Skip to main content

The left might slur, but the right would repeatedly beat you

Why oh why....

is it continuously incumbent upon me to point out what an obscene, blatant, pathetic hypocrite you are, Joan? I can't for the life of me understand how someone like you with such intelligence can have zero grasp of who she and her fellow liberals truly are. Here's the deal: When you feel passionately about my side of the argument, people like you and your ilk (i.e. - Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Grayson, etc.)are complete trash. The same is true for your side. That's just the way it is. I agree with you about one thing: I have no wish to see any harm come to you or the others I mention above. I have a karma issue with that type of wish. However, it is beyond insulting that you write about your fellow liberals as if you all are the peaceful ones, and conservatives are evil and hateful - as a whole. Come on, Joan. Get a grip why don't you. In just a minute, one of your liberal readers will see my letter and write something to the effect of: "RE: Junebug4 - Fuck You!" Guess what? That letter will get a gold star. Trust me, Joan - you are every bit as evil and foul as you think Rush Limbaugh is. You simply have to be on my side of the fence to see it. (junebug4, response to post, “Get well, Rush Limbaugh,” Salon, 1 Jan. 2010)

@junebug4

Despite all you see, you are missing the crucial. Despite liberals talking about pissing on Limbaugh's grave, most of them, in the company of those who have done them the most harm, can still quite possibly see/feel the humanity in their opponent. They would never have them lined up and shot -- and not owing to some self-serving concern to estimate themselves more civilized.

Some on the right, when they've begun to feel particularly untethered, would save their opponents, only so they can be sure to torture them endlessly first. Once dead, they'll attend to their victims, only to shout at them and beat them over the head a few more times. Remorse is for the emotionally more evolved -- those who tend to find themselves on the left, or in some way well within their company (Tucker, Brooks -- even a little bit -- though you're not going to believe it -- Coulter), if on the right.

Whatever depraved are on the left, they are just nowhere as "gone" as those on the right. Salon was right to focus on the crazies on the right over those on the left -- one is beginning to slur his/her words, the other is away gone in slobbering gibberish. The sane know this; and they're only to be found on one side of the fence.

Link: Get well, Rush Limbaugh (Salon)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more