A short followup to this bit of insanity, where America's Crazy-Assed Racist Bitch has no qualms publishing the phone numbers of people whose lives she wants to make miserable and perhaps even put in jeopardy.
Apparently, for those protestors, it's tough shit. They're responsible for their actions, so they can grow up and deal with it and quit their whining. Of course, things are ever so different when one is on the receiving end.
Once upon a time, I wrote this about Canada's own Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck:
... a quick note to all those radical, dark-skinned terrorists: this woman really doesn't like Muslims. Not at all. Not even a little bit. In fact, she thinks Gitmo is a real hoot.
It's not like I'm suggesting you do anything about it. But if you really are checking out my blog on a regular basis, well, she's not hard to find.
Now, if I recall correctly, Kate was the one who publicly published Belinda Stronach's cell phone number, so it's not like Kate is any stranger to the concept of harassment or anything. But, oh my, it's no fun to be on the receiving end, as Kate whines:
An observation, Angry - when Warren Kinsella publiclly endorses an anonymous left wing blogger [That would be me -- CC] who has published a link to my contact info and home address in a post that states I "don't like Muslims", and then counsels others to do me harm, the notion of Canadian medua pundits using their precious time to criticize Charles Johnson and Kathy Shaidle is pretty rich.
Oh. Dear. Well, gee willikers, Kate, if you're so put out by the idea of having one's personal contact info splashed all over the Internets like that, I can't wait to read your outraged condemnation of Michelle Malkin. Really. Can't wait. Should be any minute now, right?
Yessir, any minute now ...
16 comments:
Michelle Malkin and Kate both do a good job. I don't see anyone attacking you the way, you attach them.
And the thugs protesting violently? Did Malkin make that up? Or did the San Francisco Chronicle?
"wayne" writes:
Michelle Malkin and Kate both do a good job. I don't see anyone attacking you the way, you attach [sic] them.
Wayne, are you always this incoherent and illogical? None of what you wrote is relevant to my post.
I'm this close to starting to delete your comments simply because they are so utterly pointless. Either address the issues or take your boring act elsewhere.
anonymous wrote:
And the thugs protesting violently? Did Malkin make that up? Or did the San Francisco Chronicle?
Gee, anonymous, that's a good question. Let's see ... that C&L article quotes Cody James who says the students were not violent.
Then there's this article, which claims, The protest, organized by Students Against War (SAW), was tense, but remained non-violent.
Gee, anonymous, could Malkin have made that up then? Given the lying sack of crap that she is, it wouldn't surprise me.
I am new to this, how can I get better if I can't comment. I know this is your blog, cut me some slack, I am trying to learn something here. You have the right to state your opinion on these other bloggers. What I would like to know is what you think of suicide bombers, radical muslims, and insane threats coming out of Iran. I can see what the "right" thinks I can't see what the "left" or "progressives" think. It is not clear and it should be. How can I take you seriously if I don't see where you stand. I just see where you stand on other bloggers. I hope to find out as I continue to come to your site.
I checked other sources including this, Michelle Malkin was not wrong. Explain, how she was.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/12/BAG3KI7INT1.DTL
Wayne writes (in part):
What I would like to know is what you think of suicide bombers, radical muslims, and insane threats coming out of Iran.
I have all kinds of opinions on all kinds of subjects. But when I post, it's typically on a specific topic, after which you are welcome to comment if you stick to the subject.
As an analogy, if you were to accuse, say, the Democrats in the U.S. of being soft on terrorism, it would be entirely inapproprirate for me to counter that by saying, "Yeah, well, Geoege Bush is a drunk, and one of his daughters is an alcoholic slut!"
Those things might be completely true, but they would be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The first thing you need to do, Wayne, is learn how to read, so that you understand what's being discussed and so you can respond appropriately to the topic.
When I'm discussing how both Kate and Michelle seem to enjoy publicly harassing people they disagree with, it's entirely irrelevant to state that no one seems to be harassing me. That point is simply unrelated to the discussion.
For the time being, you can hang around, but you might want to invest more time in reading what's written here more carefully before commenting. That way, we might both get something out of it.
Wayne writes:
I checked other sources including this, Michelle Malkin was not wrong. Explain, how she was...
I just read that article, and I challenge you to show me one line in it that describes that protest as having been "violent." Neither the word "violent" nor any of its variations appears anywhere in that piece.
If you seriously can't read a simple newspaper article carefully enough to notice things like that, you really are reading the wrong blog.
On topic I think both sides dish it out.
Off topic.
Thank you, for your answers. Violent was not in the article, you are correct. Intimidation was in the air, which only hints at violence.
I don't believe that the Army should not be allowed at a jobs fair. It is censorship. People should be allowed to make their own choices. Who made the protestors god. If they want to make a point have they should have their own booth.
"Wayne":
Perhaps you are unaware, but there's a little (and vile) clause in the "No Child Left Behind" act that grants the military specific and privileged access to school campuses for recruiting purposes.
We are not talking about a "career fair" here. The protestors are - legitimately - upset with the deception involved, and the blatant manipulation of students over a war that is questionable indeed.
Wayne writes:
I don't believe that the Army should not be allowed at a jobs fair. It is censorship. People should be allowed to make their own choices. Who made the protestors god. If they want to make a point have they should have their own booth.
Ah, now that is a good point, but no one was saying that the Army was not being allowed there.
As I read it, the purpose of the protestors was to be so raucous and vocal that it just became unpleasant for the recruiters so that they eventually gave up. Should that be allowed?
And before you answer that question, keep in mind that that is precisely the same tactic used by anti-abortion demonstrators at abortion clinics. Even if they don't actually engage in physical violence, they scream and verbally harass everyone involved, and they will defend that as their right to free speech.
If you defend that behaviour, then to be consistent, you have to defend the behaviour of those anti-war protestors, don't you?
So, Wayne, if you're up for it, why don't you explain why anti-abortion protestors should be viewed differently from anti-war protestors if (theoretically) their behaviour were to be identical in that respect.
That's your homework assignment.
Grog:
I don't think the NCLB Act is relevant here since I was sure it applied only to granting recruiter access to public high schools.
This recruiter access is based on any college that simply gets federal funding so, while it's similar, it's not actually related to NCLB, as I read it.
And I'm off ... for a few hours. The rest of you treat Wayne politely, but don't let him get away with any crap.
"So, Wayne, if you're up for it, why don't you explain why anti-abortion protestors should be viewed differently from anti-war protestors if (theoretically) their behaviour were to be identical in that respect." Good question. Anti-abortion, anti-war anti-anything should not get away with it either. The behaviour is wrong. Protesting is OK. Intimidation is wrong. Everyone should be able to state their views, without fear. No censorship, right ot wrong. Everyone should have a choice, to make up their own minds. A person needs well rounded information to make the correct choices. They should not be afraid to question. That is why I am reading this site. You and I do not need someone forcing their views down our throats.
"The protestors are - legitimately - upset with the deception involved, and the blatant manipulation of students over a war that is questionable indeed."
How do you feel that kind of manipulation compares to this: Khomeini when fighting Saddam sent volunteer 14 to 16 year olds ahead of the army into the minefields. They went to their deaths enthusiastically, and even raced with each other. Why do anti-war protestors only intimidate people who won't kill them? I don't care what views people are pushing, intimidation and bullying are wrong. Michelle Malkin was wrong in publishing the names. The hate mail she gets is wrong, just as the hate mail her readers sent is wrong. No name calling. No PC. Dialog and Education will set us free.
The SAW protestors intimidated the army recruiters. I am not saying they are cowards, they are just very safe. If they were in Iran they would be in jail or dead. So the army recruiters are not so evil, and behaved well under the circumstances. I don’t like bullying or intimidation of any kind. If they feel they have to bully or intimidate people to make a point, then they have no point. Same goes for anti-abortionists or anti-anything. I hope this clears up what I was trying to say, I am new to commenting on blogs. :)
PS I am going to check and see what LGF is.
Post a Comment