Don't lie & say you are "behind the troops" when you ignore their heroism

[sirs]

<<And thank you for that completely subjective opinion. >>

Oooops!  I forgot!  O'Reilly, of course, is fair and balanced.  HAS to be.  After all, he works for Fox News doesn't he?

Ooo, I can play this one as well......and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On.  Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought          

[Michael Tee]

<<and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On.  Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought >>

Really?  MoveOn pays her and gives her a regular cable network audience?  I had no idea!!  Gee, sirs, you sure seem to know a lot about the news business.  What, if I may ask, is your source for that little tidbit?

[sirs]

<<and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On.  Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought >>

Really?  MoveOn pays her and gives her a regular cable network audience? 

Did I say "pay".  Funny how the above sentence of mine specifically said "cues".  Need some more work on those reading comprehension skills, Tee. (and theTee desperation hole just keeps getting deeper)

[Michael Tee]

<<Did I say "pay".  Funny how the above sentence of mine specifically said "cues".  Need some more work on those reading comprehension skills, Tee. (and theTee desperation hole just keeps getting deeper)>>

No, you didn't say "pay."  I was the one who said "pay."  Like most of your lies and bullshit, what you leave out is more significant than what you put in - - in this case, the $9 million that Fox pays O'Reilly is a little more of an incentive than whatever imaginary "cues" you claim are being given by MoveOn to Cindy Sheehan.  One thing MoveOn doesn't give Cindy Sheehan (despite all the imaginary "cues" that only you can see) is money, specifically nine million dollars worth.

[sirs]

Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types.  At least it's entertaining     

[Christians4LessGvt]

sirs,

here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl

http://pol.moveon.org/cindyvigils/pics.html

[Michael Tee]

<<Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types. >>

Oh, I read what you type alright, sirs, but since you're such a BS artist, and love to spin half-truths, it's much more entertaining to point out what you DON'T write, as for example in your comparison of the sincerity of Bill O'Reilly to that of Cindy Sheehan, where you conveniently "forget" to point out the little detail of the $9 million that Fox pays O'Reilly (and that MoveOn doesn't pay Cindy Sheehan.)  But that's more than made up for by your loony assertion that Cindy "gets her cues" (whatever the hell THAT'S supposed to mean) from MoveOn.

[Michael Tee]

<<here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl>>

Gee, I'm shocked - - SHOCKED, I tell you - - that an anti-war movement supports anti-war mothers.  What's the world coming to?  As if the pro-war Swiftboat Liars for Fascism didn't support pro-war liars and con artists like Bush and Cheney.

[Plane]

<<here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl>>

Gee, I'm shocked - - SHOCKED, I tell you - - that an anti-war movement supports anti-war mothers.  What's the world coming to?  As if the pro-war Swiftboat Liars for Fascism didn't support pro-war liars and con artists like Bush and Cheney.

Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?


Lie for lie which comes out on top?

[Michael Tee]

<<Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?>>

Pay a little more attention and you'll see that what was being compared was partisanship, not methods.


<<Lie for lie which comes out on top?>>

Let's see - - Swiftboat Liars for Fascism's message was that Kerry wasn't really wounded in action, that he was a self-seeking coward and that in at least one of the engagements in which he claimed to have been wounded, there was no hostile fire directed at him or his boat.  (Contradicted by all but one of his crew.)

MoveOn.org's message is that Bush and Cheney are cowardly, lying, draft dodgers and combat avoiders who make up phony reasons for wars in which other men will fight and die. 

So as liars, which comes out on top?   Hehehehehe - - I'm gonna just say, I've already figured that one out before the question was asked.  But you go ahead and come to your own conclusions, plane.  I know you're not gonna accept mine.  We'll just hafta let history be the judge of that.

[Plane]

<<Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?>>

Pay a little more attention and you'll see that what was being compared was partisanship, not methods.


<<Lie for lie which comes out on top?>>

Let's see - - Swiftboat Liars for Fascism's message was that Kerry wasn't really wounded in action, that he was a self-seeking coward and that in at least one of the engagements in which he claimed to have been wounded, there was no hostile fire directed at him or his boat.  (Contradicted by all but one of his crew.)

MoveOn.org's message is that Bush and Cheney are cowardly, lying, draft dodgers and combat avoiders who make up phony reasons for wars in which other men will fight and die. 

So as liars, which comes out on top?   Hehehehehe - - I'm gonna just say, I've already figured that one out before the question was asked.  But you go ahead and come to your own conclusions, plane.  I know you're not gonna accept mine.  We'll just hafta let history be the judge of that.

Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.

Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.

A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.

[Michael Tee]

<<Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.>>

You lost me there, plane, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

<<Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.>>

I'm not a big fan of MoveOn.org, I don't get my information from them anyway, so I'm not really qualified to debate you on this one.  Bottom line is I don't know what you're talking about, and if I tried to contradict you, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

<<A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.>>

I take it from that last remark that MoveOn.org has been caught in more than one false statement.  If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world.   As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the G.W. Bush "Presidency."

[Plane]

<<Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.>>

You lost me there, plane, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

<<Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.>>

I'm not a big fan of MoveOn.org, I don't get my information from them anyway, so I'm not really qualified to debate you on this one.  Bottom line is I don't know what you're talking about, and if I tried to contradict you, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

<<A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.>>

I take it from that last remark that MoveOn.org has been caught in more than one false statement.  If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world.   As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the G.W. Bush "Presidency."

Sheer mendacity is the explanation I lean twards , of course for move on .com

But for the Swift boat veterans for truth even though Swift boat veterans for truth has been caught in more than one false statement.  If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world.   As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the John Kerry Candidacy.

[sirs]

<<Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types. >>

Oh, I read what you type alright, sirs, but since you're such a BS artist, and love to spin half-truths, it's much more entertaining to point out what you DON'T write

Because of course, you know what I was thinking         

[Michael Tee]

<<Because of course, you know what I was thinking >>

Don't flatter yourself, sirs.  All you fascist fruitbats think pretty much along the same lines, and your bullshit follows a pattern that hasn't changed much from the time of Josef Goebbels.  I can read you like a book.