As long as we're inventing invective for Koch's bultigaya...
... the Koch products in the sidebar, which seem to be mostly toilet paper, provide a potentially rich source.
This started out as a comment, but I felt it might as well turn into a post. A thing worth doing is worth doing right!
* * *
So, the raw material for developing a system of invective might start with this list:
Soft ‘n Gentle®
"The gentleman from Angel Soft®," and so forth. I'm not nearly so much in the invective business as I used to be, but "wouldn't wipe myself with Koch brand talking points" seems to have potential. "... not worth the paper ..." might be another one. "Toilet paper profits..." and so forth.
Do try to leave in the ™ to highlight the corporate funding, because that's what Baltigaya are all about; the funding. If you want to, you could throw in a link here:
* * *
Anyhow, I'm mostly out of the invective business, even though it's fun, perhaps too fun, because (a) on the Internet, invective persists indefinitely, but situations change; (b) it's too much like strategic hate management; (c) invective is about anger, even if the anger is cold, and whenever I act out of anger instead of compassion, I go wrong; (d) invective won't persuade the Baltigaya, because they're paid; (e) invective can cause collateral damage among those otherwise persuadable who identify temporarily with the Baltigaya; and (f) the Ds want the situation polarized two ways, to maintain the two party system, but I want the situation polarized three ways, to create space for (say) the Greens. Invective can kick in a dynamic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (two poles) but that's just wrong; the enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy (multiple poles. Obama is my enemy, even if Palin, who is also my enemy, is Obama's enemy). I administer periodic correction to Booman, for example, because it's crystal clear what he is, so there's no danger of collateral damage, and because doing that polarizes the third pole. (CAVEAT: This is not a Booman thread! Or a Palin thread! Or an Obama thread!)
So, I'd try to aim the invective only at the paid trolls, who should be distinguishable through the repetition of their talking points and lack of posting history (if they are like the OFB), and explicitly say that's what you're doing, with the object of splitting the thread. "I know you're sincere, unlike Brawny® ...."
NOTE I was going to say that I left Dixie® brand off, because, with "Sweet Home Alabama," it seems to have been appropriated. However, here, that talking point is challenged with no response. False talking points are almost always the sign of legacy party incursion; it can't be otherwise, because the legacy parties are sustained only by the vast structure of bullshit and lies known as Versailles. So, flee back to Dems, get up with lies....