“I am challenging you to a debate. I am waiting."

Interesting turn of events concerning Cindy Sheehan:

The father of a slain Central Texas Marine appears in a new TV spot that began airing Thursday, challenging anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan to a debate.

In the spot, Gary Qualls, whose son, Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Qualls, died in 2004 in Iraq, takes Sheehan to task for calling the President a liar and for erecting a cross bearing his son’s name as part of what he calls “your sick cause.”

“Cindy, how can you be so cruel?” Qualls asks in the spot.

“I am challenging you to a debate, “ he says. “I am waiting.”

Qualls is one of the Bush supporters who set up a camp over the weekend in Crawford named “Fort Qualls,” in honor of Louis Qualls.

The new spot hit the airwaves as a spot featuring Sheehan began to air nationally on CNN and Fox News.

Gold Star Families for Peace spent $67,000 to buy the national airtime.

The Sheehan spot has run in the Waco market as well as in Salt Lake City and Boise during the President’s visit to the two cities earlier in the week.

Bush Supporters Turn To TV To Challenge Sheehan To Debate

A challenge to debate?
I wonder if Ms. Sheehan will accept....






seekerof

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Seekerof]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in this country so far, a mother is challenged in a debate because she dares to challenge the president over the death of her son.

How low can people go down this days specially pro war supporters and Bush supporters is just beyond me.

Should American people that don't agree with Bush war starts to be afraid of finding burning crosses on our front yards any time soon.? how ridiculous does that sound.

Hey just get her arrested and send her complaining butt to Giztmo.

Hey better yet let activate the concentration camps we can not have people complaining around too much.

Hilarius.

I don't see what's so wrong with his request. He's a father that lost a son. She's a mother that lost a son. Should be interesting.

Originally posted by marg6043
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in this country so far, a mother is challenged in a debate because she dares to challenge the president over the death of her son.

About as ridiculous as David Duke and Stormfront going out to Ms. Sheehans camp to support her cause, while the president is on vacation at his ranch, while she is politically exploiting her son's death, all the while talking about how Israel, the US, and Bush are causing this and that?

I agree with Herman, I see nothing wrong with this. If Ms. Sheehan is so convinced about her beliefs and convictions, then she should have no problemo debating such with another who has lost a child in this war and has beliefs counter to her own, or should she?

No worries though, Marg, I am sure that she will not do the debate unless it is pre-scripted for her. Besides, she will be heading to Washington to further spread her message, while continuing to not addressing those challenges made by those who have likewise lost sons and daughters in this war and feel counter to what she does.

Her bluff has been called though. Bet.




seekerof

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Seekerof]

I think they should all go home, instead prancing around like they're grieving parents pitted against one another in the Thunderdome.

I thought Sheehan was losing her mind a couple weeks ago. I think she's completely lost her mind now. I cringe literally every time she opens her mouth, because she's got no filter. Grief or no grief, if she can book a ticket to Texas on actual airplane, than she can keep their foot our of their mouth.

That being said, I'm simply ASTONISHED at the level of bile and hated flung at her from the other side. I don't agree with Gary Qualls stance on the war, but I would never stoop to the level that Right Pundits have gone too.

Stop feeding the beast, and it'll go away.
Keep feeding the beast, and it'll keep coming back. Stronger and stronger.

Every time, and I mean every time, some yahoo, glorified disco DJ rants about how treasonous she is, or how unamerican she is, it's really pisses people off and they support her. Not people like us, but regular folks who read the USA Today for their daily news.

Why?

Because, it's ungentlemanly like behavior, I don't care how stupid her comments are. Moderate, house payment making, lunch box toting americans just don't like that sort of thing. I mean at all.

And that's bad for the Right, because it's turning her into a martyr, deserved or not. I mean, there really is a sound arguement to made, and it would have actually worked.

"We respect Ms. Sheehan, and her loss. We would pull up stakes and bail TOMORROW, if we knew that the results wouldn't be ten times worse. But, we don't have that luxury, and for better or worse, we just can't leave right now. We respect Ms. Sheehan's right to protest, as much as we respect the right of every american to protest".

And the kicker would have been if the GOP delivered FOOD to the protesters as a peace offering. Sheehan would have been finished, and it would have ended with the GOP actually looking like the more honorable side. Bush might even have picked up a couple points in the polls, while defusing a terribly messy situation.

But, what happens instead?

Instead of staying on message, the Right literally threw gasoline on the fire, inflamming the holy living hell out of the whole thing. They unleashed their attack dogs, making Bush look like an uncaring bully.

What, and you don't think that's what Michael Moore wanted?

I will bet you all the money in my pockets versus all the money in your pockets that he BANKED on your side attacking her, visciously. And how does it play out in the minds of middle america? You've got Rush Limbaugh out there claiming that she NEVER HAD A SON. The Right Wing attack machine, tearing apart a poor, defenseless, grieving mother.

A grieving mother who just got abandoned by her husband.
A grieving mother whose OWN MOTHER just had a stroke.
A grieving mother who somehow has the where with all to hope against hope, and return to Texas, against all odds.

Who plays her in the made for TV movie?

And you guys walked into it, hook, line and sinker. You couple that with a general feeling that alot of Republicans are now having (At least 14% of you now), "I have misgivings about this war now. If they attack her, like this, for changing her mind, what will they do to me?"

And you have a recipe for disaster.

Bush's approval numbers are plummating faster than Monica Lewinsky. The only second term president with lower numbers was Nixon, and that was during Watergate.

And now she's got her sights set on Tom Delay. She's going to knock his office door, and when he refuses to meet with her, she gets to call him a coward on national television.

I can see someone like Winona Ryder playing her in the made for tv movie, maybe some one older but still a crappy actress so they don't have to pay much. Getting Michael Moore as director would be great for his name will sell the movie and publicity is free.

Anyways what does he want to debate? That he knows more about her son then she does?

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by marg6043
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in this country so far, a mother is challenged in a debate because she dares to challenge the president over the death of her son.

About as ridiculous as David Duke and Stormfront going out to Ms. Sheehans camp to support her cause, while the president is on vacation at his ranch, while she is politically exploiting her son's death, all the while talking about how Israel, the US, and Bush are causing this and that?

I agree with Herman, I see nothing wrong with this. If Ms. Sheehan is so convinced about her beliefs and convictions, then she should have no problemo debating such with another who has lost a child in this war and has beliefs counter to her own, or should she?

Indeed her 'cause' and she has a right to it... Nobody, not even you can prove that she is politically exploiting her son's death... When she talks about Irael, the US, and Bush in the same sentence, why is it so hard for people such as yourself to understand the butt of the message?

There is a message, one of which she is trying to make people aware of, because mainstream media and the government currently in power will not give you the full fledged story...

Conspiracy? Cover-up? Corruption? Lies to shovel out to the media so we can swallow their story alot more nicely, then the real one?

The story Cindy is fighting to get through to us through ignorance and people wanting to hush her up, put words into her mouth, spin her words, mence her words, and use her words to fit their agenda to make her look ridiculous?

These things don't happen ever right? Conspiracies never happen right? They are a preposterous idea!Def>Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd.

I saw plans Israel drew up long before the war....

Sadam used wmd on his people when bush sr was in office..

Why didn't they get rid of him them if they were so concerned about those people? Why wait 15 years?!

What's absurd is trying to connect dots to sadam and 9/11 and expect people to believe that connection is legit.

When a country comes into the USA, removes Bush, and uses the land as a war zone, what are you to do?

Sure some people would be happy bush would be gone, and people could breath alittle easier knowing a bull#ter is gone..But now you have a problem..You can't walk on the street at certain times of the day, you have your neighbours being blown to shreds, and children losing limbs while this country says it's for our own good...

Challenging Cindy to a debate about this is a good thing IF they don't mince her words, IF they let her finish a sentence...

This is a hard thing for the republicans to do...

Especially when you have a prez in office who's lied right from the aftermath of 9/11...

Why did Bush say he was in the hall waiting to go in the classroom when he saw plane 1 hit the tower, and then later say he was in the classroom when he got word? And how could he have seen the plane go into tower 1 when the footage wasn't released until the next day?

That's my first clue that he's not coming straight with something...

And so the saga continues...

Osama was involved in the attacks and hijackers flew planes into the buildings. ok... And so when you have this truth out there, why isn't the other truth about larry silverstein admitting to pulling the buildings due to 'huge loss of life'

Where's that truth?

And so the saga continue...

Now Bush has to go after somebody in retaliation, osama's crew...
What the buzzword for that is terrorists...

So now we have terrorist's to hunt down, capture, and imprison...

America goes and fights 'terrorism' in Afganistan hoping to catch these guys, and show american's that something is being done.

And so the saga continues.

Not only is there a war on terrorism in Afganistan but now we have one with Sadam who poses a thread to America with his WMD.

A wmd that he hasn't used on his people for 15 years... While this story is being repeated by the president to get us to go along with him, he finds proof that Sadam harbored terrorissm and paid their families... Perfect!

And so the saga continues...

Media shovels out these stories on a consistant basis, but never revealing the other truths that would make one raise an eye brow like Cindy Sheehan's..

No instead when these truths are revealed through sources other then mainstream media they aren't taken as seriously.. Despite that fact that it is proof positive.

Now ninnies go around shouting her down, berating her character, all of which are matters of no importance..

No, let's keep the attention off her message and keep destroying her so she looks like a non credible source.

Yes let's do that, that way people don't want to be bothered with exploring the fishier side of things...

Yes, indeed, let's do that...

And wow, it works... Works like a charm.. You took the bait and now you my friend are also continously harping on matters of no importance.

the message? Who cares!

TL,

Could you please give me a link to the story about "pulling the buildings"? I have to admit, I don't know what you're talking about there.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by TrueLies]

Larry Silverstein

I have more ram's of fishy things if your ready to raise your eyebrows..

Originally posted by TrueLies
Larry Silverstein

I have more ram's of fishy things if your ready to raise your eyebrows..

So they pulled down the building after the planes struck? I'm ignorant of the methods of firefighters. Is this something they normally do when they know for a fact that they can't contain the fire?

Not to discredit this clip, I'll definitely take it into account, but this is just one person. I'd like to hear from other firefighters, and possibly see a video or pictures of what they did.

Originally posted by Herman
Not to discredit this clip, I'll definitely take it into account, but this is just one person. I'd like to hear from other firefighters, and possibly see a video or pictures of what they did.

Go to this thread then... They have other first hand accounts from firefighter's and people in the building.
Thread

Originally posted by Herman
Not to discredit this clip, I'll definitely take it into account, but this is just one person. I'd like to hear from other firefighters, and possibly see a video or pictures of what they did.

Regardless if it's just one man, he should be in jail... For manslaughter maybe?
Thousands died, but it could of only been a couple hundred dead from the planes up in the tower... But instead it was thousands because of that decision, and to also inform you building 7 was demolished.. The whole operation command center was in there.. And I believe it was to get rid of the evidence, I can supply you with information on that too if your interested..

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by Herman
Not to discredit this clip, I'll definitely take it into account, but this is just one person. I'd like to hear from other firefighters, and possibly see a video or pictures of what they did.

Regardless if it's just one man, he should be in jail... For manslaughter maybe?
Thousands died, but it could of only been a couple hundred dead from the planes up in the tower... But instead it was thousands because of that decision, and to also inform you building 7 was demolished.. The whole operation command center was in there.. And I believe it was to get rid of the evidence, I can supply you with information on that too if your interested..

I'm definitely interested. But the info is only interesting if credible. If it's not, I can store it in my "Things that may have happened" section of my brain.

See, TL, here's the general cycle of thoughts that goes through my mind after I hear a certain clip. I'll use the one of the firefighter saying he felt an explosion under his feet.

Interesting, but I wonder if this guy is really a firefighter, or just some guy that they made an audio clip of... Maybe he's just a liar! If I'm being told to open my mind enough to believe a group of firefighters were involved in a mass conspiracy involving blowing up buildings, it surely should be open enough to consider that maybe these guys are just lying... If he felt the explosion under his feet, and it was powerful enough to demolish one of the buildings...why is he still there? Shouldn't there be some kind of news link, or something that's proving his credibility to me?