Not to mention that IF THERE WAS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OBAMA PUT HIS FUCKING HAND OVER HIS FUCKING HEART DURING THE FUCKING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WHY DON’T THESE FUCKING ALLEGED JOURNALISTS GO LOOK UP SOME FOOTAGE AND SEE FOR THEIR FUCKING SELVES?

That’s a cry from my heart too, MzNicky. What’s wrong with these people? Who cares if he denies it? Go and look, idiots!

So if I believe, real hard like, that Curious George hasn’t really been the President for the last 7 years, then it will be true? Wow. The power of the human mind!

I suppose I could believe something more selfish, like that I’m a well-hung stud with a dictionary-sized little black book, but I’ll be altruistic and believe the above, for the benefit of my fellow humans.

So, how long do I have to wait for it to be true? [drums fingers]

Read ‘s Foucoult’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco and you’ll finally understand the real meaning of truth. Truth is what we believe it to be.

Also, there was some discussion that “Lois Romano” is a made-up fictional nom de plume used by a Cheetos-stained (and probably obese) comics obsessive (imagine a picture of the Comic Book Guy here). While this claim is entirely without evidence, we do consider it significant that “Lois Romano” contains the name of Superman’s girlfriend, the name of a cheese, and is an anagram of “Sailor Moon”.

I think the readers of the Washington Post deserve a response to this, since it was on the internet and all. It’s irresponsible not to speculate.

Talk about your perfectly institutionalized bigotry!”

Don’t look so shocked Mikey. A certain part of society depends on an enemy to define themselves. “nigger”. “commie” “faggot”. “muslim”. Sound familiar? The epithet changes, and the target of unthinking hatred changes, but the need to blame some other fucker doesn’t change.

T’aint so surprising that sometimes the media panders to those morons. Pandering is more or less all they do.

Headline: Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and Again

Third graf (after citing three examples of Rudy-Toot making numbers claims on the campaign trail):

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.

I can’t remember the last time I saw any news report say that a political candidate was “just plain wrong” about anything.

Uh—if I read her own freakin’ quote correctly, HE’S ALREADY DENIED IT. In journalistic terms, that means THERE’S NOTHING THERE.

Not to mention that IF THERE WAS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OBAMA PUT HIS FUCKING HAND OVER HIS FUCKING HEART DURING THE FUCKING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WHY DON’T THESE FUCKING ALLEGED JOURNALISTS GO LOOK UP SOME FOOTAGE AND SEE FOR THEIR FUCKING SELVES?

Sorry to raise my voice, but I went into journalism in the first place because of The Washington Post’s Watergate coverage.

Stupid stupid STUPID fuckheads.

No, the telling point, the piece of this where we learn something important and dark about post-millenial American society is that nobody even bothers to mention, to even raise as a point on page A24 that simply being a fucking MUSLIM is not something one should even have to defend!

Talk about your perfectly institutionalized bigotry!

Gaaahh. I may not hate everyone, but I’m pretty certain that I now hate a plurality, if not a majority…

mikey

There are still good reporters at the Washington Post, but they were hired before Donald Graham took over.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe the Post (Washington) broke the Walter Reed story.

Sadly, Yes!

And it really hurts me to say this. There are still good reporters at the Washington Post, but they were hired before Donald Graham took over. And they’re slowly and steadily being replaced by the Lois Romanos, Jeff Gerths, and John Solomons of the world. People who would easily fit in at the New York Post.

In her defense, you can go for a pretty long time without even knowing the goat is dead. Rigor mortis and all. I mean, so I’ve heard.

I have heard people say that they won’t support Sen. Obama because they read he sodomizes baby hippos. He has denied this– so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

I have heard people say that they won’t support Sen. Obama because they read he feasts nightly on the flesh of Christian babies. He has denied this– so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

And then compare to something like:

I have heard people say that they won’t support Sen. Obama because they read he plans to raise taxes to support universal health care. He has denied this– so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

Anybody wanna lay odds whether or not she’d see the difference?