Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Which Story Is More Important?

Turbin Durbin's sedition or Karl Rove's accurate appraisal of liberals? Oh, That Liberal Media has the answer.

Keep it in mind when you hear the media claim to be "objective".


Anonymous said...

Durbin made the false comparison that seemingly every politician has made. While this does not excuse it, it does bring the to mind the fact that there was no peep from you when Santorum (R-Pa), Sessions (R-Al, or Norquist (R-Asshole) made the same comparison, only regarding the other side? Presumably, you agreed with them because they were "right." Whatever. Your hypocrasy would be hilarious if it wasn't so frightening.

PS -- I can only assume you mean "Turban" Durbin. No wonder you LINOs are so opposed to public education. It certainly didn't do you any good.

Dirk Belligerent said...

At first, I had no idea what you were talking about then I remembered that they also made the stupid Hitler comparisons.

Sorry, pal, but TurbAn Durbin's slurs paint a bullseye on our troops and provide recruiting material for our enemies. What Sessions et al say is just stupid name-calling and old news, to boot. No one is gonna hear the Dems called "Nazis" and then blow up anyone in response.

Apples and tire irons. Thanks for playing.

BTW: Yawn....flagging spelling errors as proof of superiority. All you've got when you're wrong on the issues, I guess, for I note that you don't challenge the post. Did you volunteer to narc on classmates when the teacher left the room, too?

Anonymous said...

All you've got when you're wrong on the issues, I guess, for I note that you don't challenge the post.

I've seen you post this gibberish before, and I think it really needs to be addressed, if only to alert you to how people with functioning brainstems actually view you.

You know why your posts don't get challenged? Because to actually address whatever wingnut "point" you copped from the Corner or Limbaugh on any given day is to grant it weight that it does not deserve.

You aren't interested in an open discussion of ideas; you're on a jihad against anyone who doesn't agree with you.

That's why you post things like "liberals worship death and darkness and will KILL anything that gets in their way" or "Turban Durbin". You aren't interested in understanding if Durbin might have a valid point that was couched in mind-numbingly stupid verbiage. All that matters to you is that he's the opposition, and there's no depth to which you won't crawl for ammunition.

Which is all well and good-- it's your blog and if that's what you want to do, more power to you. Just don't ask us to treat your infantile rantings as if they were anything more than your desperate desire to be acknowledged as an important and valued voice of the Right.

Personally, I find your bleating greatly amusing. I stop in every week or so to find out what is the wingnut spin on the issue du jour. If nothing else, it saves me the time of having to slog through all your politics links at the top of the page.

P.S. Post more Star Wars rants. Those are hilarious.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Liberal Debating Tactic #2: When challenged as to why you don't debate the issues at hand, claim that to debate them would "grant it weight that it does not deserve." This allows you to avoid revealing the lack of merit of your own arguments that you're hoping the veneer of sneering ad hominems will cover.
Really neat how that works, innit? Instead of having to defend the indefensible treasons of the Democrats, our liberal friend builds up and knocks down straw men at a furious pace, yet when all the insults, ad hominems, smears and jeering are done, he has STILL managed to avoid standing up and saying, "You're wrong and here's why..."

Oh, he's sneered about the source of the stories I reference - as if the Sun doesn't rise in the East if it was reported by Drudge - and used the ad hominem shibboleths of the Left (Rush, Coulter, etc.) but he hasn't offered a reasoned reason for why the Honorable Senator from the Great State if Illinois, Richard Durbin, isn't anything but a seditious weasel who stared into a camera, smeared the Armed Forces and when the heat got too hot, gave a weasel-worded non-apology predicated on the word "if" that didn't retract his statements, but blamed those who were offended for misunderstanding him. Real manly.

Buried in the middle of Mr. Anonymous' bleat was this nugget: "You aren't interested in understanding if Durbin might have a valid point that was couched in mind-numbingly stupid verbiage."

Now, I know that Mr. A intends for us to believe that all Durbin was saying was that making a terrorist uncomfortable makes America look bad, but that's NOT what he said, was it? Durbin wasn't speaking off-the-cuff at an old colleague's 100th b-day party, was he? Nope. He had a written speech that he delivered directly into a Senate camera lens that said that uncomfortable jihadists are proof that America is like a genocidal tyranny. There is no way for the Left to spin this for Durbin was so clear in his meaning, there's no room to fudge it. Thus, the weasel non-apology.

The Democratic Party is operating fully in league with Al Queda as long as they prefer vendetta to victory. So enraged that their Anointed Candidates were rejected by the public in favor a guy they can't stomach, they've embarked on a 5-1/2 year jihad to undermine Dubya that has placed them firmly in the anti-American camp. Instead of offering better ideas and viable candidates, the Left has pinned all their hopes on one insane fantasy after another. "Farginghype 7-11" was gonna do Dubya in...no, wait....phony Texas ANG records will do it....wait, that didn't work....um....DOWNING STREET MEMO!!!! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!! GIVE US BACKS OUR PRRRRREEEEEEECCCIIIIOOOOOUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And anyone who dares cross them must be destroyed. Why not? Plenty of ideological jihadists like our Mr. Anonymous willing to carry the flag of hypocrisy against their foes.

No, the real reason liberals like Mr. A won't debate the issues is because to fight fair means to possibly lose and to lose in what Rush calls "the Arena of Ideas" could lead to people abandoning whatever snake oil they're peddling. So, instead of back and forth lobbing of ideas, charges, rebuttals and ripostes that could lead to some decisive ends, they smugly refuse to argue because they're too good for the debate, claim victory and scamper off, filled with self-satisfaction as to their merit without having earned any points.

Imagine a championship game in which one team announces, "We're not going to play these guys because to do so would give them too much credibility and everyone already knows we're the superior team. We win!!! See ya later, suckers!!"

That wouldn't fly, yet that's what liberals have to do because they fear Truth; they fear being revealed as the socialist monsters they refuse to cop to being; they fear losing P-O-W-E-R. Better to call names than get beaten, right?

The largest reason they hide is because while the public doesn't like liars, they HATE hypocrites and there are no bigger gang of hypocrites than the Left. They TALK about choice, yet refuse to let people choose to: own their retirement accounts, choose their kid's schools, own guns, have religious freedom (well, only Christians), choose to smoke in their own homes, be protected from rapacious corporate-government confiscation of their property and so on. "Choice" only means one thing to them, yet they pretend it extends to everything. It doesn't; they know it doesn't; they can't discuss it because they'll be found out and ruined by the Truth.

You see it in the rhetoric of their leaders. Howard Dean isn't proposing a way to balance the budget or what should be done in Iraq – he's saying that Republicans are a "white Christian party…who haven't done an honest day's work in their lives." Real diverse thinking there, Doc. Dick Durbin isn't offering a better way to get information from captured combatants – he's too busy recruiting jihadists to kill Americans cuz it's good business for his side.

Estate taxes are fun for them to demagogue because for every person who thinks that a life's labors should be passed along to their heirs instead of the wasteful leviathan of government, there's a liberal screaming "PARIS HILTON!!!!" to "prove" that wealth is best confiscated by the state, rather than allow more stupid, spoiled whores like her to exist for the public to fawn over.

The Dems have no ideas that they're willing to admit to in public – I suppose their "Canadian medicine plus Soviet reeducation camp" plans don't focus group well – so they start the day after every Election loss attacking those who don't support them and trying to sabotage the victors in order to run on a platform of "They aren't doing anything. Vote for us!" while counting on the media to not report that they're the reason nothing is done. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The purpose of DIRKWORLD® is to provide a place for interested parties to see what's on my mind and for me to sound off. I can't drag anyone in against their will, so if people are offended, yet keep returning to be re-offended and post their straw men arguments, I've gotta figure they're getting some value from it. (There's a great dirty joke with the punchline, "You ain't here for the hunting, are ya?" which this reminds me of.) It's just like radio, except without the ratings. You puts your content up and people look or don't.

When I started, I had no idea where this would go except that I wasn't going to bore the readers and/or myself nattering on about how the cat was sleeping or what the Significant Other did that was interesting to no one. For every whining liberal malcontent crapping up the comments boards there may be someone else still persuadable looking at the arguments and making up their own minds in silence.

As for wanting to be a voice for the Right – if you'd actually understand what's being said here (and where you likely came from) instead of breaking your nose on your jerking knee, you may've seen my free advice on how to beat Dubya which was ignored. It's not my fault y'all can't understand that just because I'm against what you're for doesn't mean I'm for what you're against. Democrats are generally evil. Period. But that doesn't mean the Stupid Party is anything worthy of support, yet the shrill partisans of your ilk continually fail to discern this easy difference.

And that’s what scares the Left the most about persuasive people who oppose them: Like Morpheus in "The Matrix" movies, every mind freed is a mind no longer controlled by the Left and with every body leaving the system taking a bit more power away with them, it's only natural for them to do what all threatened animals do…..ATTACK!!! That's why the smear and ad hominem are the weapons of first resort, because lacking any ideas to counterpunch with; they can only hope that by discrediting the messengers of the opposition people don't turn on them. That's why the constant catcalls about Coulter's looks or Rush's weight or drug problems – they can't argue with them, so they call them names.

Well, Mr. A., are you going to continue being a punk or are you willing to step into the arena and make your best case for the socialist-fascist Utopia that you wish to shackle the sheeple with? If you've got such really deep thoughts, why not enlighten us all? Wouldn't an intellectual victory serve to discredit me more than all your insults?

Ah….that's the rub, isn't it? You can't win, so the insults shall continue. At least we're all hip to the game now. Thanks for illustrating your sophistry for the others. Buh-bye now.

Anonymous said...

Well, Mr. A., are you going to continue being a punk or are you willing to step into the arena and make your best case for the socialist-fascist Utopia that you wish to shackle the sheeple with?

See, that's what I'm talking about. You don't really give a fuck what my opinion on anything is, because as far as you're concerned, I'm already on board the socialism train.

This, despite the fact that you have no idea what I am for or against. You literally know nothing about me except that I told you I think you're an idiot.

And because of that, you seek to demonize me and create strawman positions for me so you have something to argue against.

Why don't you start here:


My score:
Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

I'm keeping company with Ghandi, which is OK with me.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! The hits just keep coming!!! Let's take a look here, shall we?

See, that's what I'm talking about. You don't really give a fuck what my opinion on anything is, because as far as you're concerned, I'm already on board the socialism train.

This, despite the fact that you have no idea what I am for or against. You literally know nothing about me except that I told you I think you're an idiot.

Well, if you'd take a moment to share with us something other than tired ad hominems and insults, we could possibly discuss the issues more constructively. But, did you do that or just throw your poo and claim victory? Hmmm? (Hint: It's B.)

And because of that, you seek to demonize me and create strawman positions for me so you have something to argue against.

Wow. This must be that transferance thing the liberals keep accusing non-liberals of doing. Weird. What color is the sky on your home planet?

Sorry, Bub, but your chronic sniping and insulting shows that you are sympathetic to the Durbins of the world and their goal of a broken, humbled America in addition to the destruction of a passing occupant of the Oval Office. The opponents of Clinton weren't smearing our soldiers and sullying America's image in their pursuits? Can your boys claim the same? Nope, and that's why the messenger shooting.

As for the Political Compass, I immediately didn't like the test because the questions were loaded with absolutes (i.e. always, never et al) and frequently forced me to take an inaccurate, but least-evil, choice. Bleah. Whatever.*

My score:
Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

That puts me in the neighborhood of Milton Friedman and according to the blurb on the results page:

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing.

Ehn. I guess so. I guess this puts to rest all those nasty "You're not a libertarian!!! You're a fascist!!!" slurs that rely on the liberals version of what fascist means, not the dictionary's.

* I noted after I wrote that that the FAQ addresses this issue satisfactorily for me.

Anonymous said...

You know, I started typing up a response to your latest screed, but then I said to myself: why bother?

This whole thing started today when I pointed out to you that there's a reason no one attempts to rebut your arguments. Your next few replies were not addressing this point, but attempting in your own sad and pitiful way to belittle me.

I don't care what you think of me, and I'm sure you don't care what I think of you, so let's leave our "relationship" at this: you dance like a monkey and parrot the right wing spin o'the day, and I'll stop by once a week to laugh at you and help clear out the cobwebs around this place.


Dirk Belligerent said...

Do what you want, but quit pretending you've proven anything because you STILL CAN'T OFFER ANYTHING BUT INSULTS AND AD HOMINEMS!!!

How many times do I have to ask "Wot U got?" before you actually offer something, ANYTHING, other than the tired circular arguments which only serve to reinforce your utter vapidity?!? You're gonna come around and laugh? Laugh at what?!? That I waste my time trying to pry a logical argument out of an obvious troll? Um, whatever you say.

I've been willing to talk - it's YOU who's chosen to turn this into a Punch & Judy Show. If you really wanted to illustrate that I'm the immature one, all you need to do is start talking calmly and see how I respond. Since you can't, all we're able to conclude is that you're either:

1. Stupid
B. Have nothing to say
3. Are scared of mean ol' Dirk
4. All of the above and are also incontinent and impotent. And you have gas.

Seriously, Bub....quit stalling and either put up or stuff it.

Anonymous said...

What can't you understand about not wanting to "debate" with you? A discussion with you would be as useless as a discussion with a creationist-- you are starting from a fundamentally flawed position, and the logic and serious discussion won't change that. Your arguments flow from a poisoned river.

You want a start? The Durbin thing. Have you ever actually read his statement, or did you just glance through the one paragraph that made the right-wing rounds? Remove the stupid language from that one paragraph, and his point is true and valid.


If I read this to you[...], you would most certainly believe this must have been done by [...]some mad regime[...]that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Keep reading.

The issue debated in the press today misses the point. [...]It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness[...]. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.

You cannot, in any reasoned capacity, argue against what Dick Durbin said, unless what you are attempting to do is shout down any and all opposition. Durbin stood on the Senate floor and said the concept of what we are doing in Gitmo goes against American principles of fairness and justice.

The right wing answer to is that what we are doing is "not as bad" as what Saddam Hussein did, so it's OK. This is called moral relativity, in case you are wondering.

More from Durbin:

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.

Let me read what that Court said:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.

Dick Durbin is not on the wrong side of the debate here.

Dirk Belligerent said...

What can't you understand about not wanting to "debate" with you?

The part where instead of simply refraining to post anything, you chose to post that you're not going to debate me because I'm supposed to be too "poisoned" to be allowed to speak. Very convenient (and dishonest) tactic because it allows you to announce your superiority at the same time as you smear your opponent as being incapable of reason because since they have a differing viewpoint, they're obviously "poisoned".

Neat for you. Bad for discussion. But, you know this (which is why you do it.) Moving on...

You cannot, in any reasoned capacity, argue against what Dick Durbin said, unless what you are attempting to do is shout down any and all opposition. Durbin stood on the Senate floor and said the concept of what we are doing in Gitmo goes against American principles of fairness and justice.

I certainly can because he's living in the world of 9/10 in which useless happy-joy thoughts like his lulled us into the complacency that allowed the jihadist to strike. Check your calendar, it's well past 9/10.

What's ironic about your choice of quote is that you're trying to argue about my supposed "moral relativity" by being...tada!...morally relative. Just like Durbin did.

You're clearly throwing in with the Durbin brigades and their infantile "torture is torture" blather which is as stupid as PETA's "a rat is a cat is a dog is a pig is a boy" equivalency in which we're supposed to buy into the idea that having a hamburger is the EXACT SAME THING as eating a child.

Put down the Kool-Aid and pay attention for a moment: WE! ARE! NOT! THE! BAD! GUYS! You think we are - why else would you with a straight face proclaim that Durbin is inarguable? - but let's see if you can match the methods to the country:

Country A: Feeds enemy combatants picked off the battle field honey glazed chicken; provides holy books and assistance in observing their faith daily; occasionally makes them hold their arms out from their body and it hurts a bit; allows the temperature to get to a level that residents of Phoenix would call "a chilly day"; releases prisoners to go back to the battle field where they'll be subsequently recaptured for doing what got them in the joint in the first place.

Country 2: Uses secret police to adbuct citizens of own country for whatever reason suits them, including religious differences; brings in family members of prisoners to be raped, tortured themselves and murdered as a pressure tactic upon first prisoner; after being mutilated without access to legal council, they're summarily executed and dumped in a mass grave with thousands of similar victims.

One country is the United States and the other is Iraq. Can you match the names to the methods? Can you still expect anyone to take seriously the argument that the concept is even remotely similar? This isn't apples and oranges - it's apples and superconducting supercolliders!

Polls show that only 20% of the people buy the Durbin-Anonymous Argument that the prisoners at Gitmo are suffering. If anyone but the current moron were in office, the Dems would be lucky if they could win the dog catcher job in Gary, IN by the time he/she got done burying them with their outrageous claims of equivalency.

As for the Lincoln point - more of the same false comparisons because the Civil War had AMERICANS ON BOTH SIDES, so the Constitutional protections certainly applied. The jihadists are NOT citizens (unless Afghanistan became the 51st state when I was wasting time schooling you up) and before you barf up the Geneva Convention talking point, sorry, but Gonzales et al are absolutely correct in saying that these terrorists are NOT entitled to the protections because they aren't fighting under the rules of war.

Durbin is exactly on the wrong side of the debate and thanks to your assistance, I've not only buried the pitiful sophistries of the Left, but you've also provided textbook examples of the Schiavo-like thought processes of the liberals as described by Karl "the ladies call me Darth" Rove.

Well, that was easy. I genuinely appreciate your stepping up and making an argument for your position. Sure, I clobbered it like a baby seal and turned it back on you to point out the intellectual vacancy and hypocrisy and false premises of your position, but that was bound to happen because I've got facts on my side and you're relying on the group delusions that has destroyed the Left as a relevant group.

Seriously, though you knew that this was going to happen and you were warned, you DID give it the old Ivy League try and for that, you are worthy of respect. Sure, your ideas are wrong, but hopefully you'll learn from this defeat to see the error of your ways and rediscover the true path.

You're welcome!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting your "retort", which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are as intellectually dishonest as I have been saying all along.

There's no need to carry this on any further. I haven't been schooled, and I certainly don't feel like you clubbed my argument.

In fact, you reacted exactly as I said you would-- with moral relativity. Because we aren't as bad as Saddam Hussein, everything we do is OK.

I sincerely apologize for barging in on your masturbation session.

Dirk Belligerent said...

I know it hurts to be beaten in public, especially when you brought the cricket bat yourself, but you're trying to turn your indefensibly wrong-headed thinking into a referendum on my supposed moral relativism.

Unfortunately, you're so opposed to the idea of America defending itself, you've beer-bonged the Left's Kool-Aid and actually propose that ANY attempt to get information from these enemy combatants on sworn jihad to slaughter us that you seriously try to foist the idea that anything we do is as evil as Saddam et al and that to call bullshit on such thinking is moral equivalence. Sorry, Bub, but this is nothing of the sort, though you're clearly too corroded to understand. This whipping is to make an example of you, since you're clearly incapable of reason.

What our anti-American troll is proposing is the idea that if a little boy tickles his sister to get her to give him her snack Oreos, it is NO DIFFERENT from rounding up political enemies, cutting off their fingers, raping their women kin and murdering them because THE CONCEPT IS THE SAME!

[A moment while the audience lets this sink in]

That's right - if we were to put these Islamofascist thugs up at the Four Seasons and they found the room service toast to be a bit stale it's NO DIFFERENT than if we were Pol Pot!!!! Sheer madness!!!

What our troll friend glibly ignores is intent. We're not bothering these poor practitioners of the "religion of peace" because we were bored and needed something more entertaining to do that mock Canadian pronounciations of "O" sounds - we were attacked and are trying to prevent further attacks.

The enemies within pretend that Gitmo and Abu Grahib are recruiting terrorists, but that ignores that Al Queda had been attacking us since 1993, well before Dubya arrived on the scene. Do they include Clinton's missile attack on the Sudan in 1998 as a possible irritant to the Middle Eastern street? Nope, just as they pretend that ALL the top Dems didn't say Iraq had WMDs and that Clinton avoided the UN to make war on Kosovo - oh wait, that was humanitarian, right? - and that our troops are still there after how many years.

At the core my disagreements with these virulent asstacklers is their rank hypocrisy about their complaints about what Dubya does when it matches what their boy Clinton did. In their Lewis Carrollesque view, everything that Clinton said was the truth, yet when Dubya says the same thing, it becomes lies. Not sure what the name for this mental condition is, but our cheerful Mr. Anonymous is provided an unfiltered look at the rancid hate of the Leftist mind.

It's just like when the race hustlers tried to claim that crack cocaine dealing sentences were too high compared to powdered blow sentences and wanted to have them reduced to what Whitey was getting. Now, I'm firmly against the War of Drugs - it's a government War on Freedom under the guise of protecting us - but the correct response would be to INCREASE powder coke sentences to be as severe as the crack ones. When people are demanded unfairness in the name of fairness, you know something's not right.

Mr. Anonymous' attitude is dangerous and vapid, but it's his right to be as stupid as he wants to be, just as long as no one in authority actually starts acting on his and Durbin's insipid equivalance fallacies.

The reason America-haters can operate freely as agents of Al Queda is due to Dubya's inability or unwillingness to step up and identify the Left as a dangerous faction that weakens us. It's too bad that Cheney isn't the boss cuz after watching him rip off John Edwards head and take out his soul in the debate, you know damn well that Durbin wouldn't have been so eager to commit his sedition from the Senate floor if he knew that he'd be called out as the traitor he is.

And before the troll starts howling about liberal rights being infringed, I'd remind him that after the OKC bombing - an incident that Clinton did nothing to prevent (if you're gonna tar Dubya for 9/11, this goes too) - anyone who beleived in the Constitution was smeared as a Michigan Militia member and Clinton was deftly able to destroy the movement toward smaller government thru clever demagougery and I don't recall the Left complaining about the Right being silenced. Do you?

Bring the hypocrisy!!!!