Braak Remains Smarter, Funnier Than Detractors (Part II):

Posted: October 22, 2008 in Braak, Politics
Tags: , , ,

Here we come to Rosetta the Racist herself.  Rosetta has, in the long and honorable tradition of high-strung fruitcakes flipping out when they’re criticised, written an enthusiastic and vitriolic response to my calling her an idiot.  I can’t imagine why.  Surely, my own credentials don’t merit this kind of attention, do they?  It’s not like I was calling her out in the Times, or anything.  I’m not complaining, mind you–Rosetta’s managed to triple my page views, drastically increase my authority on Technorati, and move Threat Quality Press up a few notches on the list if you do a Google search for “Idiot Republicans.”

[UPDATE:  I am informed that Rosetta is actually a man.  I will continue to refer to her as “she,” because if she has no problem creating the confusion, then I have no problem propagating it.]

Anyway.  To work!

As I mentioned earlier, this post will consist of two parts:  firstly, I’ll be explaining precisely why Rosetta’s distended fuckwittery is stupid, and secondly, I’ll be offering a few constructive criticisms to help her make future posts a little funnier.  Because, really Rosetta, if you’re going to be a depraved, halfwit mongoloid (which all evidence suggests that you will), the least you can do is make a clown out of yourself.

Why it’s stupid:  Whew.  Okay, there’s a lot here.  I’m skipping over the first two paragraphs, which are just a summary of the events that led up to this point, and are as accurate as can be expected.  Now:

My post HERE signaled my adaptation to and embrace of the new definition of racist.  If the liberal Democrat supporters of The Great One want to redefine the term “racist” to mean Republican, who am I to argue?  I went on to suggest that the reason the term has been so easily redefined is that there are very few actual racists with whom to apply that most favorite of Democrat smears.  Which of course is a great thing.  Good riddance.

This is kind of idiotic, and false.   Or, let’s say rather, that it’s misleading.  Rosetta did indeed use as the premise of her argument that there are few actual racists left in America, but what Rosetta never did was establish that premise.  She just said that we live in a “post-racial world,” and quickly moved on, hoping that the rest of us would simply accept it as being demonstrably true.   By “post-racial world,” she is implying that we live in a world where issues of race are no longer relevant, and this is demonstrably false.

Let’s take a look at fat, lying sack of crap Rush Limbaugh.  Now, he recently argued that Colin Powell, an accomplished former Secretary of State, broke with his party to endorse Barack Obama because they are both black.  There are two scenarios to derive from this:  either Limbaugh is telling the truth, in which case we certainly do not live in a post-racial world–if a man as intelligent as Colin Powell is still willing to make his electoral decision based on race, it is a fair assessment that there are numerous others so willing.  OR, Limbaugh is, as we would expect from a lying fat sack of crap, lying.  In which case, Limbaugh is attempting to use Powell’s race to discredit his endorsement, and we certainly do not live in a post-racial world.

The first scenario is unlikely, but possible.  Nonetheless, I don’t see any reason why such a phenomenon would be confined only to black people–and assuming that it might be (Rosetta, you jizz-drizzled ass-pirate, this is me anticipating your refutation!) would make you a racist of the old-fashioned kind, before Rosetta decided to hilariously re-define it.

The second scenario, if you’ll permit, is also potentially indicative of a broad trend.  Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of money, and has a lot of listeners, and he can be used as a kind of barometer for what his listeners think.  This doesn’t make any of his pandering, putrescent and painfully retarded hyperbole true–just prevalent.

So, the premise of Rosetta’s argument was false from the outset, making her attempt to redefine “racist” to mean “Republican” either woefully ignorant or maliciously disingenuous.


My post was linked by bmac, DPUD, the Blogfather, Aceleoncaruthers linked it, as did Jen at Demure Thoughts, Choose the,, the fine folks at Cold Fury, fellow Missourian The Chief, our friends at One American Voice and the wiseasses at Protein Wisdom.

My original post was not linked by so many conservative-leaning blogs because it will brilliantly conceived and written although that was certainly the case.  Hahaha.  It was linked by so many right-thinking people because it struck a chord.

I know what you’re thinking:  what kind of leprous half-wit, what kind of shitkicking, spume-slathered hillbilly thinks it’s pertinent, in an argument, to point out who else agrees with you?  Popular consent doesn’t imply truth–except to the people already inclined to believe in it.  See this:  “It was linked by so many right-thinking people because it struck a chord.”  Who fucking gives a shit?  As I’m sure Rosetta and her army of dimwit fucksuckers will acknowledge, Barack Obama has struck a chord in a lot of people–does that lend his opinion credence?  Does that make his policies valid, or true?  Of course not.  Likewise, the ostentatiously large number of blogs that Rosetta claims as supporters is equally irrelevant, and this paragraph can be dismissed as the lowest form of self-important grandiosity.

We all know that this intimidation tactic of the Democrats and the MSM has become so prevalent in this campaign that it’s practically institutionalized.  To the degree that it isn’t institutionalized, it is absolutely indisputable that the tactic is accepted.  That fact was illustrated yet again a few days ago with the outrageous comment from civil rights’ giant John Lewis that equated the rhetoric at McCain-Palin rallies to the racist hate speech of George Wallace.

Oh, ho, now, this is interesting!  See, originally, Rosetta said that intimidating voters (and twelve year olds) by calling them racists was an “official strategy” of the Democratic party.  Now, she seems to have hedged her bets a little bit, sliding along a muddy train from “prevalent” to “practically institutionalized.”  She’s also using base-pandering terminology like “We all know” and “absolutely indisputable,” despite the fact that many people do not know this to be the case, and many other people would dispute it.  Exaggerating for the sake of humor is one thing; exaggerating to prove a point is just bad thinking.

Also, for the sake of completeness, the “rhetoric” that Rosetta is referring to are the parts of speeches where Palin suggests that Barack Obama is himself a terrorist, or part of some kind of terrorist group–which, even if you give a rat’s ass about Reverend Wright (which I don’t, the same way I don’t really give a shit about John McCain teabagging Ted Haggard), is a grievous stretch of the truth, and is incendiary at the very least.

I am of course not saying that every single Democrat resorts to this debased form of debate as there are a few remaining adults in that largely infantile party.  What I am saying is that in this campaign, it has become an acceptable smear to equate support for the Republican ticket with racism.  We all know this to be true because it’s happened so frequently.  That’s why my original post struck a chord.

“We all know this to be true, because it’s happened so frequently,” is the key here.  There’s no statistic, no study, no rigorous analysis of the situation, just a vague and ill-defined sum of anecdotal evidence.  “Ohh, this is indisputably true, because a number of people believe that it is!”

Now, to Rosetta’s criticisms of my criticisms!  In reference to my suggestion that we must ignore the irony of a person complaining about someone else’s lack of tolerance and then calling them a fucking dunce:

ABILITY TO IGNORE IRONY FAIL!!!  The distinction between my comment about the reporter and Ashleigh’s classmates calling her a racist that was missed by Ms. Kopechne is that I can prove that the author of the story is, in fact, a fucking dunce.

The author of the story suggested that Ashleigh Jones was called a racist because she was feeling ”the heat of a political campaign” which is ridiculous.  Calling Lord Obama out for associating with an unrepentent terrorist and an America-hating racist pastor, those would be examples of “the heat of the political campaign” because (1) Lord Barack is an adult participant in the political campaign and (2) those statements, while true, are inconvenient for Obama.

Calling a 12-year old a racist because she supports McCain is meant to intimidate and silence speech with which Ashleigh’s Kool-aid drinking brainwashed classmates disagree.  And uh, that’s not politics.  And to confuse the two does in fact make the reporter a fucking dunce.

Oops!  Someone forgot that “tolerance” isn’t about what things are, it’s about how you treat other people!  The irony there isn’t that the woman in question isn’t a fucking dunce (which she may or may not be!), but that a person can talk about tolerance like it’s a desirable characteristic, and then be blatantly insulting to the intolerant!

And, in fact, the premise here is still stupid, because Rosetta has made no effort to establish what Ashleigh Jones meant by “the heat of the campaign.”  By “heat,” did she mean, “a bunch of people saying retarded shit to each other, that has nothing to do with actual policy?”  Because in that case, while the examples that Rosetta gives are true, so is the retarded shit that twelve-year-olds say to each other!  Basic rigor, Rosetta!  Take Grover Norquist’s dick out of your ass and establish shared definitions!

Oh, no, I spoke too soon!

ABILITY TO IGNORE THE FACT FAIL!!!  As most adults with an education beyond junior high know, one of the primary characteristics of fascism is the suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.  Calling someone a racist for supporting a different political party is an attempt to do just that.  Why, that’s even in the definition, Mary Jo.

Heavens, I am ashamed for doubting you!  Wait, though, you only linked the definition, rather than quoting it.  Here, let me fix that for you:

1. often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Oh, what!  Oh noooo!  Someone’s high school education has failed her!  I guess the only thing more dangerous than a Republican with a dictionary is a Republican with HALF of one.  Didn’t anyone tell you that you have to look up THE WHOLE DEFINITION?  That you can’t just pick and choose the parts that you like in order to make a word mean what you want?
Look what it says, you sloppy pile of baboon shit!  It says, “a system of government”!  Fascism isn’t simply suppression through terror or censorship, it is specifically WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT.  “Fascistic”–meaning “resembling fascism” at least requires centralized, dictatorial control!  It cannot happen between equals, and it is not what twelve year olds do to each other, you addle-pated retard.  Unless, somehow, the twelve year old in question was some kind of pumped up, tin-pot dictator?
Moreover, Rosetta, the article that you’ve linked seems to lack a lot of information.  When one twelve year old calls the other a racist, what happens?  Does the teacher tell them to stop?  OH GOD, FASCISM!  THE TEACHER IS TRYING TO SILENCE SPEECH THROUGH OPPRESSIVE DICTATORIAL CONTROL!  You Republicans, always empowering third parties to interfere in private matters in order to establish an artificially level playing field.
What happened is, in the most simple-minded, soft-headed way possible, you have chosen a completely idiotic example to illustrate your point.  You picked twelve-year-olds calling each other names.  And, if what you say is true–that it’s indisputable that Democrats are smearing Republicans with the vile “racist” epithet left and right–then you certainly had thousands upon THOUSANDS of other, better, more pertinent examples to draw from!  When faced with the choice between a relevant example and a moronic one, you picked the moronic one.

The gist of my post, apparent to every reader besides you, is not that there is a strategy by Democrats to infiltrate junior high classrooms with their hate speech, you booger-eating socialist.  The point was that the Democrat party has accepted and promoted the strategy of slinging the racist slur to intimidate Republicans in all walks of life, in all outlets of media and in all institutions where political speech occurs.

Your failure to acknowledge and dispute that point either means that you’re learning disabled and you missed it or that you can’t dispute it.  Which of course you cannot.  But if you would like to try, I’m sure we would all find that amusing.

When you say, “it is an official Democratic strategy,” and you include what twelve-year-olds say to each other, you are implying that it is an official Democratic strategy to encourage twelve-year-olds to call each other names.  This is manifest bullshit.  Twelve-year-olds call each other all kinds of dumb names, which was the point of my post–not that the phenomenon that you’re describing doesn’t exist, but that your choice of example was a painfully stupid one.  One that would gain traction only among the no doubt innumerable wingnut dipshits that read your blog, labouring under the incomprehensible weight of their own SELECTION BIAS.

Now, can I dispute the issue?  Dispute which issue?  That it’s an official democratic strategy?  I certainly don’t have access to their official strategic documents.  That it is a widespread phenomenon?  I have no idea, I haven’t done a study.  But then, neither, Rosetta, have you–and if you can bring it up without proving it, you cockswaggling pissmeyer–then I can dismiss it with as little grounds.

Finally, Rosetta, like so many of her irony-impaired imbecile associates, doesn’t get a joke like “a billion dollars a minute” when she sees one.  This is an example, as I said earlier, of humor by exaggeration.  The real number is actually something like 1.8 billion dollars a day–a number that still vastly exceeds every single other expenditure that the government participates in, including the 11 billion dollars of government pork that McCain is so insistent about cutting.  You’ll notice that, rather than suggest how it was possible to pay for a trillion-dollar war while CUTTING taxes, Rosetta just laughed.  This is not atypical.

How this could be funnier:  Well, I think the way to go would be the insults.  You’ll notice, I’m sure, that my insults are much better than Rosetta’s.  I’ll call her something like a shitslurping cumdumpster,  and the best she gets is things like “moonbat” and “booger-eating Socialist.”  “Booger-eating” makes her sound like a five year old, for one thing.  But for another, excess is the key to good humor.  You need to keep the stakes high, and full of imagery relating to the most taboo subjects available–here in America, that’s shit and sex.  Boogers are gross, sure, but once you get past the age of ten, they stop being titillating.  Secondly, a good insult uses alliteration, and onamotapoeia–take “cockswaggling,” for example, which uses both assonance, and semi consonance, AND includes that “gl” glottal at the end.  I much prefer this one to “cocksucking”–the glottal replaces the second comic-K sound, and so gives the word the sound like someone’s choking on a dick.  Thirdly, archaism should be used sparingly, but creatively.  “Moonbat” is a fairly common archaic use, which is why I’d replace it with something like “pissmeyer,” an archaic form of “pissant.”  This implies both the victim’s intellectual mediocrity, and that they smell like urine.  “Fruitcake” is another good example, because in addition to implying insanity, it also vaguely hints at homosexuality.  That’s the kind of dense semiotic that you want with an insult.

Now, I’ll give credit where it’s due:  “diseased donkey dick that brought about your conception” is pretty unusual, creative, and alliterative.  But that should be the median level of the insults, not the high-water mark.

In summation:  Rosetta, you have been planed.  Feel free to return to your vast echo chamber where, between you and your thousands upon THOUSANDS of readers, I am sure you’ll all eventually produce an intelligent thought.  Good luck!

  1. Jeff Holland says:

    Hello, this is Jeff Holland. I’m the other writer here. I tend to talk about pop culture and ask questions about what the future might be. By and large, I leave politics to Chris Braak, as he brings a lot more passion to the subject.

    We have a number of occasional contributing writers, both male and female.

    The avatar image is taken from a March 1965 Esquire cover by George Lois. It was chosen for its quirkiness, not as an indicator of the sex of any of the writers.

    Just clearing that up, in hopes that whatever the rest of the day’s comments are, the question “Is Threat a female?” doesn’t have to be consistently repeated.

  2. MCPO Airdale says:


  3. Jeff Holland says:


    …I’m sorry, I thought we were playing “Shout non sequiturs.”

  4. threatqualitypress says:

    @MCPO Airdale: Ohhhh, look at him crying! “No one will let me post my pseudo-intellectual drivel! Boo hoo hoo hoo!” Maybe you should call your mommy and have her complain!

    What is this shit? I told you before: you are dismissed.

  5. Tad says:

    I’m kind of disappointed that nobody has used the terms “window lickers” or “mouth breathers.” Granted, they don’t feature alliteration, but they’re still fun!

  6. matt says:

    Just to please Tad: You’re all a bunch of window licking, mouth breathers!

  7. Jeff Holland says:

    Quiet, you moonbat!

    (I admit it, I do kinda like “moonbat.” No idea what it means, but it’s got a nice, warm feeling to it.)

  8. Matt says:

    Jeff, you can call me a moonbat anytime. I also prefer ratbat, catbat and acrobat. That last one should only be used if you are not refering to my trapeze skills.

  9. wiserbud says:

    Heh. That’s right. Don’t allow any actual comments that make an actual point. Just the ones that don’t challenge your tiny little minds.


  10. threatqualitypress says:

    @wiserbud: I didn’t notice any that made an actual point. Was this supposed to be one of them?

  11. Bill says:

    ‘Diseased donkey dick’? I wonder who that could be.
    It seems to me that Rosetta writes outrageous things on ‘her’ website merely to increase traffic. The more outrageous the more sites link and the more traffic. This doesn’t seem to me to be a basis for any kind of discussion or argument – rational or otherwise – since ‘her’ motivation is simply to get as many people to read ‘her’ posts as possilble. The more ridiculous the posts are, and they are pretty damn ridiculous, the better.

  12. threatqualitypress says:

    Holland here,

    Just for the sake of clarity, let’s just call whassizname “he,” huh? It feels like a waste of space, not to mention a collectively decent sense of humor, to do this “ha-ha he says he’s not a girl or is he hur-hur” nonsense. We’re all male. The end.

    (Yes, you goofballs, that means this site is nothing but sexist and homophobic and all those other things any logical person would naturally associate with a bunch of liberal democrats.)

    GAH! Can’t wait till we don’t have to worry ourselves with this counter-productive crap anymore.

  13. Moff says:

    I liked the part where Rosetta asked what she was supposed to call you even though both posts were titled “Braak Remains Smarter, Funnier Than Detractors.”

  14. mesablue says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s