Jul 7, 2009

Why can’t rightwing bloggers defend heir positions?

I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was banned from another rightwing blog.

My crime; daring to disagree and bringing facts to an argument. Right-wingers cannot stand being challenged, and anyone who disagrees is accused of being a “troll. It just amazes me why there is even a comments section at the end of rightwing blogs if you really don’t want feedback.

The latest person who hates facts is called the “blogprof.” To his credit, he puts out a lot of copy, but then when you write fiction, you don’t have to worry about fact-checking. He was whining about a lack of coverage of the fake, Astroturf “tea parties” not being covered by the corporate media on a day the country was actually celebrating its independence. I simply pointed out the fact that the “tea parties” are organized by a pair of rightwing Washington, D.C. lobbying firms, and most people who attend these GOP fake rallies are a small, minority fringe group. In fact, a large majority are extremist groups like white supremacists, militia groups and other anti-government groups.

He didn’t like hearing the facts, and after a few exchanges, he deleted my comments and said I was banned, saying: “Kevin, you are banned from this site as well. Any posts will be deleted without exception. I'm done with your trolling.”

No problem.

This “trolling” charge continues to confuse me. When I see, spin, half truths and lies I point them out. That’s called debate, not “trolling.” If you can’t defend the BS you write, then don’t write it. I welcome trolls on my blog. I can back up every word I write, and my defense is not to delete a post I can’t debunk. Right-wingers should simply omit the comments section completely or put up a disclaimer that says comments only welcome from people they agree with.

I have only banned one person, and that was after repeated warnings to refrain from personal attacks. I then gave him the option of coming back if he apologized, and he could do it in private. He declined. Instead, he now uses deception and multiple email addresses to post as other people. Again, no problem. The personal attacks don’t even bother me much anymore. However, I did do away with anonymous posters, requiring them to register screen names to comment. But I didn’t factor in the basic dishonesty of some right-wingers, and he/they made it a point to show me how easily a dishonest person can get around that. Being honest, I never considered that angle.

But In the end, the personal attack says more about him than me.


Not Anonymous said...

You call what you do, debate? He didn't describe them as fake. You did. He didn't call them "astroturf", you did.

You claim it's a fact that most people that attend are a small miniority fringe group and then say that in "FACT" a large majority are "extremist groups" like white supremecists, militia groups and other anti government groups.

Very good. You stated a fact. Absolute. Prove it. I want to see the roster of people that attended the tea party in Lansing. I want to see where they identified themselves as members of certain organizations. I want to see the proof of your assertions, which you claim are fact. If they are fact. Prove it. You, of course, have this information at your fingertips. After all, you're stating it as a "fact". So you can prove this.

Prove it. It's time to put up or shut up. Names, group affiliations. By the way, since you have this information, you can also give a head count of those that attended the tea party in Lansing.

A debate, is two or more people, presenting opposing sides of an argument. Debate is not about putting down another. It's not about attempting to embarass the other position. It's about advancing your position so that it can stand up to scrutiny.

In the several months that I've been coming here, you've claimed to have debunked many things, but have not debunked one single thing.

You play games. You proved your worthlessness in your last thread when you revealed that you don't carry health insurance on your own wife. This is unconscionable to me.

You won't take care of the basic needs of your own family, yet you dare to put other families at risk.

You're a pathetic little boy that just can't stand it that everyone doesn't follow in lockstep with you while you follow in lockstep with the Socialist Democrats. You make excuses on basic responsibilities that a man should be taking for his family.

So, you claim to have the facts. I'm now requesting the proof of these facts.

1. You said: "most people who attend these GOP fake rallies are a small, minority fringe group."

So, let's see you prove these facts. First, you said "most". So I'll need to know how many attended. But you'll have to prove the number by providing names and an accurate head count. You'll need to prove that this is a "fake" rally. You might want to try to state what a real rally is so that we can all know what a fake rally is. You'll also need to show proof that 50% plus one belongs to one of those minority fringe groups. Membership cards would be good proof.

2. You said: " In fact, a large majority are extremist groups like white supremacists, militia groups and other anti-government groups."

We'd all like to know what the definition of "large majority" is. Would that be 50%+2? Or is it larger. You'll also have to prove that whatever that number is, that they do in fact, belong to white supremicist groups, militia groups, and other anti government groups. You're stating it as a fact, so opinions won't cut it. You claim to point out "facts". YOu're now being called on to prove it. I want to see rosters of these groups, the names of those that attended that do belong to these groups as well as names of those that don't belong to those groups that attended. That's the only way anyone can know the "FACT" that they do belong to these groups and that those in those groups were not just a majority, but a "large majority".

It's time to put up or shut up. You won't do it. You're a cowardly little boy that uses exteme language and can't take the heat when called on to back up your statements with actual proof of your "facts".

But you're so adamant, about your goodness, your honesty, your truthfulness, it's now your opportunity to prove yourself and your position. Names of all in attendance, group affiliations and those not affiliated with groups.

Maybe you can do this while you try to find another job to put health care on who is supposed to be the most important person in your life.

Communications guru said...

No, I call what I do, bloging and editorial writing. When I engage with someone who comments or when I comment, I call that debate because that’s what it is.

You are correct; it's a fact that most people that attended are a small minority fringe group and "extremist groups" like white supremacists, militia groups and other anti government groups. I even provided links inside my entry called “Republicans pushing the myth that the “tea party” protest is a grassroots effort.” What do you consider “Stormfront?” I consider then a racist white supremacist group. When you consider that some 65 million people voted for President Obama, this certainly is a small minority of people attending.

Once again, brett, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point.

Let me see if I got this straight. You are calling me a coward? You, the person who personally attacks me with vile, false smears and then hides behind an anonymous name, is not the coward, but me, who uses his real name, is the coward? Right.

So, if I took the same position as your friend, “blogprof,” you would have no problem with that?

kevins said...

Incredible. Are you really that unhinged?

You are upset because someone called you a troll? Which is insanely funny since whenever you lose an argument, you call not only call the person a troll... but a cowardly troll.

You have lied in the past about being kicked off a blog...this time you actually at least partially told the truth since you were banned from the site.

He said you were trolling. No way to know if it's true since your comments were deleted, but you did post multiple times including 3 within 4 minutes. Perhaps you were doing your crazy act and he got tired of it. Or perhaps he didn't want to hear what you had to say. It's his blog. Don't have a cow.

You have a blog and you can set your own rules on it. What's amazing is that people follow your rules and then you call them names for doing so.

The funny thing is that you don't realize that you are a pathetic joke. A few of us come on to make fun of your pettiness and ignorance.

I really hope that you and dargo are the same person...it would be sad to believe that there are 2 separate people who are that moronic.

It's getting easier to understand, you, tough..You don't have the life you would like so rather than do something about it, you blame "others" and demand those same "others" provide for you. Yes, some people get irritated at people like you with that attitude.

Not Anonymous said...

As I said, you have provided no proof of your facts. Naming a group doesn't prove that they were there. Give the names of the people that attended. Tell me which of the belongs to which group. This should be easy for you because you stated as a fact that these groups were the majority and "large" majority of the attendees.

Prove it. To state a fact, you need the proof. Saying it over and over again is not proof of a fact. I want to see the facts proven. Not an opinion of the attendees. You didn't state an opinion. You stated a fact. Back up your facts. I want names, organizations those names belong to. That would be backing up your facts.

You have proved nothing yet, except that you have no facts for your assertions.

Communications guru said...


You know, you may finally be right about something, but you are also wrong. I have never lost an argument, at least here, and never to you. Bu8t, I certainly did call you a cowardly troll. I was wrong about calling you a troll. You are cowardly, no doubt about that, but not a troll. I vow to never call you a troll again. But here's a big differences,. I never attacked him personally, and I have never banned anyone without a warning.

Sorry, brett, I have never lied about being kicked off a blog, or lied about anything for that matter.

Was I trolling? No, I read lots of blogs. If you go to Blognetnews.com, you will find the headlines and first paragraph of every blog entry. If it sounds interesting, you click on it.

The same thing occurs on Rightyblog.com

“My crazy act?” Wait, you are the one who uses multiple emails to post as other people, and then you continue to use your false, disgusting smear, and I have a crazy act? Try this? Ask him. Do you really think I could do any thing worse than you do here constantly?

“Or perhaps he didn't want to hear what you had to say?” Then why have a comments section? Do you think I want to hear the vile lies you spew? I’m not having “a cow.” I’m simply pointing out a fact, and pointing the shortcomings of the right like I do here constantly. They don’t like that.

I have rules? Not really. You are the one who uses deception to post as multiple people. I guess I could post there anonymously like you do, but I just couldn’t stoop that low. I want credit and blame for what I write.

Thanks for the compliments, brett. It means a lot coming from you.

Communications guru said...

I certainly did, brett. Are you not capable of clicking ion a link or reading?

Not Anonymous said...

You have not proven that stormfront nor any other group was there. Your saying it doesn't make it a fact. So again,

1. You said: "most people who attend these GOP fake rallies are a small, minority fringe group."

So, let's see you prove these facts. First, you said "most". So I'll need to know how many attended. But you'll have to prove the number by providing names and an accurate head count. You'll need to prove that this is a "fake" rally. You might want to try to state what a real rally is so that we can all know what a fake rally is. You'll also need to show proof that 50% plus one belongs to one of those minority fringe groups. Membership cards would be good proof.

2. You said: " In fact, a large majority are extremist groups like white supremacists, militia groups and other anti-government groups."

Show the proof that they were there. I want names, number of attendees and name them all. Without this, you do not have facts. You have only your word that claim are facts. Prove your facts.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

.52 seconds on google...http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/White_Supremacists_July_4_Tea_Parties.htm

Tea parties...the last refuge for the 29percenters.

Communications guru said...

Apparently you can’t read very well; can you brett. Stormfront was organizing the events.

1. Yes, I said: "most people who attend these GOP fake rallies are a small, minority fringe group” because it’s true.

2. Yes, I said " In fact, a large majority are extremist groups like white supremacists, militia groups and other anti-government groups because it’s trued. Now, you may not I consider Stormfromt, the Michigan Militia and secessionist groups as fringe groups, but I do.

Not Anonymous said...

Apparently, not only do you refuse to take care of your wife, but you don't understand comprehension either.

The Lansing Tea Party was organized by a woman named Joan (don't remember her last name). Prove she's with Stormfront.

1. You saying it doesn't make it true, nor fact. PROOF. Saying it's true is not proving a fact.

2. You have submitted no proof that Stormfront, the michigan militia and secessionist groups were even at the rally, let alone the "large" majority.

Prove it asshole. Your word, much like your dedication to your wife and family responsibility is worthless. Show PROOF.

Can't do it can you. I'm not surprised.

Communications guru said...

No, the Lansing Tea Party was organized by the Michigan chapter of the Washington, D.C. lobbying group “Americans for Prosperity (AFP), with lots of help from Stormfront and the Michigan Militia.

1. I showed you proof with links.

2. I showed you proof with links.

Once again, thanks for the compliment, brett.

Not Anonymous said...


As I said, Joan Fabiano.

Still no proof from you. Just words. Worthless words.

Not Anonymous said...

The only links you've provided are for your previous blogposts. YOUR OPINIONS which are not facts.

You have proven nothing. Once again, you've been caught in lies. So now you are not only lying, but you're also a worthless piece of shit because you won't do what's necessary to get the proper care for your family. That amounts to nothing less than spouse abuse.

Maybe you're not married. Maybe you do live in your mothers basement and play on the computer.

You're plying for sympathy by telling anyone that reads your drivel you don't have health care. YOu're wearing it as a badge of honor.

You're perfectly willing to live off the backs of those that actually get out and work for a living. You are the perfect liberal. Welfare queen. All talk, no walk.

You do belong to the right group of people. Most all liberals are just like you. Suck off the tit of society and then bitch and moan that you're not getting enough.

It really explains alot about everything you've said here and the type of person that you are. No character. No substance. Just a worthless piece of shit taking up space and wasting oxygen that someone could use.

Not Anonymous said...

It's 8:30 am bozo. Get on your bike and go pick up soda cans off the street and while you're doing that, put applications in at the stores you pass along the way. Maybe you can then do the right thing and get your wife coverage.

Communications guru said...

I hope you’re really not that ignorant, brett. Yes, I referred you to previous posts by me. But, the links are inside that page.

Since you need help, I will break them out for you, OK?





Not Anonymous said...

If I didn't know it already, I'd know from your links that you are the dumbest person on the planet.

Stormfront puts an ad on their site about the tea party coming up and to you that's interpreted as them having planned it? Congrsts. You've proved your stupidity.

The Michigan militia puts an ad on their website about the tea party and you interpret that to mean they planned it. Again, stupid.

The dallas news reports that Governor Perry says that the interference of the Feds into the States could be a reason to secede, and then says it's not likely, but if the Socialist Democrats continue along this extreme path, it could turn out to be a possibility, but not likely, you ignore all but the suggestion that secession is viable. By the way, nothing to do with Lansing and nothing to do with July 4. It was from April 15. Again, Stupid.

The White Supremacists say they are going to try to recruit at the tea party and that is interpreted by you that they are organizing the tea party. Again, stupidity on your part.

All of this is like saying "David Duke was on NBC's Today show and since your television receives NBC, you are therefore guilty of being a member of the KKK."

The really funny thing though is that none of that, not one item shows that the majority, nor a large majority, of those in attendance were from fringe groups. Again, you have no facts and you have provided not back up for your suppposed facts.

The only thing you've proven is that you're even more stupid than you portray yourself.

Prove that the people that the majority of the people at the rally were members of these fringe groups. Names and affiliations. You can't do that. You have no proof. You continually claim facts which are nothing more than opinions.

Here's a fact for you. You're a cowardly, irresponsible asshole. My proof? You aren't even trying to get your wife health care coverage because it will interfere with your volunteer time.

You've spent the day on this blog. Your last post was 11:06 AM. It's a WEdnesday. This is the time for you to be working. But you're playing online while your wife is uninsured.

I'm still waiting for the facts. Prove your statements. You have only proven that people are advertising the tea party on their websites. You've proven that a fringe group wants to recruit, but that doesn't mean that anyone signs up.

Typical socialist democrat. Brainless. Is that your mom calling you for lunch? It's chicken and stars day.

Communications guru said...

I’m not surprised you ignore the evidence when it’s right there in black and white.

I appreciative compliments, brett; coming from someone like you, it means a lot to me. But it’s not me calling someone vile names and hiding behind an anonymous screen name, it’s you. That speaks volumes about who the coward really is.

Once again, brett, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is a fascist Republican talking point.

Not Anonymous said...

Still you provide no proof of your facts. You want to play games, but you don't back up your "facts" with proof.

Keep the dancing up. It's all you've got.

Communications guru said...

I guess they don't read very well in Ohio. The proof is there even though you choose to ignore it.

Johnny C said...


It seems your right winger lurkers can't understand what facts are, these tea party were not grassroot inspired despite what Hannity and Rush tell Kevins and Not Anonymous.

Most of these faux tea party protest were put together by right wing special interest groups and heavy promoted by Fox News. And even with the backing of the right wing elite and heavy promotion from a national "news" organization these tea parties were flops.

And if you watch video (not Fox News edited) you see signs that are clearly racist and very partisan.

The problem with conservative/right wing blogs is that these guys are not capable of telling the truth.

kevins said...

Johny C...

It seems that you have the problem with facts. You somehow draw me into the tea party issue when I have never, ever commented on it. Why should I? I have no interest in it. It seems to worry guru a lot, though I'm not sure why.

If you want to talk about someone who is fact-free, then you need to address your comments to guru.

Guru has indeed hidden his identity on another blog, despite his claims he never did so. He also lies about being kicked off a conservative blog because he "debunked" the arguments. In fact he wasn't kicked off the blog.

He made up an allegation that the county Republican Party illegally campaigned against a school board tax vote, which was a complete lie that he still tells.

He doesn't know much and isn't shy about advertising that fact. Lately, he argued that once you go into a closed meeting you can talk about anything you want. That's totally wrong. When you go into a closed session, you are restricted to a narrow discussion of the item that the OMA exempts from open discussion.

He blasts Senate Republicans for voting against public health on the second hand smoking bill but excuses House Democrats for being "mistaken" in the belief that casino workers will lose their jobs if smoking is banned. I ask again: So what? Even if jobs are lost, how can you excuse the Dems for trading lives to keep casinos owners happy? (Unless, of course, House Dems really don't see it as a serious public health issue.)

I could go on. I did once...listing a dozen or more obvious and serious guru lies and mistakes. His clever response? He called me brett.

Be careful who you side with.

Communications guru said...

I agree, Johnny, “The problem with conservative/right wing blogs is that these guys are not capable of telling the truth, and when you call them on it they call you a “troll” and ban you.

It’s like brett/kevins here. No matter how many times you debunk something, he keeps repeating it, and you get either two results. The first one follows the GOP strategy that if you tell a lie often enough people start to believe it, and the second is that the person gets tired of wasting their time constantly debunking it and people start to believe it because it does not get debunked again and again.

Communications guru said...

I have to debunk these lies again because the first time I don’t brett here is going to say, “see it must be true because he didn’t deny it.”

The blog you are talking about is Republican Michigander. While everyone else was posting as “anonymous” or using a screen name, I used my first name and last initial Kevins; which is why you chose that screen name. The operator of that blog got tired of me debunking his claims, so he chose to ban me and kicked me off by requiring screen names. I then chose my current screen name.

The fact is the Livingston County Republican Party violated campaign finance law twice. The LCRP was in violation of Michigan Campaign Finance Law by failing to turn in its required Pre-General Election Campaign Finance Report before the Oct. 27, 2006 deadline.

In November 2008 the LCRP illegally influenced a millage election without registering as a PAC.

The reasons for closing a public meeting are very broad, and so is the discussion. Perhaps you can cite a case where a public body was cited for an improper discussion in closed session. I don’t think you will find many if any. I stand by what I wrote. The bottom line, like I said, all votes must be made in public.

First, I never blasted “Senate Republicans for voting against public health on the second hand smoking bill but excuses House Democrats for being "mistaken" in the belief that casino workers will lose their jobs if smoking is banned.” This is a nonpartisan issue, and I am blasting Mike Bishop for refusing to allow a vote on what people want, and for assigning two of the three members to the conference committee who sabotaged it. The House Democrats never voted to give casinos an exception. Detroit House Democrats did. It seems kind of ironic that you are blasting them for buying into your false argument.

And I’ll answer again, because they are buying into the cooked studies the Michigan Restaurants Association and the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association are using to push the lie a ban will hurt business and cost jobs.

kevins said...

Explain this one to me. According to you, banning smoking will increase business in bars and restaurants. If that's so, why doesn't the force of popular opinion carry the day...shouldn't that mean that by and large almost all bars and restaurants are smoke-free because that's what the great majority (according to you) want?

And while I can see why tobacco lobbyists would fight a ban, you have never explained why restaurant and booze lobbyists fight the ban. Why would they fight something that won't hurt and will ultimately help their business?

Communications guru said...

I don’t recall saying it will increase business; I said it will not hurt business. Perhaps I did, but for the sake of argument, in many cases it will increase business. But I will explain this for - about the hundredth time now - they are buying into the argument people like you are making that somehow a smoking ban will hurt business.

That’s simple, they are under the mistaken belief that it will hurt business and cost jobs. I could understand that if there were just one reliable study that proves their point; there isn’t. These associations get some of their financing from the tobacco industry.

If this was a rightwing blog, you would have been banned by now.

Johnny C said...

These tea party events are not what their supporters claim they are, they're are cooked up by the right wing elite and hyped by the right wing media.

From recent history right wingers aren't exactly honest when you guys debate issues.

Anonymous said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.