Civility and Decency Among Bloggers
If you’re reading this, you’re probably a blogger. You’ve probably commented at other blogs, and gotten all kinds of responses. After you’ve been called enough names you develop a thick skin, but there are other lowdown skanky responses that some bloggers are stooping to.
Last summer I thought I’d seen a new low when this asshole created a new blog (using a different screen name) solely dedicated to dissing other bloggers whose politics he disagreed with. The same limp-wristed coward followed up this act by creating several gay porn sites that used the names (and Blogger Profile information) of bloggers he disagreed with.
At the time, that was the lowest, most cowardly shit-licking tactic I’d ever seen. But records are made to be broken, and now a new low has been reached.
This little brown-nose fuck responded to a negative comment (no, it wasn’t me) by tracking the commenter’s IP. (Nothing new so far.) Then he discovered that the IP came from a place of business, and he contacted the employer to inform the company that one of their employees was surfing the net using company time and equipment.
He even did a separate post just so he could brag about this. And his little private harem of yes-men fell all over him with agreement and admiration. Come on, Asshole — get somebody possibly fired just for disagreeing with you on your blog?? Seek professional help, Douchebag.
We’ve all grown up with little suckass squealing fucks like this. “Teacher, somebody’s smoking in the Boys’ Room.” “Those people are passing notes back and forth.” “Hey, you forgot to assign homework over Christmas vacation.”
People don’t generally change much from whatever they were during adolescence. (The older you get the more you realize this.) Assuming this pusbucket was a tattle-tale during his school days as well as now, just try to imagine what junior high was like for this dork. How many wedgies and swirlies do you think he got?
Whatever the number is, it’s not enough.
Come on, people. The Blogosphere is a new and vital force, nationally and globally. Call people names if you have to let off steam, but for God’s sake — sabotage someone’s job and livelihood just because they disagree with you?? Come on, get a grip.
As someone said to Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no decency? Have you no sense of shame?”
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:19 AM
39 Comments:
Wow, I can't believe "Mike" would sink to such a level. That's soooo junior high. ;-)
Seriously, what an ass. Everything that I'm reading on his blog makes me cringe.
I've been fortunate not to have gotten too many negative comments on my blog, with the exception of a recent person who chose not to leave the location of THEIR site, who told me my site was bad before and was worse when I changed it. Those kinds of things I can ignore. A fellow blogger with whom I posted on a group site got a very negative response from one particular fellow, who ended up trying to contact this blogger's employer to let them know they employed a crazy homosexual with bad politics (or something along those lines). That was a little scary. That fellow also came to my personal site and then left comments for me on the group site disparaging my opinions (which happened to not agree with his, big surprise) and basically calling me an alcoholic. Nice.
What kind of pathetic, nowhere life must these people have to take the time to do something like this?
Hi Tom,
excellent post.
That RepVet dude is a total asshole. I have had run-ins with him before.
This type of low-down dirty tactics is Republican Style all the way straight from the Rush Limbaugh institute for conservative thinking. Dirty Trix is all they know.
There is a new breed, (well not "new" but more beggars and hangers on are popping up) of ultra right wing blogger popping up that goes beyond the absurd just to get traffic.
There is money to be made in blogging if you can get decent traffic. Many of these so called rightys take to going to big blogs like Eschaton, hang out in the comments section, and say the most assinine, ignorant, and offensive things as possible just to get people to go to their blog.
The best thing I have found is to ignore them. But it is often fun to get in a rousing argument with these Bush Heads.
Why they have to take it a step further like trying to get someone fired from their job is beyond me.
But it smacks if gestappo Nazi tactics. Which is what the Bush Admninistration is all about. No wonder Bush's blind followers use the same tactics.
The President outed a CIA agent for God's sake! Just for revenge!
So I guess it is no wonder that dirt bloggers like Mike or RepVet will jump in the cess pool and sling shit.
I've never had a problem with RV; I've always been able to get along ok with him for some reason - guess I detect more of a mischeiviousness with him than utter hatred in his heart. He just reminds me of a guy in a chatroom who laughs his ass off while he clowns around in "flame wars", versus shaking his fists in anger and hatred at the screen as he types slanderous remarks. I guess I am saying I detect a touch of humor and sarcasm with the guy.
But what this "Mike" character did was absolutely outrageous and over the top and unnaceptable. If somebody ever did that to me, I would find a way to even the score - I promise.
I've never understood why people are hell bent on attacking the messenger's opinions and statements vs. attacking the messenger him/herself. Conservate bloggers, and liberal bloggers alike are all members of a very small community with a lot of power, and there have been times, and there will be more times in the future when we have/will all stand together in solidarity to right certain wrongs. The sooner we all "get this", the better I believe.
A little squabbling and infighting is healthy in between those times, but there is never a reason to cross the line to bring this stuff to the brick and mortar world, to make it so "personal". Sorry for the long-winded response, my friend.
Blog ON...
Cassandra: Yeah, that's pretty low. I used to read some of these rightwing sites a lot more often, probably for the same reason people stop and stare at a grisly car accident. I've pretty much given up looking at them. But I read about this "outing" in somebody else's comment section, so I had to go look.
Invisible Writer: It sounds like you've had some trouble too. I guess it's just part of having a blog. Trying to get somebody in trouble with their employer, that's as low as it can get. You're right, these people must have pathetic nowhere lives.
PoliShifter: Yeah, that's pretty low, trying to get somebody fired from their job just because they disagree. Sort of like a cross between a 7th grade tattle-tale and a Nazi Stormtrooper. Like you say, Bush is setting the example by outing a CIA agent.
Gun-Toting Liberal: Yup, that's definitely outrageous what "Mike" did. I hope this won't be a new trend in online "arguing." You're right that all bloggers have certain things in common, and certain common enemies. Politicians trying to regulate online activity, telecom companies trying to tighten their monopoly and strangle the internet with "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" -- bloggers should be ready to fight these trends, instead of sabotaging each other because of disagreements.
Couldn't have said it better myself, brother....
amazing what assholes are out there
GTL: Thanks.
L: Yeah, there sure are some sickos out there.
If the leader and his henchmen use thuggery and intimidation as means to their ends both here in the U.S. and internationally, and basically FLAUNT such behavior, what can possibly convince their fanatical followers they shouldn't do likewise?
I doubt many of the most fanatical Bush followers may ever be able to see that Bush is not always right about everything (nobody is ever right about everything, right wing of left!), and that people are right to disagree; not only because it is still our right (at least for now) to disagree with the POTUS and his party, but also because we SHOULD disagree with him or at least be willing to disagree, because there are times when he IS WRONG.
As mentioned above, bloggers should unite against common foes who want to regulate the blogosphere. And, I believe all Americans, whether bloggers or not, should unite against an administration that does not like the House and Senate (it views them as nuisances and/or obstacles), which doesn't like the Constitution (Bush has reportedly referred to the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper")... and which wants to concentrate as much power as possible in the executive branch.
If I think an administration is using fear, intimidation, retribution and bullying tactics to achieve a nefarious anti-liberty agenda, with disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I will oppose it, whatever party the leader is a member of. The same goes for an administration which is obviously trying to take over the world. In these cases, I oppose the Bush administration.
Some bloggers are at the very far right end of the spectrum, and it seems like many of them have been snookered into being little more than tools for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other similar types who are in power more for themselves and their rich friends than they are for average Americans, like all of us... including those right-wing bloggers themselves.
It goes to show that you can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people ALL of the time.
I guess you saw me arguing in the comments of that one, then.
Yea, that was me. I couldn't help myself.
What he was arguing about makes no sense. At all.
Snave: Good points. I agree, the behavior of the Bush administration -- violating international law, outing a CIA agent -- is trickling down. Bloggers are picking up his example. And I wouldn't doubt that some of the rightwing bloggers are just Bush/Rove employees, pretending to be "grassroots" citizens.
And I definitely would be against any administration that relies on fear and intimidation, even if I agreed with their politics.
Mike V.: Yup, it was your comment section where I first heard about this. I had to go to Mike's America just to see for myself. Reporting a negative commenter to his/her employer and then bragging about it -- unbelievable. A new low.
Our society has truly reached new lows in decency and civility for an individual to think, even for a moment, that trying to endanger someone's ability to put food on the table because they have a different opinion - is even remotely okay. Nor is driving over someone with your car because they flipped off your questionable driving. These two actions are actually one and the same - character assassination at the workplace and attempts at inflicting physical harm can often reap very similar results. Unfortunately, our president has set an example for the bar of human behavior at about an inch below the curb - so we will probably start seeing even more of this unless malicious mischief civil lawsuits can nip this in the bud. It's fucking with someone's life because you don't like what they said. It's wrong. No gray area. Simply wrong.
Frstlymil: You're right, this is truly a new low. How can someone feel that much hatred and vindictiveness just because a person disagrees with them? It's very much like ramming someone's car just because they flipped you off, or they were going too slow.
The Bush administration has definitely lowered the bar for behavior standards. He outs a CIA agent to get even with her husband; a rightwing blogger tries to get somebody fired just for disagreeing with him. It's sick. Where's it gonna go from here?
Excuse me: but "this little brown nose fuck"
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/
Is sick and tired of frauds LIKE YOU claiming to be who you are not and falsely spreading garbage around the net about anyone who dares to disagree with you.
Dare I say that you are an EXPERT in what you accuse others of instead.
As for the case in question at my site:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/
We had a commenter "greenink" using the technology resources of his newspaper, the Register Guard to reveal a socialist/revisionist point of view.
Your readers can read the post that describes that exchange here:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/#114434597470341594
Now, perhaps you think that such obvious displays of revisionist/socialism are no big deal on the part of the media, but then, some of you still deny that the media is in fact biased against conservatives.
I too, ask "WHO HIJACKED OUR COUNTRY?"
Who was it that decided that teaching Americans to hate themselves was a good idea?
Who was it that decided our nation did not deserve any special place among nations?
Who was it that view us on the same moral plane as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?
All of these equations of moral relevance are freely distributed among those on the left who may go further like Ward Churchill, and suggest that we Americans deserve to die in attack like September 11th.
Yes, WHO HIJACKED OUR COUNTRY? and made hate speech such a central facet of their ideology?
Who?
The answer is not George W. Bush, OR Ronald Reagan.
I suggest you look in the mirror!
Well well, it surfaces. I'm not gonna argue about politics, since that wasn't what this post was about. You and I are obviously 180 degrees apart politically. That's fine; this is America and we all get to express ourselves and disagree. My post was about the absolute sleaziness and meanness of contacting someone's employer to inform them that one of their employees is surfing the net using company time and equipment. What, you want to get somebody fired just because they disagree with you?? Lighten up!
I already read your post, and the preceding post where Greenink left the comments. Obviously I'd already read this before I did my post.
I don't know if you've read much of this blog (probably not) but when someone disagrees with me I don't pounce all over them. If they're civil, I'm perfectly happy to discuss issues civilly. On the other hand, anyone who disagrees with one of your posts gets jumped on by you and all your admirers. That's fine, it's your blog, be that way. But reporting someone to his/her employer -- that's a new low.
Mike, I think it's time to take the high road here.
As an aside, I'm really not sure how a Reagan republican can even stomach GWB, but that's for another post.
Trying to "bust" a guy on the old information super-highway because you don't agree with his politics and want to out him to his employer is a fucked up thing to do.
There's no need for it.
He has a bias, and he works at a paper (we are assuming) but he was expressing his bias on the internets on your blog.
Mike V.: I'm afraid "Mike's America" missed the whole point of my post. It wasn't about politics; I was just stating what a dirty underhanded tactic it is to try getting somebody in trouble with their employer just because they disagree. His whole comment was just to argue about politics. Whatever.
No Tom... I didn't miss your hypocrisy one bit.
In a post titled "Civility and Decency Among Bloggers"
You introduce me to your readers with "This little brown-nose fuck" and go on to say "Seek professional help, Douchebag" and "We’ve all grown up with little suckass squealing fucks like this."
And you close with "As someone said to Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no decency? Have you no sense of shame?"
I'd say you are the worst form of hypocrite... You're poisoned the well of political discourse and have the nerve to point the finger.
I would say you should be ashamed, but as you cite McCarthy, I doubt you are capable of registering that emotion.
Mike, Mike, Mike: We're still talking about 2 different things. You're on the Right; I'm on the Left -- that's not the point of this post or these comments. Again, this post and the comments here (except yours) are about how lowdown and rotten it is to squeal to somebody's employer. It's a pretty drastic way to get even with someone for disagreeing with you.
And Greenink didn't "come running" to me. I read about this in somebody else's comment section. Then I went to your blog to see for myself, and read Greenink's comments and your post where you bragged about "outing" him to his employer. I was so pissed at your spiteful tactic that I did a post about it.
It's not about politics. If you show me a leftwing blogger who tried to get even with a negative commenter by outing him to his employer, I'll be just as scathing about that.
O.K. Tom... Mr. C I V I L I T Y:
So it's OK for you to fling insults left and left:
-"little brown-nose fuck"
- "Seek professional help, Douchebag"
-"little suckass squealing fucks like this."
Thank you again for the clarification that rules or standards for ethics and conduct are ONLY meant to be applied to conservatives.
You apparently are exempt.
You really have some nerve talking about C I V I L I T Y and S H A M E!
You remind me of Michael Moore, no doubt your hero, who sat in the place of honor in the Presidential Box next to Jimmy Carter at the Dem Convention in 2004, then had the nerve to show up at the GOP Convention and flash an "L" for LOSER sign towards the crowd in New York.
If there is a LOSER here, it isn't the people who recognize the failure of you people to either win a national election or come up with a positive, effective platform of ideas to address the truly life and death issues every single citizen of this nation faces on a daily basis.
You're an embarrassment to yourself!
Christ, you just don't get it, do you. The ENTIRE SUBJECT of my post was how lowdown and meanspirited it was to squeal to somebody's employer that one of their employees is surfing the net on company time and equipment. This has NOTHING to do with politics, Left, Right, Moonbats, Wingnuts, Michael Moore. This person could have been fired from his job because of you narcing on him. Do you GRASP what this means?? He could have lost his livelihood, just so you could get even with him for leaving a negative comment.
You haven't once addressed this, the fact that you squealed to somebody's employer with the possibility of getting him/her fired, and THAT is what my entire post was about. Apparently you have so much hatred and contempt for people who disagree with you that you think it's OK to track down a commenter's IP and report him to his employer.
Since that was the entire subject of my post, it's pointless for you to keep coming back here and commenting unless you address that subject and say why you think it's OK to narc somebody off to his employer. I don't delete comments -- I only have comment moderation because of one psycho sickfuck that was plaguing my site last summer -- but unless you address that specific subject we're just gonna be going around in circles.
So, in a post about civility it is OK tocall people "little brown nose fucks" but when they take exception to that attack the only point you wish to make isthat the name calling wasn't the point of the post.....got it.
OK....people shouldn't be blogging from work, and if you make a comment from your work computer and get in trouble for it then stop commenting from work.
I have had my old address posted by asshats, placing people I care about in danger, and am now joining a lawsuit to stop them......they post from a university, and hopefully we can get them, at the least, expelled.
What some people seem to forget is teh words "personal responsibility", and is you are willing to put a comment, thought or stance out in the world, you should have the balls to stand by it and defend it.
That asshats deserves to be fired, unless he is being paid to be a troll......then by all means give him a raise.
You guys talk like you're from a banana republic.
Have you ever been to Eugene? Do you know anything about the Eugene Register-Guard? Have you ever heard of anyone working there getting a reprimand for posting to a blog--much less being fired?
The guy probably got employee of the month.
We're the state of mavericks--Wayne Morse, Tom McCall.
I think you need a vacation. Quick! To Oregon!
Mike, we live in a world where we can pretty much do what we want, as long as we are willing to face the consequences of those actions. You don't get to commit a completely irresponsible and immature act against a fellow human and expect no one to call you on it. This is not left and right politics, it's called socially acceptable behavior in an advanced society. If you don't want to get your feelings hurt by people saying things like, "This little brown-nose fuck," "Seek professional help, Douchebag" and "We’ve all grown up with little suckass squealing fucks like this" - then perhaps you should think twice before doing something so potentially damaging to a person that they might lose the ability to pay their rent, feed their children, cover their insurance premiums - because you don't like what they have to say and think that the bloggosphere gives you the right to do what ever you want because you will never have to look this person in the eye. If you don't want to be called a coward - then don't commit cowardly acts - it's that simple. The right thing to do here would be to acknowledge that you used the internet in an irresponsible fashion and apologize to the person who's life could have been greviously effected by that. Life is too damn short to waste it being an asshole.
Kender: First of all, I sympathize with your problem, having your address posted by an asshole. That's pretty low -- hope you go after 'em.
Of course people shouldn't be blogging from work, but lots of people do. Nobody's perfect. The reason everyone hates a tattle-tale is not because the person being squealed on wasn't doing something wrong. Tattle-tales and squealers are hated because it's just a lowly thing to do, to tell on somebody. You really think somebody should be fired from his job just for blogging at work? Jeez, lighten up.
Terrence: Nope, I don't know anything about the Eugene Register-Guard, or their politics, or whether an employee would get fired for blogging from work. But I'm assuming it was the intention of "Mike's America" to get this person in trouble, just like a junior high tattle-tale. Only having to stay after school is a little less drastic than getting fired.
Frstlymil: Bravo! What you said.
Eugene is pretty liberal. Particularly for Oregon.
It's a college town.
Some of the more rural areas in Oregon are SCARY right wing crazy. Bible thumping, gun toting and just a little wacked out.
Am I the only one who enoys the delicious irony of our host bitching about "meanness" and "civility"...AFTER going on a profanity-laced tirade against someone who was perceived to be mean and uncivil?
I mean, really...THAT is rich! "Don't be mean...YOU ASSHOLE!" LOL!
Mike V.: I think California, Oregon and Washington are all pretty much divided by East and West. It's a generalization, but by and large the Coastal areas are more liberal and the inland areas are more conservative. And larger cities are generally more liberal, no matter where they're located.
Anonymous: Yes, there's an irony here, I'll admit it. "Be civil, you Asshole!" Yes I know it's contradictory, but some actions, like ratting somebody out to his employer, deserve a lot of name-calling. I wouldn't walk into a bar and call somebody the names I called "Mike's America," but then "Mike's America" wouldn't walk into a bar and tell someone "I just ratted you out to your employer. What're you gonna do about it?"
BTW, if you're who I think you are (you have a certain distinctive writing style, let's just say), don't make a habit of commenting over here.
Haha. I've been laughing at my ass off through all of this.
Reporting you to your employers? Does this guy seriously have no career, no job to go to, and have no other pressing issues of his waking day that's he tracking IP addresses halfway across the country to try to get a hard-working man fired?
I'm sorry. I have to laugh at the pure pettiness of such an unbelievable brat move.
I've had a run-in or two with Angry Mike's America, mainly over the summer. Instead of tracking my IP Address and reporting me to my employers (which was a major Hollywood studio), he merely blocked it. Whatever. Not like I lost sleep over it.
Still, what a whining little reactionary brat. "Abedding terrorists", wah wah wah...Keep scrolling, he even calls us Holocaust deniers in one post.
Revisionist/Socialists, America-hating, troop-hating, terrorist-comforting, intolerant, supporting illegal immigration, and now Holocaust deniers?
Which one is it? Can we be all of those things?
At least we never bought the WMD argument. Or the link between Iraq/Al Queda. Or the link between Iraq/9-11. Or the uranium sale from East Africa (or should we be spelling it "Afrika"?).
If you ever meet this Mike in person, check his left-hand ring finger. Ten bucks says you'll find the source of our South Carolina friend's anger there.
That's something you can't blame on the Socialists, Mikey.
Layne: I've gotta agree with you; this guy must have too much time on his hands, as well as being spiteful and vindictive. In one of my earlier comments here, I pointed out to "Mike" that I'm usually civil to people who disagree with my posts, unlike his blog.
I also commented at his site once, last summer. He jumped all over me and then the rest of his harem all joined in. I don't know if he banned me or not; I didn't bother commenting there again. Some conservative bloggers are willing to discuss things rationally, but he isn't one of them.
But I'm sure it's the socialists that are causing all his problems, especially those Revisionist-Socialists.
Yeah, Tom. I wouldn't take him too seriously. Read his profile. College Republican For Life, Reagan White House sycophant intern, and the very reason we liberals laugh in digust whenever we're accused by the opposition of being "the party of elitists".
Managed to get the EPA to pay him to be something he wasn't - senstive, and now he's paying himself to be something he's not - a writer.
So don't take it too personally. You've still got a job, and Mike is still an asshole. So no big changes came out of this, other than the fact that it just makes us even more liberal.
His angry rants and disgusting rhetoric reminds me of this hilarious video I saw on one of the blogs. This college-aged kid, who didn't look a day over 14, infiltrated a College Republican meeting armed with Sign Up forms to go Iraq.
The College Reps immediately got in his face and lambasted him for every other reason except what he was holding his hands -- an opportunity for these Yellow Elephants to put their money where their big mouths were.
Cowardice. Pure fucking cowardice. Mike, who's probably close to 50, would sadly fit right in with that brood.
BTW, if you're who I think you are (you have a certain distinctive writing style, let's just say), don't make a habit of commenting over here.
1. Don't we ALL have our own distinctive writing style?
2. I can't comment here? While you're getting all hypocritical ("Don't be mean...you asshole!"), perhaps I can expect you'll tell MY employer? LOL!
actually, if there ever was a collective group of people that would be more likely to be
"Revisionist/Socialists, America-hating, troop-hating, terrorist-comforting, intolerant, supporting illegal immigration, and Holocaust deniers"
It would be those that call themselves "conservatives" nowdays.
Based on the treatment of the Constitution of this great land, their underfunding of the VA, the fuck up that IS Iraq now, not clamping down on employers that hire illegals and then the downright racists that exist all over the south (that delivered the 2000 and 04 election), I'd say they are closer than anyone I would ever know to all those things..
Layne: I definitely don't take someone like that seriously at all. I don't care about his political views, but anyone who would get even with a commenter by ratting him out to his employer -- I want nothing to do with someone like that. That commenter wasn't being vicious or attacking him personally or anything; just disagreeing with his views. His comments were a little sarcastic maybe, but not personal attacks.
"Mike's America" must have led a pretty sheltered life if he still has such a thin skin after all these years, regardless of all the high-ranking jobs he's had (according to his profile).
Yeah, Operation Yellow Elephant is really a scream. It sure shows the true colors of these armchair warriors.
Anonymous: I was just saying that your writing style reminded me a lot of somebody I used to have a lot of run-ins with. If you're not him, no problemo. In any case I hardly ever delete or reject comments. I deleted a comment yesterday from "Mike's America." In my last comment to him I told him there was no point in coming back here unless he wanted to talk about why it's OK to report somebody to his employer, since that was what this post was about. His next comment was nothing but "...socialist...Michael Moore...hate America...moonbat..." so I rejected it. But that's the only comment I've rejected since I started using comment moderation 3 months ago.
Mike V.: I couldn't agree more. The party roles have mutated so much, it's unrecognizable. The party of "limited government" is pushing the Patriot Act, massive wiretapping and a multi-billion dollar deficit. The party of "individual responsibility" seems to think anything Halliburton does is OK as long as taxpayers are footing the bill. Etc.
I agree with your blog! Visit my blog if you have a chance at http://cheftami.blogspot.com/
Tami: Thanks for stopping by. Interesting article on vodka; that's my favorite beverage.
This thread put some focus on something that's been in the back of my mind for some time.
It's the idea that leaders tend to get followers that share their values and their style - and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, especially as followers tend to be a bit more extreme, and in many cases have little perspective on the Big Picture, and how their actions affect it.
I started noticing this with Rush, some time ago. Rush is, of course, right. He's always right because nobody calls him on being wrong, when he frequently is. They screen calls, you see, and largely speaking the only people who call Rush are those there to blow smoke up his ass.
Much like our Preznit. But I digress.
Anyway, he's there in this little anti-intellectual bubble that insulates him from any real reaction , and on the rare occasions when he is confronted with reality, he lashes out or retreats.
I mean, this behavior is not unique to this Mike fella. O'Rielly is notorious for sending Fox Security after a caller who disagreed with him.
As for your vulgarity toward him - I note that it is vulgar, but with vulgar people, one must turn to the Vulgate. For while they do not parse seven letter words well, they often understand ones with four.
And yes, trying to get someone fired for bogging from work because they disagree with you is inexcusable, and shows a complete lack of a sense of proportion, a sense of justice and a sense of prudent restraint; all things revealed in the character of our president and reflected in the idiot rhetoric of lick-spittle running-dog paper tigers such as Mike.
Trying to get a liberal reporter fired from a liberal newspaper for being a LIBERAL and doing actual news-gathering... do you KNOW how real journalists do their jobs?
I am a libertarian, not a Socialist. But I've always WANTED to be able to call someone a lick-spittle running dog paper tiger, for the same reason that Armond Hammer flies regularly to China in his private jet, "The Capitalist Tool."
I mean, if the Little Red Book fits...
I wonder if you realize that his comments about illegal miappropriatons of lands, and illegal wars to get them were factual? One may interpret history from whateer view one wishes - and one generally does - but facts are, in fact facts. "History" that is non -factual is, precisely speaking, another thing entirely.
"Fiction."
"Who was it that decided our nation did not deserve any special place among nations?"
Gee, who said it did. I don't see it in the Federalist Papers.
"Who was it that view us on the same moral plane as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?"
If you don't want people to say that, you actually have to be on a higher moral plain. Your example - of acting like an old soviet block-watcher, reporting Anti-Soviet behavior to the KGB is really not a lot different to GW trying to sneak authorization for his own Gestapo into the Patriot Act.
You know, here's something I don't think tighty-righties quite understand about reality. Just because something is CALLED "The Patriot Act", it does not mean that supporting it is patriotic.
Or, as Russ Fiengold said, when asked why he voted against it, in isolation:
"I read it."
It is becoming clear to us that the inability to read, comprehend, and act on information toward a productive, much less rational and positive end is a common trait among Bushites.
I will not insult Republicans in general; there are one or two I respect.
Oh, and don't bother banning me from your blog. The only reason I'm picking on you at all is that you are a representative specimen, and as none of your expressed excuses have much to do with your real motives - just like your mentor - and none of them are actually worthy of anything but the contempt of intelligent persons of any political view, I shall not sully myself.
You see, folks, what effort one needs to expend to be civil in the face of such twaddle?
I should have just settled for "asshole."
Bob: Hi. I see you're a member of that same "Blogroll for Inclusive Debates" that I'm a member of.
The "Vulgate" kept coming over here and arguing about politics, even though this post wasn't political. I just thought it was repulsive that someone would rat somebody out to his employer just to get even for disagreeing with him. So that's what the post was about.
Yeah, his tactics probably were patterned after Rush, and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and Lee Atwater.
I also agree with some Republicans. It's too bad the political climate has gotten so hostile that disagreement turns to hatred and vengeance.
Post a Comment
<< Home