The rogue thesaurus strikes again
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004 12:26 pmCross-posted from an e-mail list ....
dennis wrote:
> Mychal Massie
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41598
[snip]
>
> Rice is one of America's most accomplished individuals, notwithstanding women
This sentence, if it means anything, means that Rice is one of America's most accomplished individuals, in spite of the existence of women, or, perhaps, the attempts of women to stop her. I assume he means "not to mention", though I'm not sure.
> It is interesting to observe that these are not the impuissant or recreant.
[snip]
> This is not recrudence for elitist liberals and the Democrat Party - it is the
[snip]
"Impuissant"? "Recreant?" "Recrudence?" What century is this guy living in?
> Herein lies the unfortunate truth: Liberal elites will suffer lecherous
> impotents like Jackson, Sharpton, the NAACP, Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover
> as long as they sing the right tune.
It is hard to be both lecherous and impotent, though it is theoretically possible. But I can't see how Whoopi Goldberg manages it, unless there's something about her anatomy we don't know about. Still, a she-male Whoopi dragging some guy into bed then failing to get an erection, singing all the while, is an interesting image.
Some people should not be let near a thesaurus.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 02:55 pm (UTC)In all seriousness, though, I think you have a point in that conservatives do have a line of "If it's anachronistic, it's a good thing", though it's a very distorted kind of anachronism. And it's not that I mind it, per se. They can think what they want. It's what they do that's getting on my nerves - that and that they somehow seem to have become more media savvy than centrists and leftists, all the while decrying media as being too leftist. It's a brilliant bait & switch that would be amusing if there weren't so many real life ramifications.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 05:50 pm (UTC)