No, that's the point, you wouldn't. Look, do you hear me about the EESC guy, I still think his comments were bad because of the soundbite, I really have no idea if I would have read that in context and complete and just waived it outside or been more outraged then I am now, and it doesn't matter, because my view it tainted by the soundbite.



You seem to be of the opinion that I was trying for a hit piece on the EESC president, and that for some strange reason I went ahead and posted the whole thing and talked about how it wasn't so bad in context, then suggested people dig up Rush's and see if it was similar.

MWAHAHAHA!!! You've seen through my sinister plan, er, or something! My whole goal was to prove that hyper-partisan blogs and sites and pundits are totally objective sources of information who never take things out of context, by pointing out one from my side of the aisle that took something rather out of context. Drat! Foiled again!

Seriously, it does not behoove us to do these endless "X said this!" posts, all you get is people singing with the choir and even if what X said is shown to be wrong, or even right, nobody wants to change their mind. The point is that posters need to have those context with the original post, and if they can't find them, they shouldn't post it, because they don't even know if it is or isn't in context. At best they'll end up right for all the wrong reasons.