Monday, September 19, 2011

In Reply: The Donnie Doth Protest Too Much

In reply to this post: American Power: F*** You, Douglas! — W. James Casper = COBAG = Repsac3!! and this comment at another post: "Actually, you have changed, for example, from my thread,", and posted in reply at both locations.

Sorry, Douglas... But all this COBAG post shows is that YOU'VE become more unhinged, and are willing to write some really ridiculous posts in reply to having someone tell you to fuck off... (Posts that most folks would be embarrassed to publish, but you seem quite proud of...)

I'm the same lovable guy I've always been, respectful to all who deserve it, and less so to those who don't.

If you really didn't want me posting comments here (regardless of whether you publish 'em or don't), you wouldn't keep mentioning me in posts... ...and yet you keep doing so, and then keep flying off the handle yet again when I respond.

You ought to think about changing that dynamic, Dr. Douglas... All these mentions in posts about other subjects say more about who's acting the creepy stalker than do your words. You bitch when we talk about you... ...but you bitch a whole lot louder when we ignore you for too long.
Replied to at American Nihilist September 19, 2011 5:14 PM, and a little earlier than that at the American Power CoBag post (which Donald may or may not publish...)

In Reply: Pizza and The Same Old Douglas Whine

American Power: Original Ray's Pizza Serving its Last Slice in New York's Little Italy:
P.S. Checking the link to the old blog, turns out Repsac3 was commenting way back then. He wasn't banned. He might still be a commenter here had he not freaked out and turned stalker. I'll welcome progressives if they're cool. Repsac3 once was, but no longer. Too bad too. I had to go to moderation and all that.

Offered in reply (though it's likely Dr. Douglas won't allow it to appear):

I never changed, Douglas... You just ran out of talking points and ran for cover behind moderation. (And Don, if you're so afraid that too many folks will read my comments that you prohibit all from commenting at AmPow without your prior approval, that kinda shows what even you yourself believe about the value and virtue of your ideas.)

If I were really the eeeeevil so-n-so you claim I am, wouldn't my own words prove that? So why do you hide my words, and instead paraphrase what you claim I've said (or what you think I may mean), rather than letting the readers see my comments as written?

You're a coward, Dr. Douglas...

But I'm glad you're standing up for the little pizza joint, this time... In that older post, it was "anti-capitalist" for the folks in the neighborhood to complain about the franchise running the mom 'n' pop shop out of the neighborhood. Glad to see you've come around to supporting the little guy, for once...

Since there's no permalink, here is the text of my 2007 "Burkean" comment. At the time, Donald was decrying the fact that a longstanding local pizza joint circulated a petition against a Papa John's moving into the neighborhood:

"the circulation of the anti-Papa John's petition is not only anti-capitalist, but probably unnecessary."

I hope it's unnecessary... But I've seen a whole lotta independent (put type of business here) run out by franchises & big boxes with inferior products &/or service, but the financial backing lose money by selling below cost & whatnot until they're the only game in town...

While it may be anti-captialist*, I'm all for citizens/consumers petitioning & otherwise speaking up.

*I'm not sure it is anti-capitalist. I see it more as negative advertising, making PJ look bad for "forcing" themselves into this community against the community's wishes, and trying to run "the little guy" out of business. Now, should these citizens try to pass some kinda law against PJ's, I'd be more inclined to agree.
August 8, 2007, 6:35:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Monday, September 05, 2011

In reply: Threats, or not, air unedited video, and let folks decide for themselves

In reply to the following comment at Jimmy Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Let's Take These Son Of Bitches Out" | RealClearPolitics

Any chance you will stop tap dancing and acknowlege that he made the threat?  We all heard him say what he said.  He used a long string of bellicose and threatening language, and you want us to think he actually meant us to take that as an "invitation for debate?"   Clean the wax out of your ears.

You idiots smeared Sarah Palin for using the image of a target, and now you want to pretend that "war, battle, fight, and take out the sobs" really means to throw roses?   Please!

All I'm saying is air the full video, and let folks think for themselves, Rachel... If you think calls to vote out the sons o bitches on the right (or the left) are threats of violence, than more power to ya... (Lots of folks will think you're a pretty sensitive little flower who prolly ain't suited to taking in anything more harsh than the average Disney flick--and certainly not anything involving US politics--but more power to ya, regardless...)

Look... I think the folks who thought sister Sarah's rhetoric caused the Giffords shooting were nuts. I also think the folks who're getting the vapors because a guy "threatened" his political opponents with being taken out via electoral loss are similarly nuts...

But regardless of who is/isn't nuts, the least folks can do is be fully informed, and to call on those creating such dishonest edits of these kinda things to be more honest... So that nuts or not, folks can know what it is they're being outraged about...

In Reply: Ideologues and Independents Should Have A Voice.

In reply to: How closed primaries further polarize our politics - The Washington Post, as well as some of the posted comments.:

I could see letting registered independents vote in their own primaries--allowing them to vote for any of the candidates running, from whatever party they hail--but the parties who have a stated platform should be able to choose the candidates that they believe most closely align themselves with that platform (and are electable by the voting public, to whatever extent that matters to 'em) unencumbered by cross party chicanery. Those willing to drop being a registered Republican or Democrat (or Green, or Libertarian, or...) for the chance to influence the primary outcome of another party should be allowed to do so... ...but at the cost of not being able to influence their own party's primary outcome.

I believe the political process needs it's ideologues (be they "extreme" left, right, or center), but it also needs it's practical voters and elected officials who're willing to make the compromises that move the country forward. To that end, I want the parties to vote for their ideologues and the independents to vote and give voice to the most electable candidates, and have both the party and the independent primaries count toward choosing the nominees.

Posted 9/5/2011 6:42:48 PM EDT

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)