Skip navigation




    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 10:36 am
    • Permalink

    Dear dear, me-

    I guess Mobami missed the days devoted to “no tolerance for bullies” sessions in grade school. In my son’s public school, the kids have to answer two pages of questions about what bullying behavior is. Then they ger to read statments such as:

    “I didn’t know I was a bully when I thought I was ‘leader of the pack’ (bossing everyone around).”

    “I didn’t know I was a bully when
    I sent you hurtful messages by excluding you.”

    I think Mobami should have to make up those sessions.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 10:36 am
    • Permalink

    That damn Mobami and his oppression. Will the White Man ever be free? 😦

    • Max
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 10:42 am
    • Permalink

    Excellent, Zack.
    This latest inadvertent, and embarrassing revelation by Obama and crew is reminiscent of the double standard First Amendment scholar Nat Hentoff–another fine non-conservative mind–addresses in his book, Free Speech For Me–But Not For Thee.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 10:47 am
    • Permalink

    Fox News: “Obama is going to rape all children and kill your grandmothers and force white people into slavery!”

    White House: “Shut up.”


    • Max
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 11:02 am
    • Permalink

    Fine response, wootabega–and done without a trace of hyperbole.

  1. Methodistmin: Yeah– who would have thought that president-elects upon entering the White House need to receive instructive questionnaires on schoolyard bullying.

    Thanks Max– the Hentoff sounds like very worthwhile reading and I agree that he’s one of those rare, principled non-conservatives who will buck the Democrat Party line when he thinks it needs bucking.

  2. Some people have very strange definitions of the First Amendment.


    I mean FOX News, who has argued in court that “news” doesn’t mean you have to tell the truth, because the First Amendment allows you to lie.

    I have no idea why an organization like that might not be given preferential treatment in journalistic access!

    • Sarah
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:39 pm
    • Permalink

    Hey, remember that time that Obama made it illegal to watch Fox News? Good times.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 24, 2009 at 6:52 pm
    • Permalink

    Good point Zack-!

    This is Saul Alinsky’s version of basketball… compliments of the “hope & change” status quo.

  3. “Saul Alinsky sports”– what an amusing but sickening concept, Steve T. Yet, you’re right: since it’s well known that Obama read long and deep in that radical’s writings it’s easy to see the outcome in practically every ugly move he makes. Still, I thought even for him the baldly bullying attempt to ostracize an important news organ would reek too obviously of totalitarianism for his taste. Boy was I wrong!

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 7:51 am
    • Permalink

    Zack – From what I hear and read, his effort to demonize Fox News is backfiring.

    After reading an article mentioning the interesting disappearance of Obama bumper stickers, I started to look around for myself – and ‘by joe’, what once used to be a common site, is now hard to find-!

    I am, so very much looking to stay up and watch election returns 12 months & a week from now.
    Chris Mathews (missing the “tingle” up his leg) and Keith Oberman will need valium-!!!

    • GeekNerd
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 9:19 am
    • Permalink

    Walter Cronkite falsely reported the Tet Offensive as a victory for the Viet Cong, when in fact it was a massive defeat.

    I wonder what the history of the Republic of South Vietnam would have been had Nixon done to Cronkite what Obama is trying to do to Fox News? Perhaps the massive murder, rape, enslavement, etc. of the “boat people” and in the “killing fields” would have been avoided.

  4. GeekNerd: That’s a fascinating “What If”, especially because

    a) Cronkite reported the Tet Offensive was a stalemate/quagmire, not a “defeat” for either side.

    b) Cronkite’s pieces did little to affect the actual prosecution of the war, nor did it significantly turn public opinion, that happened months later.

    c) Lyndon Johnson was president at the time.

    d) Nixon actually had literal enemies lists and shut out many journalists from his White House, though I don’t believe Cronkite was on the list.

    But other than that, who knows?

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 10:18 am
    • Permalink

    People who aren’t either terribly naive, or are comfortable with socialism or communism becoming the form of goverment under Obama ought to be scared or veryt concerned about his bullying tactics and his approach to govrenment. This man, Lou Pritchett, the former VP of Proctor and Gamble is. He wrote this letter to the NYT, an open letter to Obama, which was a never published, but according to snopes has received 500, 000 hits:

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 10:30 am
    • Permalink

    Note the last sentence; “You scare me because if you serve a second term I would probably not feel comfortable wriitng this letter.” William Ayers most likely wrote an least one of Obama’s books, and had a discussion with an FBI informant posing as a Weather Underground member where Ayers was asked, “What happens to the people who don’t accept communism after the revolution-that Ayers and his political sociopaths wanted to bring about-Probably about 25 million would need to be taken care of”, ie. killed, Ayers replied. Obama has at least 3 years wbo embrace Moa, a notorius mass murdering sociopath. Obama was surrounded in his youth by communists and William Ayers is his ghost writer. What a great guy to have as our president! :^(

  5. Methodistmin: …and that’s not even touching on Obama’s 22 years of mentorship under hate-spewing, anti-Semitic, anti-white super-bigot Jeremiah Wright, whose church features among it’s guiding documents various Hamas writings and whose adherents whooped it up after 9/11 “because America was getting what it deserved.” As you say: what a great guy to have as our president.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    • Permalink

    “After reading an article mentioning the interesting disappearance of Obama bumper stickers, I started to look around for myself – and ‘by joe’, what once used to be a common site, is now hard to find-!”

    You mean people are taking off 2008 Election bumper stickers in 2009? Amazing! I never could have imagined.

    • Max
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 12:10 pm
    • Permalink

    Quite true, MethodistMin.
    No previous president has had associations anywhere near as radical as Obama’s. It could be argued that former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, harbored equally extreme sympathies. But, of course, she was never in any position to act on her convictions. And it bears mentioning that even if she had been, her ideas would’ve (then) been rejected. That’s how far we’re fallen. Even as late as 1972, the American moral character was still sound enough to see George McGovern for what he was (and remains), an unrepentant “useful idiot.” No doubt at that time, Obama would’ve been similarly humbled at the polls.
    But not now.
    What a sad setting for America’s once radiant sun.

  6. Max: Thanks for the enlightenment RE: Eleanor Roosevelt. Well-meaning and in some ways very decent woman though she was, I too have read of various of her less savory beliefs and it was based on that information that I decided to name my Leftist cemetery “Eleanor Roosevelt Valley.”

    • Ken
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm
    • Permalink

    I didn’t know Zack opposed private property. The message in the comic is clearly in opposition to an individual controlling his own land/goods. I knew Zack was just a commie pretending to be a conservative. The racism in his comics is actually being used to slander conservatives, or perhaps Zack is an agent provocateur, or maybe both.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 2:02 pm
    • Permalink

    People STILL have Bush 2000 stickers around here, and 04. Maybe it’s just the Left that takes off bumper stickers after they’ve served their purpose?

  7. You’re right, Ken– I’m a commie, an anti-commie, fascist, anti-fascist– I’m all things to all people; like Obama, during the campaign!

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm
    • Permalink

    There is a very well established history of folks keeping their presidential bumper stickers on;
    – Lots of folks kept their Nixon stickers on well into his first term.
    – Dito for Reagan,… for much of eight years
    – many “W’ stickers were kept also for most of his two terms.

    On the other side, Jimmy Carter stickers had a very short half-life, as did Clinton stickers.

    Now – one would think that this “historic” and “transformative” (Chicago thug w/ a five-minute resume’) new president would inspire vast numbers of his voters to keep their hopee-change & “O” stickers on, for much more than nine (9) months.

    Add that to the list of items you cannot (or prefer not to) imagine.

  8. Actually your own examples seem to indicate that Republicans keep bumper stickers on and Democrats do not.

    Maybe your revisionist history books did not teach you this in school Steve T, but Bill Clinton was a two term president with generally high approval ratings throughout his eight years in office.

    Also maybe it’s just because I live in an urban setting where very few people I know have cars, but since when are bumper stickers the bellwether for presidential approval? Because while I do remember seeing a W sticker on cars into 2007-8 (and one a few months ago!) I was unaware that these bumper stickers are now how we judge the public’s satisfaction with a politician.

    It’s amazing how Opie & Anthony were better mayors than Giuliani!

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm
    • Permalink

    I’ve seen a W sticker from either 2000 or 04 within the past week on a car or suv. Like I said, maybe the Left just takes the stickers off once the elections are over. You’re reading waaayyy to far into it Steve.

  9. I’m still trying to figure out the connection between Obama being THE CHOSEN MESSIAH GODHEAD for all liberals and this apparent backlash where everyone hates him now.

    Will the cock crow three times before the last Obama bumper sticker is taken off?

    • GeekNerd
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 7:36 am
    • Permalink

    Oops. Just like FDR going on television after the Stock Market crash.

    But Cronkite DID report the Tet Offensive as a stalemate, when in fact the Viet Cong and Viet Min where decimated afterwards. It was a massive defeat for the Communists in Vietnam, NOT a stalemate.

    And Cronkite DID from that point forward condemn and attack US involvement in Vietnam.

    From the aftermath of the defeat of the Republic of South Vietnam, one can observe that while “war is unhealthy for children and other living creatures,” Communism is, too.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 7:50 am
    • Permalink

    Presently, much more time is needed to find an Obama sticker (depending on location), compared to 6 months ago… finding a ‘cock to crow’ is a simpler matter – find a farm.

    What is known as the ‘swing vote’ – are those who had a good feeling about Obama (he won the swing vote), were impressed with his speech delivery, confident tone, and YES, that they had a chance to vote for the first black candidate.
    “History in the making…”, never mind Obama was not evaluated, or vetted by “…the content of his character”, rather he was promoted in part by “…the color of his skin”.
    Echo’s of Martin L. King-

    Many of these voters did not examine much about his background, and did/would not listen to those trying to expose the Chicago-Thug-Leftist character… now entrenched at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    This voting element was easy to find (if they will admit their vote), and I spoke several of them pre-election. The ones I now chat with are admitting buyer’s remorse… common expressions are, “…I didn’t think he do this…”, or a similar way of saying they misjudged Obama.

    Guess what-? When phony, ‘plastic-banana’ messiah images come crashing down, folks who were mislead tend to get P.O.’d.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 9:25 am
    • Permalink

    Well, actually, I do know two people-not even residents of this country but still citizens- who voted for Obama primarily because he was an African American. They are white. She said “My daughter (who has never lived here, but has dual citizenship with France). “wants to be able to cast her first vote for an Afrian American.” That was the first thing she mentioned. They knew next to nothing about Obama aside from the fact that he wasn’t George Bush and wasn’t a Republican. The only news they really followed was French news about the election. The French loved Obama. Do I understand people wanting to have an African American President? Yes. Do I think it’ questionable to have that be the main criteria? Yes.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 10:15 am
    • Permalink

    Damn French always destroying America.

    • Max
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 10:28 am
    • Permalink

    Thanks, MethodistMin. I believe that race was a very important criterion for liberal voters. Not that it was the primary criterion (if the Republicans had, for instance, run Thomas Sowell, he would’ve received little or no support from liberals). So, what Obama needed most to succeed was to be a man of the left–which, of course, he is. However, that being said, if Obama were same in every way, but were white, Hillary would’ve destroyed him in the primary.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm
    • Permalink

    All Conservative African Americans are considered uncle Tom’s, in the eyes of the left. (just like conservatives, MUST be painted as racists) Not struggle worthy. Or at the very least “sell outs” to the white establishment. Its always about race with the left.

    Obama’s agenda was displayed throughout his campaign. If anyone on the left is disappointed with him thus far, its most likely because he has not moved his agenda fast enough.

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm
    • Permalink

    One of the African Americans who was at the tea party protest in DC (He is a songwriter and performer but his name escapes me right now) said the vitriol ansd racism he got from white liberals was incredible.I guess that’s because he decided to step off the Democratic plantation. A man I read regularly-Kevin Jackson- who writes a blog called “the Black sphere” has comtempt for white liberals and the Democratic Party and he’s obviusly not afan of Barack Obama at all. And yes, some liberals are disappointed in Obama, but as is apparent on political blaogs the fawning over Obama and the rationalizations for his behavior go on:

    • MethodistMin
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 12:52 pm
    • Permalink

    LOL; Zach So you’re “All things to all people.” Sounds just like Obama. In fact, he himself said that he was a blank screen for people to project their hopes and dreams upon.” Unfortunately, lots of folks didn’t know what was behind the screen. I have to hand it to Axelrod; Obama was very cleverly and slickly packaged. Even the Obama symbol loooked like a Pepsi logo.

  10. Some people have very strange definitions of the First Amendment.


    I mean FOX News, who has argued in court that “news” doesn’t mean you have to tell the truth, because the First Amendment allows you to lie.

    I have no idea why an organization like that might not be given preferential treatment in journalistic access!

    Har har. Tis to laugh.

    Actually, if memory serves, good libs have argued that ANYTHING amounts to free speech, up to and including those ditties that include actually THREATENING people and deemed “fighting words” by the USSC in some cases, and dripping, burning flags.

    FOX News is not saying that lies are tantamount to good reportage (as if the other truly had any leg to stand on) but rather that someone else’s definition of the “The TRUTH” (IE–whatever highlights in a positive light, Obama’s headscratching policies of the Great Apology Tour and the de facto legalization of illegal alien access to health care, or whatever Tom Friedman happens to mumble, etc.) is NOT the wall of separation about what is deemed worthy.

    As to the rest of the above, while Fox certainly seems tenditious at times compared to some of the other Bootlick Brigade Netorks, or modulates slightly Right, I think that stuff about NOBAMA and other bumper sticker language is purely homegrown from the people–not from Fox News.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm
    • Permalink

    “Actually, if memory serves, good libs have argued that ANYTHING amounts to free speech”

    I thought the current right-wing memo is that liberals are trying to ban speech because it is offensive. You right-wing wack-jobs just can’t stay on message.

  11. Yep, Ken.

    Remember I said “if memory serves”–meaning that was in the old days when such notions from liberals served them in the expression of the avante-guarde take on thing.

    Apparently the phrase “staying on message” or any variant therof confuses most of you, because the very issue was the rapid change in tune when they found themselves on the opposite side of the stream and now we get to giggle at those who’re adept at dishing it out, but not quite so in taking the plate to the face day-in, day-out.

    The current “memo”–the proverbia word on the street, Ken, is that all speech that does not jive with certain world views on the Left is to be heavily screened by means such as archaic (but no effect on dinosaurs like newsprint) “Fairness Doctrines.”

    Possibly a stretch, though I might point out little Hugo had his version of this in his proud tyranny down south.

    And good lefties like Cass Sunstein (yet another little Mao-skiteer name from the Obama administration–he’s got quite a few of these…)and some others would do so if they could.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:22 am
    • Permalink

    In case you have not been with this site very long, there are a few things you will soon discover;

    1. Attempting to engage Ken in a rational exchange of idea’s is about as rewarding as playing with an over-caffeinated, 160 lb bull mastiff suffering from out-of-control projectile vomiting and similar dispersals from other bodily functions.
    For some reason, there is a desire to bathe after an exchange with him.

    2. If you make your points too effectively, you stand a chance of being accused of being a “troll”.

    3. If you are perceived as agreeing too much with Zack, you will be accused of being Zack, under another name.

    4. For your repeated offences (see #2), you might find yourself living rent-free, in the little minds of those whose characters fit the ambiance described in item #1.
    You will know this when your name might is (albeit unprovoked) included in unforeseen accusatory future rants about racism, homo-erotic related behavior,… generally anything from an infantile liberal frame of reference.

    Welcome to a great site that has a few loose left-wing nuts -!

    • Ken
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:20 am
    • Permalink

    Look at that tortured logic.

    LOL Fairness Doctrine.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 6:54 am
    • Permalink

    Uhh, where have 2 & 3 happened Steve? You’re the only righty whose been called a troll, and no one has claimed Steve is posing as someone else far as I know. And Ken just doesn’t like you, because, well, you’ve been a jerk and are just as vitriolic.

  12. unforeseen accusatory future rants about racism, homo-erotic related behavior

    Well, Steve, your précis on such behavioral matters is (in my experience) right on queue for how libs behave when flustered.

    No sooner than some UK leftie told me of his proud days of protesting in the streets over even the most meager cuts in “free” healthcare from the mighty state and ran into my philosophical opposition (and some handy facts about the lackluster performance thereof) he started with me about homoerotic stuff.

    Much mirth I find as a man married for 15 years and with three sons about these fantasies libs have that the whole world is gay at some closeted or deeply recessed level.

    They think the Pope is gay, apparently.

    As to the rules of order and perceptions about ME, I’m not really worried about that.

    My concern, a la El Keno, is that a new tactic has emerged of late; denigrate the opponents and have much mirth and mockery of their notions about things like, oh, the Fairness Doctrine (as if ANYONE would EVER DEIGN to bring THAT old biddy back into service, eh…oh wait…they..sorta do want it back…never mind.) and whether the mops you clean the floor with (per Obama) matter not if it is a socialist mop or capitalist mop, etc., only to switch gears later and THEN mock that no one saw your brilliant lying beforehand.

    For example: Previously, we were told it was “all” a lie that the new Prez is radical and has associated with radicals and assorted nuts and fruits and Maoskiteers like Alinsky and Dunn and that science czar nutcase.

    Now that it is all but admitted, where told it makes no difference.

    The mockery about the Fairness Doctrine will subside also. But it will shift from denial to advocacy–like everything else libs claim is a lie, only to be forced to affirm later.

    For example, it is far from likely the “health care” debate will for all eternity revolve around Obama’s oddball, Libertarian, Austrian School of Economics battle cry for “merely more competition.” It won’t, and now we very much are going to see the removal of private insurers after a number of years. So too we’ll see illegal aliens get to sign up for the goodies and handouts all the same after being told this too was another Fox News lie.

    As to the spurious accusations of trolldom–THAT, I can handle.

  13. …make that “we’re told”, not “where told.”

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:40 pm
    • Permalink

    Numerous wise men have noted that the harsh, infantile rants of one’s opponents often betray how well one has made a point, and/or the how strong one’s position is.

    Zacks great site is catching on in many new places,… yet one of our current DWLs [diaper wetting liberals] made the accusation that DL was a “troll site”.

    Amazingly pathetic reasoning.

    So, I reflect that the culture Ken and Manual C. belong to are among those who try to physically assault Ann Coulter at her speaking events and rejoice at the false quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh.

    I consider their abhorrence a positive indicator.

    Wakefield – as this is the first political-blog site I have participated in, why do you suppose those DWL’s feel drawn to visiting a place like DL, when the whole premise is 180 degree’s to their belief’s-?
    I do not identify with what reward they find here.

    I have NO interest in partaking in a lib-lefty blog site,… such time & effort seems much like ‘throwing pearl before swine’.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Actually, the strategy I am employing is mocking stupid people and/or stupid ideas. Trying to engage in debates with Flavor Aid drinking right-wing nuts, like Zack, Meth, Steve, etc. just gives them the impression that their foolish notions are actually legitimate. It’s much better to give such nonsense the ridicule it deserves.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    • Permalink

    Exhibit A – Ken
    Exhibit B – Chris E.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Umm, I’d say you’re providing a better example of “infantile rants” than I ever have Steve. I have no idea what you’re getting at about the Coulter thing, please feel free to enlighten me about these alleged assaults you speak of.

    You’re the only one unwilling to debate from what I’ve seen, just insulting. Ken can be a jerk too, yes, but you’re egging him on. So… I’d say you’re both trolls if anything.

  14. Just to clear something up here, Steve is no doubt referring to a couple of incidents (more and more common these days) where Coulter, among many other conservative speakers who’re often (but not much longer, one supposes) scheduled to speak at colleges and other venues. Especially on some campuses, there have been some ever-so-manly attacks on females using pies and even tackling or other implied threats even worse than pies.

    So, yes, Coulter has been attacked by some denizens of liberal manliness showing there disdain for things they happen not to like.

    Just to clear up that matter.

    I may or may not return to the other later. I’m busy at the moment. But, there ARE some interesting issues to flail here.


  15. “their” disdain.

    I hate writing in a hurry when the table is being cleared as I type. Grief.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm
    • Permalink

    Ann Coulter has been repeatedly attacked by pie throwing thugs, while standing at the podium – at least twice, at (by invitation) speaking events, in the past few years.

    If you need ‘the dots connected’ for you, that behavior constitutes assault (or have a local police officer “enlighten” you).
    If you are stuck within the MSM – you missed this – showing liberal criminal behavior is contrary to their news-template.

    Your Oct 27, 2009 at 6:54 am posting, is indicative of you not keeping up to date with something as simple as DL postings.

    Your inability or disinterest in keeping up on current events does not obligate those of us who do, – to “enlighten” you.

    Consider this a one-time present.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:54 pm
    • Permalink

    Postings on this website and the life and times of Ann Coulter sure are important items to keep up with. You sure showed Manny.

  16. [the following is not trolling, unless you believe that Steve T. is a troll. It is an application of what I think are his ‘debate’ and troll tactics. This is what makes a proper comment around here, apparently.]

    Also no doubt Steve T is amongst the DCC (death cult conservative) loonies who murder police, doctors and census workers.


    Or are you too busy dragging homos behind your car, Steve? Do you even have a car, given that you’re clearly an alcoholic, and probably have a big raft of DUIs on file?

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm
    • Permalink

    Wow, so just because I hadn’t heard about this means that I’ve been entirely misled by the evil MSM, which I don’t watch? I’m sure I’ve said it before, but I don’t watch the news. I listen to Rush, Hannity, or Levin sometimes, but that’s all for ANYONE in the media. I’ve watched an episode of the Rachel Maddow show too, but that was months ago.

    I don’t appreciate the demeaning tone you use, I’m well aware that a thrown pie can be considered assault. And that I asked you to clarify something does not entitle you to be smug about it as you’ve been prone to.

    I’ve been respectful to you Steve, I’d appreciate it if you did the same for me. Please don’t be condescending, or I’ll just take that as further proof you’re just here to troll.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm
    • Permalink

    @Wakefield – there have been countless threats against Obama, Palin, Al Franken, Rush, Arlen Specter, and countless other politicians and celebrities on both sides of the political spectrum. That doesn’t make it right by any means, far from it, I just want to point out it’s nothing unusual or new. Thank you for explaining further though.

    • Steve T
    • Posted October 27, 2009 at 10:49 pm
    • Permalink

    Part of ‘manning-up’ and having the backbone to being responsible for what you have written, is NOT to write the following pathetic, weaseling, dishonest, drama-queen bilge;

    ” I’ve been respectful to you Steve, I’d appreciate it if you did the same for me. Please don’t be condescending, or I’ll just take that as further proof you’re just here to troll.”

    Where is an air-sick bag, when I need one-?
    Are you closely related to, or a clone of Barney Frank-???

    Either your memory is so dysfunctionally fried from whatever life-style you lead, or you are a shameless deceitful buffoon, who expects that folks reading your pulp will not look into your past postings, and see a long pattern of liberal drive-by ad hominem spewing.

    Catching you liberals in bold face lies is less effort than’ shooting fish in a barrel’.

    From where your integrity is situated, you have to look up to see the gutter-!

    • Ken
    • Posted October 28, 2009 at 4:35 am
    • Permalink

    Steve’s last post could be applied just as easily to Methodistmin. Just replace “liberal” with “reactionary” and “Steve” with a liberal poster’s name.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 28, 2009 at 6:58 am
    • Permalink

    Or you could just, yknow, not be a dick Steve. You’ve done nothing but that. You’ve been condescending and insulting since you started posting.

  17. Hmm.

    I see some of our more liberal guests have found that the best book on the shelf is almost certainly “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People: The Complete User’s Guide to a Life of Irritation, Dark Paths in the Woods That Lead to Blind Alleys and Epistomological Trivia, Wishful Thinking, Anger, and/or Utter Irrelevancy.”

    “(C)ondescending and insulting”, someone said?

    I’ve found that’s the highlight of most liberal postings–even the allegedly serious, “in-depth” looks at things from allegedly high-brow outlets like Slate or Salon.

    No sooner than I point out some handy factoids about, oh, say, health care and the increasing role of government, than of course I’m also, like Steve, Mr. Big Meanie and Hater and also a racist homophobe (or homo-erotic) to boot. Wow. What an amazing transformation.

    I have not been everywhere on this particular site, and I don’t have that kind of time.

    But, this kind of squabble and ad hominem attack is par for the course on most of the more liberal sites I’ve seen. Hope is not all that common here as well. Libs are supposedly such well-tempered and intelligent people, even if occasionally a little overbearing and given to a touch of smirk and condescencion.

    Make of that what you will, reject it, curse it–whatever.

    I didn’t exactly come here to bandy words with people more upset with one another’s remarks than the cartoons themselves, which are hilarious parody of the liberal penchant for taking things to the PC extreme.

    But still, if that’s the way you want it…

  18. PS–

    The issue with Coulter was merely to point out that some very little men–with little minds and puny personas–were telling the world their particular reasoning style when it came to pushing pies in people’s faces.

    I’m well aware that many celebrities and politicians alike have been threatened by nuts of all persuasions and stripes. But Coulter is not some high-level politician in “The Game” like Palin or Obama or Sen. Franken. Her security detail is far more modest.

    I’ve even gotten to shake hands and chat briefly with former KGB agents like Stanislav Levchenko, who made of tour of a campus in Atlanta many years ago. His “security” for such a high-level person who’s been threatened no doubt numerous times by his own former government and many others?

    I could have gutted him on the spot.

    Security was light as a feather that day.

    My point is this:

    The ugly tactics used by some regarding Coulter and what are mostly conservative speakers to venues like college campuses and town hall meetings belies the image of liberal progressivism in hearing all sides of an issue.

    A pie is not an argument any more than a bullet is, it’s just childish Anger Softcore.

  19. Steve asked, in part:

    as this is the first political-blog site I have participated in, why do you suppose those DWL’s feel drawn to visiting a place like DL, when the whole premise is 180 degree’s to their belief’s-?

    I have no guesses.

    My experience is that for the most part the conservatives stick to their blogs of interest and the libs do likewise.

    The rare crossovers who enjoy getting into fisticuffs are called “trolls”, a term which apparently often means little more than “that which I don’t agree with and is messing up our groove here and happy fun time.”

    Supposedly it also means someone posting something irrelevent or absurd, but that’s not a hard and fast rule.

    Over on a site called Balloon Juice, which is decidely leftie and contains all the usual PC and multi-culti pieties, Zack’s world of wheatgrass milk for dinner and hard-talking lesbian coaches is the absurdist reality, and the authors of that blog are proudly proclaiming to all trolls that they are in the business of force-feeding you, a la foie gras style, to “teach” us recalcitrant, icky rednecks like me the “truth” about the superiority of government power to free enterprise, etc.

    Their admirable powers of the Dark Side have no effect on ME, but it IS an interesting question as to why our leftie friends are joining us here for the fun.

    Utlimately their motives can only be known to them.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm
    • Permalink

    The Heenes should have used Wakefield to power their balloon. With all that hot air, the thing would have never landed.

  20. I’ll only add that helium is still far more preferable to the more weighty burdon of your pure crap, Ken.

    And if you like balloons, I think you’ll be far better off on sites more to your stylistic branding, like BaloonJuice, rather than DL.

  21. *lol*

    Well, Ken, to be fair to Balloon Juice, I’m not sure it’s to be assumed they’re all about porn.

    However, having said that, they DO seem to be your kind of people, and for that maybe you mean to say the main participants spend their off hours in porn when not complaining about how hard it is to get a job these days now that their Whiner-in-Chief has the “reigns of power” (as HE called it once).

    The site IS revolting in other ways, and for you that might just be good enough.

    • Ken
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 2:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Yep, still neither know nor care what BallonJuice is. If you want to play with used condoms, that is your business, but leave me out of it.

    • Manuel Calavera
    • Posted October 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Lecturing people on how to not be condescending? The irony is thick.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] Playing Rough.  Diversity Lane.   […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: