How fucking stupid is Steve Janke?

This fucking stupid:

The disappearance of Liberal money in the federal riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London has prompted their rivals to make political hay...

A Conservative party blogger has suggested the same official tried to cover up the disappearance of nearly $15,000 from local coffers rather than involve police, thereby "trying to fend off another Liberal party scandal." ...

Conservative blogger Steve Janke said it appears Pretlove tried to protect his co-worker from prosecution by offering "to use funds which he controlled to bury the incident."

"I'd hate to think that David Pretlove knew about a crime and didn't report it," Janke wrote.

Hey, Steve ... refresh my memory ... how did that last incident of you accusing a Liberal of fiscal wrongdoing turn out? Oh ... right.

Is it worth trying to warn the London Free Press what kind of intellectual cesspool they're wading into here, or should we just buy some popcorn, sit back and watch the fun? Either way works for me.

BONUS TRACK: Dave gets into Janke's history as a total hack. Yes, it's a long read. Make yourself comfortable.

CURIOUS. As long as I can remember, the Blogging Tories have always maintained that they're an independent organization from the actual Conservative Party of Canada. And yet, that article refers to Janke as a "Conservative party blogger."

I'm not saying it means anything in particular, I just thought it was worth pointing out.

"Support the troops": a humble suggestion.

Here's a suggestion to all those chickenhawk, fake patriot Canadian wankers who want to slap those politically-charged "Support the troops" stickers on everything in sight, as if that's going to reduce the death toll of Canadian soldiers or something.

Why don't you pool your pennies and whip up a whole bunch of "Support the mission" stickers? Then there won't be any doubt what you're talking about, and you can slap those babies on all your shit to your heart's content, and you can finally all piss off and leave the rest of us alone.

How does that sound? Does that work for you?

Let's talk about that whole "anonymity" thing, shall we?

Go. Read. Now shut the hell up, OK?

Apparently, "censorship" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Well, it appears that Blogging Tory Joanne (True Blue) knows how to deal with those gosh-darned dissenting opinions:



In other news, remember that I'm the one who can't handle criticism.

AFTERTHOUGHTS: Apparently, I misread commenter "rabbit," so let me clarify what I think of bloggy censorship. I do, in fact, believe that blog owners are capable of committing "censorship."

Of course, we all agree that a blog owner can do anything they want with their blog; that's not up for debate. What's up for debate is what is fair and acceptable behaviour.

If someone (as I do) starts to delete comments and ban commenters because they start acting like total dicks and filling my comments section with meaningless, off-topic crap, I think that's perfectly reasonable behaviour, and it in no way constitutes "censorship." You act like an asshole, I show you the door.

On the other hand, if you start deleting comments simply because you disagree with their content, that's where I draw the line in terms of acceptable behaviour. And it's particularly egregious when you publicly advertise that you have a public forum where any and all can have their say, then quietly start whacking out comments for no reason other than you can't handle the criticism; in my book, that's "censorship."

It doesn't matter if it's your blog. If you offer people a chance to comment on what you write, and they put in the time and effort to do that and respond to the issues, and you then throw it away, that's censorship.

And that's my theory, which is mine.

Ahem.

Not your Blogging Tory news: July 20, 2007.

And the imperial presidency of George the Lesser toddles on.

Oh, no. Say it ain't so.

Un - freakin - believable:

Boycott the trolls

Can you do it? Boycott CC.

Oh, no, Br'er Fox ... please don't throw me in that brier patch.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to not understand what the word "troll" means?

FOR THE NEW KIDS IN TOWN, the irony of describing me as a "troll" is based on the fact that I have a policy not to comment on the blogs of those people I criticize on a regular basis, since those people are simply uneducatable in any way. Trying to educate a Canadian wanker is like trying to teach a pig to sing -- it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.

So what we have is a group of drooling, screeching, feces-flinging howler monkeys who stop by here on a regular basis to leave their tightly-coiled piles of right-wing personality on the front lawn, describing me, who never comments on their sites, as a "troll." That is tres amusante, non?

And as for a boycott, Joanne, let me assure you that nothing would give me a stiffy faster than the thought that you and your intellectually and emotionally stunted friends wouldn't be sullying my comments section any more. Really. I live for the day.

If they had half a brain between them ...

First, there's one Raphael Alexander:

Erl, first off it's clear CC is a comment whore who would rag on his dead great grandmother if it meant getting hits.

Then there's the clinically deranged, Canadian whackjob and self-appointed avenging angel Joanne:

The remarks in this post aimed at a woman who lost her son in Afghanistan are just sick. I just wonder if a blogburst against his post might feed his warped little ego though.

That's it, kids ... there's nothing I want more than attention and hits, so a well-organized blogburst should teach me a lesson.

Honestly, stuffing them in a sack and holding them underwater until the bubbles stop would be a mercy.

TI-GUY HAS A POINT ... despite Raphael Alexander's current silliness, I'd recommend you stopping by and giving his blog a read. Unlike the typical crop of Blogging Tories, Mr. Alexander has some talent. Credit where credit is due and all that.

God Almighty, but they're a bunch of pussies.

Honestly, I've never run into such a fragile collection of whiners in my life:

Oh...and when you're reading Cynic's post about my bouncing...check out a comment left by one of his readers...actually...I'll give you the link to it...it's the bottom one by cherniak_wtf...enjoy...(as much as you can)...

Despite this blatant harassment, (and I do know what it means, Cynic) I will keep all forms of communication with me open.

Harassment? Harassment? Someone simply leaving a comment about you on my blog is "blatant harassment," Mr. Erl?

Please, dude, just go home and have Mommy kiss and make it all better. And stay out of the trenches. You are so not ready.

Quick! Your breaking Blogging Tory news!

And before it becomes common knowledge, any bets as to how many Blogging Tories, having totally ignored the David Vitter "I like me some ho" scandal, will jump all over this?

Valerie Plame's lawsuit dismissed

Judge Dismisses Valerie Plame's Lawsuit in CIA Leak Case

Come on, place your bets. I'm guessing Dr. Roy is going to be creaming himself over this.

OK, maybe that's not the image I wanted to leave you with.

Bye bye, anonymous commenters.

Prodded by thwap's suggestion in a recent comment, I'm cutting off access to anonymous commenters on this blog. More than once, I emphasized that I had no problem with anonymous commenters, but if you planned on getting involved in an extended discussion, I expected you to at least give yourself a handle of some kind so we could tell you apart.

Sadly, the last couple days have seen an infestation of nameless nimrods who spewed countless comments all over the place without making the least effort to distinguish themselves from the other nameless nimrods.

You were warned. More than once. Deal with it.

TBogg, you thieving bastard.

Anything here look familiar?

You can talk at them, but they'll never hear you.

Originally, I had this as an update to this earlier article but, really, it's so precious that it deserves your undivided attention:

[ANN] COULTER: And I'll give you an example of one where they did it with hatred in their hearts, but unfortunately, they did it accurate to history, and that was 'Patton.' That was intended to make Patton look terrible, but it was accurate to history and it made Patton look great and people loved him. And that's why they don't do it accurately any more.

[CHRIS] MATTHEWS: You are dead wrong. Everybody loved 'Patton' from the first day it came out.

COULTER: But that isn't the way it was intended.

MATTHEWS: I was in the Peace Corps in Africa and everybody over there loved it when we got to see it. From the first day we loved it.

[DAVID] CORN: How could you not love that movie from the opening scene?

MATTHEWS: He's God-like. Ann, where do you get this malarkey from?

Everybody loved 'Patton.' How old were you, when 'Patton' came out. How old were you, two?

COULTER: I think you're misunderstanding.

MATTHEWS: No, I think you're wrong, Ann. I think everybody loved 'Patton.'

COULTER: Can I respond?

MATTHEWS: Who didn't like it?

COULTER: That is precisely my point, because it was made accurately.
But it was made, the people making it were intending to make Patton look bad.

MATTHEWS: Who did that?

COULTER: That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton.

MATTHEWS: Who told you that? Who told you that?

COULTER: It's well known.

MATTHEWS: It's well known?

COULTER: Why do you think he didn't accept the award?

CORN: Why did he take the role? Why did he take the role, Ann, if he didn't want to do it?

COULTER: Why do you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you? 'I wonder why George C. Scott didn't accept his award.'

MATTHEWS: Because he said he wasn't going to a meat parade, because he didn't believe in award ceremonies because they're all about women wearing no clothes and showing off their bodies...

COULTER: By portraying Patton as negatively as possible, but by doing it accurately the American people loved it.

MATTHEWS: Facts mean nothing to you, Ann.

So what's my point? As I've already mentioned, Celestial Junk's "Paul" has a serious woody for Ann Coulter, hilariously describing her with:

You see, Annie dishes out the kind of logic your granddad might ... based on common sense, stripped of politically correct gobbledygook, and void of those endless rationalizations that are often the modus operendi of posers.

At which point, I ask you -- how can you even begin to have a conversation with someone that hopelessly deluded and criminally out of touch with reality? Seriously, it's trivially easy to demonstrate that Ann Coulter is a pathological liar and breathtakingly stupid about even the most fundamental aspects of science and yet, here's Paul, weirdly suggesting that we on the Left "seldom debate Anne [sic] on her logic."

How do you respond? What possible response is there?

And the funniest part is that, even after destroying Coulter's credibility in two quick posts, you and I both know that none of this will change Paul's outlook by even the smallest amount. He's seen my evidence (you know he's reading this), and yet, let's see how he deals with my fully-corroborated claims in his comments section:

... it's funny how they aren't capable of any more than a drive-by ... I guess that that way they don't have to actually engage in discussion.

What's to engage, Paul? Evidence of Ann's lunatic dishonesty is all over the Internet, but none of it is going to make the slightest bit of difference to you or your Blogging Tory colleagues. Rather than actually "engaging in discussion," what we get is, "Man, what a bunch of angry moonbats, ha ha!" or "Hey, thanks for the links."

And you wonder why we write you all off as a bunch of arrogant, know-nothing, mouth-breathing troglodytes? Gosh, think about it for a minute, Paul, I'm betting it'll eventually come to you.

Or maybe not.

Thank you, Washington Post.

Via Dave over at TGB, we see that the braintrusts at the WaPo gave the actual grownups a shot at the op-ed page.

Cue the wingnut-o-sphere decrying Corn as an angry, unhinged, deranged, leftist moonbat, even if he is right.

Follow the bouncing Mr. Erl.

Lord, but I can see I'm going to get years of entertainment out of this. First, check out the comments section where we find "Manuel":

I find it's also a fact that a greater Number of "lefty" blogs Edit comments and prevent non blogger comments. Which is sad because I love giving an opinion but not many of them wish to hear something different from their own.

Now, keeping that in mind, scroll up on that same page to read Mr. Erl's breathless, hyper-ventilating recommendations:

Blogs everyone should read...all the time...NOW!

* Clear Conservative Thought
* Adam Daifallah
* Canadian Blue Lemons

And, finally, let's pop over to Brian Lemon's pad where we learn what Brian thinks of your opinion:

Anti-Troll Rules

Trolls (you know who you are) are not permitted to comment on this site and any trash will be removed immediately without explanation.

Honestly, I'm going to start charging you people for the amusement value you get here.

UH OH ... SORRY, BRIAN ... but another good rant goes to waste:

Okay folks, read his site and say here what you can't say there. Because he has shut down comments on his own site.And is likely pissing in his pants hoping his Dad doesn't find out...

As I've already mentioned, Brian, that shutdown was purely temporary to give people a chance to back away from the keyboard and take a deep breath and stop acting like such children and maybe think about addressing what I actually wrote.

Comments are now wide open again and, besides, with your wholly subjective and selective comment protocol, I'm pretty sure you're the last person who should be chiding someone about that sort of thing, don't you?

I need another word for "putz." Any suggestions?

Your morning eye-rolling irony.

Hey, kids, let's see what's happening over at "Celestial Junk" ... ooooh, this doesn't look good:

Annie Toys with Defeatocrat Terrorism Logic

I know that "progressives" explain their hate for Ann Coulter by pointing to her regular outlandish (or seemingly so [sic]) outbursts. Annie does give "progressives" lots of ammo to shoot at [sic]; but what you will seldom hear or see progressia doing is debating Anne [sic] on her logic.

You see, Annie dishes out the kind of logic your granddad might ... based on common sense, stripped of politically correct gobbledygook, and void of those endless rationalizations that are often the modus operendi [sic] of posers.

Coulter ... Coulter ... oh, right, that Ann Coulter, the one who implied Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was a "faggot"; who wished that Timothy McVeigh had taken his truck bomb to the New York Times building; who recommended that we "should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"; who suggested that Pennsylvania Democrat and ex-Marine John Murtha was "the reason soldiers invented ‘fragging’”; who publicly joked that a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court be poisoned; who opined that the proper way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat; and who suggested that the 9/11 widows were revelling in the deaths of their husbands ... that Ann Coulter?

It occurs to me, Paul, that if you're such a gushing fan of Ann Coulter, you're kind of the last person on the planet who should be lecturing me on civility. Know what I mean?

BY THE WAY, PAUL ... Coulter's not only a hideous human being, she's unspeakably stupid, too. So I can totally understand the hero worship you've got going on there. Somehow, it just works for you.

BONUS TRACK: I'm guessing Coulter's pronouncements on biological evolution are more of what Paul considers her talent for "logic" and "common sense." People who are not retarded, however, would beg to differ. At this point, one should expect a witty rejoinder from Paul along the lines of, "Hey, CC! Thanks for the links!" Cuz, you know, it's what they do.

I'm sorry, Mr. Erl ... you seem to have forgotten something.

Well, there was my initial challenge. And then there was Mr. Erl's rebuttal. Notice anything missing? Give it time ... it'll come to you.

P.S. Regarding this amusing opening of yours, Mr. Erl:

It was nice of you to reply to my little peice...no...thats not the right word...my wildly popular piece (that's better) condemning you for your harassment of one Mrs. Wanda Watkins.

If I were you, Mr. Erl, I'd take the time to learn the actual definition of the word "harassment," before you embarrass yourself any further. Just some friendly advice.

As for the illogic of the rest of your post, well, I'm just going to leave that for posterity. Even posterity needs the entertainment once in a while.

Thank you, Lord, for delivering them into my hands.

You know, I was quietly hoping that the yappy poodles from "The Politic" were going to weigh in on this recent brouhaha, since I was curious as to how they were going to justify their inevitable (and, naturally, thoroughly contrived) outrage, given their own blogger Aaron Unruh's less than tasteful posts on female genital mutilation, race relations and same-sex marriage.

Lo and behold.

This really has been an eye-opening experience. I could write a book on the definition of right-wing hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and by the way, Kelly:

And now the Cynic is telling the audience that everyone has had their say. That there will be no more comments on the subject of his f-sharp delivery. He has deemed it ‘discussed’ and closed.

No, Kelly. I turned off comments because I said it was time for everyone to "chill out," and I made it clear that I'd still be here tomorrow. Maybe I should write a book on right-wing dishonesty first.

P.S. Comments are back on. Think you folks can behave and actually address the issues?

BY THE WAY, if you look through the comments section at that previous article of mine, you'll notice that one of the less enlightened responses to my total evisceration of Aaron's idiocy was the anonymous "kill yourself faggot."

So, if I were some of you folks, I'd be really careful about suggesting that you should be giving me lessons in manners and civility. If you catch my drift.

I think it's time for everyone to chill out.

And by "everyone," I mean "everyone." At this point, people on both sides have become tediously repetitive. Or is it repetitively tedious? So I'm calling a halt to comments from everybody, since I think everyone's had a chance to have their say.

If that bugs you, feel free to go rant on your own blog. If you don't have one, then start one. Now go home. We'll still be here tomorrow.

Apparently, the stakes have been raised.

Well, now ... from the comments, isn't this an interesting development?

Concerned Canadian said...

Cynic,

Yes?

I am an NDP member and progressive voter who disagrees vigorously with the position of my party's present leadership on Afghanistan.

OK, that's your right. Go on. I've provided you with this public forum and you're welcome to have your say.

Like most Canadians I would love to see more reconstruction and peace-building take place in Afghanistan. Yet I recognize that when confronting an enemy like the Taliban and the narco-gangs which sustain them, such altruistic aims will never be realized unless the Taliban are challenged by force.

There's much more, but let's cut to the chase, which I reproduce verbatim:

One last word - for Madame Watkins, her family, and those of CF personnel still in harms way in Afghanistan.

Whatever controversy is generated by the obscene comments posted by the loco administrator of this blog, he/she speaks only for a tiny, fanatical minority. Even those who vigorously oppose the mission reject his hateful, outrageous rhetoric.

You have earned the right to speak your mind, and all reasonable citizens of this country - regardless of their partisan or ideological perspectives - stand in solidarity with you. In every generation there have been people so ignorant or spoiled that they oppose and undercut the great strides that their country is making. Sometimes, as in the case of this blog, people cross the line and invite the ire of all patriotic Canadians. Opposing the mission does not reflect badly on an individual's patriotism, but attacking the family of a fallen soldier does. It also makes them a terrible person on a more profound level.

Despite such misguided insanity, we can take solace in the fact that every generation of Canadians has also produced people like your son who, acutely conscious of the immense personal risks, sacrifice themselves on ours and humanity's behalf. I know I speak for all Canadians of conscience, politically divided though they are, when I say from the bottom of my heart: thank you.

PS: CYNIC YOU'RE FUCKED, LEGALLY AND OTHERWISE ONCE WE FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE, AND WE WILL! C YA ROUND.

I'm sorry ... I must have missed the memo when it became acceptable behaviour for members of the NDP to blatantly threaten people on a public forum. Perhaps someone from the NDP can clear this up. Uttering threats in public. Cool? Not cool? I'm just curious.

Sometimes, this whole concept of "civility" can be devilishly tricky to define, don't you think?

Wow ...

... Warren Kinsella really is as big a dick as people say he is. Amazing.