“Interesting that rather being polite and civil in your correction you chose instead to make it an insult. Reveals quite a bit about your character or lack thereof and also hurts your credibility in my opinion.”

I believe I was bother rather polite AND civil in my comments to you. What I wasn’t, was in agreement with your (still) unevidenced, (still) uncited, (still) unproven and (still) anectodal allegations. But you can try to make this into a “character” issue if you like. Given your apparent lack of ability to back up your allegations, I can’t say as I blame you for trying to derail the substance of the conversation any way you can dream up.

“Hmmmm…I make a simple mistake by getting your name wrong, for which again I apologize, yet you take a simple error and make it a focus of insults. So apparently your earlier claims to be fair and objective are looking to be disingenuous.”

Being “fair and objective” have nothing to do with issuing insults which, by the way, I didn’t. You’ll notice it when I do. “Trust me”. But again, given your portfolio here in this conversation, I can’t say as I blame you for trying to change the subject.

“Now as for your claim you check sources “every day” — color me skeptical. I can believe that you may check some sources, but the misinformation your present and especially the lack of specific details which counter several of your points show to me that you are less than thorough with your so-called research skills. Consider me unimpressed.”

Neato! I have some 6000 pages of documented, linked reports (one of them, very well documented, linked as the original focus on the article above), and offer you several direct links to back up my claims in the note you are responding to. In the meantime, you’ve offered not a single link to a single claim you’ve made, despite numerous requests for same.

Consider me more than unimpressed. In fact, consider me embarassed for you. Did you make the mistake of thinking you were dealing with a Fox “News” Democrat hear or something?

Then, ironically (or embarassingly) enough, you go on to respond to my request for documentation to support your repeated claim of “documented studies” by writing:

“I didn’t ask you to “simply trust” me. I just stated a fact. I could not care less if you trust me or not. However, to clarify, such documentation is available on various blogs and websites such as this one as well as Radio Equalizer, Newsbusters, Moorewatch, Olbermann Watch, etc. As I pointed out, there are many that document the far left’s vitriol. Those are merely the tip of the iceberg.”

Uh…pardon me “Carl”, but the request for cites (to which you offered not a single, specific one) was not for evidence of “document[ation] of the far left’s vitriol”, but rather, your repeated assertion that (quoting you) “it’s documented that the overwhelming majority of vitriol articles, posts and comments come from the far left sites” and earlier, “the documented evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of hate-filled rhetoric coming from blogs and blog commenters originate on far left sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post and Democrat Underground.”

Now if you’re backing off of your repeated assertion, to now stat that “there are many [sites] that document the far left’s vitriol,” just let us know and I’m happy to accept your apologies for you incorrect repeated assertion. Given that you also admitted you don’t read blogs you consider to be on the “left”, I’m not suprised that you would believe “the overwhelming majority of virtriol” comes from the “left”, since you only read blogs that highlight it, and avoid all of them that show what the rightwing is *really* up to.

Your beliefs based on anecodtal examples of one-sided blogs that you read, is hardly evidence of anything, other than an indication that you are vastly (I might even argue, shamefully) under-informed about what’s actually going on in your country and in the world.

“I don’t base my conclusions on simply “studies” no matter from where they originate.”

Clearly not. Though I suspect even if it was rightwing studies you bothered to read, it would have been more impressive than your ‘I saw some stuff on some rightwing blogs, so it must be true’ arguments.

“Also your claim in particular is presented with no documentation other than a sound bit taken out of context and Mr. Klammer’s rather biased opinion. So basically what it boils down to is that is that you imply you take the “trust me” position of which youfalsely accuse me. More double-standard from you, Brad.”

My apologies. I was under the impression you might be able to click on links to further documentation within the links I offered you. (That’s why I called it “a nice starter page for you”.) But apparently not, so here’s another one for ya. Note the little red lines of text in that article. It points to further documentation to back up the various assertions made therein.

“However when you claim to be “neither left nor right wing” it becomes readily apparent that you are clearly lying, sir. The left-wing bias is overwhelming and frankly, sir, a lot of your content contains much misinformation, misleading tactics and in several instances conspiracy theories that tend to come from truly unhinged individuals.”

And that would be the second time, in a single post, that you’ve charged me with inaccuracies or misinformation, but have failed to cite a single one of them in your unsubstantiated smears. I could hardly blame you.

Of course, feel free to let us know what that “misinformation” is as well as those “conspiracy theories…from truly unhinged individuals.”

As for my claims of being “neither left nor right,” I’m quite sure my work stands on its own and I believe the highest ranking members of the Democratic Party, whose resignation I have called for, would have trouble agreeing with your unsubtantiated opinion. (As would members of the Republican party who I’ve supported and/or worked with, but don’t let actual facts get in the way of what you wish to believe represents “reality”.)

“I believe I won’t waste any more of my time and bandwidth perusing your blog in the future.”

I can hardly blame you. Fantasies are a difficult thing to let go of. (And yes, that was meant as an insult.)

“As so many polls from Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, and several others clearly indicate, the stated radical beliefs held by Soros, Code Pink, MoveOn.org and other extreme leftist are NOT held by the vast majority of Americans. Pity you didn’t bother with facts here.”

Backatcha stud. I’ll look forward to your cites for any claim you just made in the above graf. Pity you didn’t bother with facts there.

“you are just another far left zealot that refuses to engage in civil discourse”

Attaboy, chief. When you run out of facts (which, clearly you didn’t have from the get go), allege character issues, drop names and get the heck out. That’ll work. Nice job “Carl”! It’s only your country you seem willing to waste.

(yawn)

“Clearly, getting the details right is not your thing. I’m Brad, not Brian.”

Mea culpa and my apologies on getting your name wrong. Interesting that rather being polite and civil in your correction you chose instead to make it an insult. Reveals quite a bit about your character or lack thereof and also hurts your credibility in my opinion.

Brad also wrote:

“Cool. Where’s that documentation? Please share. As I tell my readers they should never “trust me” about anything (but rather make me prove everything, but please do same for the liars at AP, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.) you’ll forgive me if I don’t simply trust you either.”

I didn’t ask you to “simply trust” me. I just stated a fact. I could not care less if you trust me or not. However, to clarify, such documentation is available on various blogs and websites such as this one as well as Radio Equalizer, Newsbusters, Moorewatch, Olbermann Watch, etc. As I pointed out, there are many that document the far left’s vitriol. Those are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Brad continued (and quoted me as well):

““Actually, Brian, the points I made are indeed documented quite well by numerous “watchdog” sites and blogs as well as merely visiting the sites mentioned above. Try it sometime.”

I do it every day, Ken.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t fall for your “trust me” citations, but rather ask for evidence. If they are the same kind of “studies” that O’Reilly has asked us to trust him about (eg. Unnamed “European studies” that have “shown” marriage equality somehow has destroyed heterosexual marriage, but in reality don’t actually exist) then perhaps you’re looking for a different chump who buys that nonsense blindly.

Then there are those studies bought and paid for by Rightwing organizations from a rightwing “academic” who fails to disclose who bought the study, and/or which — upon examining the methodology — reveals the study to be utterly nonsense. (See Jeffrey Milyo’s study of the “liberal media” for example. Here’s a nice starter page for ya. You’re welcome.)”

Hmmmm…I make a simple mistake by getting your name wrong, for which again I apologize, yet you take a simple error and make it a focus of insults. So apparently your earlier claims to be fair and objective are looking to be disingenuous.

Now there is another thing I noticed in this recent comment of yours that is quite revealing about your character or rather lack thereof. I’ll get to it in a moment but let me refresh readers with something you posted in an earlier comment:

“And, oh, I didn’t say “hey, reich wingers do it too!”, so it’d be nice if you removed the quotes around that, misleadingly giving the impression that I did.”

I find it interesting that you complained that quotes placed around something you say you didn’t say. But in your comment to me you placed “trust me” not once but twice as if I wrote it in my comments. Nice double standard you have there, Brad. Reveals even more about your character or lack thereof. Or is “getting the details right is not your thing”?

Now as for your claim you check sources “every day” — color me skeptical. I can believe that you may check some sources, but the misinformation your present and especially the lack of specific details which counter several of your points show to me that you are less than thorough with your so-called research skills. Consider me unimpressed.

I also find your assumptions and attempts to redirect the focus of my point also revealing about your character or rather the lack thereof. For example, you wrote, “studies bought and paid for by Rightwing organizations from a rightwing “academic” who fails to disclose who bought the study, and/or which — upon examining the methodology”…

I don’t base my conclusions on simply “studies” no matter from where they originate. Also your claim in particular is presented with no documentation other than a sound bit taken out of context and Mr. Klammer’s rather biased opinion. So basically what it boils down to is that is that you imply you take the “trust me” position of which you falsely accuse me. More double-standard from you, Brad. BTW, congratulations, you enticed me to visit your blog and I took the opportunity to look around. Brad, might I congratulate you on a slick, well packaged blog. However when you claim to be “neither left nor right wing” it becomes readily apparent that you are clearly lying, sir. The left-wing bias is overwhelming and frankly, sir, a lot of your content contains much misinformation, misleading tactics and in several instances conspiracy theories that tend to come from truly unhinged individuals. So I erred when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and apologize to author of this particular STACLU post: he had you pegged accurately from the get-go. I believe I won’t waste any more of my time and bandwidth perusing your blog in the future.

Moving right along…

Brad wrote (including a quote from my comment):

““the far-left is now an embraced, mainstream portion of liberalism rather than a fringe element chastised and kept outside standard liberalism. Code Pink, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. prove that.”

a) Why should any of those named be “chastised” or “kept outside” of anywhere? Because their beliefs are in synch with mainstream America? They should be shunned because you don’t agree with them?

b) If you think any of the above are “mainstream”, you again, appear to be watching *far* too much Fox “News”. And, of course, by your own admission, you don’t read anything but the sites who agree with you, so it’s little surprised you’d be confused about reality.”

Let me address one of your questions about the extreme liberals I specifically mentioned: “Because their beliefs are in synch with mainstream America?”

As so many polls from Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, and several others clearly indicate, the stated radical beliefs held by Soros, Code Pink, MoveOn.org and other extreme leftist are NOT held by the vast majority of Americans. Pity you didn’t bother with facts here.

Furthermore, you wrote: “And, of course, by your own admission, you don’t read anything but the sites who agree with you, so it’s little surprised you’d be confused about reality.”

Did I really admit that? Or are you mistaken? Obviously it’s the latter since I never said I what you claim I did. What I actually wrote was:

“I normally don’t visit left wing blogs since I have found them to be, for the most part, quite distasteful and full of vitriol and repugnancy.” [emphasis added]

and…

“However I don’t need the aggravation so I don’t go to left-wing sites for the most part.”

Quite a bit different from your claim that I “admitted” that I “don’t read anything but the sites who agree with [me]“. Again, either this is an example of dishonesty on your part or an example of “getting the details right is not your thing.” Only you can answer that, Brad, if you are truly honest with yourself.

Brad also wrote (including a quote from yours truly):

““On the other hand, far right groups remain ostracized from conservatism and hopefully will never be accepted in mainstream conservatism.”

Really? I hadn’t noticed the far-right groups like Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, PNAC, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, ACVR, (all of John McCain’s preacher endorsers) etc. etc. being kept out of anywhere. In fact, they have been embraced and mainstreamed everywhere, despite their discredited, whacked out, non-mainstream views.”

Although I will agree with you on Michael Savage and I will also admit that it is arguable that even Ann Coulter crosses the line but your blatant mispresentation of Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, etc. now convinces me that you are intentionally being disingenuous and devoid of honest discourse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, sir, however the content of your blog as well as the content of your comments prove conclusively that you are just another far left zealot that refuses to engage in civil discourse and would rather sidestep valid points made contrary to yours in favor of vitriol and insults (as clearly evidenced by the content of not only your comments here but your blog in general).

For example, you wrote the following:

“Lessee…just to name a few of the most popular rightwing sites and those who either allow no comments, or strictly moderate them, there’s No Commenting allowed and/or strict registration/moderation of comments at Powerline Blog, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Townhall, Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Free Republic.”

Hmmm…fact of the matter is, the sites that allow comments have rules. You have rules. Therefore you are just as guilty of “control[ling]” commenters as they. Furthermore, not having comments is not “control[ling]” commentors for to “control” comments in the first place one must have comments on the site. Such is not “control.” Secondly, having rules for comments is not “control” in the absolute sense of which you allude but making clear what is and isn’t acceptable material. Furthermore, you fail to provide documentation on these claims (even though you demand it of others). I can’t speak from experience on some of those sites you mention, but in regards to Michelle Malkin and Bill O’Reilly, I have had absolutely no problems with my comments made there including ones where I disagree with Malkin and O’Reilly. So my personal experience proves to me, at least, that you’ve once again chosen to be disingenuous.

The following is addressed to William Treach:

William, you wrote in regards to Brad and his site:

“I do not typically agree with you, but, hey, you guys are not going crazy.

Well, William, as evidenced by Brad lowering himself to insult, vitriol and disingenuousness I feel that he is more akin to the extreme leftists than you give him credit for. Initially he did appear to be more civil and intellectually honest than the radical left of which was initially referred but his subsequent comments showed a marked lack of character and an affinity towards ad hominem, character assassination and side-stepping issues at hand. Examples from his comments include, but are not limited to, his insulting manner of correcting my error in his name, his falsely attributing quotes I never made (added hypocrisy when he vehemently complained about someone doing it to him), his intentional misrepresentations of what I actually wrote, etc. Now if he only committed one or two of these things I could accept that he has problems with reading comprehension or has a quick temper. I could excuse those. Yet when he perpetrates the same maliciousness over and over again, it becomes apparent that it is indeed intentional and indicates lack of character, tact, ethics and civility. With that in mind, I will have to respectfully disagree with you somewhat that Brad is not one of “the wackos.” Although I won’t go that far in labelling Brad, it is, in my humble opinion, factual based upon the content and manner of his comments that Brad is closer to “the wackos” than you think.

So in conclusion, I wish you a wonderful life, Brad and hope you do well but it’s readily apparent you are unwilling and possibly unable to engage in civil, open, and honest discourse with those of opposing views and as such I feel you deserve no more respect nor any more of my time or effort responding to your comments be that as they may. Your dishonesty, snideness, crassness, and vitriolic nature is duly noted and merely supports my contention that more often than not, the far-left (yourself now included) and extreme liberalism is repugnant, vile and not worthy of any respect. Thank you for allowing your true nature to ooze forth into the light. Far-leftists are never able to keep the charade of civility up for long, especially when they are counterpointed effectively.

Carry on, folks.

Clearly, getting the details right is not your thing. I’m Brad, not Brian.

That said, just a couple of points in reply to your screed. You said:

“Actually, it’s documented that the overwhelming majority of vitriol articles, posts and comments come from the far left sites like HuffPo, DU and Kos.”

Cool. Where’s that documentation? Please share. As I tell my readers they should never “trust me” about anything (but rather make me prove everything, but please do same for the liars at AP, NYTimes, WaPo, etc.) you’ll forgive me if I don’t simply trust you either.

Share your documentation, and I’ll be happy to give it a look. Lacking that, I ain’t buying it. I’ve seen too many appalling attacks from the Freepers at their site, at my site, and everywhere else in these United States.

“Actually, Brian, the points I made are indeed documented quite well by numerous “watchdog” sites and blogs as well as merely visiting the sites mentioned above. Try it sometime.”

I do it every day, Ken.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t fall for your “trust me” citations, but rather ask for evidence. If they are the same kind of “studies” that O’Reilly has asked us to trust him about (eg. Unnamed “European studies” that have “shown” marriage equality somehow has destroyed heterosexual marriage, but in reality don’t actually exist) then perhaps you’re looking for a different chump who buys that nonsense blindly.

Then there are those studies bought and paid for by Rightwing organizations from a rightwing “academic” who fails to disclose who bought the study, and/or which — upon examining the methodology — reveals the study to be utterly nonsense. (See Jeffrey Milyo’s study of the “liberal media” for example. Here’s a nice starter page for ya. You’re welcome.)

Beyond that, you’ll also forgive me if I’m not interested in your undocumented, one-sided and anectodal examples of what you believe to be demonstrative of something.

“the far-left is now an embraced, mainstream portion of liberalism rather than a fringe element chastised and kept outside standard liberalism. Code Pink, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. prove that.”

a) Why should any of those named be “chastised” or “kept outside” of anywhere? Because their beliefs are in synch with mainstream America? They should be shunned because you don’t agree with them?

b) If you think any of the above are “mainstream”, you again, appear to be watching *far* too much Fox “News”. And, of course, by your own admission, you don’t read anything but the sites who agree with you, so it’s little surprised you’d be confused about reality.

“On the other hand, far right groups remain ostracized from conservatism and hopefully will never be accepted in mainstream conservatism.”

Really? I hadn’t noticed the far-right groups like Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, PNAC, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, ACVR, (all of John McCain’s preacher endorsers) etc. etc. being kept out of anywhere. In fact, they have been embraced and mainstreamed everywhere, despite their discredited, whacked out, non-mainstream views.

“since you have made it apparent you think my points are undocumented (quite the contrary — my points have been documented). If you would, specifically of what “right wing sites” do you refer to? Also specificially what “control” are they implementing over their commenters and specifically how do these “right wing sites” “control” their commenters?”

Lessee…just to name a few of the most popular rightwing sites and those who either allow no comments, or strictly moderate them, there’s No Commenting allowed and/or strict registration/moderation of comments at Powerline Blog, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Townhall, Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Free Republic.

Just the most popular rightwing websites in the world, of course. I’m unaware of *any* popular non-Wingnut sites either disallowing comments all together (as the bulk of the above do), or banning folks simply because they don’t follow the party line (eg. I was banned at Free Republic after one day, for having the temerity to point out, with links and documentation, how Sean Hannity was lying to them.)

If you need “documentation” (links to those sites) let me know.

And then, Kyle, there’s this impressive flip-flop, in two fell grafs of yours:

“Brad, to clarify, I am speaking more in general when I refer to “leftists” (a.k.a. – liberals). If I were referring to you specifically or anyone else, I would name names. I am not afraid to do so.
…
Finally in the interest of full disclosure, I have not ever visited your blog Brian nor do I have any intent to do so.
…
I normally don’t visit left wing blogs since I have found them to be, for the most part, quite distasteful and full of vitriol and repugnancy. I’ll gladly admit that not all leftist sites are that way, but I’ve read too many of them that seem to take an unhinged stand when it comes to conservatives and conservatism. However I don’t need the aggravation so I don’t go to left-wing sites for the most part.”

Gosh, sounds like you want to claim you didn’t peg us/me as “leftist” and then in the same breath decided I have a “left wing blog”.

Funny that. I’d also be interested in knowing what “conservatives and conservatism” you’re talking about. If it has anything to do with folks like Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, I suspect it has nothing to do with actual conservatism at all. But you seem easily pliable, so I suspect you may have bought into any amount of the nonsense that’s been offered to you by the America haters who have hijacked your party, your country, and flew it into the ground.

Lastly, you said:

“I do not know of any blog, blog administrator or blog owner who has the ability to foretell which commenter will leave insulting, vitrioloc comments. If any do have such an ability, I would like to direct them to James “the Amazing” Randi who has an open challenge and an over one million dollar prize to anyone who can prove, under controlled conditions, that they do have such an ability.”

Cool. I look forward to your condemning Bill O’Reilly for spending untold minutes, littering the mainstream media and misleading Americans by suggesting otherwise, not telling millions of them that folks like Huff Po do not condone such postings in reader comments, and don’t feature writers that say such things, because gosh, golly, if one watched O’Reilly, and never bothered to look into his [edited], it would look very much like he was suggesting that Huff Po had that ability, but didn’t excercise because they are “vicious far-left hate sites.”

Take care, Corey!

“Brad, it is on my “About Me” page at my personal blog, Pirate’s Cove. For the record, here at STACLU, it is Porter Good.”

…Might I suggest you ask the site owners here to include your name (or even a link to your blog) along with your articles when you write them. If you come straight to this page, as I did, there seems to be no indication at all as to who wrote the article.

“What it comes down to, Brad, is that it is your side that typically are the ones going complete bonkers.”

MY side? Which side is that? The side that gives a damn about America? Sorry to hear you’re not on my side.

“You’ll see the crazy. And the crazies on the Left are the mainstream liberals. The crazies on the right tend to be on the outside.”

Really? Which “mainstream liberals” would those be? And, as to the “outside” which “crazies” would those be? “Outsiders” like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, etc.? Those poor outsiders. It’s a shame they are so fringe, otherwise, Coulter’s multiple death threats on perceived “liberals” might have been heard by someone, along with the rest of those folks who seem to despise American values, the rule of law, the Constitution, etc.

What are you smoking? (ò¿ó)