Been There, Done That . . .
Dr. Helen (Glenn Reynolds’s wife) has the following ridiculous suggestion (via her hubby):
Post comments around on various lefty blogs such as FireDogLake, The Daily Kos or Alicublog. These comments should disagree with the view of the host or view of the blog or diary; for example, state that you support Israel at the Daily Kos, wonder if feminists who are against sexual harrassment should support Bill Clinton at FireDogLake, and/or politely stand up for colleagues at Alicublog who you feel have been treated unfairly just because they disagree with the views of the host. Now, check back to evaluate scores for these paragons of openness for their ideas, actions and feelings. If your comments have been troll-scored by the Kossacks, deleted by Jane Hamsher, or ridiculed by whoever runs the Alicublog, give an openness score of zero. Negative bonus points if you are called a douche, told to stay in your place so as not to “assail your betters,” or have a racial slur thrown your way.
Thanks . . . but no thanks!
Incidentally, Glenn told me that his wife really enjoyed the Stashiu series on Gitmo. (I really appreciated that — both her saying so, and his passing it along.) So she’s not as crazy as the above suggestion makes her seem . . .
Oh, I don’t have to start up something like that, since I occasionally post comments on The Liberal Avenger and Oliver Willis.
But a guy named Gordo runs Appletree, a pretty much liberal site (though not a whacked out leftist, even though he does live in Oregon), and he actually reads the arguments of people with whom he disagrees and is unfailingly polite in his responses.
Dana (3e4784) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:03 amBill Clinton was abig time skirt chaser and rapists and a sex fiend remember his favorite musical insterment was the SEXIPHONE
krazy kagu (044dd0) — 10/20/2006 @ 7:20 amI’ve expressed polite disagreement at Alicublog from time to time. The commenters were unfailingly unpleasant, but Edroso himself was only slightly condescending.
JIm Treacher (ab39fa) — 10/20/2006 @ 9:12 amI think there’s a distinction between the commenters and the posters on most sites, and I’m not sure it’s fair to hold the host responsible for the antics of the commenters.
An example of this in action, I think, is Volokh; the host and the posters are unfailingly polite and reasonable, and sometimes the commenters go wildly off the rails.
I’d expect it to be no different anywhere else. 🙂
aphrael (12fba5) — 10/20/2006 @ 9:13 amBTDT, at The Liberal Avenger, I objected to the common practice of using profane gay sex references to denigrate opposing views, which was not only beside the point, but also gratuitously offensive to gays.
Regular commenters didn’t appreciate my thoughts and the response was largely a diatribe of vile invective. Additionally, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I didn’t like it, I could go elsewhere.
It was good advice.
Black Jack (66a365) — 10/20/2006 @ 10:49 amBlack Jack, …the response was largely a diatribe of vile invective… unfortunately the norm on a number of the leftist sites, at least on those I’ve visited. All it tells me is that these potty mouth intellectual children have no ideas and don’t know the slightest thing about making a cogent argument, nor do any but a few of them understand the commonly accepted rules of logic. Unfortunately we have a few of our own, but I would have to say that by and large, the civility and reasoned arguments on the conservative sites are magnitudes above what I’ve seen on the other side.
But then again I could be wrong … I don’t get out much and I refuse to participate in nonsense once it becomes clear that I’m dealing with an intellectual lightweight, so I spend very little time any more where I’m not wanted.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 10/20/2006 @ 1:31 pmYes, Harry, I agree. From time to time some Lefty says there’s just as much ugly nonsense on conservative sites. But, if that’s true, it’s beyond my experience, and I’d like to see some evidence.
Once I asked someone here (Psy if memory serves) who made that claim to provide a link so I could see for myself. He declined.
Black Jack (66a365) — 10/20/2006 @ 1:50 pmBlack Jack: I find the comments section at LGF to be pretty ugly.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/20/2006 @ 1:58 pmI’m a bit surprised that Dana is here whining about how unfriendly we are at good old LiberalAvenger.com, especially in light of the fact that to the person, every lefty there has stated more than once that they are fond of Dana, regardless of his wingnuttedness – and in light of the fact that Dana practically lives there.
Admit it, Dana – your comment here is a gratuitous smear on us just for the sake of you being able to join the conversation.
Disappointing.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 2:35 pmaphrael, I had a brief look-see at LGF and found the comments there are not even in the same ball park. You have high standards.
However, to be fair, I also went to LA and looked around a bit. It was a pleasant surprise to find they’ve cleaned up their act. Outside of a few exceptions, I didn’t see anything near the garbage which was once commonplace. The Moonbats, Lefty BDS types, and the hate mongers are still there, but their language has improved.
Black Jack (66a365) — 10/20/2006 @ 2:53 pmAnother favorite lefty insult is “sheeple.”
That one always galls me with its arrogance.
I love sheep! Especially with garlic and a hearty red wine.
Whitehall (efb88d) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:15 pmWhitehall: oddly, I first encountered the term ‘sheeple’ talking to *libertarians* on usenet more than a decade ago; I always respond to the term by assuming the person talking has a libertarian background.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:25 pmMichelle Malkin is the only blogger anywhere that I’ve ever seen use the word “sheeple.”
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:27 pmI don’t go to that many blogs, but I do have a fondness for Liberal Avenger and Echidne of the Snakes. Echidne is hardcore feminist and as such I pretty much quit posting once it was determined that my presence was EXTREMELY unwelcome. It’s still amusing and fascinating to read sometimes, though, just because most of the commentators seem stuck in the 1970s (lots of talk of “misogyny,” “patriarchy,” and numerous gratuitous mentions of “The Handmaid’s Tale”). I was a bit surprised because most of the time here the liberals are polite, thoughtful and thought-provoking and interesting to talk with.
sharon (dfeb10) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:32 pm#9 Liberal Avenger
Maybe even though you feel Dana is well thought of over at your place, the observation can still be made about attitudes towards others. When was the last time someone pasted “Troll Blather” over an entire post, or had their post completely removed, just because it had a different POV without any other objectionable content? Black Jack may have noticed an improvement in manners and tolerance, which would be great. It doesn’t mean that all the gratuitous insults and profane attacks have completely stopped and everything is hunky-dory there now.
So Dana’s comments are not a “gratuitous smear” (and there was definitely nothing whiny about the comment, but you’ll never admit that because you get such smug satisfaction from “gratuitous smears” yourself) just to fit in. While there is only a very vocal minority of posters who engage in the attacks, nobody else puts a stop to it, or even objects. Talk about disappointment.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:37 pmThere is a long and detailed history behind the “troll blather” comments – which are jokes, btw. I daresay that if you were in on the joke you’d enjoy it yourself.
I stand corrected – Dana’s comment here isn’t whiny. I am still disappointed in it, however. I was under the impression that Dana considered himself to be “one of the gang.” That’s certainly how I perceive him.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:41 pmThe tolerance of righties at LA is much more widespread than most right-leaning blogs. There’s a lot of abuse, of course, most of it in-context friendly, and I daresay that the amount of troll bullshit that we’ve put up with (note: troll bullshit as opposed to opposing views) more than offsets the sometimes seemingly-overreaction.
And:
You have got to be kidding me.
Auguste (92fde5) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:57 pmSorry:
“tolerance of righties” is much more widespread that “tolerance of lefties at most right-leaning blogs.”
Auguste (92fde5) — 10/20/2006 @ 3:57 pmI’m sure it’s true about it being a humorous inside joke, and I do enjoy those. Your site was one of the first that I read regularly until being attacked by several posters every time I commented got old. You have a lot of fine commenters who will discuss things calmly and rationally, and they can present strong cases for their positions. But once I got tired of getting piled on without any acknowledgement that it was an unfair attack, I stopped posting and then stopped reading regularly. I still go lurk occasionally, but have not been posting at all. Perhaps the good-natured humor of troll-blathering someone would have been more apparent if someone took notice of newbies and summarized the history behind it. I took it as intentionally vicious and unfair. For what it’s worth, when I read Dana’s comment, I didn’t take it as a huge slam, just descriptive but without malice. You’d have to ask Dana about the actual intent.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:04 pm#17 Auguste
You may “daresay it”, that doesn’t make it so. “More than offsets” in whose opinion? Why “sometimes”, and why “seemingly-overreaction”? For that matter, why “of course”? Granted, there aren’t a lot of rabid anti-rightly commenters, most seem to be fine people. But those few haters are constantly on the attack and nobody reins them in, no matter how unfair. It sure didn’t offset it in my opinion and I expect I’m not alone.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:18 pmWell I remember you, Stashiu3, and remember enjoying your participation. I’m sorry that conditions at the blog pushed you away. Perhaps you’d be willing to give it another try?
As for Dana, my reaction to his comment was over-sensitive. I hope that I have made it clear that I appreciate Dana a great deal and enjoy his voice. Perhaps I was disappointed in myself for allowing the blog to get to a place where Dana feels uncomfortable.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:21 pmClarification of my comment #21:
What I meant was that I was being over-sensitive when I reacted to Dana’s comment. I was acting with a thin skin.
I was not trying to suggest that anybody had been over-sensitive regarding anything I had written.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:26 pmStashiu,
By my reckoning, your very first comment at LA contained the words “For shame.” In fact, your entire history of commenting there seems to be have been a series of fairly even-handed give and take, with both “sides” alternating between slinging insults and “hearing” the other side. In fact, the last comment I could find from you certainly didn’t show that you were overly exercised or offended by the blog as a whole. Your (apparently) parting sentence, in fact, was:
I think – I think – that if you go back and read the threads you were on with an open mind, you’ll see that for the most part, no harsher words were used by any of your interlocuters than were used by yourself – and that’s not a slam on you, either. I just wonder if you’re judging “our” attitude without considering how it might be reflecting yours.
(Which, like I said – I don’t see anything wrong with it. Just as I don’t really see anything egregious from the regulars in their interactions with you.)
Auguste (92fde5) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:31 pmPre-conceived biases are impossible to prevent, though with some thoughtful attention we can all become aware of the filters through which we read articles/posts/comments, and adjust our impressions accordingly.
The more opinionated a person is, the more likely they are to take opposing comments as attacks, or at least to perceive a more hostile attitude as coming from the poster of said opposing comment.
This trait becomes exacerbated in individuals who have not learned well how to form logical foundations for their arguments or opinions, and are simply regurgitating common statements with which they agree or approve. Operating more on emotion than intellect almost guarantees an excessive response to arguments counter to their own view.
These conditions exist everywhere, and of course all attempts to remain objective and see past them are imperfect.
With that disclaimer, my experience is that left-leaning blogs are disproportionately more hostile to opposing comments than are right-leaning blogs. In a comparison of the most well-known sites on the left and the right, the tendency toward ad-hominem attacks and vitriol is more prevalent on the left. Surely there are right-leaning sites that bully opposing thoughts, but they tend to be more on the fringe, not the better known sites.
Again, I speak only from my own experience. Your mileage may vary.
Freelancer (cb897a) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:34 pmI enjoyed participating as well with the majority of the posters there, I was very impressed with your site. You have been perfectly clear about your perception of Dana and I apologize for the “smug satisfaction” snark. You weren’t the only one posting with a thin skin at the moment. I shouldn’t have projected my feelings about the bad apples onto you. Black Jack said that things have changed for the better and I appreciate your invitation. I will definitely consider it.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/20/2006 @ 4:34 pm#23 Auguste
Ok Auguste, your opinion is noted. And there were times when I retaliated with snark. You won’t find any profanity or gratuitous insults, though I was frequently cursed and insulted without basis. My last comment there was in response to one of the reasonable majority, but that snarking minority of haters continued, even after my last post. I felt it was not worth it to continue at that point.
The “For shame” was in response to what I felt was an unjustified slur on a heroic Marine Corps soldier who was killed. The post appeared to imply that he got what he deserved and some of the comments I read were just as insulting. I felt it was shameful to compare him to a (IIRC) particular character in a movie that way and explained why before saying “For shame”. As I got to know the more reasonable majority of posters there, my own rhetoric was more patient and less snarky. But you perceive it differently, which is of course your perogative. I don’t have a problem with any of my posts over there, or anywhere for that matter. Stashiu3 is the only handle I’ve used anywhere on the web, so finding any comment I’ve made is relatively simple. Thanks for taking the time to see what I was talking about… we just perceive it differently I guess.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/20/2006 @ 5:00 pmBy the way, Stashiu, I have a comment in moderation (for some reason) that basically says “good on you, and I hope you DO come back.”
My attempted post-mortem was yet ANOTHER example of {my own, in this case) thin-skinnedness, although I certainly didn’t intend to be seen as attacking you.
Auguste (92fde5) — 10/20/2006 @ 5:23 pmLA wrote:
Allow me to share this completely unedited comment, by Sirkowski, dated just yesterday, in its entirety, from The Liberal Avenger:
LA did state later:
I probably am treated better at LA than any of the other conservatives who visit, by LA himself in particular. (It’s very much a group blog.)
And, at least as of 5:00 PM EDT tonight, there was a serious and fairly respectful discussion on that site concerning pacifism.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:19 pmThe pacifism discussion on LA’s site is here. I just checked again, and added a couple of comments, and that particular thread is being treated very respectfully by all — and I haven’t been the only conservative commenter.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:44 pmFair enough, Dana, however presenting Sirkowski’s “fuck you” comment without context here is a tad dishonest, don’t you think? Not that he didn’t say it – he most certainly did. Any site regular knows that “Fuck you, Dana” is part of Sirkowski’s shtick and that it cannot be taken seriously. To a stranger, “Fuck you, Dana” is terrible. You’re not a stranger, however, and I’m sure you took that comment from Sirk in stride, the way it was intended.
True?
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:47 pmWell, I took it with my normally very thick skin.
What would the context have been, LA? It was Sirk’s response, to a humorous (or so I thought; apparently he didn’t) comment on an open thread, that insulted no one. Naturally, since I linked the comment, anyone could follow it and see the entire thread, to see if I had written anything that deserved a “fuck you.” Don’t see how that’s dishonest.
Actually, I haven’t figured Sirk out; you said it was his schtick, and maybe it was, but of the regulars on your site, if I were asked to guess which ones really didn’t like the fact that I visit, I’d have guessed Sirk and (probably) Dobby.
I suppose I could admit here that Blubonnet doesn’t always get treated completly respectfully by all of my (all too few) commenters.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/20/2006 @ 7:07 pmThe Wingnuts want to fight terrorists but they twist their panties in a knot like a Catholic school girl just because they were told to go fuck themselves? Wuss.
And Dana, you did ask for it, so don’t come crying on other blogs about how I was mean to you. When you act like an ass you might get fucked like one.
And as for the whole discussion, I couldn’t care less who seems more tolerant between right and left-wingers.
Sirkowski (0efa4c) — 10/20/2006 @ 7:25 pmSirk’s “schtick,” Dana, is that he’s a foul-mouthed wise-ass. His favorite target is the wingnut blowhard. He loves dishing it out and he can always take it.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/20/2006 @ 7:31 pmHey, Pat: what do I win for getting you all this additional traffic from LA’s site? 🙂
Dana (1d5902) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:00 pmI’m late to the party, so I’ll just post a couple of thoughts.
1) I first heard ‘sheeple’ on Michael Savage’s show. If I’m not mistaken, he claims to have coined the phrase. In any case, the libertarian use of the word seems appropriate.
2) While I don’t visit left-leaning sites often, I do notice that profanity is much more common there. An exception seems to be Aces’ site. I don’t go there often because of it.
3) If a liberal feels uncomfortable on a conservative site, it is because conservatives won’t let an unsubstantiated claim stand. They generally don’t care how you *feel*, but can you back up your claim with facts.
Brian Day (e76ce4) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:04 pmIt may be that liberals are more open to “new” ideas than conservatives
But there are very few liberals in the contemporary American Left.
Darleen (03346c) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:22 pmDo we have to get into the civility vs. coded language debate again?
Auguste (7062b4) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:26 pmThe Wingnuts want to fight terrorists but they twist their panties in a knot like a Catholic school girl just because they were told to go fuck themselves? Wuss.
And Dana, you did ask for it, so don’t come crying on other blogs about how I was mean to you. When you act like an ass you might get fucked like one.
This kind of thing might be considered entertaining on other sites, but one more comment like that and this user gets banned.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:30 pmDo we have to get into the civility vs. coded language debate again?
I don’t know, Auguste, I wasn’t around the first time. Who is this “we” you speak of?
Darleen (03346c) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:30 pmHey, Pat: what do I win for getting you all this additional traffic from LA’s site?
A bag of rocks.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:37 pmHey Patterico, will you please you read Hot Air: ‘the Kennedy KGB letter’ post and tell us what you think?
This is completely off topic, but I have to bring it up. (I can’t get through your email and you should add a simple and secure-from-spam “tip” or “contact” email form protected by catpcha. Plus, you should add the spambot trap I’ve recommended a gazillion times that LGF uses to help uses to help defeat “Breast Enhancement” from leaving posts. Anyway.)
Bryan is posting on ‘the Kennedy KGB letter’.
I’m just shocked.
And Kennedy’s don’t shock me easily.
This man should spend his last breath behind bars. If the Bush White House doesn’t prosecute him, then he’s too weak for the job.
This is unreal. The U.S.A. and my country, for fuck sakes, were always within 30-minutes or less of Soviet nuclear warheads raining down on us. It wasn’t called the cold war for nothing.
And they were trying to defeat this president as Mary Katherine Ham so rightly pointed out.
youtube.com/watch?v=IHO4M_Tar7A&eurl=
I despised this man before and I despise him more now.
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/20/2006 @ 9:00 pmThis kind of thing might be considered entertaining on other sites, but one more comment like that and this user gets banned.
Sirkowski (528b7e) — 10/20/2006 @ 11:44 pmAre you offended because you’re Catholic or because you’re a school girl? lol
Darleen:
You might start here.
[What are you trying to show with that link, with its assertion that Josh Trevino works to kill people?! That the author is a self-righteous, offensive jerk? Are you trying to provide a strong example of an asshole from the left? If so, mission accomplished. — P]
Auguste (7062b4) — 10/21/2006 @ 12:05 amBtw, Darleen, I should have b-quoted, but my lament was in response to:
Auguste (7062b4) — 10/21/2006 @ 12:07 amSirk
How old are you?
Darleen (03346c) — 10/21/2006 @ 12:13 amOh, goody, Auguste
There’s ten minutes of my life I can’t get back reading what may pass for discourse in a high school quad.
Personally, I have little problem with a few choice Anglo-Saxon epithets from time to time, in the context of communicating something quite emphatically.
However, a Tourette-syndrome’s worth of free floating profanity is an indication of that the speaker is emotionally stunted, and deserves little more than a pat on the head and banishment to the timeout chair in the corner (and a quick call to the local behavior health center).
Darleen (03346c) — 10/21/2006 @ 12:24 amPatterico
That link was beyond silly… I just can’t take seriously any person who rants about how noble he is if at all he lowers himself to “talk” with teh odious “winger.”
To even disagree with his cult think is not mere disagreement but proof of the evil motives that lurk in “wingers.” Question the abysmal condition of public schools? Well then you’re out to make sure black kids never finish high school.
Left cultists just carry around one-word index cards… about 7 of them, to “debate” anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their thinking.
That little moonbat just embellished his cards with cute little insults to make the syphocants oooo and aahhhh.
all the rationality and morality of a sack of hammers.
Darleen (03346c) — 10/21/2006 @ 12:35 amAnybody remember the band, “Winger?”
I want to run my fingers through Kip Winger’s blown-dry hair.
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/21/2006 @ 2:32 amI think it’s the stench, Sirkowski.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 10/21/2006 @ 4:17 amComment by Sirkowski
Being of Polish descent I’m disappointed.
Terry Gain (2abac3) — 10/21/2006 @ 5:05 amGee, Pat, I actually sell rocks: my 57 stone goes for $25 a ton, FOB. How big a bag are we talking about? 🙂
Dana (1d5902) — 10/21/2006 @ 5:59 amComment #41 by Christoph is a new classic that I will look back upon fondly in my autumn years.
The GOP house of cards is simultaneously collapsing, burning and being cannibalized. There are two wars on – people dying. The conservative dreams of “small government” and “low spending” have been shattered by the conservatives themselves – and Christoph and HotAir.com want to raise the alarms over – what exactly? Some guy’s book about Reagan wherein somebody else who might have had access to KGB archives saw a document that mentions Ted Kennedy…
Shouldn’t you be spending this energy trying to unearth the WMD that Soviet Commandos buried in Syria for Saddam just prior to the invasion?
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/21/2006 @ 6:50 amMy comments at #6 and LA’s at #9. I will say that I visited LA to offer my particular conservative take on immigration, legal and illegal, particularly to disagree with LA’s introductory “rant” on the subject which I believe mischaracterized the conservative/republican position on the subject. I clearly identified myself as a conservative. I would characterize the dialoge that ensued informative, civil and educational. Their comments were reasonable and thoughtful solutions to a pressing problem and they were made absent any ad hominem or foul language.
Kudos, LA, it was very refreshing. Not at all what I have experienced at other left of center sites at which I no longer care to waste time visiting.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/21/2006 @ 7:28 amI’m not sure how this turned into a thread about the Liberal Avenger blog, but I’ll simply note that I don’t read that blog because it asserted without evidence that Michelle Malkin’s husband writes much of her blog. One of its writers has also falsely tried to make Jesse Malkin sound as though he had engaged in a terrible act of violence when he was in school.
So I don’t have a lot of respect for the folks there.
Liberal Avenger has also been very quick to assume the worst about me in the past.
I will say that the Gordo fellow who posts there, and runs the Appletree blog, is (while almost always wrong) a polite and honest fellow who is good to debate with.
But I just don’t comment on lefty sites any more. I broke the rule the other day and left a comment on one that I consider better than most (Lawyers, Guns, and Money). In less than 5 minutes someone leveled a personal attack on me, reminding me why I had the rule to begin with.
I debate liberals here. That way I can focus the discussion on substance and restrict the debate to only those liberals who are fair in their arguments. I’m always looking for more like that. But I’m not looking for the Sirkowskis of the world, whose only goal is to insult. I don’t have time for that sort of nonsense.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/21/2006 @ 8:03 amOh, that and he left a young woman he planned on banging that night to die slowly in an air pocket in his car in what? A few feet of water. While he walked home, then sobered up and consulted with his lawyers overnight before telling anyone about it.
Patterico said it better, but I’ll add, “You make me sick.”
Christoph (9824e6) — 10/21/2006 @ 8:34 amThe GOP house of cards is simultaneously collapsing, burning and being cannibalized. There are two wars on – people dying.
:::Yawn:::
Just cuz you *feel* it, LA, doesn’t make it so.
The world, by and large and for most time, is a tough, ugly, dangerous place. “War” has been more rule than exception.
As Americans, we don’t always get a choice about fighting or not, we only get a choice on where it will be.
Islamist ideology is something we can fight now and over there, or appease it until we start resembling the collapsing Euros who don’t even have the will to have babies. Oh, we get a few twitches out of France now and then, but they have still just given up sovereignty over whole neighborhoods that are now defacto Islamist regimes. The Dutch stripped away citizenship of one of its own MPs, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to appease the radical moslems who branded her apostate because of her criticisms. Germans cancelled an opera rather than “offend” and even the UN sponsors a seminar about how political cartoonists have a “responsibility for peace” and makes an mendacious equivalency argument between the reactions to both the Danish Mohammed cartoons and the Iranian “Holocaust as hoax” cartoons (yes, of course, all those offended Jews rioting, murdering and burning… they were out there weren’t they?)
Lead, follow or get out of the friggin’ way. But for criminey’s sake, can we stop all the whiney feelings, nothing more than feelings bovine excrement?! I’m not willing to leave the future of the US to people who don’t take the threat of Islamism seriously.
Because the Islamists take themselves and their goal of flying the green flag of Islam over the US capitol seriously.
Darleen (03346c) — 10/21/2006 @ 8:52 amDarleen,
Very well put. As I’ve commented before, the left excels in the twin-pronged debate tactic of innuendo and obfuscation. Well, add to that misdirection, I forgot that one.
Christoph decides (and mentions it as being off-topic but couldn’t get through to Pat on email) to ask Pat’s opinion on a post over at HotAir, and LA responds with an unrelated rehashing of liberal talking points.
No, by pseudo-conservatives. That’s the problem.
This is hilarious, and beneath even LA. Yes, we all need to stop this petty blogging/commenting and get out there and find those weapons. A cute twist, but worth about as much as the normal comment from “over there”.
Freelancer (f99e36) — 10/21/2006 @ 10:57 amThanks for the nice note, Harry Arthur. I appreciate it.
Christoph:
Chappaquiddick was certainly a dark episode for Sen. Kennedy. Fortunately for the rest of us, FORTY YEARS have passed since it happened, ensuring that it remains very, very low on the list of important things to talk about.
As for the SECRET KGB MEMO… Even though I suffer from “BDS” (Bush Derangement Syndrome) I was certain that the Dan Rather memos about Bush’s performance in the TANG were bogus, faked, hoaxes.
What sort of fairy dust does one need to ingest in order for the KGB memo that appears in “THE CRUSADER” (the latest in a series of sleep-inducing books about Ronald Reagan) to pass the common sense test? The memo even implicates BARBARA WALTERS.
MY GOD – CAN’T YOU SEE? THEY WERE IN BED WITH THE COMMUNISTS!
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/21/2006 @ 10:57 amAs for you, Patterico, sir…
Not that you should care, or would, but I think rather highly of you. You’re smart, you don’t appear to simply seize upon the mandatory wingnut point of view on issues. I have seen you act kindly to others – all things I respect and appreciate a great deal.
I thought that the entire extended-play version of the TBogg outing was childish and beneath you. I also thought that it was such a non-issue that any discussion of it was a waste of space. A silly affair that got way overblown.
I don’t remember what I have said about you that was nasty and uncalled for in the past, but I have a vague recollection of having said something I shouldn’t have. For that I apologize.
I stand by everything I have said about Michelle and Jesse Malkin. One important thing to remember when passing judgement about Malkin criticism is that the Malkins are notorious for using hyperbole as a rhetorical tool. A glance at Michelle’s site on any morning has us cowering in fear over AL-QAEDA INFILTRATION INTO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT GANGS IN THE US!!!!!111 or HUGO CHAVEZ THREATENING AMERICA!!!!!1111
Taking the incident wherein Jesse Malkin apparently manhandled a student photographer and referring to it as a “SAVAGE BEATING” was an homage to their always-ridiculous use of hyperbole.
[I’m not going to agree with you on Malkin. But otherwise, fair enough. Dana likes you, so that gets you some credit. I’m willing to wipe the slate clean. But I’m not commenting on your site or any other lefty site. It’s not a productive use of time. — P]
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/21/2006 @ 11:08 amThanks for your nice note – I appreciate it.
Dana really is a remarkable fellow. His word means a great deal to me as well. You can think of me as as being “Pro-Patterico” or a “Patterico Advocate.”
I’ve got no expectations as far as visiting our site is concerned. Surely you have better things to do. I won’t think any the less of you if I never see you again.
Keep it real,
The Liberal Avenger (7b35b7) — 10/21/2006 @ 1:20 pmLA
Our esteemed host wrote:
And LA added:
🙂 Walking around with my head held high and a big smile on my face, I am,
Your humble and obedient,
Dana (1d5902) — 10/22/2006 @ 6:55 amLA said, “Chappaquiddick was certainly a dark episode for Sen. Kennedy.”
Well, since it wasn’t such a hoot for Mary Jo, or her parents either, let’s not get carried away bemoaning poor Ted’s unfortunate “episode,” after all, he caused it.
Nor should we pretend it’s irrelevant because it happened in 1969. Young girls are still turning up dead after secret flings with powerful congressmen, Gary Condit for example.
Black Jack (66a365) — 10/22/2006 @ 9:31 amOkay, everybody, 40 years is the cutoff point. Anything pre-Chappaquiddick is now off-topic anywhere and everywhere.
JIm Treacher (ab39fa) — 10/22/2006 @ 9:37 ama glance at Michelle’s site on any morning has us cowering in fear
You maybe, LA. Please don’t presume to speak for the rest of us that like to be informed rather than kept in the dark by a highly partisan MSM that wants to interpret the information for us.
Just like you, they assume we cannot process it in any rational manner.
The first requirement of a contemporary Leftist is possessing the certainty of his/her own superiority and its burden of making all the hard decisions for all the great, inferior unwashed in the world.
For their own good, of course!
Darleen (03346c) — 10/22/2006 @ 9:45 amJust trying to get banned. Did it work yet?
Sirkowski (c2e911) — 10/22/2006 @ 3:20 pmYou don’t need to Frisch yourself. There is such a thing as self-banning… just don’t come back.
Stashiu3 (404f9e) — 10/22/2006 @ 3:26 pm