CrackpotAmerica
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-12-05 03:44 PM
Original message |
Cindy Sheehan's pre-association (meditation) with Michael Moore IS BUNK: |
|
If we review the postings on August 6th from Michael Moore's website, we would see that there were no postings of Mrs. Sheehan's vigil for most of the day.
As I am sure that many like myself have done, I referred a headline and a link to the Iconoclast website to michaelmoore.com. Some time later, I received a thank you email from the site for the "heads up." When I returned to the site, there was a small blurb on the homepage referring to her vigil. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY that I saw more focus placed on Mrs. Sheehan. Trust me, I check his site at least 40 times a day.
And so, the O'reilley assumption is BUNK.
if there is anyone out there who had referred this story to michaelmoore.com and received a reply, please post it and forward it to me. I shall compile all of them and post them around.
Thx!
Here's the reply I received: (blanked out the address so he is not inundated with email) From: ******@michaelmoore.com Subject: Re: CINDY SHEEHAN Date: August 6, 2005 4:39:06 PM EDT To: noone@designfromnowhere.com
Andrew,
Thanks for the heads-up. Just posted it. Much appreciated.
Peace, Eric
|
movonne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-12-05 04:05 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Who cares even if she was working with Michael Moore, the right |
|
as made him a boogie man...I find him a hero, and really dislike it when Dems put him down...he has been there from the beginning..
|
gratuitous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-12-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The conservative cabal will just say anything, won't they? |
|
It's pretty clear that Sheehan's stand has just discombobulated so many on the Repressive Right. She represents the majority opinion in the United States, and her simple question is unanswerable by this corrupt administration.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:25 AM
Response to Original message |