Pitt: "The used car salesman strikes again"
WILLIAM RIVERS PITT is baaaack and he is doubling down on his Obama slamming as you can see in the title of his THREAD, "The used car salesman strikes again." Of course, he is getting quite a bit less than the red carpet treatment in DUmmieland. Even Skinner now has disdain for the Pittster. So let us now watch Pitt continuing digging himself into a DUmmie hole in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, watching as Pitt edges ever closer to a permanent tombstoning, is in the [brackets]:
"Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future." - Obama, in Brussells, yesterday
[- Pitt, in Purgatory, yesterday.]
An amazing amount of bullshit in one paragraph. We ran roughshod over the international community to get that war going. If an invasion and ten-year occupation isn't annexation, then nothing is. We totally, totally grabbed their resources, because the oil was supposed to "pay for the war," as I recall...and there were gas lines in Iraq for years after the invasion, because we were sitting on their oil like it was our own private piggy bank. And as for the state we left Iraq in, thousands upon thousands of people have been killed in the sectarian strife we left behind. They aren't making decisions about their future. They're running for their damned lives.
[Yeah, we were just flooded with cheap Iraqi oil according to historian Pitt.]
The used car salesman is trying to sell the lemon that was the Iraq war in order to avoid sounding like a hypocrite about Russia.
[Uh-oh! Back to that used car salesman analogy again. Throw in a few F-words and it will be like old times.]
[And now the Skinner lecture.]
Disappointed to see you doubling down on calling the president names. No, I'm not telling you to stop. I just figured you might want to know that some people don't appreciate seeing that here. Just in case you care about that sort of thing.
[Don't tombstone Wee Willie, Skinner. We enjoy the unintended comedy entertainment he consistently provides.]
I'm hoping midterm election rules kick in soon. Where we all go back to supporting Democrats.
[Make that BLINDLY supporting Democrats...Like the gun running Leland Yee.]
Also, No Feedback Within The Thread from the OP. This is just rhetorical bomb throwing.
[Pitt is like a cat marking his DUmmieland territory with his stale beer scent.]
The OP threw a bomb....and disappeared into the night. Pretty pathetic actually.
[Pitt has to prove he matters. You got that? HE MATTERS!!!]
Yep, drop the turd and watch it stink up... everything. Pathetic.
[The horrible smell lingers for a full 24 business hours.]
I know you're a tolerant guy... but trolls have been banned for less. In many cases, it isn't the actual topic that brings about a banning but the pure disruptive nature they bring to DU. These posts are disruptive to healthy discussion. And the previous OP was downright nasty.
[Some have even been banned for threatening violence upon a homeless woman.]
I call it like I see it, sir. Rather than fret over the use of this term or that term, I'd be interested in your opinion on the president's comments on the war you and I spent the better part of a decade resisting.
[That was Pitt telling Skinner not to fret.]
The shame is that you do not 'get' that it is your terms that are the problem. Allowing yourself to be so blinded by your anger that you begin talking about the President in the same terms as repugs, freepers and teabaggers is something many will not agree with... repugs, freepers and teabaggers are enjoying it though.
[Oh, we sure are enjoying Pitt, DUmmie Ohio Joe. His post about ObamaCare has gone Web viral. And now Pitt goes into self-justification mode...]
Terms. If George W. Bush had stood up and said we worked with the international community, we did not plunder Iraq's resources, and gave them free will to run their own country (paraphrasing Brussels), the roof would have come off this joint. And you know it. Well, President Obama said it, and I called him on it. If the feelings of a bunch of people who treat politics like a playoff game between the Giants and the Eagles get hurt in the process because of the language I used, well, that's what they call in Wisconsin "hard cheese."
["Hard cheese?" Is that what they call it in Newton? But proceed...]
I'm going to call bullshit when I see bullshit, as I have done in this place since 2001, and I am going to make use of all the terms in the lexicon to do so if it helps even one whit to underscore that wrong is wrong, no matter whose lips it passes over.
[How about the term "24 business hours?" Please continue...]
Once upon a time, we shredded politicians who lied about Iraq, using language far less polite than mine. Because it was the war that mattered. It still does.
[That was Pitt's excuse but DUmmie msanthrope isn't buying it...]
You called the President a "piece of shit." Therefore, you've done what Virginia. Woolf found unpardonable...you lost objectivity. You lost the edge that makes a political writer a persuasive success. You lost the distance that separates good writing from bad. That's unfortunate, Will. I hope you get your mojo back.
[Methinks Pitt lost his mojo on May 12, 2006. And now Skinner resumes his hector lecture...]
Here's the problem. The polarizing language about the president makes a good faith discussion on the merits extremely difficult. You are a smart guy, and you knew that echoing the insult that you used in the previous shitstorm would get exactly the response you got. I didn't particularly appreciate the last shitstorm, and I'm not going to get much utility out of this one either. This one thread isn't the end of it -- there are going to be a half a dozen other threads that get started over the next few days to rehash the appropriateness of calling the president names.
[Oh goodie! More DUFU comedy material!!! Please continue berating Pitt, Skinner...]
Obviously, you received a lot of blowback for your last thread, and you are receiving a lot of blowback for this thread. I am not so naive to think that you or anyone else would actually back down in the face of that kind of resistance -- to do so would feel like admitting weakness. And I know you're not going to back down simply because the administrator of DU expressed his distaste for insulting the president -- here on DU I am The Power, and a good progressive can't be seen to be backing down from Speaking Truth. I get that. I'm just hoping that maybe next time, when you or anyone else on DU is thinking about starting a thread in which you insult the president, you think about those of us who don't really appreciate it. I'm not telling you what to do. And I'm not trying to score points here. What I'm trying to do is simply to share a piece of information with you: Some of us don't like seeing the president insulted. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.
[Pitt chooses to drink on it, Skinner. BTW, Know-It-All Nadin is all over her thread but I have avoided quoting her because she is annoying but I will now permit one typical Know-It-All-Comment from her...]
But if we are going to prevent people insulting the President, it should be the office, not the person. This means, regardless of occupant, you do not hurl insults, and do not call either man a used car salesman. Of course, you are also asking an editorial writer not to do what is in the fine tradition of editorial writers going back to oh Washington. Do not, I repeat this, do not, read editorials from the civil war, for example. They will make you blush. Trust me, this one is mild. I know, that is a fine distinction many here do not understand. One of multiple reasons I keep real meat out of this place anymore.
[Belive me, Know-It-All Nadin, you haven't had real meat anyplace near you since about birth. Oh, and no "hard cheese" either.]
Mr. Pitts writings do not anger me, I believe his opinions do result in irrational anger with unreasonable thought. I agree with most here that Pitt does not have to be banned for his opinion of Obama. Pitt believes that Obama is not performing as Pitt expected and he has made his dislike quite evident, as that is his right. I don't use the ignore button because I do like to know where a writer is coming from on certain issues. I try to stay away from anger, after all these years I've learned that anger can be self destructive, although I will plead guilty to getting pissed sometimes.
[Goodbye, Mr. Pitts. If Pitt is ever tombstoned and they make a movie about it, the end will feature a ghostly procession of DUmmies walking by until finally DUmmie Steve Numbers turns and says, "Goodbye, Mr. Pitts."]
Trashing President Obama is against the DU rules - a banning offense.
[Goodbye, Mr. Pitts.]