« Am I being slandered by a lefty blogger? | Main | Why I am more optimistic about the future of conservatism than ever before »

August 11, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Could you find me a left-wing discussion board or comments section like this one -


regarding allegations of Canadian soldiers beating prisoners in Afghanistan?

Some quotes:

"I honestly do not know what the problem is. Ok, a few prisoners are slapped around. If it is that much of a hassle, simply take no prisoners, shoot every SOB."

"I'm with GaryinWpg, just shoot them dead as you find them since the liberal MSM moonbats are too cowardly to embed themselves with the troops they can only speculate."

"Prof. Amir Attaran, I thinks 6 weeks basic at Petawawa and a trip to Afstan is in order, and not as a concientious objector. Maybe you will get more of an appreciation of things local, from a combat soldier's and the local Afghani's perspective when you are on the receiving end of all those poor "insurgents" that you weep for. "

"In the past, Amir Attaran would have been arrested as an enemy spy. His purpose is not so-called 'human rights abuses'. That is his clever cover. He is using our laws and values against us, in order to support the jihad."

"(The enemy infiltrator known as) Attaran's last effort was to have the Geneva enemy combatant rules applied to jihad prisoners. The problem is jihadi Islamofascists, especially the Taliban, are not recognized soldiers of any country's military. So, in its present form, the Geneva rules do not apply. But, obviously, he's still trying to cripple our military effort any way he can."

"What the MSM should be concentrating on is questioning the motives of the oppostion and this
professor in bringing this crap forward.

Additionally, this all happened under the LIBS did it not? Where were they. How does this reflect on the current government? "


"Oh, I know, there are plenty of trolls and thugs in the right, but it seems that the number of goons per capita is much higher on the left side of the spectrum. And what’s more, those that are on the left tend to be respected their more moderate peers while right-wing goons are almost universally shunned by the mainstream right."

It depends on how you define goons. If your standard is verbal expression, then I agree that progressives can reflect back to rightwing goons abusive language directed our way.

When it comes to public executions, bombings and various other acts of violence and terrorism, rightwing goons lead those categories by a wide margin.

And as for the propensity for tolerating goons of the same ideological stripe, are you an admirer of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

Patrick Ross

The thugs among one's political opponents tend to stand out to most people much, much more.

It takes a particularly naive individual -- and Robert Peter John Day actually doesn't fit this bill, but I'll explain this in a moment -- to believe that all the political violence is on the other side of the ideological divide, and none of it is on their own.

Of course, Mr Day doesn't really believe that only his opponents embrace violence as a political tool.

His personal history -- committing such acts as encouraging his readers to stalk the children of a political opponent, applauding violence used against university students and anti-abortion protesters -- show that Mr Day is actually quite comfortable with political violence.

But, then again, there is one other factor present: Robert PJ Day is not really a mainstream progressive.

Although a disappointing number of mainstream progressive bloggers (Robert Baglow, I'm looking in your general direction) are far cozier with Day than benefits their own good, Day is an extremist.

Then again, this probably isn't any different from the numerous conservative bloggers who commonly associate with individuals like Kate MacMillan and Neo Conservative.

So, I guess the question is this: do individuals like Robert Peter John Day make socialism a nasty movement? From time to time they can.

But, then again, individuals like MacMillan and Neo can make conservatism a fairly nasty movement as well.


does intimidation via outing count as thuggery?



"committing such acts as encouraging his readers to stalk the children of a political opponent, applauding violence used against university students and anti-abortion protesters"

typically, accusations of this sort are accompanied by urls which would lend credence to the charge.

does poisoning of the well count as thuggery?



Dear Mr. Thwap:

Those first two comments you cite from small dead animals, are they real comments or have they been planted there by a left-wing activist?

Since I assume you are cool with Canadian Cynic's attribution policy, I gotta ask.

Dear Mr. KEvron:

Just in case you aren't aware, outing is a practice used predominantly by the left to punish gays they don't like.


way to dodge the issue. you're precisely the fraud i thought you'd be.



and i'll just take that for a "yes", seeing as i painted you into a corner.



oh, and just in case you didn't know:

"encouraging his readers to stalk the children of a political opponent"

is libel thuggery?



i think i get it now: thuggery is bad unless, of course, the perpetrator is conservative.

i'm glad we had this open and honest discussion, cincie. i've learned from it....


Patrick Ross

Oh, and look who it is. It's little Robert Peter John Day Jr wannabe.

Only a (somehow) proud member of the clown care brigade would suggest that noting that Robert PJ Day instructed his readers to stalk a blogging rival's children is "poisoning the well".

It's pretty clear that particular well was already poisoned well before I ever got to it.

But I'm actually almost proud of you, Kevvy. Usually you just regurgitate whatever lies ol' Robbie PJ Day are using to try to obscure this particular criminal act. This time you actually made an attempt at an argument of your very own -- too bad it's one that's so utterly inept that it barely warrants a snicker from the ranks of your betters.

Patrick Ross

"When it comes to public executions, bombings and various other acts of violence and terrorism, rightwing goons lead those categories by a wide margin."

DeB, you're hilarious.

Don't you and your good friends Mike and JJ clap like circus seals every time someone attacks an anti-abortion protester?

...And before you even get to lying, let me supply the truthful answer to that question: the answer is yes. Yes, you do.


Don't you conflate someone getting a punch in the nose or shoved to the ground with someone getting shot in the head? Before you go lying about that one, let me give you the truthful answer to that--The answer is yes--yes you do.
But then again, you've always conflated things to make your points. You've lied, you've obfuscated, you've dodged the issues numerous times, you don't take ownership for your blatantly wrong suppositions, you pound your chest like an ape when people just give up trying to talk sense to you and say 'lookit that ass-whoppin' i just gave out'
The bitch of the matter is that you've posted some well thought out and articulate blogs. Where CC and 'his ilk' are concerned, however, you're a petulant 5 year old throwing a tantrum saying, 'those big meanies!! lookit me instead!!!'



"GaryinWnpg" appears to be a regular poster at SDA. If he's a leftist impersonating a rightist then it appears to be a full-time job.

"penny" is the real deal. She's a suburban mother from (I believe) Caledonia who I've debated with when I used to haunt SDA's comment section.

Here's the thing. You're wrong.
"Small Dead Animals" is one of Canada's most popular blogs. It's owner has called for the re-opening of the residential schools.
She's not a fringe-dweller so far as the Canadian political internet goes.

Rabble.ca was always compared to freedominion.com, equally angry, equally deranged. There's no comparison.

Michael Moore is referred to as the left's Ann Coulter. When did Michael Moore advocate killing SCOTUS Justices he didn't agree with. When did Michael Moore ever joke that he wished the terrorists took out Wall Street, or the WSJ? I defy you to find something Moore ever said that's the equivalent of the worst that Coulter said.

And, just recently, an anti-Obama protestor was seen with a gun strapped to his leg holding a sign alluding to watering the tree of liberty with the blood of a tyrant.

When did bush II or Cheney ever have to deal with something like that?

You're trying to create an equivalence that's not there.

Thanks for posting my comment.


every time someone attacks an anti-abortion protester?

You mean like bombing or shooting? No, thought not. That's you folks on the Right, and the cheering I hear isn't coming from the left side of the aisle.

Good grief, Patty, you're a hypocrite of the first magnitude.


BY the way, Cinny, have you actually read that article on a feminist critique of "fundamental" physics? Makes a good deal of sense, actually. What are your criticisms?

Patrick Ross

"i think i get it now: thuggery is bad unless, of course, the perpetrator is conservative."

That's also hilarious coming from someone who so often insists that thuggery is bad unless the perpetrator is a left-winger.


"Moderation," eh?

Glad to see you encourage debate on this blog.


Dear Dr. Dawg and KEvron:

Guys, take a pill and relax. You're going to give yourselves a heart attack.


Hey Cincinnatus... looks like you struck a nerve with these guys.

Keep up the good work.


Doc Dawg mewls..."Moderation, eh?"

that, from a guy that bans unless of course you're chewing on a Jew or two then you become a headline performer over at that horrid dawgpound.


Sadly the issue isn't so much about moderating influences as the grasping and use of power.

The legions of left wing trolls, particularly those who spam sites they don't like, send hate emails to conservatives (or their employers) etc. are simply virtual Brownshirts, who have discovered that the exercise of physical force (and its virtual counterparts) are easy and provide the quick emotional satisfaction they crave.

Far easier to hit the keyboards and dump vitrol over people you don't like than sit down and compose a sustained argument with a premise, facts and conclusions. The anonymous nature of Internet posts and the fact that there are legions of approving "progressives" to encourage and support trolling behaviour provides a positive feedback loop, and the support of the crowd drives them to behaviours that are the virtual counterparts of crowds of "Football thugs" that marred British Soccer for many years.

It will only get worse

Patrick Ross

"Don't you conflate someone getting a punch in the nose or shoved to the ground with someone getting shot in the head? Before you go lying about that one, let me give you the truthful answer to that--The answer is yes--yes you do."

I also condemn the people who shot Dr George Tiller in the head.

This despite the fact that I have ethical concerns about the kind of abortion that Dr Tiller performed.

See, Sparky, the problem for you is this: the argument that you don't need to condemn violence against anti-abortion activists because no one gets killed is a piss-poor argument.

When someone pushes a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car onto pavement, they're lucky if they don't kill that man. When someone attempts to run over an anti-abortion protester with an SUV, they're lucky if that individual can dodge the attack and isn't killed. When someone pulls a gun on an anti-abortion protester for the horrible act of handing them a pamphlet, they're luckly if the gun doesn't accidentally go off and kill that person.

Your argument that the deliberate acts of violence against anti-abortion protesters aren't worthy of condemnation because those perpetrating the violence are lucky enough not to kill someone simply doesn't wash.

But it's ironic, Sparky, that you would accuse me of lying. Your good friend JJ described the aforementioned recent SUV attack on an anti-abortion protester as someone "driving too close to a foetus fetishist" or some twaddle along those lines.

Yet the facts of the case speak to a very different reality -- that of a deliberate attack.

Unlike yourself, DeB and your cohorts, Sparky, I don't need to lie to justify my position.

After all, Sparky, my position is that I condemn all abortion-centred violence, regardless of the perpetrators. I don't feel any burning need to justify that position.

You, meanwhile, cannot honestly make the same claim.

And as for Robert Peter John Day, Sparky, that individual is nothing more than a piece of human garbage, and so are you.

Robert Baglow, sadly, has become no different. I know he's still smarting from getting his ass handed to him over his mendacious comments regarding Rob PJ Day and his calls for the stalking of Richard Evans' children, but this is beyond ridiculous.

My position is that I condemn the violence by both sides of the issue, Robert. Care to try to explain what's hypocritical about that?


"When someone pushes a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car onto pavement, they're lucky if they don't kill that man."

Recall that this was not a pro-choice protester, but the boyfriend of a women who was entering the clinic who took offence to her being shrieked at by a maniac on a car roof. Doesn't excuse what happened, but it had little to do with politics.

A judge threw out the more serious charges against the boyfriend early on, as you perhaps forgot to mention here.

PS: My ass handed to me--by you, Patty? Dream on, you sad little freak. Your lies about CC have been exposed as such, and you'll just have to live with the consequences--the shredding of what little reputation in the blogosphere you managed to achieve up to that point. Stop whining.

PPS: And stop going after my brother Robert, or he might take serious offence. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories