Tuesday, May 20, 2008

When even the Twatrick thinks you're a putz ...


Naturally, you expect Red Tory to take GOTR out to the woodshed, and not for a good reason. But when even the intellectually-stunted Patsy Ross opines that you're a pathetic embarrassment to the airwaves, well, that's gotta hurt in a big way.

That Twatrick brief moment of lucidity brought to you by Merck Pharmaceuticals.

42 comments:

Dr.Dawg said...

I think you mean "not for no reason" or something, don't you? Or do I just need a coffee?

sassy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Frink said...

Possibly, 'not without good reason'?

Just starting on Teh Coffee, Doc.

CC said...

God Almighty, folks ... given the recent thread regarding erotica, it's not unreasonable to think that there might be a good reason to take a young lady out back to the woodshed. Hmmmm? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

In this case, however, given that it involves that intellectual whackjob and Jenny Craig refugee Wendy Sullivan, this would not represent one of those good reasons.

Clear? Are we good here?

Frank Frink said...

Allrighty then.

More coffee.

jj said...

I wish Sadly, No would review this thing. It's got some elements they might enjoy, the Steyn fetishizing etc. Could be fun.

Ti-Guy said...

I wish Sadly, No would review this thing. It's got some elements they might enjoy, the Steyn fetishizing etc. Could be fun.

Sometimes I wish Canadian bloggers would satirise this stuff as well as the Americans can, but I've come to realise it's because we still take these people (and the sentiments they express) seriously. If Canadian liberals end up in the state where we consider all of this kind of thing to be just fodder for social satire all the time, then it will mean we've resigned ourselves to it. And since the Iraq invasion, Bush's re-election (?) in 2004 and the election of Herr Harper, this kind of pig-ignorance is not nearly as funny as it used to be.

Making fun of smarter, more powerful "conservatives" is still worth it, but now that His Lardship is avoiding showers in the Big House and Lady Amiel has been reduced to taking in sewing, who besides Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Barbara Kay, do we have? They're all looking pretty tragic these days, anyway.

Patrick Ross said...

Awwww, muffin.

Are you still stinging from the multiple spankings you received over the last couple of days?

Tough.

But it's nice to see you're still at least trying to live in that fantasy world of yours.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Patrick, what wing are you in?

liberal supporter said...

PR: Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

I do not believe you ever answered this. You will never be free of having an answer demanded of you until you do.

If you did answer this, kindly indicate in which post here you did so.

Patrick Ross said...

Hey, lib supporter.

We all know you support and applaud the assaulting of 69-year-olds. So stop trying to confuse that particular one.

Or this one: that I've been kicking your pitiful asses for the last several days and, quite frankly, it's been easy.

But you all can live in a fantasy world if you want.

liberal supporter said...

Answer the question.

CC said...

Let it go, LS. If Fatprick won't even admit if he actually knows the difference between triangles and octagons, I doubt you're going to get anything more profound out of him.

Patrick Ross said...

That is my answer.

We know, factually, that Liberal Supporter supports and applauds assaults on senior citizens.

liberal supporter said...

No, I will not let this go. You can ask me to leave if you wish, CC, but I have had enough of this liar. I will not stop hounding him here until there is an answer provided. Not goal post moving, not changing the topic. An answer.

PR, again, the question you have not answered. Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

jj said...

ti-guy - "Sometimes I wish Canadian bloggers would satirise this stuff as well as the Americans can"

Oh we have the talent, this blog is a perfect example. But American politics has always been more of a bloodsport than ours, and the jab-and-thrust style of their satire reflects that.

Hmm. Jab-and-thrust. *files away for erotica contest*

Kelseigh said...

Shorter Twatrick: I'm a troll. I don't do honest.

Patrick Ross said...

Yep, just keep working that delete key, Cynic. I'm just going to keep at it.

All day. Every day. Until you just go right ahead and admit defeat.

Hey, Liberal Supporter: do you slap your grand parents around when they make you mad? You seem to think it's hysterical when other senior citizens are assaulted.

Hey Cynic, what about you? You really do, don't you?

ROTFL

Dr.Dawg said...

Patrick:

It was a simple yes-or-no kind of question. Why are you dodging it?

Feel free to answer at your place.

Patrick Ross said...

Dawg:

I'm not dodging it because I don't have to. It's a question I've already answered.

Furthermore, and I know that you, of all people, can see this as plainly as anyone else:

Whether or not I approve of attacks on abortion clinic was never the original question. The original question was: why do Canadian Cynic and company approve of the assault perpetrated on Ed Snell?

LS' question is nothing more than an obfuscatory hand grenade lobbed to try to obscure the issue.

The issue that, by golly, violence is perpetrated by both sides of the abortion debate, and needs to be taken seriously in each and every case.

The issue that, by excusing and applauding the assault on Snell, the pro-abortion lobby undermines its own credibility vis a vis complaining about the violence some anti-abortion lobbyists perpetrate.

Just for you, Dawg -- because you're the only person who comments on this site that I actually respect -- I'll point out that the violence is contemptible. It's contemptible regardless of which side is perpetrating it.

The real issue is the hypocritical means by which Cynic and his cohorts excuse the violence perpetrated by their side. And I'm not about to let contemptible pieces of shit like Liberal Supporter dodge the real issue by changing the subject.

liberal supporter said...

I have asked this question of other anti-choicers before I had heard of the Snell case.

I still do not see a simple answer to my question. You can claim there was some other "original question", but that does not excuse you from answering the first question I have posed today. I asked you to point out some earlier thread in which you provided an answer, in case I missed it. Since you have not indicated such to be the case, the question stands.

If you have already answered it, then you can easily regurgitate your answer again.

For the fourth time today, PR, the question you have not answered. Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

Patrick Ross said...

Liberal Supporter: I'm not going to answer obfuscatory questions -- especially not ones I've already answered.

What I will do is keep on asking you about the actual topic of the debate you seem to want to continue:

Do you slap around your grand parents when they say something you don't like?

Yes or no?

liberal supporter said...

Do you slap around your grand parents when they say something you don't like?

No.

Niles said...

From the way she talks about the need to get laid being a solution to violent behaviour juxtaposed with testimonial that her parents didn't beat her enough as a child (which would seem to indicate she deeply doesn't like herself as she's turned out - but has chosen to blame external sources for the final product), this all sounds anecdotally like an advertisement by a sub looking for a Dom to control her life out for her. Certainly fits with her past commentary about pairing with a Beta male yet longing for an Alpha to bed her.

She's certainly playing to the 'approvers' of the social corner where's she's found a modicum of positive attention, although it comes across as the rote of the child-recorder replaying back what the perceived grown-ups consider important and worthwhile behaviour.

That's a lot more disturbing to me than a perceived 'overweight' issue. Right up to the point where she turns on other women for not conforming to society's femme ideals.

Patrick Ross said...

Do you slap around your grand parents when they say something you don't like?

No.


Very good. It looks like you're spontaneously growing some honesty.

Now, let me ask you this: would you tolerate someone else assaulting your grand parents for saying something they don't like?

liberal supporter said...

I answered your question, I think you should now answer mine.

Patrick Ross said...

I've already answered your question: you've refused to listen to the answer.

Now you answer mine:

Would you tolerate someone else assaulting your grand parents for saying something they don't like?

Pale said...

Ill take this one....


If one of my Grandparents acted like Ed Snell, I would have disowned them YEARS before.

:)

Dr.Dawg said...

As I understand it, the Snell assault was perpetrated by the boyfriend accompanying a woman into the clinic. There is no evidence that he was a pro-choice activist--just a guy royally pissed off at having his girlfriend called filthy names by a mad, drooling Bible-basher.

That doesn't excuse his pushing Snell off the car roof. But if this is the best that the anti-choice side can offer as an example of "pro-choice" violence, then the moral equivalence--one pushing incident vs. several murders, arsons, bombings, physical assaults, threats and fake anthrax attacks--simply escapes me.

Now, Patrick, since I appear to have your respect, listen up: you have been told by our host that you aren't welcome here. A polite person would simply go away. We can continue this at your place if you want to, but let's be civilized about this. No more engagement with you here.

liberal supporter said...

I've already answered your question: you've refused to listen to the answer.

No problem then. Please repeat your answer, as I did for your question. Is it yes? Or is it no?

Just for clarity, here is my question again, for the ninth time. Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

Patrick Ross said...

"As I understand it, the Snell assault was perpetrated by the boyfriend accompanying a woman into the clinic. There is no evidence that he was a pro-choice activist--just a guy royally pissed off at having his girlfriend called filthy names by a mad, drooling Bible-basher."

First off, the "Snell had it coming argument" was dissected at length at the direct expense of the pathological liar calling herself "Chimera".

Beyond that, however, regardless of whether or not Richardson was an activist per se is largely immaterial. He was taking his girlfriend for an abortion, so we can tell what his views were rather clearly.

Now. Dawg, I ask you: how does Richardson's status as an activist or non-activist excuse the applause of his actions by members of the pro-abortion lobby?

Simple answer: it doesn't.

"That doesn't excuse his pushing Snell off the car roof. But if this is the best that the anti-choice side can offer as an example of "pro-choice" violence, then the moral equivalence--one pushing incident vs. several murders, arsons, bombings, physical assaults, threats and fake anthrax attacks--simply escapes me."

What various people apparently haven't clued into here is that Richardson's actions -- as contemptible as they are -- are really only incidental to these attitudes taken by various pro-abortion activists: condemning violence perpetrated against their side by the other, then applauding violence perpetrated against the other side.

I've heard plenty of nonsensical qualifying excuses, by the way, as well: "if Snell had died, there would be a point...", stupidity like that.

Now I'm not going to suggest that the violence being perpetrated against abortion clinics should be applauded. As I've mentioned before, it's contemptible, and should be criticized.

But if someone feels prone to criticize such violence, then they'd better not get caught cheering when someone from the other side of the issue -- especially someone as vulnerable as Snell -- gets assaulted.

That is what we call hypocrisy. And I know that virtually every commenter on this site buys into this notion that Cynic sells that somehow they're all special cases and allowed to be hypocrites.

And certainly, no one can stop them from being hypocrites. But that doesn't mean that their hypocrisy is above reproach. Far from it.

"Now, Patrick, since I appear to have your respect, listen up: you have been told by our host that you aren't welcome here. A polite person would simply go away. We can continue this at your place if you want to, but let's be civilized about this. No more engagement with you here."

Sorry, Dawg, I'll have to decline that invitation. This motherfucker won't fuck off, so it's war 24-7. He can either upgrade to Haloscan and ban me, or put up with me here for the rest of his miserable existence.

I'm sick of it. This piece of shit has devoted himself to making a lot of people's lives miserable. I'm going to return the fucking favour.

liberal supporter said...

I see someone took your bait so you could rant about Snell. I have been asking anti-choicers this question long before I ever heard about Snell. It has nothing to do with Snell.

So PR, for the eleventh time.
Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

Patrick Ross said...

I've already answered that question, dimwit.

So here's the question for you:

Would you tolerate someone assaulting your grand parents because they said something their assailant didn't like?

Yes or no?

liberal supporter said...

I've already answered that question, dimwit.
No, you have not. If you have, you could simply copy it and paste it again. Why do you type 45 characters when 2 or 3 would do? Why do you refuse to answer a simple question?

The question, of course, in case you can't find it elsewhere in this thread, repeated for the twelfth time, is this:

Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

Patrick Ross said...

If I didn't already know you to be an incredibly dishonest individual, I would almost be surprised at this sad, tragic charade.

The question has been answered. You know it's been answered.

But you haven't answered my question.

Would you tolerate someone assaulting your grandparents because they said something the assailant didn't like?

Yes or no?

KEvron said...

i like zorpheous' counter (from a few threds up): "What if my Grandfather said 'Fuck you Wanda and your Grief' at her son's funeral?"

heh.

ls, you should bomb nauseous of rossholery with your question to him. if nothing else, it'd clear some of the cobwebs out of his in-box.

KEvron

KEvron said...

er, "threads"....

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

If I didn't already know you to be an incredibly dishonest individual, I would almost be surprised at this sad, tragic charade.
PR, you're slipping. Even your insults are becoming predictable. But I shouldn't expect much more, since you seem incapable of dealing with my question except by making up a new one of your own and bleating it endlessly in response to my question, which you continue to evade giving a simple answer to. Should we play "did" "didn't" next? You see, I can play your childish game, because I was once a child. You on the other hand, have shown no reason for anyone to believe that you can argue like an adult. So we'll continue at your level until you find some other distraction.


The question has been answered.
No, it has not. If it was, why don't you simply repeat the answer?

You know it's been answered.
If you think talking down to me will suddenly start being effective, carry on. But you have not answered my original question from today.

But you haven't answered my question.
I answered your first question, after you refused to answer my first one, just to give you the benefit of the doubt. But now you have to answer my first question.

Would you tolerate someone assaulting your grandparents because they said something the assailant didn't like?

Yes or no?

That is your second question, which I will not answer until you answer my first one, since I answered your first one even though I asked my first one before you.

By the way, that question, for the thirteenth time, is this:

Do you or do you not support or condone the killing of abortion doctors?

Yes or no?

KEvron said...

"for the thirteenth time"

only thirteen times? huh.

KEvron

Patrick Ross said...

"PR, you're slipping. Even your insults are becoming predictable. But I shouldn't expect much more, since you seem incapable of dealing with my question except by making up a new one of your own and bleating it endlessly in response to my question, which you continue to evade giving a simple answer to. Should we play "did" "didn't" next? You see, I can play your childish game, because I was once a child. You on the other hand, have shown no reason for anyone to believe that you can argue like an adult. So we'll continue at your level until you find some other distraction."

I'm sure you'd like people to think so, but that isn't the case, and it's pretty evident that you know it.

You know the question has been answered, and yet to continue to insist it hasn't.

That is what adults call a lie.

And, no, I'm not going to repeat the answer for you. You've already refused to listen to that answer on numerous occasions, and no one has any reason to expect that you'll do any different.

Chimera said...

"First off, the 'Snell had it coming argument' was dissected at length at the direct expense of the pathological liar calling herself 'Chimera'."

Liar. Illiterate liar, at that.

You're such a pross, PRoss.

Mike said...

So if its been answered, why don't you answer it again? That would stop this silliness immediately.

Its either YES or NO. A Maximum of 3 letters to type.

Hell, if its been answered before, you should be able to post a link or cut and paste.

Is this too difficult for you?