Gosh. There's just no shortage of unhinged leftoid behavior these days is there? It is quite literally the gift that keeps on giving.Sister Toljah has the details on the latest attempt at intimidation from the reality based community. Blackfive has more pictures like the one at right.
In other "I don't know how to express myself except through property desctruction" news, Sally Jacobsen is in the news again. Jacobsen is the infantile mutt professor from Northern Kentucky University that was so distraught over a pro-life display that she was compelled to exercise her right to free speech and destroy it. This sight has the details.
I guess she shows us exactly what she thinks of unborn babies.
Such is the level of discourse from the left at large, and not from some skateboarder punk either.
When one considers that Jacobsen, a literature and language professor, was unable to use the language she is paid to teach to object to the pro-life statement, the quality of our professors becomes...well...apparent.
In a rare glimmer of daylight, Jacobsen and six property destroyers in training have actually been charged with a crime. Will wonders never cease.
On the lighter side, this one is for Dave. The White House Press Corps has your "six" dude. Carrying the anti-FoxNews torch all the way to the top! In a rare win for the Trained Monkeys, Scott McClellan was forced to change the channel on Air Force One. Everybody felt much better with the soft, soothing, left-leaning, CNN.
Luckily none of the Trained Monkeys were forced to put their fingers in their ears and chant lalalalalalalalalalalalala! until the offensive material was removed, although word on the Trained Monkey street is that they were prepared to do so if necessary.
No wonder the Fox ratings are so low, and thank Gaia Air America isn't going anywhere soon.
14 comments:
People like that should not be professors. You shouldn't destroy someone else's work or silence their protest, you should just explain why they're wrong.
Sorry.
This blog does not accept comments from libelous assholes that call people child molesters for fun and then pretend they didn't.
I suggest that the commenter in question takes his brand of hypocritical and hateful attacks somewhere else.
Maybe someday the miserable excuse for a human being will grow up. Until then, he should find somewhere else to spew his pathology.
I assume all that goes back to something in the past.
However, I feel like it's a good idea to put up the link (s)he posted because it in and of itself is really in the interest of full disclosure.
http://lesenfantterrible.blogspot.com/2005/09/2882.html
When I could take it no longer and had nothing else to say, I flipped them the bird from about a two-foot proximity and began walking away. As I passed the first of two "2882 dead" signs, I picked it up and tossed it over the bridge. At the second I settled for tearing the sign into pieces and leaving it on the ground.
I have no problem with protesters. Sometimes I have actually gone down there and talked with them. But the exploitation of the dead for their infantile left-wing dream world became too much to bear today. Consider it my own act of civil disobedience. And, if they continue to exploit the dead for political gain, I may just return.
It seems like the real reason behind those signs, behind those shirts, is because they don't want another American soldier to become a statistic, in the same way that people who put pictures of aborted babies up don't want another child to be murdered.
Since you were nowhere near the situation, we can safely assume that, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
As I have said many times before, what I did was wrong. If I'm not mistaken you can find that sentiment in the post itself. It's what separates me from the leftoids you seem bent on putting a positive face on all the time.
Not only do they not think they were wrong, they believe that what they do is right.
As to the blogger that posted the link, he is one to talk. Frustrated that he doesn't possess the brain pan to win arguments on political grounds, he took it upon himself to attempt to sabotage my career as well as me wife's livlihood.
He systematically smeared us by name as child abusers and when the authorities were contacted attempted to erase any evidence of said libel. Thank Gaia for google cache.
He has also accused my wife and I of being "right-wing terrorists," and of threatening his family with violence, again by name. He has never offered any evidence that this is the case, but that hasn't stopped him from trumpeting his lies from the rooftops.
He has repeatedly been asked to simply leave us alone and pick on some other poor saps, but refuses to go away.
Now, thanks to his return, my wife can look forward to another two weeks of stress wondering if he'll write something that will put her license in jeopardy. I too will be worried sick that he will once again try to sabotage my job by associating my real name with libelous accusations.
When you visit his blog you are supporting those tactics. He is a very sick man. You are warned.
Here is an actual link to my post:
2882
Please be sure to stop by and read the recently added introduction to learn more about John Needham.
Spottswoode
As awful as that situation is, you can't expect me to have any idea of it, so yeah, I 'have no idea' about the situation. So while I can say I'm really sorry you have had to go through something like that, you should note that I preached my ignorance in the beginning of my post. But the important point in this is that no one should have to go through what you have gone through.
As far as knowing you were wrong, that is an important distinction. I did notice you said "I probably shouldn't have done it" in the inital post and I did see more of this on your reply to my comment; and that, if it stopped there, would be great.
However, it should be noted that you do indicate at the end of the post that you might go back to do it again, because their tactics go against your moral code. Which completely invalidates knowing it is wrong - You're making a decision against your better judgement and in the face of what you hate seeing on the left.
Since you were nowhere near the situation, we can safely assume that, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I was referring to the sign holders that you are trying so hard to defend by explaining their actions in the most favorable light possible. Since you weren't there, I assume, how could you possible know their intentions.
On the day of this incident I did write that I "might" return. I have not and would not. Nor would I condone someone else doing it.
Please note that I was not trying to squelch their point of view. The running death toll were only two of dozens of stupid signs. I was upset because so many military families use that bridge to cross between Wi and Mn. No other signs were damaged in any way shape or form.
Frankly, I'm kind of ashamed of myself for stooping to what I would consider typical lefty tactics. I have never done it before or since.
If you can find similar sentiments from the idiots at SAW or Jacobsen, I would love to see them. You will not however, because they do not feel that way.
I guess it would have been easy for me to simply delete my post on the subject, that's what John Needham did when he called us child abusers.
I have no problem leaving it up and it causes me no confliction. What I did was wrong. I have learned from it.
I wish the leftoids could say the same thing. But they cannot. Because they don't see anything wrong in it.
2882 now has a picture of the leftoid mutt and libelist John P. Needham.
Get a good look for future stalker identification purposes.
Spottswoode
After second review it is clear what you meant by the "not near the situation" bit. My mistake.
But, how can you scold me for defending what is a legitimate and heartbreaking way to protest war for not knowing what they're thinking and at the same time say they're just using the dead for political gain, that the reason they want to use numbers is because of their hopes for a "left-wing dream world"?
I don't believe it is a legitimate form of protest. Protest should not come at the expense of the pain of our most dedicated citizens. It is opportunistic and unfeeling.
And I can characterize their desires because I actually stood there and spoke with them, as I had many protesters over the course of a few months.
They made no such argument as you. It was all oppressive fascist regimes and liberal utopias with no war and oppressive male leadership. They didn't give two shits about soldiers in the feild. They often weren't even sure what we were doing over there.
Proof of their ignorance of the soldiers they claimed to be honoring: When I asked if they knew of the things are soldiers were doing, including a long specific list, all I got was idiotic grins. No response. They had no idea.
Leftoids are supposed to be very clever. One would think they could come up with something better than keeping a running tally of dead soldiers to trot out whenever they need to make a point.
I have friends and family in the military. To think that their sacrifices, which could result in death, could end up being used in a dishonest and hateful anti-American campaign makes me sick to my stomach.
Of course, they are free to use that form of protest if they wish, but I denounce it in the strongest terms...obviously.
I attended one of the most liberal colleges in the country last year (2004 - 2005). It was Presidential election time so everyone was at least opinionated if not informed. I was informed and opinionated. One of my roommates was a staunch Republican, and we had some fantastic debates over vodka and Red Bull that never degenerated into anything less than reasonable debate. I had another roommate who was a liberal, but horribly uninformed, who would jump into our discussions and say ridiculosuly stupid things that I would then have to explain to him and explain how I could think the same thing but have a reasonable explanation for believing what I believed.
The reason for this was that it was simply easier to be a liberal at my university than a conservative because there were more liberals. And if anyone was sort of on-the-fence, those people tended to swing left, because they heard the left arguments. That made it very difficult for those of us who were very involved and aware, because we would be calm and rational and they would be inflammatory and irrational. I guess its just a waste of my time to defend people who apparently don't know what they're talking about. But when it happens to either side, when the uninformed people latch on to far-partisan talking points, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to engage in reasonable debate. I guess that's that.
It is certainly true that there are rubes on both side of the aisle. Those who vote from a position of ignorance.
To be honest though, its prevelence on the left is one of the reasons I finally bailed out of the Democratic Party. You say it's easier to be a liberal in college. I would submit that it is easier period.
I don't believe it takes much intellectual effort to claim you "love the planet" or are "against war," or be for "helping people" or ending "world poverty," or be "pro choice" or for "equal rights" or "gender fairness."
They all sound great.
These attitudes have become populist notions. What I have found though is that when you ask what we should do instead of engaging in war, for instance, there is little there but naive solutions and a wish for a better world.
On the issue "bumper stickers" listed above, there is little understanding on how goals are achieved while maintaining our style of governance, a representative republic with free market capitalism. Knee jerk liberals have no respect for that and would gladly toss it to the wind to achieve any of their goals.
Lose an election? Toss the electorol college. Save social security? Just throw money at it. See an equal rights problem? Create a new inequality.
With little respect of knowledge for the way this country operates they also have very little respect for the idea of free elections or making convincing arguments and instead just shout people down and silence disagreeable speech.
Make no mistake, this is an increasingly common thing on the left. Not allowing conservative speakers on campus, throwing food at them when they do, and an increasing element of violence in their speech. There have been many references to killing the president from Air America to mass market t-shirts and even stamps. When the red paint isn't enough to throw at the recruiter, will it be real blood shed to "make a point?"
Because Democratic Party leaders have essentially gone unchallenged on their positions by a freindly media for so long, they have forgotten how to do so in the face of a strong Republican party and an end to the lefts media monopoly.
Face it Dave, the Dem's do NOT have a platform or an agenda for this country. You can take my word for it, or Estrich's, or even Bob Beckel, who says that the Dem's don't even need one anyway. They are an "opposition party."
I believe it does take a deeper understanding to be a conservative and that those positions have been honed for 30 years in the face of a hostile media and academia. While the left has had a free ride, conservatives have had to fight for every inch.
Until the left figures out what it wants and can articulate it, it will continue to be in trouble. Fortunately for the party, people from Estrich to Carville, Lieberman, etc. are beginning to figure it out. On the flip side, they have been pandering to the far left for so long that reason is tearing the party in two.
The country is best served with a strong two party system comprised of competing solutions that fit in an American model. The Democratic Party could still be the other party, but it needs to rebuild itself from the ground up, because they are now controlled by people who do not have America's best interests at heart.
I hope they do so.
I stand by the Democratic party, first and foremost.
The Democrats are without a doubt weaker politically than the Republicans. But I don't want to see the kind of politics that Karl Rove plays on my side - even if it does win elections. The kind of "platform" that the Republican party has is a strong platform - it's a platform of opposition though. It is a platform of opposition to change in our society and opposition to understanding in foreign policy. It doesn't matter that Republicans come out and say things and stand by them, because a large portion, if not a majority, of the country will not support those platforms. Being a strong leader does not mean being unwavering. Those are the mistakes of the Republicans.
The Democrats can win elections simply by saying, "Equal rights for homosexuals, and we'll find a way to deal with the marriage issue. Keep low taxes on the middle and lower classes, force the super-wealthy who are getting wealthier to foot more of the bill. No pre-emption, no attacking countries that haven't attacked us, but absolute and overwhelming force on any who do or will." I know the pre-emption thing will get ya, but it's a platform, and it's opposed to Republicans, but based on its own merit.
The thing is, people are so afraid of being seen as "weak on terror" that no one would say that. If you want to debate whether a no pre-emption strategy would work, let's do it on another, relevant post.
My final point is that the key in any debate is to define the topic. Right now, we are letting Republicans define the way things are discussed. We need to stop saying things in terms of "Bush said..." blah and "We don't have a platform, but..." We need to say, "This is what we believe, this is how the country should be run, this is how we will run it. Vote for us."
That was a good comment Dave. I hate to change the subject, but I thought I would note for the record that I have now been threatened directly in the comment section at John P. Needham's personal vendetta website.
Am I wrong?
it is your who shall reap what you've sown
Post a Comment