OK Lefties Defend This

BO sits on his hands while his guest does a gigantic Shpinter Insertion, Hope BO Enjoyed it, probably didn’t know what was being played, probabally aided buy spreading his cheeks.

Chinese Pianist Plays Propaganda Tune at White House US humiliated in eyes of Chinese by song used to inspire anti-Americanism
By Matthew Robertson
Epoch Times Staff Created: Jan 22, 2011 Last Updated: Jan 23, 2011

Lang Lang the pianist says he chose it. Chairman Hu Jintao recognized it as soon as he heard it. Patriotic Chinese Internet users were delighted as soon as they saw the videos online. Early morning TV viewers in China knew it would be played an hour or two beforehand. At the White House State dinner on Jan. 19, about six minutes into his set, Lang Lang began tapping out a famous anti-American propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”

More of the future SNL Ass Kissing Opening http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49822/

[Edit for spelling and web id Ys]

169 Comments

  1. Them what has the gold makes the rules. Since China owns your asses, you better deal with it.

    What would the teabaggers do? Scream, cry and roll around around on the ground?

  2. Barry Obama will now probably take a trip to China on a new apology tour for “America’s arrogant past”. Obama obviously has no plans to change directions in regards to spending money we don’t have, aka hoping China loans it to us. He wants more spending on infrastructure projects and education in order to get our economy going. Oh, sorry, they are called “investments”, not spending projects.

    theatleeappeal.com

  3. Did you want our president to fly through the air, feet first, with a blurred background, shouting Schwarzenneggerian one-liners, to land a crippling blow on the pianist? Or would the pianist leap towards him, as well, and they’d both end up dancing in the tree tops trading cartoonish blows?

  4. I’m sure that if BO took a pianist to Chicom land, his/her music selection would be pre-reviewed and censored. Bet BO didn’t know he was being mocked.

  5. “More of the future SNL Ass Kissing Opening …”

    Obama certainly has the bowing thing down. Maybe that is something his leftist mother taught him.

  6. Dr Woodhead wrote:

    I mean, all Obama did was get Hu to admit his country’s human rights record needs work and to take a pot shot at North Korea, both of which are significant wins for U.S. diplomacy. Gosh, what a softie.

    Just words, Jeff, just words. China will improve the human rights situation when the Communists believe it is in their better interests to do so, and not one moment before. And that time will probably not come anytime soon; it is in the government’s interests to suppress human rights, because that is what keeps the government in power.

  7. Dana: true, and I’m not expecting a whole lot of movement immediately. There’ll probably be a short-lived symbolic gesture, then back to the status quo when no one’s looking. But those words are more than we’ve gotten out of a Chinese leader in the past. It tells us that he thinks his national standing relies in part on his government at least giving lip service to the idea of human rights. It’s an opening, however small, and something we can build on when we’re pushing for greater freedom in China in the future. And I think the North Korea part is actually fairly significant – China is PDRK’s only ally, and if they turn on the North Koreans, the Kims are done.

  8. Posted by Yorkshire on 23 January 2011, 7:15 pm

    BO sits on his hands while his guest does a gigantic Shpinter Insertion, Hope BO Enjoyed it, probably didn’t know what was being played, probabally aided buy spreading his cheeks.

    ++++++++++++++

    Woof! I wonder what it looked like before you edited it for spelling?

    Why would you imagine that ‘lefties’ would want to defend this? How many would even recognize the music? Not covered in my leftie education, never heard of the movie, either, nor of the famous battle. How many people of the educated right who post here would have recognized it?

    Damn those sneaky commies! Onward to the next outrage.

  9. burninbush says:
    24 January 2011 at 12:44 (Edit)
    Damn those sneaky commies! Onward to the next outrage.

    You got the point. No one in the WH knew, but once known, silence. If BO went to Beijing and toasted Taiwan, well …………

  10. Just words, Jeff, just words.

    Uh-huh. And this “insult” was music, just music, and yet the wingnuts are having a collective hissy fit over it.

    And, strangely enough, not one of you has stated what a red-blooded all-American teabagger President would have done. I mean, we all know Palin would have just stood their uncomprehending with a stupid grin on her face…

  11. Actually Yorkshire, the episode is pretty funny.

    The Manchurian Candidate, sneeringly serenaded in the office he has insinuated himself into, by his ideological masters.

    Obama is more of a puppet than he realized. Geez whose going to defend this clown?

    All those old lefties described in Rolling Stone?

    ” … says Obama’s pollster on the campaign, an earnest Iowan named Paul Harstad. “We were doing a focus group in suburban Chicago, and this woman, seventy years old, looks seventy-five, hears Obama’s life story, and she clasps her hand to her chest and says, ‘Be still, my heart.’ Be still, my heart — I’ve been doing this for a quarter century and I’ve never seen that.” The most remarkable thing, for Harstad, was that the woman hadn’t even seen the videos he had brought along of Obama speaking, had no idea what the young politician looked like. “All we’d done,” he says, “is tell them the Story.” ”

  12. Well, DNW tomorrow at 8am my wife will leave from Han-A-Rheum (Korean Market) aboard the “Korean Airport Limo” ( a mini bus with a huge roof rack) headed to JFK. She’s in for a lovely 16 hour flight to Seoul. Luckily, she managed to weasel a first class seat so at least her legs won’t fall off.

    She’ll be over ther till at least Feb. 23rd. So, I assume I’ll be hearing first hand exactly what the Koreans and in a couple weeks, the Chinese really think of our fearless leader. This ought to be entertaining.

  13. TheAtleeAppeal says:
    24 January 2011 at 06:12
    Barry Obama will now probably take a trip to China on a new apology tour for “America’s arrogant past”. Obama obviously has no plans to change directions in regards to spending money we don’t have, aka hoping China loans it to us. He wants more spending on infrastructure projects and education in order to get our economy going. Oh, sorry, they are called “investments”, not spending projects.

    theatleeappeal.com Nice Website

    He’s already bowed and scraped for Hu, he might as well turn him around and finish it off by kissing his ass.

  14. He’s already bowed and scraped for Hu,

    And what exactly would the hypothetical Great White Teabagger Hope do instead?

  15. Nangleator says:
    24 January 2011 at 08:51
    Did you want our president to fly through the air, feet first, with a blurred background, shouting Schwarzenneggerian one-liners, to land a crippling blow on the pianist? Or would the pianist leap towards him, as well, and they’d both end up dancing in the tree tops trading cartoonish blows?

    Only if you substitute Jet Li for BO.

  16. jd says:
    23 January 2011 at 23:30
    epic facepalms all around?

    I guess it was Hu’s turn to hand BO the next set of instructuction in person from Manchuria. Now Hu would believe a silly thing like that. 8-)

  17. Hoagie says:
    24 January 2011 at 18:49
    Well, DNW tomorrow at 8am my wife will leave from Han-A-Rheum (Korean Market) aboard the “Korean Airport Limo” ( a mini bus with a huge roof rack) headed to JFK. She’s in for a lovely 16 hour flight to Seoul. Luckily, she managed to weasel a first class seat so at least her legs won’t fall off.

    The last time I flew to Seoul from Baltimore it was 25 hours from doorknob to doorknob. Home to Hotel, the Shereton Walker Hill. Baltimore, Chicago, Seattle, Seoul. We ere teaching a course for Far East District Corps of Engineers. Much nicer than my first trip there. I had finally unpacked and unwound from the go, go, go allday and finally crashed in bed. The next thing I hear is “Aaaahhhhh, Aaaaaahhhhhh, Aahhhhhhhh, and the head board banging on the wall for an hour. I don’t know if I passed out or what. The next morning I was telling the other instructor who traveled with me. We had back to back rooms, and the moaning and groaning was from the other side (not his room.) But on the other side of his room, he heard similar.

    The other greeting is in Seoul airspace are the vertical spot lights. The pilot better stay in the corridor or be blown out of the sky. The canon placement at the ends of the runways were an added touch for Kimpo.

  18. You guys were real quiet when Bush was borrowing 489 billion dollars from China, effectively sentencing your grandchildren to bankruptcy. But I guess what matters is empty gestures, not whether you actually sold out your entire country — at least Bush talked a good line, and that’s what counts, right?

  19. I don’t know what blog you were on cbmc, but nobody here was quiet about Bush’s stupid bail out. As I and other’s have said before, BO is just Bush on steroids. Nobody here was quiet about Medicare Part D nor No Child Left Behind nor just about every big government spending program (which translates into a big government borrowing program) Bush ever proposed. So before you start screaming that us guys “were real quiet” you should remember how you guys hated everything Bush did including breathe. And yet, exactly what policies of Bush has BO changed?

  20. Holy crap Yorkshire, how 25 hours, how long ago was that? I was over not too long ago and it was either 16 over and 17 back or vice versa, I don’t recall. I know one way is longer than another. I don’t like flying (yes, I know I was in the 82nd, didn’t like it then and don’t like it now. At least now I don’t have to jump out.) so I try to get into a sleeping pill stupor as soon as we get airborne. The last several times I (or we) flew to Korea we landed at night at Kimpo. I didn’t notice any AA guns but then I wasn’t looking. All I care about is getting the hell off the damn plane.

  21. I guess it was Hu’s turn to hand BO the next set of instructuction in person from Manchuria.

    Wait, wait – weren’t you idiots saying he was from Kenya? And then Indonesia? And now it’s China?

    Can’t you fools keep your own conspiracy theories straight?


  22. ‘I guess it was Hu’s turn to hand BO the next set of instructuction in person from Manchuria.’

    Wait, wait – weren’t you idiots saying he was from Kenya? And then Indonesia? And now it’s China? “

    The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t refer to someone born in Manchuria …

    Idiot.

  23. DNW says:
    25 January 2011 at 11:40 (Edit)

    ‘I guess it was Hu’s turn to hand BO the next set of instructuction in person from Manchuria.’

    Wait, wait – weren’t you idiots saying he was from Kenya? And then Indonesia? And now it’s China? “

    The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t refer to someone born in Manchuria …

    Idiot.

    And he calls himself a librarian.

  24. Hoagie exclaimed:

    “Holy crap Yorkshire, how 25 hours, how long ago was that?”

    Hey there youngun! It took about 25 hours for me to fly to duty in Tokyo in 1957, then back in 1959. For one, in those days, going over required a refueling stop in Seatle, then Anchorage; coming back from Tokyo, the Southern route into Oakland, a stop at Wake Island, and another at Honolulu. Moreover, those were props, not jets, so slower speed was also a factor.

    [Added: It takes longer to fly east to west, against the prevailing jet stream.]

  25. Hoagie says:
    24 January 2011 at 22:43 (Edit)
    Holy crap Yorkshire, how 25 hours, how long ago was that? I was over not too long ago and it was either 16 over and 17 back or vice versa, I don’t recall. I know one way is longer than another. I don’t like flying (yes, I know I was in the 82nd, didn’t like it then and don’t like it now. At least now I don’t have to jump out.) so I try to get into a sleeping pill stupor as soon as we get airborne. The last several times I (or we) flew to Korea we landed at night at Kimpo. I didn’t notice any AA guns but then I wasn’t looking. All I care about is getting the hell off the damn plane.

    That would be closing the door at home,to the airport parking, to the terminal. Had to be ther 2 hours for International. From BWI to ORD switch plane and carrier, then to SEA , then to Seoul, customs, wait for ride to hotel, check-in, touch that doorknob 25 hours later.

    1984 for that trip

    Got into bed and next room starts groaning and vibrating for an hour and banging the headboard againt the wall.

  26. Yorkshire says:
    25 January 2011 at 12:35

    “DNW says:
    25 January 2011 at 11:40 (Edit)

    ‘I guess it was Hu’s turn to hand BO the next set of instructuction in person from Manchuria.’

    Wait, wait – weren’t you idiots saying he was from Kenya? And then Indonesia? And now it’s China? “

    The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t refer to someone born in Manchuria …

    Idiot.

    And he calls himself a librarian.”

    New Zealand apparently has an affirmative action program for employing hysterical illiterates as librarians. He probably does puppet shows for kiddies. Supervised of course.

    And Henry you say, now calls himself Henry. What was he called before? LOL

  27. You all on the Right wing may not have noticed this, but the rest of the world regards the US as a rogue nation. Not that popularity is my concern, but being that I am of USA, I like to think well of us, you know. Well, in a Scripps Howard (I think it was them, the polling company)Poll a few years back, proposed the question as to who in this world, (presented to European nations) “Who in this world posesses the greatest threat to world stability?” No, it was not Iran. It was the United States, yes really!

    Now, if you ask me, China would be in no position that could speak for human rights, as we all know. but like all weak (as in power mongering) characters, licking his finger, and seeing which way the wind is blowing, prior to making statements, is indicative of leaders that use such dreadful human rights violations like torture, but, he knew that the United States is regarded with disgust now, since the Republicans’ policies since Bush, and now Obama, are as vile as Hitler’s was during WWII.

    No, I know you don’t want to hear that. Neither did I want to believe that those things like torture, invading innocent countries, killing randomly in attempts to “get a terrorist” and many other things that are quite literally and legally characterized as war crimes, in our dishonest operations internationally. We are actually rather a monster around the world. I’m sorry, it’s true. And that kind of disregard for human life, doesn’t rethink about American lives. International defense industry financial correspondence has no allegience for country, after all, the money comes in from many countries leadership, and the more war, the merrier for the shareholders of those defense industry folks. Yeah, Eisenhower was right, when he said, “Beware the influence of the military industrial complex”. When they run our government (NOW) it’s problem is dangerous, and not only to democracy. Sorry, kids, we got a problem. Stop hiding from it. Yes, it’s hard to fathom, but you are a blithering, throwing up on self fool if you still think our government gives a flying rat’s ass about us.

    See, we are in the same category now as China, ugly picture, huh? You all cheered it on, on the right wing.

    Incidentally, I think that whenever someone throws the tin-foil hat line at me, I should be able to bring in any particular piece of evidence (OF WHICH THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF, YOU DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND OSTRICH MFs)here to counter the childish denial of the monkey that dares use those words, which are the words that precide running with tails between legs and running hysterically to Dana to PLEASE DELETE BLUBONNET’S POST, because they know damn good and well there is merit to the evidence, and yes, I will be as annoying as your godamned hemmroid!!! Just call me it. So, Dana, do you think if someone else makes an accusation to my being nuts, I have every right to defend myself and bury the place with documented evidence (WHICH IS F-ING MASSIVE AND CONTINUES TO AMASS, YOU F-ING FOOLS)

  28. “Clark Kent, Superman”

    “Bruce Wayne, Batman”

    “Jeromy Brown, Nazi Boy”

    No wonder you dropped your old title, Henry.

  29. “That’s Soulless Leftist Parasitical Organism to you …”

    If you insist. But “Jeromy Brown” must have had a hell of a lot of embarrassing baggage attached to it for you to prefer being identified as a parasite to being known as Jeromy Brown.

  30. You have to wonder how people so conspiciously displaying an inability to detach their perspective can consider themselves psychological analysts.

    Have you read this book yet, Henry?

  31. Yorkshire: Dude, I’m sorry you’re still smarting. Maybe say fewer nutty things? Or just whine less afterwards?

    What, and deprive him of 95% of his speech?

    Why are you Liberals always trying to shut Conservatives up?!?!? FIRST AMENDMENT!! FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

  32. DNW says:

    26 January 2011 at 17:55

    “That’s Soulless Leftist Parasitical Organism to you …”

    If you insist. But “Jeromy Brown” must have had a hell of a lot of embarrassing baggage attached to it for you to prefer being identified as a parasite to being known as Jeromy Brown.”

    Henry Whistler says:

    26 January 2011 at 22:07

    *groan* That psychic attempt ranks right up there with AOTC’s attempt to guess that I resent my father.

    I don’t know or care anything about your relationship – if any – with your father. Your problems could probably be traced to any number of causes, none of which concern or interest me either.

    But as Yorkshire has revealed, you refashioned your Internet identity: and presumably for some reason – if we generously presume you are motivated by reason rather than whim. For example, maybe the name “Jeromy Brown” was copyrighted by someone else and you were guilty of an infringement and had thus had to give its use up?

    Of course as a matter of general observation, and regarding my initial posit, identity buffers can work both ways. Rather than fleeing from your vitriol laden Internet record behind a new name, you could be hoping to keep the old Jeromy Brown’s dingy-enough-already skirts, free of the crackpot insanity you are now slinging.

    I’m sure no one really cares what kind of name you use, but it is revealing to look at “Henry Whistler”‘s current behavior in historical perspective.

  33. You do that!

    I must have something to hide. Feel free to weave a really elaborate tale. Be sure to include the fact that anybody who googles me will be led directly to Iowa Liberal, and that I told you my name immediately.

  34. Phoe, I found this interesting, a review of that book.

    By
    John Foster (Weston, Ohio) – See all my reviews
    This review is from: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America (Paperback)
    John Avlon is more than a bit mendacious here. He IS a conservative. It’s misleading for him to pretend otherwise.

    Avlon was a speechwriter for Rudy “How Much Money Can I Make off of 9/11?” Guliani. In fact, he authored some of Guliani’s most reprehensible, demagogic screeds. Avlon has worked for conservative Republicans for years. That’s his right. He’s free to do it. But he shouldn’t pose as some sort of “centrist” or “moderate” when he’s anything but. His goals are the same as most conservatives; give their very wealthy and corporate funders what they want; dismantle the social safety net; “privatize” virtually everything; talk a good “environmental” game while giving corporate polluters almost everything they want.

    Avlon should just come clean and give us full disclosure in a very upfront and conspicuous way instead of acting like “I’m above it all and I take no sides!”. It’s bull. And so is his nonsensical book.

    Also, anyone who equates Glenn Beck with Keith Olbermann is either clearly uninformed or just playing to some mythical crowd who Avlon assumes is out there.

  35. BO sits on his hands while his guest does a gigantic Shpinter Insertion, Hope BO Enjoyed it, probably didn’t know what was being played, probabally aided buy spreading his cheeks.

    Just want to requote this so because the irony is just fantastic, really an all-timer.

  36. And if you are willing to take this subject on, insults to be thrown at me, the plan of this site is to give me my own “ring” to fight in. And if you are willing to make statements, and/or insults, you will have to take a look at what you are up against, which will require a little study on your part, instead of schreeching…“PLEASE DELETE BLUBONNET’S POST“

    Here…

    http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=11776#comment-617510

    But, I’m wondering if your ego supersedes your capacity for objectivity. This issue separates the men from the boys, and you have shown to be a little boy that doesn’t want to be called mean old names like “loon”. Got balls? No, you don’t.

  37. Oh wait! I see I’m missing my opportunity to remind Blu that all the scientists, doctors, politicians, PhDs, and what-have-you in the Truth movement are united in one thing: they’re all idiots, and no-one’s ever going to care about anything they say.

  38. Oh, I’m reminded they did their homework, and like a little boy who calls names, YOU did NOT.

    I’ll say the same thing to you I said to Phoe, head over to the thread designated for this discussion. Get ready to get your face busted with facts, or cower as most do. Call names and run. Name calling holds no water.

  39. Also, on the top of the screen, see the photos, and see if you recognize them. They are prominent, highly accomplished people in our society, with accolades that have exposed the most egregious crimes of government. Daniel Ellsburg comes to mind.

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

  40. Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 01:27
    Yorkshire: Dude, I’m sorry you’re still smarting. Maybe say fewer nutty things? Or just whine less afterwards?

    Henry, I’d tell you what I went through for 12 years but either you wouldn’t believe it, or nobody here would have the balls to handle it. And Dana is my witness.

  41. Henry Whistler says:

    27 January 2011 at 13:24

    “I must have something to hide. Feel free to weave a really elaborate tale. Be sure to include the fact that anybody who googles me will be led directly to Iowa Liberal, and that I told you my name immediately.”

    Whether either Jeromy Brown or Henry Whistler is your real name or not, is beside the point as far as I am concerned. I don’t care anything about your real life or circumstances.

    It is just that the possibility that you’re trying to distance yourself from your past record, or to limit further damage to your old identity from an instant association with your current behavior, wouldn’t constitute a very elaborate explanation. And as I said earlier, it could have any number of other explanations too, including someone else disallowing your continued use of the name Jeromy Brown.

    What Yorkshire’s door-opening has revealed as interesting in all of this, is your really quite long history of the very same kind of ignorant and self-congratulatory bombast he mocked in you with his comment above. You’ve been spouting the same cliches and trying the same stunts you recently tried to pull off, for years now.

    In fact Sharon called you to account back in 2007 for many of the same deceptive behaviors, bad faith forms of argument, and dishonest kinds of quotation practices we have observed in you more recently.

    The recent revelation shows however, that I was in one aspect concerning you, somewhat mistaken. I reckoned that you and Jeromy Brown were the same kind of nut. Turns out instead, that you are the very self-same nut.

  42. Yorkshire says:
    27 January 2011 at 15:41

    Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 01:27
    Yorkshire: Dude, I’m sorry you’re still smarting. Maybe say fewer nutty things? Or just whine less afterwards?

    Henry, I’d tell you what I went through for 12 years but either you wouldn’t believe it, or nobody here would have the balls to handle it. And Dana is my witness.”

    Your persistence in trying to deal with Henry and Mike as if they were men of good-will, and in according them at least a formal presumption of the dignity of a potential human fellowship, is a testimony to your character and faith, Yorkshire.

    You talk to them as if they were men. They respond as if they were cats.

    Yet you just don’t seem to care that they are a different moral kind, and revel in it.

    As I just said, it’s a testimony to your character and faith.

  43. Also, equating us in the Truth Movement with the Birthers is ludicrous,

    Uh-huh.

    The function of the abortion/slavery analogy, in other words, is fantasy role-playing. It’s a game of make-believe, of dress-up and pretend.

    Let’s pretend that we’re heroic. Let’s pretend that we are good and brave and principled just like the abolitionists were. Let’s pretend that we are even more good and brave and principled, because we’ll pretend that if we had been around in the 19th Century that we would have been even more active, determined and effective in the struggle than Douglass or Tubman or Garrison.

    Let’s pretend that our unremarkable lives of quiet desperation are actually epic quests in the service of something meaningful. Let’s pretend our lives are driven by some purpose. Let’s pretend we are engaged in the great moral struggle of our time — that we are opposing some massive and twisted evil. Let’s pretend that this struggle requires courage and commitment and let’s pretend that we possess those things. Let’s pretend that we are all that stands between this country and brutal chaos — that we and we alone are the ones keeping it all together.

    Let’s pretend we are not who we actually are. Let’s pretend that our lives are not what they actually are. Let’s pretend.

  44. Yorkshire: I understand, so why so bitter over lost arguments?
    You’ve been through worse. Probably most people here have suffered worse than a bruised ego in an online debate. So take your lumps.

    DNW: I look back fondly on my tremendous war with Sharon over gay marriage. It’s a good feeling to be in the right on an issue and to not only defend one’s positions but dismantle the other’s. It is disheartening, however, to see people put so much energy into treating gays as second class citizens.

    Not that I expect such sentiment to ring in the heart of someone who looks at murdered anti-Klan protestors and unrepentantly mocks them. You can talk kindly to Yorky all you want, he’s one of your tribe. Outside of your tribe, all your morals turn to dust.

  45. DNW says:
    27 January 2011 at 16:35
    Yorkshire says:
    27 January 2011 at 15:41

    Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 01:27
    Yorkshire: Dude, I’m sorry you’re still smarting. Maybe say fewer nutty things? Or just whine less afterwards?

    Henry, I’d tell you what I went through for 12 years but either you wouldn’t believe it, or nobody here would have the balls to handle it. And Dana is my witness.”

    Your persistence in trying to deal with Henry and Mike as if they were men of good-will, and in according them at least a formal presumption of the dignity of a potential human fellowship, is a testimony to your character and faith, Yorkshire.

    You talk to them as if they were men. They respond as if they were cats.

    Yet you just don’t seem to care that they are a different moral kind, and revel in it.

    As I just said, it’s a testimony to your character and faith.

    Mike would make a decent Conservative. There was one saying around years that said a Conservative is Liberal who has been Mugged. And Mike was really mugged. I wouldn’t trade what I went through for that one. At least he’s about 95+% healed. I do detect a softer tone. But since Henry/Jeromy wouldn’t take me up on the challenge, I suppose he has that superiority complex that a lot of Liberals have. It’s a trait found in most of them. They do not want to discuss things, they just want to clobber you with an 8lb. mallet and declare themself the winner. It’s not about where you can see common ground, it’s what Obama’s spokesman said during the BP Fiasco. We’re going to put the boot on your neck until you comply. When dealing with Henry, it’s not the discussion, it’s how hard he can kick you in the ass, the head, then stomp on your neck. He can’t take the challenge now, he would look like a wuss.

  46. Henry or Jeromy or whatever your name is: it’s fascinating to watch you validate the points Sharon made back in 2007 regarding your fundamental dishonesty, during the very process of your attempt to dispute them.

    Your repeated reliance on references to feelings rather than reason is also interesting; especially in light of the recent observations relayed here about Rorty’s views on moral community and values.

    Phoenician:

    Question: When will you finally admit that when you totalitarian nut cases tear each others’ throats out, it is you who have actually done it?

    Answer: Never.

  47. I think I’ll go for a record in nesting quotes …

    Yorkshire says:
    27 January 2011 at 18:46

    DNW says:
    27 January 2011 at 16:35

    Yorkshire says:
    27 January 2011 at 15:41

    Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 01:27

    Yorkshire: Dude, I’m sorry you’re still smarting. Maybe say fewer nutty things? Or just whine less afterwards?

    Henry, I’d tell you what I went through for 12 years but either you wouldn’t believe it, or nobody here would have the balls to handle it. And Dana is my witness.”

    Your persistence in trying to deal with Henry and Mike as if they were men of good-will, and in according them at least a formal presumption of the dignity of a potential human fellowship, is a testimony to your character and faith, Yorkshire.

    You talk to them as if they were men. They respond as if they were cats.

    Yet you just don’t seem to care that they are a different moral kind, and revel in it.

    As I just said, it’s a testimony to your character and faith.

    Mike would make a decent Conservative. There was one saying around years that said a Conservative is Liberal who has been Mugged. And Mike was really mugged. I wouldn’t trade what I went through for that one. At least he’s about 95+% healed. I do detect a softer tone. But since Henry/Jeromy wouldn’t take me up on the challenge, I suppose he has that superiority complex that a lot of Liberals have. It’s a trait found in most of them. They do not want to discuss things, they just want to clobber you with an 8lb. mallet and declare themself the winner. It’s not about where you can see common ground, it’s what Obama’s spokesman said during the BP Fiasco. We’re going to put the boot on your neck until you comply. When dealing with Henry, it’s not the discussion, it’s how hard he can kick you in the ass, the head, then stomp on your neck. He can’t take the challenge now, he would look like a wuss.”

    Yorkshire: you have to admit though that you are describing how experience reveals Henry/Jeromy likely sees himself, rather than how he objectively appears to others. The clown who boasts to Sharon that he will ” … beat you senselessly, metaphorically …” not only reveals an unmoored psychology floating on a brutally twisted vainglory, but also and inadvertently, a comically redounding incompetency that leaves him exploding ungrammatical grenades in his own mouth.

    Again, consider closely what the lately self-proclaimed logician says he was about to do to Sharon: ” … beat you senselessly, metaphorically …”.

    Maybe someone should have told him both what “senselessly” actually means, and how a metaphor is expressed.

  48. Phoenician:

    Question: When will you finally admit that when you totalitarian nut cases tear each others’ throats out, it is you who have actually done it?

    Answer: Never.

    We’re the ones who build up society, DNW – the teachers, the librarians, the scientists, the policy analysts and the archivists. Where we are, is civilization.

    You’re the ones who loot it down and shit in the ruins. You’d have to have a pretty twisted set of values to consider someone who chose to be a librarian to be a “totalitarian nut case”, although you might be more accurate as regards those who make AACR2 rulings.

    What is it exactly you do, again? Nothing?

  49. Mmm hmm. Yet you’ve not said a single thing about the actual logic of my argument against Sharon.

    Are you guys done whining yet? What a bunch of slobbering wusses. Take your lumps! And stop expecting me to feel sorry for people who create bad arguments in order to attack gays.

    This is all compensation for bad reasoning. When you can’t win on the merits, try some stupid amateur psychoanalysis, or tell us how mean liberals are for daring to win (when you think you should be the one winning, dialogue my arse), or when all else is lost, focus on whatever superficial red herring you can drum up.

    I don’t give a fuck how rough you think I was with Sharon, she was wrong and I was right, and she was more than happy to try shutting me down. But you guys always have it rigged so you win when you lose. If I couldn’t mount a defense against her arguments, every one of you would conclude I lost the debate. If I can, then it’s all, OH MY GOD WHISTLER IS SO MEAN HE JUST STOMPS ON YOUR HEAD. The only thing you guys love to do more than gloat is play the victim.

    Meanwhile, most rightwingers on this site would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays.

    So if you’ve got an actual, real, substantial point, DNW, by all means, let’s begin.

  50. Phoe, I have no need to pretend. Exposing what a corrupt media will not, is just doing something right. And there was, at last count, 108 million of us, and the number continues to grow. Because I do what I do, is the reason, and millions of us working at exposing that which is actually quite obvious isn’t that difficult, except for the cowards that screech and call names, then run from the subject as fast as they can. Fortunately there are enough calm, intelligent discerning folks out there that have tackled it to make people start waking up to this unthinkable reality. It’s especially unthinkable for those that won’t think. Sorry, be part of the problem or the waking up.

  51. HW spews:
    Meanwhile, most rightwingers on this site would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays.

    Provide 100% proof of that assertion. In Liberal Land it means really prove what you just said, or retract it.

  52. Phoe, I have no need to pretend. Exposing what a corrupt media will not, is just doing something right. And there was, at last count, 108 million of us, and the number continues to grow. Because I do what I do, is the reason, and millions of us working at exposing that which is actually quite obvious isn’t that difficult, except for the cowards that screech and call names, then run from the subject as fast as they can. Fortunately there are enough calm, intelligent discerning folks out there that have tackled it to make people start waking up to this unthinkable reality. It’s especially unthinkable for those that won’t think. Sorry, be part of the problem or the waking up.

    That quote again:

    Let’s pretend that we’re heroic. Let’s pretend that we are good and brave and principled just like the abolitionists were. Let’s pretend that we are even more good and brave and principled, because we’ll pretend that if we had been around in the 19th Century that we would have been even more active, determined and effective in the struggle than Douglass or Tubman or Garrison.

    Let’s pretend that our unremarkable lives of quiet desperation are actually epic quests in the service of something meaningful. Let’s pretend our lives are driven by some purpose. Let’s pretend we are engaged in the great moral struggle of our time — that we are opposing some massive and twisted evil. Let’s pretend that this struggle requires courage and commitment and let’s pretend that we possess those things. Let’s pretend that we are all that stands between this country and brutal chaos — that we and we alone are the ones keeping it all together.

    Let’s pretend we are not who we actually are. Let’s pretend that our lives are not what they actually are. Let’s pretend.

  53. No need to pretend. We are in a dilemma. You are a fool not to see it. But not looking honestly insulates you. Coward.

  54. And, Phoe, since you chose to attempt to get personal, questions my motives, as to whether or not I need to martyr myself, no, I do not. However, I will admit to a personal challenge I overcame, that I don’t think you can, or have show any inkling of, and that is to get over myself. You haven’t.

  55. Yorkshire says:
    27 January 2011 at 22:56 (Edit)
    First Henry you said:
    Meanwhile, most rightwingers on this site would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays.

    Then I made this request:
    Provide 100% proof of that assertion. In Liberal Land it means really prove what you just said, or retract it.

    Then you changed the subject as a reply:
    Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 23:26
    Yorkshire: Are you saying most of you are for gay marriage? I’d be happy to eat crow on that one! Let’s have a poll!

    I said Nothing about Gay Marriage. I said I wanted proof that we here are doing what you said. Meanwhile, most rightwingers on this site would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays. So Henry, don’t change the subject, show us where we “would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays.” If not just say so, and we will know you just make-up stuff. Proof, Henry, PROOF.

  56. I said Nothing about Gay Marriage. I said I wanted proof that we here are doing what you said. Meanwhile, most rightwingers on this site would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays. So Henry, don’t change the subject, show us where we “would gleefully continue stepping on the heads of gays.”

    It’s like wingnuts live in a world where metaphor simply doesn’t exist…

  57. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    28 January 2011 at 09:30
    It’s like wingnuts live in a world where metaphor simply doesn’t exist…

    It’s like Progressives live in a land where up is down, left is right. You, a librarian, should know that words have meaning and it’s up to the writer to be clear on what the words mean.

  58. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    27 January 2011 at 20:00

    Phoenician:

    Question: When will you finally admit that when you totalitarian nut cases tear each others’ throats out, it is you who have actually done it?

    Answer: Never.

    We’re the ones who build up society, DNW – the teachers, the librarians, the scientists, the policy analysts and the archivists. Where we are, is civilization.

    You’re the ones who loot it down and shit in the ruins. You’d have to have a pretty twisted set of values to consider someone who chose to be a librarian to be a “totalitarian nut case”, although you might be more accurate as regards those who make AACR2 rulings.” …

    It’s not the fact that you sought the shelter of a public library as a source from which you might fill your rice bowl that qualifies you as a totalitarian, Phoenician. It is that your expressed theory of politics and governance is in principle without intrinsic limit defining what is and what is not legitimate; in principle much, if not exactly, like the political theory embraced by the Maoists and disciples of Pol Pot who Henry Whistler is now shilling for. (As if the Soviet invasion of Poland was to protect the Poles from the Nazis)

    By the way, have you ever noticed how it is an instinct common to both you and Henry to immediately seek refuge behind more worthy others when your defects are pointed out to you?

    That impulse is probably a significant element of the mentality that when manifested in the public square, defines you sacks of as political lefties: one of that insistent “me too” class.

  59. It’s not the fact that you sought the shelter of a public library as a source from which you might fill your rice bowl that qualifies you as a totalitarian, Phoenician. It is that your expressed theory of politics and governance is in principle without intrinsic limit defining what is and what is not legitimate; in principle much, if not exactly, like the political theory embraced by the Maoists and disciples of Pol Pot who Henry Whistler is now shilling for. (As if the Soviet invasion of Poland was to protect the Poles from the Nazis)

    Shirter DNW: Today the public libraries, tomorrow the Killing Fields. When will this totalitarian nightmare end?

    Idiot.

  60. Yorkshire: Ask DNW about metaphors. I’m sorry if you read my words literally and actually thought for a second that I meant them that way, but I doubt you really thought that.

    DNW: “…like the political theory embraced by the Maoists and disciples of Pol Pot who Henry Whistler is now shilling for.”

    Are you capable of telling the truth? It’s really hard to be intimidated by a delusional person.

    Above all, my request to you guys: stop making shit up. Say things that are true, correct yourself when you find you’re mistaken. Why is this so hard?

  61. “We’re the ones who build up society, DNW – the teachers, the librarians, the scientists, the policy analysts and the archivists. Where we are, is civilization.”

    Gee, not only is civilization dependent upon you, but even human society. Imagine that. Wherever two or more public employee union members are gathered together in their own name, Civilization will be with you.

    And all of this time those architects and urban planners, civil engineers and philosophers, doctors of medicine and technicians, scientists and legal practitioners, thought that they were the ones who built cities and made urban life truly civilized. No, it was that guy who does puppet shows at the local library … and the policy analysts.

    Oh wait, almost forgot, you public library clerks get to claim all of the scientists as yours too, don’t you. Probably it’s because they are obviously so much like you in heroic intelligence and drive, that no one could fail to notice the commonality. (Can’t be just because they keep records. That would lodge you down there with almost anyone filing an income tax return.)

    And no doubt, you will also want to claim all the University and private libraries along with that book van that you’ve got; and all filing cabinets everywhere, and responsibility and credit for the monasteries, and of course all of the computer hard drives are yours too. Hell, what say we throw Thomas Edison and Henry Ford into your camp for good measure?

    Yeah, Phoenician in a time of Romans, once faced with your claim, historians will be forced to concede that there was nothing remotely resembling civilization on the planet prior to when the Wellington NZ Library instituted its Jobs-for-Illiterates Program, and you were provided with your first government issued rice bowl.

    Hell, we in America ought to chisel your bald head and bespectacled face right up there on Mount Rushmore as the symbol and reminder of the universal human dependency on all that you – at least claim to – represent … more or less associatively … if you don’t look at it to closely … or maybe, you know, at all.

    Idiot.

    [released from moderation - pH]

  62. Henry Whistler says:
    28 January 2011 at 20:10
    Yorkshire: Ask DNW about metaphors. I’m sorry if you read my words literally and actually thought for a second that I meant them that way, but I doubt you really thought that.

    I was fairly sure you weren’t actually thinking of doing that. But for the last 30+ years I’ve worked with construction contracts. (And Dana can tell you if he makes a interpretation of his contract to deliver X concrete and it’s wrong, the drafter of the contract pays. If the order was clear, and he delivers the wrong thing, he made the wrong interpretation and pays) And in a contract, or specification is for the writer to make clear there is only one meaning. If you can draw two or more conclusion from what is written, it’s construed against the drafter. If I misconstrued what you were talking about, it’s my training since school. And that’s been 40+ years. I think more in set terms, not the abstract. It’s what you get from engineer types. [edit - added last two sentences.]

  63. Henry Whistler says:

    28 January 2011 at 20:10

    Yorkshire: Ask DNW about metaphors. I’m sorry if you read my words literally and actually thought for a second that I meant them that way, but I doubt you really thought that.

    DNW:

    “ [It is that your expressed theory of politics and governance is in principle without intrinsic limit defining what is and what is not legitimate; in principle much, if not exactly,] …like the political theory embraced by the Maoists and disciples of Pol Pot who Henry Whistler is now shilling for. [(As if the Soviet invasion of Poland was to protect the Poles from the Nazis)]”

    Are you capable of telling the truth? It’s really hard to be intimidated by a delusional person.

    Above all, my request to you guys: stop making shit up. Say things that are true, correct yourself when you find you’re mistaken. Why is this so hard?”

    You should direct that question at yourself. After all you just spent days leveling false accusations before you finally had to admit they were false. Why did it take you so long? Because I let the rope play out?

    So, what was that about those communists who were killed in the Maoist/Klan rat-fight they succeeded in provoking?

  64. For right now, Hu and the Pianist pulled a fast one on BO. It meant something last week, given the rebellions in North and Northeast Africa, suddenly it means jackshit. So far uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and rumors of uprising in Jordan and Lebenon, is going to take that tinder box to full 10 alarm fire.

  65. It’s amazing how the Conservatives continue to think tyranny requires communism or socialism. No, absolute power precedes tyranny, and you all cheered on as George W. Bush got infinite power, the most in US history, and frankly, he declared the world his arena, to bomb anyone who he may so deem worthy of bombing, and also incarcerate, and torture on no premise at all, but his whim. All in the name of security. Fear being cultivated, creates it. You all are willing chumps to the puppet masters, who make money on war, and have puppeteers at the TV networks, and our government (out of “security”) now is a gate keeper on our networks, or the defense industry reps on each network board, of the MSM.

    ALEX DE TOCQUEVILLE: “All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest way to accomplish it.”

    ADOLF HITLER: “The main plank in the National Socialist party is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and to substitute for them, the folk, community, rooted in the soil, and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”

    JAMES MADISON; “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    HERMAN GOERING: “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for ‘lack of patriotism’.”

    I could go on with many more quotations from prominence, saying the same thing, we all, us Libs have tried to tell you, but it’s a game to you, not real people and lives lost or thriving, a sporting match. So, I’ll stop there

    It doesn’t surprise me that the respectable profession of dissemination of knowledge gets disrespected by the Cons here. After all …see #11

    Dr. Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. ]

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism — Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights — Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to ‘look the other way’ or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause — The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
    4. Supremacy of the Military — Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
    5. Rampant Sexism — The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.
    6. Controlled Mass Media — Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
    7. Obsession with National Security — Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined — Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
    9. Corporate Power is Protected — The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
    10. Labor Power is Suppressed — Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment — Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption — Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
    14. Fraudulent Elections — Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

  66. Hey, York, you think being rude at the event was the thing to do?

    That is about as smart as telling your boss he’s a fool, when you do need that boss to be there for you. Immature people tell off their bosses, and then are out, yet another job. Yes, we were dissed, but if you think the rest of the world regards us as anything but the world’ bully, with our weapons that leave their imprint, warping DNA for the next billion years, well, you might realize that us getting dissed at a piano concert is not so surprising. Surely, China is no honorable entity in human rights either, but they are in sync with the rest of the world, popular world opinion, US very very unpopular, killing people all around the world, for acquisition makes for that.

  67. Blubonnet, this post is excellent with the 14 identifying characteristics of Fascism, and should be read by all Americans because there are a lot of serious warning signs in it for us, of which we should be aware. The comments by late previous Fascists are also very illuminating as well. Take your heads out of the sand, fellow Americans.

    On the other hand, we Americans are willing to step forward with humanitarian aid to those in need, including outreach initiatives to combat such as AIDS and starvation. We are indeed a peculiar lot, for sure!

  68. Blubonnet says:
    29 January 2011 at 03:38
    Hey, York, you think being rude at the event was the thing to do?

    No, but a real good chief of Protocol would have spotted this beforehand and note the insult to the USA and asked that it not be played. Or maybe it was spotted? Anyway, there are ways afterwards to handle this. And probably nothing was done anyway. This is the Training League vs. the Major Leagues.

    At least at the end of WW2 Gen. Patton told the Communist Russians what he thought of them at a dinner when the Russian General toasted Patton. Patton told him point blank he wasn’t going to toast the Russian Son of a Bitch. The Russian returned and called Patton an SOB. Patton said then there was common ground that they were both SOB’s then toasted each other.

  69. Anyone on the lookout for fascism might want keep a sharp eye on Obama’s Department of In-Justice. The US Commission on Civil Rights has issued it’s report on the DOJ’s corrupt handling of the New Black Panther Party’s voter intimidation case.

    John at Powerline posted his comments yesterday (excerpt follows).

    “Politics Reigns At Obama’s Justice Department”

    “The corruption of the Department of Justice under Barack Obama and Eric Holder is one of the saddest of many sad stories that have emerged from the Obama administration. Under Obama, the Department has been politicized to a degree this country has never experienced; certainly not in its modern history.

    Yesterday the Civil Rights Commission released its final report on its investigation of the New Black Panthers case. That case presented the question–seemingly not a difficult one–whether it is permissible for political partisans, at least one of them an official of the Democratic Party, to wield weapons and make threats outside a polling place on election day for the purpose of deterring members of an opposing political party from voting.

    Yet it seems that Barack Obama and Eric Holder approve of such threats of violence and want them to continue in the future, as long as the clubs are wielded on behalf of the Democratic Party. Thus, they quashed the prosecution of the New Black Panthers that had been commenced by professionals at DOJ. The Civil Rights Commission has now completed its investigation of the Obama administration’s conduct in the New Black Panthers case and its findings are shocking…”

  70. Thanks, Perry.

    Also, York, I guess that would have been a strategy to prevent the humiliation.

  71. Ropelight, the corruption of the justice department is a continuation of what started under Bush. Yes, Obama is playing on the same team really as Bush. Democracy is becoming a frail “osteoporosis ridden” framework of what our country is supposed to be and and frankly, there are crippling “broken bones” in that body called democracy in this country.

  72. Yorkshire: I’m glad you don’t use metaphors at work.

    Are we at your workplace now?

    DNW: I already told you I admitted error within minutes of realizing it. Try another angle. I know you, lacking much else to gain leeway need to milk that, but the more you try to embellish the event and rely on it, your fundamental weakness shows through. You’re just a flaming jackass who thinks not admitting error is the same as not committing error. In the end, you haven’t advanced beyond the schoolyard.

  73. Henry Whistler says:
    29 January 2011 at 14:01
    Yorkshire: I’m glad you don’t use metaphors at work.

    Are we at your workplace now?

    No, but I was there yestterday to see how much snow they had. I suspect you have a degree, or leaning towards the arts. I’m the type who would be in a row with three guys going to guillotine (sp??) But the rule was if the machine malfunctioned you would be free. The first guy goes and blade stops a 1/2 inch from his neck (that’s 12mm for NZT). So they let him go. The second guy, same thing. Third guy, me, points out the kink in the rope.

  74. And all of this time those architects and urban planners, civil engineers and philosophers, doctors of medicine and technicians, scientists and legal practitioners, thought that they were the ones who built cities and made urban life truly civilized.

    Yes, that’s right. They’re part of us, too.

    As opposed to your lot.

  75. “So, what was that about those communists who were killed in the Maoist/Klan rat-fight they succeeded in provoking?”

    Ah, what a weasel. Have you forgotten? Of course not.

    They were Americans. Being members of the Communist party did not change that. In fact, by every account I’ve seen it had almost nothing to do with the encounter at all. There was a Nazi/Klan rally and they wanted to protest it.

    Your response to the Greensboro Massacre by Neo-Nazi/Klan members is to point at the shooting victims and laugh. Your subsequent efforts at rebuttal have hinged upon them being Communists/Maoists. However much you detest their ideology, they were murdered in the act of protesting white supremacists, which should certainly redeem them enough to bemoan their murder. But you seem to feel that the appropriate reaction is to sneer at the furious language of a murder victim’s husband.

    Given your usual eliminationist babble about liberals/leftists, i.e. parasitic organisms, the conclusions one can draw about your reaction hardly break character. Given that you have extensive difficulty talking to any liberal without calling them a leftist/Maoist/Commie/pinko, the fact that the murder victims were actual Communists is even more irrelevant. You can’t seem to tell the difference between me and those murder victims, and my actual politics barely even enter the equation. Just pure Us vs. Them.

    I’d ask if that refreshed your memory, but like I said I doubt you’re having memory issues. Der Wille zur Macht! Declare the conversation reset, and it is so. Your Nazi buddies that did the shooting would agree.

  76. Henry Whistler says:
    29 January 2011 at 21:59
    Yorkshire: I would only hope three more prisoners weren’t wheeled in behind you.

    A little offbeat conversation, but fun none the less. I would think you would see there is a brain wiring difference in the Arts type and Engineer type. The Arts type can see a sentence and come up a few meanings and leanings to it, whereas your engineer types sees a word, places a meaning to it, and mostly reads it literally. I’ve had teachers and instructors who could see the difference and tell me so. The pictures I’ve posted I look at balance, equal distance, centering, whereas an art major may find one corner of the picture has more interesting things than the whole and work on that. Three years working in PhotoBlink, and PhotoPoints has shown me that.

  77. You mean there are wires in the brain…?

    C’mon, Yorky. Stop beating around the bush, you sound a couple cans short of a six-pack. I catch your drift, but let’s get this conversation back on the road.

  78. Henry Whistler says:
    27 January 2011 at 23:26
    Yorkshire: Are you saying most of you are for gay marriage? I’d be happy to eat crow on that one! Let’s have a poll!

    Pt.1 I would not be an advocate of gay marriage.

    Pt.2 I never put it together when I was very young, but some friends of my parents I believe were gay. So, in some respects I’ve been around gays all my life. This group was sure in the closet, but later, it all added up. In the 50′s and early 60′s this was just not discussed. There were some oddities, but no more odd than straights. I do remember me asking why he never married one of the women in my parents’ circle of friends and he just brushed it aside saying something like they were too old for that or some plausible answer to shut me up. It never was overt, therefore it was never a question.

    Pt.3 Now would I deny that to gays living together have a committment in their head as if it were marriage. I’m sure there is. Can I tolerate that? I can. Do some want throw it in your face, flaunt it, and be a pest about it. Plenty of them around. Do I like that? No. Is change coming? It appears nothing will stop it.

  79. Jeromy Brown offers his defense of the behavior of the American born disciples of Mao:


    “So, what was that about those communists who were killed in the Maoist/Klan rat-fight they succeeded in provoking?”

    Ah, what a weasel. Have you forgotten? Of course not.

    They were Americans. Being members of the Communist party did not change that. “

    It is perfectly if trivially true, that the Maoists you are apologizing for no more lost their citizenship for being Maoists and supporters of Pol Pot, than did the Nazis for adopting another kind of reprehensible totalitarian ideology. This does not mean that they are not all, as you are to a possibly somewhat lesser extent, enemies of political liberty and self-direction.

    “In fact, by every account I’ve seen it had almost nothing to do with the encounter at all. There was a Nazi/Klan rally and they wanted to protest it.”

    You don’t quote or cite what you have seen, or imagine you have seen, so your observation tells us nothing of interest.

    Whereas I earlier cited “Frontline” and numerous news accounts.

    Perhaps, Snowflake, you should refer to the trial transcripts, … not that that would help your case any in the final reduction; since your Maoist buddies behaved, according to numerous sources, as rather judicially disruptive and uncooperative versions of “Americans”.

    “Your response to the Greensboro Massacre by Neo-Nazi/Klan members is to point at the shooting victims and laugh. Your subsequent efforts at rebuttal have hinged upon them being Communists/Maoists.”

    You are again confused. Here’s what I originally wrote about the leftist state of mind,

    Like chimps hurling their own feces, lefties tend to use whatever comes most readily to hand as a weapon, and human decency be damned. The Marxist female in Greensboro, speechifying over the splattered cranium of her dying husband after they had engaged in a gunfight with the Klan, serves as a sad, but defining moment and reminder of what the “soul” of a real leftist looks like.

    ” However much you detest their ideology, they were murdered … “

    “Murder”, if it is to mean much to anyone other than yourself and your Maoist pets, should refer to a legal term; and however you detest the court verdict, the killings were ruled otherwise.

    Perhaps if your Maoist buddies had focused more on cooperating with law enforcement and the judicial system, and less effort on overthrowing it and impeding it during the trial, they might have realized a different result; with the Klan members winding up in jail.

    Perhaps if the FBI specialists could have truthfully stated that the gunshots nearly all came from the Klan side of the rat fight, the prosecution could have presented the case you wish to make out. Perhaps if the communists had not sought the Klan out for an earlier physical confrontation, not subsequently dared them in print to show up on the streets of Greensboro during their “Death to the Klan” march, not argued that the police should stay away; not marched wearing helmets and armed; not attacked the Klansmen’s vehicles when they did show up, not interfered with public safety when it did arrive, then things might have actually been more as you try to spin them. Perhaps if the Maoists were really more committed to helping the downtrodden in Greensboro than in using them as leverage for their revolutionary agenda, then things might have been different. And you know, Snowflake, maybe if your Maoist pigs really had wings, they could have flown like birds …

    ” … in the act of protesting white supremacists, which should certainly redeem them

    Stalin vs Hitler over the body of Poland.

    ” … enough to bemoan their murder. “

    Murder, already addressed. Re. Bemoan: Stalin and Trotsky .

    “But you seem to feel that the appropriate reaction is to sneer at the furious language of a murder victim’s husband.”

    … moral disdain for her seizure of the occasion in order to spout revolutionary slogans over the soon to be corpse of her spouse.

    “The Marxist female in Greensboro, speechifying over the splattered cranium of her dying husband after they had engaged in a gunfight with the Klan, serves as a sad, but defining moment and reminder of what the “soul” of a real leftist looks like.”

    “Given your usual eliminationist babble about liberals/leftists, i.e. parasitic organisms, the conclusions one can draw about your reaction hardly break character.

    As you do not quote and cite, Jeromy, the conclusions you draw reflect on nothing more than your own stale method and known character: as we already know.

    “Given that you have extensive difficulty talking to any liberal without calling them a leftist/Maoist/Commie/pinko, …”

    That is actually a puzzling claim even for you to make, Jeromy. You must be identifying with the ideology and implications I have described as leftist or Marxist, and then working back to the conclusion that I have called all self-identified “liberals” as communists.

    If you wish to exempt yourself from the class of those persons self-identifying as politically left, feel free to do so. However, I recall certain commenters on Dana’s site have made no bones about being outright and ardent leftists.

    ” … the fact that the murder victims were actual Communists is even more irrelevant. “

    The judicial system would agreed with you to the extent that it did not judge them as murder victims.

    “You can’t seem to tell the difference between me and those murder victims, and my actual politics barely even enter the equation. Just pure Us vs. Them.”

    Sure I can tell the difference between Jeromy Brown and the dead Maoists he is shilling for. The prime difference is that you are alive. The similarity is that you are both deceptive, untruthful, left-wing coercionsists, and prefer to wave a bloody shirt rather than facts.

    “I’d ask if that refreshed your memory, but like I said I doubt you’re having memory issues. Der Wille zur Macht! Declare the conversation reset, and it is so. Your Nazi buddies that did the shooting would agree.”

    Next time, Jeromy, instead of trying to refresh my memory with one of the fact free rants you absurdly label “conversation”, you could instead try truthfully quoting in context and accurately, and then … Oh wait, you have already repeatedly demonstrated yourself incapable of doing that.

  80. Jeromy Brown writes:

    DNW: I already told you I admitted error within minutes of realizing it. Try another angle.”

    Try this angle. How many days did you persistently repeat the accusation before realizing it was false?

  81. DNW: as many days as it took for you to say I was in error. You not replying just looked like your usual weasliness.

    And thank you for your full throated defense of my position. To you, those on the left are all the same, and worthy of death. I keep waiting for you to actually defend yourself, and you just dig deeper. Oh, and now you don’t use “parasitic” “organism” talk? Please go fuck yourself. It’s genuinely hilarious to be called a liar by a slimebag like you.

  82. Shorter DNW: Nazis! Maoists! Pol Pot! *whistle* Goebbels wants a cracker!

  83. p.s. If you actually did research the Greensboro Massacre, DNW, you’d know the Truth and Reconciliation investigation of that day produced a version of events not quite in sync with yours/the Klan’s.

    Not that you’d modify your stance on reveling in the murder of those Americans. Hell, you’ll even invoke a territory fight between Stalin and Hitler to negate the genuine outrage against the very real evil of the Klan and neo-Nazis.

  84. You don’t quote or cite what you have seen, or imagine you have seen, so your observation tells us nothing of interest.

    Whereas I earlier cited “Frontline” and numerous news accounts.

    He’s gotcha there. It’s hard to question the integrity of a witness under hypnosis.

  85. Henry Whistler says:
    31 January 2011 at 21:28

    DNW: as many days as it took for you to say I was in error. You not replying just looked like your usual weasliness.

    And thank you for your full throated defense of my position. To you, those on the left are all the same, and worthy of death. I keep waiting for you to actually defend yourself, and you just dig deeper. Oh, and now you don’t use “parasitic” “organism” talk? Please go fuck yourself. It’s genuinely hilarious to be called a liar by a slimebag like you.”

    So, Jeromy-shit-for-brains-Brown, apologist for the disciples of Pol Pot, you confidently yammered on with your false accusations for days; and now your excuse is that your insistently deliverd stream of lying bullshit was my fault because I let you hang yourself.

    Like I said to nangleator: don’t expect me to interpose my hand between your worthless head and the rock you have in your hand.

  86. “mike g says:
    31 January 2011 at 23:04

    You don’t quote or cite what you have seen, or imagine you have seen, so your observation tells us nothing of interest.

    Whereas I earlier cited “Frontline” and numerous news accounts.

    He’s gotcha there. It’s hard to question the integrity of a witness under hypnosis.”

    Certainly she is a better court witness than either you and Jeromy Brown /Henry Whistler are, or the Maoists who tried to derail the trial and for whom Snowflake is currently shilling.

  87. Jeromy Brown says,

    31 January 2011 at 22:28

    p.s. If you actually did research the Greensboro Massacre, DNW, you’d know the Truth and Reconciliation investigation of that day produced a version of events not quite in sync with yours/the Klan’s.

    Not that you’d modify your stance on reveling in the murder of those Americans. Hell, you’ll even invoke a territory fight between Stalin and Hitler to negate the genuine outrage against the very real evil of the Klan and neo-Nazis.

    Gee Snowflake, you have yet to actually quote text and provide confirming citations and attributions. Your Maoist friends disrupted the trial and refused to cooperate. Maybe you can tell us why. Do you think it has something to do with your fractal mystery religion for leftists?

  88. So, Jeromy-shit-for-brains-Brown, apologist for the disciples of Pol Pot, you confidently yammered on with your false accusations for days; and now your excuse is that your insistently deliverd stream of lying bullshit was my fault because I let you hang yourself.

    Like I said to nangleator: don’t expect me to interpose my hand between your worthless head and the rock you have in your hand.

    Weak! DNW, you are in the pits again, therefore unworthy of civil debate.

  89. DNW: Who the hell cares about them disrupting the trial? How does that exonerate you jerking off to the “splattered brains” of Americans whom you differ from politically?

    “…apologist for the disciples of Pol Pot…”

    Well, I don’t think they deserved to be murdered, especially since they were behind a noble cause that day protesting the Klan/Nazi rally. You apparently differ. Therein lies our divide, or one of them anyway. Of course, that doesn’t make me an apologist for being a disciple of Pol Pot, or the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot himself, but then again you’ve already admitted you can’t tell the difference between a liberal and a Stalinist, so who cares? You’re an idiot.

    And hey, once again, dead-horse-beater, at least I stop when I realize I’m in error. You keep going. My way is the honest way. Your way is that of a flaming eliminationist Nazi/Klan cheerleader who prances about prattling on about irrelevancies in an effort to make your brand of hate more palatable.

    Are there any other people murdered by white supremacists you’d like to mock today?

  90. Whoops, I said “splattered brains” instead of “splattered cranium.” Expect DNW to try milking that for a couple months.

    It’s pretty amazing what lengths people will go to in order to provide cover for indefensible positions. I mean, for a couple months now I’ve basically been saying, “Hey, your hate-talk about liberals is a bit extreme-” and it’s been a tidal wave of horseshit from DNW that’s only provided more extreme hate-talk to buffer my case.

    And a lot of this goes back to the argument over Dr. Michael Mann’s exoneration from charges that he practiced bad science. An argument that I objectively won, but the favorite topic became my method of punctuation when mocking.

    On both counts, I’ve quite ably defended myself and my positions. They’re good positions to take, so it’s not very difficult. And yet we can see the kind of pathology at work in rightwing comment forums, where the topic must always become the bad nasty liberal making the argument, not the argument itself. And the accusation is usually coming from someone behaving reprehensibly.

    DNW, I gave you an opening long ago to just step back from your mockery of the victims of the Greensboro Massacre. You doubled down, and now you act like you can turn it around on me for being a Commie-sympathizer. You can’t. I’ve said nothing that would indicate support for their Communist beliefs. I’m not a Communist. It’s a failed belief system that had a few parts worth scavenging, as most liberal democracies have already done. Yet you just can’t stop yourself. I would have backed off the suggestion that your sympathies rested with the Klan/Nazi killers, but you’ve only reinforced it. Yet you will undoubtedly continue with your false accusations, because you speak tactically rather than truthfully, and you think there’s something to be gained by repeating a bogus charge.

    Have you noticed any buddies jumping to your defense on this one, DNW? Maybe they would, but you’ve crossed over a line most of them are wise enough to avoid, even if they did agree.

  91. Certainly she is a better court witness than either you and Jeromy Brown /Henry Whistler are

    Oh, is that the choice that we have to make? LOL You are the one hoisting up the testimony of witnesses. I am not and the reason you chose the witness under hypnosis is not because you placed any value in the veracity of her claims but because you thought the source of the quote (Frontline, part of the “liberal media” apparatus) would offer suitable cover for your typical fantasies of violence, gore and coprophilia perpetrated on your political enemies. At least you could have the guts to admit the obvious: that you think that those who don’t believe in a system of justice derived from Space Jesus don’t deserve justice at all.

  92. Perry writes:

    Perry says:
    1 February 2011 at 11:31

    So, Jeromy-shit-for-brains-Brown, apologist for the disciples of Pol Pot, you confidently yammered on with your false accusations for days; and now your excuse is that your insistently deliverd stream of lying bullshit was my fault because I let you hang yourself.

    Like I said to nangleator: don’t expect me to interpose my hand between your worthless head and the rock you have in your hand.

    Weak! DNW, you are in the pits again, therefore unworthy of civil debate.

    Perry, what have you to say to this? LOL Any advice to the author?

    “Please go fuck yourself. … a slimebag like you.”

  93. mike g says:

    1 February 2011 at 14:23

    “Certainly she is a better court witness than either you and Jeromy Brown /Henry Whistler are …”

    Oh, is that the choice that we have to make? LOL You are the one hoisting up the testimony of witnesses. I am not …

    No, you could have chosen to cite some other credible news source, or court a record or some fact in support of whatever contention it is you are trying to support. But you chose instead to rely on nothing other than your usual ironic pose …

    So, pose away …

  94. Not that you’d modify your stance on reveling in the murder of those Americans. Hell, you’ll even invoke a territory fight between Stalin and Hitler to negate the genuine outrage against the very real evil of the Klan and neo-Nazis.

    Henry, check out what DNW describes as “our” site.

    This “Charles Brack” character seems to have the same writibng style, and reveals a whole new level of racist looniness. The guy is stuck in his mum’s basement somewhere, frantically typing.

  95. So what was the point of offering up the testimony of a witness under hypnosis?

    Snipe all you want about cat feces, ironic poses, Cruella deVil or whatever else your slop bucket of a skull offers up while you’re busy hiding behind Perry. I’m simply asking why you think that “leftist organisms” don’t deserve justice and deserve to have their brains blown out by your ideological brethren. That’s your position: that it’s alright considering their political views.

    BTW, did you read the report linked to above? Didn’t think so.

  96. And yet, what did the quote from the person under hypnosis really offer in DNW’s defense? Nothing. It’s already been accepted as a premise that Signe Waller held her dead husband and shouted at the Klan a bunch of stuff about how the Communists would win one day. So, even if she did, how are DNW’s comments defensible? They’re not. She seems to connect racial justice to Communism, and there’s a logic in that, although racial equality is hardly exclusive to Communism. Either way, they weren’t protesting the Klan/Nazis for their economic beliefs, the conflict was about race. Essentially yelling that they will overcome in the face of a Klan/Nazi massacre that killed her husband is entirely rational and, at least within the context of a struggle over racism, admirable. Too bad about the lady’s economic views, but that still isn’t a license for murder or to suggest she and her husband got what they deserved.

    But maybe DNW can mock some other Klan/Nazi murder victims so we can compare. More data!

  97. It’s rather interesting that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made specific mention of DNW’s chosen rationale for excusing the violence perpetrated on the CWP in discussing media reaction and the difficulties in finding suitable jurors. The rationale being that the CWP was intentionally looking for martyrs and therefore “had it coming” in a sense by putting themselves in front of Nazi bullets. So why not laugh at a woman standing over her dead husband’s entrails? Right? Huh?

    DNW’s position is quite simple once understood from his Nazi perspective. Those that don’t believe that humans are luminous beings endowed with a soul by God are therefore not human and don’t deserve justice since true justice can only be derived from said belief in Magic Jesus as Lord and Creator. All others are “organisms” whose lives are expendable. So why not invade Poland? We’re bringing Christianity to the ghettos of Warsaw. And if a few of the Christ-killers die it is of no concern because they’re all going to hell anyway (but not before the Communists!).

  98. Jeromy Brown as Henry Whistler says:
    1 February 2011 at 13:51

    DNW: Who the hell cares about them disrupting the trial?

    The legal system cared, and anyone who initially imagined that your Maoist pets were seeking justice rather than attempting to precipitate a Communist revolution in the United States.

    “How does that exonerate you jerking off to the “splattered brains” of Americans whom you differ from politically?”

    The only one jerking off here is you, Jeromy. You standing here in front of everyone, fantasizing and excitedly grabbing at your own text. One could also make a case that your Communist friend was doing the same in so far as she was able, over the body of her dying spouse.

    - As for the Maoist fanatics being “Americans”: what is that supposed to imply since they got their day in court, and they deliberately sabotaged it? The Nazi fanatics were apparently whelped in America too.

    - As for the Maoists and you differing from me politically, the basic difference is this: they are Stalinist totalitarians, you are their apologist, while I am for personal and political freedom.

    If they had gotten what they wanted I would be unfree; which is categorically unacceptable. If I get what I want however, they remain free to do whatever it is that neurotic leftists seeking collectivist love in a loveless universe do when they lack centralized direction. Freedom: it’s a condition which apparently neither they nor you have much interest in.

    But, having now read a few of your comments on the unsuccessful management of your own life, that lack of interest in self-direction on your part is something that might have been expected.

    “…apologist for the disciples of Pol Pot…”

    Well, I don’t think they deserved to be murdered, especially since they were behind a noble cause that day protesting the Klan/Nazi rally. You apparently differ.

    Well, Snowflake, I’ve already pointed out that they were sheltering “behind a noble cause” as part of their totalitarian revolutionary strategy. Unfortunately for them, they could not restrain their combative urges and went out provoking and soliciting a violent conflict with some other nut case extremists; a conflict for which, despite their equipage of helmets and guns, they were not quite prepared for. As for “murdered”, that was already addressed by the courts.

    “Therein lies our divide, or one of them anyway. Of course, that doesn’t make me an apologist for being a disciple of Pol Pot, or the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot himself, but then again you’ve already admitted you can’t tell the difference between a liberal and a Stalinist, so who cares? You’re an idiot.”

    The divide Jeromy, is that unlike me, you are an excitable and emotionally volatile liar, and that is part of what makes you not just disturbed, but disturbed to a particular and typically left-wing and unapologetic pattern.

    And hey, once again, dead-horse-beater, at least I stop when I realize I’m in error.

    You catch your serpent’s tongue in a trap of your own devising and then congratulate yourself for the virtue of silence, Jeromy.

    Again, Jeromy, get this: You lay the blame for your 11 day or whatever you claimed it was, rampage and history of leveling false accusations at me, at my feet – for my not having earlier demonstrated that your false accusation against me for fabricating a quote, was nothing more than yet more of your own left-wing fantasist bullshit aimed at establishing a spurious moral equivalency.

    You repeated your lies for days, and boasted of doing so. Then finally, having grown frustrated that you could not gain traction with your lies, sought to present an example. When your false evidence was rebutted and the rebuttal shoved down your throat, you then claimed credit for having discovered your error and additionally congratulated yourself for having done so promptly upon your so-called discovery.

    The lingering question, Jeromy, is and has been: why did you continue to repeat your lie for so long, when you claimed all the while to have [implied you] had the very same evidence before you which you later admitted as being confirming of the falsity of your assertion?

  99. The lingering question, Jeromy, is and has been: why did you continue to repeat your lie for so long, when you claimed all the while to have [implied you] had the very same evidence before you which you later admitted as being confirming of the falsity of your assertion?

    Why did you claim that we banned bluebonnet from Iowa Liberal?

  100. Mike Ganzeveld, histrionic tar-baby, ranting incoherently from somewhere out beyond Pluto …

    1

    February 2011 at 15:21

    It’s rather interesting that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made specific mention of DNW’s chosen rationale for excusing the violence perpetrated on the CWP in discussing media reaction and the difficulties in finding suitable jurors. The rationale being that the CWP was intentionally looking for martyrs and therefore “had it coming” in a sense by putting themselves in front of Nazi bullets. So why not laugh at a woman standing over her dead husband’s entrails? Right? Huh?

    DNW’s position is quite simple once understood from his Nazi perspective. Those that don’t believe that humans are luminous beings endowed with a soul by God are therefore not human and don’t deserve justice since true justice can only be derived from said belief in Magic Jesus as Lord and Creator. All others are “organisms” whose lives are expendable. So why not invade Poland? We’re bringing Christianity to the ghettos of Warsaw. And if a few of the Christ-killers die it is of no concern because they’re all going to hell anyway (but not before the Communists!).

    Magic Jesus, luminous beings, you are not expendable, Christ-killers in Poland … and people wish to deny you the dignity of being referred to as “Crazy”?

  101. What’s wrong with Magic Jesus? He made you a non-”organism”.

    And why did you make up that lie about us banning blubonnet from Iowa Liberal?

  102. Henry, check out what DNW describes as “our” site.

    This “Charles Brack” character seems to have the same writibng style, and reveals a whole new level of racist looniness. The guy is stuck in his mum’s basement somewhere, frantically typing.

    I thought exactly the same thing, PiaToR. However, I’m pretty sure “Charles Brack” is a fictional character, as is DNW, a very secretive type who so far has revealed only that he is of the male gender. Thus, there’s no trust there!

  103. DNW: Gosh, you must have said “lie” a hundred times in that pile of bullshit. Yet, what was the lie? Where did I say something I knew was false?

    I’m not sure you know what the meaning of the word is. I made a mistake and thought that out-of-context words weren’t mine (about another point of argument that you completely blew it on), fessed up as soon as I realized it was a mistake, and gosh, DNW is just running out of shit to say so he’s gotta pull it out for another round.

    This is arguing with a rightwing nut. DNW can now officially write a book on catching me in one mistake, while skipping through the daisy field of his own constant fuck-ups. It’s what he does to avoid the subject.

    And on that subject, I get more of, “It’s all cool because she was a Communist.” No, that’s not a precise quote, retard, that’s what you’re saying. Go fuck yourself and imposing your ideas of punctuational limits on me.

    So where’s the lie? Where is the actual lie? Stop waving your feathers about, idiot fop, and get to an actual point for once.

  104. BTW, here’s where you can’t stop lying: “…they are Stalinist totalitarians, you are their apologist…”

    Because, once again, I don’t think they should have been gunned down. You differ. I get it already. What else do you have?

  105. I’m not sure about the Charles Brack stuff, guys. Hey, if he wants to have an anonymous ID, by all means.

    I’m sure he wouldn’t begrudge others for doing the same, or trotting out the insipid pop psychology about their motives for having a handle.

    DNW just wouldn’t do that! He’s a very rational guy.

  106. For the record, and remember, I am on the Left, I was banned from Whistler’s site, because I bring proof of what I dare speak of, like this 3 minute piece. Also, keep in mind that the Truth Movement isn’t Left or Right leaning. Objectivity is the only consistent characteristic of the Truth Movement. I agree with all else Henry has to say though. Incidentally I suggest no one believe anything unless they can verify it with their own eyes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isTGuaaln9A&feature=player_embedded

  107. Well, Charles Brack of NeuroRacialWhining is registered as having an address in Glendora, California. Why do you believe DNW is in Detroit, mike?

    (This is why I keep my nom de guerre seperate from my professional activities – there’s way too much out on teh Internet these days)

  108. Blubonnet: You weren’t banned at the time. I think you go to spam nowadays. Because you spam, and one day I had enough of your spam. If you have any comments that aren’t 9/11 truther bullshit, by all means let me know at nitrate21@msn.com. But if it’s from you and it’s got 9/11 anywhere, it’s not going to be considered. And you did that to yourself, so quit your bitching.

  109. Henry Whistler says:
    1 February 2011 at 18:22 (Edit)
    Blubonnet: You weren’t banned at the time. I think you go to spam nowadays. Because you spam, and one day I had enough of your spam. If you have any comments that aren’t 9/11 truther bullshit, by all means let me know at nitrate21@msn.com. But if it’s from you and it’s got 9/11 anywhere, it’s not going to be considered. And you did that to yourself, so quit your bitching.

    At least here at CSPT we gave her own thread to work with. We should move it up again.

  110. Guys, honestly, let’s drop the subject of who DNW really is in real life. He says enough of his views to be discredited on that basis alone. It’s been fun watching him spin conspiracies and go back reading up on me (blogged for four years or more under my actual name, it’s all out there, and no different from what I say now), but it’s ultimately demeaning to him. He’s gotta do it because he needs an angle.

    I’m happy to argue with DNW the anonymous Nazi/Klan sympathizer who gloats at the bodies of murdered Americans. Maybe he’s a complete loser in life, maybe he’s a charming and beloved guy. I don’t know him so I don’t know him. Let him speculate about other people’s weaknesses, foibles, and imperfections in life. If he wants to sound like a pious ass, let him.

  111. Yorkshire: Very nice of you guys to keep bending over for blu. You guys have a search function on the page, her thread can be found instantly. We gave our own Thomas Tallis his own page to rant about Obama’s shortcomings as a liberal, but we know him personally.

    Honestly, if Mike hadn’t told me blu was talking about our site, I would have scanned right over her comment. I just don’t care at all anymore, and 9/11 trutherism simply isn’t a real threat to the public discourse anymore. Kind of like the birthers…

    …ooops, wait, Arizona is passing a law saying you have to produce a long-form birth certificate to get on their presidential ballot! GO GOP!

  112. Arizona is passing a law

    One idiot wingnut floating a bill does not “passing a law” make.

  113. Guys, honestly, let’s drop the subject of who DNW really is in real life.

    Given that the loon has been taking inaccurate swipes at my life for a while, in lieu of any substantive arguments to the facts I bring to light, I feel entitled to take a few potshots.

    But my GOD the site displays levels of pseudo-erudite twaddle and nuttiness I hadn’t suspected. I’m actually wondering if he suffers from some sort of autism-spectrum disorder.

  114. Well, Charles Brack of NeuroRacialWhining is registered as having an address in Glendora, California. Why do you believe DNW is in Detroit, mike?

    Send me an email. I don’t want to give the old fart any more reason to make a bunch of extraneous noise about insane liberal stalkers. Especially when it’s been so amusing watching him obsess over Jeromy.

    Otherwise…meh? Who cares? If somebody told me he was William Pierce it wouldn’t surprise me. Same weird preoccupations with junk psychobabble about leftist parasites. I can guarantee you one thing, Pho, when it comes to American politics those who make it their business to harangue others about the oppression of Big Government are almost always the ones sucking on the biggest tit. Noam Chomsky once advised that if you hear politicians making solemn statements about austerity and limited government check your pockets because somebody’s trying to get at your wallet. :)

  115. Mike Ganzeveld, proud Iowa Liberal Pop Culture Diva and would-be Internet Stalker, in a flimsy attempt to provide cover for Jeromy’s sin of fabricating text, attributing it to another, and falsely accusing the other of doing the same, asks without quoting or citing:

    “Why did you claim that we banned bluebonnet from Iowa Liberal?”

    And subsequently, loading his question with even more dyspeptic freight,

    ” … why did you make up that lie about us banning blubonnet from Iowa Liberal?”

    Thus, Mike Ganzeveld having opened his demanding mouth, Jeromy/Henry promptly shoves his foot into it with a reply to Blubonnet’s claim she was in fact banned:

    “Blubonnet: You weren’t banned at the time. I think you go to spam nowadays. Because you spam, and one day I had enough of your spam. If you have any comments that aren’t 9/11 truther bullshit, by all means let me know at nitrate21@msn.com. But if it’s from you and it’s got 9/11 anywhere, it’s not going to be considered. And you did that to yourself, so quit your bitching.”

    … after, Blubonnet precipitated with,

    “Blubonnet says:
    1 February 2011 at 17:53

    For the record, and remember, I am on the Left, I was banned from Whistler’s site, because I bring proof of what I dare speak of, like this 3 minute piece. …”

    If memory serves, Jeromy/Henry true to the modern liberal impulse to distribute blame, had announced he wished or intended to exclude Blubonnet from his site, but that first he wanted an agreement with Dana to make it applicable to both sites.

    Now, if Mike Ganzeveld from Iowa Liberal still feels that whatever it was he read misinterpreted what they were up to, was insufficiently nuanced, or failed to properly characterize what Jeromy was doing, then Mike Ganzeveld is perfectly free to quote the offensive remark completely, to cite it accurately, and to ask for a correction. Once he pulls Henry’s foot out of his mouth.

    We generously assume here, for the sake of argument, that it is possible that Mike Ganzeveld has not edited his site to accommodate his assertion …

  116. If memory serves, Jeromy/Henry true to the modern liberal impulse to distribute blame,

    There’s DNW in a nutshell, coming up with some stupid sinister motive about something thoroughly commendable. Now I’m supposed to worry about another “sin” I’m proud of.

    Facts: blu wasn’t banned when you said she was, but blu eventually got banned to the spam filter, and it was a righteous deed. We’ve never banned the most truculent right-wingers, we won’t ban anybody who wants to have a go at us. But constant spamming of cut-and-paste blather crosses the line.

    I’d hate to use the wrong fork to eat salad around this guy. Kind of hilarious that he calls anybody else a diva.

  117. I’d hate to use the wrong fork to eat salad around this guy. Kind of hilarious that he calls anybody else a diva.

    It’s a good thing no-one actually gives a shit about his opinion any more.

  118. just swinging in to say that blu should be banned from every site on the net for boring everybody to tears with truther delusions

  119. Mike Ganzeveld, proud Iowa Liberal Pop Culture Diva and would-be Internet Stalker, in a flimsy attempt to provide cover for Jeromy’s sin of fabricating text, attributing it to another, and falsely accusing the other of doing the same, asks without quoting or citing:

    You’re still smarting over that spectacle you made of yourself when you breathlessly accused Pho of being a Nazi sympathizer for quoting from The Big Lebowski. I like that something so simple continues to cause you so much discomfort. It’s quite telling.

    Ah, but anyway…Gee, I dunno, DNW, are you claiming you didn’t say it? A simple yes or no would save you a lot of the time you would otherwise spend feverishly cutting and pasting text in between your bizarre hectoring. Diva? I don’t even understand that.

    We generously assume here, for the sake of argument, that it is possible that Mike Ganzeveld has not edited his site to accommodate his assertion …

    You floated the suggestion so why not ask? How would one “edit” a website to make it look like someone was not banned when they in fact previously were? Your use of bold type is so convincing I’ll generously assume you know what you’re talking about. I’m genuinely curious so please elaborate further! (not really…you know as well as I do that you’re technologically illiterate but I’m sure your explanation would be good for a laugh)

    Facts: blu wasn’t banned when you said she was, but blu eventually got banned to the spam filter, and it was a righteous deed. We’ve never banned the most truculent right-wingers, we won’t ban anybody who wants to have a go at us. But constant spamming of cut-and-paste blather crosses the line.

    The spam filter is set to catch any comment that includes more than three links and put them in a separate folder. Our spam folder has hundreds of comments in it at any one time. Blu isn’t banned and never was contrary to DNW’s false assertions.

    I’d hate to use the wrong fork to eat salad around this guy. Kind of hilarious that he calls anybody else a diva.

    Ugh…here’s a guy that engages in long-winded, anonymous chat room fantasies about what it would be like to attend a cocktail party with a leftist organism (i.e. – DNW doesn’t get invited to any “cocktail parties”) and clutches his pearls and faints when somebody suggests that they might not find assovertincups as desirable as she presupposes (i.e. – DNW has problems relating to the fairer sex). Truth be told my grave error in that case was shutting her up once and for all about her continued misrepresentation of my political views. You see, Librulz are supposed to just close their mouths and hand over their paychecks to the “Wealth Producers” so they can go gamble it away on the markets or bail out Lockheed for the umpteenth time. It’s the essence of Capitalism.

  120. Ugh…here’s a guy that engages in long-winded, anonymous chat room fantasies about what it would be like to attend a cocktail party with a leftist organism (i.e. – DNW doesn’t get invited to any “cocktail parties”) and clutches his pearls and faints when somebody suggests that they might not find assovertincups as desirable as she presupposes (i.e. – DNW has problems relating to the fairer sex).

    I still reckon he’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

  121. No, I at first left the comment with links, and it appeared. When I went back, it was gone, so it did not go to spam, but frankly, I don’t care, I don’t go there and probably won’t, even if I’m welcome there, which I’m probably not. So what.

  122. You, cbmc, haven’t looked at what I offer. I have looked at your offerings, and am not impressed.

  123. Phoenician in a Time of Romans says:

    “Henry, check out what DNW describes as “our” site.

    This “Charles Brack” character seems to have the same writibng style, and reveals a whole new level of racist looniness.”

    I don’t believe that I stated that Neuropolitics.org was your and Jeromy’s web site.

    Brack self-identifies as a liberal though. Perhaps that is what you intended to imply?

    It should be noted that Brack merely elaborates on the same politics as “inherent” theme Perry had been advancing as his own explanation for conservativism; while nangleator, has been pursuing similar lines of argument; if what nangleator is doing can be dignified with the term “argument”.

    You of course are free to take nangleator and Perry to task, and instruct both of them – along with Brack for that matter – not to refer to themselves as liberals anymore, since you find such an affiliation distasteful.

  124. Phoenician in a time of Romans writes:

    “(This is why I keep my nom de guerre seperate from my professional activities – there’s way too much out on teh Internet these days)”

    Seeing that you have made a point of stating your profession as a librarian, it seems likely that your keeping of your comically ignorant and often enough illiterate Internet rants “seperate” and screened from anyone who might be a hometown judge of your continued competency to be a librarian, would be more a matter of job protection than anything else.

    Assuming that there are some library professionals in New Zealand who are, unlike you, well educated enough to avoid stabbing themselves in the forehead by stupidly brandishing illiterate pseudo-Latin terms, what would they think of your idiocy?

  125. Phil Oaks wrote “Love me, love me, I’m a liberal” in 1966. It’s dated now, and I’ve edited it a bit and there, and I offer it now for what it’s worth.

    I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
    Tears ran down my spine

    I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
    As though I’d lost a father of mine

    But Malcolm X got what was coming
    He got what he asked for this time
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I go to civil rights rallies
    And I put down the old D.A.R.
    I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
    I hope every colored boy becomes a star

    I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
    My faith in the system restored
    I’m glad the commies were thrown out
    of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

    I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
    as long as they don’t move next door
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    The people of old Mississippi
    Should all hang their heads in shame

    I can’t understand how their minds work
    What’s the matter don’t they watch Les Crain?

    But if you ask me to bus my children
    I hope the cops take down your name
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    I read New republic and Nation
    I’ve learned to take every view
    You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden
    I feel like I’m almost a Jew

    I vote for the democratic party
    They want the U.N. to be strong
    I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
    He sure gets me singing those songs

    I’ll send all the money you ask for
    But don’t ask me to come on along
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

    Once I was young and impulsive
    I wore every conceivable pin
    Even went to the socialist meetings
    Learned all the old union hymns

    But I’ve grown older and wiser
    And that’s why I’m turning you in
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

  126. Seeing that you have made a point of stating your profession as a librarian, it seems likely that your keeping of your comically ignorant and often enough illiterate Internet rants “seperate” and screened from anyone who might be a hometown judge of your continued competency to be a librarian, would be more a matter of job protection than anything else.

    Assuming that there are some library professionals in New Zealand who are, unlike you, well educated enough to avoid stabbing themselves in the forehead by stupidly brandishing illiterate pseudo-Latin terms, what would they think of your idiocy?

    Definitely autistic spectrum.

  127. Henry Whistler says:
    1 February 2011 at 18:32

    Guys, honestly, let’s drop the subject of who DNW really is in real life. He says enough of his views to be discredited on that basis alone. It’s been fun watching him spin conspiracies and go back reading up on me (blogged for four years or more under my actual name, it’s all out there, and no different from what I say now), but it’s ultimately demeaning to him. He’s gotta do it because he needs an angle.

    I’m happy to argue with DNW the anonymous Nazi/Klan sympathizer who gloats at the bodies of murdered Americans. Maybe he’s a complete loser in life, maybe he’s a charming and beloved guy. I don’t know him so I don’t know him. Let him speculate about other people’s weaknesses, foibles, and imperfections in life. If he wants to sound like a pious ass, let him.”

    Henry, Jeromy, whoever, I almost hate to disabuse you of yet another of your cherished delusions, but what you term “reading up” on you was having had read through a number of your comments to Sharon, left on the Weblogs of Sharon and Dana.

    Now I may be mistaken in this following point, but I don’t believe that I ever left a response on your blog. Or even for that matter referred here, to more than a couple or so of the comments you had made there.

    Now having said that, if I did post anything to your blog, I am sure that your little buddy Mike Ganzeveld “and company” – who previously demonstrated … ah … “themselves” … so diligent as to even investigate and critique the size of Great Lakes region whitetails during his researches into my supposed identity – will be able to offer a cite and a link demonstrating that I did indeed spend the same kind of kind of time pouring over your blog, which he has obviously spent trying to Google up my livelihood and residence.

    Of course Mike-show-us-your-tits-bitch-Ganzeveld of Iowa Liberal may not in fact be the best ally you have in this regard.

    Mike Ganzeveld’s molestingly phrased reference to a female commenter here as a “piece of ass” as he challenged her to post her image, must strike you, as a married man who has probably noted the posted image of his own wife on Dana’s blog, to be somewhat beyond the pale.

    Now I don’t precisely know what motivates your slab-faced friend and colleague Mike Ganzeveld to engage in this kind of pathetically disgusting attack against a woman who had engaged in no behavior remotely comparable to his; but, someone has mentioned that Mike was severely mugged – more or less recently.

    It appears that this event may have deranged Mike Ganzeveld’s mind and moral balance as much as it might have his features.

    At least that would be the charitable explanation for Ganzeveld’s actions. On the other hand, he may just be a typical liberal male.

  128. “I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
    as long as they don’t move next door
    So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal”

    There’s obviously a self-evident truth stated there with regard to the fundamental mindset of liberalism: the “Love me or else” aspect of their character. Rather than go out and plow a field they would rather scream in your ear.

    They’re looking for that unconditional positive regard which a dethroned god, a meaningless universe and their own morally incompetent nuclear family parents were incapable of giving them; and which they have concluded only conservatives through the compulsion of the Nanny State, can supply.

    As they see it, although your nature tells us nothing about your rights, filling their wants is your obvious duty.

  129. No, frankly, DNW, we were just hoping your political standing would please stop creating a state where there are so many poor people, that they have to ask for help. It is YOUR mentality that is the underlying problem. Oblivion, willing oblivion.

  130. Blubonnet says:

    3 February 2011 at 13:48

    No, frankly, DNW, we were just hoping your political standing would please stop creating a state where there are so many poor people, that they have to ask for help. It is YOUR mentality that is the underlying problem. Oblivion, willing oblivion.”

    Did you mean “obliviousness”?

  131. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    3 February 2011 at 13:07 …

    That’s 12:07 CST.

    Eat first? LOL

  132. “…Mike Ganzeveld’s molestingly phrased reference to a female commenter here as a “piece of ass”…”

    By female commenter you mean pom-pom waving cheerleader AOTC, who regularly offered little more than jeering and mockery, teasing me as a “beta-male,” commented on my (still quite fuzzy) bald head, and then tsked on how their behavior made them unattractive to her.

    So, yeah, no tears for her hurt feelings. She could dish it out, and did almost nothing but dish it out, but now we’re all supposed to have treated her like some intelligent conservative woman. Whoopty doo. She was a fackin’ bimbo in deed, so she got treated.

    But you go ahead and re-enact the Damned-Yankees-besmirched-our-noble-confederate-lady! routine.

  133. Jeromy Brown says:

    3 February 2011 at 15:30

    “…Mike Ganzeveld’s molestingly phrased reference to a female commenter here as a “piece of ass”…”

    By female commenter you mean pom-pom waving cheerleader AOTC, who regularly offered little more than jeering and mockery, teasing me as a “beta-male,” commented on my (still quite fuzzy) bald head, and then tsked on how their behavior made them unattractive to her.

    So you’re pissed because you think that she was presumptuous enough to say that your baldness made you unattractive to her. I do remember her remarking on the peculiarities of liberal male sensibilities and how you and Mike Ganzeveld exemplified them, but I must have missed the part where she implied that if you had more in the way of hair or less in the way of glasses, you might have a chance with her.

    So, yeah, no tears for her hurt feelings. She could dish it out, and did almost nothing but dish it out, but now we’re all supposed to have treated her like some intelligent conservative woman. Whoopty doo. She was a fackin’ bimbo in deed, so she got treated.

    But you go ahead and re-enact the Damned-Yankees-besmirched-our-noble-confederate-lady! routine.”

    Hey Snowflake, since singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic while clambering aboard your little buddy Mike-show-me-your-tits-bitch-Ganzeveld’s traveling Iowa Liberal Molester Bandwagon is what gets you off, why, you just go right ahead.

    Lay your accurately described, beta-male, society-owes-Jeromy-health-care, anger and resentment out there for all to see, while lashing out at those “frackin bimbo”s.

    Geez …

  134. So guys who speak of a grown woman as a “piece of ass” are molesters?

    Perhaps you should resume jacking off to thoughts of my bald head splattered all over my wife’s dress? That’s apparently what gets you off.

  135. That sucks. I was getting so used to being a diva. I had such a nice feather boa picked out, too!

    Mike Ganzeveld’s molestingly phrased reference to a female commenter here as a “piece of ass” as he challenged her to post her image, must strike you, as a married man who has probably noted the posted image of his own wife on Dana’s blog, to be somewhat beyond the pale.

    Oh noes…DNW haz uh hurt! You’re free to offer a citation of where I referred to aotc directly as a “piece of ass”. I’ll assume it’ll be included with your explanation of how I could go back and edit Iowa Liberal to appear that I hadn’t banned a commenter when in fact I had. Do I have that right? I can’t tell because you’re so extremely upset about my swift dispatching of your lower-case lovin, harridan bride that I can barely make out what you’re saying amidst all of your increasingly paranoid assertions. Daring to suggest that I don’t owe the both of you a living sent her packing and you off the deep end.

    I do remember her remarking on the peculiarities of liberal male sensibilities and how you and Mike Ganzeveld exemplified them, but I must have missed the part where she implied that if you had more in the way of hair or less in the way of glasses, you might have a chance with her.

    Well, we never got that photo I asked for so it’s impossible to judge her outside of her deplorable use of her native tongue. No doubt a result of all the time she’s spent on RW blogs. Poverty of the stimulus they call it.

    I’m guessing from all of the dust Ole Perfesser is kicking up this is the part where I’m supposed to feel shame. There’s nothing quite like getting lectured about morality by an anonymous blog commenter who obsesses daily about cat buggery and junk science.

    They’re looking for that unconditional positive regard which a dethroned god, a meaningless universe and their own morally incompetent nuclear family parents were incapable of giving them; and which they have concluded only conservatives through the compulsion of the Nanny State, can supply.

    Oh, that’s not quite true. I just don’t like your version of the Nanny State, DNW.

    But let’s take a moment to analyze DNW’s proclaimed loathing of what he decries as the “Nanny State”. Certainly he doesn’t mean the Nanny State as demonstrated by George W. Bush’s TARP program, his daddy’s S & L bailout or the Republican party that just recently brought us Medicare Part D. And we can automatically assume that DNW doesn’t mean Reagan’s bailout of Continental Illinois or Nixon’s bailout of Lockheed when he speaks of the “Nanny State”. So who are these flinty, free market lovin’ conservatives whose budgetary concerns deserve so much more reverence? Because he’s definitely not talking about any conservative politicians that I know of because history has shown us time and again that to be referred to as “conservative” means to be born with your hand in the pocket of someone else.

  136. Mike Ganzeveld writes:

    “I’m guessing from all of the dust Ole Perfesser is kicking up this is the part where I’m supposed to feel shame.

    That depends on what you meant by “supposed”.

    Few here would suppose you are any more capable of feeling an ordinate sense of shame over your exposing your pettish and misogynist viciousness, than those ranting Maoist species-beings and fanatical disciples of Pol Pot, who Henry has been apologizing for, were over their twisted family sensibilities.

    Now, if on the other hand, you mean “supposed to”, in the sense of the normative possession of a capacity any psychologically healthy man usually has, or an appropriate reaction to yet another public exposure of your defective moral character; then the answer is yes, technically, you are “supposed to”; but, no one who is familiar with Mike Ganzeveld would expect any such thing from you.

  137. One more time: “…those ranting Maoist species-beings and fanatical disciples of Pol Pot, who Henry has been apologizing for…”

    By saying they shouldn’t have been murdered. You differ. What else do you have? Apparently nothing.

    I’m bored.

  138. I’m familiar with your ongoing concerns about my mental state, Little Boots, and I’m not interested in what amounts to Chicken Soup for the Right Wing Soul. I gave you a chance to cite where I had directly addressed aotc as a “piece of ass” and you are unable to do so. I also asked for you to explain the logic behind your fevered suggestion that I could go back and reproduce a blog comment to make it look like I had not deleted it when I in fact had. You can’t do that, either. Predictably, you’ve retreated to your usual shtick of insinuating mental illness and gussied up name-calling and one doesn’t need to resort to a fantasy version of the DSM-IV to know the reasons why. The short answer is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and think that you can get some mileage out of hamming it up and pretending that anonymous internet name-callers and pom pom shakers are deserving of respect. And besides, why should I take lessons about formal etiquette from a cat rape fantasizer?

    I don’t care how eloquently you dress up your swindles by inventing fairy tales about gallant “conservatives” pulling plows or whatever dramatic metaphor you’re in love with this week. You can’t have my paycheck, DNW.

  139. Henry Whistler/Jeromy Brown says:

    3 February 2011 at 19:04

    So guys who speak of a grown woman as a “piece of ass” are molesters?

    Your co-blogger Mike Ganzeveld spoke directly to her. And he taunted her with the suggestion that she provide a picture so that he (I believe Mike actually hid behind the pronoun “we”, as liberals often do when they stake a claim) could judge what kind of “piece of ass” she, according to Mike Ganzeveld, was.

    So, it is indeed fair to say that lefty males like Mike Ganzeveld who try to intimidate conservative women by applying sexually degrading epithets to them, certainly do qualify as having done what I described Mike Ganzeveld as having done; having deployed a “molestingly phrased reference”.

    Let’s take as a further point Mike’s disapproving remark made to Perry, to the effect that anonymity is what allows people to speak to him or others in the way they do.

    Now, consider Mike’s sexually degrading taunting of AOTC to prove what kind of “piece of ass” she was, as done not from behind the electronic barrier Mike employed, but in person, in a crowd of people containing AOTC’s husband or relatives. Would he attempt it there? Would he not recognize it as beyond the pale?

    Is there the possibility that being lefty males, you may not think of being reductively referred to as a “piece of ass” as being anything socially untoward? Perhaps liberal males like you and Mike sneeringly refer to each others’ wives and daughters in that way, as a rule.

    And of course, if Bill Ayers is at all representative of the liberal kind of male’s mentality, probably, and in a quite literal sense, you do to yourselves, as well.

    “Perhaps you should resume jacking off to thoughts of my bald head splattered all over my wife’s dress? That’s apparently what gets you off.”

    Snowflake, you poor monkeys have really gone off the deep edge.

  140. “mike g says:

    4 February 2011 at 20:39

    I’m familiar with your ongoing concerns about my mental state …”

    Mike, I am no more concerned with your mental health than I am with any other feature of your health or welfare. You should know that by now. Oh, you do, and that is why you are so bitter.

  141. Mike Ganzeveld writes:

    “I also asked for you to explain the logic behind your fevered suggestion that I could go back and reproduce a blog comment to make it look like I had not deleted it when I in fact had.”

    You might want to reread what I wrote and quote it. Your attempt to re-frame has you tripping over debris of your own making.

  142. I’m bored.

    I gotta admit…I kinda miss being referred to as a Pop Diva. His idea is that if he keeps repeating my name in association with “molester” or “diva” then I’ll be stuck with that handle for the rest of The History of the Interwebs. That’s not how search engines work, of course, because they can recognize keyword stuffing but I did entertain the thought of being tagged with “Mike Ganzeveld: Pop Diva” and it was quite flattering! Neil Tennant would be soooo jealous.

  143. Earth to Little Boots: If I deleted a comment there is no way I could go back and undelete it. Especially if it’s been umpteen months. So I’m not trying to “reframe” anything. Stop dithering about.

    Now, consider Mike’s sexually degrading taunting of AOTC to prove what kind of “piece of ass” she was, as done not from behind the electronic barrier Mike employed, but in person, in a crowd of people containing AOTC’s husband or relatives. Would he attempt it there? Would he not recognize it as beyond the pale?

    Prove what? It would be obvious if she were present whether or not desirability was mutual. And you still can’t produce a quote where I referred to her directly as a “piece of ass”. Funny that.

    Mike, I am no more concerned with your mental health than I am with any other feature of your health or welfare. You should know that by now. Oh, you do, and that is why you are so bitter.

    Yes, yes…your favorite response when someone notes your bizarre speculations about their mental state.

  144. Let’s take as a further point Mike’s disapproving remark made to Perry, to the effect that anonymity is what allows people to speak to him or others in the way they do.

    Case in point. It affords you the ability to rant about cat rape one day and feign indignation and piety the next.

Comments are closed.