It's really too bad that we couldn't bring her son back and feed her dumbass to the worms instead. She's a pimple on the behind of humanity.
2006-10-24 10:12:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
The only part of the book Sheehan is objecting to is a bit about her personal life after her son's death. The book charges that she spent a lot of time in porno chat rooms and having affairs with married men. The writers have no proof of these things, only hearsay. Sheehan believes that the only reason this information is in the book is to discredit her.
If you use false information to discredit someone, that's the exact definition of libel (slander) and Sheehan is within her rights to sue.
This is not a case of censorship. This is the same reason that celebrities sue the National Enquirer. And they win.
This whole Sheehan thing is amusing, I think. If people had any FACTS to support their disagreement with her, they could probably use them to build a case against her that the majority of America would find compelling. Lacking that, they just try to tear down her character, the typical response of those of lesser intelligence.
2006-10-24 10:00:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chredon 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
RadLibs don't really believe in the 1st Amendment, they just believe that their view has a right to be heard, not anyone else's. Just like what happened with the Minutemen the other day up at Colombia.
Amen Sjean. All of our prayers for the brave and loyal soldiers.
2006-10-24 09:44:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by LoneStar 6
·
5⤊
3⤋
Cindy Sheehan only believes in censoring other peoples opinions, never her own. Typical liberal.
2006-10-24 09:46:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by beefstrokinoff39 3
·
6⤊
3⤋
Cindy doesn't want everyone to know she had multiple affairs after the death of her son which is why she wound up divorced.
Besides she is a Democrat and Liberal. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything to them.
ADDED: to rustyshackleford101: its in the book. I heard the authors talking about it BEFORE Cindy started with her lawsuit nonsense.
2006-10-24 09:45:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
5⤋
As with many of those who have extreme views both on the right and the left, she thinks free speech only applies tho those who agree wiht her world view.
2006-10-24 09:50:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by orangevike 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
Because she is a nasty woman who does not like Freedom of Speech. Her son is rolling over in his grave because of her actions. He served this counrty honorably and she is making a mockery of it. She should move if she has such a problem with GWB and how he runs this country.
2006-10-24 09:47:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by billybobcowboy 2
·
6⤊
2⤋
The BEST part of that story:
"These people are using our tragedy for profit," she charged.
Because Cindy would never use tragedy for profit. She is an embarassment.
2006-10-24 09:44:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by C = JD 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
Hello,
As long as she is not being censored, she is alright with all the conservatives and republicans being censored.
I believe this is the mantra and agenda of all liberal democrats. Am I right? Do as I say and not as I do?
Hope this helps you.......................:-)
2006-10-24 20:53:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why, imagine that. A peace and freedom loving civil-libertarian threatening to sue over public discourse.
SHEMALEHAN is but the tool of the socialist-Marxist-Billary-Soros funded hit team that is out to ruin our beloved country.
See who the true silencers of free-speech are------THE DNC AND THEIR ATTACK MUTTS, THE ACLU !
THESE SOCIALIST ANNELIDS WILL STEAL OUR CONSTITUTION AND PERVERT IT IN ORDER TO FURTHER THEIR GODLESS IDEA OF CREATING A NEW AMERICAN NOBILITY-----THEMSELVES!
SECOND AMENDMENT SUPPORTER UNITE UNDER THE BANNER OF CAPITALISM AND PURGE THESE NEO-BOLSHEVIK TRAITORS FROM OUR COUNTRY.
2006-10-24 09:51:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋