You can taste the difference that automatically-generated makes
I have long tried to avoid, under any circumstances whatsoever, to write in a personal tense when blogging about the full-out intellectual abortion that is Canadian Cynic and his pack of equally-dishonest sycophantic harpies.
Today, I find myself forced to break this personal policy for a very important reason.
Nexus readers have been extremely patient and indulgent in regards to the topic of Canadian Cynic, and it's time that I reward that patience and indulgence. Canadian Cynic has, as of today, officially jumped the shark. By now, anyone who doesn't understand what an extremely disingenuous and dishonest individual Cynic is are those who fervently worship at the Groupthink Temple -- those who know full well that this individual is willing and eager to lie through his teeth for rhetorical advantage, but applaud it out of vacuous ideological solidarity.
As it turns out, there's very good reason why a search of the New York Times website returns almost no hits for Canadian Cynic.
The link he crows about actually no longer exist.
One merely has to take a look at the topics that Canadian Cynic -- an individual narcistic enough to take screencaps of these links -- to see why.
These links actually no longer exist. They've long been supplanted by other links.
Examining the very pages Cynic alludes to -- yet, oddly enough, won't link to -- confirms this. New York Times topic pages on abortion, Canada, same-sex marriage and Ethiopia confirm this.
As it turns out, the links to Canadian Cynic posts on the New York Times website were never deliberately selected by New York Times editors. Rather, they were automatically chosen by Blogrunner.
Now, Cynic and his sycophantic cronies are almost certainly going to argue that because Blogrunner is run by the New York Times that this still demonstrates some sort of favour from New York Times editors.
The truth, as it turns out, is actually rather different.
One merely has to look at some of the company Canadian Cynic shares at Blogrunner -- none other than Small Dead Animals, the brainchild of perrenial Cynic target Kate MacMillan -- to understand how meaningless this all is. We all know what Canadian Cynic thinks of MacMillan (yet, curiously enough, has never realized that MacMillan is really just a right-wing version of himself).
If MacMillan were really as bad as Cynic insists he is, it would seem that the selections of New York Times editors place him in some rather poor company.
Canadian Cynic would like everyone to behold his precious, automatically-generated links from the New York Times and believe that some Times editor read his blog, gasped "genius!" and linked to it.
Rather, these links were generated by a computer program designed to search blogs chosen based on largely-arbitrary criteria and link to them based on the topics of each post. If New York Times editors were actually reading the garbage that typically appears at the Groupthink Temple, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they wouldn't want to be caught dead linking to them.
After all, what reputable news publication would want to have anything at all to do with a blogger who encourages his groupies to stalk the children of a blogging rival?
The answer, almost certainly, is "not many". As in "none".
Which, naturally, brings me around to the hilarity of Cynic labelling my post which revealled his base dishonesty as "pathetic" and "self-indulgent".
Who, other than a pathetic and self-indulgent individual would even dream up this post, in which Cynic declares himself to be Galactus, and insists that he is one of the most-feared figures in the Canadian blogosphere?
Which is amusing when one considers the frequency with which Cynic runs away from me whenever he's caught outside the confines of the Groupthink Temple. If Cynic's so terrifying, why's he the one running away?
Cynic even goes so far as to insist that the "list of the afflicted is long and getting longer -- Hunter, Neo Conservative, Sandy Crux, mahmood, Patrick Ross, JoJo -- all incapable of coherent conversation or rational discourse when caught in the grip of the CCness of it all, all reduced to blubbering, sophomoric insults and playground taunts".
Yet, naturally, there's a major problem with this statement. It's as if Cynic wrote that particular passage while staring directly and uncomprehendingly into a mirror.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the warped sense of reality that this reflects.
If anything, there's an ever-growing list -- Cynic, Lulu, Sparky, Audrey II, Mike, Liberal Supporter -- all incapable of coherent conversation or rational discourse as soon as I show up to lay the party down. All of them reduced to blubbering, sophomoric insults, playground taunts, and gun threats even as they absorb ass-kickings so complete that they spend entire weeks away from the blogosphere, licking their wounds from their last crushing defeat.
It's become evident that there's a reason why Canadian Cynic is so terrified to engage with me anywhere outside of his blog. It's because he knows that he can't win. He knows that he needs a small army of mindless trolls to back him up and sing his praises so he can declare himself the victor of any engagement, no matter how deeply he actually knows he lost.
It's one of the reasons why Canadian Cynic simply cannot be taken seriously. Not ever again.
This is an individual who has proven that there are no depths of dishonesty to deep for him to stoop to. This is an individual who has proven that he cannot admit defeat, no matter how apparent that defeat is. This is an individual who actually has the temerity to demand honesty of others even as he weaves a web of some of the most vile lies his sociopathic mind can muster.
At the end of the day, the question must be asked: if Cynic's adversaries are so dishonest, why's he the one lying?
There is nothing more to be gained from continuing Canadian Cynic's humiliation. Those with the intellectual or moral clarity to recognize a coward and liar have recognized that in Canadian Cynic long, long ago.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On Facebook
23 comments:
Keep up the delusions, Patrick.
When you feel like dealing with the facts instead of your fictions, I'm available.
Yeah, Sparky? Really?
What, praytell, was this?
Where'd you run off to so fast the last time I kicked your ass?
Where are you going to run off to this time?
@Sparky:
Ross has "laid the party down" / illustrated again that his routine is a predictable, one-trick-pony show.
The similarity between his "Where'd you run off to so fast the last time I kicked your ass" and the juvenile chest thumping that the mullet-headed future gas-jockeys employed during your junior high years is entirely coincidental.
And so, Audrey -- every bit the mindless cretin as the rest of Cynic's sycophantic blowhards -- merely confirms the true content of her character.
You've wanted to be one of these jackals so bady, Audrey -- you must pleased as punch that you finally got your wish.
Any rational individual actually cognizant of what they've embraced so readily certainly wouldn't be.
But then again, I guess there's the kicker: "rational".
Has this CynicBoy character ever stood alone and thrown 'em without the Sparky Sparkles and now this Audrey wanna-be Cesspoolian sticking their nose in to deflect the beating this CynicBoy POS would receive?...the coward talks a good douchebagcunt game in his Cesspool but yet when he slithers out he meekly claims to want a rational/logical debate...figure that?...you're right though, leave this Inkhead creep to his Galactus figurines and the echo's in his Mother's basement...the poor dear...his Mother that is.
Oh, usually when he and I end up in the same place Cynic runs like a chickenshit.
Then again, I wonder if using a simile is really appropriate considering that Cynic is, in fact, a chickenshit.
The HarperReformknuckledragredneckneocon crew has gathered at Audrey II for a twat licking and grooming session, Hollywood couldn't write a better comedy.
You've slapped the CynicBoy so hard he's running on no sleep pounding the keyboards in the early a.m. blubbering about sock puppets, threats and "comment after comment after comment..."all that blubbering from the Boy who (?) days ago at the Cesspool mulls and ponders with the gang about setting up a faux "neo-conservative" site and lo and behold a "neo" site appears to go along with the faux "Wilson"...maybe Audrey II would enjoy an Audrey III trolling the proggie sites?
..with tears now rolling down his cheeks he plods on about threats...yeh, threats...see Richard Evans/no-libs and CynicBoy's sock puppet "Liberal Suppository" at neo's hallsofmacadamia...hahahahahahahahaha...yup, that was a real hoot.
...and then there's his(and I'm holding my sides on this one)"comment after comment after comment" wail...all that from the meathead who 24/7 Shrieeeeekkkks!...Twatsy! Twatsy!...Jabba the Roy! Jabba the Roy!...Eeeeecckkk!...Suzie all Caps! Suzie all Caps!...Oooohhh!...JoJo! JoJo!...Shrieeeeeekkk'ing...neo! neo!...yeh, that's right...comment after comment after comment after comment...oooooh the stoopid does burn.
...who let the dawg out?, but there he is yelping and whining..."I can't hear you Dawg...what?...what's that?...nope, still can't hear you above the din, maybe put down the club and the joo...there, that's better, you were saying?...oooh that, carry on then."
Brilliant, just brilliant.
...oh, then they hauled ass out of the Cesspool, towelled off and retired to the Boy's basement to play with his Galactus figurines...his Ma said it was o.k.
Good god, you wouldn't believe it, would you?
The guy actually wants to smirk about the fact that anyone would point out the extent to which he props himself up with sockpuppets, even as he preens to his own private sockpuppet convention.
Some people would probably call that a lack of self-awareness. Of course, we all know that Cynic is fully aware of the irony of it. It isn't a lack of self-awareness, it's just dishonesty.
So utterly typical. Sigh. It makes a person feel a lot better that the revelation of this clown's systematic dishonesty wasn't for the benefit of the Groupthink Temple.
Well, unlike you, I know when it's time to stop, especially when you keep on stating the same wrong position over and over again when it's already been refuted.
It's the very definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. People tried to engage you on the federal deficit, yet what was your position?
"as it stands now, there is no deficit, and there won't be"
And then there was that little thing about agent provocateur, in which certain people took the position that there was good evidence that certain people at the protest may have been undercover cops. People used logical deductions from how the cops handled these 'fake' protesters, as well as other evidence to back their hypothesis. One piece of that evidence was the matching symbol on the bottom of the alleged fake protesters footwear. What was your position? You disregarded all the other evidence and logical suppositions, instead you focused on the patch that was yellow--unlike the 'real' cops, and was a triangle, instead of octagon so my god! What the hell are all those other people going on about saying they could be undercover cops!! No chance!! the symbols aren't the same!!!
So, even forgetting your very pansy-weak mea culpa many months later where you yip about 'blurry photos' and 'why should I be held accountable for thinking they were triangles instead of octagons!!!', what was the reality there? Oh right, the fake protestors were undercover cops. Take a mea culpa for that.
Oh, and the deficit as well.
So you want to talk about 'lack of self-awareness' or dishonesty in others?
Good then
Wow, Sparky. You're really all fire and brimstone, aren't you?
Well, Sparky, here's the thing:
One can address the deficit in one of two ways: in either dwelling on the mistaken predictions of the past, or dealing substantively with the economic crisis that has led to that deficit.
You've chosen to do the former. I'm not interested in that.
So you can preen about that all you like.
Quite frankly, Sparky, I'd be much more embarrassed if I were in your shoes -- worshipping mindlessly at the altar of a fascist demagogue, twisting the truth of any matter in order to do so.
Your little meltdown was nothing short of hysterical. Not only did you indulge yourself in all of the great and awful things that you and your cronies have accused me of, but you got your sorry ass kicked while doing it, to boot.
Not at all like making a prediction regarding the future based on present conditions, or judging a photograph based on the way that it appears when published in low resolution.
Conveniently enough, Sparky, you and the hyenas you run with have also chosen to conveniently ignore the fact that whatever mistake I made in judging those photographs was also made by many, many more people -- including the CBC and CTV reporters who covered that story.
Then again, that kind of honesty would just undermine what you want to pass off as a triumph -- certainly a hollow triumph when one considers the lows you've consciously chosen to stoop to in order to attain it.
Whatever else you may have to say about it, Sparky, when I utterly crushed you, I did it honestly. You tried to set up as many strawmen arguments as your demented little brain could manage, and I still knocked your sorry ass right out of the ring.
No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, Sparky, you know this. I know this.
And no matter how much you may want to cling to whatever past episodes you want to dishonestly insist were victories for you, you have to live with the fact that when you finally had to go toe-to-toe, mano-a-swine with me, you lost.
One can address the deficit in one of two ways: in either dwelling on the mistaken predictions of the past, or dealing substantively with the economic crisis that has led to that deficit.
You've chosen to do the former. I'm not interested in that.
Once again you attribute intent that wasn't there--how is your reading comprehension, anyway?
I'm not 'dwelling in the mistaken predictions of the past', I'm giving you the opportunity to correct your incorrect record. You're the one that went apeshit crazy over psa's prediction. Turns out that psa's prediction was right and your 'facts' were wrong. You're the one that stated, shall we say eloquently (not)--
You posted this particular turd, suggesting that there was going to be a budgetary deficit after it's been revealed that there is no deficit.
There is no deficit--your words. Hmmm... how's that working out for you
Moreover, you were all 'psa's moving the goalposts' when, in fact, it was you that did so--psa predicted that there would be. You, again with the lack of reading comprehension, were shouting that psa stated there was a deficit.
Parenthetical to your wrong record regarding this very issue is the problem of budgetary gerrymandering that we found out about when Ms. Raitt left 'secret' documents at a television station.
So your rant--which was proven wrong anyway--was based on a budget rife with conservative lies and omissions.
Then we get to this bit--
Then again, that kind of honesty would just undermine what you want to pass off as a triumph -- certainly a hollow triumph when one considers the lows you've consciously chosen to stoop to in order to attain it.
Honesty?? You're trying to take the high road after all this by questioning my honesty? That's rich.
See, it's not that people are 'scared off' when you blather... it's not that you laid down a whoppin' on their asses... Rather, it's the fact that others are so incredulous when faced with your blatant arrogant stupidity. That can, and will, render others speechless sometimes.
Whatever else you may have to say about it, Sparky, when I utterly crushed you, I did it honestly. You tried to set up as many strawmen arguments as your demented little brain could manage, and I still knocked your sorry ass right out of the ring.
The hell you did (read above). You didn't prove shit. You can't even be honest on the crap you post when others have pointed out overwhelmingly where you're wrong--deliberately now, so it seems.
No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, Sparky, you know this. I know this.
I'll tell you what I know. I know that you're ignorant. Either willfully or not--matters not to me. You're a feckless coward who struts around claiming that you can take on all comers and kick their asses all over the place whilst spewing hate-filled lies.
You will not take ownership of your very own transgressions whilst screaming at others to correct theirs.
You blame everyone else for your flawed conclusions, even after you tried to pin others to the mat with those same conclusions.
And no matter how much you may want to cling to whatever past episodes you want to dishonestly insist were victories for you, you have to live with the fact that when you finally had to go toe-to-toe, mano-a-swine with me, you lost.
Dishonesty, thy name is Patrick.
I'll be here when you want to face reality.
Until such time, if I don't respond to the crap you spew, it doesn't mean that you gave me an ass kicking--It just means I'm laughing at you and didn't feel like letting you in on the joke.
(oh, and neo--you may want to get a really good dictionary if you're reading this one--there's lotsa big words in here just for you!)
(feeling like detective Columbo here--one more thing...)
Rereading the various threads that got us here today to point out the hypocriticalness of Patrick...
Patrick's words (from the comments section at an undisclosed location)
And by the way, Lindsay, you actually are precisely right to note that the revenue from the wireless spectra auction probably had something to do with the current surplus.
Know why?
Becuase that's how you fucking budget, moron. You project your revenues, and plan your spending accordingly.
Just like this government evidently did -- with a cool billion dollars to spare, and billions more still in the pockets of taxpayers.
Know how else you 'fucking' budget, Patrick? By budgeting things that need to be in the budget--let's talk about Chalk River, shall we?
You got all high and mighty basing your supposed smackdown on a budget that didn't take into account all budget items. Items, mind you, that were deliberately left out to make the budget look better.
But again, you yourself have proven to be deliberately and willfully obtuse--ignoring facts--where and when it suits you, so you can look better--so you can stand on your little soapbox and lay your supposed beatin's down on the masses.
Beatin's based on bias, bullshit and bravado, signifying--as it's been proven over and over again--nothing.
Tell the truth. It'll do ya good.
And the slammer...
So let's go over the sequence of events thus far and make things perfectly crystal clear for the willfully ignorant--
psa blogs about Jim Flaherty and the federal budget, stating--
Deficits and Tumbling Projections, Jim Flaherty Fails Again
. . .
In the actual free market, a drop of that scale in projections would be a flaming disaster. Flaherty has played at cutting taxes, thus diminishing revenues all as the American and global economies turned sour. Difficult to practice foresight with one's head tucked up the nether tube. That's the trouble with blinkered ideologues like Flaherty. All evidence to the contrary they will do what will not work because they are believers. Faith has never been kind to the foolish. Canada is now likely to record a budgetary deficit for the first time in over ten years.
Important bit amongst the important bits--
Canada is now likely to record a budgetary deficit for the first time in over ten years.
To which Patrick responds (after a brief conversation)--
No, it wouldn't, as that was money that was planned for spending, and now won't be.
If anything, that would impact on projected surpluses or deficits, not on revenue and spending receipts, which is what we're talking about here.
Then again, sucking it up and admitting that Lindsay is humiliatingly wrong would be just a little too honest for you, wouldn't it, Lulu?
How utterly typical of you to always respond in the most implicitly dishonest fashion possible.
Ahh, Patrick and his throwing the word dishonesty out there, hoping it sticks to something besides himself...
Let's see how psa handles this, shall we? Oh right--honestly--
"Harper gov't running surplus after small deficit"
"The government earlier reported it was $500 million in the red for the first
two months of the year. That turned around in June with a surplus of $1.7 billion, the department's fiscal monitor said."
Well I stand somewhat corrected. Flaherty was in the red and now he's in the black. And while the economy slides and continues to underperform he has abandoned any margin for emergency should things become more dire. Given that Flaherty has thrown up his hands and blamed outside influences for his lacklustre circumstance he can't very well claim to be doing success now can he? He did just reduce his own projections by more than a third.
"Well I stand somewhat corrected..." states psa. Let me dumb this down for the addle minded--psa is saying, sure the government was running a deficit but now states is in the black--got it. However, extraneous circumstances are still in play and we still are likely to see a deficit.
And what did you do, Patrick? Let me remind you--
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, Linsday. So...
Let's move those goalposts, baby... MOVE 'EM!
There were no moving goalposts. psa was still proposing the likelihood of a deficit.
- cont -
So suddenly, this isn't about whether or not there's going to be a deficit -- as it stands now, there is no deficit, and there won't be -- but about some of Flaherty's alleged past sins.
Again, reading comprehension much? psa factored Flaherty's 'past sins' into what we knew at the time of that conversation--cutting taxes and a world-wide economic slowdown--and came to a logical conclusion: we'd likely be facing a deficit. He backed it up with links and excerpts from various sources.
What did you do? Shouted absolute unsubstantiated crap--"there wont be [a deficit]"--your words--
You posted this particular turd, suggesting that there was going to be a budgetary deficit after it's been revealed that there is no deficit. In fact, there's already a surplus through the first quarter of the fiscal year -- the very quarter of the fiscal year at which revenue receipts tend to be lowest.
And you can barely even admit it -- at least not without trying to make the entire argument about something else entirely.
Wow, some people have to wait months/years before their ideas can be proven to be that staggeringly far off-base. You misinterpreted psa's position "there was going to be a budgetary deficit" when psa stated clearly, "there likely will be a deficit" Those are two completely different ideas. English much?
We continue with your words--
Which is really my favourite thing about you: no matter how wrong you're proven to be, no matter how dishonest, somehow, in your mind, it always has to be the other person who's stupid and dishonest.
This bit is just ironic.
And more--
And maybe among your fellow hateful blinkering ideologues that holds water.
But to the rest of us -- you know, people who actually use their brains as something other than what we use to keep our skulls from collapsing -- we'll always recognize you for precisely what you are.
Just another hateful demagogue.
Now why don't you go back to accusing conservatives of hating Canada? At least those embarrassing statements don't have to be built around actual facts.
Wow, staggeringly out-of-the-park wrong. psa backed up his points with links and logical conclusions from past performances. What did you base your points on? Oh right, misinterpretation and name calling.
And you continued with all your wrongness with this--
You find it galling that I, of all people, would "accuse you" of moving the goalposts?
Allow me to let you in on a little secret that you apparently just aren't honest enough to admit:
You do it all the fucking time, you pompous little clown.
And here's the ultimately amusing thing: is that once upon a time it looked as if Flaherty might run a deficit. But you dropped this particular turd after it was revealed the federal government is now running a surplus.
Not before, but after.
Thus, you weren't "correct". You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone with a shread of honesty would be embarrassed to be quite this wrong.
psa stated openly that "Well I stand somewhat corrected. Flaherty was in the red and now he's in the black."
- cont -
Wow. That's moving goalposts. That's being dishonest!! Oh wait, no it isn't. His point--"Canada is now likely to record a budgetary deficit for the first time in over ten years" was still completely valid and not moved one iota. It's a logical conclusion to the facts presented at the time. It's a possible and somewhat likely event that may happen in the future. You misinterpreted--deliberately again so it seems--what the actual point was.
Deliberately misconstrued the point so you can stand on your little soapbox and shout down anyone who disagreed with you.
Do you know what the word 'likely' even means? Or do I have to get you a dictionary as well, just like the one that neo needs?
And then--
That's your opinion, not an objective fact. As an opinion of something that might happen -- a prediction -- it's entirely legitimate.But to treat it as fact, even after it's known to be counter-factual, is a different matter altogether.
When I say that something is likely to happen, it means to most people with rudimentary understanding of language that it's my opinion that this may happen--if the weatherman says it'll likely rain tomorrow, I pack an umbrella. If it doesn't rain, I don't shake my fist at the television and shout that he lied to me. psa stated an hypothesis and only time would be the judge if he was right or not.
You became judge, jury and executioner even before time had a chance to get it's shoes on. You misconstrued psa's point and based your whole subsequent rants based on that flawed interpretation.
And the best--"but to treat it as fact even after it's known to be counter-factual..." combined with—
When you mess with the bull, you get the horns, Lindsay. And unlike yourself and your cohorts, I don't have to sink to deepest depths of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty in order to do it.
I can think of no greater intellectual coward than the person who won't offer a mea culpa when they're so over-the-top blatantly wrong.
Counter-factual?
Your words--as it stands now, there is no deficit, and there won't be
You rallied against psa and your whole point was the above. You were staunch in your belief, adamant in your convictions, and progressed forth with every posting that psa equals wrong and you equal right.
Where I 'dwell' on the whole 'is a deficit good or bad' is completely irrelevant to this discussion--We can debate that elsewhere. However, you posted 5 times in that thread--5 times using words like dishonest, coward, weasel, counter-factual, and, well, turd to describe psa's blog and comments.
You went on a tirade of unbelievable proportions regarding this very issue before the facts (that you supposedly cherish) were in. You whined that psa didn't have his facts straight and there wasn't going to be a deficit.
And what happened?
Oh right, Deficit (and a pretty big one at that)
Oh right, deliberate omissions of budget items 'discovered' in 'secret' documents left at a television studio (there goes your little 'surplus' you were crooning about)
- cont -
And your response, in light of all the furor and hoopla you wrote at cc's place before the facts came out??
Silence.
Until I dared call you on it.
Then, on your own blog, in the comments section in a post not even directly related to the issue that you were so gosh darn passionate about earlier--
One can address the deficit in one of two ways: in either dwelling on the mistaken predictions of the past, or dealing substantively with the economic crisis that has led to that deficit.
You've chosen to do the former. I'm not interested in that.
Beyond you misinterpreting my words now, you say you're not interested in that...
You seemed completely interested and passionate about it last August...
Those "mistaken predictions of the past", as you say?? Those should be properly attributed to "Patrick Ross's mistaken predictions of the past to which he has not acknowledged nor made amends for, but which he went on and insulted and raved against psa for making astute predictions regarding the federal budget and the deficit we are currently in."
You, sir, are the coward here. You, sir, are the hateful demagogue. You, sir, can preen all you want but anyone with any basic understanding of, well, anything, can see that your ass was handed to you. Not by me, not by psa or cc or anyone else.
But by your own words and actions.
Grow up. Be a man. You were so adamant that psa take responsibility for posting that 'turd' (again, your words). I’ll continue to use your words—
Thus, you weren't "correct". You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone with a shread [sic] of honesty would be embarrassed to be quite this wrong
I’m embarrassed for you, after rereading this entire chain of events. Added to the other blog tirades that you were so wrong about, wow…
Why don't you take responsibility for the shit you've posted?
Geez Sparkles, that's heavy man, I've been told in private(on the Q.T.)that you've put a lot of thought and effort into all that and I certainly don't wanna hurt your feelings or anything but I think I'll wait for the Reader's Digest version...now in 85 billion skillion bajillion words or less why don't you tell us what you're doing this summer...and Sparkles..."Suntan Lotion"...it's your friend.
Wow (again)...
Patrick struts and concludes that he 'kicks ass' when people give up trying to respond to him...
And when someone puts a litle effort into responding, his sock puppet bitches that there's too many words.
That'll be 3 dictionaries needed, I see...
Yawn.
Hey Mahmood, care to Sparky the irony of his complaint about you allegedly being a sock puppet? He doesn't seem to get that.
Also, I can really only cringe at how pathetic it is that Sparky would stumble in here -- after his last ass-kicking, nonetheless, which whether he likes it or not, is indisputable -- and preen about how awesome he must be because the separatist-endorsing clown whose hand just happens to be up his ass is allegedly sooooo awesome.
Zzzzz.
Oooh dear, now I'm your sock, at one time I was "neo's" sock but who, who could be "faux Wilson" and who would throw-up a "faux neo-conservative site"? and hahahahaha, who could be Liberal Supporter?...Sparks, any idea?...think now Sparks, you're a smart boy, who could it be?
but let's move on Sparky to more important things shall we?...listen, it's obvious by all these here writing and tip tapping on the key board that you do(your fingers must be down to the nubs)that you're an energetic/intelligent young lad full of piss and vinegar and it's quite obvious you have some "pull" over at the Cesspool...right?...and I hate to impose on your good nature but mahmood needs a solid here pal, if and when your trashing around in the Cesspool if you could whisper in the Boy's ear to mention "mahmood" 8 more times between now and Sunday, no later than 18:00(18:00, because at CC HQ that's how you tell time)you'd be doing the "mood" a huge favor and I'd owe you one...and hey! Sparks, I'm good for it...honest. Now that's "8" Sparky, maybe put that to memory...this is all sooo FELLATIOTASTIC!
I like this one, he's a livewire...now off you go young fellow, don't let us down here at Mahmood HQ.
And this, folks, is why Patrick cannot be taken seriously ever again (if anyone actually took you seriously in the first place).
"Accountability for thee, but not for me..." is his motto.
He'll bitch and scream and rally against anyone else--foaming at the mouth and posting diatribes (though, mostly completely wrong, as has been shown over and over again)--but when called to task, what do we get?
Yawn
Continue living in your little fantasy world, Patrick--You can kick ass there all you want.
Mahmood--you so funny! Wow, you should get yourself a gig at Yuk Yuks. Let me know where--I need a good laugh.
Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.
You really, just really don't get this.
This isn't about the past -- no matter how much you want it to be. This is about moving on.
The truth is, Sparky, you're just a very sick individual, aren't you?
You know, the Samurai code of Bushido actually teaches us that fixation is sickness. You and the other hyenas you run with are all so fixated on two past "triumphs" -- very hollow triumphs, considering the depths of dishonesty you've had to stoop to in order to attain them, at that -- that it really is just making you sick inside.
And in your particular case, Sparky, your fixation has made you particularly sick.
Bushido also teaches an interesting lesson about fighting numerous opponents. It teaches that if one becomes fixated upon the sword of any one opponent, they will be unable to focus upon the others, and defend themselves. They may block the sword of the one, but fall to the remaining nine.
Your sickness is an interesting twist on this: so enamoured with the alleged great wisdom of your puppetmaster -- even when he is wrong, and cannot defend his stance regarding marriage as a "right" akin to the non-existent "right" to drive -- that your own sword cannot fall.
If one were to share in your sickness and be fixated with the past, one could recount plenty of episodes from the past in which your puppetmasters -- all three of them -- had proven themselves to be utterly out-of-touch with, or simply disregarded, the facts of the case.
Such as the Ed Snell case. There was Lindsay Stewart insisting that Snell probably wasn't assaulted and merely wandered off the edge of his platform. There was Canadian Cynic suggesting that he couldn't have actually been injured -- despite the fact that news stories confirmed Snell's injuries, and other examples have revealed cases were men ten years Snell's junior died from much shorter falls. Then there was Lulu's insistence that, because one of the charges was dropped against Snell's assailant -- while the others were withheld -- that somehow the entire affair was diminished.
Then there was your puppetmasters, as well as many of their numerous cronies, simply applauding the entire affair all the while.
If can put that particular episode of sheer retardness and moral repugnancy in the past, Sparky, I wonder why it is that you can't stop clinging to other people's hollow triumphs?
Not only are you sick, Sparky, but you're vicariously sick. How utterly pathetic is that?
Post a Comment
Post your comments, and join the discussion!
Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.
Also, all comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read.