Subject: Thanks for nothing
Thanks for lumping my support for Parry with Matthews,
Pretty dickish - and wholly idiotic. You know
that's not true.
If you open the conversation with a personal slutr,
how surprised can you be if I defend myself?
As you've spent enough time on ConsortiumNews
to clip columns you
claim are "Hillary Bashing," you MUST have seen the piece Parry wrote
coming down on Obama for his ignorant praise of Reagan:
After having donated several hundred dollars to
you over the years, though,
I'm pretty surprised that you'd suggest that my defense of Parry
means I like
Fox News, etc. You know that's not the case. If it was, I'd never
- not to mention donate money when I could.
Try to realize that from your point of view, we're
having a one-on-one
discussion about a topic that we strongly disagree on.
On my end, I'm fighting 90% of the vocal Democrats
(and 99% of all blogs)
who want "their favorite" to fight the GOP slime machine instead of our
Had you started with, "I'm
a regular contributor and I have a question,"
our exchange would've been a lot different. But
when you start with,
"Don't be a pussy,"
things can get hot pretty quick.
We disagree with a journalist's take on HRC. Fine.
You think he's mind-reading.
I think he's making reasoned judgements based on WJC's actions as President
and HRC's time in the Senate - along with HRC's own comments - like
of Reagan in Tom Brokaw's book:
He doesn't write hateful screeds. He makes reasoned
analyses with which you disagree.
I suggest you continue to quote him so that you have to raise your game
to deal with his comments.
You ignored the evidence I presented and you took
a swipe at me for making unfounded accusations.
If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, why
not use quotes?
It's lazy and easy to write him (and me) off as
Rush Limbaugh supporters
because we disagree with you.
As I say, it's your page - but it, and you, are
poorer for not rising to
the challenges Parry's criticisms set forth. There are sound arguments
to be made against Parry's assessments, and you can make them if you choose.
Lumping dissenters in with FOX News, though -
that's a trick from the Rethug book.
Thought you were above that.
Dave, we're talking about different things.
In 7 of the last 8 Parry columns, I've grabbed
a few paragraphs that prove that Parry
has stooped to mind-reading because the facts won't help him.
There are two types of Dems who are against Hillary:
There's the group who just likes
Obama better and then there's the group who'd rather climb a tree and tell
mind-reading lies than stay on the ground and
tell the truth.
you're in the first group, I apologize.
On the other hand, you opened the conversation
by calling me a pussy, and you're
surprised I fought back? Then you accused me of "weak ass punk shit"
and I was
supposed to roll over and apologize like a senate
Isn't that why you contributed in the first place?
Because I'm one of the few who fight back?
And did you skip over the Palast argument?
It's OK is someone doesn't like Hillary or even
hates her, which Palast does,
BUT HE HASN'T DEDICATED HIS WEB SITE TO LYING ABOUT HER.
Palast is capable of writing 2-3 columns in a
row without reading Hillary's mind and
attacker her for Parry's perceived thoughts. That's a big difference,
and that's why
Parry is taking some heat.
Last thing - I lumped you with those bad guys
you like the "new" Bob Parry, the Hillary-hating
Try to remain calm.
On Feb 6th, this should all be over,
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog