The battle over at YTL that started with 9/11 comments by Tony Snow is over (at least, I’m done with it). If you want to try piecing things together you can check out the comments here & there, but I’m moving on. After all, we’ve got a country to save.
liberalism
Ye Hypocrites!
UPDATE: It appears the culprit was an impostor, so I’m retracting my comments about this conversation. (However, nobody’s out of the hypocrisy woods yet…)
Rational Discourse, Liberal Style
That same arbiter of civility who stood up to mean ol’ me on YouStinkLeft has a new post about a classy, productive [read: whiny indulgence] website called sorryaboutourpresident.com. Not surprisingly, it’s another opportunity to show the Left’s upside-down sensibilities.
–
Remember, the Left does not approve of mean-spiritedness. No sir! ‘Course, that apparently doesn’t apply to the following:
–
Calling half the American voting populace “halfwits.”
–
Saying “their bad choice has made me hate the country I was born in, the country whose anthem could bring tears to my eyes. I hear it now and feel a little nauseated.”
–
Moreover, this reaction to a comparatively-mild counter-post puts this whole thing in perspective quite nicely:
–
The post: “We are fighting a war to win, hopefully, so my great-grandchildren DON’T have to fight to live in a peaceful world. The great-grandchildren of the fanatics we now find ourselves engaged with, although unborn, will be just as dedicated to our demise as their predecessors. If you don’t have the courage for this battle, fine. Step out of the way. Your lack of courage embarrasses me. It should embarrass you, too.”
–
The reaction: “Excuse me for this comment, but who the hell is this person to tell me what I should be embarrassed of? What gives them the jurisdiction to tell me that ‘Dubya’ is doing a good job and that I should stop complaining? Oh, and we lack courage. Yeah, that’d be why we’ve been working to impeach Bush. This person’s great-grandchildren are probably going to have to fight in a war (if we make it though this one). Do they think that after this war that there will be world peace? Well, in that case, this person is not only not worth the glance, but also ignorant.”
–
I love it: these people can take the most heinous, lazily-ignorant, hypocritical, and reckless positions imaginable, but unless we treat them with kid gloves, we’re the bad guys. ‘Of course, daring not to pull the lever for their guy is enough to make somebody a “halfwit” and justifies hating their country & being sickened by the National Anthem (straight from the horse’s mouth, folks!), so currying favor with them is really a tremendous waste of time.
–
Remember, the Left does not approve of mean-spiritedness. No sir! ‘Course, that apparently doesn’t apply to the following:
–
Calling half the American voting populace “halfwits.”
–
Saying “their bad choice has made me hate the country I was born in, the country whose anthem could bring tears to my eyes. I hear it now and feel a little nauseated.”
–
Moreover, this reaction to a comparatively-mild counter-post puts this whole thing in perspective quite nicely:
–
The post: “We are fighting a war to win, hopefully, so my great-grandchildren DON’T have to fight to live in a peaceful world. The great-grandchildren of the fanatics we now find ourselves engaged with, although unborn, will be just as dedicated to our demise as their predecessors. If you don’t have the courage for this battle, fine. Step out of the way. Your lack of courage embarrasses me. It should embarrass you, too.”
–
The reaction: “Excuse me for this comment, but who the hell is this person to tell me what I should be embarrassed of? What gives them the jurisdiction to tell me that ‘Dubya’ is doing a good job and that I should stop complaining? Oh, and we lack courage. Yeah, that’d be why we’ve been working to impeach Bush. This person’s great-grandchildren are probably going to have to fight in a war (if we make it though this one). Do they think that after this war that there will be world peace? Well, in that case, this person is not only not worth the glance, but also ignorant.”
–
I love it: these people can take the most heinous, lazily-ignorant, hypocritical, and reckless positions imaginable, but unless we treat them with kid gloves, we’re the bad guys. ‘Of course, daring not to pull the lever for their guy is enough to make somebody a “halfwit” and justifies hating their country & being sickened by the National Anthem (straight from the horse’s mouth, folks!), so currying favor with them is really a tremendous waste of time.
I’m Ashamed of Myself…NOT!
A milestone in my life as a conservative rabble-rouser: I’ve been banned from a liberal blog! Why? Because I was “obnoxious,” “patronizing,” and I “insulted” people.
–
If you want the full context of what went down, check out the debate on this post, then this one, and lastly this one. Under a revised profile I left a parting message for the little darlings, but just in case they decide to delete it, I think I’ll post it here for posterity:
–
Hah! I’ll admit, I took a couple potshots at some stunningly bad logic, and described your position in frank terms, but you libs really oughta consider that for the most part, my insults were in RESPONSE to:
–
– Aryeh insulting as a “scumbag,” a “nosy and controlling neo-christian,” a “cultist,” and a “bully”
–
If you want the full context of what went down, check out the debate on this post, then this one, and lastly this one. Under a revised profile I left a parting message for the little darlings, but just in case they decide to delete it, I think I’ll post it here for posterity:
–
Hah! I’ll admit, I took a couple potshots at some stunningly bad logic, and described your position in frank terms, but you libs really oughta consider that for the most part, my insults were in RESPONSE to:
–
– Aryeh insulting as a “scumbag,” a “nosy and controlling neo-christian,” a “cultist,” and a “bully”
– Emily lying about my very words, mischaracterizing “I understand there will always be some teens who have sex” as “You aren’t willing to admit that sex is something that teenagers have and will continue to have.”
– that twit Things Come Undone likening me to ABORTION CLINIC BOMBERS based on – you guessed it! – ZERO evidence whatsoever.
– Brittainy demagoging me a sexist, an “ideology-driven nutjob,” “crazy anti-sex, anti-woman” (also based on nothing more substantive than her hatred & ideology), & insulting my “reading comprehension skills.”
–
It’s also worth noting that Brendon’s idea of an “insult” is more than a little bizzare; I claimed that societal narcissism is a result of liberalism. Right or wrong, it’s a debatable position, not a personal insult.
–
Now, do I particularly care that any of you insulted me? Nah – I’m a big boy, and I’ve taken worse from better. I don’t mind a light jab or two – from either side – but I DO mind when self-righteous hypocrites get on their high horses and pretend they’re innocent little angels (remember Angelica from the cartoon “Rugrats”? That’s you guys.)
–
Not only that, but you shouldn’t be surprised that your position – that some humans are unworthy of being protected by lethal force – is looked upon unkindly by normal Americans.
–
Anyway, thanks for the laughs and the practice; I do so enjoy taking the occasional trip to the ol’ intellectual boxing bags! Catch ya later.
–
Calvin
–
PS: as always, I’ll be sure to keep you in my prayers to the “invisible man in the sky.”
–
It’s also worth noting that Brendon’s idea of an “insult” is more than a little bizzare; I claimed that societal narcissism is a result of liberalism. Right or wrong, it’s a debatable position, not a personal insult.
–
Now, do I particularly care that any of you insulted me? Nah – I’m a big boy, and I’ve taken worse from better. I don’t mind a light jab or two – from either side – but I DO mind when self-righteous hypocrites get on their high horses and pretend they’re innocent little angels (remember Angelica from the cartoon “Rugrats”? That’s you guys.)
–
Not only that, but you shouldn’t be surprised that your position – that some humans are unworthy of being protected by lethal force – is looked upon unkindly by normal Americans.
–
Anyway, thanks for the laughs and the practice; I do so enjoy taking the occasional trip to the ol’ intellectual boxing bags! Catch ya later.
–
Calvin
–
PS: as always, I’ll be sure to keep you in my prayers to the “invisible man in the sky.”
–
UPDATE: Yup, I’ve been deleted. Oh well, their hypocrisy is pretty glaring on their own pages for anybody independent passersby, and as for the rest…well, I can’t even begin to guess how many psych-analysts & all the intensive care you’d need to untangle the years of brainwashing and biases that’ve layered on over the years. Deception is a tangled web, indeed.
What I’m Reading Right Now
Currently I’m juggling the following:
–
I’ve finally started The Da Vinci Code, and I’ve got to give Dan Brown this much: he knows how to write suspense. The mystery and the distinct characters surrounding it do have quite an allure. Which is why all the falsehoods (Wikipedia’s article on ‘em is surprisingly long, but be careful—it is Wikipedia, after all) within are so inexcusable, especially considering Brown’s “Fact” preface in the front. And occasionally Brown wanders into displays of sheer idiocy like this line: “Langdon was always surprised how few Christians who gazed upon ‘the crucifix’ realized their symbol’s violent history was reflected in its very name: ‘cross’ and ‘crucifix’ came from the Latin word cruciare—to torture.” Uh, note to Dan: the torture Christ endured for our sins isn’t exactly an obscure part of Christianity…Bottom line: if Brown had instead prefaced the book with something along the lines of, “The following story takes creative license with several elements of history, religion and art,” I could probably give The Da Vinci Code a thumbs-up (at least so far; we’ll see how things go when I’m finished).
–
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel—Why Everything You Know Is Wrong by John Stossel and The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Radicals in America by David Horowitz. These gems—the former on various falsehoods in all walks of life, the latter on demented college professors—are nice because they’re broken down into bite-sized passages that can be read & set aside without forgetting some important context that came before. Highly recommended.
–
At a thrift shop tonight I found Reagan: The Political Chameleon. It’s a book written before the Gipper’s presidency by ex-California Governor Pat Brown. Once I finish the above, I look forward to reading how spectacularly wrong Brown, in retrospect, is with his assertion that “there is no need to qualify this view in the slightest: Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency would be a national disaster.” Also, this passage from the jacket got me thinking:
–
“What sort of man is Ronald Reagan? His philosophy has ranged the political spectrum—from left-wing Democrat during the McCarthy era, to capitalist spokesman for General Electric, to Goldwater conservative—changing colors as the chameleon does, constantly camouflaging himself to match his environment. Do Reagan’s beliefs truly reflect the man, or are they merely a method of matching the views of his current circle, with no more depth or profundity that the varying hues of the chameleon?”
–
Hmm…who does the Left level that charge against these days? (Now, I don’t want to jinx anything, or prematurely make him into another Reagan…but we can hope…)
–
I’ve finally started The Da Vinci Code, and I’ve got to give Dan Brown this much: he knows how to write suspense. The mystery and the distinct characters surrounding it do have quite an allure. Which is why all the falsehoods (Wikipedia’s article on ‘em is surprisingly long, but be careful—it is Wikipedia, after all) within are so inexcusable, especially considering Brown’s “Fact” preface in the front. And occasionally Brown wanders into displays of sheer idiocy like this line: “Langdon was always surprised how few Christians who gazed upon ‘the crucifix’ realized their symbol’s violent history was reflected in its very name: ‘cross’ and ‘crucifix’ came from the Latin word cruciare—to torture.” Uh, note to Dan: the torture Christ endured for our sins isn’t exactly an obscure part of Christianity…Bottom line: if Brown had instead prefaced the book with something along the lines of, “The following story takes creative license with several elements of history, religion and art,” I could probably give The Da Vinci Code a thumbs-up (at least so far; we’ll see how things go when I’m finished).
–
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel—Why Everything You Know Is Wrong by John Stossel and The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Radicals in America by David Horowitz. These gems—the former on various falsehoods in all walks of life, the latter on demented college professors—are nice because they’re broken down into bite-sized passages that can be read & set aside without forgetting some important context that came before. Highly recommended.
–
At a thrift shop tonight I found Reagan: The Political Chameleon. It’s a book written before the Gipper’s presidency by ex-California Governor Pat Brown. Once I finish the above, I look forward to reading how spectacularly wrong Brown, in retrospect, is with his assertion that “there is no need to qualify this view in the slightest: Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency would be a national disaster.” Also, this passage from the jacket got me thinking:
–
“What sort of man is Ronald Reagan? His philosophy has ranged the political spectrum—from left-wing Democrat during the McCarthy era, to capitalist spokesman for General Electric, to Goldwater conservative—changing colors as the chameleon does, constantly camouflaging himself to match his environment. Do Reagan’s beliefs truly reflect the man, or are they merely a method of matching the views of his current circle, with no more depth or profundity that the varying hues of the chameleon?”
–
Hmm…who does the Left level that charge against these days? (Now, I don’t want to jinx anything, or prematurely make him into another Reagan…but we can hope…)
Moonbats and Military Service
An eloquent, thoughtful fellow named “Anonymous” has just left this pearl of wisdom on the same-sex marriage article I recently posted:
–
“Hey hotshot. You’re such a flag-waving, “God-Bless-America’ing, Bush-loving, war-supporting, sabre-rattling 19-year-old, why haven’t you joined the armed forces yet? Put that money where that mouth is, chicken-boy. College indeed!”
–
I’d actually like to thank our mysterious friend for his comment, because it helps me illustrate just how loony the Left can get without having to sift through the moonbat mud that is the Daily Kos.
–
First: Notice how the comment has nothing to do with the topic? I guess we’re just in a bitter mood and feel the need to vent about it.
–
Second: I assume that each “ing” he attributes to me denotes a particular trait he finds objectionable. Sadly, he hasn’t articulated exactly what is objectionable about each of them. Folks, if you expect to be taken seriously in life, coherency is key.
–
Third: Bush-loving? It’s true that I’ve defended the president when justified, but I haven’t been a stranger to blasting him, and on several occasions. It’s too bad that the Left so often doesn’t bother to look for background to support what they’re talking about.
–
Fourth: This is a good opportunity to address one of the Left’s most common propaganda tactics: This oft-parroted line, that if you’re not a soldier you aren’t entitled to have an opinion favorable to military action, needs to be challenged. For one thing, whether or not somebody serves says nothing about whether or not his positions are right. Oliver North, John McCain & Sam Johnson view the Iraq War in a fundamentally-different way than do John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Max Cleland. They’re all military veterans, yet they obviously can’t all be correct.
–
So why haven’t I joined the military? Simple: like many Americans, I don’t have what it takes. I freely admit that. The fact that I’m not serving my country in uniform is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated myself to saving America another way: by using my particular God-given strengths—writing, debate, commentary, etc.—to the fight against internal threats to our nation’s survival. I’m proud of what I do here on CFO, in the Reporter’s opinion pages, and elsewhere, but I have never made an attempt to present my work as anything more than what it is. I will always stand in awe of the true heroes willing to trek halfway across the world, endure grueling conditions away from their families, and risk death & suffering to keep us safe & free.
–
I do not know of a single conservative who views such sacrifice lightly. I certainly don’t—several friends of mine have enlisted (or will enlist), and the possibility that they might die in combat someday scares me to death. But I look at my friends and neighbors, my parents and family, and the possibility of their murder scares me to death, too. I don’t want my little goddaughters or my future children to inherit a world where madmen can slaughter whomever they deem religious heretics with reckless abandon—which is exactly what happened on a Tuesday morning six years ago.
–
So while the bravest of our society fight the War on Terror, I’ll keep on fighting the War of Public Opinion. You think I’m wrong? Fine. Show me where. But if you think I’m going to apologize for what I believe, or for doing my (relatively small, admittedly) part for America’s survival, think again.
–
“Hey hotshot. You’re such a flag-waving, “God-Bless-America’ing, Bush-loving, war-supporting, sabre-rattling 19-year-old, why haven’t you joined the armed forces yet? Put that money where that mouth is, chicken-boy. College indeed!”
–
I’d actually like to thank our mysterious friend for his comment, because it helps me illustrate just how loony the Left can get without having to sift through the moonbat mud that is the Daily Kos.
–
First: Notice how the comment has nothing to do with the topic? I guess we’re just in a bitter mood and feel the need to vent about it.
–
Second: I assume that each “ing” he attributes to me denotes a particular trait he finds objectionable. Sadly, he hasn’t articulated exactly what is objectionable about each of them. Folks, if you expect to be taken seriously in life, coherency is key.
–
Third: Bush-loving? It’s true that I’ve defended the president when justified, but I haven’t been a stranger to blasting him, and on several occasions. It’s too bad that the Left so often doesn’t bother to look for background to support what they’re talking about.
–
Fourth: This is a good opportunity to address one of the Left’s most common propaganda tactics: This oft-parroted line, that if you’re not a soldier you aren’t entitled to have an opinion favorable to military action, needs to be challenged. For one thing, whether or not somebody serves says nothing about whether or not his positions are right. Oliver North, John McCain & Sam Johnson view the Iraq War in a fundamentally-different way than do John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Max Cleland. They’re all military veterans, yet they obviously can’t all be correct.
–
So why haven’t I joined the military? Simple: like many Americans, I don’t have what it takes. I freely admit that. The fact that I’m not serving my country in uniform is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated myself to saving America another way: by using my particular God-given strengths—writing, debate, commentary, etc.—to the fight against internal threats to our nation’s survival. I’m proud of what I do here on CFO, in the Reporter’s opinion pages, and elsewhere, but I have never made an attempt to present my work as anything more than what it is. I will always stand in awe of the true heroes willing to trek halfway across the world, endure grueling conditions away from their families, and risk death & suffering to keep us safe & free.
–
I do not know of a single conservative who views such sacrifice lightly. I certainly don’t—several friends of mine have enlisted (or will enlist), and the possibility that they might die in combat someday scares me to death. But I look at my friends and neighbors, my parents and family, and the possibility of their murder scares me to death, too. I don’t want my little goddaughters or my future children to inherit a world where madmen can slaughter whomever they deem religious heretics with reckless abandon—which is exactly what happened on a Tuesday morning six years ago.
–
So while the bravest of our society fight the War on Terror, I’ll keep on fighting the War of Public Opinion. You think I’m wrong? Fine. Show me where. But if you think I’m going to apologize for what I believe, or for doing my (relatively small, admittedly) part for America’s survival, think again.
Alan Colmes Makes Me Sick
He just said that Iran (you know, the guys who kidnapped a group of British sailors) doesn’t want a conflict because their rhetoric is “softening.” So lemme get this straight: As long as they talk nice while they’re committing flagrant acts of aggression, it counts as a net decrease rather than an escalation?
–
Reminds me of the scene in Mars Attacks where the Martians announce “Don’t worry; we are your friends!” as they’re shooting everything in sight. Except, of course, then the Left presumably knew it was a joke.
Start the Indoctrination Young
Why Mommy Is a Democrat by Jeremy Zilber “depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others” in “plain and nonjudgmental [of course] language.” You know, just in case your kids happen to attend some theocon backwater school where the condom training doesn’t start until, say, sixth grade.
–
A highlight? “Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” A little too honest for its own good, perhaps?
–
I do wonder, though, how one would adapt some of the thornier issues of liberalism for a children’s book:
–
Abortion – “Mommy, where’s my little brother that was in your tummy?”
–
Wealth redistribution – “But I made the lemonade stand all by myself! Why does he get the money?”
–
Affirmative action – “Timmy, you just won’t be able to do as well as your white friends in school.”
–
A highlight? “Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” A little too honest for its own good, perhaps?
–
I do wonder, though, how one would adapt some of the thornier issues of liberalism for a children’s book:
–
Abortion – “Mommy, where’s my little brother that was in your tummy?”
–
Wealth redistribution – “But I made the lemonade stand all by myself! Why does he get the money?”
–
Affirmative action – “Timmy, you just won’t be able to do as well as your white friends in school.”
Quote of the Day
“It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called ‘carbon offsets…’
“…But for questioning the ‘science’ behind global warming, [Danish statistician Bjorn] Lomborg [author of
The Skeptical Environmentalist] was brought up on charges of ‘scientific misconduct’ by Denmark’s Inquisition Court, called the ‘Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.’ I take it Denmark’s Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.————-
“The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a ‘carbon neutral’ way.”
Wikipedia Strikes Again
Fortunately, Sinbad’s not dead.
Unfortunately, lefty nutjobs like Jack Huberman can still
write books in which they consider “Main Source: Wikipedia” sufficient evidence to attack conservatives. Seriously.(Hat Tip:
Ol’ Broad)
Conservative Standards 