April 15, 2006
This One is Truly Unhinged
The Washington Post profiles one of the folks who bring us those shrieking lefty emo blogs: 
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?Unfortunately for America, the Democratic party is pandering to loons just like Maryscott O'Connor, who writes for DailyKos (of course) and her own blog, My Left Wing.
Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):
Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
01:01 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Isn't it sweet when 2 moonbats are in the same room. The electricity is in the air I tells ya. David Finkel & Maryscott O'Conner are just the cutest things.
If she feels that way about Catholics, how does she feel about Evangelicals? Now that would be a fun read. I love the "IT'S ALL THE CONSERVATIVES FAULT WERE A BUNCH OF HATE FILLED LOONS" tag the WashCompost wrote in there.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM (blNMI)
2
I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. But hey, the end of his term were my college days so maybe I just missed all of the right-wing protests on university grounds over Conservative pundits giving speeches, military recruiters over a law signed into effect by President Clinton, calling Clinton a liar over intelligence related to one of many military campaigns he waged (Trivia: Clinton sent the U.S. military to more nations than any president since WW II), any program he pushed or any of that other garbage.
I thought the quote of that entire article was when she said she's almost insane. Lady, you've passed that marker long ago. And don't you love how the picture shows here in, what else, her pajamas?
Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM (vKISv)
3
"Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite."
Ahem. When the Democrats held the majority there was no where near the anger and petty bickering from their political counterparts. Conservatives didn't crucify their judicial candidates, they didn't go on marches carrying signs saying "Clinton=Hitler", they didn't oppose every piece of legislation that came down the pipe without having an alternative plan, etc. And the left was comparatively polite? hahaha. Polite in the way an animal is if you keep feeding it meat. 40 years of owning the government and then losing it sent them in a tailspin I wonder if they'll ever recover from.
Not that the Republicans aren't heading down the same path of complacency, but let's be honest; these two people wouldn't know the truth if you slapped them with it.
Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:19 AM (YudAC)
4
How can anyone be so stupid as to find equivalence between the spirited grumbling from certain quarters during dhimmicrap administrations, and the unhinged lunacy of the leftards at all times?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:53 AM (0yYS2)
5
>>>Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite.
Even back in my Lib days in the early 80s I can recall how we used to call conservatives "fascists". I suppose that is "comparatively polite" compared to some of the things Lefties are saying nowadays.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:52 AM (8e/V4)
6
was she smoking that cigarette INSIDE!!!!!
Posted by: Cindy at April 15, 2006 07:53 AM (N22Ci)
7
I hope she keeps smoking...the sooner her brain will be fried completely and then become sooo nonrelevant. Curious though what kind of cigerette? Regular tobacco or some other variety....
Posted by: Debby at April 15, 2006 08:48 AM (j3bQ5)
8
M.A.:
"The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become . . . "
Oh, so you're an idiot too. I get it now. All joking aside, and that was a joke, you make a valid point in that the article is not exactly a puff piece. But to conclude Michelle Malking is as comparatively unhinged in anger as even the bloggers highlighted by the WaPo is right out of left field. Further more, to conclude the WaPo is right-wing . . . I am just speechless really.
Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 09:11 AM (vKISv)
9
M.A.
Nice try. The article tried to justify Maryscott's anger. It was not a fluff piece for the Right. It actually "Softened" the truth which is that Maryscott isn't angry but that she is an obsessive hate-filled blogger who wakes up hating GWB - she is pathetic.
As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?
Posted by: chez diva at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM (zmJNe)
10
As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?
The answer is yes, all the time -- and not by obscure online people but by people in government and the conservative media. They called him "a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country" and more, every single day. Do a usenet search, or start with this Glenn Greenwald post, or read Byron York's article on the decline of the American Spectator during the Clinton years. Hatred of Bush does not begin to compare to the foam-flecked hatred of Clinton.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:25 AM (Gv+sz)
11
Drinking non-alcohol beer in the morning? That's her real problem.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 10:39 AM (HJnrm)
12
As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM (Gv+sz)
13
So now we know that when Leftwingers accuse conservatives of being "angry" and filled with "hate", they are just projecting. Same thing when they constantly accuse Bush of "lying." They're looking at themselves in the mirror, for how many times have we busted these Leftwingers in outright lies and distortions, not to mention sheer ignorance of the plain facts.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)
14
M.A.
I read the article you directed me to and I can't find anything that can be compared to the screams of "Bush Lied, People Died".
I don't doubt that Clinton did have his "haters" but they pale in comparison to the Bush "haters" such as the WaPo and NY Times journalist and editors who have declared open season on Bush.
Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.
If anything can be learned about the Media with regards to Clinton is that they loved him and protected him. If it wasn't for Drudge breaking the Monica story then "we the people" would never ever have learned about it. The NY Times and other news outlets where mum. They didn't come forward with the story until it was already out and they were embarrassed to have been scooped by some internet guy/journalist.
Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:00 AM (zmJNe)
15
M.A.
You wrote:
"As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war;"
So are you saying that if you support one or more of the items above it is an indication that one leans toward the political "right wing"?
If so then:
President Clinton is "right-wing" he led not one but two "unprovoked wars" in Bosnia and Kosovo - no one attacked us and neither one was sanctioned by the UN. However the Left and the Media didn't question Clinton's motives for an unprovoked war but they are all over Bush for what is a legitimate, legal and provoked war.
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats supported the Iraq War that Bush prosecuted with UN approval - the Iraq War resulted from Hussein thumbing his nose at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and others dating back to the early 1990's. So does that make Sen. Clinton
and other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - "right wingers"?
Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:14 AM (zmJNe)
16
Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous.
- Statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo action.
Also, as Jonathan Chait wrote: " The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard."
There is simply nothing among mainstream Democrats to compare with the insane, unhinged Clinton hatred of the Republicans in Congress.
As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues, yet the unhinged right attacked him as if he were some sort of left-winger, and the mainstream media followed suit. Because the mainstream media has a conservative bias, and has had one ever since the '80s at least.
Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 11:41 AM (Gv+sz)
17
MA, you seem like an intelligent sort, but you're coming off as mentally ill, or simply a dishonest propagandist. The WaPo rightwing? Please, this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, and as someone who, evidently unlike you, is old enough to remember what went on during the Clinton years, comparing the criticism (mostly self-inflicted) that Clinton heard with a BLOGGER BEING MENTIONED IN THE WAPO FOR WISHING CANCER ON BUSH - well, you need therapy, dude. Soon.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (RHG+K)
18
>>>this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess,
It shows how deranged the Left has become when even an apology for their excesses comes off as an indictment.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:58 PM (8e/V4)
19
It shows the Left to be mentally ill, which is where this particular commenter posting under the name M.A. is. The next thing you know, he will accuse dKos of being a flaming neocon. Good grief, M.A., you strained at a gnat, and swollowed a camel.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:15 PM (rUyw4)
20
MA is actually correct on many points. There most definitely was an intense Clinton hatred among some on the Right in the 90's but I don't recall it ever being as widespread or as loud. Perhaps if as many folks had access to the internet and blogs, etc. back then...
Today, BDS manifests itself in everything from popular films to television to music. One cannot escape the constant reminders that our President is an unelected warmongering stupid chimp, blah, blah, blah. It really is tiresome.
Clinton hatred, on the other hand, was (with the exception of some talk radio) nowhere near as ubiquitous. Yes, there were the "Arkancide" theorists (Foster, Brown, etc) and copied VHS cassettes passed around that purported to show President Clinton had a private airstrip to smuggle cocaine, etc.
But that anti-Clinton stuff was like really hardcore "prOn"--you had to know where to look and then you had to go get it. Maybe like "prOn", the widespread use of the 'Net today makes it seem like there's more President bashing but I think it's real and it's even worse than the Reagan years when I lived in Ithaca, NY, and Madison, WI, where he was not well liked, to put it mildly. Our profs had us convinced he would blow up the planet.
MA is also right that the piece on the 'blogger is sensationalistic and unfair to the thoughtful Lefties out there. But that's the nature on the MSM.
But MA, there is no way that WaPo is a 'right wing' paper. It maybe more button down preppie than it's bohemian sister, the NYT, but it is still 'center left' on it's most conservative day.
Posted by: JDB at April 15, 2006 01:19 PM (gHLyo)
21
M.A., just pray that I don't find you when the time of retribution comes, because you and your kind, along with the muslims and other anti-American scum, won't last long then.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:49 PM (0yYS2)
22
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at M.A. insuating more than once that A) WaPo is "right-wing" and B) the media is conservative.
And then: "As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues"
Now I'm laughing. Dude! Did you just wake up from a 15 year coma?
Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:23 PM (YudAC)
23
Did he wake from a coma? No, he just ate a mushroom that he found growing in his laundry hamper.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:52 PM (0yYS2)
24
IM, I think M.A. ate some of those mushrooms that grow in cow manure. How else can you explain all the BS coming from he/she/it?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:23 PM (rUyw4)
25
This is a test - I've tried to post here three times tonight - but can't seem to - just don't want to waste my time writing my thoughts again if it won't post - this seems to be an ongoin g problem with righty sites - must be the VRWC!
Posted by: Zeus at April 16, 2006 01:49 AM (vlreT)
26
Hey Zeus, you should write in Notepad or something, then transfer it, or you could just hit the back button on your browser if you get an error message. I don't know what it is, but this site has lots of comment problems.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:27 AM (0yYS2)
27
I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton.
So did you have your head fully up your ass during the 1990s, or were you just in a persistent vegetative state back then?
Posted by: ned fucking flanders at April 16, 2006 04:16 PM (XEZ3U)
28
I was calling for the lynching of Billary, along with every other leftard moron, and I still am.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)
29
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11685. Isn't that crazy!
Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 23, 2006 08:03 AM (F1CfC)
36kb generated in CPU 0.058, elapsed 0.1623 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1521 seconds, 278 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1521 seconds, 278 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
