Friday, September 09, 2005

Wandering down to Idiotville.


There's a reason that, when it comes to the more sub-human residents of Wankerville, I try to avoid stuff like, you know, actually talking to them or anything. And this is a good example, where you can read the following from Weasel Boy himself in the comments section in case someone still hasn't figured out that he really doesn't give a fuck about the animals in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:

If given the choice, I would save Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden before my cats. Sure, they may not deserve it, but they are human beings. I have no right to make the judgment to let them die. To not save them when I could would be tantamount to murder and that is simply unacceptable despite the things they've done.

Did you catch that? Make sure you understand WB here as he puts on his superpower cloak of infinite nobility in claiming that, regardless of Hussein's or bin Laden's crimes, they are human beings and do not deserve to be allowed to die.

Of course, Weasel Boy is part of the same population of mouth-breathers who used Saddam Hussein's crimes against his people as the excuse to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands of its citizens. (But, please, not to call them "people." Rather, call them "collateral damage.")

These are the people who, while they are apparently so humane and Godly that they would rescue Osama bin Laden from death, are the same ones who are shrieking with outrage over Bill Clinton's alleged failure to kill that evil son-of-a-bitch back in the late 1990s when he had the chance.

These are the people who are so sanctimonious they would not allow Saddam Hussein to die, yet fully supported an air strike on a Baghdad suburb which killed numerous civilians, on the off chance that it might wipe out that murderous prick.

And, of course, these are the same raving hypocrites who are so terribly, terribly concerned with the sanctity of human life, but are the biggest fans of capital punishment and, yeah, sometimes you end up wasting an innocent but, hey, whaddya gonna do, it's the price you pay for law and order and, by the way, those abortion doctors had that bullet to the brain coming to them, know what I mean?

This is why I try to not actually talk to these people. Because just when you think they've reached the bottom of the barrel in terms of intellectual idiocy, someone else comes along and lifts up the barrel.

WHOOPS: I'm not sure how I missed this the first time, but read the following passage carefully:

To not save [Hussein and bin Laden] when I could would be tantamount to murder and that is simply unacceptable despite the things they've done.

Got that? Simply standing by and letting either of those two die would be, as Weasel Boy puts it, "tantamount to murder." This is a little odd since conservative wanks like WB are generally pro-death penalty and, when they're asked how they justify that position in light of the Scriptural admonition "Thou shalt not kill," they're normally quick to offer up the same, tedious apologetic.

See, they'll say, the Bible doesn't really say, "Thou shalt not kill." Really, they'll say, it says you shouldn't "murder," which isn't the same thing, naturally, since those death row inmates have it coming to them so, while the death penalty means killing them, technically that isn't "murder."

So, to recap, simply standing by and allowing mass murderers to die is "tantamount to murder," while the deliberate and explicit execution of another human being isn't. This is the sort of thing that happens when you don't take the adults' advice to stop eating the paint chips.

BONUS TRACK: Thank ya, thank ya very much.

11 comments:

v said...

Just a random quick reminder that The Harper Hegemon cannot be stopped. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Is this the same Harper Hegemon headed up by a guy caught on camera doing business/western/fetish dress? (say back around July?)

CC said...

No, silly, it's the same Harper Hegemon you can read about if you Google on "Stephen Harper," "firings" and "resignations".

No, no, don't thank me, just doing my job.

Buridan said...

Great Post CC! I've noted this on my blog as well. Wouldn't it be nice if people would simply take a few seconds to think through what it is they're actually "saying"? I think we should start charging them for this service.

v said...

anonymous, are you even 12 years old? The fact that you find how Mr. Harper looks in western attire relevant in any way speaks more to your weak character than anything else. I take your inability to offer a substative criticism of Stevie Franchise as an act of submission and admission of defeat. Good boy. Good boy.

Anonymous said...

Anonalogue:

Read your original troll in which you referred to the "Harper Hegemony" - Are you familiar with Irony? Or like most pseudo-neo-cons has you sense of humour calcified?

I've substantively trashed Harper in other forums, where the topic has actually been Harper's leadership and policy directions. If you are going to make goofy statments like "Harper Hegemon", you can expect non-sequitur responses.

CC said...

Anonalogue writes:

anonymous, are you even 12 years old? The fact that you find how Mr. Harper looks in western attire relevant in any way speaks more to your weak character than anything else. I take your inability to offer a substative criticism of Stevie Franchise as an act of submission and admission of defeat. Good boy. Good boy.

Anonalogue, you are seriously starting to try my patience. As a rule, I don't delete comments unless there is a really compelling reason, certainly not if it's just because I don't agree with someone.

But your submissions don't contribute much to the discussion beyond childish insults, and that's something I don't want to encourage here.

In this forum, there's nothing wrong with being opinionated, excitable or even vulgar and/or profane. But the cardinal sin is to simply not be entertaining in some way.

And your entertainment value, Anonalogue, is rapidly running out.

v said...

"
But your submissions don't contribute much to the discussion beyond childish insults, and that's something I don't want to encourage here."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right buddy, being the mature noninsulting angel that you are. That was funny.

Heh, just as I thought; put a little pressure on a Liberal and the absurdity is 100% guaranteed to follow. Can't take the heat when a conservative plays back at you, can you?

CC said...

Anonalogue writes:

"But your submissions don't contribute much to the discussion beyond childish insults, and that's something I don't want to encourage here."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right buddy, being the mature noninsulting angel that you are. That was funny.


Pay attention, Anonalogue, as you've just become persona non grata on this site.

I never criticized "insults." I'm all in favour of insults, particularly wicked, scathing, clever insults, either clean or vulgar. Good insults are an art form. Need an example? Try James Wolcott, who shows us mere mortals how it's done.

What I don't tolerate, as I clearly explained, are childish insults. Like yours.

You can now go play in your own sandbox. Further submissions of yours will be deleted. Have a nice day. Feel free to come back after you grow up.

Jason said...

Hey, CC, I'd really appreciate it if your troll buddies wouldn't leave death threats on my blog, m'kay?

CC said...

Hey, CC, I'd really appreciate it if your troll buddies wouldn't leave death threats on my blog, m'kay?

So ... an anonymous reader follows the link from one anonymous blog to another anonymous blog and leaves (what I'm guessing is) an anonymous comment, and this is somehow my fault?

How exactly does that work?