Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JVS

(61,935 posts)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:17 AM Jun 2014

Edited Rude Pundit: Father and Daughter Cheney Can Go Pick Some Flowers

Warning: NSFW, terrible language trigger warning, title altered so that I won't burn in Hell for eternity, excerpt edited so that everything will be ok. You can all thank me for defending your sensitivities.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/father-and-daughter-cheney-can-go-suck.html

Let's state this as plainly as possible: The Iraq "war" was a complete and total waste. It was completely and totally worthless. The United States and the rest of the world would be in better shape if Saddam Hussein were still in power. Every life lost was for nothing. Every limb, every scar was for nothing. Every veteran who faces the unending nightmare of PTSD does so for nothing. Let's just stop ****** pretending anything else. Let's grow up a little and face that fact. Let's look the families of the dead in the eyes and tell them the truth.

The invasion of Iraq was the heaving **** of a bloated superpower dragging its gut over to pump away because it could. And most everyone just went along with it, applauding each "victory" like it was the parentloving Battle of Gettysburg. All that's left behind is the giant cosmic fudgy joke that is a United States made weaker by wasting trillions of dollars on the mad ego trip of acid-blinded utopians and an Iraq that is exploding like a bottle of soda shaken by a paint mixer and uncapped by a gun.

And we need to bring former Vice President Dick Cheney before those families and have him tell the truth: "We did it for the dollars. We went to war with Iraq because war profiteering was the easiest gosh darned way to enrich already rich people, like my friends at Halliburton. It was robbery and we named it 'patriotism.' It was extortion and we called it 'honor.'" Then, we should let the families do what they want. Maybe they'd let him go. Maybe they'd tear him limb from hideous limb. Maybe they'd rip out his machine heart and do something so awful that there is really no euphemistic way to rephrase it.

If nothing else, it would stop him from co-signing an editorial from him and his heinous daughter, Liz, like the one that ran in the Wall Street Journal today. In it, Cheney and Cheney pretty much say that President Obama is an America-hating poopy head who wants our enemies to win and who is too stupid to understand anything about the real world, the world that Cheney (Dick) understands is full of threats without understanding that they are threats he created.

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Edited Rude Pundit: Father and Daughter Cheney Can Go Pick Some Flowers (Original Post) JVS Jun 2014 OP
Dead flowers on their graves. GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #1
Well I thought fredamae Jun 2014 #2
I am deeply offended corkhead Jun 2014 #3
ROFL malaise Jun 2014 #4
One would think this would be the kind of flower that attracted Cheneys hobbit709 Jun 2014 #5
You rock! meegbear Jun 2014 #6
LOVE. IT. bullwinkle428 Jun 2014 #7
I like the original version better derby378 Jun 2014 #8
I don't know... mn9driver Jun 2014 #9
This is so unnecessary...or at least it should be.. truebrit71 Jun 2014 #10
like a lab rat on crack... nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #46
ALERTED! Just who's deflowering are you promoting?? wyldwolf Jun 2014 #11
I know where... mockmonkey Jun 2014 #12
AHHH.,. doxydad Jun 2014 #26
DUzy. nt awoke_in_2003 Jun 2014 #62
Why would you advocate killing flowers? deutsey Jun 2014 #13
They should go suck a daisy! davidthegnome Jun 2014 #14
They should suck a damn bag of daisys. Iggo Jun 2014 #15
Salted daisys sarge43 Jun 2014 #16
They should suck a whole bed of daisies until their faces are covered in stamen. Erose999 Jun 2014 #21
LOL!!!! Well played!! truebrit71 Jun 2014 #27
Would that be the "Nice Pundit"? KamaAina Jun 2014 #17
The polite pundit JVS Jun 2014 #23
The pundit with a heart (nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #32
I like that one.. lol Cha Jun 2014 #41
By flowers, you mean, Pansies, right? FSogol Jun 2014 #18
And they would likely be stuffed up some oriface or another (nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #33
... Puglover Jun 2014 #19
Poison Ivy doesn't have flowers. Fuddnik Jun 2014 #20
You win the internet today. LOL nt Javaman Jun 2014 #22
Now, really don't you feel all better packman Jun 2014 #24
Last time I checked... doxydad Jun 2014 #25
The edited version is editing of another person's copyrighted work, that's the problem. MADem Jun 2014 #51
It's HIMSELF... doxydad Jun 2014 #55
I didn't miss your point at all. I think people's OWN WORDS belong to THEM. MADem Jun 2014 #68
Those here that are offended by the Rude Pundit should trash threads and not try rhett o rick Jun 2014 #64
I am getting the strong feeling my point went right over your head. MADem Jun 2014 #69
The same back at yeah. I agree with your point and think it's a shame that the OP thought rhett o rick Jun 2014 #70
Here's my attitude about censorship here, generally. MADem Jun 2014 #73
Well written. I agree. But would like to add that I would hope liberals wouldnt be so rhett o rick Jun 2014 #81
I concur--ask FIRST never hurts, and if it confirms one's worst suspicions, then there's no doubt. MADem Jun 2014 #84
Well said, thank you for the small peek at sanity. Now let's get back rhett o rick Jun 2014 #85
"Unless done for purposes of satire and that's not happening here." JVS Jun 2014 #71
That wasn't "satire"--it was a direct reaction to censorship MADem Jun 2014 #72
The original author tweeted that he got a chuckle from it. So I'll take a bit of that... JVS Jun 2014 #74
Well, RP is in a situation where he's been censored on a so-called "liberal/progressive" message MADem Jun 2014 #76
Maybe it wasn't clever enough for you but the OP is most certainly satire. Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2014 #79
Substituting one thing for another is not satire. MADem Jun 2014 #80
His Rudeness should only be censored on the Stephanie Miller Show, but not on DU. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #28
The Rude One posted the link to this babylonsister Jun 2014 #29
And a Tweet! MattSh Jun 2014 #36
Like this? countryjake Jun 2014 #37
He haz a sense of humor nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #47
I bet he reads DU. Cha Jun 2014 #42
He's a member here. nt MADem Jun 2014 #52
EPIC WIN!! KamaAina Jun 2014 #30
Thank you! GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #31
How fucking stupid is it that asterix were needed? blackspade Jun 2014 #34
Fucking unbelievable. Seeing the Rude Pundit censored here... countryjake Jun 2014 #35
There is a small group of self-righteous bullies that wield a lot of power. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #43
Yup nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #45
But, but, but my sensibilities!!!! nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #44
Triumphant fanboy revenge. aikoaiko Jun 2014 #38
trigger warnings are for _______s and _________-_____ing ______holes NightWatcher Jun 2014 #39
Nobody alerted because he said 'fuck', so the asterisks for swear words (and the whinng about them) redqueen Jun 2014 #40
Well, you should feel quite proud, you have proven how powerful you are Dragonfli Jun 2014 #49
What ARE you on about? Hekate Jun 2014 #54
You should bow. . she is a queen after all. NT hueymahl Jun 2014 #58
you used the word "queen" OFF WITH YOUR HEAD Dragonfli Jun 2014 #61
So did you alert on meegbeers's op? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #56
Nope. I hardly ever read TRP. Definitely wasn't gonna bother with that thread. nt redqueen Jun 2014 #59
Whoever alerted on it should feel like a total tool right about now. MADem Jun 2014 #75
I don't see why they wouldn't proudly I'd themselves. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #77
Well, their sense of "community standards" prevents them from so doing. MADem Jun 2014 #78
What part of "rude" do people not get? 6000eliot Jun 2014 #48
It is about feeling powerful, nothing more /nt Dragonfli Jun 2014 #50
And they call themselves liberals, those that obsessively alert/hide/lock/ban/censor. rhett o rick Jun 2014 #57
When I was a kid we had "hall monitors" - power tripping kids wearing a sash Dragonfli Jun 2014 #60
Some are well meaning and just want DU to be some vision of wonderfulness. rhett o rick Jun 2014 #63
The "privilege" implicit in the fights they pick is brutally ironic. Bonobo Jun 2014 #83
Why his very name violates our Community standards. I think the word "Rude" is rude and shouldnt rhett o rick Jun 2014 #65
+1000! 6000eliot Jun 2014 #82
Where have all the flowers gone? Hekate Jun 2014 #53
There is a small but vocal group here (yes they meet the definition of group) that feels rhett o rick Jun 2014 #66
rude heaven05 Jun 2014 #67

mn9driver

(4,426 posts)
9. I don't know...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jun 2014

There are themes and asterisks in this post. Some of them make me feel bad.

I'm so confused.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
10. This is so unnecessary...or at least it should be..
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:48 AM
Jun 2014

...if the Delicate Flowers of the Perpetually Offended Club learned to use the fucking IGNORE function rather than pounding on the alert button like a lab rat on crack...

deutsey

(20,166 posts)
13. Why would you advocate killing flowers?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:57 AM
Jun 2014

They are sentient beings. It's just a good thing they can't scream when you yank them from their life source.

Alerting.

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
24. Now, really don't you feel all better
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:54 PM
Jun 2014

now that you got all that vile, disgusting, gutter language out of your system?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

doxydad

(1,363 posts)
25. Last time I checked...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

...there were no kiddies hanging around here. I did not see a problem, and the edited version is censorship. I hate that. But...thanks for reposting!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
51. The edited version is editing of another person's copyrighted work, that's the problem.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:29 AM
Jun 2014

The only person who should be doing any editing is the Rude Pundit his or her self.

I do think the Rude Pundit would gain a larger audience with a tad less rudeness, but that is the "schtick," to be Quite Rude, with these articles, so I guess the Pundit faces a bit of a conundrum.

Perhaps Pundit could prepare two versions--one PG, suitable for everything from DU to Basic Cable, and another, just linked, with the full Meat and Two Veg, with the rudeness intact...?

Then the Pundit could provide the usual "NSFW" banner warnings and "Don't click if you are offended" directions.

doxydad

(1,363 posts)
55. It's HIMSELF...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:58 AM
Jun 2014

...and you can catch him on the Stephanie Miller show on Free Speech tv. As far as the copyright, you're right on, but you missed my point. When you come on here or any social babbleville, you get what you get. People here are way too offended by the littlest nothing. Seriously. That was my point. I'm 62, seen damned near everything, and yeah, some of these comments, postings, etc are outrageous, but this one was the article...copyrighted and complete. If a person does not want to see that, maybe they should go elsewhere. i have found that when people bitch to me it is over NOTHING. And that does not promote discussion, but promotes discourse.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
68. I didn't miss your point at all. I think people's OWN WORDS belong to THEM.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:14 PM
Jun 2014

NO ONE, save the author, has any business "editing" them.

Just put up the clean(er) bits, warn about raunch, and provide a link. That will satisfy the NSFW crowd here (who insist that those four letters "mean more" than Don't Read If You Don't Like Nasty Talk) as well as the people who don't like the language.

I do think RP would get a larger audience if he were slightly less rude. That's just an opinion, though, and I wouldn't think of "censoring" him. I noted once that I would have loved to have forwarded a piece he wrote but it was too nasty for the person to whom I wanted to send it. RP very nicely obliged, HIMSELF, without being arm-twisted, with a toned down version that I did forward widely.

So, whatever...

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
64. Those here that are offended by the Rude Pundit should trash threads and not try
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

to censor what the rest of us read. This is intended to be a liberal site.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
69. I am getting the strong feeling my point went right over your head.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jun 2014

MY POINT: You don't EDIT the copyrighted words of another person without their permission. It's LOW RENT, at a minimum, illegal in some cases.

Unless done for purposes of satire and that's not happening here.

If a person's work product is edited for any reason, for DU or Reader's Digest or whatever, THEY should be the ones to do it (or they should at the very least give permission) --not others. Liberals don't appropriate the work product of others without permission, after all.

FWIW, Rude Pundit himself did recently edit--of his own accord--a really good essay that was just a bit too rude for the over eighty crowd.

Bottom line--it's not for you to say if it's OK for RP to edit his stuff. It's for Rude Pundit to make that decision. His work, his decision as to how or if he modifies it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
70. The same back at yeah. I agree with your point and think it's a shame that the OP thought
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:47 PM
Jun 2014

he was forced to censor because of those here that want to cleanse DU. We can solve that by backing off on the obsessive alerts.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
73. Here's my attitude about censorship here, generally.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jun 2014

I think people shouldn't go out of their way to be assholes. I think people shouldn't call each other assholes. I think we're probably better off linking to pictures of assholes rather than displaying them within a post, assuming a picture of an asshole is necessary to make the point in the first place.

I think we should consider one another's feelings when we post, and not try to be mean or cruel to individuals. That said, I, too, am getting tired of some of the "Special Snowflake" bullshit. If I hear it on television, if I read it in the paper, IF JON STEWART CAN SAY IT (now, there's a standard!) then it shouldn't be forbidden here, and if someone can't handle it, they should use IGNORE. And AGAIN, notwithstanding those objections, by the same token, if someone is using a word, or a phrase, or a theme/meme, with the express purpose of engaging in bigotry or insult against a group of people, to goad and bait them, to tease and insult them, well, they need to have their ass--if not their asshole--handed to them! We know that shit when we see it--it's pretty easy to spot, because the snarkers are obvious-is-obvious, nine times out of ten. The tenth person will be a jerk who skates close to the line; it might take Skinner years of alerts and bullshit before he finally decides he just "doesn't like" the person and puts a stake through their heart.

As a group we have a few people here who just don't get "context." I'm all for considering people's feelings, but when people use their 'feeeeeeelings' as a cudgel to limit conversations (especially conversations they don't particularly want to join) then my patience is quickly exhausted. Their feeeeeeelings are, to their minds, more important than the comfort and ease of the majority. We need to stop coddling those very few people (and they are very few, they just mouth off a lot) and tell them to put on their Big Kid Shoes and march out with the rest of the group. Or work that IGNORE button like a big dog.

I don't get why people refuse to use judgment, and I don't get why people need to control conversations that they really aren't interested in, in the first place. Makes no sense to me. It's one thing if it's a topic of great interest to the person, but often we see people wandering into groups just to stir and divide, and who needs that.

Too much "looking for trouble" if you ask me....

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
81. Well written. I agree. But would like to add that I would hope liberals wouldnt be so
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:32 PM
Jun 2014

quick to yell "sexism", "bigotry", etc. Granted those things should not be allowed, but we must also recognize that there are some among us that are too anxious to be offended. While some will tell you that something is absolutely "such and such", very few things are absolute. Some expressions mean different things to different people. Some times I think we get so sensitive about some issues that we overreact which IMO is counter-productive. Intent is very important and hard to be certain of. I doubt very much that RP was intending to be homophobic.

We have some among us that seem obsessed with alerting/hiding/locking, etc. Some of them are well meaning but misdirected in thinking that THEY should alert/lock/hide/ban to save the rest of us. And there are others that see the alert/lock/hide system as an opportunity to push their point of view or just plain bully.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
84. I concur--ask FIRST never hurts, and if it confirms one's worst suspicions, then there's no doubt.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 02:25 AM
Jun 2014

Some people are clearly being sarcastic, but they either forget, or are "too hipster" to use a tag for the people who just cannot get the point without an illustration.

The net nannies are probably well meaning, most of 'em, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are disrupting with a "trolling from the left" sense of poutrage--to turn the board into a parody of itself. And yeah, some are just "controlling"--my way or the highway types.

My family is chock-a-block full of lively conversationalists, and some of them would fit into what DU regards as a "protected group" that should be shielded from some of this terrible and offensive speech. Problem is, I couldn't/wouldn't DARE point them to this board because the way some of them talk (snidely, ironically, with intense sarcasm aforethought) they'd be the perpetrators of some of that speech, and banned in short order from the "protected" groups where their interests might lie, and soon banned from the board for simple irreverence and brutal honesty. They're "good progressives" but they aren't sugar-coaters.

I won't hide a post where I think the poster might be speaking ironically or if there's any ambiguity. There are a few people who have button-pushing reputations, but we know them when we see them, pretty much.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
85. Well said, thank you for the small peek at sanity. Now let's get back
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:28 AM
Jun 2014

to the mud flinging. I try always to include the sarcasm flag because there is always someone that doesnt get it. Not to say that I dont catch unmarked sarcasm myself. I admit I have a chip on my shoulder and "go off" a little to easily some times.

JVS

(61,935 posts)
71. "Unless done for purposes of satire and that's not happening here."
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:51 PM
Jun 2014

WWWWWWHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH

MADem

(135,425 posts)
72. That wasn't "satire"--it was a direct reaction to censorship
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:05 PM
Jun 2014

and nothing more. A snippy "So THERE!"

So "wooosh" right back atcha. If that passes for satire in your book, your bar is very low indeed.

Satire usually involves some degree of cleverness, not simply eradicating the "objectionable" words and phrases with asterisks.

JVS

(61,935 posts)
74. The original author tweeted that he got a chuckle from it. So I'll take a bit of that...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

praise from Caesar over your calumny.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
76. Well, RP is in a situation where he's been censored on a so-called "liberal/progressive" message
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

board, his post was silenced by some clueless, context-free scold with a hot alert button, so what is he supposed to do?

Bottom line? It's not cool to edit people's words. This was a one-off. If it became a habit I doubt if he'd be so sanguine about it.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,330 posts)
79. Maybe it wasn't clever enough for you but the OP is most certainly satire.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:15 PM
Jun 2014

You can't possibly believe "go pick some flowers" is meant as a serious substitute for "go suck a dick".

You can't possibly think the silly "trigger warning" was a serious attempt to keep the OP from burning in hell for eternity. Could you?

Really?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
80. Substituting one thing for another is not satire.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:43 PM
Jun 2014

Ralphie didn't really say "Oh, FUDGE" when he lost those lug nuts in A Christmas Story.

It's a substitution to get around standards; a form of self-censorship.

And snark--mocking and derision, deserved or otherwise--isn't satire, either.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
28. His Rudeness should only be censored on the Stephanie Miller Show, but not on DU.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:01 PM
Jun 2014

Recced any way.

Since the SMS is broadcast over the public airways, His Rudeness must censor himself there.

It's a sad day when His Rudeness has to be censored here, too.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
34. How fucking stupid is it that asterix were needed?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:25 PM
Jun 2014

Really? Is this a website for adults or for children?

countryjake

(8,554 posts)
35. Fucking unbelievable. Seeing the Rude Pundit censored here...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:39 PM
Jun 2014

is absolutely cringeworthy.

Many thanks for this effort, but that hidden thread is still an outrage.

This is not the type of commentary that our community needs or wants; DU is not Reader's Digest or Good Housekeeping. My sensitivities do just fine when confronted with a righteous rant, no minds are corrupted or feelings burnt.

Removing the expletives from the Rude Pundit is one "giant cosmic fucking joke". DU is better than that.

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
40. Nobody alerted because he said 'fuck', so the asterisks for swear words (and the whinng about them)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:51 PM
Jun 2014

are disingenuous at best.

What was alerted was a homophobic insult.

Typical that so many are so desperately conflating swear words with homophobic and misogynistic insults.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
49. Well, you should feel quite proud, you have proven how powerful you are
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:46 AM
Jun 2014

An entire website soon to be PG, ALL JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID OF YOU.
You should really thank the poster, I bow before your might.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
75. Whoever alerted on it should feel like a total tool right about now.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jun 2014

I mean, talk about some shitty judgment!

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
77. I don't see why they wouldn't proudly I'd themselves.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:43 PM
Jun 2014

Oh wait, sure I do. The no friction alert button is passive aggressive crack.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
78. Well, their sense of "community standards" prevents them from so doing.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 04:03 PM
Jun 2014

Which tells you that when they jerk chains and alert, frivilously, they know they are going against the community standards, but they do it anyway. It's probably not a very "civil" attitude to take.

Oh well. The admins know who they are.

6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
48. What part of "rude" do people not get?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:07 AM
Jun 2014

"I'm offended by that pundit who writes things deliberately to offend people!"

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
57. And they call themselves liberals, those that obsessively alert/hide/lock/ban/censor.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:21 AM
Jun 2014

It's easier to be a bully when one is anonymous.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
60. When I was a kid we had "hall monitors" - power tripping kids wearing a sash
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:32 AM
Jun 2014

that used to scrutinize all the other kids looking for the ones chewing gum, or running, or "horsing around".
There was one in particular that was way over the top and would rat out kids that used bad words to each other, not adult bad words, I am talking kid bad words like "jerk" or "poopyhead". No one liked this kid, I remember getting in trouble once for joking around with a friend of mine that used to like to trade insults. We were friends and neither was trying to offend the other but the sash brat thought we needed discipline.

The teacher rolled her yes when the kid was ratting us out and it became clear to me that even the teacher didn't like this kid, some people just like to be that kid.

We have self proclaimed sash brats here in our little school looking for brownie points with the teacher or whatever it is that fuels these types.

I am not 9 years old anymore, fuck that shit.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
63. Some are well meaning and just want DU to be some vision of wonderfulness.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:07 AM
Jun 2014

Others use self-righteousness to bully. What irks me is that they call themselves liberals.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
83. The "privilege" implicit in the fights they pick is brutally ironic.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:49 AM
Jun 2014

These same people that moan about "privilege" must have been born without an irony detector.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
65. Why his very name violates our Community standards. I think the word "Rude" is rude and shouldnt
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:22 AM
Jun 2014

be allowed in DU. And what does "pundit" really mean? Sounds nasty to me.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
66. There is a small but vocal group here (yes they meet the definition of group) that feels
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

they need to protect us from the bad world. They believe they know best. They want to cleanse DU into some vision of heaven where never a naughty word is heard. Some are well meaning but misdirected while others are just bullies hiding behind their anonymity. IMO they are authoritarians masquerading as liberals.

DU is a great place and this pesky group cannot make it suck.

 

heaven05

(18,124 posts)
67. rude
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:10 PM
Jun 2014

I read it, the 19th blog post and loved it. The people who alerted can go suck air, maybe some oxygen will reach their sensitive little offended natures. Rude, I LOL EVERY time I think of your blog post of the 19th. thank you for the truth. The truth always hurts someone.Ohhh, and thank you JVS.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Edited Rude Pundit: Fathe...