Commenter Archive

Comments by MadisonConservative
*

On “12 or 13 Things I Know About Her

My condolences on the link, Diane.

On “The IdjitihadTM rolls on

Okay, dude. As long as you just want to complain about building mosques

Not mosques. This mosque, built here, with that name, with that opening date.

"

(1)So we need to amend the Constitution to restrict Islam from the Freedom of Religion part? And to Consecrate the 9/11 Hole to be sacred ground, defining sacred as consistent with any Religion except Islam?

"No", he said, exasperated by the endless chucking of the strawman. "We need to use our right to assemble and our right to free speech to express our views about this mosque, unafraid of being dismissed as 'xenophobes' by narcissists who have only condescension for opposing views."

He stared in amazement as the others continued to swing at thin air, with mumbled battle cries of "Islamophobe!" and "You can't oppose something and not want it banned through government force!" Shaking his head in bewilderment, he wandered on...

"

the reason why this is the summer the rightwing lost its mind and went full xenophobe on “Anchor babies, the Ground Zero mosque and other scapegoats.”

Thank you, Charles Johnson.

On “Was I wacked at HotAir?

@ Parson Logic T ReFog:

Then, by all means, let your true self go. After all, when you wish someone's parents dead, ostensibly because they dislike the attitude of some writer on the internet, it's entirely improper that they not acquiesce to whatever questions you demand of them.

I can see why you're a fan of CK.

"

@ Parson Logic T ReFog:

Hm. Hopes that my parents have died. I can see the kind of classy people CK surrounds himself with.

As to CK's nocturnal emission about my having any interest in him, I decided to drop a line after receiving a few emails pointing out your gormless palaver. What's truly fascinating is that HAers rarely come to this site, yet you reference them so frequently. Perhaps you should analyze your own obsessions before misdiagnosing others.

"

Poor baby. You took an unpopular position and people gave you hell over it. Let me pet your head.

Oh, that's right. This is the internet. Get used to it. Remember a while ago when there was a bit of back-and-forth about Palin and McCain? Lots of hell thrown at both sides. Get used to it. Remember my advice on your tone and condescending manner? Notice how numerous others noted it as time went on? Get used to it, because until you come to terms with the fact that your feces gives off just as pungent an aroma as the rest of the blogosphere's, you're going to wander in a haze of narcissistic befuddlement as to how all the plebians are not dazzled by your scribblings.

The problem isn't, wasn't, and never will be, the side you choose. The problem is your attitude. Your self-absorbed snide. Your gargantuan ego. If you want an honest discussion, put it aside when you pose your argument. So far, all you've been doing is lecturing people on what you think, laced with hints that if they don't agree, that they're ignorant or bigoted. Knock it off, and you might be less despised.

On “Fight Them All Together, The Sequel: On Allahpundit's Questions

Scan the comments on this thread yourself. Even leaving aside the ones that have no apparent purpose other than to insult, attack, or otherwise fault me personally or as a writer, do you really think it would be possible for a single individual to respond in a timely manner to all of the presumptions embedded in each comment, to all of the requests for special attention, and also to all of the statements that may (oddly enough) actually touch on the core arguments of the above post or core concerns of prior discussion?

Yes. For someone who thinks so highly of himself, you sure whine about having to engage in the conversation you so boisterously claim to covet.

And for all your whining about people making it about you, for the millionth damned time: stop insulting your readers and making your articles personal. Right there lies the answer to your oft-repeated woe. Another prime example:

If you think it’s more important to attack a blogger you’ve never met and very likely will never meet because he doesn’t have the time or inclination or capacity to participate comprehensively in the comment thread of a post in the HotAir Greenroom, then, respectfully, I disagree, and as far as I can tell, we’ll have to leave it at that.

CK MacLeod on June 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM

How f**king dare you. You spit on the very forum you're invited to participate in, as if you're anything special. You're not. See? If you hadn't made yet another condescending, insulting reference to the community, wherein you post your bleatings because you apparently think they're important enough that other people to read and discuss, then people would be less inclined to attack you. If you're going to get personal, stop whining and crying when you get the same back. You're a horrendous hypocrite, doling out abuse and snide dismissal towards all who disagree with you, and then pulling a Captain Renault when those same people don't shower you with love and affection. Shocked, shocked you are that your readers aren't masochists.

I really, really wish you'd at least concede that point. Otherwise, we can only assume that you're a true narcissist, completely and utterly self-absorbed, to a pathological extent. You just can't get why people would disagree, or even react negatively to anything you do. Perhaps there really is no way around it. In which case, you should try and figure that out, and let us know. We'll respect your disability.

"

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Common tactic of those who always want plausible deniability for their words.

"

Since his highness hasn't found it necessary to come back to what he considers the internet version of Skid Row and bless us with his messages from the ethereal realm of superbeings, I thought I'd repost a real winner from the comments at ZC's of his:

Again, if the CI screws up, they should and will pay a price. It doesn’t have anything to do with “religion that killed 2,996 people” and “conquer America” and “looming horror” and “Islime” and “I hate Muslims” and “in the name of” logic, all fully in evidence long before some dude may have called the Islimers Nazi-like, and nothing that the Cordobans say or do would justify that. (It’s beneath the dignity of a free man or woman to call anyone, Osama Bin Laden included, “Islime.”)

Wow. So many quotes.

CK MacLeod is more offended at people who are angry about 9/11 than he is offended about 9/11.

"

Peace be upon you.

Oh, and commenters...please don't take the bait. It's clearly attached to a line the author set up.

"

Those upset about any perceived absurd, insulting, or imprudent initiative – for their own sake, for the sake of those in whose name they’re arguing, for the sake of the larger community, and eventually for the sake of the political life of this country and for the sake of its particular aims and mission in the world – should consider how their words and actions are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them, and even by some who are or were.

And those that want to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero should consider how their actions and ideas are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them.

You have repeatedly made the argument, however, that they shouldn't. That they should do what they want, and those who are not directly involved should butt out.

"

And, no, I’m not concerned about, afraid of, or offended by Muslim pride in Ummayyad Cordoba – nor do I presume a right to judge.

You presume wrongly, as you similarly presume wrongly that those who are not living within close proximity have no right, place, or reason to express their displeasure about the Ground Zero mosque. You have every right to judge when a project comes forth to erect a building representing a religion in an area where that said religion brought about the greatest act of terrorism in our nations' history...and the organization that is doing so bases its name on the centerpiece of that religion's conquering of Western Europe centuries ago. It's not at all an exaggeration to say you freely judge many, many others on a regular basis. What then fuels your charge that this event, this group, and this idea, are too high up to be judged by us?

On “Fight Them All Together: The Conservative Reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque"

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Mr. "back to content" posting pictures and jokes. What a worthless little hypocrite.

And your complete dismissal of the takeover of Europe by Islam, in the face of such things as England recognizing Sharia Law in parts of the country, allowing Green Lane Mosque and other mosques to continue their activities despite having been outed on national television for fomenting Jihad, the bevy of threats against people like Geert Wilders and the artists who depicted Mohammed in the Jyllands-Posten, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the attacks on schoolchildren traveling to and from Jewish schools, the rising anti-semitism throughout, and on and on...

You're either incredibly ignorant, or you really want to see this happen.

"

audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Good dhimmi. Attack the blasphemers.

"

The terrorists sought to justify their attack, and the extremists generally seek to justify their strategies, and seek further to advance their cause, by engineering a totalizing clash of civilizations: all of them against all of us. That is why they believe that civilians are fair game. That is how they seek to justify their attacks on fellow Muslims. That is how collectivists always work. That as much as anything else is what they have in common with Nazis, Stalinists, the Imperial Way Japanese, and even the kind of people the founders of the US of A and waves of immigrants since have fled.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Wow. Bush really was a collectivist terroristguy who thought just like the terrorists, and Nazis, and Stalin, and all the other bad guys in history, wasn't he?

I guess we lost the war 9 years ago, huh? I guess our best bet was simply to build a mosque the day after, two blocks from the site. That would have brought Al Qaeda to its knees.

"

While I would be interested in continuing the debate, it really doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’ve made my points the best I can make them. Retyping them in slightly different diction again and again isn’t going to magically make anyone change their mind.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way on this subject.

Heralder on June 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

You aren't.

"

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

I've never threatened you. I've also never addressed or treated you in any manner that you have not reciprocated, or initially used. I've also never called you a terrorist, but that's something you cannot claim in kind.

Some time ago, when we were debating, you scoffed at my suggestion that you be less condescending towards the community where you post your articles, claiming that mixing it up is part of the invective here. Now you seem uncomfortable with it, and you hide behind terms and conditions that have long been ignored or stretched on this site. You post articles where you are(bolded items apply):

(b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws;

...towards the very people who visit the site on which you post your articles. At best, your citation of the TOS is hypocritical. At worst, it's cowardly, and an excuse to delete comments you don't like, which, as you've indicated, seem to fall in the majority.

I have a question for you: if you have so little respect for the community here, why post articles such that said community can argue them? As you say in your article, you believe it's nobody else's business. In keeping with your outlook, I would expect you to try to close comments unless people can prove they're from New York.

"

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Don't worry. We'll be keeping abreast of your progress. Might as well let you dig your own hole.

"

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Wait.

......wait.

You're citing the off-topic clause. On Hot Air. HotAir.com.

Sweet evil Krishna. It's the event horizon.

"

OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM

...much less terms that aren't routinely violated...including by CK himself.

"

I agree. That was an unwise choice of words on my part, since fisking requires snark. I was actually hoping you’d use MacLeod’s confusion as an object lesson on how not to achieve worthwhile ends (defeating shariah, advancing conservatism, de-fanging the Left, protecting American principles).

OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

That would simply be a veiled insult, though...which is precisely the tactic that CK employs that I despise. If you're going to insult someone, be upfront and uncompromising about it. Don't try to trick people that you believe to be dumber than you by cloaking it in an article.

"

Your intolerance of other views, particularly those you can not successfully respond to, is gaining on Islam’s intolerance of other views. You have become a self-parody.

Tav on June 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM

He did that in the article...in the first paragraph, no less.

Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free.

Apparently, the only people that applies to are people who build mosques near sites where Jihad was carried out, not to the people who voice their opposition to such a thing.

"

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Yeah, you know, strangely enough, Allah and Ed never delete based on whatever arbitrary standard you've just adopted, and believe me, they've taken far more abuse for their writings.

"

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Way to represent, pal. Show those people who's boss, right?

I notice you cleaned out a lot more than you quoted. If it helps alleviate your problems, go to it.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.

Related

From the Featured Archives

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins