From Michelle I learned that the liberal academic Churchill Ward-types are persecuting Jeff G. from that Protein Shake blog. Well, one of them is, and the rest are complicit by their silence.
And from Jeff I learned that the folks at SADLY, NO! are are “going to bat for” the obscure loony who posted some nasty comments at Jeff’s site. And the Sadlys should “probably reconsider and issue corrections” because Jeff G. is getting pissed. And you wouldn’t like him when he’s pissed!
Anyway, since we’re scared of Jeff and don’t want him to get pissed at us, instead of commenting on the Sadly No affair, let’s see new what trials have been visited upon Christian martyr Ann Coulter.
Well, it seems that she granted an interview to The Jewish Press (I can’t get the link to work in this post, but if you go to AnnWorld, you can get to it from there).
In it, she chats about how little she knows or cares about Jews. (Hey, after Bush brings about Armageddon, they’re all getting fried anyway.)
And then she discusses her persecution at the hands of the liberals (the VERY SAME people who have been persecuting Jeff G, in that they have failed to sufficiently condemn that obscure loony who made the nasty comments).
Have you been threatened, physically or in any other way, for being so outspoken against liberals?Frequently on college campuses – or as we call them, “America’s madrassas,” I’ve had food thrown at me and I’ve been cursed out in the foulest language imaginable.
Liberals have “frequently” thrown food at Ann at college campuses? Why is this the first I am learning of this? How can I denounce the perpetrators if Ann keeps these incidents secret? Where was the mainstream media when Ann was being attacked? And why didn’t Ann’s bodyguard shoot the creeps, since Ann hired him for just that purpose?
And people used profanity in Ann’s presence (to include the foulest language imaginable, such as “boring”)? When will the horror end?
Bad liberals, BAD!
19 Responses to “In the Name Of Liberaldom, I Hereby Denounce All Bad Stuff”
Meh. I’m not gonna lose any sleep over mAnn Coulter’s “persecution.” As far as I’m concerned, *she* is persecuting those poor college students by being on the same *planet* that they are. So, mAnn? She should spray some Cheez Whiz® on one of her arms and eat it as if it was a celery stick. And as to Goldstein, I *still* don’t know why I was supposed to have been aware of this little kerfluffle, since I never, *never* read his blog. If he’s so fucking concerned that this woman is a serious threat, rather than whine to the liberal blogs about it, he should contact the police. Sheesh!
From my site:
And I’ll note that Sadly, No! edited their post to change the accusation that I altered Frisch’s rantings.
Which doesn’t mean they were “scared,” of “course,” just that perhaps they “realized” that libel “is” potentially actionable, and that some of us are “through” fucking around with “anonymous” bloggers who like to hide behind their anonymity while launching anonymous attacks.
And I’m getting very very curious about who some of these people are.
Online Integrity Pledge? Fuck it. Like the Geneva Convention: You don’t sign it, no protections for you. I don’t give a shit what Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Bryer, Stevens and Greenwald have to say on the matter.
1) I don’t feel victimized. Debbie Frisch is as nutty as the ring inside a squirrel’s crapper, but I don’t think she’s a threat. She’s more of an object lesson in having too many cats.Maybe “Marq” should “start” reading my “site” before he “suggests” that I’m “so fucking” concerned that this woman is a serious threat, and that I “therefore” whine to the liberal blogs [not even sure what that means, honestly] about “it.”
And I’ll note that Sadly, No! edited their post to change the accusation that I altered Frisch’s rantings.
Which doesn’t mean they were “scared,” of “course,” just that perhaps they “realized” that libel “is” potentially actionable, and that some of us are “through” fucking around with “anonymous” bloggers who like to hide behind their anonymity while launching anonymous attacks.
And I’m getting very very curious about who some of these people are.
Online Integrity Pledge? Fuck it. Like the Geneva Convention: You don’t sign it, no protections for you. I don’t give a shit what Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Bryer, Stevens and Greenwald have to say on the matter.
Whiny Ass Titty Babies.
Al Franken has a story in “Rush Limbaugh” about how he made some joke about Newt that vaguely involved his daughter in some way, and Newt got all up in his face and went on about how he should hit Franken for bringing his daughter into things.
Franken astutely diagnoses this as a transfer of field from Newt trying to defend himself to Newt declaring his purpose that of defending his daughter.
The comments the crazy woman made to the crazy guy were, you know, crazy. And wrong. But I’d like to see us, as a society, get to a point where we stop pretending that parents are special creatures with emotions the rest of us don’t have. There’s no entitlement to tap into a special realm of “Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children!” outrage just because you once helped form a zygote.
Meanwhile, as someone else pointed out, let’s see what hero of ethical sensitivity Ann Coulter would have to say about something like this:
“I’ve never seen anyone enjoying [nasty comments made about their child] so much.”
“If [Goldstein] did get [personally attacked], he’d finally deserve [that outrage].”
“You never see conservatives using someone else’s tragedy to make political points.”
“I think the point is clear, that [the right] keeps using human shields to promote its half-baked [persecutory] bromides. Let somebody else make the point.”
“What I said is, [he's] enjoying [his] celebrity status, based on the fact that they can promote themselves as — as victim spokesmen, which the [right] always springs on us.”
Civility in discourse? Honestly, that train left the station *years* ago. It’s just sad to watch the people responsible for the schedule bemoaning the fact they missed it and blaming the folks who couldn’t afford tickets in the first place.
Al Franken has a story in “Rush Limbaugh” about how he made some joke about Newt that vaguely involved his daughter in some way, and Newt got all up in his face and went on about how he should hit Franken for bringing his daughter into things.
Franken astutely diagnoses this as a transfer of field from Newt trying to defend himself to Newt declaring his purpose that of defending his daughter.
The comments the crazy woman made to the crazy guy were, you know, crazy. And wrong. But I’d like to see us, as a society, get to a point where we stop pretending that parents are special creatures with emotions the rest of us don’t have. There’s no entitlement to tap into a special realm of “Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children!” outrage just because you once helped form a zygote.
Meanwhile, as someone else pointed out, let’s see what hero of ethical sensitivity Ann Coulter would have to say about something like this:
“I’ve never seen anyone enjoying [nasty comments made about their child] so much.”
“If [Goldstein] did get [personally attacked], he’d finally deserve [that outrage].”
“You never see conservatives using someone else’s tragedy to make political points.”
“I think the point is clear, that [the right] keeps using human shields to promote its half-baked [persecutory] bromides. Let somebody else make the point.”
“What I said is, [he's] enjoying [his] celebrity status, based on the fact that they can promote themselves as — as victim spokesmen, which the [right] always springs on us.”
Civility in discourse? Honestly, that train left the station *years* ago. It’s just sad to watch the people responsible for the schedule bemoaning the fact they missed it and blaming the folks who couldn’t afford tickets in the first place.
Gosh. Jeff sure likes quotation marks, doesn’t he.
Throwing food at Ann wasn’t the most mature thing, but she does deserve it for be a total bitch.
Why is Ann such a hypocrite? Why does SHE get to threaten people with death and accuse them of enjoying their husbands’ deaths, but nobody gets to say mean thing about her?
What’s the deal?
Also, I love the “If you don’t behave honourably then I won’t behave honbourobly towards you!” line of reasoning.
Way to stay at the forefront of pre-renaisance morality there, Mr. Goldstein.
What’s the deal?
Also, I love the “If you don’t behave honourably then I won’t behave honbourobly towards you!” line of reasoning.
Way to stay at the forefront of pre-renaisance morality there, Mr. Goldstein.
Ooooh, the libel card. How long til recess?
Y’know, Mr. Goldstein, there are people who like you. I’ve personally found you enjoyable when you don’t let yourself get in the way. What would it take for you to simply enjoy that, and knock off the Mariah Carey of the Internets schtick?
Y’know, Mr. Goldstein, there are people who like you. I’ve personally found you enjoyable when you don’t let yourself get in the way. What would it take for you to simply enjoy that, and knock off the Mariah Carey of the Internets schtick?
[...] Update: Looky what I found! Jeff G Says: July 10th, 2006 at 10:54 pm […] And I’ll note that Sadly, No! edited their post to change the accusation that I altered Frisch’s rantings. [...]
Liberals have “frequently” thrown food at Ann at college campuses?
In fairness, her mouth is so big, it was assumed she was the trash receptacle.
Not a stretch, in my opinion.
In fairness, her mouth is so big, it was assumed she was the trash receptacle.
Not a stretch, in my opinion.
D.Sidhe, you are brilliant. Excellent response.
“Mariah Carey of the Internets.” That’s almost perfect. More like Naomi Campbell, though.
I thought his name was “Goldstain”.
Hey did you ever get a job, you sponge?
Hey did you ever get a job, you sponge?
“Wow”. How “sad” is “it” for a “blogger” to “actively” search and “find” other “blogs” which mention “him” and then “post” “comments” at “those” blogs in which “he” “challenges” even the “great” Kay “Grogan” on “weirdly” “inappropriate” usage of “quotation” marks.
Thank you, larkspur and SZ. Remember, it’s not plagiarism if I only took a few sentences here and there!
Wonder what the wingnut standard on libel is. “It’s not libel if you only say a few mean things at a time”? ‘Cause I think I’m within that line, too.
Wonder what the wingnut standard on libel is. “It’s not libel if you only say a few mean things at a time”? ‘Cause I think I’m within that line, too.
Wonder what the wingnut standard on libel is. “It’s not libel if you only say a few mean things at a time”? ‘Cause I think I’m within that line, too.
But it IS libel if you say something bad about Patterico.
But it IS libel if you say something bad about Patterico.
I subscribed to the New York-based “Jewish Press” for a number of years. It was a very informative source of background material for a book I ultimately published on a topic primarily of interest to Jews.
The “Jewish Press” is a family fixture in many ultra-Orthodox homes, and a good number of its readers (especially the Satmarer Hasidim) do not believe that the state of Israel should even exist in its present form. So anything Ann had to say about non-ultra-Orthodox Jews, or her own ignorance of Jewish topics, probably were welcomed by the interviewers.
Since the vast majority of Jewish Press readers follow the law of tzinius–modesty in dress–I wonder if mAnn showed up for the interview in her customarily skimpy cocktail dress? If she did, the interviewer probably modestly averted his eyes and rationalized, “Well, she’s a shiksa, what can you expect?”
Also, everyday Judaism frowns upon wantonly wasting food. So thanks to those “terroristically”-flung pies, mAnn picked up a few unearned points there. And if mAnn were, G-d forbid, Jewish, her hosts would be forcing food on her and hoping to fix her up with some observant unattached male relative.
The “Jewish Press” is a family fixture in many ultra-Orthodox homes, and a good number of its readers (especially the Satmarer Hasidim) do not believe that the state of Israel should even exist in its present form. So anything Ann had to say about non-ultra-Orthodox Jews, or her own ignorance of Jewish topics, probably were welcomed by the interviewers.
Since the vast majority of Jewish Press readers follow the law of tzinius–modesty in dress–I wonder if mAnn showed up for the interview in her customarily skimpy cocktail dress? If she did, the interviewer probably modestly averted his eyes and rationalized, “Well, she’s a shiksa, what can you expect?”
Also, everyday Judaism frowns upon wantonly wasting food. So thanks to those “terroristically”-flung pies, mAnn picked up a few unearned points there. And if mAnn were, G-d forbid, Jewish, her hosts would be forcing food on her and hoping to fix her up with some observant unattached male relative.
Geeze, Goldstein, what’s with the Groganish nature of that comment? Hmm…
You know, *if* you took Jeffy G. and plopped a big ol’ bouffant red wig on his head, and then “liberally” applied the leopard spot and zebra stripe togs and teh Maybelline®…
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
Gawd!!one!1!
You know, *if* you took Jeffy G. and plopped a big ol’ bouffant red wig on his head, and then “liberally” applied the leopard spot and zebra stripe togs and teh Maybelline®…
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
Gawd!!one!1!
It should be obvious that throwing food at Ann Coulter is merely a desperate attempt to save her from starvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment