Sunday, July 07, 2013

Banned From 3 Blogs As Of Today. Should I Try To Increase My Tally?

I did write a letter to the archdiocese who'd banned the song, Only the Good Die Young, asking them to ban my next record ~ Billy Joel (dob 5/9/1949) one of the greatest rock & roll singer/song writers to ever live (IMO). Joel was inducted into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame (1992), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (1999), and the Long Island Music Hall of Fame (2006).

Lisa, the proprietor of the blog Who's Your Daddy is the latest individual to ban me from their blog. The situation arose when I encountered Lisa on Flying Junior's blog Dog Report. Encountering her there reminded me of all the comments she left on Sue's blog. Comments disagreeing with what Sue or a commenter wrote. Comments that generally had to do with Barack Obama and progressivism being bad, which makes sense seeing as Lisa is a Conservative. She was incredibly tenacious about it. Sue deleted a large number of her comments, but Lisa kept at it.

To my knowledge Sue never said Lisa was banned. Currently Sue is on a hiatus from blogging (apparently) and has not posted anything for awhile. So Lisa isn't able to pester her or her readers. I think she would if she could; it's just that Sue's blog isn't currently getting any traffic so she does not bother.

I bring this up because, after reading Lisa's comment on Flying Junior's blog, I decided to pay her a visit. I commented on a few posts and, as expected, Lisa's readers didn't like what I had to say. There was a small amount of rational discussion (very small), but mostly insults and name-calling. THEN someone brought up the George Zimmerman trial. That is when the racially biased comments began to fly fast and furious.

Radical Redneck declared that, "Michele Obama will walk on her hind legs before George Zimmerman gets convicted of anything". Then he calls President Obama a "sasquatch" and Michelle Obama "Moochie" and the "First Wookie". A dummy who calls himself My Conservative Thoughts said "Blacks use the N-word to bully whites [by telling them] we can say it but you better never". Although only one person uses the N-word (spells it out). OneSlickRacer asks "Why do black people hate white people?" before referring to how many N-words are in prison. Gee I wonder why some Black people hate White people. The clueless OneSlickRacist has no idea.

During the time this was going on over 50 comments of a vile hate-filled nature were posted... and Lisa said nothing. Maybe she simply had not checked in. People do have lives outside of blogging... but I think she was stumped regarding how she should respond. To her credit she didn't join in with any racially tinged insults of her own... but what did she say when she did finally post a comment? She said this...

Lisa: Now you are banned from my blog, so don't come back here again. Here's why. You're a liberal freakin nut job, just like your idiotic friends, Sue, Flying Jr, Critter Crapper, Shaw, and the rest of those blowhards. All of you are full of hate, and crap. I don't want to see your stupid name popping up here anymore! Get It? (7/6/2013).

I think Lisa didn't want to offend her regular readers, so instead of saying a damn thing that might cause some of these degenerate cretins to storm out in protest, she says I'M "full of hate", instead of her readers (many of whom this observation actually applies to). This, in my opinion, amounts to an implicit approval. Flying Junior says "Lisa is a nice person. I have never seen her say anything hurtful or evil". Hmm. While I am very appreciative that FJ takes the time to comment on many of my posts, I must disagree with him regarding Lisa. I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree, although FJ might want to reconsider his warm feelings toward Lisa given that she included him in the list of names of my "idiotic friends".

While I wasn't hurt by Lisa's words, I don't think she meant them to be complimentary. According to a Conservative blogger who calls himself Rusty Shackelford I'm getting banned from "blog after blog" because of my "silly made up rantings". For the record, thus far I have been banned from four THREE blogs. This includes the 7/6/2013 ban from the coward Lisa. Lisa may very well have banned me anyway (if the George Zimmerman trial had never come up), but the way this played out I say the reason she banned me was because she was too gutless to say anything that might offend her readers.

I can understand why should wouldn't want to lose readers. I don't have many of them; but I wouldn't decline to rebuke a racist comment to keep a reader. My blog is where I speak my mind and espouse my beliefs. No pandering. No implicit approval by way of silence of comments that are offensive. If I lose readers by speaking my mind then so be it. That view being contingent on the supposition that Lisa was not in complete (or semi) agreement with her readers regarding the racist thoughts they articulated on her website. If she isn't a hateful person like FJ believes.

It appears as though she isn't, but who can say for certain given her refusal to address what was said on her blog? Now, like I said, only one of Lisa's loyal following actually spelled out the N-word. That did not hold true on my blog, where someone posted the comment "The only good N-word is..." (spelled out). First this comment was made by someone anonymously, then by someone calling himself The Way I See It. He does not "follow" Lisa (according to his profile) but I suspect he came to my blog via Lisa's blog. Many of Lisa's readers did comment on my blog (in reply to my commentary on George Zimmerman), and from what many said it wasn't hard to deduce that a lot of them have some serious racial biases.

Bottom line, I did not expect my time at Lisa's blog to last long. Rusty believes that reflects badly on me, but I say it reflects badly on the person doing the banning. Because I never go to any of these blogs and TRY to get banned. I just speak (or type) my mind. Which brings me to the other blogs I've been banned from. The first was Willis Hart on 8/30/2012. At this point in time (the day he banned me on), I had been posting on his blog for several years. But the day came when he had had enough. A number of factors are to blame (read this post if you want the details), but I think him moving toward Libertarianism was a big factor.

Next was Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks). Dennis banned me after one disagreeable comment in which I called him a "gun nut". He lies and says I swore... among other ridiculous and untrue accusations (the full story beind that ban can be found here). In addition to the lying, Dennis is commenting on various blogs that he'd "forgive me" if I apologized. He truly is one deluded (and possibly mentally ill) individual if he really thinks there is even a slim possibility of that happening.

The next banning was by an individual with the ironic moniker of rAtional nAtion uSA (AKA "Lester Nation"). According to Lester, he publishes "comments with substance" and that "is determined solely by [him]". There is the rub. Obviously my opinion of what constitutes "substance" is going to be different than Lester's. But this rule apparently does not apply to Dennis (he comments on Lester's blog). Dennis frequently goes off-topic and engages in personal attacks (also against the rules according to Lester). And his posts frequently lack substance (IMO).

But it looks like Lester has reconsidered and I am not banned from rAtional nAtion uSA. I thought I was, after I submitted a comment and Lester refused to publish it. I commented on another blog (Progressive Eruptions) and referred to my banning in that comment. I know Lester saw it, and he did not refute my assertion that he had banned me. But recently the rAtional oNe said "you are on probation. Make the most of it".

I am a little disappointed. Now I have to resume commenting on Lester's blog just to see if; or how long it takes before he bans me and the ban sticks. I assume it is only a matter of time. I actually asked Rusty to ban me from his blog, but so far no response to my request. But if he complies I don't know if I could, in good conscience, add him to my tally. What with his blog being so pathetic, me not wanting to actually comment there (given that his only post is from several years ago), and me requesting the ban.

So, I am currently banned from three blogs as of today... as far as I know. My "probation" at Lester's site may be over already, as I just submitted two comments to his blog. One in which I agreed with Jersey McJones when he told the truth about Ronald Reagan. Jersey said Reagan was "the man who began the dismantling of America", Lester replied by saying that Jersey is "without a doubt a buffoonish character", and that he would have declined to publish Jersey's comment if he didn't found it so "entertaining" (due to Jersey's buffoonery, I imagine).

Wait, I just checked and see Lester published my agreement, as well as another comment where I disagree with Dennis. Surely I must be close to being banned? Perhaps with these two comments I will get another stern warning? We shall see.

SWTD #178, lDel #1.

125 comments:

  1. I think Lisa is a flake. She may not be a racist or hateful, but she IS a flake. She deleted her comment banning me (the one I quote in my post). I just checked, right before I published this post. Too late Lisa. The post is finished so it gets published. I'm not going to throw out a post that is completely finished. If Lisa's comment is gone does that mean I'm not banned now? Who knows? I just submitted a comment to Lisa's blog asking that very question. We shall have to wait and see if she answers or if she simply deletes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey thanks for the shout out but I never banned you. How typical to spew things with your own interpretation. An don't you ave anything better to do? You are starting to act like Al Sharpton

      Delete
    2. Lisa: Hey thanks for the shout out but I never banned you.

      I stand by my post. Lisa published (then deleted) the comment I included in my post. Her picture (the dog one) was next it it. It wasn't someone faking her identity. I didn't make it up. Anyway, look at Lisa's new picture... the one where the woman has the Pinocchio nose. Clearly Lisa is trying to tell us something with that picture.

      Delete
  2. Lisa has more brains in her pinky then you have in that whole idiotic thing on your shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Anon. At least we think for ourselves and don't follow a script

      Delete
  3. These folks are not into open debate, only demonizing those who disagree with them. If you insult Reagan, you insult them, no matter the facts are on your side. These people practice censorship, so only their viewpoint is expressed. They will post some of your comments, the ones they think they can make you look stupid and can easily attack you on. This practice is also part of the character of Progressive Eruptions, Swash Zone, and other so called liberal blogs. Ask Shaw(PE) why she protects RN from his own words, ("Jews went willingly to the gas chambers") and other antisemetic statements. Mention on her (Shaw-PE) blog that RN said that, and your comment will not be published. Better yet, ask her why she would befriend and protect someone like that, or why she stated that as far as she is concerned RN never said it and she will never mention it again. Censorship and banning is not limited to conservative blogs, there is a certain character that behaves like that, the need to be right, even if they are wrong. A childish character not worthy of being considered serious debate venues, just talking point stations. After all, people like RN have spent decades voting for and supporting Reagan ; and they won't back off even if "voodoo economics" are responsible for the financial decline of America. Good luck with them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. POOF my comment disappears. It was there a minute ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment disappearing was not my doing. Blogger sent it to the Spam folder. I restored it. This kind of thing can happen when you comment anonymously.

      Delete
  5. Don't. Get me started on Shaw and R N. they are both hypocrites and both are full of themselves

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's an interesting take you have on Shaw and Rational Nation. I don't see it as a fair reason to denigrate Shaw. If RN actually said that, and I am willing to believe you, why not just forgive him? Obviously he is ashamed of it. Perhaps it is an unforgivable sin. In that case, better by far just to ignore him and forget him. He is definitely a work in progress. Anybody who espouses Ayn Rand as sort of a contemporary Jefferson, Karl Marx, Cervantes or Voltaire must have at least three or four screws loose. Kafka or Orwell, she is not, although I did read her anti-collectivist screed "Anthem" and found it mildly amusing. Anybody who would relate her totalitarian vision with today's reality in the United States is not playing with a full deck.

    Speaking of Shaw, she does a rather good job of keeping up friendships with conservatives and libertarians. That's something that she enjoys. She doesn't have to pander to their viewpoints. I don't really have that gift. I am more likely to fly off the handle and just slam somebody. Still I have had a few intelligent exchanges with this ilk.

    As far as Lisa...She's just not very important, is she? I do enjoy blogging and checking in on the right-wing sites. It makes more sense that checking in on Rush Limbaugh. I would rather drink toilet water like a thirsty dog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's an interesting take you have on Shaw and Rational Nation.

    It has been my opinion that Lisa is not playing with a full deck. And that she hasn’t been for a long time.

    Speaking of Shaw, and RN Yes she enjoys pandering to some Conservatives like RN and also kissing the behind of that other Fat Idiot who goes by the name of Free Stinke. as well as other Republicans of their ilk. Neither one of them Shaw or RN are exactly playing with a Full Deck either.

    As far as Lisa...NO, she's just not very important, in fact NOT IMPORTANT at all. In fact I think that she very stupid and talking about Ass Kissing, she is constantly kissing the Dumb ASS Radical Redneck, and other Idiots of the same Ilk.
    Lisa is the Conservative version of Shaw.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

    The amount of comments from people like Rusty Shackelford, Lisa, RR, Free Thinke, and so many others suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it.
    These FREAKS are too stupid to find their ass with both hands!

    ReplyDelete
  9. UPDATE: Lisa has left a new comment on the post "Irony or Ignorance?"... Lisa: you were never banned. I didn't delete anything. I haven't been on for a while.

    Lisa did post a comment saying I was banned. The comment contained in my post is Lisa's. Her ID and picture were next to it. I didn't get a screen shot, but I could have faked that anyway (so a screen shot wouldn't have definitely proven anything). But the comment is gone. First Lisa deleted it, then she permanently removed it (which is something only the owner of the blog can do). So I know Lisa is lying. But since the evidence has been completely erased, I have no proof.

    Did anyone visit Lisa's blog and see her comment banning me? Is so, can you please post a comment backing me up?

    Anyway, I'm banning myself from Lisa's blog, as this is the second time she has done this. On 8/28/2010 I authored a post titled, "Republican Lies About Fannie, Freddie, And Frank". It was a rebuttal to a post on Lisa's blog titled "The Problem with Leftists". According to Lisa's post "Barney Frank admitted that Fannie and Freddie were largely responsible for the economic downturn".

    This is, of course, not true... which is why I wrote a rebuttal. But Lisa deleted her post. Actually she deleted her entire blog and started over (this was back when her blog was new. I don't remember, but this might have been her first post). I suppose I should have known better. So I'm done with Lisa. If that was her goal (and I suspect it may have been), then she succeeded.

    So, apparently I am now officially banned from only 2 blogs instead of 3. But I'm not going to delete this post. Even though I'm (basically) calling Lisa a liar now with no proof. You can choose to believe me or not. Your call.

    I do have one small shred of proof though. After Lisa banned me Conservative blogger Rusty Shackelford saw her comment and rushed over here to gloat. Rusty's comment can be found here. The comment itself reads as follows (including the lack of spacing and capitalization)...

    Well.well.well WD....looks like you also impressed Lisa with your silly made up rantings......banned from another....what is that six? Seven?

    But, even though it is my blog Rusty could still delete this comment. I doubt he will though, because I think he's gone (won' be back here anytime soon). So, what do you think? Is this proof any good? Anyone think I'm lying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw it. I'll back you up, I also saw your comment and then saw hers deleted.
      Lisa IS a Liar NO question about it.

      Delete
  10. My replies to the comments so far...

    Flying Junior: I am in agreement with you. I like Shaw, although I thought maybe if I commented on her blog I might get an occasional comment in return. No such luck. I posted a relevant link to my blog (a post on my blog that pertained to the discussion at hand). In reply she said thanks and that she thought the information from my blog post was important, but I failed to get a comment from her. She does take the time to comment once a while on RN's blog though.

    I'm sure RN does not think much of me. In his eyes I'm probably a parasite and fall into the "lice" category. This is what his heroine Ayn Rand thought of most people. I don't like Objectivists. I think there is something wrong with any person who has such a low view of others simply because they think the government should help the less fortunate. "Rational self interest" (AKA greed) isn't a "virtue" in my book.

    Anonymous: Regarding RN's comment about Jews going willingly to the ovens. I don't know what to think of this. I never saw the comment, and am unsure that he'd actually say this. I think the only biases people like him have are those he views as lice and parasites (like his heroine Rand). On the other hand I've seen comments I interpreted as antisemitic by dmarks.

    For example, on 12/8/2012 dmarks said...

    dmarks: Forget [Norman Finkelstein's] genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person [dervish] defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard. Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens.

    A Jewish person is criticizing Israelis for "not hurrying up and being ashes scaped out of industrial ovens"? A Jewish person whose own parents were holocaust survivors? No, dmarks is wrong. Norman Finkelstein never said any such thing. dmarks and Norman Finkelstein have differing views on Israel, but is this kind of statement the way to go about voicing that disagreement? I say no. I say it is incredibly offensive. If not antisemitic then it certainly borders on being antisemetic.

    But back to RN's supposed comments. dmarks said something on that subject just recently...

    dmarks: I think you are the Anon who is fixated on Les' true statements concerning the Holocaust earlier. [7/5/2013]

    I composed a response (which RN published) to dmarks' as follows...

    Dervish Sanders: I am interested in knowing what the "true statements" that you refer to are (regarding RN and the holocaust). The same anonymous commenter referred to them a few times on my blog. I'd like to know what these comments I keep hearing about are.

    Since RN published my comment (I was thinking he might not), perhaps the question will get answered? Whatever answer comes from this might not be the full truth (some kind of spin), but SOME KIND of answer should be forthcoming. I don't know why RN would publish my question and then ignore it. I'll report back if/when RN or dmarks responds. Maybe we'll find out if RN is "ashamed" or not. Obviously dmarks believes RN shouldn't be ashamed, as he calls the comments from RN "true statements".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. screenshot of the "ashes scaped" comment by Dennis, which he deleted after I linked to it here.

      Delete
  11. This is where RN's Jew ideas were vividly expressed.

    http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/mitt-is-hit-in-jerusalem.html

    That Jew issue went to Shaw's blog where she criticized "Steve" for blasting RN for his Jew comment and stated that she would never mention it again and (as you can see) deleted multiple comments by "Steve" for his remarks about RN's Jew remarks.

    http://progressiveerupts.blogspot.com/2012/08/americans-dislike-romney-more-than-they.html

    He has also compared Obama economics to Hitler economics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for those links Anonymous. I read each thread top to bottom. RN is clearly not ashamed, as his comment still stands. Although Shaw deletes (8 comments gone from her blog). That she did that and then referred to herself getting her points across with facts is disappointing (as it looks like she deleted the facts).

    She says RN apologized, but where is this apology? Did Shaw delete it? Did he apologize in an email? WHAT did he apologize for? If he apologized for his comments about American Jews how can Shaw accept his apology? Even if she is Jewish she can't speak for all American Jews.

    Disappointing Shaw. Very disappointing. As for RN, I doubted his comments about Jews because his heroine Ayn Rand is Jewish. Although she abandoned her Jewish name in favor of a made up one. But RN did say AMERICAN Jews. By that I assume he meant Jews who vote Democratic. Rand did emigrate to the United States, but she most certainly never voted Democratic. The haters on the Right are always willing to make exceptions for those (in the groups of people they hate) who agree with them.

    This explains why dmarks went to a Herman Cain rally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rational Nation has displayed astonishing ignorance, stupidity and willful hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  14. FJ has displayed how an ignoramus thinks

    ReplyDelete
  15. I gave you a chance to prove your point. What is your complaint?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is it the same Anonymous? Another reason I don't like Anonymous comments. You have no idea from one comment to the next if it is the same person or not. I think I may change my posting rules: commenters can still be anonymous, but they must enter a name. I suppose the same person could comment multiple times and enter a different name each time, so I don't know how well that would work.

    Whoever the Anonymous commenter is though, I have to disagree about Flying Junior being an ignoramus. Seems like an intelligent and informed individual to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is my ass

      Delete
    2. OK, so your ass is smarter than you are. I'll buy that.

      Delete
    3. I saw RN's apology (now gone) if you can call it that. I can forgive that someone makes a mistake, even such a despicable one, but I won't forget that's the kind of hater I'm dealing with and as "Steve" from the thread said, "It will fog everything you say from now on." And it should.
      I will comply with your request and post as (pick a name) Carl from now on. I do not have a blog currently and will not start another one any time soon.
      I cannot for the life of me understand why Shaw would protect such a person and give him a free ride, or at the least want to have him as a favorite commenter on her blog. Any attempt to bring up RN's ugly comment on her blog, is deleted; and RN has denied many times since, that he ever said it.
      These are the kind of people you are dealing with. Dishonest to the point of being vulgar. There is no excuse for what RN said except to attribute it to antisemetic bigotry; and there is no excuse for Shaw to hide, protect, or befriend such a vulgar bigot.
      RN is a regular at Swash Zone and they refuse to post any comment mentioning RN's statement, again protecting him from his own hate filled words. Why?
      RN likes to perceive himself as a rational person and writes like he is the only rational person in blog land. Really?
      It's bad enough he said it, but my take is it's worse that people who know about it cover it up and perpetuate his fake rational status.

      Delete
  17. Look. R N. is a anti Semitic SOB. That is not debatable

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks Carl. You are right (I have to admit) regarding Shaw. This is odd, as she seems so reasonable otherwise. A good progressive. So why this odd relationship/protection of RN? It's a mystery. I think I will continue to post on Shaw's blog though (at least for now). I still like her, despite this confusing behavior. Would she ban me if she read this comment thread I wonder? I do not think I have to worry. Shaw is on my "followers" list, but I doubt she has been to my blog in some time (not counting the post I mentioned earlier that she must have at least glanced at).

    As for the comments of the vulgar bigot, we know that dmarks is in complete agreement with him, as he referred to RN's words as "true statements concerning the Holocaust".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shaw, FJ, Lisa, Gary are are morons ... Including the author of hhis blog

    ReplyDelete
  20. I posted the RN comment from his blog again on PE. She won't post it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Since some of your commenters here are calling me names and discussing my reputation, I think it is only fair for me to answer them.

    First, how would this "Carl" character know what the contents of "Steve's" comments are if I deleted them before they reached my blog?

    Second, the "Steve" commenter has plagued me and my blog, calling me a "cunt," a "Nazi bitch," a "Jew hater," and other vile names, and has been doing so for over a year.

    I don't respond to nor respect sickos. And his filth will never see the light of day on my blog. He has no credibility with me. None. He's a bullying stalker and a sick one at that. He demands I hate who he hates. I will not.

    Whatever he feels about RN and what RN said (which he apologized to me, the blog host, for, and which apology I accepted), it pales in comparison to the slurs and slander this "Steve" has continued to post at my blog.

    I suspect this "Carl" is not who he pretends to be. He's looking for sympathy and to further slander me as well as RN.

    It's your blog, DS, and you do as you wish.

    You have always been treated with civility at my place. And you will continue to be, if you so wish.

    I would be very careful about believing what these people are telling you here about me and RN.

    They seem to want to do nothing more than besmirch me and others.

    If "Carl" needs to slander me or RN, he should get his own blog and do so, and not use yours or mine to further his thinly disguised vendettas.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shaw: I saw the comments by the people you refer to on RN's and your blog. I didn't believe at first that RN would say such things (given that he admires Ayn Rand, a Jewish person). Now I have seen what RN said (his words on his blog). I saw no explanation as to why he said these things or why you accepted his "apology" and then deleted many comments (on your blog). If an apology was among the comments you removed why would you get rid of it? RN let the offensive comment stand on his blog and offered no explanation. Since I don't know what the "apology" was and seeing as the comment is still there... I take it for what it is. And it is antisemitic. That can't be denied.

    As for your defense of RN, I don't understand it. Certainly you aren't obligated to explain yourself, but with no explanation I say this does not look good for you either. Or it looks ODD, at least. But your other history of being a solid progressive blogger (who write many posts I agree with) causes me to say to myself that I'll just have to accept not knowing why you defend RN. I don't believe "what these people are telling you here about me and RN". Except the RN part. His words speak for themselves as I already said. You, there is just a question mark there (in my mind) in regards to this issue.

    That said, I'm going to say the discussion on this matter is closed here on my blog (in regards to your part in defending RN's antisemitic comments). Unless he makes more of them and you again defend him. But my readers can keep bashing RN if they choose. RN bashes me and other Liberals on his blog, and I have no policy against personal attacks here on my blog.

    If anyone uses the insults you mention (nobody has so far) I will delete their comments. But if Steve or Carl want to respond to what you just wrote I'll allow it. I just said the discussion is closed, but that wouldn't be fair IMO to Steve or Carl. So I'll say we are wrapping it up here and then let's let it drop. Except for RN. It's still open season on him. But I doubt he cares what anyone says about him here anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am not Steve.
    Slander? I'll let the comments from you and RN stand (what's left of them after you dishonestly deleted most of them) for themselves. I read the comments before you dishonestly deleted them. I followed that thread on RN's Jew issue, because I couldn't believe it, but it was true by his own words and your own words.
    My comment above stands.
    If you want to protect a bigot like RN, that's your business, but don't expect to not be called on it.
    By protecting such a sicko, your character IS in question. What you write rings hollow knowing your protection of such a sicko. Sorry you are being harassed. You infer it's me, just another example of your lack of character and judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I strongly countered RN when he made that awful comment. After which he apologized.

    If banning everyone from blogs who writes something awful and stupid is what Carl and others expect, we'd have no blogs. Carl, and unfortunately you, DS, made assumptions and claims about me that are not true.

    Why did you, DS, continue to go to Lisa's blog, for example, who allows race baiting and people who call our FLOTUS an animal? I haven't read anyone here finding that disrespectful and an indictment on Lisa's character.

    When you feel you need to excoriate people on what is written on their blogs, at least be consistent. Okay?

    I made it very clear to RN that his comment on Jews was NOT acceptable. He apologized and admitted he was wrong. I accepted it. Tell me what it is about forgiveness you guys don't like.


    So long as you and others continue to post comments at Lisa's blog, a woman who hosts people like Radical Redneck and his racist remarks, I don't see that you have anything to say about RN and his remarks. At least he apologized and said he was wrong. That creepy Radical Redneck rejoices and is proud of his rancid racism. So long as Lisa allows him there, she approves of his anti-black racism.

    Why don't you whine about that?

    ReplyDelete
  25. [My reply to Shaw: comment 1 of 2]

    Shaw: I strongly countered RN when he made that awful comment. After which he apologized.

    I saw the countering but didn't see an apology. The comment is still on his blog. dmarks recently refered to "Les' true statements concerning the Holocaust". I asked what the "true statements" were in a comment RN published... but nobody ever answered (mine is the last comment in that thread). If RN wanted to clear this up he could. I'm not buying an "apology" because he allows the comment to stand but says nothing. Did he delete the comment and then post an explanation saying the comment was wrong and that's that -- he does not want to talk about it any more? No. The comment stands and therefore I assume he still feels the same way.

    Shaw: If banning everyone from blogs who writes something awful and stupid is what Carl and others expect, we'd have no blogs. Carl, and unfortunately you, DS, made assumptions and claims about me that are not true.

    I expect no bannings. But if it were my blog I wouldn't cover it up to prevent someone leaving of their own accord. I would say, "RN, address this issue on your blog". Then, if he did that, I would delete the comments on my blog. I wouldn't refer to a private apology that no one else cares about. But the comment remains on RN's blog. Anyway, you are entitled to do whatever you want on your blog. I didn't make any assumptions, which is why I said there was a question mark there for me on the issue.

    Shaw: Why did you, DS, continue to go to Lisa's blog, for example, who allows race baiting and people who call our FLOTUS an animal? I haven't read anyone here finding that disrespectful and an indictment on Lisa's character.

    I don't understand what that has to do with RN. Me commenting on Lisa's hate filled blog isn't an endorsement of anything said there. I pushed back against the comment in which Radical Redneck said, "Michele Obama will walk on her hind legs...". In return he called me a racist fu*k. And yes, that Lisa says nothing is an indictment of her character. I agree completely. There is no indictment of your character in this regard because you did take exception to what RN said.

    Shaw: When you feel you need to excoriate people on what is written on their blogs, at least be consistent. Okay?

    I didn't "excoriate" you. I wondered why you deleted the comments and accepted RN's apology. I do not believe it to be sincere (for the previously stated reasons). I don't excoriate you at all for comments on your blog. I only had a question regarding why comments were removed. And I am consistent. I consistently say what I think. Even though now I am worried that I may be banned from your blog. I don't want to be banned from your blog.

    Shaw: I made it very clear to RN that his comment on Jews was NOT acceptable. He apologized and admitted he was wrong. I accepted it. Tell me what it is about forgiveness you guys don't like.

    I did see your initial comment to RN. You were shocked just like I was shocked when I read it. As for this "apology", again, I didn't see it. Only you saw it, but why should RN apologize only to you? Why does you accepting his apology make everything OK? His comment is still viewable on his blog for anyone to read and take offense to. Nobody reading should be expected to be aware of his secret "apology" to you. I don't care about apologies and acceptance of apologies that are between you and RN. He didn't apologize to anyone else or admit to anyone else that the comments were wrong. As far as I know he stands by his comment. I'm assuming he does until he says otherwise. Not that I'd believe anything RN says, mind you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. [My reply to Shaw: comment 2 of 2]

    Shaw: So long as you and others continue to post comments at Lisa's blog, a woman who hosts people like Radical Redneck and his racist remarks, I don't see that you have anything to say about RN and his remarks.

    I disagree. Me posting on a blog isn't an endorsement of what the blog proprietor or anyone there says. I told them I strongly disagreed. Same as I disagree with RN's comments (more consistency from me). You're saying disagreements on your blog aren't welcome due to an apology that nobody else has seen. It's your blog so that's fine. I won't mention it there. But I will talk about it here. I talk about many comments I see that are objectionable.

    Shaw: At least he apologized and said he was wrong. That creepy Radical Redneck rejoices and is proud of his rancid racism. So long as Lisa allows him there, she approves of his anti-black racism.

    RN apologized to you. Clearly he wants to continue commenting on your blog so he had to. Aside from that he let the comment stand and said nothing to anyone else that may have read it and been offended. An apology between you and RN means nothing to me. In regards to Lisa and Radical Redneck: I agree. Lisa saying nothing is an implicit approval (I made this very point in my post). You chastised RN on his blog, so good for you on that front. He apologized to you so now everything is OK between the two of you. But I don't care about a private apology from RN to Shaw.

    Shaw: Why don't you whine about that?

    I already did. This comment thread belongs to a post where I "whine" about Lisa and the racist commenters on her blog. Let me be clear... if you want to forgive RN and have accepted his private apology that's fine with me. I won't bring it up on your blog. But this apology between you and RN has nothing to do with me or anyone else. We all still see the offensive comment on RN's blog. We also see dmarks referring to "Les' true statements concerning the Holocaust" and no disagreement at all from RN. Why did he publish it and then not respond? He could have said, "no, dmarks, I was wrong". He could have declined to publish dmarks' comment and then sent him an email saying he was wrong with that comment and asked dmarks not to bring it up again.

    But he PUBLISHED it. Why? IMO he gives dmarks' assertion that what he said was a "true statement" implicit approval by publishing it and saying nothing. Further proof that his apology to you was bogus. He only apologized so he could continue commenting on your blog.

    But if you want to be friendly with him that's your business. No excoriation from me, just a question regarding why. But it isn't a big deal. I like your blog, agree with most of what you say, and hope I can continue commenting at Progressive Eruptions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Carl or Steve or Whoever7/13/2013 7:53 AM

    Lets face it Shaw, RN wasn’t railroaded, he said a terrible thing and he was called on it he apologized “TO YOU Shaw”
    For example...If a criminal gets caught in his crime and then says that he is sorry, should he be forgiven because he “apologized”?
    When someone kills a Black man because he was wearing a “Hoodie” and says that it was "Self defense" and then says he's sorry that he made a mistake, should he be forgiven?
    How should the people who were victimized feel? —and that includes survivors of crime, accidents, childhood abuse, or in this case people or relatives of people who were in or who were affected by the Holocaust, and so on. Shouldn’t THEY decide whether or not to forgive the perpetrator. Well that is exactly what RN has done, he has “apologized” to you and only to you. And you say, “I forgive you.”
    There were 11 MILLION people put to death by the Nazis during the Holocaust! ELEVEN MILLION PEOPLE KILLED, of the 11 million right were Jews, six million were Polish. three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Christians. Most of the remaining victims were from other countries including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Holland, France and even Germany. Did any of their relative get to see RN’s apology, that was secretly given to you?
    So lets NOT confuse the issue by speaking about Lisa’s blog. Lisa had nothing to do with this. Lisa and RR are another issue and it’s their business who comments there and what they say.
    For example I have read your blog where that two faced Free Stinker cuddles up to you and verbally kisses your behind with his mussy and stupid poetry and then writes those awful disgusting things about us liberals, and you seem to feed right into it. . How does that add up? So YOU are just as two faced as anyone else, don’t you try to deny it. . Your shabby reasons for forgiveness is simply just offensive. You can do and say whatever you want to, but I’m not going to let that anti-semiotic SOB get away with this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. DS,

    This will be the last comment because this conversation has gone on too long:

    DS: "Why does you accepting his apology make everything OK? His comment is still viewable on his blog for anyone to read and take offense to."

    RN apologized TO ME personally because he placed his comment in MY BLOG. I accepted his apology to ME. He did not apologize to any other commenter, nor did he have to. He placed the comment on MY BLOG. I have no control over what he does on HIS blog, nor am I responsible for comments by him that he leaves there.

    That you or anyone else didn't see the apology--I haven't the time to go hunting for it--does not negate the fact that he personally apologized and regretted what he wrote. This was an issue between him and me. Period.

    These blogs get bogged down in petty fights like this all the time, and I think they're a waste of time.

    As a liberal/progressive, I know what it's like to be blasted and slandered on conservative blogs. It's their favorite sport. But I had no idea that liberal/progressives like to do it to their own kind as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a Piece of Shit You are Shaw!

      Delete
  29. Free Stinke Says on his blog
    “The "trouble" started when I took it upon myself to WELCOME Ms Shaw, and to make a point of showing RESPECT for her right to hold views totally divergent from my own on any number of major issues.

    What "HATE WEEK" proved conclusively was simply this: Extreme partisans of both the left AND the right are absolutely intolerant of any mode of thinking that differs from their particular playbook.”


    NO! That was only a small part of it. The trouble started when you opened your TWO FACED MOUTH and offended and you disparaged LIBERALS! But it doesn't really matter because we “lefties” have your number, maybe your kissing up to Shaw fooled here, but you never fooled us.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What do people like RN (IRRATIONAL NATION) really know about Jews? Sometimes a lot, many times very little, and sometimes nothing at all.. And yet people like RN have these vicious and disgusting opinions of the Holocaust.
    For example, there's some stupid people believe the accusation that Jews are plotting to take over the world. Yes Jews like other people have their faults at times, some or legitimate criticism and sometimes just the criticism of Anti-Semitic people , but, plotting to take over the world? And yet these are the very same people who defend the Muslim no matter what! And God forbid you say something negative about Blacks! All hells breaks loose. For example Paula Deen and especial the Trevor Martin/George Zimmerman case. breaks loose. Where is the forgiveness for Paula Deen after her apology for past racial slurs? This entire situation is ridiculous. Paula Deen doesn't deserve what has happened to her. African Americans call each other the N word all the time for crying out loud, and to harp on something that happened 30 years ago is ridiculous.
    But when it come to RN, Shaw is Sooooooo forgiving. I think it's as hypocritical as all hell.
    Let every black who has ever used, the “N” word or the word "cracker", or for that matter or who have ever said "faggot" be treated as Paula Deen is. And how about Bill Maher or Dave Letterman or Hillary Clinton.
    So lets not put LISA in the hot seat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm not even familiar with this but. Why would Shaw apologize for for what RN said? It’s like saying I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. Remember "I, sat in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s pews for over 20 years and never heard him say anything that was racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic……” Hey, it worked for Obama with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Why not in this case? You need to ‘own’ your own stuff not make anyone’s ‘stuff’ part of your baggage. Or in this case antisemitic statements! This is grossly ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Oh, how fashionable it is all becoming by the holier than thou Libs. Anti-Semitism is the new anti Black. Our dear Leader told us that we can no longer use the term War against Terror or Anti Muslim so lets all gang up on the Jews, they have always been fair game anyway. What differences do you see between a denial of the holocaust’ or denial that it was MUSLIM’S who brought the War of Terror to America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "Muslims" did NOT bring the war of terror to America. Some radicalized Muslims did, not all Muslims everywhere. I don't blame an entire religion for the actions of a few radicals. And nobody is ganging up on Jews anywhere on this blog (you need to go to RN's blog for that).

      Delete
  33. wd/DS, let me itemize:


    1) You are on probation at RN, banned is you word. You are dishonest.

    2) RN in my site, as with all sites the owner is the administrater, and as such we get to make desicions with respect to trolish behavior. You display such behaviour.

    3) Your BS with respect to RN an PE might get you traffic, but it does NOT change the truth that it BS.

    4) Beyond these comments I have neither the inclination or the time to deal with the likes of you. You are not honest, you are a whiner, and you are NOT banned. You are however on probation at RN. Whether you choose to return or not is your desicion.

    Now, have a fabulous wd/DS day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comments (below) were submitted before I saw this comment by RN.

      Tell me RN, in regards to what am I being dishonest?

      Seeing as RN won't answer that question, as he does not have the "inclination" to, I'll answer... I have been dishonest about nothing. This discussion had nothing to do with me wanting traffic (I want traffic, but this discussion has nothing to do with that). People posted comments and raised a question I was interested in knowing the answer to. RN continues to refuse to retract, apologize for, or defend his antisemitic comment. Given that, I assume he stands by it. On this matter it is RN who is being dishonest.

      I won't bother to bring up the matter on your blog (as you won't publish anyway)... *if* I return.

      For the record I do not troll. Giving my opinion on a subject and speaking my mind isn't "trolling". If you disagree, say so, but to claim trolling and not publish (or ban) is a lie. If you do either of those things you will be lying about me. Whether or not you chose to acknowledge that fact is YOUR decision.

      Not publishing is banning, by the way. Banning isn't "my word", it is the reality of what you do by not publishing a submitted comment (more dishonesty from RN).

      Delete
    2. You are a liar. I have never used the word until now. You are a liar as well as a jackass.

      You are not banned, you have been posted, and as long as you stay on topic and refrain from trollish behavior you will get posted.

      Anon the cowardly is the only it banned from RN.

      Delete
    3. I did not lie. I never said you used the word "banned". I said I assumed I was banned because you didn't publish my comment. And you also said "tootles" I believe, indicating that your comment was the final word and I should not return. I've never submitted a comment of a "trollish" nature, so that excuse is baloney.

      Delete
  34. ON PROBATION ? Who the F are you to put anybody on probation? Do you think you're a law enforcement. Officer? You are just another fucken anti-Semitic. Prick.
    So take your sick and stupid shitty blog and shove it up your Anti -Semitic ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christ you're a turd. And unfortunaly you're still floating.

      Delete
  35. Shaw: I thought the "apology" was for what he said on his blog. He apologized for something he said on your blog? So you deleted both the apology and whatever it was he apologized for? I say that's pretty strong proof that he does not regret what he said on his blog at all, which is what I suspected. RN allows the comment to stand with no explanation, then allows dmarks to call the comment a "true statement" with no follow-up. Yep, he definitely still feels the same way. The "apology" was obviously just in regards to RN bringing his hate to your blog where you didn't want it. It wasn't an apology for the hateful comment on his blog at all. That hate is still very much alive in RN's heart. He might not be as bad as Radical Redneck, but in my mind it isn't that big of a difference.

    And Shaw, I am sad you feel you have been "blasted and slandered"... although I do not feel I did that to you. I'm not sure why you feel I have done that. I explained myself... in a comment that perhaps got a little long... so maybe you didn't read most of it? I'm guessing yes, because I thought I went out of my way to be clear I wasn't blasting you, but at the same time not ignore the situation. I definitely never slandered you. That implies lies. I did not lie about anything. I thought you accepted an apology from RN regarding his hateful comments about Jews on his blog. Now I know you didn't. The apology concerned RN bringing his hate to your blog. Makes sense. Consider the matter closed here. I will delete further comments that concern RN's hate and mention you.

    Carl and Steve: All the questions I had regarding this matter have been answered, so I'm going to ask that you don't discuss Shaw here any more. Shaw forgave RN for bringing his hate to her blog, not for his comment about Jewish people on his blog. Keep talking about RN and his hate here if you want, but the discussion regarding Shaw is done (it is now wrapped up).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous: Shaw accepted RN's apology for his participating in a discussion (the deleted comments) regarding what he said on his blog. It was RN's part in bringing that discussion to her blog (where it was unwelcome) that RN apologized for, not the antisemitic comments on RN's. He never said a damn thing on his blog about being "sorry" for what he said there (on his blog). Clearly RN still stands by those comments. I respect Shaw's decision and consider the matter closed. Further comments that mention Shaw will be removed. As for your comments about Reverend Wright and Obama... I do not agree with them at all. Rev Wright did not say anything in any of his sermons that was racist antisemitic or homophobic that I'm aware of. If you want to give some examples I'd be willing to discuss it further, but without knowing exactly what you are referring to (what sermons?) I say you're falling for the Right-wing spin on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because you and others choose to take my comment out of the context in which it was meant is not my concern nor is it my problem.

      I acknowledged on PE that the comment was poorly worded and understood it was not sensitive and could be misintyou erpreted as it was. There have not been any following comments made anywhere since. There is a reason why.

      The continuing attacks and fallacious statements by the turd Amon, Steve, and whoever are contemtable and my response to the same justifiable.

      Toodles, I'm through with this rag of a blog.

      Delete
  37. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Comment above deleted because it mentioned Shaw (and contained lies about her). As for Rev Wright, if you want to discuss "antisemitic" comments from sermons by him, please cite them (along with links). I'm not discussing Rev Wright sermons unless you tell me which sermons (and the exact lines from them) you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  39. DS. Sorry but the thought about the asshole Rev wright and Shews defense of him is as important as asshole RN's anti Semitic remark . And if you are going to start deleting comments about Shaw because she came here and gave you her. BS. Sob story then you as. Blogger ain't worth the piss on my leg
    Bye bye.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You missed the point, Shaw has been protecting RN about his Jew comments ever since he made them (months). That makes HER character and truthfulness worth nothing. Two issues: RN's Jew comment (as you say) stands, he is what he is. Shaw's CONTINUED protection of such sick comments, a separate issue, her character and truthfulness, a different issue. Interesting RN comes here, blasts you, yet never addressed the issue of his antisemitic comments. I'm judging Shaw by HER actions, not what RN said. Shaw has many enemies. Some post porn on her blog (according to her) and much worse. She implies it's me, she lies. As you can see, I'm not the only one who believes Shaw's actions were inexcusable, aside from RN's sick comments. If Shaw is going to tell lies, please give me the chance to rebut. Shaw can forgive RN, but what about apologizing to her other readers for even printing RN's sick comment? Her bad decision to even print that garbage and her other readers certainly can call her on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl: Shaw has been protecting RN about his Jew comments ever since he made them (months).

      Where? Just because Shaw doesn't want that discussion taking place on her blog does not mean Shaw is protecting RN. So she lets him comment on her blog? So what? Allowing him to comment on her blog isn't an endorsement of RN's antisemitic sentiments.

      Carl: That makes HER character and truthfulness worth nothing. There was no defending Two issues: RN's Jew comment (as you say) stands, he is what he is. Shaw's CONTINUED protection of such sick comments, a separate issue, her character and truthfulness, a different issue.

      Sorry Carl, but I don't agree. Shaw not wanting to discuss comments made on RN's blog on her blog isn't "protection". Allowing RN to continue commenting on her blog isn't an endorsement of antisemitic comments RN made on his blog. We all saw RN's words on his blog and the speak for themselves. We also Shaw rebuke RN's comment on his blog. Shaw doesn't want that discussion on her blog. I say respect her wishes and let the matter drop.

      Carl: Interesting RN comes here, blasts you, yet never addressed the issue of his antisemitic comments.

      Indeed. Very interesting. And he called me dishonest.

      Carl: Some post porn on her blog (according to her) and much worse. She implies it's me, she lies.

      Well she could just be wrong about that (if that is an assumption she's making). You can't call it a lie if she suspects you but is wrong. It's only a wrong suspicion.

      Carl: I'm not the only one who believes Shaw's actions were inexcusable, aside from RN's sick comments. If Shaw is going to tell lies, please give me the chance to rebut. Shaw can forgive RN, but what about apologizing to her other readers for even printing RN's sick comment?

      What sick comment by RN did Shaw print? I didn't any of that on her blog (she deleted everything). The sick comments are all on RN's blog. I don't see any lies by Shaw for you to rebut. Shaw only accepted RN's apology for engaging the other commenter concerning what was on his blog, not for the comment itself (the one on his blog). I think you're missing that distinction. She couldn't forgive him for that... how could she? He never apologized for those comments (the antisemitic ones on his blog).

      Delete
    2. This has been going on for a LONG time DS. When RN comes on her blog and pretends to be rational, or outraged by bigotry, I point out he is a bigot (based on his Jew Comment(s) and Shaw will not print that comment. It's dishonest on Shaw's part that no one can point out RN's slurs, when he comes on and pretends to be the sole of rational non bigotry. SHE should be chastising him anytime he comments on her blog about the outrage of bigotry, hate, and racism. By the way RN's antisemitic comment WAS printed on Shaw's blog, but like RN's apology, is gone. Like I said, forgive that he did it, don't forget who we are dealing with. Those that cover up who and what he is, are guilty of perpetuating a false appearance that RN is a rational, non bigoted person. As long as she won't even let anyone bring up RN's bigotry, when he blasts other bigots in comments on her blog, she gets no free ride from me. You are not getting the full picture of deceit, mainly because most of the comments were deleted by Shaw.

      Delete
    3. RN repeated his comment on Shaw's blog? I certainly would not let him get away with that if I were Shaw. But she's made it clear she just does not want to deal with it. I don't agree with her position but I say let it drop. We know what RN said. Shaw isn't going to change her mind on this. She doesn't see it as "protecting", she just doesn't want to discuss it on her blog. I don't know what else to say. I don't agree at all with her on this, but aside from that I like Shaw.

      Delete
    4. "RN repeated his comment on Shaw's blog?"
      YES

      "she just doesn't want to discuss it on her blog"

      If it was just about his Jew comment, I would agree, but it's not. She won't even admit that when RN blasts people for being bigots, racists, haters, etc., that he is a bigot, nor will she allow anyone else make that point. That's the problem I have with Shaw. End of discussion. I seem to be making the same point over and over again. It's your decision to let her off on this. I disagree.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I going to "let her off". What else can I do? Make an enemy of her?

      Delete
  42. Anonymous: I am not deleting comments because "Shaw... came here and gave you her. BS. Sob story". I deleted the comment because the matter was resolved. Shaw didn't defend RN's antisemitic comment, she pushed back against it. Read it and see for yourself. She simply did not want that discussion on her blog. RN debated another commenter (Steve?) and Shaw deleted the comments. RN apologized for engaging Steve, not the antisemitic comments. RN never apologized for the antisemitic comments and Shaw never accepted an apology for that. There is nothing to attack Shaw for so I will delete any comments that do. The matter is closed. Continue attacking RN if you wish though.

    John Jamerson: I deleted your comment because it contained an attack on Shaw that was untrue. Also, nobody is engaging in an "idiotic semantic game about the meaning of the word Semitic". I wouldn't have deleted your comment if that was all you said. It is also untrue (and makes no sense), but I would have let that stand. If you want to explain what you meant (and leave Shaw out of it), be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So Shaw ran to RN and they both handed you a line of Horse Shit that scared you off and now your on the deleting War Path!
    Well then you can take this blog and shove it... Along with both RN the Jew hater and Shaw as well. They are both full of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not scarred off at all. Shaw explained and I accepted the reasonable and rational explanation. RN can stuff his "probation". I'm not scarred to continue calling him out on the truth; which is that he stands by his antisemitic comment. If you don't like Shaw's explanation please discuss your thoughts about her (and probably now me) elsewhere. Thanks.

      Delete
  44. So it's ok to attack Lisa or RN and anyone else that YOU dislike but Shaw is off limits?
    Then fuck you both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw isn't "off limits". We discussed the situation and the matter was resolved to my satisfaction. Shaw didn't defend RN. Shaw pushed back against RN's antisemitic comments. Shaw didn't want that discussion on her blog. RN apologized for engaging in a discussion regarding his antisemitic comments on Shaw's blog. RN never apologized to Shaw (or anyone else) for his original comments. Case closed. If you want to keep discussing the matter you can do so somewhere else.

      Delete
  45. FUCK YOU, I'll say what I want or I won't come here any mor, and I urge everyone else to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I urge everyone else to respect my decision to accept Shaw's reasonable explanation and not discuss her any further. In any case, If ALL you want to do is bash Shaw then yes, go away. We discussed it. I deleted no comments until I was satisfied the matter was resolved. Why do you want to keep talking about it? You don't agree with me about Shaw not "protecting" RN? I got it. What more is there to say?

      Delete
    2. How another saying that both RN and Shaw are both full of shit and that I fond trust or believer either one of them.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you about RN.

      Delete
  46. If its between Shaw, RN, and Lisa, I say screw them all, and the horses they all rode in on.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Fuck all 3 of them Shaw, Lisa, and RN.
    They are all prices of shit as a far as I'm concerned .

    ReplyDelete
  48. The Party of tolerance is showing their true colors again

    ReplyDelete
  49. Received via email: Gus has left a new comment on the post "Irony or Ignorance?": Lisa, for your information there is a lot of bad things said about you here.

    Gus I don't care if you tattled on me to Lisa. This blog is public and available for anyone to view. As a member of the "party of tolerance" I saw intolerance on Lisa's blog and called it out. Damn straight those are my "true colors".

    ReplyDelete
  50. Please tell your "friend" Shaw that people who live in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stone.
    I have read her blog and I've seen her all but destroyed people who she disagrees with.

    ReplyDelete
  51. To Anonymous who calls people "full of shit" while hiding behind "Anonymous."

    That speaks for itself.

    Man up, coward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This garbage dump of a progressive site is WAY below your standards Shaw. Not worth your time. The caliber of people it attracts is beneath us both.


      If wd/DS had any integrity he would ban Anon the cowardly. But he doesn't.

      Delete
    2. Hey Dog face (Shaw). Better update you blog. You racist PIGS lost.
      America won.

      Delete
  52. Fuck you, You anti- Semitic bastard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that bothers me, that RN thinks Shaw is on his side. It is because I have integrity that I allow discussion on this topic. I don't think RN gives a damn -- but he sees an opportunity to present himself as above his detractors. It's a lie. He made the antisemitic comment and stands by it. Nobody here believes you RN.

      Delete
    2. Kiss my Cunt you two faced pansey little twerp

      Delete
  53. Talk about cowards, your the one who's hiding behind Shaw's skirl. You yellow bellied Fuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More gas from the ass. What a waste. of good O2.

      Delete
  54. Rational Nation: Kiss my ass POS liar.

    What are you talking about? The comment is still on your blog! You don't really think people are that dumb, do you RN? I don't know, maybe RN is delusional. He accused me of being delusional in the past, but I think we have some pretty solid proof here that the delusional one is RN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LMAO. The dynamic gas chambers. Anon and its cousin wd/DS.

      Delete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shaw Kenawe
    To Anonymous who calls people "full of shit" while hiding behind "Anonymous."

    That speaks for itself.


    >To that AssHole Shaw Kenawe
    The world is a little safer tonight from people who wear hoodies. George Zimmerman is a Free Man.. you lose


    I can hear the sound a Wet Grass from MY house.
    The lynch mob lost. Deal with it.
    God bless you George Zimmerman. Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, Go To Hell!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The anonymous commenter abover is reposting comments made by Elizabeth. "God bless George Zimmerman"? Who would say such a thing? Even if you think it was self defense, he still put himself in that situation! He shouldn't have gone looking for Trayvon but stayed in his car like the 9-11 operator TOLD HIM!

      And Elizabeth, GZ was found "not guilty", not "innocent". He wasn't innocent, he shot and killed a fellow human being. Regardless of why, he still took a life. That is a tragedy, not something to celebrate. And that you use the word "lynching" is disgusting. Your side is celebrating a young man losing his life and continual referring to the Left seeking justice as a "lynching". It is repulsive... but that is who you are.

      More proof of that is your reference to an intelligent young woman who is a little larger as fat and stupid. So what if she doesn't fit the accepted norm for what women should look like? Also, she isn't dumb! English isn't her native language. She actually speaks 3 languages.

      Zimmerman "appears" White because his father is White, and an admitted racist. He wrote an e-book where he cried about his son being persecuted by the "real racists", which to you people is OF COURSE black people! Maybe George picked up on some of dad's racism, which is why he racially profiled Trayvon.

      The jury got it wrong.

      Delete
  57. Please note that the the entire "progressive" half of this nation, including those who a elected this President were hoping for and encouraging the lynching of an innocent Hispanic man. You failed! The jury got it right. Sorry if that does not give you the racial revenge, and satisfaction that you want.
    I guess that they didn't believe the dumb fat 19 year girlfriend..
    Will Dear Leader now apologise for helping encourage the race-based lynching of a Hispanic man who appeared to be white?

    Sorry Progressives I'll try to be more sensitive to your feelings next time
    Nope. I'm not arrogant at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elizabeth, I think you need to get back to choking yourself on klan dick. You have no use here.

      Delete
  58. Lisa, how about having some guts and post under your name instead of posting asAnonymous

    ReplyDelete
  59. I agree, Lisa's fingerprints are all over those anti Shaw Anonymous comments

    ReplyDelete
  60. Zimmerman is Free!
    How's that feel Shaw!
    LMAO. Isn't this a great country? Huh Moochsell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WASHINGTON — The Justice Department says it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.

      The department opened an investigation into Martin's death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

      In a statement Sunday, the Justice Department said the criminal section of the civil rights division, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Middle District of Florida are continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal probe, in addition to the evidence and testimony from the state trial.

      The statement said that, in the government's words, "experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation."


      Delete

  61. The Leftist PC Police, along with that race-baiter Al Sharpton will definitely find a way to extract its pound of flesh, I'm sure Zimmerman already knows it.
    In my opinion, I believe that there will be serious rioting in the next few days... Given past behavior of these groups.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Please note that I just posted a new commentary that expresses my feelings on the George Zimmerman verdict. If you have anything to say regarding the GZ verdict please post your comments in response to the new post and not here. Comments concerning the George Zimmerman verdict posted here may be deleted (for ignoring my request). Also please note that long diatribes that are duplicated elsewhere (like on Lisa's blog) may also be deleted. If you wish to gloat please keep it short and TRY to not make yourself look bad by being too overtly racist. That's just a friendly suggesting btw, if you can't help it and desperately want others to see how incredibly racist you are... be my guest.

    MCT tries (at least), to hide his racism... referring to "these groups" instead of using the N-word. That must have taken great restraint.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hey Shaw, your stupidity is showing! Who is the " Dept. of Justice? Why of course it's Obama and his stooge Eric Holder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Methinks someone else's stupidity is on display.

      As Forest Gump's mother would say, "stupid is as stupid does."

      Or as Free Thinke might point out, the mirror, the mirror.

      Delete
    2. RN,

      Interesting that you come here and spew your vile insults to everyone, but refuse to address the issue of your Jew hate comments. Little hard to agree with you that these people agree ass holes, when your sick comments stand by themselves, then you refuse to discuss it, like it's so untrue, it's not worth discussing. Yet, there those sick comments of yours are, for everyone to read and judge. So spew away your vulgar insults, it doesn't change what you said and who you are.

      Delete
    3. I merely respond in kind to ignorant hateful asshats like yourself.

      You spew your shit it blows back into your face.

      That's how it works dullard.You made it that way, so suck it up asshat.

      Or, you could get a life. Ha, HA, HA, HA

      Delete
  64. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) You're an asshat and deeply disturbed..

      2) Shaw is a reasonable person with intelligence...

      3) Shaw uses her intelligence to see the big pictute and truth...

      4) You on the other hand Anon chose not to use what little intelligence you have and and keep your head stuck in the sewer...

      And there is the answer to your question...

      Delete
    2. Anonymous comment deleted because I asked that the issue be dropped. We've discussed it ad nauseam and I'm done discussing it.

      I am now also asking RN to not mention Shaw. Further RN comments that mention Shaw will be deleted. I'm sick of the whole RN/Shaw love affair. Although most of the love has got to be on RN's side. That's what Shaw gets for trying to be polite. I'm glad I didn't go that route. RN kissing my ass? No thanks.

      Comments from RN that contain the terms "asshat" or "POS" will be deleted. RN needs to come up with some new material.

      If anyone wants to continue bashing RN I could care less. Comments of that nature will be allowed to stand.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. RN comment removed due to a lack of substance.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. RN comment removed because it was exactly the same as the prior one I removed due to a lack of substance. RN is now officially "on probation".

      Delete
    7. Why don't you just ban the creep? He doesn't add anything to the blog except his filth.

      Delete
  65. LOL, the little Jew hating Nazi lover is getting a bit testy isn't he. Be careful now, don't get to excited, you might get your Brown Shirt all messed up.

    ReplyDelete
  66. By the way are you also s card carrying member of the New Black Panther Party?

    ReplyDelete
  67. RN: [Dervish] & others choose to take my comment out of... context... I acknowledged... the comment was poorly worded & understood it was not sensitive & could be misinterpreted... There have not been any following comments made anywhere since. The continuing attacks & fallacious statements... are contemptible & my response to the same justifiable.

    "American Jews are the offspring of the pacifists that willing were led to the gas chambers in Hitlers Holocaust" [an exact unedited quote from RN's blog, 7/29/2012]

    RN tries to spin this as people choosing to taken him out of context and as "misinterpreting"?! That is a lie RN. Not a believable one either. Even if you are being "misinterpreted" surely even you have to understand why people would "misinterpret" what you wrote. If it were a "misinterpretation" RN would explain what he really meant. He never has. I JUST checked the link again. The comment stands. There is no "clarification" that explains what RN "really meant".

    If RN were to explain I would GENUINELY listen and consider what he had to say. I still find it hard to believe, because, like RN says there have been no similar comments before or since by RN (none I'm aware of). And RN's hero Ayn Rand was Jewish. But she hated many people (calling them lice and parasites). That RN hates when his hero hated isn't that surprising. I'm just surprised that RN makes it racial.

    This is why I theorized that the hate was based on the "American Jews" voting Democratic. But RN shot that theory down. So what is the real explanation? RN refuses to say. He could simply delete the comment from his blog and pretend he didn't write that. He could write a comment on his blog explaining the "misinterpretation" and how what he said was "poorly worded". RN does neither. He has had the time to do this, as the comment was made almost a year ago.

    That he chooses to do neither makes me believe that [1] RN wants people to see the comment because he is proud of it, and [2] the comment was not "poorly worded". If it was RN would publish another comment and make sure he got the wording right this time.

    I'm not choosing to "misinterpret" RN. RN is choosing to allow people to "misinterpret" him. RN has allowed these attacks (and even encouraged them) by not simply publishing a comment on his blog that explains what he "really meant". For this reason his responses are not "justifiable" as RN fallaciously claims.

    But who knows, maybe RN will publish a revised statement that is worded properly and can't be misinterpreted? Maybe then we'll all say, "oh, THAT'S what RN meant!" The ball is in your court RN (as it always has been).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is what it is. There will be no further comment as there need not be. I have expressed my view, take it as you will. As I have yours and the other holier than thou I never said something foolish crowd.


      Later DW.

      Delete
    2. RN can't comment any further because he either [1] meant what he said so no explanation is possible, and/or [2] RN wants people to keep attacking him because he craves the attention.

      Delete
  68. There will be NO further comment!


    Until next time......LOL

    ReplyDelete
  69. RN. Needs a tweezer to hold his dick when he takes a wee wee.. And a magnifying glass to find it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tweezer and a magnifying glass, now that is funny. Original too.

      Delete
  70. RN runs to tell Shaw about everything that is written about her on this blog. Oh we should be spool scared that the big Bad Witch is going to get angry!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because RN is a Pussy

      Delete
  71. Look Mr Dervish Sanders... I'm personally getting sick of you and your sick buddies like Shaw Kenawe, whos blog I just read this morning putting your own sick spin on this jury's verdict. Whenever things don't go your way, you sick Progressive idiots protest and Bitch and Moan and bring out the gutter slime like Al Sharpton and company!
    All evidence points to Martin jumping Zimmerman and beating the living daylights out of Zimmerman. The photos of Zimmerman shows that he was beaten on the concrete. Martin was killed for what he was doing to Zimmerman. Lest anyone forgets he was in Sanford because he was suspended from school in Miami, and his Mama threw him out of her own house. . I feel sorry for the parents but not for Martin. He got what he deserved.

    Look this up, there were 10 black on black murders in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend, where the hell were Obama, Sharpton, and Holder then? Obama's remarks yesterday were irresponsible and made only to stroke flames of racial unrest in this country!
    I'm sick of them and I'm sick as hell of YOU PROGRESSIVE pieces of SHIT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whole lot of talking points there! It's irrelevant that Martin might have jumped Zimmerman, and I say "might of" because Zimmerman is the only witness and was trying to save his flabby ass from going to prison. What is relevant is that a 29 year old was following a black teenager around the neighborhood with a loaded weapon he shouldn't have had since he had a restraining order out against him and was accused of domestic violence, then got out of his car and confronted him without identifying himself. I think Martin was defending himself. It's one thing if trouble finds you but Zimmerman went looking for it! Martin died because of Zimmerman's profiling of him and al the protests and Obama's remarks bring light to this. Too bad that racist POS cons don't want to hear about it or can't stand people expressing their first amendment rights. FUCK YOU BAGGER!

      Delete
    2. And do you really think that anyone. Gives a shit about what YOU think'

      Delete

Unfortunately comment moderation is necessary in order to screen out insanity from an idiot calling himself "Luke" of the "Words And Music" blog (a liar who has made bogus accusations that many others are stealing his posts) as well as homophobic hate from TOM of the blog "Stay A While" (actually the same person).