« Photo of the Year: Thanks and Praise | Main | Will You Answer What Congress Won't? The Top 20 Questions pt 10 »

Inmates Running The Asylum's PA System

One of the curses of the internet age is that it makes the world a bit smaller for everyone -- even those who would be better off being very small fish in very big ponds.

I'm talking about the crazies.

Before the internet, nuts and kooks had to work hard to find others that would reinforce their insanities. These days, the whackjobs can find each other with just a few clicks, build a community ("mixed nuts"), and perpetuate and propagate their looniness with the speed of light.

The Bush Derangement Syndrome twits and the Ron Paul nuts are among the milder ones. We also have the 9/11 Trooothers (who are now stalking local TV reporters to push their paranoid delusions), the neo-Nazis (who are now in a fight with Little Green Footballs, because the LGFers aren't the gibbering racists they are often portrayed as), the jihadists (both internet and real-life), and numerous phyla of psychotics are growing louder and louder -- and harder to ignore.

There are plenty of others out there. Those are just the ones that jump to mind.

And I have absolutely no idea what to do about them. Normally, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and exposing these nuts and their ravings ought to be enough to discount them. But they seem to have grown resistant to such things, and the attention only seems to encourage them.

Anyone got any useful ideas?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (52)

The moonbats believe whatev... (Below threshold)

The moonbats believe whatever they please to demonize Bush. They have absolutely no shame about it and few try to hold them accountable. These nutjobs are just following their lead.

I also believe Moral Relativism in Real Life has neutered people from making these people feel shame or shouting them down in Real Life.

They are not going anywhere... (Below threshold)

They are not going anywhere. They will never stop. They will never STFU.

I find it best to just point at them and laugh. Treat them as entertainment. Sort of like intellectual side show freaks.

Anyone got any use... (Below threshold)
Anyone got any useful ideas?

We actually have always had mixed nuts, the difference is we never had a political party cater to them with such vigor as we seen Democrats do in the last 7 years. Of course going into a general election year they are walking the fine line of appeasing them and distancing themselves to appeal to "normal people". What a conundrum.

Quite frankly watching the left's freedom fighters getting defeated, impeachment laughed out of Congress and troofers being told "how dare you" by Clinton is proof the nuts may be once again minimized like they once were.

I know, I know, just wishful thinking. (sigh)

You seriously believ... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

You seriously believe that Wizbang is NOT populated by those "nuts and kooks"?

Nope, lava... you're here, ... (Below threshold)

Nope, lava... you're here, aren't you?

Thanks for making my point for me.


Well dr lava, since you bri... (Below threshold)

Well dr lava, since you bring it up - you ARE here, aren't you?

Damn Jay! You beat me to i... (Below threshold)

Damn Jay! You beat me to it.

The nutjobs were given legi... (Below threshold)

The nutjobs were given legitimacy by the Dem party, the MSM, and wealthy individuals like Soros, because they were anti-Bush.

Cindy Sheehan was practically adopted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and now that the 2006 elections are over, she's been dropped like a hot rock; especially once her anti-Israel rants were getting harder to conceal.

But the CodePink/MoveOn crowd owns the Dems now, and Hillary will be forced to hire on as many of Soros' people as possible, in order to keep the wackos away from the cameras.

Anyone got any use... (Below threshold)
Anyone got any useful ideas?

I hear Dennis Kucinich has a planet picked out by his UFO buddies that can house all of them. But they must have a "certified" BDS license issued by governor Spitzer. First two flights out are rumored to be booked full of al-Qaeda sympathizers. "Truthers" were told to wait for the bus, because planes have been found to melt steel.

Nuke 'em from space.... (Below threshold)

Nuke 'em from space.
It's the only way to be sure.

"Anyone got any useful idea... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

"Anyone got any useful ideas?"

For one, abolish government schools. Education, not indoctrination. Pink Floyd was right in recognizing that the current form of "education" amounts to "thought control."

I would say Total radio sil... (Below threshold)

I would say Total radio silence ...

Don't mention them again, don't link to a single story about them ...

Maybe they can be starved out of existence ...

Of course with the Dems giving cover to many of these groups it would be almost impossible to not mention them even in passing when reporting on Dem highjinks ...

So maybe just let the sun shine on the nutjob Dem convergences in the hopes that the Dems snap out of their BDS ...

Clorox is good for germs, a... (Below threshold)

Clorox is good for germs, and cheaper than Lysol.

(only half in jest) Does th... (Below threshold)

(only half in jest) Does the word "quarantine" come to mind? Or perhaps "sanitarium," which was originally applied to TB to keep the non-infected population safe, i.e., sanitary.

BDSers are the most infuriating, as these are allegedly rational and intelligent individuals. Neo-Nazis, truthers, jihadists, well, they were loony from moment one.

You seriously beli... (Below threshold)
You seriously believe that Wizbang is NOT populated by those "nuts and kooks"?

What? Oh, you must be thinking of Wizbang Blue.

If the Section Editor took ... (Below threshold)

If the Section Editor took a long hard look at himself in the mirror, he'd scare himself witless - Oh I forgot, he doesn't need to look in the mirror.

Ignorance is bliss and most... (Below threshold)

Ignorance is bliss and most Americans are as happy as a kid with a new puppy. Drivers licenses/voter registration for criminal Mexicans is your suicide belt, you just don't know you're wearing it, yet.

Yeah I got an idea. Look h... (Below threshold)

Yeah I got an idea. Look hard at our debt, our open borders, and the slow suicide of America's European Christian grassroots.

This war is killing us. Republicans have got to get on the right side of this. We have got to stop this war, close the borders, and re-take the heartland. Until I see a real effort at that - R's have no more chance for my vote than the Ds.

Is this such a bad thing? I... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

Is this such a bad thing? It forces people to make up or down decisions on fringe issues and groups. As Jumpinjoe notes above with examples, it is good to force politicians to make a stand, and not say one thing to one group and the opposite to another.

Watching Hillary make a spectacle of herself by talking/pandering out of both sides of her mouth simultaneously is not just entertaining, it is healthy for democracy. Otherwise we end up with politicians and media persons who manipulate rather than do their jobs in a more straight up manner. They must be forced to state and acknowledge their actual opinions and anticipated actions, and not be allowed to hide behind generalities that are 80%+ lies.

Better to force liberal toxins to the surface where they are dealt with, rather than let them kill the host body. Because 8 more years of Clintonian manipulation and their enabled wackos may finish off the American body.

On the flip side, there were a lot of politicians who wanted to label anti-amnesty and anti-pork efforts as fringe and even wackos. The same was true about gun control last decade. But when the issues got organized and out into the mainstream, and the public became better informed, the politicians had to back down a bit or even switch sides.

So I say lets have more please. Get all those "wackos" on all sides out there and stating what they actually believe so they can either be publicly defeated or reinforced. Thank heavens for the internet and new media.

One man's nut is another ma... (Below threshold)

One man's nut is another man's right thinking individual.

Anyone got any use... (Below threshold)
Anyone got any useful ideas?

Not really. jpm100 is correct but doesn't do far enough: the majority are aligning themselves with the Dhimmicrats, the party that has abandoned all moral, ethical, and legal standards. If the DNC or the majority of Americans had any moral, ethical, or legal standards, Senator Clinton would have no chance of winning the nomination or the Presidency. As it stands, the race is hers to lose.

Blogworthy has an entertaining idea to abolish public schools. But the Dhimmicrats get so much political power from the teachers unions: they are not about to allow the People's Re-education Camps to be eliminated or even reformed. Public schools by any object measure are a disaster, but instead of cleaning up the mess, the majority are preparing to embrace socialism in medicine.

Sidebar: Liberal "thought" these days is to ignore the fact that socialized medicine is a failure in every major country because Americans (somehow) will do it better. They ignore the fact that Americans do it better because they never embraced socialism. Liberals cannot explain why our socialized schools are so much worse than government-run schools in almost every industrialized country on the planet.

The only realistic solution at this point is probably to accept that Hillary will be the next president, that she will have a super-majority in the Senate, that she will fundamentally change the country, that the country will suffer an economic disaster that will make the Carter administration look like the good old days, and that the people will throw them out of office or hang them from lamp posts. It will get very ugly.

Let's call Condi in and giv... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Let's call Condi in and give the 'tards their own stste!

...or "state".... That migh... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

...or "state".... That might be easier.

JFO, you forgot, "Wingnu... (Below threshold)

JFO, you forgot, "Wingnuts!"

At least try to stay consistent, will you?

Honestly, what can you do? The one's that already imagine elaborate conspiracies where there are none can't be helped, but they CAN serve as an example to those for whom there is still hope.

kevino, and to think I some... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

kevino, and to think I sometimes worry about being pessimistic :)

If what you state comes to pass, then yes, the USA is possibly doomed. Might as well start stocking heavy weapons, ammo and other supplies, as well as advancing state level military organization. We have many well trained and experienced NG units and vets who will be needed when the country splits. Also, it would be best to be in a solid red state with a coastal port before they close borders. (is that wacko enough?)

Oyster:For the eve... (Below threshold)


For the ever growing minority you and your ilk are a part of, there is little hope. Perhaps though, one of the stalwarts of the fringe right, the Right Reverend Pat Roberston can save you with a milk shake thus extending your life so that you can continue to helplessly hope.

Good comedy JFO. Really.</p... (Below threshold)

Good comedy JFO. Really.

The real secret is to just stare at someone who spews such nonsense and not say anything. I don't know how much we can shut up the megaphones of the MSM, but we can do it one Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner at a time.

A great comeback I read somewhere recently (but I can't remember where) is: "I'm sure you meant to say something intelligent, didn't you?"

JFO, your comment might mea... (Below threshold)

JFO, your comment might mean something if I were a follower of Pat Robertson or cared what he thought. Let's not even get into caring or understanding what you *think*.

For instance: "ever growing minority".

Annex California (were ther... (Below threshold)

Annex California (were there seems to be a vocal majority) and ship the rest, one way.

civildisobedience:... (Below threshold)


I'm not trying to be pessimistic: that's how I see it.

The former- and future-President Clinton understand politics far better than people alive today. Senator Clinton really appears to be unbeatable. In fact, she appears to be headed toward a mandate. She'll probably get a Democratic House and a super-majority in the Senate.

Now, when Mr. Clinton controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, he was paralyzed by his own weaknesses - specifically his need to be loved. In fact, when people don't love and admire him he reacts with anger. He was restrained by his need to do popular things. His goal was to be re-elected.

Ms. Clinton doesn't have that problem. Her problems are greed and a lust for power. Her goal appears to be to fundamentally change America. In a sense, she is the socialist version of President Reagan or PM Thatcher. Once she finally gets the power that she has worked her entire live to acquire, I don't anything that will restrain her. She'll have a blank check for two years and four years to fundamentally change the Judiciary for a generation.

The country is changing. The country used to care about the quality of the people they elected. Not any more. The Clintons are slime - hopelessly, totally corrupt. And yet the country re-elected Bill as President, simply because the economy was doing well. Now they're going to vote for the bag man for the Arkansas Mafia. The country used to ask their politicians what they stand for. In 2006 they elected Democrats who didn't have a real agenda after the first 100 days. They got a Congress that looked busy for 100 days and hasn't done much since. And the people appear to be OK with that. Now they're going to vote for someone who has no real record of accomplishment, is hiding what record there is, and is refusing to answer questions or engage in real debate. The country used to honor individualism, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. Now, the majority of Americans get direct benefits from the State, and that number will go up and the number will go up sharply as the country gets older. They are giving up on self-reliance in favor of the State taking care of them.

There isn't a lot of logic or thought involved here. People appear to be voting for anyone who isn't a Republican, and they want to see "history being made" in voting for a woman.

RE: Stockpiling weapons and ammo
I'm sure that such things will not be allowed in the United States Socialist Republic. I know that the law allows such things today, but that is only because we are a backward people. We need to look toward other countries to see the way that our laws and constitution should be interpreted. Guns will be a prime example of "taking things away for the Common Good".

RE: "When the country splits"
I don't think that the country will split. We will become like Europe: a poor, faded version of our former self, living in the past, and trying hard to keep from slipping into Third-World status.

Unfortunately, this O'Conno... (Below threshold)

Unfortunately, this O'Connor guy in the news link doesn't appear to be the best example for rational thinking. He states, "No (Fox) newscaster is safe if they're live on the street.". Well, are they in danger? Apparently not, because he says he won't threaten them, but stand behind them during the broadcast and put them on Youtube. He can't just put together his own anti-war schlock and run it on Youtube. Fox is the (evil) broadcaster that is "not being threatened, but "not safe", either and must be exposed for just bringing the news to the public. The extreme left really has issues and often is the epitomy of "batshi* crazy". In this case, sad, but true.

kevino, if the extreme chan... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

kevino, if the extreme changes you post come to pass, there will easily be a split, and a likely civil war with it. The good news is the military will side with American originalists (I just made that term up) and not socialists. She would be forced out before she succeeded in doing the level of damage you listed. I don't think it would come to that, but I would be prepared and networked with active militants just in case.

civildisobedience:... (Below threshold)


Well, we agree to disagree. I see the American public voting the Witch out of office after four years and hoping for the best. People will see her Presidency as a really bad idea and try to tough it out. Many of the changes that she proposes will be reversed.

Her legacy will be:
1. Judiciary nominations that last a lifetime.
2. Legislation that is a long-term commitment by the State to people that cannot be easily reversed.
3. The catastrophic loss to the Democratic Party (worse than the Carter administration). People who see their savings destroyed by the major stock market "corrections" won't for a Democrat for years to come. (You can't take that much money out of the private sector and move it into the public sector without consequences.)

Americans like to play by the rules. Americans today aren't revolutionaries (too soft, too committed to the status quo, and too content to let the State take care of them).

Interesting point, that iss... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

Interesting point, that issue about playing by the rules. I do agree it has been a noble conservative trait. But the liberals and their culture have disregarded it for so long, I don't believe modern uncivil American society actually follows that standard. I don't when it comes to leftist liberals and other domestic enemies. With modern technology and weaponry, being a modern revolutionary is easy, especially if you have an active military and state government network. The feds will be powerless.

civil-D,I don't know... (Below threshold)

I don't know if I would say playing by the rules is a conservative thing. Plenty of conservatives have ignored the rules when they thought nobody was looking or been seduced by the notion that the ends justify the means.
However, modern liberalism/progressive thought seems to take a perverse joy in operating outside of established rules of behaivor.
Just as not all jews keep kosher, a greater percentage do than the gentiles. :)

civildisobedience:... (Below threshold)


You make some good points that I agree with. In particular, Liberals don't believe in playing by any rules or following moral, ethical, or legal standards.

You may see big leaps in technology used to monitor the civilian population by Comrade Clinton. As in the first Clinton administration it was tried to "serve the public good", to "make government more efficient", and to protect the public from domestic terrorism. (Examples include the proposal to log all bank and credit card transactions, the proposal to log all airline flights, and the health care record-keeping and recording standards.) In particular, I see an explosion in public surveillance with a rapid development of facial recognition technology tied to a data base.

Some losses in personal freedom will be written off due to the threat of domestic and foreign terrorism. (Leftists will see anti-government unrest as more threatening than the threat of terror from Islamic fanatics.) But many of these losses will be difficult to see immediately. For example, most people don't understand the threat from the Kelo decision, giving the State the ability to take land for any reason they like. Ultimately, Comrade Clinton's biggest threat to Liberty will be her judicial nominations: a few more like Justice Ginsberg and the country is screwed.

Her other major accomplishment will be "immigration reform", creating millions of votes - legal and illegal - for Democrats for generations to come.

However, I don't see that state governments will be able to or willing to stand up to the Federal government. For one thing, the Feds will be able to threaten state governments by withholding federal funds.

SCSIwuzzy:As a Lib... (Below threshold)


As a Libertarian, and one who is neither liberal nor conservative, I think that I can explain the distinction. Conservatives have standards that are very high. All fail, but some fail badly. When they fail, fellow conservatives almost always hold them accountable for those failures.

Speaker Gingrich didn't break any laws in his TV deal for his history and government lectures. But there was an appearance of impropriety and an argument could be made, and so he was gone.

President Nixon was investigated and impeached for obstructing justice. The questions, "What did he know, and when did he know it?" comes from a Republican Senator. When it became clear that Nixon was guilty, senior Republicans told Nixon to his face that he had to resign. Impeachment was unavoidable because the GOP would be leading the charge.

Liberals don't play the rules: rules are for other people.

President Clinton committed perjury. In doing so, the chief executive of the US interfered with the lawful workings of a US court. Impeachable? You bet. If you disagree, consider the fact the perjury is a more serious variant of obstructing justice. (In fact, they have the same goal and the same victim.) So how is it that obstructing justice is impeachable for Nixon, but Clinton's perjury is not?

Now look at Senator Clinton.

Does anyone really believe that the $100,000 cattle futures deal wasn't a bribe? Can anyone with any intelligence and standards really fail to understand that the money came from Tyson chicken or that the Clintons didn't have an "unusual" relationship with Tyson? (And I thought that Democrats were supposed to look after the public's health, safety, and welfare, particularly against big corporations like Tyson.) Is anyone surprised that Clinton pardoned Archie Schaffer, the Tyson executive accused of bribery?

And speaking of pardons, does anyone really think that Ms. Clinton didn't know about the pardons for the Puerto Rican terrorists when those pardons helped her bid for the Senate?
Does anyone think that she didn't know about the money her brother (Hugh) got for helping to arrange a pardon? How about the money that her other brother got for a pardon in the form of loans that never got repaid? ("Loans that never got paid". Where have I heard that before?)

Anyone can to defend Marc Rich's pardon after all the money the family gave to the Clinton library and Ms. Clinton's campaign?

Does anyone really think that Ms. Clinton wasn't involved in the massive shakedown of Madison Savings and Loan, the S&L that the Clintons kept bank examiners away from and then used as their personal piggy bank. And when it went pop, who paid the bill? You and me: the American taxpayers.

And yet this is the person (and her husband) that Democrats feel is perfectly qualified to be President. Why not: they are Democrats, so they must be good people.

Pehaps a better way to have... (Below threshold)

Pehaps a better way to have expressed myself would have been:
The conservatives make something of a fetish out of following the rules, having standards (in behaivor and morality) and the like.
The progressives have a fetish for having a standard for each moment in time, and for disdaining any absolutes.

Many on both sides fail to walk the walk.
Newt, to use Kevino's example, can be a hard sell for 'values voters' when his personal life is examined.
Hillary on the other hand... ug. Shameless is the best word for her that remain proper for a polit conversation.

The pot calling the kettle ... (Below threshold)

The pot calling the kettle a rusty son of a bitch.

astigafa:Do you ha... (Below threshold)


Do you have something intelligent to say? Are you going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Clintons and argue moral equivalency?

For example, President Clinton pardoned terrorists to benefit his wife's bid for the Senate. These fenols committed armed robbery, made bombs, and were part of an organization that killed cops. For pure corruption that's hard to beat that.

To accept the Clintons, one basically has to throw all moral, ethical, and legal standards out the window. By any moral, ethical, of legal standard, they don't measure up. One of the Democrats' (and, indeed, the Clintons') favorite "standards" is to say that they are doing the "People's Business". The argument s: "Don't bother us with ethical issues: we're too busy doing what's best for 'The Common Good'". And yet many of their worst ethical failures involve a direct betrayal of the public trust for their own personal gain. Democrats are supposed to look after the little people, and yet the Clintons repeated screwed the little people to help themselves.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Clintons is like standing knee-deep in tons of reeking sewage and complaining about the whiff of impropriety two blocks away.

SCSIwuzzyI don't k... (Below threshold)


I don't know what planet you inhabit but I don't think it's earth. Here's your statement:

"The conservatives make something of a fetish out of following the rules, having standards (in behavior and morality) and the like.
The progressives have a fetish for having a standard for each moment in time, and for disdaining any absolutes."

Here is but a partial list of "values" conservatives either driven from office or convicted of crimes since 1994: Bob Packwood, Mel Reynolds, Robert Livingston, Kevin Calvert, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley. David Vitter, Bob Allan and last but not least Larry Craig. All of these involved sexual behavior or extramarital affairs. And it's only a partial list.

Here's a partial list of conservative criminals: Michael Scanlon (Tome DeLay employee), Jack Abramoff, Neil Volz (employee of Rep Ney), David Savayian (employee of George Bush), Roger Stillwell (employee of George W Bush), Rep. Bob Ney, James Griles (employee of George W Bush). And the list goes on.

One of the detestable traits of some righties is the holier-than-thou, we don't sin bullshit hypocrisy that comes from statements like yours.

Sin and crime knows no political boundaries. It's an equal opportunity behavior of both the left and the right.

JFO:You're making ... (Below threshold)


You're making our point for us. Consider this statement: "All of these involved sexual behavior or extramarital affairs."

That's a high standard. These individuals were driven from office for sexual impropriety, except for Speaker Gingrich who was driven from office for his TV lecture deal. They received little, if any, support from Republicans. It is similar to the case I gave with President Nixon. He was investigated and would have been impeached with the help of Republicans.

Consider, if you will:
1. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has had numerous affairs. He also killed a woman and left her body floating in the water while he sobered up. He also ran interference for at least two other members of the family who were accused of raping women. He's still serving in the Senate.
2. Rep. Barney Frank, whose live in boy friend ran a sex ring out of their home. He's still serving in the House.
3. Rep. Condit, who was having an affair with one of his interns, before she was found dead. He was a person of interest in her murder, and he probably would still be in the House except his district got reorganized. He got a lot of support from the MSM (who tried to hide the fact that he was a Democrat) and fellow Democrats.
4. Rep. Mel Reynolds, who was convicted of statutory rape and child pornography charges, was kept in office by Democrats even after his illegal activities became common knowledge. In the end, one of his under-aged girlfriends got angry with him and released a tape that caused the state prosecutor to go after him. He still got a lot of support from fellow Democrats, and President Clinton commuted his sentence or pardoned him.
5. President Clinton. Enough said.

kevinoAs most wing... (Below threshold)


As most wingnuts do, you selectively read. What did my last sentence
say ? And as I said, despite your blinders, it's the holier-than-thou hypocrisy of the right about these issues that is nauseating.

Why can't you kool-aid drinkers get honest once in a while and just admit that our political system is rife with corruption, hypocrisy and human weakness and that it touches both sides equally?

JFO:RE: "Sin and c... (Below threshold)


RE: "Sin and crime knows no political boundaries. It's an equal opportunity behavior of both the left and the right."
RE: "Why can't you kool-aid drinkers get honest once in a while and just admit that our political system is rife with corruption, hypocrisy and human weakness and that it touches both sides equally?"

Because it isn't equal at all. You just don't get it.

All human beings fail to meet high standards. The difference between the two political parties is that one party actually tries to live by high standards and actually goes after their members who fail to meet those standards. That's a good thing, and vastly different than the other party that embraces and protects criminal behavior in their midst.

The Rep. Reynolds case reminds me of the related case of Rep. Lukens. He was a Republican who was convicted of sex with a minor. Look at the difference. When his behavior was suspected, Rep. Gingrich (Minority Whip at that time) and other high-ranking Republicans demanded an investigation, gathered evidence, and called for his removal. He resigned, was prosecuted, and served his time. While serving his time, President G.H. Bush was asked to commute Lukens' sentence. He refused.

And by continuing to support corruption, the Democrats are perpetuating a system that is "rife with corruption". It's moral bankruptcy. That like saying since there is crime in the world, there is no difference between those that try to stop it and those that tolerate it.

And by the way, it isn't an "equal opportunity" either. I'm sure that Republicans who think about committing crimes don't have the same comfort level that Democrats do. Republicans know that if the truth begins to get out they will receive little if any support from fellow Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, can see the history of their party, and they know that they will still get support from fellow Democrats. It may not hurt their careers at all.

And with the Clintons as the head of the party ... Well, they're just a great example of how corruption is not an impediment to advancing your political career - if you're a Democrat.

kevinoIt's patheti... (Below threshold)


It's pathetic to read the tripe you just posted. If you're that blind you're deaf and dumb as well. Go drink the kool-aid and continue to do the thing you wingnuts hate so much - use moral equivalency as the basis of a ridiculous point, i.e." we can be bad but you're badder." Do you know how absurd and utterly stupid your position is? Of course not.

JFO's defense seem to be "y... (Below threshold)

JFO's defense seem to be "yeah, some Dems might be at least as big scumbags as Repubs, if not worse, but at least they're not ASHAMED of it. And they never PROMISED to not be scumbags, so that's OK with me."

That speaks far more about you, JFO, than it does about the actual offenders. Personally, I'd be thrilled to see William Jefferson sharing a cell with Duke Cunningham, Dianne Feinstein and her husband subjected to the same scrutiny as Ted Stevens, and so on.

But that'll never happen, because of attitudes like JFO's.


JaY Tea:As usual y... (Below threshold)

JaY Tea:

As usual you get it wrong. You bat about .900 when it comes to getting it wrong. And when you combine that average with your bullshit statements about being an "independent" you become a noxious cocktail. Of course you didn't read all the posts or you just choose to interpret one to fit your fringe right wing ideology which is pretty basic and pretty stupid, i.e anything left of center bad, anything to the right of Ghengis Khan good.

I'd try to explain to all why you're so damn wrong about your last post, but anyone too lazy to read and think or too blinded by ideology as you are wouldn't get it and doesn't want too get it.

JFO:I stated my ca... (Below threshold)


I stated my case and backed it up with examples. You present nothing of any consequence.

RE: "Use moral equivalency as the basis of a ridiculous point, i.e. 'we can be bad but you're badder.'"
That makes no sense at all. Beyond that, I rejected moral equivalency as a valid argument. Can't you read? I also pointed out many examples where Republicans have been much better at enforcing moral, ethical, and legal standards.

I also can't help but notice that I can write pages about the differences between the two parties, but you can't counter my facts with anything substantive.

In addition, you're making statement about something that you know nothing about: me. As a Libertarian, I have a lot of disagreements with Republicans. My conservative friends and I have lively debate. I'm not carrying the water for the GOP. I do, however, admire the many times that they have done the right thing, even when going after their own.

And I have experienced the anger that you feel, and I understand where it comes from.

A few years ago I was with a large group of people holding signs and a large banner at a street corner. The Democratic party was holding a fundraiser at a local hotel, and everyone had to go by this spot. Senator Clinton and Vice President Gore were coming to the event, and we came out in force. Most of us had signs that said one simple messsage, and that message was also on the banner that I was holding, too.

The NH head of the DNC was outraged. He stopped his car on the main street, got out, and demanded that the police officer on the security detail order us to take down the signs and disperse. (Not the first time or the last that Democrats ordered the police to have my friends removed.) Other Democrats shouted at us and flipped us off.

The banner and most of the signs said:

Integrity matters

That's all. That statement, "Integrity matters", was taken by high-ranking Democrats as a direct attack upon them. And they would not tolerate such words being posted anywhere near Clinton or Gore.


kevinoYou seem to ... (Below threshold)


You seem to know an awful lot about what Democrats think. You must commune with Pat Robertson whom we all know has a direct line to God.

Why do you and Jay Tea hide behind the "libertarian" or "independent" label when everything you write is a right wing talking point? I don't get that. What are you ashamed of?

As for examples, I listed at least 16 specific examples in reply to the absurd position of Scuzzy that conservatives (to paraphrase) are pure and liberals are not. It's a stupid position and if you can't admit it you're not worth talking to.

RE: "You seem to know an aw... (Below threshold)

RE: "You seem to know an awful lot about what Democrats think."
Yes, because I spend a lot of time talking with them, I read a great deal written by Democrats, and because I used to be a Democrat.

RE: "Why do you and Jay Tea hide behind the "libertarian" or "independent" label when everything you write is a right wing talking point?"
Not everything. Libertarian issues about privacy, drug policy, and individual rights are areas that I've written about here that are very anti-Conservative. There are certain positions kept by conservatives or the GOP that I won't accept.

RE: "As for examples, I listed at least 16 specific examples in reply to the absurd position of Scuzzy that conservatives (to paraphrase) are pure and liberals are not."
And your paraphrasing shows that you do not understand what he said. You're just presenting a straw-man argument that nither of us said. As I said, "All human beings fail to meet high standards."

My examples (and some of yours) show:
1. Republicans were frequently expected to hold to a higher standard.
2. Republicans helped to go after other Republicans while Democrats frequently defended their own.
3. Republicans were actually punished, when frequently Democrats were not.

Your philosophy seems to be that because a very small minority in both parties have done wrong, it proves something. I won't judge either group by what a small minority does, but I will take note of how the majority accepts high standards and police their own.

"Why do you and Jay Tea ... (Below threshold)

"Why do you and Jay Tea hide behind the "libertarian" label when everything you write is a right wing talking point?"

Because to a liberal like you, everything not in line with your beliefs IS a right wing talking point.
Because to a liberal like you, there is 'liberalism' and then there's 'everything else is right wing'.
Because to a liberal like you, someone like kevino can answer your questions succinctly and politely and you think an answer like, "It's pathetic to read the tripe you just posted," or "You're not worth talking to," or "You must commune with Pat Robertson," makes you the winner.

And take, for instance this:
"As for examples, I listed at least 16 specific examples in reply to the absurd position of Scuzzy that conservatives (to paraphrase) are pure and liberals are not."

That's some paraphrasing there. What was that again? "As most wingnuts do, you selectively read." Looks like you've done some very selective interpretation there, pal.

How about I go ahead take the same creative license and paraphrase your last comment?

Crap! Kevin's making sense. I'd better quickly throw in one more personal insult and tell him he's not worth talking to before he comments again so I can pretend I never read it.

That's what this post is about. People like you manning the PA system.

Being two days since the last post, I doubt anyone will read this unless they happen on it accidentally. But it had to be said.

Thanks, Oyster. I had a bu... (Below threshold)

Thanks, Oyster. I had a busy weekend, so I didn't check back until now. Great stuff.

I can't speak for JFO but I can tell you that some of my liberal friends and family, particularly my father, react exactly as you described. He a liberal Democrat, and anyone who doesn't support Democrats has fallen from the one true faith. If I present a libertarian argument, he attacks it as a "GOP talking point" [exact quote]. I'll say, "No, it's a Libertarian position: I'm a Libertarian." He replies, "That's WORSE!" I get that a lot. Someone else in one of the comment threads wrote that they et it a lot, too.

Sometimes you just have to smile.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy