Some amazing and genuine women of our time, good read. Gloria Steinem needs to spend a little more time in Saudi Arabia instead of grandstanding on Hillary’s behalf to promote her communist, lesbian fantasies.

Actually Kate, progressives have zero tolerance for everyone that refuses to think and behave precisely as do.

Of course very few of them would be likely to threaten to rape me........

"As they do"

"Scratch a progressive and you'll find a misogynist", racist, fascist, bigot, tyrant, a pompose arrogant rube - but most importantly, an absolute imbecile.

It is just the way it is. Having worked in a male dominated industry I found that this type of behavior is not unusual. But, as you point out, progressives go on and on about the need for action against gender inequality and victimization/violence against women. Yet it does not take much for the mask to drop and reveal the hypocrisy of progressives. Merely a bit of opposition by a conservative minded female.

By the way, I also found that women in a male dominated fields are just as bad since they are insecure and bashing other women helps them to feel that they fit in with the guys.

It would be interesting check data to see if conservative women are as quick to run to the HRC when they are offended.

No offense guys, but there are many so-called males, who just revert back to the knuckle dragging days when confronted by a smart gal.

They know intellectually they don't stand a chance against them, and it is important to them to try and drag the uppity female around in the dirt.

What Kinsella is trying to do to Kate, is a prime example of this.

Not that long ago he was eluding to Kate sending him romantic, and perhaps lurid emails.

What males like Kinsella don't seem to realize is that strong females like Kate, laugh at jackasses like him whose dirt tactics, are just sooooooo obvious.

My favorite is the way they suggest a woman they disagree with just needs a good f-ing. Then they volunteer.

This is parallel to the way they call any man who disagrees with them a fag.

Consistency of thought is not a strong point of Lefty-ism.

I just checked out Canadian Cynic. Wow... does anybody else think postal!!! Great poster boy for the left leaning progressive community.

I should also say that on the whole I like strong women. I like them because they can carry their end of the canoe. ~:D

I don't know if Canadian Cynic and ti-guy who post at big city lib are brothers are not, but they both must have climbed out from under the same rock. They are vile.

I know it is for shock value, but if the left are keeping them two around for future gestapo, we all got something to have nightmares about.

Do I go to SDA 'cause Kate's a babe? It sure don't hurt. Is it a big reason? Don't be silly! Of course it is. Those rare photo's of Kate in leather is what I live for. Same goes for Shaidle and Coulter....and if you believe that, I've got a bridge for you, just south of town,

They're neat people that I just happen to be women and I really enjoy their point of view and the fact that their women seldom enters it... unless leather is involved. lol

Pat

Correction to the earlier post.
Pat

Do I go to SDA 'cause Kate's a babe? It sure don't hurt. Is it a big reason? Don't be silly! Of course it is. Those rare photo's of Kate in leather is what I live for. Same goes for Shaidle and Coulter....and if you believe that, I've got a bridge for you, just south of town,

They're neat people that just happen to be women and I really enjoy their point of view and the fact that their women seldom enters it... unless leather is involved. lol

Pat

I am into guys, so it is not the looks I come here for. Though Kate is a real nice looking girl.

I come here because I admire Kate's intelligence, wit, and the way she has of hitting the nail right on the head.

I will admit I am a fan.

It's the main reason I read as many Girl Blogs as anything else..... Like to see weenies get their asses kicked by the Girls!
And NO I am not going to apologize for calling anyone a GIRL!

Deliciously unaware of the irony, Knight99 leaps into a discussion of misogyny by insisting that Hillary Clinton has lesbian fantasies because he disagrees with her politically. And of course, for him, "lesbian" is a bad thing.

Poor Kate. She tries so to make substantive points but her nitwit knuckle-dragging clientele amusingly sabotages her at every turn.

"you lay down with dogs.."

I don't think that it's only men-leftists who move into vicious personal attacks against women with whom they disagree. Women-leftists do exactly the same to other women.

What seems to be common with the left is a basic rejection of reason. They've developed their ideology within an emotional basis of homogeneity of all, and a governing infrastructure that doesn't allow individualism, free thinking, dissent, debate. Their socialism requires that all people become One - within their ideology. Anyone who dissents is a threat to their groupism.

Since they haven't arrived at their ideology by using Reason, their means of dealing with any dissent isn't to argue and debate, but to viciously attack the other person. This would include physical as well as verbal violent.

Again - both genders behave the same way.

Volik said ironically,

"Poor Kate. She tries so to make substantive points but her nitwit knuckle-dragging clientele amusingly sabotages her at every turn."

Not that you'd lower yourself to stereotype or anything so debased as that.

Et, give us an example of a blog where a female states the guy she is debating is a whore, and she would like to stick her vagina in his mouth to shut him up.

volik says, "you lay down with dogs.." as if that's a bad thing. I've had the pleasure of seeing and being around some of Kate's dogs and they're pretty darned spiffy!

New game. Finish the sentence for this audience.

My entry: ...because they're generally smarter and more loyal than men.

--
Lisa
(a flaming heterosexual for the record)

Male baboons try and maintain their dominance by the constant mounting of weaker members of the colony, both male and female. This isn’t unknown in some primitive human cultures as well. William Sampson’s treatment in Saudi Arabia and scenes from The Kite Runner, in Afghanistan come to mind. Female bloggers receiving threats with a sexual aspect are getting a light version of this behavior from weak, socially retarded guys.

(Warren if you’re there, this type of Vlogging might help you get those numbers up.)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/08/the_bikini_vlog.html

Leftists hate everyone. Their hatred is exceeded only by their stupidity.

Personally, when I see a male acting like that, I know he is weak...mentally. I usually circle in for the kill at that point.

Seems to me the reason this happens is that weak men are scared by strong women.

volik, just for the record, knight99 wasn't saying that Hillary has lesbian fantasies, he was speaking about Gloria.

Objectification of opposition. Makes it easier to treat those who disagree inhumanely. Remove inhibitions against violence through ideological justification and an enabling political framework, and tragedy ensues. We've seen it over, and over.

The more persuasive the opposition, the more critical to objectify, as competition for power cannot be tolerated. It's one thing to contrarian, but much worse to be contrarian, and have a following.

It's a little bizarre that some feminist bloggers are supporters of CC given his clear misogyny. I can only think that misogyny is alright with them provided that it's directed against politically conservative women.

I am not saying females don't use attacking a males sexuality as a weapon in a debate, but seldom through the first insult. For females it is usually making fun of a males dangly bits. She will try the old he has a small dangly bit. You have to be careful with that one, because if they do happen to have a wee fellow, they tend to go crazy.

Profanity to me in discussions means you haven't got the intellect to use our rich language to say what you mean. People like Canadian Cynic are so juvenile and tiresome with their potty mouths that why would anyone expect they would write anything worth reading.

If your normal conversation is filled with profanity people can't be bothered to listen to you. Its not that they are prudish its because its boring trying to wade through the crap and figuring out what you are trying to say. We all know the words, they have no shock value, their use just tells us the type of person you are. Believe me its not too high up the social order.

Yep: I'm ugly and need to get laid. A very common comment combo about me, in these comboxes and others.

And of course, all conservative men are 'secretly gay.' Which would explain why we chicks 'need to get laid' eh?

The last comment on RG blog by CC just blows me away.

This is the same unit that is calling for Richards children to be targeted for harassment at their school.

These people have no shame.

Steve

So...
some men are idiots
this is news?

At times I feel some men make it embarrassing to be a man.
Then I remember..
these aren't men
these are imbeciles

Despite what some women believe there is a big difference.

There are a lot of people need to get laid...
Pretty sure very few of them are because of their politics.
Willing to bet that includes heterosexual, homosexual and transgendered.
Sinking to that level of commenting is the sign of immaturity and lack of critical thinking skills.
I would love to claim that was part of the disease known as 'liberalism'. Unfortunately all camps, like all villages, have their idiots.

Actually, no h20...

I'm not stereotyping. My denoting those who jump into every thread here with their racist and/or homophobic comments as 'nitwit knuckle-draggers' isn't a stereotpe. It's a fact.

I think people who are racists and/or homophobes are stupid and ignorant, i.e. 'nitwit knuckle-draggers'. I think such opinions are evidence of low intelligence since they're deeply irrational, and evidence of the hateful ugliness
of the holders of these 'opinions' - an ugliness which inspires their words, actions, and ideology.

You don't agree?

Kinda OT , but a few have brought up Kinsella .....am I hallucinating or does his site have comments enabled ?

I think ET has presented comments similar to my own thoughts. I also add that the vitriol seems to change depending upon who the target is and i think that this phenomenon is what is really being observed.

My own observations (that of a man) are that women who are conservative do not receive any more vicious attacks from the left than other conservatives; the vicious attacks simply take on another form of viciousness.

Therefore, the essence of this thread is correct to the degree that it makes the case the left hurls insults at conservative women of the type mentioned. The essence of this thread is incorrect to the degree that some seem to imply that consevative women receive more vicious attacks than do other conservatives.

Volik>
Bloody hell your still around? We though you may have gone off and hurt yourself after the last slam down beating you took. Ha ha

So go ahead on this thread and fill in everyone’s thoughts for them___________Blather on about how you have the answers to the perfect little world you would like to call “fantasy land gentlemen please enter at the rear”. You scary little nut job you.

Socialism is good. We are all social animals.

If it was not from socialism. The human race would still be stuck in the hunting-gathering phase. ET you should know that since u studied anthropology.

Scratch a conservative and you'll find an angry person.

If this was true that "right wing" female bloggers, Kate would be called a "hag".

oh, wait a minute...

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080220-111401

How wonderful for you, AQS. Be a good sport will you, and practice it at some distance from myself. I do not wish to be compelled to participate.

"Yep: I'm ugly and need to get laid. A very common comment combo about me, in these comboxes and others.

And of course, all conservative men are 'secretly gay.' Which would explain why we chicks 'need to get laid' eh?
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at March 4, 2008 5:14 PM "

That's a nifty paradox those tolerant libs find themselves in.They imply that only they can satisfy your desires, but would that not demean them by lowering themselves to screw a conservative woman? So, they want you, but can't decide if if they can complete the task.

They may as well stick to onanism ;-)

pete>

You were correct - My comments were directed towards Gloria Steinem and not Hillary Clinton. She is outwardly using Hillary’s campaign to promote her own agenda and is serving Hillary's campaign a huge disservice.

Little trolls like volik do not receive my honest answers or any other show of respect. He trolls these web sites looking for "knuckle dragging racists" found in any one without his extreme left views and delusions.......Hence the sarcastic bullshit thrown at him in no particular order. Just a source of cheap amusement when bored so bear with.

AQS: Actually if you really new anthropology and history you would know that those 'hunter gatherer' societies where very socialist. No private property, no elected leadership, no freedom of speech, those who rose up were either bullies or connected to the leadership.

I think that the post also talks about the hypocrisy of the progressives. They claim to champion women's causes (and minorities, gays etc) but they do not practice what they preach. They use their noble ideals to attack male conservatives but are then themselves found guilty of the same kind of abusive behaviors.

Bullying of all sorts usual comes down to either insecurity or contempt. It is from people who either feel powerless and need to tear others down or those who are aggressive and need to dominate/dehumanize others. A cornered dog is as dangerous as an aggressive one.

The best thing a women can do is to learn to deal with idiots with whatever coping mechanism works best for them - humor, aggression, ignoring, ridicule .....

atheist quebecois separatiste..for heaven's sake, that has to be one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a long time.

Socialism is not equivalent to man's being 'social'. Sheesh.

Hunters and gatherers are human beings. Just like you. They live in societies. Just like you. They are social beings. Just like you. They are extremely intelligent. Not like you.

honey pot, I don't 'surf the web', so I'm not familiar with many blogs; I can't give you a site, but women can - and do - speak in just such profanities. I hope you aren't suggesting that 'women are too nice to talk like that'.

Volik,

"I'm not stereotyping. My denoting those who jump into every thread here with their racist and/or homophobic comments as 'nitwit knuckle-draggers' isn't a stereotpe. It's a fact."

You didn't differentiate.
Am I included in that list?

If not everyone who posts here is as you describe then why bother posting that characterization at all? Doesn't pretty well every blogger have its own undesirable element? Why single out Kate? I hope it isn't because she's a female blogger.

this right wing female blogger coming right off the rails.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=jimmy+wales&category0=

long time left on the bids too.

with her record Im surprised she isnt covered in welts from being touched by 10 ft poles.

You may want to delete this one Kate. Keep your barf bag handy:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

I think ET and shaken have good points. If in your heart of hearts you know that your position in an argument is fundamentally weak then the best defence is a good offence. Throw out enough anger, vitriol, insults whatever in such a manner as to cause the one threatening your bubble to simply want to leave, either because they find you repulsive or because they simply find your juvenile behaviour too tedious to bother disentangling. They leave, and you get to strut around like "cock of the walk" loudly crowing in your own mind the virtue of your intellectually bankrupt position. It's especially thrreatening to weak males to take the slapdown from a female -- lose twice. When I've had to deal with particularly foul-mouthed characters in hospital emergency departments my stock response to the string of profanity was "Very nice, but having spent nine years in the Army, until you can put that to the tune of 'The North Atlantic Squadron' I'm not impressed." It usually shut them up. If not the first verse invariably did ;)

Kate, your "scratch a progressive and you'll find a..." is getting rather tiresome. It's like someone claiming that all right wing bloggers hate aboriginals and blacks, and, oh yeah, are all a bunch of fascists. I mean, I'm a guy whose family members were killed by both communists and fascists, and yet here at SDA I've been labelled as both several times...

Really, really weak.

Oops, that was worded rather poorly. I've had two family members killed at the hands of communists and fascists, not ALL of my family, as that last post unfortunately suggests.

Actually, volik, Pete and Knight99, as I recall, there IS a rumour floating around about the sexual preference of Hilary. I suspect that it is just part of the political black ops and part of what Kate's post is about, but this concept of her having lesbian fantasies is at least in the public domain.

Not that it has anything to do with anything...just pointing it out.

h20

My guess is that you have an undiagnosed reading comprehension problem.

Right there in the quote you included in your post is "those who jump into every thread...with their racist and homophobic comments..."

As Knight99 did with his gruesome misogyny they have a tendency to make a mockery out of Kate's attempts at elevated discourse (i.e., her attempt to draw attention to misogyny on the left (!))

So prevalent here are such backwards attitudes that I have suggested the real purpose of this site is to allow these clowns to barf up their socially unacceptable bile.

And yes, now that you mention it, it does say something about the other posters here that they continue to tolerate and defend such 'opinions'.

Johnny Ringo

"I mean, I'm a guy whose family members were killed by both communists and fascists, and yet here at SDA I've been labelled as both several times..."

I'm very sorry to hear about your family members.

That aside, welcome to club. I'm a fascist from way back. Usually by disagreeing with a self-styled progressive.

In a world of Rachel Marsdens it is reeeeeeeally difficult for an under 40 straight white male (I'm the only one left here, aren't I?) to buy that there is a molecule of misogyny to speak of anywhere in Canada.

There is a grain of truth here, though, in that it is no secret in the gay community, which is to say the Liberal community, that gay men are more than a little misogynist.

Right Girl will just have to console herself with a government pension nearly twice the size of a male in the equivalent position and men running to open doors for her.

Beware of a damsel in distress, there is nothing more dangerous to a man.

Volik,

"And yes, now that you mention it, it does say something about the other posters here that they continue to tolerate and defend such 'opinions'."

Please read my post to JohnnyRingo and consider it a rebuttal to you.

Johnny Ringo: Thank you for your comments. We have all faced very personal attacks for our opinions. I'm a libertarian conservative who has been called all kinds of nasty things. We are so fortunate to live in a society that allows people who disagree but to engage in a civilized manner. Lets set an example.

h2o273kk9>

Volik has a clear but of course misguided agenda on all of these blogs. He repeatedly makes the same accusations over and over and attempts to link Kate to those manufactured accusations.
This is nothing more than an extreme leftist attempt to hijack a popular conservative orientated blog and bully or scare it into silence. The threats are childishly transparent:
"you lay down with dogs.."
“Poor Kate. She tries so to make substantive points but her nitwit knuckle-dragging clientele amusingly sabotages her at every turn”
Along with a hundred of other feeble attempts to link SDA to racist nazis and hate speech with the hopes that it would silence itself.
He repeats the same argument on every thread topic with the same limited vocabulary, picking out a few favorite “knuckle-dragging apes” most of whom bait him with odd comments or words like Negro or fag then sit back and laugh at his “salivating at the mouth” sputtering nonsense afterward. He he

McClelland proves his progressiveness by calling us "bearded clams". Do you think their progressive girlfriends and girl friends let them get away with that?

RG

Knight, Volik nailed you on the fact you kind of missed the whole point of this thread...right on the first comment, too. But go ahead, keep drawing attention to it.

Knight99

Your points are well noted. I believe the post by Jim O'Brien to JohnnyRingo has just served to refute Volik's hyperbolic pronouncements as well.

"So prevalent here are such backwards attitudes that I have suggested the real purpose of this site is to allow these clowns to barf up their socially unacceptable bile."

By displaying this type of attitude and ignoring the ample evidence to the contrary as I just pointed out, I believe Volik is as much the problem he decries.

I'm still trying to understand why he seems fixated on Kate and her blog vs. all the others from Left to Right.

My bad, Rot Girl. From now on I'll refrain from making misogynist comments about you and just start calling you a lying prick.

Lying asshole is gender neutral and won't be as offensive to those of us with pricks, asshole.

Slight change in direction.

Did anyone here happen to see CBC's morning show with Carol McNeil last Sunday discussing the mysogyny evident in the media by the way it was being unfair to Hillary as opposed to Obama in it's coverage of the campaigns.

I found myself wondering what she would say if a conservative complained about bias in the media. Say the CBC for instance.

JohnnyRingo>

Actually I didn't miss anything. What I did do was exercise my freedom of tongue in cheek and as far as I know lefty little creeps like volik have no authority to suppress that right. At least until we let them.

Robert, this is a strange place for you to be showing your face.

http://myblahg.com/?p=2327

I'm not a member of the Conservative party, much less a campaign worker. In other words - neither of the women you attempted to defame in that post are me.

And as I've already attempted to point that out to you, and you've failed to correct your statement, perhaps it's time the commentary was passed along to the person you've targeted and the lawyer who has already offered to represent her pro bono.

Jeff Davidson. McClelland. Ti-Guy.

What a pantheon of giants the left has.

"I don't think that it's only men-leftists who move into vicious personal attacks against women with whom they disagree."

ET, vicious personal attacks are sometimes made by emotionally immature right wingers, too, both sexes, against both sexes.

I've had the privilege of being attacked by left, right, center, male, female, and possibly transgendered as well.

I first sought out the blogosphere on the recommendation of my older brother, a regular here, and SDA was the site he recommended.

I've been disappointed by so many blogs, where everyone's a bandwagon jumper, and ANY disagreement with the thread status quo is met with vicious "ad hominem" attacks.

Sometimes I, and undoubtedly lots of others, get so sick of the grade school level name calling, it's tempting to go buy a newspaper instead, and just give up on the blogs. Then I read the G&M, and remember why I sought out the blogs in the first place.

Thank you, ET, for your level of discourse.

I am no shrinking violet but I will tell you that I am surprised by the resort to the language you mention. I find it on "left/liberal" blogs but also the younger the person the more the invective.

I'm wondering if this may have something to do with some of Hillary's "negative press"...LOL

One time someone called Condoleeza Rice 'brown sugar.' This was a public comment, so the author could not hide behind anonymity.

In the blogosphere, you have a bunch of people saying things anonymously that would require courage to say to someone's face.

The thing about these creeps that I find disturbing is that they are acting out of some psychological need.

The several that we find on this thread obviously have some deep need to show up here out of reach of reprisals and privately do what they would not dare in public.

It may be a little like exhibitionism or window peeking, and one hoped that it is not a progressive disorder.

In the case of Kate and Kathy and Right Girl, you all realize that you have a lot of friends. Friends who would not hesitate to react violently if they were in your company and one of these people insulted you with these crude remarks.

My idea in the case of someone like Volik would be that he submit a certain amount of money to Kate's tip jar. Kate could announce the amount, and then we could argue with him, say, a paragraph for $1. Then he could fulfill this strange, compulsive need he has for argument, and the site would profit from it.

Robert McClelland, I still remember a long time ago on the Shotgun when you used the c- word in respect to Kate. Several of us suggested punching you in the nose. Still seems like a good idea to me.

Mississauga Matt, Ti-Guy = WeeWee for the purposes of mocking him. And you forgot Arthur Dick-o, another mental giant.

Actually the trolls Kate gets here are quite restrained compared to the vile nature of commentary one sees in their native habitat.

They don't make any more sense here than there, mind you. Its just that you don't have to wade in the cesspool. Maybe if they didn't concentrate on the vituperating and the poison spitting so much they'd have more brain cells to apply to the issues?

don't mess with Texas. Where men are men.

Greg your chivalry is charming, but no one would like to see you get your hand dirty by hitting that bag of shit.

Kate: you are doing your best to make a growing list of English words meaningless. Your latest victim? Progressive. Scratch a progressive etc. And a progressive is...what? Certainly part of the definition, once again, will have something to do with disagreement with conservative values.

Let me add to the list:

Liberal, conservative, hate, hater, leftie, racist, bigot (yeah, I know...guilty...)on so forth. Meaningless descriptors.

Greg in Dallas>

Well said – except you didn’t finish the story about Condy Rice?

Is 'brown sugar.' an acceptable comment to the left or not? Did the reporter get hung out to dry because of his obvious attempt at a complement or was he served over to the fascist left and their manipulation of the public with ever shifting rules and politically correct words?

"Lying asshole is gender neutral and won't be as offensive to those of us with pricks, asshole."

Using the word a-hole might cause McVety to pull Kate's funding and force her to take her panhandling to the meanstreets of Delisle.

"I'm not a member of the Conservative party, much less a campaign worker. In other words - neither of the women you attempted to defame in that post are me."

It looks like you and per right whinger logic that's good enough. You know, cause to right whingers the truth doesn't matter.

"And as I've already attempted to point that out to you, and you've failed to correct your statement, perhaps it's time the commentary was passed along to the person you've targeted and the lawyer who has already offered to represent her pro bono."

Whatever floats your boat, you crazy muffburger. Oops, my bad.

Gee, John, "Meaningless descriptors"... Self-flagellating again, are we...?

Kate:

Hey, it's your blog and you can do as you please. But frankly, McClelland, by his mere presence, stinks up the joint...he is a disgusting piece of crap and adds nothing to the civil discourse generally seen here. Have you ever considered banning him? Personally, I'd welcome that...

McClelland, a timeless, slightly perverted version of an old saying for you: "Better to be thought an asshole, then open your mouth and demonstrate you are indeed, full of sh*t all the way through..." Y'all have a nice day.

John Daly, if you want to see a textbook example of "progressive", go look in the mirror. You pretend tolerance and intellectualism, but when the rubber meets the road you default to Stalinist Standard.

For a slightly more egregious example of "progressive", see anything written by Rubert McDickslap. That's you in a fun house fat mirror.

Nice, eh?

I have to admit that I generally really like Steve Earle as an artist. However, I'd like to know what he meant with the lyrics to this song. Fits the theme for sure:

Condi, Condi

Oh Condi Condi beggin’ on my knees
Open up your heart and let me in wontcha please
Got no money but everybody knows
I love you Condi and I’ll never let you go
Sweet and dandy pretty as can be
You be the flower and I’ll be the bumble bee
Oh she loves me oops she loves me not
People say you’re cold but I think you’re hot

Oh, Condi, Condi
Oh, Condi, Condi

Oh Condi, Condi I’m talkin’ to you girl
What’s it gonna hurt come on give me a whirl
Shake your body now let me see you go
One time for me Oh Condi I love you so
Skank for me Condi show me what you got
They say you’re too uptight I say you’re not
Dance around me spinnin’ like a top
Oh Condi Condi Condi don’t ever stop

Oh Condi Condi Can’t you hear me call
I’m standin’ in the street outside your garden wall
Pocketful of money belly full of wine
Condi in my heart and romance on my mind
Listen to me Condi don’t be afraid
I come here tonight to chase your blues away
I’ll never hurt you I’ll treat you right
Oh Condaleeza won’t you come out tonight

Pretty little Condi precious as can be
Bet you never had another lover like me

Shorter Knight99: "All the racism and homophobia of myself and others on this site are just provocations to the loony lefties! We throw it out there just to get them riled up, and sit back and watch'em get all agitated and stuff! Honest! Isn't it funnn-eee?!"

Kate's a girl???

No one told me about that!

One thing that can't be denied and must always be remembered; the lefty slugs are running their yaps on Kate's dime. And they're too dim to see what an inherent humiliation this is for them, possibly because the concept is just too subtle and nuanced.

Actually, Kate's got a pretty good point, come to think of it - when she talks about progressives being misogynists and having "zero tolerance" for bitches.

True, it was Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain who made the misogynist/homophobe joke: "Why's Chelsea Clinton so ugly?/Her father was Janet Reno."

And it was also Republican John McCain who stood and blandly smiled when Hillary Clinton was called a "bitch" in his presence.

But that all pales when compared to the truly misogynist utterings about "bitches" by similarly high-profile Progressives such as....

Oops.

Maybe Kate don't have much of a point after all...

Hey wait! Who said John McCain was a conservative??

RG

I have to say, this is a rather redundant post. I mean, it's so obvious that "progressives" are in reality a bunch of intolerant, hate-filled bigots that it's really not even worth blogging about!

Let's hope that future threads see a return to SDA's strong suit, which is in documenting the violent scourge that is Islam, the culture of dependence and entitlement among Aboriginals, the thuggish Jamaican gang culture plaguing our cities, and the growing threat from the devious Chinese.

"Using the word a-hole might cause McVety to pull Kate's funding and force her to take her panhandling to the meanstreets of Delisle."

You're running on empty.

Then there's right-winger Penn Gillette who's been running around retailing the joke about Hillary Clinton not being able to exploit the "angry white Bitch" vote...

But of course that pales beside what left-wing celebrities like...

Oops.

I'm not stereotyping. My denoting those who jump into every thread here with their racist and/or homophobic comments as 'nitwit knuckle-draggers' isn't a stereotpe. It's a fact.
I think people who are racists and/or homophobes are stupid and ignorant, i.e. 'nitwit knuckle-draggers'.

There you have it. What the left personally feels instantly becomes fact.

but her nitwit knuckle-dragging clientele amusingly sabotages her at every turn.

Your not stereotyping?!
Then you certainly paint with a very wide brush.....
How ever do you keep inside the lines?

MacKian>

“Let's hope that future threads see a return to SDA's strong suit, which is in documenting the violent scourge that is Islam, the culture of dependence and entitlement among Aboriginals, the thuggish Jamaican gang culture plaguing our cities, and the growing threat from the devious Chinese”

Good call! Lets not forget the lefty-mental midgets that try to silence free speech though!

If it was not from socialism. The human race would still be stuck in the hunting-gathering phase. ET you should know that since u studied anthropology.

Ok, you know what? Reading that was painful. You could f**k my eyeballs with a cast-iron c**k and it would probably be less painful than having to read the above quote...

Was it socialism that brought the train or was it capitalism?

Was it socialism that brought the automobile or was it capitalism?

Was it socialism that brought the printing press or was it capitalism?

Was it socialism that brought the train or was it capitalism?

Was it socialism that brought the computer or was it capitalism?

Come on you guys, John Daly is a two-bit link-whore who will do anything to try to get hits on his own silly excuse for a blogg that no one visits. Don’t waste pixels by responding to him.

The other left-wing losers are funny in a sad, adolescent, way; maybe they will grow up and mature when they finish junior high school. But they, too, get more action by posting on SDA then on their own ridiculous excuses for bloggs. Very few people waste time and pixels at these barren, empty, potty-mouthed adolescent, fun-houses.

Okay Bryan

Do you think people who are racists or homophobes are smart?

Do you think they are sophisticated thinkers?

Do you defend them?

If you do think that racists are smart - that they're not dumb, 'knuckledragging nitwits', then I suppose you believe I've 'stereotyped' them as such - painted them all with a wide brush, as you say.

However since racism and homophobia are both demonstrably irrational, illogical belief systems, I'll go out on a limb and say that people who hold such beliefs are either stupid or crazy - and probably a bit of both.

I'll go so far as to say that it's a *fact* that people who believe such things must be stupid.

Perhaps you find such beliefs to be the height of reasoned intellectual discourse. But for those of those in the reality-based community it is a *fact* that to hold irrational beliefs is stupid, and that the people who hold them are stupid.

volik>

Whaa chew talkin bout Willis?

Knight 99,
I don't remember what fallout occurred in respect to the "brown sugar" comment.

As it was a public comment, obviously it had to border on public propriety, so it didn't quite go over the line.

Conservatives criticized it, but I have to confess that we found it so hilarious that we did a lot of laughing behind our hand.

I don't know if Canadians would understand the context that this comes out of.

Back in the South during segregation (some of us grew up during segregation and know what racism is... and it's not disagreement on government policy), there was the occasional white guy who had a fetish about black women.

He would "cross the color line" by surreptitiously cultivating a relationship with a woman in the black section of town.

Sometimes she would be fondly referred to as "brown sugar."

So the idea was that Bush, a Southern boy, installed Secretary Rice as the head of the State Department so that his secret relationship with a hot black gal could be carried out without anyone questioning the reason that Secretary Rice was there.

Frankly, Condoleeza Rice happens to be a personal friend of the President and First Lady (I may be getting more out of this because I grew up in Midland, Texas, in the same generation as the First Couple). And I really would have enjoyed hearing their comments about that remark, as they kicked back in Crawford, Texas, sharing a few laughs.

Incidentally, way up the page someone asked who accused Hillary Clinton of lesbianism, and it was her former roommate at Wellesley. You may know that all of these ivy league women's colleges in the US have been co-opted by lesbian professors and administrators.

Rightgirl, you are correct, John McCain is no conservative.

Honey Pot, I would wear gloves.

I don't beleive that gender makes anyone a better or worse writer, nor does it make one smarter or dumber. I read the blogs that I find interesting and/or give me the information I am after. Weather it's a male or female blogger is of no concern. That being said I normaly go to SDA first since Kate does a fine job of finding the issues that are important and backing her opinion with relevent links. As bloggers go she is umong the best I have found. Keep up the good work Kate.

Greg in Dallas>

Thanks Greg, I would have never guest the possible history of the term in that way. Was thinking "Snow pea" or "Lotus blossom" or something of that ilk. Maybe they have some kind of racist connection also; we could always wait on voliks confirmation of that fact.

By the by have a couple of old friends in Midland - Rick Priest & Fred Thompson - you know either? Ya ya I get it all the time traveling myself - you know so and so from Canada? Just curious anyway.

I'm glad to see you blog on this, Kate. I oppose misogyny myself, because I see it as a way to silence women.

irrational or stupid beliefs according to who volik? you?? I also think that people who hold irrational beliefs are stupid. you hold extremely irrational beliefs volik does that make you extremely stupid?

Knight 99,
it was a long time ago, but I knew a family of Thompsons. They were part owners of Ranchland Hills Country Club.

Greg in Dallas>
Maybe a relation but I wouldn't know. Fred used to joke, "the Bush family lived just up the street" ha ha anyway it's been awhile also - good luck.

I'm offering $750.00 for the identity and address of the blogger called "Canadian Cynic". Anyone else want to chip in?

http://no-libs.com/wordpress/?page_id=2043

Greg: re your comments on brown sugar.

I think I mentioned to you I live in PA. I do not know if I mentioned I have lived in Houston and also LA (er, that's Lower Alabama).

However, your comments are probably as helpful to some here as were the comments I received from locals during my time in both TX and the South. :)

Richard why do you bother spending good money on an irrelevance like cc. Do some good and give the money to Ezra to defend himself against the enemies of freedom.
Besides it is cc's job to drive hits to my blog.

Re: Canadian Cynic - Wow a real life psychotic online female stalker! I suppose any SDA success comes the unfortunate pitfalls of success.

http://www.thesleaze.co.uk/celebstalkers.html

Where’s Kinsilla when you need him…Oops applying for a job with CC psycoblog I would guess.

Err, well ... I figure that anyone that suggests that someone else "needs to be laid" needs to be laid.

Kate needs to be laid.

Richard why do you bother spending good money on an irrelevance like cc. Do some good and give the money to Ezra to defend himself against the enemies of freedom.

Ezra's distracted and hasn't yet earned the donation I have for him...

well, Kelly

If you think racism and homophobia are in fact rational and logical beliefs, why not tell us why and how you think they are?

Please, go ahead. I'm sure if you get stuck many of the other posters here will lend you assistance.

WOW - generalize much? You may as well ask Do you agree with Pedophilia? or Do you agree with killing cops?
Do you think people who are racists or homophobes are smart?
That is a very simple question for an unbelievably complex subject, but i will do my best...
Simple answer - No
Now for my Not So Simple Answer - Please Define Racist and Homophobe.
I'll provide a few scenarios off the top of my head...
Is one who posts on a "White Power" hate site promoting the extermination of an entire race, a racist? Yes
Is one who believes that (to paraphrase) - White Western based society should go forth and multiply to sustain our culture, economy and general quality of life and freedoms - is a racist? No
Is an Aboriginal Chief who bluntly tells my relative in the RCMP that the reason he "does not discourage" teen pregnancy is due to increased band income and someday a majority vote to rid Saskatchewan of "Whitey", a racist? Yes
Do i support a Muslim Cleric who encourages procreation within his faithful, but for the admittedly sole purpose of global domination in the name of their religion? No
Does that make me a "racist" in your mind?
Do i think that one who wishes for the death, torture and/or destruction of all those who hold different political beliefs than themselves any more morally superior to a Racist or Homophobe? NO
Do i think those that stereotype people who visit a website that holds different beliefs than themselves, as "knuckledraggers" or refer to their perceived enemies as "c**ts" or "stupid" or "c**ksuckers" or "crazy muffburgers" or "self-fellating" are just as bad as any racist? Big Fat Yes
Does that answer make me a fatophobe to you, volik?

Now to your next offensive term dujour - Homophobia... sigh

Do i want homosexuals parading down my street naked or in leather buttless chaps on a Sunny Afternoon (as is well documented)? No
Do i want HETEROsexuals (or "breeders" as heterophobes call them) parading down my street naked or in leather buttless chaps on a Sunny Afternoon (as is NOT well documented)? No
Do i fear homosexuals or have i discriminated against them? No
Do i believe Homosexuals have existed in our society for ages with little to no detrimental impact on the majority of our lives? Yes
Would i honestly be disappointed if either of my children turned out Homosexual? Yes
Would i get over it and realise a happy, successful, fulfilling life for them is far FAR more important to me than their sexual orientation? Yes
Define what a "Homophobe" is in your world, volik.
Am I a Homophobe in your eyes?

Hate is Hate, volik. This thread was about how some folks promote themselves as the "progressive, tolerant and logical" community, yet time after time are vulgar and disrespectful of those they claim to represent. They hurl derogatory terms usually applied to the very people they pretend to defend, at anyone who holds a different political perspective from themselves.
I note that this website is very successful, and not so coincidentally of note, there is very little vulgar language used by the author. A quick perusal of many less successful sites (and in my opinion - more left leaning than right) will show that the subjective posts stirring discussion are of far less civilized language than here. Perhaps that is what turns civilized moderates away from those sites.
It is unfortunate that on occasion i see some pretty extreme comments here as well, but you don't have to read the "clientele"'s commentary if you don't want to. If you find it offensive, walk away. I disagree with much of it and often choose not to read any further. Why would i do that to myself? Why do you do it, volik? Are you not happy with your personal situation? Do you feel you must attempt to belittle others to make yourself feel better? What gives? When you see a bad movie do you return again and again to tell people in line how bad it was? Over and over and over again you guys come here to expunge hatred towards your "enemies". Does that make your thoughts any superior or more intelligent than the hate you claim to see on this site that offends you so much? I do find it very telling that disagreeable and offensive comments directed at Kate (or KKKate as some like to insinuate) or her readership are left intact for all to see. Far more tolerant than the less frequented sites are with dissension and debate i must say.
I come here mostly as a lurker for a sample of information i may not find at many News sites. I also visit many others that would be considered politically neutral by many and perhaps left leaning by others. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the readership here are mostly silent and somewhat moderate, and yet you utter misgivings simply due to guilt by association. In your mind, the association is to one who you think is guilty of the horrible terms you ascribe to her. I disagree with your personal assessment of Kate and the majority of her readers. You are certainly free to your opinions, just realize that they are only that - opinions and not FACT

Keep your pending "religious right" diatribe to yourself - i am more of a FSM fan to be honest.

ALL: my apologies for the length and horrible formatting - another reason i don't post often :P

Bryan>

Ditto.

Great answer by the way!

Who cares, Bryan?

This thread, as you say, was about Kate's idiotic post which stated "scratch a progressive and you'll find a misogynist".

It follows the theme of her earlier post: "scratch a progressive and you'll find an anti-semite".

She makes two postings which have no other purpose than to declare that all progressives are anti-semitic and misogynists and you clowns have the gall to lecture me about civility and "generalizing". Talk about "painting with a wide brush!"

It is laughable that you assume this holier than thou attitude when these are comments on a post intended to smear an entire group of people. You talk to me about people being abusive to their perceived "enemies" being as bad aas any racist. By your own logic, Kate fits this bill.

Bryan, I couldn't care less about your various hypotheses and justifications for your dismally outmoded way of thought. They're all tired and lame and I've heard them a million times before. A racist is a racist. A homophobe is a homophobe. We all know what they are. There's really no need for discussion.

But while you're attributing my objection to the racism and homophobia here to my "unhappy personal situation" you might want to give some thought to the obviously beleaguered one who's posted that all progressives are anti-semitic, all progressives are misogynists, and Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 in the past few days.

"You need to get laid"

Doesn't that describe... umm... pretty much everybody? Not continuously, mind you. However, if it didn't happen at all then there wouldn't be future generations, would there?

Volik. Volik, volik, volik. How is it a smear to state a plain fact? Have you ever heard the phrase "not anti-war, just on the other side"? Because if you look on the "progressive" position on just about any substantive topic, you'll find that the progressives are in fact on the other side.

Radical Islam (which I am sure you'll agree is misogyistic) vs. America: progressives are on the side of radical Islam.

Abortion: progressives are in favour of killing innocent babies.

Capital Punishment: progressives are against killing murderers.

The Economy: progressives are against allowing the productive members of society to keep what they earn, and instead insist that the productive must be enslaved to the non-productive.

Israel vs. Palestine: progressives are on the side of the suicide bombers and those who lob rockets into civilian populations.

Freedom of speech: just try exercising it on a college campus. One guess as to who are running the colleges today (hint: conservatives have real jobs).

Name a substantive issue, and I will guarantee you that so-called progressives are demonstrably on the wrong side of the issue.

Volik asks: "Do you think people who are racists or homophobes are smart?"

Bryan, you rightly point out how loaded such epithets are. "Homophobe", in particular, is a word which has lost any useful meaning. It is properly a phychiatric term describing a man suffering from a very rare and twisted pathology involving a profound insecurity about his own sexuality which manifests in violent compulsions towards men who are gay or percieved to be gay. It really shouldn't stand for "anyone who favours civil union legislation over gay marriage" or "someone who is uncomfortable with first-graders being read to from books called 'Janey's two mommies'" or whatever the latest thing is.
Kidnapping language to shut down debate is bad. Worse, and profoundly connected, is the use of bullying to disable honest thought(political correctness is name-calling and it rots the brain). Racists and "homophobes" may well be bad people, that may be a fair blanket statement, but smart? Some of them are smart. Evelyn Waugh was a reactionary Catholic and kind of a racist (it fit in with his general misanthropy). Was he dumb? Was Maimonides stupid (look up what he had to say about Africans)? T.S. Eliot was a bigot, and Thomas Jefferson was a racist slave-owner. Arthur Koestler was probably a serial rapist. Were these men idiots?
The question is, is language important, and is clarity in language necessary for coherent thought?
And to keep a little more resolutely on topic, well, calling women c***s is bad form, to say the least. Would a hero like Canadian Cynic use the word n****r to describe a black blogger with whom he disagreed? Of course not. He knows where the real taboo lines are drawn. Poor old Warren Kinsella has a problem with women, an obsession with Kate, and wierd ideas about pet owning. I'm sure the man believes that he's a feminist of the highest order.

Bryan: Do i want HETEROsexuals (or "breeders" as heterophobes call them) parading down my street naked or in leather buttless chaps on a Sunny Afternoon (as is NOT well documented)? No

Actually, the heteronormative nature of our society CAN be readily documented. You need only to open your eyes: images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=%22sex+in+advertising%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi.

Ed Minchau: Name a substantive issue, and I will guarantee you that so-called progressives are demonstrably on the wrong side of the issue.

Cheap and boring. It's a circular argument to randomly define "the wrong side of the issue" as "the other side," and then "discover"--surprise, surprise--that those with opinions different from your own are on the wrong side after all.

Kate: "Scratch a progressive and you'll find a misogynist."

I find it rather ironic that the above turn of phrase gets a general pass on a thread about the callous and hypocritical use of intolerant language to buttress one's own weak argument.

I see no significant difference, either in intent or effect, between claiming the above and hurling petty profanities, ad hominems, insults, etc. -- all are desperate attempts to distract from the substantive debate.

Do 'lefties' do it? Sure, some of them, some of the time. And they are poorer for it.

Do 'righties' do it? Well, now, you tell me. Who here is willing to break ranks and criticize 'right-wing' bloggers by the same standard that they criticize those on the 'left'?

Catching a high profile "progressive" hurling misogynist or homophobic insults is equivalent to catching a TV evangelist getting caught with a hooker.

I. Sanderson, nice straw man. Who presents themselves as the champions of women and gays? The Left. Who defaults to c*nt and F*g in almost any discussion about anything? The Left.

Furthermore, whose "peaceful demonstrations" almost invariably erupt in violence? The Left.

Scratch a progressive and you'll find a hate-filled stink bomb looking for a place to go off.

And lets talk issues for a second.
Self defence? Lefties are against it.
Private property? Lefties are against it. Freedom of speech? Lefties are against it.

There's three for you. I can make a longer list if you want.

At the risk of generalizing, I am reminded of one of the most telling observations I have read, and can't recall who wrote.

The difference in discourse between the Right and the Left:

"Those on the right think the left are wrong; those on the Left HATE the right"

The vile and emotional personal attacks on female conservative bloggers seems to be merely a manifestation of this unfortunate truism.

You'd think that everyone would know enough to ignore halfwits like Volik.

There is zero utility trying to debate with the incapable. It's like trying to teach multi-variable calculus to a newborn.

As for McClellend the jew hater, this is the same guy who admitted to spray painting "fck the Jews" on someone else's property. Anything to say about that Volik? Fricken morons the both of you.

Wow! What a stimulating debate!

It all boils down to Kate, queen of the apes, stating: "all progressives are anti-semitic misogynists!"

And her chorus of apes all leaping up and down, swinging their over-long arms, bellowing as spittle flies from their lips: "Yes! All progressives bad! baby-killers, anti-free speech, suicide bombers!"

Come to think of it, that's all that goes on at this site. Scroll down and you'll find Kate's penetrating criticisms of scientists, environmentalists progressives, and her chorus of apes bellowing "Yes Kate! They're all bad! Bad!"

What a service Kate provides for you all!

Tell me: was it really so bad for you guys when you were kids? Were you really all picked on that much?

I rest my case.

Who cares, Bryan?
Well that was a fine discussion. I afforded you the respect of at least trying to answer your questions, volik. Why do you not feel it necessary to extend the same courtesy? You are the one who brought it up.
It is laughable that you assume this holier than thou attitude...
There it is!!! Religious connotations, what a surprise! Where did I suggest I am “holier than thou”? Believe it or not, it is possible to hold relatively conservative values without being a Christian. I already told you i am more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster man, myself.
...and you clowns have the gall to lecture me... - Who is the one behaving "holier than thou"?!
I couldn't care less about your various hypotheses and justifications for your dismally outmoded way of thought. They're all tired and lame and I've heard them a million times before. A racist is a racist. A homophobe is a homophobe. We all know what they are. There's really no need for discussion.
So then why ask me?!?! Why did you not even attempt to answer a single one of my queries? Are your ideas and beliefs the righteous and true ones? Funny, i don't remember even suggesting that mine were. They are simply my beliefs. If you have heard them a million times before then perhaps it is YOU that is wrong while everyone else is actually right…perhaps…
you might want to give some thought to the obviously beleaguered one who's posted that all progressives are anti-semitic, all progressives are misogynists, and Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 in the past few days.
I already told you i don't agree with some of the things i read here. I don't even know what the whole Bill Clinton thing is you are talking about! If i don't agree, i move on. I don’t lash out and behave “holier than thou”. I have never posted a single thought on someone else’s website that I disagree with, I simply read to try to understand their perspective. Once again i suggest you do the same.
Not once did i suggest that ALL left-leaning are vile and hateful. Many of my closest friends are staunch NDP supporters (my father included) and yet we manage to have civilized discussion, sometimes even agree on things political. What is so hard to understand about this? Because some on the right side of the spectrum behave in a certain manner, YOU have chosen to paint us all with one stroke.
I am really beginning to wonder whether you even read my post, volik.
You never addressed a single issue that I raised.
I am going to assume you are an adult, volik. When you want to lash out, lash out at those responsible for their comments. Pointing out that your opponents are as guilty as the accused is not a moral victory. You are simply confusing equivelancy with superior intelligence.
I assure you that this is not the case. Rise above that. You seem intelligent enough, just perhaps a little zealous in your political emotions.
Anyways, all these painting fumes are making me dizzy…
Good Day

Actually, the heteronormative nature of our society CAN be readily documented. You need only to open your eyes: images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=%22sex+in+advertising%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi.
So are you saying that I, or all conservatives, are responsible for sex in advertising? Who do you think is responsible for that trend, Liberal minds or Conservative minds?
If it offends you so much, stand up against it with many of the conservative groups that regard it as unacceptable. Take a stand, man!
I am on your side apparently - who'd of thunk it?!

Hey, the gigs up! Volik found me out, that clever cat.

Now's time for the truth: there is only one commenter on SDA (other than volik) and it is me. I am the Sockpuppet King!

I must admit:

I am racist (I hate all races, except Formula F1).
I am a homophobe (I cower under my bed every night just in case a homosexual walks by me house...they're so scary!).
I am anti-Muslim (I hate them because they have such a greater sense of fashion than me).
I am a knuckle-dragger (look at the bandages on my hands, man!).
I am a redneck (do you know how many hours in the tanning booth that took?).
I am stupid (I forged the document stating I hold a BASc).

Amazing detective work, volik. This country owes you a debt of gratitude. Now, off to another blog to "out" all of them...may I suggest Canadian Cynic? Bye!

Bryan>

SLAM DUNK!

Really there is no point to react to volik he does this on every thread. His real purpose is to shut SDA down (Megalomania at it’s worst) but understand there is no point you will make that he will grasp or rationalize. It’s proved over and over in every thread. Simply a leftist troll with an agenda.
His childish comments have proved age, sexual orientation, rationality and even his masochistic fetishes. Example “some day you might get laid by a real human being” are telling far beyond the words and I believe he feels that he is the loan member of a purple planet called Leftopia where real “human beings” are a scarce commodity………anyway what a hearty chuckle for the weekend.

volik, dude, vitamin D is your friend! You're getting cabin fever from being in Mum's basement all the time. Get some sun, go shovel the sidewalk for crap sakes.

Leftists aren't racist. Unless your name is Condoleeza Rice, Amy Holmes, Michelle Malkin, or Hirsi Ali.

Leftists aren't misogynists. Unless you're name is Kate, Right Girl, Kathy Shaidle, Pamela Geller and everybody mentioned above.

Leftists aren't anti-Semetic. Unless you're a Jew living in Israel, a Conservative Jew, or can be labeled a Zionist.

Leftists aren't religiously bigoted. Unless you're a Christian, a Conservative Jew, or a Muslim apostate.

Leftists are against murder. Unless you're a former Conservative Prime Minister named Brian Mulroney. As recently demonstrated by the Liberal MP from PEI. Or your name is Castro, Mao, Stalin or Che.

Leftists are for justice and rule of law. Unless you disagree with David Suzuki. Or any part of the leftist totalitarian ideology.

Leftists are for freedom of Speech. As long as it only applies to what they say.

Leftists are reasonable, rational people. Until you disagree with their feelings and ask them to provide factual evidence.

Leftists are marked by prejudice over principle. Feelings over fact. And vitriol over everything. Based on the above, it is also reasonable to state that they are indeed misogynist, racist, bigoted, murderous, totalitarian, intellectually handicapped midgets.

I. Sanderson lefties do it far more than the right.

I see no significant difference, either in intent or effect, between claiming the above and hurling petty profanities, ad hominems, insults, etc. -- all are desperate attempts to distract from the substantive debate.

Lefties do that 18 times as often.

Liberalism is a mental disorder or something.

Warick and Knight 99 nailed it - volik is a troll, a potty-mouthed vulgar troll, who continually demonstrates that he is incapable of rational discourse. It really is best to ignore him/her/it, unless you really like poking a stick at a caged animal – you know it will snarl, spit, scream, and claw at the cage, and that its rage is utterly in vain.

voilik’s ‘holier than thou attitude’ gets wearisome, but his silly non sequiturs, risible ‘definitions’, and childish sweeping generalities can be funny.

However, I will not be reading any more of the childish crap he dumps here; he is another waste of pixels and time (just like John Daly, Robert McClellend, JohnnyRingo, and a few others). It really is best to not encourage any of these losers; they don’t have real, meaningful lives, and are quite happy to make fools out of themselves. But, I do not have any more time for any of them.

Posting on discussion forums opened my eyes to how disgusting some liberal males are, I've never had a Conservative Male attack me verbally just debate the topic. However Liberals go from debating to personal attacks, their treatment of females on the net is a matter of public record. Read a few of Canada's leftard forums and come back and tell me with a straight face that Liberal Males aren't potty mouths with female issue.

I decided that most of them are living at home, unemployed young males. They've never had a girl friend, nor shall they if they don't start learning to respect females. Perhaps it's part of their upbring, religion teaches men that women are something to be cherished. Perhaps non-believers don't teach their male children to respect women, and that we are equal. I have this image of Liberal Males living in momsey's basement, they only come upstairs to get snacks and apply pimple cream.

Some female liberals are pityful really, if they'd just get off their backs close their legs and stand up the glass ceiling would be easy for them to reach. Instead of expecting society to bend to the feminazi perhaps they should practice positive work ethics such as morals and values instead of preaching their "Anything goes if it feels good baby" mantra.

My bad, folks.
I fed him with some sort of false hope that there would indeed be some kind or reasonable discussion about the issue at hand.
I was wrong.
Feeding time is over.

Rose>

Exactly Rose! Liberals are nothing but leftover hippies and the offspring of hippies that have infiltrated our lacks societies with the benefits of social programs and nanny institutions.
Again it’s my belief that they were very far and few between in any early societies, until they had built their strength on conservative minds and backs allowing them to lay around their respective communities in lazy comfort. Once these earlier societies were over run with them they collapsed. Rome the poster child of this philosophy. First an Empire built its strength through common sense and purpose then expanded its frontiers. Eventually once it becomes fat and comfortable the weak-minded left steps in to control with their feelings. The results - decadence, soap opera governments and civil discourse followed with eventual collapse………..Just saying.

Yeah Rose, they're still going nuts in Right Girl's comment section. The latest meme is trying to justify being mean to Michele Malkin because she linked to some retard's press release where they posted their own addresses and phone numbers.

Can't coun't can't read, can't reason, what's a Lefty to do but fling poo?

After having their feelings continually crushed by reason and facts, this bunch will eventually fly back to the cave never to reappear again.

Remember albatros, jose, bigcitylib, jeremiah, etc?

The Phantom: Who defaults to c*nt and F*g in almost any discussion about anything? The Left.

Hyperbole much? If you can thoroughly document that in "almost any discussion about anything," the interlocutor representing the 'Left' resorts to profanity, then I'll concede victory. If you can't, then I look forward to you manning up and admitting your ignorance on the matter. Or more likely, shifting the goalposts.

Furthermore, whose "peaceful demonstrations" almost invariably erupt in violence? The Left.

Ditto. Please document the "almost invariable" link between 'left-wing' demonstrations and violence. If you require a numerical threshold, let's assume that "almost invariable" means, say, 98 percent of the time.

Self defence? Lefties are against it. Private property? Lefties are against it. Freedom of speech? Lefties are against it.

For someone who kick-started his comment by chiding me about my "nice straw man," you do a pretty good job yourself.

Keep in mind that, for starters:
- the Patriot Act, section 213 of which allows the state to execute searches of private property without first notifying subjects of the search, was drafted by a Republican administration and enacted by a Republican president;
- insisting that any criticism of Israeli state policy is equivalent to anti-Semitism is its own form of censorship;
- insisting that any criticism of the "War on Terror" is tantamount to treason is its own form of censorship;
- insisting that "if you support the troops, then you must support the mission" is its own form of censorship.

Unlike you, I won't go so far as to conclude that, therefore, "Righties are against private property, freedom of speech, etc." But in my view, any rational, honest person can agree that bad apples are to be found on both sides of the aisle. Can you agree to that much?

Oh Bryan

You were hoping there'd be 'some reasonable discussion of the issue at hand' were you? How touching.

And what is issue is that? The subject of this thread - Kate's assertion that all progressives are misogynists?

Or maybe it was her earlier post about all progressives being anti-Semitic.

The point is that you're all a bunch of hatebots -you feed on hate like a pit bull feeds on pain - and that's the only reason this site exists:

So that Kate can make outrageous unfounded statements of hate and all you guys can feed on them in a moaning, slavering frenzy.

The question is: why do you all have these irrational, all-consuming feelings of hatred?

The extremity of it is such that there can only be one answer: you all feel hard-done by, victimized somehow, cheated out of worthwhile lives by someone or something.

Judging by this thread and its insane, wild-eyed characterizations of liberals as Jew haters, baby-killers, woman-haters, etc., you guys must think of yourselves as big-time failures.

I. Sanderson

I wouldn't use facts to counter any of these guy's 'arguments'. Facts mean nothing to them.

Look at Phantom's assertions. They're not worthy of being rebutted. They're just eruptions of insane hatred by a guy who can't help himself - like a version of Tourette's. He's to be pitied, really.

Certainly it's just cruel to humour the guy by pretending what he's saying is grown-up talk.

No, what needs to be done is to identify exactly what's going on here: a bunch of hateful talk by haters. There's no reason or logic involved.

And to the degree that it's destructive - i.e., the many specific examples of racism and homophobia I've cited in the past - it's time to work to get this stuff out of the public arena.

I.Sanderson, you are on the wrong side of the border. This is a Canadian blog site. Over here, it was the left who ensured the current Cdn Constitution and Charter of Rights specifically avoids protection of the right to property. If you dig deep enough, you'll find there was an ideological reason for that.
It is the left who rallies against the tenuous grip on self-defense barely expressed in our Criminal Code, and regularly ensures you will be charged if you avail yourself of that tenuous right.
And it is the left, through the extra-judicial "human rights commissions" who will bankrupt you and your charter right to free speech without the benefit of due court process and the scrutiny of your peers.

No first and second amendments here.

There you go again, volik, jumping to conclusions based on your limited understanding of language. That by the way was an "ad hominem attack". What you don't get, is that neither you, nor the Liberals, nor the rest of the left, own the lexicon of life. You don't get to be the only dictionary, nor the only arbiter of ethical morality.

I thought the reference to kids on computers in mom's basement was a metaphor.

Then I saw the movie "The Score", which takes place in Montreal. In fact there was such a kid, wild-eyed as if on benzedrine, frantically engaged in flame wars and playing video games while spewing vitriol up the stairs at his mother.

So I now realize that this is a sort of stereotypical character up in the Frozen North.

All of these silly trolls use as their justification the quest, like Diogenes, for a blog intelligent enough for them to discuss "issues".

Maybe they should blog with the Nobel committee. Or perhaps PhD candidates at Oxford, so that they could finally quench their tragic thirst for people who have "been laid" and therefore can think about "the issues" rationally.

A group whose perception, acumen, lucidity, and scholarship permits them to use words like "cunt", "pussy", and getting "laid" with the respectable and erudite intelligence that such terms require.

On this site much attention is given to the idea that Kate is not "getting laid". You know, Kate is an attractive woman, and she has many admirers in several different worlds of accomplishment, and doubtlessly she could "get laid" on a regular basis if she wished. In fact, how do you know that she doesn't?

This puts me in mind that apparently these trolls in their mom's basements are a little out of touch with precisely the amount of sexual congress that actually does happen on a regular basis -- yes, even in Canada.

So should any of you trolls manage to get a girlfriend, one of the things you will notice is that she will insist that you not spend every waking moment on the computer indulging in the lascivious passtime of concerning yourself as to whether other people are "getting laid".

Volik

"The point is that you're all a bunch of hatebots ..."

All of us? And yet you felt I had a undiagnosed reading comprehension problem. Instead, it appears that I was able to read between the lines. You have just outed yourself.

"So that Kate can make outrageous unfounded statements of hate ..."

This is called projection.

Volik being leftist knows all about Kos and other typical cesspools in his side of the blogosphere so his criticisms of posters at this site as being "full of hate" are laughable. Leftist commenters cannot discuss something even as dry as the science of climate change without comparing their opponents to (holocaust) deniers.

Apparently even Volik prefers to hang out on a conservative site for the relatively civilized atmosphere instead of with his demented peers. Lord knows he sticks his smug and boring diatribes in here with an unseemly frequency for someone so scandalized by the surroundings.

Everyone>

I think it's time to stop hassling volick before he does serious harm to himself and quite possibly others. This is no idle concern as his increasingly deluded and frenzied comments are approaching a fevered pitch and the warning signs are clear.

Support Volik even as a lower member of the animal kingdom

http://www.pbase.com/ainy/tiffany

People need to realize that his comments derive from more than one angle and issue. He truly needs pity and compassion not shun and distain……………….

Volik you aren’t alone on this crazy planet of irrrational thought…………Don’t kill yourself over it sister…………..

Well volik, congratulations, you made me eat my words!
I take it back.

You don't seem really seem intelligent at all.

I.Sanderson said: "But in my view, any rational, honest person can agree that bad apples are to be found on both sides of the aisle. Can you agree to that much?"

No, not really. While I'm sure there is some creepy guy out there someplace who calls himself a conservative, you have to dig to find him. On the other hand we have the Left, who do nothing but character assassination and foul invective.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but here's a place to start.

self defense- gun registry
private property - Caledonia Ontario
Freedom of speech- Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Violent demonstrations? Anti-globalization protesters in Quebec City, eco-protesters burning down houses, anti-Israel protesters at McGill...

How much do you want?

"you lay down with dogs.."

... and you rise up with volik

I. Sanderson

"Ditto. Please document the "almost invariable" link between 'left-wing' demonstrations and violence. If you require a numerical threshold, let's assume that "almost invariable" means, say, 98 percent of the time."

And right on cue, a bomb explodes at a military recruiting station in the heart of a crowded city.

"I wouldn't use facts to counter any of these guy's 'arguments'. Facts mean nothing to them." - volik

That's the funniest statement on this entire thread.

Now for some logic. My opinions are right. Contrary opinions are wrong. It would take someone more schizophrenic than a schizophrenic to think that his own opinion is wrong. To have an opinion is to hold it to be right.

Now for some more logic.
A disorder exists if the natural and healthy function of an organ is hindered. Homosexuality hinders the reproductive function of the genitals. Therefore it is a disorder.

Hyoo

In matters where the rightness or wrongness of an opinion is not confirmed by objective fact, the mature individual doesn't insist that his/her opinion is objectively right - though certainly he/she has the right to consider it subjectively right for him/her.

Hey everybody!

Hyoo's just declared celibacy a disorder!

Best get those priests and nuns into therapy ASAP!

Hyoo,

Is that why they tell you that spanking it will make you go blind? After all, like Monty Python's "the Meaning of Life," every sperm is sacred...

There is a difference between logic and sophistry.

Volik, Hyoo's statement may be wrong but it don't make you look any better so hold off on the smug - dare I say - self-love. Your idiocy far surpases anything Hyoo has said.

Warwick

I think I'll skip receiving moral lessons from knuckle-dragging neanderthal racists like yourself, thanks.

Volik,

I certainly wasn't wasting time giving you any lessons - moral or otherwise - as you aren't capable of learning any.

But you're capable of teaching something: racism.