
Last night, after reading about the three men who died shielding their girlfriends from bullets in the Aurora, Colorado shootings, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto appeared to openly question on Twitter whether or not the girls whose lives were saved were worthy of such selfless male chivalry, proving once again that Twitter is a weapon of self-destruction when operated by people who can’t control the impulse to share thoughts that are best kept private.
I can only assume that Taranto is a disciple of the George Costanza philosophy on chivalry, one that holds that the concept of protecting women and children first in dangerous situations is an antiquated notion.
Ladies, whatever you do, if you somehow find yourself engaged to James Taranto, don’t lick the wedding invitations.

Thanks for the tip, Ufford!



The Douche is strong in this one
Also of note: he followed that up with questioning soldiers dying for their country, then celebrating himself for his “challenging” tweet. What a piece of shit.
Oh snap I somehow overlooked that one.
Obvious draft-dodging virgin is obvious.
Has to be the most punchable WSJ stipple ever.
That’s low mister. If I had a rubber hose I would beat you w…
What about those Catholic priests who molested young boys? They shared the word of God to way more people than they molested. And what about the young boys who were too ugly to molest? Didn’t hurt them at all. In fact, those priests are some pretty decent people if you think in ratios. For every kid they molested, like 500 people learned that God hates fags.
God hates fags and loves pedophiles, apparently.
I’m going to take a wild leap here and suggest that they were, in fact, worthy of the sacrifice to the men who died for them. Why the heck else would they of jumped in front of bullets for them? This dude is a chode.