… or a pedophile or ephebophile
President Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings said Wednesday he “should have handled [the] situation differently” when he didn’t report an underage student told him that he was having sex with an older man.Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, was teaching high school in Concord, Mass., in 1988 when a sophomore boy confessed an involvement with a man in Boston. He told the boy, “I hope you knew to use a condom.”
In a statement, Jennings said: “Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities.” [...]
Jennings insisted that he believes his office could help keep other new teachers from making the same mistake. [...]
Jennings also released a statement on his past writings on drug use.
“I have written about the factors that have led me to use drugs as a teen. This experience qualifies me to help students and teachers who are confronting these issues today.”
Nice little entourage Obama enjoys surrounding himself with.
Comment by Joe on 10/1 @ 8:24 am #
Well Darleen, I mean the confused gay kid did smile at the closeted (but who everyone knew he was gay) teacher every day, so there is a victory in that. Where is a gay kid going to learn about stuff? A bus stop with an adult stranger seems perfectly okay. Why are you being so judgmental? Jennings did tell the 15 year old to use condoms (of course the gay kid said why bother, which was a sign he might have been sad and misunderstood). All in all, it seems the perfect example of Obama’s new vision for education in America.
Comment by McGehee on 10/1 @ 8:36 am #
C. Manson: “I have spoken about the factors that have led me to incite my followers to commit mass murder and gruesome acts of mutilation on their still warm bodies. This experience qualifies me to help students and teachers who are confronting these issues today.”
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 8:37 am #
Maybe Jennings can start a network of after-school filmmaking clubs headed by Roman Polanski.
That would keep the kids safe and off the streets, yes?
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 8:40 am #
Jennings’ 1994 book, “One Teacher in 10″ and his 2007 autobiography, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir” are the books referenced here.
The Washington Times had this in a Monday editorial:
So I tend to agree this is another walkback in the Geitnerian mode. Only with less tax fraud and more turpitude.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 8:42 am #
Oops. WaTimes linky here.
Comment by DavidL on 10/1 @ 8:53 am #
Note how Alfred Kinsey’s lie about one ten being homosexual gets passed off as if it were fact.
Comment by LTC John on 10/1 @ 9:03 am #
“This experience qualifies me to help students and teachers who are confronting these issues today”
So the Drug Czar needs to be a former druggie, the AG a past criminal, the SecDef an old enemy combatant, the SecTreas a tax cheat(wait, strike that one, already done…)judicial appointees must have been previously found in contempt of court, etc.?
Comment by ducktrapper on 10/1 @ 9:04 am #
Got to love those “teachable moments”, don’t you? This administration is specializing in them.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 9:09 am #
I think reporting confused low self esteem teens to authorities and parents for having sleazy bus station sex is a good way to promote teen suicide.
Comment by Frontman on 10/1 @ 9:11 am #
I’m glad the proprietors of this site are creative enough to come up with catchy titles to the posts. Being lazy, I think I could cover them all with “you can’t make this stuff up”.
Comment by SarahW on 10/1 @ 9:12 am #
If Jennings stays on, that should make for an effective negative ad for any Obama opponent in 2012. Obama would be fool to keep him now.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 9:16 am #
And Charlie Rangel is a natural for Ways and Means Chair.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 9:17 am #
Didn’t he have a legal obligation to report that back then?
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 9:22 am #
JD, from the WashTimes Monday editorial
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 9:23 am #
As we all know, homo love transcends all. The age of consent is for you mouth breathing hetero types, unless you make so-so movies and shit.
Unless, of course, they can send coded messages about all Catholic Priests being homos, which is sometimes useful for other reasons.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 9:24 am #
Argh. Helps if I grab the whole quote I wanted. This goes before that previous quote:
In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 9:27 am #
Government by “It takes a thief…”
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 9:28 am #
careful what you ask for when you put the onus on dirty socialist public school losers to watch out for your kid.
The age of consent is way too high anyway. I mean c’mon. Raise your hands…
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 9:33 am #
Just to the extent so far this little dealio has gotten the outrage treatment means x number of kids what have problems what they’d like to discuss are going to keep their gay druggy cutting bulimic foo mouf shut. And it’s probably the right choice. Kids are in a pretty good position to know what makes daddy’s pimp hand twitch.
Comment by TheGeezer on 10/1 @ 9:54 am #
Obamamanians are not mainstream.
But I am a bigot, I suppose.
Comment by Squid on 10/1 @ 9:54 am #
“I’ve hated white people my whole life, which makes me perfectly qualified to head up the Honky House Diversity Office.”
“I worked almost six weeks on the factory floor before I found my true calling skimming money from workers’ paychecks as a union official, which makes me perfectly qualified to be the Secretary of Labor.”
Where does it stop?
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 10:04 am #
Sorry Darleen, I knew that was in my head from somewhere.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 10:06 am #
“For all my life, I’ve struggled with the twin stigmas of illiteracy and innumeracy. I know firsthand the failure of the public school system which didn’t recognize complete inability to read and perform basic arithmetic on anything with more than one digit. Therefore, I would be the ideal person to lead the Department of Education.”
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/1 @ 10:57 am #
Comment by Frontman on 10/1 @ 9:11 am #
You can make this stuff up but why bother? This administration is delivering such stories by the truckload.
Comment by Joe on 10/1 @ 12:01 pm #
Oh oh, this is not good.
I trust Gates (as much as you can trust any politician now a days) and this suggests that the news from Afghanistan is worse than we have been hearing. Michael Yon said similar things the other day (a depressing interview with Hot Air).
Obama does not have the stomach to double down (or quadruple down which is what this suggests) and perhaps this is Gates knowing that and knowing the best possible thing we can do now is go light.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 12:06 pm #
So. Wrong.
I mean, my 15 (next month) isn’t even allowed to date. Boys or girls.
WTF is wrong with people?
Comment by Joe on 10/1 @ 12:29 pm #
Carin, people are sick that is what is wrong with them.
Meanwhile, we have a feckless president who surrounds himself with people who think Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender issues trump any and all rules of common sense and a very serious war that is being lost.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/1 @ 12:32 pm #
He told the boy, “I hope you knew to use a condom.”
How disconnected from reality must a high school teacher be to start from the premise that a 15 year old will act as an equal partner in that situation?
And if the kid said his rapist also offered him pot, would Jennings have said, “I hope you didn’t inhale?”
But then again –Larry Craig!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 12:34 pm #
He established a rapport with an at-risk yoot. That’s a Win. Just letting at-risk yoots know someone cares is a big deal. You go try it and report back.
Comment by Joe on 10/1 @ 12:41 pm #
You cannot make this shit up: Michelle Obama: It’s a ’sacrifice’ to travel to Europe to pitch for the Olympics. But I’m doing it for the kids.
Comment by Matt on 10/1 @ 1:28 pm #
Well, Michelle did have to take a break from toning her spectacular arms. Supposedly, the plan is for her to put each Olympic committee member in a headlock until they scream “Chicago.”
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 1:35 pm #
Anytime someone says they are doing something “for the kids” you can be assured that they are lying to your face.
Comment by Joe on 10/1 @ 1:46 pm #
Barack Obama: I did not write Dreams of My Father and it was a sacrifice to have Bill Ayers do it for me, but I did it for the kids.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/1 @ 2:42 pm #
Just letting at-risk yoots know someone cares is a big deal. You go try it and report back.
My experiences in Big Brothers and foster care tell me that when someone shows the kid they “care” by raping them it f*cks them up. Unless they use a condom, of course.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 3:08 pm #
On a totally unrelated note, yet another Catholic bishop is wanted on child porn charges; this one was in charge of arranging a fifteen million dollar settlement with a group of Nova Scotia children who had been molested by his colleagues. Nice little entourage the pope enjoys surrounding himself with.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/1 @ 3:11 pm #
I didn’t vote for the pope, BB.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/1 @ 3:16 pm #
Nice little entourage the pope enjoys surrounding himself with.
Oh, I get it. You’re using Darleen’s exact words, but about the Pope, to show that this post is… what?
Comment by JeffS on 10/1 @ 3:17 pm #
Re #35, Barrett, please note that your alleged Catholic bishop (no linky, no confirmation) is WANTED, as in FACING justice.
Mr. Jennings, now, is being rewarded for his, ummmmm, “indiscretions”. This is confirmed.
So your misdirection (“BUNNIES!!”) doesn’t work.
BTW…..where’s Snowcone? If BB is here, you’d think Snowcone would be jumping in feet first to support pedophilia.
Comment by Barnet Beige on 10/1 @ 3:28 pm #
And unless you answer my totally unrelated note about a bishop in Canada, I shall bitch and whine on this thread until I’m blue in the face.
Oh, and by the way, any attempt to answer my totally unrelated point will be cut and pasted into my next comment in which I shall complain at tedious length that it doesn’t answer my point, even though it does.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 3:30 pm #
“h, I get it. You’re using Darleen’s exact words, but about the Pope, to show that this post is… what?”
That some of you don’t really care about this topic unless it can be used to attack Obama.
“Re #35, Barrett, please note that your alleged Catholic bishop (no linky, no confirmation) is WANTED, as in FACING justice.”
Yes, he’s definitely on the lamb after having been caught with a laptop that police say contains child porn. He hasn’t been convicted of a crime, though he has been charged. Jennings hasn’t been charged because he didn’t commit a crime.
“If BB is here, you’d think Snowcone would be jumping in feet first to support pedophilia.”
Oh, is he going to apologize for the Catholic Church?
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 3:37 pm #
Link to the RCC Bishop story.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/1 @ 3:40 pm #
Except for the pope that hired him is, let me check my watch, dead. But we can lambast him in memoriam if you like.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 3:41 pm #
Ah, he’s surrendered now. The report I linked to was from yesterday.
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 3:41 pm #
And he is not “on the lam”.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 3:42 pm #
“Yes, he’s definitely on the lamb…”
Wait, I thought you said he was a pedophile?!?!?!!!
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/1 @ 3:43 pm #
…or even “on the lamb”, which would be (from my point of view) much worse.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/1 @ 3:43 pm #
Curse you, NO’BRAIN!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 3:44 pm #
Oh, and bartlett?
Take your hatred, fold it until it’s all corners, and shove it up your ass.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 3:44 pm #
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 3:46 pm #
“Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 3:41 pm #
Ah, he’s surrendered now. The report I linked to was from yesterday.”
Surrendered?
As to the police?
Whereas Kevin Jennings still holds a high position in the 0bama administration.
[shakes head in wonderment]
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 3:48 pm #
“And he is not “on the lam”.”
He was until today, when he finally surrendered to authorities.
Comment by Bradley Bronze on 10/1 @ 3:50 pm #
That some of you don’t really care about this topic unless it can be used to attack Obama.
Are you arguing that this doesn’t make Obama look bad? Because, you know, if a Canadian priest is relevant then I’m sure we could have all kinds of fun holding Obama accountable for the misdeeds of the entire international left.
Comment by McGehee on 10/1 @ 3:55 pm #
I’m a little less worried about a Catholic priest’s crimes, since the justice they ultimately face is much more… permanent than the law of man can ever exact.
Comment by Barnet Beige on 10/1 @ 4:00 pm #
“Are you arguing that this doesn’t make Obama look bad?
No, I’m arguing that unless you include every instance of kiddie fiddling by a Catholic Priest in any post remotely related to kiddie fiddling, I shall bitch and moan until the thread dies.
BTW, this has nothing to do with any experiences in my youth
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:04 pm #
You know what I think is really awful? All the Catholics who are defended this piece of shit. They ought to be ashamed.
Wait. There *are* Catholics writing standing by this pedophiles side, right?
Cause, otherwise, what’s BB’s point?
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 4:07 pm #
“Are you arguing that this doesn’t make Obama look bad?”
Actually, yes. Some fellow whom he hired to serve as an advisor didn’t take any action two decades ago when a young man told him in confidence that he had previously had sex with an older man. We don’t know if the guy’s parents knew he was gay or anything of the sort, which is to say we don’t know if taking any action would have actually been detrimental to the teenager.
“Because, you know, if a Canadian priest is relevant then I’m sure we could have all kinds of fun holding Obama accountable for the misdeeds of the entire international left.”
Well, you’ve already got a head start; remember when ACORN was supposedly involved in child sex slavery and that was tied to Obama by this blog?
Again, my main point is that the recent interest in child sex stories at this blog is a pose; only child sex stories that can conceivably be used to attack Obama by way of association are reported here. That’s fine, insomuch as that you can’t be expected to report everything and it’s reasonable to report on the alleged misdeeds of your opponents, but as I’ve established a couple of times now here by experiment, even bringing up the fact that leaders of the Catholic Church are responsible for a ridiculous number of these incidents even taking into account its size, or that Church officials have worked to cover up these incidents and protect child molesters, sends several people here into crazy flurries of indignation.
In addition, there are quite a few “conservative” leaders whose connections to the Catholic Church are much stronger than are Obama’s ties to ACORN. Perhaps someone can tell me whether or not these people should be criticized for that connection.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:07 pm #
You know, I don’t understand why criminal pedophiles become priests. Shouldn’t they choose more swarthy professions? It just seems so hypocritical. Like, their religious convictions should say, Yes, I’m a creep who wants to diddle young kids … I definitely shouldn’t be a priest. Yes, plumber, I’ll be a plumber.
Or maybe a teacher.
Comment by McGehee on 10/1 @ 4:07 pm #
I don’t see it either. He’s got one hell of a talented barber.
Comment by McGehee on 10/1 @ 4:08 pm #
Your definition of “involved” is non-standard.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:08 pm #
You know, if you really want to find a high percentage of pedophiles w/in their ranks … you need to look at public school teachers.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:09 pm #
But I understand why BB picks on Catholics. It’s obvious.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 4:16 pm #
“Your definition of ‘involved’ is non-standard.”
Okay, let’s use yours, in which case the Catholic Church has been heavily involved in child molestation, cover-ups of child molestation, and shuffling child molesters around so that they might avoid prosecution and be free to molest more children. Do I have that right? And if I don’t, then perhaps someone can tell me how the Catholic Church does not fit this description.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:17 pm #
There’s a clear difference of opinion what is reflected in this thread. It’s a discussion and I don’t think Barrett is right to characterize it as being all about attacking the little president man. But there’s a real good case to be made that this Kevin Jennings goofball is very a lot unqualified like that little FEMA dude everyone dumped on for not being very qualified except this story has gay bus stop sex involved.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:20 pm #
The Catholic Church is an indisputably failing institution so I don’t get what’s fun about picking on them. Also it seems sort of unsporting generally. They never did anything to you.
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/1 @ 4:22 pm #
I don’t know Barrett, you’re arguing more like a dog with a bone – hostility towards religion – than someone who cares about this issue at all. Project much?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 4:23 pm #
“Well, you’ve already got a head start; remember when ACORN was supposedly involved in child sex slavery and that was tied to Obama by this blog?”
Now bartlett is pro-child sex slave.
Just….wow.
Comment by JeffS on 10/1 @ 4:23 pm #
Whereas Kevin Jennings still holds a high position in the 0bama administration.
Yep. In a just world, Jennings would have been kicked out of the education profession, and never ever considered for a position as a top policy wonk in the White House.
Instead, Jennings is appointed as a top policy wonk in the White House.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 4:23 pm #
“The Catholic Church is an indisputably failing institution so I don’t get what’s fun about picking on them.”
The Obama Administration is also an indisputably failing institution, but we pick on them. Kick ‘em when they’re down, I say.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:24 pm #
if we’re gonna be distracty and off topic we can do better I think
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 4:25 pm #
“…. but as I’ve established a couple of times now here by experiment,”
Sure, bartlett, cover up your hatred and prejudice as an “experiment”.
Comment by JeffS on 10/1 @ 4:25 pm #
The Obama Administration is also an indisputably failing institution, but we pick on them.
And yet you keep on pointing out the bunnies out in the meadow, trying to distract us from Obama appointing a supporter of gay bus stop sex as one of his “Czars”. Funny that.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:25 pm #
Respecting people’s religion is a Value. A very American one. I enjoy to be respecting peoples’ religions. You should too.
Except for those environmentalist climate change freaks. That’s gay.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:26 pm #
The Catholic Church has no “power” and is paying out huge settlements, yada yada yada.
The Obama administration is in control of our country.
Perhaps you can see the distinction?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:26 pm #
people’s peoples’
damn this english thing is hard
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 4:27 pm #
does Kevin Jennings have a wide stance?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 4:27 pm #
“Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:24 pm #
if we’re gonna be distracty and off topic we can do better I think”
Then don’t respond to bartlett.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/1 @ 4:27 pm #
That some of you don’t really care about this topic unless it can be used to attack Obama.
OK, now I understand. You’re like the Jesus of the internet. You’re all “take that mote out of your own eye.” I think that can be productive.
Comment by JeffS on 10/1 @ 4:28 pm #
Now bartlett is pro-child sex slave.
Just….wow.
Wow? That appears to be standard for Obama supporters these days.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:32 pm #
Now, actually, this is interesting:
hat some of you don’t really care about this topic unless it can be used to attack Obama.
I mean, the obvious feint is that criticizing Obama is racist. And now we have a new tact. Criticizing anyone w/in his administration is merely an offshoot of OBD, and thus extended racism.
Barrett- do tell. How and when are we “allowed” to criticize the anointed one?
Comment by cranky-d on 10/1 @ 4:35 pm #
Barrett is here to split hairs in any good-faith arguments commenters put forth and to, in general, obfuscate and misdirect by pointing out the fluffy bunnies. He’s relatively harmless as those types go, but not all that useful either.
Comment by JeffS on 10/1 @ 4:39 pm #
Re #79, Carin:
Yeah, that’s an interesting tact, Carin. And here I thought the White House was backing off that meme.
I suppose Barrett is a little slow.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 4:51 pm #
“Barrett- do tell. How and when are we ‘allowed’ to criticize the anointed one?”
However and whenever you’d like, and even if the things you’re criticizing him for are things that your allies do – you know, that thing that you’ve always done. Obviously, no one is going to prevent you from making any criticism your little heart desires.
However, if you’d like your criticisms to be taken seriously by anyone other than those who already agree with you and are too dishonest or incompetent to notice if a particular criticism is valid or applies to one’s allies, you might consider making better criticisms.
Let me give you an example. You refer to Obama sarcastically as “the anointed one,” with the, uh, joke being that Obama is looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people. The main problem with that criticism is that it applies to President Bush, who was of course looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people, including himself (he claims to have communicated with God about the decision to go to war, for instance). Now, if you have criticized Bush on that same front, then you don’t have a problem. But if you haven’t, then someone could hypothetically read your post and think, “Gee, this person is attacking a political opponent for something that applies to someone she defends. It looks like she doesn’t really take issue with the action in question, but rather has a problem with the person she’s attacking. And she doesn’t seem to anticipate this very obvious objection to her criticism. I’m now disinclined to read this person further, as she’s simply offering partisan boilerplate of the exact sort that I can read in any comments section on any conservative blog.”
“Barrett is here to split hairs in any good-faith arguments commenters put forth and to, in general, obfuscate and misdirect by pointing out the fluffy bunnies.”
Likewise, you’re here to characterize without evidence and apparently serve as my narrator once again. Just so you know, I don’t tip.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 4:55 pm #
Carter is senile. What a deranged little fuck. His woman needs to keep him in the house. Or is she dead? I don’t really follow those people.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:58 pm #
of direct connection to God by some significant number of people. The main problem with that criticism is that it applies to President Bush, who was of course looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people, including himself (he claims to have communicated with God about the decision to go to war, for instance). Now, if you have criticized Bush on that same front, then you don’t have a problem.
Calling Obama “the anointed one” isn’t a jab at HIM. It’s at his supporters. Perhaps you’ve seen some of the artwork?
But if you haven’t, then someone could hypothetically read your post and think, “Gee, this person is attacking a political opponent for something that applies to someone she defends. It looks like she doesn’t really take issue with the action in question, but rather has a problem with the person she’s attacking.
No, it’s more like “Gee, Barrett doesn’t really get out much if he can’t figure out my crack was aimed at those with tingles up and down their leg when they hear Obama speak. But, whateve.
And she doesn’t seem to anticipate this very obvious objection to her criticism. I’m now disinclined to read this person further, as she’s simply offering partisan boilerplate of the exact sort that I can read in any comments section on any conservative blog.”
It’s funny. ’cause I’m thinking you focused on my slur (again, aimed at those that worship Obama) instead of responding how and when it’s ok to criticize Obama w/o being accused of 1)racism, 2) ODS or 3) what was it? Oh, right, criticizing Obama’s appointees because I hate Obama.
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 4:59 pm #
Just so you know, I don’t tip.
As a former bartender, I have a nose for such things. You didn’t need to bring it up.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 4:59 pm #
“You refer to Obama sarcastically as “the anointed one,” with the, uh, joke being that Obama is looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people.”
yes i remember all those school kid youtube videos chanting for w
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 5:00 pm #
“Carter is senile.”
How can you tell? The guy put Bert Lance, of all people, in charge of the federal budget.
Comment by No one you know on 10/1 @ 5:13 pm #
The main problem with that criticism is that it applies to President Bush, who was of course looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people
I’m trying to remember who those significant numbers were? Does anyone know what this is about?
And I had to pull that from Carin’s comment since BB has had the troll hammer script applied to my firefox (Thanks SBP) because:
I’m now disinclined to read this person further.
Comment by Barrett Brown's empty ballsack on 10/1 @ 5:16 pm #
Define anointed. Define crticism. Define….oh, fuck it, I want to parse articles. Can I get an “a?”
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 5:19 pm #
“As a former bartender, I have a nose for such things.”
Clearly you don’t, as I was kidding. I worked in several tip-based jobs as a youngster myself and tip very well.
“yes i remember all those school kid youtube videos chanting for w”
I’d suggest looking for them instead of pretending that they don’t exist. As it is, you’ll probably want to avoid the documentary “Jesus Camp,” for instance, lest you accidentally see an example of that thing you don’t think happened.
“Calling Obama “the anointed one” isn’t a jab at HIM. It’s at his supporters. Perhaps you’ve seen some of the artwork? ”
I have, and I understand that you’re jabbing his supporters. What I said is that Bush’s supporters did the same thing, and I added that Bush himself was guilty of this.
“It’s funny. ’cause I’m thinking you focused on my slur (again, aimed at those that worship Obama) instead of responding how and when it’s ok to criticize Obama w/o being accused of 1)racism, 2) ODS or 3) what was it? Oh, right, criticizing Obama’s appointees because I hate Obama.”
I don’t know how to criticize Obama without getting accused of racism by someone, somewhere, so I can’t help you out with that. I’m still trying to figure out how to criticize a Republican without being accused of communism or socialism or some such by people on this very blog, so my hands are kind of full. As for not being accused of ODS, I would suggest making reasonable criticisms of people instead of just going with whatever pops up in your head.
For instance, a couple days back when you accused me of inserting the term “marketing” into the discussion on the health care firm that was being hassled by the feds, you didn’t realize that you yourself had already quoted a news account of the story which itself used the term “marketing” in the same context. Obviously, anyone who read your posts could see that, by accusing me of introducing a term into a discussion and ascribing this to my desire to characterize the situation in a certain way, whereas the term had already been introduced into the subject by a third party and you yourself saw fit to quote it as a legitimate source of information, you were simply engaged in a poorly-conceived attempt to portray me as being dishonest or manipulative or some such. And so you might be accused of having Barrett Derangement Syndrome, in this case. Next time, think about what you’re writing, or better yet, refrain from making unfounded attacks. Then apply that lesson to your attacks on Obama and in no time flat, you too will be making reasonable, honest, and non-mediocre criticisms of a political opponents! IT’S JUST THAT EASY! CALL NOW!
Seriously, though, proofread.
Comment by cranky-d on 10/1 @ 5:21 pm #
I have BB trollhammered as well. I saw him briefly before applying “the fix.” From the comments others are making, nothing has changed.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 5:22 pm #
What conservative politician has closer ties to the Roman Catholic Church than Barcky has to ACORN?
The Massengill heir is trotting out its hate hate hate again. Kind of sad. BB just seems to enjoy displaying his hate. It is kind of unseemly.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 5:23 pm #
“I’d suggest looking for them instead of pretending that they don’t exist. As it is, you’ll probably want to avoid the documentary “Jesus Camp,””
6 y/o shouting for w to reign supreme i’m sure
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 5:25 pm #
“I’m still trying to figure out how to criticize a Republican without being accused of communism or socialism or some such by people on this very blog, so my hands are kind of full.”
yea b/c ain’t no one EVAH criticized redumblicans on this board
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/1 @ 5:25 pm #
What is amazing is the cascade of stories with related themes:
This one.
ACORN.
Polanski.
The progressive elite does not have a problem with the themes of these stories, and if there were any walls left for the gatekeepers to guard, these wouldn’t be stories.
According to the comments on various threads, the people, in majorities, think differently. These are stories, they bring Sunshine to areas of rot. And I think it shows how the Gatekeepers protected the rotten scarecrows of the progressive left. All of their PC professions supporting victims are just another power-play; it all depends, dear, on who is the victim and who is the victimizer – let me check my program to see if you fall within the proper victimizer-victim relationship.
No real principles, you see, just who fits where on the tables of victim-victimizer.
And the rot is revealed. Any who wish to vomit from the smell feel free to do so
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 5:27 pm #
For instance, a couple days back when you accused me of inserting the term “marketing” into the discussion on the health care firm that was being hassled by the feds, you didn’t realize that you yourself had already quoted a news account of the story which itself used the term “marketing” in the same context. Obviously, anyone who read your posts could see that, by accusing me of introducing a term into a discussion and ascribing this to my desire to characterize the situation in a certain way, whereas the term had already been introduced into the subject by a third party and you yourself saw fit to quote it as a legitimate source of information, you were simply engaged in a poorly-conceived attempt to portray me as being dishonest or manipulative or some such. And so you might be accused of having Barrett Derangement Syndrome, in this case. Next time, think about what you’re writing, or better yet, refrain from making unfounded attacks. Then apply that lesson to your attacks on Obama and in no time flat, you too will be making reasonable, honest, and non-mediocre criticisms of a political opponents! IT’S JUST THAT EASY! CALL NOW!
Regardless of who I quoted, I still take issue with the term “Marketing” in that instance. Marketing would fall under any form of information passed from the provider to the individual being insured.
You accepted that such information fell under “marketing” and I disagreed.
Seriously, though, proofread.
Srsly? No. It’s the internet, BB.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 5:29 pm #
“6 y/o shouting for w to reign supreme i’m sure”
Yes.
“What conservative politician has closer ties to the Roman Catholic Church than Barcky has to ACORN?”
Rick Santorum comes to mind – he goes to their functions at least once a week as he has for decades, believes that the organization is closely associated with God and capable of providing laymen a crucial connection with Him without which their souls will be consigned to torture for all of eternity, provides money to the organization, often praises the organization at length and in no uncertain terms, and considers the organization to be the most important institution in the history of humanity. Would you say that Obama is closer to ACORN, and if so, how?
I’ve got to leave for a bit but shall return in due course. IN DUE COURSE!
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 5:31 pm #
have, and I understand that you’re jabbing his supporters. What I said is that Bush’s supporters did the same thing, and I added that Bush himself was guilty of this.
Do have an instance where a “well respected” news reporter mentioned that he felt a “tingle” up his leg when Bush spoke?
So, what I’m saying is that Bush supporters DIDn’t do the same thing. And their sentiments were not echoed by the MSM. Which is why calling Obama the anointed one is funnah, while you’re “BUSH SUPPORTERS DID IT TOO” is lame.
[this comment has not been proofread]
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 5:34 pm #
your
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 5:36 pm #
it’s really not cool to ridicule someone for going to church. The two best people in LA that I know are Catholic people what go to St. something or other like every week. She’s taking care of her dad right now cause of he’s sort of dying and he does something in tv. They are very happy. They have these two great kids. Someday they might retire to New Mexico.
I should call them.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 5:37 pm #
““6 y/o shouting for w to reign supreme i’m sure”
Yes.”
how about hollywood celebs wanting w reign supreme? did women faint at w revivals? were their images of w with the word hope? did w appear in public with styrofoam greek columns? did w send shivers up a cable network’s leg?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 5:38 pm #
Honestly. I think people what pick on Christian people mostly just don’t have the balls to go straight for the Jews. It’s getting spooky how comfortable they are about it.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 5:38 pm #
did w say he would stop the seas from rising?
Comment by Carin on 10/1 @ 5:40 pm #
it’s really not cool to ridicule someone for going to church.
It is if you’re a hipster douchbag.
Just saying.
Comment by No one you know on 10/1 @ 5:43 pm #
It is if you’re a hipster douchbag.
I think the hipster douche bags actually go to church, but they drink PBR the entire time. The others? Yeah, Madonna called, she wants her act back………
(I used that tragically old formula of someone calling, ironically)
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 5:46 pm #
ZOMFG, a former Senator is a practicing Catholic! Burn him. Kill him. Throw him to the lions. I am still waiting for the classic liberal to actually act like one, instead of a fucking douchenozzle, apologies to actual nozzles of douche.
Comment by alppuccino on 10/1 @ 5:50 pm #
Obama’s an idiot. Prove that criticism wrong.
Comment by No one you know on 10/1 @ 5:54 pm #
alppuccino @ 107
Now, now, just look at the man’s transcripts.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 5:57 pm #
Madonna’s new song is very cool I thought.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 5:58 pm #
laura w’s arms were all the rage at one time
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/1 @ 5:59 pm #
Barrett sounds plenty religious to me. Sure, it’s of the boutique variety. But behind the feigned detachment there is the child-like ego-centrism of the most insufferable of born-again Christians or “the personal is political” leftists. Funny how he doesn’t see it.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 6:01 pm #
don’t take the 101 at this time
Comment by Kresh on 10/1 @ 6:04 pm #
You could try using, you know, facts instead of the normal “I’m sure it happened somewheres so it’s just gotta be as bad as your example.” I mean really. You’re not even trying. Find something that we can go “Hey. He’s right! There was artwork all over the internets and can easily be found by someone interested in proving a point that portrayed MonkeyBusHitler as a deity or the second coming of Jesus.”
Pictures of Bush as a Monkey or Hitler, sure, all over the place. I wouldn’t call that deification, unless you’re into monkeys or Hitler, which you might be. So, unless you’re (as in you, BB, personally)really-really into monkeys or Hitler, consider your point shot the fuck down.
Now, quit hijacking the conversation you dishonest piece of shit.
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/1 @ 6:04 pm #
Barrett Brown,
“I’d suggest looking for them instead of pretending that they don’t exist. As it is, you’ll probably want to avoid the documentary “Jesus Camp,” for instance, lest you accidentally see an example of that thing you don’t think happened.”
I’ve seen those same breathless postings all over the left wing websites over the last week or so to Barrett. But what you and the liberals are missing in your attempt to engage in ad hominem tu quoque is that the evangelical Christian camp in North Dakota, featured in the “Jesus Camp” documentary, was a private concern; it was not a public school funded by public funds run in the interest of the public.
Next, on Santorum and the Catholic church, why do you attack the Senator on his personal reloigious beliefs? While he may be among the faithful, I’m sure that he wouldn’t attempt to condone any lawbreaking that the Church may have ever engaged in. And, while the Church recieves public funds, it is mostly as reimbursement for medical or other social services that the church provides in low income neighborhoods…
And Santorum aside, are you really trying to draw an equivalence, moral or otherwise , between the Catholic Church and ACORN? Has the Church been indicted for election fraud in IIRC 13 states? Institutionally, were they involved in mau-mauing local banks into making loans to people that couldn’t afford them? Or have they been involved in counseling folks to break the law, or evade taxes; how about evading income taxes to the tune of millions..? I think not, and I also believe that any attempt at an argument of their equivalence is weak tea indeed…
If I recall, you’re a self proclaimed atheist, which is your prerogative. But even if that’s true, don’t transfer your contempt to the argument by trying to make an equivalence between a secular political organization with a non-political religious one.
The Church is non-political, regardless of the overwhelming number of “cafeteria Catholics” who vote for the Democrats…
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 6:06 pm #
The main problem with that criticism is that it applies to President Bush, who was of course looked upon as having some sort of direct connection to God by some significant number of people, including himself (he claims to have communicated with God about the decision to go to war, for instance).
Barrett, that is so patently and transparently dishonest, it makes me wonder if you’re interested at all in any sort of discussion or if this is just an attempt at erudite feces-flinging.
If it is at all the former, examine how your own obsessive, anti-Catholic bigotry has infected anything you post here.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 6:18 pm #
“Calling Obama “the anointed one” isn’t a jab at HIM. It’s at his supporters. Perhaps you’ve seen some of the artwork? ”
I have, and I understand that you’re jabbing his supporters. What I said is that Bush’s supporters did the same thing, and I added that Bush himself was guilty of this.
More dishonesty. Please Barrett, link to the pic of Bush equivalent to this, this, this, or especially this.
You are so prejudiced against thiests you refuse to even begin to understand how their belief system works.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 10/1 @ 6:19 pm #
Barrett – just how much did you get for your soul on the open market?
I ask because I want to keep it all libertarian.
Where is the gin bottle? I want a good rational reason to explain my vomiting.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:19 pm #
mmm…Ahem? When I was 18? I taught ‘life skills’ in HS to special needs kids. NEVER would I or WE would have ignored that.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 6:20 pm #
I just tend to not like people that are fundamentally mendoucheous.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 6:20 pm #
“You are so prejudiced against thiests”
nah the dude likes liberal theology. like the muslims everyone else is an infidel.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:20 pm #
CRAP Mikey, I’m allergic to Juniper….ithcy already!!
Comment by JHo on 10/1 @ 6:24 pm #
You seriously cannot keep up with all the fail out there. Meanwhile China, as evidenced by today’s pomp and circumstance — is kicking butt.
I sense a big global restructuring. Obie is the most haplessly placed stuffed suit in a very long time.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 6:28 pm #
newrouter
no, BB is no “liberal”. He’s one of those rare birds, a doctrinal libertarian type. Yes, he treats it as religiously as any radical fundie, right down to considering the non-believers as less than human.
pitiful
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 6:29 pm #
If you go back and read a bit, you’ll see that I was asked to identify a Republican whose connections to the Catholic Church were stronger than Obama’s connections to ACORN. I responded by noting that Rick Santorum has very strong connections to the Catholic Church, and backed this up by listing those connections. The person who asked the question in the first place responded to my answer to his question by calling me a “douchenozzle” and throwing around some sub-MAD-level sarcasm to the effect that I must find it alarming or surprising that a Catholic politician goes to church. Of course, that’s easier than acknowledging that I had successfully answered his question. This is probably one of the most ridiculous tactics that I have ever seen.
Now would probably be a good time to note that I’m writing an article about my experiences debating politics at Protein Wisdom, that the article will be appearing later this week, and that a longer version will be appearing in the form of the last chapter of my upcoming book on the national discourse, which itself will be released next year. If anyone has any questions, feel free to e-mail me.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:31 pm #
I haven’t even bothered to read through all the posts, so please forgive me when I say?
Barrett? you’re a worthless piece of fecal matter that happens to have a higher brain function.
I award you ZERO points, we’re all dumber from reading that and may GOD (yes, I said the bad word) have mercy on your soul.
Comment by JHo on 10/1 @ 6:35 pm #
I find your Works interesting, Mr. Brown, and would like to receive your newsletter.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 6:36 pm #
“If you go back and read a bit, you’ll see that I was asked to identify a Republican whose connections to the Catholic Church were stronger than Obama’s connections to ACORN”
santorum went to court for the catholic church:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/surprise-obamas-legal-career-consisted.html
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 6:37 pm #
BB is kind of like that imitation troll what has all the unpronounceable chemical fillers and adulterated stuff that isn’t real, honest-to-goodness troll like what my daddy caught back in the day. BB, can you rest for a spell and send back the Scrooge Mullet from the Vanity Fair?
You know, BB is either ignorant, dishonest, or (most likely) both, claiming that because he considers the RC Church an enemy, it is therefore ipso facto an ceaseless ally of the GOP. He could do a little of the looking he’s so fond of recommending and discover that it wasn’t the orthodox, rosary-praying prelates who woke up one day and decided to allow homosexual men into the priesthood, or that Bernie Law was the hand-picked Kennedy Cardinal. See, BB, your dirty little Marxy friends got into the Church too, so it’s not all about hidebound rules and not letting your hipster girlfriend get that abortion she wants because she doesn’t want a child that looks like Anthony Michael Hall’s younger brother with an overabundance of chromisomes.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:39 pm #
LOL!!!…writing an article? Jeff, if he even bothers to bother? Will explain in plain language just exactly why you’re wrong, where you WENT wrong, HOW to fix it and EXACTLY…..
Where you can stick the ‘dillo….
SO, good luck with that!! Me? I’d use a porcupine, but JG is gentle like that
Comment by Kresh on 10/1 @ 6:39 pm #
Working Title: How to argue in bad faith and completely shit up discussions.
I’m sure it’ll be a fascinating book/ article. No doubt it’ll highlight your complete inability to stay on topic any longer than it takes to get a “Yeah, but what your guys did was soooo much worse” post into the thread.
I didn’t know trolls got book deals. Obviously your skills at fellatio are far superior to your debating abilities. *shrug*
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 6:41 pm #
“Jeff, if he even bothers to bother? Will explain in plain language just exactly why you’re wrong, where you WENT wrong, HOW to fix it and EXACTLY…..”
It’s not going to be about Jeff. Jeff and I are friendly, have worked on a project together, occasionally talk. The article is about the commenters.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 6:43 pm #
A book about agitating people and their responses to your agitation of them? Brilliant idea, and likely to be found with a black marker stroke and red tag four months after it is published.
You know, I would do this sort of thing with the Leftist blogosphere, except for the fact that I would last three to five posts at best at any of them.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:44 pm #
I could write a book on troll. I’d have to be crayon and lithium grease though, as my grandbabies and the shop ? All I have time for now….
Oh where oh where
has my happyfeet gone?
Oh where oh where can he be?
Some greasy hungarian
has caught his attention
Hapy come back to….well, NOT me, here
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 6:45 pm #
You forgot the low-hanging fruit, Barrett – Edward More Kennedy – oh wait, hmmmm . . .
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 6:45 pm #
I sincerely doubt that Santorum acted as an attorney for the Roman Catholic Church, and recruited and trained people for the benefit of the Church. I could be wrong.
And as for your book, it is interesting that you intentionally choose to be mendoucheous and aggressively provocative, and then act like you are getting the vapors when people call you on it. Are you going to write a chapter about your dishonesty and bigotry?
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 6:46 pm #
“which itself will be released next year. If anyone has any questions, feel free to e-mail me.”
yes have you always been this stupid or did you pay to be stupid.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:47 pm #
Ok Barrett. Please tell all, and remember? we’re actually a tolerant group.
Although? I sincerely doubt you’re as tight w/ JG as you think you may be.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 6:48 pm #
Fe-fe, fi-fi, fo-fo, fum
I smell smoke in the auditorium
Barrett Brown, Barrett Brown
He’s a clown, that Barrett Brown
He’s gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me)
That’s him on his knees
I know that’s him
Yeah, from 7 come 11
Down in the boys’ gym
Barrett Brown, Barrett Brown
He’s a clown, that Barrett Brown
He’s gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me)
Who’s always writing on the wall
Who’s always goofing in the hall
Who’s always throwing spit balls
Guess who (who, me) yeah, you
Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O
Barrett Brown, Barrett Brown
He’s a clown, that Barrett Brown
He’s gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me)
[Instrumental Interlude]
Who walks in the classroom, cool and slow
Who calls the English teacher, Daddy-O
Barrett Brown, Barrett Brown
He’s a clown, that Barrett Brown
He’s gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me)
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:51 pm #
JD. I came in late, not time to read it all. Santorum acted as an attorney for RC?
Links please, as I highly doubt it.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/1 @ 6:55 pm #
…likely to be found with a black marker stroke and red tag four months after it is published.
If we’re going to start a pool, I think we need to go with days.
So, 47.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:55 pm #
I didn’t mean YOU said that JD, sorry.
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 6:55 pm #
Ok,
Homosexuality, drugs, contempt for religion, a BB superhero. How dare anyone criticize him. But what is that “onetime” thing doing there?
Oh, oh big problem. But wait, “Jennings is on the board of the Union Theological Seminary, which describes itself as “progressive and evangelical.” “Union Theological Seminary – Independent, multi-denominational seminary, educating leaders and ministers, workers for social justice, teachers and scholars”
Good, “social justice” “progressive”, it’s safe then God is only a lower case word there. He can stay on the BB approved list. Hooray.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 6:55 pm #
Blitz – Santorum did not do so, unlike Barcky. I was just pointing out how mendoucheous BB was being.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 6:58 pm #
Well, he could easily be mistaken for one, given his latent need to demonstrate his self-perceived superiority.
I’ll bet he leaves Bushwick on weekend trips to drive his focus all up in the grills of those stupid Amish folk with their buggies and such.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 6:59 pm #
TY Jd, I was wondering, and honestly, a HARD day today. I don’t normally swap motors, but it pays the bills.
I’m exhausted, and 3 beers later? ready to go down.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:01 pm #
Oops, #144, “latent” should read “patent.”
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 7:02 pm #
Barrett
Are you going to include your dishonesty in your “article”? You are making unsubstantiated assertions..such as because Santorum attends mass that is exactly the same as Obama’s ties to ACORN. Why not Ted Kennedy’s attendance to mass? Pelosi’s?
When you attempt to argue in bad faith and with not even a whiff of honesty, why are you surprised that people would take exception to your arrogance and bigotry?
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 7:03 pm #
Now would probably be a good time to note that I’m writing an article about my experiences debating politics at Protein Wisdom
Nice ethics.
I’m sure you’ll give a fair account of all sides, given your well-known sterling intellectual honesty.
Douchenozzle.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:03 pm #
’self-perceived superiority.’
EXACTLY and TY Alec. I may only have a HS edumaction? But I do know when one of us is trying to acieve a “station” above me by using big words and bad logic.
If that makes any sense?
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:06 pm #
Now now SBP…Doucenozzle? No. More like the end result of a douche. I’d say douchedrizzle, but that’s just me.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:06 pm #
“Rick Santorum”
AN ex-Senator.
Try again, bartlett.
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 7:07 pm #
Vanity Fair or Huff-Po?
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 7:11 pm #
Of course, Barrett may learn the hard way that lying in print has a way of coming back to bite you when the original conversation is still there on the web for anyone to see, in toto.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:13 pm #
Barrett? PLEASE include that the commenters here? come from a wide range of people. We got us the Whites, the Blacks, the ( shudder) Nishies, the the JOOOOOOOS, the Asians, the gays, the ameobas even (that’s me)…..
We even have people that agree to disagree!!! I know, in your little mind thats’s not a possible thing, but TRUST me it happens?
There are NO repukes nor demorats here, Free thinkers all. Especially Happy…..
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:14 pm #
geoffb – When they substitute “social justice” for Gawd, those religions are okay.
This article is fascinating. Go to a dinner party, take a steaming Barrett in the middle of the table, on the platter of ahi tuna tartar and sashimi and salmon roe, and then acts all shocked and writes articles about how people note that Barrett is a lousy fucking guest, and to make sure that he is not invited back in the future. Then, another dinner party rolls around, Barrett repeats his behavior, uninvited, all while screaming about how Catholics are pedophiles, and is shocked, shocked I tell you, when the other guests react poorly to his actions.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:17 pm #
“How To Alienate Good People and Expose Your Viewpoint As the Hate-filled Pseudo-intellectual Garbage It Really Is.”
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:18 pm #
Barrett is a troll. He didnt’ used to be? But like LGF, he’s lost his mind due to Syphilis ( BO is a GOD syndrome) I actually used to read his screeds. No more, and that is sad. I could learn from the dick drip.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 7:19 pm #
Hi Blitz! – Honestly I have to work out a lot cause of the weight from the quitting smoking so I’m not very consistent like I was but I should get back to normal soon. The weight from the quitting smoking and I think also eating might be involved.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:19 pm #
I was going to suggest Escape from Luft Stalag PW: A Tale of Less Than Civil Dialogue
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:20 pm #
Either way, it’s sure to be a ripping yarn indeed.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:21 pm #
FEETS!!!….I’m trying to quit too. I have this timer thing. a smoke every hour now ( I was 3 packs a day, down to 2)
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 7:22 pm #
“Vanity Fair or Huff-Po?”
Probably HuffPo, as the piece will appear first on True/Slant, and my True/Slant pieces usually appear on either the politics or media section of HuffPo. Will also be excerpted or linked to from my weekly column at BushwickBk and a few other places.
Regarding the half a dozen comments to the effect that my article will be misleading: every incident I mention will link straight to the posts in question so that readers may determine for themselves who is trying to carry on with a civil and honest debate and who is resorting to invective and misdirection. Additionally, the piece will be updated as necessary to link to any response, whether on this blog or anywhere else; simply e-mail me the links and cc someone else so that a record exists of you sending me that link.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:25 pm #
Ok Barrett? Misdirection? OH LOOK BUNNIES!!!….which is what you do in each and every fucking thread I’v read….YOU change the goalposts.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:26 pm #
“Probably HuffPo”
Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:28 pm #
” every incident I mention will link straight to the posts in question so that readers may determine for themselves who is trying to carry on with a civil and honest debate and who is resorting to invective and misdirection.”
Good, then even more people will see you for the prejudiced, hate-filled lying pseudo you are.
Comment by takeshi kovacs on 10/1 @ 7:28 pm #
Vanity Fair is Huff Po, with a better photo layout. They specialize in left hagiography
that would make Zinoviev blush, they like all of Conde Nast publications, are bleeding
like a stuck pig
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/1 @ 7:29 pm #
Regarding the half a dozen comments to the effect that my article will be misleading: every incident I mention will link straight to the posts in question so that readers may determine for themselves who is trying to carry on with a civil and honest debate and who is resorting to invective and misdirection.
That’s real courageous of you. Barrett’s virgin birth on PW. As though the reaction you received has no back-story.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:29 pm #
Actuall N’o? It says more than I can speak. JD can spell the word….Mendoucheness? Is that right?
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 7:29 pm #
HuffPo, Barrett? Arianna’s place that has been running column inches in support of child rapist Roman Polanski?
Your irony gene is missing.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:31 pm #
Darleen, Darleen Darleen….when will you ever understand? The man is a genious that needs to be “understood”
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:32 pm #
So, like all doctrinaire libertarians, he’s enamored of that skinny statist fellow?
Hey Barrett, could you kindly use your impressive media skills and find me a copy of Mr. Barack’s SAT scores? I’m just curious – that used to be the kind of thing the media would do for the public.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:32 pm #
“Mendoucheness”
A delightful neologism.
A mendacious douchebag: Mr. Bartlett to a T.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:33 pm #
A dishonest Lefty – SHOCKA.
I wonder what our host thinks of you using his site for your dishonest experiment.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:33 pm #
ALL men like to F**k young girls…..GOD that was SO wrong. I suggest Him and Thor in a cage…..NOBODY leaves
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:34 pm #
“Your irony gene is missing.”
It was surgically removed. A humorectomy.
Sort of coming of age for reactionary leftists: “Today I am an Asshelmet!”
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 7:37 pm #
“hat’s real courageous of you. Barrett’s virgin birth on PW. As though the reaction you received has no back-story.”
You’re right, there’s plenty of back-story and plenty to be said about the reaction I get – so much so, in fact, that the guy who owns this blog actually told all of you to stop accusing me of lying about my political ideology and otherwise hurling nonsensical insults in my general direction. Insomuch as that it’s his blog and he read all the comments back in the days before he finally got sick of the whole thing, he knows the back-story as well as anyone, and he doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion on how exactly that back-story goes. Of course, none of you respected his request, even though it’s his blog and we’re all his guests here.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:38 pm #
Mendoucheous
Mendoucheity
Mendoucheousness
h/t to Dan Collins, who coined that word.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:39 pm #
I think that the part that Mr. Polanski didn’t get is that most men would kind of feel bad about using the advantage of their age and influence to bed pubescent girls – and then don’t bed pubescent girls. It’s really not sporting, bragging about poking early teen girls who relent because they don’t yet know how to tactfully refuse your advances and who also don’t know by comparison and from experience how small your penis is.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:40 pm #
Alec? They’r e right THERE!!! In plain sight you moron. Just go past the lions while they’re sleeping, take a left past the laser cutters, straight on to the mother in law cage and then JUMP to the rotating saw area? JUST above that? You’ll find a clue as to where thae are
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:42 pm #
TY TY TY JD….Duly noted, duly written
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:42 pm #
“You’re right, there’s plenty of back-story and plenty to be said about the reaction I get…”
Actually, bartlett, the back story is your anti-religious bias, your pseudo-intellectual snobbery, and your all round smarmy mndoucheousness.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:42 pm #
What does Jeff think of you using his site for your experiment in abject dishonesty, Barrett?
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 7:42 pm #
lying about my political ideology
People should be forgiven for mistaking you for a leftist… such neurotic hatred of Judeo-Christianity is usually found on the Left. Most libertarians are agnostic about a person’s religious beliefs.
As I recall from my time as a registered Libertarian, most of my peers didn’t care HOW one came about their principles, only WHAT those principles were.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 7:44 pm #
Barrett
is there some reason you are ignoring me?
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:44 pm #
Alec? I have a different take on that? but we agree. I think most men THINK about it, but never would act on it. Nothing to do w/ penis size
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/1 @ 7:46 pm #
HuffPo, that bastion of classical liberalism and libertarians…
‘Nuff said…
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:47 pm #
No, I think Barret will use his media badge and find how the smartest man broke the SAT machine with his brilliance.
Hint: Before the rejiggering of the late 90s, SAT scores could be fairly accurately construed to determine a corresponding IQ score. I’m sure Brakbannana lit up the world, which, of course, is why we can’t have them.
Comment by Kresh on 10/1 @ 7:48 pm #
HuffPo? Huff-fucking-Po? That, self-aggrandizing bastion of fairness and tolerant thought? You’re going to bring them here?
Oh.
Oh my.
You’d better provide one heck of a biased lead-in (read: warning about all the rethuglican(tm) racist mind-crime hate-speech) before the link here. Otherwise the shrieks of pain from all their bunched panties will be so loud as to make the Red Army in China think there’s an alarm going off somewheres. Wouldn’t want to start WWIII now, would you?
Yes, bring them here. Show them… show them what we have here. Show them what an echo chamber doesn’t look like, where intelligent and fact-based thought is welcome and encouraged, and where fact-less poo-flinging monkeys get the door slammed on their little wee-wees, just like they deserve. We… relish the thought of their visit. Their anguish should be… exquisite.
*WARNING* INCOMING HUFF-PO POO-MONKEYS IN 3… 2… 1…
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:49 pm #
JD? my bet? Jeff is watching baseball, playing with his child, not paying any attentin….for now.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 7:51 pm #
HuffPo…a place that has had to close comments on particular articles least the threatening and hated-filled commenters attract undue attention from the Secret SErvice during the last 8 years.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 10/1 @ 7:51 pm #
“is there some reason you are ignoring me?”
I’m not ignoring you. Do you have a question? As I noted, if you’d like to write a response to my article, I will not only link to it from the article itself but also include it at the end of the piece as it appears on True/Slant, HuffPo if it runs there (it might not), and anywhere else where I can edit pieces after posting them.
Otherwise, I believe I’m finished here.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:51 pm #
Didn’t someone describe BB as an “intellectual anarchist”, or something similar to that?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 7:52 pm #
We’ll call you. Really, I promise, we’re not playas, we’re just really busy at work and stuff.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:53 pm #
SAT? Mine? kinda high, but dad needed me. And you know what? it paid for a house and a shop. That’s all I care about.
PROBABLY the least educated person here? but I learn every day. My Motto?
If you aren’t LEARNING, you aren’t LIVING
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:53 pm #
Speaking of which, the Phillies clinched last night.
3 years in a row.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:54 pm #
Barrett? Yes, you are finished here
Comment by guinsPen on 10/1 @ 7:57 pm #
I believe I’m finished here.
Godspeed, BB.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 7:57 pm #
“No, I think Barret will use his media badge and find how the smartest man broke the SAT machine with his brilliance.”
What a coinkydink, I was just out walking one of my dogs and as she squatted to take a pee, I thought to myself “I bet thet Bartlett thinks he’s “The Smartest Man In The Universe™”.
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 7:58 pm #
every incident I mention will link straight to the posts in question
Yes, I’m sure that every one you mention will be carefully selected.
And HuffPo? Really? Oh, right. They’re a bastion of “libertarian” thought.
Douchenozzle.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 7:58 pm #
oh. Good luck, Blitz. I quit right before the dirty socialists raised the cigarette taxes to pay the hospital bills of random children. I thought it sounded really kind of sketch, so I quit. I used lots of drugs though. Chantix and wellbutrin. Going off the wellbutrin was like quitting all over again, but the drugs did 99% of the work.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:59 pm #
N’o? Yank have serious pitching problems, Sox are coming on. IF the Sox can beat the Angels? I’d say Sox in 6 over the Yanks. BUT? no WAY can we match up w/ the Phillies
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 7:59 pm #
Otherwise, I believe I’m finished here.
Your credibility was finished here long ago, Barrett.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 7:59 pm #
Barrett slinks away, content with the amount of poo he splattered all over the place. He will go curl up with his hatred and bigotry, as they keep him warm.
Comment by Abe Froman on 10/1 @ 7:59 pm #
You’re right, there’s plenty of back-story and plenty to be said about the reaction I get – so much so, in fact, that the guy who owns this blog actually told all of you to stop accusing me of lying about my political ideology and otherwise hurling nonsensical insults in my general direction.
Baloney. There are some people who are not politically sophisticated enough to be able to differentiate your boutique philosophical perspective from that of a standard-issue leftard. And Jeff has defended you to that effect. But this is an exceedingly diverse commentariat and the lingering antipathy you engender is full-square on your penchant for mendacity and playing the contrarian for your own amusement.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:01 pm #
“I believe I’m finished here.”
But instead of a silver bullet, he leaves a shit in the middle of Jeff’s rug.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:01 pm #
Feets? I’ve done this before. It was a timing thingy? NO DRUGS, as I’m way too sensitive to the side affects (no comment, intestinal fortitude) I’m at one an hour now, tomorrow will be an hour ten minutes.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 8:02 pm #
I’m not ignoring you. Do you have a question?
Review my comments above…or more simply, why are you being dishonest and acting in bad faith?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:03 pm #
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 7:59 pm #
I went down to see the start of the Phil’s victory parade last year, it started right down from where I work.
Awesome, dude.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 8:03 pm #
All of the other baseball teams are fighting for the chance to lose to the Cardinals.
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 8:04 pm #
that the guy who owns this blog actually told all of you to stop accusing me of lying about my political ideology and otherwise hurling nonsensical insults in my general direction.
Link?
Oh, right: he did nothing of the sort.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:04 pm #
Getting to Court that afternoon was, well, “difficult” to say the least.
Comment by SBP on 10/1 @ 8:05 pm #
I’ll be looking forward to copying and pasting selected Barrett twatwaffling into the comments of every thread that he “mentions” and “links”.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:05 pm #
OH….Happy? I don’t sit at a desk, nor is my time regulated….
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:07 pm #
JD? I’m content w/ the small amount of poo I threw at him too. Shame really, a while ago? he wasn’t a troll.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:09 pm #
N’o? I relly think you should reserv a place this year. I just don’t see any better team.You never know though?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:09 pm #
The best was the first Flyers victory parade.
There’s a story that a pilot flew into Philly on the Sunday night of the clinching game against Boston, and went downtown to a hotel. Woke up, and on exiting his hotel found 2,000,000 crazed fans on Broad Street.
I assume he was standing there, gaping at the crowd and someone walked by and said, “What, you never been in Philadelphia on a Monday morning?”
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 8:10 pm #
1. It’s some fellow he hired to serve us.
2. Remember that best vetting process evah! we were supposed to get? This tale is in his 2007 book.
3. This is our new “Safe Schools Czar”. Back when he was in a school, interacting with children, he was a mandatory reporter. Which means that he was obliged by law to act upon the information he got from this kid. Part of that whole “safe schools” thing, where they don’t turn a blind eye to child rape.
But if you’re cool with middle age men picking up teenage boys in restrooms, I can see how you would think that law not worth bothering with.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:12 pm #
JD? the CARDS? Good team, but the Phillies in 6. My Red Sox? in 5. The Cards would wipe teir butts with the Yankees or Angels, But TRY to get through the Phillies first
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:14 pm #
N’o? Was that a Hockey story? If so, I may need to look you up and hunt you down. 1974?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:15 pm #
Well, I suppose we know how BB scored really good bud in High School
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 8:16 pm #
Nice… I sit at a desk a lot. It’s cause the phone’s on top of it is why mostly. My time is regulated but for some kooky reason it’s a 7 hr work day. I love that. I eat lunch at my desk a lot this year cause we’ve been playing recession, and NG is buying a house so it’s better for her not to go out a lot.
God I want a cigarette.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:16 pm #
Yup, Broad Street Bullies. There was a movie made to glorify them
‘SLAP SHOT’
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 8:18 pm #
A mandatory reporter job is sort of a lot a job I would disdain to do. I report what I feels like reporting, bitches.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:18 pm #
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:16 pm #
HEY!
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:19 pm #
LOL, actually.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:19 pm #
Happy? I own my own shop. besides my idiot brother? I don’t employ anyone (except accountants and lawyers and shippers OH MY)
I do what I want when I want.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:20 pm #
OWN it N’Obrian
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 8:20 pm #
This whole “commenters are mean to po’ widdle Barrett” article should be priceless.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:20 pm #
My (deceased) stepfather’s brother was a rather popular player on those Flyer’s cup teams.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 8:22 pm #
That’s the dream I think.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:22 pm #
Whom, Alec?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 8:23 pm #
… about the owning the shop. Someday if you see a sign what says happyfeet bodega ice beer cigarettes news you stop in and we’ll crack open some beers or something.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:23 pm #
Comment by N. O’Brain on 10/1 @ 8:18 pm #
Funny story….I was only 12 at the time? I ripped up EVERY B’s card I had, and BURNED the Flyers cards. I went on to play hockey (goalie) until last yesr, insurance won’t alow. (Rinks, not mine)
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:25 pm #
Happy? one of these days my friend
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:26 pm #
Name Alec? I’m fairly well versed in hockey history
Comment by cranky-d on 10/1 @ 8:26 pm #
So Barrett is the victim in all this? Really? Wow. Rather than argue in good faith, he will nitpick on tiny little points that most people would not bother with, turn the discussion towards those tiny little points, then if he is successful in getting the person to concede on those tiny points, will declare victory over the entire argument rather than the tiny little point he concentrated on.
His objective is to play semantic games. I imagine that he sounds quite smarmy in person. He is apparently quite full of himself.
I went a few rounds with him years ago. Once I realized what he was really about, I decided he was not worth the time.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:27 pm #
No. 8 I still see him from time to time at the odd Thanksgiving or Easter.
My Stepfather played for the Philadelphia Firebirds, among others. My kid brother, aka “Big Nasty” was a notable fighter in Ontario in his Junior A years.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:28 pm #
Oh, and I had a rather uneventful career in the Lower Bucks league.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:30 pm #
That’s what sophisticated sorts do – to, you know, show you how sophisticated they are.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/1 @ 8:31 pm #
But if you’re cool with middle age men picking up teenage boys in restrooms . . .
It’s not Larry Craig’s fault.
Hard to tell their age through the glory hole.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:31 pm #
Cranky? of COURSE he is. H’s a lefty/prog/liberal/moron.
Conservatives? are ALWAYS the agressors. I mean REALLY….Using their own words to actually do something horrifying like QUOTE them?? like to murder…
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 8:32 pm #
Maybe Barrett could do an article about SEK and his angry mob of hatey haters that hate on his behalf.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:34 pm #
Alec? My mom was a hostess for the Nashua CC. I actually MET Ken Hodge, Gerry Cheevers, Ace Bailey…..I was VERY young, but I still have pics and things. That’s what got me into hockey….The people I’ve played against woul blow your mind
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:35 pm #
AHEM….I cannot use trollhammer, so do we ignore or engage?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:38 pm #
I got the VIP treatment at a few All Star games. Met the Legends at the game in Boston in ‘92 when I was in HS, and my stepfather’s brother played in the Legends game.
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 8:39 pm #
“You’re right, there’s plenty of back-story and plenty to be said about the reaction I get – so much so, in fact, that the guy who owns this blog actually told all of you to stop accusing me of lying about my political ideology and otherwise hurling nonsensical insults in my general direction. Insomuch as that it’s his blog and he read all the comments back in the days before he finally got sick of the whole thing, he knows the back-story as well as anyone, and he doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion on how exactly that back-story goes. Of course, none of you respected his request, even though it’s his blog and we’re all his guests here.”
linky thing oh brave one
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:40 pm #
92? Bucyk, Orr, Espie, MAYBE Vadnais….I HOPE he was there. Hodge, Mackenzie, Doak?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:40 pm #
Comment by Snowcone on 10/1 @ 8:31 pm #
Hush, child.
The adults are talking.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:42 pm #
Comment by newrouter on 10/1 @ 8:39 pm #
I may be slow and behind the times,but unless this happened in an Email? NO. I want a link to it.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:42 pm #
He’s off to drink PBR with his hipster buddies. PBR – it’s got what you look for in a beer, which is irony.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/1 @ 8:43 pm #
I still have the program from the first Flyers-Soviet game.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:46 pm #
N’o!!! I have the whole original West/East VCR tapes. OMG They’re wearing donn though. Bobby Clarke? Tretiak?
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:47 pm #
Being Boston, it was Boston-centric. Orr, Cashman, etc. and Lanny McDonald’s stache. I was more like “hey, there’s Pavel Bure and Wayne from the Wonder Years.”
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:47 pm #
Other than Tretiak? I’d have to say Ken Dryden as the best EVAH!!
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:48 pm #
Lanny was OVERRATED….Great hitter, great slapshot, POOR defense
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:51 pm #
Orr? wasn’t there in most years. He had a deep seated hatred for Harry. I have NO facts to back that up, but he DID disappear for 20 years.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:52 pm #
As far as BB goes? I DARE him to link here. I’d like to think that any argument he makes? could be shot down in a comment ot two.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 10/1 @ 8:53 pm #
I don’t mean to tell tales out of school, or break the hockey code, but those events are a good opportunity for some grabassin’ IYKWIMAIKTYD.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 8:56 pm #
LOL!!!!….I played w/ Ken Hodge JR ( who went on to play w/ the Bruins) in a sandbox in Nashua NH!!!….What goes on in the sandbox STAYS in the sandbox!!!
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:02 pm #
“You’re right, there’s plenty of back-story and plenty to be said about the reaction I get – so much so, in fact, that the guy who owns this blog actually told all of you to stop accusing me of lying about my political ideology and otherwise hurling nonsensical insults in my general direction. Insomuch as that it’s his blog and he read all the comments back in the days before he finally got sick of the whole thing, he knows the back-story as well as anyone, and he doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion on how exactly that back-story goes. Of course, none of you respected his request, even though it’s his blog and we’re all his guests here.”
linky thing oh brave one
I may not comment here much? But I DO read here a lot. THIS piece of felgercarb I’ve never seen.
Link me to it please?
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 9:06 pm #
Jeff once did say something like that, though it was in a long ago comment thread before Barrett had proven himself to be as mendoucheous as originally thought.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:06 pm #
Barrett? PLEASE link us to where JG said that?
I really WANT to know. I liked you once, before you went all “LGF” on us.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:07 pm #
TY JD. I thought so? but I’m a moron.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:13 pm #
Lurker sinnce 2003, Commenter since then too? but I’ve learned to learn that what i don’t know? I don’t know. I love this place.
Comment by JD on 10/1 @ 9:13 pm #
So, basically, Barrett is misrepresenting the overall context of the comment that he is paraphrasing.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:14 pm #
Like what is an ephro something or other? I can”t click on the word which I normally can?
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:16 pm #
OF COURSE he is JD….it’s what they do. Just like that 6 page screed against Sarah Palin’s book?
Frightened children is what they are.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:19 pm #
Ephebophile? What is that?
Comment by cranky-d on 10/1 @ 9:31 pm #
Someone who is fond of Ephebos.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 9:35 pm #
Blitz
pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The pedophile is NOT interested in a child once they start developing secondary sexual characteristics.
ephebophilia is sexual attraction to adolescents. The ephebophile is interested in a sexually mature, but legal minor.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 9:37 pm #
er…that last reads wrong… The ephebophile is interested in a young teen who is sexually mature but still legally a minor.
Comment by Blitz on 10/1 @ 9:46 pm #
Thank you Darleen I really couldn’t find it, but still? MY daughter? shotgun, meet face
Comment by Mark A. Flacy on 10/1 @ 9:48 pm #
But not all of us. Some of us who are atheists aren’t as hostile to religion as you appear to be.
If you weren’t such a smarmy dickhead, you could simply quote Matthew 22:21. The Catholic Church may attempt to save those priests’ souls, but they broke the law; their souls can be saved just as easily when their asses are in jail.
Comment by Darleen on 10/1 @ 9:52 pm #
Comment by Mark A. Flacy
As pointed out upthread (and also ignored by Barrett) is that public school teachers have as much a problem with “child sex stories” as the Catholic Church, including administrators moving “problem” teachers from school to school.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 10:08 pm #
Holy moley! From back in June:
Here comes the bus, Kevin!
Comment by happyfeet on 10/1 @ 10:57 pm #
oh. See the one dealio I could defend but this guy is not a one dealio kind of guy. He is multi-dealio.
Comment by Pablo on 10/1 @ 11:14 pm #
Wowzers. Check out the first blurb on the back cover of Queering Elementary Education. Bill sounds like he wants to touch some boys. Bill Ayers, that is.
Comment by geoffb on 10/1 @ 11:22 pm #
All this hockey and no buttons or guins pen. Sad it is.
Comment by maggie katzen on 10/2 @ 1:35 am #
I’ll have to catch up tomorrow, but please, someone must photo shop this:
“Yes, he’s definitely on the lamb…”
I would think there were better rides for escaping, but whatever floats your boat.
Comment by B Moe on 10/2 @ 5:04 am #
I haven’t the time to read through all this tripe, but did anybody point BB down the page to the Roman Polanski stuff? Or teach him to use the search engine so he could find out on his own how totally full of shit he is?
Comment by Rusty on 10/2 @ 5:08 am #
Now would probably be a good time to note that I’m writing an article about my experiences debating politics at Protein Wisdom, that the article will be appearing later this week, and that a longer version will be appearing in the form of the last chapter of my upcoming book on the national discourse, which itself will be released next year.
If anyone has any questions, feel free to e-mail me.
Nope. Knock yerself out.
Comment by Rusty on 10/2 @ 5:11 am #
#24o
We’ll rely on your expertise on that one.
Comment by B Moe on 10/2 @ 5:32 am #
Is the cover a photoshop of you nailed to a cross?
Comment by alppuccino on 10/2 @ 5:40 am #
Barrett, call your editor. You’re cutting edge article about how PW commentators are mean has just been bumped by an expose on the dangers of running with scissors. Keep submitting though. Persistence man.
Comment by LTC John on 10/2 @ 6:23 am #
“God I want a cigarette.”
Resist, happy, resist!!!!
Comment by happyfeet on 10/2 @ 7:06 am #
I did. It’s weird and not to be all whiny but when I walk through someone’s smoke like out front of the building or somewhere the next day is hard. I never heard anyone say about that is all. But I’ve heard people say after they quit they can’t stand the smell of cigarettes anymore. Me I think they smell really really really good.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/2 @ 7:57 am #
Barrett seems to have been, overall, more civil to many of you than you’ve deserved. So, you disagree with him. Get over it. If you don’t want to discuss certain things with him, then don’t discuss.
How difficult is that?
I mean, would you rather have a Barrett Brown commenting here, or our friend, the fact-averse Snowcone?
Comment by Squid on 10/2 @ 7:58 am #
Oh, now I’m pissed. I go off to have a life for a few hours, and I totally miss out on Dread Lord Barrett’s little game of distraction.
Now I’m not gonna be in his article. That’s so unfair! WAAAAAAAAHHHH!
Comment by Squid on 10/2 @ 8:08 am #
Slart,
Barrett gets it with both barrels largely because this commentariat has been sensitized to bad-faith debate partners. Sure, if cooler heads were around to say “cut this guy some slack,” we might have had a better time of it. But it wouldn’t change the fact that Barrett has very few arrows in his quiver, and as a result they’re overused and tired.
When he’s not bashing the Catholics, he’s relying on tu quoque arguments that don’t mean a damn thing, because 1) there’s no great love here for the GOP, and 2) there’s no merit in a “we’re just as bad as our opponents” argument in the first place. He’s also been guilty of moving the goal posts in past arguments here.
So, couple his limited arguments with his condescending tone and thin skin, and you have a guy who’s going to stomp out of even the most benign dinner party debate (which PW never was and never will be). I understand that he and Jeff have a cordial relationship, which I can only assume is because he’s better in a focused one-on-one conversation than he is with the scattershot nature of these comment threads.
I, for one, would still love to see a principled classical liberal come in here and explain how one can support the statism of Obama/Pelosi/Reid and still remain true to the tenets of classical liberalism. I don’t think it can be done, but I’d love to see a good-faith attempt made by somebody with a sharp mind.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 10/2 @ 8:14 am #
I think the condescending tone is just Barrett being Barrett. It’s irritating, I know. Maybe the fact that I have to deal with irritating people on a really frequenc basis helps me out in not getting too reactivated.
Anyway, carry on. Mine was an editorial note; a suggestion.
Comment by McGehee on 10/2 @ 8:59 am #
And these are often the most “civil.” Civility is arguably a necessary component, but not by any means sufficient by itself.
Comment by SBP on 10/2 @ 9:52 am #
I mean, would you rather have a Barrett Brown commenting here, or our friend, the fact-averse Snowcone?
Barrett is EXACTLY like NippleNut. Exactly.
Neither is capable of debating in good faith.
Both will spin, deflect, dissemble, and outright lie in order to avoid conceding a point.
The fact that Barrett operates on a level one might call “frat boy trying to bullshit his way through a final exam for which he hasn’t read the material” while Nipply is more of a “kindergartner throwing a tantrum” sort doesn’t really matter. Discussing anything with either of them is an utter waste of time aside from the amusement factor.
Comment by OObstreperous Infidel on 10/2 @ 10:32 am #
BarretBarrett hates himself some God. It’s as simple as that. Bush was a non-apologetic God botherer, so Barrett hated him and everybody he deems supported him. Barrett also knows that O!bama’s faith seems pretty independent of an actual God, so he’s cool with that. He still doesn’t like O!bama’s politics, though. But, I have to agree with slart, here, SBP. He’s not alphie. When Barrett actually does talk policy, politics or whatever he’s more than capable. But his hatred of the religious trumps his hatred of the statist. At least in here. So, the answer does lie inhim checking his rather obvious bias against the religious if his true desire is to talk politics, rather than just lecturing the commentariat here on what he perceives as its hypocrisy. He’s just trying to “better us”, don’t you know! I agree, it’s silly. Just my .02.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 10/2 @ 10:34 am #
Sorry for the typos. I’ve lost the left side of the comment box. Hence I was extra “O”Obstreperous.
Comment by SDN on 10/2 @ 11:18 am #
Slart, at this point I’m not really interested in civility. The Left in this country aren’t interested in an honest debate; that’s been clear since 2001. Many of them are objectively anti-American, to the point where treason is the only word that really fits. Finally, there is not a single instance in human history where fascism / communism / socialism has been backed off by compromise. They don’t see it as compromise and stop; it’s very analogous to the tactics of seige: dig your lines, wear your opponents down, then dig the next set of lines a little closer, using the line before that as the starting point. There’s just no living with them.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 10/2 @ 1:07 pm #
The fact that Barrett operates on a level one might call “frat boy trying to bullshit his way through a final exam for which he hasn’t read the material” while Nipply is more of a “kindergartner throwing a tantrum” sort doesn’t really matter.
Nicely done, SBP.
Comment by Rusty on 10/2 @ 2:34 pm #
#286
That will go away after awhile. In your sleep you will dream you’re smoking for years though.
Comment by McGehee on 10/2 @ 3:12 pm #
I find Barrett’s lack of tolerance for Bush’s faith … disturbing.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/2 @ 8:34 pm #
sensitized to bad-faith debate partners
Exactly.
louc’, phone home.
help needed.
Comment by Rusty on 10/2 @ 8:36 pm #
In the coming years when you sleep you will dream that you still smoke. There. That’s better.
Comment by guinsPen on 10/2 @ 9:03 pm #
Phone here, actually.
Comment by Rusty on 10/3 @ 8:28 am #
I find Barrett’s lack of tolerance for Bush’s faith … disturbing.
So in what god does he put his faith?
Comment by poppa india on 10/3 @ 10:23 am #
So I go back to Michigan for a week to survey the damage (storm & economic) and return to find BB still going on about the Catholic Church. Tedious and tiresome-imagine sitting next to him for a cross-country flight, or worse, on a Greyhound. Is there any issue which he can’t link to the wrongs of the Church?
Comment by tehag on 10/4 @ 5:28 am #
“I can see how I should have handled this situation differently” = “Why wait travel to the bathroom, kid; I’m right here.”
Let’s see… people of a certain sexual persuasion infest the Catholic Church, and together with their supporters and admirers, pervert and deny all of its teachings…; people of a certain sexual persuasion find accommodation and admiration in Hollywood living by its flamboyant, self-indulgent standards; people of a certain sexual persuasion find employment and support in the Obama administration living with all the restraint and decency expected from politicians…
The Catholic Church should pay and pay and pay (and not just in money: malefactors should be imprisoned; those who covered form them, imprisoned) for this generation (or two) of indulging in evil. So: now what should be done about Hollywood and Obama? They have perverted no noble goals and have failed to uphold human decency, because, as artists and politicians, morality is alien to their professions: these actions are their normal, daily routine. Their reputations cannot be stained, because there is no background to be stained. Their characters cannot be comprised or impugned, because no one should or can think of them as other than amoral exploiters of all who are in reach.
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 1:04 pm #
So now Barrett Brown is spam-whoring links to his hit-pieces on people.
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 1:19 pm #
So now Barrett Brown is spam-whoring links to his hit-pieces on people. If anyone gets around to reading his drivel, could you let us know how horribly embarassed we should be? I wonder if he will point out that he intentionally was provocative to incite the reactions that he now writes about, or if he will note the hundreds of comments where he asked for, and then ignored, the definition of criminal enterprise.
But, being a dishonest spam-whore, I suspect his expose is pretty well predictable. Poor widdle Barrett, someone was mean to him, and this will have a profound effect on the world. What a narcissist. No wonder that the classic liberal voted for Barcky.
Comment by Jeff G. on 10/4 @ 2:06 pm #
I removed all the trackbacks and have provided Barrett with protein wisdom’s official response: “I think Barrett might have titled the thing, ‘Barrett Brown is, like, so much smarter than some blog commenters he could name!’ and therefore saved his readers the effort of poring over this rather strained love affair to himself.”
Now we can go back to ignoring him, and the next time he comments here, I advise you all to simply ignore his promptings. Most of us are here to hold discussions; not to provide Barrett Brown with fodder for “important articles” with “global” implications. That deal with blog comments.
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 2:13 pm #
Being mean to Barrett is hurting the peoples of Ugada.
Comment by SBP on 10/4 @ 2:28 pm #
Hey, Gordo! How’s TrannyCrazyO doing?
She figure out yet that you’re not ever planning to get a job?
Comment by JD on 10/4 @ 2:28 pm #
STFU, timmah.
Comment by SBP on 10/4 @ 2:32 pm #
Another trackback here, Jeff.