To Arms!
Tweet
The media and the right dig into a 28 year old college paper to uncover the secrets of Hillary Clinton.
As we speak, GOP operatives are going through Barack Obama’s book report in 5th grade of Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Slippery Salamander in order to divine his governing philosophy.
16 Responses to “To Arms!”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Don’t tell Bush, if he reads that book report it will just ruin his enjoyment of the next book on his reading list.
Check your math. The paper was written in 1969, which makes it 38 years old.
Don’t blame OW. He is a product of the IB (International Baccalaureate) program.
In OliverWorld:
Digging up a paper a candidate wrote 38 years ago: shameful.
Digging up the marital records of a candidate’s relative from 110 years ago: justified and above board.
How about that Al Sharpton-Strom Thurmond connection?
That’s bizarre.
Digging up a paper a candidate wrote 38 years ago: shameful.
Digging up the marital records of a candidate’s relative from 110 years ago: justified and above board.
Ahh Jackass OW condemned the media digging up dirt about Romney fasmily history in a post last week…
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/02/meet_the_romney.html
read before you rip…
No, he didn’t. He explicitly condoned it.
Read before you call people a jackass.
Al Gore’s utilities bill…Hill’s college thesis…it’s amazing what the dopes in the media will accept as relevant issues from the right wing noise machine.
There are so many smoking guns around the lies leading up the the Iraq war that I can’t see my hand three inches from my face…but these topics are newsworthy?
Sigh.
I neither condemned nor condoned it, and ditto for this story. The media’s going to dig up this stuff, I was just pointing out how the cons conspiracy theories were refuted by reality.
And yet, Anna Nicole still isn’t buried!!
Think of the children, for God’s sake!
OW “I neither condemned nor condoned it”
Fair enough….my apologies to the fine gentleman from wingnuttia
OW stated:
This is an explicit approval. You DID condone it, whether you meant it as such or not.
Funny, I was just about to type, “he didn’t condone it, he just said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and all that” but it seems the wall of stupidity went up before me.
Yes, okay, you are right about everything, reality is exactly as you say it is. Now shut up.
You must not understand what the word “condone” means. You probably shouldn’t be throwing the word “stupidity” around until you improve your vocabulary.
I know what “condone” means. “To regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless”. Goose/gander doesn’t incorporate that.
But why am I telling you things you already know? You’ve got your positon, you’re going to stick with it.
If you don’t think saying it’s OK to treat someone the same way you think others were treated is to “treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable” then you are BEYOND stupid.
Why am I not surprised?