The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED Were the President-Elect

The world would be a better place if Nancy Kallitechnis were the president-elect.  Seriously.  Think about the issues she would dedicate herself to.

First, she would tear down that pesky Washington Monument and replace it with a 100-ft bronze statue of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Seriously, who needs a giant white stick in the middle of the city.  After all, we all know that it really is a phallic symbol that represents male oppression of women.

Second, she would only appoint women to her cabinet and her administration.  Men have been screwing up the federal government for more than 200 years.  Maybe what we need are women running everything for a while to show the stupid, sexist, misogynistic, Obama-voting chauvinist pigs how things should be done.

Third, she would strip men of the right to vote.  Think about it.  Historically, men vote Republican.  If men can't vote, then progressive Democrats will rule the United States indefinitely.

Fourth and most importantly, Vice President Sarah Palin.  I realize that the idea of that batshit crazy airhead one heartbeat away from the presidency makes your skin crawl, but do you really think that Saturday Night Live is going to be nearly as funny without her?

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin (Video Clip)

Don't think!  Just vote vagina!

Tags: Gender Equality, misogyny, Nancy Kallitechnis, sexism, snark (all tags)



Re: The World Would Be a Better Place

Happy Holidays!

And thank you for this diary.

by JDF 2008-12-24 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place

It took a bad, bad man to write this diary.

by Steve M 2008-12-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place

And we'd also get a Gas Tax Holiday!

by Bush Bites 2008-12-24 06:37PM | 0 recs
Rec for proper use

of the past subjunctive.

by JJE 2008-12-24 06:50PM | 0 recs

I was going to point out her error, but she never reads the comments anyway.

by psychodrew 2008-12-24 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a

So wrong, yet so, so right.

by rfahey22 2008-12-24 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED

Don't blame me; I voted for REDACTED.

by Captain Bathrobe 2008-12-24 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place

You are evil. And you will be punished.

by Denny Crane 2008-12-24 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if...

Awesome. Thank you.

by selfevident 2008-12-25 02:11AM | 0 recs
if REDACTED Were the President-Elect

When I read the title I thought you were talking about the movie.

by Jess81 2008-12-25 02:31AM | 0 recs
I thought... was an attempt to draft the Motley Moose for pres. since it was redacted too. :)

by AZphilosopher 2008-12-26 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought...

Glad I wasn't the only one to make that connection...

by TCQuad 2008-12-27 03:07PM | 0 recs

Merry XX mas

by QTG 2008-12-25 06:08AM | 0 recs
Not to be a party pooper ...

but I am pretty sure a diary specifically attacking another user by name is a violation of the site rules.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-25 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Not to be a party pooper ...

If the site rules were even marginally enforced, I can't imagine there would have been any occasion to write this diary.

by Steve M 2008-12-25 10:47AM | 0 recs
Oh, so do two wrongs make a right now?

I guess I missed that memo.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-25 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, so do two wrongs make a right now?

Could you, if you tried, be more of a tightwad about this?

It is clearly a snarky and clever response to an inane diary designed to reignite the primary wars... and on top of that it was hilarious.  

by JDF 2008-12-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
It is odd

but whenever I gently point out that people are violating the site rules with this sort of diary, I get two types of responses:

1) Self righteous diatribes about how the site is overrun by trolls, and the only possible way to combat them is by violating the site rules, and people like me who want to see everyone treated fairly are enabling the forces of darkness;

2) Comments like the above, calling me a "tightwad" (I think you meant to say tight-ass), among other things, for spoiling everyone's fun.

Response 1 seems to come from an sense of the importance of this blog, coupled with a manichean paranoia that I usually associate with authoritarian followers, not posters on a liberal blog. Response 2 seems to come from an eigth grader's sense of "fun". Both characterizations are self centered, puerile twaddle. More than half the time, I don't even agree with the people I am defending. All I am asking is that people have a respectful conversation about the issues. But I guess some of us are too immature to manage that.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: It is odd

You know what?
How is this for breaking the sites guidelines?

Screw off.

I never, I repeat, NEVER see you demanding that the sites rules be followed to the letter by people like Nancy K or Mumbai, or any of the other complete clowns that spend time here doing nothing but sowing dissension and making their little spite filled lives happier at our expense.

But the minute anyone else even APPROACHES the line of breaking the guidelines (and to be clear, I feel that the guidelines are pretty gray in this specific circumstance) you come around yelling about the rules.

You bring up eighth grade. My guess is you were the kid who, in eighth grade, would remind the teacher that we had homework right at the end of class, or point out that Bobby and Susan are passing notes in the back row.

Nobody liked kids like you then...and not many of us care for the behavior now.

Get over yourself... be part of the discussion.

And if you want to spend most of your time telling people about the rules start your own damn site and moderate it to death.

by JDF 2008-12-30 06:16AM | 0 recs
I guess I struck a nerve, huh?

by itsthemedia 2009-01-02 07:05PM | 0 recs
And, to reinforce Steve's comment

The person being parodied here literally DEMANDS the rules of the site be changed to fit her liking on each and every diary (diatribe?) she launches...

If the rules fit one, shouldn't they fit us all?

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-25 11:13AM | 0 recs
I never asserted

that the person being parodied was a nice person or does not violate the site rules.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-25 01:06PM | 0 recs
We had this argument many times...

...during the primary wars.  I believe the policy is that you cannot call out another diarist BY NAME in the TITLE.  That is why I wrote REDACTED.

by psychodrew 2008-12-25 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do I have the feeling

that the next cheesy sockpuppet will have the pretend name 'REDACTED'.

by QTG 2008-12-25 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: We had this argument many times...

As quoted by user Summerstrom, ironically enough, in the comments of the diary you are parodying:

Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game (but that doesn't mean you can use inflammatory language against candidates).

Post as many comments as you like, but users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate the site users, or make inflammatory remarks will either be warned, or outright banned.

Besides, it is just rude and you know better. That other person can be handled easily enough by ignoring her or quietly pointing out her illogic/sexism/hype. You do not need to lower yourself in this way, drew.

Merry Christmas.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-25 01:22PM | 0 recs
I wouldn't call this an attack.

I would call it a criticism.  

by psychodrew 2008-12-25 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: why waste a diary

It was cold outside and I needed something to do for fifteen minutes to delay walking fifteen minutes down the street to get breakfast.  And I snickered as I wrote it, congratulating myself for being a funny guy.

by psychodrew 2008-12-26 06:05AM | 0 recs
You ARE a funny guy Drew

You are also usually one of the more thoughtful posters around here. That's why I say this diary is beneath you. I am glad to find out you didn't spend more than 15 minutes on it.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-29 11:11AM | 0 recs
This diary is a mischaracterization of Nancy

She wrote:

...and also because Hillary Clinton was the best candidate, in my opinion, to repair the economy, ensure a strong national security and create compassionate social services

Her #1 issue is what it is, but it's not her only issue.

by Beet 2008-12-25 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Oops, I said four

I think she is stating that women make better leaders because they lack leadership skills.  Women never learned how to lead, so they do not need to unlearn how to lead as men supposedly do.

So, if we stop teaching little boys how to lead (which apparently only little boys are taught) than in 35 years or so, a man will be lacking in those skills that he can lead.

Or something like that

by gavoter 2008-12-25 07:38PM | 0 recs
Loved it!

I don't think Nancy would see this as criticism, rather read it and nod her head.

Nancy:  "You are so right!  That's exactly what I would do!"

by GFORD 2008-12-25 06:47PM | 0 recs
The penis is the root of world's problems.
Merry Christmas!
by Madisonu 2008-12-25 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED

Well - I betcha it wouldn't be Palin for VP, but maybe Feinstein....or Ferraro would get her "just" reward.

All women would be banned from wearing dresses!!! PANT SUITS FOREVER!!! YEAHHHHHH.......The Sisterhood of Traveling Pantsuits Lives On!!!


There would be a special island - maybe Coney Island for MLB (Men Like Bill) that DTT (did those things)...we'd have Bill, pretty much all the Kennedy men, Arnold, John Edwards, well - on 2nd thought, Coney Island would be too small....we may need a state to house them. How 'bout Alaska? That would be large enough and THEY could look out for the would-be Putins that might come over.....

Yep, the world would be a better!!!

by nikkid 2008-12-27 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED

I don't like Nancy either, but I thought the general rule was to NOT post diaries calling people out.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-12-27 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED

True, but if this diary didn't exist, I wouldn't have known to go back and look for what Nancy said last.

So, in effect, it was a pro-Nancy diary.

by TCQuad 2008-12-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The World

 I have been a huge supporter of President Bush over the years. I never miss an opportunity to point out to people how he screwed things up so unmercifully, and thus bringing attention to him. Yes, I am very pro-Bush in that way - did I mention that he is the worst President in history and a contender for the worst person ever to have walk the face of the earth! I'm a big fan of that turd.

by QTG 2008-12-28 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The World Would Be a Better Place if REDACTED

You can't post names in the title.  

by psychodrew 2008-12-28 04:26AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads