Stay away from my kids, McClelland [Update]
[Welcome readers from Hot Air. Despite the shrill nature of this little dust-up in the blogosphere, Angry in the Great White North is usually a lot more sedate and measured.]
Remember how Robert McClelland accused me of wanting to beat up children because I said it wouldn't have bothered me one bit if someone who witnessed those three drunken louts urinating on the National War Memorial had given them a thorough thrashing? I even mused about how in less enlightened times, there was the concept of the "hue and cry" which compelled bystanders to help fight crime.
Now as it turned out, two of the three were 17 (but somehow able to get their hands on alcohol). Still, that makes them "young offenders" in the eyes of the law. In McClelland's mind, though, that makes them equivalent to children, and so that makes me a child-beater:
Two of the war memorial urinators are under 18 years of age. So clearly conservatives believe it's acceptable to beat up children.
McClelland's grasp on logic is not only tenuous, it also selectively applied. Some people who threaten children are stoutly defended by McClelland:
Tough break. It's a hard way to learn that there's a double standard when it comes to death threats. The right can go on national tv and make them (ie. Adams Apple Annie) but the left never can; not even in a moment of anger on some paste eater's blog.
You shouldn't have resigned though. The right whingers only foam at the mouth for a short time before becoming distracted by their next 5 minute hate.
Posted by: Robert McClelland at July 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Who was the subject of these words of support? Deb Frisch, formerly a professor at the University of Arizona. She resigned after she posted threats aimed at toddler.
Note, I was musing about a 17-year-old getting a firm clip to the head for getting drunk and defacing a war memorial.
To McClelland, that makes me a threat to children.
Frisch was hoping that the two-year-old son of a conservative blogger would be murdered or sexually abused, posting her comments at Protein Wisdom under the handle "Southwestpaw".
To McClelland, that makes Frisch the victim of vicious right-wingers when she was forced to resign.
Am I making this up? If you haven't been following this story, be prepared to be shocked:
I'd like to hear more about your "tyke" by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?
Tell all, bro!"
***
"[...] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your "tyke" it wouldn't slow me down one iota. You aren't "human" to me."
***
" Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby.
Are you still married to the woman you humped to produce the toddler? "
***
Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don't mind!
Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.
All the creepy details are at Michelle Malkin.
But back to our friend McClelland. In my response to McClelland's nastiness, I mentioned my 5-year-old daughter in the context of knowing right from wrong. I wish I hadn't now. For the first time, I feel nervous knowing that McClelland knows I have young children.
It's not rational. Unlike McClelland, I know when I'm being driven by emotions. I know in my mind that McClelland is no threat to her, and I'm sure he is no threat to anyone's children.
Still, to provide moral support someone like Frisch...that takes a special kind of weird.
McClelland, stay away from me and my family. Don't ever come near my kids. Ever.
Hat tip to Let Freedom Reign.
Update: McClelland responds to my point that his support for Deb Frisch and her threatening statements about a toddler while at the same time calling me a proponent for the beating of children disturbs me so much that I have to say that I don't want him anywhere near my family. He says, quite succinctly:
Only a sick loser uses his child as a prop in his political battles. Grow up Janke, you sick bastard.
Of course, he does not tell his readers why I would want to keep McClelland away from children.
I guess we need to recap.
Deb Frisch to a conservative blogger: Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby. [One of several comments in the same vein.]
Robert McClelland on Deb Frisch's subsequent resignation: Tough break. It's a hard way to learn that there's a double standard when it comes to death threats.
Steve Janke: If you can't figure out that death threats against children are not some sort of free speech for liberals to indulge in without consequence, then you can't be trusted with children. Period. Something is wrong in the way you think. Your values are twisted in a way that is difficult to describe.
Despite my problems in understanding how you think, I can make this contrast quite clearly. For the crime of wanting to keep a person who defends Frisch's comments without even a note of criticism or concern about those comments away from my children, you have labeled me a "sick bastard".
Yet I have yet to hear the label you've attached to Deb Frisch. She was the one who made comments about molesting and murdering the two-year-old son of a blogger whose politics are different from hers. Seems to me that she was the one who makes children into props for her sick quasi-political snuff fantasies.
You should be more careful about who you defend, McClelland. People might think you are the one with the problem.
And for that, stay away from my kids. I just don't know how deep that problem goes.
[Oops: McClelland, not McLelland. McClelland, stay away from me. Thanks to Cynic.]
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Hmmm...If McLelland considers 17 yr olds children, does that mean he supports the Conservative age of protection policy? Should we have raised the age to 18 instead of just 16?
He's just another lefty whackjob hypocrite.
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 10, 2006 04:52 PM
Robert is the Kim Jong Il of the Canadian blogworld. Shooting off missiles to garner attention and hope the big kids will pay attention to him.
Angry, just assume he fired one of his Tae Po Dong's and it blew up 30 seconds after take off....just like Kim he should be monitored, if only to ensure he doesnt hurt himself with any sharp objects, but never taken seriously.
Posted by: Stephen at July 10, 2006 05:15 PM
How is it that someome that comes from the "hippie-dippie" left can be so filled with anger? If he were in power instead of Bush, we'd have wars going on everywhere, albeit with our current "capitalist pig" allies. If you abhor purported war-mongers, don't editorialize with hate in your heart...
Posted by: at July 10, 2006 05:21 PM
It could'nt have happened to a nicer troll.
Okay, a hatefilled troll. But it's all about the moral equivalence you know.
Posted by: Moneybags4me at July 10, 2006 05:29 PM
Thanks for the link amigo. It's heartening to know that I'm not the only one questioning our friend Robert.
Cheers
Richard
Posted by: Richard Evans at July 10, 2006 06:40 PM
Seventeen is plenty old to get the crap beat out of you.
And please keep in mind Frisch was a university type, not a *real* Arizonan. Any barrel big enough will have some bad apples.
Posted by: Jay at July 10, 2006 06:44 PM
Strange how Robert McLelland can't understand that the urnial that these "children" used was dedicated to honour those "children" of equal age who went to war and died protecting their country. Luckly, in those days, being a moocher was frowned on; as was stupidity.
Posted by: Fiumara at July 10, 2006 06:49 PM
Robert McClelland wishes he had the same degree of influence within the NDP or Liberal Party that Markos Moulitsas has within the Democratic Party.
To their great good fortune, he has not.
Thus his choler.
Posted by: Loyalist at July 10, 2006 07:04 PM
Mclelland is just a bad person, nothing more, nothing less. He has no political ideology that can get past his extraordinary bitterness and that is why he is so infuriating. He is not trying to initiate debate, he is simply teeing off on strangers in an effort to get whatever problem he has resolved. Lets all wish him good luck. If he succeeds then maybe he will go away, or possibly become a better person.
Posted by: Eric-Vancouver at July 10, 2006 07:38 PM
i wonder how many here who believe teenagers aren't still kids actually have any children. 17 yr olds are many things, God bless them, but, adults? not even close. my experience with many bloggingtories has taught me that a high school education should be mandatory before conservatives are allowed to vote. (let alone pro-create).it would certainly reduce their numbers.....
Posted by: davidson at July 10, 2006 07:47 PM
Looks like davidson is a fan of Soviet style re-education camps and the great eugenicist himself Rev. Tommy Douglas.
Posted by: Moneybags4me at July 10, 2006 08:17 PM
I've got two 17 year olds (male) and I agree with Davidson that they aren't adults. Close, but no cigar. I've got a 25 year old male too and the maturity difference is astounding.
But if one of mine got that piss drunk I'd definitely drag him home roughly by his ear. And then I'd tuck him into bed, tell him I love him and thank him for calling me to come get him instead of trying to drive home or get in a car with an equally drunk friend. At that age they need both the cuffing and the cuddle.
The next day, he'd be grounded. Hell for me but a necessary part of my job as parent. On the other hand, when they are grounded they must spend all their time with me so I schedule my shoe shopping at that time! I choose to be extremely creative in my punishments! That way, they can't decide ahead of time the punishment is worth the crime.
All that being said, the letters from the young offenders and the older guy speak to bad judgement surrounding drinking and sounded sincere. The young offenders will be working for the Legion in order to make amends.
The older one is fully aware that the criminal charges will severely affect him the rest of his life.
Perhaps I'm a softie, but with the information I have on these people, I think I'd be tempted to let them do community service alone. Kids that can be so eloquent in their apologies probably have already been dealt with at home by their parents. Additional abuse by the 'system' isn't necessary. The purpose of the rod is for the shepherd to guide his flock. It sounds like these kids have been pulled back onto the path.
Sure, they could stray again but I refuse to believe that is inevitable. So I believe in compassion for first offences.
Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at July 10, 2006 08:20 PM
davidson wrote:
"17 yr olds are many things, God bless them, but, adults?"
I don't know about that. When I was 17 yrs old I was in the army and by the time I was 18 I was overseas having a bunch of Greek and Turks waving loaded guns in my face.
Posted by: L.J. Brooks at July 10, 2006 08:27 PM
I'm not eager to see any of their lives ruined with criminal records. Urine washes away -- they weren't spray-painting swastikas, and they claim that they didn't even know what they were urinating on. I tend to believe them. Let the Legion assign them a penance to pay off the debt.
Posted by: Steve Janke at July 10, 2006 08:35 PM
kathryn sounds sensible. conservatives are always spouting off about govt interference until their social agenda is threatened. if my son pissed on the monument, i would ABSOLUTELY discipline him in a manner appropriate to MY family's belief system(my belief system is none of your business). the false indiginity expressed by the 20 somethings and past-it military wannabees who i suspect comprise the majority of the blogging tories is typical of the crap here in the echo chamber.
Posted by: davidson at July 10, 2006 08:38 PM
Why is it that I get the impression that Davidson's belief system (none of my business) will result in a much greater penalty to his son if that child were to come home and declare that he was voting PC?
Posted by: Another Sean at July 10, 2006 09:49 PM
Steve, Steve, Steve... don't you realize that you're dealing with somebody who's grasp of reality was gone a long time ago? You can't reason with a rabid dog.
McLa-La-Land has been dozing in a heaven all his own making. The guy half-reads articles before posting anti-conservative bile that doesn't have anything to do with the articles he's talking about (i.e. the Islamic symbol on a Burger King ice cream fiasco amongst many others), so why would you lower yourself to responding to this twit?
Just because Dippers are at the level where they have to look up to this guy doesn't mean you have to drop down to responding seriously to his moronic spew.
Posted by: Surecure at July 10, 2006 09:53 PM
Davidson:
"Belief system"
Is that part of your "Faith Tradition? Do you and your "Life Partner" sit down and discuss your "Values" until you come up with one thst matches your "Life Style Choices?" Hope it fits in with the "Canadian Values."
I've got a "Belief System" for you; there's right and a wrong, its written in the Book. If you do wrong, it comes out of your ass one way or the other. The same applies to society. Failure to follow proven morals results in that society, as a whole, paying, one way or the other.
Posted by: Matt at July 10, 2006 09:59 PM
McLaLand, perfect. Steve I think you should ban him/her/it, this kind of bull makes all of us Angry, tell him to go elsewhere and not SDA. He should be banned there too.
Posted by: kelly at July 10, 2006 10:29 PM
I no longer read Mc LaLa land's comments, let alone his blog. He never has anything intelligent or meaningful to say. So, I would not take anything he says seriously, Angry. This is easy for me to say, since his twisted venom is going your way. If I were you, I would ban him from the AGWN blogg. Period. And I would have no qualms about it; he is not worth reading, even without his latest vomiting. But, he does give us all a good look at left wing wackados, and their “understanding” and “inclusiveness”.
Posted by: terrence at July 10, 2006 11:47 PM
terence has said it all in a nutshell:
"If I were you, I would ban him from the AGWN blogg. Period. And I would have no qualms about it; he is not worth reading, even without his latest vomiting. But, he does give us all a good look at left wing wackados, and their “understanding” and “inclusiveness”."
Wants to censor Mac but expouses understanding and incluseveness. Yeah, right.
Kids at 17 are not children yet are not adults... send them off to war for Bush and Harper and they are wo/man enough for the job! Piss on an obstacle while snockered!!!??? Nail that little bastard to the cross, and anyone else who tries to defend them. Never ask who the sorry arse was who gave them the booze (another Con trait: don't ask, don't tell; it's all about the money: if they can pay, they can play and damn the consequences.)
So some kids pissed on a building or reasonable facsimile. Get over it. Are you so ossified that you have no idea that young people who can and will fight and die for you may also make bad choices?
They made the error in judgement and have admitted it and atoned.
Poor choice is the perogative of the young; what is your excuse?
Posted by: Woe unto him who harms...this child at July 11, 2006 02:49 AM
Steve, your concerns are not irrational... lots of disturbed people in 'netland.
Pseudoblogged here:-When Whackademics Attack--
Posted by: backhoe at July 11, 2006 02:53 AM
17 year olds exist in a space which is not quite adult and not quite a child. The highest of human reasoning, the ability to predict results from current actions, does not generally show itself until the mid twenties. So we consider children moving into adulthood to be a sliding scale; which is the right way to see it.
As for a beating for the pissers ... that seldom does any good and sometimes causes severe harm. They NEED to be punished and to KNOW, really KNOW, that they've done wrong, a beating would not create the needed knowledge.
As for Mc LaLa Land ... Yikes! I've spent decades having to deal with such "people." They are a huge problem in our society. I do not pretend to know the solution to them. One thing is clear, we must hold Frisch & crowd responsible for THEIR actions.
Posted by: jw at July 11, 2006 03:30 AM
Davidson, I was accepted to and attended medical School at age 18. Most of the Blogging Tories are very educated. Perhaps you can tell us your qualifications? Did you graduate high school? Your arrogance is telling. Your ultrafeminist allies don't actually want to have any children ,they are too busy aborting them. Your never ending platitudes show you to have learned most things from Cosmo magazine.
Posted by: Roy Eappen at July 11, 2006 04:38 AM
Angry: Anyone spewing that sort of venom is not in control of their senses, they are out of their mind.It's quite disturbing to read stuff like that. Seems you have two choices, ban him from your site or let him go on and finish himself off, reading such tripe serves to put the 'tripe'ster' out to pasture. We could take up a collection if you want to sue, there have to be some lines drawn in blogland at some point.
Posted by: Liz J at July 11, 2006 06:53 AM
We could take up a collection if you want to sue, there have to be some lines drawn in blogland at some point.
Thanks, Liz, but what would I sue him for? He hasn't caused me any damage, or damaged my property. He's just made it clear that he believes that a liberal who makes threatening comments about the children of conservatives has nothing to apologize for. I'm a conservative. I have children. I want him to stay away from me. That's all.
Posted by: Steve Janke at July 11, 2006 07:47 AM
What a load of false pity--17 year olds get worse beatings in a football, hockey or rugby game. A good thumping by a passing war vet would have taught them a good lesson. A criminal record would be inappropriate--make them give a speech at the next Rememberance Day ceremony at a local school.
Anyone who threatens a five year old girl--or equates it to tussling with a drunken 17-year old male pissing on a National Monument--has a screw loose.
Posted by: murray at July 11, 2006 07:56 AM
You could sue for a restraining order--you do not need monetary damages.
Posted by: murray at July 11, 2006 08:00 AM
You could sue for a restraining order--you do not need monetary damages.
Again, no one has threatened my kids. I'm just making a judgment call just as any responsible parent would make -- McClelland is not bothered by the murderous rantings of a disturbed person who threatens children because that person shares McClelland's politics.
That suggests a weird ordering of priorities. For most people, children are universally valued, and politics takes a definite back seat to that. For McClelland, it matters more that a liberal has been sent packing from a position of influence.
I'm just making it clear that I don't ever want him near me. I can't imagine anything we can have in common. When it comes to other liberals, conservatives, dippers, greens, or whatever, I know that we can always put politics aside and share stories about our kids. McClelland is the first person I've met who seems to value politics more than the safety of children. I find that profoundly disturbing.
But whatever his values, he has never acted on them with regards to kids, and I'm content to simply issue my request that he never come near me. I'm confident he'll respect that request, if no other reason that it seems unlikely our paths would ever cross.
Still, it helps to be clear.
Posted by: Steve Janke at July 11, 2006 08:36 AM
While this debate is interesting... what really struck me was the fact that one of the boys went - on his own - to the local Legion and apologized for the incident. To me that is a very adult thing to do. Not many adults actually take responsibility for their actions. The other youth wrote a letter of apology. The 23 year old "man" has yet to apologize.
Posted by: Heather Cook at July 11, 2006 08:59 AM
davidson said 'if my son pissed on the monument, i would ABSOLUTELY discipline him in a manner appropriate to MY family's belief system(my belief system is none of your business).'
davidson, if your son pissed on your kitchen floor you can disipline him according to your belief system, when he pisses on our national war memorial he will be disiplined according to our belief system - the criminal code.
Posted by: mike mck at July 11, 2006 09:10 AM
Well said Mike.
Too many hind behind the anonymity of the young offenders act and privacy laws.
Heather you also make a good point. I have the utmost of respect for a youth who would do this and their parents for steering them in that direction.
Posted by: Cheri at July 11, 2006 09:52 AM
Oops, prev. was supposed to be 'hide behind'.
Posted by: Cheri at July 11, 2006 09:55 AM
Guys, trolls seek controversy and ultimately fame - this post and the above comments do nothing but further feed the trolls insatiable desire for both.
Posted by: Greg at July 11, 2006 10:01 AM
I thought the letter of apology was well crafted and certainly seemed sincere.I think that story has run its course with a positive outcome the likely epitaph.
Mc Lelland gives the dippers a bad name as he appears to be permanently off his medication
Posted by: ian at July 11, 2006 10:17 AM
I'm willing to concede the *possibility* that these kids were just too hammered to know what they were doing, rather than acting out of disrespect.
Having said that, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to say that a 17 year old is a "child" who should not be held accountable for his actions. You don't have to look very far in the newspapers to find examples of horrible, violent behaviour from kids alot younger than 17 (anyone remember the Central Park rapists ?). There are also plenty of examples of kids that age performing great acts of valor and leadership.
What's more, I know and work with all kinds of people in their 30's and 40's who talk, act and live just like 14 year olds. They represent the "me" generation and our educational system in all its glory. Maybe that makes me sound arrogant. Fine.
I strongly suspect that Davidson's version of punishment would be the classic "now I'm gonna count to ten and if you don't stop doing that by then..." which means absoutely nothing would happen. Which is why there should be a guard mounted on that memorial.
I think an on-site tuning up would not have been at all out of line -provided it did not get out of hand. For 40 years, liberals have had their way in raising kids to have no respect, no sense of history or place. It's the young people who are eventually going to pay a heavy price for that.
And one last thing, Michael Harris in the Ottawa Sun raised an excellent point:
Where was all this outrage over the last 40 years of sucessive governments pissing all over our *living* veterans and soldiers. I seldom agree with Harris, but man, when he's right -he's really right.
Sorry for the long-winded post. Mr Janke -you have a great site here.
Posted by: Up North at July 11, 2006 10:23 AM
Yikes. Even Count Cockula admits my crime was a bad joke, not a threat. And the Auntie Moonbat bit was written by Jeff or one of his anklebiters, not me. I take full responsibility for the Ramsey line.
What I said was: I wouldn't care if someone Ramseyed your kid.
Is that really the most tasteless, vulgar, rude, nasty joke ever to be posted in the bowels (i.e., comments section) of the blogosphere?
Posted by: southwestpaw at July 11, 2006 10:44 AM
I find this remark by McClelland in the Comments section of his blogpost to be telling:
How have you diseased douchebags managed to convince yourselves that it’s right for people to be harassed in real life or fired from their jobs because of crap they spew on the internet?
This goes pretty much to the nub of why Blahgger Bob feels obliged to defend the (ahem) good professor: a belief that "freedom of speech" should always mean "speaking without consequences." He seems to have difficulty accepting the idea that consequences are the true price of free speech.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 11, 2006 11:24 AM
Southpaw, yes, it was indeed the most tasteless, vulgar, rude and nasty joke I have ever seen posted in the bowels of the blogosphere.
I could be wrong, but I am guessing that you don't have children. If you had children, you would understand that your "joke" was no joke.
Posted by: Shaken at July 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Angry: Add to "it matters more that a liberal has been sent packing from a position" IN DISGRACE. Having all this disgusting, guttersniping verbiage coming from the left camp is serving to assure that we are more than right, we are right on. We've taken them down to the nether regions of the body for their vocabulary,that tells us they have nothing constructive to debate, it means defeat.
Posted by: Liz J at July 11, 2006 12:34 PM
Southwestpaw; I saw the google cache's and timestamps on the comments and you're completely full of shit. I would recommend that anyone who's considering buying into this psycho psycholoigists tripe pay a visit to Malkin's site. She's got everything very well documented...
Shaken; Southwestpaw and her lesbian lover have a little girl... Great illustration of family values eh?
Posted by: Richard Evans at July 11, 2006 12:56 PM
Ever noticed that when a liberal says something way out of line they then say its all a joke? This is a liar folks. Pretty pathetic actually.
Posted by: None at July 11, 2006 01:32 PM
Personally, in regards to McLa-La-Land being banned from here... I think that's not a very effective plan. It's always better to let idiots say whatever they want, whenever they want. It only furthers the truth of what they are.
Not that there is any question what Bobby-boy is. He's a lefty blogger of legend... too bad he's more than a little confused as to what that legend entails.
Posted by: Surecure at July 11, 2006 01:52 PM
Southwestpaw: Suffice to say your remarks are beyond all decency and beyond the pale, (if you know what that means).
Posted by: Liz J at July 11, 2006 01:56 PM
Southpaw is lying as usual. You wrote every line of those comments. I was there, I saw it, you wrote it.
It is completely disgusting that you come here and lie to Steve about the truly nasty shit you did write about.
She said a lot more that that. Jeff Goldstein doesn't agree with that assessment at all. He has the proof that you wrote it.
Enjoy your McJob lifestyle.
Posted by: capt joe at July 11, 2006 02:21 PM
Frisch (Southwestpaw) is lying. She wrote all those remarks.
Screen capture of the IP log here.
Also, you'll note that she referenced the comment she claims not to have written in one of her many subsequent bloviations -- none of which note that the comment in question, which I published, was made up or altered.
In fact, she is the first poster in the thread where I published that comment. And she doesn't claim it is fabricated.
You're off your nut, Frisch. Airbrushing history is an unbecoming tactic -- but pretty standard fare for the hardcore left.
Posted by: Jeff G at July 11, 2006 02:37 PM
I don't need no steenking IP Log. I saw the venom spew forth in real time, with each refresh of Jeff's blog. She's a liar for stating that she never said those things, as well as, in my humble opinion, a vile and hateful manipulator.
Now, don't get me so riled up that I have to resort to namecalling, because I will, if pushed...
(and in the appropriate spirit, I will make up a Turing Word: execrable)
Posted by: CERDIP at July 11, 2006 03:20 PM
Deb sure seems anxious to distance herself from that one remark. Now, why do you suppose she feels the need to deny that particular comment; especially given all the other fetid globs of feces she vomited up?
Hmmm...
Posted by: Fred the Genius at July 11, 2006 03:30 PM
Nice catch Jeff G. It's amazing how some people in the blogosphere don't realize that their IP addresses are connected to whatever they write... good or bad.
Frisch/Southwestpaw, do yourself a favor and put the shovel down. You don't need to reach China today.
Posted by: Surecure at July 11, 2006 03:41 PM
There were several points where all of this would have stopped except in each and every time, Frisch opened it up yet again and poured gasoline on the fire.
It takes a special sort of mentality to subject oneself to that.
I am reminded that Frisch's subject of expertise is in Decision theory. What sort of decision process did she go through to arrive where she did?
Posted by: capt joe at July 11, 2006 04:38 PM
Steve, your header is a bit much. It's the height of Usenet idiocy to accuse political enemies of pedophilia.
I won't defend Frisch--she's clearly unhinged--but Robert has a point: why no outrage from you and others when Ann Coulter and others urge the US to commit genocide? At least Frisch has the excuse of being unbalanced in the clinical sense. What about Coulter?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 11, 2006 08:41 PM
Dr. Dawg, it appear you're hellbent on changing the subject. I wonder why that would be, hmmm?
Posted by: Mac at July 11, 2006 11:00 PM
It's called bait-and-switch Mac... typical tactic of those losing an argument. Can't defend somebody's actions, change the topic.
Posted by: Surecure at July 12, 2006 06:35 AM
I'm asking, like any devious Leftist, for consistency.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 12, 2006 08:49 AM
The left is all one big fetid, sticky lump. But with constituents like Robert McHatefull in the lump - others, like Dawg, are rightfully starting to get a little worried. Why? The fear of becoming a smaller and much more stinkin' lump.
What person with any sort of self respect is going to want to get stuck in the lump?
The Robert McHatefulls should be allowed to comment on all Conservative blogs. The more their ill-logical ideology and the rabid hate behind it is exposed - the smaller, but more vile the lump becomes - until finally the voters will pick it up with a napkin and toss it in the toilet.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Why no outrage?
Because most of us know better than to pay attention to Ann Coulter.
Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 12, 2006 10:24 AM
Surecure, I think this is more of a Straw Man Argument. Dr.Dawg can't defend the actions of his fellow leftie blogger so instead he brings up Coulter (one of the left's favourite targets) and dismisses Frisch's ramblings as mental illness while blathering about consistancy. The left are consistent alright; consistently ridiculous.
Dr.Dawg, do you really want to compare Coulter to Frisch? I could have some serious fun with that!
Posted by: Mac at July 12, 2006 11:08 AM
Well, Frisch hasn't advocated genocide on national television. Let's start with that.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 12, 2006 12:47 PM
In other words, you can't defend Frisch's actions but you don't like being ignored (like you are on your own blog) so you want to change the focus from the deranged leftie (just one of the many) to a conservative who you will attack vigorously with emotionally based arguments which go around in circles endlessly and prove nothing?
If you want to battle Coulter, go over to her blog and have at it. Maybe she'll pay attention to you!
Posted by: Mac at July 12, 2006 10:58 PM
Evasion noted.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at July 13, 2006 08:16 AM
Why would you note your own evasion, Dr.Dawg? Oh, I know!! I paid attention to you and you want more. By posting, I feed into your little game.
Beat up your Straw Man all you want but I'm not interested in playing. C'ya!!
Posted by: Mac at July 13, 2006 12:34 PM
I blog on Progressive Bloggers with Robert McClelland, but even I know he's a moronic, anti-semitic jackass.
Posted by: Nav at July 16, 2006 12:07 AM
I was very sad to see that Boobert is still alive, though in his usual insane moonbattian state, in the blogosphere universe.
What a tool.
Posted by: Lady Heather at July 16, 2006 11:54 AM
 
|
|
