You wonder why we make such sport of the Blogging Tories and their perpetual buffoonery? Sit down ... let me fill you in.
First, there was Clive, who thought he had a pretty good point:
Following the story of the 7 year old snatched from her family home by child welfare operatives, because she showed up at school with a swastika on her arm, I notice that in amongst all the outrage, anger, brouhaha and general pissiness there is one perspective completely missing, and that is the perspective of the 7 year old. She drew the swastika in question herself - not one of her parents as some of the more hysterical commenters are wont to believe. So what of the child's view of the world? ...
... nobody seems to be thinking back to their own childhood, to recover something of the real perspective and outlook on life of a 7 year old...
... When I was that age, I drew swastikas too. I had no clue what they meant, no clue what they really stood for, except that they represented the bad guys...
... So I happily doodled RAF roundels and Luftwaffe crosses and swastikas in the corners of books, blisfully unaware of the wider significance. Should I have been taken away?
Etc, etc and tediously etc. And Clive's point is quite obvious, isn't it? That is, why the fuss over a symbol rendered by someone too young to possibly appreciate its significance? You do see that that's Clive's point, right? I mean, he does pound it home over and over and over, relentlessly. And it is, in fact, a valid point. Except for the fact that Clive is utterly wrong with respect to the facts, as I pointed out back here:
She said her daughter drew the swastika on her own arm after taking part in a "white pride" racist march in Calgary. When the girl's teacher washed the symbol off, the mother and daughter drew it on again with a marker.
Now, take the time to appreciate what just happened here -- Clive no longer has a point, does he? Not even a little one. Clive's entire screed was based on the swastika being drawn solely by the daughter. You do see that, right? Everything hinges on that supposition of Clive's. Which turns out to be hopelessly, gloriously, spectacularly wrong. So how does Clive handle criticism? Not well:
UPDATE: I do stand corrected, by the left's own hate blogger CC, in as much as it seems the parents re-drew the offending emblem in marker after it was washed off.
No, Clive, it wasn't the "parents" who re-applied the symbol. What part of "mother" is giving you such trouble? It's right there in the news piece. How could you fuck up reporting something that simple? But then the wheels come right off:
That does put a rather different complexion on things; ...
Yes, Clive, it does, doesn't it? An entirely new complexion, since the very foundation of your argument has been yanked out from under you. Which means -- and let me flog this thoroughly -- your entire post is meaningless. Does everyone see that? No, really, do you all understand that? Given that Clive's premise has vanished in its entirety, we can safely conclude that that blog post is equally worthless. And yet, what does Clive conclude? You're not going to believe this:
That does put a rather different complexion on things; however, my point still stands.
Equally nonsensical Clive: "Even though the very basis for my post has been shredded utterly, my point is still valid."
Now do you see why we mock them? Because there is no possibility of intellectual discourse. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. These are people incapable of logical thought. And I wish I had a catchy and clever punchline for this, but I don't.
These are depressingly stupid people. And they should be ridiculed. They deserve no better than that.