# Cindy Sheehan has lost her ever-loving mind **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 17, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071 "2005-09-17T00:53:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/81 "2005-09-18T02:14:22Z")
Hey man, I didn’t say he was a _competent_ sociopath. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/82 "2005-09-18T02:15:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Dash it all, man! You’re in the Pit, sir! the Pit, I say! Where is permitted the spiteful snarkery, the venemous vituperation. Surely, “sociopath” is a wild exaggeration of a man more marked by mediocrity than any spectacular embodiment of evil. Elmer Fudd thinks he’s Winston Churhill, GeeDubya shaves and beholds in the mirror a Leader of Men, destined to leave giant footprints in the mud of history. He suffers from delusions of competence. Or rather, he has the delusions, it is we who do the suffering. > > Your reference to rhetorical niceties is a bit tin-eared, don’t you think? Over in the tea room, GD, rules of evidence, propriety, all that there is jealously guarded, here, it is as out of place as a soda-water sermon in a bawdy house. You’'re really **EddyTeddyFreddy** , aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/83 "2005-09-18T02:17:17Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > You’'re really **EddyTeddyFreddy** , aren’t you? Naw, I wouldn’t have misspelled “venomous”. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/84 "2005-09-18T02:19:59Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Such would be a “realization” without basis in fact, unless of course you could do what **magellan01** asked of **MsRobyn** (and which she was apparently unable to do) and “kindly point out exactly what he lied about and offer proof of those lies?”. A supposition does not equate to unassailable fact. Obviously, some people will never make that metal leap. It’s not that it’s so strenuous really, just that it might bring one into painful conflict with closely held beliefs. (Hmmm, someone had a name for that type of conflict… now what was it? Cog-wheel displacement, something like that?) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/85 "2005-09-18T02:21:24Z")
Heh. “Metal leap.” \ ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/86 "2005-09-18T02:22:14Z")
> [@choie](#): > > - After college, Bush took a $20,000 gift from his family to begin his quest to emulate Poppy as an oil businessman. A few years and a failed attempt for a Congress seat later – so much for “never lost an election,” huh, **StarvingArtist**? – Bush formed “Arbusto,” an oil co. named after himself. (Arbusto = Bush in Spanish for those few of you who weren’t aware.) > > - When Arbusto nearly went belly-up not too long afterwards, in swept Uncle Jonathan Bush to provide needed funds and reorganize the co. as an investment firm. The investors? Mostly members of Bush’s family. > > - This newly regrouped co. foundered as well, and so did W’s follow-up oil exploration company. Fortunately, Dubya’s connections came through again. Money came floating in courtesy of James Baker III (you know who he is, right, **StarvingArtist**?), who encouraged his pal Philip Uzielli to hand over $1 mill to keep Bush solvent. > > - That didn’t do enough. Coming to the rescue this time was Spectrum 7, which bought “Bush Exploration” and kept Dubya on board as president. After all, despite having no successes to date, Dubya had one true quality that made him irreplaceable: his father was now Vice President. That’s a useful connection for any oil company to have. Dubya received several million for his percentage of Arbusto/Bush Exploration. Arbusto’s other original investors only earned cents on the dollar for their shares. Go figure. > > - Spectrum 7 went downwards too a few years later. Would no one save Bush from himself? Don’t be silly, as long as Bush has relatives, he’ll always have a safety net. The company that stepped in this time was Harken, an investment firm with moolah from Saudis, George Soros (ironic, no?) and other wealthy types. Harken too saw Dubya’s immense value as figurehead and kept him on. This is not all true. I am no longer a Republican and am no great admirer of Bush, but you have put forth the argument that these failures are Bush’s responsibility, or that he is to blame, or that they result from some ineptitude or failing of his. I have seen the argument that Bush was involved in failed businesses more than once. I don’t really see that as a negative or a positive. Lots of businesses fail and lots of successful businessman had many initial failing. The oil business is a tough one. Somehow those making these arguments always seem to make the logical leap that these failures were Bush’s fault. It’s a logical leap though. If you wish to make the argument you need to fill in the blank. As for having a wealthy family who helped him out. So? > [@](#): > > - Dubya decided to branch out into sports. He used his position as a director of a bank to borrow the money to purchase the Texas Rangers, along with other investors who (not coincidentally) were contributors to Poppy’s presidential campaign. Now that Dubya was the son of a President, he had even more worth. For no apparent reason than to suck up to Poppy, the other Rangers owners gave Dubya 12% of the club, although he’d only paid for about 2%. I hadn’t heard about the bank, so I can’t comment. But you say “for no apparent reason than to suck up to Poppy the other Rangers owners gave Dubya 12% of the club, although he’s only paid for about 2%” This is not a very fair statement. Perhaps you are being disingenous, or don’t know better, but there are several other apparent reasons why they would do this besides or in conjunction with Poppy being powerful. For example, I recently completed a private placement stock offering where the investors receive only 25% ownership though they are contributing 60% of the capital. Management holds the large stake to incentivize and because they are doing the work. In fact, the particular arrangement you have described is extremely normal, and it occurs in the majority of such transactions. It is hard for me to see that it is either a positive or a negative for Bush. > [@](#): > > - You know how Dubya’s so vociferously against taxes? That doesn’t count when taxes would actually improve his own wallet. So when he and the other owners decided the Rangers needed a new ballpark, Dubya lobbied for a sales tax hike to help pay expenses. After threatening to take the team elsewhere, Dubya won his first real victory: the increased sales tax. Good on ya, W! So? When Bush is representing the interest of the investors in the Rangers he holds one position and when he is representing the American people he holds another. Do you find this disturbing? Generally, my personal beliefs don’t enter into business decisions. I am being paid to enhance shareholder value and I argue and pursue opportunities from that standpoint, even if it runs against what I personally prefer. That’s what it means to have a job. As long as basic ethics and morals are upheld, I see no issue. [quote[- Couple o’ years later, Bush and his fellow owners sold the team for several times what they paid for it. Bush garnered $14 million in stock. But to close the baseball chapter of his life, Dubya still had to pay back the loan from the bank used to purchase the team in the first place. How would he do this?[/quote] Since you make such a big deal about his failed business ventures, you should at least give a nod that this appears to be successful > [@](#): > > - Accordingly, he sold some of his Harken stock. Bush nabbed nearly a million from this transaction, a rather tidy sum … but seemingly not memorable enough for Dubya to report to the SEC. He waited a year to file the report. I am professionally highly cognizant of the reporting rules. Bush had a requirement to file promptly. He didn’t. Under a general amnesty for this kind of lapse he later filed. This kind of lapse is really very very very common. > [@](#): > > - Oh, here’s a funny coinkidink: a week after Bush sold his shares for $800K, Harken revealed major losses to the public, and its stock plummeted. Gosh, one might almost think Bush had foreknowledge of the company’s fiscal problems, explaining why he sold when he did. But no, that would be insider trading, and surely the SEC would have picked up on that! (Hmm, that delayed SEC report suddenly makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?) Luckily, the SEC under Poppy Bush’s administration decided that Dubya didn’t know anything about the upcoming losses prior to selling his stock. An understandable assumption, considering just how little Dubya knew about anything at all. Hypothesizing that Bush had insider info is innuendo. It could just as well be argued that Bush’s transaction faced increased scrutiny due to his father being a public figure. The fact that he was cleared by the SEC examining the transaction is hardly an indictment. In fact, IIRC correctly the stock did not Plummet “a week” after Bush’s sale, but actually went up. The SEC report did state that there was no benefit marketwise to Bush’s sale in terms of timing, and therefore it was impossible for it to fulfill the requirement of illegal insider trading. I also challenge anybody to tell me exactly what the information was that Bush supposedly posessed. This Harken nastiness is a simple fuck job promulgated by a prominant liberal columnist who is expert in economics and used his knowledge to selectively present facts to provide the appearance of impropriety, where in fact his knowledge should have demonstrated to him that there was no impropriety, as is obvious to anyone studying the issue who was equal knowledge of insider trading laws. It was simply a smear job. > [@](#): > > Sorry for the hijack. Just fighting ignorance, don’tcha know. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/87 "2005-09-18T02:22:14Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Naw, I wouldn’t have misspelled “venomous”. 😛 I hope you’ll forgive my simley-face answer, but… 😃 😃 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/88 "2005-09-18T02:24:04Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Such would be a “realization” without basis in fact, unless of course you could do what **magellan01** asked of **MsRobyn** (and which she was apparently unable to do) and “kindly point out exactly what he lied about and offer proof of those lies?”. A supposition does not equate to unassailable fact. I’m perfectly able to do it, I just choose not to right this minute. Give me 24 hours, and I’ll come up with it. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/89 "2005-09-18T02:27:34Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > This is the 'Pit, so I said “sociopathic piece of shit”, 'cause it felt good to say that about the sociopathic piece of shit who’s our current POTUS. > > Here’s an arguable characterization (and the way I might have phrased it in Great Debates, where , as I just mentioned, we aint at): Once one has come to a realization (or decided, if you prefer) that the President has lied to the country about his reasons for war, it colors one’s appreciation for all of his other public statements and actions. One tends to greet his pronouncements with at least some degree of skepticism, to look for shades and hidden motives, and to notice any disconnects between his words and the actions of his administration. Well, you could have said “lying piece of shit.” ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/90 "2005-09-18T02:29:53Z")
Okay, it’ll be interesting to see what you come up with to try to support your claim. However, given that unless you are a mind-reader your so-called “proof” will still be utterly specious, I won’t expect too much of it. Besides, I thought you were watching movies with **Hentor**! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/91 "2005-09-18T02:36:18Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Such would be a “realization” without basis in fact, unless of course you could do what **magellan01** asked of **MsRobyn** (and which she was apparently unable to do) and “kindly point out exactly what he lied about and offer proof of those lies?”. A supposition does not equate to unassailable fact. Come on now. The OSP and Downing Street Memos have put the nail into that coffin. If a smoking gun coupled with a rogue intel agency in our own country can’t serve as convincing proof, then nothing will. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/92 "2005-09-18T02:40:38Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I hope you’ll forgive my **simley** -face answer, but… 😃 😃 😃 Snerk. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/93 "2005-09-18T02:40:40Z")
Oh, I don’t know…something might, someday. But what you refer to (and here’s your chance to fight ignorance) could, I think, be called circumstantial evidence, and therefore not unrefutable, yes/no? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/94 "2005-09-18T02:41:43Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I hope you’ll forgive my simley-face answer, but… 😃 😃 😃 I can’t believe it!!! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/95 "2005-09-18T02:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, you could have said “lying piece of shit.” “Sociopath” might not be clinically accurate (it’s not a diagnosis I’m competent to make in any case), but it sure does carry the insinuation I want it to carry. That Mr. Bush has a chronic and severe disconnect from social norms of honesty and empathy. If I thought moderating my descriptions of the Pres would suddenly start making a difference in these discussions, I’d do that. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/96 "2005-09-18T02:51:42Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Oh, I don’t know…something might, someday Doubtful. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > . But what you refer to (and here’s your chance to fight ignorance) could, I think, be called circumstantial evidence, and therefore not unrefutable, yes/no? No. First, this is not a court of law. Their rules for proof and evidence are quite different than those dictated by general critical thinking skills. This normally isn’t a problem, but we shouldn’t reserve judgement just become someone cannot be convicted. Now… you seem to be using the phrase [‘circumstantial evidence’.](http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence) incorrectly. The ‘sexing up’ of intel reports, the ‘fixing facts’ around previously drawn conclusions, the decision to oust Sadaam no matter what and indeed to maneuver him into a corner so we could claim that as a justification, the blatant cherrypicking and distortions which went on at the OSP, the ‘yellow cake’ lie, etc… : none of these are in any doubt[sup]\*[/sup], and **all have a direct impact on the rush to war and Bush’s role in it.**. As such, they don’t seem circumstantial at all, although I’m certain a lawyer could argue either side if paid properly 😉 \*Or at least, I have never seen any single one challenged on factual grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/97 "2005-09-18T02:52:22Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > “Sociopath” might not be clinically accurate (it’s not a diagnosis I’m competent to make in any case), but it sure does carry the insinuation I want it to carry. T You want it to carry an inaccurate insinuation? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/98 "2005-09-18T03:03:34Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > You want it to carry an inaccurate insinuation? I think the insinuation is accurate, or I wouldn’t make it. The term itself has a clinical meaning which may not apply. I wouldn’t use it in a debate and I wouldn’t try and prove it as a claim. But I do endorse it as an apt insult in this case because of the connotation I’ve described. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/99 "2005-09-18T03:05:08Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Okay, it’ll be interesting to see what you come up with to try to support your claim. However, given that unless you are a mind-reader your so-called “proof” will still be utterly specious, I won’t expect too much of it. > > Besides, I thought you were watching movies with **Hentor**! > > 😃 I don’t even know what to make of this. Is this funny? **Starving Artist** , you’re a fool. You’re too stupid to be an apologist. You are more at a denialist, and you are the neocon’s bread and butter. I hope you have a boatload of cash and a vast estate, because otherwise, you are bent over the table with your pants around your ankles and Karl Rove’s meaty paws clutching your hips. Yet, all you choose to do is look back and give him the ‘Commander Crippen over the shoulder smile and thumbs up.’ You and people like you wrought this shit sandwich we are all having to eat. However, I am going to ask you something. I mean this with all sincerity. Please, will you stop being part of the problem and be part of the solution? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071/100 "2005-09-18T03:07:59Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Doubtful. So you yourself doubt that convincing proof will be established one day? 😉 > [@FinnAgain](#): > > No. > First, this is not a court of law. Their rules for proof and evidence are quite different than those dictated by general critical thinking skills. This normally isn’t a problem, but we shouldn’t reserve judgement just become someone cannot be convicted. Nor should we leap to judgement, particularly when “critical thinking skills” are required to come to a particular conclusion. Proof is proof; conclusions reached through critical thinking is open to debate. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Now… you seem to be using the phrase [‘circumstantial evidence’.](http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence) incorrectly. Well, I did after all only say I “thought” it could be called circumstantial evidence…but, aren’t you the one who just said this isn’t a court of law? 😛 > [@FinnAgain](#): > > The ‘sexing up’ of intel reports, the ‘fixing facts’ around previously drawn conclusions, the decision to oust Sadaam no matter what and indeed to maneuver him into a corner so we could claim that as a justification, the blatant cherrypicking and distortions which went on at the OSP, the ‘yellow cake’ lie, etc… : none of these are in any doubt[sup]\*[/sup], and **all have a direct impact on the rush to war and Bush’s role in it.**. As such, they don’t seem circumstantial at all, although I’m certain a lawyer could argue either side if paid properly 😉 Yes, they have an impact on Bush’s role in it, as does any pertinent information. This does not prove that Bush concocted it, nor does it prove Bush deliberately lied about it when he really knew better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cindy-sheehan-has-lost-her-ever-loving-mind/322071.md?page=6)