More lies from Brancaccio?

In his weekly spew posted today, Brancaccio wrote this:

Liberal or conservative?

What am I?

A few weeks ago, I raised this issue: Was it fair that private taxpayers contribute to government worker pensions even though most private workers have no pension of their own?

I never got a straight answer from anyone, but because I raised the question, I was given a label:

A conservative.

Then last week we began coverage of the Occupy Vancouver protest. One of my good conservative friends — Lew Waters — was outraged at how much coverage we gave it. He made note that six months ago, we failed to cover a Tea Party event here. And that was the smoking gun for Lew that proved I was one thing for certain:

A liberal.

Of course, making proclamations based on one event is a little silly, but we’ve got lots of silly stuff going on, especially in the blogosphere. I decided to check how many times we mentioned “Tea Party” in stories — local and national — and letters to the editor.

More than 800 times!

Looks like we have lots of Occupy stories to do before we catch up.

Still, Lew stuck to his smoking gun.

“Those that claim (you have a) conservative bias are either high on drugs or so far left, Joseph Stalin is conservative to them.”

And so it goes.

Lou Brancaccio is The Columbian’s editor. Reach him at 360-735-4505 or lou.brancaccio@columbian.com.

Brancaccio and his despicable rag have not shown themselves not to be beyond lying in the past on a wide variety of subjects.

He, personally, has lied about me, for example.

But in this case, he lied when he wrote that he "...never got a straight answer from anyone."

You see, on this blog, in response to that question, he has received a straight answer from ME on different occasions where I've laid it out in detail.

But what should we have expected?

If Christ himself came down and told us that Brancaccio was a fringe-left whack job, he would never acknowledge it, accept it... or more importantly, admit it, at least publicly.

But I left a note on his article even telling him that I would be happy to explain it all to him.... for the hundredth time... all he had to do was ask.

But you see, Brancaccio doesn't want to hear from me.  My little remarks on his web site are hidden from those except on my friend list.  I don't know if Lou, himself, can see them.

But the evidence of his leftist bias is overwhelming, as is the evidence that shows and documents his lack of integrity along with the rest of the manure pile he works for.

In this case, rewording what he wrote in a truthful way, what he MEANT to write was this:

"There's a mountain of evidence out there to support the proposition that, in fact, I am a liberal.  The documented bias for democrat candidates; for massive, unwanted projects without a vote from the people, the lies to support the positions on his agenda which are inevitably leftist, the attacks by him and his pit yorkie, John Laird on those wise enough to oppose his positions... his incessant yammering, along with that mutt Laird, over screwing the entire county to get a ballpark on the public dime to enrich the Yakima Millionaires by forcing the 400,000 of us who will never set foot in it to pay the tax for it... except he, of course, doesn't volunteer his newspaper to pay it... he just volunteers his fishwrapper to make money off of it... the cover up for democrats like his complete failure to expose Jim Jacks' alcohol-fueled misconduct toward female staff in the Legislature... all because he lacked a "paper trail" as if the ONLY way to get the story is to read what someone else has written... the list goes on.... and on..... and on.  All of which, yeah, well, pretty much shows I'm a leftist whack job."

For hundreds of examples, a quick search of this blog would suffice.

And his lying response?

What he wrote up there.

In the end, like any other leftist, no amount of proof, no evidence, no statement... none of that would get him to admit the truth.  So my guess the question is.... why bother?

His protestations notwithstanding, we all know what he is and what that cancer on our local community is all about.

That he would claim he "never got a straight answer from anyone?"  That kind of reminds that the people living across the street from the concentration camp at Dachau really had no idea what was going on in there.

Like Brancaccio, if they didn't know... it's because they didn't want to know.

Because for Lou to acknowledge the truth would destroy him... and finish off that rag he works for.

And imagine how much better off we'd all be... and will all be... when that cancer goes permanently bankrupt... and Brancaccio goes back to wherever it is he came from.