Free Markets, Free People

It is not possible to get leftists to feel embarrassment or shame

Various members of the White House staff, mostly fresh-faced twenty or thirty-something leftists, have been out there lately demonstrating that they have no capability to admit error or feel the slightest bit of shame in mistakes made by this administration.

They quite literally act as if they just don’t see the problem. “Dude, this was like two years ago.” Four people were killed, and around here, we all believed at the time that incompetence was covered up for political purposes. Every piece of information that comes out confirms it.

But leftists are now in permanent “deny, deny, deny” mode. Bill Clinton taught them well. If you never admit mistakes or problems, you effectively reduce your opponents to sputtering frustration. If you never show shame or embarrassment no matter how silly you look, it’s never necessary to admit that your opponents have any valid points whatsoever. 

The only thing you need is the willing cooperation of the legacy media so that you get first shot at persuading the legions of rationally ignorant people who don’t much like politics. If the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN all refuse to call you on it, or do so way after the fact so that editors can just say “old news, move on”, then you’ll get away with it.

I’ve long thought that people such as this ass Veitor literally don’t see the mistakes. Their post-modern training allows them to believe that whatever they convince the media and the people to believe is the truth. It doesn’t matter what facts contradict it. It doesn’t matter what the negative long-term effects are. It doesn’t even matter if it dissolves the bonds that hold civil society together. By post-modern axioms, the consensus narrative is the truth. It must be advanced.

Post-modernists don’t feel shame because they don’t think they’re lying. You could probably hook up Veitor to a lie detector and get no indication whatever that he thinks he’s lying. He believes it’s impossible to lie in support of leftist policies and practitioners. Leftism is right by axiomatic certainty, so anything that supports it must be true and right.

No doubt such people would, if pressed hard enough, admit that there are other viewpoints and details that support them. But they would simply say that the human mind can be irrational, blah, blah, blah, and none of it matters. The idea that they might be irrational in support of collectivism never, ever enters their mind.

They are very much like fundamentalists who see the will of God in everything that happens. No religious fundamentalist is capable of feeling shame about believing in God, or shame in the outcomes of what they claim are God’s works. It’s just all part of a grand plan that we can’t see.

Similarly, leftists see the validation of leftism is everything. They are cognitively incapable of seeing the facts and realities that dispute leftism. They are incapable of believing that anyone who denies leftism is interacting in good faith.

They can only see the narrative that upholds leftism. Only that can be true. It doesn’t matter how preposterous it is to someone connected to reality. For them, leftism is reality.

But, as kennycan said in a comment over at Daily Pundit concerning the Ukraine spokesbint, some realities are more real than others. Ezra Klein’s “reality” that the federal government cannot run out of dollars is just a comfortable fantasy in support of leftism. It doesn’t even pass basic logical analysis. For example if that were true, there would never be any reason to collect taxes! If the government can’t run out of dollars, those taxes are not needed.

That’s obviously preposterous. Even more preposterous is the idea that an exponential curve can continue its natural shape indefinitely. As Herb Stein said, what can’t go on forever will stop.

But, if leftists can use their post-modern approach to deny that Obamacare is a disaster and that Benghazi was a horrible, botched mistake that was covered up, or that the IRS is engaging in politically targeted harassment, then why should we believe they will be any different when the debt mountain collapses? They will come up with some narrative that blames Republicans for talking bad about the debt and spooking the financial markets, or whatever.

Using the “never let a crisis go to waste” mentality, they’ll demand that the rich have to just give up everything they own for the sake of society – why do you think they’re pounding so hard right now on the income inequality thing? They’re setting the stage to have options to advance leftism, no matter what happens.

This explains why arguing with them is fruitless. Remember the conversational dictum that you don’t discuss religion in polite company? That is what you are doing when you discuss collectivism with a leftist. (Though their concept of politeness is pretty far degraded from mine.)

Make your case to the muddled middle if you must, but trying to convince a leftist that he has to give up his post-modern, collectivist religion is no more likely to succeed than trying to convince a fundamentalist that his wife’s death in a car accident is evidence of either a cruel God or that God had nothing to do with it. They both have constructed elaborate mental models of how the world satisfies their religion, and there is no talking them out of it.

186 Responses to It is not possible to get leftists to feel embarrassment or shame

  • The first time you depose a pathological liar, you learn about how the Collectivist works and thinks.
    It is EXTREMELY frustrating at first.  You can (I have) sat with stacks of documents two feet high, with the liar’s signature and initials on each page, and they well simply lie, bald-faced about the documents.  For hours.
    The trick you learn is to just let them…on the record.  You cannot stop them.  You cannot shame them, since they literally have no shame.  There is no incentive you can offer for them to be honest.  So you just lay the foundation for showing what they are, and how they work.
    The Collective eschews the concepts of “right and wrong”.  They DO hove to the idea of “good and bad”.  Lying…especially to themselves…in the process of what they deem to be “good” is…well…good.

    • Don’t know if you’ve seen this video, but if not, you’ll feel some sympathy for the lawyer doing the deposition.

      • I’d never seen that, and HEH!
        But that is a very POOR depiction of depositions as they are conducted in Texas.  They used to be known for actual fist-fights between the lawyers, and still can be pretty sprightly (the first psychopath I deposed had a perfect lawyer for his client, and I had him…all 5’3″…coming over the table at me by the time we FINALLY finished).  But the actors in that vid were NOT typical of how we behave.
        For one, when you have a deponent that is not lying, but is evasive or confused, you just leave that topic, and circle back to it later.  There are a lot of pretty common-sense tricks.  One of mine is to put a deponent to sleep with a lot of non-threatening questions, and to NOT be adversarial if at all possible.

      • This administration’s deponent would respond “what difference does it make”.

        • Which, for a jury hearing my client’s wrongful death case, would be GOLD…!!!

  • I’ve always believed that Mahatma Gandhi would have been trampled by this Administration.
    Non-violence depends on being able to shame your opponent.

  • If the federal government cannot run out of dollars, why even bother to tax anybody.
    Or, are you telling me that all taxes are punitive ?

  • Hey, look at it this way.   Our fantasy where everyone is unemployed and stops looking for work
    and lowers unemployment to 0 just got a step closer.
    It’s all good though, because the government can just print up money and send it to us right?

    • Democratic insiders tell me the Obama inner circle now only consists of the president, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough — and not everyone agrees on McDonough. Whether or not the president takes any criticism to heart and tries to change course seems unlikely based on what we have observed so far.
      Every president experiences periods when he is unpopular or facing difficult decisions.  But I don’t remember another president in my lifetime who has reached such a diminished state with so much time left in his term. We have more than two and a half years left under President Obama. We have to realize we will pay a price for this president’s lack of leadership. No one knows what the headlines will be next week, next month or next year, but nothing this president does seems to be shaping the world in a way that makes America stronger.
      … Bush got to this point but he had “The Surge” to at least partially bail him out.  Obama has what ?

      • Least we forget, the reason Bush needed to be bailed out was because of the incessant lying of the press. 24/7 pictures of the war in Iraq and total obfuscation of anything factual. Obama’s administration, indeed his being elected in the first place would have never succeeded if the press treated him the same as they did Bush.

  • Benghazi was especially egregious. Nevermind that lies were made to protect the current president and the cankles-posessing heir apparent to the throne.  Nevermind that said hag lied to the families of the deceased in front of the coffins. Nevermind a lot of things. Two issues makes this a lot worse than other sorry episodes in history:
    – These f**ks led to the jailing of the filmaker.  And everyone seems to forget this. Obama and Hillary had to be protected, so a guy who made a dopey film is hauled away in cuffs.
    – This stinks of collusion between the political and media classes. And this is especially dangerous for them. The guy who covered this up – who was in deep all along, just happens to be the brother of the head of a news network that shrank away from reporting on the story (fired the reporter as a matter of fact). I’m sure the other networks demurred out of professional courtesy and for similar reasons – they’re all tied up in various conflicts of interest in one shape or another. Imagine if it could be established that this guy Rhodes called his network dogs off to protect his brother? Then it isn’t so far a leap to look at all these other leftist politico/media pairings and wonder about bias there as well.  Make no mistake, this is a threat.  Which is why it must be buried away deep.
    But Billy, to go back to a theme I unfortunately come back to a lot nowadays – leftists can’t feel embarrassment or shame, but they sure will be able to feel the noose as it’s slipped around their necks.  A little melodramatic but that’s where we are going. With people like these, how can it go any other way???  I hope we can have an amicable national divorce.

    • I still a bit unclear about the “filmmaker” because he went to prison on a “probation violation” because he wasn’t to make any films .. or so the story goes.

      • I believe he was restricted from any use of a computer.
        But, still…  Los Angeles.  Greater Los Angeles.  And you don’t have…like…somebody REAL bad who needs to be picked up and put in the available jail cell?
        And you DO have Pres. ScamWOW and the entire State Department slimeing this poor moke, even in front of the U-flucking-N weeks after the event…???

        • I think they actually got him for a driver’s license he wasn’t supposed to have.
          In fact he is really a political criminal.

        • Remember, they were also promising the Arab Street they would get the videographer.
          Nice job. Promising foreigners to use the state to enforce blasphemy laws we don’t have.

  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Republicans are using the Benghazi attack to “gin up yet another political food fight” ahead of the November election.
    “For Republicans to waste the American people’s time and money staging a partisan political circus instead of focusing on the middle class is simply a bad decision,” Reid said on Friday. “While Republicans try to gin up yet another political food fight, Senate Democrats will remain focused on fostering economic growth for all hard-working Americans.”
    At this point, I’m not sure who is worse .. Reid or Biden ?  Biden is Biden, bu Harry Reid has developed paranoid delusions directly related to his “Koch” induced psychosis.

  • The White House LIED when Stevens di…..(eh?)…….oh hell, the White House lies all the time.

    • I propose that our POTUS be required to hold up his right hand when actually speaking the truth.

  • Crazy Nanny Pelosi…
    “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha…!!!”
    Er, excuse…”Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi…!!!”
    Harry “Grandpa Simpson” Reid…

  • Here’s a sign of hope.
    It seems that former Representative David Bonior has learned the same lesson that former Senator George McGovern learned a few years back.
    As reported in the Washington Post, Bonior has taken the plunge and become a business owner. Among the more ironic of his observations is this gem: “Bonior said if he had the power, he would lighten up on pesky regulations.”

  • Guess who I thought of first when I read the thread title?

    • Golly…  I’m stumped.  It couldn’t be someone who has to run to his car to avoid being “loved” by a rutting moose, would it?

  • Wow, dude, you got a freaky post-modern view of the left.  Most on the left believe in honesty, hard work, values and freedom.  They don’t like too much inequality, but believe that’s bad for capitalism – they want markets to work, they don’t want socialism.   But you have his bizarro-caricature view of the left, a real villain image, that allows you to imagine them as these amoral agenda driven fanatics with no rationality or honor.  Look at Cheney’s alternate intelligence scheme, the selling of the Iraq war, and their inability to admit how utterly failed this policy was.  But hey, go on with this wild view of your opponents (it also explains how you guys respond to me – you believe this whacked out world view).  It’s funny.  Totally out of touch with reality, but that’s OK – you’ve already proven that with your view that if your perspective loses everything will “burn.”  You’ve got a wrong world view, Billy.  You have a false interpretation of reality and that’s leading you to a myriad of political errors.  You’re not dumb, but lost in a post-modern ideological fog.  Oh well, that’s your problem.
    What really is disgusting is the way the Republicans try to find someway to use Benghazi as some political scandal against the administration.  That is disgusting and unpatriotic.  It was a tragedy, things were done wrong, just like on 9-11, and we should investigate that without trying to turn it into a political football.  The GOP can’t do that, and that’s why their obession with Benghazi will hurt them.  Democrats will talk about real issues – the economy, how people’s lives have been effected by various policies, improving health care, the environment – things that matter to real people, things that politics are really about.   Republicans then scream “Benghazi” and try to cherry pick e-mails to manufacture a scandal.  That’s post-modern craziness at its extreme, and it’s not a winner for the GOP.

    • Blah, blah, blah, same old shit. We’re all wrong, ridiculous views, etc.
      Nothing – nothing – about these fools denying obvious reality. Nothing about Carney being so obtuse even the press got peeved. Nothing about how Twitter hashtags don’t stop Russian troops, but apparently some spokesbint at State thinks they should. Nothing about a guy who wants to deny any responsible for four deaths by just saying it was two years ago. Nothing about the IRS emails or the Benghazi emails or anything else. They’re all just fake, ginned up scandals, right?
      You’re one of them, Scott. You can’t face the reality of the left’s delusions, or your own. It’s so much easier just to call others out of touch and warped.

      Because, like them, post-modern leftist politics is your religion. You believe in the narratives with all your heart. When anyone points out how reality conflicts with them, you simply deny reality. All hail the narrative!

        • Yep.  “Raw Sewage Story” is as moonbat fringe as they come.

        • Two more points, and then I’ll let Erp up for air…
          1. Note what Erp posts as an incisive “argument” for his Collective, and from whom it comes.  This is really quite revealing of his intellectual heft.  Compare and contrast…

          2. Good trial lawyers know that you don’t go into a jury trial DENYING facts that you know will come out at trial.  You step up to them, and you deal with them as best you can WHILE MAINTAINING YOUR CREDIBILITY WITH THE JURY.  Erp’s Collective had the chance to INVESTIGATE.  They had the chance to join in a bi-partisan manner (you know…like Erp PRETENDS he’s all for) and show SOME integrity, while at the same time assuring that such an investigation did NOT become a purely political event.  They chose…unwisely.  And they are continuing the same effort at hand-waving facts away.

          • THIS.
            Just like with the IRS scandal, the Dems should have taken the opposition’s concerns as genuine and investigated.
            What’s more important? The populace feels they can trust our institutions, or the poor little politicians who might be inconvenienced or the bureaucrats who will be transferred?
            Keep in mind that Bush allowed the Plame affair to be fully investigated. And even though the special prosecutor knew from day one it was Armitage, they still managed to get Scooter and he was not fully pardoned. Sure, this was stupid, but the Dems cannot complain it was not investigated fully. I guess we on the right assumed that the Left would be fair about such things. Oh well.

        • At this point, I have to strongly consider if Erb is a sock puppet for Billy.  He couldn’t have served himself up as a example of his article.

          In the almost too good to be true category.  wink wink, nudge nudge say no more, say no more.

          • I know, right…???
            It’s like that scene in Patton where the Brit assures Patton he has complete air superiority…just before the Heinkels come in for their bombing run.
            You can’t pay for cooperation like Erp’s.

          • He’s real and he’s been at this for decades. I remember him taking the side of a guy who was predicting that Y2K was going to cause automobiles to malfunction. There never was an admission of being wrong on that one, either.
            He continued to defend such kooks–some way out there–and to cheer lead them on to even deep depths of absurdist propaganda.  Unlike some Lorne Malvo character who masterminds others to engage in mayhem, it seems to be more a case of “no enemies on the left” and an extremely low ability to judge character.

      • You’re one of them, Scott.

        An unpaid, unknown, ineffective one. But he definitely is one of them with regard to the shameless lying.

    • It was a tragedy, things were done wrong, just like on 9-11, and we should investigate that without trying to turn it into a political football.  The GOP can’t do that, and that’s why their obession with Benghazi will hurt them.
      ‘K.  Let’s explore how 9-11 and Benghazi are “just like” each other.  Shall we…???
      We SHOULD investigate…???   Who says?  Your Pres. ScamWOW and others…his myrmidons…put this away.  It was about a video.  Right?  “What difference…at this point…does it make?”  That sounds…incurious…
      Most on the left believe in honesty, hard work, values and freedom.

      That’s a lie, and you are a liar.  You DON’T believe in values, and you’ve so said. You SO do not believe in honesty that you come here and lie constantly.  You publish talking-points from the extreme fringe of the moonbattery (i.e., Benghazi is a conspiracy theory of the GOP) while admitting it was a catastrophe.  You aren’t even capable of rational consistency.
      Now, call me a “rubbish pile” and retreat to the well-worn comforter of your fabric of lies.  Because we all know you cannot respond with anything that will not embarrass you further.

      • You are a liar, Rags – I believe in values and never said otherwise.  You’re a lying little dips**t, and you aren’t man enough to put your name on your posts. I consider you utterly inferior.  You are not honest – that’s why you don’t put your name on your posts.  Thank God you’re not in a position to do harm – you’re just an anonymous internet poster who is meaningless, irrelevant, and impotent.  And time is passing you by – America is changing and you can’t stop it.
        Love that clip!

        • Our own shameless leftist mascot.

        • What has got Gollum all riled up? Getting out his fighting words and all… is there an election coming up or something?

        • Wow, Erp.  Ad hominem delux and only.
          You’re losing your shit here, dude.
          I hit you with actual facts and argument, and you go all “I hate you, hate you, hate you” on me.
          Let’s recap, shall we…???
          Benghazi was a bloody disaster that caught Pres. ScamWOW with his pants around his ankles and made Ol’ Walleyes have to scurry around trying to cover her double-wide ass.  It was predictable and preventable, but they let it happen and then let it go without any effort to respond (that we know of).
          Immediately, all hands knew what was happening; AN ATTACK, using infantry tactics and heavy weapons, launched by AQ or affiliates who were KNOWN to be all over town.  All hands knew our ambassador was scooped up within hours.  The CIA compound was under siege for many hours more.
          ALSO immediately, State and ScamWOW people go into political ass-coverage mode.  Purely political, because that us who they are.  Anybody with the reading comprehension of a middle-schooler and a working brain can see the progression in the talking-points as they are massaged by the people from State and White House.
          This resulted in a lie.  A pure fabrication about a video.  It was not even a true statement about the Cairo assault on our embassy, but it SURE was never true about Benghazi.  It was a lie repeated often, and for weeks afterward.  Baracula included it in his UN speech, complete with his schizophrenia respecting the First Amendment, which was part of the lie campaign.
          Mona Charen asked a great question yesterday; could YOU stand at Anderews AFB, looking into the eyes of bereaved parents, and lie to them?  Hill-larry Clinton and Baracula did.  And we know it.
          The press now know it, too.  Carney is a hiss and a by-word.  And Obama has been busy…oh, very busy…deflecting.  Yesterday he directed Holder to look into the death penalty!  Which is ironic, since Baracula never met a means of killing a newborn he didn’t like.
          The Collective has had a chance to step up to Benghazi.  They had a chance to INVESTIGATE, and they all chose to lie about it and call it a “conservative conspiracy”.  But the shit finally soaked through the paper bag of lies, deceptions, deflections, and attacks.
          And all you’ve done here is very ably demonstrate the verity of Billy’s post…in spades…!!!
          Oh, and Erpy…I work very hard at NEVER lying.  I won’t say I’m always successful.  I will say you NEVER are.

        • “Thank God you’re not in a position to do harm…”
          I would suggest you not get crosswise with Ragspierre in the real world.

        • …I believe in values and never said otherwise.

          You have indicted organized thought by using the word “ideology” (root word: “idea”) as a pejorative. Essentially, your argument there is that organized thought, based upon principles, leads to bad results, that human beings are fallible, that quantum quantum quantum….
          That you don’t understand how such arguments are a denial of values simply indicates you’re not very intelligent.

          Thank God you’re not in a position to do harm – you’re just an anonymous internet poster who is meaningless, irrelevant, and impotent.

          You use your name and your title, yet your are still meaningless, irrelevant, and impotent.  Thank the quantum creator for that.

    • Republicans then scream “Benghazi” and try to cherry pick e-mails to manufacture a scandal.
      See, there you, lying again.  MONTHS ago when the emails were first released…or what people could remember of the verbatim emails was released…anybody who could READ saw the progression of the corruption of the narrative from “It’s a concerted attack by AQ or affiliates” to “It’s a film critique that somehow got out of hand and killed people with infantry tactics and heavy weapons”. No “cherry picking”.  I read them ALL.

      And now we have confirmation. You lied about it then, and you are lying about it now.

    • Watergate was a scandal going nowhere until someone all of a sudden remembered there were tapes being made in the White House and from that point onward all hell broke loose.  Well, these last sets of documents finally released begin to show this White House has something to answer for and it’s not “post modern craziness at its extreme.”  As far as Democrats talking about real issues, lets hear some of them talk about those two currently forbidden topics – Obamacare and the Recovery.  Their own advisors hve spoken publicly for them not to speak of those two issues and unless a Democrat is sitting in one of those “People’s Republic Of” kind of district they are in fact keeping their mouths shut on those “real issues.”  But you, Erb, the resident Obama man-lover only see fit to discuss, on your own blog, how Obama will be remembered as a GREAT PREISDENT and how he has been outstanding in the field of Foreign Affairs.  We can hardly expect you to come over here to the “dark” side and speak with anything other the same BS you blather on at your own echo chamber of a blog.  So it does not surprise me at all when you to come here and rant and rave and be barely understood – it’s hard for anyone to speak coherently with Obama’s c*ck in his mouth!!!

    • In case there wasn’t enough animus for Cankles, allow me to pile on…   After the successful removal of Khaddafi, the troops involved were delayed for 10 days.  Seems the Secretary of State wanted to make a speech in Tripoli (all well and good), but the C-17 configured to carry troops wasn’t to her liking.  It was flown away, reconfigured, returned to pick her up, transported her to Tripoli for the speech, flew her back from whence she came, flown out to be re-reconfigured to carry troops, and finally sent back to bring them home.  Tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars wasted because SHE COULDN’T SIT ON A CUSHION.  It wasn’t a movie review gone bad, yet she had the gall to stand before the flag-draped coffins of the fallen, telling their families they’d get the guy who made the video.  They did get him – but the ‘why’ remains the problem.  We all (well almost all of us) know the facts regarding the coordinated nature of the attack, the lack of military support, the prior warnings from our Allies, the earlier attacks and attempted kidnappings, and that they knew within moments what they were dealing with.  She us utterly and completely despicable – as is the American press who allow this Administration to get away with this dereliction of duty and lying.

    • Where to begin ?  I hate it when I meet a stereotype, but damn, Erb.
      What really is disgusting is the way the Republicans try to find someway to use Benghazi as some political scandal against the administration.
      This takes reality and puts it on it’s head.  Four Americans die in Libya, and before they are even cold, this Administration is busy rewriting reality because they have a President, who happens to be running for re-election, to protect.  First, it’s a terrorist attack, then it’s a demonstration gone out of control, then in the Rose Garden the President says it’s a terrorist attack (just ask Candy Crowley).  Then on the Sunday shows it’s about some video that nobody has ever heard about.  Politics is already been injected into this and the Republicans are nowhere to be found yet.

      • *yawn*  You’re losing this.  I am laughing at you.

        • Well.  Manically.  I could believe “laughing manically”.
          BTW, CAN you laugh and yawn at the same time?  Manically…?

        • Erb you are a stereotype.  You have no shame just like the piece above.  Congratulations.

          • He unintentionally proves the entire point of my post with his “you’re losing this” mantra.
            See, he doesn’t care what’s true and false. He only cares what the left can win and that opponents of the left lose.
            In his mind, if his side wins, they were right all along! Facts don’t matter, long-term effects don’t matter, nothing matters except whether the left can carry their preferred narrative to acceptance.
            In particular, right and wrong don’t matter. He literally can’t see things that conflict with his preferred narrative. In his mind, what’s *right* is what the left can get accepted. His entire concept of morality is subsumed into the politics of leftism, and he’s so soaked in that pseudo-morality that he can’t even see that he’s a leftist.
            Four dead people mean nothing to him, if they must be ignored or sacrificed to meet the desires of the left. An incompetent State Department that causes loss of life around the globe means nothing to him, if the consequences of fixing it damages his precious Obama. Creeping totalitarianism in the oppression of opposing groups just because of their politics certainly doesn’t bother him a bit, if it’s groups he doesn’t like. Break those eggs and make those omelets, baby!’
            And he doesn’t even realize he’s proving the point about no shame or embarrassment for leftists. He’s the poster child for that problem, and he can’t see it. Leftists usually don’t.

          • Nothing to be ashamed about.  Just laughing at you guys.  It’s so funny!

          • Laugh while you can Erb.

        • From the Pee Wee Herman school of debate.

    • Scott, you lie. And none of you leftist maggots believe in honesty or freedom.

    • You’re not dumb, but lost in a post-modern ideological fog.

      Is this the best Professor Talking-Points can manage? Trying to reflect his own position on to that of his opponent, now how quaintly leftist is that. Most cunning lefties at least try and conceal the ploy without revealing their hand too obviously.

      • Projection is a very common behavior in narcissists.  It is a prominent means of protecting the very sick, weak, insecure person that they, at core, are.
        You’ll see it a lot in Pres. ScamWOW, too.

        • Also to figure out is his apparent logical disconnect, first accusing of various people here of being “guilty” of 19th century thinking and now accusing the same people of post-modernism. No doubt this is how he explains away his non-guilt at being guilty of a crime he did not criminally commit.

    • “Most on the left believe in … values…”
      Is that supposed to mean something?

    • “Democrats will talk about real issues – the economy, how people’s lives have been effected by various policies, improving health care, the environment – things that matter to real people, things that politics are really about.”
      What’s to talk about Scott?  The Democrats have got the economy humming along after 6 years, unemployment is down down down, recovery is up, everyone now has mandated health insurance!   There are jobs every where, our deficits are under control and our budgets for 5 years running have been model’s of good government spending.  GM is doing awesome business!
      The Great Lakes are still frozen solid in May, American oil production is way up, Natural Gas is providing cheap clean power, and global warming has totally paused!  All as a result of Democrat environmental policies!  We should have listened sooner!
      We have the most awesome foreign policy of my lifetime, the Russians are being good neighbors, the Syrians almost have a government, the Iranians have been completely halted in their goal for nuclear weapons.   Israel is just about going to marry Hamas, Al Queda is defeated and destroyed, Afghanistan and Iraq are at peace, Terrorism is at a low point throughout the world.   Our relations with Europe have never been better, particularly after we got the bugs out of Angela Merkel’s phone, And the Arab Street is experiencing an unprecedented almost spring-like rejuvenation towards ‘democracy’ in Libya, Egypt and of course Syria.
      It’s just win, win, win, win for the Democrats, so I don’t understand why you’re worried about the GOP at all!  They’re gonna get their asses kicked in November, the Democrats will, as you predicted in the past, regain control of the House, probably pick up a couple of Senate seats and by 2016 control of the government will practically be hereditary for the Democratic party.
      Investigate Benghazi like we did after 9/11?  WHY?!!!!!!!   We already know it was a spontaneous demonstration with rockets and mortars brought about by a little known Coptic Christian whackjob video on an obscure YouTube channel that probably had almost 1000 views by the night of the attack on the anniversary of 9/11.   Move on!  Move on!   The investigation has been done by State, the White House, the DOJ and probably NOAA!   Enough already!  Why are you advocating any further investigation at all?!!!

    • Wow, dude….

      Thus began the latest round of the disingenuous fraud, adopting the appropriate affect for another round of nonsensical time-wasting non-arguments.
      Without reading it, I’ll take a stab at summarizing:

  • Scotty, congratulations.
    You’ve earned it.

  • Erb-
    I agree with you – laugh now. Laugh as good and long as you can. Troll as good and hard as you wish.
    You’re like the dying kid and this is your make-a-wish.

    • No shark, the culture is changing, demography is changing.  You’re losing.  I’m winning.

      • ” winning ”
        – – – – –

        Didn’t some druggie jackass (famous for acting in some TV sitcom) try to make the same ridiculous claim?

        Didn’t work. Not for him then, not for you now.

        Not “winning”, Dude. Losing.

      • “I’m winning.”  WTF!!!  That’s all this is to you?  Winning?  Are you so bereft of a clue that this whole issue become only one of winning and losing?  You come over here, away from the echo chamber of your Obama love shack, to show all of us Neanderthals  that you are winning.  And how are you winning?  I guess everybody has to have an inflated vision of their own importance and all it takes is a 5 minute scan of your own echo chamber of a blog to see how you are either 1) Trying desperately to earn enough points that even a clueless skank like Obama would bring you into his administration so you can show your academic buds your progressive street cred; 2) Completely delusional; or 3) All of the above.  I take #3.  Winning.  What a loser!!!!

      • “…the culture is changing, demography is changing.”
        Yah, yah, and you never dip you foot in the same river…whatevs.
        Funny thing, though.  Facts don’t change in reality with a tick one way or the other in demographics.  And “culture” is changing against you, too.  See Control, gun.  See also Warming, Gorebal, and Polling, Obama.
        The facts are that Pres. ScamWOW is a foriegn policy and domestic policy failure everywhere (if your standard of success is anything good for America), and you are such a bung-sucker for your Collective you deny reality.   Now, if you judge by Cloward-Piven standards, Baracula is a huge success.  So, in that sense, you may be “winning”.
        But you aren’t winning with anybody who has read you enough to know you are a liar.  Which is everyone here.  Here, you are a know quantity, and you number is zero.

      • You’re losing.  I’m winning

        >>> You may very well be right in that the culture is changing.  But you’re wrong about one thing – we’re ALL losing.
        I’m a bit harder to troll than others Scotty, because I know exactly what’s coming for people like you. And while it is a cold comfort, it is a comfort regardless.
        I do pity you.

      • Was it Good booze?  Bad Booze?  Another Saturday night in Mooseburg and you didn’t got nobody?   So this is where you came to ‘win’, you, personally?
        You won what?   You’re winning because you think you’re constructing a society in which no man is responsible for himself and the government of all is responsible for all?   A former world power with no border and a joke for a President?
        You have issues Scott, if this is what’s it’s about.  We all have opinions, we all have beliefs.   Most who comment here aren’t in it for themselves to ‘win’.
        The fact that you are, or appear to be, should trouble you.
        You are winning nothing here.
        Unless confirming that you’re a boob is your goal line.  In which case you’ve crossed and scored again.

      • White Leftists are comitting demographic suicide. To paraphrase King Phyrrus of Epirus, any more wins like that, and you’re done for. Suits me fine. 🙂

        • “They may not be citizens, but they are Americans,” Joe Biden at this morning’s Cinco de Quatro breakfast.
          They must have been serving killer margaritas…

    Now, see, if Trey Gowdy could manage to hire McCarthy as one of the Select Committee’s investigators (they can have those, you know) THAT would be like Christmas…!!!
    Looking forward to the depositions on written questions that will be put to various people, including Pres. ScamWOW…under oath.

  • He has to laugh about us. How else can he convince himself that he’s good and capable, in the face of reality?
    Most of the people around here have no need to boast, so he has no clue how outclassed he is by the people here. McQ was an Army Ranger. Rags a lawyer, where you actually have to be connected to reality to carry your argument. I’ll be speaking to 500 people next week in Chicago, keynoting a conference. I assume, based on the well-thought-out and literate responses, that just about everyone who comments around here similarly has some measure of success out there in the real world, even if it’s just being respected in a job doing real, productive work, and raising a stable family.
    Compare Scotty. Failure at being a gopher in DC. Stole pizzas while holding a management job. Ended up at a nowhere college, teaching bored undergraduates. Wrote a book of no consequence that no one reads. Couldn’t keep his marriage together. In his fifties now, but has no research or notable contributions to his field. It would be hard to find a better dictionary definition of mediocrity.
    Yet he is convinced that he’s smart and capable, in the face of strong long term evidence that he’s a stupid putz. He has to come here and pump himself up by droning on about how we’re losing – as if we think this is some kind of game and all we care about is scoring points. The idea that we see the darkness coming, and more evidence for it surfaces every week, is incomprehensible to him. His juvenile crowing about the short-term victories of the left is all he has to validate himself.
    If he weren’t such an irritating jerk, I’d feel sorry for him.

    • One minor advance is that he seems to have stopped blithering ignorantly about science and quantum physics. His views on that were so profoundly absurd and unaware of his mind-numbing incoherence that (1) it is profoundly pleasant to any scientist that he has shut the f*** up about it and (2) reveals the shallowness of his own self-awareness on how little he knows and, hence, calls into question any other topic he spouts on about.

      • I’m actually a little worried about him.  He will normally (well, as normal as he gets) attempt something of a rational (well, as rational as he gets) back-and-forth.
        Lately, he just goes to full-tilt crazy and stomps off.
        I wonder if he’s drinking…  Russian brides can do that to a feller, I hear.

    • Silly Billy, wanting to pretend you’re “outclassing” me.  You’re nothing.  Meanwhile I teach, publish, give public talks, and make a difference.  You call names and insult in a blog.  You can feel strong and powerful when in a partisan blog a bunch of people join in insulting.  But if we were ever together face to face for a debate on the issues, you would’nt have a chance.  I’d destroy you.  So cuddle down in the comfort of a partisan blog.  It can make you feel good about yourself.  But deep down you know it’s a delusion.  I know you know, despite all your protests.

      • If this is a partisan blog where no one is making a difference why do you keep coming back here?  You seem to think this is a turd that you’ve picked up in your yard but you can’t stop smelling your hands. Why?  You must enjoy the smell Scott.

        • Enjoy it? Heck, he’s <i>addicted</i> to it. We’ve proven over the years that he can’t stay away.
          He has said he’s going to multiple times, but we just laugh and start the pool for when he’ll come back for his next fix.

          • It’s terrible what a pusher you are, Billy. </sarcasm>
            He was addicted to the same drama on Usenet. SSDD (Same sh1t, different decade)

          • Two decades of trolling? Well, in addition to his lack of intellectual firepower, we now know one more reason for his mediocre career. He wastes too much time feeding his inner troll.
            A couple of years back, he was going on about this sabbatical he was taking to write a book. Something tells me he never got around to writing it, but I bet if you totalled up all words he wrote trolling people on the Internet during that time, it would been just about enough for a book….

          • Two decades of trolling?

            A bit more.

          • Ich bin eine postmoderne Blödmann.

          • I remember his claims to being a pragmatic, non-ideological “left-libertarian”.
            Ah, memories…

      • Now the drugs don’t workThey just make you worseBut I know I’ll see your face againBut I know I’m on a losing streak’Cause I passed down my old streetAnd if you wanna show, then just let me knowAnd I’ll sing in your ear againNow the drugs don’t workThey just make you worse

      • Bill!  Is that you?

      • Your juvenile “I know you are but what at I?” attempts at refutation are pathetic. What a sorry, sad world you must live in, in which you must come here and squawk “I’m winning!” to keep the continuous reminders of your own mediocrity at bay. You really can’t stay away, no matter how many times you swear to yourself and us that you will.
        And, by the way, I expected you to come here and prove the point of the post,  but I count three times so far you’ve done it. People will think I’m paying you to make my writing look good.

        • Lessee…
          Which seems most apt…???
          “Like a moth to flame”
          “Like a deer to the headlights”
          “Like a shark to chum”
          As Ma Richards, late governor of Texas, would have it, “He kant hep it…”  The elemental call to the narcissist is TOO strong…!!!

          • I’m convinced that these periods of passive-aggressive trolling correlate with his love-life. Last time this happened in a major way he had split with his wife. Prior to that it was marital stress. It has been a few months with his new squeeze so he’s been all calm, expended and relaxed. Something is amiss in the loveshack this week…

          • WARNING: Thinking about the previous post could cause permanent optical nerve damage.
            (And/or loss of lunch…)

        • Billy, you don’t see the irony in your over the top insults.  It’s clear you’re really irritated by me, but when you lash out like that it’s just amusing.  It also shows what I wrote had an impact on you – thanks!   As for Benghazi the Republicans are smart enough to know there is no scandal over Benghazi – this is all about Hillary:

          • And you were the guy who was so above insulting people, remember?

            “you’re nothing”  – to Billy

            ” You’re a lying little dips**t, and you aren’t man enough to put your name on your posts. I consider you utterly inferior.”  – to Rags


            It just shows the caliber of your character Scott and the worth of your various farcical beliefs.


          • Of course I’m irritated by your stupidity. Any rational person would be. Plus, you have told us in the past you enjoy irritating us. Which I consider psychologically sick.
            You would like to turn that irritation into a “heads I win, tails you lose” gambit. If no one responds, you crow about how we all know you are right because we can’t respond. If we do, it inevitably gets down to insulting you because you are too stupid and obtuse for anything else to work. You then claim it proves you are right because people insulted you. A beautifully constructed psychological defense mechanism, so good it would only be needed by a mediocre narcissist to make himself feel good.
            But we don’t have to go along with your delusions. You have proven my point about lack of same and embarrassment so well, there are people here who believe you are a caricature I made up! Think about that – your responses are so inane and delusional, there are people who suspect you’re not real.

          • Oh, meanwhile…yes Scott – YOU are winning.

          • I return to the intellectual vacuousness of his gleefully proffered link that he “loves”.
            “Shut the fluck up.  Move the fluck on.”
            That is some devastating repartee, rat thar….
            And he’s “winning”…  (Rolls eyes…just before being reduces to gales of laughter.)

          • When you ain’t getting no loving from the missus, it helps to cry yourself to sleep with Hillary… ?

          • Cenk Uygur, definitely the mainline to the heartbeat of American opinion.
            That’s why he’s doing such a great job for MSNBC……oh, wait.
            Since Scott likes him so much I figure that link ought to keep him busy for a while, assuming he knows how to work it.

      • Talks at the Mooseburg library in front of the old ladies Saturday night knitting club aren’t exactly public talks.
        Well, they are technically, but no one serious recognizes them to be such.
        Just so you can see the difference you’re making between you and Billy, head over to YouTube and see if there’s any videos of Scott Erb (the you) giving a public talk, m’kay?

    A rather good exchange between Attkission and Gillespie.  Note particularly the idea of “controversializing reporting” so as to marginalize the reporter, a form of ad hominem attack rather than honestly dealing with the issues raised.
    ALL part of the “politics of personal destruction” so refined by the Collective.

  • ” Scott Erb on May 3, 2014 at 20:24

    Nothing to be ashamed about. Just laughing at you guys. It’s so funny! ”
    – – – – –

    Yes, Billy —>Q. E. D.

    Scary to think there are that many sociopaths out there….

  • A Democratic member of the House intelligence committee called Sunday for his party to boycott the newly announced committee tasked with probing the Benghazi attacks, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.
    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining.
    “I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” he said. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”
    Schiff, calling the committee a “tremendous red herring,” acknowledged he doesn’t know what Democratic leadership will decide.

    See?  STONEWALL is all they have.  And they are looking silly.  Like Erp.

  • A commander-in-chief does not get to vote “present.” Over 19 months have elapsed since terrorists savagely attacked the United States in Benghazi. Yet we are still waiting, ever waiting, for an account of where the president was, what he was doing, and what if any directives he gave during the hours and hours during which Americans were being tormented and killed.
    If the president’s name were Bush or Reagan, we would long ago have had a minute-by-minute accounting of his every move. And if the incident involved some faraway American warrior’s slaying of a jihadist emir, we would long ago have had a Situation Room photo depicting Obama as maestro . . . with an accompanying soundtrack of classified leaks portraying his courage while others were under fire.
    Benghazi, however, is a catastrophe wrought by Obama’s pro-Islamist policies, one that puts the lie to his oft-repeated claim to have “decimated” al-Qaeda. So with Benghazi we get the stonewall, a barricade his praetorian media have been only too happy to fortify.
    We know that less than a day after Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were martyred protecting Americans out of a sense of duty, the commander-in-chief in whom that duty is actually reposed was at a Las Vegas fundraiser, insouciantly repeating his campaign line: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”
    —Andy McCarthy
    I wonder: are there no questions that even a bung-sucker like Erp would ask?  How ’bout it, Erp?


  • To believe that the right’s hostility to Obama stems mostly from his race is actually comforting, since it suggests that the next Democratic president won’t have it nearly as bad. If you believe that, Hillary Clinton has a bridge she’d like to sell you. — Peter Beinart
    FinLly, the Republican can now prove themselves not to be racists by hating the next Democrat President equally.
    Of course, if it’s a woman, all Republicans will then have to prove they aren’t sexists.

  • This article hits right on the money. Unfortunately, western civilization is probably on the way out with these nuts leading the procession.

    The culture is changing, Erp.  Like the climate, it just kinda does that.

    • Of course we are. After witnessing the disasters of the incompetent Boomers (family-wrecking sexual revolution) and cynical Gen-X’ers (corruption of the financial sector), it’s no surprise that there’s a backlash of more civic-minded, back-to-basics generation coming along. Strauss & Howe discovered this decades ago.

  • The correct term is Statists, not Leftists. Libertarians and free market anarchists are the Original true leftists. The terms ‘Left’ and ‘leftist’ have their roots in the libertarian left wing of the French Assembly in the 1790’s. Like ‘Progressives’ and many other words, the terms were commandeered and misappropriated by the statists, who never stop distorting and corrupting language to confuse the masses. Describing statists using the wrong words plays right into their hands and perpetuates their political charade.

  • Ben Rhodes’s brother, the day after Benghazi: The government thinks this could be a coordinated attack, not a video protest

  • Jon Stewart points out the irony of GOP attacks – it’s the right who can’t feel embarrassment and shame:

    • You get your take on the news from a comedian – and feel no embarrassment or shame about that?
      So… basically you have cited left-wing political sites and a left-leaning comedian, and you attack the right as completely out of touch… but you claim you are not a leftist. Sure, Scott, whatever you say.
      (And you still can’t explain why you are compelled to come here. Heh. Temet nosce, Scottie – if you can stand to. )

      • The facts he shows in those clips is that the Bush administration did far more than Obama is even accused of, and the right ignored it or made excuses. So put aside your faux rage over the left.   You have to be smart enough to know what happened under the Bush Administration, and there is nothing here even close to that, even if the unfounded claims were true.  So when you rant on like that, you either are ignorant about what happened, or you are an utter and complete hypocrite who is unable to feel embarrassment or shame.  The gull to whine about this after what you ignored in the last decade.   I come here because you guys provide some entertainment for me.  Thanks!

        • Let us diagram…in words…Erp’s “argument”.
          “BoooooOOOooosh was a poopy-head”.
          “You won’t admit my claim that BooooooOOOooosh was a pooy-head and that makes you a stupid-head”
          “Your poopy-head did worse stuff than by hero did…which he didn’t do…so there”
          “When you refuse to agree with me, you are a WORSE stupid-head and you stink.”
          “The sea-bird to whine about the things the guy I give tongue baths to when you had such a poopy-head.”
          “I win…!!!”
          “Now I’m running away”
          I think that included each element faithfully.

        • I’m hopeful that you have just made a real breakthrough. For years, you told us how you come here to study different opinions, gain broader perspective, etc. Now you’ve admitted what we all knew all along. You come here for entertainment. Congratulations on your progress!
          Now we need to build on that success. You need to understand and admit that gaining your entertainment via irritating others is pathological. It’s a sickness. Don’t you want to work towards that goal? It would be so good for you.
          Then you could move on to letting us help you with your other delusions. You could accept, for example, that the other commenters are broadly successful in all walks of life, while you are a no-name professor teaching at a no-name college and have reached your fifties with no accomplishment of note. Heck, I bet DocD would help you get over the delusion that you understand anything about quantum physics.
          We’re all pulling for you to get over your delusions, Scott. You’ve taken the first step with your candid admission. Good luck on the rest of your journey to curing your pathologies.

          • I think I’m gonna needa hankie…

          • If you are irritated, that is your doing, not mine.  I simply provide my opinion.  You and others here call me all sorts of names, hurl insults, and certainly disagree with me.  Yet that does not irritate me.  Why should it?  Why do I have the power to irritate you, but you lack the power to irritate me?  Also, there is a certain irony in your comments.  You feel compelled to insult me and respond — which actually seems to suggest that what you say about me is actually true about yourself – claims about “pathological” and “a sickness.”  Maybe you should reflect on your own posts.  You try to hard.  You hurl so many insults it’s clear that you’re irritated and want to somehow lash out.  But you can’t – I don’t take your insults seriously (only an insecure person would), for me they’re funny.  Sure, I’d love to actually discuss issues and different points of view rationally, but you’ve proven that you refuse to do it – you harbor a grudge.  That’s fine – but it’s not my problem.  After all, if you ignored me completely, I’d be irrelevant.  But you can’t seem to do that.  Why is that?  😉

          • Yep, Scottie is definitely not getting any at home any longer.

          • I’ve been impress with the altitude you can get out of bouncing rubble…

          • Well, Scottie, it’s like this…
            I just came off stage talking to an audience of hundreds. Nice feedback on Twitter. Two dozen people wanting to talk afterwards. Two of those wanted to discuss disagreements with my take on things, and we talked a while, noted each other’s points, and agreed to disagree.
            The only person anywhere, real world or Internet, that I constantly and gratuitously insult is you. I’ve learned you can’t agree to disagree because you are unable to grasp anyone else’s argument. You handwave aside anything don’t like, and sanctimoniously offer to teach people what they already know better than you.
            Now, you’re the only one I insult, and lots of people see things the same way I do. So I’m quite confident that my evaluation of you is correct. In the real world, as part of being a designer, it’s my job to understand and communicate with other people, and the fact that I’m busy at rates you would not believe if I told you means I must be pretty good at it.
            Applying that ability to analyzing you leads me to a conclusion in which I am quite confident. You are a not-very-bright mediocrity obsessed with proving to other people how smart he is.
            Insulting you is a chore, like cleaning out stables. If we don’t slap you down, you just keep posting more and more of your “great and powerful Erb” stuff, littering our comment threads with self-serving nonsense. So we all do our part to clean up some of the mess and hopefully discourage you from making more of it.
            That’s why, as Rags says, we make the rubble bounce. Again and again, to incredible heights. Which you, in your narcissistic blindness, are unable to see.
            I understand how debilitating it must be for you. You’re a mediocrity who has never accomplished anything of note and you are so dysfunctional in person you can’t hold a family together. Admitting your own limitations would probably destroy you. So you have layers upon layers of psychological defense mechanisms.

            But we know who and what you are. You say you are unaffected by what we say, but you pestered us a lot more before we just skipped trying reason with you and went straight to insults. You respond to those insults, over and over again, with the same protestations. If you’re so confident in them, why keep repeating them? Why keep coming here at all?
            Because your pathologies and dysfunctions force you to come here. You would be banned most places for being such an arrogant, irritating dumbass, but we have more lenient policies. More than you have on your own blog, in fact. (Who is showing confidence in that comparison, eh?) You feed your own need for attention and for someone to talk down to by coming here, but your own defense mechanisms prevent you from ever, ever admitting the truth to yourself. You are a little man, Scott, with overly grandiose notions of yourself. We all know it, and I’m sorry – truly – that your dysfunctions force you to come here seeking validation that you can’t get in real life.

          • Congrats on a successful presentation.  That can be quite enjoyable, good for you!
            While I’m sure you truly believe your fantastical image of me – and it suits you to do so, since that means not having to deal with the arguments or alternative perspective I provide, your over the top insults are absolutely funny.  I seriously cannot help laughing out loud when I read them.  It’s as if you really want to get under my skin and are irritated that you can’t.
            I think you’re protecting yourself from having to face someone who can persuasively put forth another perspective.  When I reject your assumptions and approach, you call it hand waving.  I don’t interpret the world the way you do, nor do I share your assumptions.  I’m absolutely convinced your world view is wrong.  But hey that’s OK – and if you feel a need to hurl insults too, that’s cool.   But you’re insulting a fantasy image of your mind, not the real me.  That’s why I just chuckle at your insults.

          • Ooooooouuuuuuuuuch.
            That’s going to hurt if he ever stops taking whatever it is he’s taking.


          • Fortunately enough for him he’s not going to stop taking whatever that is.

          • “I think you’re protecting yourself from having to face someone who can persuasively put forth another perspective.”
            Now THAT put me at risk of serious scrotal torsion, I was laughing so hard.
            Absolutely NO…I mean not a speck…of self awareness/self parody.  Really, Erp…if possible, give us a warning so we can take defensive measures.
            “…I just chuckle…”  You meant cackle…maniacally.  Jeeebus…

          • I see that nicey-nice Scott is back. We all know what that means. He gets that way when he’s been spanked so hard he sub-consciously knows it.

          • In the quantum universe I see, it means it’s not late on a Saturday night and he’s laid off doing whatever he does that brings out the true quantum Erb.
            You know, In vino veritas, sic transit glorioski, seize the carp, and all that other Latin jazz.

          • I just want to highlight that Erp never answered as single question I asked.
            Not.  One.
            I’ll also note that Jon Stewart tries to reduce Benghazi to an “intelligence failure”, which he tries somehow to put at parity with…stuff.  This is simply porn for shallow thinking Collectivists like Erp.  It is also fundamentally a lie.  Little wonder Erp found it so shiny.

          • No, Billy, I’m always nice.  It’s my ideas that drive you crazy, and you pretend that it’s me.  That’s a common error people make in politics (and why in person debates tend not to have the play ground name calling that one finds on the internet).  That’s also why I don’t take the insults seriously – you can’t “spank” me – you can only lash out impotently.   And that’s why I try to cordial and focus on ideas – that stands in stark contrast to the trash talkers, many of whom don’t even use their own name out of shame (they don’t want the world to associate their words with their real selves).  That’s also why I never hold a grudge – I see your words as reflecting your own internal dynamic, having nothing to do with me.  Anyway, good luck at future presentations!

          • It’s my ideas that drive you crazy…
            Coupla thangs…
            1. You haven’t had an original idea in (at least) months.  All you’ve done is republish lies from the some of the most demented climes of the moonbattery.  Those aren’t “your ideas”.
            2. Yeah, lies DO drive people crazy.  I admit that I hate a liar.  And I had you pegged as a liar within days of reading the first thing I read from you.  Anyone who reads this thread can see it on display here.  And you do it CONSTANTLY.  You can’t be constant in any claim you make because none of them are truthful.  You have no core.  You just have this amorphous toxic mass of ideology and delicate, threatened ego.  Well, and a LOT of delusion.
            3. Pitiful.
            4. People on the interwebs can be identified, despite wanting to maintain a nom-de-keyboard.  You are such a chickenshit you won’t try it with me, because of my profession and knowing you’d be barred by this site.  What a coward.

          • “No, Billy, I’m always nice.”

            Ha! Funniest thing you have ever said.

            I’ll remember it the next time you call us sterile, inbred, trying to harm your children, etc. Or when you lie and misrepresent what we have said in a lame attempt to justify your own position. Or when you tell Rags how worthless he is because he chooses not to use his own name.

            Always nice? You are an irritating, condescending jerk, and everyone knows it but you. Look, you dumbass, you don’t get to decide if you are irritating and condescending. If everyone else sees it, then it’s reality, no matter how much you deny, deny, deny. Occasionally reverting to nicey-nice Scott doesn’t change that anywhere except in your own deluded mind.

            You tell yourself that in person you are a great guy, but that’s because your defense mechanisms are good enough to keep you from pushing people to the point that they punch you in snoot. On the Internet, you let your true self show, and people such as Eliot have been observing it for twenty years plus.

            In fact, I’m willing to bet long odds that your career and your marriage suffered from the fact that you are a condescending jerk, too. But rather than honestly confront your own failures and mediocrity, you just put your Howdy Doody face on and gosh-darn it through another existential crisis. You are a one amazing piece of work, a case study in just how obtuse a mediocre narcissist can be.

          • Billy, I understand that the hardest thing about treating narcissistic personality disorder is…
            narcissistic personality disorder.  A narcissist just can’t see they have any “issues”.

          • Gee, what was the title of this post again?

            ANOTHER demonstration of the verity of Billy’s post.  Delusions are durable when you cling to them bitterly and they’re all you have.

          • Honestly when he swaps from one pole to other, it’s like watching an internet version of Gollum.
            “I’m nice, I never insult”
            ” You’re a lying little dips**t, and you aren’t man enough to put your name on your posts. I consider you utterly inferior.”
            Now I realize the second one tends to appear late at night and may be chemically induced but still.
            If he started arguing with himself as Smeagol I wouldn’t be particularly surprised.
            “Nice Billy, Nice Billy..Scott is nice too….won’t you interact with me, discuss with me, learn from me”
            “No!  You’re a useless mouth breathing sterile right wing dipstick!  I’m winning!  I’m winning!”

          • And Smeagol was also an unrepentant thief… not sure if he had advanced degrees in political “science” however.

          • Scott:I’m always nice.

            I will attest to the fact that I have witnessed dozens of cases in which you made decidedly hostile, deliberately dishonest attacks on good people (I’m counting others besides myself).  You have even been viciously cruel, such as mocking a man over the suicide of a loved one, to name one significant example.
            To their credit, none of these good people I have witnessed you attack in such a loathsome manner let it bother them. They pressed on, continuing to hold your feet to the fire, demonstrating the inanity of your arguments.
            Nice? Not a chance. That’s where the “Mr. Rogers sweater” analogy come from.  It’s a ruse.
            You are not what you present yourself to be, not what you want others to think you are, and not what you want yourself to be.  Why you keep trying when so many people so easily refute you and expose your dim-witted sophistry, I couldn’t say, and I stopped caring about trying to psychoanalyze you.
            But not only is your personality not nice, except in cosmetic ways when you put on your sweater to try to push the reset button and reintroduce yourself as friendly and honorable.  Your politics are cruel, based upon might makes right. You sneer at protests of rights violations. Chuckle with glee when your Democrats win enough power to pass more incursions on our freedoms.  Scratch any collectivist, including you, and you’ll eventually get to an authoritarian.
            The people you attack, on the other hand, may not always be pleasant in demeanor. They may insult you, they may show anger or frustration.  Yet, nearly all of them I have read do not endorse the use of aggressive force to impose their values. They advocate voluntarism, freedom, individualism. That is the only political stance which is actually nice–a refusal to engage in the initiation of the use of force or fraud. (NAP)

          • Elliot, you can dish it out but you can’t take it.  I’ve been very civil with you, show me when I haven’t?  Sure you could point to flame wars in the 90s when I thought I had to respond tit for tat, but I soon realized that flame wars were a waste of time.  Even then, my strategy was tit for tat.  And when you say foolish things like “every collectivist is a totalitarian or some other silliness, you marginalize yourself.  Your problem with me is that I very effectively demonstrate how flawed your (to me) twisted ideology is – an ideology that I want to defeat as fully and completely as possible.  I understand that makes us political rivals.  But as to you personally, I’m sure you’re a fine person, and I do NOT think that everyone of a “different” ideology is bad.  That’s a very perverse way to look at things – a ‘them and us’ mentality whereby one defines ideological foes as by definition evil or bad.  Such a way of thinking is absurd and, as I said, perverse.
            And your insults can’t be taken seriously because I live in a real world with real success, friends and no enemies.  Only in a virtual world of limited exchanges and ideological extremism do I get this reaction – and I really believe it’s because I’m good at defeating your arguments.  You can’t have that, so you need to insult and do anything you can to avoid engaging with someone who effectively destroys your argument.  That’s why you refuse real debate – easier to attack the person than actually debate the issue.  Deep down, you know it, and so do I 😉

          • “I really believe it’s because I’m good at defeating your arguments”

            Of course you do.

            “You show a lack of knowledge of psychology.”

            Since I finished at the top of my class in developmental psychiatry in medical school, have used psychology in my work for decades, and explicitly teach psychological concepts such as expectation effects as part of my class on user experience design, I think you’re just grasping at straws to avoid facing the obvious. Which, of course, everyone around realizes but you.

            See, Scott, other people can pull out credentials too. Note that I don’t think I’ve mentioned such training and experience before, but since you brought it up….

            ” I think you’re a decent person, and you think I’m an a$$.  And I’m OK with that.”

            Good, because based on everything I have read for EIGHT YEARS and counting, it’s not going to change on my end.

            And you’re right about my decency. As I have said many times, the only person I treat with such utter disdain, either in real life or on the Internet, is you. Based on EIGHT YEARS of reading you, I am completely convinced that you deserve it. I’ve never ever seen anyone with such a toxic combination of smug arrogance, narcissism, condescension, hypocrisy, self-over-rated intelligence, obvious mediocrity, and a complete lack of self awareness. You have been and apparently will always be that way, and I’m not OK with it, but there’s nothing I can do about it but keep pointing it out so that our comment threads don’t become filled with pompous bullshit from the great and powerful Erb.

            I’ve done enough work cleaning out the stables this week, so you’re safe from my insults for a while. I’m sure you’ll creep back in and put in your last word, as you so often do. Have at it. It will just be repetition of the same cliche-ridden bullshit (“you can dish it out but you can’t take it, nyah, nyah”) you’ve already posted.

          • Your problem with me is that I very effectively demonstrate how flawed your (to me) twisted ideology is – an ideology that I want to defeat as fully and completely as possible.
            OK, then!  This is good, meaty stuff we can work with.  Put up a link to the last time you “demonstrated effectively” any point you were trying to make.  Because I have very clear memories of you running like a white-tailed deer, showing its ass, headed for the tall grass when you were challenged on your bullshit.  Like citing a model where markets lead to gangsters.  I can’t recall you EVER stepping up to my simple questions.  This thread provides ample evidence.
            I do NOT think that everyone of a “different” ideology is bad.  That’s a very perverse way to look at things – a ‘them and us’ mentality whereby one defines ideological foes as by definition evil or bad.  Such a way of thinking is absurd and, as I said, perverse.
            Why would you “…want to defeat [Elliot’s or Billy’s or my ideology] as fully and completely as possible”?  See, you are so irrational, you cannot write two paragraphs that are not violently contradictory.
            Plus, this very nicely flushes you out of your “non-ideological pragmatist” pose.  (You are a poseur, as I’ve noted LONG ago.  Which is a liar, BTW).
            You would be a hoot to interrogate on the witness stand.  Things is, I’d have to be careful not to make you an object of pity to the jury.  You really are a (voluntary) moron.

          • Elliot, you can dish it out but you can’t take it. I’ve been very civil with you, show me when I haven’t?

            When I get time, I’ll be happy to hoist up links.

            Sure you could point to flame wars in the 90s….

            I can point to flame wars in the 2000s and in the 2010s, as well.

            And when you say foolish things like `every collectivist is a totalitarian or some other silliness, you marginalize yourself.

            You opened a quote, wrote something different than what I wrote, and failed to close the quote. Sloppy. I’d wager intentionally sloppy. I used the word “authoritarian”, which you changed to “totalitarian”. I said, “Scratch any collectivist…you’ll eventually get to an authoritarian.” The words “Scratch” and “eventually” were purposeful and you throwing them out changes the meaning.

            Your problem with me is that….

            …you lie, you present yourself as something you’re not, you distort the arguments of others, you make personal attacks against others, and you fail to have any sort of earnest exchange of arguments. If you honestly and forthrightly presented your arguments, without logical fallacies, and one of us did likewise (which most of us do in the general case), and you responded honestly and forthrightly to our actual arguments without distorting them or going off on a tangent, you’d be ripped to shreds by just about anyone here. Thus, you use dishonest ploys, avoid, mischaracterize, use one logical fallacy after another, until “debate” with you is impossible.

            …your (to me) twisted ideology is — an ideology that I want to defeat as fully and completely as possible.

            My ideology which you misrepresent in a twisted fashion (you hit the nail on the head by admitting that it is “to you”, not to any other rational, informed person), is simply that: each person owns his/her own life, that each person has a unique, separate individual mind with a unique set of values, that persuasion to engage in action should be through reason and not aggressive force, and that government, as practiced, is the use of aggressive force to replace the values of the individuals with values imposed on them by elites with great power. I like a saying I’ve seen on the net elsewhere, paraphrased: “Individualism: the crazy, twisted idea that other people are not your property.

            But as to you personally, I’m sure you’re a fine person….

            Except you’ve directly attacked my character, even stated that you thought I was incapable of love, just to name one of the more egregious examples I can remember off the top of my head. But I’m not bitching about your attacks on me, just contrasting your claims with facts. You made far worse personal attacks on other people, good people, who didn’t deserve it. None of this is based upon the strawman that “everyone of a ‘different’ ideology is bad.” I can have discussions with people of different ideologies and still have respect for them, so long as I see that they have at least some level of honesty and decency. My judgment, and the judgment of those I see here (for the most part), is not that you’re bad because your ideology is different, but that you have particular character flaws which manifest themselves in your on-line behavior, and that the ideology that you push (even when you pretend you’re something different) causes harm to real people in the real world.

            Only in a virtual world of limited exchanges and ideological extremism do I get this reaction….

            The forums in which you participate exist in the real world, with real-live human beings as participants, and cover topics of the real world which often have significant import to the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The defense that it’s all just bits and bytes is rubbish. If you were discussing a video game or even a fictional show or if someone let loose ‘bots which were merely programs designed to appear as real human participants, you might be able to get by with such excuses. But you and I are real people. Our words come from our minds, not some virtual replica of us. Our words discuss real world events and philosophical matters involving the real world. When you advocate ObamaCare, for example, you endorse the system which affects nearly all Americans. It fundamentally changes the rules for employment benefits, the rules for insurance, medical care, IRS returns, etc.. And, it sets a very dangerous precedent that you can be compelled to buy something. That’s not “virtual”. It isn’t Fantasy. It isn’t a game. It’s real people with real consequences.

    • Huh.  Isn’t that whole Stewart schtick ad hominem tu quoque, Erp?  The fallacy that says, “Oh yah…well your guy did it, too!”  How does that speak to Benghazi?  Aren’t there ANY questions you have that you’d like answered about that night, and the remarkably cynical lies told for weeks after?  Could YOU lie to the survivors over the coffins of the dead, as did Hill-larry and Pres. ScamWOW?
      And, really, isn’t Stewart’s “rip” based on Collectivist bullshit to begin with?  The “BooooOOOOOOoooosh lied” lie?  Do I need to put up the video of Hill-larry speaking about why SHE voted for the Iraq war?  I mean, the one made AT THE TIME?
      I knew…as did the Libyan leadership…the “movie” meme was a lie the first time I heard it.  You need to check the definition of “irony”, because you continue to demonstrate it here.

    • “On September 13, 2012, — one and a half days before Obama aide Ben Rhodes sent an email advising UN Ambassador Susan Rice to blame the Benghazi attacks on a protest over an anti-Muslim Internet video — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the identical language embedded in a statement about the attacks.
      The congruence of the two word-for-word statements suggests, at the very least, a close coordination between and White House and Hillary Clinton to deceive the American people about the true nature of the attack in Benghazi. And it may also be evidence that Hillary Clinton engineered that decision immediately following the attacks. Was the cover-up Hillary’s idea? The emails beg the question. Now Congress must investigate and decide what the answer is.”
      See that kind of stuff needs some answers.  Unless you are just a bung-sucker for the Collective.
      I’ve always wondered why Rice was chosen to do the dirty on the Sunday shows.  She’s not related to Benghazi in any way prior to that.  Why her?

      • To preserve Hillary.
        Hillary may have done that herself, and refused.
        She just couldn’t very well continue to refuse when it came to Congressional testimony, hence “what difference”.

    That’s a pretty complete tick-tock of Benghazi to date.  It doesn’t come with a laugh-track or a studio audience, Erp.
    Look that over, and see if any questions come to mind.  Report your impressions.
    We’ll wait….  Oh, and we’ll watch, too.  But we won’t hold our breath.

  • The Obama administration is withholding the full contents of a “media strategy” discussion over a Fox News report on Benghazi, claiming that releasing them would have a chilling effect on their “frank deliberations.”
    The seven-page email chain was in reference to a Fox News report on Sept. 27, 2012, that the intelligence community knew within 24 hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
    The emails, with the subject line “Fox News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm,” was circulated at senior levels of the administration. Denis McDonough, the president’s deputy national security adviser during Benghazi; John Brennan, the former White House counterterrorism adviser; and presidential communications adviser Ben Rhodes, whose Sept.14 email linked the anti-Islam video to Benghazi, were all part of the discussion.
    “A seven-page dialogue concerning one Fox News report to me demonstrates an alarm bell situation where they are reacting to and trying to shape a response,” senior Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell told Fox News. “There was a contrarian news report that didn’t align with their position and they were clearly reacting to it in a way that would help reinforce their position.”
    While originally designated “SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED,” Justice Department lawyers told a federal court May 1 that the State Department rightfully withheld “…comments, opinions and assessments related to the formulation of a media strategy with respect to an ongoing sensitive matter….The release of this information could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when State Department and other U.S. government officials are formulating public responses to address sensitive issues.”
    Two days after the emails, a spokesman for the nation’s intelligence chief, the director of national intelligence, released a lengthy statement explaining the evolution in the intelligence community’s thinking from the assault being a spontaneous attack to it being pre-meditated terrorism.
    The statement does not mention a video originally cited by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as being behind the attack. It also does not, on its face, constitute the “media strategy” that was the subject of the seven-page email chain.
    An DNI spokesman told Fox he could not comment on what may or may not be in the redacted emails.
    When previously asked about the Sept. 28, 2012 release, the DNI spokesman said the suggestion to “develop the statement came from within the intelligence community.”
    Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
    OK.  They’ve made some of the ladies mad now.  Herridge is SO NOT Jon Stewart.  Like Akkisson.
    1. Why are people who are supposed to be VERY, VERY occupied with national security immediately in the wake of the death of a flag-rank official and the death and wounding of other Americans huddling to meet over politics?
    2. Why are people who are supposed to be VERY, VERY occupied with terrorism immediately in the wake of the death of a flag-rank official and the death and wounding of other Americans scurrying around in a panic about a Fox News report?
    3. Who thinks the Justice Department will succeed in keeping these emails away from the public on the pretext named?
    4. Who here is fostering a false story about Benghazi; Fox?  Or Pres. ScamWOW and myrmidons?
    5. If there is a conspiracy here, is it by people on the right?
    6. Who here believes the “…suggestion to “’develop the statement came from within the intelligence community.”’?
    Erp can play as soon as his moonbattery comes up with talking-points for him to link to here.

  • Almost two-thirds of Americans want the next president to offer a change from the policies of President Obama, according to a new Pew poll out Monday.
    The results show Obama’s in a second-term slump nearly as deep as that experience by former President George W. Bush, and are likely to be bad news for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or any other possible Democratic contender in 2016.
    Erp, the culture is changing, and its leaving you behind.  You’re losing.


  • New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick had some stiff competition for the 2013 Duranty Prize, but Roger Simon reports that he prevailed over runners-up Candy Crowley and John Judis in the ceremony held Monday night in New York. Kirkpatrick was recognized for his supposedly thorough unraveling of the Benghazi affair, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.”
    Roger explains that Kirkpatrick’s account “was revealed almost instantly to be a meretricious piece of deception worthy of Walter Duranty himself.” Among those who contributed to exposing Kirpatrick’s piece were Steve Hayes and Tom Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.

  • Actually even in class I still refer to “inbred blogs” on the left and the right.  Those are blogs where people reinforce the blog’s perspective, creating a sense that the perspective is more popular than it is.  In such blogs, people who think differently are chased away with abuse, name calling, etc.  Only those who don’t take that stuff seriously stick around.  I also am writing a book about the information revolution and politics where I use the term “inbred blogs.”  It’s not saying the people are inbred, it’s a metaphor for how partisan blogs attract like thinkers and try to eliminate those who disagree.
    I have lots of Republican friends – I watched the Presidential debates with a friend who is also a Republican in the state legislature.  We had very different points of view, but had fun and a few beers.  I never get the reaction in the real world I get from you all – and that’s because to you I’m a creation of your mind, with nothing to do with the real world.  The only thing you sometimes get right is to realize nothing you say can bother me (except on issues where I do get upset that you try to say the left is shameless and cannot be embarrassed when the right seems to forget all that happened in the Bush years — but that’s not personal, that’s issue-based).

    • How odd.
      Why can’t you deal with simple, direct questions if “it’s all issue-based”?
      Strange, innit?
      “I have lots of Republican friends.”
      No.  You don’t.  You are a liar.  Nobody but another liar is “friends” with a liar.  What you MAY have is acquaintances who do not have a durable record of your lies.  We do.

      • For me, the funniest aspect is how we all supposedly have a fantasy view of him as a person – after up to 20 years of reading his written thoughts.
        If you take that ridiculous assertion seriously, it would imply that, since dozens of people have completely misunderstood everything he said for years, and gotten a completely false view of him, he must suck as a writer and communicator.
        Well, he does suck as a writer, actually, but as with all the other aspects of is narcissism, he’s incapable of facing such a flaw.
        Instead, he clings desperately to the fact that the other lefties around campus nod approvingly at his drivel. The idea that, for example, the others in his department have a vested interest in not pushing back against his drivel because it might affect their career, never enters his mind. Neither does the fact that his students may very well be buttering him up with every word they say and write, to get a good grade.
        The second funniest in this thread is the poseur mantra of “I”m writing a book”. Real writers don’t talk about writing a book – they write one and then tell you about it. Poseurs are constantly taking sabbaticals to write a book and discussing how deep it’s going to be, but they rarely finish one. If they do, in my experience it’s just a vanity project that no one actually wants to read. It never actually sells more than a couple hundred copies to people who buy it to shut the author up.

        • So what’s the scandal?  At first Republicans said that Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, had lied in linking the video to the attacks in an interview shortly after the raid.  They claimed she wanted to mislead the public about the true nature of the attacks in order to help President Obama’s re-election.   That claim has been completely debunked, and in fact was absurd on its face.

          OK.  I broke down and went to Erp’s website.  There I found that lil’ pearl of forensic illumination.
          Note the sweeping conclusions without the least support.  He does his “completely debunked” handwave.  He describes the assertion of Rice’s calumny as “absurd on its face”.  Really?  Where’s the support for that?   Why would it be “absurd” to note that Rice’s statements were 1) false, as we all now know, and 2) calculated to save Baracula’s ass weeks before and election?
          He cannot deal with simple questions, such as:
          1. IF the “situation was fluid”, why not simply say so.  IF there was a conflict of information (and there really was NOT any conflict about reality) about what happened, why not say, “We just don’t know”?
          2. Why did Rice appear on FIVE shows, reciting what was a flatly false concrete assertion that SERVED NO OTHER PURPOSE BUT A POLITICAL ONE?
          3. How can he say…except through a PURE ideological lens…that there is no APPARENT corruption of the basic facts, known DURING THE ATTACK, shown in the email exchange following the attack between surrogates for Obama, Clinton, and the intelligence community?
          4. How can he intellectually dismiss the idea that Benghazi signaled a VAST, FUNDAMENTAL failure of Obama/Clinton foreign policy, and, indeed, their apparent “magic thinking” about the entire Middle East?
          What I find most pathetic is that he…the tongue bath boi at Cabana Collectivo…imagines himself an “independent thinker” when he is neither.

          • I’m surprised he got the number of dead Americans wrong.

          • “Two? four? what difference, at this point, does it make?! They’re dead! Move On!”

        • If you take that ridiculous assertion seriously, it would imply that, since dozens of people have completely misunderstood everything he said for years, and gotten a completely false view of him, he must suck as a writer and communicator.

          Political scientists don’t shave with Occam’s razor, they are so blinded by their own brilliance in the mirror it is just too dangerous.

          The idea that, for example, the others in his department have a vested interest in not pushing back against his drivel because it might affect their career

          Or, even more likely, they just don’t give a shit as they long ago realized they have washed up on the shores of the Sea of Mediocrity and it looks awfully like Gilligan’s Island but without Mary-Ann and Ginger to ease their suffering.

          It never actually sells more than a couple hundred copies to people who buy it to shut the author up.

          I did that once (bought, not wrote).

        • You show a lack of knowledge of psychology.  When you only see a person in a virtual realm, arguing politics, it’s very easy to create a fantasy image and then interpret all comments to fit that image.  Partially it’s the attribution error, but also it’s motivated cognitive bias.  Since in the real world I do quite well with others (voted Faculty President, Union President, numerous teaching awards, friends on the left and right, etc.) I know for a fact that you’ve got a warped view, more from your own fantasy than what I really am.  You interpret my posts that way – and in fact, I see that all over the net, people get really negative images of others based on very limited interaction and then constant reinforcing of the negative (and it gets stronger over time).   For instance, people constantly talk about their research and their book in progress, yet because of your negative interpretation, you make it seem (and I’m sure truly believe) that this is somehow bizarre or weird.  No, Billy, since I know your view of me is pure fantasy, your insults are more amusing than anything else.
          And I bet that you’ll take my talk about my real world success and interpret it as bragging or arrogance, because that fits in with your schema about who I am.  I am wise enough not to judge you by how you respond to me — I think you’re probably a really great guy with ideas I disagree with on politics.  If I lacked respect for you, I wouldn’t respond (and there are people who comment on your blog that fit that category too – rather than insult them, I just don’t answer their posts).  So I guess that’s where we are – I think you’re a decent person, and you think I’m an a$$.  And I’m OK with that.

          • As the ancient Chinese philosopher observed: “Ho lee phuc.  That is some sick sumbitch.”

          • So President “I am not a crook narcissist, I’ve earned everything I’ve got”, when will you do your usual…

            You won’t have Nixon Erb to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.

          • I know your view of me is pure fantasy….

            For 15 years I’ve read many people critiquing your arguments and your behavior. You would have us believe that the dozens and dozens of your detractors all read you wrong?
            No one debunked your notions, nor pierced your mental defenses to strike a bona fide personality flaw, of which you are aware?
            Not once have you recognized a superior argument or intellect, among anyone.
            Really, do you think you can convince so many others that they, and not you, are the one for whom “pure fantasy” is an integral part of their world view?

            I am wise enough not to judge you by how you respond to me….

            Except you do that constantly, to Billy and to others.  Your attacks are rife with personal insults and characterizations of others which do, in fact, involve you asserting general aspects of their thought processes, personalities, and even personal lives.
            Why would you write what you just did, making an assertion which is so easily contradicted by your own words, here and elsewhere?  Do you think that the people who have read you for years don’t remember you doing exactly what you deny?
            Are you trolling? Are you afflicted with a major personality disorder, like narcissism, to the point that you are that delusional?
            I’ve witnessed how you’ve treated good people, who didn’t deserve your despicable personal attacks, even as loathsome as taunting a man of the suicide of a loved one.  You are an ass and Billy is certainly a far better person than you.  You being OK is immaterial.  You can be OK with fire being hot and ice being cold.  So what?

          • No, Elliot, it’s your imagination.  What’s hilarious is that if you read the exchanges, I may insult now and then, but compared to the way people attack me on this particular blog, accusing me of personality disorders, stupidity, dishonesty, etc., there is no comparison.  You guys are caught up in a kind of group think fantasy.  My posts are very mild in comparison, and I try to avoid getting personal.  Moreover, I never carry a grudge or have personal animosity for any of you.  If you ever say, “OK, let’s put the personal stuff aside and discuss this…” I’ll do it.  I don’t take your insults seriously but I also don’t hold anything against any of you.   What you write says more about you than it says about me.

          • Moreover, I never carry a grudge or have personal animosity for any of you.  I don’t take your insults seriously but I also don’t hold anything against any of you.
            OK, now he’s either just trolling or making a desperate plea for professional help.  Maybe both, judging from that level of delusion and denial. Well, and more lying.

          • …it’s your imagination.

            Again, it isn’t just me. It’s dozens of people over decades. In order for matters to be as you represent them, large numbers of people are just getting you all wrong, a bunch of liars, bat-spit crazy delusional, or some combination of these. Occam’s Razor insists that one man, Scott Erb, is putting forth a fantasy, a lie, a delusion, or what have you.

            You guys are caught up in a kind of group think fantasy.

            Ahh yes, the mass hallucination explanation so common a century or so ago.

            Moreover, I never carry a grudge or have personal animosity for any of you.

            You were so angry with one guy, you taunted him about the suicide of a family member!!! That’s a deep grudge and extreme personal animosity.

    • Doesn’t this sound a lot like “Some of my best friends are niggers” coming from an unrepentant racist?

      • Not only is it cliche’ dishonesty, it’s patronizing. The guy reverts to the exact characterture he denies being. Like Billy said, you almost have to believe he’s a sock puppet.

    • After House Republicans voted to create a special investigation into the Benghazi attacks, ABC ignored the story on Thursday evening. NBC spent just 27 seconds on the development, and CBS focused its report on Democratic disgust with the “partisan” move.

      The World News instead spent over two minutes reporting on former teen star Jason Patric’s custody battle and another two minutes on how online stores vary their prices for different customers.
      Seems I heard someone trying to say something about “inbred” something-somethings…

    • “nothing you say can bother me”
      “You’re a lying little dips**t”
      Dewd, you are like the worst liar ever.

    • “Actually even in class I still refer to “inbred blogs” on the left…”
      You should given them the URL of your blog so they can see an example.

      • Better yet, let them pick through the trash folder of comments he is too afraid to publish.

        • Indeed. Narcissists spend an inordinate amount of time trying to carefully control their image, demanding that others interact with them only through that image and getting upset when that image is threatened.

  • During a visit to Nigeria in February, former president Bill Clinton commented on the security crisis there by concluding that “it is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.” A lasting solution to Boko Haram will require robust political and developmental components initiated by the Nigerian government and broadly endorsed by the Nigerian people through democratic processes that enhance the rule of law​.
    —As reported in TheCorner
    See, we go back to the fundamental stupid of Collectivist thinking…”these are law enforcement and social issues”.
    This is the same loopy “thinking” that got us to Benghazi, and ONE of the MANY aspects of the scandal.  Smart Diplomacy ™: the essential embrace of delusional thinking about human nature and how people behave.
    Islamist pirates (NOT “militants”) are just like street gangs in LA or Chicago. They need a big hug.  Oh, and we should “walk” a few guns to them, too.
    I think they need to be killed until they don’t need to be killed.

    Pres. ScamWOW continues his beeeee-zare delusional claims/lies on his West Coast $$$ drive.  Damn numbers are suffering from ODS, or something…

    The difference between “leadership” and “ass-covering”.
    The youngest lieutenant in our uniformed services knows this.

    Wow.  The NYT goes full auto, jumps the shark, crosses the streams…into full HATE mode.  In the process, they encourage MORE lawlessness, and just outright lie to their readers.  You have to wonder who in the Obami ordered that?

    • …speaking of “inbred bogs.” NYT is a troll farm — check out those comments.

  • Add these recent developments to the vast landscape of previously discredited claims from top administration officials—on al Qaeda involvement, on the talking points, on the video, on transparency—and you have an issue that demands further investigation.

    To claim otherwise is, well, crazy.
    Read the whole thing.

  • Where is the Democrats’ Howard Baker? Where is the courageous member of President Obama’s party willing to stand up and ask, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
    Indeed, the big unanswered question is, What did the president know about what looks more and more like a coverup or fabrication of the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi? The bloody attack, orchestrated by a known terrorist group, left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
    In the aftermath, many Republicans asked, and continue to ask, what the president knew. But the question cannot step from behind the shadows of political partisanship until a Democrat also asks. Then, it might force the news media to demand that the White House provide some answers.
    That is precisely what happened in 1973 when Tennessee Republican Sen. Howard Baker, a minority member of the Senate Watergate Committee, famously asked what President Nixon knew and when did he know it about the botched 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices in Washington.
    I doubt very, very much you’ll find a “Deemocrat Baker” among the crop of Collectivist toadies in the Congress.  How ’bout it, Erp?  Care to name anyone with that kind of integrity and sand?


    Huh. Just think about how it would go over if a town named a day in honor of an American Nazi Bundt member.
    But Commies are cool in the age of Baracula…


  • OK, Eleanor Cliff cleared up the whole Benghazi thing very nicely over the weekend.
    Ambassador Stevens wasn’t murdered-murdered.  No, no.  He just died of smoke inhalation.  And those guys with the RPGs?  Those were an ad hoc Libyan fire brigade.  See?  Just one of those tragic things that happen when people get careless with fire.

  • Billy, you’re funny.  You wear your emotion on your sleeve, but it’s all your fantasy.  You have no clue what I’m like, you’re reacting to your interpretation of political debates in a virtual forum.  The fact that you can form such negative opinions of another from that kind of evidence is rather sad.  But that’s your problem, not mine.  And I think that’s what bothers you.  (Especially since you’ve been full out bragging about yourself lately – it’s like you’re trying too hard!) Live well!

      A quick little video that you won’t have the guts to watch and respond to.  It asks questions.

      • But Rags, this video is an example of what Billy is talking about – that was a shaming, and neither media, nor gutless Sideshow Erb, are going to respond.

        • All true, my friend.  It IS a very effective little presentation though.  You can see Gowdy is a skilled trial advocate.

          • The more I see of Gowdy, the better I like him.
            I expect therefore that some clown like Harry Reid will impugn him with hearsay and claim he is a racist or has racist ties.
            After all, he’s a (an effective, determined, seemingly honest) white southern Republican from South Carolina, what ELSE could he possibly be?

          • Some clown in the Mushroom Media NE branch of the Collective already wrote a piece smearing him with Civil War and prior raaaaaacists.  Because South Carolina.
            Must be something in the water.  And it must be really strong because people are just like they were 150 years ago (if you are moonbat liar smearing people).

    • Mission accomplished.  Billy ‘s point demonstrated in spades, clubs hearts AND diamonds and Sideshow Erb get’s another “all about me” thread to demonstrate his legendary asshat prowess.

      • Generally, when you see someone fulfilling the worst expectations so brazenly, there is either a camera and director nearby, or men with white coats eventually show up to claim the escaped lunatic.
        His whole career path has created a bubble in which to grow this experiment in a sustainable manner.  We get to watch, year after year.  It’s a sort of “perfect storm” of never truly facing reality.

  • Sen Cruz: My friend from New Jersey did not endeavor to answer any of the questions I proffered, including the most simple questions, such as did the president sleep on the night of September 11, 2012?”

    Sen. Menendez: I think that whether the president slept or not on that day … the question is, did he even get told by those who had information that such an attack was going on? I don’t know. The bottom line is that, would that have saved anybody? I don’t know either. The bottom line is, do you want to do something about saving any future lives, or do you just want to do politics with this issue?

    That is some gobsmacking ignorance, rat thar.