Extreme hatred warning, not unlike the searing demonology we get from Scott Kaufman, The "Boogie Nights" Boy, and TBogg (just for starters)Now, anyone who's curious is welcome to follow those links to the home pages of the blogs Lawyers, Guns and Money - where Scott Kaufman is one of several bloggers, Brain Rage, where James B. Webb--who Donald Douglas has taken to calling "Boogie Nights Boy" of late, for reasons that are clear only to him--is the one and only writer, and TBogg's author page at Firedoglake; and maybe, if you don't happen to share their politics, you'll even find something on one of their home pages that strikes you as offensive, but it's telling that Donald Douglas didn't even bother to try and link to any specific "searing demonology" (or hatred, or racism) by any of these writers. Apparently Mr Douglas feels that you're just supposed to believe whatever he says. That's right; Donald's ego is so large that he thinks if he says it, everyone will just accept it, and evidence backing whatever claim he makes should be wholly unnecessary. That's some serious pomposity.
And racism too, from Repsac3, who's obviously created a dummy Twitter account to make vile racist attacks on conservatives:Obviously, Donald? Based on what? The voices in your head?
*********So here, Donald Douglas changes the story; acknowledging that the guy was a career troll spammer (who, one presumes from the context, isn't me any longer, according to Donald), and alleging that I'm only forwarding his racist tweets. (Of course, Donald fails to mention that when I "forwarded" the tweet, I was only doing so in the name of shining a light on this conservative, and drawing attention to his ties to Breitbart/conservative fandom, and to his pretty obvious bigotry. But why should he? Those facts don't fit the false narrative Donald is trying in vain to weave.)
Added: Evil loves company ... turns out Repsac3's forwarding a career troll-spammer's racist tweets. Takes one to re-tweet one, I guess. (When Donald posted it, the "career troll spammer" link went to TrappedRoom's Twitter account page but, seeing as how that account's closed, you can get much of the same info from the TrappedRoom twitpic account page info I changed it to.)
There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al. - Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"
Further clarification: Octo is not the owner of the Zone but merely a group facilitator. All who are members of the Zone are owners of the Zone. The Zone is the perfect commie-socialist-liberal-hippie-commune and no match for a wingnut buffoon.
You could have entitled this entry, "Wherein even an angry old drunk realizes Glenn Reynolds is a rube...."--
But I also agree with the angry old drunk, and will go even further. The "draw Mohammed day" is clearly anti-Muslim. As Respac notes, visual depictions of Mohammed are indeed offensive to many Muslims. I have friends who were raised Muslim but no longer practice it, and they were upset about the Danish cartoon (though they would never go so far as to even protest it). Still, they were offended, and at least in one instance, I could tell profoundly so.
Moreover, for a million reasons, Americans shouldn't be in the business of mocking religions.
For the record, I am a religious person, Unitarian Universalist specifically, and I am taken aback by some of the comments in this thread ("coddle the fucking morons who believe this stupid shit.") These commenters seem to assume that all religious people are stupid, childish, and more. When I sit in the pews on Sunday, I look around at MIT and Harvard professors, musicians from the Boston Symphony, doctors, lawyers, therapists. I can say with all confidence that none of them are morons.
As for keeping religious beliefs private and out of the public square, I need only point to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, both of which derived a great deal of energy, power, and moral authority from religious leaders and lay religious people.
Just to be clear, the extremists who would threaten to kill someone over a drawing should indeed be mocked (not to mention prosecuted). So too should the transparently fake "religious" leaders of the right, and the deeply flawed people like KLo who attach all their failings and inadequacy to a religion they claim to understand but clearly don't. But let's understand that there are indeed intelligent, reasonable, and principled people of faith in our midst and around the world.
No, I WAS talking about me.Perhaps, but you were using Octo's words and voice to do so, and when he said those things, he was talkin' about you...
U R BANNED.U R a public blog.
Turnabout is fair play. If you're such a big talker, send me ALL your employer's information. WORKPLACE ADDRESS. NAME OF BOSS. PHONE NUMBER. E-MAIL ADDRESS.Tell you what... When I allow my place of employment to post that kinda info online for public use, you're welcome to look it up, just like people have done with the info that you allowed your employer to post online for public use.
We'll publish it.First off, who is "we," paleface?
*** UPDATE by repsac3, d'brainz behind American Nihilist (or somethin') - 4/26/10 ***Hope that makes you happy, slappy.
In light of the fact that I do not think it's ethical to involve otherwise uninvolved people in political or personal conflicts (spouses/kids/parents, bosses/coworkers/clients, neighbors/clergy/???), and have repeatedly/ said so in posts and comments; and because the author of this post is no longer a contributor to this blog--in part due to issues surrounding whether and how to respond to the things Donald Douglas posts, I suspect (Octopus and I never discussed why he removed himself from this blog and removed my authorship from his blog, The Swash Zone--only that it had taken place)--I am taking it upon myself to edit Octopus' post, and block the names and contact information for Donald's superiors at his place of employment.
While I still have mixed feelings about it--I still believe that Octo is a big boy who can defend his own post, and I don't like the idea of editing someone else's writing without their permission--Octo is not here to actually defend his post or to edit it, and I am left holding the bag. (To those who're currently contributors; as long as you're a blogger here, your posts are your responsibility to defend and/or change. Should you choose to walk away and leave me with that responsibility, you'll just have to trust that I'll do the right thing by both the blog and by you.)
In this case, given the absence of anyone left here who's willing to defend Octo's posting of the info in question, I'm substituting my ethics for Octo's, and doing what I think is right. While this isn't the only post at this blog that I personally find a little cringe-worthy, it's the only one that generates a lot of complaints (yes, pretty much all of them from Donald Douglas), and has no one willing to champion it's continued untouched existence.
I suspect that this will turn out to be a pretty unique set of circumstances that won't all converge again, but one never knows the fyutchum, do one...? If faced with somethin' like this again, I'll again bite the bullet, again weigh the options, and again make a choice... (Hopefully, I'll've saved this little speech for the occasion, so I won't have to go makin' up a whole new one...)
To those who followed a link here to be shocked and appalled that such information was really posted; Yep, it was really posted. Commence being shocked and appalled, and then if you're curious, follow the links above (as of 4/27/10, I'm still locating and adding links) to understand my reason for not removing the info earlier.
To those who followed a link here looking for that information for some other reason, whether innocent or "less so," you'll just have to find another source for it. There are several, including, ironically, the umpteen number of times Donald Douglas has himself linked to and quoted the information found here (or elsewhere), at various posts on his own American Power blog.
Forgive the big build-up for what'll amount to a bunch of "-'s" and "*'s," but it isn't everyday I censor another person's post, and I want to make my thoughts about doing so clear, both for and against...
I now return you to the original post, as written... ...well, almost.
---SNIP---
If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact --------- ---- ------ at (***) ***-**** or --------- -- -- -------- ------- ------ ---- at (***) ***-**** and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).
Those are YOUR rules, but you make them up as you go.I'm pretty sure MY rules were (and still are) that people could use the google, and that public blogs are public. They don't need making up, as they was born with a good foundation from the get-go.
HYPOCRISY IS ALL YOURS.The way you use it, hypocrisy might as well be a meaningless word. Don't just say it, show it. That, or shove it.
U R BANNED.U R Band-aid.
U R INTERNET TROLL.U R not in control.
U R STALKER.U R not Walker.
UR ARE HARASSER.UR R jackasser.
DO NOT COMMENT ON MY BLOG.Don, old boy, it's a public blog. That's all I'm gonna say.
DON'T LIKE IT? DENOUNCE DAVID HILLMAN'S POLICY IN WRITING.The way I remember it, I helped write David Hillman's blog policy. It says:
We welcome civil discourse from people of all persuasions but express no obligation to allow ourselves to be trolled. Any comment that fails to rise above ranting, taunting, profanity, and name-calling will be deleted without further comment at the discretion of any contributor.There's not much there to denounce, because there's not much there with which I disagree. (When I was there, the rule was the person who authored the post controlled the comments attached to it... Assuming that's still true, I'm down with their policy... though that doesn't mean I'd make all the same decisions they have, any more than they'd individually make all the same decisions I have.)
SAME THING. BAN. CAN'T HAVE BOTH WAYS EVIL MAN REPSAC3Ah... I see what you're getting at, oh boisterous one...
REPSAC3. HYPOCRITE. FAIL.screenname. meaningless. adhom.
NOTHING COMPARES TO YOUR EVIL AND EX-DLB'S TOO STUPID TO SEE IT.You watched Sinead O'Connor on TV the other night, didn't ya... That explains all the "U R's"
I DO NOT COMMENT AT SWASH.Not anymore... But it took you a little while after your "banning," didn'it? One might even go so far as to say that your expecting me to do as you say, and not as you did, is a little hypocritical, mightn't one?
YOU WILL NOT COMMENT AT AMPOW.Remains to be seen. I'm reserving my right to, as a member of the blogging public.
SIMPLE RULES.Well, U R a simple guy.
FOLLOW THEM. ABIDE BY THEM.No shoes.
BE A DECENT HUMAN BEING.Always try 2 B, Double D...
"When it comes to not being welcome here, I'm with ya. Deleting every dang trollish comment he makes is fine (though as you know, in my blogging, I prefer to leave such commentary posted, as everlasting examples of the bigoted, bad behavior they are... Often I'll end up with several posts linking back to them, even, building an ever-growing library in support of my contention that bigots are bigots, and the vile things they say matter...)"Donald apparently believes it is somehow hypocritical of me to say it was fine for the owner of The Swash Zone, who had banned Donald from his blog at some point earlier, to delete Donald's comments from the blog if he so chose. Of course, I have no idea why Donald feels this way, because I recently said something very similar to another blog owner who had banned a commenter:
"As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well."Same sentiment, in both cases. It's fine for a blog owner to delete the comments of a banned user, whether Donald (or I, or anyone else) is the owner or the banned user... ...but (in both cases), I'd prefer that the owner didn't do so, because I believe in more speech, rather than less. No double standard. No hypocrisy. Same message.
"The nutty professor has been a serial predator for years. Without permission and despite repeated warnings, he continues to stalk this forum … even on Christmas Day. He has violated the anonymity of bloggers by revealing their identities in public. He lashes out at anyone who does not accord him the special status he thinks he deserves. Most of all, he has a sadistic streak." - THE SWASH ZONE: THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGEThe irony... it burns... Octo (the owner of The Swash Zone) isn't talking about me; he's talking about Donald, violating the same kinda ban (and doing so on Christmas morning, no less) that Donald's now trying to enforce on me. In other words, Donald is pissed off because, ban-wise, anyway, I'm doing to him what he did to Octo. Octo said you're banned, Donald kept posting on Octo's blog. Donald said I'm banned, I'm doing the same thing he did... So I ask you... Who's the hypocrite?
Donald Douglas has left a new comment on your post "Hatemonger Leftists":which was not long after the owner of the Swash Zone blog "banned" him. Funny, but it sure looks like Donald didn't feel the ban at the Swash Zone blog applied to him, doesn't it?"P.S. You have not banished me." (One can almost hear the playground bully sing-songing Na-na, na-na, naaa-na... You can't stop me."
(O)CT(O)PUS ...[Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE at 8:32 AM, December 25, 2008]
I see pain and torment in your post. So, on this day I wish safety and goodness to you and yours. Merry Christmas and peace on earth.
P.S. You have not banished me. Eloy's waiting to hear from you.
I guess it's all in the timing, but, interestingly, Andrew Breitbart also banned Repsac3 today:While technically, the term is "blocked," so far so good... @andrewbreitbart did indeed block me today, after one of his minions (or perhaps some wacked out fan, but a Con, nevertheless) sent me a bigoted photo to which I objected.
No surprise the issues are the same: Repsac3's racist bigotry. He was stalking Andrew with racially derogatory Twitpics, trying to smear conservatives.Um, no... Let's look at those links again.
As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.Leaving aside the everpresent ad hom contained in any Douglas post, comment, or message to or about those with whom he disagrees, my "trollery" pretty much consists of replying to his posts very much like every other person who comments on his blog. (In fact, I think I'm less trollish than many, in that I don't often engage in name-calling or other pointless foolery. I simply dispute the post, and move on. That's not to say that I never call anyone stupid (or whatever), but I surely do so far less often than, say, Professor Douglas, or the Daves.) Of course, I am more likely than most to disagree with Donald (which appears to be the definition he's using for "troll," these days), but I wasn't aware that was a banning offense. (and if it is, it makes Dr. Douglas a coward.)
Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments,...Trolling his comments... catching him in what was likely an intentional lie to deceive his more gullible readers... It's apparently a fine line, with Donald... (More on the likely intentional lie, below.)
...and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:Actually, what I left was a link in support of the assertion I was making which, because it was about an issue raised by peace groups (as was the false claim Donald made) appeared on the "One Minute for Peace" site. (I've yet to find the source of the original flyer to which Donald was reacting, and I suspect, lying about. Again, more on that below.)
One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles.Wow, a "social justice" organization. (in this case, a religious one.) We all know what that means according to Glenn Beck, and just in case we didn't, Donald comes right out and says it: Commies. (Will the McCarthyist red-baiting from some on the right never cease?) It's a neat trick Donald plays... If you follow the "long been criticized" link (to Wikipedia, which is seemingly only considered trustworthy by folks on the right when it says something they like), you'll note that for the most part, the folks who've "long been criticizing" the "friends" and suggesting that they're communists are social conservatives like Donald. It's like what FoxNews does... Report that someone or something is controversial, and then justify repeated hit pieces on that person or thing by saying that "some say" there's controversy surrounding them.
And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are fromWelcome to the meat: Here's the story: In an earlier post, Donald mentioned seeing a flyer from a peace group that he says) claims that military spending is 59% of the US budget, and goes on to call that propaganda, saying that it's only 19% of the US budget. To whit:
"the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."
But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.---
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb." - Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.Here's the thing... As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well. Folks are welcome to judge me as they will, but standing up to Donald's bullying ways has become a habit, and I'm not going to stop because he wishes I would... (Of course, were he to stop treating others so poorly, I'd have no choice but to stop calling him on his behavior and the mistruths in which he engages to smear others...) I think I've said it before... As long as Donald keeps acting the fool, I'll keep pointing and laughing at him. The other folks who're involved with American Nihilist (whether as writers, "fellow nihilists" -- other folks on Donald's extensive "enemies list," or readers) can do as they like, but I intend to continue exposing Donald Douglas for the man he is... ... "banning" or no banning...
The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”Just kidding, of course... I'm all for requiring lawmakers to be subject to the laws they pass (and thus think Grassley was right), and agree that their federal benefits should be no better than the ones the rest of us receive. (Glad to see they voted down the pay raise, at least...)
A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.
“The whole point is to make sure political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday. “In this case, after the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”
Donald Douglas: "You told me not to comment on your blog some time ago, and I have observed your rules. But when Repsac3 stalks and taunts American Power with genuine racist insults, when he refuses to observe my rules and common decency, you're down with that ... of course you're into racist photoshopping and cyberstalking, so NST, yo!"I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that what Don is referring to is when James Webb told him not to leave off-topic comments and links over at Brain Rage, but Donald's excuse sounds so much better... (Like James said in the comment to which Don's referring, anyone and everyone is free to leave comments there... ...as long as they're on topic.)
From the link above: "I have mixed feelings about the term "Halfrican," but figured that if it was good enough for Rush, it was good enough for Rush's listeners... (True, you haven't endorsed his using it, but you haven't objected to it, either...) If you believe it is a bigoted term that Rush was using, I shall refrain from referring to you in that way again. (Hopefully, Rush will do the same.)
You are, of course, welcome to answer by again alleging that I am a bigot if you wish, though I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to provide examples of my bigotry, if you intend to do so. If you do not, I reserve the right to cheerfully ignore your unsubstantiated charges as unworthy of consideration..."
"Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays)"While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
---
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.Posted April 23, 2010 9:19 AM (AmPow blog time) And subsequently (4/27/10, I think) deleted, along with the whole damned post.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb." - Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
---
.gif)
