What's Mallard raving about today?
Coexistence
This makes absolutely no sense. In the metaphor Mallard is attempting, all herbivores would be equally easy to target.
Pretty much all I can parse out of this is that Mallard is a petty ass hat who manages to be offended by bumper stickers.
12 comments:
In Mallard's world, dinosaurs died out because the herbies didn't have a brilliant conservative mind like Jonah Goldberg (or Bruce Tinsley) to scream at them about the good of hatred.
...Okay then.
A study recently drew connections between low I.Q. and prejudices...AND neo-con-ism. I expect two solid weeks of SYANSE IZ TEH STOOPIT HIPPYZ from Butt-Call Batshit in February.
How to make this funnier:
Cop with rookie, staking out the bar.
"the trick is to look for the ones who draw shitty political cartoons for a living"
ZING!
I can see why Bruce doesn't like people who subscribe to, as Douglas Adams put it, 'how great it would be if every one was nice to each other for a change".
The Coexist bumper sticker is an indication of weakness and those who display it are easy prey for predators?
Or the T Rex is explaining his strategy for scoring weed in the Jurassic age?
Tinsley likes to fantasize about dinosaurs rending those Coexist folks limb from limb, because one of them kicked Bruce's ass a few years ago in a road rage incident. (Looked a lot smaller when she was sitting down!)
I think it means that the Duck, and Republicans, want to eliminate the two-party system, rather than trying to get along.
Uh....what?
The message here seems to be.....predators seek out the weak? So apparently you're weak if you want to coexist with others and deserve to be eaten. Fortunately for Tinsley he will never have to worry about it.
Oh, this is just a case of envy: Those people driving around with "Coexist" bumper stickers haven't had their driver's licenses suspended.
So apparently you're weak if you want to coexist with others and deserve to be eaten.
Eat me, Tinsley.
The other night, on a google search whose terms I can no longer recall, I found a blog whose location I'm trying to forget. One of the posts on the specific archive page that got my attention came from 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the Fort Hood attack. The shorter went something like this:
There have been five attacks on US military personnel inside military bases in the last 26 years. All of them were carried out by Muslims. There will be more as long as we let political correctness hamstring us from doing what has to be done.
Am I being unfair to assume that what he considers necessary is to assume that all Islamobrowns should be presumed terrorists until proven dead? And/or am I being unfair to suspect that that's Brewski's subtext here?
Christians believe in loving your enemy, not hating them.
So what religion is Tinshley?
The only rational explanation is that he ran out of any ideas years and years ago, and is perversely enjoying submitting incomprehensible nonsense which gets accepted for publication anyway. He could just vomit on a piece of paper and send it in and it would be carried. It's the American way.
I do think the base attacks guy is a good Tinshley proxy. First of all, I think he means (for attacks of any import) mostly bases IN OTHER COUNTRIES. If not, "personnel" in bases in the US are pretty much a weekly if not daily event.
Post a Comment