This is an update (and hopefully the last one) of the 3rd way incident.If you want to see Mr. Dooley's response, you can find it here. It is a wonderful study in selective outrage and melodrama. I would definitely suggest reading the comments as it is the best illustration of the hypocrisy that can be found there, especially in the first ten comments or so.
There are four points that I feel needed to be addressed.
One, Mr. Dooley calls Whallah! an attack blog. I suppose this could be conceivable if one only looks at some of the posts showing the hypocrisy of the right wing squawk brigade. But Whallah! is also a platform for those who oppose the foolish posturings of the right, but aren't allowed to express them freely otherwise.
Mr. Dooley also claims that the left are the only ones that are abusive. Some on the left can be abusive without a doubt, but Whallah! has already shown that one of Mr. Dooley's close associates has actually threatened physical assault on other people. And this does not include the COEXIST issue, McBride's distasteful handling of the death of two young black people, or Mr. Dooley's own poor behavior.
Third, Mr. Dooley claims that during l'Affaire de Illusory Tenant, no one on the left did anything.
This one is simple. Here is my post, and here is one from Jay Bullock. Not to mention that iT apologized profusely, and McBride accepted the apology.
Lastly, Mr. Dooley claims he has the right to run his blog any way he wants. He is absolutely correct in this statement. No arguments here. But other people also have the right to criticize them for their hypocritical positions.
John Foust, please email me on a private matter.
ReplyDeleteI'll say it again, the actions of the right wing and their blessed administration have been so obscene that anything else pales by comparison. What's offensive is not calling this guy fat and old, or using the "c" word to refer to Jessica McBride, or calling Charlie Sykes a "pussy." What's offensive are kids missing preventive treatment because their folks don't have health insurance. What's offensive is a $3 trillion war that's the biggest foreign policy mistake in our country's history. What's offensive is ignoring global warming at the tipping point, to the advantage of the richest corporations our bloated country has ever seen. What's offensive is the appropriation of religiosity to advantage the richest against the poorest, leveraging sexual politics as the smokescreen. No, these gasbags have earned their monikers and if they're going to screech about the elevation of the dialogue, they should just be grateful we're not living in times of a real revolution.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations and best regards on your recent coronation as King of the Hate Left. I genuflect in awe and jealousy, My Liege.
ReplyDeleteMaybe McIlheran could read what the Bishop of Rome has said on the subject:
ReplyDelete"Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. "Behold, the hire of the laborers... which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."(6) Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen's earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?"
Let them who have ears hear.
All hail the king!
ReplyDeleteThanks again for chronically this whole incident. Fred's posting his spin on it is the hypocritic icing on the cake. The comments by his defenders are the hypocritic cherry on top.
I think we did some good here. Fred has vowed to keep peoples tone in check and urged tattling on offenders. My whole point may have been moot. If they are all up in arms over a fat dolt remark I am sure the level of discourse over there will never again stoop to my dastardly level. (sarcasm)
Incidentally, I have no idea who this Mr. Dooley person is, nor did I follow the link to find out, but my recollection is the lefties ripped me a new one while sympathetic presumptions issued from Rick Esenberg and Dad29, the former based on the correct acknowledgment of the ill-advised crack's attenuated passivity, the latter for generously granting context and alternative definition.
ReplyDeleteI was impressed and gratified by both.
This entire event made me recall the moment when it was hilariously suggested that I would eagerly have have sex with a horse.
ReplyDeleteAt the time I thought it was one of those personal insults that Fred doesn't condone. Now I know it was just "opinion"! I feel so much better.
Fred's boy Cheaney doesn't think Peter was referring to me. "A stretch," he says. In summary, keep in mind that Fred's policy is that visitors are not allowed to engage in personal attacks, name-calling, pushing and pushing, and not being honest. It's right there in the TOS.
Can anyone name an incident where a conservative was banned from a liberal cheese blog? (Why did I just think of Swiss Colony?)
To answer my own question, one conservative respondent on RDW said that he'd been banned from Daily Kos as well as Iowa Underground. Uhm, are those in Wisconsin?
ReplyDelete