Nancy Graceless (Pt. I)
Nancy Morgan is back, and this time she’s mad.
…That is, she’s mad-as-in-angry, not as in nutrageously, hairball-coughingly, koo-koo-ka-joo-Mrs.-Robinsonly bonkadoodle — which, well, there appear to be no new ships on that particular blue horizon, if you know what we’re saying.
Apparently she posted her column “White Racism” at Daily Kos, and the people there weren’t all like, “Say, that’s a fresh and much-needed perspective.” A key passage:
Consider: Just as terrorists consider appeasement a sign of weakness and thus feel emboldened to further acts of terror, so do racial hucksters become emboldened and validated every time a white is forced to sing mea-culpa for even mentioning race.
And now she’s telling on the Kos Kids for being such big liberal meanies.
If you suspect that Ms. Morgan doesn’t actually, really want to debate, but only wants to engage in the echt-conservative ritual — the primordial I-am of the descendants of Goldwater — of expressing before unwilling others the seething core of resentment that lies at the heart of conservatism (i.e., only wants to be affirmed despite herself), you probably know what she’s going to say in this new column.
Common talk-radio conservatives, who number in the tens of millions, don’t want to debate, per se, and don’t even want to win the debates they find themselves compulsively starting. They don’t want their grievances eased or hurts salved. What they want, really, is for their great, historic argument between a noble ‘us’ and a villainous ‘them’ to keep roiling, for the pique of the heated moment never to go away leaving them empty and lonely. What they want is for the argument never to end.
How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed.
Oh, okay then. Doop-de-doop, turnin’ on the TV.
Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any…
See, there she goes already. No consistency.
But hold on a second. Already we have the complaint that white people aren’t allowed to talk about race, while Ms. Morgan keeps talking about race. What she really means is that white conservatives can say any ding-dang thing they want, all the doo-dah day, but if they talk about race — which they so often do — people disagree with them and call them idiots.
And okay, hold on another second. Let’s try this again. What’s this about ‘authentic blacks’ when the conversation on race has presented us, for weeks on end, with a ceaseless pageant of white conservatives braying woundedly, joyously about every tiny last inconvenience that each has suffered in order to avoid being labeled a bigot, just because black people are so incredibly sensitive and can’t take a joke and are inferior and murderous and lazy, and so forth? — thus and therefore forcing them, these conservatives, with tears dampening their sleeves, to reassess Brown v Board of Education, if not the Civil Rights Act of 1875, not to mention identifying specific black people who, in everyone’s best interest and free-at-last, free-at-last, ought to be called by the n-word? Hooray, a conversation on race!
Because okay, clarification: Does ‘authentic blacks’ mean that Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Shelby Steele, and the rest of the Republican Quisling set have been inadequately represented in the conversation, apart from all the columns and the being-on-TV and other such trifles, just because most black people despise everything they stand for, or does it suggest the entry into the conversation of actual lawn jockeys, molded and enameled to resemble small, fanciful Negroes of antebellum-Southern aspect?
But we’re getting a bit far ahead of things. Morgan is still approaching the point:
…so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals. Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.
This is that post hoc ergo propter hoc thing that people are always talking about. Nancy runs into a room, hair knotted and nails chewed, eyes hollow and burning like abyssal coals, and goes, “Aiee! Zarg! Fleen!” waving a poo-smeared garden rake. Later she types a plaint about how liberals will run out the door yelling for the police unless you have a manicure.
By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.
If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks.
Above: Nice wig, Mike Myers
Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick.
The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.
But oho. There’s also the correcting-your-usage trick, in which liberals point out that a ‘vitas’ is a brief autobiographical statement, and not a synonym of ‘bona fides’ or ‘virtues.’ Oooh, liberals.
To Ms. Grace’s credit, though, she made it through ‘carte blanche,’ ‘vilify,’ and ‘touting’ — indispensable accessories in the conservative opinion columnist’s socket set. If a liberal isn’t ‘touting’ some dumb thing, he or she is ‘vilifying’ some perfectly good thing. And then they go back to ‘touting’ something else!
It’s like they have carte blanche; we are shocked and appalled. We are in fact shocked, appalled, and dismayed.
By this time, the subject of the argument is long forgotten.
Wait. Yes. No. Where were we?
We’ll soon return with Part II of our Morgan debate!
Oh wait, she’s not done yet.
If, however, the rude, argumentative conservative persists in addressing inconvenient facts, the liberal invariably points to ‘bad behavior’ by others, as if that excuses all bad behavior. That’s called the ‘Everyone Else Does It So It Must Be OK’ defense. Voila, the debate veers again from the original issue and turns into a catalogue of left vs. right scandals.
We’ll be back with… Oh wait, one more thing.
Needless to say, if the ‘Everyone Else Does It’ defense was valid, we’d still have slavery.
Except for the fact that, you know, opposite. Because the United States was the last Western, industrialized country to give up slavery.
Oh wait, one more thing.
If the MOTVRWC is still standing, demanding an answer to the original issue, which has yet to be addressed, the beleaguered liberal will kindly inform one and all that the debate is over. The question has been settled. Case closed. It is now time to, you guessed it, Move On.
Okay.
Boop-bee-doop-doop. Fixin’ a sandwich.
Wait, she’s still here.
The best scenario for liberals, however, is to avoid debate altogether. This is called the pre-emptive defense. Gore just gave us a prime example when he declared on 60 Minutes that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming probably also believes the earth is flat. Can you spell Neanderthal?
Experts are divided on that question, but we can spell ‘non-sequitur.’
We’ll soon return with Part II of our Morgan debate!
Oh wait, one more thing.
Another pre-emptive defense includes labeling any dissenting view as propaganda which, of course, is unworthy of debate.
No, really, Nancy — let’s pick this up later. No, we’re literally out the door, yes, talk to you soon, okay, no, yes, ‘bye.
Another neat trick the left uses to avoid debating inconvenient facts (formerly called corruption, perjury, lies, theft, adultery, etc.) is to…
[to be continued]
Man, the crazy ones turn me on. Does this one carry a knife? Or a shootin’ iron?
Why can’t she just scream “nigger” once, good and loud, and be done with it?
Dear wingnuts:
Calling you stupid for making stupid arguments != Taking away your right to free speech.
The Great Debate on Race
Conservative: I think black people are lazy, shiftless, murderous brutes who smell bad.
Liberal: I quite disagree, and to be perfectly honest, that’s pretty offensive.
Conservative: HELP, I’M BEING REPRESSED BY CLOSED-MINDED LIBERAL WORD-NAZIS!!!!
You know, when MacLean Stevenson left MASH I really expected the show to crumble. But Nancy Morgan really stepped up and created a character who….
What? Oh. Never mind.
How did someone who’s functionally retarded get a forum like this? Did the Make-a-Wish Foundation take pity and intervene?
Didn’t Brazil get rid of slavery after the US, but without, you know, a long war and 600,000 dead to do so?
Actually, I can’t think of any other country that took a war to get rid of slavery. Am I wrong?
I added a bit to that passage. Thanks!
“…the rude,
argumentative conservativeterrified little bigot persists in addressinginconvenient factsignorant pablum…”fixed
Heh, nicely done.
Except, plenty of liberals do say that she lied.
Also, conservatives may not have noticed, but John McCain has “misspoken” about imaginary connections between Iran and Al Qaeda about a dozen times on camera and the mainstream media has either let it go unchallenged or called it a gaffe, even editing their own video, in the case of CNN, to make it look like a quick stumble.
Then there are George W. Bush’s 935 lies that respectable journalists have always been too polite to call “lies”. The only politician I can think of who ever lied lied is Bill Clinton.
P.S.
Did she just eat her own tail?
The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know.
Nothing is more telling of her mindset and her morals than this statement.
Crazy and stupid is quite a powerful combination. Add in ass-ugly just for the fun of it and you have…wait for it…a trifecta!
Frankly, why bother the with continuation? Won’t it just be more of the same?
‘authentic blacks’
I guess she’s trying to make it clear that ‘non-authentic blacks’ should be silent on these issue. I agree. By non-authentic I mean whites who try to tell everyone what the real issues are in the black community.
conservative opinion columnist’s socket set
Now there’s a photoshop I’d like to see.
Actually, I can’t think of any other country that took a war to get rid of slavery. Am I wrong?
Well… there was the Haitian Revolution, and that was about as brutal as a war can be. It was in 1791 though, back when we were still raiding the coast of Africa for fresh “chattel.”
Shorter entire wingnut-o-world re race:
Racist blacks and liberal fascists want to take away our right to safely yell “n***er!!” in public.
The end.
Mmm, I see where some of you are going with “the United States was last/bloodiest to end slavery,” but it’s still worth noting how balkanized this country was for most of its existence, or how it was founded with an extreme distrust of most anything centralized. Yeah, it sucks that we were so late in terminating that rot, but I think that has more to do with the gum-and-duct-tape way this country was formed rather than some sort of evilness lurking in the pit of the American soul. There were solid voices for ditching slavery at this nation’s onset, but this was met with the threat that half the country would peace out (as the European-constructed economy of the South was slave-based like a mutha), leaving everyone vunerable for re-colonization and re-subjugation by their European masters.
Additionally, congrats to Britain for ditching slavery. I’m sure they were just as eager to see America ditch slavery- and cheap cotton- as well. Completely sure. Absolutely sure.
Regardless of all that, though, sometimes I read The Corner and actually do start to think we held onto slavery for so long because we were…and still are…assholes. I don’t want to think this. I’m pretty sure history has led me not to believe this. But damn, they nearly push me over the edge.
sometimes I read The Corner and actually do start to think we held onto slavery for so long because we were…and still are…assholes.
Well, the police don’t always come off so well, but I always found it a little uplifting to consider the McCullough family’s success in navigating away, individually and as a group, from the blights of Fayette & Monroe …
Oh, you mean those assholes.
She’s auditioning for the Ann Coulter Chair of the Higher Demagoguery.
These people don’t ever discuss the merits, the issues, the facts, the history, or what we here laughingly call “reality.” All they want to do is rail and foam against “liberals.”
All they want to do is elicit an emotion, and the only emotions they want to elicit are anger and indignation. That’s why people listen to Rush, Hannity, etc.: to feel aroused. Which is to say, more alive.
It’s tempting to say, “this is what they have instead of sex,” but that’s probably not true. Rather, this is what they (the fans, the amateurs like Morgan) have instead of emotional honesty about their own lives.
this is quite funny, by the way. I esp. liked the lawn jockey part.
Of all the odious brands of right-wing screeds, I think this genre is the most tiresome: the going-through-the-motions column. Just type up some vague, whiny, unoriginal complaints about unspecified “liberals” and political correctess, and voila! It’s just that easy!
This is the kind of thing they write on a day when they don’t have any ideas or motivation, but still have enough self-regard to believe that any half-assed piece of garbage they toss out will somehow be of help to the Cause.
By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues.
…which is exactly what the right wing has been doing for the last 40 years. (A major rule of How to Argue Like a Right-Winger: Project, project, project.) A lot of right-wing frames out there don’t even get questioned these days. When was the last time you saw anyone in the media refer to either government or taxation as anything better or more positive than a “necessary evil.” (Ditto abortion, frankly, as if women having the right to have a medical procedure without some paternalistic asshole sticking his overly-long nose up their hospital johnnies is supposed to be some kind of controversy…) I dunno about you guys, but I like the things taxes pay for. I’m all in favour of roads, schools, public health, research grants, police and fire protection, and the social safety net, et cetera…
Jesus blue tapdancing Christ. They must know they do this; it has to be on purpose.
Dear Ms. M. Organ:
Because shut up. That’s why.
But frankly, we should be glad these nutophiliacs are content to indulge their humiliation fetish by dumping gallons of radioactive crazy into the internons.
If everyone treated them with the respect they allegedly crave they’d be forced to ever increasing levels of crazy to get the verbal spanking they’re really after. I’m talking coming to your house and scaring your pets crazy.
Do. Not. Want.
What they want is for the argument never to end.
I think you nailed it right there.
Read the rest of this entry »
Holy crap, there’s more?
Doesn’t her whole argument boil down to:
“Whaaa! I never win any debates with liberals because they insist on logic, proper word definitions, and basic grammatical conventions. I can’t win, so it must not be fair!”
Just askin’.
Nice work Gavin. Hilarious.
Whatever happened to wingnut look-alikes?
Hmmm…
Shorter: “Liberals are mean, because they don’t want to listen to my stupid and factually-made-up bullshit. Whoop-whoop-whoop! They hate black people; that’s why they keep pushing for affirmative action! Iraq is going swell, you can tell by how so many people are dying to go there! There’s nothing wrong with our economy, I’m sure all those international corporations are just switching to foreign currency for a change of pace.”
…Well, it’s STILL shorter, so nyeh!
Hm, project much?
Whereas the right just repeats the lie over and over.
Wait a second. Maybe I missed something but this entire “essay” appears to be an utterly fact-free zone. Isn’t this all about how mean those nasty mean liberals are? Is there a cite, a quote, something to counter-argue?
Sadly, No!
Ah, but I see where part deux will be going. I’m looking forward to the hilarious takedown of “White Racism.”
Carte Blanche.
Heh.
Is she related to Melanie Morgan?
Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex….
I can’t believe she’s still on about this. First of all, it’s Boy George, Idiot King, Free Spending Nation Builder and Punk’r of all the Skreechy Conservative Realms.
Secondly, Bill didn’t redefine sex. We went over this last decade. To a large number of men, blowjobs != sex.
Of course if we accepted that then we could stop argu…. ohhhh.
Whatever happened to wingnut look-alikes?
win.
Sorry.
What the fuck is an MOTVRWC? I’ve been away, and do not recognize this acronym.
Nancy Morgan, Danger Seeker!
What the fuck is an MOTVRWC?
Member of the…
She looks vaguely like Nina Garcia, on Project Runway. Without the hip fashion. Or the good looks. Or the rapier-wit.
The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know.
The answers, in order, are yes, yes, yes, and that number seems low, actually.
Of course, if she really wants to know whether there is a VRWC, she could always call up Scaife – he may still have the receipts.
This keeps bugging me:
member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative)
What the hell is that “(conservative)” doing there?
Is she clarifying? Is she intimating that there are liberal members of the vast right wing conspiracy?
Or does she imagine that anyone reading this … anyone … will be befuddled by her reference?
“A wha? A member of the what? A what conspiracy?
Oh! A conservative! Now I see what she’s saying.”
Or the rapier-wit.
I can’t see that expression without thinking of the bit in Dumb and Dumber where the guy boasts of having a “rapist’s wit.” Then I have to pretend that I don’t know what I’m smiling at.
I think she’s implying that libruls see all conservatives as members of the vast right wing conspiracy. This is of course correct. Being a conservative, by definition, makes one a party to the conspiracy, even if one does not act in furtherance of that conspiracy.
But then again, a “conspiracy” means something in reality-based terms, and something entirely different in winger terms – generally whatever the hell they think it should mean that day.
Oh, dear, we’ve gone and upset Nancy Grace. We’ll all have to be more politically correct so as not to hurt her feeling.
Which means we’ll have to stop making fun of her and we’ll have to nod politely and smile when she talks.
Be kinder to the conservatives. They can’t take it.
Yet more righty tighty martyr/oppressed victim bullshit. It isn’t anything we haven’t heard a hundred times before.
Ugh. I thought that whole right wing conspiracy thing had gone away. I don’t like MOTVRWC. I think they should just be called ‘members’. The phallic reference should please them. “You know, I was looking at this member the other day, and even though I knew he was full of piss and vinegar, I thought he was kinda hot…”
I think she’s implying that libruls see all conservatives as members of the vast right wing conspiracy. This is of course correct. Being a conservative, by definition, makes one a party to the conspiracy, even if one does not act in furtherance of that conspiracy.
That makes as much sense as anything, though I don’t quite understand her dogged insistence on reducing the label to MOTVRWC.
Does she think she can use it to yell at libruls walking on her lawn? “Hey, only we can call ourselves MOTVRWCs! See, that’s what black people do with the n-word that they won’t let me say! Who’s racist now?”
Ouch…
What, calling a debate an argument is wrong?
Opinions don’t involve judgement?
Paging Frank Luntz, Frank Luntz to the white courtesy phone please…
What’s that, Great Gazoogle? Surely this is solely a liberal phenomenon, right? (That the Freepers get the #2 spot on both searches doesn’t mean anything)
Gee, is that why I know who Barney Frank is whenever I hear about Larry Craig or Mark Foley?
No, wait, that’s why I hear about William Jefferson when Duke Cunningham or Ted Stevens comes up!
No, wait, that’s why I know that Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK whenever Republican racists are discussed.
No, wait, that’s why I know who Ward Churchhill is (because I’d never know otherwise)…
ad nauseum. From the latin for “showcasing your disguist”
I think the phrase you’re looking for isn’t ‘move on’, but get over it. Just guessing.
Or just call anyone who disagrees with you a traitor. You know, ask why they hate America.
Corruption?
Perjury?
Lies?
Theft?
Adultery?
You wanted to talk about those things?
Gosh, if only there was some way to know… some magical ‘engine’ that might help me ‘search’ for that information…
That’s almost… Swank-esque in its awfulness. Non-flat pancakes? Reality is defined by God?
Of courese, the ultimate Great Debate on Race has already been addressed by SN’s own Mister Leonard Pierce here.
Really, I’m not sure there’s anything else to say. Perhaps someone should email the link to Ms. Graceless.
Goddammit, I still say she looks like fucking Anpan Man!
>blockquote>…Well, it’s STILL shorter, so nyeh!
Yeah but then so is the Bible. She’s probably been having this same argument since 1998…continuously.
Me Talk Pretty HTML one day!
Yeah but then so is the Bible. She’s probably been having this same argument since 1998…continuously.
Is that when her husband filed for divorce?
By assigning an acronym to the concept, she is implying that it is discussed so often in LIEbrul circles as to rise to the level of being common place. I know that I spend all of my time obsessing over the concept. It’s also a badge of honor for wingers. They are proud of their membership in an evil cult.
They are proud of their membership in an evil cult.
Speaking of evil cults, I saw Grace Cathedral over the weekend. Not only were there no cannibals, but I was not offered poppers by a drag queen, not even once. I’m retreating back into book-world now.
Madame, I have explained to you many times before: this is “Abuse.” Argument is down the hall to your left.
No, it isn’t!
I won’t go into it but that’s not a very good example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. But I’m not here to pick nits.
I completely agree with the idea that they actually don’t want resolution to whatever conflict they’re flogging. It’s the autoflagellation that makes their socks go up and down.
One man asks
You aren’t missing anything. The key is to recognize that Morgana Fatuouso, typifying her metonymical ideological conspecifics, doesn’t know what the fuck the the word ‘debate’ means.
Without going all academic here- citing particulars and constructing a cogent argument intended to persuade someone <= CLUE! CLUE! – I’ll merely note that she typifies the conservatives in repeatedly conflating the terms ‘opinion’ and ‘argument.’
Dang, I forgot the litotes.
Dang, I forgot the litotes.
You mean, like, “her argument doesn’t quite rise to the level of brilliance?”
OT, but some here would be interested in this:
How bad is the new Expelled movie? So bad that even Fox News is heavily bashing it.
Their entertainment reviews are usually a separate animal from the normal in-house right-wing agenda. You can be assured that, when it’s released, Ben Stein will be on O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes talking about how the left-wing media is trying to silence him and only the heroes of Fox News are taking a stand for free speech.
I hate when that happens.
Hey, I found one! (sort of)
I’m going to count those too, solely because it is not unamusing to me.
Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
David Brock clarified this in his book: It’s actually a small, close-knit conspiracy.
How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed.
Great! Noe Bill-O, Rush, The Savage Weiner, and Glenn Beck are liberals?!?!?! I have to turn my card in…
What the hell is that “(conservative)” doing there?
Is she clarifying? Is she intimating that there are liberal members of the vast right wing conspiracy?
Well, there is Hillary Clinton.
Oh, dear, we’ve gone and upset Nancy Grace. We’ll all have to be more politically correct so as not to hurt her feeling.
‘Cuz she’s only got the one.
Once there was a lass named Nancy Morgan
Who would fuck all day till she was sore again
After each night
She’d say “Alright
I’ve carte blanche and I fancy an organ.”
Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know.
Gosh, if only there was some way to know… some magical ‘engine’ that might help me ’search’ for that information…
You mean, like this?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lied+poll&btnG=Google+Search
From what I understand of the VRWC, it’s not so much a conspiracy as it is a gravy train (aka Wingnut Welfare).
Later that same day …
Apparently she’s mad because what she calls “facts” and “debate,” liberals call “ad hominem” and “bloody waste of time.”
That was not close to the worst litotes ever.
Commie Atheist sez:
Anticipated response from Nancy:
Lies! Heresy! Blasphemy! Black magic! He’s a witch, burn him! Burn him I say! And don’t listen to any of those damnable lies, -er statistics from polls!
I’m all in favour of roads, schools, public health, research grants, police and fire protection, and the social safety net, et cetera…
The hell you say! Me, as a proud-ass Amurrican individual, I don’t need any of that! All I got by these ruddy chapped hands o’ mine is all’s I gonna need: a hand-hewn cabin in the untainted wilderness, where me and my kids and the wife – all of us dirty-but-proud – can wait out the imminent collapse of the Inner Cities…
More Melanie Morgan please!!
Well, I didn’t get any further than this…
Geraldine Ferraro is the latest casualty in the ongoing race war, which, oddly enough, has only white casualties.
Which was in the second paragraph.
I quelled both my impulse to rip out my own jaw with astonishment, and then, with a bit more difficulty, the impulse to do it to hers.
Ah, the threats to Reverend Wright’s life, ongoing as we speak?
Uninformed, or deliberately ingenuous. You make the call.
Damn, I knew there were people who lied for a living, but I assumed they wrote comic books and screenplays and novels.
I didn’t know you could do it as a pundit!
…the ongoing race war, which, oddly enough, has only white casualties.
It’s like the Iraq war. She doesn’t count enemy or civilian casualties.
RAHOWA 4 LIFE!
Here’s the link for her Daily Kos post:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/12578/1146
Dang, I forgot the litotes.
Is this going to turn into another thread of brussels-sprout recipes?
All you need to know about that movie is the on-line trailers feature a shot of Ben in Angus Young drag.
And his legs are WAY uglier.
Because the United States was the last Western, industrialized country to give up slavery.
You could argue that the European powers did not so much give up slavery as out-source it (for instance, by creating L’État Indépendant du Congo).
Just as terrorists consider appeasement a sign of weakness and thus feel emboldened to further acts of terror, so do racial hucksters become emboldened and validated every time a white is forced to sing mea-culpa for even mentioning race.
And speaking on behalf of my fellow terrorists, I would like to complain that Nancy Morgan has sunk so low as to compare us to “racial hucksters”. Not to mention her comparison between our acts of terror and the heinous crime of forcing a white person to apologise for racial epithets. Quite frankly, she has left our self-esteem in tatters.
nutrageously, hairball-coughingly, koo-koo-ka-joo-Mrs.-Robinsonly bonkadoodle
Why I read this web site.
Between SN and ThreeBulls I’ve gleaned many a distinctive descriptive phrase and word.
Before I got the hyperbanned from Flopping Aces (in which they’ve somehow managed to fix it so that, far from commenting on posts, I am actually not allowed to load the page), I was accused of “stifling dissent” because I contradicted one of their house wingnuts there with proof of my point. Discussion, when conducted by Lefties, is apparently now “stifling debate.”
I’m pretty sure she meant arbor vitas, not moral vitas.
I have an inquiring mind…
Which apparently she stole from the Jerk Store and proceeded to stuff into a locked box so it couldn’t possibly, you know, ask any real questions.
Speaking of challenging word choices such as “vilifying,” Ms. Nancy’s “White Racism” article, which was so under-appreciated at DailyKos, contained an interesting sentence.
http://rightbias.com/News/031508race.aspx
The Sharptons and the Jacksons have cuckolded two generations of blacks (Blacks?) into white racism.
I don’t think that word “cuckolded” means what she thinks it means. I guess she thinks it is the equivalent of “fooled” or “bamboozled.” Perhaps she is confused by the use of the word “cheat” in connection with adultery, but when the wife “cheats” on her husband it allows her lover to “cuckold” him.
Most confusing as used by Ms. Grace.
Nancy Morgan: who knew that you could find something so ordinary-looking when you turn over a rock?
Better hope she never sees encyclopedia dramatica, or that whole “only whites can be mocked – only blacks can use the N-Word” schtick is toast – & then some.
Since you don’t have to register ( I hate doing that – never know whose junkmail you just signed up for when you do), I went on said crazy-lady’s site, read the screeds in question, told her just how demonstrably full of horse-puckey she is … & told her to get a puppy.
Snarking on neo-con dangleberries with Big Bad Reality is always a gas, but I fear I may now owe a puppy somewhere my deepest apologies. Especially if it’s a black puppy.
What liberal argument is best summed up as ‘everyone else was doing it’? ‘Cause I don’t read all the wingnutty lefties out there, so it’s probable i didn’t see it. But I don’t think that’s a valid liberal platform.
Don’t we believe things are harmless objectively, and not whether or not someone else did it first?
I’m all in favour of roads, schools, public health, research grants, police and fire protection, and the social safety net, et cetera…
I’m with you, Interrobang. Sheesh, what the buggeryfuck do these eejits think allows the tatters of democracy they claim to be so proud of? Do they imagine that the Preznit is paid in moonbeams and home-made apple pie? The White House was knocked together on weekends by the Congresscritters? And what’s protecting them from the Scary Brown, Black, Yellow, and Paisley Hordes?
I really try not to think that all conservatives are shit-brained stupid, but this one is really pushing it. I mean, it’s only debate if you instantly and without demur accept everything the other person says? She certainly would have felt out of place one or two centuries ago, when Americans went to political talks that went for 8 hours, and discussed things in the marketplace (and no, I don’t count talking about TV pap as discussion).
I don’t like the phrase ‘whiny-ass titty baby’, so I won’t use it. I’ll just fall back on my heritage and say she’s a complete big girl’s blouse.
“Boy Clinton”? Wow, I haven’t heard that one since the beginning of his first Presidential term. Even by wingnut standards, 15-year-old American Spectator bon mots are a little stale.
Maybe next she’ll call Barack Obama a “pinko”.
Er……….
Or maybe not.
[…] talk about race — which they so often do — people disagree with them and call them idiots. [ Nancy Graceless Pt. I […]
This has got to be a spoof, eh?