tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-272994922024-03-14T00:24:39.670-04:00What'd I Say?Original posts and links to commentary made elsewhere. If I said it somewhere else, I probably posted it here, too.repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.comBlogger861125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-62352708045557386622009-09-06T05:11:00.000-04:002014-08-24T04:59:48.145-04:00In Reply: Striking a Balance Between Privacy and the Public's Right to KnowIn reply to the American Power post "<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/realities-of-war-update.html">Realities of War? An Update</a>," discussing military families and privacy rights vs the public's right to know:<br />
---<br />
<br />
It's a shame that Dr. Douglas included the bit about <a href="http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2009/09/own_it_mr_secre.html">Cassandra at Villainous Company</a>. Given his history with her (and the fact that he relates it here in this post), it seemed a little more vindictive that informative.<br />
<br />
Aside that, this is among Donald's best posts, as he shows himself willing to look at all sides of the issue and admit that he's not sure there is one right answer.<br />
<br />
While I believe the media should have the legal right to use legitimately newsworthy photographs, they have a moral obligation to balance newsworthiness against the privacy wishes of the person being photographed or, when they cannot express their wishes, the wishes of their families.<br />
<br />
While there will always be some who prefer to keep their grief private, there will also always be those who, for one reason or another, choose to share their grief and the loved one they lost with the rest of us, and I agree that those latter families, no matter the reason for their choice, are allowing their loved one to serve their country one final time. <br />
<br />
While it's sad that some families will find themselves in the position of having photographs published against their wishes, and that there will be times when the public will lose out on a better understanding of an issue because the media outlet chose to honor a families wishes, I believe that the system we have now is about right -- though I remain suspicious of the whole embed system. <br />
<br />
Aside legitimate national security concerns, the military should not be dictating what stories and images they must or cannot use to a free media. (However, I agree that if the contract the photographer signed said she was restricted in what she could offer for publication, she should've lived up to her word, and not used those photographs. It's a bad rule that I believe reporters & photographers ought to refuse to sign, but those who do sign ought to live up to it.)<br />
<br />
As for Cassandra (since Dr. Douglas did bring it up), I believe she is playing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum">reductio ad absurdum</a> game (or something like it at least). <br />
<br />
First of all, we do in fact see some of the physical effects of rape, on those victims who despite privacy concerns, are willing to show some of their injuries in the media or in public. Even very graphic images are "published" in court, where some members of the general public do see them. <br />
<br />
Images of genitals etc. are for the most part kept out of the media whether the person is a soldier or a rape/incest victim, so I'm not sure her analogy holds.<br />
<br />
And the fact that soldiers volunteer to serve their country and perhaps be maimed or killed whereas crime victims do not makes a difference, as well. Whatever injuries a soldier sustains s/he receives on behalf of all of us. That means we have an obligation to know what we're asking our military men & women to risk for us. There are very few situations where anyone (let alone the country) asks a woman to become a rape victim on another person's behalf.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Cassandra is right about one thing; Thankfully, relatively few of us really know what it means to be a victim of the kind of crimes she describes. While I'm not sure we need to or that it would help anyone if more of us did, she is right about the fact that few of us do. But while the tolerance for some crimes (like the video voyeurism of Erin Andrews, where the video was essentially a product of the crime) is too high, VERY few are similarly tolerating, celebrating or otherwise defending the acts of rape or incest or any of the products thereof. And again, no one volunteers to put themselves as substantial risk of becoming victim of such a crime on behalf of their country.<br />
<br />
While I admire her passion, Cassandra's arguments are way off base.<br />
--<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/realities-of-war-update.html#comment-432743758">Sunday, September 6, 2009, 2:11 AM</a> (AmPow Blog Time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-7776070947040389362009-09-06T06:01:00.000-04:002014-08-24T04:59:13.738-04:00In Reply: "...newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will..."Revised and extended, in reply to the American Power post <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/realities-of-war-update.html">Realities of War? An Update</a>:<br />
---<br />
<br />
One or two more bits about Cassandra. <br />
<br />
1) I'm not seeing the hard-left, radical feminism in either of her arguments that Donald says he does. While I'm sure Donald's actions & reactions would likely've been different, does anyone doubt that Cassandra would've reacted any differently were it hottie sports reporter "Eric" Andrews who was videotaped in a hotel room naked, and fellow conservatives like Donald (though more likely "Donna" Douglas) were providing links to the illegally shot video in hopes of increasing their blog traffic?<br />
<br />
Does anyone think that Cassandra's arguments about rape & incest victims would be any more or less forcefully argued by her if the majority of victims were men & boys, rather than women & girls? After reading a good deal of what she's written before and since, I sure don't.<br />
<br />
While gender absolutely does play a part in sexual exploitation--be it voyeurism or rape--I submit that Cassandra's arguments against re-victimizing Erin Anderews and against photographing rape or incest victims are not based on the gender of the victim, but on the fact that the victim <b>is</b> a victim.<br />
<br />
2) Cassandra's argument in the Erin Andrews matter is not inconsistent with her position here. In both (and seemingly all) cases, she believes that newsworthiness is not a sufficient argument for publishing photographs/videos of people against their (or their family's) will. That is true whether the person is a famous sports reporter, a member of the military who was injured or killed in the line of duty, or a rape/incest victim, <b>or</b> whether the person in the photograph is male or female.<br />
<br />
While I don't agree with her argument equating soldiers with crime victims, her argument is consistent, and at least as rational as it is emotional.<br />
<br />
Of course YMMV...<br />
---<br />
<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/realities-of-war-update.html#comment-432743756">Sunday, September 6, 2009, 3:01 AM</a> (AmPow blog time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-79978204085491237182014-08-05T07:50:00.001-04:002014-08-05T09:31:04.009-04:00Donald Douglas Beclowns Himself (again), and Insults His FriendYeah, Donald did it again...<br />
<br />
In a desperate attempt to lash out at me, Donald posted the following:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhayinwR3HyFcaWgwEpPPXTbM5D2pPhcLrsnG6R7uIDC0LseFwC6z1vK-Dy1Z-pWPnpOCBOc-fLeAu3e5xFbUyuHFW9iwufX0w060iuqcy5EsHVIQXzrZ-yaM1jeU7pkT-Jp0X8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.35.02+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhayinwR3HyFcaWgwEpPPXTbM5D2pPhcLrsnG6R7uIDC0LseFwC6z1vK-Dy1Z-pWPnpOCBOc-fLeAu3e5xFbUyuHFW9iwufX0w060iuqcy5EsHVIQXzrZ-yaM1jeU7pkT-Jp0X8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.35.02+AM.png" height="290" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote><b><a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Thousands+March+Against+Israel+in+Los+Angeles&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=americanpowerblog.blogspot.com%2F&as_occt=url&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#as_qdr=all&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=allinurl:++%22Thousands+March+Against+Israel+in+Los%22+site:americanpowerblog.blogspot.com%2F">Thousands March Against Israel in Los Angeles: Racist Repsac3 Sees Conspiracy of 'Phony' Protest</a></b><br />
<br />
<i>"Perhaps readers will feel sorry for him, as apparently Walter James Casper III is a dead man walking, with a debilitating heart condition, but it's just sad that he's losing his cognitive faculties as well.<br />
<br />
Thousands turned out for the protest march I covered last weekend in Los Angeles. See the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "Pro-Palestinian protest in Westwood draws thousands, causes Wilshire to shut down."<br />
<br />
Never mind that, though. It turns out that near-death Repsac3, in his diminished capacity, is bizarrely warping reality in his ongoing demonization efforts and hate-mongering. It was a "phony" protest, or something:"</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">Not an answer, <a href="https://twitter.com/MadJewessWoman">@MadJewessWoman</a> Donald (not Doug) shows up to these phony protests and makes a point looking for these women. It's Stalking.<br />
— W. James Casper (@repsac3) <a href="https://twitter.com/repsac3/statuses/496372123762688001">August 4, 2014</a></blockquote><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></blockquote>An interesting theory as posted, but obviously an outright lie--provided one doesn't "neglect" to include the parent tweet the way Donald seemingly chose to, for reasons I leave to the reader to determine, of course:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1i5xlzFk8Wfvwr38H7WS8l0tIjZG_mICnSPFTjGwZcqu9Cod2jqtZZsBnoWim5vT2EotO_z485CVzuGn86fFmYzgD5GWDvPm0NiEoqY3Q4KQxrxoJx3wmNcb9FidmvNYLrW5/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.54.42+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1i5xlzFk8Wfvwr38H7WS8l0tIjZG_mICnSPFTjGwZcqu9Cod2jqtZZsBnoWim5vT2EotO_z485CVzuGn86fFmYzgD5GWDvPm0NiEoqY3Q4KQxrxoJx3wmNcb9FidmvNYLrW5/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.54.42+AM.png" height="640" width="620" /></a></div>Right... It wasn't <b>me</b> who called the protest phony (or "phoney"), but Donald's erstwhile friend <a href="https://twitter.com/MadJewessWoman/statuses/496371113149358081">MadJewessWoman</a>. So if Donald truly believes anyone's seeing a "conspiracy of phony protest" or "losing their cognitive faculties," based on calling the protest he attended phony, well...it ain't me Donald's insulting. It's his friend, MJW. <br />
<br />
And for what it's worth, as far as MadJewessWoman goes, I have to say I agree with him...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBc6rElIdtYu9caUqFDbKS_Pn_Dqa9Gj9ajeT2zRpMy48uPwFc3zxuNXRTdPMBDY1Hx8Rn9CTpGClt1V7EcGUiVfCVKY-dzSg5pgASIi6BG6whygY93rpYDYjKVft_3y8svVxE/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.35.20+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBc6rElIdtYu9caUqFDbKS_Pn_Dqa9Gj9ajeT2zRpMy48uPwFc3zxuNXRTdPMBDY1Hx8Rn9CTpGClt1V7EcGUiVfCVKY-dzSg5pgASIi6BG6whygY93rpYDYjKVft_3y8svVxE/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+6.35.20+AM.png" height="482" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote><i>"Well, we know Repsac hates Israel and the Jews --- given his long history of tweeting support for the racist Occupy Wall Street movement, not to mention his tweets backing the Jew-hating BDS movment --- so his conspiracies are all of a piece. Right in line with this old man urging Muslims to stand up and blame the Jews for the September 11 attacks. Yep, this is what Reppy's all about:"</i></blockquote>It's no surprise that Donald makes these claims without ever citing or screencapping the posts or tweets where I say anything anti-Semitic or racist or conspiratorial. He doesn't because he can't. Donald wants me to be those things, so he just makes it up out of whole cloth and hopes his readers will believe him just because he said it. (Sadly, a few probably do, but there's no point in arguing with anyone too stupid to require evidence. Let people like that believe as they will; sooner or later they'll drown in a rainstorm from looking up too long, and good riddance when they do.)<br />
<br />
The fact is there are no tweets supporting BDS--in fact I don't support that movement, and never have--and while I did once post a tweet saying "Occupy Wherever You Are," it's quite the implausible stretch for Donald to imply that that tweet is in any way racist...not that the implausibility of his...well, "<i>conspiracy theories</i>" regarding me have ever stopped him before...<br />
<br />
Without evidence it's just Donald talking, and his claims are worth every penny you paid to read him making them... 'nuff said.<br />
<blockquote><i>Repsac3 started trolling me over six years ago, <a href="http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-pastor.html?showComment=1206634680000#c3413282051172531159">upset</a> that I was <a href="http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-pastor.html?showComment=1206639780000#c1434967289940800723">paying no attention</a> to him, and he's never given up. That is some obsession. His stalking hate-blog is now members-only, but he continues to troll my online presence relentlessly, and at this point it's actually clinical and perverted. The dude should give it up and take care of his health, enjoy whatever remainder of time he has on this good green earth.<br />
<br />
And most of all, he should just disassociate with the racist anti-Israel protesters he's been reaching out to. Seriously, these are terrible people. Liars and racists. Too bad for Reppy, but it's come to this in his twilight.</i></blockquote><br />
First off, anyone following those links will note that they go to another guy's blog post from 2008. (Yes, 2008. That right there should tell you just about all you need to know about what we're dealing with.)<br />
If that isn't enough though, Donald obviously fails to comprehend the meaning of my comments. I was trying to goad Donald into responding to my arguments, not telling him I was feeling lonely. (If you don't spell it out for him...) Follow the links and decide for yourself whether Donald's suggestion that I was "upset" because he was "paying no attention" to me holds any water. (And while you're there, you might also notice who followed who to that blog post, at least based on the order of the comments... Donald talks a good game, but the evidence is seldom in his favor...which is why he so seldom bothers to offer any...)<br />
<br />
Second, he fails to explain how a "stalking hate-blog" can even be a "stalking hate-blog" when no one--including Donald--can read it, (and didn't he whine for years that I must "TAKE. IT. DOWN"?) or how in the hell I'm trolling his online presence without ever addressing him--as near as I can figure it, he thinks he owns the people he talks to or about, thus making those people and topics off-limits to bloggers with whom he disagrees; both of which make him sound crazy. <br />
<br />
The sad fact is that Donald thinks that anyone who dares disagree with him over the internet is a stalker &/or a troll. There are countless blog posts and tweets where he repeatedly proves this. In that regard, Donald needs to grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Like it or not, people are going to disagree with the things he posts, sometimes to his face. Calling them trolls or stalkers doesn't prove anything except that Donald is a little paranoid. <br />
That he sees me as some kinda mortal enemy who controls "henchmen" and forces them to mistreat Donald online and off is obvious to anyone who reads his many screeds about me. As far as THAT goes, I don't even know what to say; It's at least as crazy as it sounds, and yeah, it sounds fucking nuts (and way more than just a little paranoid), even to me.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB_w1jooQa5SXkyOMoo0iTii1hQmvusssLsRJ5wi-X-T2g-5LnAEyMtiTFtlUxQunVeGqCRS0A9UNhS8g1jPEOcepTHCjUBctfHs3d8bynwbtvTnWfwDNiJiWgX1MVoPGRK05m/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+8.49.41+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB_w1jooQa5SXkyOMoo0iTii1hQmvusssLsRJ5wi-X-T2g-5LnAEyMtiTFtlUxQunVeGqCRS0A9UNhS8g1jPEOcepTHCjUBctfHs3d8bynwbtvTnWfwDNiJiWgX1MVoPGRK05m/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-08-05+at+8.49.41+AM.png" height="414" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<br />
I commented on his blog. When he didn't like that anymore, I posted on my own blog, discussing his take on one issue or another. When he attacked me by name in screeds like the one I'm replying to, I responded to those on my blog, too...just like I'm doing now. Sometimes we travel in the same political circles, discussing the same topics and/or talking to the same people. These are the things Donald calls "stalking," "harassment," and "trolling." I'm sorry these things so disturb him, but he really ought to get over it, because it ain't going to change. Much as he may wish it were otherwise, he's not going to intimidate away those with whom he disagrees no matter how loudly he screams "TROLL!!!," so he really ought to try to find away to cope with everyone disagreeing with him, online and off.<br />
<br />
Finally, I'd ask Donald where he got the idea I was dying any time soon--I have to assume it isn't from laughing myself to death over his endlessly ridiculous claims about me, though one really does never know--but the chances of his offering any evidence in support of that bullshit claim are pretty much nil, as well. Suffice to say he is indeed lying. I assume that comes as no surprise given the rest of this post, but just to confirm: I am not dying; Donald is once again lying.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Life's too short to put up with the willfully stupid:<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/BlissTabitha/status/496582047415435264">Twitter / BlissTabitha: Thousands March Against Israel ...</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/Dnoles1611/status/496582308909305856">Twitter / Dnoles1611: "@BlissTabitha: Thousands March ...</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/itz_ehmohbee/status/496588509021339648">Twitter / itz_ehmohbee: #worldwide Thousands March ...</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/thatMrGguy/status/496634487069896706">Twitter / thatMrGguy: Thousands March Against Israel ...</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/thatMrGguy/status/496634977702797313">Twitter / thatMrGguy: Thousands March Against Israel ...</a> (Yeah, he actually reblogged it, too.)<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/AceNewsServices/status/496645633281753088">Twitter / AceNewsServices: Thousands March Against Israel ...</a><br />
<br />
Bad news for MadJewessWoman, since many of these bloggers claim to be her friend... Just sayin'<br />
<br />
(OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if MJW retweets "Doug's" post herself... In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all...)<br />
<br />
repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-50399105357659162962014-04-30T06:26:00.000-04:002014-04-30T18:34:20.181-04:00In Reply: Avoiding torture and cruelty has nothing to do with who they are or what they do... It's about who we are...In reply to <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/04/cruel-unusual-punishments-inflicted/comment-page-1#comment-1058228">the following comment</a> at the <i>Lawyers, Guns & Money</i> post <i><a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/04/cruel-unusual-punishments-inflicted/">"...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."</a></i><br />
<blockquote>Anonymous says:<br />
April 29, 2014 at 10:58 pm<br />
<br />
<i>You dolt. This barbarous:</i><br />
<blockquote>“A jury found that on June 3, 1999, Clayton Lockett and two co-conspirators, Shawn Mathis and Alfonso Lockett, broke into the Perry, Oklahoma, home of Bobby Bornt. They assaulted Bornt before burglarizing his home for drugs. While they were at Bornt’s home, two 19-year-old women arrived. The men repeatedly raped and assaulted one woman, whose name is withheld as a victim of sexual assault, before loading Bornt, Bornt’s 9-month-old son, Stephanie Nieman, and the other woman into Bornt’s and Nieman’s trucks and driving them to a rural location in Kay County.<br />
<br />
Bornt testified that he heard Clayton Locket say, “Someone has got to go,” before he put Nieman in a ditch dug by Shawn Mathis and shot her twice. He also testified to hearing the men laugh about “how tough [Nieman] was” when she did not die after the first shot.”</blockquote></blockquote>My reply:<br />
<br />
The reason we avoid torturing our country's enemies and cruelly punishing those who break our laws--even when those enemies and lawbreakers have shown that they torture and are intentionally cruel to others--is because we are not them. Our American, religious, and human values and ideals prevent our giving in those animal instincts, and we've made laws to prevent our doing so when tempted. The people who don't do that--who can't control those base instincts and do torture and otherwise behave cruelly toward others...well, they're the very people whose eyes and teeth you're talking about pulling out, aren't they...?<br />
<br />
Avoiding torture and cruelly has nothing to do with who they are or what they do, Dr. Douglas... It's about who we are... Who we are, and who we strive to be as Americans and as human beings...<br />
—<br />
<br />
Posted: <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/04/cruel-unusual-punishments-inflicted/comment-page-1#comment-1058795">Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 6:26 am</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-52481902123596972592014-04-27T00:05:00.000-04:002014-04-27T06:44:16.575-04:00In Reply: I condemn Cliven Bundy's racist remarks, Donald Sterling's racist remarks, and the commentary of those who try to explain away or excuse the bigotry of either of them.Revised and extended, in reply to this untitled post at <a href="http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-had-post-up-here-about-donald.html">No More Mister Nice Blog</a>:<br />
<br />
Donald Douglas has been mad since Cliven Bundy exposed himself, and has been desperate to turn the tables ever since. How desperate? THIS desperate: <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/sick-leftist-jamelle-bouie-attacks.html">Sick Leftist Jamelle Bouie Attacks Alleged Racist Rancher as Demonic 'Cloven' Bundy</a>.<br />
<br />
In Douglas's hate-filled partisan mind a simple typo becomes a demonization of Bundy. (Some may recall how he did the same thing when he saw a kid holding a "Sasquatch Is Real" "protest" sign in NY. Intentionally or not--and I'm willing to accept not, though that doesn't change anything--he misread the sign as "Sasquatch Israel," and then spun a myth out of thin air that this kid was an anti-semitic liberal, and that his sign was saying that like Bigfoot, Israel does not exist. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=sasquatch+israel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari">For those who don't know or remember the story, yeah, this really happened</a>.)<br />
<br />
As with "Sasquatch Israel" of years past, bitter partisan ideology trumps reason and logic and even good sense. Jamelle Bouie's hitting the "o" instead of the "i" right next to it--typing "Cloven" instead of "Cliven"--is not just a typo, but the writer literally <b>L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y</b> demonizing the racist rancher. (Why he's not "cowing" the rancher, I don't know.) And as with this Donald Sterling story, Donald repeatedly sent tweets alleging this <i>"Cloven = the Devil"</i> meme to seemingly every single Slate employee he could find a twitter handle for, demanding that they respond. Then he sent more tweets to every one of his conservative allies, hoping that they'd back him up. And then for good measure, he did all that again. I don't think anyone bit on the "Cloven" smear, and so far it's only the real partisan hacks who're nibbling on this one too. (That may change, and it won't surprise me much if it does...but <i>"Sterling as Dem torchbearer"</i> is still just as ridiculous and desperate an allegation as <i>"'Cloven' typo exposes Dem demonization."</i>)<br />
<br />
Donald Douglas is desperate to turn those tables and find some racist or bigoted Democrat with which to tar all Democrats. Personally, I think the donations from 20 years ago is kinda thin gruel on which to hang one's hat. (How's that for a mixed metaphor...) But even if Sterling is or ever was a Democrat, so what? Anyone who claims that any one Democrat or Republican represents ALL Democrats or Republicans is an idiot.<br />
<br />
I condemn "Cloven" Bundy's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of those who tried (and are continuing to try) to excuse them or explain them away. <br />
I also condemn Donald Sterling's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of anyone who tries to excuse them or explain them away...should anyone actually do that, that is… <br />
And in both cases, I don't care which party or political movement the people saying or defending the bigoted remarks come from... <br />
<br />
One set of standards for friend and foe alike...<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-had-post-up-here-about-donald.html?showComment=1398571500611#c4335198181909232195">Sunday, April 27, 2014, 12:05 AM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-18407043295443452502013-04-15T07:00:00.000-04:002014-04-22T01:42:36.972-04:00Hateful Anti-Muslim Ghoul Donald Kent Douglas Posts Jew-Bashing Attack on Me — and Jews!<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/hateful-anti-semitic-ghoul-walter-james.html">American Power: Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul (that's me, according to creepy stalker, Dishonest Donald Douglas) Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel!</a> ...originally written and posted by Jews, in <a href="http://forward.com/articles/174761/why-pamela-gellers-hate-speech-should-be-barred">The Jewish Daily Forward</a><br />
<br />
Read the Jewish Daily Forward piece, which gets to the heart of the difference between disagreeing with Israeli foreign and domestic policy and anti-semitism or hate speech, and decide for yourselves... Whether you agree with the author and commenters or you don't, it's nuanced, and a discussion for adults, which obviously leaves ol' Dishonest Don unprepared and wholly unable to do anything more than vent his spleen.<br />
<br />
I have never posted anything about the BDS movement as a response to Israel's policies, (or anything about Israel's policies themselves, for that matter) and don't know much about it. <a href="https://twitter.com/repsac3/status/323459790816825345">The tweet I posted</a> was in support of the article and the proposition that disagreement with government policy or action is not anti-semitic (or anti-American, etc.) Again, readers can decide for themselves... <br />
<br />
Donald Kent Douglas hates, and Donald Kent Douglas lashes out. <br />
No surprise there. <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html">He's been doing it for years...</a><br />
<br />
How long until he does it again? Anybody's guess. (History says it won't be long, though.)<br />
<br />
His ranting is self-refuting.<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/hateful-anti-semitic-ghoul-walter-james.html">American Power: Hateful Anti-Semitic Ghoul Walter James Casper III Tweets Jew-Bashing Attack on Pamela Geller — and Israel!</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://forward.com/articles/174761/why-pamela-gellers-hate-speech-should-be-barred">Why Pamela Geller's Hate Speech Should Be Barred — But BDS Allowed – Forward.com</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html">Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-27989075199158125682014-04-07T23:30:00.000-04:002014-04-08T08:55:32.451-04:00In Reply: There is no intolerance in saying "I disagree with that"...In reply to <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117287/brendan-eich-firing-called-fascism-conservatives">Brendan Eich Firing Called Fascism by Conservatives | New Republic</a>:<br />
<br />
Yep... There's no fascism here... This is a guy making a donation to a cause he supports, other people deciding they don't want to work for or support a company that would hire a guy who made that particular donation, and the company (and by some accounts, the original guy, too) deciding that the controversy over his donation is bad for the company. (And now, a whole bunch of different people deciding they don't want to support a company that would force or allow that original guy to go... Stay tuned...)<br />
<br />
That's all free speech (in the general sense), free association, and free market... <br />
<br />
And while we're at it, the toleration meme--that one is forced by some odd notion of "tolerance" to passively accept whatever nonsense (bigotry, lies, false information, ...) comes out of any other American's mouth (or keyboard, or free speaking wallet) or one is a baaaaad liberal--is another one for the debunked dung heap. There is no intolerance in saying "I disagree with that" (that idea, that political belief, that notion about marriage), or with saying "I will not shop in a place (or work in a place) where the CEO of the company expresses that point of view." <br />
<br />
And while I know this'll probably hit the <i>"we never claimed to be tolerant"</i> buzzsaw, I wonder where their tolerance is for the board's decision, or for the ideals of the people who were boycotting Mozilla last week, as they boycott Mozilla themselves this week? <br />
<br />
Where indeed...<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117287/brendan-eich-firing-called-fascism-conservatives?hubRefSrc=permalink#lf-content=76023599:153076259">Monday, April 7, 2014, 11:30 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-59627408916149617972014-04-07T21:35:00.000-04:002014-04-08T07:43:25.612-04:00In Reply: Free speech means that the folks who disagree with you get to respond to what you say with speech of their own.In reply to <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/04/04/bastion-of-intolerance-and-punishment-tammy-bruce-shreds-mozilla-for-caving-to-gay-gestapo/#comment-1322563803">the following comment</a> by <i>LtColO</i> at the post: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/04/04/bastion-of-intolerance-and-punishment-tammy-bruce-shreds-mozilla-for-caving-to-gay-gestapo">‘Bastion of intolerance and punishment’: Tammy Bruce shreds Mozilla for caving to ‘gay gestapo’ | Twitchy</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>"I'm just curious when Silicon Valley will get REAL righteous and start ousting all these Muslim engineers that are busting out code for them on the daily? I mean, that's a faith that doesn't tolerate ANY acceptance of the gay "lifestyle" whatsoever. So go for it! Be consistent! And don't give me the dodge, "Well, being a CEO is one thing" because there are plenty of critical leadership roles below CEO that are held by Muslims. I want to see the gutsy Leftists really walk the talk."</i><br />
---</blockquote><br />
Maybe you should highlight one of those critical leaders and start a boycott...if that's not too anti-free speech. (Or should that be "if it's only anti-free speech when folks who disagree with you boycott.")<br />
<br />
Deciding which products and services you will and will not use is the very essence of free speech--even if you decide based on things that the CEO, board of directors, or "critical leaders within the company who are muslim" (or who are associated by their religion with actually-guilty others) have said or done.<br />
<br />
With very few exceptions, the "traditional marriage" people boycotting Mozilla this week are not behaving any differently than the "marriage equality" folks boycotting them last week, and neither group are fascists or opposing free speech by behaving as they are. Free speech means that the folks who disagree with you get to respond to what you say with speech of their own.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/04/04/bastion-of-intolerance-and-punishment-tammy-bruce-shreds-mozilla-for-caving-to-gay-gestapo/#comment-1323243058">Monday, April 7, 2014, 9:34 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-23538163066156300252014-04-07T17:35:00.000-04:002014-04-07T18:07:14.874-04:00In Reply: No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.In reply to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1322328067">the following comment</a> by <i>ztitans1</i> at the post <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/">The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott - WashingtonExaminer.com</a>:<br />
<blockquote>"<i>That is a slippery slope if you justify someone being driven from their employment due to their socio-political beliefs. I say you and those who think like this better get prepared for when the pendulum swings. Retribution may be swift and violent. People wil not react well as their liberties cocontinue to be taken away by the PC crowd. Tolerance of other people's views used to be part of the liberal philosophy, when did they crossover to tyranny?</i>"<br />
---</blockquote>I believe in the public's right to decide which companies they do and do not give their money to, and to decide that based on whatever criteria they choose, including the socio-political beliefs of the CEO of the company...or their board of directors. Every conservative who is deleting their Firefox browser is behaving like they believe that too, in spite of their words calling such behavior FASCISM!! or a slippery slope.<br />
<br />
No one's saying a person or corporate entity cannot have and express whatever views they wish...but if they take positions on controversial issues, there will be people--sometimes a whole lot of people--who will not do business with them based on those views. That is as true of the traditional marriage folks boycotting Mozilla today as it was the marriage equality folks boycotting them last week. That is what free speech and freedom in general is all about...<br />
<br />
Honestly, I don't believe you really disagree with that, your vague but dire warnings to the contrary...<br />
<br />
Tolerance of other people's views means live and let live, not limiting the legal rights and opportunities of certain people because you have a moral objection to how they live and love. If Brendan were tolerant, he wouldn't've financially supported a law that would refuse to allow or recognize marriage equality, and would retroactively strip the rights of legally married couples. Tolerance of other people's views does not mean one must passively accept whatever nonsense someone expresses. (If it did this conversation wouldn't be taking place; either you'd be "tolerating" my views, or I'd be "tolerating" yours... All that would be left to figure out is what omnipotent overlord gets to decide which of our views deserves "toleration" and which does not.)<br />
<br />
I believe in free speech and the marketplace of ideas... You don't have to agree with me (or even tolerate me--at least the way you're defining it), I don't have to agree with (or tolerate) you, and each of us can decide which companies we will and will not spend our money supporting, based on whatever ideas and ideals we have and hold. <br />
<br />
No... That ain't fascism you're smelling... It's freedom.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1323005295">Monday, April 7, 2014, 5:35 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-8433903369811640662014-04-07T00:24:00.000-04:002014-04-07T04:19:56.025-04:00In Reply: Boycotters Are FASCISTS!!! (unless I agree with 'em...)In reply to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1321692896">the following comment</a> from <i>ztitans1</i> at the post <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826">The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott - WashingtonExaminer.com</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"<i>Free speech includes making political donations. So says the SCOTUS. He has a right to make a political donation without being a victim of a political witch hunt.</i>"</blockquote><br />
You had me...and then you lost me. He has the legal and societal right to speak (whether by voice or cash). He does <b>NOT</b> have the legal or societal right to be free from others responding with speech of their own...not even if some call that speech "a political witch hunt."<br />
<br />
When one reaches a certain level of public attention and scrutiny, the things one does and says begins to matter. And when one becomes the face of a major company, taking a position on controversial issues--even if one did so in one's past, and does not deftly handle that controversial opinion in the present--is likely going to alienate a portion of that company's customer and employee base. It's not that such people <i>CAN'T</i> take a position on divisive issues, but that they are courting divisiveness among the general public when they do.<br />
<br />
And sadly, once the division starts, it's hard to stop... One side will boycott because they disagree with what a CEO said or did, unless and until the company responds positively to their boycott. And the other side will boycott if the company does whatever it is the first side asks for. To paraphrase a line from a movie from my youth, <i>"The only way to win is not to play."</i><br />
<br />
That isn't to say that a CEO and company cannot decide the controversial words or deeds are worth the cost; I admire Dan Cathy at Chick-Fil-A for the way he runs his business--especially his commitment to being closed the sabbath, which I wish every company would do--even as I disagree with his / his company's stand on marriage equality, and therefore continue to refuse to spend money there. (Full disclosure: This isn't a big sacrifice for me; The closest Chick-Fil-A location is over 50 miles away. But my heart's in the right place.)<br />
<br />
But to deny there is a cost, or to claim that those who choose not to do business with a company because they disagree with what the CEO--or the board of directors--says or does are against free speech, or worse, are FASCISTS!! is absolute nonsense. The thing about free speech is that everyone gets to speak freely, including the people who use theirs to disagree with what what you said using yours. <br />
<br />
(And my wonder is this; Should Mozilla respond to the "pro-traditional marriage" boycott by sacking the board of directors who "caved" to the "pro-marriage equality" boycott, will these people also call that "FASCISM!!" and stand for those poor fired souls? I suspect not...)<br />
--<br />
<br />
Posted (in two parts) <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1321950173">Sunday, April 6, 2014, 11:45 PM</a> (or so) and <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1321965578">a little bit later'n that</a>.repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-66297596322845969202014-04-05T18:50:00.000-04:002014-04-07T03:41:22.778-04:00In Reply: Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Critical Response (In fact, free speech ENCOURAGES it.)In reply to: <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826">The absurdity of the Mozilla boycott | WashingtonExaminer.com</a><br />
<br />
He wasn't forced out for his beliefs. He was forced out for donating money to those trying to make it a law that everyone--even folks who disagreed with him--had to live according to his beliefs, for not changing his mind--or at least acknowledging that this law forcing everyone to live according to his beliefs hurt real people--and, because that has turned out not to be such a popular thing to do, especially in his industry, for being a potential financial and media drain on the company that'd just made him their public face.<br />
<br />
The thing about free speech (in the broad sense--by this point everyone is aware that this was not government action and is therefore not a 1st A issue) is that it does not protect you from other people using their free speech to criticize what you said using yours. He spoke his mind (money being speech, n'all), a lot of folks used their speech to disagree with him and seek remedy, and the free market had it's say, as well...<br />
<br />
Those writing posts and deleting their FireFox browsers and other Mozilla products over this guy's resignation are not doing anything different that the folks who support marriage equality were doing a week or more ago because he was hired. I did not participate in the boycotts against the guy, and I don't personally believe he should've been forced out either, but my opinion, like those who're all up in arms now, did not prevail. They saw the landscape and made a corporate decision.<br />
<br />
There's nothing wrong with folks who're passionate about an issue voting with their wallets and their feet, whether it's the marriage equality folks for the last few weeks or the traditional marriage supporters in the last few days. Sometimes it actually works.<br />
--<br />
<br />
<strike>Submitted for moderator approval</strike> Posted <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-absurdity-of-the-mozilla-boycott/article/2546826/comments#comment-1320625322">Saturday, April 5, 2014, 6:50 PM (or so...)</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-18559778155236137572014-04-05T19:44:00.000-04:002014-04-05T20:15:37.520-04:00In Reply: It IS in large part about the word Marriage. Let's solve that...In reply to the <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/eich-tolerance/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social#IDComment813700857">following comment</a> at the post <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/eich-tolerance">Eich Is Out. So Is Tolerance.</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>I don't opinions have changed that much. I think that people are afraid to tell the truth or they are just quiet about it. I have some gay friends and I couldn't love them more. But I don't agree with their way of life. I just feel that the best way to handle it is to live and let live. My only real problem is that they want to call their union marriage. That is a christian word for a man and woman getting married. Let's us find another word that is for a man and man getting married or a woman and woman getting married. Look marriage up in the dictionary.</i><br />
--</blockquote>On the point about the word marriage, I'm with you. <br />
<br />
The name of a religious sacrament has no place in secular law and never did. For me the answer isn't to relegate gay folks to only having "civil unions," but to replace the word "marriage" in all laws with the term "civil union" and to recognize the sacred act of marriage as one way of getting civilly united under federal, state and local law. <br />
<br />
That puts marriage and it's definition back in the hands of one's Creator and place of worship, while giving straight folks and gay folks the same access to the secular rights and responsibilities attendant to those united according to US law.<br />
<br />
(I fully understand that this is never going to happen, btw, and that the confusion and struggle between "sacred marriage" and "secular marriage" will continue... but just because it <i>won't</i> change doesn't mean it <b>shouldn't</b>...)<br />
--<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/eich-tolerance/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social#IDComment814413178">Saturday, April 5, 2014, 7:44 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-15893706531282885232014-01-09T05:10:00.000-05:002014-03-12T13:16:36.935-04:00X-Post: In Reply to @rsmccain (Robert Stacy McCain)'s Fact-Averse Hit Piece for His Ideological Brother-in-Arms, Donald Kent Douglas<a href="http://theothermccain.com/2014/01/08/portrait-of-a-stalker-troll-repsac3-also-known-as-walter-james-casper-iii/">Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III : The Other McCain</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy2Vqz2uN07nqLTYmOPmIsWW-4V-rG2oX8U2r3PbB_6Znkl9r99oT-UUjsz7Vf4HyXTOEnC-rMQ_rB4Vb3h6R_NdS6T9nsVEl50P_HyoIZjpZUZSV5ZD3OVJJLH-ZN9_usY_tl/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-08+at+2.33.52+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy2Vqz2uN07nqLTYmOPmIsWW-4V-rG2oX8U2r3PbB_6Znkl9r99oT-UUjsz7Vf4HyXTOEnC-rMQ_rB4Vb3h6R_NdS6T9nsVEl50P_HyoIZjpZUZSV5ZD3OVJJLH-ZN9_usY_tl/s400/Screen+Shot+2014-01-08+at+2.33.52+PM.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/search?q=walter+james+casper&max-results=20&by-date=true"><i>Professor Donald Douglas has spent years fighting one particularly obsessed troll, Walter James Casper III</a>, who might actually out-rank Bill Schmalfeldt in the Stalker Hall of Shame, because Casper has been cyberstalking Douglas for more than five years.</i></blockquote>First off, the photo, which McCain and several of his readers have delighted in attacking like junior high mean girls. This is where it came from: <a href="http://www.stbaldricks.org/participants/mypage/441160/2011">James Casper | A St. Baldrick's Participant</a>. That's right, I had just (in 2011) shaved my head for a charity for cancer kids. And yes, McCain... <a href="https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/420953561636159489">It does look like an egg.</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYO6XdPxjCz8GBTZBXfBXKhwGjQ30i9JU6dUx0c3Vk-ShGU4uhyqAM5wi8d8vb7ot2nKMSXGS4VxG7Ke59qF1CJ7JgME6sTSG8TIrWugfe7dV4zz4FcbN1m4kT3Ip-OFWdUSBu/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-08+at+2.43.21+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYO6XdPxjCz8GBTZBXfBXKhwGjQ30i9JU6dUx0c3Vk-ShGU4uhyqAM5wi8d8vb7ot2nKMSXGS4VxG7Ke59qF1CJ7JgME6sTSG8TIrWugfe7dV4zz4FcbN1m4kT3Ip-OFWdUSBu/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-08+at+2.43.21+PM.png" height="191" width="320" /></a></div>(There's one from another year where I grew and kept a big bushy beard so I looked like yer average <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooly_Willy">Wooly Willy</a> character for the day we did the St Baldrick's event, to amuse my preschool-aged niece and nephew... Dr Douglas seems to like posting and making fun of that one a lot, too.)<br />
<br />
As for "stalking" (or later, "trolling" or "harassing,") there's a reason that both of McCain's links suggesting he's offering evidence of my supposed bad behavior online go to a search of Donald Douglas' blog posts about me over the last year or so, rather than <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Donald+Douglas&max-results=20&by-date=true">my posts about him</a>; The results would show that:<br />
<br />
The last time I posted about Dr. Douglas on my blog was on <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/creepy-clown-stalker-donald-kent.html">Wednesday, August 7th, 2013.</a><br />
<br />
The last time I posted something about Dr. Douglas that wasn't a response to his posting or tweeting about me a day or two earlier? I don't even know... (I went back over a year, and couldn't find one.)<br />
<br />
What Donald is upset about (and McCain is unquestioningly, unthinkingly regurgitating here on behalf of his blog buddy) is that I read Dr Douglas' blog without his permission. That's what Dr Douglas (and McCain) are labeling "stalking."<br />
<blockquote><i>Among the significant characteristics of cyberstalkers is the disproportionality of their obsessions. Professor Douglas is not an academic celebrity or influential media personality. He’s a professor of political science at Long Beach City College in California. It is not as if he’s at Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Yale or some other big-money “prestige” school, and yet the fact that Professor Douglas is (a) conservative and (b) a blogger is sufficient to justify in Casper’s sick mind the most insane forms of stalking behavior.</i></blockquote><i>"Stalking behavior"</i> like what, exactly?<br />
<br />
Reading his blog?<br />
<br />
Responding when he posts about me?<br />
<br />
What is McCain talking about?<br />
<blockquote><i>Another characteristic of cyberstalkers is their resort to psychological projection: They are not obsessed with you — no! — you are obsessed with them, and don’t you dare accuse them of harassing you — of course not! — you are instead harassing them.</i></blockquote><br />
The facts are there... Every post where I've mentioned Donald Douglas in well over a year has been in response to his posts and tweets about me. From the time he stopped posting about me back in August until <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/enough-stand-up-to-harassment-and.html">his unprovoked and unwarranted attack just before midnight on January 6th</a>, I haven't said word one to or about the guy. This isn't rocket science...<br />
<blockquote><i>This kind of “accuse the accusers” tactic serves two purposes for the troll: First, it is a psychological rationalization by which he justifies his behavior and, second, it serves to obfuscate the situation in the eyes of law enforcement or other authorities.</i></blockquote>Again, <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html">the record is pretty clear...</a> While much of what McCain says here about trolling online is likely true, he's backing the wrong horse... It's not that the authorities that Dr Douglas reported me to are confused, McCain... It's that his allegations don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny (which McCain would know, had he bothered to look).<br />
<blockquote><i>Something else: The conflict between Casper and Professor Douglas is not about politics, nor is it about Professor Douglas.<br />
<br />
That is to say, Casper’s espousal of left-wing political ideas is not the reason for his behavior, but simply a pretext, and if he weren’t harassing Professor Douglas, he’d be harassing some other target, selected more or less at random. There is, of course, a specific history to the conflict between them, but it is ultimately irrelevant. There are plenty of people every bit as left-wing as Casper who are not obsessive stalkers, and there are other conservative bloggers who might just as easily become targets for stalking, if ever they attracted the attention of such a grotesquely deformed personality as Casper.</i></blockquote>Again, all of this is true as regards the person lashing out...but that person ain't me. Donald Douglas doesn't behave the way he does because he's a conservative; he behaves this way because he's Donald Douglas.<br />
<blockquote><i><a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/search?q=walter+james+casper&max-results=20&by-date=true">Walter James Casper III</a> has spent years smearing and harassing Professor Douglas, trying to get him fired from his job. This could (and in fact, often does) happen to any blogger who has a day job.</i></blockquote>...but rather than provide links to any tweets or blog posts in evidence of this, McCain links to Donald's posts about me on his blog over the last year or so... Why do you think that is? (FWIW, I do <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Casper+OR+repsac+site:americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8">the same thing</a> on the sidebar of American Nihilist, believing Donald Douglas' posts are evidence of <i>his</i> bad behavior, not <i>mine</i>. Wonder what McCain's thinkin'?)<br />
<br />
Not only did I <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/btdt_6.html">never try to get Donald Douglas fired from his job</a>, I regularly spoke out against anyone attacking bloggers offline for online behaviors, whether the victim or perps were conservative or liberal. <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/donald-douglas-ethical-push-me-pull-you.html?showComment=1266736716859#c6462019478491009563">And that includes the guy I once blogged with, who left the blog over our disagreement on the subject</a>. There is no comment or post anywhere where I excuse or condone such behavior. Donald is lying, and McCain is mindlessly parroting Donald's lies. (And yes... The incident that Donald and McCain are talking about occurred in 2009. Really.)<br />
<blockquote><i>To get an idea of the pathetic nature of Casper’s obsession, he has devoted an entire blog, called “<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/">American Nihilist</a>,” to his anti-Douglas jihad. In the past six months, that stalker site has attracted an <a href="http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm5amniblog&r=36">average of about 15 visitors a day.</a> By contrast, Professor Douglas’s blog has <a href="http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s11americaneocon&r=36">averaged nearly 2,000 visitors daily</a>.<br />
In other words, the readership for Casper’s anti-Douglas rantings is less than 1% of the readership of Professor Douglas’s blog and yet, despite such clear evidence that no one else shares his obsession, Casper continues doing what he does, apparently with no other purpose except to annoy the target of his weird fixation.</i></blockquote>As to the origins of American Nihilist, I've posted it many times:<br />
<blockquote>I hate bullies. For well over a year, I read as Donald Douglas excoriated liberal blogger after liberal blogger, often in pretty nasty terms. I found him to be wrong politically, of course, but that wasn't it. My problem with Dr. Douglas was that he was pompous and kinda mean as well as being wrong.<br />
<br />
Also, I was mystified by this whole nihilist thing. See, everytime he called me a nihilist, I asked him--a professor of political science--to back what he said with evidence of my nihilism. I'd challenge him to choose any dictionary, copy the definition of the word "nihilism," and then show examples, in the form of quotes from me, that support the notion that I am a nihilist. When he labeled some other blogger, I challenged him to do the same with quotes of that person. And while he was very free with the label, he has never actually shown that any liberal blogger has ever expressed a nihilist thought. In fact, he has never even tried.<br />
<br />
As Donald attacked other bloggers on his site or theirs, labeling them no good nihilists everywhere he went, this whole "nihilist" schtick of his became kind of a joke around the liberal blogosphere, and folks began to know him as the wingnut who goes around calling everyone nihilists, like the boy who cried wolf... He practically made the word meaningless through repetition...<br />
<br />
So one night I was bored, and created a blogspot blog that was a funhouse mirror of American Power. Where he used black I used white, and where he used white I used black. I intended it to be a one-off joke, where I'd do one or two posts calling everyone and everything "nihilist," and that'd be that. I sent authorship invitations to a few of the bloggers that Donald had recently attacked as being nihilists, figuring we'd all have a good laugh... But instead, a few of 'em accepted the authorship positions and started writing posts, in character. And the rest, as they say...<br />
<br />
Authors have come and gone, but the blog is still here, still dealing with Donald's many attacks on others, and yes, launching a few on him, as well. The blogroll is made up of blogs/bloggers that Donald has attacked on his blog. Any of 'em are welcome to become authors here, anytime they wish. Other than illegal acts or items that threaten the continued existence of the blog, I don't censor anyone's writing. They're all adults, and thus each author is responsible for defending or apologizing for his own posts. (Yes, I know that Donald would prefer that I treat them like children, and only allow posts that I personally would approve of, but I see that as being far too "nanny state" for me. Should Donald ever run a group blog of his own, he is free to censor it any way he sees fit, but I believe that each individual author is capable of dealing with/defending their own posts.)<br />
<br />
That in a nutshell is why I expose the foolish and the dangerous or nasty things Donald Douglas says on his blog. I don't like bullies in general, and I specifically don't like the way Dr Douglas treats the folks he doesn't agree with, so I decided to do to him what he was doing to others. Should he ever stop mistreating people, I'll stop calling him out for it. In the meantime, we'll all be here, Donald in his place, and we in ours...</blockquote>As Donald became more focused on me, individually, I stopped making jokes (and eventually, posting original pieces regarding him at all) and started using it to respond to his posts and tweets about me. When he started threatening legal, law enforcement, or government action, I began keeping track of who posted what when, visible for anyone interested (or potentially involved in such action) to see...<br />
<br />
As for the numbers, it helps to consider that aside the one page and sidebar where I keep track of Dr Douglas' attacks on me, I haven't posted anything there since August. The other blogger there posts about once a month. And frankly, no one at AmNi is much into treating our blog stats like freshmen boys comparing dick size in the locker room. Don's got a big blog penis. McCain's is even bigger than Donald's. So, why should anyone (aside them, perhaps) care? Does it make what either of them say any more right or wrong, honest or dishonest? <br />
<br />
The answer folks, is no.<br />
<br />
I can appreciate that Robert Stacy McCain felt obligated to defend his little blog brother Donald Douglas. He and his readers' attacks on my appearance and whatnot is par for the course (and in my opinion, speaks more to who they are than who I am...) Partisans attack because, hey, this is the internet, and ya gotta support your "team." <br />
<br />
On the facts though, McCain's post is no better than most of Donald's obsessed, fact-free rants... I stopped doing anything to Donald Douglas that one could even spin into "stalking," "harassment," or "trolling" well over a year ago... (...and even before that, the overwhelmingly vast majority of what I did would be called "blogging" by most fair-minded internet users.) When Donald lashes out at me, I respond by adding the post or tweet to the list with a few comments--and occasionally (read, "last August...up until this post here"), by posting in response, too. Other than that, I do nothing more than read the poor guy's blog. Whatever Donald Douglas' issues may be, they're about him, not me...<br />
<br />
===<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE:</b> "Journalist" Robert Stacy McCain expresses a decided lack of interest in the truth:<br />
<blockquote><i>"Tell you what, Casper: You go nurse your hurts in your own dark corner of the Internet and don't give me another excuse to take notice of you. That's gonna be a win-win, see? Because I've got no shortage of weirdos to pay attention to, and you really don't want me on your case."</i> - <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2014/01/08/portrait-of-a-stalker-troll-repsac3-also-known-as-walter-james-casper-iii/#comment-1192972311">robertstacymccain</a></blockquote>I can only reply that the guy volunteered to be "on my case" by pecking out the lying-assed post in the first place... He could easily've, y'know, not done that...but he did. And it's shoddy and likely intentionally dishonest work.<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>ADDED, for the record</b> (High Irony Warning):<br />
<blockquote><i>"See, these claims that I am engaged in “cyber bullying” and “cyberstalking” of Kimberlin, that I “defame and publicly attack Plaintiff” are merely word games; I report and comment and Kimberlin seems to think that <b>by applying pejorative labels to my writing, he has proven that I’ve done what he says I’ve done.</b>"</i> - "Journalist" Robert Stacy McCain - <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2014/03/11/brett-kimberlin-and-false-narratives/">Brett Kimberlin and ‘False Narratives’</a>:</blockquote>Yeah I feel ya, McCain... Must suck for folks to outright lie about you online and then act as though their claiming (or repeating) an allegation or pejorative about you is unimpeachable proof that what they say is stone-cold fact by virtue of their having said it... If only you and your obsessed little friend practiced the ideals you're trying to preach... (Hell, I'd be shocked if either of you actually quoted and attacked things I wrote rather than repeatedly regurgitating the dishonest and paranoid delusions of "stalking" and "harassment" that your friend Dr Douglas has spent the last year or two spinning and spewing to any and all who would listen...with occasional help from a few unquestioning symps.)<br />
---<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/in-reply-to-robert-stacy-mccains-fact.html">American Nihilist</a> x-postrepsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-34326637365061936642014-02-19T13:29:00.000-05:002014-02-20T18:11:21.150-05:00In Reply: "Neighborhood watch generally instructs their volunteers not to follow, interact with, or confront anyone suspicious."In reply to the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html#comment-1251806751">following comment</a> at the Politico.com post: <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html">Who are the real thugs? - Roger Simon</a>:<br />
<blockquote>"<i>No- dispatch said they didnt NEED him to, they have a legal and civil liability if he were to be hurt (which he was). On the other hand, the burglar that was caught earlier in that neighborhood was seen by construction workers who called 911 and were ASKED to follow and see where the suspect went. And its an odd position you take that neighborhood watches instruct members not to watch.</i>" - markbuehner</blockquote>Neighborhood watch generally instructs their volunteers not to follow, interact with, or confront anyone suspicious. If the behavior is serious or suspicious enough to call the police about, it's serious enough that the volunteer should not insert himself into the situation, even accidentally. (Also, they instruct their volunteers not to carry firearms while patrolling.)<br />
<br />
((And yes, I know Zimmerman was just going to/from the store, and not formally patrolling... There's also some question as to whether he was even a part of the neighborhood watch, anymore...))<br />
<br />
As for dispatch, the intent was pretty clear to me, anyway, but it would've been better if the "advice" was more direct. (The dispatcher in the Zimmerman / Scheibe dispute where he broke her iPad was MUCH more clear when speaking to the girlfriend:<br />
<blockquote><i><a href="http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/11/shocking-transcript-of-zimmermans-girlfriends-911-call-after-he-started-smashing-her-property-and-pointing-gun-in-my-face-2572784.html">"I want you to stay away from the house right now until we get there. We need to see the situation."</a></i></blockquote>If only Zimmerman's dispatcher had been as clear...<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html#comment-1251845802">Wednesday, Feb 19, 2014, 1:29 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-39307274271648806872014-02-20T13:31:00.000-05:002014-02-20T18:08:09.750-05:00In Reply: "George Zimmerman substantially contributed to the altercation that occurred and set the events in motion that lead him to fire his weapon and kill that kid."In reply to the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html#comment-1253441125">following comment</a> at the Politico.com post "<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html">Who are the real thugs? - Roger Simon</a>":<br />
<blockquote><i>"Fair enough, but the dispatcher wasn't. This is the same guy the local police invited to wear a uniform and patrol the neighborhood in a patrol car (strangely ZImmerman the vigilante declined). Talk about mixed messages. But the whole premise is silly, when i was a teenager, older folks were always seeing what i was up to, following me in a store, etc. The idea that you cant follow a guy you claim you saw peeking into windows in the rain in a neighborhood with a lot of thefts is absurd."</i> - markbuehner</blockquote>I didn't say you can't... I said it was foolish to do so. That suspicious individual--if he thinks you're some kinda creep looking to do HIM harm (and if you don't think that some unknown creepy adult following him, first in his car and then on foot, likely appeared just as suspicious and up to no good to Trayvon as Travon appeared to George--and really MORE suspicious, because Trayvon thought George was targeting him, not intimate objects in a townhouse where no one was home--you're willfully deluding yourself), or if he actually IS up to no good--may well react violently. The risk isn't worth the reward. Unless someone is in imminent danger of being harmed, approaching--or worse, actually confronting an unknown individual that you believe may be up to no good is just stupid.<br />
<br />
I agree with the ultimate legal verdict--though I did want there to be a trial--but when it comes to common-sense blame, George substantially contributed to the altercation that occurred and set the events in motion that lead him to fire his weapon and kill that kid.<br />
<br />
From the time they first saw each other, Trayvon spent most of his time moving away from the suspicious individual he saw. George spent most of that same time moving toward the suspicious individual he saw. Were it not for the actions George took--following Trayvon in his car and on foot (legal, but stupid)--neither of them would've been hit or shot, and we'd likely never've heard either of their names.<br />
--<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michael-dunn-florida-thugs-simon-says-103641.html#comment-1253610994">Thursday, February 20, 2014, 1:31 PM</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-4022561385960456662012-12-17T03:16:00.000-05:002014-01-20T12:07:52.049-05:00X-Post: Ghoulish Blogger Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and DisinformationSo, it turns out that facts make no difference to my dishonest, despicable far-right criminal stalker, who posted this bald face lie on his blog early yesterday:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUeB05WV-NpuHUrFtHjhxin-3OtrW97qQd-vI-E-F1v-xpy9EJNBzXJSWB4LiMUBHN2TY42T48scXA6zE9VN3p29CsQmkvEr77LOKSYvaA8vCKWAxPVCAsNp37hq5Y86VUxhSO/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-16+at+2.22.23+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUeB05WV-NpuHUrFtHjhxin-3OtrW97qQd-vI-E-F1v-xpy9EJNBzXJSWB4LiMUBHN2TY42T48scXA6zE9VN3p29CsQmkvEr77LOKSYvaA8vCKWAxPVCAsNp37hq5Y86VUxhSO/s640/Screen+Shot+2012-12-16+at+2.22.23+AM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">LINK</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
As we now know,<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj87detZT4k3gi9KOsRboeX4Cf4UgXRaGYV6y3AhApG4aGwMRK8EBL5GLQdWduR8o3lPY1wLesDL99utjXbybSPPpk0WitC_NksgwO9ru3RTjIycHMm_UwCDVyYAKuWJ1F157aZ/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-16+at+2.26.45+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="102" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj87detZT4k3gi9KOsRboeX4Cf4UgXRaGYV6y3AhApG4aGwMRK8EBL5GLQdWduR8o3lPY1wLesDL99utjXbybSPPpk0WitC_NksgwO9ru3RTjIycHMm_UwCDVyYAKuWJ1F157aZ/s640/Screen+Shot+2012-12-16+at+2.26.45+AM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/semiautomatic-rifle-was-used-in-attack.html">link</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There's lots more disinformation where that came from, at <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/">the same guy's blog</a>.<br />
---<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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):<br />
<blockquote>"<i>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:</i>"</blockquote>That's right... This idiot gets "<i>the actual facts</i>" wrong in <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">his earlier post</a>, 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 <b>I</b> somehow lied. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.)<br />
<blockquote><i>"This is the evil that</i> [I] <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</i> [my] lies. <i>They know where it leads. They know that</i> [my] dishonesty <i>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> [I] <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."</i></blockquote>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.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/semiautomatic-rifle-was-used-in-attack.html">[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html">Obsessed Much?</a><br />
---<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-donald-douglas-exploits.html">x-post</a> from a blog that once wasrepsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-8507124402234288512010-09-19T11:43:00.000-04:002014-01-20T11:54:55.269-05:00In Reply: Murder (for those who dare disagree) Is Just Alright With HimIn reply to the following quote from <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/leftist-blogger-equates-christine.html">Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers</a><br />
<blockquote><i>And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl</i></blockquote>I'm sorry... But did this ass just say that there would be an upside of some kind (ANY KIND?!?) to having leftists killed by being beheaded the way Daniel Pearl was, and that such a thing wouldn't bother him? Fellow citizens of the USA being horribly murdered the way terrorists do in fundamentalist countries, and he'd be ok with it? What the fuck is wrong with him, that he could hate his fellow Americans so much just for having different political beliefs than he does.? (And of course, don't miss the sick puppy of a reader who agrees with him, also at that link.) No, douchebag... Chances are slim that God will forgive that, at least until you actually are sorry for thinking/feeling that way, anyway... You can't just say it; you actually have to mean it.repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-52746638980183046662012-12-17T16:01:00.000-05:002014-01-19T08:38:58.817-05:00X-Post: Tragedy and Exploitation – The Way of the Lying AssThe man is <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/tragedy-and-exploitation-progressive-way.html">pathological</a>.<br />
<br />
First <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/dishonest-donald-douglas-exploits.html">he lashes out at me</a> 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 <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">"ghoulishly exploiting the massacre," and "intentionally spreading lies and disinformation,"</a> and like that...<br />
<br />
BUT THEN...<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-donald-douglas-exploits.html">No, of course not.</a><br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/semiautomatic-rifle-was-used-in-attack.html">the actual facts of the story don't matter</a>.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to today. <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/tragedy-and-exploitation-progressive-way.html">Another post</a> where the lying ass breathlessly accuses me of "lies and disinformation," and by still linking back to that <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">first absurd attack post</a> where <b>HE</b> got the facts wrong, and damned near 12 hours after <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/semiautomatic-rifle-was-used-in-attack.html"><b>HE himself POSTED</b></a> that the information in that first post was incorrect. (He never went so far as to say he was wrong, of course.)<br />
<br />
Literally --L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y-- Un-fucking-believable. <br />
<br />
Lies and disinformation for all, and to all a good night...<br />
<br />
<br />
Links:<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/tragedy-and-exploitation-progressive-way.html">[his blog]: Tragedy and Exploitation – the Progressive Way</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/dishonest-donald-douglas-exploits.html">[Lying Ass] Exploits Newtown Gun Massacre to Lash Out and Lie About Me (So what else is new?)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-walter-james-casper-iii.html">[his blog]: Ghoulish Walter James Casper III Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Push Gun Control, Spread Lies and Disinformation</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/ghoulish-donald-douglas-exploits.html">Ghoulish [Ass] Exploits Connecticut School Massacre to Attack Enemies, Spread Lies and Disinformation</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/semiautomatic-rifle-was-used-in-attack.html">[his blog]: Semiautomatic Rifle Was Used in Attack</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html">Obsessed much?</a><br />
---<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/tragedy-and-exploitation-dishonest.html">x-post</a> from a blog that once wasrepsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-53272207904297208262010-11-19T06:52:00.001-05:002014-01-19T08:28:26.251-05:00In reply: Welcome back rage of brain (and will the pow(d)erpuff boy ever go away?)UPDATE: First, a quick answer to the surprising number of foreign folks who come here looking for this via search engines: <br />
<br />
The correct / most common response to "Welcome back" is something like "Thanks! Glad to be back." <br />
<br />
You're welcome. Glad I could help. <br />
<br />
(Believe it or don't, this post is probably one of the highest hit via search engine, and that query is the reason why... Go fig. Anyway, now back to our show...)<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
Revised a little, in reply to: <a href="http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/im-back.html?showComment=1290167550286#c114027458159440095">Brain Rage: I'm Back</a>; the post and <a href="http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/im-back.html?showComment=1289246472487#c4002024756421833795">this comment</a>, in particular.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Glad to see you back, JBW... Post whenever you feel like it... It's not like it's your life, y'know... We all have our friends and fans (and occasionally gather a new one or two), and they'll come around when there's something to see... <br />
<br />
I mean yeah, there are those bloggers who really do matter (and many more who only think they do--See below), but for the vast majority of us, it's a chance to say what's on our mind and share pix and videos we think others might enjoy. (It is cool to get a nice note from someone who enjoyed a post or was glad you spoke up, of course... But I think most of us blog and comment because we have something to say, and the credit and thanks we occasionally get is just icing on the cake.) <br />
<br />
Anyway... I'm glad you're back, and I look forward to finding another post or two worth poaching, whenever you happen to get around to writing 'em...<br />
---<br />
<br />
And as for [that guy], give it up, malcontent... You can TRY to act like a bully (though why you choose to, I have yet to understand), but everyone here (& most folks at your own blog as well, more'n'likely) knows who and what you really are... ...and aren't.<br />
<br />
Be gone, powderpuff.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/im-back.html?showComment=1290167550286#c114027458159440095">NOVEMBER 19, 2010 3:52 AM</a> (Brain Rage blog time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-79449734543516174002010-05-27T15:03:00.011-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.966-05:00In Reply: There's something to be said for staying in one's home country and improving conditions there...In reply to Pat Young, at the Long Island Wins post, <a href="http://www.longislandwins.com/index.php/blog/post/dozens_arrested_at_immigration_civil_ddisobedience_in_chicago/">Dozens Arrested at Immigration Civil Disobedience in Chicago</a>, who wrote (in response to a sliver of a previous comment I made, quoted below):<br />
<blockquote>You wrote:<br />
<blockquote>"<i>I believe people born in other lands should want the rights we have, but (and?) should fight to achieve them where they live by changing their own governments, as we did.)</i>"</blockquote><i>I don't know about you, but my ancestors changed the government they lived under (English rule in Ireland) by moving here.</i><br />
----</blockquote>Well sure... Leaving one's home country is one way to change the bad circumstances under which one lives, but there is also something to be said for staying and fighting those bad circumstances in one's own home country, the way some of your ancestors and mine did by fighting in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, for women's suffrage, for civil rights for blacks... ...and continue to do so today for the right of homosexuals to enter into legal unions and openly serve in the military, and on and on...<br />
<br />
(I suspect that you did understand my intended meaning, but just in case, there it is... While leaving sometimes becomes necessary, I believe that people in other countries who want US freedoms and opportunities ought to struggle to create and maintain as many of them as they can in their own home countries... ...with US help whenever possible.)<br />
<br />
Do you disagree?<br />
---<br />
Posted 5/27/10, 3:03 PM (or so... No comment links...)<br />
---<br />
Previous:<br />
<a href="http://whatdisay.blogspot.com/2010/05/in-reply-there-has-to-be-line-between.html">In reply: There has to be a line between "American" and "not American," "legal" and "not legal"</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-76161661484931961942010-05-24T09:10:00.003-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.953-05:00In Reply: A Single (Dem/'pubbie) Victory in a Single State Race Doesn’t Change Anything.In reply to: <a href="http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/republican-charles-djou-wins-hawaii.html">American Power: Republican Charles Djou Wins Hawaii Special Election: From Obama's Home District!</a>, and in particular, the following passage:<br />
<blockquote><i>William Galston, a left-leaning analyst, reiterates some points I made last week on the Critz win in PA-12, "A Single Democratic Victory in a Single Pennsylvania Race Doesn’t Change Anything."<br />
<br />
So now that Republican Charles Djou has won in Hawaii, let's see how long it takes for the rest of the Democratic Media Complex to get honest and catch up with reality.</i></blockquote>-------<br />
<br />
The difference of course is that there were many Republican bloggers and talking heads hailing the PA race as a bellweather of things to come... ...right up until the moment they realized that the Republican wasn't winning, when it became "just one teeny-tiny PA house race, that means nothing."<br />
<br />
Show a similar number of folks ('pubbie or Dem) attaching the same importance to the HI race at any point in the process, and you'd actually be making a comparison. <br />
<br />
The real issue, though, is one of consistency: Rather than making blanket statements about the "Democratic Media Complex" in the first place, why not compare/contrast what individual people left and right said before the race about it's political significance throughout the country with what those same people said afterwards.<br />
<br />
For the record, I agree with Don's take, and acknowledge that he has been more or less consistent, throughout... 99% of all politics is local, so while I'm happier when the more liberal candidate in a given race wins and sadder when the more conservative candidate does, (and Cons feel just the opposite) I don't take either as a sign of anything broader than the confines of the constituency and circumstances in which the individual race took place.<br />
------<br />
<br />
Submitted for moderator approval May 24, 2010 6:10 AM (AmNeo blog time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-75001573810711866532010-05-18T09:09:00.001-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.934-05:00In reply: My Right to Damn Myself to Hell for Placing My Faith in My Chosen Scripture, Rather Than Yours(...or waste my time by believing in those fairy-stories, at all....)<br />
<br />
Revised and extended reply to several comments from "danieltumser" at the post, <a href="http://www.therightscoop.com/video-glenn-becks-liberty-university-commencement-address/">Video: Glenn Beck’s Liberty University Commencement Address-<br />
The Right Scoop</a> (I offer no Beck content, here or there... For the most part, I don't take him or his conspiracy theories seriously enough to even write about... I hope the kids dug his speech, but I also hope they're smart enough to find and separate the tiny grains of truth from all the useless, fact-deficient chaff...):<br />
------<br />
<br />
Having had <a href="http://okiepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/01/founding-principles-101.html">a very similar conversation</a> with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/17381047844269105368">the same gentleman</a>, I just wanted to say your replies were first-rate. While I'm more of a left-lib--and a believer, taboot--I'm good with America being a theistically pluralistic place, where every individual is free to practice whatever their faith or lack of it compels them (barring the obviously illegal and immoral, of course.) I'm even good with those who have beliefs other than my own trying to persuade me to believe as they do--I think it's healthy to exchange ideas and ideals with folks who ain't like you, whether it be religiously or politically or socially--but I have little patience with the openly intolerant. Those who start sentences with "(All) Christians are..." or "(All) Muslims need to..." or "(All) atheists hate..." (and stated or not, that "all" is ever-present and pretty obvious, besides) tend to be exhibiting their own intolerance of (and sometimes, bigotry toward) those not like them.<br />
<br />
The fact is, most of us think we're on the one true path to enlightenment--and that everyone not walking our path... well... isn't--but I don't go in much for the folks who cannot help but point out that everyone who isn't of their particular faith (or lack of it) is heading for the flaming fires, or just wasting their time here on Earth, or whatever... Whether or not one's faith in G-d, the gods, or the scientific method teaches that that's true is kinda besides the point... Here in America anyway, all those idiots, heathens, and believers in fairy-tales have the God-given/natural right to put all their love and faith and trust in the wrong scriptures or set of beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, anyway, THAT'S what this country was in part founded on; my right to worship (or not) as I choose, and your right to worship (or not) as you choose.<br />
<br />
(And to think I only stepped in because Greywolfe used the phrase "<a href="http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/">american nihilist</a>" in one of his replies...)<br />
---------<br />
<br />
The particular danieltumser comment that prompted the response above:<br />
<br />
<i>Oh, you want to ignore all the points I made and dive into quote mining? The fallacious tactic perfected by fundamentalist apologetics in matters of science? Okay.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. . ." The Treaty of Tripoli, written under George Washington, ratified under John Adams<br />
<br />
"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it, and in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. . .and in a government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion of the subject. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison<br />
<br />
"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of HOlland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe and even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely and advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom. . .We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without Kings and Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government." James Madison<br />
<br />
"The purpose of seperation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison<br />
<br />
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" - John Adams<br />
<br />
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." - John Adams<br />
<br />
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." - Benjamin Franklin<br />
<br />
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye to reason." - Ben Franklin<br />
<br />
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Ben Franklin</blockquote><br />
I also have pages of research done from a recent term paper on Thomas Jefferson's secularization of the four Gospels in "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" including multiple letter excerpts to friends and colleagues on the subject thoroughly demonstrating that was no more a Christian than he was an Epicurean (reference, letter to William Short) and that is in the philosophic sense, not in the magical or metaphysical.<br />
<br />
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not found this nation. Nor does it have federal authority.<br />
<br />
I've already responded to your false assumption that I am a flat out nihilist, if you insist continuing operating under that impression then you either suffer from a misapprehension or are arguing in bad faith, thinking that for some reason I am insincere at best.<br />
<br />
If that's the case, please do tell, inform me what kind of nihilist I am, I'm dying to know, please tell me all about myself, I doubt you could sound any more cocksure and condescending if you tried.<br />
<br />
My stance on the un-evidenced metaphysical requires no justification, it is a lack of any positive claim. It's potentially even a null hypothesis depending on how one would define the agnostic parts of disbelief. It is in fact your positive claims pertaining to the supernatural that require justification for a rational acceptance.<br />
<br />
I can't resist, how do you justify your lack of belief in Zeus?<br />
How do you justify your lack of belief in Odin?<br />
How do you Justify your lack of belief in Minerva?<br />
How do you Justify your lack of belief in Krishna?<br />
How do you justify your lack of belief in the sun god Ra?<br />
How do you justify your lack of belief in Ahura Mazda?<br />
How do you justify your lack of belief in pixies, faeries, elves, leprechauns or Santa Claus?<br />
<br />
None of those are faiths, like you assert I hold, they are lack of faith, but please put words in my mouth again.<br />
<br />
Only one of my quotes really has any relevance in the legal context at all, and it is the binding Treaty of Tripoli, written under Washington and signed under Adams.<br />
<br />
Only one of your quotations likewise has any relevance, though oddly it is directly contrary to the Establishment clause by Oliver Ellsworth, was it written as the prevailing opinion of a supreme court case while he was Chief Justice, or was it his personal opinion as a private citizen outside of his decisions as a judge? If the latter is the case, you could have cited Patrick Henry as well, one of many framers of the constitution who attempted to push your god into the wording and was rejected outright, and it would have as little meaning.<br />
<br />
We could quote mine the founders all day and night, but it's still fallacious, what matters is the Constitution and the fact that Christianity is not the religion of the United States (government). We're a nation of (mostly) Christians, a nation founded by (mostly) Christians, but not a nation founded on Christianity.<br />
<br />
One can be both religious in his personal beliefs, and secular in matters of governance, such was the case of our Founders, and is demanded of our judges. Neutral stance in conflicts of religion outside legal matters.<br />
<br />
You also seem to be operating under the continued assumption that I have a political ideology greatly different from yourself. If you are a free market capitalist in favor of greatly limited government, which only draws authority from the consent of the governed, leaving private individuals alone save for when citizens engage in abuses against others, then you and I would be in agreement.<br />
<br />
I've said it before and I feel I'll have to say it again, merely asserting something doesn't make it true, that goes for your god and for aspects of my character or ideology.</i>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-73132193046183885362010-05-26T22:31:00.011-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.913-05:00In reply: I just can't support SB 1070. I think it's a bad law.In reply to: <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/arizona-law-in-action-illegal-aliens-arrested-in-protest-face-deportation/">Arizona Law in Action: Illegal Aliens Arrested in Protest Face Deportation - Youth for Western Civilization</a><br />
---<br />
<blockquote><i>"For example, if the police discover you are driving a vehicle lacking registration or insurance, or if you do not have a driver's license, they will not simply permit you to drive away."</i></blockquote>Well, they do write you a ticket first, but yeah, they do generally allow you to drive away afterward... ...still without the thing you're lacking... ...and as long as you pay the ticket, you can generally keep driving without it, until you get caught enough times that they do haul you away as a repeat offender.<br />
<br />
But I do see and more or less agree with your point.<br />
<blockquote>"<i>I don't see the logic of why immigration laws should be treated any different than any other law, or why people are allowed to continue to violate the law even after law enforcement becomes aware of the issue.</i>"</blockquote>Well as I said, being here illegally is different than many laws, in that it isn't a criminal offense. For all the bruhaha, it's not even as serious as driving without license/reg/insurance... There's not even a fine involved, let alone court or jail time...<br />
<br />
As I said below, I favor having police go after the criminal element first and foremost, and not spending a whole lotta time on folks who sneak in to spend 8-10 hours a day picking vegetables or butchering meat, or whatever... Yes, they are breaking the law, but I'd prefer that ICE deal with them. <br />
<br />
I also think that we'd do far more to curb the problem of illegal workers by making it as difficult as possible for them to find work. E-verify, stiff fines/no government contracts for the companies who hire undocumented, unverified workers, and continued raids would do a whole lot toward getting illegals to deport themselves, without involving law enforcement unnecessarily. When there is no work for them here, many of the illegals who come here to work will stop coming.<br />
<br />
(And--probably because I'm a liberal--I think it would be worth it to provide foreign aid to some of the countries from which they come, to improve the political, social and economic outlook there, so that leaving their homes and families becomes that much less attractive. I can see where Cons might not buy into that part of the plan, however...)<br />
<br />
And I have no real issue with border fences, walls, alligator-filled moats or seriously increased manpower on the border, either. (though I'd insist that whatever we build be constructed by US companies and workers.) It's a damned shame that we need to ruin the landscape that way, but apparently we do need to do so...<br />
<br />
My main point is, I don't believe that making illegals into criminals and going to the trouble of rounding them up, trying them, jailing them, and then deporting them is the best use of law enforcement time and energy. Better we cut off the demand for illegal labor here (and perhaps sweeten the pot by increasing the chances of their finding work back in their home countries) and allow the illegals to self-deport.<br />
<br />
By all means arrest, convict and jail the murderers, rapists and thieves, no matter where they come from, and then deport their asses after they've served their time here in the US... But wasting time trying to do the same with all the illegal workers and families doesn't seem to be a good idea, in my humble... <br />
<br />
(And that's not to mention all the problems with potential profiling and discrimination of illegals and hispanic citizens alike that I've talked about previously...)<br />
<br />
I just can't support 1070, for these reasons. I think it's a bad law.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/arizona-law-in-action-illegal-aliens-arrested-in-protest-face-deportation/#comment602">Wednesday, 26 May 2010 21:31</a> (Western Youth blog time)<br />
---<br />
Previous:<br />
<a href="http://whatdisay.blogspot.com/2010/05/in-reply-sb-1070-facts-vs-fictions.html">In Reply: SB 1070 facts vs fictions</a><br />
<a href="http://whatdisay.blogspot.com/2010/05/in-reply-sb-1070-impossible-to-do.html">In Reply: SB 1070: "...impossible to do, impractical to try to do."</a>repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-62206134832272280122010-05-28T06:41:00.020-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.890-05:00In Reply: Racism, Bad Judgement, or a Tiny Tempest in a Teacup?In reply to: <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/ku-klux-kontroversy/">Ku Klux Kontroversy - Youth for Western Civilization</a>, a story about a Georgia teacher who led four white AP History students wearing Klan garb through the school lunchroom, where students--including black and mixed race students--were eating.<br />
<br />
Pretty offensive, right?<br />
<br />
But here are more facts: <br />
The students were dressed that way to shoot a class video project about the history of racism, almost certainly depicting KKK bigotry as the evil it was and is.<br />
The teacher didn't know the lunchroom was being used at the time.<br />
The teacher realizes she made some mistakes in judgement, and takes full responsibility for her actions.<br />
<br />
Less offensive? I think so, too.<br />
<br />
The author at the Youth for Western Civ blog sees the bruhaha erupting from this incident as "a small tempest in a teacup about 'racism'," the result of "the PC Left" getting bent outta shape over an "AP History teacher [who] obviously thought it would be a good exercise in white guilt over racism and slavery."<br />
<br />
I think he's mistaken. My comment (revised and extended from the original, for clarity) appears below.<br />
---<br />
<br />
I don't know, but it seems to me that even the teacher herself isn't on your side, here... She admits she made a few errors in judgement in this situation, and I think she's correct.<br />
<br />
She shouldn't be fired over the incident--as you say, she didn't intend to offend anyone, and she takes responsibility for screwing up--but it isn't "a tempest in a teacup" or "an example of political correctness run amuck," either. (I'll feel differently if she is actually fired over the incident, but up to this point, I believe the school's actions are justified... and again, I don't hear the teacher saying any different.)<br />
<br />
Seeing kids dressed up as racists (like the klan) or genocidal murderers (say, in Nazi uniforms) is offensive, and rightly so--particularly to those cultural groups who are descendants of their intended victims, but also to anyone who thinks these groups were a stain on humanity (and continue to be--there are bigots wearing Klan/Nazi symbols and preaching some of their tenets to this very day, who do intend offense and harm).<br />
<br />
Context counts for alot, but there's also something to be said for thinking things through and planning ahead. Simply realizing that kids in Klan garb could easily be misunderstood and <br />
1) running the idea by the principal, <br />
2) having the kids take the sheets off when not actively shooting video (it's not like it's hours of costuming and make-up. It's a white sheet and a party hat. Toss the sheet over the head, strap on the hat, and your "dressed."), or <br />
3) just not allowing kids to dress up as bigots/murderers in the first place, because whatever one's good intent, it's just too easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, <br />
would've prevented the whole incident.<br />
<br />
I don't agree with your take on this... While it wasn't the teacher's intent to be offensive, she didn't do enough to prevent some folks from being rightly offended by what they saw. They lacked the context to judge the incident for what it actually was because the teacher failed to provide it to them ahead of time. (For the person at the <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/fallout-continues-from-kkk-535239.html">Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a> article who likened this to a civil war reenactment: One big difference is, when you attend one of those, you know it's a reenactment and choose to be there. The folks in the lunch room did neither. And for another, I don't think many see either the union or confederate army uniform as offensive...)<br />
<br />
It's not a firing offense, but it's not nothin' either... As you (sarcastically) say though, at least it furthers the ongoing discussion of race and tolerance in America, and (contrary to that sarcasm), I think that's a good thing...<br />
---<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/ku-klux-kontroversy/#comment607">Friday, 28 May 2010 05:39</a> (Western Youth blog time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27299492.post-61123968785282986312010-05-25T10:43:00.000-04:002014-01-19T08:27:43.882-05:00In Reply: Driving While HonduranIn reply to: <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/long-island-loses">Long Island Loses - Youth for Western Civilization</a>, a story about an illegal immigrant driver who jumped the curb and hit six girls... which the blogger in question sees as an issue of illegal immigration.<br />
----<br />
<br />
Yeah, sorry, but the perps's immigration status has about as much to do with the accident as whether or not he brushed his teeth that morning.<br />
<br />
Illegal immigration is a complex issue, but demonizing any group involved, en mass--be they the illegals who come or those who want to enforce the laws that would curtail their being here (and I count myself in that latter group, for the most part)--is just a bad idea that will do nothing to make the situation any better.<br />
---<br />
<br />
Posted <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/long-island-loses/#comment579">Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:43 AM</a>, (Western Youth blog time)repsac3http://www.blogger.com/profile/15458282944035344707noreply@blogger.com0