Here, Again

You can almost set your watch by it.. the dumb, growing exponentially.. and then referencing me in a post again;

Sand To Glass
A few liberals (Ballbuster, Lance, Thomas, HarryOne to name a few) have been firing away at me constantly because of a statement I once made in a post - oh, I don't know, maybe a year ago, perhaps less than a year ago - where I used the phrase, "Turning Sand Into Glass." It is an obvious reference to a nuclear detonation. Heck, I even had a picture of a mushroom cloud attached in order to eliminate any doubt of the reference I was making. However, as the subjective liberal left tends to do, they took what I said out of context (or perhaps they simply misunderstood the point) and claimed I was saying something I wasn't.

I do sincerely hope the Republican party veers into the Gibbs' Loon-o'-Rama direction. It's almost too perfect.

Anyway.. Doug is again doing one of those screeds where he whines that he's so misunderstood, references the mean Liberals, and then claims that everyone is too stupid to understand his brilliance.

The technique goes like this;

Write something ridiculously ambiguous
Collect up criticism from Liberals
Compose screed of said criticism, studiously avoiding directly quoting the Liberals, avoid directly quoting the text of the post in question, and then..
Delete off any comments to the post written by those that are defamed in said post

It's classic Douglas V. Gibbs... He's whining that we mistook the meaning of something he wrote a year or so ago.. but doesn't actually quote what he had written.. he just paraphrases "what he meant"... not what he actually said.. and then paraphrases the Liberal criticism of it.. not actually quote the criticism.. and then after I took a few minutes to correct the record in comments.. he simply deleted it because he's afraid to have anyone else read it.

It's sort of maddening from my point of view because it does bother me that he often references me and does not allow any sort of response. It's not unusual because this is exactly how good Christians behave. It's the epitome of cowardice.. which is at the heart of what Doug is about.

Sure.. he talks big about "fightin' the terraists" and such.. but, you know.. it's not him that's getting shot at. Similarly, words can be a bullet to an argument, and Doug doesn't want to be anywhere near that either.

Long time readers of my blog know that I've mixed it up with some crazy freak right wingers in the past. There was that guy, Ox, from The Ox Rant. There was that younger loon, Rightwingguymn, who kept claiming that he was going to enlist in the military, but never did. Both of them just suddenly disappeared.. probably into some Ruby Ridge style Montana compound..

But.. and this is a big exception.. neither one of them ever deleted any debate. The comments were always posted and more often than not, they picked up their crayon and scribbled some sort of addled brained mush of a response.

They were crazy, but had nothing on Doug. On the very same blog where Doug claims that some nefarious (and quite unexplained) "decline in morals" in the West is going to lead to the rise of a new Nazism.. on that very same shitpile of hallucinogenic blathering about Nazis.. of all things.. he simply deletes off all the reader comments that aren't in fawning agreement with his stupid ambiguos arguments. He fails to see the parallels to Nazism.. which isn't surprising. He is, after all, extremely dimwitted.

I've seen lots and lots of crazy as fuck Loons, but Doug wins the big prize of combining it with a willful disregard of the written word, and a plethora of cowardice, afraid to even face the writing of a "stupid libtard" like me.

He can't even insult in a minimally clever way. "Libtard"? Really?

Anyway.. here's the comment that he felt compelled to delete, lest any of his other addle-headed Loon Brigade team read.. Oh.. and I'll point out Doug.. that it wouldn't matter in the least to your "faithful" what I said.. because they're too stupid to understand the point I'm making. Just like "faith" in a bat-shit-crazy religion requires the suspension of disbelief, there's nothing that anybody could say that would convince them you're a complete moron.

Alright Doug.. I'm going to try very carefully to write this in such a way that you'll understand the point and not just delete off the comment. I apologize this got long, but it's rather important because you are referencing me directly again.

First, you often blame Liberals for "twist(ing) and turn(ing) words". Throughout your entire post, you did not even include a direct quote of the "sand to glass" remark you made, and is central to your post. What you just did was paraphrase what you had originally written, and then argued that "leftards" are "stupid" for not understanding your point.

Do you understand why you are completely leaving out the proper context of your argument by not referencing the actual quote in question? You are making an argument to your readers.. and you are completely leaving out the actual quote. I find that totally amazing.

Here's the actual quote (because I argue against what you actually write, not just paraphrase everything). Here's the exact quote from you.

From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer.

Now.. place that direct quote of yours in context of the "idiot leftards" assumptions that you mean what you say.. you mean destroying cities... that you mean nuking cities (which we all know the "turn sand to glass" euphemism represents).. that you mean you want to make them "suffer". Who are the "them" anyway?

Those are YOUR words.. not something we "mis-read". Again.. you just wrote a post and left out the ESSENTIAL piece.. what you had actually said. Why do you do that over and over? Why do you think that we're the ones not understanding what you meant when we think you literally meant what you wrote? Why do you constantly play the martyr and assume there is some grand conspiracy to change the meaning of your point?

It probably has never occurred to you, that the issue might actually be your writing style. If it was just one person that had an issue understanding your meaning, you might have a point. Apparently lots of people take you at your word, and assume that what you've written is what you meant. Maybe.. and you might just give this a teeny tiny consideration.. maybe the issue is you?

That you claim that we're too stupid to understand your point.. when we (at least I always do) directly argue against your exact words, by quoting you, and linking to your blog, is just beyond me. I can't imagine how you can justify that, when you never.. ever.. argue against what anybody else has actually written. You just paraphrase them and argue against it.

Okay, I take it back.. you did quote me once, got the quote wrong, and then refused to correct it when I posted the actual words I had written to the comments of your blog. You just deleted off my comment. I can give you a link to my source writing, and your misquote of me if you like.

In your mind, I'm sure you think that's "fair" to do... mis-quote somebody, and then refuse to correct it, even going so far as to delete the comment on your blog with the corrected quote. Does that give you an iota of a sense of what I think about you?

I know you read a lot. Do you see a lot of other writers and bloggers refusing to quote source material and link back to them? Even on the right, the vast majority quote and link, and provide proper context when they are arguing against somebody else's opinion.

That's why I'm still retrieving my jaw from the floor that you'd write many paragraphs about how you are so misunderstood by the "libtards", and didn't even provide the actual quote in question.

I'm going to take what I've written here, and post it on my blog, and I'm going to quote from your blog and link back to your blog so that readers can judge for themselves. This is how it is commonly done in honest debate.

Second, I took you to task for being ambiguous in your language concerning India and the Mumbai incident. You predicted (you make many predictions) that it's a "sign of things to come" if India "take(s) a more casual approach" to terrorism, without actually saying what a less casual approach is.

In fact, you claimed that the attack was a "result" of a "kindler, gentler attitude", as if the Indian government shoulders blame for allowing an attack.

Now, in this new post, you advocate "making sure the enemy takes us seriously." without saying anything about what that means, and what, specifically, the nations should do.

Then you blame us for filling in the blanks in your extremely ambiguous claims of "getting tough". Saying somebody should "take us seriously" is meaningless. It doesn't say anything without specifics.

I'm pretty sure India takes Islamic terrorism "seriously". They are "serious" people... "seriously".

Again - the phrase "take us seriously" is so ambiguous as to be worthless. Should India use conventional weapons in an attack on Pakistan? Hmmm.. you are so ambiguous, one is left to wonder if that's what you think should be done.

You do the same thing by claiming that Bush is at fault for having the wrong "attitude" about Iraq. What does "taking care of business" mean? When I asked you that a couple years ago, you said.. "destroy a few cities.. turn sand to glass".. and then whined because I didn't understand what you actually meant.

I mean.. this is really exasperating, the way your writing style is so strange compared to virtually every other political writer on the planet. Then you blame the rest of us for not understanding what you said. "Take care of business". Really? That's your policy position?

I hope that makes sense. It's very wordy, but words matter.. the ACTUAL words matter.

/update

Here's a classic from Rightwingguymn's blog-o-stupid

I think that World War III will be fought in the streets - Urban Guerilla Warfare Style - of the United States. God help us.
Douglas V. Gibbs | Homepage | 01.27.07 - 11:41 pm | #

Meaning.. he's hoping there's a new Red Dawn..

But of course.. Doug won't be anywhere to be found.. holed up in his compound.. praying the boogie-man away.

You really can't repel stupid of that magnitude..

/update 2

From the 2nd to last post from Rightwingstupid's blog;

The media has been unable or unwilling to let go and grasp reality and understand the fact that Barack Obama has not a chance of getting by the biggest piranha and jackal in the Senate, the certifiably insane Hillary Clinton.

What is the deal with Teh Loon's constantly predicting things? They're nearly always wrong.. and quite spectacularly so.. Is it because they're favorite book makes a lot of predictions that also turn out to be spectacularly wrong?

I think that's why they have an aversion to quotes and such.. They like to write mega-stupid things, and then never expect anyone to actually.. you know.. see if it's true, of if they were completely wrong again.