Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Tell you what I'm going to do, Mr. Erl ...


Back here, one Mr. Erl ... well, let's let Mr. Erl explain it himself:

Actually, right now I am demanding a full apology from Canadian Cynic entitled to Mrs. Wanda Watkins and to the mothers and fathers who have lost their brave and valiant sons and daughters to an enemy so evil, they might even speak as you do, Mr. Cynic.

Bloggers of Canada, lets all stand up and demand an apology from Canadian Cynic! Together, radicals such as this can be held accountable for their actions.

Now, rumour has it that Mr. Erl is a mere high school student so, rather than slap him around any further, I'm going to give him a homework assignment.

You want an apology, Mr. Erl? OK, here's the deal. I will publicly and profusely apologize for my language regarding one Wanda Watkins. In exchange, however, it will be your job to canvass your Blogging Tory colleagues and get them to similarly apologize for their years of constant slagging of war mother Cindy Sheehan, and their incessant, endless mocking of her loss of her son. That would be every single BT who ever wrote something insulting and degrading about Sheehan, by the way. And when I say I want to see some apologies, I mean real apologies -- not those weaselly, mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry you were offended" escapes that the wingnut-o-sphere is so famous for.

Whaddya say, Mr. Erl? If you're so concerned about blogosphere civility, this is the perfect time to put your money where your mouth is. If you really want me to issue a grovelling, public apology, well, I've just told you exactly what it's going to take, and I don't think I'm being unfair, do you? Or do you? Does civility work both ways, or are apologies only for us leftists, hmmmmm?

Let's go, Mr. Erl. Time to put up or shut up. Let's walk that walk, boy. When you need me, well, you know where to find me.

(P.S. to my regular readers: Don't you just love it when a well-crafted plan comes together? :-)

P.P.S. Cue entire Canadian wankersphere, suddenly deciding that they're not that interested in an apology from me after all.

AND RIGHT ON CUE ... "But ... but ... but ... that's different!!" Yeah, it always is, isn't it?

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Don't you just love it when a well-crafted plan comes together?"

You're deranged.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, Watkins isn’t on cross country tours promoting the war. Sheehan is continually on tour promoting a pull out. Watkins isn’t on the payroll of the Fraser Institute or any other right thinking organizations. Sheehan gets funding/support from Soros and radical left wing organizations. Watkins isn’t holding protests in front of Parliament or 24 Sussex Drive. How many photos have we seen of Sheehan getting thrown into a paddy wagon after her protests have gone south? Watkins didn’t pose for sorrowful photos while lying on her sons grave. Sheehan does. Watkins hasn’t followed the Prime Minister to his home in Calgary in order to protest Canada’s 2009 pull-out of Afghanistan. Sheehan - Camp Casey - nuff said. Watkins hasn’t waited 3 years to get a headstone on her sons grave. Sheehan did. Watkins didn’t launch herself into the public realm using her sons death to further her own political agenda. Sheehan did.

Watkins made a single statement on behalf of her family in regards to the family member they were about to bury. To compare Watkins to Sheehan is laughable and using that comparison to justify an attack is disgraceful.

aweb said...

I don't think you can have a real apology as a trade-off...that applies to CC and the BT's as well. Of course, one would hope CC knows this : trading apologies is what little children are forced to do by parents and teachers, in the hopes they will learn empathy. The actual quote from Ms. Wadkins was so bland, so...boilerplate-ish, that I'm surprised anyone noticed. Her feelings at this point, so soon after her son's death, are understandable, and not particularly relevant (in a similar way to criminal justice decisions not being made by victim's families).

CC, if you actually are sorry for what you wrote, be the adult and apologize (I don't there's a compelling reason to, although the attacks themselves might've been better directed at those reporting the quotes, rather than the grieving mother). If you're not sorry, then don't play games. That's just being dickish.

dr. stimplove said...

Hey, anonymous: You would agree, though, that the attacks on Cindy Sheehan have been appalling, wouldn't you? Just wanna be clear about that. Because if you think otherwise, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on. If you think all the attacks on Sheehan are defensible, then you shouldn't be casting judgment on CC.

CC said...

aweb:

Just to be clear, I meant exactly what I wrote before. But it also seemed like the perfect opportunity to watch the frantic sputtering as numerous members of the Canadian wingnut-o-sphere made it clear that mocking a woman who'd just lost her son in combat was downright shameful and disgusting. Um, yeah.

And now that I've pointed out the howling hypocrisy of their whining, well, let the sudden right-wing tap dancing and rationalization begin.

Really, the wankersphere's ignorance is surpassed only by their predictability.

genslub3 said...

If you're pissed at the mission Call Martin/Chretien they sent the soldiers there. I can't help thinking if they were in power you might think it was worthwhile.
++++++
Defence Minister Bill Graham and Defence Staff Chief Gen. Rick Hillier have in recent months repeatedly warned Canadians about the mortal dangers that will come with Canada’s very different military role once it takes over the lead in fighting terrorism in southern Afghanistan from the Americans. While their words have helped create greater public awareness of what is at stake, Col. Noonan’s personal opinion is some Canadians still have not heard the message.

The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, November 07, 2005


http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=603
+++++
You are one whacked out person.

Maybe let us know when your funeral is so we can all piss on your grave too.

dr. stimplove said...

You do realize, genny, that CC wasn't pissing on anyone's grave? He was criticizing the use of a soldier's death to try to guilt Canadians into staying with a mission likely to kill many more soldiers - all to support the vile gang of thugs at the helm of Afghanistan's government. Or at least that's what it seemed like to me.

Ti-Guy said...

Maybe let us know when your funeral is so we can all piss on your grave too.

I'll let you piss on mine, sweetie. I won't give a flying fuck what you do after I'm dead.

mikmik said...

Geez, genslub3, what vitriol and ugliness!
It isn't Martin/Chretian who keep the troops there now, is it? If they made a shity decision, and the next leaders continue policy that prolongs that shity decision, then they are all to blame, you fucking got that?! Ta-ta ;)

PS, you can piss on my grave, too. I hope you get so upset that you blow an aneurysm while you are at it, but I won't know one way or the other.

Hey, anonyfuck, you saying Sheehan doesn't feel pain and despair when her son gets killed? Ta-ta, I mean eat-me! ;)

Scotian said...

The current mission is on Harper and Harper alone. The Parliamentary vote last year was political farce intended solely to drive wedges between the various candidates of the Liberal leadership race, as was contemporaneously noted by the political commentariat both in MSM and the blogosphere. Harper is also the one with the authority, indeed the sole authority lies with him and his cabinet, therefore so does the responsibility, pure and simple.

Not to mention that until next Feb we would be in this mission no matter the vote last year because Harper said that regardless of the vote there would be one of the two years extended as well as calling an immediate election over the issue despite there being no desire from anyone in the nation politico or voter that wanted one a few months after the last one.

Bottom line this is Harper's mission and has been since last Feb, and anyone trying to place responsibility on anyone else is deluding themselves that they understand how our government works and where the authority lies for such deployments/missions. Then again that lack of comprehension is something common among the political right (not everyone, but the majority/supermajority by far) these days, they see things as they want/wish them to be and not as they actually are.

Anonymous said...

Hey, anonymous: You would agree, though, that the attacks on Cindy Sheehan have been appalling, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Just wanna be clear about that.

Now you're clear.

Because if you think otherwise, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Wow. That's an intelligent response...

If you think all the attacks on Sheehan are defensible, then you shouldn't be casting judgment on CC.

Why not? There some very clear and marked differences between Watkins and Sheehan and If you think otherwise you can kindly go fuck your hat.

Hey, anonyfuck, you saying Sheehan doesn't feel pain and despair when her son gets killed?

I'm sure she did at the time. I think it's mostly theatrics now though...

frank said...

Hey mmikmik, the correct spelling is shitty. Stupid arse.

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, Frank...don't be so lame. Just promise to piss on his grave.

wtfiwillbeanonymoustoo said...

"Wow. That's an intelligent response..." says anonymous. And your response IS intelligent? Riiight.

Mike said...

My brother is in the Army, training people to go to Afghanistan and getting ready to go himself.

Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death to try to prevent the deaths of other sons and daughters in an unwindable, unneeded war. That is noble and selfless.

Wanda Watkins wishes that my brother and others like him continue to go to and die in Afghanistan so she can feel better about her son's death. That is selfish and ghoulish.

And therein lies the only difference between the two. While I appreciate that losing a son in war is made that much harder by knowing that it was a waste, falling into denial that it is a waste and wishing others to die so you can convince yourself of that is reprehensible.

CC has in no uncertain terms stated to her and to those pro-war folks trying to attack him that people's sons and daughters, brothers and sisters should die in order to make it easier for someone else to deal with a death.

In other words, the answer is to stop the death now before other lives are wasted. Stop with the ludicrous "sunk cost" fallacy everyone seems caught in.

I understand Wanda Watkins is grieving, but that state does not make her infallible - she is wrong. More death and "staying the course" will not make her feel better, it will simply make many other families join her in grief. And CC has made sure that everyone knows it.

And as previously stated ad nauseum, its a bit rich for the same folks who jumped all over Cindy Sheehan using the identical rhetoric to NOW be upset at CC.

Hypocrites the lot of you.

Dr. Stimplove said...

"Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death to try to prevent the deaths of other sons and daughters in an unwindable, unneeded war. That is noble and selfless.

Wanda Watkins wishes that my brother and others like him continue to go to and die in Afghanistan so she can feel better about her son's death. That is selfish and ghoulish."

That's what mike wrote above. Thanks, mike, for explaining what anonyfuck must have meant by "clear and marked differences" between Sheehan and Watkins.

E in MD said...

Why not? There some very clear and marked differences between Watkins and Sheehan

By Anonymous, at 2:11 PM
- - - --

Yes, there is. Watkins decided to appeal to the right wing assholisphere for sympathy and made a demand that everyone else in Canada sacrifice their sons and daughters so that her sacrifice had some meaning.

Sheehan decided to appeal to everyone else that is left and center compared to Ann Coulter and decided to try to STOP the meatgrinder war in a country we're supposedly trying to set up a democracy in but ignoring the 80% of Iraqis who don't want western troops.

Both mothers are entitled to work through their grief in whatever way works best for them. But demanding that I throw another sacrifice on Bush's altar just so SHE can sleep at night is selfish, idiotic and does nothing to actually solve anything at all. These are people's LIVES we are talking about here. I'm sorry for her loss, but I'm not about to condemn one more person to die just so Wanda,George W. Bush, and the rest of you right wing 'patriots' can have martini's later.

I'm sure she did at the time. I think it's mostly theatrics now though...

Yeah THAT's sensitive to someone's grief. Lemme guess, you're going to announce 'But but but.. she did it first!' or something next, right?

If you are so much in favor of the best and brightest in the militaries of the west going off to die in some hell hole, why aren't you enlisting right now instead of bandying words with a blogger? Way to show Support For The Troops(tm), pal.

Anonymous said...

"Sheehan decided to appeal to everyone else that is left and center compared to Ann Coulter and decided to try to STOP the meatgrinder war in a country we're supposedly trying to set up a democracy in but ignoring the 80% of Iraqis who don't want western troops." -- the infamous "e in md"

What the ...?! You wanna run that by us again, retard?

Anonymous said...

My brother is in the Army, training people to go to Afghanistan and getting ready to go himself.

Is someone holding a gun to his head making him do these things? I don't know if you've noticed but we have a VOLUNTEER military.

Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death to try to prevent the deaths of other sons and daughters in an unwindable, unneeded war. That is noble and selfless.

Wanda Watkins wishes that my brother and others like him continue to go to and die in Afghanistan so she can feel better about her son's death. That is selfish and ghoulish.


What color is the sky in your world Mike? You see a self serving media whore as selfless and noble whereas a non assuming mother who is supporting the mission her son held so dear as selfish and ghoulish?

Is there gravity on your planet?

And therein lies the only difference between the two. While I appreciate that losing a son in war is made that much harder by knowing that it was a waste, falling into denial that it is a waste and wishing others to die so you can convince yourself of that is reprehensible.

no no no. You can't reconstruct her words to fit your own world view. She said that if we quit, the exercise would have been a waste. She isn't wishing for others to die. She IS wishing for our success.

In other words, the answer is to stop the death now before other lives are wasted. Stop with the ludicrous "sunk cost" fallacy everyone seems caught in.

How many are guaranteed to die if we pull out mike? Can we use history as a reference? Viatnam, the US pulled out and VC slaughtered what, 2 million civilians? How about Korea? We pulled out and roughly 150,000 innocent civilians were killed?

How many will die if we pull out now Mike? Is it worth one of our soldiers lives in order to save 100,000 Afghani women Mike?

If you are so much in favor of the best and brightest in the militaries of the west going off to die in some hell hole, why aren't you enlisting right now instead of bandying words with a blogger? Way to show Support For The Troops(tm), pal.

I'm sorry "e" but your chickenhawk (non) argument has been debunked/deconstructed far too many times already.

You need a new shtick amigo...

Ti-Guy said...

So it's war without end, eh anony-tard?

Good luck with that. Now fuck off, enlist and stop boring foreigners with your star-spangled clap-trap.

Anonymous said...

So it's war without end, eh anony-tard?

No thai-guy, it's called finishing what we started. For some reason I think that concept is alien to you.

Oh, I almost for got. Are you enlisted thai-guy? Are you a service member? If you aren't you may wish to consider shutting your pie-hole. I have just as much right to comment as you.

Ti-Guy said...

it's called finishing what we started.

You mean the nation-building thing? Oh come on...no one believes in that fairy tale anymore.

If you mean finishing the fiasco, well...I think you're almost done. It's just about a complete fiasco.

Anonymous said...

You mean the nation-building thing? Oh come on...no one believes in that fairy tale anymore.

If by "no one" you mean you I'd believe that statement. Think outside your bubble thai-guy. There are opinions other than your own out here in the real world...

Patrick Ross said...

That's an interesting link and while there are some posts in there that make what I consider an unacceptable attack on Sheehan, many of those posts -- most, in fact -- merely happen to contain "Cindy Sheehan" and "moonbat" in them separately -- often, in reference to other people.

But, take heart. You at least get a D for effort.


Besides, even if your claims were the case, what would make you any different?

Ti-Guy said...

Think outside your bubble thai-guy. There are opinions other than your own out here in the real world...

Give it a rest, psycho. And pick a pseudonym and stick with it. You're not fooling anyone, you know.

CC said...

God Almighty, Mr. Ross, of course some of those hits will be false positives. Does everyone in your life have to pre-digest your food for you?

Anonymous said...

Give it a rest, psycho. And pick a pseudonym and stick with it. You're not fooling anyone, you know.

I'm anonymous just like you thai-guy. You don't have a problem with that do you?

mikmik said...

Hey mmikmik, the correct spelling is shitty. Stupid arse.

By frank, at 2:34 PM
- - -
Well done. Guess the rest of my argument was okay then?
PS The correct spelling is shitey, or shatey, owing to my Scottish heritage, ken?
Joos rememba, awa tae fuck yer talkin pish

genslub3 said...

It isn't Martin/Chretian who keep the troops there now, is it? If they made a shity decision, and the next leaders continue policy that prolongs that shity decision, then they are all to blame, you fucking got that?!

If the libs had won instead of Harper they would all be shoulder to shoulder supporting the mission you fucking got that?

Who spoke out against it before Harper was PM?

You are a hypocrite are you to blind to see it. Its great for lefties they do whatever they want when in power but if someone else does the same it's bad???

Man the west needs to separate from cowardly Canada.

They are playing politics with soldiers lives within 24 hours or so of losing the election, it was imperative that we run like cowardly dogs from Afghanistan. Presumably because 1/2 as many people have been killed there as on the streets of Winnipeg maybe we should run from Winnipeg too you fucking got that?!