‘Washington Post’ Suspends Comments on One of its Blog

Editor and Publisher ^ | January 19, 2006 | By E&P Staff

[citizencon]

The lefties shriek in horror and/or denial when they look into the mirror.

[xcamel]

I'm just going to have to appoint myself "in charge" as the official "Free Republic OSHA Safety and PPE Compliance Officer" for visiting the external cesspool, and providing up-to-date LSDS (Liberal Safety Data Sheets) and required hazard placards.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The research I read shows he also gave directly to Democrats.

This from wikipedia

Individuals Allegedly Involved

U.S. Rep. & Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)

U.S. Rep. & Former Chairman of the House Administration Committee Bob Ney (R-OH)

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, III (R-FL)

U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)

U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

 

U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)

U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT)

U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA)

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

New Jersey State Senator William Gormley (R-Atlantic, NJ)

Maryland Governor Ehrlich's Deputy Chief of Staff Edward Miller (R)

[Brilliant]

Sounds like the Washington Post only likes free speech when it's their own.

[BlueNgold]

The funniest and looniest line I found over on Kos about this...

Rather than do their job and tell us what's really going on, the MSM simply want to Xerox the GOP talking points and spew them as "news".

What world are the lefties living in???

[raygun]

The thread I was reading was their being livid to the point of froth spewing from their eye-balls and ears, adamant, insistant and pounding the table that NO Democrat took candy from Abrammof (they only took candy from Abramoff's clients.

Nevertheless, at the height of the Sandy Berger imbroglio concerning Soxgate, one of the inmates there said: "I don't care what he did. He's a Democrat and so his motives are pure..."

That's the difference right there: purity of motives.

[xcamel]

Violation: You did that without these:

Shoulder Plus Gloves

[festus]

Wonder if he learned anything from listening to himself in his office. And more importantly. Did he get a FISA order before bugging his office.

[festus]

Thats a good idea. Funny.

[Bean Counter]

Let's see...

I'll bet someone could go over to the DUmp, and find one of those "Let's DU this..." posts.

Bet me a burger.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...WaPo isn't ready for prime time...]

IT'S NOT ABOUT ABRAMOFF. It's about the behavior of the left when confronted with facts that do not agree with their agenda. Instead of responding like grown ups, they throw a fit, spew profanity, call names and threaten to harm body and soul. OUTSTANDING!

[theFIRMbss]

>Lefties are nasty, nasty people

Ask Harriet if
she thinks "conservatives" are
courteous and kind . . .

[Jo Nuvark]

[...He's a Democrat, so his motives are pure...]

Even if Democrats took money from Abramoff, spoiled and ill bread liberals believe it's OK because it serves a noble purpose. If only they would have said that instead of spewing vitriol.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'll bet someone could go over to the DUmp, and find one of those "Let's DU this..." posts.

Here

I'd like a cheeseburger with everything (to go of course). :)

[Petronski]

Lookie here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/archive/2006/wapo/


The DUmmies cached the whole thing.

[Eva]

I was listening to O'Reilly on the radio the other day and some irate woman called in to demand that he correct himself about stating that both Reps and Dems were involved with Abramoff. O'Reilly cut her off and called her a kool-aid drinker, then read the figures of the top two recipients. Patrick Kennedy of course is the number 2 recipient.

Sometimes O'reilly does get something right.

[libstripper]

So true. If they didn't include "hate speech" in their prohibitions, those prohibitions would make sense. The bad thing about prohibiting "hate speech" is that it can be, and is often, interpreted to mean any speech that significantly criticizes any person, religion, or organization that feels offended by the speech. Bans on "hate speech" are actually bans on free speech.