Hit em. Hit em harder.

We know from Limbaughs last plane trip that the morbidly obese, deaf, drug addicted slob is also impotent. He attacks other people cause he can't get his dick up.

Most of the wingers have problems just like this and they take their misery out on us.

Fuck these people. Hit em as hard as you can.

It's funny that all this blather usually comes from pasty-faced fat guys with bad combovers. That doesn't exactly scream "macho" to me. Instead, they're the characters who remind you of that blowhard uncle or cousin who has an opinion about everything, but never gets off their fat butt to actually do anything. These guys aren't even real bullies--they can't get from their chair to the refrigerator without heezing. Basically they're the boors we remember from family reunions. The more canny relatives usually avoid talking to these characters or simply get to the point about them (i.e., call them on their all talk, no action). I'd like to see the Dems or the left ask these guys when they're going go do something macho rather than open another bag of cheetos.

which is where these people stopped developing. That so many play along with their obvious projection is the really sad part.

And why is being womanly rather than manly a bad thing? My question for the ultra-macho (*cough*) Taranto, Limbaugh, and others is what do they think femininity is and why do they dislike it so much.

Personally, I don't actually see Edwards as feminine, but if he does have feminine qualities, I don't see why that makes him unable to lead our country. Look at a stereotypical feminine qualities of Bill Clinton, for which he was much maligned: the ability to listen to others, make them feel he really felt for them, and an apparent willingness to empathize. Then look at a stereotypically masculine quality of his: unbounded sexual appetite (and, to some, sex appeal). Our current Commander in Chief apparently, or at least to me, has reverse qualities: no ability to empathize or hear others (and a certainty that he is right) and a tight rein over his emotions and sexuality (or at least no visible sensual nature that I can see, but these things are notoriously hard to judge).

Who is being insulted when men are called feminine and what is meant by it and why are being letting this slide? Not from a feminist perspective (although that would also be an interesting analysis), but just in order to make people clearly define their terms. And those who define "feminine" as meaning somehow unfit for leadership or otherwise bad, why?

I guess I don't understand what I'm supposed to see in the pictures. Is it one of those "Magic Eye" things where you have to cross your eyes just a little and then a pony pops out in 3-D?

Or is the point that these are fat, homely guys? Because if so, I still don't understand. I'm a fat, homely guy myself, and I have never felt the need to emasculate those with whom I disagree.

So...what's the deal? Am I missing something?

So all the ha-ha Idiocracy-era jokes from Republicans about how John Edwards is a f***ot because he has hair are based on a reference which ended in the late 1970s.

So not only are Republicans a bunch of overly homo-erotic repressed cowardly freaks, they're also using cultural references even my parents have realized are long gone.

Shooting down these jokers like that is completely juvenile, and utterly required given their reprehensible actions. Boys with toy soldiers who have to take breaks when mama tells them to use their inhalers. No military service, or positive service of any kind to make this country better, only name-calling and pony-tail pulling. One would like to engage them on an intellectual level, but if they want to go the lower route, then by all means let's go there - they give us too much juicy material to emasculate them back.

These two fat slobs got to talk! If they were reral men, they would have volunteered for Iraq, or at least the services. Bimbos is a better description for them.

Shooting down these jokers like that is completely juvenile, and utterly required given their reprehensible actions. Boys with toy soldiers who have to take breaks when mama tells them to use their inhalers.

I admit to feeling conflicted about it. I wish I could write about more substantive things (and I actually did write a long post about Robert Kagan's Op-Ed this morning in the Post about how the glorious surge is working, but there is something wrong with Salon's system and it won't post it yet).

But you can't just leave the playing field to them unchallenged. Cultural messages like this matter, regardless of whether they ought to. And allowing them to prance around like the Warriors of Power and Courage while depicting everyone who opposes them as weak and "effeminate" (except in the case of women, in which case they are power-hungry dykes) would be a huge mistake.

I see these things much the same way as I see private morality and religion. I don't think those things ought to be relevant to political choices, but those who make them relevant by constantly injecting them into our discourse have to be subjected to the standards they espouse.

I'm actually suprised that Greenwald posted their photos in an apparent attempt to expose their hypocrisy -- they all deserve all the criticism, no doubt, but I thought Greenwald was above that. I guess even luminaries like Greenwald can take a cheap shot now and then.

These guys' criticisms are so pathetic that i think the candidates should not respond to them. I was surprised that Edwards bothered to respond to Coulter's attack. This type of stuff works with the fringe, but not the undecided voters. If their children are dying in Iraq, they defaulted on their mortage because they lost their job, and they can't sell their house because the housing market sucks, and they don't have health insurance, I hardly think they will be amenable to arguments suggesting they choose who they vote for based on him or her being "girly," istead of ideas and issues.