Subject: kudos and brickbats
Okay, once again, Bart, I congratulate you
on being a bit more balanced on your website.
What is Bartcopism if not balance?
I, unlike many, have not abandoned your website
just because of the candidate you support.
I have just a couple of points to make here.
(On a side note, do you feel the same about people
who have decided that they won't watch Keith
Olbermann or Jon Stewart anymore, because
they are (or appear to be) Obama supporters
as you do about the people who cancelled their
subscriptions to your website because you
are a Hillary supporter? They all sound the same to me.)
Jon Stewart might show a little bias, like me, but he doesn't spend
every minute of every show slamming
Hillary and adding absurdist lies to every sentence he speaks the way
Olbermann does, Matthews does,
Randi Rhodes does, Ed Schultz does, the way Wolf the Whore and that
bastard Tim Russert does.
"When I hear Obama criticizing the 1990s, I'm
always wondering which
part of it didn't he like--the peace
or the prosperity? Because I like both."
-- Hillary, caught reading bartcop.com
"Each time the Clintons speak,
it reminds people of the lies of the
-- Arianna, raging against the
Is that a good strategy for the anti-Clinton faction?
"Please God, anything but a repeat of the Nineties?"
What if the alternative is four more years of the Bush Horror?
Okay, I'll grant that the 90's were mostly
peaceful, for our country in particular (although not for
the Sri Lankans who were being slaughtered
by an Indonesian government supplied by the Clinton
Administration), and that certainly the Clinton
Administration was MUCH better than the current one,
but just who was prospering the most in the
90's? I'm thinking it was all the multinational corporate
honchos who profitted from Clinton's NAFTA,
GATT, WTO, granting Most Favored Nation
trading status to China, etc.
Am I talking to you or Ralph Nader?
If we were in a crowded lunchroom and I clinked my spoon on my water glass
until it was quiet
and said, "Keith will now explain the bad
news about NAFTA and GATT," I'd bet real money
you'd have nothing to say.
Somehow, it's popular to scream "NAFTA
and GATT" at the Clintons, but nobody
It couldn't be the millions who saw their jobs
disappear to foreign lands because of these gifts from
Clinton to the wealthiest among us.
You and I remember the nineties differently, but
I have a question for you.
How would President Keith stop, say Hershey's
Chocolate from moving to Mexico?
I'm clinking my spoon on my water glass again - you gonna straighten me
How much longer are you going to pretend that
there is no valid criticism of the Clintons,
that the '90's were nothing but a huge party
for everyone, and that anyone who has anything
bad to say about the Clintons just HATES them?
How about you launch an attack you can explain?
Me? I don't get triple worked up
at someone over some shit I can't understand or explain.
What other motive, besides irrational hatred,
can I assign to people who get so worked up
about shit they can't explain that they just
want to set themselves on fire?
Now, to be fair, you may have spent the '90's
in a Chinaco induced haze,
I'll do a dozen shots, smoke a fattie and still
kick your ass in a debate.
...and you don't really remember how Bill Clinton
sold out the American worker (or maybe you
were profitting yourself from these measures),
but a lot of people who are working at McDonald's
now, instead of Ford or GM, remember them
You're caught in a bluff and you've got nowhere
The ONLY way your accusation could make sense
is if you knew how to stop companies
from moving to where payroll is $200 a day instead
of $10,000 a day. If you had even the
slightest clue how to do that, you could probably
get blown by Lou Dobbs.
And, I hear them, every day, on the blogs and
television shows that you are somehow missing,
explaining exactly why they fear another Clinton
Administration, doing more for the corporations,
and are hoping, perhaps vainly, that Obama
will somehow be different. Why are you still not getting this?
In almost every political discussion, the question "Compared to who?"
must be asked.
Apparently you're saying the Clintons were "too good" for business,
but compared to who?
Bottom Line: The Clintons arent as Leftist as the hard Left wants
them to be.
That's why they got elected twice, and maybe four times.
To the Left, they're Cheney's clone.
To the Right, they're Karl Marx having 3-way homo sex with Stalin and
To middle America voters, they're just right - that's how they win/won.
If Democrats get the candidate the Left wants, we could lose 76 states
for Jerks like Jim Inhofe
Are you saying there's no such thing as global warming?
Are you saying state-sized ice chunks aren't breaking off Antartica?
Or are you saying that's "cyclical," and the polar caps will someday
become colder and freeze?
Do you realize the consequences if your guess is wrong?
Or are you agreeing that global warming is real,
and we are entering our final days - but God will protect us?
Or are you saying there's nothing we can do about it - whatever
the cause - so we might
as well quit and surrender because that's the kind of spirit that
built this once-great country?
Or are you saying... well, ...what the fuck ARE you saying?
Does the GOP have ANY coherent strategy on the subject?
Lastly, if you're wrong, and you stop us from reversing this, we're
and so are your children and the grandchildren who never had a chance
because oil bastards like you wanted a few extra dollars instead
of a stable planet..
But if we're wrong, what's the worst that could happen?
Our air would be cleaner?
We'd import less oil, which means fewer dead soldiers?
We'd only create 50M tons of plastic bags a year, instead of 100M
We know what's the worst that could happen if you're wrong - a dead
What's the worst that could happen if we're wrong?
LOVED this! If you're the author of this,
my hat's off to you.
If you're not, bless you for posting this.
I wrote that after I did a dozen shots and smoked a big fattie.
Glad you liked it.
to a Bartcop-style debate
She taunts him, throwing down the glove - can he resist Her?
In almost every election, at any level, the
candidate who is trailing always
asks for more and more debates, and the candidate
who is leading always says no.
If the roles were reversed, you would make
this exact same point.
You missed the point.
Obama (rightly) bitched about the 3rd-grade level questions he got
from Judas Maximus,
so Hillary says "Let's debate without Judas and see who wins."
But you're right - if you're no good at debates, the fewer the better
Now, ... I'd like to ask a calm and gentle question.
This is not an attack, it's just a simple question:
Who do you think is going to win this election?
Don't tell me who OUGHT to win,
don't tell me who'd win IF there was a God or IF there was any justice
in the world,
I'm asking who do you think will take the oath on January 20th?
If the superdelegates decide to give the nomination
to Hillary, then she will.
If Obama's popular vote and pledged delegate
lead is allowed to stand, then he will.
It's that simple.
You missed the point again.
You were supposed to pick a winner.
by Ann in Philly
If everything in the posting is valid, then
this raises some very genuine concerns about Obama,
and I'd like to learn more about all this.
Having said that, if I, or any of your other designated
"Obama fans" had sent you something like that
about Hillary, you would have first advised us
to "put down the hatred for a minute", and
then proceeded to explain how none of this matters,
and that if we didn't hate Hillary so much,
we would realize that. Fair to say?
You might be setting the record for missing the point,
but it's also possible that I'm damn lousy and making the point that
you can't see.
(Assuming all that's true) WHY is Obama's "house" owned by a trust that
has unnamed trustees
or grantors or guarantors while Rezko is on trial for corruption while
Obama has suspicious real
estate transactions that were carried out on the exact same day on
some adjoining property?
This isn't about "hate," it's about what the GOP will use against
him in November.
Look what they did to the Clintons when they LOST money in a real estate
Obama has some secret mortage and some secret, foreign millionaire benefactors,
and those documents suggests he might, do we want to find out now or
at the end of October?
Subject: Barts vote for Hilary
is a vote for consolidation status quo
I can't help noticing that you print, IN FULL,
the articles you get from dufuses that can be
debated in one's sleep, but with ME you edit
out the parts where I whip your butt, and just
post the parts that you think you can come
up with even a half-assed attempted refutation for.
Again, this makes you a dishonest hypocritical
fuck. Hope that didn't hurt your ears.
That's four times in a row you've proven you can't find the horse you're
Every newspaper in America prints a sentence that says:
"Make your letters short and get to the point.
We reserve the right to edit your letters
for length and clarity."
Yet, you think you have the right to prattle on f-ing endlessly and
if I trim some crap out,
you claim "that was the best part," but if that's true, why send the
rest of it?
I printed every word of this long-ass rant.
I guess you feel you "whipped my butt" again, right?
I pretty much agreed with everything else in
Thanks again for the stuff you post about
Keith, trying one day at a time to put
down the bananas
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog