« If You’re Visiting Congo, Wear a Belt. With a Padlock. | Main | You don’t need grow lights and fancy hydroponics to get some cush stupidity »

Thursday’s in C*nt Punditry

This handy-dandy guide was assembled by the estimable excremental Michelle Malkin:


| Comments (3)


Rather than just making a snarky comment, how about pointing out the exact parts you object to and supplying sources to refute those statements?

I think it's pretty obvious what's objectionable here. Let's start with the PALN statement, he grants clemency 8 weeks before his presidency ends? Yet the "Aftermath" is a photo from a bombing in 1975? How is that not punditry in and of itself?

Two unrepentant bombers donated $200.00 to his campaign? And that's supposed to be some insurmountable evidence that he loves terrorists?

The letter from FARC? A leader met two anonymous Gringos who assured him that Obama would not sign the Free Trade Agreement? That's irrefutable evidence that Obama must love terrorists? Seriously? Hell, I get drunk and spout off more than that about what Obama will and won't do and I am a political science major who knows absolute shit about politics. But that MUST make what I said true, right? And of course that links directly to Obama.

How about asking Michelle Malkin to stop posting rumors and innuendos as facts?

I don't see what was wrong with this, aside from the attribution to Michelle Malkin. It's a blogger by the name of See-Dubya who occasionally posts on her site, though she has endorsed it.

But let's see: lawyergirl06 says that PALN isn't a set of terrorists? The aftermath photo is clearly the aftermath of one of their attacks in 75. Does Lawyergirl think that that attack was just peachy, and Clinton should be praised for those pardons?

As for the FARC thing: this is about what terrorists support the candidates, not which terrorists the candidates support. Both Clinton and Obama are right in line with FARC's opposition to the free trade agreement.

Lawyergirl should be asking, why the heck is Obama's name found approvingly on a terrorist in Columbia's computer. What reason is it there?

I note you don't say anything about Hamas. And Obama not only got political donations from the Weather underground, they held fundraisers for him, served with him on boards, and he calls people who set bombs in women's restrooms "normal."

That doesn't strike you as curious?