Our first submission in the pending comment queue, that purgatory where first-time comments wait to be approved or flushed, came in reply to the story about how Wendy Davistold filthy lies about being a "single mother" when she was in fact a "separated but living alone whilst not yet having filed for divorce" mother, and also she married a nice guy and accepted his offer to pay for some of her college, just like whores do. This provoked history buff "Antietam123" to let some bull run:

FOLKS, it doesn't matter if Wendy Davis is a pathological liar. This is what you must understand. Liberal Progressives have absolutely zero concern about their candidate's integrity as long as that candidate promises to deliver STUFF. "JUS GIMME MO GUBERMINT STUFF OFF DA BACKS UV DOZ DAMN TAXPAYERS!"

He seems nice. Bet he really resented it when some dope at MSNBC suggested that the right wing was racist.

Antietam123 scratches his Minie balls and continues:

If Ms. Davis complies with this corrupt promise, then she'll beat the most perfectly qualified, honest and Constitutional-loving Republican candidate that ever existed. AND, since the numbers of GUBERMINT- loving constituents is 20.5% Hispanic 19.5% African A. and 15% liberal whites [mainly women], Wendy Davis will win! How long will it take you GOP Karl Rove-dependent stiff-collared white guys to understand the simple reality that you have no clue how to talk to and reach brown people?? This is a BROWN nation now and you guys are playing the game as though it were 1955.

This is an almost awe-inspiring achievement in nonsequitur: Wendy Davis is a lying hoor who is going to give away the candy store to the lazy people who are all brown except for the liberal whites who are mostly women, and the GOP, which remains foolishly uncorrupt and Constitutional, is therefore doomed to lose the Texas governorship because it has no idea how to talk to the browns, which it can never do anyway because it is stuck in the 1950s. Which in the South were dominated by segregationist Democrats. Also, did he mention that the browns are takers?

We think what Antietam123 is getting at is that America is over. Poor lad. Hope he doesn't have designs on any former president's daughters.

Our story on the latest achievement of George Zimmerman in the visual arts drew this thoughtful riposte from "seeing_eye," whose pseudonym no doubt indicates that he likes wearing a leash and collar:

Finally, an injustice partly reversed. Because of the rabid hate instigated by the lynch-mob mentality of the main stream media and nationally known race baiters (as well as politicals in high places), Zimmerman has not been able to earn a living as normal American citizens are afforded. Therefore, I think it's poetic justice that their actions have created Zimmerman's "notoriety" that is enabling him to benefit by their efforts to "lynch" him.

Translation: You shoot one unarmed black kid to death, and you just can't get an even break. Also, it's very important to use the word "lynch" twice in three sentences, because that's what The Blacks do over and over to white men who defend themselves nowadays.

Poor sad victim of liberalism "Gworroll" wrote a single plaintive line in reply to a story about the Missouri Lege's attempt to gut Obamacare:

Will they also pass a bill that pays my fine when I can't afford to comply with the mandate?

Oh, sure, we could probably point out that if he can't pay the enormous $95 fine for not having insurance, there's a pretty good chance that he just might qualify for a premium subsidy. But we'd rather just tell him he's an idiot troll.

Speaking of the socialist outrages of having adequate insurance, our story about the lying lies that Cathy McMorris Rodgers told in her response to the State of the Union did not impress "BlameDC," who doesn't especially care that the shocking example of "Bette from Spokane," who lost her insurance and would have to pay $700 a month more for equivalent insurance, was complete bullshit. (Bette, you'll recall, turned out to have never even looked on "that Obama website," out of principle.) No, BlameDC, says, it doesn't matter that Bette could find a cheaper plan, because it is just unethical to tell people to buy something they don't want, or to tell insurance companies they can't sell shitty plans that cover nothing:

Who are you, or a bunch of politicians in DC, to tell Bette and her husband that their policy was crappy? It met their requirements, and a catastrophic policy means the insured pays any costs up to the deductible. If Bette and her husband are willing to do that it is no one else's business. The supposed purpose of the ACA was to get uninsured people insured. To get insurance for those that could not get insurance because of an illness. Instead, many that were insured no longer are. And, the ACA allows you to be uninsured until the time that you need it. kudos to Bette and her husband. If my family loses our coverage we're doing the same thing. We dropped our prescription plan to save $200 a month. The ACA passed and our insurance went up $200 a month. But I, a menopausal woman, and my male husband and son are now covered for birth control, yay ACA!

Oh, the tyranny! You have prescription coverage, and the only prescriptions covered are for birth control, apparently. Hell, why stop at health care? Why won't Washington let you buy a house with wiring made of coat hangers, or a sheetrock car with no bumpers, or chicken that hasn't been inspected? Just think how much money you could save. Actually, we may be working on that last one...

Did we get comments about guns? Of COURSE we got comments about guns! Our story about the nice West Virginia man who shot and killed two brothers who were inspecting the property next door to his, which one of the victims had just purchased, inspired this impassioned defense of the Second Amendment from "Homeguntraining":

"Because only celebs and politicians have the right to self-defense..." [ellipsis in original]

Actually, we're pretty sure that not even celebrities and politicians have the right to shoot strangers from your window. But thanks for giving us the chance to provide an update on that story: The shooter, Rodney Black, had 54 guns in his home, which seems about right for one person exercising the right to self defense. Also, another followup story says that the property where the men were shot once belonged to Black's parents, but not to him -- his sister owned the lot and had told him that she'd sold it to pay their late mother's outstanding debts. Black objected to the sale, which apparently made him think he was entitled to execute the people who bought the lot. As we all know, property rights are sacred.

Also, re. guns, a not-quite correction, courtesy of "Teebonicus," who objected to our January 17 piece about Florida's innovative new "warning shots" bill. We cited a Gawker article by Adam Weinstein, who said one of the bill's sponsors had told him that the legislation was actually written by NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer. "Blatant lie!" wrote Teebonicus, who linked to a Washington Free Beacon article that insisted Gawker "got literally everything wrong" about the bill. According to this article, Hammer denied having any input on the proposed bill; the Free Beacon article does not address the fact that Weinstein was told by one of the two Florida sponsors that Hammer had written the bill; instead it gives the impression that Weinstein just made that up. So either one of the Florida legislators fibbed to Weinstein, or Hammer fibbed to the Free Beacon; we are not especially impressed that the "debunking" doesn't mention Weinstein's reported source.

More impressive to us is this line from Teebonicus's comment:

Blatant lie. Do some fact-checking instead of spewing the Doomberg/Moms-Of-Dead-Kids talking points.

Thanks for the tip! And indeed, the facts are in dispute. Also, fuck those stupid dead kids whose moms want to take away Teebonicus's beautiful metal death toys. Or regulate them in any way. Because who knows, if they hadn't been shot to death, some of those kids may have joined the NRA when they grew up, if they'd had the chance to, did you ever think of that?

And finally, a comment which we aren't sure is a true shit-fer-brains or a beautiful example of just the kind of person we want posting here (nahhh). In a seriously late-arriving comment on our story about Eliot Spitzer's probably fictitious hot-tub-toe-sucking escapades, "Trailblazers" just wants to clear something up about all this toe-sucking. We think maybe it's a reply to another comment, but darned if we can guess what that comment was:

Your wrong girls are straight and would suck a mans toe over a girls toe any day.

We aren't sure if this means that all lesbians are mythical or if only toe-sucking lesbians are mythical. Wonder if there's any way of verifying that?

Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He's pretty sure lesbians are an actual thing.

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.


How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc