Deleted Comments: That Wonkette's Being All Fascist And Racist And Defending George W Bush Again

READ A BOOK!

We are still digging out from the veritable fountain of explosive foamy pig doots that's inundated us lately, so this week's Dear ShitFerBrains will be a frothy mixture of dumbth from the past week and previous weeks as well. But first off, we feel it is vital to let you know that we are now not merely not liberal enough, but downright fascist, thanks to our very unkind words about a guy out canvassing for Jill Stein. That two-week-old post got a sudden burst of comments Friday and Saturday, thanks to a Twitter mention from Glenn Greenwald, who was not pleased, but also not terribly timely:

Ooh, a POPULAR Clinton supporter!

Among one of the more persistent members of the Internet Flying Monkey Brigade summoned by Greenwald was one "Stephen DeVoy," who was terribly disappointed in us. Just terribly disappointed, because we are both fascist and misogynist:

I didn't realize Wonkette was a fascist rag that uses misogynist language and revels in supporting a candidate that is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of women in Libya and Syria. Well played, Wonkette, you had us all fooled. Now we know better.

We'd like to think we're neither fascist nor misogynist, but it is entirely possible we're deeply deluded on that matter. [Ed note, from me, your editrix: Actually, I do regret calling Stein a "hag," but I don't regret "cunty," as I don't find "cunty" to be any more sexist than "dick." And I think she is cunty. However, unlike Jill Stein, I don't edit things after the fact to pretend like I never said them, because of how I'm not a liar. So there you go.] 

Still, we should at least point out that since we exist only in the form of electrons and pixels, we aren't really a rag at all. We are, quite literally, nothing but naughty Bits. But darn it, our pretense of being a liberal blog is now blown, thanks to Stephen, who managed to post scores of comments while the moderators were enjoying a peaceful Friday evening. Stephen is basically the guy in your graduate seminar who was more lefty than anyone else in the room, and made damn sure you knew it:

Let's get a few things straight. Trump has not threatened war with any country. Yes, he's a moron, but unlike Clinton, he's never killed anyone that we know about it. Clinton, on the other hand, has promised to "obliterate" Iran and has stated that Syria must be sacrificed for Israel. Clinton has explicitly called for "a more muscular foreign policy". This for a country that is already the most militaristic on Earth. There is no doubt that as President, Clinton will start a world war.

Next, Trump is not a serious candidate. There is zero chance of him winning. Moreover, as this is not a democracy, clearly demonstrated by how the oligarchy has installed Clinton as the "winner" of the Democratic primary, they will also install Clinton has the President, regardless of the election, as they did with George Bush in 2000. On that topic, the distance between Bush and Clinton is ZERO.

You are deluding yourself if you think the oligarchy will install anyone other than Clinton. A vote for Clinton is a thrown away vote.

On the other hand, a vote for Stein can push the Green Party over the threshold into a party that will be on all ballots in the next election. That might change things. Any other vote will keep things exactly as they are.

Oh, those fifteen million oligarchs voting in the Democratic primary, when will we overthrow them??? We actually agree with Stephen on one thing here: Trump is not a serious candidate. On the other hand, he has promised to "bomb the shit out of ISIS," although that's not technically a country. But remember, the oligarchy will see to it that only their hand-picked candidates will win, AND you can end that by voting Green, which will somehow magically break the control the oligarchy has on elections. Like they'd ever let that happen! 

A few other thoughts from Mr. DeVoy, to whom we dedicate Billy Joel's classic "Angry Young Man" (although Stephen says he's 54):

• Your bigotry aside, this isn't about winning. There is no winning here. Clinton has been selected by the oligarchy and will be installed. The elections are nothing more than theater. You are all upset because I will vote my conscience. That merely proves you have no values.

• A vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for Clinton. Disprove this and you disprove the assumption underlying this article.

• Very mature of you. You're about as mature as a two year old, but that's why you read Wonkette.

• Commenting on this article has truly brought to the surface the deep level of emotional immaturity and intolerance of Clinton's supporters, just as I knew it would. I see no difference between Clinton's supporters and those of Trump.

• I'm here because I believe this article reveals everything that is repulsive, ugly, hypocritical, and self-destructive about Clinton's supporters.

• I'm sure if this was 1930, you're be supporting Hitler just because it's futile to speak out.

• I've made lots of very clear arguments, all of which have crushed your blathering and whining, you're just to dull to see it. Keep crying. Here's a tissue.

He's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell, is what we are saying.

We also heard from "Miscreant," who apparently has followed Wonkette for years and is sad to see us throw away all our readers ("Miscreant") with this one piece:

Maybe Team Wonkette is salty, it must sting to have spent the last decade and a half the lib-fem-o-sphere, building brand and audience among millennial women only to have millennial women decamp en masse for Bernie Sanders. All that energy, and all that time eating ramen or resorting to abusing Bumble to get fed for dinner, while your private school peers went on to straight up no halfway house sell-out in corporate law for filthy lucre, leaving you to watch their ski vacations in Park City from Facebook and Instagram, and meanwhile you didn't even make a dent with the force of your ideas. I would be butthurt while homeless too. Better luck this decade : )

We had no idea we'd been trying to build our appeal to millennials for a decade. Totally missed the memo. Not that we mind them; many are quite nice!

It would appear our piece was so inflammatory that it actually made up one voter's mind, because don't most people make their electoral decisions as an angry renunciation of blog posts? "Didier Ortiz" wrote:

This post just convinced me to vote for Jill Stein.

Except maybe not, since in a post on an article at The Nation a year ago, "Didier Ortiz" seemed a bit unlikely to vote for Hillary, too:

This is such a disgrace. The Nation has gone downhill. How are you gonna tell me that Killary cares about women or people of color. When she has supported military campaigns that have killed scores of women and people of color. This is a such a trash piece. I'm not advocating for Sanders (I, personally, see him as Obama 2.0) but to think that Hillary is anything close to progressive is a JOKE.

Possibly our favorite comment from the Greenwald Torrent was this one from Proud-Reptilian '16, not so much because of the content, but because we loved the username and the avatar, a literal sock puppet:

For a one-comment drive-by account, that's pretty good. Oh, they said a thing, too. Finally, a late entry from "Todd Simmons" (no relation to the late Thag Simmons):

Everyone who says "Jill Stein is an Anti-Vaxxer" can keep doing so, but also has to say, out loud: "I trust the candidate who is anti-gay marriage and has the anti-abortion running-mate" You don't even need to use the word "cunt".

We suppose the point there is that Stein merely panders to anti-vaxxers, while recommending vaccines herself, while Hillary Clinton really does hate gay marriage, or something.

Mind you, the Stein piece wasn't the only one in which a longtime reader took us to task. Consider this reply from "Thomas Candelaria," who has been disgusted with us for ages, in reply to our piece pointing out that it's really unlikely a DNC staffer coined the term "Taco Bowls" as a racist slur on Latino voters:

I remember when Wonkette defended the presidency of George W Bush like a rabid dog...and now this establishment rag is in the pocket for Hillary... So funny... Thankfully, only retarded establishment parrots mill around these parts... Bye now!

Yup, we remember when we were in the tank for Bush, too. It was part of that dream last night where we got insanely drunk after our successful debut in an improv comedy troupe, and everyone liked us, but as we say, we drank everything in sight and were stumbling around smashing furniture. It was pretty realistic, too. When we woke up we were genuinely surprised not to be hung over.

We got a lot of very angry replies to that piece, most of which argued that of coursea DNC staffer was insulting Hispanics when she used the term "more taco bowl engagement," because how could she possibly have been referring to Donald Trump's ridiculous "taco bowl" tweetfrom the day before? It makes far more sense that someone would make up a completely new racial slur than refer to an existing (albeit silly) gaffe by the other side. For instance, we got corrected on our history by "Paul G. Dolenac":  

The author of this article said that Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican Bastille Day. It is not. It is a holiday celebrating the victory of Mexican forces over the French at the Battle of Puebla. It is not Mexican Independence Day. I live in Tucson, and it is a big holiday here.

Congratulations, Mr. Dolenac, you sure corrected the dickens out of that joke. Next, you should point out that, despite all our protestations otherwise, comments really are allowed at Wonkette. Also, since Yr. Doc Zoom is also a former Tucsonan, perhaps you could clear up for us that the well-to-do neighborhood near the University of Arizona is officially the "Sam Hughes Neighborhood," and not actually "Barrio Volvo."

 "Geoff Ackley" was genuinely angry that we'd try and cover up the DNC comment with such transparent lies, because as everyone who's seen thatDinesh D'Souza movie knows, Democrats have always been racists and still are:

• Nice try genius! Remember all of the vile crap said by hypocrite lefty hate mongers about Mia Love. Your race baiting party can twist facts, and justify it's shameless double standard all it wants. It won't work anymore. So suck it up spanky! The truth about your dishonest, low integrity party is just starting to be exposed....and I 'm lovin' the ride!

• Actually Democrats are experts at projecting their racism on Republicans....because they have no shame!

• [Ackley wrote in reply to someone who noted it was Democrats who nominated and elected the first black president]: You can cherry pick examples all you want...it's what deceitful democrats have always been good at. The fact of the matter is that bigotry is not endemic to either party. Sadly, racism exists across party lines and always has. However, only one party has shamelessly used race baiting tactics for political gain without any regard for the damage they do to our society. Why? Because they have no integrity, they have no honor, and at their very core could care less about the people they use as political pawns. So spare me your self righteous indignation and laughable claim to the moral high ground. We see right through your pathetic party of shallow hypocrites. Save your argument for those that are to stupid to see how utterly absurd it is; like those in your own despicable party.

• No, you're the party of the KKK ....and the traditional party of real bigotry going back to the end of the Civil War ....don't be pulling your revisionist history bullshit with me.

Once banhammered, Ackley sent Yr Dok Zoom a pair of emails, as well; the second came a few minutes afterwards, since obviously there was an important point he'd left out:

• To much of an ignorant pussy to take me on with the facts?Typical shameless liberal...can't possibly win an argument based on facts, logic, or reason....so we ban em so we don't look like the fool we are

  Pathetic

• Oh yeah; I forgot.....Dumb fuck!!!

Our Very Favorite variation on the "Dems Did the KKK, Republicans Did Civil Rights" theme came from "Chris Palmer," one of the many many demented folks in the thread suggesting it was rather rude for Bernie-or-Busters toshout over Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings at the Democratic Convention:

Hero? Lol. He stood there and spoke about the Democratic Party being responsible for giving him voting rights? Better brush up on his history. Republicans proposed and approved the amendment. Every democrat voted no. Lol.

Dumb blacks don't even know who gave them their voting rights in the Fifteenth Amendment, after which no further civil rights laws were ever necessary.

God, those stupid ignorant blacks are stupid, which is why they stay on the Democrat Plantation. In addition, not a single Democrat voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as everyone knows. It was introduced in the Senate by Republican Everett Dirksen and Democrat Mike Mansfield, cosponsored by 46 Democrats and 20 Republicans, and passed the Senate with 47 Democratic votes and 30 Republican votes in the Senate (16 Dems and 2 Republicans against). In the House, it passed with overwhelming Democratic support as well: Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24. Then it was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. So as we can see, the Republicans are the true party of civil rights.

That idiot Elijah Cummings, who was in high school at the time, better brush up on HIS history.