There's "Do as I say" and "Do as I do". You voted wholeheartedly for Trump twice, and will a third time. And you express Far Right views all the time.
You're a bald-faced liar. As I've explained to you before, I voted for Trump reluctantly; Trump was not even in my top three picks among GOP primary candidates; and I've been very critical of Trump's personal conduct in many forums. But don't let truth or facts get in your way.
My "Far Right" views?! Yeah, like my support for affirmative action, my support for Obamacare, my support for universal health insurance, my support for red flag laws, my support for a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, my support for full legal status for Dreamers, my support for the infrastructure bill that Biden signed, etc., etc., etc.? The problem is you're a left-wing wingnut who has no regard for truth and who regards anyone who votes for a candidate you don't like as "far right."
You're gaslighting, like a true Trump Republican.
"You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp. You really wanted
an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam. In other words, if you have to
do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine. If you want to firebomb
Haiphong, fine. If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
-- James DiEugenio
"This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
"anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
-- Paul Jolliffe
"Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
-- James DiEugenio
"This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
-- Benjamin Cole
"It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
-- Pat Speer
"Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
-- James Wilkinson
"You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
-- James Wilkinson
"Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
-- Paul Brancato
Is this one of those issues your CT "buddies" lap up and agree with you on?
Wow, just how gutter dishonest can you get? Sheesh, what dishonest trash.
One, I blew those people out of the water in the thread from which you're cherry-picking. Funny how you didn't quote any of my replies, where I pointed out the many statements they made that showed they had no clue what they were talking about. Folks, by all means, go to the JFK Assassination Debate forum in The Education Forum and read that thread on Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War, and you'll see how dishonest Jerry Organ's cherry-picking is, not to mention that I thoroughly refuted the replies of the people he's quoted.
Two, why didn't you quote any of the people in the thread who agreed with me, hey? Why did you only select the handful of ultra-liberals who disagreed with me? Answer: Because you're a liar.
Three, why didn't you quote from any of the two dozen or so other threads in that forum where nearly all conspiracy theorists agreed with me? Why did you pick just that one thread and only pick comments regarding the Vietnam War? You cherry-picked so dishonestly because that's what you do all the time here.
Four, why did you ignore the fact that when I talked about how most people agreed with me in that forum, I specifically said they agreed with me about the JFK assassination. The statements you just quoted all involve the Vietnam War.
The wedding ring on the right hand in 133-A doesn't cast a full shadow because of its angle to the sun. Notice how the right forearm in 133-A is sun-struck.
Compare with the same ring on the same hand in 133-B. Because the ring on the right hand is now more oblique toward the sun, the ring casts a full shadow onto the finger. Notice how the right forearm in 133-B is now no longer sun-struck because it is now angled oblique to the sun.
It's the same ring in 133-A and 133-B; just that the ring in 133-B projects a shadow that falls onto the width of the finger. This merely gives the ring a sense of depth lacking in 133-A.
Oh, of course. Yeah, you bet. It's the sun, the angle, a shadow, etc. Hogwash. You see what is not there because you have to see it.
Furthermore, you ignored the point that the ring in 133-B is clearly the same ring in 133-C but that it's on a different hand in the two photos. Did you just forget to address that key point?
By the way, where in 133-A do we see the ring on his left hand that we see on his left hand in 133-C? Where is it? Are you going to say the sun makes it vanish too? Why is there no ring on his left hand in 133-A? How did this large, obvious ring on the left hand in 133-C vanish in 133-A? Pray tell.
Jack White presented this issue to the HSCA? Seems pretty easy to refute. Can you show us where White presented the issue to the Photographic Evidence Panel?
Can you ever stop twisting and distorting? Did I say that White presented this issue to the HSCA? No, I did not. But you set up another dishonest strawman and proceeded from there, as you are wont to do.
The HSCA PEP did not limit their reply to what White had said in his HSCA presentation. The PEP responded to what critics had said in articles published in other sources. The ring contradiction had been raised by a number of critics. Yet, the HSCA chose to remain silent on the subject, even though, according to your delusions, it should have been low-hanging fruit.
