Rosie and me

In some way, the intellectual differences between moonbats and me can easily be distilled down to thoughts about 15 captured British sailors. Rosie O’Donnell, an exhibitionist lesbian who would quickly be put to death were she an Iranian citizen, earnestly opines on American television that the Iranians acted in good faith to defend their territorial integrity, and that we should believe all of their promises and representations. (This touching faith in the Iranians is just a launching pad for accusing the U.S. Government of being behind 9/11, of course).

Rosie holds to this laughable position despite the fact that the Iranians have had to adjust their manifest lies in order to make them fit with irrefutable facts. She also does this despite the fact that the Iranians have made a special effort to humiliate and demean the one British woman captured — something that seems not to bother Rosie’s feminist sensibilities.

Can’t you just imagine the convoluted thinking in Rosie’s brain as she tried to deal with this assault on Western womanhood? It’s kind of like that old kid’s joke about falling out of an airplane. You remember: I fell out of an airplane. That’s bad. I had a parachute. That’s good. The parachute broke. That’s bad. But I landed in a river. That’s good. But I can’t swim. That’s bad. And on and on until your ingenuity, or your audience’s patience, gives out.

In the Rosie version, it goes

A woman was captured. That’s bad. But she was a complicit member of the vast military complex. That’s good, because her capture serves her right. Of, course, she’s British. That’s kind of bad, because they’re socialists, which is a good thing (as long as they don’t go after my millions). But Tony Blair is threatening economic sanctions against the poor Iranians. That’s bad, because he’s being a Western bully. As part of her captivity, they’re forcing her to wear a scarf over her head and parading her on TV, both in violation of the Geneva convention. Well, it might be bad, because maybe she doesn’t want to be humiliated this way. On the other hand, she could be having a bad hair day, and everyone wants to be on TV (right?), and the Geneva Convention applies only to bullying imperialist nations such as the United States, not to poor, little beleaguered oil rich nations with Muslim extremists in power.

Ah, the heck with all this: Somehow, it’s George Bush’s fault, and that’s GOOD.

When I hear about all the “confessions” the British sailors are issuing (in publicly televised sessions that violate the Geneva Convention, of course), I have no doubt but that the captives are being coerced, threatened, and possibly tortured. Although I haven’t yet seen any ruminations from the moonbats about these confessions (I haven’t been trolling the sewers of the more extreme liberal blogs), I’m willing to bet that they are accepting these confessions at face value. And why shouldn’t they? In Rosie the Moonbat world, Iran is the good guy, and is just trying to defend it’s poor little ol’ self from the big, bad, surprisingly helpless and hapless British Navy. (Queen Victoria is rolling in her grave as she hears through the ghost grapevine that a giant British battleship did nothing at all as its sailors were kidnapped.) The Moonbats also have a long and, to them, honorable tradition, dating back to Soviet times, of putting complete faith in the Kangaroo courts and show trials that the worst dictatorships periodically like to stage.

Yup. I’ve passed the test. I’m definitely not a moonbat. | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!
  • BigAL

    Hey BW,

    I can’t know whether or not the confessions were coerced. Nor do I think we should believe crazy people(like Bush and Osama). I do think it is interesting though, that neo-cons like Sean Hannity just a few weeks ago were telling us we SHOULD BELIEVE Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession about being the mastermind behind nearly every major terrorist attack or plot for the last 15 years–including 9-11.

    This is especially interesting given Fox “NEWS” and other Neo-Con’s consistent defense of torture(and the right to torture), and that according to reports, CIA officers told ABC News that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed “lasted the longest under water boarding, two and a half minutes, before beginning to talk.”

    So Hannity and other neo-cons are saying we should not only believe a terrorist, but we should also believe he would give us the truth after being tortured. How do we know he didn’t just tell us what we wanted to hear so we would stop torturing him?

    ” Although I haven’t yet seen any ruminations from the moonbats about these confessions (I haven’t been trolling the sewers of the more extreme liberal blogs), I’m willing to bet that they are accepting these confessions at face value.”

    Question: Who is accepting the words of terrorists at face value?

    Answer: The NEO-CONS

  • Marguerite

    I wouldn’t waste my time watching or listening to this pathetic unfortunate lump of woman who is as dumb as a rock. But I do keep my ears/eyes open to hear when the MSM tells us how she is shocked and moved w/horror at the two small children left by two muslims in a car that was then blown up as it got by an army check point in Iraq.

  • Deana

    The problem, BigAl, is that you are all too willing to make the intentions of Britain (and America) morally equivalent with Iran and those of similar ilk.

    Of course Britain, America, Australia, et. al., have committed wrong in the past and will do so in the future. But the incidents of wrong that have happened in these countries are the exceptions, not the rule. And when they have been the rule, there are efforts underway to correct them. And the people leading those efforts are not tortured and murdered to prevent them from achieving their goals.

    Why is it so very hard for you and people like you to see that Iran is up to no good? Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do nothing to promote the true well-being of their own people? What has Iran done recently to advance Iranian civil liberties? When was the last time you heard of some Iranian court breaking precedence to ensure that a woman, a homosexual, a Bahai, or any other minority was protected?

    I’ll answer that for you. You rarely hear anything like that because in almost all circumstances, their government doesn’t care about their people. They are just too busy being up to no good, not only for their own people but the world at large.

    I live in the Washington, D.C. area where there are lots of Iranians in exile. I frequently meet Iranians who would dearly love to visit their homeland again but cannot and have not since 1979 because if they returned, they would be murdered. They would vanish into thin air in the blink of an eye because the Iranian government will lie, cheat, steal, deceive, torture, and murder on a mass scale without a second thought to advance their nefarious agenda. Any reasonable person who is even remotely familiar with the behavior of the Iranian government for the past 30 years would know not to believe that the Iranians are behaving in this way simply to protect their territorial integrity. They are up to so much more than that.

    On a second but related note, I believe that Rosie’s interpretation of this event simply supports my contention that the left (in general) has simply lost, or is unwilling to employ, the ability to conduct solid analysis of world affairs. It is my opinion (but I suspect others would agree) that analysis of any kind, and particularly analysis of historical and current events, requires that participants share some values. If they do not, there is no reason to conduct the analysis because there will never be a single point on which the participants can agree. Without certain shared values, we can not even agree on the outcome toward which we should strive.

    And that is why so many on the left have no problem making America appear to be equivalent to the worst regimes in the history of the world. They have no desire to help others obtain something similar to what so many of us have loved for so long because they do not value what we have. All they see is the bad. Everywhere. So what’s the big deal about tearing America to pieces when, according to them, it is just as bad as Iran?

    Too bad someone didn’t tell this to the 650,000+ Iranians before the fled to America.

  • Bookworm

    I’m writing this on the fly, BigAl, and cannot hunt down confirmation at this moment, but I also believe that there was external evidence consistent with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confessions. Additionally, even people who believe his putting his imprimatur on many of the acts to which he confessed because of this extrinsic evidence, also feel that, eventually, he was boasting or covering for others and that not all of his statements were true. With the sailors, of course, there is satellite confirmation that the Iranians are lying, not to mention the fact that the Iranians promptly changed their story to cover their lies.

  • Lulu

    I’d love to see her off the air and I will write to share my views with whatever network The View is on.

  • greg

    “Yup. I’ve passed the test. I’m definitely not a moonbat.”

    No, as you are aware, you are an authoritarian whose unthinking allegiance to the current administration remains unfettered by historical precedent or the rule of law. Certainly, you an abomination. That you sacrifice your cognitive functioning to remain in that state is what is so fascinating about you. I hope you will never hesitate on my account to express your authoritarian urges. Please, always give your innermost scorn for constitutional structures the full airing your fragile soul believes they deserve.

  • Zhombre

    Greg, do you talk this way to people face to face; to friends, associates, neighbors, casual acquaintances, people you work with? I mean, calling somebody an abomination. Jeezus marimba, guy. Get real.

  • Danny Lemieux

    So, in one corner we have budding constitutional lawyer, greg, in one breath flaming on about Book being an “authoritarian”, while in another breath defending the Fascist regimes that kill his own people as well as innocent Iraquis and Iranians (I still suspect that his definition of “authoritarian” is one that means “does not agree with me”). In another corner we have Rosie O’Donnell, chief spokesperson for the truly stupid, defending same while waxing raphsodic about her knowledge of physics (simple physics tells you that fire does not melt metal…you didn’t cite that howler by Rosie, Book). If only the consequences of their beliefs weren’t so grim…it really would be too funny for words.

  • Oldflyer

    Bookworm, you naughty Authoritarian you.

    You are pretty clever, however, when you can entice people to rush to the defense of Rosie. That tells you just about all you will ever need to know about these individuals.

    Authoritarians Rule!

  • Don Quixote

    Greg has so consistently lost arguments on the merits and has been reduced to name-calling here that he’s just given up and now goes straight to the name-calling without bothering to lose the argument first. He knows his arguments are losers so he doesn’t even bother to trot them out any more. Every time I see one of his silly attacks I picture a white flag of surrender. I suspect even he knows he’s talking nonsense and just does it to see if he can get a rise out of us.

  • Bookworm

    Greg, I’ve come to love your comments for no other reason than the fact that my friends rush so staunchly to my defense. Thank you, friends! As for you, Greg, when you come with arguments and not insults, I’ll be happy to debate you in the intellectual sphere.

  • ymarsakar

    Can’t you just imagine the convoluted thinking in Rosie’s brain as she tried to deal with this assault on Western womanhood?

    Rosie’s not smart enough to really master doublethink, Book. So I do believe I can imagine her convoluted thinking, since it would almost have to be amateurish in its self-deception.

    (in publicly televised sessions that violate the Geneva Convention, of course)

    What Geneva Conventions? Oh you mean the Conventions of Greg that says whatever he tells it to say? That one, I know.

    I’m just using Greg as an example, it might as well be CAIR, Amanie, and the ACLU trios. Hugo, Saddam, and Putin would also be another one of those trios who talk about things that they fabricated.

    Yup. I’ve passed the test. I’m definitely not a moonbat.

    Why would there be bats on the moon?

    Of course Britain, America, Australia, et. al., have committed wrong in the past and will do so in the future. But the incidents of wrong that have happened in these countries are the exceptions, not the rule.

    It distills down to something basic, Deana. B-Al works to perpetuate entropy for he is in the employ of decay and corrosion. Baal looks at America’s attempts to resist entropy and evil and sees something that works against Baal’s goals of universal peace and happiness. You would expect someone that resists evil, to sometimes fail. Baal sees that as a problem not because we fail, but because we win. We are able to resist the corrosion of our souls, the destruction of our empathy for humanity and our ethics, while Baal here with his fellow friend Gridlock never could resist entropy’s pull. They can only see savage competition, emotions, and strife in people’s actions, because it is all that they hold in their hearts. There is no greater purpose, there is no system that they wish to uphold… those who serve entropy’s call is not here to forward the progress of the human race, Deana. Their claims of progressivism is simple. They are progressing towards maximum entropy, where people like Amanie are free from all constraints and civilized conduct, to maximize death and destruction according to the grand goals of entropy and evil.

    After all, if it was the “exception” that they were worried about making less often, why then do they promote torture, death, and dehumanization by their allies (communism, fascism, socialism, Islamic Jihadism)? Is the entire purpose to their existence, just to win political brownie points in the US? Ah, but they have plans for the US as well, progressive plans even.

    Why is it so very hard for you and people like you to see that Iran is up to no good?

    Because the good of Baal is the destruction of all that we hold dear. The methods the various parties of evil employ are different. Some more totalitarian than others, some less subtle than their counter-parts. “Good” in the lexicon of Baal and Gridlock means only the ending of strife and war, of achieving peace. Whether it is the ending of strife because humanity has ended, or tyrannies and mass graves which provide peace, doesn’t really matter to them. If your ultimate goal as you see it is the good, and that goal is maximum entropy, then anyone who serves to maximize death, entropy, and human suffering is the good. Like Iran.

    Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge in the face of overwhelming evidence that they do nothing to promote the true well-being of their own people?

    Because the Left thinks that the well-being of people is better served in a state of absolute entropy or a state progressing towards such. In that sense, if well-being means death and peace by any means to you, then your sense of how to promote that well-being will be different from how others pursue the well-being of people. Others like classical liberals and the Republicans right now here in the US.

    To make a long point short, entropy hates freedom, for liberty means choices. Entropy offers no choice except itself. If liberty means choosing the good or the bad, the evil and the good, then entropy will make sure that your only choice is the mediocre.

    And that is why so many on the left have no problem making America appear to be equivalent to the worst regimes in the history of the world.

    But America isn’t equivalent to the worst regimes in history to them, Deana, don’t you see? America is worse than the worst regimes in the history of the world, if only because America has successfully fought against chaos, disorder, entropy, and evil for the last couple of centuries. The view of the Left on this may be summed up concerning a phrase about an old WWII dictator.

    “At least Mussolini made the trains run on time”

    The point is that America really is very high on the limit of good. Therefore the Left knows that they can further help entropy do its work and also help evil do its work, if they turn upside down the hour glass. If America is nearing perfect good and Iran is going down into hell, then this means the Left must reverse the sides, treat Iran as if they are nearing perfect good while America is turning into the pit of hell. By this machination, they are able to “equalize” things, both morality as well as physical power. Only by having a mediocre mix with no highs and no lows can evil truly be achieved. It is a deception worthy of Baal.

    I also believe that there was external evidence consistent with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confessions.

    I think that’s known as “you can lie to me all you want, I have thousands of your buddies spilling the chant to me that I’ll use to find the truth, and hundreds of other informants in the AO”. Lie=pain is on the way. Truth=treats are on the way.

    That you sacrifice your cognitive functioning to remain in that state is what is so fascinating about you.

    You know Book, one of the ways I found to be a reliable means to analysis the truth about what the Left claimed, was to look at their accussations. Most likely on a per capital basis, their accussations are not 100% true of their opponents but rather their accussations are 100% true for themselves. Now I could go into psychological projection, but that’s what DR. Sanity and Neo is for. Although Neo doesn’t do much psychoanalysis, she’s a family therapist after all, a more of a mediator.

    I’ve said before that figuring out the internal logical consistency of the Left is perhaps pointless if not impossible. But their behavior can be predicted and correlated, if not their thoughts and motivations.

    I’m not going to say that Baal’s motivations, here, are evil or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Because it isn’t about who is evil, this isn’t Gridlock’s virtual world after all. This is about who serves in the army of darkness, striving for the goal of entropy and the cause of evil. Every human is capable of evil and serving darkness, for every action and decision he takes completes a quantum wave event. The consequences of which, cannot be reversed, for time’s arrow flies only in one direction.

    This is especially interesting given Fox “NEWS” and other Neo-Con’s consistent defense of torture(and the right to torture)

    I mean ya, you could argue about torture and who supports it. But that doesn’t matter either. So long as you figure out who serves the cause of darkness (Gridlock) and who serves the cause of light (Book and Neo), that and only that will validate or not validate torture. You cannot validate or defeat torture by arguing that those who fight against the destability of destruction and hate should not use it, while those who serve the masters of darkness and entropy are free to do as they please (Iran). Well, you could still do it, but then it would have nothing to do with ethics and morality, only power and manipulation.

    Greg, look, there’s you in the Army of Darkness. When are you going to muster out? Gridlock means just that, “certainly, you [are] an abomination”. And I say “look”, I mean that as well. Greg, talk about the real here, not the genjutsu practiced by assassins and world destroyers. We don’t want gridlock, we do want highs and lows. But somebody has to play the losers here, and it might as well be Iran and you.

    Btw, I say Baal because I never want to get identity crossed between Big Al and Al, even if by accident.

    It is funny you mention spheres, Book. Because in my mind, let us just imagine a galaxy that is more or less a sphere. Now let us also imagine and assume that the core of this galaxy has been underdoing some peculiar process of entropy and has now degraded to the point of either a blackhole massive enough to pull stars 50,000 lightyears away into its maw, or just that the basic matter and energy systems of the core is no longer of sufficient form to maintain star systems. Regardless, the higher echelon life energies (forms) of the galaxy must now move out, and cross the galactic void in a perilous voyage to another more vibrant galaxy. Now, to the center of the galaxy, this is unnatural and wrong. Because things were meant to be the way they are going in that sphere, and these life forms want to escape from their fate. The galactic core looks at the trillions upon trillions of life forms it is sucking into its maw, as good and loyal followers of the True and Only path because they are heading towards the core, while the path destroyers are heading away from the core and the pull of entropy.

    I think if you keep that sphere in your head Book, communicating with Greg might be easier than any attempt with an intellectual sphere.

    Nor do I think we should believe crazy people(like Bush and Osama).

    Jackpot again, I just said in one of my comments about lawyers and the insanity defense that the Left likes to talk about not believing in people who are insane.

    Oh wait, didn’t I end this comment already? Nevermind.

  • Pingback: The Thomas Chronicles » PING!()

  • Greg Laurich

    Why am I not surprised that Rosie is on the wrong side again? And why am I less surprised that people are defending her?

    Ymarsaker, nice to see ya again, I had a feeling that comment was you.

    The problem for the left is that they now equate issues with the people who support them. To them if you disagree with their views you are evil. Tony Snow/Elizabeth Edwards is case in point.
    Now people on the right who don’t agree with John Edwards politics fully understand that he is also a husband and a father and when the announcement was made of her cancer, politics (for the most part) was left at the door and every sane person wants the best for her and him. Their political views are besides the point, they are people in a huge struggle and most on the right want only the best for them.

    Tony Snow on the other hand works for Satan in the eyes of the left and therefore deserves everything he gets. Now not everyone on the left feels this way but many do. To them Tony and his boss are one and the same so they like it when the people around GWB suffer…

    “On a personal level, my immediate reaction was
    Looks like Snow couldn’t stomach all the lies he’s been telling as Bush’s Press Secretary.” His words and spin have hurt Americans and Democracy. So, do I have sympathy for Snow? Not much!”

    After my reply (how very humane of you) we get this…

    “As a person of conscience, I am not required to have compassion for destructive and dangerous predators. GWB, Cheney and Snow are dangerous predators in my opinion. As to having compassion for a GWB basher, it wou depend on who they were, and if I felt they were a predator or not. (Yes, I admit we Democrats have our own group of predatory folks.)”

    And after another reply by myself and others…
    “I suspect Snow’s character (or lack thereof) has been in place for many years. I never said he was sub-human, just not someone I feel a need to extend compassion to.
    Do you feel a need to extend compassion to Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein?”

    Nice now he’s the same as those two. Now substitute the British for Tony Snow and you get the same thing.

    Up is down, right is wrong, left (literally) is right.

  • Jauhara al Kafirah

    Rosie, just keep popping the marshmallows, darling, that way you can’t keep talking.

  • ymarsakar

    Now we have two Gregs, which is all the more reason to call small g greg, Gridlock.

    It is interesting Greg, for certainly Thom, Book, Danny, you and others all seem to run in the same blog circles on a comment and reading basis at least.

    On the compassion note, I think it has to do with truly understanding human nature. Because if you don’t know what makes people tick, then not only will go with socialism to attempt to solve people’s ills, but you will also hate the wrong people and love the wrong people as well. The inability to comprehend human motivations and fallibilities, their own and their enemies, prevents a person from hating things that ought to be hated and loving things that ought to be loved.

    In that respect, without the compass things become skewed. They have no guiding light or principle from which to proceede, the Left that is. It is either about themselves, their clan and goals, their political identity, or some other almost trivial facet of human existence.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Yes, Greg, to properly perceive the left, you need to think of Alice, Wonderland and rabbit holes. Here are some of the contradictions with which we must live:

    Conservative: Be a friend to your friend, be your enemy’s worst enemy.

    Lefty (Copperhead)/Democrat: Despise your friends, adore your enemies.

    Conservative: Generalize about groups, extol the diversity of individuals.

    Lefty/Democrat: Celebrate the diversity of groups (Christians and conservatives excepted), generalize about individuals.

    Conservative: Reason trumps emotions.

    Left/Democrat: Emotions trump reason.

    Conservative: the State is subject to the Individual.

    Lefty/Democrat: the Individual is a Subject of the State.

    Anybody want to add to the list?

  • T.S.

    Anybody want to add to the list?– Danny L

    “To be considered “liberal” or “leftist” now means, more than anything else, to oppose that [Bush-Cheney-Rove] agenda. All of the people now deemed to be on the “left” – including many who have quite disparate views about the defining political disputes of the 1990s – have been able to work together with great unity because all energies of those “on the left” have been devoted not to any affirmative policy-making (because they have had, and still have, no power to do that), but merely towards the goal of exposing the corruption and radicalism at the heart of this extremist right-wing movement and to push back – impose some modest limits – on what has been this radical movement’s virtually unlimited ability to install a political framework that one does not even recognize as “American.”

    Regardless of what other beliefs one might have, opposition to endless warmongering in the Middle East (and the wonderful tools used to promote it, such as rendition, torture and indefinite detentions) – combined with a belief in the rule of law, along with basic checks and balances, as a means of modestly limiting the power of the federal government over American citizens – is now sufficient to render one a “liberal” or “leftist.” That’s because the political movement that dominates our country is radical and authoritarian – “security leads to freedom.” Our political spectrum is now binary: one is either a loyal follower of that movement or one is opposed to it.” – Glenn Greenwald

  • Zhombre

    Conservative: human nature is flawed and fallible, and while the human condition may be ameliorated and even improved, its basic nature can’t be changed.

    Progressive/Liberal: humanity is mutable and perfectible, much of what is termed human nature is not innate but socially determined, and through the right application of social engineering, utopia is possible.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Excellent, Z!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Except that there isn’t anything “progressive” about Progressives, that is.

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » Rosie And Me()

  • BigAL

    you’re all hilarious!

  • ymarsakar

    But they are progressive, Danny. They are progressing towards maximum entropy and therefore the heat death of the Universe. That’s progress, of a sorts…

  • ymarsakar

    I mean progress and regress depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to resist entropy and build something longer lasting, then progress is the slowdown of entropy. But if your goal is to destroy civilization and all the good qualities of human constructs, ideas, philosophies, and cultures then you can progress by increasing decay and destruction. Decay and destruction, to good people are regressive. But stable civilizations, good civilizations, and good people are also regressive, to anarchists.

    There is a reason after all, why out of control and enraged bullies appear oftentimes on the Left, at the same time that the enraged clams talk about peace, pacifism, and you being a chickenhawk.

    Every human has basic desires and traits, some more pronounced than others (masochism, sadism, empathy, wisdom, etc). If a person allows his desires to pull him down into the pit, then he will lose control of his fate, of his destiny, and be nothing but a robot automaton of entropy. In this case, entropy is presented as the basic natural desire to destroy, to fear, and to hate. Hate begets hate, until it burns itself out as with an epidemic. Epidemics are natural people. Crime is natural. As Hobbes said, the natural world is a wild and ugly place, a cruel cruel world. Somebody has to take care of the children in such a world. Somebody has to resist the base impulses which would drag us down from human progress, to nothing more than animalistic levels.

    The Left cannot fight wars well because they are unable to control their aggressive instincts, their instincts to kill and hurt, and their instincts for personal status, greed. Just look at Gridlock here, he always tries to hurt Bookworm. All servants of entropy are like that. They desire to inflict pain, and there is no restraint upon them, there is nothing preventing them from not doing wrong things.

    The military learned this pretty early on. Aggression is all nice and good, but you want to control it, you need discipline. The Left has no discipline, other than a crass self-preservation instinct akin to that of jackals and scavengers.

    Wielding the forces of destruction and chaos is dangerous. If you cannot control it, it will get out of control and kill you.

    The Key difference between a good person and an evil person is that good people can resist doing what their emotions and desires tell them to do by willpower and other limitations, while evil people just go wild and do whatever they feel is good for them. Unrestrained by any sort of higher purpose or value. All that matters is them, screw Blackwater and the Iraqis. That’s how evil corrupts. It makes you close minded, it makes you close off your ties to greater humanity, and it degrades your will, spirit, and soul.

    Each act of destruction and evil makes it easier to do a greater evil act later. Every act. The willpower and wisdom required to resist such impulses, grows exponentially. If you give in, like Gridlock gave in, then you will be out of control, a simple automaton that obeys the slavish commands of emotion and instinct. Greg needs to lock up his ugly side, or Gridlock will he become in reality. A lot of people on the Left, Rosie for example, could benefit from some self-control.

  • BigAL

    HA HA!

    The problem is people like Ymarsakar just go wild and do whatever they feel is good for them. Unrestrained by any sort of higher purpose or value. That’s how evil corrupts Y all the time. It makes Y close minded, it makes Y close off ties to greater humanity, and it degrades Y’s will, spirit, and soul. Y needs to lock up his/her ugly side, or hell will become reality. A lot of people on the Right, Ymarsakar for example, could benefit from some self-control.



  • Thomas


    Boy, that was particularly nasty. Is this the Left’s version of fire and damnation? “Repent Ye Sinners Or Face Fiery Doom!” We can all use some self control in a wanton age, but to demand self control by letting ‘er rip against someone is counterproductive, don’t you think?

    Very provocative, BigAl. If that’s your intention, provocation, then it might work. In any case, I don’t think such comments would win you particular respect inside what is essentially a conservative blog nor does it advance your viewpoint in any way. Unless you sole object is to provoke and get a rise out of people, your statement diminishes your position rather than promoting it.

    If your objective is the former, perhaps you’d be more comfortable in a more hostile atmosphere. If this is the case, I’m sure you’d get more negative attention there.

  • Zhombre

    Al you’re hilarious!

  • Zhombre

    I mean really hilarious, like a good burst of nitrous oxide.

  • Zhombre

    I mean, funny like the Marx brothers on mescaline. Sorry to keep posting, but I have no self-control, y’know.

  • BigAL


  • ymarsakar

    Baal can’t come up with any original material for his Jester act, so he has to borrow from me. Those who cannot create… must imitate. Imitations are never as structurally strong and corrosion resistant as the original.

    At least it is better than his previous act, which consisted of copying and pasting entire paragraphs of his “views” as a sort of saturation strategy.

  • ymarsakar

    Boy, that was particularly nasty.

    Course it was, he copied something I originally created. It would be impactful, now wouldn’t it.

    I’m currently writing a comment to Bookworm that might illuminate some things concerning Gridlock’s (greg) and Baal’s behavior.