I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered a blogger who asked me to stop commenting on his posts because I was upsetting his… “fans.”  Really?

Fans?

Blogger fans?

Are there really such sycophantic creatures as “blogger fans?

Well, I suppose if your blog has T-Shirts, it may as well have fans…  Here’s a Dr. Tim t-shirt.

I don't speak drum

Get it?  He doesn’t speak “drum” like those dirty hippies at the Capitol.  Isn’t he awesome?  Inclusion through exclusion!  All his… fans… can nod and say they don’t speak drum either.  Lisa and I actually heard him utter this very phrase at the AFP rally to the guffaws of all the rubes in attendance.

Here’s what Dr. Tim Nerenz, my favorite Glibertarian hack posted after I had the gall to question his facts and the facts of his…(snicker) fans.

I don’t mean to be rude, but you are quite obviously a fish out of water here. This isn’t a chat room, it us my personal blog and my fans don’t come here to argue. There are many other places for that on the ‘net, and now that you have introduced yourself to my readers, they will have no problem finding you if they choose to engage. I wish you well. Tim.

It’s probably good that his…(snicker) fans… don’t come to his blog to argue because they really suck at it.  And, for the record,  he’s not much better.

But the real irony?  The best part of the whole exchange with Nerenz and his acolytes?  The part that really got me laughing?  He’s got this “cool” new graphic he’s pimping on t-shirts and shit from Zazzle.  Check it out!

Bring It!

Bring It!  With ‘gator accessory!  I’ll take that challenge…

Dr. Tim, I brought it and you told me to take it back!  You, sir, are a fraud!

I just love tasty bits of irony!

 

Tagged with:
 

13 Responses to Oh Dear! I’ve Upset the Queen!

  1. james booth says:

    come on now Phil…you kinda did reach the point in your blog entries over there, of hijacking Dr. Tim’s blog. You’re a smart guy. You decided to let yourself get into a pissing match with someone who disagreed with you. You also kept linking to your own blog posts.

    As for the “I don’t speak drum”, I’m actually fond of that line. And is there anything more exclusionary than a dozen people hammering away on 5 gallon buckets in the capital rotunda? I’m a fan of free speech. I’d suspect Tim is too. I just prefer the use of thoughtful debate where everyone can hear each other and everyone acts like adults.

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Pardon me, but bullshit. I posted a long series of fact-based comments with links to data, some to what I’ve written before (so I don’t have to write it again) but often to external sites. I did research on the “founding father” of modern Libertarian thought, Adam Smith, and showed how Smith was a revolutionary and not a reactionary. That didn’t go over well because it upset the queen.

      Dr. Tim says “Bring It” but what he really means is “Bring It Only If You Already Agree With My Narrow Views Otherwise Get The Fuck Out.”

      He’s a big, lying fraud.

  2. Jeff Simpson says:

    We know by the good Doc’s “recall your mom” post and how he basically ignored every single example of republican craziness including tommys speech at the tosa hate fest that thoughtful debate is not what he is after. What he wants is what so many other “libertarians” want from the right wing – to cash out!

  3. John Foust says:

    I blame anonymity for a good fraction of this, apart from ordinary tribalism. It’s not hard to find an online forum of people who hold views contrary to your own.

  4. Gareth says:

    I found out a few decades ago that engaging cult members in reasoned discussion is impossible. Libertarianism is a Utopian cult. Facts tend to enrage the followers.

  5. james booth says:

    I’m just trying to figure out angles here. I mean, I like to see myself as an open minded semi-intelligent individual. I like aspects of the libertarian philosophy, namely personal choice, personal freedoms etc..for example, I just don’t think the government should arrest people for doing things for their own recreation that don’t bother other people. I disagree with the patriot act. I don’t think the government should meddle in the affairs of women’s decisions to have babies. I really believe that MORE money would flow into government coffers with lower taxes on corporations AND individuals. At the same time, I don’t think a lot of federal government is a good thing. They’re just not that good at running much.

    So Phil, what’s your angle. I mean..why do you have so much faith in the federal government. What about state’s rights? Do you really think the federal government can affect positive change on public schools, for example?

    • Phil Scarr says:

      Let me ask you a question: Who principally benefits from “states rights?” I’m curious…

      • james booth says:

        State’s right. State’s responsibilities. The argument goes that solving problems closer to the point of impact is much more effective than further away. I assert that a LOT less money should go to the feds and a LOT more to states and local governments. Less all together would get us much more that way.

        • Phil Scarr says:

          So you think everyone benefits from “states rights?” Would you be surprised that the history of the “states rights” movement is tied directly to the most egregious forms of racism?

          Why is the Federal Government less effective? Wouldn’t the Feds do a better job of redistributing tax revenue across all the states better? Imagine a nation where Mississippi had to compete with New York without the benefit of Federal income redistribution via taxes.

          Or imagine a world where Wisconsin had to compete with California directly!

          Just like the way the NFL “redistributes” the TV income for the league so that every team has a balanced payroll. Would you prefer a league where Green Bay had to compete head-on with the Jets or the Giants?

          Frankly, “states rights” is downright un-American.

          • james booth says:

            The federal government does NOTHING efficiently AND cost effectively. NOTHING.

            • Phil Scarr says:

              That’s a nice opinion but do you have any data to back it up?

            • Phil Scarr says:

              Here is some actual data on overhead costs of Federal programs.

              [T]he data show that 91 to 99 percent of total federal spending on these programs reaches beneficiaries in the form of benefits or services, as does 90 to 99 percent of combined federal and state spending for these programs. These figures are for fiscal year 2010, the latest year for which full data are available.

              The idea that the Federal government is less efficient that the private sector is a myth, one that has been foisted on this country by a private sector that seeks to feed at the trough of public funds (Medicare Advantage, Charter Schools, etc.) without any real competition.

              Why do you think we don’t have a “public option” in the Affordable Care Act? The insurance companies were deathly afraid of competing with the efficiency of the Federal government! So they lobbied to kill it. And they did…

              Wake up, dude… You’re living in a dreamworld where the private sector is the answer to every question… Don’t get me wrong, the private sector is great for many things, but watching out for our public monies, not so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.