Democratic blogger, epic moral fail, at bottom, jonesing for traffic.
Why? Well, with all due respect to my beautiful friend Skye, I mainly do it because it's worth highlighting the total moral bankruptcy and infinite hypocrisy of these freaking idiots.Nihilist netroots bloggers called out conservatives for their outrage on the Linda Biegel story. What's the problem with a little Photoshop of Trig Palin as a ghoul? It's not about the baby. It's the "evil" "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea Bagging, Racist, White Guy, Bigots."
Well, remember John Hawkins' suggestion, that it's "time to give them a taste of their own medicine"?
It turns out when you turn the Photoshop tables, the nihilists don't like it one bit! Here's this from Repsac3, in response to my Photoshop yesterday on the "Commissariat for Internet Affairs":
Hmm ... pretty indignant right?A college professor with a Ph.D., and this is the level of discourse you're choosing?
As before, all I can say is wow.
If I were your employer, your student, or your friend, I'd be embarrassed to have to admit it.
Politics of the personal, at it's finest.
And worst of all, not even funny.A loss on all counts.
Sad, to see what you've become. But I guess I should've expected it. The hinges have been coming off for awhile.
My sympathies to all those who knew you back when...
The increasingly frequent "wow, just wow" line is when leftists realize they're TOTALLY F*****!!
I don't recall Repsac3's outrage, or that of his radical allies, at David Hoogland Noon's Photoshop of me from last year. Nope, it's totally cool when it's done by your side!! No matter that nihilist Noon boasts a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Hey, anything to take down the "evil" neocons! Even left-wing anti-Semitism is cool with these jerks.
What was that Black Flag song again? Oh yeah, "No Values":
I've got no valuesAnd they would too. They would blow away Sarah Palin if they had the chance. Look how they've mercilessly stalked the Palin family for almost a year now. Recall how this whole controversy erupted? With the awful, just reprehensible Photoshops of Baby Trig? Hey, no problem for the Democrats. The leftists are fully down with it! And it's understandable. "Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second." And to the radical left as well.
Nothing to say
I've got no values
Might as well blow you away
Of course, look at this picture ... this is who the nihilist leftists want to destroy:
There's nothing worse than an ugly baby....And about Trig's mother, Governor Palin?
... an incurious dullard.A Downs child? An "ugly baby."
God help these people, seriously? I blog about this stuff all the time. It's time consuming, I know. And like Skye, many others have said, "don't waste your time on these moral reprobates."
The point's well taken, but you have to see it to believe it, so I continue to blog this stuff, to get this pure hate out in the open for all to see. John Hawkins is right: You have to get down and dirty, but you can never GET THAT DIRTY.
Repsac3 and James "Barebacker" Webb are not some fringe contingents of the Democratic Party. These people ARE the Democratic majority. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO!!
Even this morning, James "Barebacker" Webb has a post up saying it's all a joke, and that American Power has suffered a "Humor Fail."
Actually, the post in question wasn't comedy. My parody was only half in jest, as anyone familiar with the left's secular demonology knows.
Besides, we can just appeal to the marketplace of ideas to see who's really epic fail here.
Let's compare: Here's my traffic report for last week:
Pretty freaking lousy blogging too! See Robert Stacy McCain, "How Not to Get a Million Hits On Your Blog, And Not Score With Hotties. Ever."
PWNED!! TOTALLY!! DUDE!!
**********
Cartoon Credit: David Horsey.
38 comments:
Donald, you've got good stats, and I'm sure some people read you as a serious thinker, but I'm guessing the majority of your stats is from people like me who think that your arguments are weak; your conclusions are wrong; your hypocrisy is outlandish; your defensive egotism is a little embarrassing to witness (perhaps you have more student testimonials to offer, professor?); and your descent into intellectually dishonest partisan hackery is exemplary of a section of the conservative movement that seems to be running the internet-side of the show, but is, thank God, right now not in charge of government.
After all, if stats were everything (as you seem to imply), than Obama's beating of McCain/Palin would surely mean that Obama's the best man for the job. Right?
Also, your link to Skye's comment is broken.
Readers: I normally ignore Ben JB, who is frankly as morally bankrupt as Repsac3 and James "Barebacker" Webb.
I'm just leaving this link, as a nice example, of Ben JB's own epic fail!
Well, I should say it: God help you, Ben JB ... have you no shame, sir?!! :(
Dear Donald's readers, just to be clear: I think Donald ignores me because he can't refute my arguments.
For instance, in my post above I noted that Donald seems to be conflating internet traffic with respect; I pointed out that while there are some people who come here who applaud Donald's posts, there are also people who come here because Donald is a hilarious example of what's wrong with conservativism in America today.
(For instance, notice how he doesn't seem interested in arguing for his positions, even when those positions are foundational to his worldview--which basically shows that he's not interested in convincing people.)
So, I argued that Donald conflates traffic with agreement. What is Donald's response? He posts a link to Instapundit about Obama's EO about detention of detainees--and this is supposed to somehow demonstrate my own "epic fail." Now, Donald assumes how I feel about Obama's EO--as opposed to, you know, asking me how I feel about it. (Again, what's wrong with conservativism today: many are incurious know-nothing Teddy Ruxpins: pull the string and they respond with their limited vocabularies: drill, God, tax cut, nihilist.)
(Also, given the increased use of "epic fail" and "pwn," I'd be willing to consider the possibility that Donald's account has been hacked by a teenage boy.)
Now, Donald may ignore this post, or he may respond with something equally off-topic. I doubt he can refute me, and I doubt he can admit when he's wrong.
(Also, Donald, I noticed you didn't ignore me when I said your link was broken. Lastly, on a more conciliatory note: more Black Flag lyrics, please! I'd also accept Propagandhi (whom I recently saw in Chicago) and Lagwagon--heck, I'd accept just about any punk rock recollections/recommendations.)
Readers, added: I'm doubting that Jules Crittenden's finding my "arguments are weak; your conclusions are wrong; your hypocrisy is outlandish; your defensive egotism is a little embarrassing to witness."
But hey, if I can get that much emotion out of "dullard" Ben JB, I must be doing something right!
P.S. There's actually a lot more links, but Ben JB's emotionally unstable, and I'd hate to have him break down in an attack of cognitive dissonance. His moral bankruptcy's already weighing him down.
GET. SOME. HELP.
Ben JB: Click through to the links at Instapundit, duh? You questioned my hits, big boy!
Hello. That's one way to find out about "the majority of your stats." And now you're walking back your attacks like the freak you are!
And no, I ignore you because you're not too smart. And, obviously, not really aren't worth it. Duh, again. This post's not about traffic, Einstein.. That's just the icing on the cake. It's all about Reppy's moral bankruptcy, "Barebacker's" hypocrisy, and the Democrats' epic fail.
Looks like I hit a nerve though. That's good. If you ever had any moral backbone, it's caved now. No hypocrisy here, dude. Fighting fire with fire, and guess what? You don't like it.
How about that "ugly baby"? No comment, as expected.
GET. SOME. HELP!
"There's actually a lot more links"
Donald, I see one link to an Instapundit post with 2 links--one back to you, one to the LA Times. 2 links equals "a lot," Donald? Or is there some other link I should follow?
Also, I can't understand why anyone engaged in an argument would call his opponent a fool or a dullard when they're losing the argument.
(I also don't understand why you think I'm getting emotional in that post. Unless you're reading my call for more Black Flag lyrics as somehow hysterical? All I meant by that was that it's nice to know that, though we may disagree politically, we may share some of the same tastes in art. On that note, have you seen Up or any other good movies lately?)
While I was writing that (#6), you commented again.
One of the things you said is that I'm walking back my comments. I'm not sure where I'm walking back my comments--so far, I stand by everything I've said, up to and including my request for more Black Flag lyrics.
I'll comment more later, but I've got to get ready for a wedding. Cheers, Donald!
A "wedding"? Hey, that's a new one. Good way to tuck tail and bail.
Maybe you'll meet a psychiatrist at the "reception."
GET. SOME. HELP.
Dr. Don...
When will you ever learn?
It's not the pictures, but the words most of us are responding to. I'm not indignant, I'm disappointed in you, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm far from the only one. (In fact, without singling anyone out, I saw a comment on one of your recent photoshop attack posts that you really ought to read and think about.)
Go ahead, photoshop, if that's where you want to take your blog. But Jesus Sheeples, Don, at least write something intelligent, or funny, or at least meaningful to go along with it.
The folks at LGM had a specific reason for thinking you a clown (& thanks for that image, by the way... I'd forgotten all about it), and the post was about that reason. Similarly, making Eddie wassissname into Palin's "baby" had a specific, newsworthy point--the blogger alleges that Palin is spoonfeeding Eddie political Pablum to spew out to his listeners, very muck like a mom would spoonfeed an actual baby--whether or not you agreed with it. Neither was meanness for just for meanness' sake or "do to them what they did to us" tit-for-tat vengefulness, the latter of which you freely admit to in this post.
As far as the editorial cartoon, I'll only point out which among us are and are not all about the "million hits"--and one assumes, the internet fortune and fame it leads to)--as you so aptly allude to yourself in this very post.
Finally, the endless sweeping generalizations....
Don, as I commented elsewhere:
"This photoshop no more represents "Democratic Values!" than the photoshop & joke on Chris' site represents "Republican Values!"
It's just a few idiots with overly partisan feelings, a nasty streak, and too much time on their hands..."
And now, Dr. Don, you've made yourself into one of those idiots...
Of course, I suppose in some minds, the reverse is true. Maybe you are just as "rascist" as the guy who compared first lady Obama to an gorilla, or sent out that pic of Obama as a pair of white eyes & teeth. You are all Republicans, after all.
We're all individuals, Don. Republicans, Democrats, cons, and libs... We're not our political parties, or our religions, or our ethnicities... we're all individuals, and we should treat each others that way, in good and in bad.
Your way--your demonization and dehumanization of all enemies, foreign & domestic--is where bigotry and violence based on "...isms" begins. (And yes, there are many among my peers here on the left who are just as guilty.)
Whether in praise or in scorn, treat people as individuals, Don. You have a problem with me? Fine. But don't blame "the left" or "Democrats" (especially not Democrats, because I ain't one, not that facts matter that much to you, while in the midst of a good rant) or any other group you wish to plug me into. Throw your jabs and jibes at me, without the crutch of bigotry against other political or social parties, if you're able.
Just somethin' else to consider... ...though I doubt you will, at least until you hear it from your own side. (& yes, there have been a few comments on this blog to which I could link there too, but I'll allow those people to out themselves--or not--as they see fit. We've all read them, Don. We all know.)
The folks at LGM had a specific reason for thinking you a clown ..."
Or, "Photoshop's fine for me, but not for thee"...
Respac3 ... you poor, poor deluded fool. What was it that Skye said? Oh yes, "Why bother with Casper? He is an embarrassment even with the fringe folks."
That means you're beyond the fringe, as are those at LGM. The fact that I'm willing to take you people on just freaks you out. And that's the thing. Conservatives are by nature good people. They generally won't fight fire with fire. I will. You played. You lost.
I've requested you take your attack blog down. Take American Nihilist down. It exists only for the purpose of demonizing me. And you have the nerve, really to even pretend to have issues with "demonization and dehumanization of all enemies."
You're pwned, Reppy. Go find someone else to stalk and attack. I've nailed you guys hard. Your double standards and moral hypocrisy are out there for all to see.
You don't like it? Fine. Take. It. Down.
I was going to let the readers discover your misleading point for themselves, but seeing as how you asked, 'n' all, I'll pitch in for the wedding guest...
The "ugly baby"?
That was Eddie Burke that JBW was talkin' about, Don. And I'm pretty sure you're aware of it, too, which makes your intentional deceit all the worse.
A commenter named ex DLB posits: "To be perfectly fair, Eddie Burke was probably just as ugly as a baby. Sorry if that upsets anyone.", and JBW replies: "There's nothing worse than an ugly baby, ex DLB."
Nice try, though... Classic Douglas.
(Yeah, I saw the comment Dr. Don posted while I was writin' this one. Nothin' new. Same old passin' the buck, and judging others by standards and rules he refuses to live up to himself. Nothing there to reply to, that I haven't replied to and refuted so many times before.)
@Donald,
Your Repsac3 quote in the post, A college professor with a Ph.D., and this is the level of discourse you're choosing? is some lovely Alinsky Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
As if somehow, by virtue of having accomplished a PhD, your 1st Amendment right to a bit of low-brow japing about is magically abridged.
Certainly, if your blog devolved into the DailyKos, you'd lose readers.
On the contrary, though: I applaud your enthusiasm for the occasional sortie from the ivory tower for the purpose of mixing it up with the whacked out fringe. Bravo, sir.
Oh, thanks for the insight!
ExDLB says "just as ugly" as Trig!
No wonder ExDLB deleted his blog. One down a couple more to go.
Take. It. Down.
Thanks Smitty!
As they say, it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it!
@Dr Don:
Really Don?
Do you honestly not comprehend the meaning as "Burke was probably just as ugly as a baby as he is as an adult, as seen there in that 'ghoulish' picture"?
Whatever, mon amie... let's "leave it to the readers," who I trust are smarter than you give them credit for, with that kinda verbal acrobatic nonsense... ...whether they'll admit it publicly--& thereby show you up on your own blog--or not.
@Smitty:
One can live up to whatever rules one chooses, Smitty. But one is certainly judged by the rules one chooses to live up to--or cast aside, for cheap ad hominem or personal attack points.
And first amendment rights? Unless I'm speaking on behalf of the government, with the force of law behind me, the first amendment doesn't apply. (Why is it so many of you self-professed "founding principles" types don't understand what the first amendment is about?)
"... one is certainly judged by the rules one chooses to live up to--or cast aside, for cheap ad hominem or personal attack points."
What part of "ethical hypocrisy" do you not understand, RepMasterNihilist?
You run a blog that posts the most disgusting attacks, including allegations of bestiality and the promotion of work harrassment against me. You literally have taken an assault against my liberty!
And you continue to prattle about "personal attacks." I really should take Skye's advice. You are just beyond "beyone" fringe. If there's a place that evil, you're one "phat homie" in that crib.
@repsac3:
Unless I'm speaking on behalf of the government, with the force of law behind me, the first amendment doesn't apply.
Your point is an excellent one, and well taken.
So, the US government has a Bill of Rights explicitly precluding silencing anyone.
You seem to have presumed a PhD Bill of Responsibilities whereby DD is precluded from engaging in low-brow dialogue.
These inter-tubes would be infinitely more swell if you were made Cloudy-web Dialogue Czar so that speech all conforms to your ad hoc, "rectal pluck" rules.
Your reply, of course, is also a good Alinsky Rule #4 example. Is this a specialty of yours, sir?
Smitty: This line from Repsac3 is just unreal, "Why is it so many of you self-professed "founding principles" types don't understand what the first amendment is about?"
That's rich, for someone to try and school others on the First Amendment when they know absolutely nothing about freedom of expression themselves!
@Donald,
Oh, the Devil knows his scripture, for all his quotations are studies in the perverse.
Well, I feel I should come over and apologize to those who I have offended by saying Eddie Burke is ugly. I didn't realize that Don thinks he's just as cute a bug's eye. I can see where you'd get upset with me, besmirching a fine homophobic, racist, bigot whatever. He's a prime example of the mainstream of the Republican party with views like those.
BTW, speaking for this liberal, I'm pleased as punch to have Sarah Palin around, at least until we find out she's been having an affair. I'm holding out for a lesbian one. Ummm, hot, sensual Republican family values.
ExDLB: You've had your ass kicked around here so many times ... really, it's surprising you're even commenting.
"I can see where you'd get upset with me, besmirching a fine homophobic, racist, bigot whatever ... [She's] a prime example of the mainstream of the Republican party with views like those."
Yep. That's what this is really all about. It's Palin and her son Trig, who you'll are so quick to demonize. A bunch of hypocrites and haters, all of you. Of course you're holding out for a "lesbian affair." You NEED a "lesbian affair." Obama's already sinking in the polls, and looking at a one-term presidency.
Again, Smitty, not at all...
Dr D is as free to speak as any of us are, and to employ whatever "brow-height" dialogue he likes. No one is precluding anyone anything, despite your repeated protestations to the contrary.
All I'm sayin' is, folks have expectations, based on one's intelligence and one's station in life. And speakin' for myself (& only myself, contrary to your odd accusation about the whole of the interwebs), I find Don's descent into meaningless lowbrow disappointing for a man of his caliber... Your milage obviously varies (and more power to you both that it does), but I stand by my own opinion, regardless...
I read up on that Alinsky rule you keep spouting (which, like many of the boogie-man names tossed at individuals the left, seem to mean far more to the folks on the Right who keep bringin' 'em up, rather than to anyone else, left, right, or center)... With all due respect, Smitty, I think you're misreading it's meaning, based on the examples given, but again, you're welcome to reinterpret it however you wish, I guess...
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "RULE 4: 'Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.' If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)"
I have no issue holding Donald to the standards he sets for others. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Don feels the same, and has no issue holding me to the standards I set for others. (You, I don't know well enough to tell.) If that's somehow a bad thing in your book (as written by Alinsky, apparently), I can do nothing to help that. Your disapproval of us both (or more likely just of me, when I do it) is noted, and dismissed as partisan hogwash of the highest order.
But I'm pretty sure that Alinsky was talking about intentionally tying folks in bureaucracies up with adhering to their rules, in an effort to keep them from doing what they do. I want nothing more than to keep Don doing what he does, and exposing him with his own words. The more he posts, the better it is for those who disagree with him. The last thing I want him doing is... ...I don't know... reorganizing his blog layout, or something. It's his posts that will ultimately sink him, not the background noise. (Hell, I even think the whole rule 5 thing is a waste, in that it takes away from the normal political inanity that comes from here...)
Believe me or don't, Smitty, your Alinsky rule 4 just doesn't apply, however you interpret it.
"I have no issue holding Donald to the standards he sets for others."
And here's the thing, Reppy. I'M SINKING TO YOUR LEVEL.
In case you missed John Hawkins' link at the post:
"Too often today, liberals are using below-the-belt tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever. Meanwhile, those on the right like to pat themselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But in the end, there’s not much to be said for lovable losers. Conservatives should realize that fair play isn’t going to pay any dividends.
While we conservatives don’t have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they’re treating our side."
YOU'RE GETTING A TASTE OF IT TODAY, REPMASTERBAREBACKERDENIALIST!!
Again, Skye nailed you, Reppy. You're on the fringe of the fringe. This post has you and your nihilists hammered, just freaking hammered!
BUT NO ONE WILL EVER MATCH THE DEPTHS OF YOUR DEPRAVITY ... EVER!!
More cowbell.
DONALD RULES!
@repsac3,
Well, if you're uninformed about Alinsky, then perhaps you haven't been exposed to the head 'sploding power of Evan Sayet's critique of Modern Liberalism.
Thanks Reliapundit! Appreciate the back up!
Smitty:
I'm pretty sure I was questioning your understanding of Alinsky, as well, but it's no matter. I said my piece, and if you have no response, I guess that's that.
I saw that Sayet video back in 07 (In fact, I may've even seen it on C-span, live) but perhaps I'll watch it again later, just to see what it is you find so 'splodin' about it.
At the outset (from the little I just watched), I can tell you that I don't hate you, or Don, or conservatism itself. I disagree with a good bit of it, but to each his/her own.
Rather than taking Don's (or anyone else's) word for who/what I am, look for yourself. Find where I'm depraved, or have expressed hate for anyone. Find the photoshops I've done of any political foe. Find where I engage in the name-calling or personal attack, and what I'm responding to on those occasions when I do.
The worst I'm guilty of (and I am guilty of this, for sure), is not moderating or censoring the content of the other author's posts on a group blog I started.
Yes, one blogger did name a moose humping a statue of a buffalo Donald, and compare their inter-species love to gay marriage. Another, upset with Don's trolling at his blog, did suggest that folks contact Don's place of employment, using info right there on the web, and let them know the kind of man they have teaching young adults.
My crime, apparently, is that I let them post their posts on our group blog. Guilty as charged. I think they're big boys, and they can argue in favor of / defend their own posts. Not my place to play hall monitor. Also not my place to take the blame for other's posts.
So, go ahead, Smitty. Check out my posts and comments for yourself, and feel free to challenge me on whatever "depravity" or whatnot, you find. As others here & elsewhere have already noted, I'm not the person Don paints me as...
"My crime ... is that I let them post their posts on our group blog."
Yes. Exactly. Take. It. Down. Respsac3.
Wow, I leave for a wedding for a few hours, and look what happens here: all hell breaks loose. Or at least, all exclamation points.
I think I see where a disagreement comes in: you say that I question your hits, which is not totally accurate--I question what those hits mean, and I do so in two ways:
a) I question the conflation between being read and being agreed with: you may be widely read--I have no way of really judging how many of those hits are independent IPs and how many are people just hitting refresh to see what new thing you posted (you do post quite a bit, sometimes outside your website's stated goal of commentary and analysis).
So, you may be widely read, I don't question that. But I do question whether you're widely agreed with. You offer, as proof, a link from Instapundit and from Jules Crittenden--they take you seriously. As counter-proof, I could offer LGM and Pandagon, two other political sites that don't respect your ideas.
You could point to some commenters here who seem to respect and agree with you, and I could respond with a list probably almost as long of people who come here who don't agree with you. (Whether or not they respect you is something you'd have to ask them.)
So, while you may be widely read, you are not widely agreed with. Therefore, your relative success in the marketplace of ideas only means so much.
b) I also question your conflation of popular success with moral consistency; that is, in this post, you talk about (at least) two unrelated issues--whether leftists are hypocrites and whether your site is more popular than the leftist sites. Now, I think that conflation may be why, when I challenge you on the second issue (popularity not equaling agreement), you challenge me on the first. But these are two separate issues. I think you conflate too much too often, which is why I find your arguments weak.
Now, all this back-and-forth personal attacks with JBW and Repsac3 aren't really helpful, I think, and they come from a very simple place: you misread a picture of Palin with Eddie Burke photoshopped in for Trig as an attack on Trig; JBW and Repsac3 pointed out your mistake, and you can't admit that you're wrong.
But you are wrong, Donald, and digging in doesn't make you right--it just seems to make you meaner and a little juvenile. (I mean, outside of World of Warcraft, when do people say things like "dude, you're so pwned!"). Don't try to entrench on a position that's already been lost--that's basic politics. Admit you were wrong and move on.
Now, I'm going to take my own advice and move on from this topic.
I'm sorry, Dr. Douglas, but I. will. not.
Your words are not so golden that they are above criticism, reproach, or even ridicule. Different people will approach your words in different ways, of course, but that's the nature of the beast.
Anyone who you attack here--particularly by calling them a nihilist, which is our personal favorite meaningless slur, thanks to you--has an open invitation to become an author or contributor at American Nihilist. And as long as they're not advocating violence or vandalism (which so far, no one has even come close to), I could care less what they write or whether you approve.
You're welcome to start your own group blog and then moderate the content of your fellow authors if you like, but at my blogs, each author is responsible for their own content. And no matter how much you whine and wail about their content, or try to place the blame on me for what others write, it's going to stay that way until someone does advocate violence or vandalism--at which point that author will be ousted, and life will go on.
So no, Donald, I. will. not. take. it. down.
But thanks for the suggestion, and for making clear your beliefs on the moderation of group blogs. Fascinating and informative, as... well, frequently, anyway. I'm sure that your fellow con bloggers are positively salivating at the prospect of having you check over and approve their posts for them. I mean, what author wouldn't want that?
Ben JB: Most of your post is unintelligble gibberish. But I can guarantee you only a moral relativist would make this point:
"I think ... you misread a picture of Palin with Eddie Burke photoshopped in for Trig as an attack on Trig ..."
(Sigh...) You're lazy, God man. You don't read preceding posts, so you have no context. Your questions are pedestrian, and your mien is pretentious. You sound like an impatient child. And I'm not going to do your legwork for you in any case. You need to read around, that's for sure. You just are, well, ignorant of politics. And frankly, you really should show more respect for someone like myself who is obviously your better, morally and intellectually.
I'll just one link to someone unrelated to me, and someone who does not comment here: "Alaska Democratic Party Operative Mocks Sarah Palin's Son With Down Syndrome, Trig.....".
My post here is a stake in your heart, Ben JB - and I mean that literally, since you're a lurking vampire, preying from the shadows, leaping to correct spelling or other little nits, in lieu of really getting in a big kill. You'll nip away until you get a swarm of fellow vampires with you, and then you'll dive in, frantically crazed, to dine on the blood.
I have no use for bloodsuckers like you. You're no match for anything I offer. And I've indulged your nihilism much too much already. So, you're back to being ignored.
Meanwhile: Get. Some. Help!
Ben (or God man, if you prefer) Dr. Don said the secret word (sorry, no cigar puffing duck--though I think I know where I can find a cartoon dog...), and you're now eligible to be an American Nihilist author... Should that be your wish (& from what I hear, it's the wish of every Homo, Pink Shirt, Bible Burning, Commie, Gay Lovin', Tea Drinkin', Race Respectin', Colorful, [or Colorless] Woman/Man/Tranny, Multi-Culti on Flying Spaghetti Monster's Good Green Earth), feel free to get in touch.... The door's always open.
Donald, this last comment here's a good example of why I can't accept you as a moral better.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that you're right: that I'm ignorant of politics, that I need to read around, that I'm an impatient child. Now, you could say that those are my problems and that you're not going to help me. That's a coherent position, but is it a moral one? If I'm such an ignorant child, wouldn't it be objectively moral to help educate me? Why not throw me a lifeline in the form of a book recommendation? For instance, should I read Hayek or Goldberg?
Isn't it, in fact, not only moral for you to give me a helping hand but in your best interest to do so? I mean, I may be an impatient, ignorant child, but my vote counts as much as yours, so shouldn't you want to convert me?
So, you not only don't seem to be an ideal model of morality, you don't seem to be an ideal model of practicality.
Lastly, back to moral issues, as much as I dig your extended metaphor on vampirism, it seems hypocritical of you to excoriate the left for "secular demonology" and then turn around and call someone a vampire. (Perhaps this hits close to home because I'm so pale and it's so sunny right now.)
Wow, a college professor? Reaally???
I sure hope you dont' embarass your colleagues in academia with this sort of anti-intellectual nonsense, regardless of political affiliation.
Tomas: Look, if you're new here I'll forgive you for an unoriginal, if not ignorant, comment. See, "You're a Professor, Really?".
Yes, I am new here. And after reading the link, I will stand by my statement/question.
"youre a college professor, reaallly?"
Perhaps you think your writing skills replace the deductive reasoning that seems to be absent in your craft.
I certainly hope you're a better professional than what you've been offering on your blog.
I was expecting to see someone with your credentials represent a view that could challenge and question other political/philosophical outlooks.
I can safely assume that, because your argument abandoned all attempt at substance and reverted to whipping out your blog traffic stats, that you have a very small penis, correct?
BTW, last week my traffic was over 200,000...IN ONE DAY.
I guess you'll need to buy an expensive sports car.
Linda Kellen Biegel
Post a Comment