Salon Is Publishing A Column By A Birther. I’d Like To Know Why
Tweet
Salon is publishing columns by Camille Paglia, who outed herself as a birther recently. I asked Salon editor in chief Joan Walsh both on Twitter and via email. She refuses to answer, so if you can send her a twitter message via the petition here. I’d like to think that Salon isn’t publishing her just for the Drudge hits.
74 Responses to “Salon Is Publishing A Column By A Birther. I’d Like To Know Why”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Well what could it hurt he has a birth certificate. Salon, that bastion of the conservative movement playing to the crazies.
Maybe they hired her because she is a great writer, smart as a whip, a true feminist, not just a female liberal with a job, and because she has an Italian name, and they need for the EEOC Report – they can check off two boxes.
Even if its that cockamamie excuse (Paglia is a nutter), I’d like to hear from Salon.
Frank DiSalle: and because she has an Italian name, and they need for the EEOC Report – they can check off two boxes
There ya go, injecting accusations of racism and misogyny into the discussion.
Olive you are right, I would be interested in why as well, it is extremely odd.
If birthers = racists, and Camille Paglia is a birther, does it follow that Camille Paglia is a racist?
And does it follow that Salon employs racist writers?
And if the above are true, is Joan Walsh a friend of a racist and a racist enabler and sympathizer?
I’ve been familiar with her work since the early eighties and I really do think Paglia is a nut job (no pun), pseudo-intellectual, who makes that A+ effort to be a dick. However, that being said, I think Salon has every right to invite anybody they please to write a piece for them. She’s not the worse writer in the world, she’s just wrong all the time.
Meh, who knows? Maybe, just maybe, we’ll get some insight as to how THEY think.
Dennis: If birthers = racists, and Camille Paglia is a birther, does it follow that Camille Paglia is a racist? And does it follow that Salon employs racist writers? And if the above are true, is Joan Walsh a friend of a racist and a racist enabler and sympathizer?
I dunno. But surely Glenn Beck has a tree to show how it all ties together.
Paglia is an attention whore. She’s made a career out of saying “edgy” things in an ongoing, increasingly pathetic attempt to shock people into listening to what she has to say. She’s not a feminist. She’s not an anti-feminist. She’s a provocateur, and a remarkably shallow thinker for someone who uses big fancy words.
This is the Camille Paglia of whom Rush Limbaugh is so glowingly fond?
Joan’s a villager. Villagers want bircher types to love them and teach them what “middle America” is saying
One of the few voices of sanity on the left, I’d include Paglia with Michael Kinsley and Susan Estrich as being intelligent, intellectually honest and only slightly delusional in their politics. To see the rabid regulars call her a nutter is to say the least quite amusing. Obama’s birth records are much like Kerry’s military records. Quite easy to clear up and yet they both refuse to do so, as is their right yet it adds a great deal of credibilty to the charges that they are hiding something. Obama has a lot of mystery in his early life and he refuses to come clean about it. The one thing we know of for sure from Obama’s past is that he lies. I’ve never caught Paglia in a lie and I’ve read her stuff for years.
One of the few voices of sanity on the left, I’d include Paglia with Michael Kinsley and Susan Estrich as being intelligent, intellectually honest and only slightly delusional in their politics.
Susan Estrich! Indeed
Indeed, s’more
“Oh man. That is funny.”
Indeed thinks highly of Greenwald’s opinion. Pretty funny stuff, Glenn is an intellectual lightweight and sockpuppeteer. Really more Zython’s kind of guy! LOL.
Estrich is wrong on her politics, that’s an occupational hazard of being a liberal but she is intellectually honest and can make statements on her positions without out lying. Most liberals can’t, unless they’re hopelessly naive.
“She’s not an anti-feminist.”
You’re kidding, right?
Paglia thinks Sarah Palin is the true voice of hip-hop.
That’s really all you need to know.
“She’s not an anti-feminist.”
You’re kidding, right?
No, but she is. She describes herself as a feminist, for the admittedly very little that’s worth coming from a person as calculatedly insincere as Paglia is. Her whole schtick is trying to be impossible to pigeonhole. It’s not that I’m a fan of pigeonholes, it’s just really boring to see someone trying so hard. If you were around in the early ’90s when the whole “Generation X” bullcrap was going on, you might remember how super-duper-ironic the mainstream culture was trying so desperately to be. Remember that? Remember how totally annoying that was? Well, that’s Paglia all over.
Here are just a few of Paglia’s greatest hits. Are you ready to be shocked and outraged by a truly original thinker who isn’t afraid to say something totally stupid?
Paglia criticized Bill Clinton “[b]ecause he did not honorably resign when the Lewinsky scandal broke and instead tied up the country and paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11.”
She told Playboy that “[t]he reason women earn less than men is that women don’t want the dirty jobs.”
She thinks that climate change is “natural” rather than “man-made”, and is skeptical about global warming because she doesn’t like Al Gore.
She called Sarah Palin “one of the most stunning surprises that I have ever witnessed in my adult life” who “made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna”.
Need more?
Felix Thanks, I didn’t know she was rational.
How did omeone that insightful snd observant (in the “BIg Picture”) ever become popular? I’m surprised she wasn’t banished to Conservative Island — a.k.a. FOX News — years ago.
Thank you for telling me some things about her did not know, Felix, I admire and respect her even more.
Never more brightly has the chasm between left and right so clearly limned : Thank you, Felix!
She told Playboy that “[t]he reason women earn less than men is that women don’t want the dirty jobs.”
She thinks that climate change is “natural” rather than “man-made”, and is skeptical about global warming because she doesn’t like Al Gore.
A few minor revisions: The reason women earn less than men is because they take time out to bear, and raise children. Women who do not make more than men in equivalent situations.
I think climate change is natural — our last one topped out at 13 degrees in the Middle Ages. It was one of the prosperous Eras in western Europe in all of the pre-Industrial epoch; AND I don’t like Al Gore, but I despise him for making big bucks off of fear.
*most* posperous eras
I thought she was interesting 15 years ago, but now she’s just a Coulter.
And what Felix said above. Her stock in trade is saying provocative things. But try to bundle it all up into coherent lines of thinking, and there’s no consistency, no central ideas no actual philosophy or ethos there at all. Not really a thinker, and certainly not willing to defend ideas, preferring to simply ladle out criticisms of others.
In a way, it totally mirrors current conservatism. Reacting to everything with a visceral hard edged response, never mind that the responses are often inconsistent and can’t be rationalized into a cogent set of ideas that will give you a sense of what the movement is FOR rather than AGAINST.
Right — it was Bill Clinton who tied up the country for two years. Never mind the Republicans in Congress or that delightful Kenneth Starr — they were just doing their duty. But Clinton, for some reason, didn’t think his affair with an intern obligated him to resign the presidency. And naturally this stubbornness was the reason no one saw the al Qaeda attacks coming.
Right. That’s such a rational response.
@Amused Observer
Obama’s birth records are much like Kerry’s military records. Quite easy to clear up and yet they both refuse to do so, as is their right yet it adds a great deal of credibilty to the charges that they are hiding something.
Since Obama was obviously present at his own birth but was just as obviously incapable, because he was a neonate, of completing and signing his birth certificate what exactly do you and others who keep posing this request want him to produce.
If the same request was made of me all I can do is either produce the birth certificate (not a copy) that was given to my parents shortly after my birth or request a copy from the Department of Health in the county where I was born. In any case, I have no independent means to verify in the sense that you others mean that my birth certificate is accurate.
Please explain exactly what it is that you would like Obama to do since the only documentation that he could possibly provide was given to him by his late parents, maternal grandparents and officials of the State of Hawaii. What would constitute proof of his birth on American soil to you and others who continue to raise this question?
As for the so-called mystery of his younger life, what about his life as a child, adolescent or young adult (say, pre-Columbia University) that you and others find so mysterious or intriguing? Have any of you found any public records, newspaper stories, eyewitness accounts or credible rumors justifying your interest in these periods of his life? What exactly do you and others believe that he was doing during these periods?
I would really, really like an answer to my questions.
If you think “the birthers” (funny how the lefties always come up with names for the people that oppose them, so they can lump them all together and dehumanize them) are bad, some people are beginning to believe he wasn’t born on earth.
I myself, am looking for the “666″ tattooed behind his ear.
=;-}
PT,
Addressing your first point, one could sign a release allowing full and unfettered access to his birth documentation or military records as the case may be. Regarding your second point as a young man Barry left and returned bearing a muslim name, about the only reason a normal youngster would tour the areas he was in was either for drugs or religion. Given Barry’s proclivities towards hanging out with racists and terrorists here on American soil, it is natural to wonder what he was doing and who he was doing it with in Hashishistan to come back with a new and improved name.
Addressing your first point, one could sign a release allowing full and unfettered access to his birth documentation or military records as the case may be.
Such a release would obviously include his mother’s hospital medical records and probably the records of kept by her attending physician. Why would anyone need or want to have access to his mother’s medical records? My sisters and I would never grant public access to our parents’ medical records unless it was for the purpose of a medical study and protocols regarding confidentiality were strictly observed. Why do you believe that you and others should have the right to pore over his late mother’s medical records?
Regarding your second point as a young man Barry left and returned bearing a muslim name, about the only reason a normal youngster would tour the areas he was in was either for drugs or religion.
Are you claiming that the name Barack was not given to him at birth? That is, his parents actually named him Barry and years later he changed his given name to Barack? Even if this were true, what exactly do you think it means? What exactly do you mean by a “normal youngster?” Are you asserting that Obama (Can we agree that this is his surname?) traveled unaccompanied as a child and adolescent to countries where drugs were used and Christianity was not the dominant religion? I would find it odd that his mother would have permitted him to travel at such a young age without adult supervision. If he was, as I suspect, traveling with his mother then why do you and others find this so suspicious. Children often accompany their parents if their parents’ work requires them to travel.
Given Barry’s proclivities towards hanging out with racists and terrorists here on American soil, it is natural to wonder what he was doing and who he was doing it with in Hashishistan to come back with a new and improved name.
What does any of these allegations have to do with his place of birth and the legitimacy of his birth certificate? Do you believe that William Ayres or an international cell of the Weathermen fabricated new birth documents for Obama? Do you have any proof that Rev. Jeremiah Wright or any members of his church were acquainted with Obama’s parents?
Seriously, PT Cruiser, don’t buy into the argument.
The fact that Hawaii digitized all the Birth Certificates before Pres Obama had organized his first community, indicates that there was no subterfuge there.
What has always troubled me is why that wasn’t all done in a few weeks. I believe the Democrats drew it out on purpose to unsettle the Republicans, and I call that unethical.
How long did it take for Sen McCain’s “citizenship question” to be settled? A week?
That’s because the Republicans wanted it settled.
I like what gumby said. But I would go back 25 years ago. A Coulter is about right. And, no, Impaler, she’s not rational at all.
AO, you’re a piece of shit.
Frank, you too.
The best summary of Paglia:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
Oh, and Frank, given your recent comments about people being too chickenshit to say stuff like that to your face, I just wanted you to know that I absolutely would say that to you, face-to-face, in a crowded bar. Let me know next time you’re in LA, and I’ll buy you a beer and explain to you why you’re a piece of shit.
LOL PT,
I didn’t claim Barry wasn’t born here, I pointed out he could have easily dispelled the rumours but chose not to. In your haste to brand me a birther yuou neglected to actually understand what I wrote although you quoted me extensively. Hanging out with racists and terroriss like Barry did doesn’t mean they are all tied together in one grand unified theory, it means Barry has the poor judgement to hang out with all sorts of traiters and nutcases here in America, who knows what he did or who he did it with when he was closer to the source of unamerican activity as a college age kid.
Mambo,
LOL what’s wrong, you’re the one who voted for a crooked Chicago pol.
…”the birthers” (funny how the lefties always come up with names for the people that oppose them,…
Let’s see, there’s Slick Willie, feminazis, Chairman Maobama, Hitlery Clinton, McGovernicks, “Dirty Harry”(Limbaugh’s term of endearment for Harry Reid),…nope, rightists never “come up with names for the people that oppose them.” Moving on…
…so they can lump them all together and dehumanize them.
“Birther” isn’t a “dehumanizing” word, drama queen.
rightists never “come up with names for the people that oppose them.
I meant groups. Now, care to show me some “righist” examples?
“Dirty Harry”(Limbaugh’s term of endearment for Harry Reid),…
Dingy, not dirty.
Sen Reid is a group?
“I myself, am looking for the “666″ tattooed behind his ear.”
Please let that be just a lousy joke! PLEASE!
I myself, am looking for the “666″ tattooed behind his ear.
Actually, his tattoo is “999.” Frank gets everything upside down.
I meant groups. Now, care to show me some “righist” examples?
Feminazis, ‘Watermelons’, Obama-Bots, Idiotarians… That do for a start?
@Frank DiSalle
You can’t seriously believe that I have bought into any of their arguments at all.
I do, however, find the following statement from you a little odd:
What has always troubled me is why that wasn’t all done in a few weeks. I believe the Democrats drew it out on purpose to unsettle the Republicans, and I call that unethical.
Why do you believe that the Obama Campaign or Democrats were obliged to respond in a timely fashion to such nonsense?
I’d like to know why anyone publishes anything by Paglia. I’d like to know why anyone has ever published anything by Paglia. I’d like to know why Paglia exists.
I didn’t mean that you were persuaded, PT, I meant don’t even involve yourself.
As to why the Democrats were “obliged” to respond: Because if the people have questions, they should be answered. You know as well as I do that if Sen McCain had said, “My father was an Admiral in the US Navy, and my mother was born in the USA — I don’t have to prove anything to you guys”, the Press would have been on him like white on rice.
And, for the record, the issue of whether B Obama was native born was first raised by the Clinton campaign.
It wasn’t picked up by the Republicans, until after the Democrats raised the issue of whether or not Sen McCain was native born.
“I meant groups.”
Two of the names I initially mentioned (“feminazis” and “McGovernicks”) are examples of “groups,” idiot. Other “group-related” insults that rightists use “against people that oppose them:” tree-huggers, environmental wackos (another Limbaugh fave), Dimocrats, Obamunists, “the Obama cult,” (Thomas Sowell likes to use this one), victicrats, one-worlders, and “the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party” (if I had a penny for every time Michael Goodwin used this phrase in his NY Daily News column, I’d be a very rich man).
The best summary of Paglia:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
Indeed. The second best summary of Paglia:
You are wrong , Rotter… (I won’t call you an idiot – you’re not smart enough).
The people who think that Pres Obama was not born here, may not agree about anything else. They have no formal agenda, except to “prove” that he should not be President. Why should they be categorized under one label, when they have only one thing in common?
“Feminazis” refers to members of NOW, all of whom have much in common, as you can hear when they appear on TV, or read when they write columns or op-eds. They speak as one on many issues. They should be labeled as one — not that feminazis is appropriate .
Those two examples should suffice for anyone who is not an idiot, such as yourself.
I grew up believing that I was intelligent enough that anyone who didn’t recognize it had to be abysmally stupid .
“The people who think that Pres. Obama was not born here, may not agree about anything else”.
So what?
“Why should they be categorized under one label, when they have only one thing in common?”
Why should “environmental wackos” be categorized under one label when “they have only thing in common” (their views on the environment)? Why should “gun grabbers” be categorized under one label, “when they have only one thing in common” (their advocacy of gun control)? Why should “pro aborts” be categorized under one label “when they have only one thing in common” (their advocacy of legalized abortion)? You see the similarities between “environmental wackos,” “gun grabbers,” “pro aborts” and the label at issue, “birthers (people who do not believe that Obama was born in the U.S.)?” No, well I’ll spell it out for you: The one-label categorization in all four instances IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO the one thing those being labeled “have in common”…and nothing else.
Rotter, you are an incredibly lightweight thinker. You didn’t even notice that YOU said the one thing “environmental wackos” have in common is their “views”
And I have no idea what gun grabbers are. I am not referring to a term used by one guy, or a few people. I am referring to terms used by all the people who disagree with them . like “truthers” and “birthers” and “fundies”.
I never heard of “pro aborts”, either, but I have anti – abortion people referred to as “anti – choice”, as if I am opposed to any and all choices.
You are trying to tell me that labels are not marginalizing?
Do yourself a favor: Pick any search engine you want, and look up “marginalizing label” (with or without quotes, and see what you get.
And, for the record, the issue of whether B Obama was native born was first raised by the Clinton campaign.
It’s always impressive to see how an urban legend spreads through the base like wildfire!
No, it’s because there was nothing there, and Dems, being the reality-based group, had no reason to follow up on it. Even granted that people accept that McCain and Bushare “naturalborn citizens,” no one runs around asking for their “long form” birth certificate as though this is somehow important. Heck, I don’t remember ever seing any candidate’s birth certificate except for Obama– you should be thankful that a candidate had the goodwill to assume good faith on the part of his opponents to show it to the public and publish it on the web. Instead, we get nothing but lip from people like you, just offering more evidence that this is more of a sign of an unhinged obsession from a fringe group rather than people who can be dealt with rationally.
“Even granted that people accept that McCain and Bushare “naturalborn citizens,” no one runs around asking for their “long form” birth certificate as though this is somehow important.”
LOL,
As if there were any question or comparison between whether or not those two were natural born vs the son of an African who was rushed back to the states to anchor a much more valuable citizenship. Given Barry’s backround it is a natural question. It is only “somehow” important if you believe in the rule of law.
Was he born here? Probably. If you had a 17 yr. old daughter who was obviously dizzy enough to get knocked up by an older African man you would move heaven and earth to get the kid born in civilization with a citizenship that had benefits. That’s what good parents do. But given the timing and the circumstances it bears investigation.
“And I have no idea what gun grabbers are.”
It’s a pejorative term used to describe people who advocate gun control measures.
“I am not referring to a term used by one guy, or a few people.”
“Gun grabbers” is a fairly common term among the anti-gun control crowd. It’s not just used “by one guy, or a few people.”
I am referring to terms used by all the people who disagree with them, like “truthers” and “birthers” and “fundies.”
What do you mean by “all the people who disagree with them?” Are you saying that there have been lefties who have used the “birther” label to describe people who disagree with them IN GENERAL, not just on the Obama birth certificate “issue?” Care to cite examples? I’ve never seen/heard any left-wingers doing this.
“You are trying tell me that labels are not marginalizing?”
Of course, but (apparently) unlike you, I don’t always think that’s a bad thing. Some people, by their views and/or actions, deserve to be marginalized.
Some people, by their views and/or actions, deserve to be marginalized.
Rotter, that’s what separates modern day liberals from classical liberals. NO ONE deserves to be marginalized in a free and open society. You have given yourself away. Lock away the people we disagree with… Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Right, Frank, by “marginalize,” I meant “lock up.” You’ve got my number. Nutjob.
Frank: You’re always wrong. How are you possibly ALWAYS wrong? I mean, I’m amazed. It’s like when I see a student of mine score worse than chance on a multiple choice test – it scarcely seems possible.
“NO ONE deserves to be marginalized in a free and open society. ”
Um… you’re wrong. As usual. Dolt.
What about the views of serial killers, Frank? Do you think it’s wrong that convicted felons cannot vote? What about the views of children? Should they be given the right to vote? Hooray for President Miley Cyrus?
No? YOU MARGINALIZE THEM! How DARE you?!
But in all seriousness, Frank. Some people have opinions that are absolutely not based in reality (e.g., birthers, moon landing hoaxers, Catholics) and therefore don’t deserve to have their questions answered or their views considered.
Bruce Bartlett once said, “People need to understand that while they are entitled to their opinion, they have no right to be taken seriously.” I think that this sums it up pretty well.
daniel, he’s in your head, man! I thought that “marginalize” was evil secret liberal codespeak for “lock up.” The conservatives are onto us!…
“NO ONE deserves to be marginalized in a free society.”
Wrong.
…”(e.g., birthers, moon landing hoaxers, Catholics)…”
And with Alan Keyes, mambo, you get both a birther AND a Catholic…a twofer! Too bad Keyes isn’t a moon landing hoaxer, he could complete the trifecta.
Yeah, Catholics should be marginalized… Riiiiiiiggggghhhhttt!
Through representatives like William Donohue and the American Life League (that’s the organization that sponsored the “Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy” posters at the 9/12 rally in D.C), it’s Catholics who do pretty bang-up job of marginalizing Catholics, Frank.
My comment about Catholics was *slightly* tongue-in-cheek, Frankie.
Care to address the actual substance of what I wrote? Or are you afraid to admit that you were wrong and that some people in a society don’t deserve to be taken seriously?
My guess is that you’re an impotent coward and will slink away from the question entirely.
OMFG, once again the likes of Frank and AO take a moderately interesting post for those of us that don’t follow football (“Paglia, discuss”) and go frickin 900 miles an hour down a pointless dead and track of namecalling and vituperation which is so fucking boring to read it makes me want to attack my eyes with a rusty spoon.
The essential point about the Birthers is … wait for it… WHO GIVES A FUCK.
Seriously, you don’t disbelieve he was born here so… what is the fucking point about going on and on and on and on about what is essentially a technicality. Even if Obama was born in Kenya and spirited into the country, records forged and birth announcements faked, well, you are about a hundred years away from proving it, so there is no hope in hell it will get him booted him out of office.
But it’s about HOW FAST the Dems produced the birth certificate? Christ on crackers. Seriously, just leave a comment card on the table along with a pointedly crappy tip and swan out in a huff already.
No, Mambochicken , you are wrong as usual. People whose views are patently absurd, will be marginalized as a consequence of their beliefs. They don’t deserve to be marginalized by someone’s purposeful action. We, each of us, decide for ourselves if the Chinese cam here before Columbus, or if Velikovsky is right about the Old Testament’s describing the Earth’s collision with another object, possibly Venus.
The idea that anyone “should” be marginalized suggests that someone, somewhere decides who or what should be marginalized.
I know what comes next, Mambochicken: “Jesus Christ on a crutch, Frank ! That’s not what I said”
But that’s where your attitude takes us. That’s why the Freedom of Speech is unencumbered. You get to call me names , and I get to think you’re an arrogant, elitist prig .
Hey Frank, I guess we (almost) agree on this! Cheers!
I agree that certain peoples’ actions or beliefs will lead them to be marginalized within society, as a consequence.
My disagreement with you lies in the following statement:
“The idea that anyone “should” be marginalized suggests that someone, somewhere decides who or what should be marginalized.”
I don’t think that using the word “should” with respect to the effect means that someone is actively deciding who or what should be marginalized. What I am saying, when I say that birthers insane beliefs SHOULD marginalize them, is that it’s deserved. They ought to be ignored for their stupidity. That is the way it should be.
This seems like a relatively small, but important distinction.
Of course, you did seem to think that birthers should have had their questions answered re: Obama’s birthplace (at least in a more-timely fashion, whatever that means)… so you either don’t feel that birthers ought to be marginalized within society, or don’t feel that they HAVE marginalized themselves.
I think either one of those is incorrect.
“I get to think you’re an arrogant, elitist prig .”
Sure, you can think that all you like. I suppose that knowing that I am smarter, more aware, more worldly, younger, and more attractive than you does make me a bit of an “arrogant, elitist prig.”
I doubt seriously that you are either more wordly, more aware, smarter, or more attractive than I am. And that is precisely what makes you an arrogant, elitist prig.” The fact that you are younger than I am means that just like Lou Costello’s bride, you will never catch up to me.
Oh boy…
“I doubt seriously that you are either..
‘more *worldly*’ (FTFY) – I almost certainly am. Which is sad, because I’m almost 40 years your junior. Too bad you’re too old and decrepit to travel much anymore, Frankie.
‘more aware’ – I definitely am. It’s self-evident from your completely nonsensical posts that lack any semblance of self- or other-awareness
‘smarter’ – Again, I definitely am. Reason cited directly above. My ability to think critically and scientifically trumps your belief in magical invisible omnipotent sky-fairies, too.
“or more attractive than I am.” – Frank, I’ve seen your picture. I’ve never met a woman that would fuck your ugly ass. Kudos to you for managing it… at some point… presumably (You have kids, right? Too bad for them). Point being, Frank, I could lose 90% of my skin in a horrible fire, have both legs amputated, and get my left eyeball gouged out with a spoon, and I would STILL be a more physically attractive human being than you.
You are funnier* than me, though. So that’s a feather in your cap.
*unintentional comedy counts, right?
I will give you this, Mambochicken: In your relatively short life, you have made more progress toward becoming a truly insufferable prick than I was after drinking and drugging for 25 years. Now that I have been sober for 23 years, I wouldn’t trade places with you for a trillion dollars.
You’ve never met a woman that would fuck my ugly ass? Did you ask them?
Your arrogance is palpable — and execrable.
“Now that I have been sober for 23 years, I wouldn’t trade places with you for a trillion dollars.”
Yes you would.
“You’ve never met a woman that would fuck my ugly ass? Did you ask them?”
Nope, but I don’t need to. I associate with women that have more self-respect than that.
“Your arrogance is palpable — and execrable.”
And warranted, Frankie. You forgot “warranted.”
Here’s a tip from me to to you, junior: You know how I get girls to fuck me? I let them.
I would never want your “unwarranted” pride, which is what arrogance is, and if I should myself afflicted with it for even a moment, I would seek to remedy it posthaste.
You are a legend in your own mind. “If you don’t seek humility, life will bring it to you.”
The Wheel of Karma rolls slowly, but inexorably.
Frank: “In your relatively short life, you have made more progress toward becoming a truly insufferable prick than I was after drinking and drugging for 25 years.”
That’s another thing, Frank! Thanks for reminding me. My liver is in FAR better shape than yours.
“You know how I get girls to fuck me? I let them.”
As if you could possibly get and maintain an erection, Frankie. Drug and alcohol abuse tend to wreak havoc on a man’s potency. Yet another example of you lying your withered old ass off.
I’m not worried about karma, Frankie. I’m generally a good guy. I just cannot stand dickheads like you, and tend to be a bit crass when confronted by them. And goddamn, there’s a lot of you out there…
One more thing. Realizing full well that you don’t think the rules and boundaries of civil and polite behavior pertain to you, I ask that, if only because you represent and stand with the other liberals in this weblog, that you refrain from ever mentioning my children again.
As for my erection, why don’t you come up here and see how much of it fits in your mouth, you pretentious snotty brat.
Maybe your parents should not have taken you to so many Grateful Dead concerts when you were a child.
I would never want your “unwarranted” pride, which is what arrogance is, and if I should myself afflicted with it for even a moment, I would seek to remedy it posthaste.
So stating a fact or observation is “arrogant” now? I can just imagine your day-to-day interactions with people.
Stranger: Looks like rain soon.
Frank: OH MY GOD! You are SO arrogant!
Statement 1: “Realizing full well that you don’t think the rules and boundaries of civil and polite behavior pertain to you, I ask that, if only because you represent and stand with the other liberals in this weblog, that you refrain from ever mentioning my children again.”
Statement 2: “As for my erection, why don’t you come up here and see how much of it fits in your mouth, you pretentious snotty brat.”
Hmm… this doesn’t fit. In the first one, you make a play for civility. And then you ask me to put your dick in my mouth and call me a pretentious snotty brat. Yeah, that makes sense. Way to be internally consistent, Frank, you stupid ass. You never fail to be an illogical fool. Congratulations.
Oh, and I thought about your plea. Since my first comment was merely verifying that you had children, and not anything terribly degrading or horrible, I feel like I’ve earned a credit of sorts. What with you asking me to be civil, and then asking me to blow you… yeah, I think I’ve got a freebie.
I’ll wait to cash it in. When the time is right… maybe I’ll light some candles and have a glass of wine, and then I’ll *gasp* mention the fact that you have children again. Clutch those pearls tighter, Frankie my boy.
By the way, it’s truly a crime against nature that you ever reproduced at all. Seriously, if you needed just one piece of evidence that either God doesn’t exist, or is malevolent in nature…