What if you held a party ...

[alphamale]

... and nobody came?

Rush today: Cindy Sheehan came back to Crawford with her new book, ready to sign copies. Only problem: except for the usual herd of LME reporters hoping to pick up some more anti-Bush propaganda, nobody wanted a book! Nobody! Someone tell ol' Cin her 15 minutes have expired!

[viscousmemories]

Yeah, nobody came except about 100 supporters, despite the remote location, heavy rains and the fact that it was Thanksgiving weekend. You and Rush have a lot in common.

[D. Scarlatti]

Nothing warms the conservative's heart like mocking a woman's grief.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Yeah, nobody came except about 100 supporters, despite the remote location, heavy rains and the fact that it was Thanksgiving weekend. You and Rush have a lot in common.

About 35 supporters, and lotsa reporters, as I said, looking for ammunition against their enemy Bush.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Nothing warms the conservative's heart like mocking a woman's grief.

Quit the crapola. Cin has gone WAAYYYYY past her "grief free pass". Because her son got killed, when she directly enters the political arena, everyone is supposed to assume a respectful silence while she attacks Bush for standing up for our country's security? Bullshit. She has a right to free speech, and so do I.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Bush for standing up for our country's security? Bullshit.

We do agree on something

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by alphamale

About 35 supporters, and lotsa reporters, as I said, looking for ammunition against their enemy Bush.

According to this Washington Post article, she addressed a crowd of "only about 100" Saturday afternoon, and "In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd."

I don't know if the morning crowd grew to around 100, or if the 100 who were there in the afternoon were in addition to those that had their books signed in the morning. According to Sheehan herself, "I sold all 100 copies and got writer's cramp signing them. Photos were taken of me before the people got in line to have me sign the book."

According to a letter from her publisher to her supporters, "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…. the benefit books igning in Crawford, Texas on November 26, 2005 was well attended and a huge success."

In other words, like many things you post your "Only problem: except for the usual herd of LME reporters hoping to pick up some more anti-Bush propaganda, nobody wanted a book! Nobody!" in the OP appears to be a patent falsehood. Why do you perpetuate these lies? Can't you find any honest and reputable reporting out there to support your views?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

According to this Washington Post article, she addressed a crowd of "only about 100" Saturday afternoon, and "In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd."

I don't know if the morning crowd grew to around 100, or if the 100 who were there in the afternoon were in addition to those that had their books signed in the morning. According to Sheehan herself, "I sold all 100 copies and got writer's cramp signing them. Photos were taken of me before the people got in line to have me sign the book."

According to a letter from her publisher to her supporters, "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…. the benefit books igning in Crawford, Texas on November 26, 2005 was well attended and a huge success."

In other words, like many things you post your "Only problem: except for the usual herd of LME reporters hoping to pick up some more anti-Bush propaganda, nobody wanted a book! Nobody!" in the OP appears to be a patent falsehood. Why do you perpetuate these lies? Can't you find any honest and reputable reporting out there to support your views?

Sorry - to state the obvious, her publisher is hardly a disinterested source. As for the Washington Post - lessee, they're the employers of Bob Woodward, who was concealing info about the CIA leak case? Yeah, a real "honest and reputable" source.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Sorry - to state the obvious, her publisher is hardly a disinterested source. As for the Washington Post - lessee, they're the employers of Bob Woodward, who was concealing info about the CIA leak case? Yeah, a real "honest and reputable" source.

Okay, so the Washington Post, Sheehan's publisher and Sheehan herself are all part of a conspiracy to conceal the fact that nobody purchased a single one of her books while claiming that they were all sold, but you know the real truth 'cause Rush Limbaugh told you so. Can't argue with that 'reasoning'.

[Jesus Christ]

You cite no article, or any news source whatsoever, and then demand that we accept your version of events when news articles that do exist say something entirely contrary to your position? Does it hurt to be that retarded, or have your mental deficiencies reached such a point that they act as an anesthetic, dulling the misery that your wretched life must be?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Okay, so the Washington Post, Sheehan's publisher and Sheehan herself are all part of a conspiracy to conceal the fact that nobody purchased a single one of her books while claiming that they were all sold, but you know the real truth 'cause Rush Limbaugh told you so. Can't argue with that 'reasoning'.

So Limbaugh is part of the "neocon conpiracy" - YUK HAR HEE! - operated from a janitor's closet in a pentagon sub-basement - GIGGLE - while Sheehan, who's nutsy behavior includes asking for "an end to the occupation of new orleans", and the chief investigator of the WP who witholds info from a grand jury investigation, and Sheehan's publisher (what is it, Nutcase Appeaser Press? ) are impeccable sources?