Thursday, July 10, 2008

I am a bad person.


Apparently, I am a big meanie because I frequently paint with an inappropriately wide brush. Which is unfair because:

Take a deep look at Blogging Tories, you have excellent bloggers like the Christian Conservative, Adam Daifallah, Gerry Nicholls, and many others who frequently disagree with each other.

Yes, L_W ... Christian Conservative, Adam Daifallah and Gerry Nicholls are just the ones I'd pick to rescue the BTs from a hard-earned reputation of appalling ignorance, rampant dishonesty and journalistic mediocrity.

Is it too early to get totally trashed?

9 comments:

Lore_Weaver said...

I don't think you understand my point. Do you disagree with them because they are wrong? Do you disagree because of ideology?

ChCon may not have realized the implications of the "yellow cake" story, does that make every other post of his bad? Does that mean all BT'ers are ignorant on the subject?

Daifallah drew a connection between rising fuel costs and lower car sales, and that makes him a "mouth-breather"?

Gerry Nicholls does some analysis on the state of the Repbulican Party, and you call him out on it for what? Does that imply that the whole of BT'ers agree? Even Daryl Wolk who's an Obama Supporter (like myself)?

It's fine that you call out individual posts and display where the argument falls apart, or what may impact the opinion, but it's not realistic to tar everyone with the same brush because they belong to the same blogroll.

You may as well argue that I secretly have a bible under my bed that I thump before I go to sleep.

Niles said...

CC, to paraphrase a certain jaded Vichy lawman's quip - being a drunkard makes you a citizen of the world, hence...somewhere it's after noon. Trash away.

Lore_Weaver said...

*giggles niles* If you're ever in my neck of the woods CC, I'll even buy you a round!

Red Tory said...

Gerry Nicholls is as insightful as a pound of butter.

Ti-Guy said...

Do you disagree with them because they are wrong?

Speaking for myself: Yes, they are quite often wrong. Most of them don't know the difference between an argument and an assertion, rely on evidence of very dubious quality (if they bother referring to any evidence at all) and are usually unwilling to acknowledge that they can't possibly know as much as they believe they do.

And of course, there's the lying.

And that would be fine if they didn't engage in vilifying, smearing and defaming their political adversaries as much as they do. That was the Republican strategy that was devised by Newt Gingrich and his gang back in the early 90's and is now firmly entrenched in the Reform--a-Tories. Its expressed purpose was to piss liberals/lefties/progressives off and put them constantly on the defensive.

That's why I like this blog. The response to this type of thing shouldn't be defense or civil engagement; it should a resounding "f*ck off."

Dr.Dawg said...

Well, the choice might have been the Macadamia Nut, Teh Burning Kitteh and Dr.Roy. I realize, however, that I'm getting into fine distinctions here. : )

Cherniak_WTF said...

Do you disagree with them because they are wrong?
They are fucking idiots.
Daifallah being the worst of a poor lot... No wonder he wants to be a lawyer...

the rev. paperboy said...

cc, it is never too early to get totally kneewalking hammered when it comes to pondering the blogging tories.

RJ said...

And it is hypocritical for the alledgedly 'rational'/'enlightened' bloggers to associate with the religious wingnuts, because they need them to win elections. Without those people that think I want to force their children to become atheist homosexuals, the Conservatives would never win an election.