Friday, November 19, 2004

national treasure

guys, i don't know if you read the comments. sometimes they're priceless. i just discovered this nugget from a post earlier this month that attracted comments almost a week after it was posted. in that post, i called the blue states "bluer than blue" because i & they were & are morose. in response, a fella calling himself a conservative webzine tore me a new one:
National Journal @ 4:40PM | Nov 11th 2004|

Actually, the blue states aren't "bluer than blue." All the heavily Dem states, like Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, even Mass to a lesser extent, swung significantly to Bush since 2000.

In fact, Bush lost ground in not a single blue state this time around. He increased his share of the popular vote by up to 6-7 points in each one. Gore won Jersey by 16; Kerry took it by only 6.

Let's stick to facts next time, shall we?
thank god i had a southern belle to come to my defense:
Angela @ 5:20PM | Nov 11th 2004| permalink

She meant people in blue states are SAD, stupid. Besides, can't you just appreciate the charming turn of phrase?

ps. Sorry, Ester, for rushing to defend your blog's honor . By the way, your last LJ entry excited me (was that man really wearing a bowtie?).
but national journal wouldn't die quietly:
NJ @ 5:41PM | Nov 11th 2004| permalink

There goes the condescending elitism again.

Since when did the phrase "bluer than blue" become some sort of literary ingenuity?

Stupider than Stupid (apparently),

sometimes, i earnestly, passionately, and truly love the internets.

No comments: