Censorship is alive and well on the left…
Posted on August 15, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
I already posted about this “conversation,” which at the time I thought was over. It’s funny my post pinged back to that site, to which they responded “thanks for the traffic…” an obvious attempt at a jab at me. Well, far be it from me to live in delusion, so I posted what I thought would be my last comment, which read precisely thus:
“Traffic?…now THAT’S a good one.”
An obvious jab at myself, invoking comment #28 in this new context, for all the traffic my blog generates (notice all the ads and stuff on my site and take a guess how much I care about generating traffic).
Sadly, I didn’t screen capture it and the site decided to censor it, obviously because of the offensive language. So it’s gone forever. I would have let that slide, but then, one of those brainiacs over there stole my joke! (see comment #34)
If you’re going to censor me, that’s one thing; but to steal my punchlines and pass them off as your own…that’s just plain weak. Geez…grow your own wit, morons!
Just prior to that (comment #33), one of them who I called out for making accusations without proof (”Bush lied, people died”) posted another comment with her “proof” of the Bush administration’s lies that led us into the war, transcript of Dick Durbin on the senate floor suggesting an independent investigation into intelligence failures. So I read it and commented back to her about it. This time I was smart enough to capture it here. (Interesting to note that she cited this transcript not from the official Congressional record, but from the Foundation of American Scientists site, a decidedly left-wing “scientific” organization.)
But, alas, go check out that thread now. My comment is conspicuously absent, which just goes to show you: liberals are all about free speech…for them. Just like they’re pro-choice…for them.
The ACLU would be so proud of them.
UPDATE: Aug. 15, 2007, 8:09 PM (MDT): The ping-back that was sent to the morons’ site relating to this post was just removed in keeping with their “only liberal voices allowed” policy.
Just when I thought there might be hope for liberals…
Posted on August 15, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
Check out these morons.
Fair is fair…
Posted on August 14, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
As much as I enjoy pointing my millions of readers to the blog debates that I engage in where liberals make fools of themselves, I think I enjoy more being able to point you to conversations in which those of opposing views make strong, well-reasoned arguments with which I rarely agree (because hey, if they were right, they’d agree with me). You’ll notice from reading my blog, as so many of you do, that there are very few such references here…sadly because there are so few such experiences.
Happily, tonight, I have more props to give, this time to the people over at The Blue State.
Thanks for being civil, reasonable, and for proving that your interest really is in the good of the country and not just in tantrumatically* trying to have your way.
* I may have made that word up
Calling a spade a spade…
Posted on August 11, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
Let’s start calling things what the really are, eh? I’ll start:
Progressive = Permissive: The socio-political movement that claims to have the corner on social progress–the self-proclaimed progressive movement–has one philosophy as its core value: anthing that makes you feel good is good. I’ve already posted on this, but I’ll reiterate. The term progressive has been usurped by liberals to mean permissive in support of their “anything goes” world view. So from now on, let’s call them the permissive movement and save the term progressive for those philosophies that actually engender progress.
Pro-choice = Anti-consequence: The truth is that everyone is pro-choice. Even in the context of abortion, where everyone is conveniently classified as either pro-choice or pro-life everyone is really pro-choice. The only variable is what choice. “Pro-choice” proponents claim that the choice is about whether or not they should have to carry a baby to full-term when they end up pregnant. “Pro-life” proponents recognize a baby–even unborn–as a human life and therefore claim no right to terminate that human life simply out of some bogus sense of right to choose. The reality of the pro-abortion establishment is that it is not pro-choice; it is pro my choice and my choice only. What they are really saying is they want to be able to live however they want, without consequences. So, from now on instead of calling anyone pro-choice, we will call them anti-consequence.
Liberal = ACPG (Anti-Consequence Permissive Genius): From now on, in keeping with the tradition of balling everyone up into one classification or another, we will use the terms liberal and ACPG interchangeably. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely eliminate the use of the term liberal, but often I will opt for ACPG which encompasses all of the new designations defined here above. Of course, it is recognized that in this contenxt the term genius carries a decidedly sarcastic tone.
The best so far…
Posted on August 10, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
This is by far the funniest debate I’ve ever had with liberals. They were more than happy to continue to dig and bury themselves in their own logical holes. Shows you how highly enlightened liberals are.
Debating with liberals…still
Posted on August 9, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
Ok, I can’t say that this person is necessarily “liberal” but a proud Democrat to be sure. So this exchange can qualify under the heading.
This is a short exchange between two individuals from diametrically opposite sides of the political sphere. I’m referring to it here on my own blog, for my millions* of readers, to show a great example of how political debate should be in America: well-reasoned, courteous, even spirited at times, but ultimately respectful even when we disagree and aren’t likely to ever see eye to eye, such as the case here.
I don’t agree with Chris at all, but as a result of this exchange, I have to say that I like him (as much as can be expected considering I don’t really know him and don’t agree with him). I’ve had my share of heated exchanges with irrational liberals (see previous posts to that effect), and as fun as it is to really mix it up, I can’t help but prefer conversation like this.
* for the purposes of this post the term “millions” shall be construed to mean “two” or less.
Login to comment
Posted on August 9, 2007
Reason, Blogging, Web 2.0, Politics
Any blogs–especially political blogs–that require you to sign up for an account before you can comment on posts is run either by cowards or people more interested in monetizing their blog (by selling your information) than in true conversation.
Here are some of the big cowardly offenders:
The Daily Kos
Blue Mass Group
Political Forum
MyDD.com
More fun debating with liberals
Posted on June 22, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
All none of you who are regular visitors to my blog, you have got to read this one.
Man, liberals are so smart and rational, and they’re not judgmental or hypocritical at all.
It’s important to understand also that I had another comment, kind of a closing summary, that I submitted which was removed by the moderator. It basically said that I won the argument and until somebody presented an argument that actually disputed me rather than just attacking me, everyone would know that I won. No cursing or anything, yet I got moderated. Good ol’ liberals. You can always count on them to manipulate the truth of things if given the power to do so.
Blogosphere A.D.D.
Posted on May 18, 2007
Reason, Blogging, Web 2.0, Politics
For those of you who have read and actually understand American history, particularly as it pertains to the founding fathers, you realize that conversation–passionate, sometimes even fiery debate–were the very fiber and filament of the political and social fabric of their time. The idea was revered by all, and discussions and debates about ideas would carry on for weeks and months. It just wasn’t acceptable or even thinkable to leave a debate unfinished, no matter how long it took.
How ashamed they would be of us today.
With a tool as powerful as the blogosphere at the disposal of everyone with internet access–a tool that exists for the sole purpose of engaging an ever-growing, global audience in conversation–one would think we’d be more interested in actual ideas and debate than in publicity.
I blame Google. Google, which is obviously the Xerox of search (meaning the brand that has become the verb), has necessitated that bloggers concern themselves more with frequency of posts than with substance if the blogger hopes to gain any kind of page rank or authority–in other words, exposure–from Google.
I guess Google isn’t solely to blame though; the ever-shortening attention span of the masses contributes significantly to the problem as well. Google authority, after all, relies largely on backlinks, and backlinks in the blogosphere are earned by posting frequently (and to a lesser degree substantively) enough to keep the attention of the public. The more the blogger is able to keep the reader’s attention, the more backlinks the blog will gain, the better the placement in Google search results, the more people will discover the blog and start paying attention to it, which attention the blogger will have to try to maintain…by posting frequently.
The sad truth, however, is that in my experience, very few bloggers, particularly political and social commentators, are interested in carrying on extended conversation about the issues they blog about, nor are their readers who comment on the posts. Over the past several months, I have made it a point to comment on various blogs–mostly liberal blogs–in an attempt to engage both the blogger and the readers in deeper conversation about the issues raised in the blog posts. Those issues are broad in scope, everything from abortion to Mormonism to Mitt Romney and more. Almost invariably, my comments elicit some kind of response, as is typical when a conservative has the nerve to comment on a particularly liberal blog.
I welcome it.
Unfortunately, however, with few exceptions, the conversation on any particular blog post has a life-span of about twelve hours, if that much. So just when the debate is starting to get good, those who once seemed so eager to voice their opinions suddenly fall mute and vanish into oblivion. (For the purpose of this blog post, the term “oblivion” shall be understood to mean “a more recent blog post conversation.”)
It’s a sad fact that bloggers pursue post proliferation much more passionately than progress. No one takes time to really dig into an issue, they just publish talking points, maybe a few follow-up comments, and then move on.
I think the founding fathers would be ashamed of us. Such a powerful communication medium available to basically every citizen, and yet by and large the bloggers are so intent on monetizing their blogs (which requires frequency of posting under current models) that they can’t afford to engage in real conversation.
S-P: Sorry, O’Reilly, you got the “P” wrong
Posted on May 17, 2007
Reason, Media
In his book Culture Warrior, Bill O’Reilly coined the term Secular-Progressive (S-P) to refer to that group of American’s–mostly elitist academics and politicians–who champion a decidedly liberal agenda; a secular agenda bent on removing all references to God and religion from any public conversation or policy.
At some point in times past, liberals usurped the term progressive to describe themselves, much as they have done with the term liberal. By designating themselves as progressive, the intent of this segment of society is to trick the masses into believing that their liberal beliefs and the policies that they would espouse and impose are just that–progressive–meaning that they would engender progress in society.
This is just silly. An examination of the liberal agenda reveals beliefs and desires that are far from new, having been espoused by many societies of the past (see Roman Empire in your local encyclopedia). The thing is, these societies are now reduced to little more than archaeological relics, having died off in one way or another after only a few hundred years.
Hardly a history that indicates progress.
Rather, O’Reilly should use the “P” in S-P to describe these people as they really are: permissive. The term progressive should be taken back by those people who truly believe in positive change and progress. Contrary to the liberal assertion, this kind of progress does not come from permissiveness. On the contrary, humanity is never more stymied in its progress than when it has become overly permissive–a fact proven by history. Look it up.
So, liberals, please be honest. What you truly want is a world without boundaries, without rules and restrictions. You don’t want progress, you want permission to behave however you will without consequences.
Best of luck to you on that. I’ll be sure to leave a note to future civilizations indicating that you were once part of a great society, but you decided to permit gay marriage and unfettered abortion and the negative birth rate that resulted ended in your demise.
« go back — keep looking »