Until Barack Hussein Obama has proven his eligibility for the office, he is not my president.
Until Barack Hussein Obama’s paid henchmen in ACORN have been investigated thoroughly and, if found guilty, punished to the full extent of the law, he is not my president.
He can play president all he wants, ignorant fools often get a huge kick out of indulging in their delusions, and his mindless followers can bleat and bray about their Anointed One at the top of their lungs, but he still isn’t my president.
I owe him no loyalty, I owe him no allegiance and I owe him no respect. All of that he has to earn, because he puts his pants on the same way as I every morning, one leg at a time.
The only thing owed by me is covered by my Oath, and that was not given to any son or daughter of man, it was given to the Constitution, the sacred foundation of our nation. The pathetic trappings of office that he surrounds himself with, the waves of adulation washing over him from his braindead sycophants in the Obamedia, all of that is but dust in the wind and I regard it with the same indifference that I show toward a worm writhing under my foot as I step on it. Here today, gone tomorrow. He, too, shall pass.
Oh, huzzah, LE! What marvelous adventures are in store for us over the next four years at the expense of the upstart blackamoor, with our fingers in our ears, shouting at the dust in the wind! Pray tell us more!
But my Oath is forever, and so is the document, the nation to which I swore it. His every word, his every deed, every “law” that his Congress passes shall be weighed, by me, against the words put down by our Founders centuries ago and, if found wanting in any way, I shall ignore them as I would ignore a fly hitting the windshield of my car.
And if he and his tyrannical henchmen try to force me to obey his illegal orders, laws and regulations, I shall meet them with force as well. If I die, I shall die a free man. If I live, I shall have done my country a great favor.
Either way, I shall have done my duty.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
So help me G-d.
Hip-hip-hooray! What fun we shall have with the Littlest Emperor and his gang of rascals … we shall shout and stomp and swear all we like and eat all the lollies and marzipan we want … and the grown-ups will be ever so cross but we shan’t care because we shall build a post-apocalyptic sex cult compound where no grown-ups can ever come to live … and there will be pirates versus soldiers and patriots versus ATF agents and no bedtimes at all forever and ever and parcel bombs if we fancy ‘em, for there’ll be no one to tell us we can’t, and Dave Neiwert will never want for material or a job for even so long as the recession may last!
Thomas A. Daschle, nominated to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, did not pay more than $128,000 in taxes over three years, a revelation that poses a potential obstacle to his Senate confirmation.
The back taxes plus $12,000 in interest and penalties involved unreported consulting fees, questionable charitable contributions, and a car and driver provided by a private equity firm run by entrepreneur and longtime Democratic Party donor Leo J. Hindery Jr., according to a “confidential draft” report prepared by Senate Finance Committee staff.
A spokeswoman for Daschle confirmed last night that he recently paid back taxes in excess of $100,000, but she did not disclose the extent of his tax errors and the timeline of when he and others addressed them.
Daschle paid the back taxes just six days before his first Senate confirmation hearing, the report said.
I am sick to death of rich assholes who cheat the system and don’t pay their goddamn taxes. Screw Daschle. I hope his nomination goes down in flames.
Hey Democrats! Want to avoid losing your majorities in Congress? Then I suggest throwing this “bad bank” idea back down into the craphole from whence it came:
The cost of the government setting up a “bad bank” to buy up toxic assets from struggling U.S. banks could range as high as $4 trillion, according to some experts, Sen. Charles Schumer said on Thursday.
“There are some estimates that if you do a full good bank, bad bank, that it ends up being as high as three trillion dollars, and that’s a lot of money that could mess up lots of other parts of the financial system,” Schumer told reporters.
“I’ve talked to various experts. The estimates vary, from one to four,” the Senate Banking Committee member said.
Guys — if you actually go through with this, the Republicans will correctly pummel you for spending $4 TRILLION ON WORTHLESS TRASH. Please, please, please do not do this unless you truly hate this country and want to bring on President Sarah Palin.
Funny thing: Back when I was a commie college student in the late ’90s, I used to marvel at the ridiculous amount of stuff that people bought and how a lot of people went into deep debt in order to acquire it. At the time I said, “Something here has got to give; we can’t keep acquiring stuff at this rate without the means to pay for it.” And I was predictably called a commie-assed Eurosissy who didn’t believe in the American dream of borrowing a shitload of money to pay for stuff I couldn’t afford.
I’m kinda sad to see that I was eventually proved right about all this, since it’s going to lead to a long and painful recession. But if we emerge from this mess and start oh, I don’t know, saving money and not buying the newest and bestest LCD television set every month, then maybe we’ll be better off.
Jillian adds: I read this article years ago in Foreign Affairs, and it stuck with me all this time, because I remember laughing harder at it than I’ve ever laughed at anything other than The Parrot Sketch. The money shot (to my mind) from the article:
A trade-oriented approach to current account deficits views them as a byproduct of robust economic growth, reinforced by a still overvalued currency and the U.S. economy’s powerful structural import bias. In this view, the U.S. has a stubborn current account deficit because it grows faster than its trading partners and spends a disproportionate share of its growing income on imported goods and services.
An alternative perspective takes as its point of departure the accounting identity that equates the current account deficit with the difference between total investment in the United States and U.S. domestic saving. Low domestic saving, according to this view, is to blame for deficits. The fear is that a sudden reluctance by foreigners to continue exporting their excess savings to the United States would choke off the investment needed to sustain economic growth, sending the U.S. economy into crisis.
This explanation becomes less alarming, however, when you consider that both savings and investment are seriously undervalued in U.S. economic accounts. Capital gains on equities, 401(k) plans, and home values are excluded from measurements of personal saving; when they are added, total U.S. domestic saving is around 20 percent of GDP–about the same rate as in other developed economies.
How’s that 401(K)/investment property working out for ya?
Hey, how come our model for estimating savings percentages doesn’t include things that aren’t money, like stock investments and houses we haven’t sold? And on that note, I’ve always wondered why we don’t factor the possibility of the repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment into our GDP. If every black person in the country became a slave again, we could all be zillionaires tomorrow!
Our problem is not that our economy is in the toilet. Our problem is that the majority of the people we count on to tell us how our economy is doing are all completely fucking insane.
Obama don’t get no Republicans voting wiv him on his mingin’ economic stimulus package an’ that. Which fakkin’ proves he’s no post-partisan President, innit?
Obama promised to cooperate with Republicans, but Republicans have broken his promise by not-he-cooperating with them.
The plumber promised to work on the sink, but shockingly, he broke that promise by not making me stop telling him not to fix the sink, and then working on the sink.
Disaster for you, for you promised me a rose garden and I am not accepting gardens from you at this time.
Analysis: Historic Democratic victory good for Republicans.
…why Republicans are attacking Democrats for funding STD prevention? Like, where is the partisan gain in all this? Can you imagine campaign ads that say something along the lines of, “Mike Pence voted AGAINST Barack Hussein Obama’s plan to prevent you from getting a sexually transmitted disease!” In a sane country, this stuff would just not be controversial.
Only a few hours after I called the Washington Post a “halfway house for disgraced neocons,” Fred Hiatt and his merry band of nitwits published an Op-Ed by Anne Applebaum, totally discrediting my claim that WaPo was a halfway house for discredited neocons by demonstrating, once and for all, that the newspaper is instead a lunatic bin of delusional neocons. So, I hereby apologize to all halfway houses for disgraced neocons for maliciously comparing them to the Washington Post.
The point of Applebaum’s Op-Ed is that the liberal MSM is hiding from the public the millions of foreigners who are appalled at the election of Obama:
You’ve probably heard stories of swooning foreign reporters, breathless international coverage, fawning headlines in many languages. … Yet there was another, more negative category of foreign response to Obama’s inauguration … . A number of international observers eschewed the general adulation and concluded, simply, that the entire event — the election, the inauguration — was a hoax.
Well, this should be interesting. Let’s see what foreigners Applebaum — who incidentally speaks eleventy-billion point eight six foreign languages as fluently as if they were all her mother tongue — finds to support this claim that a “number of international observers eschewed the general adulation.”
Her first example knocks it out of the park. It’s an article from the English-language version of Pravda.ru, claiming that Obama was put in place by the Republicans as a “scapegoat,” that his term will end early, and that the Republicans will then replace him with their real pick. Of course, the English language Pravda.ru is the respected bellwether of Russian opinion which, on its pages, brings you things like this:
And my personal favorite:
Then Applebaum has a Chinese academic cited in a blog citing another blog saying that
many of his compatriots were confident that the “impossible” election of Obama would be disrupted by “something dramatic, similar to John F. Kennedy’s assassination.”
I’m not so sure why Applebaum sees this as a criticism of Obama but, hey, if you’re manufacturing shit out of whole cloth, you have to go to work with the cloth you have.
But the last foreign critic Applebaum cites is the best:
Al-Qaeda has been looking to discredit President Obama, too, mostly with nasty insults (he’s a “hypocrite,” a “killer,” even a “house Negro”) but also describing him as a front man for the secret Zionist conspiracy. “This is Obama,” said Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group’s No. 2, “whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America.”
I thought criticism of someone by Al Qaeda was a good thing, particularly from a neocon’s point of view, but apparently Al Qaeda were the only other folks Applebaum could find to support her case that significant numbers of foreigners didn’t like Obama. The question is, after reviewing the current composition of Op-Ed contributors at the WaPo, is there anyone too stupid not to get an offer of column space from Hiatt?
If there’s one big drawback to the Obama administration thus far, it’s that they’ve inspired wingnuts to write a lot about sex again. Witnesseth Michael Novak:
He ties his sexual power to self-sacrificing communities of love.
The Obama presidency is only one week old, but it has already limned its main moral outlines:
On January 20, President Obama called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual couples.
On January 22, he issued an order announcing his intention to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year, but admits he has not figured out how to do that. President Bush had expressed a similar wish, but could find no nations willing to take responsibility for the detainees.
On January 23, President Obama issued an order that authorizes tax dollars for abortions abroad.
From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.
That’s just some gangsta shit right there.
Dude, if you knew gay people like I knew gay people, you’d know they generally don’t need a civil contract to procure sexual favors. The reason they’re getting married is because they (gulp!) love each other.
But wait! It’s about to get worse:
This is a relapse into paganism. The point of monogamous family networks is to treat male and female with complementary and mutually cooperative dignity and to tie the power of sexuality (male, especially) to self-sacrificing communities of love.
I can’t say anything to that. Literally, I’ve been staring at my damn computer screen for 20 minutes trying to come up with something funny to say about this, but it’s already perfect in its virginal untouched beauty. So let’s move on:
We learn, second, that this president’s guiding light in matters of national security is not a realistic assessment of the national interest but personal concern for what kind of figure he is cutting in the international eye. Good headlines first, practical thinking later.
Ah. I see. To recap what we’ve learned:
This…
…is a righteous action taken by a God-fearing nation of Jack Bauers, who go out and do the dirty work of society while their Jill Bauers sit at home and cook and clean for them.
On the other hand, this…
…is a sign that our society has become deeply corrupt and amoral and will likely be smited by God any day now.
Dag, this is some hardcore foolishness y’all are putting out there.
Uh-oh. It looks like our virgin friends at Red State are upset because the stimulus package contains money to help states maintain their spending rates on public health programs. Most galling is the fact that the government is spending money aimed at stopping diseases that are spread by… TEH SEXXX!!!!!!
The Obama-Reid-Pelosi debt bill has a lot of interesting spending items in it, and more are being discovered by the day. Take page 153 for example. That’s where you’ll find this gem. Out of $3 billion allocated for ‘prevention and wellness programs’ there’s an earmark specifically for combating STDs:
$335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/ AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs
There are good reasons to oppose this, of course.
O rly. I’d love to hear reasons why the government shouldn’t be spending money to control the spread of life-threatening diseases.
It doesn’t belong in a ’stimulus’ bill.
Sure it do. See, state governments are not allowed to run fiscal deficits. Ergo, whenever a recession hits, most states are forced to raise taxes or make significant budget cuts. This has the effect of further hurting the states’ economies, since government spending counts as part of GDP. So one of the best things any federal stimulus bill can do is to give extra funding to states until revenues start rising again.
This isn’t hard to understand. Which is why Red State doesn’t understand it.
It ought to make clear that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent such transmission (at least in most cases).
And this is what it really comes down to: our Red Staters don’t want to help prevent the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases because people who have had sex simply don’t deserve our sympathy.
Why Obama and the Dems feel the need to cave to these clowns is beyond my understanding.
Look, Obamee, I know you made a bunch of Broderesque promises to be all nice to people in the Republican Party, but you’re clearly getting rolled here:
President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol later today in a bid to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.
House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion.
This should dampen the mood for an early afternoon meeting with the president, who is making the trek to hear Republicans’ input on the legislation before Wednesday’s vote.
It’s time to tell the GOP to suck on it. Scrap all the provisions they suggested, put in whatever you think will be the best policy for economic recovery. While compromise is all well and good, you don’t actually need to compromise to achieve your goals here. Plus, in order to have a genuine compromise, you need to be working with people who are debating with you in good faith. Methinks most of the GOP is actually taking the Michelle Malkin approach:
Goody. Panicky President Obama wants the Dems to eliminate Pelosi’s pet contraceptive funding from the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Only $800 billion more in needless, unstimulating stimulus spending to kill.
Dude, they want you to fail. They’re not going to do anything to help you. So just put the best policy you can out there and let that be that. If it works well then you’ll be rewarded for it. If not, then you’ll be punished. That’s politics.
A case of mass Obamanoia is raging through Wingnutistan and seems to have pushed some of our favorite wingnuts through the looking glass to that place where up is down, war is peace, and stupidity is genius. You know, that place where Jonah Goldberg is a model for Calvin Klein briefs, where Pastor Swank is a chaired faculty member of Yale, and where K-Lo’s latest book The Joy of No Sex is a runaway bestseller. Here are three recent examples, each presented without further comment.
And I’ll tell you something funny: I think there has been more partisan politics in New York concert halls lately than I notice in the offices of National Review!
The idea that our nation’s Democratic leaders are anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-homosexual is an inconvenient truth. It is uncomfortable to read because it is uncomfortable to write. But, as an old adage goes, the truth will make you free. Only when Democrats confront their own bigoted demons can true progress begin, can we finally heal as a nation.
” For some, revenge is the only justice they’ll ever get.”
They finally said “buh-bye Bill” to the tirelessly careless William Kristol at the New York Times, ending a little more than a year of his fact-free and error-ridden columnizing at that newspaper. And Bill goes out like he came in — in a malodorous poof of intestinal methane gas:
All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era.
Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world.
Would you like fries examples with that? Well, it being a Kristol column, you won’t find any, so don’t waste your time trudging through the column looking for them.
We don’t really know how Barack Obama will govern. What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has sometimes let on.
Kristol’s column is datelined January 25, so we in fact have quite a bit more than the Inaugural Address, but why should Kristol start worrying about facts at this late date?
Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative.
You know, this hackneyed equation by Kristol of liberalism and anti-Americanism suggests that Bill might have better luck trolling progressive blogs under the nom de fume “Gary Ruppert” than he’s had being a columnist for the Times.
In a parting shot at the Times, whose editors apparently underlined the cavalcade of errors strewn through a year’s worth of Kristol’s columns when deciding to cut him loose, Kristol purports to find two errors in Obama’s Inaugural Speech. Kristol then takes these errors and waves them around like a poo-flinging monkey with a handful of ammunition.
And he appealed to “the father of our nation,” who, before leading his army across the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, allegedly “ordered these words be read to the people: ‘Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it.’”
For some reason, Obama didn’t identify the author of “these timeless words” — the only words quoted in the entire speech. He’s Thomas Paine, and the passage comes from the first in his series of Revolutionary War tracts, “The Crisis.” Obama chose to cloak his quotation from the sometimes intemperate Paine in the authority of the respectable George Washington.
There’s nothing “alleged” about Washington’s order that Paine’s “The Crisis” be read to the troops on Christmas Day of 1776, at least according to the Library of Congress time line of Washington’s life. And it is, of course, ironic that Kristol would be in high dudgeon that Obama would leave out an attribution that wasn’t germane to his point when Kristol’s own debut column for the Times was marred by attributing quotes to the wrong person. For the person who laughs last to last loudest, he really needs to have something to laugh about in the first place.
But you have to wade through the entire column to reach pay dirt:
This is William Kristol’s last column.
Would that this were so, but, sadly, I believe this simply means that this was Kristol’s last column for the Times and that there remains a distinct possibility that readers of other newspapers might still have Kristol inflicted on them.
UPDATE: The Washington Post, which apparently has become a halfway house for disgraced neocons, has offered Kristol a monthly gig to continue making up columns for them. [h/t Jennifer]
One of the persistent myths of wingnutdom is that newspapers intentionally delete the party affiliation of Democrats when they engage in chicanery but put that affiliation in 128 point bold when a Republican should be caught in one of those rare instances when a Republican engages in, say, page fucking or diaper sex with prostitutes. And if there’s anyone who’ll jump on the opportunity to parade around spouting this numbskull notion, you can always count on Scott Johnson, the laziest of the three stooges over at PouterLine.
In my copy of Saturday’s New York Times national edition (page A9), William Yardley reports on the disgrace of Portland’s openly homosexual Mayor Sam Adams. Adams admitted last week that he had a sexual relationship with a then-18-year-old male intern in the state legislature and that he had repeatedly lied about the relationship. …
I’ve read the Times story in my hard copy and online. I can’t find any reference to Mayor Adams’s party affiliation. It’s possible that I missed it, but Tim Graham indicates that the same obscurity afflicts the coverage of the Oregonian and the AP.
By contrast, no such obscurity affects the Times’s story on the indictment of former state senate majority leader Joe Bruno (page A15 of my copy of the national edition). The Times story is headlined “Longtime New York G.O.P. leader indicted by U.S. on corruption charges.”
Now you’d think that one of the Time Bloggers of the Year for 1908, who presumably won this distinction for his keen analytical ability, might not respond to this puzzling dilemma by simply shouting “see, they did it again!” Indeed a “Blogger of the Year, might even fire up ye olde Google and try to get to the bottom of the disparity. Sadly, as we say, no.
But to be fair to Scott, figuring out why Adams’s party affiliation wasn’t mentioned requires a two-step thought-process which is probably fairly challenging for a guy who once punctured his septum while picking his nose. So we can’t really expect Scott to stop for a moment and ponder first whether Portland holds a partisan election for the Mayor. What says Google? Well, my stars and stooges, it seems that Portland holds a non-partisan election for that position. All candidates run in one primary and the top two in the primary are in the general election.
Nor can we expect Scott to take the second step and wonder why, if a person wins a non-partisan election, they should or even could be identified by party affiliation, can we? Someone with a slightly sharper edge than Scott would understand that identifying a non-partisan mayor by his party affiliation is somewhat like mentioning the party affiliation of a blogger each time a newspaper reports his or her latest shenanigans, as in “Scott Johnson (R) piddled on himself yesterday in the ladies lingerie section of the Lake Minnetonka WalMart.”
I’ve tried. Lord knows how I’ve tried to just stop giving a damn about the dumb-show that American political life (and the attending culture wars) have become. It’s just that I’ve noticed that every time I pay attention to the latest executive order from the President or the latest screaming ninny fit induced by our new POTUS within the screaming ninny brigade, I begin to feel hope. And if there’s one thing the last twelve years have taught me, it’s that the only purpose hope serves is to provide profit for the hard liquor sector of the economy – because hope exists only to be brutally dashed, leaving one more bitter and miserable than before.
So, I’ve been trying to ignore current events and spend my time focusing on things less depressing, like the history of the Black Death – did you know that recent tests on preserved soft tissue found within the teeth of Black Death victims confirms that the pestilence which felled half the population of the European continent was, in fact, Y. pestis? And I thought I had finally shaken the addiction – that I had gotten out of the soul-sucking vortex which is the modern Dummkopfenkulturkampf.
DENVER — Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard — a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image.
Brady Boyd, who succeeded Haggard as senior pastor of the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, told The Associated Press that the man came forward to church officials in late 2006 shortly after a Denver male prostitute claimed to have had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard.
Boyd said an “overwhelming pool of evidence” pointed to an “inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship” that “went on for a long period of time … it wasn’t a one-time act.” Boyd said the man was in his early 20s at the time. He said he was certain the man was of legal age when it began.
Damn it all to hell! Now I feel hope again; hope that stuff like this is enough to make some of the idiot “traditional marriage” brigade (like, unfortunately, our new POTUS) recognize the stupidity of the cause they champion. After all, if your ideology is so mind-controlling that it leaves you unable to recognize that this:
might not be completely heterosexual….perhaps it’s time to reconsider that ideology.
And, of course, I’m now also hooked on that sweet, sweet schadenfreude once again, and will soon probably be jonesing for my next fix. But for now, I’ll just ride this one for as much as I can.
Update: Derelict, in the comments, asks for a citation on Obama being one of the “traditional marriage brigade”. Here’s Obama in his own words:
And as for why “civil unions” absolutely do not cut it, one need look no further than the words of our own government. Or the history of Plessy v. Ferguson. Or one’s own frigging conscience. Obama is completely wrong here, and a total wanker for not standing up for what is right. Just because he’s a better president than Bush doesn’t mean he’s a great president, or that he’s above criticism. And his position on this issue stinks.
ABOVE: Knows how, when you grab a woman’s breast,
it feels like a bag of sand
The Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser, like any huckster, reckons she’ll never go broke assuring her audience of masturbatory misanthropes and child support scofflaws that someone else is to blame for their problems. Thus emboldened, our man Ace offers an awkwardly unrequited high five:
As Instapundit brags, the key quote is “People who are not putting out for their partners are making a big mistake.”
Ho ho, you know the Ole Perfesser is totally getting some from his wife.
Many women simply do not buy this, but guys are pretty miserable when they’re working hard and doing all the stuff they’re told to do to be a good husband, and yet aren’t getting sex reliably, or without begging and arguments, from their wives.
I’ve never tried whining or yelling, but I’ve had good luck getting sex with thoughtfulness and flattery. Maybe other wives are different, though.
I really don’t think women get how important this is to guys.
And some men obviously don’t understand how important this might also be to gals.
Aye, there’s the rub. Ace describes a situationally comedic dynamic in which men want sex and women give it to them in return for certain things, but it seemingly hasn’t occurred to him that, under the right circumstances, a woman might want to fuck a man just because. His collected writings suggest as much, but the supporting arguments that Ace cites — a divorced friend’s anecdote, a generalized guess about other men’s sexual histories, articles in women’s magazines — make clear that he hasn’t got very much first-hand experience with sexual relationships.
It is a strange irony that a woman can pretty much get whatever she wants from a guy with no arguments and no disagreements … by doing just one thing (but doing it two or three or sometimes four times a week).
Either women don’t quite get this, or are, you know, just too complicated to act upon it.
Ace launches a final volley toward magazines intended for women, which he believes should be more like magazines intended for men (“Any article on this topic that contains more than three words ['Screw him lots'] is missing the big picture and dwelling on trivialities”). It’s less clear, however, whether he’s more angry at the publications themselves or their target demographic.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin choking chickens.
Brad adds: Oh, Ace. Ace, Ace, Ace. Did you really just write this?
Many women simply do not buy this, but guys are pretty miserable when they’re working hard and doing all the stuff they’re told to do to be a good husband, and yet aren’t getting sex reliably, or without begging and arguments, from their wives.
Dude, try starting her off with a kiss. Or something. I mean, I don’t think the way to a woman’s heart is through storming into the kitchen, dropping your pants and shouting, “LITTLE ACE DEMANDS SATISFACTION! NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!!” S’jus’ not cool.
Turned off by cunninglingus? Eh, a lot of guys don’t dig that. Who the hell knows what’s going on down there. It’s like H.R. Geiger giving up ink and canvas to work in the avant-garde medium of Play-Doh and bacon.
The public’s pathetic greed for spending on infrastructure and education has hurt the feelings of our precious rich people so much that they don’t even have the ambition to make money anymore! Won’t someone, anyone in Congress look out for the needs of the poor, oppressed rich people!
Forbesproclaims me one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media. I bet that‘ll make the Obama people regret not having invited me to last night’s awesome Arcade Fire slash Jay-Z party. Also, yes, many of the people on that list aren’t actually liberals. And I’m afraid the rest of us may not actually have much influence. At a minimum, I don’t have much juice in the party invitations department.
