One of our commenters has this to say about Curious Texan: “Oh and I’’m waaaay smarter than you, so there.”
Really? If that is the case why do you have to resort to this kind of blather? These are all comments from this site and many more of this type of behavior exists on other sites this commenter frequents.
Learn to read, dumbass.
See ya in hell.
You guys are so dumb!
See you guys after Rush finishes spoon-feeding talking points to ya. (This comment came after he copy and pasted a liberal talking point verbatim)
Jeez man! Learn to read
Cool I won,since you led off with a lying generalization!
Blow it out your butt, old man.
Seriously, go to hell.
I openly admit that I have name called here and elsewhere, maybe not to this degree, and so have other Authors here at Ivory Dome, but, I know for sure I don’t, and can’t speak for Celtic or Curious, that none of us claim to be waaaay smarter than anyone else(For the record however, Curious Texan has completed two masters degrees. I am sure someone could argue whether that takes smarts to complete or not but I say it does).
I am no psychologist by any stretch of the imagination but I think, based on his atitudes and comments here and elsewhere, our commenter suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and delusions of grandeur. Read his comments and come to your own conclusions.
Smarter than you too, and I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch™.
Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle Narcissistic.
Wanna post some ignorant qutoes of your “authors”, lol?
You guys lie, why shouldn’t I call you out on that?
You guys are dumb.
I will see you in hell.
You guys don’t read the posted material.
All you post is talking points and your own stupid “essays.”
If you don’t like the fallout, make a change in the way you approach discourse. This is a dishonest blog. You admitted it a long time ago. Remember?
Anyway I win. See you posted misinformation above.
My mental health is just fine. I don’t molest kids. I don’t do meth.
Didn’t you asses say these things to me?
Have fun spending your time with the white supremacist and “doc” Marty. The rest of us are going forward instead of trying to take the country back to the 50’s.
Goodbye forever.
Please post your insults below.
(I’m sure you’ll get really brave once I’m gone.)
Nah, it’s just like ol Doc Savage says Liberalism in and of itself is a mental disorder. He doesn’t have anything as sophisticated as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or delusions of grandeur. He has a liberal personality disorder, liberal illutions of grandeur.
He reminds me of this extreme Liberal woman I once knew. She would pick a bug up and take it outside so it wouldn’t get hurt, she would litterally stop people at traffic lights and chew them out for throwing a cigarette butt or other trash out the window. Not bad things in and of themselves. but while she would save that bug she was radical in defence of abortion. If you respect life is it logical to make exceptions? At the same time as she would become rabid about abortion, she would be jst as rabid about executing a child murderer, or hunting. No logic just liberal dogma.
Clint never would answer a post point by point and reaason out why the post is wrong, he would just get emotional go off on some tangent unrelated to the post, then start insulting.
He says he’s gone, I say hold the door so it don’t hit him where his brains are.
“Wanna post some ignorant qutoes of your “authors”, lol?”
Please do, but note, however, I admitted that we have done some name calling. The difference between us and you is that we don’t claim to be better than you are but you still resort to disingenuous debate tactics.
“Anyway I win.”
Diagnostic Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
*has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
*believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
*has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
*shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
“Goodbye forever.”
I doubt it.
Well yeah actually that is a pretty good description of a liberal LOL
Goodbye forever.
I sincerely hope that this is just a reflection of the emotions of the moment. We’ve beaten up on you pretty bad lately (some of us worse than other), albeit not without good cause. Your habit of pronouncing us all dumb and then declaring victory does nothing to move the debate forward.
I fairly certain you’re capable of rationally presenting a counter-argument. I recall a rather lengthy exchange we had at PTS about the minimum wage (I believe that was you, wasn’t it? I couldn’t find the thread at PTS to check). You didn’t convince me that an increase was necessary or even desirable, but you did offer some compelling evidence that gave me pause. On another occasion, others at PTS actually convinced me that I was clearly wrong about it being a crime for journalists to publish classified material, although I still liken it from an ethical perspective to fencing stolen merchandise (unless corruption or illegality is involved).
I know what it’s like being the Lone Ranger; long before there was a Bodacious or Celtictexan, I was the sole voice crying in the wilderness at PTS. Even some of the regulars over there admitted that I got beat up pretty bad on occasion. When I stopped posting my comments there, it wasn’t because my feelings were hurt. I simply came to the rational conclusion that no matter what I said, it wasn’t getting through.
If you’re leaving because you’re feeling the same sense of futility, then I wish you well. But if you’re leaving because we’ve your feelings are hurt, perhaps you’re not thick skinned enough for vigorus political debate.
Since you’ve accused me of being a shill for Rush Limbaugh, I’m sure you won’t mind if I post a quote that appeared on his website:
“When anybody enters the political arena, they are subject to criticism, reaction and response. Nobody is immune. Nobody.”
On another occasion, others at PTS actually convinced me that I was clearly wrong about it being a crime for journalists to publish classified material,
Are you kidding me? I’m going to have to debate with you now. Please link if you can find it.
I['m] fairly certain you’re capable of rationally presenting a counter-argument. I recall a rather lengthy exchange we had at PTS about the minimum wage
If you’re still out there, Clint, here it is. Back then, you held your ground, but at least you provided some arguments rather than claiming victory and getting personal:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/panhandletruthsquad/114660055784583603/#200296
Are you kidding me? I’m going to have to debate with you now. Please link if you can find it.
Go down to the my post “New York Times: Whoops! We were wrong,” then click on “what I said.” Toward the end of that thread, I introduce the concept of “primary leaks” and “secondary leaks.” I’ve since been convinced that in most cases, freedom of the press trumps “secondary leaks” (at least legally, if not ethically.) Read the wikipedia articles I cite, too.
(at least legally, if not ethically.)
Well I feel better now that you said that.
I’ve seen many arguements about this and the 1st amendment. Many people feel that you must put your self in those times and understand how words were used. At the time I and many others think, the word press as used in the constitution, follow the, and is limited to the right to address or present grievances to the government.
Any thinking person knows that the founding fathers never intended the 1st to protect those who commit treason or allow things like Child porn real or not or acts.
The fact that on occation reporters have gone to jail for refusing to give up sources tells me that in fact even a secoundary leaker is not immune to prosecution.
It funny how they all cheered the exposure of the money tracing techniques but screamed bloody murder over Vallery Plume. A case where a reporter did go to jail. As usual, the law shows itself to be selective and generally that selection is exercised by activist Judges. As it is with the liberal geeks at PTS in that debate you linked to.
Celtic,
I’m glad you understand now what I was driving at. I concede that I was wrong in believing that the disclosure of classified information by the press is always illegal. However, I still maintain that it’s morally repugnant, except to expose corruption or illegality (i.e. whistleblowing).
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally right. Abortion is a good example. Since Roe v. Wade a woman’s “right to choose” (read: right to destroy the life of her fetus/baby by medical procedure while still in the womb) has been legal in all 50 states. If I had been living under a rock for the last 33 years and didn’t know about Roe, I might say that abortion is both legally and morally wrong. If someone at PTS had set me straight about Roe, I would have to concede that I was wrong about the legality. However, I wouldn’t renege on the morality question.
Re the Plame affair, the legal argument among the liberals was that the leaking of the identity of a covert operative is one of those rare cases where the press could not publish classified information. However, “covert operative” is so narrowly defined in the law, Mrs. Wilson couldn’t be considered a covert operative.
That’s the legal argument. Obviously there was a political element to all this. Making a big deal about the Plame affair also served to damage the Bush Administration, which was the overriding consideration among most, if not all, Democrats. The fact that the Wilsons are staunch liberals played a big role, too.
A similar example was the Dubai ports deal. I was against it because of national security concerns. Liberals claimed they were likewise motivated, but the underlying payoff for them was embarassing the Bush Administation. For the first time I can recall, Chuck Schumer and I agreed on an issue, but for very different reasons.
I had forgotten that there is a specific law about disclosure of CIA operatives now. Seems like that stems from an incident in the early 70’s where some liberal group exposed many still in the field around the world, resulting in the death of some American and many local resources. That was the beginning of the decline in boots on the ground intelligence gathering.