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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

meegbear

(25,438 posts)
Fri Jun 14, 2013, 12:27 PM Jun 2013

The Rude Pundit: Liberal NSA Apologists Can Take It All, Want More [View all]

There's a sexist old joke the Rude Pundit's been thinking about since the revelations of the massive amount of data collection and, you know, spying on Americans and others being done by the NSA, FBI, Prism, and who knows who else - maybe the Chinese restaurant on the corner here. It's one of those jokes about dicks that 13 year-olds tell and laugh at as if they understand them. Here it goes:

A dude with a giant cock can't find any women who can take his entire huge prick when he's fucking them. He keeps fucking women, but they stop him because his dick is so big that, when he's fucking their pussies, it hurts, like he's gonna rupture something. So the dude is completely unsatisfied. He decides to take out an ad, challenging women to take it all. And women take up the thrown gauntlet. Woman after woman tries to fit his immense schlong into their cunts, but it's no-go. Suddenly, a small, old woman appears. (It's never made clear by the teller where this interview/boning session is occurring, but let's say it's a room at a Holiday Inn because, of course, it would be a room at a Holiday Inn.) She tells him that she can take the massive member, all of it. In fact, a giant cock is the only way she can get off. To himself, the dude scoffs. No way, he thinks. She gets on the bed and tells him, "Put it in halfway first so I can get used to it." Fuck that, the dude thinks, I'm gonna shove it all in and kill this old lady. So he thrusts it all in, quickly. The old woman moans, catches her breath, and says, "Okay, now the other half."

Rim shot.

When he was with his middle school friends, it was funny in a "Hey, that guy thought he was gonna kill a woman with his dick, but she showed him" kind of way. But when he thought about the joke in the last week, he felt sorry for the old woman, so used up by men that she could barely feel the fucking she was getting, no matter how big the cock, and he was sad that the woman put herself in that position, as if the ability to take an enormous prick was some measure of her worth and that she was apparently ready and willing to take more, even if it hurt. You might respond, "Yeah, but maybe she just wanted to get fucked." And the Rude Pundit would sigh and pop a Xanax with some whiskey to make you fade away.

Whenever someone who is presumptively on the left defends or brushes off the NSA/FBI spying on everyone, they become that woman. Jeffrey Toobin, Joe Klein, numerous Democrats in Congress, basically anyone whose reaction to the revelations was "So? They're keeping us safe," they all have taken the fucking and said they're ready to get the other half.

And with that is the number of people who attack Edward Snowden, the analyst who leaked the information (with more to come) as some sort of sociopathic rebel who wanted to betray everyone because that's what high school dropouts do or some such shit. Don't they get that it hurts their argument to attack Snowden? See, if Snowden is a misfit toy crossed with Rain Man, how the fuck did he get such a high security clearance? If he was such a loose cannon-in-waiting, why didn't the intelligence apparatus see that in him and not give him the ability to deal with Top Secret material? How good is an intelligence organization that can't successfully vet its workers? And if we can't trust them to read the tea leaves on the people who are being asked to read the tea leaves, how the fuck can we trust them to sift through our metadata or web histories?

But, no, go ahead, let that big dick fuck you and ask for more.

The point for people who are upset about the NSA scandal isn't that spying happens. No shit. We know it. The point here is that everyone was spied on. And we're supposed to have rules about that. And who fucking cares if a court approves it? Who cares if a secret court is making secret rulings on secret evidence that secretly let the secret finders find more secrets in secret? The Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United in a way that the left is savagely opposed to. Did everyone just throw up their hands and say, "Well, fuck me, guess the fight's over." No. Even President Obama told the court they were wrong.

But let's take Obama at his word. Let's really debate it. Now, tell us all how we can do that when the response to any questions is that something is classified and that we can't know what good is being done. Former NSA workers corroborate Snowden, and they all say this is just the "tip of the iceberg." Maybe we can have a debate with winks and high signs. Or maybe the government will just lie, like James Clapper to Congress.

Look, the Rude Pundit doesn't like that this is happening under a Democratic president. It did, though. So ask yourself, dear, sweet fellow liberals, many of whom oppose things like stop-and-frisk as invasions of privacy: If this was a Bush or a Nixon, would you be so blase' about it?

That old woman should have never gone to the Holiday Inn. She should have answered the ad with a letter that told the dude to take his big dick and go fuck himself with it and see if he can take it all.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

129 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
K&R Hell Hath No Fury Jun 2013 #1
The Rude one gets it. sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #18
This should be interesting. bunnies Jun 2013 #2
Seeing national security discussions as entertainment with popcorn emoticons Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #3
Really? bunnies Jun 2013 #6
Good job pointing out how rude the Rude Pundit is. Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #33
Sweet. bunnies Jun 2013 #35
Seriously. mimi85 Jun 2013 #52
Do you? tavalon Jun 2013 #103
It's a passive-aggressive tactic. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #112
and if they didnt get shown the door... bunnies Jun 2013 #113
When Limbaugh goes off on one of his sexists rants, they should have no reason to be outraged. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #115
Dont be silly. bunnies Jun 2013 #116
That article reads as if it could have been written by Ann Coulter. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #117
Couldnt agree more. bunnies Jun 2013 #118
128 now, and I was glad to do so RetroLounge Jun 2013 #120
It doesnt make me squirm. It repulses me. bunnies Jun 2013 #121
Such a delicate flower... RetroLounge Jun 2013 #125
Incredibly crude pscot Jun 2013 #4
Well, the Rude Pundit Certainly Didn't Disappoint. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #5
Really? Okay. I'll start.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #86
I knew I'd find a Duzy in here tavalon Jun 2013 #104
Rude Pundit shows how easy this argument really is in 1 paragraph: Hydra Jun 2013 #7
It has been a revealing few days on DU, for sure. grasswire Jun 2013 #8
Actually the sequel is being written in front of us nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #10
Has been for a long time Hydra Jun 2013 #12
Yup nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #20
There are many Cassandras here tavalon Jun 2013 #106
I know. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #107
Yes it is tavalon Jun 2013 #105
It's actually already been written in 2007 by Joe Conason, "It Can Happen Here". canoeist52 Jun 2013 #38
Thanks for another book I should read :P Hydra Jun 2013 #48
yes, that NoMoreWarNow Jun 2013 #37
Me, too ybbor Jun 2013 #62
The defining moment for me was this interview with Duane Clarridge on "national security interests" Agony Jun 2013 #74
Bookmarking. woo me with science Jun 2013 #94
God damn... Hydra Jun 2013 #98
OMG, that's horrible tavalon Jun 2013 #108
the CIA makes the mafia look like choirboys NoMoreWarNow Jun 2013 #110
he's one sick fuck NoMoreWarNow Jun 2013 #111
Perfectly summarized. woo me with science Jun 2013 #95
I hate the use of the word 'Liberal' here n2doc Jun 2013 #9
They are the new 27%ers BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #13
Then you won't need "their" votes whenever your candidate comes up for election, correct? CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #21
The point is, they WILL vote n2doc Jun 2013 #23
Alienation and condescension aren't a great strategy, CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #28
Whatever n2doc Jun 2013 #30
Well, all I'll say in closing is that CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #44
"Alienation and condescension aren't a great strategy" especially when you represent a teeny Number23 Jun 2013 #84
Oh, you don't want to go there. Moderate democrats dump all over liberals all the time and liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #31
Hey there again! CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #46
Exactly! n/t mimi85 Jun 2013 #54
doesn't work for me. I'm more of a socialist, so to me the current democratic policies are just liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #57
How does your voting straight D ticket in your precinct keep Cantor, Gohmert & Rubio Demit Jun 2013 #59
... BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #36
LOLOL Skittles Jun 2013 #82
The scary thing is that there are two sets of 27%'ers. Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #34
You got that right BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #39
A friend of mine used an interesting term earlier ... "Hopium Addict" Myrina Jun 2013 #14
I don't think it is unique to Obama n2doc Jun 2013 #15
I agree, they're on both sides of the aisle ... Myrina Jun 2013 #17
True, that. n2doc Jun 2013 #25
And then there are those CakeGrrl Jun 2013 #22
I think you'll note that LondonReign2 Jun 2013 #40
As opposed to being hooked on the "Ed" and "Glenn" stuff--even when it comes out that MADem Jun 2013 #27
Here is Glenn's response to you: Maedhros Jun 2013 #45
Apparently the Guardian doesn't have anyone on staff with an iota of IT experience! MADem Jun 2013 #60
Well said! mimi85 Jun 2013 #61
Greenwald did not lie. Maedhros Jun 2013 #73
They published that days before their sideways "clarification" MADem Jun 2013 #75
Interpretive Error? I can buy that. Maedhros Jun 2013 #99
He didn't vet his source, he didn't vet his source's material, and he MADem Jun 2013 #100
Not by my reckoning. Maedhros Jun 2013 #109
He reported falsely. MADem Jun 2013 #119
By all means Maedhros Jun 2013 #124
I knew Murdoch had to be involved somewhere... marions ghost Jun 2013 #96
They're authoritarians, yep. "Liberal" is just a sports team for them-- and that's Marr Jun 2013 #19
That's exactly it. Right-wing authoritarianism. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #79
on the simplest psychological level, it's just that they made a choice and can't unmake it, no matte MisterP Jun 2013 #43
"If this was a Bush or a Nixon, would you be so blase' about it?" FlyByNight Jun 2013 #11
A visual that explains Maedhros Jun 2013 #47
Independents have more logical consistency/ethical integrity than Democrats carolinayellowdog Jun 2013 #71
"let that big dick fuck you and ask for more" forestpath Jun 2013 #16
Once was enough.... mimi85 Jun 2013 #66
Save your lecture, I don't take orders from you. forestpath Jun 2013 #88
I hate to Rec something so crude, bvar22 Jun 2013 #24
I hate to Rec something so crude, mimi85 Jun 2013 #67
Thing about Mssrs. Jokeline & Tube-in is: they ain't seen the HALF of it yet. kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #26
Rude Pundit Incerted ( no pun intended) a rude joke in an zeeland Jun 2013 #29
After this week I have no doubt the president could do whatever the fuck he wants whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #32
Waiting for the feminist... one_voice Jun 2013 #41
I have to agree with you. The Rude Pundit isn't rude--he's a sexist asshole. MADem Jun 2013 #76
"Jay Z sings these lyrics he's the devil incarnate." NAIL MEET HAMMER Number23 Jun 2013 #85
That's a good question. MADem Jun 2013 #128
did you just repost the entire joke to complain about it? Doctor_J Jun 2013 #90
I guess timdog44 Jun 2013 #42
"And if we do not do surveillance and, like my examples I have given before, Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #50
I would agree with you on that. timdog44 Jun 2013 #51
I think going back to pre 2001 levels would be a good start. Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #64
I think, timdog44 Jun 2013 #65
why? nt Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #68
It seem to me timdog44 Jun 2013 #72
True enough. Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #123
Well, that pretty much settles it... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #49
That's sarcasm, yes? tkmorris Jun 2013 #53
LOL yes it is. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #58
Nah, just engaged in blasphemy. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #55
fuck you rude. you went at this with a bit too much relish and zest for detail cali Jun 2013 #56
Well, he usually does it with homosexual imagery. Demit Jun 2013 #63
So he's a homophobe mimi85 Jun 2013 #69
No, I don't get that at all. Demit Jun 2013 #87
"Spying" versus "collating" JackHughes Jun 2013 #70
Who knows what they're doing? secondvariety Jun 2013 #77
Guessing there was a point to this. It might even have been a good one Live and Learn Jun 2013 #78
Reading naughty words must be soooo hard for you. n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #81
I don't consider myself a prude at all but Live and Learn Jun 2013 #83
K&R, especially since people are already acting offended! backscatter712 Jun 2013 #80
This just in---> Degrading women actually offends some of us. bunnies Jun 2013 #114
here at du all of the apologists are not the liberals. they are the Doctor_J Jun 2013 #89
Let's have the debate Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2013 #91
Say, how did he get that nick name? K&R (nt) Babel_17 Jun 2013 #92
K&R NealK Jun 2013 #93
Secrets need to have a sunset polynomial Jun 2013 #97
The Rude One knocks it out of the park again. 99Forever Jun 2013 #101
Thank you, my dear Rudeness tavalon Jun 2013 #102
Nasty sex-as-violence joke. Nine Jun 2013 #122
So sex jokes = holocaust jokes? RetroLounge Jun 2013 #126
That's not a sex joke. It's closer to a rape joke. Nine Jun 2013 #127
*you* can think what you like RetroLounge Jun 2013 #129
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Rude Pundit: Liberal ...