Thursday, December 10, 2009

For KG

Over at Crusader Rabbit, KG offers his readers a diatribe against me, headed This is how gutless, unprincipled leftists "argue":

On reading the post, it turns out that not only am I gutless and unprincipled, I'm also a weasel. The vitriol was prompted by this thread on No Minister.

I responded in comments and was told:

Ok, you've had your say, and that's the first and last you get here.

Apparently, disagreement with the blog owner is not welcomed at Crusader Rabbit. The comments thread now informs me "Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added."

I'd like to say I was surprised, but I wasn't. However, given that I have this platform available to me, I can post my comment here:

Hilarious: you use terms like "gutless" and "cowardly" for someone who lets you argue freely against him on his blog (well, it's mostly abuse but sometimes there's an argument to discern in there), yet you can't bear someone coming here and disagreeing with you. That's unbelievably rich.

42 comments:

singularian said...

Just had a look at the thread, do you think they read what they write?

Hate by the bucketfull.

Give us righties a bad name. Sort of like the Millsys of your 'side'.

erikter said...

KG is correct!

WAKE UP said...

Actually, it doesn't matter how personal all this gets, it won't alter the fact that Obama is a disastrous, divisive, dissimulating President who was elected on a blind racist vote. What his dummy voters don't get yet is that THEY are going to suffer the results as well. And all the name-calling meantime ain't going to change that awful inevitability. Watch that space.

Anonymous said...

No one is more hateful or intolerant than KG. He allows the most shamful racist, bigoted comments on his blog without batting an eye, yet bans Milt.

What does that tell you about him?

Cleveland Brown said...

I wouldn't worry about the "hillbillies with laptops." They don't want to debate anything. They just want to spew their hate and have someone, somewhere, agree with them. They're just the same as those old dudes at the pubs who sit on their own because everyone else is sick of their bigoted opinions.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What is most remarkable is that a quiet unassuming moderate lefty should attract such vitriol.

I mean, hell, Milt even wrote a post barrelling the left's bullshit du jour, the Carbonhokum follies and all it's attendant claptrap.

Anonymous said...

It's so cute the way KG leghumps every post appearing on Oswald Bastable's blog.

Sort of like Milhouse to Bart [or vice versa].

Oswald Bastable said...

Anonymouse 5:46

Feel free to fuck off elsewhere. If you don't like it- don't go there.

pdm said...

Mmmmm I would never have put KG in the same category as Intolernt Trevor over at Red Alert.

Quite surprising.

Anonymous said...

He's an authoritarian pdm, just like the 'leftists' he despises.

mawm said...

Wake up - you got it right.

Anon 4.20 - Obviously you have not read CR over the years. Kg is a pricipled blogger. Just because he is not prepared to put up with with the lies of the left, the manipulation of the weak-minded or the bulsh*t mantra repeated by nameless drones does not make him hateful, a racist or a bigot.

Redbaiter said...

"Hilarious: you use terms like "gutless" and "cowardly" for someone who lets you argue freely against him on his blog (well, it's mostly abuse but sometimes there's an argument to discern in there), yet you can't bear someone coming here and disagreeing with you. That's unbelievably rich."

Yeah right..

Check this old thread for another rank example of Milt's hypocrisy and cowardice.

Don't call people racists when they are not racists Milt. Its a cowardly ploy in any argument as well as a despicable smear and that's all there is to it.

Redbaiter said...

Link to above mentioned thread

http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/01/nanny-gordon-says-eat-up-your-greens.html

Redbaiter said...

HTML link to above mentioned thread

ZenTiger said...

I know KG, and suggesting he is racist is ridiculous (for the variety of commenters that have reached conclusions using UN IPCC data modeling techniques)

I may have missed more details of the argument, but it seems to me KG put forward the idea that many black Americans voted on the basis of Obama's skin colour.

I dare say a few whites voted on that basis too.

KG suggested that selection on the basis of skin colour alone is inherently racist.

If I get the gist of Milt's argument, he has advanced a counter theory that voting for a black American because all the previous Candidates were white is merely human nature, and not unexpected.

That seems like a different way of saying that there are good, understandable reasons for voting on the basis of skin colour. Not sure the definition of racism is "but not when some-one has a good reason for choosing on the basis of skin colour".

Maybe I missed a key point Milt?

Andrei said...

Well Milt I got banned for a week over at Red Alert for suggesting to Charles Chauvell the the ETS was a silly idea in that it hit the productive and fed the parasitical sectors of the economy.

My opinion is Red Alert was the loser - since they no longer get my insightful commentary.

Pablo said...

Heck Milt. If you piss both KG and RB off, then you most definitely are doing something right! Keep up the good work.

Psycho Milt said...

Check this old thread for another rank example of Milt's hypocrisy and cowardice.

You're posting a comment here complaining about me not letting you comment here? Killer blow...

Not sure the definition of racism is "but not when some-one has a good reason for choosing on the basis of skin colour".

Maybe I missed a key point Milt?


Maybe, yes - the point where I got grumpy with KG for being deliberately obtuse and pretending I was calling him a racist, at which point I indulged him in his fantasy a bit. Wrong of me, but what the hell - there's something about people talking shit on my blog and then insulting me when I point it out to them that annoys me.

And he is talking shit. Fact remains: he can quack on about his high ideals re not voting based on colour all he likes, we just don't know whether people who aren't Black would be superior in this respect. At least, not until we've had 200 years of only black presidential candidates, finally get a white guy in the race and see how the white people vote. If that were to happen, and Whitey showed himself superior, maybe KG would have a case to bleat on about Blacks voting for the first Black president. Until then, he's just talking shit.

WAKE UP said...

Nobody with any brains gives a damn what colour the President is. They care about what colour his policies and actions are though - and in in the current case, that colour is yellow.

Andrei said...

You know Milt Obama just shows the silliness of this argument.

Obama might have a black skin but he is half white and half Kenyan and has no cultural or genetic connection to African Americans what-so-ever.

He may have adopted some African American traits most notably his connection with the Rev Jeremiah Wright but these are not his heritage now are they.

You know there was a strong Grassroots Republican movement to draft Condoleeza Rice as the Candidate for the last election - now that would have been interesting identity politics scenario - a Black Woman Republican.

Alas it didn't happen - she probably has too much common sense to take that on. So we will never know how that one would have played but as an African American her credentials are impeccable, growing up in the Deep South and all

Psycho Milt said...

Pablo: Thanks for your support.

Wake Up: Complaints about Obama are a little difficult to take seriously when we have his immediate predecessor as a point of comparison.

Andrei: I don't dispute any of that, just the idea that Blacks are worthy of some kind of special mention for prejudice based on skin colour. They're hardly unusual in that respect.

James said...

KG is a bit of a conservative anal retentive who does ban like a lefty when he gets critisism....to each their own I suppose but it lowers him.

WAKE UP said...

"Wake Up: Complaints about Obama are a little difficult to take seriously when we have his immediate predecessor as a point of comparison."

Milt: I'm quite capable of criticising Obama EXACTLY AS HE IS, without even mentioning any other Presidents. I suggest that you try defending him similarly - though I realise that can't be easy, because there's NOTHING THERE :)

That said, read my lips: George W. Bush was one of the greatest and most underrated Presidents the USA has had, and I predict that his reputation will grow and be rehabilitated in years to come. That's my opinion. You can argue the opposite any time - it's called free speech.

That, however, has NOTHING to do with the the fact that the present occupant of the White House is a conniving, devious shyster, whose Presidency invites disaster.

Anonymous said...

Cagey basicly makes things up and then abuses anyone who questions his nonsense. His latest laughable antic of scurrying back to his swamp to hurl hysterical vitriol and delete any dissenting opinion is cowardly and reveals that he's none too confident in his ability to defend his "arguments". I can't see what purpose that serves.

Judge Holden

Anonymous said...

Trouble with Red Alert is that Trevor Mallard runs it and is as rude as they come. He is the face of ravaged Labour, and Crusader Rabbit is nothing but a rampant right winger, more radical than Don Brash, totally extreme.

Psycho Milt said...

Wake Up: like I told Diamond Mair, hate on Obama all you want - it's a free country. Like it or not though, American presidents get compared to their predecessors so Obama's got a pretty easy ride ahead of him the next few years.

WAKE UP said...

"Obama's got a pretty easy ride ahead of him the next few years."

I seriously doubt that. Watch that space :)
---------------
PS, MILT : I've told you before - do NOT put words in my mouth just so you can argue with yourself.
NOWHERE have I ever said I hate Obama. That isn't criticism.

What I HAVE said is that he's a devious, dissimulating, divisive, yellow-bellied shyster, a disaster for America and the world, and that he should be impeached now - and I've said all that with all the love (for America) that I can muster, given the terrible mistake my beloved America has made with this man.
-----------------------
You go hate who you like, but don't ascribe that weakness of character to me. It doesn't work as an argument, and it just makes you look desperate.

WAKE UP said...

Oh I forgot - I've also said that he's not a REAL President's backside. Wouldn't want to leave that out, in case you're keeping count.

ZenTiger said...

we just don't know whether people who aren't Black would be superior in this respect. At least, not until we've had 200 years of only black presidential candidates, finally get a white guy in the race and see how the white people vote.

Seems we are back to the main point - all you've done is advance "good" reasons for people voting solely on the basis of skin colour.

That is the definition of racism.

Can't see how KG is talking shit, all you are doing is saying "well, it's to be expected."

WAKE UP said...

According to the latest polls, even the Democrats are beginning to discover (at last) that black ain't neccessarily beautiful.

Anonymous said...

Zen Tiger KG is a supporter of BNP. He published a post called "Why LIberals Must Die" and published a comment that said " I would not let a filthy Muslim [doctor] near me" and just today deleted comments in support of Muslims.

The man is far more than extreme - he is vile. How much evidence do you need.

Psycho Milt said...

...all you've done is advance "good" reasons for people voting solely on the basis of skin colour.

No, all I've done is point out that there's no reason to single out Black people for criticism in that respect when 1: we've no idea whether we'd prove to be any better if the same conditions applied to us, and 2: the centuries of white-only candidates suggest Whitey isn't exactly indifferent to skin colour himself. KG seems to me overly attentive to the motes in his brother ethnic groups' eyes, and I don't see any reason not to call him on it.

That is the definition of racism.

Not according to sociologists, but let's not go there...

Wake Up: I don't know how many ways I have to say this before you'll accept it and not send me another barrage of irrelevant invective about Obama, but here's another go:

You're welcome to your opinion, and the fact that I don't share it is of no great importance. However, the thread isn't about whether Obama is a good POTUS or not, and neither were the threads that prompted it, so could we please leave that question out of it?

Anonymous said...

Wake Up:

"Watch that space :)"

What? Are you hoping the tea-bagging birthers will come through for you Wakey? Keep dreaming.

Judge Holden

ZenTiger said...

No, all I've done is point out that there's no reason to single out Black people for criticism in that respect when 1: we've no idea whether we'd prove to be any better if the same conditions applied to us, and 2: the centuries of white-only candidates suggest Whitey isn't exactly indifferent to skin colour himself.

Aha! So you've interpreted this comment as "singling out black people"?

I would suspect if the tables were reversed, as in your hypothetical example, then the outcome would be much the same. So I don't disagree with that point. However, that doesn't change the point that black, white, yellow or green - a bunch of people voted in Obama because he was the first Black President, and policy was a secondary consideration, if it was even that high.

Some people would have voted for Sarah Palin because of the fact she was a women, and maybe that was more important than policy. For some reason, that attribute wasn't extended to the same degree to Hillary. But then again, maybe in her case, people looked at her policies first?

But that leaves me with the thought your main issue with KG's point is just that you think people have every reason to vote in Obama on skin colour. I'm inclined to agree with KG that that isn't necessarily a good choice. Then again, I'm looking past the skin colour.

Psycho Milt said...

your main issue with KG's point is just that you think people have every reason to vote in Obama on skin colour.

My main issue with KG's point is that he was explicitly (if you go back and read his comment) using it to illustrate his claim that Black people are "the real racists," when it actually says nothing about whether Blacks are any more racist than anyone else.

Just for the record, I don't think Blacks had a "good" reason to vote for Obama because he was the first Black contender, I think it's a crap reason. However, human beings don't always do the ideal thing, and last time I looked Blacks were human beings. KG was specifically inviting us to look at this particular instance of ordinary human frailty and take it as a defining feature of Blacks as a group. It sucks, and I'm surprised you're defending him for it.

Anonymous said...

"Just for the record, I don't think Blacks had a "good" reason to vote for Obama because he was the first Black contender, I think it's a crap reason."

Hell PM, Cagey asserts there is a Rasmussen poll which reveals 80% of black voters who supported Obama did so because he was black. That was what his claim of racism was based on. I would like to see this poll. Anyone gotta link?

Judge Holden

Psycho Milt said...

I would like to see this poll. Anyone gotta link?

I doubt such a poll exists - presumably KG is recycling blather from US right-wing blogs based on exit polls showing that proportion of Blacks voting for Obama.

I did find several relevant bits of information though:

1. Bill Clinton got a similar percentage of the Black vote in 1996. (84%)

2. Turnout of Black voters in 2008 wasn't higher than in previous elections.

3. A poll from October 2007 shows Black voters evenly split between Obama and Hillary Clinton. (The poll site is behind a paywall, but the results are described here. In other words, when Black voters were considering Black and White candidates who both matched their political preference, no racial preference was discernable.

Danyl said...

'Crusader Rabbit'? Good grief.

WAKE UP said...

Judge: the self-inflicted fall of Obama is only just beginning: seen the polls lately?

Milt: okay, you keep arguing with yourself and your straw men, my work here is done :) Fact is, the only people who are fixated about Obama's colour regardless of his (lack of) abilities are supporters like you. Me, I'm a simple soul - he's a bad President. No amount of talk about his predecessors alters that fact.

So talk among yourselves while we do the real work elsewhere.

ZenTiger said...

KG was specifically inviting us to look at this particular instance of ordinary human frailty and take it as a defining feature of Blacks as a group. It sucks, and I'm surprised you're defending him for it.

I don't get that interpretation at all Milt.

My take is KG responds to the generic "if you don't like Obama you must be racist" crap with a "well, unlike many Black People (according to the exit polls or whatever) he opposes Obama on policy, not skin colour.

His comment therefore would be in that context, whether you think that implication was there or not.

It really depends on at what point one enters the argument I suspect.

Why am I defending him? Perhaps because I know from personal experience the love and admiration for the aboriginal people, and not to mention the friends he made whilst living amongst them. Such sentiments I have heard him express are from a person that looks beyond a person's skin colour.

Anonymous said...

Heh, it didn't take long for the gutless weasel to ban me.

Andrew W

Anonymous said...

The gutless weasel KG that is.