Who is the liar?

Another article on FRL by Kaye Fissinger that is, well, completely untrue. Miss Fissinger quotes Andy Borowitz in her article and says:

“Gov. (Rick) Perry (of Texas) said that he hoped to bring down the cost of the federal government the same way he reined in costs in Texas, ‘by making the state no longer habitable for human life as we know it.’” Rick Perry will be running on the slogan, “What Harm Could a Governor of Texas Do?”

She goes on to quote the WaPo: “Our opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let’s quit trying to curry favor with them,”

The WaPo quote can indeed be attributed to Perry. The Borowitz quote, though…not so much. Miss Fissinger, do you realize that this quote is on the same page as an article entitled “Weiner Resigns; Will Run for Prime Minister of Italy”? Do you realize that the site from which you quoted is a parody site? Yet you are lumping these parody quotes in with actual quotes, like the parody is being serious?

As usual, the hypocrisy is on full display here. Miss Fissinger just wrote an article in which she accused Gabe Santos of being a liar, but the same week she also posts blatantly untrue information about Rick Perry. I will refrain from the same name calling that Miss Fissinger engages in, because maybe she truly just doesn’t get it. In that case, I’m sure her article will be amended to point out that half of her citations are fictitious, and she will apologize for misleading her followers. Stay tuned, as I will be the first to commend her for admitting she made a mistake and doing the right thing to correct it.

Free Speech

A recent post on FRL discusses a court ruling in Denver that more or less held some people accountable for anonymous and untrue information being posted online. The part that needs the responses, though, are the poster’s thoughts on the subject and how it pertains to the “extreme right-wing” of Longmont.

The poster again laments the anonymity so prevalent on internet blogs and forums today, citing “no less than 5 far right Longmont websites that allow anonymous comments”. Anonymity is here to stay, and it is not just a right wing trait as the poster would have us believe. Unfortunately, there are some mighty unstable people in this world (again, not exclusively a right wing trait), and many people want to voice their opinions without those people putting a figurative target on their backs. Kaye Fissinger seems to be scared to death that a horde of heavily armed right wing nutjobs is going to hunt her down. Doug Wray is also frequently admonished by those same people. Neither of them seem happy at all in any of the articles that they post, and one gets a frequent sense of paranoia when reading their opinions. I often wonder if it is worth it to them to be seen in such a negative light by so many people in Longmont. One can simply read the Times-Call comments to see that anything written by these individuals is summarily dismissed, regardless of whether or not a good point is being made. Miss Fissinger especially is quite passionate about many issues, but whether she realizes it or not, her opinion will never carry any weight because of the often disrespectful ways that she tries to make her points. If you want support of your causes, belittling those you are trying to compromise with is not going to get you far at all.

But I digress. The poster of the referenced articles says “it’s the Wild, Wild West and woe betide any ‘little person’ who steps out onto Main St. when these electronic gunslingers are blasting away.”. I can only assume that he is including Longmont Responds as one of those “lawless sites”, in which case I say…come on in! I promise there will be much less “woe” imposed on you here than you seem to impose on those who disagree with you on FRL. I welcome opposing opinions here. It is the reason I started this blog.

Also referencing “Let the attacks begin”. This has been clairfied many times, and I don’t understand how anyone who looks closely at the referenced email exchange can conclude that councilman Santos is actually calling for attacks. He was clearly referencing Miss Fissinger’s attacks in her blog which “had begun”. I really think this illustrates a great example of just why there is so much, dare I say, hatred in Longmont politics these days…each side so often doesn’t understand or doesn’t try to understand what the other side is really saying. Issues won’t ever be resolved if each side is battling elements that don’t exist in reality.

Again, anonymity is not specific to one side of the political spectrum. Besides M. Douglas Wray and Paul Tiger, who else frequently posts on the Times Call using their real name? The poster of the original article blasts Chris Rodriguez for not coming down on those who are “hateful to progressives”, but Mr. Wray, we don’t hear you coming down on any anonymous sympathizers for their equally “hateful” comments towards conservatives either. Frankly, I don’t think either of you is obligated to call out anyone on their poor behavior, but if both sides are reacting the same way, why try to make it sound like only one side (the other side) is in the wrong?


Regarding this post, which reveals a mic left on and picking up some NC republicans strategizing how to handle a redistricting provision in a closed door budget meeting. The summary of the article states:

“Well, there it is, collusion to interfere in the operation of government. Every last one of these crimminals should be arrested and tried for violating their oath to the voters of North Carolina. This kind of activity does not support the people, it supports an agenda – and a crimminal one at that.”

In addition, the poster gives us his definition of “obfuscate” – to make obscure, be evasive or purposely confusing. Standard GOP strategy.

First of all, how embarrassing that these remarks were caught on a mic and made public. It certainly doesn’t do much to improve one’s trust of politicians. But is anyone else actually naive enough to believe that this is something only republicans do? A quote from a prominent democratic former president comes to mind: “That depends what your definition of “is” is”. Maybe the John Edwards affair? (no pun intended) Politics is in a sad state, and unfortunately obfuscation runs rampant across both sides of the aisle. Do I condone it? Nope. But again, the poster here displays an uncanny ability to come to conclusions that are well beyond what any rational person would ever consider, and he paints these shortcomings to be exclusive traits of the right. “Collusion to interfere in the operation of government”?? Riiiight. And if you arrest these “crimminals” (I guess spell check was broken) for this egregious obfuscation of procedural transparency, you would have no one left in the government (again, no pun intended).