the Liberal Anti-War, but-has-no-solutions crowd.

    Right-Wingers can’t win a rational argument with Libs because modern Libs aren’t rational.

    Al Sharpton is a national figure because he ran as a Democratic Presidential Candidate AND he is given prominent speaking roles at Democratic Presidential events.

    If Libs want to be taken seriously they need to PUBLICLY Denounce idiots such as Sharpton, Galloway, Sheehan, Rall, Moore, pretty much the entire readership of Kos, Atrios, the Democratic Underground, and every other Left-Wing Clown out there. Once Libs do that, then we can have a rational discussion. Until then, there is little to discuss.

  24. 24.

    jack

    November 29, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    Ah, so you’re all behind the WoT. Well that’s news. When did this happen? Or is this just one of your typical lies, trotted out when you want to make a distinction that at other times is nowhere in sight? I’m betting it’s that last one.

    The situation in Iraq is a battle in the WoT. The thing you refer to as an ‘insurgency’ is led by non-iraqis. The behaviour of the Iraqi people–participating in elections, starting businesses, creating political parties, etc. is at odds with what the purported ‘insurgents’ want.

    There is a global war on terror. Global. You cannot exclude a single battle from that global effort without appearing to be a group of brain dead morons–no matter how many political points you think it might score you.

    Though, seeing lonely Cindy, it’s pretty clear that you all aren’t scoring at all.

  25. 25.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:36 pm

    I don’t see the right talking about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman today.

    Well there are plently of reasons they don’t want to talk about Tillman anymore. First, the circumstances of his death and the ensuing coverup. Not to mention the fact that Tillman was a fan of Chomsky…

    In the September 25, 2005 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, a front page story revealed Tillman’s views were more complex than the hard-charging warrior portrayed by the mainstream media. Reporter Robert Collier wrote Tillman was:

    …a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author.

    Tillman had arranged a meeting with Noam Chomsky, to take place after his return from Afghanistan. The article also reports that Tillman urged a soldier in his platoon to vote for John Kerry in the 2004 US Presidential election. A fellow soldier, Spc. Russell Baer, related conversations with Tillman about the war:

    “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren’t in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.”

  26. 26.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    I almost forgot…Source

  27. 27.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    You clearly were implying she was anti-semetic…

    No, I wasn’t. But she was anti-smart to talk about Israel.

  28. 28.

    KC

    November 29, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    Sheehan, John’s favorite new porn star.

  29. 29.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    Wow, jack, you’re really behind the times.

    The anti-Iraq war crowd supported the Afghanistan battle, taking it directly to an area that had direct ties in the training and execution of 9/11. But Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and I’m not going to sit here and rehash what has been said a thousand times in a hundred different threads.

    Oh, and the military disagree’s with your assessment of the insurgency being led by “non-iraqis”, which is why the right wing has generally given up on that particular angle.

    So either you only are let out of the basement on odd numbered months during odd numbered weeks and you arn’t to blame for your lack of knowledge, or you are willfully ignorant, wallowing in your own surety that its impossible to get an original thought to sink into your abnormally thick skull.

  30. 30.

    Steve

    November 29, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    John should just replace the outdated tradition of the Daily Plame/Flame Thread with the Daily Sheehan Thread, and we can all call it a day and watch the insults fly.

  31. 31.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    Poor Mac doesn’t like it when the same generalization methods he uses to denounce the horrible “left” is turned around to exagerate his side of things, does he?

    Is that what you were trying to do? Wow, I’m flattered, but it was pretty ham-handed. I actually denied your whole premise, but you must’ve missed it. Better luck next time.

  32. 32.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    If Libs want to be taken seriously they need to PUBLICLY Denounce idiots such as Sharpton, Galloway, Sheehan, Rall, Moore, pretty much the entire readership of Kos, Atrios, the Democratic Underground, and every other Left-Wing Clown out there. Once Libs do that, then we can have a rational discussion. Until then, there is little to discuss.

    And if conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to PUBLICLY denounce idiots such as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Falwell, Dobson, pretty much the entire viewership of Fox News, Instapundit, the Corner, and every other Right-Wing Clown out there. Once Cons do that, then we can have a rational discussion. Until then, there is little to discuss.

  33. 33.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    No, I wasn’t.

    Ok, perhaps I was mistaken. Personally, I think you are just trying to cover your ass so could you please clarify why you choose to say this: “with a four-page rant on the Joooos”.

    And furthermore explain why you chose to spell the world as “Joooos”, which is a common way to spell Jews when the comments or commentors are anti-semetic.

    For example: John demonstrates what I mean

  34. 34.

    jg

    November 29, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    If Libs want to be taken seriously they need to PUBLICLY Denounce idiots such as Sharpton, Galloway, Sheehan, Rall, Moore, pretty much the entire readership of Kos, Atrios, the Democratic Underground, and every other Left-Wing Clown out there. Once Libs do that, then we can have a rational discussion. Until then, there is little to discuss.

    Dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

  35. 35.

    John Cole

    November 29, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    For the love of everything holy, I just found the “SHE EVEN GOT WRITER’S CRAMP” quote funny (and stupid).

    Jeebus.

  36. 36.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:52 pm

    But Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism,

    To you, maybe not. To Congress, it certainly did, because they had responsibilities to the American people.

    Look, after 9/11, we’re in a world, in my view, that we have to protect the American people from further acts of terrorism. That’s my highest responsibility, that’s the Congress’ highest responsibility, and the president. And I did what I thought was the right thing to do to protect our people from further acts of terrorism. We cannot have that happen in the United States, and I will always do that.

    …I’ll say it again: 9/11 was the ultimate wake-up call. If we don’t understand that, I don’t know what we understand. And our government has a solemn responsibility to do everything in its power to keep these materials out of the hands of terrorists.

  37. 37.

    ppGaz

    November 29, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    For the love of everything holy, I just found the “SHE EVEN GOT WRITER’S CRAMP” quote funny (and stupid).

    Well, it’s the choice of funny and stupid things that gets the page views.

    Why this particular choice? Don’t worry, I am only asking rhetorically. It’s a polarizing issue, so everyone will have already made up their own mind what the answer is, and as it generally works in these cases, your answer won’t really matter. No offense ;-)

  38. 38.

    John Cole

    November 29, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    The fact that John obsesses about the Cindy Sheehans and George Galloways and Ted Ralls, rather than deal with the real issues and ideas being promoted by progressives, is a demonstration of the paucity of his own ideas

    Heh. Look who is now putting Sheehan in the same category as Ted Rall and George Galloway.

  39. 39.

    recklessprocess

    November 29, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    Saddam was a terrorist supporter. He financially supported the ‘PLO’, Hezzbolla, Abu Nidal, Yasin (responsible for the first attack on world Trade Center in 1993), the Taleban, and had a terror training camp called Salmon Pak where many terrorists were trained.

    There are so many ties between terror groups and Saddam it is silly to even claim he has/had no connections to terror. If you believe Saddam had no connection to terror and terrorists then you are being willfully blind and willfully ignorant.

    Just because we could not find any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks does not mean he was a boy scout. We have tons of evidence that he does have many very public ties with terrorists.

    Ok, now you lefty loons tell me it ain’t so.

    Here is a nice compilation with footnotes:
    http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf

  40. 40.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    jack Says:

    Ah, so you’re all behind the WoT. Well that’s news. When did this happen? Or is this just one of your typical lies, trotted out when you want to make a distinction that at other times is nowhere in sight? I’m betting it’s that last one.

    The situation in Iraq is a battle in the WoT. The thing you refer to as an ‘insurgency’ is led by non-iraqis. The behaviour of the Iraqi people—participating in elections, starting businesses, creating political parties, etc. is at odds with what the purported ‘insurgents’ want.

    There is a global war on terror. Global. You cannot exclude a single battle from that global effort without appearing to be a group of brain dead morons—no matter how many political points you think it might score you.

    This is what happens when you are a GOP talking point bukkake recipient. Eventually you become so full that they come out in a vomitous spray. It’s almost as if you typed them directly from 5 minutes of Big Pharma’s show.

  41. 41.

    John Cole

    November 29, 2005 at 12:55 pm

    Why this particular choice?

    Because it is FUNNY.

  42. 42.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 12:55 pm

    It was funny, it’s just that we’re all still pissed off at you for making us read Rall.

  43. 43.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    And furthermore explain why you chose to spell the world as “Joooos”, which is a common way to spell Jews when the comments or commentors are anti-semetic.

    I don’t take “Jooos” as a signifier for anti-Semitism. There are some people make the US-Israel political relationship to be a bogeyman on which to blame unrelated aspects of US policy (like Sheehan did re:Iraq policy), so they howl on about the “Joooos.” I don’t think these people hate Jews or wish harm to them, certainly, although they probably resent their perceived political power.

  44. 44.

    Zifnab

    November 29, 2005 at 1:01 pm

    If Libs want to be taken seriously they need to PUBLICLY Denounce idiots idiots such as…

    And if conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to PUBLICLY denounce idiots such as…

    Shit. Exactly who is left to do the talking then? Perhaps we should only allow individuals with Ph.Ds from accredited Ivy League Universities to publicly voice their opinions on policy. I mean, seriously, what’s the endgame here? I’ll stop promoting my single-minded ideaologies if you stop promoting yours? Right right. Sure sure.

    Should we start banning Harry Reid and Bill Frist next because they’re both too damn partisan? Perhaps have an outright denouncement of Tom DeLay’s freedom of speach or tell Nancy Pelosi to stfu. Seriously… I think the problem here is that alot of you guys don’t like hearing people say things you don’t agree with regardless of their veracity.

  45. 45.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:01 pm

    I always thought that the use of the spelling “joooos” was for mocking those that think that there is a global jewish conspiracy.

  46. 46.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    Zifnab, don’t worry, you’ll be getting a long long long list of people to disavow. Sure, it may take up all your time for years, the disavowing. Maybe it could be done in a bulk manner, like those ads in the classifieds “I am responsible for no one’s opinions but my own….”.

    The requirement for mass denouncing is one of the sillier things I’ve heard in a while. Screw that, anyone that falls for it is as much of an idiot as the person asking them to denouce.

  47. 47.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    It’s not anti-Semetic to fantasize a Jewish cabal at the highest levels of government who conspired and lied to push America into an illegal war to protect the interests of Israel and America’s Jewish masters.

  48. 48.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    I think the problem here is that alot of you guys don’t like hearing people say things you don’t agree with regardless of their veracity.

    Let’s look at that list again.

    idiots such as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Falwell, Dobson, pretty much the entire viewership of Fox News, Instapundit, the Corner, and every other Right-Wing Clown out there.

    The list gets a little hyperbolic at the end but I sure hope you don’t think the first five have any “veracity” to begin with.

  49. 49.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    The requirement for mass denouncing is one of the sillier things I’ve heard in a while. Screw that, anyone that falls for it is as much of an idiot as the person asking them to denouce.

    Agreed. And it’s usually someone I’ve never heard of before that I’m supposed to denounce. Like a third-rate ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado. Man, did that guy give conservatives a hard on.

  50. 50.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    My bad, I thought it was always anti-Semetic to fantasize about any sort of Jewish cabal.

  51. 51.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    The list gets a little hyperbolic at the end but I sure hope you don’t think the first five have any “veracity” to begin with.

    Well, first, that whole rebuttal was sarcasm.

    But, since you ask, no, I don’t think any of them have veracity at all.

  52. 52.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 1:10 pm

    But, since you ask, no, I don’t think any of them have veracity at all.

    I was asking zifnab.

  53. 53.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:10 pm

    Yeah, who has time for researching and then denouncing all these random people being thrown at us…that’s the spineless position, and that’s just playing into the weak position. First time I ever hear of anyone is when I’m supposed to denounce them. I think those conversations should go like this:

    “Denounce so and so!!!”
    “I don’t know who that is and I don’t care. You’re a moron!”

    Hope this clarifies that Rall thing that DV was asking about in the other thread.

  54. 54.

    Hubris

    November 29, 2005 at 1:13 pm

    I’m just impressed that the publisher of Koa Books took the time out of his busy schedule to issue a statement.

    If you enjoyed Not One More Mother’s Child, you should check out other the remainder of the entire line of Koa Books publications: The Official Not One More Mother’s Child Companion and Not One More Mother’s Child (Used).

  55. 55.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 1:18 pm

    My bad, I thought it was always anti-Semetic to fantasize about any sort of Jewish cabal.

    No no! It’s not anti-Semitic to criticize the Jewish cabal that has been secretly manipulating the government of the United States to follow the interests of Israel above its own. I mean, if we can’t criticize Zionist conspiracies, what can we criticize?

  56. 56.

    jack

    November 29, 2005 at 1:19 pm

    Ah, see, I must be ignorant, I seem to remember your anti-war protests starting before we ever set foot in Afghanistan–but I–and all those protesters must’ve been mistaken. They were all protesting the coming war in Iraq. Silly me.

    And just a little bit of googling says the same thing–I bet those people were fooled, too.

    You guys always backed the War on Terror. You guys have always backed it.

    It’s creepy when one runs into this. The left controlled the information flow for so long. They edited and shaped. They kept things they decided should not be known from the public eye. And they still try. Even though their words can be dregded up and tossed in their faces now, they still try. Even though they sit exposed as liars and frauds, they still try. Ever louder and shriller.

    Those days are over, boys.

  57. 57.

    Zifnab

    November 29, 2005 at 1:19 pm

    The list gets a little hyperbolic at the end but I sure hope you don’t think the first five have any “veracity” to begin with.

    They’re bigger on the spin than the outright lies. Case in point: The ten-minute sob-a-thon on Fox News regarding Cunningham’s resignation.

    It’s not necessarily spin we’re fond of. But they’re more guilty of bullshit than of lieing.

  58. 58.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 1:21 pm

    I don’t take “Jooos” as a signifier for anti-Semitism.

    Spoken like a true goy.

    Speaking for myself (a Jew) and my cadre of Jewish friends, the term “Jooos” is insulting in an “I’m an anti-semite making fun of other anti-semites” sort of way.

  59. 59.

    tsswriter

    November 29, 2005 at 1:21 pm

    I”ll do one better…I wrote some comments on that lame Sweetness and Light blog supporting Cindy Sheehan…they were removed. I even went through all the trouble to register as so many Right wing blogs make you do…mindless boobs that they are.

    Thanks for pointing out to what extent the lameness of the right will go to try to attack someone.

  60. 60.

    recklessprocess

    November 29, 2005 at 1:22 pm

    um, isn’t ‘KOA’ Kampgrounds of America? You know those places where you can pull your RV up to get fresh water and electric hookup for the night?

    Now they are publishing books written in ditches. Cool!

  61. 61.

    James C.

    November 29, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    Now that Ms. Sheehan has proven to be something of an embarrassment to the Loony Left, it’s almost funny to see them try to shift the discussion to some other topic.

    Therefore, it’s worth reviewing some of the things that this useless piece of crap said this past summer: “The neocons deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks of 9/11.” American soldiers are “being sent to kill innocent people” in Iraq. Her son, Casey Sheehan, “died for oil” and was “murdered” by President Bush. The United States is “not worth dying for.” The president, who “stole the election,” is part of the “Bush crime family,” a “lying bastard,” a “f?,” a “filth spewer,” “the biggest terrorist in the world,” and an “evil maniac” who is guilty of “blatant genocide.” Sheehan also compared Lynne Stewart, the radical lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists, to Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer who battled racism in the book and movie To Kill a Mockingbird. She has been accused of making vaguely anti-Semitic remarks, but she attributes those remarks to her political opponents.

  62. 62.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    John S.

    Sorry for that, I missed the memo, I just thought it was more of a phonetic thing, for those that whine and stretch words out. Didn’t know the spelling meant one was an anti-Semite, even if only using it to make fun of anti-Semites.

  63. 63.

    p.lukasiak

    November 29, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Al Sharpton is a national figure because he ran as a Democratic Presidential Candidate AND he is given prominent speaking roles at Democratic Presidential events.

    nice try. Al Sharpton was considered a pariah in 1987 after the Tawana Brawley incident…..but right wing media kept pushing him on the public. He didn’t just show up in 2000 a fully formed idiot.

  64. 64.

    neil

    November 29, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    The reason you don’t read about Cindy on leftwing blogs is because the more you read about her, the more embarrassing she becomes. The reason you do read about her on rightwing blogs is that the more you read about her, the more embarrassing she becomes. Was that so hard to figure out?

    Good insight, Mac Buckets. So what would you conclude from the fact that she was the first war critic to get major MSM coverage?

  65. 65.

    neil

    November 29, 2005 at 1:36 pm

    Therefore, it’s worth reviewing some of the things that this useless piece of crap said this past summer…

    Remember back when we were supposed to be nice to her because she was a grieving mother? Man, those were the days.

  66. 66.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    Yeah, neil…good times. But, if she was hotter…and missing in Aruba, I think she’d be getting more air time.

  67. 67.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    Ah, see, I must be ignorant, I seem to remember your anti-war protests starting before we ever set foot in Afghanistan—but I—and all those protesters must’ve been mistaken. They were all protesting the coming war in Iraq. Silly me.

    And just a little bit of googling says the same thing—I bet those people were fooled, too.

    There were antiwar protests against the Afghanistan operations, but nothing on the scale of the ones against Iraq. I supported the Afghanistan invasion because there was — get this — an actual direct link between the people who hit us on 9/11 and the people in charge there.

    And a little bit of googling shows I’m not alone in supporting the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq. In October 2001, 88% of the American people supported the Afghan invasion; in November 2005, only 38% of Americans think it was worth going into Iraq. In other words, half of the American people supported the Afghanistan invasion but don’t support the Iraq war now. Got it?

    I’m not anti-war. I’m anti-incompetence.

  68. 68.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    They kept things they decided should not be known from the public eye. And they still try. Even though their words can be dregded up and tossed in their faces now, they still try. Even though they sit exposed as liars and frauds, they still try. Ever louder and shriller.

    Those days are over, boys.

    There’s something charming about projectionism.

  69. 69.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    So, this “need to set the record straight” consists of one (1) person who bought a whole bunch of books to sign.

    And that contradicts the photos showing virtually no one there how, exactly?

  70. 70.

    Lines

    November 29, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    jack is just a troll, shovelling his useless old biases when so much more is at stake.

    Isn’t it almost time for you to go live in the basement and ignore the real world some more, jack?

  71. 71.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    Speaking for myself (a Jew) and my cadre of Jewish friends, the term “Jooos” is insulting in an “I’m an anti-semite making fun of other anti-semites” sort of way.

    As a Joooo myself, I find that less insulting than Jooos who throw down the race card at anyone they happen to disagree with, while at the same time ignoring objectively anti-Semitic comments conjuring up backroom Zionist conspiracies to take over governments and force them to do their wetwork.

    That’s just me though.

    Good insight, Mac Buckets. So what would you conclude from the fact that she was the first war critic to get major MSM coverage?

    I’d conclude that’s an inaccurate statement–Sheehan only became a vocal anti-war critic recently, and there were plenty of well-publicised war critics who popped-up before the war even started.

  72. 72.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 1:50 pm

    There were people that criticized the war before Bush went to Crawford in August? That’s just another liberal lie!

  73. 73.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    The world existed before the length of my attention span???

  74. 74.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    To be fair, not all Dems are Sheehanesque moonbats. For example, there was a great WSJ piece by Lieberman today.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

    It’s nice to see there are still some patriotic, freedom-loving, reality-inhabiting Democrats out there. Reading his words, I’m filled with the sense that someday, when the Nancy Pelosis and Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys are gone, the Dems may actually return to power.

  75. 75.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    The world existed before the length of my attention span???

    Brilliance!

    The root of my biggest complaint of the left is that they were never interested in politics until a guy they hated won, so their knowledge of pre-November 2000 history tends toward the appalling. For example, dozens of times, I’ve been made to prove with links that Clinton bombed Iraq, or said Saddam had WMD, or advocated regime change, because some newbie Democrat didn’t believe those things could’ve possibly happened. After all, the media pretends it never happened, so how are they to know?

  76. 76.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 2:16 pm

    Reading his words, I’m filled with the sense that someday, when the Nancy Pelosis and Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys are gone, the Dems may actually return to power.

    Yeah, the Democrats should get Lieberman on the national ticket next time. Then they’d win!

  77. 77.

    Steve

    November 29, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Haha, the gap between TD and DougJ grows ever smaller.

  78. 78.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 2:26 pm

    Poor little Maximus. Not an honest bone in his body. No one claims that Clinton didn’t bomb Iraq, say there were WMD’s or advocated regime change. Do you believe your own lies?

  79. 79.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Mac Buckets, can you provide links to anyone on here that didn’t believe that Clinton bombed Iraq, or said Saddam had WMD, or advocated regime change?

  80. 80.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Mac Buckets, can you provide links to anyone on here that didn’t believe “that Clinton bombed Iraq, or said Saddam had WMD, or advocated regime change”?

  81. 81.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    Didn’t know the spelling meant one was an anti-Semite, even if only using it to make fun of anti-Semites.

    I find it to be disrespectful, and since it is bandied about the MOST by folks on the right, I have little doubt that they are really concerned with the alleged anti-semitism that they are ‘poking fun’ at.

    As a Joooo myself, I find that less insulting than Jooos who throw down the race card at anyone they happen to disagree with, while at the same time ignoring objectively anti-Semitic comments conjuring up backroom Zionist conspiracies to take over governments and force them to do their wetwork.

    And I find it insulting when Jews pretend that someone is playing the race card when they question neo-conservative orthodoxy, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of them aren’t even Jewish and their policies have nothing to do with religion – unless you count backing Israel no matter what they do as a matter of faith.

    But that’s just me.

  82. 82.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    No one claims that Clinton didn’t bomb Iraq, say there were WMD’s or advocated regime change. Do you believe your own lies?

    You’re wrong, but I wish what you were saying were true. I’d have a lot fewer bookmarks! You see, there are Democrats who are dumber than you think.

  83. 83.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    You’re wrong, but I wish what you were saying were true. I’d have a lot fewer bookmarks!

    I’d bet you can cram a LOT of bookmarks into the realm of fantasy.

    (Cue the portion of the programme where Mac links to one Democrat who says something foolish to prove that they are somehow representative of most – or all – Democrats.)

  84. 84.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 2:45 pm

    Yeah, the Democrats should get Lieberman on the national ticket next time. Then they’d win!

    If you’ll recall, they did win the popular vote with him last time he was on it.

    Mac,

    Too true. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I was lying here before three seconds with Google proved I was right. (And no, I won’t go dig up examples, because…) And if you go to the trouble to find and post the proof, they never admit they were wrong, they just pretend they never said it and change the subject. So it’s a lose-lose proposition.

    My favorite leftism is the “there was no connection between Saddam and Osama!” canard, which is easy to debunk, but for added fun toss in the fact the Clinton admin asserted al-Qaeda was working cooperatively with the government of Iraq. That always spurs the most amusing outrage, disbelief, and accusation of lying, replete with capital letters, exclamation marks, and impolite words.

  85. 85.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 2:47 pm

    Got it…people get insulted when other people insult the people that are doing the initial insulting in the first place, if they use the language of the insulters to mock the insulters.

  86. 86.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    And I find it insulting when Jews pretend that someone is playing the race card when they question neo-conservative orthodoxy, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the large majority of them aren’t even Jewish and their policies have nothing to do with religion – unless you count backing Israel no matter what they do as a matter of faith.

    I see, your point is it’s not anti-Semitic to suggest that a secret Zionist cabal has hijacked American foreign policy to force the country into an illegal war for Israel’s gain, but it is anti-Semitic to use the word, “Jooos” as a jab against people who fantasize about Jewish conspiracies. You are clearly a rational and intellectually-honest commenter; well-played.

  87. 87.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 2:54 pm

    Mac,

    Too true.

    A love fest between two of the biggest liars on this board. Both are poster children for the New GOP.

  88. 88.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 2:57 pm

    I see, your point is it’s not anti-Semitic to suggest that a secret Zionist cabal has hijacked American foreign policy…

    It’s almost a set rule that when someone starts a post like this they have anti-semetic tendancies. Sometimes they don’t realise they have them and other times they are proud of them.

  89. 89.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 2:59 pm

    Tell me more about my “anti-semetic tendancies.”

  90. 90.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 3:01 pm

    APF, maybe you’re forming a secret cabal within yourself?

  91. 91.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 3:02 pm

    Thanks for proving my point Mike.

  92. 92.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    Mac Buckets, can you provide links to anyone on here that didn’t believe that Clinton bombed Iraq, or said Saddam had WMD, or advocated regime change?

    I think everyone on BJ probably knew Clinton bombed Iraq (the reason I now come to BJ and not other blogs/boards is because the idiot quotient is smaller, though not non-existent…JohnS). On WMD, I’m fairly certain I’ve made posts on BJ in the last year where I had to provide links to somebody who was in denial or, more likely, playing semantics games. On regime change, I know other BJ commenters and I had to post the ILA in the last few months for someone (or two) who insisted Clinton was an advocate of containment rather than regime change.

    Could I provide links? No, I have no idea how to find old comments posts. I’ve never had much luck with the search function here — I don’t know if it even extends to the comments.

  93. 93.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks for proving my point Mike.

    What point is that Davey? When your name shows up in a thread the best bet to make is that you will have at least one lie in the comment.

  94. 94.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    but for added fun toss in the fact the Clinton admin asserted al-Qaeda was working cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

    Let me guess, they just say you have a blowjob obsession, and that Clinton isn’t president anymore, or that Clinton didn’t invade Iraq!

  95. 95.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 3:11 pm

    I did secretly plot to take my own body over in a conspiracy to advance my agenda above that of myself.

    So uh, there you go.

  96. 96.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 3:12 pm

    Mike S,

    What point is that Davey? When your name shows up in a thread the best bet to make is that you will have at least one lie in the comment.

    I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I was lying here

    Snicker.

  97. 97.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 3:15 pm

    Tell me more about my “anti-semetic tendancies.”

    As Krusty the Clown said, upon finding out he’d never been Bar Mitzvahed and thus was not considered to be Jewish, “All this time I thought I was a self-hating Jew, and now I’m just an anti-Semite!”

  98. 98.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 3:15 pm

    APF, I knew it! So, is it indeed possible for a person to rant about secret Jewish cabals and be Pro-Semite?

  99. 99.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 3:19 pm

    APF-

    You are a loon. I have never seen someone so willfully and grossly distort someone’s comments (since Darrell, Mac or TallDave), so I’ll make it crystal clear for you:

    – I don’t like the term “jooos”
    – I don’t give a shit about Cindy Sheehan
    – I don’t believe in Zionist cabals hijacking America

    Which renders about 90% of your comments towards me as utterly pointless and without merit.

  100. 100.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 3:21 pm

    (the reason I now come to BJ and not other blogs/boards is because the idiot quotient is smaller, though not non-existent…JohnS).

    Funny, I come to BJ to watch you make a complete fool of yourself – which you are generally 100% successful in doing.

    We can’t BOTH be right, can we?

  101. 101.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 3:24 pm

    For more snickering: This never gets old. Sheehan on Bush, before she was separated from her family, hollowed out, and re-filled with slogans by antiwar groups who wanted her as their poster girl.

    The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey’s sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

    But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn’t stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

    “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us,” Pat said.
    …
    “I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”

    The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
    …
    For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

    “That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,” Cindy said.

  102. 102.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 3:26 pm

    Funny, I come to BJ to watch you make a complete fool of yourself

    Ewwww, my posts are enabling a male stalker! All my posts seem…dirtier now. Note to self: Must. Wash. Keyboard.

  103. 103.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 3:30 pm

    Ewwww, my posts are enabling a male stalker!

    Er, ok. I’d say your posts are enabling a male heckler, or would you consider people that stop to gawk at a spectacle “stalkers”?

  104. 104.

    Cyrus

    November 29, 2005 at 3:30 pm

    Yeah, the Democrats should get Lieberman on the national ticket next time. Then they’d win!

    If you’ll recall, they did win the popular vote with him last time he was on it.

    That’s true, the VP under a (at least somewhat) popular president running in a climate of almost unprecedented peace and prosperity managed to scrape together a .5% (or something) popular vote advantage against a man with half his leadership experience who said Africa was a country, proudly visited Bob Jones University, and generally made Dan Quayle look thoughtful and articulate. And you think that speaks well of Lieberman… why?

  105. 105.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 3:39 pm

    – I don’t like the term “jooos” – I don’t give a shit about Cindy Sheehan – I don’t believe in Zionist cabals hijacking America

    Which renders about 90% of your comments towards me as utterly pointless and without merit.

    And I don’t give a shit about you.

    Which renders you utterly pointless and without merit.

  106. 106.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    Touché!

    The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

  107. 107.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 3:54 pm

    APF Says:

    I know you are but what am I. Oh yeah, and I’m rubber.

  108. 108.

    jack

    November 29, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    Ah, how we drift…

    I am still wondering, in my infinite trollishness(thanks, Lines, but I prefer ‘orc’) where all the Americans have such severe misgivings about the war were when Cindy held her little book-signing. Surely some of them could’ve shown up? You keep telling yourselves(and us, unfortunately) that you’re in the majority now, that your point is being proven correct. So why was Cindy sitting there all alone? Why weren’t there crowds protesting, screaming about what a mistake the Iraq war was?

    That’s the crux of it, if you’re so right, why doesn’t reality bear that out?

  109. 109.

    Mike S

    November 29, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    I am still wondering, in my infinite trollishness(thanks, Lines, but I prefer ‘orc’) where all the Americans have such severe misgivings about the war were when Cindy held her little book-signing.

    By your “thinking” the enlistment offices should be over flowing with supporters of the war. But “thinking” is relative to the brain size of said thinker. Maybe a Bush loyalist like you thinks Crawford is a destination but most of us wouldn’t be caught dead there.

  110. 110.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    Why weren’t there crowds protesting, screaming about what a mistake the Iraq war was?

    The whole point of a protest like that is to get people to come around to your point of view. And they have. Why keep protesting?

  111. 111.

    Mac Buckets

    November 29, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    John S, do you know what a “petard” is?

    Mac Buckets: Ewwww, my posts are enabling a male stalker!

    John S.: Er, ok. I’d say your posts are enabling a male heckler, or would you consider people that stop to gawk at a spectacle “stalkers”?

    Look at the top of this comments section.

    John S. Says:

    Get a grip, John.

    If you’re trying to break ground on what constitutes cyberstalking, you’re doing an excellent job.

    Isn’t John actually “heckling” Cindy, gawking at the spectacle of her book(not)signing? Why do you feel compelled call him a stalker?

  112. 112.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    Otto,

    Because they won the popular vote. Duh.

  113. 113.

    TallDave

    November 29, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    Oops, Cyprus, not Otto.

  114. 114.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 4:55 pm

    So why was Cindy sitting there all alone?

    Because the photos were taking before the book signing you fucking retard.

    Jesus christ, can you read? Even the site they were posted at acknowledged this.

    Oh and James C. You sure make a lot of accusations about what Sheehan said, but you seem to have forgotten to provide evidence or sources for your qoutes.

    I know you’re not a fan of sources or “facts”, but could you please give me something to work with so I can be sure you’re not just talking out of your ass?

  115. 115.

    ppGaz

    November 29, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    Because it is FUNNY.

    Okay! Good enough for me.

  116. 116.

    yet another jeff

    November 29, 2005 at 5:10 pm

    Because one can be against the war but not give a damn about Cindy’s book?

    To be fair, Crawford is a decent little town. I’ve had some great times in that area.

  117. 117.

    Tex MacRae

    November 29, 2005 at 5:20 pm

    And furthermore explain why you chose to spell the world as “Joooos”, which is a common way to spell Jews when the comments or commentors are anti-semetic.

    Google it. The only people who write “Joooos” are accusing someone of being antisemetic, usually right-wing Americans.

    You can google it with varying numbers of O’s – same thing. Here’s a fun one:

    Free Republic – 4 O’s

    Here’s a generic google. Notice all your favorite American wingnut blogs come up on top.

    And so on. I’ve never seen the spelling used any other way.

    Free Republic – 5 O’s

  118. 118.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 5:31 pm

    Google it. The only people who write “Joooos” are accusing someone of being antisemetic, usually right-wing Americans.

    Which was my point. Mac made a statement about Sheehan going on a 4 page rant about “Joos”. I think it was rather obvious that he was implying Sheehan is anti-semitic, or has made anti-semitic remarks.

    Of course, when I called him on it and asked him tp provide evidence to back up his implication, he denied that he was implying anything of the sort.

  119. 119.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    Why not do a Google search for “Sheehan” and “Jew?”

  120. 120.

    DougJ

    November 29, 2005 at 6:11 pm

    Well, Jews are the ones leading the war against Christmas, at least according to ATS on the O’Reilly thread.

  121. 121.

    jg

    November 29, 2005 at 6:21 pm

    120 posts of right wingers telling left wingers that the left loves Cindy Sheehan. Weird.

  122. 122.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 6:29 pm

    Of course, when I called him on it and asked him tp provide evidence to back up his implication, he denied that he was implying anything of the sort.

    Yes, Mac sure does remind me of one of these things.

    The harder you try to ‘squeeze’ him, the more he ‘slips’ out of your hands.

  123. 123.

    rjw

    November 29, 2005 at 6:56 pm

    Maybe no one was there because of silly little things like…oh, say A JOB?

  124. 124.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 7:25 pm

    I thought “Jooos” came from Protein Wisdom, himself a Jew.

    I prefer the J-E-W-S immortalized by Cynthia McKinney’s father as the reason she lost her congressional seat in 2002. He was good enough to spell it out.

    Oh, and I think Cindy is anti-semitic, and she is running with a group in Crawford that removed the anti-semitic literature from their website when the media spotlight hit them. She is a L-O-O-N.

    Gotta go Raclette, Good night!

  125. 125.

    Otto Man

    November 29, 2005 at 7:29 pm

    Why not do a Google search for “Sheehan” and “Jew?”


    Let’s see…

    David Duke, The National Vanguard, The Jawa Report, a right-wing spoof of the Huffington Post. Yeah, a lot of liberals there.

    Media Matters comes up on that Google search, but only because they’re reporting remarks from another well-known left-winger, G. Gordon Liddy.

  126. 126.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 7:30 pm

    Ahhh! Well, well, well. I’ve been anticipating your arrival, Stormy, as you’ve made the claim before that Sheehan is anti-semitic and has made anti-semitic remarks.

    I am going to ask you to provide evidence just like last time. And my guess is that, just like last time, you won’t provide any.

  127. 127.

    John S.

    November 29, 2005 at 8:13 pm

    I thought “Jooos” came from Protein Wisdom, himself a Jew.

    Highly doubtful, but nice try.

    Little Green Footballs has an entire “etymology” thread that includes various theories on how this asinine term came to be.

  128. 128.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 8:24 pm

    David Duke, The National Vanguard, The Jawa Report, a right-wing spoof of the Huffington Post. Yeah, a lot of liberals there.

    Uh ok… What was wrong with the Wikipedia entry, the first search result? Why is it not worth noting that Sheehan’s comments were embraced by openly anti-Semitic folks? What was wrong with all the non-right-wing sites in that search?

  129. 129.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 8:49 pm

    I provided the links you wanted last time, it is not my fault if you won’t follow them. Here’s her quotes in one handy spot.

    She is a vile person, and her remarks after Rita showed her ugliness compares to that of Ted Rall. Noone was at her book signing, and the Crawford Peace House is an anti-semitic outfit. When David Duke thinks you are the cat’s meow for your anti-Israel statements referring to a neo-con jewish conspiracy, then I think some soul searching might be in order. It’s always interesting to play six degrees of Israel with the anti-semitic crowd. Everything can be made to be Israel’s fault in just six statements.

  130. 130.

    jg

    November 29, 2005 at 8:49 pm

    Why is it not worth noting that Sheehan’s comments were embraced by openly anti-Semitic folks?

    Its worth noting. The reason I bet most don’t note it is because of the implications that are drawn from that. Unless you’re stating thats she’s an anti-semite there’s no reason to note it is there?

    This is the same stupid logic that says if you happen to state an opinion that someone else also shares them you are both part of a larger conspiracy. Kind of like speaking out against the war is giving aid to the enemy.

  131. 131.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 8:50 pm

    Crap. Link.

  132. 132.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 8:51 pm

    The Hell?!

  133. 133.

    jg

    November 29, 2005 at 8:52 pm

    It’s always interesting to play six degrees of Israel with the anti-semitic crowd. Everything can be made to be Israel’s fault in just six statements.

    Seeing fault in something Israel does makes you an anti-semite? Can’t I be agaisnt Israel and not give a shit where or to whom they pray?

  134. 134.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 8:54 pm

    WTF? The link won’t work, even though it worked in the preview function. This must be the fault of Neo-con Israel cabal I have been reading about on this thread.

  135. 135.

    Stormy70

    November 29, 2005 at 8:57 pm

    Well, I am talking about assuming 9/11 and the war in Iraq leads back to Israel. It is condemning Israel and excusing every terrorist act perpetrated by her enemies.

  136. 136.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 29, 2005 at 8:58 pm

    WTF? The link won’t work, even though it worked in the preview function. This must be the fault of Neo-con Israel cabal I have been reading about on this thread.

    Uh huh…..

    How about just typing the link out?

  137. 137.

    APF

    November 29, 2005 at 9:38 pm

    jg: I’m not following your snark. It’s worth noting, therefore I noted it. Your suggestion seems to be “guilt by association,” but aren’t we talking about how her words can reasonably be interpreted? Asserting there’s a cabal of people whose loyalties happen to be to Israel, who happen to be hijacking governments, and happen to be conniving liars who push those governments into fighting illegal wars against those governments’ interests and for the interests of Israel, is apparently good enough for the anti-Semites; it’s also apparently good enough for Sheehan to try and distance herself from, even if you’d prefer further consideration.

  138. 138.

    BIRDZILLA

    November 29, 2005 at 10:16 pm

    Will she keep them at the clinton LIEbrary?

  139. 139.

    Steve S

    November 30, 2005 at 1:02 am

    Sheehan may be a loon, but she’s no worse than anybody else living in Texas.

  140. 140.

    yet another jeff

    November 30, 2005 at 9:44 am

    Nice one, Steve S…that made sense….

  141. 141.

    Mac Buckets

    November 30, 2005 at 10:13 am

    I thought “Jooos” came from Protein Wisdom, himself a Jew.

    First time I read it was in a funny rant at IMAO — one of the most underrated bloggers out there (even underrated by myself; I haven’t been there for weeks). Not sure if Frank is Jewish, but I don’t think so.

  142. 142.

    BIRDZILLA

    November 30, 2005 at 11:06 am

    Steve S Ms Sheehan is no loon becuase a loon is more smarter then a dumb clucking hen

  143. 143.

    John S.

    November 30, 2005 at 11:21 am

    becuase a loon is more smarter

    Classic irony. Thanks for the laugh.

  144. 144.

    yet another jeff

    November 30, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    I’m just waiting for mecha-birdzilla…

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 6
Image by BarcaChicago (7/7/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Matt McIrvin on Late Night Open Thread: Elon’s Latest Public Tantrum (Jul 8, 2025 @ 10:33am)
  • Librettist on Tubas & Trombones for Peace (Open Thread) (Jul 8, 2025 @ 10:33am)
  • BlueGuitarist on Tubas & Trombones for Peace (Open Thread) (Jul 8, 2025 @ 10:33am)
  • Scout211 on Late Night Open Thread: Elon’s Latest Public Tantrum (Jul 8, 2025 @ 10:32am)
  • flower on Tubas & Trombones for Peace (Open Thread) (Jul 8, 2025 @ 10:32am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!