Sunday, December 23, 2012
A good post over there. Shocked as you may be, I think Larry Correia comes off--and actually is--very knowledgable and persuasive. I've been "evolving" on the gun control debate since at least VA Tech--even suggesting in comments after that one that military vets and other law enforcement types who're also college students or employees be permitted concealed carry on campuses. (I went back recently to find, quote and cite those earlier comments at that blog, but the blogger where I'd posted them had changed commenting platforms, deleting all the old reader commentary.) By this point, I'm probably not too far away from supporting unlimited concealed carry.
Since you're probably more familiar with the issue in general and Correia in particular (and since 1000+ comments are a whole lot to even skim through), are you aware of (and can you point me to) anything he's said about the argument that when the police do arrive to a "shots fired" crime scene, they won't be able to tell the good gunmen from the bad ones. Where I have seen that addressed at all by people who I think would know (police officers, mostly), they do see it as an issue. (Not one that should prevent CC necessarily, but an issue.) Curious to see what this guy has to say...
I do still worry that more guns in more hands could well lead to more / more lethal "crime of passion" / "heat of the moment" violence, but as I've been saying recently about another situation, you can't legislate away possibilities and " what if's."
I originally "posted" this comment today at 10:48 AM (Saberpoint blog time), but it only showed up via the mobile device Saberpoint blog feed. I also e-mailed Stogie about this "mobile (google comments) vs desktop (Disqus comments)" disconnect an hour or two ago, but curiosity got the better of me... I wanted to see whether this Disqus comment would show up in the mobile stream, or whether it's one or the other, whichever way a commenter starts. Needless to say, Stogie, you can delete the earlier one, as long as this one shows up for folks to read on the blog. (As long as I was "re"posting, I also corrected a spelling and grammar error or five I didn't notice the first time.)
Posted Saturday, December 23, 2012, 3:48 PM (or thereabouts)
Friday, December 21, 2012
"Should he be fired for this? Of course not."Bravo. Well said.
Perhaps I'd be more bothered by efforts to get Loomis fired if I hadn't been on the receiving end of identical efforts by his co-bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money and by his ideological allies in the progressive ASFL fever swamps.Isn't that exactly why [that guy] should be EXTREMELY bothered?
Isn't he espousing one set of standards for himself and another for those with whom he disagrees, or are--in his mind--guilty-by-association with those who have wronged him in this way?
And putting the two quotes together, is the saying it's alright (or "alright, so long as it's someone in some way associated with someone else who did a similar thing") to attempt to get someone fired for what they say online, so long as the attempt is ultimately unsuccessful?
"And as regular readers know full well, Walter James Casper III used his blog, with his co-bloggers, to post my contact information and exhort his readers to contact my college."Still, as always, factually untrue. I have never posted the guy's college contact information (though I may've linked to posts where others have--including posts at the guy's own blog--in the course of discussing why it's ethically wrong for others to post or use it against him), and have repeatedly spoken out against every single person--no matter their political ideology--who has posted his workplace contact information, used his workplace contact information to complain about anything he's ever done online or off, or suggested that anyone else use his workplace contact information to do so, either.
I did not delete the post (or any/all comments expressing similar themes, or those posts or comments expressing other ideas or behaviors with which I may've personally disagreed, or indeed much of anything ever, aside spam), because I believe(d) that everyone speaking here is an adult who can string together and then defend their own words and the ideas they convey, and doesn't need a metaphorical mommy or daddy to make decisions on their behalf.
If I didn't like or agree with something posted here, I either starved it of my attention by ignoring it, or commented about it, saying why I disagreed or didn't like it. That [the guy] refuses to comprehend this simple concept (willfully, I suspect) continues to amaze me.
"Screw these people. They reap what they sow. When they start calling out the workplace harassers among their own partisans maybe I'll give a f-k about stooges like Loomis."Demonstrably untrue, just based on the paragraphs above (and many, many more like them posted by me over the years). But par for the course.
[his blog]: Smirking Spectator? Guilty as Charged
Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)
An x-post from a blog that once was
Thursday, December 20, 2012
"Some academics are mounting a defense of Loomis, as if he had transgressed no boundary of civility. I think he did. It’s bad enough to blow your lid and blame someone you dislike for a tragedy he had nothing to do with, but unacceptable for a professor to suggest, even rhetorically, that violence is warranted."
Dr. Loomis "blew his lid?"
No, I'm pretty sure Dr. Loomis doesn't even have a lid.
See, that's a metaphor for something else; being very angry and reacting inappropriately. Generally it's only non-native speakers who take a metaphors literally, and when they do, miscommunication runs rampant. (Well... not literally rampant.)
Wanting someone's head on a stick? A metaphor for wanting that person to be publicly punished for something they did, thus made an example of. To (willfully or otherwise) misunderstand that fairly common idiom as a call to violence and “eliminationist rhetoric” is, well, kind of transparent.
I would think having too many writers at National Review who consistently took metaphorical statements literally would cause heads to roll. (though not literally, one hopes.)
(Thought I saw that it had posted over there while I was finishing this post here. Either I was mistaken--the guess I'm going with for now--or it was moderated away after the fact.)
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
In Reply: If this clown saw his mother use her "hardware" to cook, she was doing it wrong. (and it would explain a lot about him, too.)
People freak out over the silliest things these days. A boy playing with a toy that is pink won’t make him less of a boy and a girl playing with a blue toy won’t make her less of a girl. My kids know better than to judge based on color.If grown men cook--and I'm pretty sure most do, these days--I see nothing wrong with young boys pretending to cook. (...or helping out in the kitchen with real meal preparation, for that matter.)
Zilla's right about the color thing...but it's so ingrained in this culture, I can see why one would want to avoid that fight (especially when there are people like the guy in the video, still getting so worked up (and dare I say, emotional?) about boys playing at assuming "female" roles like cooking. (If this is the way he actually lives, his wife must be thrilled to be doing all the cooking and cleaning and laundry and childcare in their home.) The bigger issue is whether or not we want children role-playing (and thereby learning about) the various roles the adults and older siblings in their lives exhibit, day to day. The color battle can wait.
The gentleman in the video can raise his children according to outdated strict gender roles if he chooses...but to whatever extent his sons can't feed themselves when mom's out of the house, or his daughters need rescuing because they can't change a flat tire "like a man," the fault will be with him.
All that said, we bought one of these new easy-bake ovens for our niece last Christmas. NO ONE needs the version they make today. The light bulb was less safe, but the narrow slit through which kids are supposed to insert the baking tin full of mix insures a complete mess. My sister-in-law let my niece try it two or three times, then cleaned it all up, packed it back up, and donated it to her church's daycare program. (And she suspects that they didn't use it either, but sold it at a garage sale fundraiser.) As the one's who gave the gift, it was kinda disappointing...but having been there for at least one of the baking sessions--and subsequent clean-up--we understood completely.
Posted 12/18/12, 1:04 PM
Monday, December 17, 2012
First he lashes out at me for RT'ing a tweet from early in the day that said the Bushmaster rifle was used in the Newtown massacre when--unbeknownst to me, obviously--subsequent reporting said that it wasn't. According to him I was "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre," and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," and like that...
It turns out that the reporting the ass was relying on for his absurd attack was wrong, and the Bushmaster rifle WAS used during the massacre. So of course, the lying ass wrote a post apologizing for his "ghoulishly exploiting the massacre" just to launch an unprovoked attack on me and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation," right?
No, of course not.
When our friend over there posts information during a news story that later turns out not to be true, it's completely different than when someone else does. And without so much as a blink--or ANYTHING at all in the way of support or evidence--the guy continues to say it is me to whom the actual facts of the story don't matter.
Which brings us to today. Another post where the lying ass breathlessly accuses me of "lies and disinformation," and by still linking back to that first absurd attack post where HE got the facts wrong, and damned near 12 hours after HE himself POSTED that the information in that first post was incorrect. (He never went so far as to say he was wrong, of course.)
Literally --L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y-- Un-fucking-believable.
Lies and disinformation for all, and to all a good night...
[his blog]: Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way
[Lying Ass] Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)
[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation
Ghoulish [Ass] Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation
[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack
An x-post from a blog that once was
Even if you don’t go out seeking violent movies and TV shows, just watching a football game can bring the violence into your home during commercials. It happened yesterday when ads for Gangster Squad, starring Josh Brolin ran.There are plenty who argue that the football game itself promotes and glorifies violence (along with--variously-- boxing, pro-wrestling, mixed martial arts fighting, ...).
In a similar vein, some applaud the fact that Little Rascals" shorts and copies of Disney's "Song of the South" are so hard to find, celebrating their removal from society as a blow against racism. (And a subset of these folks advocate removing "Huckleberry Finn" from school libraries, too.)
The key is what WE individually tolerate. I trust no one here is advocating government or corporate censorship of violent films--or having someone like Bill Cosby buy them up and lock them away in a vault, either--but there is something to be said for asking why WE support these violent films and video games with our entertainment dollars. The less money these things make, the less those in charge will choose to make or bankroll them.
We have to decide where to draw the lines for ourselves and for our children--I wouldn't want the government preventing films from being made or marketed, and I doubt any of you would, either--but there's always going to be someone advocating against "violence" (or "racism") that you find perfectly acceptable.
Free speech isn't pretty.
X-Post: Ghoulish Blogger Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation
As we now know,
There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at the same guy's blog.
Of course, the guy wasn't REALLY lying when he said the rifle wasn't used during the massacre (and attacking me as a liar spreading disinformation for a retweet saying it had been); he was simply working with the facts available at the time (a whole lot like I was, though of course, it's ALL DIFFERENT when he screws up.) He is a lying douchebag, but not for reporting facts that later change. No, he is a lying douchebag for failing to acknowledge the fact that my error was very similar to his, and that in these fast moving stories, reported facts do turn out to be wrong, sometimes, and that both his error and mine as regards whether the gun was used in the massacre were not the result of deliberate malice or disinformation. His attacks on me, on the other hand, clearly are.
This cannot be more clearly evidenced by what the ass says next in his post reporting that the rifle was used during the massacre (and that he reported bad information in saying that it wasn't):
"Well, the actual facts of the story didn't matter to the radical leftists like Angie Coiro and her hate-addled followers like Walter James "Hatesac" Casper III. Indeed, it's not about "gun control" with these people. It's about literally destroying right-wing impediments to statist authoritarianism:"That's right... This idiot gets "the actual facts" wrong in his earlier post, where he also cast all manner of aspersions on me for "being wrong," and in the very post saying I had it right after all and that HE was wrong, still lashes out at me as though I somehow lied.
In these posts at least, the guy doesn't care one bit about the kids who were massacred or about getting the story right. All he cares about is attacking me in any way he can.
I quote information that I believed to be true when I posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation.
Then he quotes information that he believes to be true when he posted it, but that later turns out not to be, and he STILL accuses me of spreading lies and disinformation (only now, without any evidence, at all.)
"This is the evil that [I] posted yesterday in [my] utterly inhumane rush to politically capitalize on the deaths of those innocent children, 16 of them just 6 years old. This is why decent, intelligent and God-fearing people stand up for the truth. This is why decent, law-abiding Americans repudiate [my] lies. They know where it leads. They know that [my] dishonesty will bring the reign of terror and the camps. The piles of bodies stacked like cord wood is the "taste of what's coming." [I] just lay it out there for everyone to see. It would be shocking but we've seen this play before and the millions of piled corpses before the final curtain."This lying propagandist can kiss my ass. He's an obsessed, pathetic, desperate liar, and the more he lashes out at me and at "the left"--whatever that is--with this kind of crazy, easily debunked nonsense, the more he makes it obvious to everyone concerned.
[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation
[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack
An x-post from a blog that once was
Sunday, December 16, 2012
X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)
Ok... In one respect, Dishonest Donald caught me. I did RT a tweet originally posted at 1:39 PM (and RT'd by a person I follow at 9:37 PM) somewhere around 10 PM without checking to verify that the information I heard somewhere around 3 PM (I'm guessing... it was early-to-mid afternoon eastern the last time I watched a straight news report on the shootings) was still true in the 10 o'clock hour. As Donald notes, the information about this gun not being used in the massacre was updated (by CNN, anyway)at 6:51 PM. (I have since sent out two tweets (see below), one of which was @'ed to both the original tweeter and the retweeter)--and soon, there'll be this post, too--correcting the error.)
Apparently the tweet below misstates a fact. This gun waited in the car. (But does that really negate the question?) twitter.com/repsac3/status…— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 15, 2012
So, yeah, I was guilty of further spreading one "fact" reported early in the day that turned out not to be a fact later on. Anyone who thinks my doing so constitutes a "bald-faced lie" (like our friend Dishonest Donald Douglas, fer'instance) is claiming that they can read minds, and can somehow prove what I knew and when I knew it. And that's just nuts.
I should've checked. As soon as I found out--from Dishonest Don's absurd attack post--I corrected the error.
But given Donald's history of lashing out at me, I suspect that his most recent hissy-fit post--like oh so many others where he lashes out at me in similar fashion--has nothing to do with the Newtown massacre or with whether or not I intentionally lied or hit RT before verifying that nothing had changed since 1:39 PM, and everything to do with Donald Douglas' creepy obsession with me. As always, I invite each reader to check the facts and come to your own conclusions.
American Power: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation
Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
An American Nihilist X-post
Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. wh.gov/RN6U— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 14, 2012
"Can we start by enforcing the laws we already have? Adding new ones is pointless if none of them are enforced. We also need to close the gun show loopholes."I'm with you on all points... I just want there to be an intelligent conversation about all of the issues involved, including the mental health and family/societal issues you posted about on your wall. I believe we probably ought to reinstate the automatic weapons ban--it wasn't a factor in this massacre, but those weapons have played a part in others--and maybe do something to limit large magazines/clips, too, but aside that I don't have any real suggestions or answers.
My goal in signing this petition was to combat the ever-present bullshit about "it being too soon to talk about it" and admonitions against "politicizing the tragedy," both of which impose "waiting periods" that always seem to last just long enough to get us to the next tragedy that some would have us not talk about or politicize, either.
I don't know whether or not there are any new laws that could minimize the number of mass shootings in this country or the number of victims of them when they do occur... but I believe it's high time we stop waiting until the moment is perfect--it never will be--start talking about it and exploring the issues now, before the next mass casualty gun massacre occurs, and the "now's not the time"/"don't politicize the tragedy" waiting period clock starts all over again.
(Ironically, I accidentally posted about the White House petition twice; Once via the tweet, and once by sharing the link at the petition site. The friend who commented chose to do so at the tweet share, rather than at the link share to the petition, to which I'd added the following note in the first place):
This petition is a little vague, but because it's being featured at Memeorandum, it's likely going to get the signatures. I DON'T want to blindly limit access to guns across the board. But I would support waiting periods, more thorough background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and limiting access to weapons of war. No, you can't prevent every crime, and yes, a person determined to kill who cannot get a gun will probably use a knife or a bat. But if the killers at Va Tech (or Aurora, or Columbine, or ..., or ...) had been murdering with knives, far fewer would've died. We can talk about limiting access to knives when homicide by blade even begins to approach the numbers of those murdered by firearm.
Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government
Friday, December 14, 2012
In Reply: "...and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’" - Steven Crowder
From the article:
I asked Crowder why that initial assault was edited, he responded:---If Crowder knew the guy tripped and fell into him–which is the story he’s telling here–then it was awful dishonest of him to claim he was assaulted there in the video BEFORE the guy ever got up or threw the first punch.
"The camera pans away because the camera was jostled, the camera man was shoved around too, a bunch of people were being shoved as the protesters tried to tear down the tent. A tent which wasn’t their property. They were tearing down a tent with women and children in it, and the man who was coming at me I think tripped over the tent peg, fell towards me, and that’s when I said ‘You assaulted me.’ Right after that he sucker punched me. My guess is that he was on his way down, he grabbed me, and started shoving me.”
However the guy went down–and even if he believed Steven Crowder put him down, somehow–trying to clock Crowder repeatedly wasn’t the moral/spiritual/legal response. (I don’t know where justice will come down on this, since it’ll probably be one guy’s word against the other’s, with video that isn’t conclusive about who did what first…assuming that matters, that is.) But eye-for-an-eye caveman behavior is a part of who we are, and there’s some aspect of “being a man” that calls for it, which for me anyway, makes the response to being knocked off one’s feet and thinking it was done on purpose understandable…Still subject to civilized law and Christian standards of behavior, but understandable.
The fact that Crowder stated ahead of time that he was there to prove that union folks were thugs, AND the fact that he made the knowingly false assault claim above–in real time in the video, AND that he intentionally edited the fall out of the video he released on youtube, AND that he has yet to file charges with the police–instead walking this weird tightrope between “I’m a victim” / “I’m an MMA tough guy” and taking part in the vaguely vigilante-looking “wanted/reward” postings on various rightwing websites, all suggests to me that something isn’t quite Christmas morning with his version of events…even if he’s telling you the truth, and honestly played no part in the union guy’s initial fall…but I’m suspicious as to whether that’s the case, as well… (…And not only that… This isn’t the first time Mr Crowder has claimed to be assaulted–by a woman, the last time. How many wolves are in these pastures, anyway?)
One other thing… It sure looked to me like from “Tony’s” appearance at :33 to the edit at :38, he was focused on and arguing with the guy in the grey hat/black earmuffs to Crowder’s left, NOT Crowder. Post edit, that guy goes out of frame, and I never notice him again. (Even in the FoxNews less edited version, the guy kinda slips away.) I don’t know how significant that is, but I did notice it…and that I think you’re misstating the facts to say that “Tony” was actually approaching Crowder in those 5 seconds. (Part of me even wonders whether it was the Gray Hatted Man who knocked “Tony” down…)
Posted (in two parts) Friday, 12/14/12 and about five minutes after the first.
ADDED: Not an admission that Steven Crowder was himself responsible for "Tony" ending up on the ground, but he's obviously aware that the man did not simply trip over a tent post, and an admission that he himself was among the people who "got into a physical confrontation with the union activists.":
However, during an interview with a conservative blogger, Crowder noted that the scuffle began when pro-union protesters tried to bring down the white tent on the site provided by the group Americans for Prosperity.
The Fox News contributor then stated that he and other people defending the canopy did get into a physical confrontation with the union activists.
“We didn’t get violent with them, but we did try and push them off the tent,” he said, adding that the reason the man was seen getting up off the ground was because he was one of the people who were pushed away from the tent and fell to the ground as a result.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/12/15/steven-crowder-files-criminal-complaint-regarding-alleged-assault-pro-un#ixzz2FK9UuCm3
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Despite all the incredibly irrational comments made at DU about this incident, there was one very apt question poised by one DUer:
Everybody has a videocamera in their phone nowadays. Shouldn't there be some unedited footage out there?"---
There is (or should be) unedited footage, already... Where is the raw version of Crowder's tape (and why didn't he post that to youtube, rather than this edited version?)
There is very little that Crowder could've done that would legally or spiritually excuse the swings that the guy took...but something is edited out at 38 seconds in (right in the middle of the confrontation), and the union guy is getting up from the ground when the edit is over... If Crowder was responsible for the guy landing on the ground, that would explain why he got up swinging, at least... (Maybe the guy was just standing his ground.) A lot of people turn the other cheek (and in that regard, I think Crowder handled himself admirably once the guy started swinging.) Some don't--and while it may be against the law to throw punches, even in retaliation--and certainly not what Jesus would do--it's not all that uncommon, either.)
Crowder still needs to file a police report, so the police can investigate and work toward punishing the guilty...and maybe provide a narrative of the story that's less potentially biased than Crowder, the union guys, or the partisan pundits and online spinners, too. (That he hasn't done so yet is also kinda suspicious.)
Then too, is the fact that apparently, this isn't the first time Crowder's yelled wolf. (or "I've been hit!! I've been hit!!"), and that he's a student of the Breitbart school of video manipulation and low-rent propaganda, who now works for the professional version of Breitbart's BigPropaganda sites, FoxNews. When you have a Brietbart tape that's been edited, you should always ask why, and be careful not to judge the facts of the case until you actually HAVE all the facts...
Also, he's awful smug and cocky...
Still no excuse for hitting the guy, but curiouser and curiouser...
Posted '12-12-12, 6:00 PM, EDST
They're like two teenage boys in the high school shower room... (I can understand McCain's fascination with his blog-hit / follower penis size... It is his only job, I think... But Ol' Dishonest Don just wants to fool himself into thinking he plays with the big boys...)
Original link: Epic Loser Walter James Casper III 'Isn't a Very Effective User' of Twitter
Twitter / rsmccain: @AmPowerBlog The troll to whom ... (and still misusing the word "troll," I see)
And lest anyone forget, I answered that tweet a few days ago, as well:
Did he really not understand I was talking about (and in fact quoting) him regarding his "reports" about me? twitter.com/repsac3/status…— J. Casper (@repsac3) December 10, 2012
Reporting speakers you don't like to the authorities is no way to stand up for free speech...even if "the authorities" laugh in your face (or behind your back), and refuse to act on your whiny complaints...
(...and what's with that "#retard" thing? Methinks Sarah Palin (or Trig, at least) would not approve...)
Quick update: Saw this tweet. Suspect McCain thought I was defending the Schmalfeldt guy (who I know very little about, and haven't the time or inclination to find out about, either), rather than questioning how Dishonest Don's mind can turn a small number of on-topic comments submitted to the moderation queue of his blog--generally at posts where Donald attacks me by name--into "harassment," and then try to report that "harassment" (those comments) to the police, the FBI, his local congressman, lawyers, Google, etc...
It's ok, McCain... I probably wouldn't be following my story either, if Dishonest Don didn't keep dragging me back into it by periodically lashing out at me...
Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
An American Nihilist X-post
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas Cries "Victimhood!!!" (and changes the definitions of common words to "prove it.")
But as frequently happens when dealing with Dishonest Donald Douglas, the facts are far different... In a nutshell:
Dishonest Donald Douglas is whining and whinging and begging for the sympathies of his ideological tribe because up until ten months ago-- (Yes, pretty much everything Donald is complaining about took place in the first two months of 2012, if not earlier. Some incidents took place as early as 2008...and he's still going on about them.) --I submitted a reasonable number (read "one," generally) of on-topic rebuttals to the public comment section of his moderated blog--most often at posts where he discussed me by name--against his expressed wishes. Donald is also upset because I had the temerity to call out and expose his self-reported pleas to Google, two California police departments, the FBI, one or more lawyers, and his congressman, all done in a misguided attempt to have them enforce the rules he laid out for his blog-- (rather than, y'know, just not approving the comments held in the moderation queue, like pretty much every other blogger who screens his comment section does) --for the anti-free speech nonsense it always has been. That's the whole ball of wax. Everything that follows expands on these few sentences.
1) I have never "harassed" Donald Douglas. I used to submit public comments to his blog, often disagreeing with his posts. I did not submit an unreasonable number of comments, either at individual posts or to the blog in general. (If I did submit more comments to a particular post than others, it was because I was responding to the points of several other participants who had all addressed me.) I did not engage in crude language or ad hominem attacks any more frequently than did other participants or Dr. Douglas himself. My comments were on topic disagreements (or occasionally, supportive agreement) with what Donald or one of the other comment area participants had to say.
Once Dishonest Don began deleting posted comments and moderating his comment stream before the fact to weed out content with which he did not approve, I restricted my comment submissions to blog posts where he lashed out at me by name, making sure to keep a record of the submission and post a copy of the comment where Dr Douglas could not make it disappear. I did not make repeated submissions or otherwise abuse the comment system. I was a member of the public submitting comments to an area open to public comment, in rebuttal of posts attacking me by name. And just to be crystal clear, I have not attempted to submit a single comment to the American Power blog since sometime in January, 2012.
A quick word about RS McCain's term "Troll Rights:" the "antisocial belief that [one] should be able to say anything to anyone in other people’s privately-owned online space, without regard for the proprietors’ rules or even basic human decency."
I don't know about "troll rights," but free speech rights as understood here in the US anyway, suggest that yes, one ought to be able to submit one's point of view to the comment area of a blog that accepts public comments. It does not mean that those comments must to be PUBLISHED by the blog owner--and I've never said otherwise--or that free speech rights absolve the commenter for hateful, disgusting comments or genuinely harassing behavior, as either is legally or socially understood--and I've never said otherwise. But one does have the right to submit one's comments, and to make note of the ones the blog owner chooses to keep hidden, as well--especially when one is the subject of the blog post in question. One also has the responsibility to stand behind one's words and the reactions one receives for doing so, both positive and negative. And while Donald Douglas apparently disagrees, I'd be surprised if RS McCain says he is similarly opposed to this use of speech. (I suspect RS was conceding as much by saying that "troll rights may be an interesting legal concept..." Indeed they are, McCain. Free speech rights (including the speech of those some might (incorrectly) label internet trolls) are seldom called on to protect popular, pretty speech.)
2) Nothing I've said or done as regards Donald Douglas has been "criminal." While Dishonest Don cited a whole series of laws in support of his claims, he also took his so-called "evidence" to lawyers, police officers, and congressmen, all in an effort to criminalize my speech and stop me from posting. AND...Nothing came of any of it. No individual or office that Donald complained to has ever contacted me in any way, shape or form. (I did initiate a conversation with the officer at one of the police departments Donald contacted, who assured me that she had seen no evidence of my running afoul of any law.) And according to the internet lawyer I spoke to in one of those "you pay nothing unless we win" free consultations, Donald's repeated claims that I had broken the law were far more actionable in civil court than anything I had ever done as regards Dr Douglas. Needless to say, I declined the lawyer's offer to file a suit for libel.
3) When did "troll" get redefined to mean "disagrees with me on the internet," anyway? That ain't it, kids... And for gosh sakes, stop being so damned thin-skinned.
Almost all of my internet comments have been on-topic, or at least reasonably related to what someone else has said. I have never dropped a single provocative bit of prose into a comment section or message board and then sat back and watched the chaos ensue. I've never been unwilling to defend the positions I've taken or to admit when someone else has a valid point. Once upon a time, THAT (or "not doing those things," I guess) was the definition of trolling...
Reasonable folks can certainly argue that it is impolite to submit comments to a moderated blog after the blogger in question has stated that he would prefer you do not do so, but being impolite isn't the same as trolling.
4) There has been no "obsessive e-mail campaign." I sent three comments via e-mail in response to blog posts...because that was what Dr. Douglas requested:
And finally... It doesn't take much to figure out which of us is actually the obsessed aggressor... It's been almost a year (1/5/12, for those keeping score) since I last authored a post at American Nihilist that was not responding to an American Power post where Dishonest Donald Douglas mentioned me by name (often in posts where he shoehorned my name into posts ostensibly about other topics). I do still read his blog, and I sometimes follow the links or discuss the same topics in other venues, but it isn't me who is periodically lashing out in some crazy desperate plea for attention and relevance.
Like I said in my earlier post, I feel very sorry for Donald Douglas. I can't imagine what it must be like to hate so many people for such petty reasons.
Life's too short to waste much time on him... but I do reserve the right to respond to Donald Douglas' attacks on me, when and where I choose:
[Dr Douglas is] not going to run my life. And I am not going to spend every waking hour responding to [his many] lies. I’ve come to realize that there is no point in worrying about the latest defamation from a tiny and already discredited [man]. Put simply, I’m not going to spend my life obsessing over [him] — even if [he] insist[s] on being obsessed with me. Unlike [Donald Douglas], I have a life apart from the Internet.
That said, I am also not going away. And if I feel like setting the record straight on a particular point, and have the time and motivation to do so, I will.
Threats just give me something new to talk about. At a time of my choosing.
[Donald Douglas has] tried to intimidate and threaten me for over [four] years now. No threat [or lie he's told on the internet or to "the authorities"] will stop me.
I am not going away.
American Power: Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt
Donald Douglas Abuses His Google
June 3: Bill Schmalfeldt Begins Cyberstalking Aaron Walker : The Other McCain
Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga
I’m not a troll—why does everyone on the Internet keep calling me one? - Slate Magazine
American Power: W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians
American Power's Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Donald Kent Douglas
Patterico's Pontifications � Stacy McCain on Cyberstalking
An American Nihilist X-post
Monday, December 10, 2012
American Power: Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt
Just think about this; In Donald Douglas' world, one fights the words and ideas one does not like by going to the police, lawyers, the FBI, and his congressional representatives...
"That sounds familiar. Progressive stalking trolls claim a "free speech right" to harass someone even after they have been told repeatedly to cease and desist. This is why I reported Walter James Casper III to the authorities: "Intent to Annoy and the Fascist Hate-Blogging Campaign of Walter James Casper III." As we've seen for some time, progressives have quite a different view of how free speech works, the most important manifestation being the notion that left-wing free speech includes the right to suppress political views that contradict the left's radical agenda."If that isn't the scariest view of free speech I've ever seen, I don't know what is... (And for the record, Dishonest Donald's many reports went exactly nowhere. Not one person, office, or agency contacted me in any official or unofficial capacity as a result of his anti-free speech reports to his various authorities. Not one.)
I feel sorry for Dishonest Donald Douglas... I really do. I can't imagine what it must be like for him to so dislike the world and the people with whom he must share it that he feels compelled to post the things he does about others. It's just sad.
A double-down, because when you're lashing out, once is never enough.: American Power: Progressives Can Just FOAD
Of course, a double-down... Dishonest Donald Douglas is so very predictable...
Dishonest Donald Douglas attempts to wage lawfare: In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, Donald Douglas)
Donald's low-budget conception of "free speech": Dishonest Donald Douglas' "Raging Primordial Rage"
Free speech for me, but not for thee: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail
An American Nihilist X-post
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Let's go to the videotape, and then to the guy's "argument," such as it is:
"Rauch, who is a far-left progressive, nails it on who's the biggest threat to freedom of speech, thought and expression in the country today. What's surprising, though, is that harassment-blogger Walter James Casper III "liked" it on Twitter --- tweeting it out a couple of times in fact. And it's ironic too, since Repsac3 is the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing. From racism to anti-Semitism to the recent attacks on Ann Coulter at Fordham, Repsac3 is down with it. He never, ever speaks out against it, and in fact joins in with his progressive hate-commentariat in mounting campaigns of personal destruction against those with whom he disagrees. I've chronicled Repsac3's criminal campaigns of intimidation many times. If he truly "likes" the ideas of Jonathan Rauch he should in fact practice them. Sadly, the record shows that while the demonically hate-addled Repsac3 purportedly champions this kind of classical liberal thought, his actual political loyalties are with those who stand against it. It's not just that Walter James Casper III is a stupid man. It's that he's also been psychological corrupted by progressive evil. Where there's a bodily inclination in him that says leftist thought suppression is not just wrong but massively vile, his raging primordial rage at conservatives kicks in to advance the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates above. Repsac3 is a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse. Honestly, his only hope is to follow the words of people like Rauch and literally repent his ideology of hatred and secular demonology."The first line isn't far off. Jonathan Rauch does believe that "the humanitarian impulse" to prevent bigots from saying bigoted things so as not to offend minorities, enforced via campus/workplace speech codes, (and yes, often put into place by progressives) is one of the biggest threats to free speech. While I still believe there should be time/place/manner standards for speech (and from what I can tell, FIRE does, as well), I'm inclined to agree. The answer to overt or implicit bigotry isn't legal/statutory rules and punishment, it's more speech--reasoned argument to persuade, and denunciation of the bigotry and those who engage in it to create a social penalty for such behavior. You don't prevent people from being attacked, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they are.
Sadly, therein ends the guy's engagement with the topic at hand or with reality. Everything after that first line is dishonest attack, and nothing more.
The guy labels me "the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing," but never offers a single example of my attempting to control speech in the manner that Rauch discusses. He accuses me of "advanc[ing] the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates," but fails to offer anything in support of his accusation. Mostly though, he just vents his spleen by calling me names and vomiting up meaningless epithets--(harassment-blogger, hate-commentariat, criminal, demonically hate-addled, stupid, psychological corrupted by progressive evil, raging primordial rage [my personal favorite, and thus the title of this post], a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse, ...)--and pretends that by doing so, he's actually saying anything.
The facts are very different. Who is the guy saying those things, if not a man who believes that the brand of conservatism he espouses is the one true answer, and that everyone else is wrong (and demonically evil) for believing in a different set of political ideals?
Which of us controls the ideas that are permitted to appear on our blogs, actively moderating for content, weeding out commentary that he doesn't like or agree with?
And which of us tried to shoehorn disagreement on the internet onto criminal laws against harassment and stalking, even going so far as to talk to his local police and his congressman.
Just recently the guy approvingly tweeted about a case in England where a conservative is using that country's anti-free speech slander laws to lash out at everyone who (falsely, as far as the available evidence is concerned) accused him of being a paedophile on twitter and other social media outlets. (And when I say "everyone," I mean it... According to the linked article "His lawyers are reported to have already discovered around 1,000 original offending Tweets and a further 9,000 re-Tweets." That's a whole lotta lawsuits...):
For all his blather to the contrary, the guy has no problem applauding legal enforcement to criminalize speech he disapproves of, even going so far as to attempt to do so himself...which is exactly what Jonathan Rauch and FIRE oppose.
And even aside that, the guy's scapegoating of progressives is wrong. FIRE co-founder Greg Lukianoff is a former ACLU lawyer and a progressive. And the guy himself admits that Jonathan Rauch is a "far-left progressive" (who apparently also "totally awesomely sucks the cock," by the way... I know how the guy likes to highlight that fact whenever he finds it, for reasons I leave to the reader to suss out.)
Sure, there are progressives who mistakenly believe that protecting minorities from offense by using speech codes on campus and in the workplace is a good idea. But it is also progressives (like FIRE, and like the ACLU) who're on the front lines protecting unpopular speech from those who would censor or criminalize it. That the guy tries to sweepingly generalize about progressives as though Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Rauch don't exist--while simultaneously using them to bolster his bullshit attack on progressives--is the height of hypocrisy, and shows that the guy has zero credibility.
Progressives Are the Biggest Threat to Freedom of Speech in America (& as of 11/25/12, Freedom to Blog Update November 25, 2012, which links back to the previous post, as though it hadn't already been fully discredited above four days earlier.)
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE
New FIRE Video: Jonathan Rauch ‘In Defense of Being Offensive’ - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE
Twitter / repsac3: I liked a @YouTube video ...
Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga
California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III
Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses
'Isn't It Totally Awesome That Nate Silver Sucks Cock?'
Still more on Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempts at Lawfare: In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, that guy)
An x-post from a blog that was.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
This whole thing is a put on. No one forced the College Republicans to disinvite Coulter. They did that on their own, of their own free will (and to hear them tell it, BEFORE president McShane expressed his opinion on the subject.) No one issued a law. Campus security was not dispatched to keep Ann Coulter (or those who invited her) off the campus.
What happened was exactly what so many of us so often say we want; for those who don't like the speech of a particular speaker to respond with speech of their own. McShane, along with many Fordham students, believe that Ann Coulter has said offensive things in the past, and spoke out against giving her the opportunity to say them again at Fordham. Whether the college Republicans legitimately agreed, or simply bowed to the pressure of having so many people disagree with their choice of speaker, this isn't a case of censorship or a lack of acedemic freedom. The college president didn't stop Ann Coulter from coming or threaten to punish those who invited her. All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why. That's not censorship...it's speech.
I agree that too many schools go too far in trying to curb unpopular or hurtful speech. While I do believe that not all speech is appropriate in all situations, there is no speech that should be suppressed in all situations, on or off campus. And while I understand the appeal of making hard and fast rules, accusations of bigoted or hurtful speech have to be judged on their own merits. Zero tolerance policies seldom work, no matter what "evil" they're trying to prevent.
While i'm a liberal, I often agree with the stands FIRE takes... But I think they're missing the mark on this one... This is speech in response to speech, and a group who says they were convinced by some of that speech to change their minds.
Posted Saturday, 11/17/12
Richard Tauchar Replied:
My Reply to Richard:"All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why."Isn't that bad enough? It's not his place to influence students in that way. Yes, he used "speech", but it's the speech of the person in power, which carries extra weight.
First off, the College Republican group claim that they had already decided to "disinvite" Ms. Coulter prior to McShane releasing his statement, but even if they had not, no, I don't believe that the college president should refrain from being a part of the debate because he holds power at the college anymore than I believe Ann Coulter should refrain from participating in the debate because her celebrity affords her more power than others. If he wasn't using his power--by sanctioning those who invited Coulter, or creating a rule whereby he would have to approve all on-campus speakers prior to their being invited to speak--the fact of his power at Fordham University should not prevent him from expressing his opinion, even if some with less power at the campus may feel bad (or even vaguely threatened, though he issued no threat) because he disagreed with them.
Tom O'Hare sez:
BS, James. The president used his power to discourage a well-known media writer/lawyer from expressing her opinion. Stop the spin. If it had been Angela Davis, he would have been fawning all over her. Get real.My reply to Tom:
How so, Tom?
What specifically did Reverend McShane say or do that prevents (or in any way discourages) Ann Coulter from expressing her opinions? She's as free to speak today as she ever was...
When you "get real," Reverend McShane didn't even discourage the College Republicans at Fordham University. Their own statement, signed by the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham College Republicans had already decided to drop Ms. Coulter before McShane made his statement:
“We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
And while you're at it, perhaps you will back your claim that Reverend Joseph McShane is in any way sympathetic to Communism--or in fact, resides anywhere on the left side of the partisan political spectrum--with more than just your own intuition. (I mean, I suppose it's possible that he's a communist (or God forbid, a Democrat), but I can find no report saying so, and no statements of his supporting communist rhetoric or ideals.)
Thursday, November 08, 2012
"Ohio really did go to the president last night.
And he really did win.
And he really was born in Hawaii.
And he really is -legitimately- President of the United States.
And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make-up a fake unemployment rate last month.
And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence
That cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.
And the polls were not skewed to over-sample Democrats.
And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election
To make conservatives feel bad.
He was doing math.
And climate change is real.
And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes.
And evolution is a thing.
And Benghazi was an attack on us.
It was not a scandal by us.
And no one is taking away anyone's guns.
And taxes haven't gone up.
And the deficit is dropping, actually.
And Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
And the moon landing was real.
And FEMA isn't building concentration camps.
And UN election observers aren't taking over Texas.
And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry
And the financial services industry
Are not the same thing as communism."
By Will Femia - Thu Nov 8, 2012 1:00 AM EST Adapted from The Rachel Maddow Show 11/7, and originally posted here: Evolution is a thing - The Maddow Blog
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
|Only one of us used the word "Jewish..." ...and it wasn't me.|
"Neocons exist. They're neither shadowy nor conspiratorial. They're part of an actual political movement with a very visible public profile. They tend to be hawkish, solicitous of Israel's right wing, hostile toward Arabs, and they played a big role in committing the United States to a disastrous war in Iraq. That's just reality, and the mere fact that many neocons are Jewish doesn't give them a magic shield that protects them from criticism.
There's nothing anti-Semitic in Dowd's column. She just doesn't like neocons, and she doesn't like the fact that so many of the neocons responsible for the Iraq debacle are now advisors to Mitt Romney's campaign. Pretending that this makes her guilty of hate-mongering toward Jews is reprehensible."
Like his "Octopus" freak-out back in January, that guy (by way of quote) says that "...depictions of Jews as snakes or puppeteers are classical anti-Semitic images, right up there with blood-sucking..." Now, anti-Semites have used octopuses, snakes, and puppeteers to individually or collectively attack folks who are Jewish. But it does not follow that therefore ALL references to octopuses, snakes or puppeteers are ipso facto anti-Semitic, and suggesting that it is--that one cannot say someone behaved like a snake without it being anti-Semitic--is itself kinda bigoted. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to refer to someone as an octopus, or a snake, or a puppeteer. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to criticize a Jewish person, EVEN by saying that person is a snake, or an octopus, or a puppeteer, any more than it's raaaaacist to call a black man a clown, that attending an anti-war demonstration makes one a socialist, or supporting the stated goals of the Occupy movement makes one an anti-Semite.
Guilt by association, sweeping generalizations--whether about folks you don't agree with, or folks that you do--or pretending that highlighting one attribute shared by two (or more) otherwise different individuals or groups makes those two (or more) individuals or groups practically identical (Take for example, pacifist priests who protest against war because they believe God opposed man killing man vs anarchists who protest war because they believe no government has the right to send people to kill and die, vs those who protest a specific war because they believe the reasons given for that war go against our American values. One can treat them as though they're all the same, and denigrate them all as anti-American, or whatever... ...but the bullshit in that approach is obvious.) While propagandists will employ one, two, or even all three of these tactics to lash out at those with whom they disagree, they are all plainly and obviously nonsensical ploys that cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
And all that aside, the only person equating neocons with Jews is that guy... My tweet and the article to which it referred specifically says neoconservatism is a political movement and NOT a substitute for the word "Jewish." If anyone is slandering the Jewish people by calling them neocons (or is it "slandering neocons by calling them Jewish"?), it isn't me...
And lest anyone forget, that guy is the one who created the "Sasquatch Israel" myth out of whole cloth, in yet another failed attempt to attack all liberals (or at least a whole lot of them) as anti-Semites. This is what desperate, despicable liars do...
More: American Nihilist: BTDT Files - Jew-Hating Anti-Semite
The Anti-Semitic Slur Surfaces Once Again | Mother Jones
First the guy Came For The Hominids, Now It's Anti-Semitic Cephalopods
Brain Rage: that blog And Anti-Semitic Hominids
If I'm not mistaken, the guy's last attack on me was August 6th... I was beginning to think he'd finally wised up... but of course not... He's that guy. He cannot resist lashing out with these lies. He's that guy. 'nuff said.
UPDATED: The guy finds a
Antisemite Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/walter…— WarEagle (@WarEagle8055) September 18, 2012
@WarEagle8055 never actually says why he calls me an "antisemite" --he didn't bother to respond when I pointed out a few of the flaws in his tweet, leaving me to surmise that rather than taking the time to think for himself, he just lapped up and regurgitated whatever the guy told him, thought unthunk...which kinda makes one feel sorry for the guy, given that guy's historical record with, well, facts...
An x-post from a blog that once was
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
When you haven't got facts, I guess this is the kind of bullshit you throw.
On July 26th, a writer named Evan Hurst posted an article on Truth Wins Out saying that, while it might be emotionally satisfying to see politicians stand up to the anti-gay bigotry expressed by Dan Cathy's / Chick-fil-A's donation history and attitudes
On July 27th, noticing that the article was no longer on the site, I sent Evan Hurst a tweet asking about it.
Evan replied on the 29th, offering to send me a copy. I said yes please and thank you, and gave the man my e-mail address. And then, nothing happened...
I sent Mr. Hurst a reminder tweet on 7/30, 8/1, 8/2, and 8/3. Evan responded later on 8/3, very apologetic, and promising to send it out the next day... ...which he did not.
So on 8/5, I tweeted the man another reminder. (And for the record, it is now 8/7, and I still haven't received the article. Either Evan really doesn't want to send it to me and doesn't want to say so for some reason, or he really is a very busy (and perhaps forgetful or unorganized) guy.)
So that's the story. Why it is any of Dr. Douglas' business is anyone's guess. But attack he must, so attack he does. But, pretty much as usual, Donald is way off base and flailing. Far from complaining about harassment or anything else, Evan Hurst has been apologetic for not following through... Not that the truth matters one whit to Dr. Douglas. He couldn't care less about the guy --who I'm sure he'd label a "buttfreak hatemongering godless douchenozzle" or some such thing, where he posting about the guy in any other context. Donald Douglas doesn't give a shit about Evan Hurst or any other part of this story...except his believing he can use it and Mr. Hurst as tools to lash out at me...
In a way, I understand. Dr. Douglas' most recent posts in his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series of attacks have all proven to be the product of his own vivid but hate-inspired imagination...
7/21 - Attack: American Power: When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'
Reply: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lies About Media Bias (and me, of course)
7/23 - Attack: American Power: 'Reliable Sources' Covers Media Response to Colorado Shooting
Reply: More on Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as News
7/24 - Attack: American Power: Repsac3, Hate-Addled Internet Predator, Screams 'Liar' at Virtually Entire World on Politicization of Colorado Shooting
Reply: Bad Reporting, or Biased Reporting? Dishonest Donald Douglas Tries to Conflate the Two for Partisan Advantage
7/29 - Attack: American Power: Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs
Reply: Donald Douglas Lashes Out and Lies, 7/29/12 - Chick-fil-A, Free Speech, Right of Conscience
8/1 - Attack:American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day
Reply: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail
8/5 - Attack: American Power: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
Reply: Partisan Propagandist Dishonest Donald Douglas Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda
...and so he tries lashing out with this nonsense...
And just as an aside... A guy lashing out with this many unprovoked and largely personal attacks in this short a period probably shouldn't be talking too much about obsession, stalking, or harassment... I'm just sayin'...
Also... Didn't Donald recently accuse me of "stalking" for reading his tweets?
It isn't of course, whether I'm reading his or he's reading mine--they are publicly posted, after all--but it just goes to show that Donald lacks the strength to adhere to even his own expressed convictions. "The rules apply to thee, but not to me." Surprised? Not in the least. Hypocrisy has long been Donald Douglas' middle name.
And one last point: You'll note that almost all of my posts discussing the guy are responses to his attacks on me. For all his whining to the contrary and painting himself as a victim, Donald Douglas is almost always the aggressor. I'd throw a lot fewer knockout punches, if he didn't swing at me and miss so often first.
The poor guy really is scraping the bottom of the barrel these days, though... There doesn't seem to be a lie he won't tell, or a story he won't invent, if it means soothing his poor bruised ego.
Just another added to the long list of failed attacks:
American Power: Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter
Monday, August 06, 2012
X-Post: Partisan Propagandist Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda
In almost all political & social groups, violent & disrespectful members are the exception...despite what partisan propagandists say.— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012
The meaning of the tweet--and the fact that it speaks against propagandists on the left and on the right, skewering ALL who engage in it--is obvious to all who read it, and speaks for itself.
The guy opines:
"The "partisan propagandists" are the creeps in the left-wing media who refuse to report accurately on what's going on. But as soon as there's any kind of gun violence, these same people are off the blocks with allegations of "the tea party did it!""In defending political propaganda--and simultaneously providing an example of it--the guy would have you believe that only "creeps in the left-wing media" engage in this kind of dishonest bullshit.
Obviously that is not the case, as our guy himself so aptly proves day by day, post by post.
My posts and comments about vandalism, both involving the Chick-fil-A incidents and in general, are online and available to anyone who cares to read them. That all he could find to attack me with in this edition of his his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series was that tweet above--a comment on bad behavior, with no mention of either side being better or worse than the other--ought to tell you all you need to know, at least about the value and veracity of the guy's latest specious attack (though I would argue it kinda speaks to any / all of them. YMMV...)
I won't post them all--those interested can check my twitter timeline and blog posts--but I've been discussing this subject quite a bit lately, both on Twitter and in blog posts and comments. Allow me to add the tweet I posted right before the one the guy highlighted though, lest there be anyone left unclear as to where I stand:
If you can't follow the Golden Rule, even (especially) when in pursuit of human rights & equality, you're doing it wrong.— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012
No, there is no way the guy could've missed it... His lies about me have never been more obvious, or more easily disproven.
Link: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
An x-post from a blog that once was