Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Rude Pundit explains why my Washington Post was unreadable this am.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 03:30 PM
Original message
The Rude Pundit explains why my Washington Post was unreadable this am.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com

I thought it might have had something to do with Ernesto, but this makes more sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. gee ya think the rude pundit is just a bit pissed off more than usual?
another excellent commentary from the rude one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Don't miss this paragraph:
"Seems like only yesterday that the Post was not so forgiving about perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury discovered in the course of an investigation where the actual reason for the investigation had little or nothing to do with the perjury and possible conspiracy. From the January 22, 1998 Post: "President Clinton also reportedly denied any improper relationship in his own sworn deposition testimony in the Paula Jones suit on Saturday. If the allegations -- which were brought to Mr. Starr by former White House aide Linda R. Tripp -- prove true, they are of a different magnitude from any of the other myriad charges Mr. Clinton has fought back since taking office." Of course, what this had to do with a land deal in Arkansas is up for debate, no?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Whoa, that was cold. 'Rude' is understating it. But it was definitely
fair considering the subject matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The Rude One takes no prisoners, as a rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC