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)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…