Fisking a comment to a post that links to another post of mine....I'm sure there's a term for it somewhere in the Bloglossary®. For now, just call it a much-needed respite, sprinkled with some harmless escapism. (Thanks, Delftsman3!)
ur regularly-scheduled excoriation of
oligarchic judges who believe they're gods The New Domestic Terrorists™
will not be shown this post so that we may bring you the following special fisking:[cue dramatic CBS Movie-of-the-Weak intro music]
Tonight—! In honor of the latest series of shake-ups
currently befalling those belovetohated al-Jazeernalists at the Spew Pork Rinds
, particularly their moronically-endowed and other assorted fifth columnists, we here at LU are proud to present several somewhat related opinions from one of their defenders
. (Advisory: Reader discretion is optional.)
I think you could change just a few words here and there and that article ["Teach a liberal to fish," Jan. 3, 2005] would apply to almost any newspaper in the world.
You're right! Just switch Jason with Howl and you have Howl Blare
. Or if you prefer, Jason Reigns: Nightmare on West 43rd Street part CCXXIX
. That's after he bumps off and switches places with
Franky Krugman, of course. (Or is it steals from
pestered taxpayer to make Paul Rich? Anyway, you get the picture.)
Since when does a newspaper have to identify their source?
Gosh, never thought of that. Come to think of it, they don't. They shouldn't have to tell anyone where they get their information at all. As a matter of fact, no one should be able to force them to worry about that trust thing either. If any readers that are/aren't l/Left don't like it, they can just go find a paper with the words New York and Washington switched in the header.
If that were the case we'd know for certain it was Rove or Cheney who leaked the undercover CIA agents identity (rather than just an educated guess) to the press.
Yeah, lucky for those wily vast right wing conspirators that we don't or we wouldn't have had to keep beating that long-dead donkey
over and over until we forgot how to moveon. Just like Evil Conservatives™ to support keeping sources unidentified and stuff.
I'm thinking the neo-cons should be supporting that right with all their might...
It should be a right. The right to know no sources. You're right, it's not right that the Right isn't righting itself by writing about rightly supporting that righteous right. (Not sure, but I probably left out a right back there somewhere. Might be important.) Is it because they're such Joooooooooooooos
Conservatives™. Perhaps that's the word I left out! (Could be because it also starts with a "ri-"; I believe that's what threw me off.) Oh, and rich Joooooooooooooos
One thing about the moonbatty left, you know up front what your getting with them.
And a good thing too, else we wouldn't know what to think when they voted in favor of homeland security, no child left behind, war efforts and such before they actually voted against them.
On the other hand when it comes to the neo-con right winguts,
(That's the Jooooooooooooooish kind.)
50% of them are in the closet with some hidden sexual fetish,
Bet they only like heterosexual sex, too. The icky pervs.
25% are in denial,
It's unbelievable how much they are. They don't believe sending all their icky, perverted money to the government will do a bunch of good by letting it help people, including The Children®. Stingy, selfish
Joooooooooooooos. Why, even if that makes them totally poor and forces them to live under bridges, don't they realize they'd have the government there ready to help every one of them then? Seems they never "thought" of that when it could very well be themselves living under those bridges. The hypocrites!
and the remaining 25% have their heads buried in the sand.
Those are the extremists (because they're in extreme denial).
Of course there are a good many cross overs within those catagories [sic].
Head buried in the sand is
a rather kinky position for those with a hetero fetish. Or even denying they have their head anywhere near that sand.
When it comes to idiots...
Whether they have kinky sex or are fond of sand (or a cross dressing between the two) and may or may not know it.
one only has to read a couple of the blogs of some of the right wingnuts to understand true idiotcy.
Not to mention some of the commentcings one can also read on them.
I mean seriously...
As serious as The New Domestic Terrorists offing voiceless, choiceless, totally husband-dependent young women?
have you EVER read _____'s blog? Or maybe _______'s?
Oh. Well, _____.blogspot.com is rather serious most of time. But not as much as www._______.us. Really, all those blankety-blank words the latter keeps using only makes it that much d__n harder to read. If it'd just cut back some of the s__t a little they'd both be equally serious.
Do YOU really want to be assosiated [sic] with those inbred,
Don't forget "idiots."
Come on, what about idiots?
(Oh, never mind.)
Thought for a moment there you were going to leave it out! Maybe you could use IRSRI
for short, instead. Would save a lot of time which might be better spent on getting around to some real name-calling. (Just a slight change, I'm suggesting.)
Come on delftsman, I thought you were a better class of man than that!
He is. And sensitive too, which is why he went out and bought a brand new riding mower for his wife
. I believe he deserves some slack here, wanda.[run dramatic CBS Movie-of-the-Weak credits]
I post, Delftsman3 links, wanda comments, I fisk.
Comments (registered users)