The Rude Pundit: Liberal NSA Apologists Can Take It All, Want More
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/
= new reply since forum marked as read
So rude, so true. 
That'll be totally different due to some bizarre twist of logic. But then again, maybe if Rush written this instead of RP, just as many people would be swooning. 
and glad it makes you squirm.
RL
RL
He categorically denied the facts because it didn't fit his agenda, and we were just supposed to take his word for it.
"National Security Interests"- as the interviewer said, "That's sort of like 'divine right,' isn't it?"
That was powerful and freaky...thank you for posting it.
tiny minority.
But hey, keep calling everyone "stupid," "authoritarians," "Third Wayers," etc, etc. idiotic, stupid meaningless names. THAT'S the way to finally crack that 20% of the American voting public mark!1 
Such meanies!
I thought it was liberals and lefties who were the reason why Democrats lose elections?
Because DLCers who scream at anyone who stands up for Democratic principles and the Constitution are doing a GREAT job at encouraging Democratic votes!
Again, thanks for the LOLZ
.... My suggestion was in response to your suggestion of "Obamaians" ....
.
The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim, as the headline itself makes indisputably clear."
As for Snowden, the orchestrated backlash is expected - that's how the administration always treats leakers/whistleblowers:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/14/the-sickening-snowden-backlash.html
I've never cared for GG since the first time I heard him (or read - can't remember now). Kind of the same feeling I had the first time I saw Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong. And my daughter's boyfriend.
Maybe I should go into business as a fortune teller.
From the Prism document itself (from this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box
osition2#block-51b36893e4b0cc6424372292):
The slide, below, details different methods of data collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism, which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from four different programs involving data collection from "fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past".
The NSA documents clearly say that PRISM collects "directly from the servers" of the indicated companies. Greenwald reported both that the documents indicated this and also that the companies had denied it.
That is not a lie.
Been wondering that question ever since Prism was exposed. Be it either wing of the Business Party, this is all very troubling - to say the least. Still wondering where the probable cause lies in all of this.
Contextually, the rest of the post is spot on too. Thanks yet again, Rude.
[img]
[/img]
...but this is an apt and deserved description for our current situation.
I will not only recommend this,
but will post a permalink to this rant in every thread on DU that attacks the messenger
in the misguided belief that it somehow helps the Democratic Party or their favorite politician.
[font size=4]The Conservative Bubble
Its not just for Republicans anymore.[/font]
we should have had in 2001, 2005, 2007, etc. and then let's decide what we're willing to live with for a safe and free society. 
I'm simply not getting the vapors over this that some other people are getting over this because at the end of the day, what has been implemented was AFAIK legalized, which, of course, doesn't necessarily make it *right* but instead of lionizing the leaker in this matter (funny how some people complain about people blindly worshipping President Obama but treating Snowden like he's a hero in all of this) why aren't the people upset/opposed to this pushing for Congress to change the laws, put in more safeguards, dismantle some of the "security state" that Bush/Cheney built up in response to 9/11.
RL
But thank you for reposting part of the joke, I was glad to laugh again, once at the joke, and once at you.
RL
