Loontastic

I created Douggie Watch to try and separate out the whole Doug thing from my main blog here.. but Doug decided to drop by and leave a few comments.. so what the heck, I'll parse them here.

And again, the irony is amusing.. Doug continuing to leave comments here and deleting everything off his blog that isn't an "omg you're so right again!!" patronizing remark.

You said, "It can be unfair to make broad generalizations about groups of people who identify a certain way. Many times I've made generalizations about the types of people, and the way they think, that identify as devoutly religious." But isn't your generalizations about people who claim to be Christian wrong too?

Sometimes generalizations of certain types of people, or groups, is valid. There's always exceptions, but you can describe a norm of behavior or ideology that is a common characteristic of the group.

The key is to substantiate the argument, with valid references, and persuasive argument.

Here's a recent example on Doug's blog. He's trying to draw an analogy of a police state to secular policies... rather similar, I might add, to Ben Stein's attempts in Expelled - which completely fell flat.

Doug links to World Net Daily 4 times in that single post.. World Net Daily is otherwise known as Wing Nut Daily. It is a right wing propaganda rag, passing itself off as a "news" organization. It's a favorite reference for the right, but has zero credibility in journalism. Fox News is absolutely fair and balanced by comparison.

Just one stunning paragraph from that post;

The liberal left desires that The State (big government) be all things to all people. They encourage dependency upon The State through entitlement programs while squashing faith and self-sufficience. Anything not in agreement with their agenda is suppressed (as Creationism is in academia, how discussions of faith are because the Christian faith refuses to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, Pro-Family books and addresses because they defend the family unit). And as this agenda incrementally advances, eugenics peeks over the horizon, and the liberal left's own green agendas stands in the way of their own supposed advancements and religion of saving the planet from ourselves.

He takes me to task for generalizing and then writes something like that.. completely devoid of any real substance.

Creationism isn't fucking "suppressed". It's just bad science. Everything you need to know about Expelled is explained here.

The rest.. well, as usual, just a bunch of unsubstantiated, made up, tripe.

How chilling is it that today's society is hell-bent on eliminating God, eliminating faith, and suppressing scriptural teachings and values. The commonalities between The Obsolete Man and the path our society is on is chilling, indeed.

How chilling is it that a Christian rapture freak may someday end up with the authority to launch nuclear weapons?

That said, the premise that Doug illustrates is simply silly. He seems to think we're going to label people as obsolete, and execute them as some sort of government program?

Pardon me.. but who is it that is hell bent on executing prisoners, and who is the bleeding heart liberal?

For fucks sake..

Anyway.. back to Doug's comment.. this part related to his observation that the "housing slowdown" is a myth.. because he works construction and is, apparently, busy.

Once again, it's completely unsubstantiated. He cites absolutely no statistics to corroborate his observations. In Doug's narcissistic world, because it is what he is seeing, that means that it's universal.

Actually, Tom, I used to be a loan officer, and a Financial Advisor. I entered construction to do something different, and at the time it was quite lucrative.

I don't give a fuck if you're Alan fucking Greenspan.. you just pull facts right out of your ass and expect people to believe it?

I don't give a shit what job you work.. How about I give you the real fucking statistics once again? Here, read.. nutjob. New housing starts in 2007 were down 35% from 2005. Heck, housing starts for March 2008 (last month data is available from the fed) is down 28% from 2007, and down 54% from 2006.

Honestly, I don't have to work. But I don't normally tell people that, but since your guesses about me have been so off the mark, I thought I would tell you so that you could perhaps head back in the right direction. And honestly, people are amazed how much goes into the construction industry in the sense of thinking, and I suppose my education has been helpful. Then, when people find out how much I am worth, or that I own prime property on the Oregon Coast, they are amazed that I even work at all. Like you, I too am able to go out on fantastic trips, and concerts, and spend a buttload of money as you have stated in your posts before (Rush concert?), but unlike you I don't go around telling everybody. In fact, I think this is the first time on the internet I have even uttered such. I prefer people to think I am no different than everyone else so that they don't make assumptions about me in the other direction . . . maybe that's why you have in your head that I am some poor neanderthal construction worker that grunts in the morning, whistles at the women passing by on the sidewalk at lunch, and comes home with a silver hard hat on my head and a half smoked cigar in my mouth in the evening, thumping his bible on weekends. Perhaps you shouldn't stereotype like that. After all, you accuse me of many things, stereotyping for one, and when you make assumptions about me in your posts rarely are you accurate..

There's a reason why it's important to know what a particular person's frame of reference is when they offer an opinion. You try and pass yourself off like everyone else, but when you advocate tax policy and entitlement benefits without informing readers that you're wealthy, that makes you a hypocritical fraud.

I only explained my situation so that when an issue comes up, such as tax cuts for the wealthy that I argue against, I'm not doing so because I'm a lower income American, jealous of the wealthy. In other words, I offer full disclosure about my situation so it can be judged in the context of the issues I'm arguing.

You somehow think it's a virtue to conceal that information while you simultaneously argue positions advantageous to wealthy Americans.

If I'm making any assumptions about you, it's because you're a shitty writer and do NOT offer the complete information that is necessary to form a judgement about the credibility of the opinion.

Again, I don't care what your job is. I don't make value judgments about people who work construction. I'm just saying that you're full of shit.. passing off uncorroborated bullshit as if it's factual information.. which turns out to be wrong, time and time again.

I do this over and over Doug. Haven't you noticed that I fact-check your assertions and more often than not, they are complete bullshit? Haven't you noticed that yet?

It has nothing to do with your fucking job, and everything to do with getting the facts straight and not just making shit up all the time.

In fact, based on your posted stereotypes and interpretations of what I say, I am amazed that you even consider yourself intelligent, or in touch with the real world. Example: I never specifically said that "all poor people are lazy," but you not only decided that is what I meant, but even convinced another person of it (Jennifer). Think about it. All? That's idiotic.

"All"? That's what you are taking exception to? That I said you think "all" people are lazy? Serious?

So.. which ones are the lazy ones Doug? You think not "all" people are lazy, so which ones are the lazy ones that shouldn't get any assistance? Who decides? You?

Do you not see the horrible disconnect in what you just said? Not "all" people are lazy? We all know that Jennifer is on disability but not "lazy", so she's okay.. but other people might just be that insidious breed of "lazy" that just wants to live off government entitlements, right? And Doug has a magic "lazy" wand that is going to turn the lazy people a bright yellow color.. so they can be thrown off programs like disability.

Once again, this is all due to you being a horrifically shitty writer. I simply quote your own words, in their entirety, and draw the logical conclusions from what you've said.

Your stupidity is, frankly, stunning. Didn't you read the comments where Jennifer was irritated that you think that I, somehow, convinced her that you were a condescending asshole? No.. she came to that conclusion all on her own, based on what you wrote. Now, here you are once again claiming that I have a mystical persuasion ability to convince other "conservatives" that you're a condescending prick.

It's your fucking words you stupid fuck. I quote it all.. every last fucking word, and I think I am spot on with my observations and judgments on the implications of what you are saying. So stop blaming me because you can't fucking write your way out of a wet paper bag.

You keep claiming, over and over and over, that people on entitlements will have no incentive to get off entitlements.. You make no mention of those that are disabled (like Jennifer).. you make no mention of which entitlements you're talking about. You make no mention of the myriad of specifics that are critical to the issue, and instead use the debating equivalent of a monkey throwing shit at the people peering in his cage.

Which entitlements would you do away with? Do you get to decided who deserves benefits and who doesn't? Do you even know that the government has a fraud and abuse unit that investigates criminal abuse of the system?

Every single fucking thing you've written about welfare or entitlements is dripping with disdain for people having financial hardships... as if they are to blame for their situation. Who the fuck made you the judge?

And if you've got so much fucking money.. why didn't you pay for your son's cancer treatment, instead of him taking Medi-Caid from the state of California? Fucking hypocrite.

In fact, there are many instances of you making assumptions about my meaning, and it does drive me a little batty when you do so.

So learn how to write with clear meaning and intent, and substantiate your arguments.

At one point I even decided to respond on the liberal haven site to all of your untruths and assumptions, but I decided to close the site because "ballbuster" was being too obnoxious right off the bat, and I really didn't want to deal with that ass again.

It had nothing to do with you. Besides, unlike you, I really don't have the time to go chasing after everything you say and try to correct each inaccuracy.

Not even one single time Doug. You have not corrected an inaccuracy even once.

I have never posted one single factual assertion on my blog that was not true. Not one single time... and if I did, and somebody pointed it out, I'd correct it right away. You simply refuse to correct the record no matter how many factual assertions you post that I prove is complete bullshit. Most times, like the housing slowdown statistics today, it only takes me a minute or two to find it.

And to tell you the truth, I cancelled out the liberal haven site before I realized you had commented there. Also, you assume that everytime I say "particular liberal blogger" I mean you. . . are you that arrogant? Please, there are more venom filled libs out there that love to give me shit than you.

Oh no.. the ones I'm referring to are the posts where you paraphrase something I had recently written and attribute it to "a particular liberal blogger". Clearly you are rerferring to me, but in the dishonest and bizzare haze your head must be floating in, you don't think it's important to argue against what a person actually said instead of just making it all up.

You do it over and over. That's your style. I get it.

The fact remains, you get full and unfettered access to offer your point of view here. The fact remains that every single time I parse your posts, I quote you directly and link. I do not paraphrase against straw man arguments, which you do constantly.

And the fact remains that you will not allow a single dissenting comment on your blog because you're a coward.

Anyway, I come to your site because yours is the most entertaining to read. . . the level of idiocy knows no bounds. . . you are entertaining. I, unfortunately, can't take a page out of Red Sox Manager Terry Francona's play book when he says he doesn't care what people say about him, nor does he read about it. . . perhaps I should. Maybe I am weak when it comes to my sick curiosity regarding what you write. Well, I can't wait to see what you are going to write about after you read this comment . . . it is sure to be fun, and full of inaccurate assumptions! Ciao, until later.

Idiocy? Really?

I may be a jerk.. I may use a lot of profanities, and I may be rude.. and angry.. or whatever the fuck it is that makes the Jebus' freaks heads explode, but I back up my argument. I substantiate it all.. and you just keep writing these really weird bullshit screeds, completely devoid of any real accuracy... as if you are some sort of authority on any subject you write about.

Oh.. and while I'm at it.. because you insist that "In a competitive world, success is naturally defined in the terms of money, power, and influence", I wonder.. how is it you came to be wealthy? Did you earn it yourself, or was it a insurance settlement.. or an inheritance? If you're going to point your finger of condemnation at others, I wonder.. how is it you became a "success" Doug? I'm just dying to know your formula for success.

Do share..