Fred Dooley, proud member of the “hate right”

Yesterday Fred Dooley of “Real Debate” Wisconsin posted a version of the AFL-CIO solidarity poster riddled with bullet holes (pictured below) and asked readers who constitute the echo chamber at “Real Debate” to caption the image.

It’s worth noting that this is the same Fred Dooley who is so fond of labeling those of us on the left who dare to voice opinions contrary to Fred’s as “The hate left,” and this is the same Fred Dooley who’s been preaching about the importance of civility while simultaneously criticizing the supposed incivility of some on the left.

I’m not entirely sure how Fred Dooley thinks that posting an image of the AFL-CIO “solidarity” fist riddled with bullet holes is either civil or not hateful, but it seems pretty clear to me that Fred’s finally embracing his standing as a member of the hate right here in Wisconsin.

Share:

Related Articles

31 thoughts on “Fred Dooley, proud member of the “hate right”

  1. Let’s pair that with a Cindy Kilkenny tweet: “Wisconsin’s left only survives if they can keep the hate alive.”

    Strangle the hate!

  2. Sarah Palin uses a target and that is over the top rhetoric. You guys use a clenched fist and what is that? Solidarity according to you, thuggish in reality.

    I post in in humor, and you don’t get the joke? Frankly I’m not surprised.

    If I wasted my time and put up an attack post every time you and Jeff crossed the line, that would be all I do.

    Have a nice day.

    1. Fred you’re a moron.

      Banned me from your little-read, MICRO-blog yet, Fred? Just out of curiosity, how many hits do you get a day over there? Four, five, six [stop me when I get “warm”, huh]?

      Hey, maybe you should just shut it down. No one will notice, plus it will allow you to work on your unfortunate physical [fat, bald, looks like Kevin from “The Office” with horn-rims] appearance.

      Having said that, I’m reminded of the time that Mr. Drooley (or should I say “Tool-ey”) made fun of Joanne Kloppenburg’s appearance. Truly the LAST person on Earth that should have done that. (*laughing*)

      Drooley
      Tool-ey
      Truly

      Hasta la vista, baby. . .(*laughing*). . .Instead of banning people like me and Zach from your blog, you should have just sucked it up. When you do stuff like ban people like us who have the “temerity” to call you out on your BS, you are shunning the only intelligent beings that ever visit your remote, lifeless and forlorn planet of a blog.

    2. Anyone remember when Fred tweeted about receiving his “stimulus package” of watermelon seeds and fried chicken coupons and said that was a joke too?

      I remember that…apparently Fred’s sense of humor is just a little different than most normal humans.

    1. I don’t think it is a good idea for Dooley (who I was unaware of before today to post the union symbol with bullet holes in it. But could you give me just one example of Sarah Palin spewing hate.

  3. “This just proves that the right fails at Photoshop.”

    The Left then must have been at the top of class. Look at the Photoshopped birth certificate that Obama released.

    1. “Look at the Photoshopped [sic] birth certificate that [President] Obama released.”

      You realize that you said that “out loud”, right?

      Even most [NOW former] birthers don’t believe the birther nonsense anymore precisely because the President released his long form birth certificate.

      You’ve just labelled yourself as a crackpot, the old codger in the bathrobe yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off of his lawn.

      Maybe you should spend less time “looking at loons” (“loons”, a truly stupid term for which, I guess, we can thank that insipid bully, Bill O’Reilly) from whatever wingnut echo chamber you inhabit, and maybe spend a little more time getting caught up on current events.

  4. It is interesting that it is always the Left that is first to try to label their opponents. You label them as “codgers” or “racists” so as to marginalize them. And usually you are first to threaten violence when you are angered at not having everyone think as you do. And yet, you claim it is the Right that is ready to resort to violence.

    You may know about current events, but you apparently do not have any idea what those events mean for the future of the US.

    1. Psst! Nobody has threatened violence on here. Certainly no liberal. Certainly there are not even threats of face punching or strangling, though those are the accusations those on the right such as yourself are ducking.

      Loon > duck

    2. L-A-L, you had earlier used a discredited, marginalized point of view to evidence a snarky point that you were trying to make. In doing so, you marginalized yourself. I playfully used an appropriate metaphor to make that point. I didn’t have to “marginalize” you. You had already done that yourself. I had a little fun with it at your expense. See the difference? Yeah, didn’t think so.

      You know what, big guy? You exemplify the cult of crybaby victimhood so endemic on the Right.

      Your screen name incorporates the “in your face” label of “loons” with which the Right loves to refer to those on the Left. And yet, you have the temerity to protest my tongue-in-cheek effort to have a little fun with you by complaining that the Left is always “the first to try to label their opponents” in an effort to marginalize them. Irony not a strong suit with you, my misguided wingnut brother?

      You then inexplicably veer wildly away from what I had to say in my comment to stridently maintain, without providing any evidence for the proposition, that the Left is “[the] first to threaten violence at not having everyone think as [it does].”

      I’m sure that George Tiller would disagree.

      In any event, L-A-L, I do know about current events. I also think that I have a better grasp of what they portend than you seem to, your uninformed generalizations about me with respect to same notwithstanding.

      Your strident and tunnel-visioned partisanship blinds you, my friend. I sincerely hope that you re-think it.

      Conservatives took a budget surplus under President Clinton and, through expensive and unfunded wars tax cuts, turned it into a massive deficit. Conservatives have declared war on women, the poor and the elderly. Conservatives seem to believe that empowering Wall Street is more important that protecting Main Street, even after Wall Street brought the country to a brink that it hadn’t seen since the Great Depression.

      So, yeah, I think that I have a pretty good idea of “what [current] events mean for the future of the [United States]”, and what past events have meant for it.

      Without knowing much about me, you have come to a different conclusion. I guess that that is fodder for future debate, and I look forward to it.

      I just hope that you give what you write a little more thought before you bring your “soapbox” back here, stomp your feet, scrunch your face up, and throw another wingnut hissy fit.

      1. In an earlier post, you carefully put “President” in front of Obama’s name as if I had disrespected him in my comment. And yet you reduce my sobriquet to a disrespectful L-A-L. Oh well.

        I visited this Dooley chap’s blog and see that you were on there ragging him. Called him “Fatboy” a couple of times. I don’t know Mr. Dooley’s dimensions, but assume that name did not sit well with him. Now you reappear here and call me a “big guy” and a “wingnut.”

        Yes I do “inexplicably veer wildly away” sometimes. I am working on that. I am also working on my excess of “temerity.” Is there anything I can take for that?

        You bring up Tiller, who had psychiatric disorders, as an example of the Right’s penchant for violence. But you did not notice that Wisconsin Republican Senators were threatened with violence against themselves and their families during the siege of the Capitol. Tunnel vision?

        So lets summarize, in your couple of comments directed at me, you have called me the following: a crackpot, a wingnut (thrice), an old codger in a bathrobe, a fan of O’Reilly (gasp), and that I am temerarious and suffer from tunnel vision. And yet, I have not labeled you once. But, then, you are just having fun with me.

        1. @ L-A-L

          All right, my misguided wingnut brother, let me just address EVERYTHING that you just had to say, and put it to bed.

          L-A-L: “In an earlier post, you carefully put ‘President’ in front of Obama’s name as if I had disrespected him in my comment.”

          Me: I routinely put “President” in front of Barack Obama’s last name. He is, in fact, the President, and I do, in fact, use it to express my respect for both him and the office he holds.

          L-A-L: “And yet you reduce my sobriquet to a disrespectful L-A-L. Oh well.”

          Me: Like I was saying, cult of victimhood.

          I reduced your “sobriquet” (Jeeeesh – not sure that that was pretentious enough) to “L-A-L” because I didn’t want to use your actual screen name, you know, the cute little “homage” to the Left using Bill O’Reilly’s favorite insult when talking about liberals/the Left/progressives. How could you possibly read disrespect into THAT?! “L-A-L”? Seriously?! Hey, people call me ZB or Zuma all the time. Disrespectful? Hardly. If anything, it MIGHT be an expression of intimacy or familiarity or hipness. Disrespect? (*laughing*) That’s just your sense of right-wing victimhood getting the best of you.

          L-A-L: “I visited this Dooley chap’s blog and see that you were on there ragging him. Called him “Fatboy” a couple of times. I don’t know Mr. Dooley’s dimensions, but assume that name did not sit well with him. Now you reappear here and call me a “big guy” and a “wingnut.”

          Me: Today was kind of an unusual day over at Dooley’s MICRO-blog. As someone who clearly doesn’t know “this Dooley chap” or his site, you just don’t have a sufficient context in which to reasonably evaluate my comments there today. For the record, my comments there today were unrepresentative of the way I normally post, but were eminently justified in ways that you couldn’t possibly understand. So, let’s just restrict our discussion here to the comments that you and I have exchanged, huh?

          Parenthetically, “big guy” is a term of endearment, NOT a reference to actual size. Dooley, if you must know, looks like Kevin from “The Office” if Kevin wore old-school, horn-rimmed glasses.

          L-A-L: “Yes I do ‘inexplicably veer wildly away’ sometimes. I am working on that. I am also working on my excess of ‘temerity.’ Is there anything I can take for that?”

          Me: Yes. Take those restrictive right-wing blinders off. You might also want to take that chip off of your shoulder.

          L-A-L: “You bring up Tiller, who had psychiatric disorders, as an example of the Right’s penchant for violence.”

          Me: Actually, I brought up George Tiller to exemplify the Right’s penchant for killing people they don’t agree with.

          Just out of curiosity, what was the point of saying something like “Tiller, [WHO HAD PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS]”? That was an extraordinarily weird non sequitor that I just couldn’t wrap my brain around. I’m sure that it made some kind of sense in that right-wing noggin of yours. Care to explain?

          L-A-L: “But you did not notice that Wisconsin Republican Senators were threatened with violence against themselves and their families during the siege of the Capitol. Tunnel vision?”

          Me: I have, in fact, noticed that people like you claimed that such threats were made. I also noticed here, in your most recent comment, that you failed to provide any evidence of same, yet relied on the fact-free allegation to make your point. Pure sophistry wrapped in an exquisite display of false equivalency.

          That said, it would be remiss of me not to note that my mentioning Tiller initially was done in response to your fact-free allegation that the Left “is first” to threaten violence.” You still haven’t proven the allegation. And, news flash, George Tiller is still dead because someone on the right didn’t agree with his position on abortion.

          In any event, L-A-L, can you spell “deflection”?

          Sorry, no “tunnel vision” here.

          L-A-L: “So lets summarize, in your couple of comments directed at me, you have called me the following: a crackpot, a wingnut (thrice), an old codger in a bathrobe, a fan of O’Reilly (gasp), and that I am temerarious [I know it’s a word. I’m just not sure it should be – (*laughing*)] and suffer from tunnel vision. And yet, I have not labeled you once. But, then, you are just having fun with me.”

          Me: Hardly a fair summary, big guy (just kidding- *wink*). In truth, you have labelled me and every other progressive here as a “loon”, and you’re in everyone’s face with it the minute that you post. Your screen name could be considered an affront, as I’m sure that you intended it to be, but we all tolerate it. We may comment on your using it at the very same time that you complain about being called a “wingnut” or some other term that wingnuts are sensitive about, but we go on tolerating it. Maybe you just don’t get that. Oh, well. I guess that I can live with your level of cluelessness in this regard.

          The “codger” stuff? Come on, L-A-L, that’s just good-natured ribbing, playing “the dozens” (are you “black” enough to understand that reference?). I’m a creative sort, a writer, a comedian, and that’s comes out in my political analysis. By reacting to all of that as you have, you do more to evidence the fact that you are, in fact, an old “codger”, than actually do anything to rebut the point that I was actually making in using it.

          Also, you might want to reconsider using words like “thrice”. Otherwise, you risk the “codger” label. Just common sense. The last person that I can remember using that word, other than Shakespeare, was my grandfather, who would be 120 if he was still alive today, wearing his bathrobe on the front porch and yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off of his lawn. I’m just saying. . .

          In any event, SIR, you need to lighten up, and have a little fun with the process.

          If you take the stick out of your keester, and take off those partisan blinders, who knows? You might actually see the world and politics far more clearly and accurately than you do presently.

          1. All I can say to finish up here is that you don’t seem to understand that I was doing some good-natured ribbing also. I appear to be on the opposite side of things from you, but I do not grind my teeth in my sleep. I keep my equalibrium.

            I am going back to commenting on Huffington. They have never accused me of being an old codger in a bathrobe and I can use the word “thrice.” You guys here are too sharp for me.

            1. Good old fashioned ribbing – especially when it’s with tongue firmly in cheek or heavy on the sarcasm – is sometimes hard to distinguish from true insults, as I’ve learned the hard way.

              At any rate, you definitely prompted a lively discussion today, so I hope you’ll pop in whenever the mood strikes you.

            2. @ LookingAtLoons [who I genuinely hope, in the interest of fostering an environment where civil discourse and mutual respect can flourish, and, yes, where words like “thrice” can be used freely, changes his screen name]

              “All I can say to finish up here is that you don’t seem to understand that I was doing some good-natured ribbing also.”

              I understood that you were trying, at least in part, to engage in some witty repartee and “good-natured ribbing”, as you put it. And I appreciated it for what it was when I encountered it, and enjoyed it.

              I do, however, think that you made your points here with way too heavy an ideological hand, and may have visited this progressive blog bearing an unnecessary level of ideologically driven aggressiveness and defensiveness.

              I suspect that if you viewed your posts through a more objective prism, you might very well come to the same conclusion.

              That said, based upon my experiencwe, I’m not sure that you’re going to find a more “hospitable” environment over at Huffington Post, although I can say that I’ve observed more right-wing trolls “on patrol” there than here, so you might have more “back-up” there.

              In any event, and in all honesty, from what I’ve seen over at Huff Post, there isn’t much true dialogue. Occasional one-off exchanges, but not the kind of back and forth that you get here. AND, people do get pretty surly and disrespectful there.

              Anyway, I’m with Zach. You have a point of view worthy of discussion. So do the rest of us. Maybe if you come into “our town” without your guns blazing as wildly as they seemed to be today, we won’t return fire in kind. I suspect that we could agree to disagree without being more disagreeable than is absolutely necessary (yep, tongue-in-cheek).

              By the way, I didn’t actually call you an old codger. I just said that, in one particular instance, you sounded like one. In any event, it was a metaphor intended to illuminate my point, not an insult. I apologize if it came across as one.

              When I called Fred Dooley, “Fatboy”, now THAT was an insult. He dishes out infantile insults all the time. He just doesn’t ever want to be on the receiving end of any. So, today, I messed with him in a less than mature fashion just to get his goat. I’m not proud of stooping to his level, but he had it coming.

              But, I digress. As Zach does, I hope that you come back. If and when you do, I promise to keep my “old codger” metaphors under lock and key.

        2. I know I am late into this discussion, but I was reading what Mr. LAL was writing, and took issue with the “threats issued to Republican Senators and their families.” With the general frustration and anger of losing the right to collectively bargain, close to $250.00 a month in pay minimum, and cuts to the jobs that the Republicans PROMISED US, it was anger and fear speaking in those days. Do you think continuing to agitate the problem helps? BTW, Sarah Palin said “If you don’t like your recourse you don’t just re-vote, you can re-load.” I call that hate spew. Sorry. I tell my children and grandchildren that doing something just cause all the other guys are doing it makes you a lemming. I am not a lemming.

          So Mr. LAL, I am sorry you felt people you respected were threatened. It was the fear and anger speaking, and there were no real threats. Bullet holes? They say something different, don’t you think?
          I do.
          Freshthoughtz

  5. LookingAtLoons,

    Zach posted figures the other day showing that G.W. Bush added 5.1 trillion to the national debt. Jeff is, I believe, correct when he says that that figure doesn’t include the 4.4 trillion projected cost of the wars George W launched. That’s a grand total of 9.5 trillion dollars added to the national debt under the Bush administration. 9.5 trillion dollars.

    And Obama and the ” Left” are the problem? We’re the big spenders? You guys simply can’t admit you’re on the wrong side of things. This is all like some goddamned sporting contest to you.

    1. Don’t forget that Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of conservatives, nearly tripled the national debt during his time in office.

      1. Zach,

        Have you read the article, the five myths of Ronald Reagan? He isn’t even enough Republican to survive in these time. LOL
        Freshthoughtz

        1. I remember in an interview there was a talk show conservative who attacked his wife (who was talking in remembrance of him) and his son, saying that they didn’t know Ronald Reagan when they tried to correct them in their facts.

          It’s kind of disgusting how they twist the man to their liking to the point they spit insults at his family.

  6. To quote a drop used on Stephanie Miller’s show: “The rod up that man’s butt has a rod up its butt.”

Comments are closed.