The errant and undisciplined ruminations of a Conservative public interest attorney, GOP activist, and father of two sons. Nothing herein should be confused with tolerance of folly, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), sufferance of fools gladly, or endorsement of perversion.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Good News; Bad News
Well, the good news is that one of those blog counters below (they were added at various times) says I've gone over 20,000 hits. Not bad for my little, one-man operation.
The bad news? I'm pretty sure that most of them are from Willis.
Well, first thing, "not ben," I don't "pander to the base elements of the extreme right." Your problem is one typical among the far Left: you dismiss anyone who isn't a socialist as "extreme right." Second thing, conservatives are not "human waste." Unfortunately for you on the far Left, they're the people who keep this country running. Indeed, their not so much "human waste" as cowards like you who cower in anonymity, obviously fearing to have your name associated with your witless and ill-informed comments.
Ben, it's not funny or surprising at all (tragic, maybe). I've only met you once, so I know you mainly by your writing, and I sense in it a sense of humor and honesty such that, even when we disagree, you don't do so in bad faith, or with ulterior motives, and you don't launch into gratuitous attacks. Were it that I could say the same among my "friends" on my own side of the aisle.
Uhhh, Not Ben, that's the "Chicken Hawk" Game. It's the post below. Homey don't play that.
When you hide your identity, you display cowardice and are properly called a "coward," notwithstanding any prior record of bravery. When you dismiss anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton as "extreme right," you are a "socialist," if not a Marxist. I know these are inconvenient truths, NB, but they are truths nonetheless.
So, James, I guess I can reasonably assume that you chose not to serve in the military? I don't care for the term "chickenhawk" myself, as I don't believe service is a prerequisite to any support for military action, as most employers of that term do.
I don't believe anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton is "extreme right." I don't believe Tom Davis or Sean Connaughton or Warren Barry or Gary Reese or Chris Shays or Arlen Specter, for example, are "extreme right". I do believe that pre-evolution cro-mags like Scott Lingamfelter and James Dobson are absolutely far right.
Am I now entitled to consider you a fascist, since you believe anyone left of Jerry Falwell is a "Socialist"?
NB, you don't have to assume anything. I don't hide behind a pseudonym. It must be truly frustrating for you to have to misrepresent what I say to engage in your peurile name-calling and misrepresentation of my comments, while my efforts to categorize you rely merely upon the nonsense that you have, yourself, spewed in your posts.
I believe that your accusation was that I "certainly pander to the base elements of the extreme right."
Put up, with examples of what is pandering and what you consider to be "extreme right," or shut up.
Well, Not Ben, you seem to confuse changing one's positions to please a constituency ("pandering") with expressing one's views. So nothing that you describe can reasonably construed as "pandering," as that term is normally understood. I'm not running for anything --- I've specifically foreclosed the possibility --- so I don't give a damn what any particular constituency thinks of me. It's incredibly liberating.
Then again, you clearly have a problem with terms as they're normally understood. That I do not choose to use the euphemisms ("gays") that perverts ("homos"; "fags") choose to use to describe their abberant behavior is not pandering, nor is it "extreme right," particularly in light of the considered wisdom of 5000 years of civilized society on the issue. I also reject the term "boy-lovers" to describe the perverts in NAMBLA.
Neither is judicious description (I have applied the term to perhaps three) of individuals who appear to subscribe to the government tax and spending (as opposed to "tax-and-spend") policies of the Democrat Party "extreme right." Furthermore, I am not a fascist (another term that you clearly do not understand), and I hardly apply the term "RINO" to "any Republican" to the left of me.
Likewise, making a joke at the expense of Hitlary and her far-Left admirers is hardly an "unhealthy ... obsession." More appropriately described as an "unhealthy ... obsession" is reflexive defense of her with your incredibly earnest rantings.
But you keep trying! I know that slander is the preferred manner of "discourse" among the far Left. It must be incredibly frustrated when you have to deal with someone who recognizes your strategy and calls you out on it.
You know, Not Ben, I just figured something out: it's my blog. And when you start accusing people of being fascists, and normal people of being homos, I don't have to take it. DELETED!
"Uh, no, Kevin. We're the plundered that you plunderers attack to subsidize your socialist welfare state."
I forgot who's in charge of this country? Who raised the debt ceiling? At least with us you get taxes and spending on social programs. You were sold a bill of goods with your Republican government. They lowered the taxes and continue to spend at our levels. That's why Republicans are running things into the ground. Spare me your feelings of being a victim.
Well, Kevin, my feelings are immaterial. It's what I think that's important.
And I wouldn't disagree with you that we're spending too much. However, I doubt that your comment means that you're willing to endorse, say, repeal of taxpayer-funded prescription drug benefits and the welfare state; it's just a club with which your beating the President over the head, so spare us your situational objections to government spending.
As for you even raising these issues, if you don't understand the reference, perhaps you should eschew commentary until you do.
We can get into a discussion on whether thoughts and feelings are the same. I feel that they are interchangable as they often collide when I think about my thoughts.
But your quote about people "plundering" you is full of feelings and emotions. You feel attacked. So what you said was a thought but steeped in feeling. So it is not immaterial. Your feelings, instead, are the basis of most of your arguements that you make however hard you try not to do so.
As for commenting, I'll say what I want but in a respectful tone. Of course, this is your "barbecue" and you are free to throw me out.
21 comments:
Congratulations, Vince. 'Cept, as I read your meter (admittedly, I might be wrong), I think you're overstating it slightly.
But then again, I don't pander to tax-and-spend Democrats who view their only path to power as Republican poseurs.
Congratulations. You might not pander to Democrats, but you certainly pander to the base elements of the extreme right. To each their own.
Not Ben, it is revealing indeed that you feel the need and authority to defend Vince.
Need? No I don't "need" to defend anyone. I just find it notable that you attack who anyone panders to when you pander to human waste.
Well, first thing, "not ben," I don't "pander to the base elements of the extreme right." Your problem is one typical among the far Left: you dismiss anyone who isn't a socialist as "extreme right." Second thing, conservatives are not "human waste." Unfortunately for you on the far Left, they're the people who keep this country running. Indeed, their not so much "human waste" as cowards like you who cower in anonymity, obviously fearing to have your name associated with your witless and ill-informed comments.
James, it is kind of funny we have the same critics.
Ben, it's not funny or surprising at all (tragic, maybe). I've only met you once, so I know you mainly by your writing, and I sense in it a sense of humor and honesty such that, even when we disagree, you don't do so in bad faith, or with ulterior motives, and you don't launch into gratuitous attacks. Were it that I could say the same among my "friends" on my own side of the aisle.
So give us a kiss! ;-)
"Coward!" "Socialist!"
Tell me, brave one, what branch of the service were you in?
Uhhh, Not Ben, that's the "Chicken Hawk" Game. It's the post below. Homey don't play that.
When you hide your identity, you display cowardice and are properly called a "coward," notwithstanding any prior record of bravery. When you dismiss anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton as "extreme right," you are a "socialist," if not a Marxist. I know these are inconvenient truths, NB, but they are truths nonetheless.
So, James, I guess I can reasonably assume that you chose not to serve in the military? I don't care for the term "chickenhawk" myself, as I don't believe service is a prerequisite to any support for military action, as most employers of that term do.
I don't believe anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton is "extreme right." I don't believe Tom Davis or Sean Connaughton or Warren Barry or Gary Reese or Chris Shays or Arlen Specter, for example, are "extreme right". I do believe that pre-evolution cro-mags like Scott Lingamfelter and James Dobson are absolutely far right.
Am I now entitled to consider you a fascist, since you believe anyone left of Jerry Falwell is a "Socialist"?
NB, you don't have to assume anything. I don't hide behind a pseudonym. It must be truly frustrating for you to have to misrepresent what I say to engage in your peurile name-calling and misrepresentation of my comments, while my efforts to categorize you rely merely upon the nonsense that you have, yourself, spewed in your posts.
I believe that your accusation was that I "certainly pander to the base elements of the extreme right."
Put up, with examples of what is pandering and what you consider to be "extreme right," or shut up.
Well, Not Ben, you seem to confuse changing one's positions to please a constituency ("pandering") with expressing one's views. So nothing that you describe can reasonably construed as "pandering," as that term is normally understood. I'm not running for anything --- I've specifically foreclosed the possibility --- so I don't give a damn what any particular constituency thinks of me. It's incredibly liberating.
Then again, you clearly have a problem with terms as they're normally understood. That I do not choose to use the euphemisms ("gays") that perverts ("homos"; "fags") choose to use to describe their abberant behavior is not pandering, nor is it "extreme right," particularly in light of the considered wisdom of 5000 years of civilized society on the issue. I also reject the term "boy-lovers" to describe the perverts in NAMBLA.
Neither is judicious description (I have applied the term to perhaps three) of individuals who appear to subscribe to the government tax and spending (as opposed to "tax-and-spend") policies of the Democrat Party "extreme right." Furthermore, I am not a fascist (another term that you clearly do not understand), and I hardly apply the term "RINO" to "any Republican" to the left of me.
Likewise, making a joke at the expense of Hitlary and her far-Left admirers is hardly an "unhealthy ... obsession." More appropriately described as an "unhealthy ... obsession" is reflexive defense of her with your incredibly earnest rantings.
But you keep trying! I know that slander is the preferred manner of "discourse" among the far Left. It must be incredibly frustrated when you have to deal with someone who recognizes your strategy and calls you out on it.
You know, Not Ben, I just figured something out: it's my blog. And when you start accusing people of being fascists, and normal people of being homos, I don't have to take it. DELETED!
Meant to add this to last post: when you can act like an adult (even a cowardly one, posting pseudonymously) your posts will not be deleted.
"Unfortunately for you on the far Left, they're the people who keep this country running."
..into the ground?
Uh, no, Kevin. We're the plundered that you plunderers attack to subsidize your socialist welfare state.
"Uh, no, Kevin. We're the plundered that you plunderers attack to subsidize your socialist welfare state."
I forgot who's in charge of this country? Who raised the debt ceiling? At least with us you get taxes and spending on social programs. You were sold a bill of goods with your Republican government. They lowered the taxes and continue to spend at our levels. That's why Republicans are running things into the ground. Spare me your feelings of being a victim.
Well, Kevin, my feelings are immaterial. It's what I think that's important.
And I wouldn't disagree with you that we're spending too much. However, I doubt that your comment means that you're willing to endorse, say, repeal of taxpayer-funded prescription drug benefits and the welfare state; it's just a club with which your beating the President over the head, so spare us your situational objections to government spending.
As for you even raising these issues, if you don't understand the reference, perhaps you should eschew commentary until you do.
We can get into a discussion on whether thoughts and feelings are the same. I feel that they are interchangable as they often collide when I think about my thoughts.
But your quote about people "plundering" you is full of feelings and emotions. You feel attacked. So what you said was a thought but steeped in feeling. So it is not immaterial. Your feelings, instead, are the basis of most of your arguements that you make however hard you try not to do so.
As for commenting, I'll say what I want but in a respectful tone. Of course, this is your "barbecue" and you are free to throw me out.
Post a Comment