1. I replied to the subject. Not you.
2. 4 post back you spent 90% of your thread flinging stupid insults to get a fight.
Your trolling and nothing more.
So I'll use you..and any stupid reply you make after this for whatever the hell I feel like.
That way I'll not only disrespect you but also not play the game you want.
Heres a good article from of all place the Seattle -PI..
Its from 2004 so maybe they hadn't gone full Lunatic Lafty by then..but now the S-I is lunatic left all the way...almost a joke in Washington now.
Quote:
Whines come in from the loony left
By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
They can dish out criticism but can't take it. They are thin-skinned. They like to curse, using choice epithets when a messenger puts out a political message that hits too close to home.
Who? Surprise -- not ultra-right-wing Republicans, though that description has at times fit them.
I'm talking about the super-left-wing loonies among the Democrats, specifically those folks who so blindly lapped up the comments that drooled last month from Congressman Jim McDermott's lips.
When I pointed out that McDermott pulled a "McDuhmott" for suggesting that President Bush timed the capture of Saddam Hussein for political gain, it touched off a firestorm among my fellow Democrats.
"Your references to Congressman McDermott ... are laden with sarcasm, half-truths and dare I say it, political smears that are worthy of reptilian forces currently in control of our country," blasted Sara DeHart of Lynnwood.
"Speaking of 'irresponsible verbal diarrhea,' don't you think that Bush & Co. are in much greater need of an Imodium capsule than Jim McDermott?" Michael Bright asked.
Another reader said he supported the congressman's comments. He said I was wrong, invoking a colorful racial epithet for critical emphasis.
Meanwhile, Chris Greenlee of Vashon Island wondered: "You tell us that McDermott's comments are way off base because he doesn't trust the people in the White House and wouldn't put it past them (to) set up the capture of this dictator for their own political advantage.
"Have you looked into the facts?"
Chris, that's the very question I've been raising about McDermott all along. Where were his facts? He didn't serve them up when he blabbered on KIRO airwaves.
Shortly after the congressman spoke, stories broke in Europe and in the Middle East suggesting that Saddam was not in hiding but had been a prisoner before U.S. leaders cheered: "We got him."
Some foreign media reports claimed Kurdish forces nabbed the bad-guy dictator and turned him over to coalition forces; other reports, at the very least, credited the Kurds with paving the way for his capture.
But McDermott's radio rant came with little proof. He didn't even go on a limb and cite speculative foreign news reports. Even if he had, not even those reports went so far as to allege political calculation by Bush.
No wonder radio listener Wally Smith was at a loss when he tuned in to the radio and caught McDermott. "I thought some nut was advancing (a) conspiracy theory," says Smith, who "almost drove his car off the road" when he learned it was a congressman speaking. "I bet he believes the CIA is waiting until election eve in November to trot out Osama bin Laden to ensure Bush's re-election."
That is precisely the problem with McDermott and his bout of logorrhea. By playing loose with words and facts the congressman fanned flames of conspiracy at a time when people are already weaving so many kooky theories.
Talk about irresponsible.
To be sure, the Bush administration has given the public reason for doubt. Bush & Co. has produced clumsy deceptions and sloppy attempts at spin control. Who could forget the Thanksgiving photo op -- complete with faux turkey -- when Bush dropped in to surprise the troops in Baghdad? And what about the Jessica Lynch "hero" story that even Lynch said was pumped up with patriotic fictions to boost a war-weary nation?
Add on Bush's shifting justifications for why we went to war in the first place. Saddam? Terrorism? To plant the seeds of democracy? To find curiously elusive weapons of mass destruction? All of this feeds public suspicions that leaders will do whatever is necessary to achieve objectives. Even distort or deceive.
Given such a convoluted swirl, the last thing the nation needs is a congressman, from the safest seat in the most left-leaning part of the region, shooting wildly from the hip.
In July, I praised McDermott for his willingness to go to Baghdad and raise hard questions about the war. He'd done his homework. He'd spoken with Iraqi people. He saw what was happening with his own eyes. At the time, he stood on a solid -- if highly controversial -- soapbox.
Last month, when McDermott took to the radio waves, his soapbox was flimsier than wet cardboard -- a point not lost on some who normally support the congressman. "You're right to criticize the unfounded remarks of McDermott," writes John Pearson of Bothell. "I value McDermott's courage to criticize -- but not his 'unsubstantiveness.' "
It is admirable to have a leader who is willing to stick his or her neck out among the lemmings in Washington, D.C. We could use more people like that inside the Beltway. As the writer Studs Terkel points out, "Without dissidence there is no America."
But in times so precarious and charged as these, the voices of dissidence must be resolute and grounded in facts if they are to be taken seriously. These voices should not become megaphones for hollow rhetoric, half-baked suspicions and inflammatory hot air that only serve to pull the country further apart.
Are you listening, Mr. Congressman?
|
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamies..._robert05.html
