Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

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  again    

"Each time the Clintons speak,
  it reminds people of the lies of the Nineties."
      -- Arianna, raging against the Clintons.   
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 knows why.

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 out?

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, 

ha ha
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 VERY well. 

You're caught in a bluff and you've got nowhere to go.
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?
President Carter?
President Mondale?
President Dukakis?

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 Mao.
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 again.

Questions 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 all dead,
and so are your children and the grandchildren who never had a chance to survive
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 tons?
We know what's the worst that could happen if you're wrong - a dead planet.
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.

Challenges 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.

The Coming Attacks 
 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 transaction.
IF 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 sitting on.
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 this issue. 
Thanks again for the stuff you post about our troops.
 Keith, trying one day at a time to put down the bananas

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .