After the removal of GMB’s posted comment by the Moderators of BlogsForVictory that I posted in the last installment, GMB roars back with an unapologetic response:
““Racist and-or ageist and-or sexist bigotry is never allowed. You can’t seem to get more than one post in before reverting to it. People with this pattern soon have every post removed as soon as we see the name of the poster. //” Moderator
What ever. Copies have been saved, those who wish to see the truth can. You are old and you are a woman. Truth that can not be denied. I do find it interesting that you now have “canned” moderator warnings.
Would you care to show me another post, other than response to your incessant cackling where I have been “racist, sexist, or ageist?
You can not. This was informative.
Your continued devotion to a document you are unwilling to enforce is just mildly amusing at this point.
Roll this off your lips, “President Warren” Again, “President Warren” One more time “AND NOW………. PRESIDENT Elizabeth Warren!!!!!!!
Bottom line is Go ahead and delete all my posts. Only a narcissist would care anyway .Your threats have never nor do they now work on me.”
Of course this inspires another disjointed reply from Amazona:
“My goodness, you are having quite a little hissy fit, aren’t you?
Do your parents know the contempt with which you view those older than you? I am sure the women in your life are fully aware of the fact that you find the term “woman” to be an insult, but I do wonder if you have taken the time to let them know, in that inimitable way of yours, how adding a few years will put them at the tipping point where there will be TWO reasons to have contempt for them.
I always wonder, when I see you and the forkers share the same characteristics—–that is, when you stub your toe on an argument you can’t refute you fall back on name calling, focusing on age and gender—–if this means that, as you disdain people of a certain age, you hope you never reach it.
You certainly have every right to determine how narrowly you will define those you deem acceptable. You can exclude people based on age, gender, sexual orientation, various opinions, etc. No problem. It is your life, and you get to live it the way you want to. No one is asking you to step outside your bubble. No one is asking you to associate with people who are different from you. No one cares. NO ONE CARES.
However, my point was that when it comes to POLITICS—-that is, how to govern the country—–you don’t get to make the rules for a whole political movement. Particularly when your litany of criteria does not have a single thing to do with how to govern the nation, but is only about the many many areas in which you are so gleefully judgmental. You claim to love your country, and constantly wave around your military service, (you know, John Kerry served in Viet Nam!) but it is impossible to believe that anyone who will contribute to the downfall of the country just to make the point that you are all bent out of shape because you didn’t get your own way also truly loves the country he has just helped condemn to misery.
You talk the talk, loudly and often, but you don’t seem to walk the walk. Bluster is all I see.
My point, the one that got your panties in such a twist and stirred up the hatred that obviously lies very very close to the surface, is merely that when it comes to POLITICS (how best to govern the nation) not anything in your endless list of issues and biases makes the slightest difference. A gay man can believe in the Constitution, and vote conservative to help preserve it. So can a Wiccan, a lesbian, an atheist, an agnostic, a Hindu, and so on. And the fact that you are so impressed with your own perception of your own superiority that you want to tell all these people to go vote for the Other Side because, for whatever reason, they do not meet your standards of purity is proof that you put your own ego and your own arrogance above the well being of the country.
I repeat—you are perfectly able to limit your contacts to the very few who meet your standards, but you do not have the right to try to impose them on others, and you most definitely do not have the right to use your overblown opinion of yourself to appoint yourself a gatekeeper for a whole political movement and try to dictate who can belong and who cannot. I can pretty much promise you that not one of these people you would refuse to associate with would be the least bit upset at keeping a considerable distance from you. Promising that no one would be expected to associate with you would probably be a good recruiting tactic.
As for your silly bleat that I am “unwilling to enforce” the Constitution, once again you sound like a forker, falling back on a lie to try to insult. (Hint: Only those I respect, only those whose opinion I value, can insult me.) It is not only a lie, it is a stupid lie, and easily refuted by every single post I have ever written on the subject. On the other hand, the guy who postures as Super-Christian doesn’t hesitate to stoop to bearing false witness, or to ignoring the edict to judge not.
I don’t threaten you. I laugh at you and your pomposity and irrationality but I do not threaten you. Paranoid much? Hey, it’s not my fault that you are so freaked out by being challenged by a WOMAN. Sounds like you should stick to areas where the women know their place, under the thumbs of the big bad menfolk. Places like this are always going to upset you
So you go copy away, put together archives of being picked on, brood and hoot and holler. None of this will change the fact that when a woman said something that tweaked that massive ego of yours, you flew into a name-calling temper tantrum. If you are going to fret that the blog might not offer itself up as a forum for your wall-kicking and screeching, go right ahead.
BTW, I have seen plenty of racist crap from you, mostly the pathetic “white hut” variety, and in this very post you wallow in ageism and sexism. Get over yourself.
I, on the other hand, will be out volunteering to help win this election cycle and the ones after it, encouraging people to vote for the conservative side and assuring them that the few egomaniacal blowhards who try to set themselves up as gatekeepers for the movement are really just that—–egomaniacal blowhards far too impressed with themselves and unaware that when they never take their heads out of their donkeys the view never changes, and do not in any way represent the core of the movement. You are our lunatic fringe, and will always be identified as such.”
Amazona is a special kind of conservative. She wants everyone to think that she believes in the freedom to pursue happiness but in reality she would use the Constitution as she interprets it to assure that a wide swath would never be able to do just that. Amazona is a State’s Rights Southern Strategy Reagan Democrat of the worst order. To disdain us here just throws gasoline on the fire. Mercifully, I am banned from B4V and can freely say what I want about the bitch of the backwoods and there is nothing she can do about it. Heads will begin exploding at B4V in three, two, one . . .
As collateral damage to all of this Cluster, who refers to the writers and journalists here as “speed bumps who were only here to denigrate others and display their ugly character,” displays his lack of TEA Party purity by stating, “I will also say one other thing about one of your chosen politicians – Sarah Palin. She’s done. Her 15 minutes is over. Sarah Palin is more interested in Sarah Palin than anything else.”
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., CS, O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.
Editorial Page Editor
The Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork
42 Ashtaq 3 AS