Chuckie (I Wish I Were White) Blow is the lead New York Times essayist assigned to stir vicious racial animus between white non-liberals and their low-brow rivals, the Democrat party.
As a fellow low brow, his venial venom flows naturally, a Blowhard’s Weekly Chuck Roast, thrilling black and white Democrat Klanners countrywide.
Like his president, Chuckie hates Republicans more than ISIS and other Muslim terrorists because GOPers won’t hurt him. Islamists will.
At the top of his Monday essays, insecure Chuckie the incurable racist reliably calculates a likely sounding thesis. Pouring in a brimming vial of racial envy for seasoning, he next marshals a reliable lifetime accumulation of racist anger and permanent victimhood. Stirring with stolen cheap gasoline fumes until fully cooked, the final dish serves up 700 of the nastiest words to be encountered in any left-wing American newspaper.
Genetically handicapped and creatively crippled, Mr. Blowhard is as original as sin, as funny as war.
Hands starchly at his side, he typically will open an essay by odiferously coughing a pedestrian-sounding theory into your threatened face.
Yesterday’s deceitful fairytale opened with a predictably deceitful yarn: Well, yes, it looks as if Bill Clinton raped a covey of defenseless damsels.
Sniffling back his wannabe grownup tears, Mr. Blowhard bites both lips simultaneously, bites his tongue, and repeats the phrase “yeah, but” until you believe his limited lexicon ends as it starts, with single-syllable terms.
By the sixth paragraph, he concedes that President Clinton’s rapes may have edged into barely unacceptable territory.
Accelerating his juvenile sniffling, Mr. Blowhard proceeds to lavishly devote the last 19 paragraphs to a far more scathing indictment of Mr. Clinton’s political prosecutors.
He cites the marital checkmate games played by President Livingston, President Gingrich, President Hastert, President Burton, President Starr and, naturally, President-in-waiting Trump.
He ignores the crimes of the Lesbian Liar.
This roundly explains why the Democrat party appeals almost exclusively to society’s dregs.
I presume this is the article to which you are referring: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/opinion/the-ghosts-of-old-sex-scandals.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fcharles-m-blow&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
I suggest that anyone reading your rant, firstly read the article and read (it pains me to suggest this) your venomous diarrhea.
Then you’re going to look a little bit crazy aren’t you?
And don’t say that a black man wants to be white. And don’t use the term ‘Lesbian’ as an insult.
Honestly I wonder how long you can go on like this with anyone at all taking you seriously. Or maybe that ship has already sailed?
“He ignores the crimes of the Lesbian Liar.”
Who in the world is “the Lesbian Liar”? Seriously, to whom precisely is that supposed to refer?