Deleted Comments Of The Week: Our Aggression Against Golf Will Not Stand, Man

Time for another trip to the ol' comment queue! Today, we begin with a reader who has had just about enough of Yr. Wonkette's socialist notion that a million dollars after taxes is adequate compensation for a week's work of hitting a ball with a stick. Our unfair attack on Phil Mickelson drew this comment from reader "dirtydimples" (haha, we get that -- it is a golf joke!):

This site is filled with some mean socialists, full of envy, I guess. Phil Mickelson give more to charity in one year than you clowns can gather in a lifetime, collectively, so put a sock in it, you pathetic losers. Get a job!

That is awfully nice of Mr. Mickelson! We bet he gets a handsome tax deduction for those donations, too! We would also point out that taxation and charity are two completely different things, and that Phil Mickelson should find another brand of golf ball than the Entitleist that he's been playing. (See, even commies can make the golf jokes!)

We also got a number of curiously earnest corrections from "justsoyouknow1," who wanted to make it clear that Yr Wonkette did not portray the noble game of golf in anything like a fair manner. Not sure which other commenters these were replying to, but the poor guy seems to feel genuinely maligned, and on a mission to correct our misapprehensions:

• That's not true. Great golf makes a lot of people happy. People love to be entertained and emotionally moved by sporting events. One of the reasons why golfers make so much money is because a lot of people pay to watch and/or sponsor golfers and tournaments. For me personally, golf has brought a lot of joy to my life. There is a tremendous amount of charity involvement in golf as well.

• When you are playing a very high level, it is hard work. You have to work hard to be great at anything. He's much different than your average recreational golfer.

The sincerity here is really rather sweet, and we would just like to reassure "justsoyouknow1" that we do not begrudge fans of any sport whatever pleasure they may get from watching millionaires hit, throw, dribble, kick, or otherwise do things to variously shaped sportsballs. (Hockey, however, is just freakish and wrong.) When we hear millionaire sportsball players whining about the hard lot in life that they have because they have to pay taxes, we may not be all that sympathetic, however.

Our recent piece about the thoroughly non-shocking fundraising phone message left by Eleanor Holmes Norton in 2010 was Not Appreciated by "rainzj":

What I don't get, Schoenkopf, is why do you find TYT's closed captioning service more "shocking" than Cenk's progressive opinion piece. If you knew that Cenk Uygur is committed to getting money out of politics, you would understand his anger.

Yes, we don't understand why anyone could make fun of "robot taco death march" captioning of a Breitbart story from 2010 when there are far bigger concerns, like the perfectly realistic goal of getting money out of politics. Shame on our cynical hides.

Next, a rather dated message that we just plain didn't have room for last time, but whose simple, straightforward elegance must be acknowledged. You might recall our story a couple weeks back about the gentleman in Washington who pulled a gun on a pregnant woman to emphasize that she should not have been smoking? Don't blame gun nuts for this! The blame, according to StatMan59, is clear:

Chalk this one down to the anti-smoking nazis...a result of their constant propaganda and scaremongering hate campaigns against people who enjoy tobacco.

What we love about this one is that StatMan59's IntenseDebate account seems to exist for one purpose only: defending innocent tobacco-users from the predations of the "anti-smoking industry" and insisting that there's no evidence that smoking causes disease. Fly your freak flag proudly, StatMan59, and say hi to the guys at Marlboro Labs for us.

Finally, we'll close with another very, very, very long explanation from "batazoid" of why some birthers do not think that Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen." It is actually longer than the one we shared with you last time! He explains that "In the US Constitution words mean something, each and every one." That is awfully good to know, because we have never trusted words that mean nothing. He goes on to explain that Every Single Court In America has ignored a very simple principle:

The fact that a definition of a "natural born Citizen" is missing from the US Const. wasn't an oversight, or a simple laps in judgement, as our courts have assumed. The founders, framers and ratifiers of the US Const., even the colonial (man) in the street, knew perfectly well what a "natural born subject" was before the American revolution. After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a Citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. Therefore, to find the proper definition of a "natural born citizen", we must look at this enigmatic phrase, not through the eyes of a subject, but through the eyes of a sovereign, using natural law. As sovereigns, their offspring would inherit their sovereignty from their fathers ( partus sequitur patrem ).

And yes, it goes on from there. At length. Why has no court in the land applied this perfectly reasonable standard to Birther lawsuits? We think it has something to do with the fact that they have gold fringe on their flags.