Here's a GitHub gist that seems to do what you need.

I think Couric is an idiot, but I don't see how either comparing Carrie Prejean to Anita Bryant, or the "New Jersey from my house" comment were nasty.

Synaptrik wrote:

While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off.

Y'know, I actually kind of miss the guy. He might have been a pretentious, obstinate, snarky, trolling jackass, but he at least occasionally showed both a wit in insult and a talent for sophistry that we'll never see from the likes of the Ilion-bot (I'm still convinced that his replies are at least partially automated) or Bonghit McWafflehouse.

Le Centriste wrote:

That is the problem with people like you

I'd say it's more a problem than the problem.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

The Magic Negro

I know you're just using the term to troll, and the observation I'm about to make has been made many times before, but by continuing to parrot that neo-con, "magic negro" crap, you paint yourself as a huge jackass, mired in 1950s-era bigotry. A male Ann Coulter, if you will. And we already have one of those. Just saying.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Cheney defined it as enhanced interrogation techniques, that saved lives. do pay attention.

And I could say a Happy Meal is a unicorn and rainbow sandwich that bestows immortality. That wouldn't make it so.

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Cheney? no I don't. he has nothing to lose.

Sure he does. His reputation, and thus his value to the corporate interests he continues to represent.

Interesting. It actually sounds like something O'Brien would have said to Winston Smith in "1984".

Stan Shannon wrote:

The question is, what did he actually accomplish.

I would imagine he actually taught law students, presumably about constitutional law. Given his demeanor and rhetorical skill, I'm quite sure he was an excellent teacher, and being an excellent teacher for twelve years is one hell of an accomplishment in my book.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...

Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.

Oakman wrote:

I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor

According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.

I don't think the article is serious. It doesn't name a source, and both article and quote misspell the Korean leader's name (it should be Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong Il, or maybe Li'l Kim :)).

I have no doubt that it was consistent. Parts were definitely not factual. You probably didn't notice because, if you've paid little attention since then, you probably weren't paying that much attention in the first place.

Paul Conrad wrote:

Naaah. His IQ isn't high enough.

Consider that he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review in his first year based on grades and a writing competition, then appointed president of the Law Review his second year, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school for twelve years. I don't know you, Paul, and you might be very bright; however, I can't help but think that, in an intellectual pissing contest, chances are that you would be seriously out-pissed.

Ilíon wrote:

... the sandass script, I mean. The more of you "family" asses install it, the better. If enough of you go for it, perhaps you'll take enough sand with you that the SoapBox can be dug out of the SandBox. On the other hand, I really don't expect a single one of the "family-guys" to stick with the script.

You're just running your own little one-man Gitmo for metaphors, aren't you?

Ilíon wrote:

Wow. Rest your carcase somewhere else, Sister Sludge. Out of my sight would be appreciated.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Wow. I rest my case.

Ilíon wrote:

And I expect that your inner Bette Midler fan never, while no doubt possessing a fabulous wardrobe, has never seen a closet from the inside. So, where does that leave us, "family-man?"

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm happily straight, and married for 18 years (although I do think jeans and tee shirts are fabulous, and it means a lot to me that you share that opinion). You, on the other hand, repeatedly refer to other men as "my pet", write like the effeminate love child of Larry Craig and Mr. Burns, and actually put effort into making up your own gay slang. You know, if you'd only give them a chance, I bet you'd love Coldplay.

Ilíon wrote:

Oddly enough, I don't have a single one. My CD collection runs in the direction of Christian music.

While I'm not exactly surprised, I still suspect there's a Bette Midler fan inside you, just waiting to be let out of the closet.

Oakman wrote:

I hate to waste that much talent on a opera buffo character like Ilion, but you could be right. Pierce could flaunt all of Ilion's failings and make them comic on a level Pee Wee isn't able to reach

Yeah. If only Larry Craig could act. When I see the tape of him calling Clinton a "nasty, bad, naughty boy", I think he and Ilion must be related in some way.

Ilíon wrote:

Leaving, as it were, nothing at all for you. You poor sap, the "wittiness" under discussion was that of Oakman ... such a famed wit and wag and that was all he could come up with.

Corrected. Thank you.

Considering your contributions, I guess that would make Jon the wit.

modified on Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:21 PM