From the comments section back here, fellow Waterloo blogger "Pretty Shaved Ape" lays a savage beatdown on a smug, sanctimonious wanker who clearly wandered into the wrong meeting room:
so sayeth syncroduck:
"That said...you might want to ask yourselves what inspires this type of ad-hominem attacks from such "progressive" thinkers.
Is it traffic envy? Ideological spite? Plain old spite? Impotence? Continence? A character flaw? Or simple hypocracy [CC: sic]?
All attempts at claiming the ends justify the means when combating "ignorance" will be thouroughly enjoyed."
in order, what inspires such ad hominem attacks? you mean why do we mock and revile kate and her fans, well, tit for tat. after all, we're the unhinged left, the angry left, the terrorist enablers, traitors and emboldeners, the weaklings with no stomach for fighting the great global war on terra, we're the freedom haters, feminazis, queer lovers, enviro-crazies etc etc. bottom line, syncro, we're responding in terms your side will understand. besides is it especially wrong to respond to a xenophobic, bigotted hate monger by calling them a xenophobic, bigotted hate monger? i think not. your creatures lowered the bar. hell, your neocon/socon movement pretty much dug a trench and dropped the bar into it and you expect us to be polite.
i'm sorry that you're stupid but i don't have to pretend that you're a special and clever bunny. your side is cheering for death along racial and sectarian lines. we're looking for common sense. your side has based it's agenda on exploiting fear, anger and distrust, we'd appreciate it if the pursuit of armed conflict was reserved for defensive actions and be based on honest intelligence. your gang seeks to expand your blood lust into yet further sovereign states, in an unstable region that your team has brought to the boiling point of chaos. we'd like to see the big league diplomats change tack and employ, say, diplomacy before hitting the launch button.
"traffic envy" i'd rather be honest and unheard of than be a famous liar. i'd rather dine in a bistro than get drive-thru from mcdonalds. i'd rather spend time with a few good friends instead of being shoulder to shoulder with a room full of slavering goons, bereft of wit, wallowing in a consensus of fearful rage.
"ideological spite" or "plain old spite", well, spite would indicate being contrary for the sake of being contrary. we're contrary because you are wrong. your agenda has failed on the international stage and in the middle east in particular. since the right has blindly followed and continues to insist on a failed path, marked only by blood, waste and lies, sure i'll raise my voice to spite you. it is obvious that you don't listen to reason so we frame our refutations in terms you might understand.
"impotence" and "continence" so. about that tossing around of ad hominems. just remember that we leftie liberal types are the libertines. we're the ones having the hot and steamy consensuals. you guys are the ones tying to legislate second class citizenship for homosexuals and touting abstinence only as sexual health education. as for continence, yes lefties eat a balanced diet, rich in fiber and we make poopie like clockwork, every morning.
"hypocracy" spelling aside, let's get this straight. your side wants to stay the course. support the troops. fight the war on terror. fight there, not here. create (impose by force) democracy. yadda and yadda. you pretend that the great white west is there for the benefit of iraqis and afghans and you'd love to give some exploding assistance to iran and syria. on the one hand you pretend the goal is to give freedom to the poor, backwards ayrabs. but a cursory glance into the comments at small dead souls reveals something else. your community openly protests hatred of "mozzies" and "ragheads" and routinely denigrates the entirety of their faiths, cultures and societies. your team wants to either kill them all or let them kill each other. well, who flies the flag of hypocrisy now, kid?
so mister or miss smug britches. there are some answers for your questions. now how about you do some justifying for all of the hate spewing over in kate's parlour. because all the pocket machiavelli in the world doesn't make you correct. and since you think you can bark orders and demand answers, how about you pony up some actual argument, rather than off hand dismissal. so far you have presented content and context-free allegations, some name calling and white wash. make your case, support your premise or take you presuppositions and wrap them in pretty ribbons and head back to the bunker. you can tell your cohorts all about how you showed those lefties a thing or two.
after all, things are always going to be just as you expected when you run in a little circle flapping your hands over you ears chanting neener neener neener.
It's amusing to hear those on the Wingnut Right accuse us progressives of uncivil behaviour when they make an absolute lifestyle of that sort of shrieking hate-mongering. They will, of course, fail entirely to appreciate their own hypocrisy.
P.S. See how it's spelled? "Hypocrisy." It's not hard to remember. Write it down if you have to.
THE ANGRY, ANGRY LEFT. And just to leave no stone unturned, if anyone still wonders why we in the sane-o-sphere are getting a bit miffed with all of those hacks in Wankerville, you need look no further than our old friend Dinesh D'Souza, who proudly presents his list of enemies of the state:
- The Congressional Left
Sen. Hillary Clinton; Sen. Ted Kennedy; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House; Rep. Charles Rangel; former representative Cynthia McKinney; Rep. Barney Frank
- The Intellectual Left
Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT; Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates; author Thomas Frank ("What's the Matter With Kansas"); Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor; Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe; author Garry Wills
- The Hollywood Left
Martin Sheen; Barbra Streisand; Tim Robbins; Susan Sarandon; Sean Penn; Harry Belafonte; Spike Lee; RosieO'Donnell; Cameron Diaz; Sharon Stone
... etc etc etc ...
And what do all of those folks above have in common? Why, according to Dinesh, they're all "at least as dangerous" as the operatives of Osama bin Laden.
That's right -- Osama bin Laden may have killed 3,000 Americans in a single morning, but it's treasonous scum like Harry Belafonte that represent the true face of evil.
And remember -- we're the "unhinged" ones.