Comments on: Au Revoir Jim Brady — Part Two http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:52:33 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: egregious http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769972 egregious Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:12:31 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769972 <p>I couldnt help it. There is, indeed, a Part III.</p> I couldnt help it. There is, indeed, a Part III.

]]> By: tw3k http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769938 tw3k Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:45:43 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769938 <p>pt. IIs are better than sequels ;)</p> pt. IIs are better than sequels ;)

]]> By: tw3k http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769937 tw3k Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:44:45 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769937 <p>[<a href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/Au_Revoir_Jim_Brady_m_Part_Two" rel="nofollow">dugg</a>]</p> [dugg]

]]> By: CTuttle http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769936 CTuttle Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:42:35 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769936 <p>There’s a pt. III…? ;-)</p> There’s a pt. III…? ;-)

]]> By: BooRadley http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769935 BooRadley Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:41:28 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769935 <p>Dugg, thanks.</p> Dugg, thanks.

]]> By: tw3k http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769934 tw3k Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:40:54 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769934 <p>D’oh!</p> D’oh!

]]> By: tw3k http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769932 tw3k Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:39:43 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769932 <p>That really gets to the heart of BushCos politicizing policy. In Bush world, to disagree with policy is partisan and an affront to state whereas an authentic administration would duly note well founded concerns.</p> That really gets to the heart of BushCos politicizing policy. In Bush world, to disagree with policy is partisan and an affront to state whereas an authentic administration would duly note well founded concerns.

]]> By: BooRadley http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769930 BooRadley Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:36:55 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769930 <p>Jim <em>Church Lady </em>Brady.</p> <p>So sorry Jimmy boy.</p> Jim Church Lady Brady.

So sorry Jimmy boy.

]]> By: Margot http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769928 Margot Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:35:49 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769928 <p>Hey cbl2! </p> <p>I’m going to have to write a letter to the Obama folks. “Do not appease the right-wing.”<br /> Nothing good can come of that.<br /> In fact I suggest it’s akin to not taking all of your antibiotics, so the next thing you get is super-resistant TB. Do not want.</p> Hey cbl2!

I’m going to have to write a letter to the Obama folks. “Do not appease the right-wing.”
Nothing good can come of that.
In fact I suggest it’s akin to not taking all of your antibiotics, so the next thing you get is super-resistant TB. Do not want.

]]> By: CTuttle http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769927 CTuttle Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:35:08 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/22/au-revoir-jim-brady-part-two/#comment-1769927 <p>Jane is such a naughty girl…!</p> <blockquote><p>Jane Hamsher: Jim, Jane here. I’m just wondering, did you filter messages before they were seen publicly or after? We know that posts were removed and then restored at various times over the last week. But what is puzzling is that some messages with profanity were restored while others with strictly appropriate political content were not. Can you explain?</p></blockquote> <p>*crickets*…?</p> Jane is such a naughty girl…!

Jane Hamsher: Jim, Jane here. I’m just wondering, did you filter messages before they were seen publicly or after? We know that posts were removed and then restored at various times over the last week. But what is puzzling is that some messages with profanity were restored while others with strictly appropriate political content were not. Can you explain?

*crickets*…?

]]>