Skip to comments.
The Strange Case of Cynthia McKinney (Left-Wing Barf/Gigglefest Alert! FR Mentioned!)
Online Journal ^
| May 6, 2002
| Charles Utwater II
Posted on 05/11/2002 1:28:14 AM PDT by Timesink
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:57:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Gee, looks like we've misjudged poor Ms. McKinney all along! Bwa-ha-ha!
By the way, this is part two of Online Journal's SHOCKING FIVE-PART EXPOSE called "A case history in the culture of lies: The Washington Post." I posted part one here. Part three has yet to be published, alas. We can only hope it will be as funny to read as the first two!
1
posted on
05/11/2002 1:28:14 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: medianews;presstitutes
bumping for bump-lists
2
posted on
05/11/2002 1:28:58 AM PDT
by
Timesink
To: Timesink
Lefties hate to have the truth told about them, plus it makes them lie even more. Unfortunately for the Left, there's no amount of lying and distortion which can cover up or make McKinney's lies about and smear job on the Bush Administration defensible. She owes GWB an apology.
To: Post Toasties
Plus, McKinney's political career is currently almost fully funded by Arabs. She's the definition of a sellout and would-be traitor.
To: Timesink
I checked out (briefly) the FR quote. As I suspected, this thing was assembled out of numerous posts on the thread in question. Pretty funny for folks who are concerned about leaving out a few words, and replacing them with elipses.
To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Free Republic, 4/14/02ff.Is that the Strunk and White official version of how to footnote a thread on a website?
To: Timesink
They labeled her "Hanoi Jane," temporarily displacing Jane Fonda from the role of most hated liberal in America.I'd like to dispute this claim! The most hated liberal in the country is Hillary Clinton. But, Ms. McKinney can be a close second. After all I think we should be fair about this.
7
posted on
05/11/2002 2:40:58 AM PDT
by
Jodi
To: Timesink;all
So telling the truth is a smear? How, umm, Orwellian... wonder if the "writer" has seen any of this?
8
posted on
05/11/2002 2:50:00 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: Lazamataz; killermosquito; sibb1213; rightonline
You got quoted Ping!
To: Jodi
When the smoke clears you will find at least a half dozen or more in Congress who feels the way McKinney does.I tell you the faces have been missing from the stage since 9-1-1.Birds of a feather flock together.Some are just lying low!
10
posted on
05/11/2002 3:55:33 AM PDT
by
gunnedah
To: Timesink
Bush's "War on Terra." These folks can't seem to get it right. It's "Warren Tareism" and he lives in Iraq
To: Timesink
No matter how far some people sink into the slimy depths of ignorance and disgrace, there will still be others who will continue to defend them.
Note, they are usually called democrats.
12
posted on
05/11/2002 5:37:22 AM PDT
by
tet68
To: gunnedah
13
posted on
05/11/2002 6:17:16 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: Timesink
Take what someone says, stretch it into what she didn't say and then ridicule her for it.A real journalist, or a person with a shred of intellectual honesty -- of which Charles Utwater II has NONE -- would publish the pertinant quotes and let the reader decide. He starts by saying "Let's take this smear step by step". Yet somehow, curiously, he dances ever so gingerly around the actual quotes she uttered:
- "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? ... What do they have to hide?"
- "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."
- "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
Now who are you going to believe? Charles Utwater II, or your LYING EYES?
Charles Utwater II is the worst c*********g m***********g G**-d****** b***h son of a wh*** piece of s*** in online 'journalism'.
To: Timesink
Mea culpa, he does issue the quotes -- but he brushes them off because commercial breaks and chatter might be omitted by ellipses.
To: Timesink
One can confidently bet that no one in Washington will accuse Novak of being a "radical" or a "conspiracy theorist."Novak is a nearly-senile whack job along the lines of Pierre Sallinger. No one on the right quotes him, and for people on the left to hold him up as some sort of convervative voice is at best deceptive.
To: Lazamataz
Laz, you have to understand that this is some angry leftist who has put up a website and called it a "blog". This grants him "instant legitimacy" in the eyes of the Trendy Left.
Remember, our Mr. Utwater (the "Second") is still in traumatic denial over the 2000 election, as well.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
17
posted on
05/11/2002 7:34:34 AM PDT
by
section9
To: Timesink
I notice that there's no mention in the article of her offer to accept the money that the Mayor turned down.
To: Timesink
Barbara Lee,Cynthia Mckinney,and that creature from Houston,Tx. A triad of terror in their own right.
To: Timesink
she takes money from highly questionable people we can question her all we like
20
posted on
05/11/2002 8:59:12 AM PDT
by
linn37
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson