Quote for the day

Ken, at Popehat, writes:

Whose side am I on?

You vulgar, upjumped, snake-oil-selling, midway-barker huckster. You venal, amoral, mendacious harpy. You vile, preening, scheming hack. Whose side am I on? I’m on the side of fuck you, bitch. I’m on the side of the Constitution, limited government, limited executive power to kill people, limited executive power to put our armed forces at risk, and the rule of motherfucking law. I can’t believe there was a time when I couldn’t grasp why people despised you. Whose side am I on? You Senator, can you name a nanosecond when you’ve ever been on anyone’s side but your own?

That’s whose side I’m on. What’s it to you?

That pretty much says it all if you ask me.

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the editor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.


  1. The more intemperate I am, the more traffic I get.

    Moral hazard alert!

  2. Oof. “harpy,” “bitch” and choosing the less-honorific Senator rather than Madame Secretary.


  3. I can’t believe I am going to offer at least a feeble defense of Hilary Clinton. But…

    It seems worth pointing out that the “whose side are you on” quote does not seem to be asking that it a “you’re with us or you’re against us” manner, as Ken seems to insinuate. Rather, it seems a rhetorical question that she says the admin asked itself. (Which maybe they did maybe they didn’t, but that’s what she seems to be saying.)

    Not defending Hilary the Life Story, not defending the legality of our whatever-the-hell-we’re-calling-war-this-week in Lybia… just saying that the quote should at least be taken in context.

    • Even granting that, it’s a stupid, useless question. I’d strongly predict that none of us on are Assad’s side, but that says nothing about whether the US should get involved in Syria.

  4. I agree with Popehat; a US politician, government official or media bootlicker has no moral right to ask such an insinuating question, unless things are at a WWII level, and even then they should be careful.

Comments are closed.