Dense Stupid Sent, Attenuated Stupid Received
Ok, so Doughy Pantload writes a column that is insane and stupid even by his own august standards the gist of which is: we poor conservatives are damned if we do and damned if we don’t!
Resentfully recalling that the 9/11 commission condemned Dear Leader’s regime’s “lack of imagination,” Pantload argues that, well even if it had been true, it’s has all been rectified now! By the NSA’s spying and the SWIFT program, etc. And what do liberals do now that Dear Leader has met the demands for imaginative counter-terrorism — even, one could say, magnanimously met the liberals halfway? Whine about civil liberties. Why it just reeks of bad faith. Even worse than the stab in the back by the press, liberals demand that the costs of this war be borne by the rich, and be paid for now. Again, bad faith! The evil liberals have obviously tried to use this war as a means of collectivizing America. Naturally, heroic Dear Leader wisely has thwarted them thus far, holding firm on his tax cuts and so passing the buck for this war, literally, onto the next generation.
All in all this is a perfect Pantload column, with a little of everything. Personally, I like the Bad Faith of Liberals/They Dont Really Care About Civil Liberties/They Just Want To Sabotage The President And The War narrative, an especially glossly addition to the standard stab in the back argument that wingnuts, shamelessly, have run into the ground (Yet it must be said that Jonah isn’t being original here — his exact argument has long been Jeff Goldstein’s cock bread and butter.)
Anyway, so Pantload writes this piece of crap, and one of his clay-eating dullard fans writes back that the message has been received, over:
Hi Jonah,
Love your work, and enjoyed today’s column.
You mention the liberal mantra of ‘sacrifice’ for civilians during a time of war. But it always struck me as odd that when they beat this drum they are almost exclusivley talking about increased taxes as the ‘sacrifice’ we can make. If I didn’t know better about the economic implications of high taxes I would gladly go along.
But the way I see it, there’s other things I can do – like give up some of my civil liberties in the name of national security. Our military is fighting and dying overseas, and we’re so immature and selfish that we won’t allow the government to possibly listen in on a phone call or go though our bank records?? I’ve got nothing to hide, so if that’s what I need to do to help protect the homeland, then so be it. Only terrorists and libs would be against a simple sacrifice like that. It is (literally) the least I could do.
Keep up the good work.
Pantload is sapient enough, barely, to recognize that the perfect distillation of his own fucktardious hunk of shit column “will no doubt bother some folks.”
The email, so servile in tone that it belongs to the literature of cult members, could almost be a parody. The emailer “thinks” in the precise way that Goldberg’s column urges him, which shows that euphemism, weasel-wording, sustained mendacity, and a bit of padding are all that Pantload needs to “sanitize” his columns enough for National Review‘s standards of deceny and intellectual independence — and Pantload grasps this fact enough to add the caveat.
If I didn’t know better about the economic implications of high taxes I would gladly go along.
Yeah, I’m sure your taxes are gonna get so high the bank will foreclose on the double-wide. Pantload and his 5 “fans” need to sit in the back of the class and eat some fucking paste.
Guh, Jonah’s stupid even managed to contaminate me. I hit publish on accident and had to do some quick fixing to a post that was still in the infancy of the editing process.
That really does sound like a parody, especially the second paragraph. Real or not, Jonah makes himself look ridiculous by proudly putting it up for display.
“But the way I see it, there’s other things I can do – like give up some of my civil liberties in the name of national security.”
The
That’s all I got. “The”
“And, you know, Jonah, I just thought of some other things I can do. Like stand on the sideline and cheer–by which I think I mean, hold flaming torches aloft and shout in Transylvanian–when the politzei take other people’s civil liberties in the name of national security. Is that right? Do I get like a lollipop or some other valuable prize?”
I better stick with The
Oh dear lord, that has to be a Lazlo Toth-style parody letter. “If the liberals want sacrifices from people, then why are they so upset that the government has imposed on them the sacrifice of the things the nation stands for? Those hypocrites!”
Please. Someone has punk’d Doughboy. No question.
Yes, no question it was parody.
there’s other things I can do – like give up some of my civil liberties in the name of national security
How touching. There ought to be some kind of formal ceremony for offering up one’s privacy to the Borg, in which one becomes Transparent before God and Dubya by undergoing a public strip search and reciting a list of past porn rentals.
If I didn’t know better about the economic implications of high taxes I would gladly go along.
This is the line that gives it away as parody.
No real conservative – or, more accurately, no National Review reader who thinks he’s a real conservative – would ever say that.
That response was a fuctoid that gives the impression that it was paid for. I sincerely doubt that a real human could cover so many RNC yacking points in such a concise manner. Even the brainwarped can no longer believe the fantasy peddled by the pushers of death and tyranny. I can dream, can’t I?
The stay puff marshmallow man will say anthing to get the trailerites to accept Stasi style surveillance
they are almost exclusivley talking about increased taxes as the ’sacrifice’ we can make
Apparently Mr.Emailer hasn’t heard of Operation Yellow Elephant.
The guy would rather live in a police state that pay higher taxes. Wow. “Give me liberty or give me a flat screen TV… in fact, just give me the TV, I don’t give a shit…”
Yeah, I’m sure your taxes are gonna get so high the bank will foreclose on the double-wide. Pantload and his 5 “fans� need to sit in the back of the class and eat some fucking paste.
I dissent. Even trailer hicks know better than to read Jonah. This guy is clearly a pasty white suburban porker who fantasizes about having his brains transplanted into a robot.
Paste-eaters live in a variety of habitats. Trailer-trash might not be the cosmopolitan sophisticates that effete and elitist liberals might want them to be all the time, but not all of them are deluded either.
There is a curious phenomenon among paste-eaters. When given the chance to express their understanding of reality, they believe they’re are being ordered to spout an opinion…any opinion…or be judged “stupid” if they are honest by responding with “I don’t know” or “I don’t care.” Hence, the recourse to platitudes and talking-points about real issues, that, when subject to a closer investigation, would reveal they neither understand nor really believe.
It’s the result of a cultural dynamic that insists that the biggest sin is to honestly admit you don’t know something; a culture in which not knowing something opens you up to scorn and ridicule.
It’s adolescent and dishonest, and with anyone passed 25 years old, unforgivable.
I blame “Saved by the Bell.” I think a whole generation of American minds was ruined by that show.
I blame “Saved by the Bell.� I think a whole generation of American minds was ruined by that show.
I have founnd “Saved by the Bell” to be a convenient scapegoat for a whole host of atrocities.
If these conservatives want to give up constitutional protections for their safety, then we should invite them to advocate and enforce strong gun control laws.
Not just enforce strong gun control laws, but *Ignore* the gun control laws on the books. The ones the NRA so dearly loves. If the government can ignore the fourth amendment, it can ignore the second.
So, if you want to give up your, my and everyone’s, right to privacy, all you have to do is amend the Constitution to nullify the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There’s an amendment they should be debating. Flag burning indeed.
So, if you want to give up your, my and everyone’s, right to privacy, all you have to do is amend the Constitution to nullify the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Heh….a friend of mine and I have developed this running joke of referring to the amendments to the Constitution as “suggestions”. Thus, “The First Suggestion” says that Congress should really respect your right to assemble….as long as it’s not too much of a bother or anything. Likewise, the Fifth Suggestion says that no level of government should compel anyone to incriminate themselves…..if it can possibly avoid doing so. If it can’t, well…..dulce et decorum est and all that.
And anyone who has a problem with any of the Constitutional Suggestions is objectively pro-terrorist, I say.
I thought the Doughmeister wrote all those anonymous e-mails himself.
The comic “Candorville” nailed it today. A RWer noting that he had too sacrificed for the war; his “support the troops” magnet took some of the paint off of his BMW!
But the way I see it, there’s other things I can do – like give up some of my civil liberties in the name of national security.
I’ve seen plenty of comments on Glenn Greenwald’s blog that are worse than that. Which is why I had to stop reading the comments there.
I say we applaud this hero for desiring to sacrifice his civil liberties, then throw him in Gitmo for the duration; a sacrifice in action is more laudable than a sacrifice in intention. Plus, he’s clearly treasonously antiAmerican in his hatred of the Constitution, and we need to be very careful with these sorts of dangerous persons in a post 9/11 world.
But the way I see it, there’s other things I can do – like give up some of my civil liberties in the name of national security.
Fear. Dripping, sweating, eye-darting, quivering fear. Here’s these supposedly tough-guy “conservatives” litterally BEGGING the government to OH PLEASE step in and save us from those awful people who attack us–er, attacked us five years ago–no matter what it takes. I know I’ve said it before, but I just don’t understand why they’re not embarrassed. Seems to me that it should take more than a few islamic nutjobs in caves halfway around the world to turn grown men with guns in the most powerful nation in the history of the world into pants-wetting crybabies. Can you imagine if American pundits were so cowardly during the cold war? When there REALLY was a threat to our lives and our way of life? Why don’t these guys get called on this crap? Why doesn’t someone ask “Why are you so afraid?” “What exactly are you so afraid OF?” Even if/when al Quaida attacks us again, and assuming they have some level of success and blow up a building and kill a few hundred people, that would be bad but it would not “destroy America”. They simply do not represent this so-called “Existential Threat to America ™.
So I’m thinking we need to take these poor, fearful children in our arms and speak softly to them, show them there’s no monster in the closet, give them a nightlight and a glass of water, and tuck them in. I’ll start with Marie Jon’…
mikey
Can you imagine if American pundits were so cowardly during the cold war? When there REALLY was a threat to our lives and our way of life?
For a bunch that talks so tough about killing Islamofascists, it amazes me how pants-shittingly terrified of them they really are, perfectly willing to piss away 220 years of civil liberties because Abdul from the 7-11 down the street is a little too swarthy looking.
If Jonah’s commenter has nothing to hide, where’s his sacrifice?