I always love this one. The basic sentiment has been around for a while, but ever since Jonah’s Big Book for Retards came out, it now always includes the word ‘fascist’.

Say, Biffy, what are your views on homosexuality? Or abortion? How about crime and punishment? Bet you’re a real ‘compassion and rehabilitation’ guy aren’t ya – not like those hand-choppin’ islamocommiefascists!

How about seperation of church and state? Or blasphemy? Or keeping religion out of the science class and the courtroom?

Y’know what? This is taking too long. Why don’t you just tell us what issues you DON’T see eye-to-eye with Osama bin Laden on, apart from the obvious ‘my god’s better than you’re god’ thing. It’ll be a lot quicker.

Or how to spell it.

Wow, this is insanity squared! Because I am allegedly reactionary, I allegedly don’t know a common Yiddish word and because I have the same last name as an eminent English poet, I allegedly share his alleged prejudices.

In Left-wing Hate World, (in which anyone who doesn’t drink Left-Wing Kool-Aid is a Right Winger) this sort of thing passes for a political argument.

.

Finally read your post. Brilliant, pithy and on point. I salute you.

No, I just suffer fools far too gladly.

You have the PC disease.

Right after you learn that hyperbole is best used sparingly, otherwise you just appear to be well, hysterical.

These are the people that…are the most vile.

A sociological study could be done on how various groups regard and treat animals. Actually, you are right a lot of Southerners are devoted dog lovers and do have history of using them as weapons against people…ahem.

And there is a whole strata now of primitive males who are using pit bulls as accessories and for blood sport.

Then there are the crazy people who shop for expensive little lap dogs and buy clothes for them.

There are people who refuse to think animals should be tortured to test drugs. And a lot of those people are so called “liberals”

Uh, nice.

The truth of the matter is that reg posts comments that are consistently informative and interesting to read. You, on the other hand, post superficial Fox-news talking points that everyone has heard a thousand times, but somehow you think you are making informative points that no one has considered before. I have been reading this blog for years, and I’ve yet to read a single comment from you that doesn’t carry some variation of “you liberals… X”, with all the obligatory yawn-inducing generalizations.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter: you’re not taken seriously here, because you’re either not interested in or capable of discussion with people who don’t view the world as you do. And when someone like reg calls you on your B.S., you pretend to act offended. Here’s one of the many reasons why I like reg’s approach: because liberals tend to think issues through, they are often too polite, and allow simplistic commenters to dominate the discourse. Some examples are folks like Michael Crosby, Michael Turner, Celeste, Randy (who’s clearly tired of trying to be polite to you), Mavis, DanO (a little edgier, but still too nice), to name a few. Reg doesn’t try to be nice, which I think is more like Marc’s take-no-BS approach, and a refreshing counter to the tendency of liberals to engage with trolls patiently or seriously.

To use a sports metaphor, reg is like the Bulls’ Charles Oakley during the Jordan years, or the Celtics’ Robert Parrish during the Larry Bird years: the enforcer who does the dirty work to counter the boorish and cheap tactics of the Riley Knicks, or the Bad Boy Pistons, so the rest of the team can focus on clean basketball. Without the enforcer, the game devolves into a sloppy mess–analogously, without reg this blog would be completely overrun with stupid generalizations, weak stereotypes, and the boring cliches common in AM radio dialogue.

Of course, since Marc is too nice to trolls like you, it already has devolved into this mess. Which is too bad, because the purpose of a comments section is to expand the original posting with active discussion and honest exchange.

You’re the same old disingenuous, self-congratulating piece of work. And I don’t buy your CYA line on the link. It’s bullshit. Which is your stock in trade.

Thus you form your conclusions about southerners and their treatment of dogs and I’m supposed to take you seriously.

My bad, you can still find “Mark Cooper – The Blog Father” on the “Page” Blogs & Blogs & Blogs” at the dark brown bar at the top of the front page.

You were saying reg?

Yeah, “…in his words…” No, Mr. Mensa – that’s your foul characterization. You’re as persistently foul in your insinuations as anyone who ever posted her – but since you drip with hypocrisy you like to blame the folks who you’ve gratuitously – and moronically – insulted over the years (and with a certain degree of impunity before I called you on your nasty, idiotic self-serving characterizations of liberals.)

What a creep ! Does anyone miss this coward ?

Uh, nice.

The truth of the matter is that reg posts comments that are consistently informative and interesting to read. You, on the other hand, post superficial Fox-news talking points that everyone has heard a thousand times, but somehow you think you are making informative points that no one has considered before. I have been reading this blog for years, and I’ve yet to read a single comment from you that doesn’t carry some variation of “you liberals… X”, with all the obligatory yawn-inducing generalizations.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter: you’re not taken seriously here, because you’re either not interested in or capable of discussion with people who don’t view the world as you do. And when someone like reg calls you on your B.S., you pretend to act offended. Here’s one of the many reasons why I like reg’s approach: because liberals tend to think issues through, they are often too polite, and allow simplistic commenters to dominate the discourse. Some examples are folks like Michael Crosby, Michael Turner, Celeste, Randy (who’s clearly tired of trying to be polite to you), Mavis, DanO (a little edgier, but still too nice), to name a few. Reg doesn’t try to be nice, which I think is more like Marc’s take-no-BS approach, and a refreshing counter to the tendency of liberals to engage with trolls patiently or seriously.

To use a sports metaphor, reg is like the Bulls’ Charles Oakley during the Jordan years, or the Celtics’ Robert Parrish during the Larry Bird years: the enforcer who does the dirty work to counter the boorish and cheap tactics of the Riley Knicks, or the Bad Boy Pistons, so the rest of the team can focus on clean basketball. Without the enforcer, the game devolves into a sloppy mess–analogously, without reg this blog would be completely overrun with stupid generalizations, weak stereotypes, and the boring cliches common in AM radio dialogue.

Of course, since Marc is too nice to trolls like you, it already has devolved into this mess. Which is too bad, because the purpose of a comments section is to expand the original posting with active discussion and honest exchange.