Epic drubbing sparks Joan Walsh whine: What’s a little Trutherism? Don’t you know who I am, Ace of Spades ‘morons’?

Truth(erism) hurts! And, boy, was Ace’s takedown of Joan Walsh truly epic. Poor, little Joan! Once again hoisted by her own petard! Earlier today, Salon published a Truther article titled, “Give truthers a chance?” No, seriously. They did, and the hilarity ensued. 

Heh. Yes, Salon took the article down, and issued a correction that Ace of Spades also totally destroys. But, that’s not even the biggest issue, “morons.” It’s knowing Joan Walsh’s exact job description that really matters, you see. Don’t you know who she is?

Um. Perhaps the “moron” is the one who wants to be associated with Salon only when convenient?


Yes, publishing Trutherism garbage is no biggie. What’s really important is Joan Walsh’s self-stroking. Don’t know what specific job she holds? Moron. Printing Truther nonsense? Super smart journalism and stuff. Probably enlightened, too.

Indeed. But, all is well. Ace of Spades is at the ready to deliver a little truth.

Poor, little Joan was upset that Twitchy and Ace of Spades pointed out the article’s existence and publication on the site. Ace of Spades gave an epic drubbing to the article itself; read the whole thing. He then took to Twitter, with the help of some fellow Twitter users, to continue helpfully providing some life lessons to Salon and Joan Walsh. Warning: Prepare to giggle loudly. Maybe even a snort or two.

Glorious. He then blasts her further for her ludicrous “but, editor” tweets.


Joan Walsh then had the utter gall to retweet this.


Oh, honey. Rep. Duncan is “ignorant” for speaking truth? But, Trutherism is no big whoop, “morons.”

Bless your heart.


Joan Walsh mocks Kate Middleton’s ‘morning sickness’; backpedals, then makes pope jokes

All class: Joan Walsh fantasizes Romney undergoes transvaginal ultrasound; Update: Walsh responds, gets zinged

Lying hypocrite Joan Walsh asks, ‘What’s wrong with Mitt Romney?’

Is it possible to get lower than Joan Walsh?

DNC Press secretary, communications director and Salon’s Joan Walsh in a tizzy over Romney / Trump dinner

Salon’s Joan Walsh: ‘Being hoisted with my own petard sure smarts’

Reality bites back: With Joan Walsh’s help, the Left is hoisted on its own homophobic petard

  • peteee363

    joan who? salon what?

  • Jack Deth

    “Fire can not melt steel!”

    William Tecumseh Sherman and his troops would disagree. Seeing as they built huge fires to soften, warp, bend and wrap lengths of railroad tracks around trees and other large objects and structures during their march through Georgia.


    Ms Walsh and her ilk have gone far out of her way to annoy and P.O. countless forges around the country.

    • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

      I think anybody who ever ran a blast furnace for United Steelworkers Union would disagree too!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        They’re just part of the grand conspiracy, silly 😉

    • LadyLNorth

      Now come on. I have it on a VERY BIG authority (Rosie O’Donnell) that fire won’t melt steel. Sorry, gotta go with Rosie on this one. I mean, she’s got that degree in, um…. never mind that. I bet you she graduated from high school. Maybe.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        Rosie was right! Fire can’t melt steel because of science…er, engineering stuff.

        • sixbravothree

          Fire can melt steel. You might even be able to use jet fuel,which isn’t very different from diesel fuel in its ability to produce heat, to do it. In a probabilistic universe,all things are possible,so you might even be able to accidentally do it in such a way that a building collapses neatly into its own footprint with no collateral damage to buildings not owned by the lehman (lehrman? sp?) brothers.
          That’s the part that confuses me the most,really.

          Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it was Bush,or the Jews, or the Masons or controlled demolition by the CIA whatever, but buildings neatly collapsing upon themselves from fire damage are a historical rarity. That much is a fact. So I understand the controversy,without endorsing the conspiracy theories.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

            A controlled demolition and jets hitting a skyscraper, resulting in thousands of pounds of jet fuel causing an inferno are two very different things, no?

          • Gekk

            “you might even be able to accidentally do it in such a way that a
            building collapses neatly into its own footprint with no collateral
            damage to buildings not owned by the lehman (lehrman? sp?) brothers.”

            Double check your damage reports; I think you’ve missed some research (or been misled).


            “Figure 2.2. Large segments of the World Trade Center perimeter frame fell on adjacent buildings during the collapse of the towers”

            Also a few pages down from that is a map, showing major damage to 9 buildings, moderate damage to 18 buildings (and the 4 buildings that collapsed).

            The collapse wasn’t nearly as neat and clean as portrayed in many conspiracy accounts. It didn’t topple and fall sideways; but unless you either impart significant lateral force (compared to the mass of the building), or remove side supports at the bottom I wouldn’t expect it to fall in such a manner.

          • sixbravothree

            Well,thanks for the correction. I guess I have been a little misled. I did not know the damage was that extensive.

            “A controlled demolition and jets hitting a skyscraper, resulting in thousands of pounds of jet fuel causing an inferno are two very different things, no?”

            Of course they are, that’s why I said that I wouldn’t say that a controlled demolition was the same as the event we’re referring to.
            I apparently missed some research about the extent of the damage,but it still doesn’t change the fact that it was a pretty extraordinary event. I understand why people are confused about the exact nature of it,as they would be about an aurora borealis in Texas or any other naturally feasible but uncommon phenomenon.

            I’m not a truther (lol!),I’m a naturalist. The way the structure behaved is curious to me,I don’t give a whit for the political debate around it.

          • JamesMc

            9/11 was an extraordinary event, the way the towers fell wasn’t extraordinary. Think of skyscrapers as a house of cards. Each level of cards hold up a base of cards parallel to the ground which in turn hold another level of cards. The structure itself can not fall sideways, it will always collapse in on its own footprint. Yet some pieces, or cards, will fall away from it.

            Popular Science eviscerated most of the myths/conspiracies surrounding 9/11. In particular, they did a great analysis of the physics involved with the collapse.

          • Jack Deth

            Except when a building is designed to collapse in upon itself. As the towers were.

  • KansasGirl

    Poor Joan, talk about having a bad day. Hehe

  • BeeKaaay

    Another leftwingwacko whines like a baby.

  • 1SkepticalChick

    Then the Bio that SHE typed on her Twitter page is a lie? What? She’s too busy and IMPORTANT to handle correcting it? Poor lying Joan.

    • LadyLNorth

      Nope. Conspiracy. Some “Editor at Large” Truther hacked her twitter account and added that to her bio. Obviously.

    • Gekk

      Actually the confusion is Journalists deciding to call themselves something comparable to “Sanitation Engineer” is the problem.

      An “Editor at Large” has as much to do with editing as a “Sanitation Engineer” deals with engineering.

      She’s a freelance Journalist who occasionally submits stories to Salon… but calling her that doesn’t sound impressive. So they make up titles like “Editor at Large”.



      But you’re supposed to know their words don’t mean what they normally mean when they use them; and you’re silly for not knowing that Journalists don’t use words properly.

      Good thing they’re not in a job where words are important.

      • 1SkepticalChick

        Who’d have thunk it?

  • 1SkepticalChick

    Is it possible that if she corrected the falsehood on her Twitter Bio that she would no longer appear quite so IMPORTANT?

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      I don’t think Regressives ever let go of their own self-importance.

      • 1SkepticalChick

        Even going so far as to invent it.


    We know who she is, that’s why we ignore her!!!

  • Rafael Eduardo Peña-Rios Riber

    “dont you know who i am?”
    are you cave johnson? no wait, he is awsome and you are a sad excuse for a journalist

  • twinx

    She wrote a book entitled “What’s The Matter With White People”? Seriously? Looking at you, Joan, I found the answer. I know! Your site could be renamed Morón.com and you could be Editor-at-Small!

  • Dallas El Cazador

    Hey, my wife wants to know if this Joan has time to do a wash and set for her at Joan’s Salon…does she have an opening?

  • Adela Wagner

    So if anyone who reads anything Joan writes, has to go do research on even the most mundane, doesn’t that in itself make everything she writes obsolete? I had no idea who she was till just a few moments ago, but I actually KNOW EVERYTHING about her at this point.

  • Garth Haycock

    Some call it criss-cross; native Americans call it maze.

  • dcnj

    wow progressives out of touch…who da thunk it?

  • ClinkinKY

    Is “editor-at-large” more important than being a “pajamas media person”? Only at Salon, I suppose.

  • BorderLine Guy

    One of her latest tweets:

    Joan Walsh
    Late with the block switch. Sorry to inflict all that ignorance on you good people today! They thrive on attention they don’t merit.

    Ignorance? So says the Queen of Head in Sand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marcy-Cook/1001619613 Marcy Cook

      Translation: ” I’m such a moron I couldn’t find the block switch. Sorry you had to see my ass whupped by people who actually know what they are talking about and tell the truth. If you don’t pay attention to them I am sure I can brain wash you into believing I really, really am important. Why, just take a look at my Editor-at-Large title if you want proof.”

  • BeeKaaay

    “don’t you know who I am?”

    Yeah, a leftwingwcko. Who deserves a double-dose of mockery.

  • Gregg

    I really do believe Joan walsh is ashamed or feels guilty she was born white.

  • Barack Hussein Sharpton

    Joan Walsh deserves every bit of it too.

  • DrSamHerman

    She is an attention-seeking hack with too few IQ points to be a narcissist.

  • Zane Henry

    She’s kind of a big deal.
    -Ron Burgundy

    loathsome woman, that Joan Walsh

  • 1SkepticalChick

    Yes. She somebody (shrug) very important. (In her own mind.)

    Ashly, you really need to cut that spam link from your posts. Just say’n.