Would I Link to Whiskey Fire Just So I Could Take Cheap Shots at an Erick Erickson Column? Yes.
By …wherein Erick Erickson throws everything at the wall including his Megyn Kelly Love Pillow...
An honest person would concede that most Americans do not find the word redskins offensive and an honest person would concede that at its creation the trademarks for the Washington Redskins were not considered offensive.
An honest person would also concede that most Americans were cool with things like anti-miscegenation laws and slavery for a long time. It has frequently been the case that “most Americans” have been morons inarguably wrong about things. Guess what: they’re wrong again.
Professional victims must now work even harder to find racist things to get worked up about.
Oh, this old chestnut. Of course, people who object to the name aren’t sincere…
These guilt-ridden children of privilege and their cousins
…but they’re still guilt-ridden for some reason? I dunno. Please embigify the dumbening, Erick.
These guilt-ridden children of privilege and their cousins — the already rich, white liberal — could care less to walk a day in someone else’s shoes. They could care less to connect a world outside their bubble. They have decided they are the standard bearers of a secular moral code and will punish those who deviate. In their desire for diversity they dress the same, eat the same, read the same and tweet “Game of Thrones” spoilers. When the facts do not suit their demands, they conjure convenient new facts that may fly in the face of reality, but anyone who points that out is labeled a bigot, racist or conservative.
A.) It’s “couldn’t care less.”
B.) “Walking a day in someone else’s shoes” is kind of the liberal raison d’etre, in case you hadn’t heard. Sure, we’re always insincere about wanting to walk in someone else’s shoes, but it’s still “our thing.” I will walk in anyone else’s shoes unless those shoes are Uggs. If you’re wearing Uggs, go die in the gutter, Ugg-wearer. Uggs? More like “Ughs,” amirite, ladies? I’M SORRY. I have no idea why this early-80’s-era comedian interrupted this entry.
C.) “Game of Thrones” spoilers? “The Bold and the Beautiful” or GTFO, Erick!!
D.) Citations etc. etc. I’ve never conjured a fact in my life. I’m too busy conjuring unicorns!
In another age, these people would be called busy bodies.
Pantysniffers say what?
At the end of the 20th century, they were called liberals. Prior to World War II, they were called progressive, but too many of them embraced Hitler’s eugenics programs and Stalin’s pogroms.
Well, they were fabulous progroms, filled with music and dance!
They suddenly shifted to being called liberals and only now, having ruined that label at the end of the 20th century, are transitioning back to progressive.
I have no idea where we’re going with this, but the jizz-coated Megyn Kelly love pillow has landed with a thud on the ground. So I’ll just leave you with this question: Can any of you get a handle on where liberals fall on the socioeconomic spectrum? I’ll read one wingnut column and it’s all “black moocher moocher moocher.” And then I’ll read another and it’s about rich white liberal elitists. I swear, it’s like…moocher/wealthy elite/moocher/wealthy elite… So are we poor black people who just want our Obamaphones or are we the idle rich, sitting around sending rude tweets to Dan Snyder because we’re bored and racism is more fun than Halo? I get so confused.