I suspect that if you don’t feed him, he’ll go away.
Footwear eats?
-Joe
But it “could be” true, and in StephSpeak, that’s as good as a cite.
And invalidating the conclusions you wish us to draw instead, as well as revealing that you hadn’t actually read it before you copy ‘n’ pasted it from yet another Powerline (or similar) blog post.
Why not just give us the links directly to the blogs you rely on exclusively to form your sorry little worldview, and don’t waste time paraphrasing them as your original contributions? It would save you both time and humiliation, and be no less honest.
So *when * are you enlisting in the glorious cause, schmuck?
Elvis, you are a stain on the SDMB.
That’s the biggest problem with fighting ignorance. Those whose ignorance is exposed often think you’re fighting them personally. Fortunately they can always be identified by their lack of any argument other than childish invective.
Debaser, you desperately need to grow the fuck up, even just a little bit would do.
From Elvis two messages before:
Good thing the attacks are never personal.
Elvis, you’re a fucking moron, and you discredit your own side. Every time you post there are about a dozen liberals who would normally agree with you who wince and wish you would just go away.
But the inner fanatic in you won’t even notice that you rarely even get support from your own side any more. Because they don’t want any of you to stick to their shoes.
Well, at least you’re good for a laugh on occasion.
Debaser, your mental gymnastics amuse me. I like the “Swiftboaters didn’t lie” statement. Of course they lied.
Considering how “lying” was thrown around in the previous administration, it’s quite remarkable how much has to occur before you’ll admit that your guys lied.
For example: In the Swiftboat ads a man named Van O’Dell claims: “ John Kerry lied to get his bronze star…I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” Basically he claims they weren’t under fire. However, the other people on Kerry’s boat claimed they were under fire, the Naval records claim they were, and one of the few people who back O’Dell on this issue, got a medal for…you guessed it, being under fire!
Now we can believe the other Swiftboaters (apparently the ones not for truth), who were there and on the same damn boat, the Naval records, and logic, or we can’t back ourselves into a mental corner, and say the SVFT didn’t lie.
What exactly do you consider a lie? I know this is hard to believe, but I consider it lying when someone tells me an untruth. It’s immaterial what their motivations are, or whether they realize it’s an untruth. If I am presented with a “fact” that turns out not to be true. Then in my world, that is a lie.
I recently heard a quote from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and it’s now my new favorite:
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.”
Here’s Steph96’s next talking point:
Brought to you via the Huffington Post.
Too right. Because as we all know, little Bush ankle-humpers, such as yourself, Debaser and Steph96, are doing sooo well in the public eye these days:
Public’s doubts grow about Iraq war
New poll reflects growing U.S. worry over Iraq
Wonder why? Nothing to do with what’s happening on the ground, could it?
At least 43 killed, 88 wounded in blasts
Iraq morgue ‘receives 1100 dead’
Naw, best to ignore reality and keep dry-humping Georgieboy. Spin, spin, spiiiin! Wheehaaw!
What is Rush even implying? That she didn’t have a son who died in Iraq?
That is the single funniest thing I’ve seen this week. It’s even funnier than the the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
You can’t help wonder if somebody kindly took that yahoo aside and explained it to him.
And speaking of yahoos: Sammy, does that little foot-stamping display mean you’re *not * going to tell us what tighty blog you copied that “poll” from, to present to us as both factual and relevant? I mean, you would if you could, right?
Naw, that’s all right, we all know by now you don’t have the courage even to do that much, to say nothing of putting your *own * ass into the same danger you demand the Americans accept. Speaks a lot of you, ya know, none of it positive.
From reading your posts I think this is the pot calling the kettle black.
The thing that irritates me about this whole thing is that such a big deal is being made Cindy changing her mind and her attitude toward Bush, as if that makes it all meaningless and just pretense. Lot’s of people have changed their mind about the war and Bush, including a republican congressman which was discussed here a few weeks back.
Look at the record of Bush and his little posse in DC. How many times have they changed their story.
So what if Moore or MoveOn are influencing her? Rush and ORielly calling them dangerous left wing radicals is just bullshit. I may not like their tactics but the dangerous ones are the people making policy decisions that affect the lives of millions.
So what if her family disagrees or she and her husband seperates? What the fuck does any of that have to do with the questions “Why are Americans giving their lives everyday in Iraq?” “Should we bring our soilders home?” Those are the questions that are being asked and should be asked. They are not meaningless or irrelevant because someone contrived to get them attention. They are essential questions.
I read the Rush quote posted just before mine. If you can read that kind of slanted biased dishonest BS and give it a nod of approval then you are just as mindless as anyone you accuse. That kind of BS is coming from both sides and we should have the nads to call bullshit what it is no matter who it comes from.
I’ll try this one more time. I have never said I know Michael Moore is behind Cindy Sheehan. I’ve said I tend to believe it for the following reasons:
-
There is certainly a connection between the two. Moore’s website has become All Cindy/All The Time. This suggests to me a prior arrangement of some sort. Maybe anyone can simply post to Moore’s homepage without his permission…I have no idea. Something tells me they have had contact with each other. Is this a big deal? Not at all. She’s free to do whatever she wants and he’s free to post whatever he wishes on his site.
-
This whole stunt smacks of Moore’s vile strategy of a) demanding a meeting with someone you know will never meet with you (Roger & Me ) and b) putting grieving mothers before the cameras as if they are beyond any criticism (Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 ).
-
She has suddenly begun referring to US soldiers as “children,” a classic Moore tactic designed to put any opponent into the impossible position of justifying the murder of toddlers (Moore to Bill O’Reilly: “Would you sacrifice your child to sacrifice Fallujah?”).
-
Something has changed her mind since her last meeting with Bush. Is she allowed to change her mind? Of course. But the fact remains that she did meet with Bush and did not call him a ‘murderer’ when she had the chance. She said nice things about him, in fact. Squawk about the ‘context’ all you like…you cannot deny that she said what she has been quoted as saying.
Now. As I said, I have no problem if Moore and Sheehan are in cahoots to bring down the Bush presidency. Hell, I don’t even care if they’re lovers (although I’m not sure which partner I’d feel most sorry for!). Sheehan has every single right to protest the war in Iraq, just as I have every single right to question her motives. Does it matter if Moore is behind Sheehan’s stunt? I’d argue that most Americans would feel very differently about what she’s doing if it turned out it was nothing more than a Michael Moore publicity stunt. I’m not saying that anyone would feel that she hasn’t suffered an unimaginable loss or think she *doesn’t * have the right to protest the war…I’m simply saying, my opinion, that it would change a lot of views on the topic. I further think that if there is a connection (beyond the website postings), why not simply admit it? I’d just like to know who approached whom about the website. I don’t think it’s particularly evil to ask this question.
Why isn’t Michael Moore in Crawford? Good question. I’d argue that Kerry’s loss in November hurt Moore huge , and he may have come to the realization that these types of stunts might work better without his direct involvment. Who knows? Maybe he’d rather it didn’t become a ‘Michael Moore Event’ in the public eye.
You’ve become rather “All Moore/All The Time” yourself. Do you have a prior arrangement with Mr. Moore to make him look good by the constant lameitude of your rants against him and Ms. Sheehan? What’s he paying you?
Do people really think this way? “She was polite to someone’s face even though she disagrees with him! Michael Moore must be behind this!” Wow.
I read an op-ed column in the Christian Science Monitor today that also referred to soldiers as “sons and daughters”, something no one has ever done in the history of the printed word. Who knew Michael Moore had so much pull with the editors of that fine publication? Who knew?
Stephe96 is playing the “guilt-by-constant-association” trick. Lame.
Maybe he thinks Casey Sheehan isn’t buried in a cemetary somewhere, but is actually hiding in an attic, playing video games on an XBox and munching on Cheetos while his Mom is staging a “fake” vigil/protest in the Crawford sun…
Exactly. So there’s no point to the speculation.