Getting more and more disgusted with the "right"
I'm really starting to get sick of this garbage... you know, the folks who claim to be supporting "freedom of speech", and then bring things down into the gutter with personal and baseless attacks like this.
John West, if that's even his real name, is the kind of guy who makes me wish I wasn't aligned with the "conservative" movement. Get a load of this disgusting shot he takes at Warren over on the Doggeral's blog...
John West said... Don't be too hard on Kinsella. Rumor has it that his father died at Auschwitz. Apparently, he got drunk and fell out of the gun tower. ;0) 3/23/2008 11:36:00 AM
Oh, you think you're funny dude? Well guess what... you're not. That was a disgusting comment, and completely unwarranted. Everyone know's Warren's dad died of cancer, thanks to the tobacco industry. Your sickening personal attack on Warren, via his father, who he dearly loved and still misses very much, was WAY OUT OF LINE.
To be honest, I've been disgusted with a growing number of posts I've seen on the blogroll lately... pretty much every post I see on this issue, for the record. Most of them seem to be nothing more than another Warren bashing session, which all seem to delve down into the gutter of personal attacks... when the irony is, I tend to agree more with Warren on this issue than anyone else.
Yes, I'm an advocate of LIMITED free speech... I don't believe that anyone, ANYONE, has the right to say that anyone from any race is better than, or lesser than, anyone from any other race. We are all created in the image of God, and as such, are inherently equal to one another... we're all cousins in the human race.
And yes, I agree with Warren in that anyone who publicly advocates any form of racism deserves to be locked up... for stupidity, if nothing else.
Racism is a cancerous tumour that needs to be rooted out of our society. I support the aims and objectives of everyone who seeks this goal... and I oppose anyone who does not agree with this view, even if they only claim that they're supporting "free speech".
(And yes, I recognize that some people may see a conflict in my views on this one, since I believe, for example, that Muslims, Hindus and Catholics are wrong when it comes to their faiths. Here's how that works... I believe that we are all equal as persons in the eyes of God. However, I believe that there can only be one Truth when it comes to faith, as each of these faiths have elements that are mutually exclusive... basically, they can't all be true. I also believe, however, that everyone is entitled to believe as they wish... regardless of how wrong I may think they are. Hope that makes sense.)
There, got that off my chest. Feel free to flame away... I'm sure many of you won't be able to resist.
My bottom line is this... either bring up the level of debate folks, or just SHUT UP... many of you are not doing the cause of conservatism any favours with your gutter level rhetoric.
UPDATE: Welcome to all the readers tuning in via Warren's site. I sent him the link to this post to let him know firstly of the personal attack on him, and secondly to let him know that not everyone on the right thinks he's an idiot. Now that I see he's posted it on the front of his website, I'm thinking my hit counter is going to get a workout. For the record, I still haven't had a chance to actually meet the guy, but I'm pleased to see that he considers me a friend... and not just on Facebook.
UPDATE II: Based on some of the comments, I'd like to be clear... I'm not saying that folks like John West are representative of "the right", just that it's folks like him that bring the rest of us down with him in the eyes of the public. Hope that clears that up. I don't have any intention at this point to drop out of the aggregator, I was just pointing out that some of the stuff that's been said on this issue, and broadcast via the aggregator, hasn't been the most shining examples of conservative thought... and that we need to bring the dialouge up a couple more notches, in my opinion.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 8:24 p.m.
45 Comments:
At Sun Mar 23, 09:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Terrence C. Watson said…
You say:
I'm an advocate of LIMITED free speech... I don't believe that anyone, ANYONE, has the right to say that anyone from any race is better than, or lesser than, anyone from any other race. We are all created in the image of God, and as such, are inherently equal to one another."
People don't have a right to express their racist beliefs because you believe those beliefs to be false... isn't that what you're saying here? If not, can you clarify?
How does that cohere with your statement later that "everyone is entitled to believe as they wish, regardless of how wrong I may think they are"?
Why prohibit the expression of some false beliefs but not the expression of others?
At Sun Mar 23, 10:04:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
for the record, "john west" is a regular part of a fun day in kate mcmillan's world.
just so you know...
At Sun Mar 23, 10:13:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
What people who advocate limits on free speech fail to note is that all speech is offensive to someone. That is why the wise men who drew up the constitution put the limits of free speech at sedition and slander. Beyond that they said suck it up. If you don't like what they are saying tune them out or use your own free speech to show them they are wrong.
What ever happened to
I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire
At Sun Mar 23, 10:19:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"I agree with Warren in that anyone who publicly advocates any form of racism deserves to be locked up."
But is that really what Warren believes? Has he said anything about Jeremiah Wright, or for that matter Barack Obama's "typical white person" comments? Not as far as I can tell, though he's added the Obama campaign logo to his site.
What about Mohamed Elmasry? Again, not as far as I can tell, though he's happy to spread Elmasry's outrageous distortions of Mark Steyn's comments (Steyn was actually quoting a Norwegian imam and summarizing the plot of a book -- he did not say, e.g., Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes").
I agree John West's comment is totally inappropriate, but you've got to admit that Warren isn't exactly consistent on this issue.
At Sun Mar 23, 10:41:00 p.m. EDT,
Unknown said…
Personally, I find your association of John West with the broader "right" to be equally disgusting. Anyone who doesn't realize that there are assholes on both sides of the spectrum should bite their tongue.
At Sun Mar 23, 10:53:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Well, on the "defending people like Warren Kinsella defining what constitutes ok speech" we have, well, Warren Kinsella and you, basically.
On the other side: Deborah Lipstadt and Ken McVay, either of whom has done more to confront neo-nazis in one day than WK has in his life (making a profit by writing a book doesn't really count, you know).
At Sun Mar 23, 10:57:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I agree completely that the comments that John West made were awful and disgusting. Good on you for calling him out!
I am, however, disconcerted by your support of only "limited" free speech. Consider the following:
You believe racism is bad (no debate there) and that, in addition, we are all created equal. Further, you "don't believe ANYONE has the right" to (more or less) comment on the existence of differences between racial groups.
Now, what should be done about Prof. J. Philippe Rushton, at the University of Western Ontario? Some of his research is specifically about statistical differences (ie. superiorities or inferiorities) between racial groups- and is very controversial.
Is this racism? Ought Prof. Rushton to be locked up for simply examining data?
If so, I think you are being unreasonable. He is simply making inferences (perhaps incorrect) from the data. Hardly a criminal act.
If not, then where is the line? And WHO is the censor that adjudicates on what has crossed the line?
You will never answer these questions as they are the reason why "limited" free speech is entirely not free and completely arbitrary. I hope you reconsider your position on free speech.
At Sun Mar 23, 10:57:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"For the record, I still haven't had a chance to actually meet the guy, but I'm pleased to see that he considers me a friend... and not just on Facebook."
Did he mock you with his purple Barney the dinosaur puppet?
At Sun Mar 23, 11:06:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I find your speech offensive, sunshine - you advocate a particular religion publicly, and as an atheist, I find you exclusionary and "Fatheist". Get ready for the consequences. (sarcasm off)
Yep, as soon as you embrace limits on freedom of speech, you open yourself to becoming one of the censored. I suggest you remove yourself from the Bloggingtories blogroll. No one who advocates limits on free speech has any right to call himself a tory.
At Sun Mar 23, 11:06:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Ardvark, yes, he did mock me with the Barney move... and I still haven't forgiven him for that one, though I can respect this sheer political brilliance of it.
As for Prof. Rushton, Anon, I'm not familiar with his work... though I do also recognize that there are inherent differences between various races... but that's just medical fact, as many in the medical community are starting to address these days. (ie - diseases that affect one cultural group more than another, and drugs that are effective in one culture but not in another)
Of course, if he's making statements saying one race is better than another, that's a whole different story.
At Sun Mar 23, 11:08:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
"No one who advocates limits on free speech has any right to call himself a tory"
Ammm, yea... okay.
At Sun Mar 23, 11:22:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
John West's comment WAS wrong. It was a low blow to attack Kinsella's father. From everything I've heard Kinsella's father was a great guy (unfortunately he must of had problems raising kids because his son is a P.O.S.)
Unfortunately Kinsella has brought low blows on himself by being the complete a$$hole that he is every day.
So, if sometimes somebody decides to give him a kidney shot because they think it will do more damage than fighting by Queensbury rules... well, tough $h1+ Kinsella. Suck it up, you little weasal.
If he wants to pull his purple dinosaur B.S., smearing all Christians and then call EVERYONE ELSE a bigot I'm not going to get too worked up if he takes a hard, unsporting shot once in a while.
And C.C.? If such unsporting behavior bruises your delicate sensibilities, maybe YOU should shut up and stay off the internet.
At Sun Mar 23, 11:23:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Sorry, poor choice of words above... of COURSE I've forgiven him for his insult to those who believe in a six-day creation... but I still think he's a politically brilliant "jerk" for pulling the stunt off. ;-)
At Sun Mar 23, 11:27:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Christian Conservative,re: Prof. Rushton, you still haven't answered the important questions:
WHO determines the line?
WHO enforces the speech code?
Further:
IF hate speech is corrupting
THEN the censor will become the least fit to determine where the line is.
Here is a great video on this subject, I recommend watching all parts. It is fairly long, but well worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
At Sun Mar 23, 11:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I'm really starting to get sick of this garbage... you know, the folks who claim to be supporting "freedom of speech", and then bring things down into the gutter with personal and baseless attacks like this.
John West, if that's even his real name, is the kind of guy who makes me wish I wasn't aligned with the "conservative" movement.
I find this offensive. How dare you try and paint the entire "right" (quick note - quotations don't make it less offensive) with the same brush as this John West idiot? I'm on the political "right" and I think the things Kinsella is saying are daft. I think his whole point of view on this subject is wrong. And I think that the way he's trying to paint his opponents is little more than an attempted political smear job.
As for this debate - well, you undermined your own point when you said this:
everyone is entitled to believe as they wish... regardless of how wrong I may think they are.
If you believe that about religion, it's a little intellectually dishonest to not apply it in general.
Very, very few people in this country disagree with the goal of eliminating racism - but forcing it underground is a pretty dumb way to achieve that goal.
At Sun Mar 23, 11:47:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"John West, if that's even his real name, is the kind of guy who makes me wish I wasn't aligned with the "conservative" movement"
Your choice, buh-bye. I don't think anyone will notice you leave.
At Mon Mar 24, 12:09:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Put your money where your mouth is and leave the Blogging Tories aggregator, which is where most of this vile crap is taking place.
At Mon Mar 24, 12:28:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"Put your money where your mouth is and leave the Blogging Tories aggregator, which is where most of this vile crap is taking place."
You would have to increase his pay to get CC to 'convert' over to the Liberal side anon.The party looks after us well over here ;)
Isn't free speech a wonderful thing? I can make a joke at a expense of liberal operative who has a weak argument, and not be called before someone to account.
What makes anyone out there think that they should ever be able to arbitrate what I may or may not say, think or express? Who the (insert foul comment here) are YOU to decide that?
When Kinsella and the like who try to defend the indefensible and emulate George Bush and want to be the "decider" for what I have to say. Well than sorry, I ain't hopping on that bus as I don't trust the driver.
Al
At Mon Mar 24, 02:21:00 a.m. EDT,
WE Speak said…
I agree West's comment is disgusting and over the top, but quite frankly I don't see the equation with the rest of the BT blogroll. He's not a member of the blogroll and I certainly don't see anyone on the roll linking to or agreeing with him. If you look at his so called blog, it was recently created and obviously designed to provoke.
I must be reading different posts than you, because I have read some thoughtful, well reasoned arguments in defence of free speech. Do some of them include Kinsella - absolutely, because he is actively promoting the message that anyone who defends free speech is automatically a supporter of organizations like the Heritage Front or the idiots who demonstrated out west. That argument is as childlike and baseless as his Barney stunt. A man selling Canadians the message that Christians are crazy and should not be allowed the levers of power in this country so that his party can is not a person I want having anything to do with my right to speak.
I think David Ahenakew is an idiot and quite possibly racist, but I don't think he should be facing hate crime charges.
Obama's minister is being held up to scrutiny in the US for his sermons. He has been vocally denounced and even ridiculed. In Canada he would most likely be facing an HRC complaint and investigation along with possible hate crimes charges.
Is your minister next?
The same people that tell us a woman's right to choose is sacrosanct, allowing for absolutely no restrictions wish to control what I say, how I say it and when I say it.
Not this person, not ever.
At Mon Mar 24, 05:26:00 a.m. EDT,
Red Tory said…
Funny how nobody was terribly concerned when Kate endorsed the remarks of a self-confessed “full-time Nazi” who advocated the murder of homosexuals based on scripture. All of the Blogging Tories thought that was just HILARIOUS. Or when she pulled that prank on the evil WK using the Holocaust as the stuff of her merriment. Again… HILARITY ensued amongst the Blogging Tories. Or hey… how about that Kathy Shaidle? Isn’t she a laugh riot when she suggests wearing a necklace with little plastic bulldozers to celebrate a Palestinian woman who was ploughed to death a while back by the Israelis. What a terrific sense of HUMOUR! Because, you know… it’s all just joking around, right? Surely it’s just us dour, intolerant “liberals” who simply don’t “get it”… Or something like that.
Personally, I hope they keep up their vile antics so that more people can see what the REAL face of the Conservative Party looks like. It’s not pretty.
At Mon Mar 24, 07:19:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
So John West is an idiot! This surprises who?
This makes you embarrassed to be a Conservative. Why?
Who says John West is a Conservative? He is a troll, nothing more. Hardly indicative of conservatism. Linking him to Kate McMillan is idiotic at best.
Mr. West (if that is his name) only embarrasses himself with his idiotic comments, nobody else.
Mr. Kinsella earns scorn, but some children cannot criticise without vicious, ad hominen attacks. John West is one of those people. It shows his limited intellect.
Your positions on religion and free speech do not reconcile. You use you religious views as a form of censorship.
At Mon Mar 24, 08:10:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
The reality is that we all make choices. WK hates tobacco because it killed his father. Fine, but did his father not make a choice to smoke?
I would prefer idiotic people to be making their comments in public where they can be show for the fools they are. That includes hate-mongers.
Giving any government the power to stiffle freedoms is dangerous. One never knows what or how far they will one day go with the power.
Case in point, The Patriot Act in the US. Now people using Google mail are falling under its power.
Sad.
At Mon Mar 24, 08:13:00 a.m. EDT,
Roy Eappen said…
An Evangelical who supports Warren Kinsella. That's very disappointing. His campaign against Stockwell Day was despicable. the recent whispering campaign against Islam in Ontario was equally despicable and I wonder where that originated? Kinsella is a sue happy, self aggrandizing , anti-Christian bigot.
The HRCs spend most of their time persecuting somewhat misguided Christians. It is time for them to be defanged.
God also gave us freedom. So I support your right to say what you like. Limited free speech loeads to limited freedom. Who makes the choice of what is permitted?
At Mon Mar 24, 08:40:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Kinsella is a big part of the problem.
He is a self-professed expert in human rights, but he is also a anti-evangelical bigot.
Why? Evangelicals in Canada are a safe target.
If Muslims were as safe a target, Kinsella would have been on CanadaAM on September 12 with 40 stuffed virgin doll.
With Kinsella, speech is a one way street. Control of who gets to say what is a political, mostly Liberal, exercise.
Kinsella, like many rights industry people, is a hypocrite.
When Kinsella paints himself into a corner, it is he who drags his family's plight out for pity or sympathy or whatever purpose he wishes.
The cheap shots are a product of his own hypocrisy and his own use of his family for sympathy sucking purposes.
If you can't take it, you should really take the Blogging Liberals offer of that $6 life insurance policy and join their hypocritical ranks.
I support you right to free speech and be as whiny and thin-skinned as you want.
If a handful of distasteful comments about Kinsella's dead relatives (because he set them up) are all it takes for you to snap, then you might want to reconsider blogging altogether.
It ain't any more civil with Cherniaks, Kinsellas or McLellands, but each will act use the state to silence their political opponents in a heartbeat.
Why? Because they designed it that way.
At Mon Mar 24, 09:21:00 a.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Seems I've been misread, so I'll be more clear... it's folks like John West that give the REST OF US a bad name. I'm certainly not saying that he's representative of the "right", I'm just saying he's the type that bring us all down.
At Mon Mar 24, 09:54:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Um - just because someone posts on a "tory" blog commenting against a known left wing supporter DOES NOT mean they are right wing.
That is the beauty of blogs - they invite comments on topics of the day - ANYONE can comment - they do not have to use their real name and they can say whatever they want (with the host permission, of course).
That being said - we know that certain people (RW) have gone onto blogs and provided comment totally to incite the other commentors.
Where is the evidence that JW is
a. a Tory supporter
b. actually "John West"
c. male
d. anyone that should be listened to.
It would be very easy for ANYONE of ANY political stripe to anonymously post something on ANY blog solely to either
1. incite the readers of that blog
2. provide (false) evidence of the perceived thinking of that host or their commenters in general.
Don't get so worked up - that is EXACTLY what the commentor wants!
At Mon Mar 24, 10:32:00 a.m. EDT,
James Bow said…
Hey, C.C.
If you ever felt the need to step out of the Blogging Tories list, you wouldn't have to join the Libloggers. The Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians would be happy to have you.
At Mon Mar 24, 11:09:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Well, doesn't it just figure that "Alberta Girl" chimes in to defend the indefensible.
You are correct, CC, that fringe radical haters such as John West, Alberta Girl, WL Mackenzie, Maz2, OMMAG and their leader, Kate MacMillan, do damage to the Conservative brand and conservative commentary.
It is, frankly, the ravings of these sorts of Conservative supporters, and the extent to which the gov't occasionally plays to them, that has affixed a permanent glass ceiling on their public support. This ceiling will continue to lower the more these fringe dwellers are perceived to be representative of their party.
At Mon Mar 24, 12:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
Anon@11:09, you've hit the nail on the head... that's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. It's folks like that, whether or not they're real "conservatives", that only serve to bring the entire movement down.
At Mon Mar 24, 01:03:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I believe in free speech but unfortunately you can't legislate sensitivity, good judgment and how to draw the line between free speech and hate speech. It is obvious that some are using "free speech" as an excuse to spew their hatreds.
Until such people grow up, stop being angry and hatefull - free speech is going to be a dirty word.
It's Easter time. Christ died preaching his beliefs in "tolerance", giving, forgiveness, redemption, etc. and I seel the likes of Dr. Roy, for example, on a daily partisan, attack rant at Liberals, spouting off Bible verses, and yet claiming to believe in Christ, the words of Christ, the message of Christ. The are the type of evangelicals that give them a bad reputation.
In my view, you either practise what you supposedly believe or you are a hypocrite and quite frankly betraying the words and works of Christ.
People do not see eye to eye politically - does that mean you have to hate them? People have different religions - does that mean you are to hate them?
Hate and and Christianity don't go together and yet hate is increasing.
I'm sure they is a price to pay for such hypocracy and I suspect it will be when one meets their maker.
Perhaps free speech should be somewhat controlled until people grow up and learn the difference between free speech and hatred and not use it to spread their hatred under the free speech banner.
Lynne
At Mon Mar 24, 01:52:00 p.m. EDT,
Roy Eappen said…
Lynne, I don't hate leftists and you should Google and see what the lefties say about me. I disagree with their views that limit freedom and persecute the Christian Church. God gave us all freedom . It is your rght to disagree with me. It is also my right to fight people like you who wish to limit freedom.
At Mon Mar 24, 02:03:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"You are correct, CC, that fringe radical haters such as John West, Alberta Girl, WL Mackenzie, Maz2, OMMAG and their leader, Kate MacMillan, do damage to the Conservative brand and conservative commentary"
Um Anony...Please give me ONE example of "fringe radical hate" that I have espoused on any blog.
At Mon Mar 24, 02:05:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Furthermore, I have defended Christian Conservative when "radical Left wing Hate Mongers" have derided his faith and his right to espouse that faith.
So don't you dare come here and try to paint me in with those that use personal attacks to try to make their points.
At Mon Mar 24, 02:10:00 p.m. EDT,
Jim said…
All of this bluster over a provocative, albeit, tasteless comment?
Man-o-man, the internetz is serious business!
In my time surfing the blogs, I would have to say that the haters are pretty evenly numbered on the right and the left.
Partisan political junkies will continue to attack and insult each other til the end of time...get used to it.
And isn't "limited free speech" kind of an oxymoron?
At Mon Mar 24, 03:06:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I think Warren fakes "not getting it", but just in case you are genuine in what you say, I'll explain why we support hate speech as part of our supporting free speech as simply as I can.
Hate speech, whether by anarchist anti-racist types or Nazis, is the canary in the public square. If we could design a system that would censor true hate speech without limiting other speech, we would all jump at it.
But we can't.
The HRCs have proved this. While we were otherwise engaged, the net broadened in service of hidden agendas. We were reminded that the only way to ensure that we have freedom of speech is to keep the haters around to push back the boundary. If they go, we're next. The Levant, Steyn and Macleans cases prove it.
So we hold the line with the trash, to keep us all free.
That's it.
At Mon Mar 24, 03:49:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous said:
"I suggest you remove yourself from the Bloggingtories blogroll. No one who advocates limits on free speech has any right to call himself a tory."
By that logic, isn't suggest that he removes himself from the blogroll a limitation of free speech? You are basically saying "if you don't agree my assessment of a blogging tory, then you shouldn't be on that blogroll". So much for freedom of expression.
At Mon Mar 24, 06:04:00 p.m. EDT,
The Rat said…
I'm not big into personal attacks like that one, it's tasteless and sad. Vut it's tasteless and sad all on its own. I'm just not big on self-pity so I have aquick news flash for you: Everyone's father dies. To blame the tobacco industry for it is just pathetic blame shifting and to then imply that any comment on his father is off limits because of this pseudo-tragic death is pathetic. He smoked, he chose to smoke, for 40 years we have known smoking is bad for you (my mother quit in the 70s because she knew it was terribly unhealthy), and for reasons of his own he didn't stop.
I know Warren likes to make out how he is so special, his special adoption, his special daddy death, his special music interests, his special hatred of Nazis. Like no on else has ever trans-racially adopted (not me, nope!!), or had a father die, or liked stupid music in our youth (most outgrow it), or found Nazi ideology disgusting. His patronizing "young man" comments only go to show how huge this man's ego is! Defend Warren if you like, but defend him for something real and not his imagined specialness. That man needs to grow up.
At Mon Mar 24, 06:38:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
If the goal is to "bring the dialogue up a couple more notches" then a defence of the infantile antics of Warren Kinsella seems hardly the way to accomplish that.
After all, this is the same middle-aged adult who responded to my criticisms with the grade 2-level remark that I was "butt-ugly". No mature argument. Just a turd, left in my comment string, followed up with the clarification that I had a "Fred Flinstone-like neck".Hardly the man you want to align with, to create a debate which ascends above the gutter.
And newsflash for you AND perpetual-victim Kinsella: Big tobacco doesn't inject hapless victims with Cancer. His father had to willingly purchase tobacco products and willingly ignite the damned things in his own mouth. His father died as a consequence of his addiction and like all addictions, it required complicity on his part and at least a modicum of choice. But for Warren (and it seems for his family, as well) his problems are never a result of his own poor choices.
Or maybe I'm just among the "stupid" who should be "locked up".
At Mon Mar 24, 06:58:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Dude, seriously,
Kinsella does this sort of stuff all the time. Calls people bigots, KKKate, the wicked witches of east and west, the famous Barney doll incident, Calling Kathy Shaidle an ugly gnome, and threatening to sic Gandalf on her etc. etc. etc. He likes to dish it out but then goes crying to mommy when others beat him at his own game of "kick them while they're down".
Seriously, defend him if you want, but I find it hard to take you seriously if you paint him as a poor innocent victim.
At Mon Mar 24, 07:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
followed up with the clarification that I had a "Fred Flinstone-like neck
Heh heh...
If you can't take the heat, say in the kitchen, sweetie.
At Mon Mar 24, 11:22:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
"say in the kitchen, sweetie."
If you can't type or proofread, don't try to make smart-assed comments dick head.
Heh heh ...
At Mon Mar 24, 11:58:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I find it ironic that Warren Kinsella does not get worked up over the fact that Pierre Elliot Trudeau, undisputed God of Canadian Liberalism, in his youth used to ride his bike with his buddies thru the streets of downtown Montreal dressed in Prussian military uniform, complete with German “Pickelhaube”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau) while Canadians soldiers were getting killed in droves at Juno beach.
Warren should know that, history tends to repeat itself especially when one refuses to learn from it, so he should cool it off a bit as this youth wearing German “Pickelhaube” demonstrating in downtown Edmonton while Canadian soldiers are getting killed in Afghanistan is already so confused at his young age that when he grows older he might become next leader of Liberal Party of Canada.
How dares he call him “Neo Nazi”??
At Tue Mar 25, 12:22:00 a.m. EDT,
OMMAG said…
So an anonymouse commenter has decided for itself that I along with some others are " Fringe Radical Haters " !!
Please show us the examples that you base your judgement and condemnation upon!
Any time !
At Tue Mar 25, 03:00:00 p.m. EDT,
Shawn Abigail said…
I think it's important to distinguish between thoughtful adherents to a specific political philosophy, the party loyalists who merely love politics, and the mindless yahoos.
The conservative movement has thoughtful, thoroughly convinced philosophical conservatives. There are those are just part of the Party because they like being involved in politics, the thrill of winning and the political process. There are also yahoos who just like to make outrageous statements to get some laughs (or at least a reaction).
The left has its own versions. There are philosophical liberals and socialists. They tend to be naive, but are relatively harmless. There are also the yahoos on the left whose answer to every problem is, "the government has lots of money; let them fix it". But for the political left is it the ones in the middle who are the most dangerous. With a small dose of ideology and a big desire for power, they can do a lot of damage to the economy of a country and (dare I say it) the moral fiber of a country. By moral fiber I'm not referring to a specific religious creed or even to deism, but to matters like industriousness, self-reliance, clear thinking about cause and effect in criminal justice, etc. Again, it is the ones in the middle who are the real danger. I put Trudeau in this category.
As for Kinsella, he's not an idiot. He's a handy guy to have in your corner if you're going after big tobacco. But I honestly don't know him well enough to know if he's a philosophical liberal, a lefty yahoo, or one of the ones in the middle.
At Thu Oct 08, 07:59:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Although I disagree with Warren Kinsella's politics. Making a joke about his father who passed away is disgusting.
Post a Comment
<< Home