McCain takes the gloves off

Moving into high gear, The McCain team yesterday opened up both barrels and gave conservatives what they’ve been waiting for from his campaign.

Where does he sit?

What is in the refrigerator?

Where can I get a biodegradeable hat?

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

I mean it. Really. Nothin.


32 thoughts on “McCain takes the gloves off

  1. I forgot, Ronald Reagan never slept, ate, needed to use the restroom, needed to shave, or bathe, or apply ointment to a sore. He was “perfect” in every way. I am surprised that the people on this blog have even accepted the fact that he finally passed away (God rest his soul), and that he died of Alzheimers Disease.

    You know, people, Nancy and his family “cried” at his funeral, like “humans” do. Even if you thought she was married to a God, hers was a natural response. The fact that all you can do now on this blog is find this level of minutae to attack, it is truly appalling.


  2. By the way, CB, he doesn’t look dead. You have obviously not seen someone who is – they look very different than this.


  3. #4 Joel June 14, 2008 on ‘ McCain takes the gloves off ‘

    “ By the way, CB, he doesn’t look dead. …. ”

    Joel, you are right, McCain doesn’t look dead.

    He looks to be in a contented slumber.

    Ignorance is bliss.



  4. “By the way, CB, he doesn’t look dead. You have obviously not seen someone who is – they look very different than this.”

    Joel… “I see dead people!”

    I also see our personal liberties and freedoms slowly dying…

    How you like dem apples?

  5. Replace him with who? How? Does reality ever factor into the equation with you?!

    Stupid question. Of course not.

    So, what color is the sky in your universe?

  6. Trojan (at 14):
    Replace him with:
    Who? a Conservative.
    How? by not nominating him on the first ballot and inviting back all the candidates (who don’t have anti-Republican agendas that would destroy the economy) for 1/2 hour speeches. Then vote again.
    Does principle ever factor into the equation with you?!
    Stupid question. Of course not.

    That’s why all you dufflepuds use aliases.

    They could let McCain take part in the speeches, suicidal anti-American agenda notwithstanding. He could talk about where he sits on the Straight Talk Express and what is in the refrigerator and show off his biodegradable wardrobe.

  7. Doug.

    @5 You are suggesting that I die? Simply because of waht exactly?

    RBN is right – sad – and unfortunately proving every point I ever made about you.


  8. Brian @ 6. Let me get this straight. You are criticizing McCain “because” he is able to have contented slumber? Shouldn’t we all be so blessed. It doesn’t surprise me to have something so wicked spew from your lips – you were the one on this blog to have the audacity to mock Senator McCain’s torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Anyone who mocks an American patriot like that is not even worthy of reproach – you are lower than that.


  9. Doug Paris,

    Let’s see…..

    The Republican Party held a whole bunch of caucuses and primaries. John McCain won. All the various candidates you supported lost. And lost. And lost some more.

    But of course you’re right, and everyone else is a cheater, so now the convention delegates (an overwhelming majority of whom are committed to McCain and are McCain supporters) are going to ignore the results of all those McCain victories and throw the Party into complete chaos.

    Yup. I am sure that is exactly what is going to happen.

    Try and answer this truthfully: do you think there is any chance the scenario you outlined will actually happen at the convention? Do you think anyone will even TRY and make that happen? If not, wouldn’t conservatives be better off supporting McCain?

  10. Trojan,
    Don’t put words in my mouth.

    McCain did not win majorities, he won pluralities and cheated to do it. Not “everyone,” just the McCain team. The reason they closed debate at the Washington State Convention and, even further, literally refused to count any vote on Credentials or Rules or closing debate, instead making a purely subjective determination that their side had won, was because they could not withstand any public airing of the facts or accurate counting of the votes. There has never been a more obvious fix.

    On the other hand, had the opposition won 100% of the available Washington State delegates, the chances of successfully contributing to the prevention of a McCain first-ballot nomination was already slim. It has been getting slimmer as time passes.
    Because it is not impossible, one cannot say “there is NO chance.” And it is in pursuit of slim chances that freedom has been won in the past. That is how our nation was founded in the beginning, by men who were willing to put their lives on the line for slim chances on faith.

    It should be noted, however, that the McCain team has demonstrated desperate measures to win delegates, from ballot fraud to parliamentary cheating to violating National rules. Those facts argue that the McCain team understood well what I have been pointing out: that their position is very tenuous with the base and not assured.

    There remains the slim chance that the Party will wake up in time. They did not in 1976. They did not in 1992. They did not in 1996.

    But freedom hangs in the balance. We must turn the direction of the Titanic around, sooner or later. Somehow.

    No, I will not support a captain who steams, full speed ahead, toward that iceberg. It is not that he is an enemy of the passengers or crew. He isn’t. The problem is that he thinks we can survive that impact.

  11. #18 Joel June 15, 2008 ‘ McCain takes the gloves off ‘

    Brian @ 6. Let me get this straight….


    As if anything about you is ‘straight’.

    May you find your way,


  12. Brian


    Are you suggesting now that I am a homosexual? It is pretty sad when all you can do is insinuate that kind of rubbish when you have simply run out of any real response. But hey, I guess you have finally accepted that I don’ t smoke marijuana. It is sad to think that you are now groping for something else. I would suggest that you grope someone else, not me, I am not interested.

    Pathetic and sad.


  13. Joel,
    We’ve never established that you don’t smoke marijuana.

    You, in fact, explicitly rejected being tested, remember?
    You are in constant denial, but, if your protestations were true, how would anyone be able to distinguish them from your multitudes of other statements that are false?

    No. It doesn’t add up. Submit to testing or quit protesting.

  14. Typical Parris Strategy-

    1. One of your ilk, states a story out of thin air, presumably because they disagree with someone’s point, and then attributes that disagreement to drug use.
    2. Your victim asserts, we may disagree, but I have never taken drugs
    3. You then demand that he disapprove a lie
    4. You now foolishly claim that since he is a “liar” he is now lying when he responds to slander

    The more you use this underhanded argumentative style, the more your arguments fall on deaf ears. You are so blatant in this juvenile debate style, that reasonable people would assume that you are indeed an agent of the left. Maybe you are not, but one has to wonder!

  15. RBN,

    Doug is simply insane, I have asked him to disprove his insanity with a psychological evaluation – it would be easy for him to do – he simply submits to a day of testing – an we will know if he is a paranoid schizophrenic, clinical narcissist, or marginal personality – or not.

    The alternative of course is for reasonable people to simply quit wasting their time with people with the intellectual depth of 8th graders (but that is typically the age range that most campaign literature is directed) and social skills that most adults outgrew around the same time. Sadly, I know some teens that are more intelligent, reasonable, and socially mature than Doug, Brian, Ron, and the other wacky wankers that post to this blog.

    People of faith could pray for them, but I have to say, after engaging with this misguided mob, it is truly a test of faith.


    PS I find it tremendously ironic that Doug talks about “truth” and “honesty” yet engages in exactly the pattern of slander that you described above. You called him on it – and it was true – but true to form – I expect some kind of adolecent response from Doug. At least he is consistent in his inconsistency.

  16. RBN, at 24:
    You have a tendency to interpret language, not by what it actually means, but by how it makes you “feel” or by the images cast up in your mind when you read it. This is common, today, with the deterioration of public education. The Schools, led by far-left educrats, controlled by the radical NEA, intentionally encourage such stuff, as a part of their long-term war on truth. You must overcome that handicap.
    You make false allegations of me based on our dustup with the alias “Joel.” Joel came here to engage in troll behavior, to eschew reason, except to the degree it could help his goal, which was to undermine the Reagan Wing’s conservative mission, cast doubt on our factual accounts of Party corruption, and engage in character assasination. He disagrees with us on virtually everything, yet continually spends time here. To what purpose? He certainly makes no rational attempt at convincing anyone of his point of view, in fact, he misrepresents his point of view.
    As I write, I have not yet read Joel’s post “25” beyond this sentence, “I know some teens that are more intelligent, reasonable, and socially mature than Doug, Brian, Ron, and the other wacky wankers that post to this blog.”
    This sums up Joel’s approach. It is all baseless insults and scurrilous, ad hominem trash talk. And then he signs, hilariously, with “Peace.” His claim of superior intelligence, for instance, if it were serious, could be supported by some argument, but it never will be. He simply asserts that his opponents are stupid, ignorant, mentally ill, socially maladjusted and any derivative that would, if believed, cast doubt on their argument. He has been doing this since the day he arrived.
    At some point, at a loss of patience with this behavior, another poster accused Joel, based on his writing style and hippie-mode complimentary closing, of smoking pot. This was simply responding, in kind, to Joel’s own technique.
    There is every bit as much validity to that accusation as there is to Joel’s constant slanders, for example, that Doug Parris is insane. There is no reason, under the circumstances, to treat the accusation of Joel any differently. As long as Joel continues to hurl slanderous lies, expecting them to be considered, we will continue to consider accusations of Joel made in precisely the same manner.

    Now to your response at 24:

    1. The accusation was not “out of thin air” but based on Joel’s behavior. You say the writer is of my “ilk.” Is “Joel” of your ilk?
    2. Joel did, in fact, deny the accusation.
    3. I did not “demand” that HE disprove the allegation. I magnanimously offered to PAY, out of my pocket, for him to refute the allegation, medically, objectively, forever proving that his accuser was lying. By what evidence have you concluded that the allegation is a lie? You have responded as if I was guilty of asking him to rhetorically “disprove a negative” but that is not true at all. The evidence I asked of him is easily and objectively obtainable.
    4. What is “foolish” about claiming that a liar is a liar? Joel has cast lies like a lawnmower throws grass clippings since the day he arrived. Nor did I claim that his denial of the “pot” accusation was a lie. Never. But you must ask yourself, as must everyone, why, exactly, “Joel” will not submit to testing. Let us even assume, for the sake of argument, that he is innocent of the charge. Why then does he refuse? The answer is there, in plain sight.

    You call my response “underhanded” but you are very wrong. Joel is in the business of hurling baseless insults and refusing to back them up. The “debate” process is useless. He will not debate his accusations rationally, he simply hurls more insults.
    It was after tolerating his misbehavior for a long time that I found an objective way of actually testing Joel on his own ground. He is failing. How could you possibly side with this inveterate slanderer?

    Finally, you call your misconception a “Typical Parris Strategy.” I have published hundreds of articles on since 2004. Plenty of material, there, to illustrate my use of this “ubiquitous strategy.” Yet you list no examples. Please do so.

  17. What lies has he said? I think you are confusing dissent and disagreement from your point of view with not being truthful. I can just as well label you a liar for suggesting I favor socialism, because I do not fall in line 100% with your opinion.

    You claim victim hood, yet your silly request “to pay for a drug test” is the same things as saying, so Doug, when did you start beating your wife?

  18. RBN (at 27):

    1. I will compile a compendium of Joel’s slanderous lies, if it is required to prove a point, but I should not incur that level of liability (of sheer time consumption) to demonstrate what, to ordinary people, is obvious. So I will do it, if you wish it, only concurrent with banning Joel, the troll, altogether.
    Suffice it to say that in a recent post he claimed I was insane. That is not dissent or disagreement with my point of view, it is a slanderous lie. Wake up. You can’t be that blind.

    2. Offering to pay for Joel’s drug testing has nothing in common with the famous leading question “Have you quit beating your wife?” (which is, I’m sure, what you meant to quote), even less with the question you actually used.
    Either of those questions assume guilt. Requesting testing assumes nothing and offers a full disposition of the allegation. The two have nothing in common. This is what I mean by your departure from reason: how is it you can’t see that?

  19. Doug.

    The actual fallacy of the question is not that the question “when did you quit beating your wife,” presupposes “guilt.” Although that particular question does presuppose guilt; the logical fallacy it is that it “assumes facts” that have not necessarily been established.

    In a real argument or in the legal sense, the question “when did you quit beating your wife” would be completely appropriate if you have first established that the person being asked that question did in fact beat their wife at some time prior. It is called a foundational or predicate question.

    The fact that you fill me with revulsion is a fact, the reasons that I give are an opinion.

    You can ban me from this site if you want, it would save me valuable time and energy not wasted here engaging with you. But whether you like it or not, it is my opinion of you. Whether others agree with me or not, I really don’t care, but you Doug Parris, and several of your friends here, they disgust me. And when I see your beliefs tied to the name of Ronald Reagan, conservatism, and the Republican Party, I find that, and you, embarrassing.

    On all the other points and fogging arguments you have made, they are not worth the time to respond. They are just more of the same as described above.


  20. Doug.

    You can’t stand it when you are questioned, so you cut and paste the posts of others to have them “say” what you want them to say.

    That is the worst kind of lying.

    Pox on you and your house,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s