vastleft bugfucker watch

Each day, we see how many items Google finds that include the words: “vastleft” and “bugfucker.”

11/19/08: 69
11/18/08: 50
11/17/08: 24
11/16/08: 23

About vbw (scroll to bottom)...

MORE: Vastleft wants everyone to stop fixating on the fact that we elected the first African-American to be president immediately (like Stephen Colbert, vastleft doesn’t see color) and focus on the reality that Obama is going to be “inheriting a series of ginormous crises.” Because nobody’s doing that.  I haven’t seen or heard the challenges facing Barack mentioned in the mainstream media at all. They’re completely ignoring it. As is Obama, who is just strutting around Chicago pointing at himself and cooing, “Fuckin’ historical.” All I’ve heard for weeks now from the press is blackedy blackedy African-American blackedy.  That’s all they can talk or write about. I had to turn off my TV yesterday because all Wolf Blitzer did for the first 45-minutes of The Situation Room was yell “first African-American president!” at the camera over and over again while they flipped through old pictures of slaves on the huge monitors behind him and Jack Cafferty sat on a stool in the back strumming a banjo and crooning negro spirituals.  It totally sucked. Enough! And would someone please tell her to stop it with the crying and the smiling and the joy and stuff and get to work figuring out how to stop the auto industry bailout or fix our health care system? Jesus christ, don’t make me get all PB 2.0 up in her shit. She won’t know what hit her, but I guarantee it will be historical.

Posted by Kevin K. on 11/19/08 at 11:08 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaElection '08PoliblogsPolisnarkSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Holy cotton-pickin’ Jesus. To answer one of VL’s questions, I don’t personally think it’s productive to “continue to bash as ‘insane’ those who, back when there was an option, happened to prefer Hillary to Obama.” But I do think it’s appropriate to label passive-aggressive ninnies who insist on attempting to suck every last drop of joy out of a historical event “bugfuckers.”

P.B. 2.0:  Toward a More Palatable Truthiness

P.B. 2.0:  Because my entire life was Daily Kos, and those bastards took it away

P.B. 2.0:  Because Hillary Clinton has nothing on Imaginary Hillary Clinton.

Why am I ignorant to P.B. 2.0?

I thought I was Aware of All Internet Traditions.

( vastleft bugfucker!)

I think it’s PBJ 2.0.  New and improved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8MDNFaGfT4

Comment by Cello on 11/19/08 at 05:06 PM

Why am I ignorant to P.B. 2.0?

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. It was Lambert trying to crowbar his way into being the next Markos with the backing of a small group of Hillary dead-enders and PUMAs.

Did that vastleft bugfucker try to claim the progressive mantle?  That is too good.

Thank you, Kevin.  Now I am back to being Aware of All Internet Traditions.

Snap out of it, dumfux.

Snap out of it, dumfux.

Randall, I eagerly await your next blog post in 2010.  Thanks for stopping by.

Yea….snap out of it all you dumfux!

Don’t worry.


I won’t ask any more troublesome questions.

Everything changed after 9/11.

You gots to watch what you say!!

Yep.

Big Brother Loves Me.

And I love big brother!  I love big brother!  I love big brother.


(ending of 1984 for those who fail to recognize this reference.  read the book.  then reply.)

Everything changed after 9/11.

You gots to watch what you say!!

Is there any point in time that you’re going to start speaking English? The language of your people confuses me.

p.s. That’s from Orwell’s Keep the Aspidistra Flying.

With all due respect, I must strenuously object to your post that compares my penchant for bugfuckery to Obama’s historicism.

My “Obama Histeria Watch” uses Google News as its data set, not all of Google.

The latter source returns “Your search - vastleft bugfucker - did not match any documents” when presented with your designated query.

That’s not to say that the MSM won’t cover this important story at a future date, but as of now this search is a non-starter.

If you wish to compare web posts that document my insect-intercourse exploits to posts in the Google corpus about Obama being historic, please note the “Obama”+“Historic” benchmark stands at 15,500,000, a damn sight more than the 131 documents that reference my fornication with flies and the like.

I do hope that an apology will be forthcoming.

Vastleft, I’ve got two very simple questions for you:

1) Was the election of the first African-American president, decades before most people thought it was possible (see: the Bradley Effect), “historic”? Yes or no?

2) If Hillary Clinton was elected as the first female president in US history, would you have run a series at Correntewire called “Hillary histeria watch”?  Yes or no?

I eagerly await your answers.

Kevin, I think it would have been “Hillary hersteria watch….”

(And yes, I know the root word origin of “hysteria.”)

Heh, yeah, I was thinking that, too, but I believe vastleft is playing off the word “historic.”

I guess that can be the third question.

I’m sorry, VL, but are you claiming more academic legitimacy than Kevin because you search Google News rather than Google?  Are you fucking kidding me?

I guess those yes or no questions blew vastheft’s mind.

Kevin,
The Bradley effect has been debunked quite a few times.
Ghost of Bradley is an On the Media piece featuring a Bradley campaign official again debunking the myth.  And maybe you are really really young and have no memory of the 1996 election which Powell was favored to win until he dropped out( The exit polls also favored him).  He may or may not have won if he actually ran but your statement that the election happened “decades before most people thought it was possible” is seriously off base.

Just some fun facts for you.

empty,

Okay, maybe I was incorrect using “most people” when I should have used “plenty of people.” And, no, I didn’t believe the Bradley effect would still be a factor nor do I believe that it was a sound theory to begin with, but my teevees, newspapers and innertubes were telling me over and over that it might be this entire election cycle. And regarding Powell, I don’t recall the polling from that far back, but I do remember he was barely a blip in ‘96 before he dropped out.  I was talking about perceptions in that one sentence. But thanks for saying that I may be “really really young.”  That made me feel good.

Kevin, once again you’re confused.

Hillary Clinton, the woman who built her political power base via matrimony, is a Trailblazing Fearless Fighter Who Represents The Hopes and Dreams of All Women Everywhere. Plus, by voting for the war and the Patriot Act, serving on the board of Wal-Mart, screwing up healthcare reform the first time around, sponsoring legislation against flag-burning, and running a campaign rife with in-fighting and financial ineptitude, she CLEARLY has demonstrated that she is A) The One True Liberal and B) Has Immense Leadership Skills.

Barack Obama, the man who rose to power without any family connections or money with a funny-sounding Ay-rab name, is an arrogant do-nothing empty suit who dared to run against Hillary when everyone knew it was Her Turn, who dared to raise a buttload of money from small donors, and dared to compete in caucus states that eminences like Mark Penn had dismissed as unimportant. And his “duskiness,” shall we say, made this more of an insult than, say, John Edwards deciding to also flout Her Inevitableness’ sacred anointed status and run.

Because whatever black dudes do, it’s never going to be the right thing, and if you celebrate or even mention their “historic” successes, it only encourages them to continue getting above their station in life.

Whatever Hillary does, of course, comes out of her sheer love and empathy for The People.

I really hope this is the last time I shall have to school you on something as obvious as this.

Also: vastleft bugfucker!

Vastleft, I’ve got two very simple questions for you:

1) Was the election of the first African-American president, decades before most people thought it was possible (see: the Bradley Effect), “historic”? Yes or no?

The question’s dubious framing notwithstanding (see: Somerby. Conventional Wisdom of yore had it that Colin Powell would have been an extremely viable candidate.), the answer is an unequivocal yes. One of the two reasons I swallowed my considerable objections to Obama’s candidacy was to make history by voting for a black president (the other was to say “fuck you” to the Repubs, which I rationalized a vote for him would still accomplish, despite his calling them “the party of ideas,” people who had a better idea on energy policy, etc., etc.).

2) If Hillary Clinton was elected as the first female president in US history, would you have run a series at Correntewire called “Hillary histeria watch”?  Yes or no?

That depends on whether there was a palpable risk that she was being unduly shielded from progressive pressure, in part due to the glow of “historicism.” If she were widely treated like a messiah, then yes, absolutely.

I’m sorry, VL, but are you claiming more academic legitimacy than Kevin because you search Google News rather than Google?  Are you fucking kidding me?
Comment by John Cain on 11/20/08 at 10:24 AM

The objection was that the searches were conducted using two different data sets and were thus an unfair juxtaposition.

Ever heard of “an apples and oranges comparison”? No?

Ponderous.

Yeah, um, Obama made it clear that he didn’t think the GOP had the RIGHT ideas—just that they were better at articulating them and marketing them to people while the Democrats either played defense (“We’re NOT weak on national security! Here, I’ll get in this tank and prove it!”) or focused on small-beer issues rather than a larger philosophy of governance. And given that the GOP has largely dominated the executive branch for the last forty years (and thwarted any liberal agenda the Dem presidents might have had when they controlled the legislative branch), I’d say Obama had it about right.

Of course, any asshole who would adopt some horrible GOP/Reaganite framing device such as “the era of big government is over” can never be trusted to carry the mantle of the Democratic Party, right?

Like this jerkwad, for example: http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html

Comment by Kerry Reid on 11/21/08 at 12:05 PM

Sorry, Kevin. Pondering can be painful. Much easier to call people “bugfuckers.”

Wow, Kerry, what a discovery!

Bill Clinton was a triangulating centrist! Who knew!?

Does the country not need more and faster progressive reform than Bill Clinton offered in the 1990s?

Is the country not more-ready for progressive reform and rethinking of the right-centrist agenda than after Bush 41?

Shouldn’t it have been a lot easier (especially with the greatest orator evah!) and more important to have reinvigorated the “liberal” brand instead of trashing it?

Kevin,
I don’t want to make you feel even worse but this statement “And regarding Powell, I don’t recall the polling from that far back, but I do remember he was barely a blip in ‘96 before he dropped out”  says you are not just very young you are also a bit lazy.  Here is some research for you:

New Hampshire Poll Finds Powell in the lead

From a piece in the NYT on his decision not to run:

President Clinton, spared what poll soundings suggested might have been the political fight of his life, did not immediately comment. “Whatever reaction the President had was a private one,” said the White House spokesman, Michael D. McCurry.

The BBC describing his wife’s veto:

Mr Powell - then a popular retired general - was almost assured of being the Republican party’s presidential candidate should he have wanted the nomination.

And here is an actual poll:

6e. If the next election for president were held today, and Bill Clinton were running as the Democratic candidate and Colin Powell were the Republican candidate, for whom would you vote?


                  3/96 10/95   9/95

Bill Clinton           38   34   33
Colin Powell           47   49   48
  Depends (VOL)          3     3     3
  Neither/other (VOL)      4     4     5
  Not sure             8   10   11

Enjoy.

I don’t want to make you feel even worse

Empty… yeah, I feel fucking awful.

If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent.

And, jeebus, do you think if Powell had really run there wouldn’t have been (endless) questions about his viability? I will give you credit, though.  You’re one of the few people I’ve seen floating the ‘96 Powell model as some sort of defining moment regardless of what a inconsequential (and way-too-early) moment it was.

Sincerely,

Lazy Person

Vastleft, you’re a fucking moron as well as a bugfucker. What Obama is saying in the link you provided is that the MEDIA NARRATIVE around liberals has been set in stone for a long time as described by Fox News. Instead of fighting over “is he or isn’t a liberal” in order to placate the hurt fee-fees of the perpetually aggrieved self-proclaimed gatekeepers of liberal orthodoxy, why not shift the narrative to what you plan to do as president? Which is what most voters wanted to know this year—not where a candidate stand on some Kinsey scale of liberalism. I mean, if Hillary “bomb Iraqi bitches so Mama Hawk can be president!” can claim the mantle “feminist,” then such labels don’t really have much value, do they?

You’re right: Bill Clinton is/was a triangulating centrist. Thoroughly Mediocre Hillie is an INEPT triangulating centrist who couldn’t adequately run a race that was hers to lose, given name recognition and deep pockets. Yet somehow some “liberals” decided she was The One, despite the fact that her record is neither stunningly feminist nor liberal (Bust Those Unions! Suck Sam Walton’s Cock!)

Did Hillary say the word “liberal” enough to make the secret duck come down, despite her centrist agenda? (And don’t mention healthcare. She fucked it up once and did practically nothing to lead on the issue in the Senate until it was time to run for president.)

Yes, the country does need faster reform. The surest way to bog down is to get into shit-for-brains pissing contests over the semantics of “liberal.” Because seriously, most people don’t give a shit about whether the fireman hauling their ass out of a burning building is a “liberal” or “conservative.” They just want to know that he or she has a coherent rescue plan.

Funny that you’re spending so much energy targeting a left-winger rather than targeting a Bushist fascist.

“Bushist fascist,” wow, did you get that trademarked?

And maybe instead of crawling up my ass, you may want to ask bugfucker why he’s been solely fixated on harshing on Obama instead of, you know, Bushist fascists.

p.s. I see the Confluence is on your blogroll.  This is where I encourage you to suck a dick.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main