Here we go -- the endless litany of putative swingers who are going to show those dickheads at the Times, goddammit. I'll be as brief as possible: fuck them and their imaginary swing.
Let's look at this from the other end of the coin for these halfwits. Say one of the numberless scrivening retards at the NYT penned some gushing panegyric to Poor Ol' Straight Talk -- would these stout defenders o' freedomocracy then rush to tell the world about their plan to hold a grudge for eight months and then vote against POST because of the intellectual dishonesty and shameless inaccuracy? Is that how they would tell those NYT smart-asses -- who think they're soooo fuckin' smart, smarter'n yew, bunky -- what they think?
More importantly, is that what the ballot box is for, for a bunch of self-indulgent, barely cognizant, sanctimonious asshole "swing voters" to validate their petty grievances over something they essentially grabbed the wrong end of the stick of? Well you know what, you tell 'em, Tonto, and when your kid or your grandkid gets sent over to keep Tehran British, you can explain your pretzel logic to them. Show the New York Times what's what, little fighter! Don't let Big Ink keep you down!
You know, having read the Mencken Chrestomathy a couple times, I initially found myself somewhat unsettled at his utter loathing for actual democracy. But more and more, it makes sense.
1 comment:
I'm a big fan of acronyms, and I think POST is just wonderful.
I am hereby pre-apologizing for my almost certain future theft. But all good Obamaniacs plagiarize, right? It's practically required as admission for membership in the cult, after all.
Post a Comment