Deleted Comments Of The Day: Why Do You Liberals Advocate Sleeping With Poop?

 Is Dok Zoom enjoying his couple days off? Probably! But before he headed out, we made him sluice out the comments queue. It was not pretty. First up, a reply to the first of our two stories about South Dakota state Rep. Steve Hickey, who objects to men doing it in the butt. This comment came from Hickey supporter "AhContraire," who was kind enough to ask us to follow them on Twitter, where virtually everything they wrote for the last few days was about Steve Hickey. Talk about an ass-kisser! We'd have assumed this was Steve Hickey, except that there are posts going back well before Hickey became semi-notorious. In any case, we guess at least one person was impressed by Rep. Hickey's chat with newspaper editor Patrick Lalley, because even as we were typing up our second post on Hickey, we received this note from AhContraire:

Why not have a public dialog on the medical safety of Sodomy, gay and straight, and ask these two simple medical questions? That is, Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."? Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

Not quite as melodious as Hickey's "is it OK for eight of your friends that you’re in love with to take a dump in your bed and then you can sleep in it all year long?" But it's a pretty good amateur cover of a classic! Well done, young Turdawan! Soon, you too will be a Shith Lord.

We're still getting Benghazi comments, too! Our story on former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor was not well received by "NonDelusional," who sprayed this word salad at their keyboard:

"We have long since given up on figuring out what we’re supposed to be outraged about". Yea.........like within about 2 days of Benghazi. "VIETOR: Dude, this was like two years ago". And four lives ago, including an Ambassador of the United States Vietor, ya slime-ball. I KNOW it matters not to you slime-ball.......after all, no matter the ineptitude, incompetence, betrayal, negligence, lying..........it WAS two years ago!!! And never mind the two years of lying, stonewalling, and diversions trying your best to keep the unvarnished TRUTH of the matter from coming out!! We could had had that before the GD election if your side so wished........but THAT was and IS the very last GD thing ya want, huh?? Ya left those 4 poor souls twisting in the wind Vietor......you and your bunch. And if it were not for the monumental heroism of those that were killed, and others.......we would had had DOZENS murdered.......and you slime-balls would still be playing the same tune!!

Translation: The TRUTH about Benghazi has been hidden and covered up! Fortunately, I have it -- and that TRUTH is that Obama LIED about the TRUTH, which we still don't know, but we do know, because it was on Fox, and WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THE TRUTH?????? We appreciate that clarification, NonDelusional.

Benghazi was also on the mind of "Chirpster22," who has given us a clever nickname, but apparently did not care for our last set of deleted Benghazi comments, because BENGHAZI, ARRGGGGH!

Wonky thanks to you I have a major case of whip lash. The conversation starts with a discussion of a possible Benghazi cover up and faulty response.. The next thing I know the dialogue turns to: Half ass talk about how jets would have killed those we wanted to help. (threatening fly over vs bombs ,maybe?) scape goating private citizens, what Reagan did, what Bush did, and friendly Arab countries? Holy shit I think you used up your quota of Straw men and Red Herrings. A little relevant substance would have been a nice touch. P.S. You also tossed a bit of ad hominem attack with the butthurt wingnuts. Personal attacks are totally uncalled for, you lameass little blogger you.

Chirpster22 seems unaware that the post was a response to several different comments from readers, which does necessitate a bit of jumping around, n'est-ce pas? But we would like to at least help educate Chirpster22, should such a thing be possible: an ad hominem attack is different from an insult. For example, "Chirpster22 is a syphilitic whoretortoise" is an insult. An ad hominem argument would be the substitution of an insult for a reason in an argument, as in, "Chirpster22 is wrong about Benghazi because he is a rodent-felching gnome-buggerer." The mere presence of an insult does not create an ad hominem argument, as long as there is also an argument being made: "Chirpster22's comment is a list of Dok Zoom's alleged rhetorical sins, but the pathetic fuckbag couldn't be troubled to actually demonstrate that Dok had a flaw in his logic. Christ, what a tosser." Glad we could be of assistance, nutclot.

"Teapartypat" saw right through our "endorsement" of Greg Brannon for the GOP Senate Primary in North Carolina, and somehow sussed out that we were not actually fans of Dr. Brannon:

Brannon delivers babies and is a Constitutional expert, no woner Libturds hate him! This man speak as the Founders spoke, about liberty, freedom, and individuality. (Which is why KKKarl Rove and Establishment GOP kooks call him a radical)

Small woner indeed! In fact, teapartypat was so impressed by this thought that he left no fewer than six copies of a shortened version of it: "The guy delivers babies and is a Constitutional expert, no wonder you Libturds hate him!" Wouldn't be so hasty to assume that, teapartypat! Even now, thanks to you, we're spending our day off working up a treatment for a TV pilot about a gruff but loveable obstetrician/Constitutional expert who travels the Old West delivering babies and helping settle questions of Constitutional law.

Our special guest column by Monica Lewinsky was not appreciated at all by "trmoses," who apparently thought we were trying to shame Ms. Lewinsky, and called us on it:

You are what's wrong with America. Can't you stop the shaming long enough to have some sympathy for someone who has endured nearly 2 decades of a scarlet letter disproportionate to her crime?

Silly us -- we were pretty sure that our piece made pretty much that very point, albeit with a blowjob joke. Perhaps trmoses needs some assistance with the elusive concept of le snarque?  Still, we'd just like to apologize to America, and we promise to try harder.

Did we get comments on guns? Hahaha, does the Pope shit on capitalism? "Welldoneson" found our story on the NRA Convention quite risible indeed, but not because of any funny humor jokes we made:

LOL boy, you hard left 0bamabloggers really don't care how juvenile and fact-free your positions are, do you? Just what is it that informs you? Your headline, for example, is complete juvenile nonsense.

And to prove that they have a delicious sense of wit that we clearly lack, welldoneson spelled "Obama" with a zero instead of an "O," though sadly our typeface doesn't do justice to this innovative typographic japery. Further, we would just like to point out that variations on "Ain’t no party like a [blank] party" are a time-honored part of the headline-writer's craft, and also it was late and Gary was tired.

"Turbobike" was not a fan of our story on that Responsible Gun Owner in Minnesota who bravely made his house look unoccupied so that he could wait in the basement and blow away two teenagers who broke in. Because -- and no one disputes this -- those two did indeed break in, which in turbobike's judgment makes them likely to be murderers themselves, and therefore subject to execution on the spot:

So all of you are ok with a couple of thugs breaking into a senior citizens home repeatedly? maybe beating the old geezers head in? just checking...I know they're were good kids...they didn't mean any harm...they're good kids..

You know, we missed the part where we said they were saints. We actually agreed with the jury in the case, which held that, no, self defense does NOT include luring people, even burglars, into a free-fire zone. The fact that the teens broke in when they thought the house was empty suggests that they were interested in theft, not "beating the old geezer's head in," you know? Also, we don't want to think about what turbobike was probably doing while listening to the snuff recording of the shootings and the aftermath. We just hope he had a towel.

The reliability of "smart gun" technology wasn't really the point of our article on the brave gun fondlers who sent death threats to a firearms dealer who said he'd sell them, but "JeremyBo" had some Thoughts on the matter:

If a self driving car was released tomorrow, would you pack your non driving kids in it and send them off on a road trip knowing that it is unproven technology? If / When the technology is good enough for law enforcement it will be good enough for me and my family.

Um. You know, once self-driving technology has been developed and thoroughly tested, we can at least be fairly sure that it will be pretty tightly regulated for safety, which is more than we can say about the firearms industry. But we're intrigued that you're so certain that your life depends on having a gun. Do you live in Somalia?

JeremyBo also wrote, possibly in reply to another comment (which we don't allow in the first place),

Hollywood makes movies that glorify violence, rape, and murder. Think Quentin Tarentino will stop anytime soon?

Um? No? But we also know the difference between fiction and reality? And...we really don't recommend that you try to take on an entire Hong Kong mob in a choreographed fight where they politely come at you one at a time? Ah, right -- you rely on a gun to keep your family safe. So that whole "fantasy/reality" thing is kind of fuzzy for you already.

And we'll give our last word to our always hilarious pal "teebonicus" who's now making his third visit to Dear Shitferbrains. Teebonicus, you may recall, impressed us with his contempt for the stupid "Moms-Of-Dead-Kids" crowd, because he is a cold-eyed realist who is unimpressed by mere emotional distractions like the actual murders of children. In a comment about Georgia's exciting new law allowing people to carry guns in airports, teebonicus says, sure, bring it on!

Since there is no evidentiary reason to NOT allow this (only unsupported prognostications and projections), it is a sane law that hopefully will grow national legs.

OK, and maybe the guy who shot up a terminal at LAX and killed a TSA agent. But he was a statistical outlier, so there's no reason to worry about Responsible Gun Owners packing heat in a crowded airport. Also, congratulations, teebonicus -- that's your third strike and you are now banned. It's been real!

 Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He'll be "back" this weekend for "Sundays with the Christianists."