I was home for lunch yesterday and didn't have time to peruse all the blogs on my blogroll, nor to make any comments on them. But one of the blogs I did read had these extremely offensive words in it:
"It's no fun picking on the alleged president. Like makin' fun of a Special Olympics kid. Wait -- that's an insult to Special Olympics."
Let's explore this hateful comment:
Number 1. Obviously, it is fun for this particular blogger to pick on the President, or the blogger who said it wouldn't have. It would seem to me that he takes a huge amount of pleasure disrespecting not only the President, but all who revere him as well.
Remember, it is the Liberals who claim that Conservatives aren't tolerant.
Number 2. "Alleged president"? Webster defines "Alleged" as:
(adjective) 1 : asserted to be true or to exist
Does Mr. Blogger remember the 2004 Presidential election results? George W. Bush won. There is no argument about that fact. It is a fact. He got more votes. He won. Even that crybaby John Kerry, who Mr. Blogger no doubt voted for, conceded George W Bush beat him fair and square. In spite of all those dead people who voted for Kerry in Ohio.
Exactly how is Bush's Presidency in question? George W. Bush is President. He will be President until January of 2009, providing you don't lose your tenuous grip on sanity, and assassinate him.
Eat your sour grapes, or leave them rotting on the vine, but get over it, and learn to live with it.
Is Mr. Liberal blogger in denial? It surely appears so.
Number 3. "Like makin' fun of a Special Olympics kid. Wait -- that's an insult to Special Olympics."
Once again, the implication that President Bush is stupid. Or retarded. I have noticed this is a typical argument of Liberals when they have no argument. Just call their opponent stupid. It gets a lot of laughs from the uninformed, ignorant masses, like Hollywood celebrities, but it is far from a valid argument.
They called Reagan stupid, too, but he won the cold war, while the Liberals were insisting he was getting America into nuclear jeopardy. So who was stupid again?
This particular blogger likes to boast of his college degrees, as if that somehow makes him smarter and more credible than us simpletons who are so far beneath the intellectual stature of the Liberal elites.
President Bush got his degrees from Yale and Harvard. Following this Liberals reasoning, that would make Bush much smarter than him.
So which is it? Is a formal education synonymous with intelligence, or can one have a formal education and still be stupid? You can't have it both ways.
During President Bush's time in office he has endured numerous unfounded accusations and unfair criticisms, just to name a few:
!. He was accused of complicity in the torture of enemy combatant prisoners at GITMO. Unproven.
2. He was accused of planning to attack Saddam even if no evidence of WMD was found. Disproved
3. Liberals were scared to death that John Bolton might go to the UN, and destroy all the "progress" they have made. Bolton is doing a great job now. Even the Democrats are happy with him.
4. He has been accused of failing to adequately protect New Orleans from a natural disaster of which he had no control over. Turned out the brunt of the blame fell on a Democrat Mayor and a Democrat Governor.
5. He has been accused of racial discrimination. Proven false.
6. He has been accused of unwarranted domestic surveillance. Explained ad nauseum. He did not wiretap Americans. He wiretapped terrorists, which is completely within his rights as chief executive.
7. He has been accused of trying to outlaw stem cell research. Unproven.
And on and on and on. Accusations abound. All have either been proven false or remain unproven or unprovable.
On the other hand, B.J. Clinton did absolutely, with no question whatsoever, commit perjury before a Grand Jury, which qualifies as a high crime and/or misdemeanor according to the Constitution, and is an impeachable offense.
I know this post is lengthy, and I apologize for that, but I have one more thing to say to that unscrupulous blogger:
I wasn't blogging at the time, but I never personally insulted President Clinton when he was president. I did say I didn't believe a President who can't control his own sexual urges could be trusted with the capability to blow up the world. That is opinion. I also said he lied. That is fact. I never called him stupid. Quite the contrary, I often said he is a brilliant man. He has the morals of a rabbit on Viagra, but he is a brilliant man. I never personally attacked him. I have respect for the office of the President. No matter who is in the Oval office.
If you hate Bush, go ahead. But don't engage in baseless, unfair personal attacks and accusations. You are better than that.
26 comments:
When you think a president is likely a war criminal and hate those policies, it is fairly easy to creep over in to targeting said president for ridicule.
Perhaps it's not always a good thing, but fairly easy to do nonetheless.
Quite frankly, we don't trust these people in charge. We think it highly likely that voting tampering HAS been going on, although we can't prove it to the population at large (although a very good case has been made by many). We think the evidence is relatively clear that something close to war crimes IS happening.
Ideally, when that happens, you don't need to ridicule those in power because they are brought to justice. But our system is broke and some 1/3 - 1/2 + of our country is left feeling powerless to stop a criminal presidency.
If we believed in violence-as-solution, perhaps some of us would try to assassinate our leaders - BUT WE DON'T. And so we're left with protests, ridicule, verbal assaults, lifestyle changes, etc, to try to stop these likely criminals.
What would you do if you thought the leadership of your beloved country were war criminals?
Slow news day at "Pearls Before Swine" ... (Yawn)
BTW, a pass-fail history degree in the late '60s from Yake is worth approximately a certificate in upholstery at the local vo-tech school.
And an MBA from almost anywhere is worth about the same.
One more thing: Quit lying about me. Just because your presidnet does it doesn't make it OK.
This is just wrong "and you know it": "This particular blogger likes to boast of his college degrees, as if that somehow makes him smarter and more credible than us simpletons who are so far beneath the intellectual stature of the Liberal elites."
I dare you to prove this. It's false.
I have always maintained that Democrats hate democracy. Whenever they lose at the polls, you'll find them camped out on the doorstep of a liberal judge the next morning to overturn the will of the people. The liberal judge then appoints himself Emperor for the day and the Dems get their way. Though they tried the same tactic in Florida, they were, for once, thwarted. And to this day, they are whining about it. Now they're talking about impeachment. I'm sure they would be much happier if they could just remove a president by taking to the streets, like they do in the Philippines.
As Ann Coulter pointed out today, the only Democratic presidential candidates to win a majority since FDR were Lyndon Johnson in '64 and Jimmy Carter in '76. And look at the misery they put this country through.
I used to think that the majority of the Internet vitriol against the President was generated by kids. I couldn't imagine that many adults being that stupid, that unhinged, and that hateful. But now I'm changing my mind. It is just ludicrous to imagine some loser sitting at his computer and calling the leader of the free world, a former fighter pilot, a man who holds an MBA from Harvard, a moron.What have these people accomplished in THEIR lives?
BTW, I wasn't thinking about the election when I wrote "alleged president." I was thinking that he's too small for the office.
Sort of like when I call Chihuahuas "alleged dogs." They don't quite measure up.
Neither does George W. Bush.
Well, ER, since you blew your own anomynity, which I was careful not to do, the first proof that you boast about your education is in the title of your blog: Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A. Or do those letters stand for something else?
There. I've offered more proof that you boast than any proof you have that the President lied.
And you still haven't said what the President supposedly lied about.
But I'm not going to allow this thread to degenerate into a petty playground squabble. I will take the high road, and simply remind you that all I did was respond to a highly objectionable comment and point out the obvious errors.
Again, baseless allegations.
Dan, by what criteria do you conclude Bush is a war criminal? Because people have died in the war?
People die in war. It is a tragic fact. I am sure that if Bush could figure out a way to wage a war without blood and gore, he would do it that way.
Or do you simply assume that somehow Saddam Hussein would have finally given in to the next UN resolution after 12 years of ignoring them? Just how many times was he to be allowed to thumb his nose at the UN before war was justified?
Maybe you would have preferred that Saddam attack America with a nuclear, or biological, or Chemical weapon first.
Everyone, except for a few stubborn Liberals, admits he had those weapons since he had actually used them in the past, so how was it criminal to go in and take that cold blooded, callous, vicious murdering bastard out?
Again. What law has he broken? Just proclaiming he is a criminal doesn't make him one.
"B.S., B.S., M.A." means just what it says. It alerts visitors to the fact that, for wha they're worth, I have two bachelor's degrees and a master's degree. I started the blog when I was working on the M.A.
If I were a Realtor, and held the GRI designation, for example, I'd probably have that up there.
The truth is this: YOU'RE the one uncomfortable around those with higher degrees. You've proven it time and again over at my joint by attacking those of us who went into debt up to our eyeballs to work our butts off for them.
As for tryuing to protect my anonymity. I'll bet. I'm proud of what I write -- even when it amounts to nothing more than an exasperated brain fart.
As for you and the high road: Neither the twain have met, as far as I've ever seen. With this post, especially, you started in the mud.
Mr. Redneck is an educational snob.
Yes, the redneck is proud of his degrees. I L’dOL when it took him and drlobojo 5 hours to figure out what the psychologists letters meant after being told he was used as a lab rat. Then he went to town running down his degrees by claiming he got it from watching Dr. Phil. He even had the guts to run him down for not having a PHD when it would be a cold day in HELL before redneck could make the grade for one himself. He thinks his poop doesn’t stink like the rest of us. Quite a lack of self-esteem run wild there I’d say.
Oooh, it's gettin' muddier and muddier! Hope yer proud, Mark.
Point: I don't believe for a minute that Mark "hid" my blogonymity to "protect" me. That's part of the prevarication. He "hid" me so he could throttle me without regard for the context of my post (I ripped the Dems, too) -- but mostly, I'm sure, so he could suggest that opposing the president is something to be ashamed of -- which it is NOT.
Hey! What's this? "Casting Pearls"? "Before Swine?"
So, yer masquerading as a pearl dealer? As a farmer?
No. Same with my putting my academic pedigree as part of my own blog name. IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE DAMN THEME OF THE BLOG.
"Erudite" means studied, whgich does NOT mean "smart." "Redneck" means just what it's always meant: I've always worked for a living.
We think it highly likely that voting tampering HAS been going on, although we can't prove it to the population at large
Dan, if you want to go there, you can find instances of fraud on the part of Democrats as well. 2000 and otherwise in past elections. One thing that gets seldom mentioned about is how there were 3 other states equally close as Florida, and worth more in electoral college votes. These states went to Gore, despite some reports of irregularities. Every election has episodes of imperfection and alleged fraud going on. I have yet to see any good solid evidence, though, that Gore should have won in 2000. And I think I've seen it all, by now.
What would you do if you thought the leadership of your beloved country were war criminals?
Endorse "V for Vendetta"?
Only rednecks work for a living, huh. I thought it was cute a while back when you said you used to work for a living. If you get a paycheck you work for a living.
I don't get a paycheck but what I do with a computer and tv screen is hard work, just like The President says, it's hard work.
Only difference some days I work for nothing and some days I make thousands of dollars an hour.
Anon, I appreciate the vote of support, but you have disregarded the admonition that titles this blog post, "Keep it civil".
ER, You are blowing this thing way out of porportion. I simply responded to what I consider an insult and baseless allegation against my president, a man I have tremendous respect for. But apparently, unlike you, even if I didn't like him personally, I would still respect the Office.
I, like you, am insulted when someone insults someone who I have respect for. I take it personally, right or wrong.
As to your charge that I lied about your boastful attitude, and my intentions regarding your anomynity, I would submit that is a matter of perception.
The way I perceive it, you are boastful. You say you aren't. I have two brothers who have multiple degrees (Masters) and never have I seen them deem it necessary to add those letters to the end of their names. They consider it boastful. So, it is a matter of perception. We can agree to disagree on this one.
A few people visit both of our blogs, but not that many. Therefore, I intentionally did not reveal your identity to spare you having to deal with the inevitable trolls who might go visit you and track mud in your living room, as you say, because of what I write about here. But you outed yourself.
I have a great deal of respect for those who work hard to acheive a degree, and yes, I will admit to being envious of those who earned a college diploma. But my respect for them wanes when they use their superior education to beat those they consider inferior over the head with it.
You are a very intelligent man, which is why I am so aghast that you would stoop to unproven, baseless allegations in order to demonstrate such undeserved hate for the President.
You have conceded in the past that you believe the Republicans owe the Democrats one, after Clinton was impeached, and indeed, the Democrats have built their entire platform upon the hope for an impeachment of Bush. There will not be one.
As I said, eat your sour grapes or leave them rotting on the vine, but get over it.
And for Chrissake, be civil.
"by what criteria do you conclude Bush is a war criminal?"
He invaded a country unprovoked - when Hitler did thusly, the Nazis were charged with a "crime against peace."
I know you disagree with whether the invasion was warranted, but for many of us around the world and half of us here in this country, we think the evidence is clear that it was an unprovoked invasion.
And so I'll ask again: What would you do if you thought your leadership were likely war criminals - to what degree and with what tools would you fight them?
Different strokes. Historians consdier the M.A. the bare minimum to be taken seriously -- and they do wear them on their sleeves, actually on their business cards, on their vitas and in other situations.
Cheap shot, for whatever reason, for you to jump my crap for the very NAME of my blog.
Unproven is NOT the same as baseless, by the way. I fault the press for the free ride this president ("alleged" held to keep the presidency out of the mud for a minute) has gotten.
Free. Ride.
Anon, believe it or not, I consider this a spat between bloggy buddies. Keep your manure over at my place. Don't dirty up Mark's pad with it, please.
And Mark, maybe I did overreact a little. But just a little. Same as you did, buddy. :-)
Sorry Mark. I've heard about all I can stand about the B.S. B.S. & M.A. for one lifetime. I've know several people for years that had a PHD and never mentioned it. They didn't want to be called doc I guess.
"Cheap shot, for whatever reason, for you to jump my crap for the very NAME of my blog."
No, you asked for proof that you boast and that is the proof I offered. Not a cheap shot. An answer.
Dan, You asked, "What would you do if you thought your leadership were likely war criminals?"
I don't know. B.J. Clinton was a criminal, but I wouldn't call him a war criminal, so it's hard to say. That said, really there is nothing I could do, but I could do what i did when Clinton was president. Voice my belief that he wasn't responsible enough to make important decisions. That is what I said in my post. I stayed respectful, regardless.
Other than that, it is up to the Congress to determine if he is a war criminal, which they have been trying to do since Saddam was ousted, and they have yet to establish any wrongdoing. That was a major point of this post.
Bull. The major point of this post seems to have been for you to distort what I said, and to slap me around for it, pretending to "protect" me by leaving my handle out of it, when you really wanted carte blanche, under cover, to make crap up, as usual.
You seem to have a real unnatural affection for Dubya. What's up with that? It's sort of a sickness for you to take attacks on the president so personally. I mean, really. I think it's because you're secretly ashamed that you've supported him, when he's not a conservative at all except for his warmongering, and the only way you can justify it is to just lap up everything that drips from his smirking mouth without question.
Oh, yes. I am slamming the incredibly small president again -- OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENCY that the man Dubya is dragging through the mud.
Oh, before I fotget: I've never met a troll I couldn't handle, so yer protests of trying to "protect" my blog from the little republets that hang around here doesn't wash.
"Keep it civil" my burned butt. There was peace in ER-MM land -- and like yer president, you couldnt stand it, and went out of your way to start an unjust "war" based on BS.
So you boast about pearls you don't own and swine you don't feed then, to follow your "reasoning." ??
I knew I would get a reaction from you on this, I just didn't think it would be so vicious. Your hatred of Bush appears to be beginning to morph into paranoia.
The pearls are pearls of wisdom, which I do own. The swine are Liberals that don't appreciate pearls.
Distort what you said? I copied and pasted it directly from your blog! How does that distort?
You still fail to provide a single example of a lie by Bush, or any other misconduct, for that matter. I re-iterate: Your candidate lost and you refuse to accept that.
Eat or don't eat the grapes. Your choice. But I think you would feel better if you'd just let it go.
This is like trying to debate a potato chip.
My candidate sucked. This. Is. Not. About. The. Election.
I am embarassed that George W. Bush is the president. He's dragging the presidency, and the country, down with him.
Why in the heck would you expect me to act differently? Because so many GOP sheep do?
"...can one have a formal education and still be stupid?"
Yes.
This is like debating a fence post. Until you can provide some evidence (any at all) that Bush lied about anything, You are pissing into the wind as far as I'm concerned.
I have asked for proof that he lied, and you have not provided any. Your arguments have no credibility without substantiation. No one who argues without anything to back it up has credibility.
That's it. Unless you can bring something new and credible to the table, the discussion is moot.
Mark, I've not offered references to how Bush has lied and misled and deceived because I have figured you've already hashed and rehashed all the points. But if you want sources:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.davidcorn.com/
http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/
I could go on all day. These are links to people opposed to Bush, to be sure. But they are opposed to Bush because of the lies, deceptions and piss-poor policies. They provide primary sources, further links to original news sources, etc.
Now, I know you'll look at these hundreds of examples of Bush lies and manage to find a reason why they're not really lies - you don't accept the source, you question their accuracy, whatever - but the point is, there are huge reservoirs of collections of sources citing lie after lie or deception after deception.
So, now you can no longer say that no one has provided evidence of Bush lies. You can say no one has provided evidence enough to convince you that Bush has lied, but you have been provided evidence. Do with them what you will.
"Thinking of you," Mark. I've added the following to my nameplate. Believe it or not:
Degrees reflect my interests and emphases of my studies and are meant to be matter-of-factual, not boastful, despite the mean assertions of a couple of occasionally trollish regulars here: B.S., journalism (news-editorial); B.S., political science (public affairs), minor, economics; M.A., history (American: Southern, Western, Native American)
Post a Comment