When you want evidence for a position contrary to yours and it’s provided, you discount it because, no matter how well presented, it has to be a lie if it doesn’t follow your twisted and arrogant way of thinking.

If I say that the MoveOn ad is misleading and that it is disrespectul and then you say it isn’t, then why should I go any further and waste my time proving something that you are too closed minded to accept under any circumstances?

Rather than me telling you any further what’s wrong with MoveOn’s ad (all of it), why don’t you gather all of your left-wing sources to tell me why it’s completely accurate? Then, I can show how gullible, emotional, radical, or analytically challenged that you actually are.

BTW, I don’t consider Gen. Petraeus to be a liar, as you do based upon what you only suspect and don’t know, and I don’t pick and choose what I want to believe from our commander in Iraq based upon merely what suits me.

I hope this is clear enough for you, if your early drug use hasn’t affected your brain too much.

On the length of comments (this one necessarily long to help you comprehend), you prove that left-wingers need a lot of words to try to explain what cannot be explained and use a lot of words at other times to confuse people who accept that length of comment and substance are equivalent.

Your positions are almost always wrong and are deliberately misleading–unless you are just plain stupid.

The “magic” word which is trapped by Marc’s filter is “idiot” and its many synonyms;
Ass, dope, blockhead, dimwit, imbecile, ding-bat, jack-ass, jerk, moron, nincompoop, schmuck, turkey, twit, and last and definitely not least “WOODY”

That’s okay.

Neither can he…

Here we go again; this is the type of comment that is utterly useless in content and substance. I can see you are not a student of math or science where one deals in proofs and theorems.

My first thought was that a Republican operative planted in MoveOn coined the ad to provide material to beat up on Democratic contenders (in Usenet, especially on Hillary). But I’m getting too paranoid, old age I guess.

Your take is reasonable.

The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels” is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.

“Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.”

reg: As to Petraeus, his report was clearly phony and scripted – which was evident when he asserted that no one at the White House had been told what he was going to say. Only a fool could consider that claim credible.

See.

- – -

The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels” is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.

“Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.”

the_brain, I am only a contributor to the blog site that I referenced, whereas reg is a detractor on the site of another equally reality challenged person.

I grew up in a household with four kids and all of us turned out differently, and none of us considered it authoritarian. I can discuss issues with my siblings and understand them, because they don’t start cursing and ranting and losing control of their tempers when put on the defense.

I decided in my adult life that the situational ethics that I see from liberals was not honest and that absolutes of right and wrong, despite one’s desired results, was always best.

I don’t lose arguments with reg, as he consistently takes indefensible positions and tries to justify them with quotes from people with other indefensible positions, like at the top. I quit giving him evidence, as it was apparent that he considered all evidence that contradicted him as being unacceptable. How convenient. reg still thinks that the moon landing took place in Hollywood.

On veterans, wouldn’t it have solved a lot of questions if John Kerry has actually signed the Form 180 so that everyone could see for themselves whether he was telling the truth about his wounds for discharge within three months of action and whether or not he was dishonorably discharged, as all evidence suggests? Is it wrong to bring up such questions to those who wish to run our country? Is it wrong to expect a Senator and presidential candidate to agree to sign such a form and then to actually do it?

At least no one that I know questions a veteran until that veteran has had a chance to speak, unlike reg and Gen. Petreus.

To determine the content of GM’s site, you would hardly get a fair picture from reg. To understand the site where reg posts, you must “suspend all faith in the truth.”

I don’t remember the number, but something like 45% of those who took the poll admitted that they knew very little or nothing about the issue–a lot like some of you who pretend to “know everything from the beginning.”

Now, why should I tell you what’s inaccurate about the ad when you wouldn’t agree if God himself told you? It’s a waste of time. However, I pointed out problems with the ad and the intentional misconceptions that it left to the uninformed reader. MoveOn can bully and deceive as well as the Clinton’s.

Someone has a self-awareness problem.

“turn the discussion to who, exactly, profits from inflammatory peacenik charges and watch the LEFT shut down. Can anyone tell me how much money Moveon.org has made in donations since they ran their disgusting, contemptible ad?”

$1,705,126.47 as of 1:27 am, PST, 9/25/07. The figure is constantly updated on their decidedly NOT “shut down” donation web page.

Sorry comment above was cut-off.

reg, the MoveOn ad was , reached false conclusions before the General’s report and Congressional questioning, and implied that a respected, currently serving general, unanimously approved by the Democrats, was a liar and traitor and not deserving of respect.

What FACTS were factually incorrect? Give a specific example such as XXX numbers of Iraqi were not killed in XXX city.

You guys here are pretty pathetic, I’m would put it at about the 92% pathetic factor.