Thank you for proving my point.

betray, sell

deliver to an enemy by treachery; "Judas sold Jesus"; "The spy betrayed his country"


The sentence you italicized has "valiant combat soldier" as the direct object. The subject of the sentence is implied to be someone else. That someone else, according to the verbs, lied and sent the direct object to do something. Somewhat patronizing from the sound of the sentence, but hey Limbaugh has a reputation for arrogance which is the main reason I never read beyond the first chapter of his book.

Who do you figure the implied subject of the sentence was since it wasn't the direct object?

I agree that he probably won't have any dissenting guests on his show anytime soon. I could be wrong though. Either way I'm sure I won't hear it.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that treachery is a synonym of treason.

This reminds me of the many clips of O'Reilly beginning yet another bit of coverage of some Brittany Spears story with some remark like, "Of course, I couldn't care less about what this young woman does . . . "

So Bot, since you have posted on this thread some 30 times, the most in our fair group, I can conclude that you need a hobby?

Have you read what I posted or do you think magnitude tells the story? If the former, than you would know the latter is inaccurate. If the latter, you might try the former.

B

That is beside the point. I never said that moveon was correct on the facts. There has not been a peep from you, Duncan Hunter, or anyone else challenging the facts stated by moveon, so I'm thinking that they are probably correct on the facts. Whether they are correct on the facts, though, is irrelevant to their good faith belief in what they said, unless they gave knowlingly false statements. Remember the definition of "lie"? Same principle applies here.Oh, really? How about sharing some facts to support that claim.You're changing the subject. We weren't discussing moveon's political acumen, or lack thereof, we were talking about whether their argument was ad hominem. So far, you have offered nothing on that point.Good for you. It would be better, though, if you could offer at least one fact to support your condemnation (ad hominem?) of moveon.You continue to twist my words. I have said more than once that I condemn the type of behavior you ascribe to moveon. I just don't agree that they engaged in that behavior.

Deliciously ironic retorts considering the subject of the thread:

Sometimes I don't get irony. I must be thick. What is ironic about Botnst twisting my words?

MoveOn's excercise of free speech drew outrage from the right. Now Limbaugh's excercise of free speech draws outrage form the left. The only difference is what side you're standing on.
Are you suggesting that Petraeus can't or shouldn't be the subject of free speech because of his position?



I pointed out the plurality because Limbaugh's defense/explanation was that he was talking about one person only.
I personally don't care what Limbaugh says because he's an idiot. Just like I don't care what ads MoveOn runs, for the same reason.
I just find it extremely hypocritical for people like Republican Rep. Jack Kingston to say:
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate leadership denouncing them."

Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.

That is unbelievable.

I think I misspoke in a previous post.

Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.

MoveOn.org is political action committee.

I'm not so sure I disagree with Kingston.

So?Are you able to reconcile his statement about Limbaugh with his vote condemning moveon?

Given: Botnst = MediaMatters (Sorry Bot)



__________________

Does that help?

I thought in this country it was the public discourse without Congressional denunciation part that was important, not the nature of the speaker.

See post #137

Not particularly, but that's OK, there's no need for you to address any of the arguments I've offered. Nor should you or Botnst be called upon to offer any facts. We can just leave your "argument" laying there as is.