Jonah with the line of the year:
Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one’s a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas.
Oy! Jonah left out Frank Rich! Will he be pissed!
Tim Russert repeated the line that the NYT’s op-ed writers were referred to as “Murderers Row.” Where the hell did this come from, and why would anyone (in New York nonetheless) want to spit on the legacy of the REAL Murderer’s Row by equivicating Moureen Dowd with Babe Ruth?
Ah, the misogyny of the American Right.
So, Kimmitt, you’re saying that Krugman has a vagina????
It would be interesting if, for ONCE, someone on the left would actually argue the substance of an issue, instead of calling names. We don’t like Krugman and Dowd, so we’re “misogynists.” Hey, Kimmitt, do you like Thomas Sowell? Walter Williams?? RACIST BASTARD!!!
Crawl back in your hole.
Lest you guys forget, John filed this under “humor”–and it is pretty funny IMO.
And FW, what insightful commentary, argued brilliantly with both style and “substance.”
Now I’ll go crawl back in my hole.
Did anyone see Zell on Imus this morning when he referred to Maureen Dowd as a “highbrow hussy”?
I’m not on the Zell bandwagon as much as a lot of people, but that sounded pretty funny.
Well, losing an election has made your side neither possessed of more humor, nor more “nuanced.”
Yes, pleasewakeupy’all, I did “get it” that the post (and the underlying quote) was humor. I suspect that in your liberal “nuance,” you missed the fact that my accusation of Kimmitt the Misguided Sloganeer was also intended to be a joke – a parody, if you will, of the liberal response to conservative criticism.
Are you DENYING that if, for example, a conservative opposes affirmative action as both unfair and ineffective, the liberal response is “You’re just racist!”???
‘Cause if you are denying that that is a typical, if not universal, liberal response, you kind of have to deal with this little counter-factual conflict between dialectic and empiricism.
But, go for it, if you think it will avail you.
Simply very funny. As it was in 1930’s when it was first used. But, hey, frunny is funny!
As a “liberal” who has always opposed affirmative action–agree with the goal, disagree with the tactic–it’s safe for me to conclude that it’s not a universal response.
It’s a complex world my man–do yourself a favor and try to recognize it.
Gosh, PW (may I call you PW???), THANKS SO MUCH for having the generosity to eddicate this poor, pathetic redneck, who dun’t know any better than to stereotype his “betters” in blue state Amurika. Why, I jus wouldn’t have ANY IDEA what to do if I didn’t have friendly, superior, liberal type folk like you to tell me.
Any in related news, a container for holding heated water was observed telling a cooking vessel that it was black.
Bud, I’ll be you a thousand dollars that you can’t guess correctly any three out of the following six facts about me:
1. Age (within five years),
2. Origin (where I was born and grew up)
3. Location (where I live now)
4. Education (degrees and majors/disciplines)
5. Annual income (within $10,000)
6. Religious background and current religious persuasion.
M. Scott Eiland
*Scott takes a moment to visualize Catherine Zeta-Jones*
OK, I’m not a big fan of the idea of dirty old men snapping up insanely beautiful women who are practically young enough to be their granddaughters. . .but you gotta give Michael Douglas props–the guy seriously traded up when he chose CZJ over Maureen “Paris Hilton thirty years from now” Dowd.
I couldn’t possibly divine those details from your posts, nor would I care to.
I’ll take a shot at some character traits however:
1) You like to paint with a broad brush, simplicity seems to become you.
2) You enjoy pigeon-holing and labeling people.
3) Probably consider yourself somewhat of a patriot.
4) You have a wee bit of a persecution complex.
How’d I do?
1. Pot, meet kettle.
2. Pot, I thought you and kettle had already met.
3. Duh! Are you always so quick, incisive and perceptive??? Or was this just a lucky guess??
4. Uh, no, I just enjoy teasing liberals. They make such funny noises.
You really aren’t very self-analytical, are you?
Okay, I know, “Why the hell does this a-hole think we want to see his recycled mail?” Nevertheless, I wrote Jonah….
“As we all know, one’s a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas. ”
For this delicious bon mot alone, I hereby nominate you as hands-down funniest high-profile always-was-con in the country today. I hold out the possibility that Florence King may have you for sheer longevity and consistently high achievement, but an argument might be made she is more accurately described as a misanthrope whose political leanings most resemble something out of the Danelaw. Nicely done.
And as for we stupid Bush voters, my guess is we can take them on the LSAT, a locked-cage match, or in a barren snowbound landscape armed with nothing more than a Swiss Army knife and a good coat. Figuratively speaking, of course. Were it put to the test, I don’t think the world could endure seeing Michael Moore crap his pants after failing to get a fire started, while Ann Coulter gorges on roast seal in her cozy ice shelter across the inlet.”