« We are Marshall | Main | Bus Bomb Bust Wrapup »

From Ebonics to Obamics, Liberals Are The Hate Speech Party

Back in the 1990s, the Oakland School District decided that teachers needed to become fluent in teaching African-American students in their "genetically based" language rather than English, and therefore passed a resolution requiring a program be created in "Ebonics", a language based on no formal grammatical structure whatsoever, and which implementation not only diluted already-scant resources in schools, but completely abandoned the reasonable expectation that students in American schools should learn English. The move is baffling to anyone who focuses on public education's role as duty to prepare children for success in the adult world, but it makes perfect sense from the warped politics of the Left. Ebonics offered Liberals a means to expand government, create new entitlement programs, and by the way continue to suppress a significant minority by denying adequate education to Black children on the grounds that they could not understand English well enough to succeed in the mainstream language.

English, like it or not, is the global language of business, science, politics, and government. English is the default language of airline pilots, sea captains, banks, doctors, and every professional field in the world, while an education in Ebonics not only has no value in any professional field or industry, it stigmatizes the individual as incapable of conducting nominal commerce. Ebonics is therefore prima facia Racism, and it is wholly a Liberal creation, fully aligned with Liberal objectives, to continue denying Blacks full participation as Americans while perpetuating the lie that Liberals are looking out for them. From the Jim Crow laws passed by Democrat-controlled state governments in the 20th Century, to disparaging assumptions made about tens of millions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans by "Progressives" unable to believe that people should be educated and given opportunity on their individual merit and effort, to the patronizing spin so often deployed in Leftist propaganda and campaigns that minorities need the direction and control offered by their generous Utopian Progressives.

Which brings us to Obamics, the odd version of Economics being sold by President Obama. Let's leave aside the many broken promises about tax cuts and public debate on major legislation and so on for the moment - if you really thought a Liberal from Chicago would even remember his campaign promises, you're in a bad way - and address the effects of President Obama's edicts and proclamations. Two of the three major automakers were effectively nationalized by the Democrats, as was HealthCare, as was Banking. While Democrats began the process as soon as they took power in the 2006 elections, President Obama not only accelerated the process, he made sure that the principal beneficiaries were his buddies and allies, such as the SEIU and ACORN. Despite Obama's insistence that his stupendous deficit-exploding spending bill was necessary, Unemployment has effectively been unaffected by it, because in its effect the bill was never really meant to do anything but line the pockets of Obama's friends and increase the scale of government. The stock market lost a thousand points in half a day before cooler heads prevailed and rebuilt some of it back, precisely because President Obama is obviously incompetent to steer the nation's course.

What people forget about Wall Street, is that emotion can and does drive decisions, and confidence in the President's credibility and capabilities will either stabilize or cause chaos in reactions to financial events. Obama tends to panic, jump to conclusions, or just point fingers while he hides behind a photo op. As a result, when the predictable riots began in Greece, our self-indulgent Chief Executive offered no palliative to the leaders of American Finance about the security of U.S. interests or investments. While Obama would be quick to deny responsibility, his lack of reaction is tantamount to negligence. Of course, Obama's habit of choosing the wrong actions when he does decide to do something is hardly reassuring. After doing nothing for more than a week to respond to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire, and oil spill - and by the way offer no condolences at all to the families of the eleven rig workers killed in that disaster - Obama decided he needed to punish the oil industry on the assumption that all oil rigs are the same, and issued an order prohibiting all of the new exploration and development projects in the Gulf, even though the Deepwater Horizon rig was unique in its free-floating design (using Dynamic Positioning rather than mooring) and operations in 5,000-foot deep waters. President Obama has never been the sort of man to be tied down by facts, although this has the regrettable effect of making him look like a fool 95 percent of the time he gets involved with business and economic matters. But President Obama is quite willing to pay the price of his dignity, if by that cost he is able to hurt his enemies.

Because Barack Obama is quite clearly a Socialist, and therefore his enemies are successful American corporations and financial institutions, especially when they advance or support American dominance or advances in the global arena. And to undo his enemies, nothing works quite so well for Barack Obama as hate speech, be it false allegations of greed or negligence, or the simple assignment of blame for every malady, real or perceived, he can throw up against them. Like everyone on the Left, Barack Obama clearly believes that the truth of a claim is not nearly so important as whether you can hurt someone with it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (69)

An astute measured summati... (Below threshold)
Don L:

An astute measured summation of the weaknesses of our president and the dangers of electing with emotion and propaganda as the driving force.

I'd forgotten the allegatio... (Below threshold)

I'd forgotten the allegation that Ebonics was "genetically based." And unless I'm mistaken this was after "The Bell Curve" was roundly denounced in liberal circles as openly racist.

The Left needs herds of hum... (Below threshold)

The Left needs herds of human cattle:
- for sheer numbers dependant upon their "largesse"...and thus always voting for them
- to fill the streets on command to initmidate and influence
- for breeding stock

Giving these "human cattle" true pathways to prosperity will lessen their depenance, make them less willing (or required) to march and rally, and reduce the voting blocks they require.

So the Left is ALWAYS about LOW or NO expectations, with Ebonics being the most outrageous example in recent memory.

But the liberals have done ... (Below threshold)

But the liberals have done such a bang up job in Detroit. And repeating the same success in LA.

Garandfan, I had missed thi... (Below threshold)

Garandfan, I had missed this headling from last year (though I knew the underlying story)

The Detroit News [11/17/09]:

Silverdome sale price disappoints

Nearly 35 years after taxpayers spent $55.7 million building the Pontiac Silverdome and a year after a $20 million sale fell through, city officials have sold the arena once called the most desirable property in Oakland County.

The price: $583,000.

"disappoints"???? $55 MILLION to build... sold for $500 hundred THOUSAND. Ya, I call that "disappointing"

Well said. The current cro... (Below threshold)

Well said. The current crop of 'liberals' exist only for their own power, and won't hesitate to keep others down to acquire and keep it - not much different from your average drug lord.

# 6, comparing neoliberals ... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

# 6, comparing neoliberals to drug lords truly is an insult to drug lords.

Former President Bush summe... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Former President Bush summed up the attitude of the left towards minorities very accurately when he said: "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

We need another Reagan to g... (Below threshold)

We need another Reagan to get us out of this Obama hate filled misery index of an economy. The sooner this hater is gone all the better. And I thought jimmie the jew hater was bad.

I'd forgotten the allega... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I'd forgotten the allegation that Ebonics was "genetically based."

Yeah, me too. So genetics affects behavior, libs? It certainly does (contrast golden retrievers with pit bulls), but it's amazing that liberals would not agree but actually assert this.

I fail to see the relevance... (Below threshold)

I fail to see the relevance for society at large in revisiting the fail radical agenda of the Oakland City council of the 1990s, even as an outlier of left-wing societal goals other than to examine a subset of thought in a particular part of a black community in a particular place at a particular time.

Obviously, Obama and Black yuppies don't subscribe to it. Their forefathers didn't.
Liberal educational philosophy (which I abhor BTW) doesn't promote "genetically-based" theory, other than to erase Nature to make plain the road for Nurture.

A paragraph surveying the real attempt to replace Phonics with novel pedagogic disasters such as the "Look-Say" reading method over 50 years would been more telling. Except, that would not give you the race angle, since Look-Say was the baby of John Dewey's disciples who shaped post-war education through the N.E.A., the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, which were run by older white men, mostly recruited from the top Wall Street banking houses.

Let me state it clearly: English is a phonetic language. And there was a non-phonetic teaching theory promoted for the teaching of this phonetic language. Promoted from On High, by the educational establishment. The result was millions of children and adults being semi-literate. THIS is where your reportage of Oakland Ebonics might make its proper entree in context: the City Council were educated idiots lashing out; victims of educational malpractice (though there is often a wolf pulling strings behind the scenes---still the votes require ignorance).

Maybe I'll get back to the rest of your article, but I leave with a question.

Should Bush be censured for his malaprops while representing the USA on the world stage?
Did W's dyslexia leave his vice-president in charge of interpreting briefing papers, and by extension, virtual sovereignty over the mechanics of the executive branch of government while Bush was bow-flexing and cracking jokes?

If you wish to call Obama a socialist, shouldn't the former administration be called the godfather of socialism? There could not have been a prim Octavian without that catamite Julius first, and Obama would be working on Wall Street if Bushco hadn't betrayed traditional Republican ideals as imagined by Republicans in the heartland, for Obama receive a million Republican votes.

BryanD: "I fail to see ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

BryanD: "I fail to see ..."

Yes Bryan, that happens a lot with your side.

BryanD: "I fail to see ..."... (Below threshold)

BryanD: "I fail to see ..."
Yes Bryan, that happens a lot with your side.
12. Posted by DJ Drummond

If your view of the political universe is conceptualized as roughly akin to a chinese checkers board or a faceted jewel, I guess I can find a "side" to sit or stand in/on or loiter over---hopefully Smoking Allowed.

I call dibs on that spot in between Ron Paul and Robert LaFollette! (Glenn Beck's nightmare show request; Progressive vs Progressive! Glenn Beck's head explodes in confusion! Prop-audience bloodied with gore!")


Also: I hate to quote Richard Cohen of WaPo, but this is *just about right*---- and it applies to your thesis, DJ:

"This business about socialism has become a conservative trope -- as loony on the right as is some of the left's admiration for Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The current issue of Commentary, a magazine that virtually created the neoconservative movement, devotes about 4,500 words to the subject. It asks: "What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?" To which any sane person would have to reply: "Not a Very Good One."

h/t James Walcott

Ebonics advocates proudly p... (Below threshold)
Sir Toby Belch:

Ebonics advocates proudly pointed out that
white kids would never recognize a "deuce and a quarter" as a Buick Roadmaster 225 and that national testing was skewed against peoples
with a strong reliance on slang in their
communication skill. Correct. But I bet not
5% could SPELL the word 'deuce' or 'quarter'.
Hell, most can't spell 'ho'.

BryanD: "I fail to see ..."... (Below threshold)

BryanD: "I fail to see ..."
Yes Bryan, that happens a lot with your side.
12. Posted by DJ Drummond

And my retort to *this* set-up was erased by you???? Or *someone* else?

Is Breaster V. Flabb IV (Jay "Tea" Teitelbaum)impinging upon your comments thread, too?

the Former (you)? Awright. What can I say.

The Latter? for shame! Bullied by neighborhood fatty! Nichts gut! Ach du lieber! Kick his pellet balls!

Not that I'm trying to start shit...

but still!...Property rights...don't take crap... especially from middle-aged virgins.

Jes Sayin'...do you need a nylon sock? A doorknob? Both?


While it is true that the w... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

While it is true that the whole "Ebonics" kerfuffle was indeed loony liberalism at its finest, you and several commenters have mischaracterized it here.

For one thing, the term "genetically-based" was meant in a linguistic, not a biological, sense. "Genetic," in a linguistic sense, means "descended from a common ancestor language." The point was, African American Vernacular English had much in common, grammatically and structurally, with some West African languages, and was not simply a "corrupted" or "broken" version of Standard English.

For another, the resolution was not an attempt to mandate instruction in Ebonics all day long, but to use Ebonics as a tool to "aid in students' mastery of Standard English." The misinterpretation of the resolution, willfully by some, ignorantly by others, led to the firestorm.

Finally, the whole "Ebonics Movement" was a flash in the pan, a silly idea that went nowhere. For conservatives to still be harping on it now, 13 years later, and to somehow suggest that the whole foolish fiasco was a plot to enslave voters and make them reliable Democratic voters, is ridiculous. And desperate.

But no more ridiculous and desperate than some of the other points in this article, Mr Drummond, such as the wholly specious conflation of 19th and 20th Century Jim Crow Democrats with modern day liberals. You know the comparison is invalid, I know it, and, no matter how desperately they cling to it, your conservative readers here know it too.

Throw in a few buzzphrases such as "Socialist," "hate speech," and "like everyone on the Left," and you have yourself a typical DJ Drummond piece. And when bryanD raises a valid objection, you dismiss it with a snarky one-liner. Or rather, you don't address it at all, but use the sarcasm to avoid it. Good job with that, anyway.

Bruce? Tell me in ewhat wa... (Below threshold)

Bruce? Tell me in ewhat way mr "We need to redistribute the wealth" and "At some point you just make too much money' Obama is NOT a socialist? Its not a buzzphrase when its an accurate descriptor or reality.

Typical of BryanD. When yo... (Below threshold)

Typical of BryanD. When you get right down to it "IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!"

Well, RYan, I'm pretty sure... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, RYan, I'm pretty sure that Goldman Sachs, the oil industry, big pharmaceutical companies, and the AMA don't consider Obama a "Socialist." They all contributed to Obama's campaign or supported his healthcare initiative, or both.

They, you see, operate in what is commonly called "reality," not a paranoid alternate universe in which saying something is so makes it so.

... (Buraq 0zero) is quite ... (Below threshold)

... (Buraq 0zero) is quite clearly a socialist ...


He is not.

He is a modified Marxist - real name: a fascist.

"They all contributed to Ob... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"They all contributed to Obama's campaign or supported his healthcare initiative, or both."

Protection money. Many of them think the alligator will eat them last if they cooperate.

How many industries contribute to/support Pols out of sense of good citizenship as opposed to a sense of fear of gov't interference? Quite a few just do it so they will be left alone (or so they think).

And I suppose, Mr Nessman, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And I suppose, Mr Nessman, that in your mind if they contribute to the GOP it's from a sense of good citizenship; if it's to the Democrats it's protection money. Am I right?

No, you are incorrect.... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

No, you are incorrect.

Everybody wants something. Some pay to get special bennies, some pay so the competition gets 'investigated and regulated', some pay to be left alone.

The problem is, our gov't is so powerful, so intrusive that it can provide political payback with bennies or retribution that distort the free market.

That's too much gov't.

Yes, Bryan, you got the res... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Yes, Bryan, you got the response from me you deserved. In the first place, you ignored the basic facts of the article - Ebonics was a wholly Liberal creation, intended not to address an injustice or improve children's education, but to expand government programs for political leverage, and to exploit racial tensions. Ebonics was, as I said no matter how you try to duck, a racist agenda, ironically using hate speech - attacking the legitimate focus on English as the best means for minorities to gain opportunity and respect in Academic and Business pursuits - by denying minority students access to equal education. You also missed the fact that Obama's actions and proclamations are variants of the same tactics, hate speech because they attack the people and institutions which are the means for America's financial stability and success. For instance, rather than address the real causes of the credit crisis - the manipulation of the housing market by leading Democrats during the 1990s and 2000s such as Barney Frank, Obama chose to blame high-profile banks, especially investment banks, even when there was no substance to the attacks. Rather than allow failed automakers to be replaced by newer and more innovative companies - as happened with previous brands like Studebaker, Packard, or Deusenberg - Obama's party decided to take over GM and Chrysler, robbing valid creditors of their interests in order to hand over ownership to the government and the unions. And as I noted, the focus of the 700-plus billion dollar spending bill he pushed so hard was never on reducing unemployment or rebuilding the national infrastructure, but on paying off cronies and allies of Obama. To get this done, it was intended by Obama that major industries fail, so Barack Obama and otgher leading Liberals false demonized every large corporation and used every excuse to cripple private industry, like using a unique disaster like the Deepwater Horizon explosion to shut down oil exploration in the Gulf, even though the companies so punished are operating different types of platforms and in much shallower water, and on no evidence whatsoever of risk of accident. What Obama is doing, is exactly the same tactics as the Ebonics advocates did, lying and spreading false claims in order to tear down their opponents and advance their political agenda. And yes, if you bother to look it up, what Obama is doing is advancing the cause of Socialism. You cannot find a more accurate definition of his politics. If Obama being a Socialist bothers you, then you have that problem to face.

As for your sneers against President Bush, epic fail again for Bryan. All you could manage is to repeat emotional spittle, utterly devoid of facts as usual. Sixteen months after he left office and more than five years since he ran for any kind of election, W is still such a scary man to you that you have to attack and insult him, and to a degree I am sympathetic to you - you don't have a single factual basis on which to attack former President Bush, so naturally you have no choice but to fall back on lies and baseless jingo-taunts like "Bushco". The character assassination of the man who brought America back from the Al-Qaida plots of 9/11 and who warned about the financial crisis as early as 2005 is more evidence of the same hate speech that all Liberals swear by. It's all you have, that hate and venom. Facts and evidence are your enemies, just as they are for President Obama.

Well gee, Mr Drummond, it m... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well gee, Mr Drummond, it might be easier for your readers to judge whether or not BryanD got the response he deserved if you wouldn't delete his comments before we can read them.

Do you really think it fair to delete a comment and then argue against it?

It seems to me that you are confusing "hate speech" with "espousing positions with which I disagree." And that you equate conservative talking points with proven fact.

For instance, you assert that the financial crisis was caused by Democrats manipulating the housing market in the 90s and 00s. That's certainly a common opinion, especially among Wizbang readers, but hardly the only reasonable explanation. Many serious and sincere people would disagree. Are they all guilty of "hate speech" because they do?

And you accuse the President of pushing the Stimulus as a method of paying off cronies, but many economists credit it with saving the country from a 1930s style Depression. So if Obama blames the banks, and you blame Barney Frank and ACORN, who is spouting "hate speech?" The President? You? Both? Neither?

Since I have not deleted <b... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Since I have not deleted any comments from anyone, Bruce/Bryan, you might want to step back from the crack pipe before you make even more of an ass of yourself than usual (the comments I responded to were and are #11 and #14, you dolts). Of course, given that the topic is false allegations by the Left as a matter of nature and habit, your last post just goes to prove my point. Especially since we have only Bryan's less-than-trustworthy claim that any of his spit-flings wre tossed.

Burn any Reichstags lately, mein herren?

Um... sorry, DJ. That was m... (Below threshold)

Um... sorry, DJ. That was me. I was taking out the trash, and took some out of your bin.

In other words, I was doing my routine junking of all of BryanD's comments, and bit-bucketed one out of your thread.

You want I should go dumpster-diving and put it back?


Depends on what he said, Ja... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Depends on what he said, Jay. I take out profanity and hijacking attempts, but have not had to do so in months. On the other hand, most of Bryan's posts only prove him to be both stunningly misinformed and wildly out of touch with Reality, like Nancy Pelosi when she's finally kicked out of office. So he hurts his own argument in his efforts and would prove my point even further, given the topic.

Anyway we can rinse him off with Listerine first, so the stench won't be as bad as normal?


DJ, I don't even look at th... (Below threshold)

DJ, I don't even look at the content. I see his name or address, and it goes.

And now it's back...


Let's see, Mr Drummond. The... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Let's see, Mr Drummond. The topic is "false allegations from the Left," you say?

This coming from a writer who just posted a piece in which the false inference derived from "genetically-based" is a central point? As a self-proclaimed English major, surely you know what is meant by "genetically-based" in linguistics, yet your clear implication is that "the Left" believes Ebonics results from genetics in a biological sense. This is false, I demonstrated it to be false, and yet you ignore it, nay, persist in it, doubling down on duplicity. As it were.

But I stand corrected in that you did not personally delete anyone's comment. Please accept my apology for that.

Now, what about your arguably false allegation that Barney Freaking Frank is personally responsible for the recession? Or that the intent of the resolution you are still so upset about, 14 years later, was to deny minority students equal access to education, when the actual intent, however foolishly misguided, was to IMPROVE their command of English?

But, yeah, false allegations from the Left. Got it.

.. and as expected, Bruce o... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

.. and as expected, Bruce once again proves unable to refute the premise of the article, defaulting as usual to insults and non-sequitur.

And supporting my point, however unintentionally.


Amazing, Mr Drummond. ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Amazing, Mr Drummond.

You brazenly assert that I was unable to refute the premise of the article, when any reader can plainly see that I DID EXACTLY THAT.

Your "premise," such as it was, was that liberals were purposely denying minority students a quality education by espousing a half-baked Ebonics program. You somehow, in your dense prose and endless paragraphs, managed to tie this crackpot theory up with Obama "blaming the banks" and Barney Frank causing the recession.

I have demonstrated that, far from liberals being the ones making false allegations, it was you, sir, alleging opinions as established fact, and in the "genetically based" matter, being deliberately misleading.

But I knew, from our previous encounters, that you would soon declare victory. That was expected, as was your claim that I resorted to "insults" (Really? Name one!) and "non-sequiturs" ( ditto).

Here's something else that'... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Here's something else that's to be expected:

Pretty soon you'll get tired of claiming that black is white, claim victory once again, and close the comment thread. Just like last time.

Uh-huh, sure. Keep telling... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Uh-huh, sure. Keep telling yourself that, son.


You, uh, left some spittle on your terminal screen there, Bruce.


Hysteria doesn't work any better than malice, Bruce. When/if you grow up, you'll learn that someday.

Really, Mr Drummond. That's... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Really, Mr Drummond. That's all you got?

A reference to "spittle" when my tone was perfectly calm and reasonable?

No examples of the "insults and non sequiturs" you claim that I resorted to?

No defense of your "genetically-based" deceit? (And you would have got away with it, too, if it wasn't for that pesky liberal!)

What hysteria, Mr Drummond? What malice? All I see is a rather pathetic attempt on your part to go on the offensive after you've been bested.

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!<... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:


Now this is exactly why I don't delete posts unless they are profane or hijack the thread. Bruce actually thinks his arguments are rational and accomplish anything more than proving he never passed a Logic course in school.

As has been said here, Bruce, the readers can decide for themselves, and I have to say 'thank you' to you, you just keep proving points for me.


Bruce. . you didn't even ma... (Below threshold)

Bruce. . you didn't even make an attempt to answer me.

Just because a business contributed to his campaign does not make him or not make him a socialist:

Question one: Is OBama, or is he not _By his own words_ for the 'redistribution of wealth'?

If you answer anything but yes, then you have not even a smidgeon of intellectual honesty.

I too, Mr Drummond, am will... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I too, Mr Drummond, am willing to let readers make up their own minds.

So I ask you again:

What did you mean by your claim that "the Left" espoused a view that Ebonics education was made necessary by "genetically-based" factors?

Do you claim that it is a proven fact, and not your opinion, that the financial crisis was caused by Barney Frank and others like him?

Do you still assert that it is "the Left," and only "the Left," that engages in false allegations, even after it has been demonstrated that you yourself are similarly engaged?

Can you give even one example of my "resorting to insults" as you allege in an above comment?

As someone who must have successfully passed a Logic course in school, can you demonstrate to your readers' satisfaction how I have "proven your points for you?"

Of course you won't address these points, Mr Drummond. You never do.

No, what you do, once it is plain your case is weak, is to brazenly assert that you have made your point and that your opponent has failed to make his. Then you pile on a little undeserved condescension, and, voila! you've convinced yourself, if no one else, that you have "won." It's sad, really.

Speaking of sad, I am still... (Below threshold)

Speaking of sad, I am still waiting for you to actually show me through his policies, words and actions that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist. He doesn't even really try to hide it all that much. Although one can make a convincing argument that while he may be an idological socialist he is a practical economic FAscist.

State control of nominally privately owned businesses.

<a href="http://www.youtube... (Below threshold)
Specifically, at 4:55 on th... (Below threshold)

Specifically, at 4:55 on the video.

<a href="http://www.youtube... (Below threshold)
Ryan:In the words ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:


In the words of Foghorn Leghorn:

"Go away now, boy, ya botha me."

I don't take seriously anyone who calls another a "Socialist" and a "Fascist" in the same sentence.

If you don't know what a word means, don't use it.

Now, be quiet. Adults are talking about something that matters.

Right.Refusing to answer a ... (Below threshold)

Right.Refusing to answer a question doesn't make you wrong. DO you even know what socialism and economic facism IS? Obviously not.

YOu are proving DJ right in spades. .

You're a pesky little booge... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You're a pesky little booger.

Look it up.

Hint: don't use Conservapedia.

* snicker *Bruce o... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

* snicker *

Bruce once again scores my points for me.

Use WIkipedia if you like, ... (Below threshold)

Use WIkipedia if you like, Bruce. Your dodging isn't helping you any - If you are so sure the answer supports you, why aren't you using it?

Hint: for Economic Facism look up GM.
For Bonus points, look up quotes from one B. Obama about 'redistributing wealth'.

It also occurs to me that F... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

It also occurs to me that Foghorn Leghorn once made comment on Our Boy Bruce:

"That boy reminds me of Paul Revere's ride ... a little light in the belfry"

That's awesome, Mr Drummond... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

That's awesome, Mr Drummond.

Now that you've returned, I see you're still not willing to address the questions I raised about your article.

You know, the "genetically-based" thing, the Barney-Frank-caused-the-recession thing,the false-allegations thing, the you-insulted-me thing.


Well, since I seem to be a little light in the belfry, perhaps you can explain how ANYTHING I've written can be construed as "scoring your points for you."

See, I keep thinking that you will see reason, though I should probably expect disappointment from someone who thinks "Bwahahaha" is a clever rejoinder.

You keep declaring victory, Mr Drummond, but it's empty, transparent boasting. You remind me of the Black Knight, legless, armless, but still spoiling for a fight.

I'm still predicting, though, that you will soon baselessly claim that you have rubbed my nose in defeat long enough, and close the thread.

And OK, Ryan, you got me. I will admit that, in his own words, Barack Obama is a "Socialist" as defined by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and, presumably, you. Also, he's a secret Kenyan, an Islamonazi, and Malcolm X's love child.

But your persistence paid off, ya pesky sonofagun. YOU HAVE BEATEN ME, RYAN!

Poor self-pitying Bruce ...... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Poor self-pitying Bruce ...

tsk tsk

Look boyo, I can play this as long as you can, but you aren't going to win wnyone over by just pretending your posts have anything but bile in them.

I presented the initial premise, and you have yet to address it in substance. Reasonable people would take that as inability on your part to refute the points made. And as Ryan noted, your recent behaviorn really does not help your case.

Derision is not the same as critique, Bruce, and you have yet to begin anything that does anything but display the limits of your education and comprehension.

The Black Knight reference is singularly inapt for you, since you are the one who fails to grasp Reality in this discussion. The context of Ebonics is its clear creation by Liberal authors and their clearly racist purpose for doing so. The context of Obama's blame tactics applies to similar behavior by leading Liberals in all leadership positions in the Democratic Party. The irony is not only that the post-racial contender for the White House quickly abandoned that role in order to paint all of his opponents as "racist" for the sheer convenience of that slimy brush, in a manner as underhanded and deceitful as any politician in memory, but that you have shown the same colors in your own tactics and choice of verbiage. My laughter, whether 'waha' or snickering, is a none too subtle reminder that you have fouled yourself in trying to attack me, and yet you remain unaware that your own petard has hoisted you, well beyond help of recovery.

You would be pitiable, were you not so ludicrous.

Deej,You know, sim... (Below threshold)
Senor Cardgage:


You know, simply saying that something is "clearly" X doesn't have any magical power to make it X. All your arguments are by assertion, and while this approach might fly with the mouth-breathers who congregate at the shallow end of Wizbang, it's about as far from the Buckleyan tradition as a mud hut is from the Taj Mahal.

Senor has forgotten that I ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Senor has forgotten that I can read IP addresses.

Epic fail, even for a sock puppet!

Sock puppet Senor may be, b... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Sock puppet Senor may be, but Senor is correct.

But at least you finally say something substantive, Mr Drummond. Let's examine it, shall we?

You insist that I have failed to address your premise, that the motivation behind the Ebonics nonsense was racism. I have demonstrated that, as foolish as the idea may have been (and we agree there), the intent was to HELP students in their command of Standard English, not to diminish it. And therefore, your implication that the initiative was an attempt to enslave minorities and make them loyal Democrats eternally, or whatever nonsense, was, ummm, nonsense. And I addressed it about umpteen posts back, notwithstanding your repeated claims.

A related point was your refusal to back off the "genetically-based" canard, one that you used to smear the entirety of "the Left." And you said nothing when your echo chamber hopped on the Error Train, despite the fact that you must have known the difference between "linguistics" and "biology." If you didn't before, you most certainly did after I pointed it out.

It gets funnier and funnier, as you cry about how deceitful Obama and the Democrats are, while simultaneously making multiple false allegations of your own.

For instance, the claim that I had resorted to "insults and non sequiturs." This despite being unable to cite EVEN ONE example of the supposed insults I had invisibly hurled. Even now, you express resentment of my "choice of verbiage," but you don't say what verbiage you find so very objectionable.

I was simply trying to get you to defend statements you made in your article, Mr Drummond. After all, you made these assertions; you should be able, in my opinion, to back them up.

You asserted that Obama is using "hate speech." I disagree, and assert that he is simply making statements in opposition to your favored position. You stated,as Gospel truth, that Barney Frank and the Democrats caused the housing crisis. I pointed out that that is merely your opinion and not established fact. You claim that a 14 year old resolution in the Oakland city council has relevance today; I call bullshit.

So please, Mr Drummond. Defend your article. Defend it, and knock off the pathetic declarations of victory. Oh, and the 19th century idioms could go, too.

Bruce,As your sock... (Below threshold)
Senor Cardgage:


As your sock puppet, I demand better working conditions. The toxic level of stupidity around here is a clear OSHA violation. Also, one of my button eyes is getting loose, can I get a little help?

Bruce, my article stands un... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Bruce, my article stands until you can show something that disproves it.

Your rabid disapproval is not substance.

As to the insults, they're right there for the audience to see. I do not need to prove the sun comes up in the East, nor prove what is already plain in the text. Also, your insults are not only petty but off-topic. Small wonder you want to avoid the issue, though.

Hidden amidst the muck of B... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hidden amidst the muck of Bruce's latest sneer, he made the claim that Ebonics was somehow meant to improve comprehension of Standard English. This Orwellian interpretation of the act by the Oakland School Distract is laughable on its face, since the act required teachers to learn and use 'Ebonics' in instructing inner-city black students, which by definition wasted district resources on a language based on no formal grammatical structure, and which - again by definition - abandoned English on the presumption that students could not understand it (the language of the resolution demonstrates this). Therefore, any claim that requiring teachers to learn and use "Ebonics" is demonstrably counter to improving English skills. There is, to coin a phrase from Clinton, "no there there".

Even by Bruce's deluded standards, his own argument implodes on itself.

As I said repeatedly, Mr Dr... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

As I said repeatedly, Mr Drummond, the resolution was loony liberalism at its finest. It was misguided, foolish, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Had the policy actually been implemented, it may indeed have had some of the effects you describe.

But you have characterized its INTENT as nefarious, and that simply was not the case. As bassackwards as it was, its INTENT was to improve Standard English in the students the district served.

My intent in asking, repeatedly, for you to provide examples of the insults I supposedly used, was partly to avoid insulting you in the future. If you can provide an example, EVEN ONE, I will avoid using similar verbiage in any future encounters. Otherwise, I'll assume that everything I said can be described as "spirited debate," which is what it actually was.

I think that what you call "insulting" DJ Drummond is what I call "challenging" DJ Drummond. I usually think of an insult as something like "you dolt," so I apologise for that one. Oh, no, wait, that was YOU.

And, sadly, again, no defense of the specific points about your article that I raised. Why, it's almost as if you HAVE no defense for using, say, the "genetically-based" falsehood. Repeatedly.

You just can't see it, Bruc... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

You just can't see it, Bruce.

Even the NAZIS thought they were doing good.

Even Marx and Lenin honestly believed they were helping people.

But they were very very wrong.

And just like you, they could not see because they refused to see.

The rest of your screed has already been answered.

You've gone off the deep en... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You've gone off the deep end, Mr Drummond.

Nazis? Marx? Lenin?

Oh, wait!

Are you now admitting that the INTENT of the resolution was not conscious eevil, but simply loopy liberalism to the Nth degree?

That the dopes who proposed this scheme "believed they were helping people?"

But how does that fit in with your "liberals are trying to enslave minorities and make them dependent forever" theme?

My my. Myopia and Hysteria... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

My my. Myopia and Hysteria again from Mr. Bruce.

How .. sadly predictable.

Not as sad, or predictable,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Not as sad, or predictable, as your inability to type the words, "well, maybe you have a point there, but..."

Or as sad, and predictable, that you make up your own definitions of "hysteria," "insults," "malice," and even, laughably, "spittle."

Or as sad, and predictable, as the fact that you would stretch this thread out into the "Next" column before finally writing what you wrote in comment # 58. You could have posted that about # 26 or so and saved us both some time.

Here's a tip for you: If you argue on the merits, and refrain from premature, transparent, and pathetic Victory Declarations, maybe your next opponent won't be as dogged as I was here.

But when you declare that a thing is true, when plainly the OPPOSITE is the case; when you pull nonsensical allegations of malice and hysteria out of thin air; you will get an argument. And stubbornness is not hysteria. And sarcastic debate is not an insult. To paraphrase DJ Drummond, when you grow up, you'll learn that.

And sadly, predictably, you... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And sadly, predictably, you never addressed the difference between linguistics and biology, either. Did you make that allegation out of ignorance, or was it deliberate deceit?

... and as the article make... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

... and as the article makes its way off Wizbang's front page, Bruce goes even further 'round the bend.

I am always happy to give your comments all the respect they earn, just as I have up to now. Your problem is that you expect far better than you have earned, a common problem with Liberals and hide-behind-spin Socialists everywhere. Has it occured to you yet, Bruce, that everyone but Bryan stopped taking you seriously many, many invectives ago, and my comments to you now are merely to poke at the annoying gadfly of a poultroon you are?

... probably not. That would require introspection, a quality which you have never exhibited.

(denunciation and feigned outrage from the resident squirrel troll in 5, 4, 3 ...)

You know, this commenting o... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You know, this commenting on a weblog thingie is supposed to be fun.

And for me, this thread was as enjoyable as it was panful to you. Because, despite your apparent ignoance of the definitions of many words, including but not limited to "outrage," "spittle," "insult," "hysteria," "malice," and "self-pity," it's fun arguing with you.

Here's how this could have gone differently, Mr Drummond:

When I pointed out the eror of your "genetically-based" talking point, you could have said, "Oh, wow, I didn't think of/ was unaware of that." Or you could have defended it. You did nether.

When I ponted out that the INTENT of the resolution was benign, aleit extremely stooopid, you could either have said, "I dispute that," or admitted that was a possibility. But you couldn't do that, because if the intent of the resolution wasn't eeevil, then there goes your whole premise, right?

So, you chose to assert as fact that which any observer could plainly see was NOT SO. Namely, that I had failed to address the point of your piece, which I had; and that I had "resorted to insults," which I most emphatically had not.

As I said, you have mistaken being challenged on your facts as an attack on you, personally. Nothing could be further from the truth. My aim in commenting on Wizbang is to pick at the articles, "nitpick" if you prefer, and let off a little snarky stem at the expense of what I perceive to be rather pompous conservatives.

It's interesting, Mr Drummond, that you choose to use bluster and baldface assertion instead of simply engaging on facts. And here we are 60something comments after I pointed out your errors, and not only have you not admitted them, you haven't even addressed them.

So please, don't presume to lecture me on who should be taken seriously. We both know who has presented serious arguments here and who is arguing from assertion and demonstrably false premises.

Assertion is not argument. Wishful thinking is not victory. Bluster is not logic. Words to live by, I should think, in your endeavors here, Mr Drummond. Better luck next time.

That's a lot of words for y... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

That's a lot of words for yet another whine, Bruce.

What's amusing to me, is you continue to assert that you're right, simply because you think so.

I presented a cogent article, which the adults understood. You missed a lot of what was said, so you just assumed I had to be wrong.

From there, you simply kept digging your hole.

As evidenced by your compulsion to come back and get w ridiculed yet again.

Sad, but as I said, predictable.

Nice try inserting Rush LIm... (Below threshold)

Nice try inserting Rush LImbaugh into the equation Bruce. . .why don't you try actually addressing the argument instead of doing what, for you, is the equivalent of yelling "Poopyhead?'

Sure you presented a cogent... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Sure you presented a cogent article, Mr Drummond. The only problem was, your premise, that eevil liberals wrote the Oakland resolution in a deliberate attempt to impose their racist agenda, was FALSE. As you admitted in comment # 58.

And then, the only OTHER problems were your use of the "genetically-based" canard, and your assertion as Gospel your opinion that Barney Frank caused the recession.

But, hey, aside from those things, it was a perfectly FINE article!

The only other issues I had with it was in your comments, particularly where you hallucinated insults, vitriol, hysteria, and spittle. But I understand the concept of "bluffing." You didn't do it very well, but I understand the concept.

Like I said, better luck next time.

Anyway, your Nazi piece on the main page seems, at first glance, sensible. Or at least, not batshit. Much better than this one, anyway.

And Ryan, I thought I told you to run along and bother someone else. Come back another time and we'll talk.

I do have to admit, though, Ryan, that you are correct. I don't know what "facism" is. Is it anything like "fascism?"

I'll keep it simple for you... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I'll keep it simple for you, Bruce:

You failed again.

Thanks for playing.

.. and if you'd like to sto... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

.. and if you'd like to stop living in the past, there are a number of articles posted more recently. But you better get help with the longer words, Bruce. You embarrass yourself when you show you don't grasp them.






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