Just…Sad
By Mitch Berg
While Senator Johnson had the stroke, it’s some on the far left that seem to have suffered the damage.
This time, via Brian Maloney – conspiracy theories about Senator Johnson.
Rove’s henchmen and their evil arterial-occluder ray strike again, apparently, in their little peabrains.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
It was a non-story and false drama the first time you posted this Baloney. Nothing has changed Mitch.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Doug hears and obeys.
Not saying there’s “drama”, Doug. Just poking fun at morons.
You can huff and puff and hiss “quit talking about them” all you want, but your side is crawling with them.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Mitch said,
“Just poking fun at morons… . …your side is crawling with them.
First Mitch, we don’t even know if it was in fact “my side” that posted the few conspiracy theory posts that you reference. For all we know, it was Brian Baloney posing. Oh and Mitch, a conspiracy theory usually has some “theory” behind it.
“Its a sad comment on this Administration that the first thing I thought was that this was a White House Kremlin job to keep control of the Senate.” is not a conspiracy theory.
Second, it was your side that wrote books saying Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed. It was also your side that said Bill Clinton was the Anti-Christ and that he was hand selected in 1969 to be a “Steath Marxist leader” leading a Marxist movement in the United States.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
First Mitch, we don’t even know if it was in fact “my side” that posted the few conspiracy theory posts that you reference.
Um. Yeah.
Did you ever listen to Mike Malloy?
all we know, it was Brian Baloney posing.
Oh, the old “for all we know…” bit.
“For all we know” Karl Rove did it himself. J’Accuse!
“Its a sad comment on this Administration that the first thing I thought was that this was a White House Kremlin job to keep control of the Senate.” is not a conspiracy theory.
Ah. And that was the only thing said on the subject today?
Second, it was your side that wrote books saying Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed.
No, it was Joe Farah and his ilk, who are to the right what Mike Malloy is to the left (except that Joe Farah doesn’t get exposure on the right’s equivalent to Air America). Even conservatives were embarassed by, and poked fun at, that kind of crap.
It was also your side that said Bill Clinton was the Anti-Christ and that he was hand selected in 1969 to be a “Steath Marxist leader” leading a Marxist movement in the United States.
Oh, I get it. You’re busting my chops again, right?
Got it.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Funny you should mention Joe Farah because if I’m not mistaken, I’ve seen several of World Nut Daily commentaries cross posted at Townhall.
You’re known by the company you keep Mitch.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
There’s a lot of conservatives who are NOT embarrassed by Joe Farah. Jeez.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:26 am
You’re known by the company you keep Mitch.
Well, I’m a lot happier being known by Farah than you should be by Mike Malloy or Laurence O’Donnell. Not that the distinction means anything to you.
There’s a lot of conservatives who are NOT embarrassed by Joe Farah. Jeez.
He has his moments, but he’s had a few too many flights of fancy for my tastes.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Comparing Laurence O’Donell to Mike Malloy?
Okie Dokie…
The funny thing is Mitch, Malloy, in temperment, and delivery for that matter is very similar to Rush Limbaugh. Both offer the events of the day with their spin on it but fundamentally, each give their audience both a vehicle and validation for their bigotry and hatred.
For Malloy it’s hatred of Bush and fake conservatives. For Limbaugh, it’s hatred of the Clintons and anything liberal.
One has a huge audience with 600 Plus stations and one goes over like a fart in Church.
So much for the belief that all liberals are foaming at the mouth angry. I see that on the right a hell of a lot more. Catch Jason Lewis lately for example? The guy is becoming completely unhinged.
And it is Limbaugh that keeps commenting with a wink, wink that Hillary Clinton didn’t kill Foster.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Comparing Laurence O’Donell to Mike Malloy?
Different strains of the same disease. Listening to O’Donnell attacking John O’Neill, I thought I was hearing a bipolar who was off his meds and having a REALLY bad day.
The funny thing is Mitch, Malloy, in temperment, and delivery for that matter is very similar to Rush Limbaugh.
I can’t count the number of ways that’s wrong.
Enough ways that it’s probably worth a post on its’ own.
So much for the belief that all liberals are foaming at the mouth angry.
Strawman. Never said any such thing.
Catch Jason Lewis lately for example? The guy is becoming completely unhinged.
I haven’t heard him lately. I really looked forward to his return; as I said in ’03, he was the host I always wanted to be when I grew up. But I listened to his first month or so back in the Cities – and I got the feeling I’d heard it all before.
I’ll ignore the “unhinged” bit, since that’s what liberals call *every* conservative, or every Republican who doesn’t act like Arne Carlson or Lincoln Chaffee.
And it is Limbaugh that keeps commenting with a wink, wink that Hillary Clinton didn’t kill Foster.
This from a guy who insists he busts other peoples’ chops?
The wink wink is there for a reason.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Oh come on.
Everyone knows that Darth Cheney used some sort of evil jedi force trick on the man.
I mean, if we’re going to be paranoid about this one, lets at least make it interesting.
I’ll admit that while I have no question regarding the natural causes of Senator Johnson’s tragedy, I am paranoid enough that I have little doubt that Cheney is ruthless enough to have someone removed if they were in the way of his vision of a better America. To tell the truth, I’d imagine that many leaders who have the emotional capacity to be able to send tens of thousands of troops into war also have the emotional capacity to have someone quietly eliminated. Not all but many. Ethically, the only difference between the two is based on the oath/affirmation to the Constitution.
Note, I said Cheney. For whatever reason, Bush seems like the type to prefer to be in the open about who he’s killing. For better and for worse, subtlety is not really in his nature.