“What’s so wrong with motherf—er?”
If there’s one thing the leftist media excel at, it’s rationalizing the inexcusable, be it the revolting sexual behavior of former President Bill Clinton, or, in the case of The Washington Post, the filthy mouth of newly elected Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Only hours after being sworn into office Thursday afternoon with a Koran — and while adorned in a Palestinian gown — Tlaib delivered a speech to her supporters in which she referred to President Donald Trump as a “motherf–ker” and vowed to impeach him from office.
“People love you and you win. And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Momma, look you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf–ker,” she said.
While the Palestinian-American congresswoman’s filthy mouth offended a lot of people — including even some of her fellow Democrats — for some inexplicable reason it didn’t offend the Post.
“What’s so wrong with motherf—er?” reads an actual headline from the virulently left-wing publisher.
Opinion: What’s so wrong with motherf—er? https://t.co/yBF1HGsOPC
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 4, 2019
According to columnist Molly Roberts, it’s OK for Tlaib to publicly use the term “motherf–ker” to describe Trump because he once privately spoke of grabbing women “by the p—y.”
‘”Motherf—er’ is filler; it means little more than ‘someone more unpleasant than “unpleasant” can convey.’ Saying you grab women ‘by the p—y,’ on the other hand, is truly damaging,” she opined.
Uh huh …
What social media users — including the one and only James Woods — would like to know is why, if what Trump once said is so much worse than what Tlaib said Thursday, did the Post choose to censor “motherf–ker?” Why not just publish the entire word, hmm?
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 5, 2019
I think “—” is the first clue https://t.co/aCZhAvlUbS
— Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) January 6, 2019
But won’t print the word ? https://t.co/ntdHPgMBD7
— jacob (@JacobSMcAlpine) January 6, 2019
— Tusia K (@tusiak123) January 6, 2019
If you can’t print the entire word then there has to be something wrong with it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t care.
— Tim Marshall (@Smaug86) January 5, 2019
You have to censor the word…. so yeah
— JO (@BoxyBrown1224) January 5, 2019
— Kreddy Frueger (@KRDDYFRGR) January 5, 2019
It’s unclear whether anyone at the Post realizes this point. Given that realizing this point would require rubbing two brain cells together to produce a spark of intelligence, the chances are low.
But there’s another factor at play as well: Hypocrisy.
The Post is an outlet that cries foul every time the president or his nearly 63 million supporters say or do anything. Literally anything.
When the president awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom to deceased rock star legend Elvis Presley last November, the Post cried racism.
When members of the “Bikers for Trump” group were spotted last August wearing patches that read “I Love Guns … & Titties,” the Post cried sexism.
And when the Department of Homeland Security put out a press release last February that contained arguments in favor of the president’s tough immigration approach, the Post cried Nazi.
But when a member of Congress used profanity to tell her son (and her supporters) that she plans to impeach the president, aka “the motherf–ker” as she put it, the Post gave a thumbs up.
Leave it to The Washington Post to Defend the Undefendable.
What’s so Wrong with Motherf***er?
Really? Now if Trump said it, this would be covered nonstop on all of the Fake News Networks 24/7 the whole weekend!
Stop the #Hypocrisy
— ?heyitsCarolyn? (@heyitsCarolyn) January 5, 2019
It is often hard to determine the hypocritical nature of an article before reading it but you managed to do it in 4 1/2 words.
— Bill Phillips (@bphi1908) January 5, 2019
If you are fine with it then quit whining about anything President Trump said. #hypocrites
— American Pride (@PoliticalBarb) January 6, 2019
@washingtonpost = hypocrites
— Charles Awad (@bharsaf) January 6, 2019
First you censored the word, second think what the word mean, third those in political world should be held to a higher standard and fourth if those political elites cannot control their behaviour what use are they in power. What would happen if the President said this?#Hypocrite
— S Baker (@Gatekeeper24) January 6, 2019
Not only that, but if someone said this when Obama was in office they would have been fired and they would have mysteriously disappeared.
— Samantha ? (@QueenFlair89) January 5, 2019
But libs absolutely lost their minds when kid rock called Joy behar a b**ch ?
The ridiculousness of you sheep on the left & the constant hypocrisy is simply astounding
— ??TexasTrouble?? (@TexasVengeance) January 6, 2019
The last tweet was somewhat right. Some segments of the liberal media did melt down when rock star legend Kid Rock jokingly referred to “The View” co-host Joy Behar as a “b–ch” last year.
Besides defending Tlaib’s profanity, columnists at the Post have also defended Marxism, defended comedian Samantha Bee’s usage of the profane term “c-nt” to describe the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and defended the abortion of Down syndrome babies:
Opinion | I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right. https://t.co/BVcIr6xulv
— Virgie Baker (@virgiebaker_id) July 19, 2018
- Biden signs on to $40T ‘Build Back Better World’ plan to build infrastructure in ‘poorer countries’ - June 12, 2021
- ‘That’s genuinely pathetic’: David Hogg’s cicada run-in earns vicious Twitter mockery - June 12, 2021
- Office for victims of illegal alien crime shuttered, replaced with service that caters to them instead - June 12, 2021