Don't come out of there
Posted on 06/16/2006 5:05:55 PM PDT by ChessExpert
“As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo's valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."
From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as wimps and crybabies "with a yellow stripe down their backs."
Maybe I'm biased, but nothing – absolutely nothing – Ann Coulter has said about Murtha, Kerry or McClellan strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore's blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th century.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
And yet it is in the same paragraph in which she discusses the evidence against Coplon, immediately after quoting Ramsey. Strange, ins't it?
If you think Coulter has a clue (or a care) who Bruce Ramsey is, you are sadly mistaken.
That must be why she quoted him in her book.
I take it that is you still looking for the Coulter lie you were going to produce.
Remember, you had so many?
LOL
Don't come out of there
Excuse me, but Sam pinged his list. Not me. And it was specific to nail one FReeper. If he was mopping up the floor just fine why did he dial up the janitorial staff?
"In 2002, the Seattle Times described the case against accused spy Judith Coplon as "entirely circumstantial."
MY GOD WHAT A LIE. LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE! WHY A LYING WITCH!!!! -- JTN
Except, it's entirely true.
(Note to self--don't argue with druggies. It's like talking to a stoned wall.)
If you think she can really be that careless, then why believe anything she has to say?
After seeing what has transpired in this thread, I trust you will be more sceptical in the future.
I guess if, in your world, portraying an article that includes the statement, "Coplon was a spy" as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union ..." is a shining example of honesty, then yes, her statements on this matter are entirely true.
Too Easily Persuaded into an Unnecessary War by Bruce Ramsey Here is a small sample of his piece:
The president didn't have the facts. Some people said in his defense that he probably knew more than he was saying. They overestimated him. –
I sure hope you don’t stick by your premise that is a conservative?
He is two faced in this article as well. he states he voted for Bush. HA!
if you don't get it by now, you never will.
i never read much on this guy but I would bet nearly everything he writes is two faced. if he is the token Conservative in Washington no wonder the state has no hope.
The relevant questions are, what are the accuracy rate? Was it intended as a specific remark, or to illustrate a larger point? Was it careless, reckless, a lie, a damn lie, or a statistic?
Jumping the gun like you just did is not the way to bolster your credibility anywhere except on DU.
Cheers!
Yep, flaming lib like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Matt Drudge, etc. Look, believe what you want, but I'm through with you, Sam Hill and the rest. I'd keep it up for the lurkers, but I don't see how anyone who came into this with an open mind could not see Coulter for the dishonest fool she is after what has been posted here. I'm done.
Don't try to quote that liberal commie-symp Wikipedia crud to me
Wow so you came to kick ass and chew bubble gum and you're out of bubble gum? well that sucks 'cause you haven't kicked any ass.
I don't know this guy but what I do know he is no Conservative. I doubt he even knows what a Consservative is.
In post 13, JTN quotes from the Seattle newspaper article in question.
In that article, Ramsey self-identifies that he is "no liberal".
Cheers!
I suppose he thinks more of the pingees on his list than a cheering section. That he was pinging "the staff" to pile on in a flame-war was a ridiculous assertion when you made it in that thread. To continue to assert it tonite is, to quote your rather unremarkable prose, "frankly shocking and disgraceful."
Here's a clue: why don't you ask him why he used his ping list in that thread? You can do it in Freepmail and you don't have to expose your fatuity to the rest of us. Once you find out, keep it to yourself--continuing to plead your case that you were harmed by his thoughtless ping (the horror!) is childish beyond belief.
ok.. thanks i understand.
You are silly.
It is obvious why he used his ping list to target one FReeper. Tell me, was his ping to cultivate discussion or hammer someone? (Remember, I gave the link.)
You sound just like Ann. I never said his ping was a "horror," just inappropriate. If you want to think it was a horror, that's your bag, LOL.
I cannot speak for Sam Hill. IMO, The act of pinging his list was not to encourage "his posse," or his "janitorial staff" to "gang-pile on another Freeper", but to call attention to his yeoman's work exposing a wholly ad hominem argument of a certain abusive Freeper.
By way of analogy, he was a hunter inviting his fellows to view the carcass of an elephant he had bagged. His inviting his ping list you to view his trophy, does not imply that he wanted any help in flogging the dead animal.
A full 3 hours later, you show up (post 572), remark upon the trophy, and unimpressed with its significance, patronizingly ask him "to please refrain from using it this way again."
Let me be clear here: You do not have the right to argue with SH about how he should use his own ping list. You do have the right to ask off of it or on it.
Just as you have rights, SH has the right to exclude you from his list. Yet you continue to badger him in public about it, stalking him on this thread to get your dignity back.
You had a disagreement with him about his usage of his ping list. Rather than listen to you second-guess him, he takes you off. Two days later, in the hunt for another elephant you start nipping at his heels and proclaim to the world "I got punished by Sam Hill the other night, he evicted me from his ping list! . . . He used his ping list to gang-pile on another FReeper. . ." He tried "calling the posse (who never showed up!) [that] was weak." Now you've insulted him twice: he's encouraged the hammering of a Freeper and his posse won't help him out because he's weak. (see "KJC1 called 'pathetic twit'" posted above)
What is weak is your attempt to conflate your disagreement of two nights ago with the arguments on this thread--they are wholly unrelated. Instead of engaging Sam Hill on that subject you snipe like a sissy-mary spreading nasty rumors about the pretty girl who won't talk to you.
You sound just like Ann.
I'll take that as a compliment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
Took all of 5 seconds to find it.
Google is your friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.