The overnight mail and the BADGER SONG!!!
Oh, and thank God for Townhall.com
By Erick Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So, at 11pm, I cleared out the several hundred messages that had accumulated in the comment line since the morning before.
Here now are some that came in over night. These really just get better and better.
F*** you sent us this little ditty:
You are a traitor to the USA and you will f**king pay!!!
Matthew Beardsley, who (according to his email) works for Franklin Templeton, writes:
Go below the fold for Matthews and also, can you SMELL HEBREW? LOL . . .
To whom it may concern,
Your obvious denial of reality is laughable. You are shills for the most corrupt party that this country has ever had the displeasure of suffering through. You are no longer the party of limited federal government, fiscal conservatism and a strong military. The platform you represent is unlimited executive power, corporate welfare and endless war. President Bush and the FORMER Republican controlled congress have shown the people of this great nation that they are willing to bleed our military to the breaking point and are unable to defeat a poor and disunited enemy in Iraq. Your stance on Dr. Paul illustrates your lack of understanding of open debate in this free country. You are only hurting yourselves and your readers. I'm sorry you do not like what you are hearing. Fortunately most REAL Americans are not tied to a fake parties and are willing to support the best candidate regardless of party. Either way your party has NO chance of winning the upcoming elections. I hope that the message that you are sending is transparent to your readers. That if they do not tow the party line, they will be silenced. As a result you will allow Hillary to win and in some sadistic way I'm sure you are hoping for that. Good luck with that!
God bless the Constitution and this great Republic.
Ralphie sent this missive:
I SMELL HEBREW. THATS WHAT I SMELL.haha.. oh yes.. we are coming, p*ssies. Yes Indeed.
Hannitysucks went in depth:
...if you're a sore loser! Ahahaha... too funny. Funny how you claim people are "pimping" for Ron Paul, when the real whores are all the other GOP candidates. Chickensh*ts. And idiots, too... apparently you missed the bulletin ten years ago when the whole "wasting bandwidth" complaint was known by every internet user with an IQ in the triple digits to be utter nonsense, an excuse used only by those so desperate to silence debate that they must come up with any supposedly-intelligent-looking reason to shut it down. Must be frustrating to be too obsessive-compulsive to ignore threads, and be forced by some deep-rooted inferiority complex to "waste time" replying to posts.BTW... the whole of the grammar and "sentence structure" of this "paragraph:"
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
...is utterly appalling. Did you even pass the fifth grade?
Ahahaha. Sore loser.
Glen is afraid we might send the black helicopters after him:
I do not use my real name, because I live in a country that claims to have freedom of speech, but in reality does not. If the government would bother to trace my IP address I might get in trouble. So I do not say the name of the country either. I am an American citizen. I have taught and done community development work in a communist country for more than 10 years and now am living in another Asian country that claim to be free, but because of the restrictions on speech is not really free. Even though you are a private site, I would like you to reconsider your ban on certain topics. I have been a Republican all my life. I have also been a strong supporter of President Bush. However, I have been very disappointed with his excessive government spending. I welcome the challenge of radical ideas such as the ending of the national social security program. I have also been a supporter of the Iraq war, but at the same time I have been disappointed that many of the projections about the war have been wrong. When I see the beginning of any kind of censorship in a forum that claims to be open to the public, I see not red states, but red flags. I saw many red flags in the communist country I lived and work in so I prefer not to see these red flags when I look to my home in America. Please, tolerate the fanatics for the sake of freedom of speech. I hope we are all adult enough to judge for ourselves who is who. If someone writes in a way that is offensive, we can all the more see the character of that person and judge them without the help of another censor.
And last, but certainly not least, meet Jerry Shade, who wrote in using his law firm's email address:
Did this site ban pon raul to demonstrate opposition to his platform of not regulating the internet? Or did you do it to debunk his crazy conspiracy theories, like the one that says were losing free speech. Or was it just so you could call his supporters stupid kooks without having to worry about them challenging the baseless insults. You could just say that pon raul is a racist becuase he is against amnesty and you have just passed your own little RINO "hate speech" legislation. No more hate speech! Clearly now the world will reflect the truth that there are no pon raul supporters!asta la vista babe, Jerry
A republican who used to drop by every once in a while before you guys got all upity. ps. Hopefully you noticed the Arnold double-entendre, even though coming from a stupid RP supporter. pss. I only started supporting RP like 3 weeks ago, after engaging some RP internet supporters on Townhall (the freedom loving site).
I don't know about you, but I think this deserves the badger song.
« Standby . . . — Comments (46) | FRC's Washington Briefing — Comments (1) »
The overnight mail and the BADGER SONG!!! 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We don't need no steenking badgers!
(We got it all on UHF!)
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
"...the man look[s] like a statesman beset by crazy people."
They get the details wrong, but the line is nonetheless accurate. As crazy as he is, he'd probably look a lot more normal were it not for the company he tends to attract.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
My wife only knows him from the debates and thinks he's too old and sounds a little off.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm having a difficult time understanding what the Ron Paulies are about. They shout "Ron Paul '08!" on every blog, many times having user names based on that theme. But I can't see what they actually believe in or stand for, and they seem unwilling or unable to express it themselves without devolving into rants about government conspiracies and the like. The only thing they seem to be consistent about is that they appear to dislike everything and be against everything. There's no cohesion or logic to their campaign. I dunno, maybe it's zombieism or perhaps they've been body-snatched.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
First, I would like to admit that I do like Dr. Paul. Of this, I am somewhat hesitant to admit to due to the fact that I think most of the Ron Paul supporters, seem a bit too militant and paranoid to me. I do not believe in the 9/11 conspiracies, nor am I obsessed with abolishing marijuana laws or whatever else is common to the Paul-Spam board. However, I think that Paul is not nearly as crazy as he is made out to be, so ill list a few reasons why I personally like him.
First, and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative… I pretty much vote against any spending bill I have an opportunity to vote against. I believe that if America is to remain as dominate country, it needs to make sound financial decisions. Because of this I am very concerned with our current attempts to occupy and rebuild the nation of Iraq. I am not anti-war, but I am anti-this-occupation. I feel that I have a fairly reasonable prospective on that issue as I am an engineer working for a defense contractor that provides armored vehicles for the Iraqi effort. We are spreading our resources way to thin; I do not see how we can continue to support our current Middle Eastern foreign policy, especially if we continue into Iran. Although I disagree with Paul on several fronts, I feel that he will at least make an attempt to conserve, and grow the monetary resources of this Nation. His plan of pulling out of the Middle East will give him the resources to better protect our boarders as well as defend our nation against future terrorist attacks.
that he was OK but many of his followers were complete nuts. I changed my opinion and decided that he might now be as far off as many of his followers, but he isn't far behind.
If I understand it right, you like Ron Paul because of two issues: opposition to spending bills and opposition to Iraq (based on your part due to financial concerns).
The problem is that you do not share his underlying rationale. While he makes economic arguments for being against Iraq, his real reason is that his is against "intervention", which is his code speak for isolationalism. He foreign policy might be "fiscally conservatism" but would destroy the country due to allowing our enemies to get strong footholds in various countries around the world.
On spending, I think you can probably find any of the other Republican candidates that will push adequately conservative spending approaches. The real challenge, by the way, is in Congress regarding this. Ron Paul would probably veto a lot of spending measures, but this would simply result in bi-partisan spending excesses that can get around a veto.
Unfortunately you don't get two issues by supporting Ron Paul--you get the whole package. He says some good things, but the whole package is nutty as a fruit cake.
...humans to become too deeply committed to sentiments such as "In War; Resolution: In Defeat; Defiance: (Winston Churchill)" when they are busy tap dancing away in the men's room at the Minneapolis Airport.
Awash in a ocean of hedonism, the natural tendency is to try to find some way, any way, to keep the festivities going, rather than becoming deeply engrossed in thoughts about the survival of Liberty, Democracy, Western Civilization, and the Judaeo Christian Tradition. We are in essence, victims of this nation's very success.
The Islamofascists will try seduction in the period leading to the 2008 election, hoping that putting a softer face on Islamofascism will lead to more amenable leadership in the West. Failure to elect a Democrat in '08, or for some unforeseen reason, intransigence from the newly elected Democratic leadership to proceed further down the road to unconditional surrender to Islam will provoke the return of Islam's real face, the face of the World Wide Caliphate.
Only the dissappearance of a major American City and it's millions of voters under a nuclear fireball will convince this nation's Larry Craigs to put away their damcing shoes and get down to the business of protecting the values this nation was founded on.
I think the Paulies serve as a reminder of the sometimes uneasy union of libertarians and social-conservatives under the Republican umbrella. Libertarians tend to be knee-jerk anti-war. The Cato Institute, for example, has long been critical of the Iraq adventure. Ayn Rand wrote scathing critiques of the Vietnam War. Many business-minded Republicans were against American involvement in World War II at the beginning on grounds that the Feds did not have the right to re-tool and boss private industries (beating widgets into swords). The YAF, supporters of Goldwater, in the early 60's had a "progressive" (by today's standards) take on homosexuality. We forget today that many liberals of the classic school of individual freedom, hawkish democracy promotion and anti-communism (Wilson, JFK)came to the Republicans in the late 60's (mugged by reality) and Reagan harnessed a spiritual awakening in the 80's to bring many blue-collar religious people into the fold (Reagan democrats, evangelicals).
In some ways, Ron Paul is a throwback Republican.Where he errs is where the anti-war movement errs. They try to force the same WWI template onto every armed conflict, irrespective of the real pros and cons of action. They are unrealistic about the security situation, and trot out time-worn cliches that do no sufficiently address global security realities. So, they do have a claim on being "authentic", although this does not mean they are reasonable.
about Ron Paul. There are a couple of good posts here trying explain insanity, however, I am just wishing they would do someting other than spam, or complain. Classic Libertarians aside, we are moving forward. I know my history, but that doesn't blind me to today's threats. I wish they understood it as well.
freaking Paultroons!
Apologies to B.O.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln