Fairly decent for a one month old blog

The best of this blog in 2013:

• First post.
• Speaker of Truth to Power martyred. I was on a roll that day, like an old man sending soup back at a deli.
• Nostalgia sans feces.
• A reactionary is called on his impropriety.
• Racist exposed. The only post so far to get linked to.
• Potential assassin brought to light.
• How to syllogism.
• Pictures speak even more loudly than syllogisms.
• Obligatory response to the duck crisis: Class traitor chastised.

There's been some other pretty good stuff here more recently, but I won't bother linking it because it's still on the front page.

I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon

I was going to rebut this Time piece, but instead I will draw attention to an excellent and broadly applicable point raised by RJWinUK in the comments. A perfectly valid way to demonstrate the falsehood of a piece of rhetoric is to simply substitute the word "Jew" for some word that the speaker/writer actually used, and then see how it sounds.

For instance, one might argue thus: "Bestiality is, all other things being equal, a bad thing, since it risks spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of more conventional sex acts".*

Not to advocate bestiality, but to demonstrate the rhetorical efficacy of this approach, suppose that a person who considered the first speaker a class traitor or other enemy of the People were to respond thusly: "If we were to substitute the word 'Jew' for 'bestiality', what would your statements sound like?"

Here is what it would sound like: "Jews are, all other things being equal, a bad thing, as they risk spreading anthrax while lacking many of the virtues of conventional sex acts". That actually sounds pretty bigoted, doesn't it? Therefore, the first speaker's statement is bigoted (regardless of intent, context, or the actual words that he said) and he should be forced to eat poop.

* I deeply regret equating homosexuality to bestiality in the above illustration. There is literally no other way a hypothetical example like that can be taken, since to mention two things in the same essay or speech is necessarily to equate them, QED. Although it now occurs to me that this axiomatic absolute applies only to world class idiots, class traitors, and other enemies of the People, so never mind.

"Liar" is the new N-word

Someone should start a "New N-words" blog to help us keep track.

Boy, this guy's got a lot of monitors behind him.

Must be legit.

Fisking Weinbaum

Weinbaum's got 20 problems with the Avatar of Hope.
I've got 20 rebuttals.

1. Realists accept that a certain amount of pseudo-truth is required for the executive to get necessary things done, precisely because of the very sort of simplistic moralists who are so quick to condemn. Also, any statements concluded with the word "period" are axioms, hence inherently true, QED (that's Latin for "period").
2. President Obama is not in fact the founder of the IRS. It's Woodrow Wilson's IRS, not Obama's. Nice dogwhistle though, Cletus.
3. Oh yeah, well how about I take a dump right in your mouth?
4. You people are supposed to love guns so much though, QED.
5. Still on about Benghazi, you ghastly yobs? How much do we have to poo-poo this before you'll realize that it's a non-issue by virtue of how thoroughly it's been poo-pooed?
6. What about the roads? You've used government funded roads for business purposes. It's like Persephone eating the bloody pomegranate pip in Hades, your business rightfully belongs to the state now, period.
7. What else, pray tell, could diplomacy conceivably consist of?
8. He won.
9. Got a problem with minorities? People pooped on minorities on several non-consecutive occasions, you monster.
10. Since wealth still exists, it is evident that the solution to debt is constantly increasing income tax rates. So you don't get to be critical about the debt unless you're in favor of that, period.
11. If you claim that proposed legislation should not be passed because it will have unintended effects, then it is impermissibly inconsistent to then object when an advocate of that legislation tries to minimize the political consequences of the unintended effects by altering the legislation through non-legislative means after it is passed. You're arguing with him while he's sort of agreeing with you.
12. You people (see #4), QED.
13. You people (see #s 4 and 11), QED.
14. Failure of free-market capitalism resulted in 11 million out of work. Green energy will put them back to work, and the stimulative effect of food stamps will eventually eliminate unemployment altogether.
15. Someone should poop in your mouth.
16. This simplistic, black and white, allies good, enemies bad twaddle must be quite heady stuff for ignoramuses, but anyone who's read their Zinn knows the truth is more nuanced: America bad. 
17. Anyone ought to be embarrassed to be associated with the sort of person who would say such a thing, regardless of it's factuality.
18. Eat poop.
19. I call rape culture!
20. Criticizing the very system you sabotaged yourselves by opposing it to begin with? How tacky.

One more time, for the thickies out there that don't get the obvious.

Concerns about free speech can only be raised legitimately in cases where Congress literally passes a law criminalizing speech, like they did in the case of the Hollywood blacklist, or when Sarah Poopymouth lobbied them to ban Harry Potter that one time that totally happened. To suggest that merely hounding celebrities over willfully misconstrued statements to make examples of them in order to terrify the general population into groveling gestures of submission constitutes some kind of impropriety would be absurd.

Implied? Or IMPLODE?

Ben Shapiro has five insipid little observations for us. I have a present for him. I'll just leave it in his stocking.

Steyn splits some more hairs.

Oh yeah? Well how about I take a dump in your face?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Christian?

Harvey Levin seems to have been taken in by all this Talmudic hair-splitting that reactionary types (the very same monsters who consistently want Progressive policy proposals to be deliberated before being enacted into law, like they don't even know what Progressive means. It means good, you ignoramuses) regularly indulge in, as if they seriously expect anyone to play along with the absurd notion that expressing opinions outside of the r/politics consensus is anything other than just short of a hate crime (fortunately hate crimes laws are subjective enough to not apply to such speech until it becomes viable for judges apply them so). Such is their ignorance of the Constitution, that they seem to believe that mere chilling of dissent is objectionable, when clearly the Constitution merely forbids Congreff from making laws abridging freedom of speech. To object to abridgments coming from anything other than Congreff itself is as absurd as if liberals were to characterize criticism of sexually violent material on elementary school reading lists as "censorship". It would simply be intolerably embarrassing to be associated with a party so eager to define terms with such sloppy broadness.

Wait, actually we're the Talmudic scholars, and they're the simplistic black and white guys. I'll fix that later, in the meantime, suffice it to say Harvey Levin should eat poop.

Lightbearer profaned

Charles Krauthammer has some complaints about the Leader. I have something for Charles Krauthammer. It's on a hoagie roll with one of those decorative toothpicks with the red cellophane on the end stuck in it.

My opinions are actually objective facts; yours are false conciousness or something.

The more incontrovertible photographic proof surfaces ...

...the more they deny it. As if the implicit racism of advocating tax cuts wasn't enough, given Progressives total mastery of syllogism.

Godbag Christers try to legalize rape

A syllogism:

RESOLVED: One conceivable consequence of rape is pregnancy.
:. One conceivable response to pregnancy is abortion.
:. Abortion reverses one conceivable consequence of rape
:. Abortion is effectively a medical cure for rape: i.e., the opposite of rape.
:. Opposing abortion is the same as opposing the opposite of rape.
:. Objecting to unregulated abortion is the same as calling for legalization of it's opposite, rape.
:. goto 20
:. Legalizing rape leads to more abortions.
:. Advocating legal restrictions on abortion is objectively pro-abortion.
:. ???
:. PROFIT!

That said, I link this primarily as a reminder that no one is "pro-abortion" (except anti-abortionists, see above proof). Some people are anti-choice, while others are pro-choice, and wish to end abortion by legalizing birth control and sex education (seriously, there wouldn't be any abortions if only birth control and sex education were legal), but NEVER through coercive means, such as prayer.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON HAS BEEN MURDERED

That is to say, referred to as a target, which is actually kind of a million times worse in a way, if you think about it. I mean really THINK. There is still hope that he will not literally be killed though, if only the right people are forced to eat poop.

Night Descends

Yet another New McCarthyism lowers a black curtain of intolerance over an ignorant nation of mindlessly terrified xenophobes, darkening an intellectually impoverished landscape of dystopian nightmares. Anti-intellectual bigotry stalks an apocalyptic wasteland of narrow-mindedness, excrement dripping from her fangs as she devours the innocent, the cosmopolitan, the righteously outraged, the effete and the verbose. Free-thinkers and coprophiliacs alike are driven underground, where they turn to blogging and Mary Kay to survive. I know of a group of fanatics who are desperately trying to undermine the Constitution of the United States by depriving artists and others of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness without due process of law. I can tell names and cite instances and I am one of the first victims of it.This is a group of ex-Fascists and America-Firsters and anti-Semites, people who hate everybody including Negroes, minority groups and most likely themselves. These people are engaged in a conspiracy outside all the legal processes to undermine the very fundamental American concepts upon which our entire system of democracy exists, such as the unwritten law that, at long last, if you have any sense of decency, people who went to the right schools ought to be immune to being questioned about their membership in hate groups that seek to violently overthrow the U.S. government. Moon spoon June, lying I'm dying, God's in his heaven, all's right with the world, and meanwhile, Joe Sixpack is sitting on his bloody chesterfield with a beer in one hand and a shotgun in the other saying "Mabel, what's is going on here", and Mable's all "Doy duh duh doy, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Mickey Mouse". The center does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed, and as for the Road Warrior, he lives now... only in my memories.

I'm just one man

How much loaf can I pinch?

Please don't send me back to England

Please.

Accounting is the new lynching

Proof that Stephen Green is a racist. If he claims not to be, despite this proof, then he can just try to prove that he isn't. If he doesn't like trying to prove a negative, well then, he knows what he can do about that.

Behold the white monoculture that is the whitey white Tea Party for whites.

Look at all these white people. So, so, white. Such a uniformly, monotonously homogeneous group that it would be shameful to act as if such a white echo chamber of white conventional whiteness could have any legitimate insight into a heterogeneous, cosmopolitan society. Can you smell the mayonnaise? I'm a pretty smart guy, and I have no idea how people can look at a picture like this, and keep pretending that the imperialist running dog Teabaggers are anything but... dare I invoke Godwin? No, I'm too classy for that.

Hang on, hold the presses, NO ONE EAT ANY POOP JUST YET, I've just come upon some new information that may require a correction to this post and an apology, but first, I've got a cover letter to write.

Teacher! Someone else said a Bad Word!

This guy has a legitimate problem, but, not so fast, he's not actually accused of witchcraft (nor is he being accused of Communism or Soviet sympathies), so he doesn't get to say 'witch hunt'. I'd appreciate comments about gross stuff that happened to accused witches so that we can decide what would constitute poetic justice for his uncivil lapse of judgment.

Teabaggers question MSNBCs objectivity; I rebutt

Oh yeah? Well how about I take a dump on your face?

Assumptions Questioned

Gavin McInnes makes several excellent points here. For me to poop on. Link fixed.

What I miss most about my old job

Words, particularly when spoken on the telly, are magical. One can so easily filter out everything a baddie poo poo says except for special keywords, then just kind of free associate from there until one gets to racism, or rape or something, then both of my viewers have concrete proof that that person is a baddie poo poo.

Example: Peanut brittle - candy - sugar - plantation - slavery. Ergo, man say peanut brittle, he bad weewee head.

I'm almost positive this is exactly what buggers mean when they're on about "reason" and "logic".

Mainly I post this to remind my detractors (especially those who would portray me as a gobsmackingly vulgar yob who disguises unreasoning visceral hatred as articulate thought by tacking long strings of latinate polysyllables to it) of two things:

1) That no one ever complained about the IRS, nor did they associate it with the executive branch, before the inauguration of Totally Apolitical Non-Partisan Black Man Who's Stated Policy Preferences Don't Conflict With Anyone Else's.

2) That I have an English accent. Checkmate, bitch.

me angry bad lady say words grr

Ilana Mercer is all over the place here, so it's difficult to know where to begin. A point by point refutation would be a time consuming insult to my perceptive readers, who presumably can be trusted to fill in the blanks on their own, and maybe kind of do my job for me a little bit in the comments. I'll give you a starting point for discussion: Ilana Mercer is a peepeedoodoo face.

Another dukieface poo poo

Thomas Sowell points out some interesting facts in this column, in which he also mentions slavery, so I'm just going to go ahead and act like he's being pro-slavery or something. Therefore, someone should poop in his mouth.

How many more people will see this than watched my TV show?

Some world class idiot thinks I've got some kind of intellectual consistency problem, to which I say, yeah, well how about if a I took a dump right in your face?