« Craig Leaves A Comment | Main | A Clear Statement Of Principles »

July 27, 2011

Comments

lizard

there are other things to write about, Rob. don't throw away the good work i'm sure you do by obsessively lobbing this crap at us all the time. even Singer popped in to put something new up, because that last post you did at LitW was just weird.

Mark Tokarski

There's so much wrong with your thinking, but set that aside. Your comment about a 'leader' arising has a messianic feel about it. That's authoritarian thinking. There are no such leaders. There is only bottom-up organizing. That sort of thing is completely frustrated in this country. Americans sin't know how to get things done. They know how to vote, and not much more, and so are political eunuchs.

The Civil Rights movement was ground-level, with strategic confrontations here and there, education and recruitment, and then widespread civil demonstrations and actions. A that time, MLK, involved but not an instigator, became a national figure.

That's how it works - leaders follow movements, and voting when there are only lesser evils is pointless.

You don't know stuff. It's too nuance, and absence of ability to think with shading makes your preachy writing pointless.

Mark, I'm going to leave this comment because it really shows you to be the delusional "moran" with reading comprehension difficulties that I know you to be. Read the post again. I'm not the one calling for, crying for, desperate for a "leader". You are so droolingly foolish about how I must be an authoritarian that you missed the point completely. I was mocking those who are desperate for a "leader, but incapable of doing anything to create or inspire their true heart's desire. As much as I disagree with those folk, you I plain flat laugh at. You're an idiot.

Now. Go away. ~W

Wulfgar

Lizard, I respectfully submit that you and I have an altogether different idea of what is weird in this world. For instance, ascribing motivations to Matt that may or may not be true. To me, that's a little weird.

As far as 'writing something else' goes, this is my website and for almost 8 years I have written here what is on my mind. This was on my mind. In that 8 years all sorts of well-meaning folk have told me what I 'should' write about. That kind of defeats the purpose of writing anything at all, in my mind. As I've indicated, this is a period where my time is very limited, (that would be because of the good work I do which has little to do with politics or blogging) and I write slowly. I have rarely seen the point in reposting or rehashing what others have done better. Posts like this one are easy to write, important to me and worth getting out there. You disagree? Fine.

I am curious, though. If you think what I've written here is "crap" that I've lobbed at the collective, then perhaps you can tell me what's "crap" about it? A little bit of disagreement might be a healthy thing right now. That isn't what we have if you're claiming "crap" and then telling me I 'should' be writing about something else. As the guy who's taking the blame for blowing up the Montana online left, I would sincerely like to know. What, that I have written here, is "crap", other than that you don't like it, of course?

Moorcat

I do not necessarily want a different leader. I want people I elect to do their damn jobs without pledges to organizations and special interests, without partisan hack work and with an eye to the only pledge they take which is important - you know, the one to uphold the constitution and faithfully represent the people of the United States. This current train wreck is entirely the fault of wishy washy politicians unable to focus on their jobs, claiming pledges to parties and special interests and because of their inability to do the damn job, the vast majority of Americans are going to suffer for it.

My wife and I are lucky at this point. We have a fixed interest rate mortgage, we are not buried in debt (for cars, credit cards or toys), we are in fairly good health and we have somewhat prepared for the worst. Unfortunately, all the incomes (with the exception of mine) in the house are all federal and this current situation may very well interupt those federal incomes. This leads me to my last point.

What the hell are all these "Conservative" representatives going to do when 15% of the federal employees lose their jobs because of the insane cuts they are advocating take effect? With unemployment still above 9%, the hit to the jobs outlook is going to be catastophic - especially in Montana. Worse, when that cash crunch trickles down (interesting how negative effects trickle down but money never does but I digress) to the state level and it is state workers that are suddenly out of work. The proposals do nothing to stimulate jobs and without jobs, the economy will continue in the downward spiral it is already in. The people with money will not "waste" it hiring, they will consoladate their fortune and protect it anyway they can. This will not end well.

Sorry, Wulfgar, I got off topic. Thanks for your post, though. You are again showing where the chest beating and wailing will do no good.

lizard

crap: "some folks over there act like pompous jackasses to those they think are "Democrats"."

i guess if we were being pompous jackasses to Republicans you wouldn't have a problem with that, and that's what makes you an obnoxious partisan.

you also make stupid statements that don't wash, like how you claim JC "disavows any tie to" Democrats he has voted for. the way i read JC's criticism is just that, criticism of policy disagreements, and with that, a warning that some Democrats should heed: previous support should NOT just be taken for granted. that's not a disavowal.

as for my advice about what you write, take it or leave it, but do you really think, with all the shit going down, that anyone cares about this beef between you and 4&20? this being your personal site, whatever, but at LitW, you are taking a once credible site and pulling it into the mud pit that is your personal vendetta against whatever cute name you're using to try and label us with.

Wulfgar
i guess if we were being pompous jackasses to Republicans you wouldn't have a problem with that, and that's what makes you an obnoxious partisan.

You shouldn't be "guessing". You might actually want to listen to others without your ego filter every now and again.

you also make stupid statements that don't wash, like how you claim JC "disavows any tie to" Democrats he has voted for. the way i read JC's criticism is just that, criticism of policy disagreements, and with that, a warning that some Democrats should heed: previous support should NOT just be taken for granted. that's not a disavowal.

This is the very point I've been trying to make. What I've said isn't "stupid", and you fail miserably in showing how it is. I simply don't agree with you. To you, that's "stupid". The worst thing you can do to a liberal purist is to disagree with them. How you read things, poet, is not how I must. If I don't see things your way, the stupidity is with those who think I must. The stupidity is with you.

as for my advice about what you write, take it or leave it, but do you really think, with all the shit going down, that anyone cares about this beef between you and 4&20?

You do. I do. Which of us is lying to and about ourselves. Hint: It's you.

this being your personal site, whatever, but at LitW, you are taking a once credible site and pulling it into the mud pit that is your personal vendetta against whatever cute name you're using to try and label us with.

You said you weren't participating at it any more. Were you lying? Of course you were. You simply wimp out and post your angst here. Those you support now have attacked LITW for it's credibility well longer than you've had the balls to even comment there, and well longer than I've been an admin. LITW is Matt's site, not mine. I am an admin there, that's all. I got stabbed in the back there because I made a mistake, and trusted Kohler to not be a jackass. My bad. You called someone who engages in Kohler's behavior a "little shit", but forgive his efforts because he pleases you. Your responses to me, at my personal website, attempting to fault me for ruining LITW, is precisely the behavior of an "emoprog". Go cut yourself, if you feel like it, but don't think for a second that I give a shit about your disdain and sad reasoning I can easily eviscerate and already have.

lizard

i'm "guessing" because i don't automatically assume what i'm ascribing to you is accurate.

and you're absolutely right, your statement about JC isn't stupid. that was the wrong word. exaggeration would have been a better word.

and you are also right that your vendetta against us does concern me, which is why i waste time commenting here in your snarl-den.

i'm wondering why you made this a "dear Duganz" post. are you responding to something Duganz said in a post, or are you responding to something else?

Wulfgar

The response was exactly that. It was to a comment he left at the delusional Tokarski's site, which I will not link. You commented at the post. I would think you would have seen his comment. If I assumed incorrectly on that score, I apologize.

lizard

missed it. following the fisticuffs is, like, totally laborious.

so i forced myself to reread your post a few times, minus the flame-bait, and i don't understand this distinction you're trying to make between Democrat politicians and voters.

It was JC who proclaimed loudly, in context of the debt debate, that Democrats 'can't be happy about any of this'. He was referring, of course, to Democratic voters. Think on that for a second. The Democrats that JC says that Democrats should be unhappy with are some of the same people he voted for, yet now disavows any tie to. So, he's telling "Democrats", people who did the same damned thing he did, that WE should be unhappy because we don't now agree with him that he acted stupidly.

(capitalized bolding added)

i don't follow you at all here---how JC acted stupidly i just don't get---but it does expose how you take on the haughty mantle of the "we" Dembassador title you distanced yourself from in your other crap post at LitW:

"Apparently, I have been designated an "ambassador" for the Democratic party. I don't remember the ribbons and parades, but still, huzzah to me!

...

So, ignorant assholes who want to tell all and sundry that they can't vote for folk a poor 'Democratic ambassador' such as myself votes for are fools. There is no lesser of two evils. There is evil, and those who oppose evil. Which are you going to vote for?"

you take it on, then wail when pegged. wtf? own it, Rob. just do it. stop being so wiggly.

you have compared 4&20 authors to teabaggers, and conflated our "tactics" with wingnuts. you have leveled all kinds of personal slanders and pissed on the bushes.

and there is ample evidence you do so because you don't agree with how "some" of us criticize the complimentary complicity of the DNC.

Wulfgar

Lizard, I've made many distinctions you seem incapable of following, enough to believe that's not my failure. You conveniently ignore scare quotes; you are completely deaf to sarcasm.

Otto: Apes don't read Philosophy!
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it!

I suggest to you the same as Tokarski, just because you think you've read something doesn't mean you understood it. I don't mind being a Democratic voter. It's worked for me vastly more often then it hasn't. That doesn't make me an ambassador of jack-shit, nor a member or defender of the DNC. That's not being "wiggly". It's the fact of the case, something the left used to actually care about. The reason you're not following this is your desperation to show me being a "Democrat", having already assumed that is something bad. That's about as adult as saying that Democrats have cooties. Since you are incapable of following it, that was the point of the post here.

you have compared 4&20 authors to teabaggers, and conflated our "tactics" with wingnuts. you have leveled all kinds of personal slanders and pissed on the bushes.

2 Things. 1) "Slander" isn't the word you're looking for. I don't find that surprising, even though the language is supposed to be your domain. If it's written, the word you want is "libel". It's a legal term and actionable if true. Perhaps you missed Steve W telling folks they should sue me for 'lible'? Unlike him, I can actually spell it and I know what it means, which leads to ...

2) The only way I've libeled anyone at 4 & 20 is if what I've written isn't true. Notice, brave man of principle, you haven't shown anything I've accused "some" folk of as being untrue. You'll claim it's libel, but you won't show it because what I've written is true, complete with examples. So if you want throw those words around, you'd best support yourself. It's not that what I've written about you is libel/slander; you just simply don't like it. And yes, that right there is teabagger behavior. (Yes, I have pissed on a lot of bushes; I've spent a lot of time in the woods. I've found that nitrogen rich fertilizers tend to help things grow ...)

there is ample evidence you do so because you don't agree with how "some" of us criticize the complimentary complicity of the DNC.

Then you'd best provide that ample evidence. Not once, not one fucking time, have I ever disagreed with, taken after, slandered, libeled or even commented to a "4 & 20 author" for criticizing the DNC for anything. That's a fantasy you want to believe because you've bought into the victimization complex all the rage among the extremist right. I have challenged 4 & 20 authors given their attacks on specific Democratic politicians. That's called disagreement among those who haven't accepted the "cootie" arguments of politics.

lizard

okay, Mr. NetRootsNation, so you don't want to be seen as a Democrat ambassador. but tell me, how is that not trying to distance yourself from the DNC?--same thing you're accusing us of doing? are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

you try to find ways to invalidate our criticism. you make things personal (but you're right, not technically slanderous). and when i see you bitching and moaning about the blowback you get from the fights YOU PICK, i have to laugh, because you bring this on yourself.

Wulfgar
okay, Mr. NetRootsNation, so you don't want to be seen as a Democrat ambassador.

Again with the foolishness. I don't care if I am seen as anything you want to see me as. I will call you an idiot for doing so if you have no basis. You don't. It would serve you well, just for once, to actually admit that you can't tell me what I am or what I believe. Your ego won't allow that, and I will keep laughing at you for your weakness.

how is that not trying to distance yourself from the DNC?

That's the cootie thinking. How can I distance myself from the DNC when I've never been a part of the DNC? You might say that I'm attempting to distance myself from the AMA. Your whine makes that little sense.

same thing you're accusing us of doing?

That's just stupid. When have I accused you of distancing yourself from the DNC? You have nothing, poet, and you're fading fast.

are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

That question would make sense if you could actually show any hypocrisy. You can't, you haven't and you won't. You will assert it because you believe it must be there. I've asked you for evidence you claim is readily available and you can't show anything. You won't show anything. Show me something, Liz. Hint, clueless wonder: It's hard to be blind to something that isn't real.

you try to find ways to invalidate our criticism.

Try? I've done a pretty good job of it, actually. Where is the evidence you claim you have? You've shown none of it. It doesn't exist. You just don't like the fact that I've got facts on my side and all you have is emotional angst.

i see you bitching and moaning about the blowback you get from the fights YOU PICK, i have to laugh, because you bring this on yourself.

The difference between us, cupcake, is that I'm good at the fight. I've been doing it for a very long time. You're not. I didn't pick many of these fights. I've pointed that out in many many posts, here and elsewhere. Your idea of "blowback" is actually pretty pathetic. You want to believe I've picked these fights because you are too ineffectual to actually engage in them, and you think it better to blame me than actually disagree. That's wingnut thinking. Prove me wrong on that one, if you can. You won't, I know. I've asked you to prove your claims, which you think you have ample evidence of. You can't even do that much.

So, go ahead and laugh, poet. It's whistling past the graveyard. You need me vastly more than I need you. But that doesn't serve your ego. When push comes to shove, I will do what's right and that will serve you. You will do exactly what I expect you to do. You will hide and whine and accuse others such that you not get the cooties.

lizard

Rob, if you didn't care, you wouldn't spend time formulating these little tirades. you could write about other shit outside of this boring mudfight, but i don't think you got the chops for that.

next you say you aren't distancing yourself from the DNC because you've "never been a part of the DNC". i guess i'll have to take your word on that one.

then you say this: "When have I accused you of distancing yourself from the DNC?"

i refer you to you:

"Most of those so very interested in NOT being seen as Democrats (even though they've voted that way most of their entire lives) keep drawing lines in the sand for others to follow, erasing them and redrawing when the general reaction from the vast majority of leftward folk is 'meh'. "

wiggle out of that one, Rob

you make a lot of tantrum demands for facts, and claim facts are on your side.

and then make really delusional claims, like this one:

"You need me vastly more than I need you."

Really? how can you prove that one, Rob. i don't think your logic dong is capable of proving that brash statement.

but please, keep posting your little attacks. it just emphasizes how little you have to say about anything else.


lizard

and i should add that if you continue trying to use me being a poet as one of your points of attack, a potential consequence is further isolation from the conversation.

Wulfgar
Rob, if you didn't care, you wouldn't spend time formulating these little tirades.

Liz, that's called equivocation. You are commenting about one thing while confusing it with another. I don't care what you think beyond the enjoyment I take in arguing with you. You won't "follow" that, I know. You have shown no inclination to "follow" anything in this thread that doesn't conform to the illusion you carry in your head. The DNC does not equal Democrats. Democratic voters do not and never have equaled the DNC. There's no onus on me to "wiggle" out of your fantasies.

You continue to claim you have "facts" and have yet to post anything, not one thing, that supports your claims.

As to you needing me more than I need you, you'd best read this. I don't need a "logic dong" to state the obvious. And the repeated sexist bullshit from you "principled" assholes convinces me even more how correct I am that you are ego driven and corrupt based on the very hypocrisy you spew. You don't really care about the things you claim you do. You care about yourself while blaming others for caring about themselves. That too was in this very post that you won't deal with while trying desperately to dismiss it.

I'm not "attacking" you for being a poet. I'm just very clear about your limitations. As for it isolating me from the conversation, I'm certain that you could describe my awesome fear of your so called consequence in iambic pentameter. The poets of the world will unite against me, and holy shit am I asceered ...

lizard

oh Rob, you are just getting desperate now. sexist? ok.

keep voting for Democrats, Rob, and hold on to the illusion that they are capable of addressing the massive corruption that's destroying this country. i'll keep pointing out why they're not, and you can keep throwing these weak little hissy fits.

and your claim that i don't care about the things i claim to care about is utter bullshit; just another baseless insult. you are pathetic.

pathetic.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad