Just a couple years ago Peggy Noonan was rapturously in love with George W. Bush. Now she’s pegged him as the slayer of the conservative coalition.
What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
…
Leading Democrats often think
their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right
place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is
in the wrong place.For almost three years, arguably
longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of
battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the
kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist,
and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like
expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war
was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You’re bad."
As a loyal American, proud liberal and card carrying member of the DNC I have a response to this:
Butter on mine, please.
Bush thinks they’re stupid because they are.
This is just a furtherance of the “bush is a liberal” meme so that 08 Repub candidates can distance themselves from him. Noonan talks about the expansion of government power when almost none of the conservative pundits had any problem whatsoever with ANY of his programs (warrantless wiretapping, etc.)
That’s right, EL. Conservatism, after all, never fails in these people’s view. It is only failed. Over the next year and a half, every Republican partisan is going to be sounding like a an earnest college-aged Marxist explaining how, “real Communism has never been tried!”
A couple things Nancy gets wrong about conservatism:
[you don't like politicians that] assume a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist
Uh, all conservatives believe this. It’s called “optimism.” And claiming that we might not have an unstoppable affluence that will always exist is called being a negative liberal who hates America.
and the tax receipts will always flow in?
All conservatives believe that the tax receipts will always flow in. Short on money for the government? Cut taxes and watch the taxes flood the treasury!
You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power?
Surely Nancy is joking. Would she have supported laws that would have prevented Reagan from engaging in warrantless wiretapping? Of course not! Conservatives believe in a strong, strict authority-figure as their leader.
Our destiny manifest:
“Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/ 200…ideastsocieties
`
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20070529/cm_ucgg/networkofterrorspreadsinshatteredmideastsocieties
“Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!”
- Sideshow Bob
As a conservative of long standing on this board, I believe and was saying years ago that Bush isn’t a conservative. He wasn’t then; he isn’t now. The Democratic party, post Clinton, moved left and by contrast, a moderate big-spender like Bush might have seemed conservative - by comparison. In actuality, our day to day lives are not much different from Bush I through Clinton and through Bush II. All moderates.
And all of the front runner announced 08 Repub candidates are also moderates. (Thompson would be conservative and McCain is close).
Dugger, most people who think about this subject realize that there are schools of conservatives whose policy prescriptions are often contradictory.
There is no doubt that George Bush’s foreign policy is ideologically neoconservative, his social and domestic policy cultural and social conservative, and his economic policy, mainly classical conservative (in the American political tradition.) The wonderful thing about calling yourself a conservative is that it is an empty vessel. If someone is doing well, they are the consummate conservative, like Ronald Reagan, whose tax and spend policies were exactly like Bush’s. But if they fail, they are failing themselves. Conservatism lives on. Unfortunately, in this country, we’ve lost our historical way, which has always been pragmatism. If we can reestablish that, we may just live to see the 22nd century.
Gee, Bush lost Peggy Noonan?
Or is Peggy Noonan following orders, and trying to salvage something, anything, from the Bush 28% approval wreckage?
Recent polls have shown America’s patience with Conservatism has ended: Democrats beat Bush and his Conservative Republicans on EVERY issue, including terrorism and national security.
Self-ID as a Republican is the lowest in a generation.
As evidenced by this despicable Noionan piece, I believe the Right will be using Immigration as their ticket off their Bush Titanic as it sinks.
And they will be cursing the captain they picked, and the ship they had built to their specifications, as they look for anything that floats to keep from drowning.
Oh, and as others here have said, the reason hardline Conservatives believe they’ve lost the American people? It is because they just weren’t Conservative enough!
The great thing about knowing for the last ten years that Bush is a crook and a moron is that you never had to change your mind when new information comes in.
Congrats to Oliver for linking to this.
At least it gives his readers the opportunity to hear a reasoned explanation of why a Reaganite true believer lost her faith in Bush, rather that the usual foaming-at-the-mouth rants of the Chimpy McBushHitlerBurton crowd.
a Reaganite true believer … rather that the usual foaming-at-the-mouth rants
Reaganite true believers are the source of foaming-at-the-mouth rants. Noonan is never going to ask herself, “gee, maybe there’s something about my ideology that causes bad governance?” This is the same woman who thought that Clinton returned Elian Gonzalez to his father because Castro was blackmailing him over an affair.
Noonan is just perpetually upset that no man can measure up to her father… I mean, uh, Reagan.
Besides, what was she doing having faith in Bush in the first place? It’s been 6 years. If she were smart, she’d have clued in a bit earlier.
As a conservative of long standing on this board, I believe and was saying years ago that Bush isn’t a conservative.
I’m not surprised that Bush doesn’t measure up to dugger’s platonic idea of conservatism - nobody remotely electable would.
But in real-world terms Bush is quite conservative. The idea that modern American conservatives are tough on spending is a myth. Like Reagan and Bush I before him, Bush II likes to spend on militarism and pork. Those on the liberal end of the spectrum like to spend on social programs, infrastructure, and pork.
In just about every other area Bush is solidly in the conservative camp: anti choice, anti-environment, anti-education, anti affirmative action (except for children of privilege like himself), pro-tax-cut for the wealthy, anti-regulation for business.
Bush is the first president we’ve had who is a true believer in the modern conservative movement. He is being thrown off the bus because his presidency is a failure. Just a few years ago this same Peggy Noonan was writing rapturous prose about what a refreshing breath of fresh air Bush was after that uber-liberal Bill Clinton.
It is no longer convenient to have Bush as the conservative standard-bearer, and so the excuse-making has begun. The cons need to do that because they need to keep the myth alive that America is conservative. In fact, we live in a moderate nation that is emerging from a conservative presidency and we don’t like the smell.
What I’m sensing here — and pretty much everywhere else in the country — is that we’re all tired of labels like “liberal” and “conservative.” Instead, I think what we’d all like to see is a government that is honest, transparent and accountable, no matter what the political leaning.
Do you want to start a war? Fine, just be honest with the American people about why the war is necessary. Tell us we’re invading Iraq because we desperately need to control the world’s oil or maintain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Don’t talk down to us like we’re 5-year-olds about bringing the Iraqis “freedom” or punishing their “bad guy” leader, and if 60+% of the country wants to get out, get us the hell out of there ASAP. If there are screw-ups, fire those responsible, don’t stubbornly keep them in office or award them a nice medal.
Honesty.
Transparency.
Accountability.
about what a refreshing breath of fresh air Bush was after that uber-liberal Bill Clinton.
Clinton was uber-liberal? Seriously? Then what have we learned about Peggy Noonan?
She has no idea what a liberal or a conservative actually is.
zadura,
I disagree. Bush is personally religious and I think too much is extrapolated from that into motive-judgments re personal policy. A neo-conservative is called that becasue he/she is not conservative. An interventionist, big spending foreign poliucy with military involvement is not conservative. A big education budget is not conservative. Failure to endorse/push Kyoto is not conservative. And even though Bush personally and ideologiclaly is anti-abortion, I don’t see any major policy moves against abortion.
“George W. Bush was elected on the strongest and most explicit conservative platform ever, yet he supported massive increases in military spending, created a whole new bureaucracy to fight the War on Terror, invaded two countries, and pushed through the largest single increase in welfare spending in decades. Not surprisingly, spending has grown the fastest during his years of any presidency since Lyndon Johnson’s.”
“As a conservative of long standing on this board, I believe and was saying years ago that Bush isn’t a conservative.”
As a Canadian I can tell you that the Democrats are barely left of center. Bush is certainly a conservative.
You have a media that portrays anyone who thinks universal health care is an idea worth exploring as an Ultra-Leftie / Commie Bastard. No wonder you have a skewed view of left / right.
Dugger, Neo-conservatism is older than you are. You may not want to own it, because it is a failed set of foreign policy prescriptions, but it is the policy of our president, a self-described conservative, and the Republican leadership.
Your problem is that you can’t see that you just want to own what you think is the “good” of the conservative movement without looking at what a complete friggin’ disaster it has been from an economic, social and international perspective.
This is an all-losing situation for the GOP here.
Either George W. Bush was a conservative, and his failed policies and presidency are therefore an indictment of all conservatives…
…or George W. Bush was not a conservative, but the GOP decided to prop him up as one thereby attaining and maintaining power through fooling conservative voters.
Conservative ideology is bankrupt or the GOP is untrustworthy. Take your pick.
“Butter on mine, please.”
As someone just diagnosed with type II diabetes, I have to warn you against having real butter on your popcorn. The corn is carbs enough, so adding the oil and adding the pounds is really not recommended, you know.
Moderation — it’s the liberal way, you know — leads to better health (as well as better government).
A word to the wise, eh?
Ed
Our plan to destroy the GOP from within is working brilliantly. Operation Mole is an unparalleled success.
A lot of the usual, “You stink, no, you stink” dialog going on here, with a brief time out from CSS to say that they define “left ” and “right” differently else elsewhere. [Yes, and what Canadians call "bacon", we call "ham".]
While there are a few varieties of conservatism, Bush’s variety had very little conservative about it. Pat Buchanan was against the invasion of Iraq as early as any Democrat.
Bush’s inability or unwillingness to veto a spending bill is NOT conservative.
Clinging stubbornly to petty social issues did not earn him enough Christian coalition votes to matter. His pecks at the huge iron ball that is abortion - on - demand were barely worth keeping this “pro - life” candidate in office.
It is for these reasons that people think that the losses in 2006 were attributed to being “conservative” enough.
Low taxes and less government interference is an alternative to nearly all of our political years since 1933.
Walter Williams commented on the philosophy:
… once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so … I believe that reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another’s pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation…
If a liberal becomes President, we know exactly what they will do:
Begin a foot race out of Iraq. As it goes to hell, they will blame Bush.
They will raise taxes, and spending. and when the economy goes into the dumper, they will blame Bush.
They will then try to foist X amount of new programs on the populace. As the expense of those programs grows, and they don’t succeed, they will blame Bush for not instituting them sooner.
At least with a conservative, there is some possibility that the man / woman will deviate from stereotype occasionally.
Your problem is that you can’t see that you just want to own what you think is the “good” of the conservative movement without looking at what a complete friggin’ disaster it has been from an economic, social and international perspective.
No, Dugger may just feel that the time is right to jump ship and try to save face.
“I never liked that guy anyway.”
I can’t wait for the day when he finds out bush lied about something.
Frank, stop reaching into my pocket then, will you?
“Goes to hell”?
We can argue all day about the state of the country after American troops leave, but let’s not be disingenuous here and make it sound like our troops are the only difference between a relatively normal and peaceful country and a violent hell.
Iraq is already in a state of violent hell. The question is whether our troops can do anything to stop it, or if they can only slow it down…while in the meantime losing men and money.
“with a brief time out from CSS to say that they define “left ” and “right” differently else elsewhere.”
Have you been to Canada? Check out our, ‘Conservative’ party and compare it to the Republicans.
Bush is a NeoCon. Fiscally he is a NeoCon. His foriegn policy fits perfectly with the NeoCon belief. He is the poster-boy for the NeoCons. He is a failure because he is a NeoCon.
As for the rest of your rant, let me say, you are a worthless human being. Your opinions of liberals are based on nothing my hateful stereotypes, and it is this hatefullness that causes you to be attacked.
“If a liberal becomes President, we know exactly what they will do:
Begin a foot race out of Iraq. As it goes to hell, they will blame Bush.
They will raise taxes, and spending. and when the economy goes into the dumper, they will blame Bush.
They will then try to foist X amount of new programs on the populace. As the expense of those programs grows, and they don’t succeed, they will blame Bush for not instituting them sooner.”
Yes, because your predictive ability is oh-so-great. You’ve been fucking Nostradamus, Frank. Your past clarity on so many issues leads me to believe you on these predictions again.
“At least with a conservative, there is some possibility that the man / woman will deviate from stereotype occasionally.”
You’re a douchebag, Frank. This is the problem… you have this caricature of a liberal stamped in your mind as a bleeding-heart, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, tax-and-spending, baby-killing PC subhuman who wants to surrender to the terrorists instead of “fighting them.” Guess what? As usual, you couldn’t be more wrong. You swallowed the fairy tale the conservative noise machine shoved down your throat, smiled, and then asked for seconds. It seems to be a pattern with you… you think that you’re actually thinking critically, and individualistically, but instead you parrot bad arguments, talking points, and outright bullshit as delivered by authority figures. You’re a tool, Frank… exactly the kind of sheep the GOP wants us all to be. How does it feel to be used?
Which of you über - educated liberals would like to point me to the Democratic candidate that doesn’t want to get out of Iraq, doesn’t want either to eliminate the “Bush tax cuts” or simply to raise taxes? Which Democratic candidate isn’t dangling at least one “super - size” government program in front of a desired constituency?
Surely, if I am merely portraying a hateful stereotype, or a caricature, there should be one candidate that doesn’t fit it.
One?
You don’t even like your moderates in the DLC, and you despise Sen. Lieberman.
And I don’t think any of you are douche bags or tools or hateful human beings. You are simply benighted. You simply believe that you have arrived at an unassailable truth, and anyone that doesn’t believe it, has a personal defect.
Conservatives haven’t yet realized that the size of government as little to do with conservative principles.
The only conservative principle is that the social order as it is must be maintained. At all costs. If small government is needed for that, so be it. If big bloated arrest-em-all government is needed, so be it.
By the measure of the one overriding principle of conservatism, Bush is a true conservative. If conservatives don’t like the way it’s turned out, too fucking bad. If you don’t like how your ideology in practice has turned out, leave.
I guess it’s not really a personal defect that conservatives like Frank and Dinesh D’Souza applaud terrorist attacks on us because of our benighted liberal values.
Terrorism against liberals - it’s the conservative position to take.
…point me to the Democratic candidate that doesn’t want to get out of Iraq, doesn’t want either to eliminate the “Bush tax cuts” or simply to raise taxes? blah blah.
There isn’t one because we can see that these policies have been utterly and completely wrong, to the detriment of our republic. A smart conservative would feel the same. Some do.
You’re missing the point, Duros62… I was insulted and called vile names for claiming those ideas which you claim are good ones, were liberal ideas.
Funny, you’re comfortable with the “stereotype” and “caricature”, and I challenge you to find a conservative that favors more than one of those ideas.
Dr. Squid: If you have no ideas and nothing to say, please don’t pretend you are speaking for me or expressing my thoughts.
“Which of you über - educated liberals would like to point me to the Democratic candidate that doesn’t”
You don’t get it. You just don’t get it.
Bush fucked up Iraq. You are already blaming the next president for getting out and causing Iraq to go to hell. It’s already there.
Bush fucked up the economy. You are already blaming the next president for taking measures to cut the deficit, measures that have to include raising taxes.
Bush fucked up government programs like home security and disaster preparedness. The next president will have to fix this, and this will cost a lot of money.
“You’re missing the point, Duros62… I was insulted and called vile names for claiming those ideas which you claim are good ones, were liberal ideas.”
No Frank, you were called names because you were blaming liberals for problems that Bush caused. It was the NeoCons who fucked up, the next president will have to fix it, and the solutions will be painful.
On the other hand, had you had Al Gore for president the last six years, almost none of these would still be a problem.
CSS: There is no justification for calling anyone names, unless you want to include retaliation. Of course, I called no one a name.
I reject what you are saying now, because it is too late. If this were true a few hours ago, you could have (would have) said it a few hours ago. But you did not.
Secondly, either my predictions are correct, and I think you are saying they are, or they are not.
My point was not that I am the best prophet in the neighborhood, it is that the liberals are drearily predictable.
As to your predictions about Al Gore, you couldn’t be more wrong. And I venture to say that that is neither a prediction nor an opinion, but a natch’l fact.
Stop trying to justifying your rude, crude and obnoxious behavior by blaming it on me. I know and you know that no one allows me that luxury.
Stop it. You are either a rude, crude, obnoxious, ill mannered individual with no balls, like mambochicken23, or you can attempt (and I mean attempt — unlike you, I believe people make mistakes) to be courteous.
But stop blaming me. That’s for children.
“There is no justification for calling anyone names,”
To repeat myself, if you don’t want to be called stupid, stop saying stupid things.
“I reject what you are saying now, because…”
Because you can’t deny it.
“it is that the liberals are drearily predictable.”
Yeah, they look at the situation at hand and try to fix it.
Bush broke the country and you are blaming the liberals for the tough choices they have to make to fix it, all while whining that they will blame Bush for the probblems ahead.
You are a hypocritical asshole.
“As to your predictions about Al Gore, you couldn’t be more wrong.”
I trust your opinion on these matters less that you could possibly imagine. You disagreeing with me strengthens my confidence.
“Stop trying to justifying your rude, crude and obnoxious behavior by blaming it on me. I know and you know that no one allows me that luxury.”
That’s cause you’re the problem, Frank. Practically every complaint you have about me is merely projection.
First of all, I am not whining. You guys are amazing. You use the most negative of words — idiot, moron, whining — as if you have no idea what they mean. And you use them over and over, as if they are some sort of jargon that has slipped into the lexicon of the blogosphere.
I predicted that the liberals will pursue the course of action they always do, and point to Bush as the reason to justify their actions, and what is your response?
a: It’s horrible of you to say that — that’s a caricature and a stereotype. You’re no good!
b: The liberals will do things because they are good things (not acknowledging that I said they would — or retracting their statement that I was caricaturing or stereotyping)
c: The liberals will do these things because it was Bush who fucked them up (which is exactly what I said they would say).
d: And, somehow, this turn of events turns me into a “hypocritical asshole”.
Now THAT’S magic!
if you don’t want to be called stupid, stop saying stupid things
If you don’t want to call me stupid, stop calling me stupid. You are still blaming me for your actions — as blatant a case of denial as I have ever seen outside the world of substance abuse.
Do you realize that you were so upset when you typed the previous comment, that there was a typo, something ungrammatical, or a misspelling on every line, except when you copy my comment?
Practically every complaint you have about me is merely projection.
“Practically every”? And the rest?
There’s a saying in America about that. It begins,”I’m rubber, you’re glue…”
” The liberals will do these things because it was Bush who fucked them up (which is exactly what I said they would say).”
Well, duh. People are saying that because it happens to be the truth. You can’t say “shit smells” without mentioning shit. Unless you’re the Bush administration, in which case you just take a dump inside the Middle East and then order someone else to clear it up, saying “the time for recriminations is past”.
The main area where Bush has failed as a conservative is his total disregard for the rule of law.
Of course modern Republican conservatives pick and choose the ones they want hom to enfoece and respect.
Well, duh. People are saying that because it happens to be the truth.
Well, duh. If it happens to be the truth, then why did everybody go crazy when I said it?
You’re all so caught up in the “If it’s Frank, it must be wrong” reflex, you don’t think, you don’t ask questions, it’s just “Charge!”
Clowns.
chum,you contradicted yourself. If, indeed, Republicans “pick and choose” the laws they want the President to enforce, then why would it upset them that he was disregarding the rule of law?
I think you’re totally wrong, but even if I agreed with you, which part would I agree with?
“Well, duh. If it happens to be the truth, then why did everybody go crazy when I said it?”
Because Bush fucked up and you are blaming the liberals for having to fix a problem that your guy created.
Liberals don’t steal your money through taxes and blow it on overpriced government programs that don’t work. But they will have to raise taxes to cover the overpriced government programs that Bush put into place.
Do you get it now or are you truly fucking retarded?
Conservatives want Bush to enforce immigration laws, drug laws, and any crime by blacks.
Not so much with torture, illegal wiretaps, corporate malefeasance, tax cheats, outing CIA agents during a time of war, ad nauseum.
chum, it is obvious that you next to nothing about conservatism or conservatives. So you know a little less than all the other liberals on this blog.
CSS: You are a nasty bastard. Why did I ever concern myself with responding to you?
You’re a prick. Eat shit and die.
“You are a nasty bastard.”
So are you, Frank. But you really do think, deep down, that you are a good person and the victim here.
Well, you’re neither.
“chum, it is obvious that you next to nothing about conservatism or conservatives. So you know a little less than all the other liberals on this blog.”
I know enough about conservatives to recognize when they avoid what you say because they can’t defend their own hypocricy.
Immigration is a law and order issue to real conservatives. Rockefeller was the trailblazer in how to deal with the drug problem in New York and America in general. The conservatives feel the IRS and SEC have better things to do than go after tax cheats and corporate abusers.
One doesn’t have to be a “liberal” to recognize the many laws that Bush and company have broke inder the pretext of protecting our freedoms. When faced with a choice of following our nations laws or changing them to fit the times they did neither. They broke them and continue to break them.
Violent crime is on an upward swing the Justice Department is now a guarantor of Republican rule not enforcement of our laws.
Don’t fret though fd10801, Law and Order guy Fred Thompson is on his way to again grab that golden ring as the merry go round passes.
Immigration is a law and order issue to real conservatives
Haven’t you read the left wing memo on this?
Supposedly, conservatives aren’t concerned that there are 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants. It’s their “Mexicanness” that has conservatives / Republicans all in a tizzy.
You gotta keep up!
So are you, Frank. But you really do think, deep down, that you are a good person and the victim here.
You know the difference between you and me?
I know when I am being mean, and I know that it is not right. I don’t pretend that mean behavior is justified by others, even when I “retaliate”.
You, on the other hand, are mean - spirited and insulting without being provoked, and you follow it up with pathological protestations to the effect that “I made you do it.”
So you know who thinks they’re a victim here?
You.
Because you’re the one forced into ill mannered and inconsiderate and uncouth behavior by me.
You can’t admit that you’re a rotten, selfish prick with no manners, because that’s too unpleasant even for you to admit, especially in front of others.
You’ll come up with some oh - so - clever answer, but it won’t be a response, and it won’t make you a good person. Because there is nothing about you that you have ever exhibited that makes that possibility workable.
“You know the difference between you and me?”
I’m much smarter than you.
I’m not scared of a little bad language.
I don’t think I’m too good to deliver a gut shot in a debate.
I don’t complain when someone returns the favor.
I’m sure I could think of others.
“and you follow it up with pathological protestations to the effect that ‘I made you do it.’”
I never said that, you lying asshole. Fuck, are you really this stupid or is it debating tactic? Do you act stupid until someone insults you so you can pretend to be the victim? That would explain a whole lot about you.
The essence of my response is dictated by what you write, it would have to be otherwise it wouldn’t be a conversation. For instance, if you hadn’t brought up the right’s illusionary rejection of anti-Semitism, I wouldn’t have brought up William Donohue, (whom I mistakenly referred to as James Donohue). That said, the nature of my responses, the insults, the profanity, and the general nastiness has little to do with you.
If you still don’t get it, then I have no idea how to explain it clearer without using pictures.
“You can’t admit that you’re a rotten, selfish prick with no manners, because that’s too unpleasant even for you to admit, especially in front of others.”
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/search.php?code=strowbridge&author="e=asshole
Now, would you please admit you are either a fucking liar or a fucking moron?
“Because there is nothing about you that you have ever exhibited that makes that possibility workable.”
Oh take your crying elsewhere, you ignorant shit. No one’s buying it anymore.
Quelle surprise!
That’s French.
I don’t think I’m too good to deliver a gut shot in a debate.
I don’t complain when someone returns the favor.
The problem is that you marched onto this blog with a chip on your shoulder.
That wasn’t my idea, and I didn’t volunteer to take your “gut shots”. There are people on this blog who treat me like crap. I know who they are, and I know why. You came from out of nowhere, and zeroed in on me.
… the nature of my responses, the insults, the profanity, and the general nastiness has little to do with you.
little? NOTHING! Nothing to do with me!
I already know you are responding to my statements. If I say tomato, you say “not tomato”. That’s the nature of a disagreement. But if I say tomato, and you say, “Not tomato — you shit eating scum bag”, that’s something different, don’t you think?
The fact that there are self - deprecating remarks about you at some obscure URL says nothing about your willingness to admit that you make inappropriate, unwarranted insulting remarks about me, and then blame me for them
Now, would you please admit that you decided, almost immediately upon arrival, that your goal was to prove to yourself that you could drive me off this blog?
And, I’m sure that in the rough and tumble world of Internet entertainment writing, I must come off as a wimp, asking that you simply call out a warning before you fire a “gut shot”.
“The problem is that you marched onto this blog with a chip on your shoulder.”
No I didn’t.
“You came from out of nowhere, and zeroed in on me.”
No I didn’t. I came to this Blog cause I liked Oliver’s writing style.
I knew nothing of you when I first started posting here, in fact, for the first week or so, I didn’t even pay attention to your handle and didn’t know when people said the name Frank it was the same person as fd10801.
But I have since learned that you were, ‘attacked’ by numerous people before I showed up. The only commonality between this people is you. So maybe you are part of the issue. Maybe you act in a way to draw attacks so you can feel like a victim.
“little? NOTHING! Nothing to do with me!
I already know you are responding to my statements. If I say tomato, you say “not tomato”. That’s the nature of a disagreement. But if I say tomato, and you say, “Not tomato — you shit eating scum bag”, that’s something different, don’t you think?”
That’s not how it went.
You: Tomatoe.
Me: Tomato. The, ‘e’ at the end only gets added if it is plural.
You: It’s tomatoe, why don’t you look it up in a dictionary.
Me: No it isn’t, you moron.
You: HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME!!!!
“The fact that there are self - deprecating remarks about you at some obscure URL says nothing about your willingness to admit”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek.vs.starwars/msg/4e2064a61d76adff?hl=en&
“inappropriate, unwarranted insulting remarks about me, and then blame me for them”
You really do need to play the victim here, don’t you?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek.vs.starwars/msg/4e2064a61d76adff?hl=en&
So you’ve done this elsewhere? And this is evidence that I’m to blame?
Or is it evidence that you expect me — like you expected him — to find it acceptable.
You really do need to play the victim here, don’t you?
No, CSS, you need to justify your crass behavior.
“So you’ve done this elsewhere?”
So you admit you were wrong. Thanks.
“And this is evidence that I’m to blame?”
You are partially to blame, but this is not evidence to that.
“Or is it evidence that you expect me — like you expected him — to find it acceptable.”
I expect you to stop acting like a little shit if you don’t want to be called a little shit.
“No, CSS, you need to justify your crass behavior.”
I don’t have to justify it, it’s my right.
Suck it up, coward, cause your whining doesn’t work on me.
I don’t have to justify it, it’s my right.
Indeed it is, as it is mine.
Me: “I don’t have to justify it, it’s my right.”
You: “Indeed it is, as it is mine.”
Yep, it’s your right to avoid any serious intellectual debate, and you do it so well.
Last word.