Thursday, February 21, 2019

WISGOP Founding Fathers of Fake News

By Jeff Simpson 

For some reason, The Jussie Smollett story is a story that the WISGOP can not seem to stop talking about. 

From Jimmy Wigderson, to hate talker Vicki Mckenna and the incomprehensible Dan O'Donnell has been obsessed with it.

Now that it is rather obvious that "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett paid two Nigerian-born brothers (one of whom was for a time his personal trainer) to help stage a hate crime hoax in Chicago, one must ask why so many in the media and Democratic Party fell for such a questionable story in the first place.
To paraphrase Agent Mulder in another popular FOX show, it was because they wanted to believe.
They wanted to believe that President Trump has fomented such a hateful environment that his supporters would attack a gay, black Trump critic simply for being a gay, black Trump critic. They wanted to believe that, as CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin put it, "this is America in 2019."
Only it isn't. It's the America that the political left and its media allies have invented. Sadly, hate crimes do occur, but they are dramatically outnumbered by the truly staggering number of hate crime hoaxes that generate similarly uncritical and sympathetic coverage.

They are acting like staging attacks for political point is a new thing.   That it is some deep conspiracy that "the left" has concocted to figure out a way to make The Donald look bad. 

Yes the Donald can make himself look bad all on his own, he needs no help for that



However I want to perform a public service and remind our friends on the right, that making up stories to score political points is something the WISGOP and the right has been doing for years now.   Let's jog their memory.

The all star of fake news is, of course, Christian Schneider.   Schneider, for reasons unknown to anyone,  had a column in the Journal Sentinel for years and helped break the story that Mark Pocan's husband attacked and beat Pocans opponent.  As with many things that Schneider wrote, there was not a lick of truth to his story, so he did what most unethical people do when caught in a lie.  Deleted the story like nothing ever happened.

Not to be outdone by the idiocy, irrelevant ex Senator Neil Kedzie's son got beat up at bartime in Whitewater for being an ass.  Instead of owning up that he raised a son who could not handle his liquor, Kedzie blamed it on Democrats and said that his son was beat up because he had a Romney/Ryan sign in his yard.  Kedzie even had his taxpayer funded staffers calling the Romney campaign trying to get national exposure.  We knew it was fake immediately, because supporting Paul Ryan is punishment enough, no need to throw salt in the wound and hit him also.

Then, that captain of telling fake stories, Scott Walker, even wrote a fake book about all of the times he was harassed on the campaign trail, but stood up to the bullies like the hero he likes to think he is.  The problem of course was the time he told his ghostwriter about that made the book, were all #fakenews.    Walker claimed many things from, protesters surrounding his car at Devils lake and shaking it to getting spit on at his local grocery store.

The one commonality of all of Scott Walker's "protest" stories is that they are never true.

Speaking of the Capitol protests, Matt Kittle from Maciver recently tweeted about the riots at the Capitol.






As someone who not only was at the Capitol protesting almost daily, I took my 7 and 4 year old children at the time whenever I could.   There was nothing resembling a riot.   Three Pinocchios to Matt on that tweet. 

We see that our friends in the WISGOP are the Founding Fathers of fake news and are actual Republicans, yet not a peep from the hate talk/propaganda bloggers trolling through the internet. 

I would say that it seems like many in the WISGOP are auditioning to be guest stars on "Empire" but not sure that Robin Vos and Jim Steineke allow anyone of our African American brothers and sisters to watch! 



 

73 comments:

  1. Pretty lame...I mean...physically challenged attempt to deflect by laughably trying to put lipstick on the accused felon PIG, AKA Li'l Jussie.

    What incuriously escapes youse is the FACT that this will forever impair how REAL hate crimes will be viewed from here on in.

    Regardless, it's a TRUE heart-breaker! Why? Because it had everything, and I mean EVERYTHING:
    *Racism
    *Hatred
    *Trump
    *EVIL Righties
    *Ski Masks
    *Lynching/Noose
    *Violence
    *Homophobia
    *White Supremacy
    *Subway Sandwiches
    *MAGA
    *Bleach

    Wait a minute...bleach? Welp, it comes in EVIL white bottles, am I right?

    Anywho, the FELONY Fake Hate Crime Hoax had EVERYTHING but the one thing that is the bane of Lefty's existence.

    THE FREAKIN' TRUTH!!!

    Lefty specifically and Le Resistance generally, juuuuuust can't deal with a fact-based reality falling far short of their narrative.

    There's juuuuuuuust not enough hatred, racism, homophobia, violence around to convince Lefty's idiot base, ergo, it must be manufactured.

    Just like Christine Blasey-Ford, just like Nathan Phillips, so goes Li'l Jussie.

    You's watch; Chi-Town and the Feds are livid that this moron not only wasted 1000's of man-hours that could have been, you know, like, spent pursuing REAL CRIMES rather than chasing Li'l Jussie's pipe-dream, but made LE look stupid as well.

    And let's not forget ALL the celebs, media, and politicains that got sucked into it like a bunch of trained seals.

    If you's think THEY aren't pissed they've been made to look like fools, think again!

    You here yelling Squirrel is what we in the business call Signature Significance!

    Sheesh, if The Gotch thought he had to contort himself philosophically, existentially, intellectually, & emotionally like that because that was what was expected of him, he'd be swingin' from a basement beam...or opening his veins in a warm, tub.

    Yet here youse are!

    May yer secular god have mercy on yer soul!

    The Gotch

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even though it is clear Simpson is an ignoramus, I should note that the accusation that I had anything to do with connecting Kyle Wood to Mark Pocan or his husband is an outright lie. I interviewed Wood and published that interview; it was another organization that later went forward with the Pocan connection. But go ahead and keep trying to smear me, moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmmm As is typical Chris with your stories...you are caught in a lie again:

      Conservative columnist Christian Schneider has egg on his face after writing a column published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel perpetrating the idea that Madison resident Kyle Wood was the victim of a violent political attack. “Was Kyle Wood beaten for being a gay Republican?” Schneider tweeted, touting his column. “My exclusive interview with Wood here.”

      Wood has since recanted the entire story, which including him falsely suggesting he had been threatened by Democratic congressional candidate Mark Pocan’s gay partner Phil Frank. In short, it’s a completely fake and truly sickening story.

      https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2012/11/01/murphy%E2%80%99s-law-did-journal-sentinel-censor-story/

      Stay in your lane as a paid propagandist who will write whatever he is told too....anything more and your face keeps getting covered in egg!

      Delete
    2. PS: I have never "tried" to smear you, you smear yourself with your ridiculousness and I point it out.

      Delete
    3. This is an "interesting" conversation.

      First Jeff writes, "Schneider, for reasons unknown to anyone, had a column in the Journal Sentinel for years and helped break the story that Mark Pocan's husband attacked and beat Pocans opponent."

      This is an unethical indirect accusation that Christian Schneider included in his column that Mark Pocan's husband attacked and beat Pocans opponent and as usual, Jeff does not provide one shred of actual evidence from the article to support his accusation about including the Pocan connection.

      Then Christian Schneider replies that, "the accusation that I had anything to do with connecting Kyle Wood to Mark Pocan or his husband is an outright lie. I interviewed Wood and published that interview; it was another organization that later went forward with the Pocan connection."

      Here's where it all goes south, which is normal conversation with illogical Jeff.

      Next, Jeff writes, "As is typical Chris with your stories...you are caught in a lie again" and then Jeff provides some innuendo "Wood has since recanted the entire story, which including him falsely suggesting he had been threatened by Democratic congressional candidate Mark Pocan’s gay partner Phil Frank. In short, it’s a completely fake and truly sickening story." which is NOT evidence that Christian Schneider included any connection to Phil Frank. As usual; Jeff has not supported is accusation and instead doubled down on bull shit progressive double talk!

      Then Jeff shows us what a pompous ass he is by writing "Stay in your lane as a paid propagandist who will write whatever he is told too....anything more and your face keeps getting covered in egg!" After the unsupported accusations that Jeff has written in this thread that's what it looks like when Jeff shoves his arrogant foot in his mouth.

      The Jeff has the audacity to write, "I have never "tried" to smear you"

      That Jeff is an outright lie, everything you wrote in this thread regarding Christian Schneider is you trying to smear Christian and some of it borders on libel.

      Delete
    4. Christian Schneider,
      Instead of deleting the original column about the interview, you should have updated the story with an addendum making it VERY clear to all readers that the person interviewed lied and you were duped by a liar. These things happen in journalism, deleting the column as if it never happened is not being an ethical journalist.

      Delete
    5. Jeff does not provide one shred of actual evidence from the article ---the article was deleted..hard to post off something that wasdeleted like it never happened.

      The other organization was Brian Sikma and Media Trackers....

      Posting the Bruce murphy story from urban milwaukee was the proof that Chris was lying. It was well known at the time and it amazed me that David Haynes sacrificed credibility of the Journal Sentinel to keep Chris employed.

      Delete
    6. Jeff Simpson wrote, "Posting the Bruce murphy story from urban milwaukee was the proof that Chris was lying."

      That Jeff is proof of nothing! You sir are trying to rationalize you bull shit.

      Delete
  3. "WISGOP Founding Fathers of Fake News"

    This title is stating that the Wisconsin GOP is the "Founding Fathers of Fake News".

    That is an outright LIE!

    What is fact is that even though both sides have used false accusations by unscrupulous people to portray their opposition as evil, none have taken it as far as the modern progressives and social justice warriors, they have perfected their tactic to destroy and/or silence their opposition. What the political left media has done since 2009 is the equivalent to the massive fake news campaigns that Pravda used in the Soviet Union.

    ReplyDelete
  4. actually I believe I have posted enough examples that no one has given more fake news to the people of WI than the WISGOP, heck Scott Walker wrote a whole fake news book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff Simpson wrote, "actually I believe I have posted enough examples that no one has given more fake news to the people of WI than the WISGOP, heck Scott Walker wrote a whole fake news book."

      Believe whatever helps you sleep at night Jeff.

      Read this carefully;

      Give me three examples of "fake news" that Scott Walker has published.

      Read that a few times before you choose to reply.

      Delete
    2. Unintimidated ....his ghostwritten book was full of fake news...you should read the post before you come in here on your high horse.

      Delete
    3. this might help also

      https://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

      Delete
    4. Jeff, none of that are examples of "fake news".

      I asked you to read carefully, you've failed.

      Try again or run away, your choice.

      Delete
    5. Im not your monkey, it is quote obvious that I have answered your question numerous times with a multitude of examples. I know that you think you are superior to all, and that the GOP is Oz, but the reality of that is not even close to your perception.

      Delete
    6. Jeff Simpson wrote, "it is quite obvious that I have answered your question numerous times with a multitude of examples."

      If you really think that then you're a lot more inept than I previous thought.

      Jeff Simpson wrote, "I know that you think you are superior to all"

      I think nothing of the sort Jeff. Here's the actual truth; in fact, I'm quite intentionally over fair with people like you and ask others to support their claims with real facts or real quotes instead of just blindly accusing. All I get back from people like you is attacking the messenger which is ethically/morally bankrupt behavior. It's your choice to represent yourself in a way that shows how little genuine integrity you have.

      Jeff Simpson wrote, "the GOP is Oz, but the reality of that is not even close to your perception."

      That part of your comment is genuine frontier gibberish but here's my reply anyway; so now a pompous ass like yourself is making assumptions about what my perception is? Just shut up you blubbering fool, you have no idea what my perception of the GOP or anything else is.

      Delete
    7. To be real clear Jeff, here is my perception of you; it's my opinion that you are an inept blubbering fool that couldn't argue his way out of an debate with an any eighth grader in your own school district. Additionally based on the things I've read from you, I think I could safely wager that one of the top arguments you've used with your children when they challenge you with "why" is ,"because I said so".

      You might want to seriously think about why that's my perception of you Jeff.

      Delete
    8. Now Jeff you actually know how I perceive something/someone.

      Delete
    9. isnt it ironic ...thats exactly my perception of you.

      You can lead a righty to facts but you cant make them read

      Delete
    10. Irony?

      Interesting that you think the same thing about me. I’d be real interested to hear your reasoning behind your thoughts about me.

      Jeff, How about you share a list of “facts” that you’ve shared in this comment thread.

      Delete
    11. @Six String Aficionado;

      It's highfreakin'larious, and a cringe-inducing guilty pleasure, watching Li'l Jeffy desperately trying to drag youse down to his level where he'd hope to beat youse with experience.

      I envision Li'l Jeffy sitting at his keyboard with a goofy, unknowing smile, ala Earnest from Frank-n-Earnest.

      The Gotch

      Delete
    12. Cornelius Gotchberg wrote, "It's highfreakin'larious, and a cringe-inducing guilty pleasure, watching Li'l Jeffy desperately trying to drag youse down to his level where he'd hope to beat youse with experience."

      He can dangle his bait and "try" to drag me down to his level all he wants but my perception is that he lacks the rhetorical courage, fact based knowledge, and general intellect to complete this perceived task; plus, it seems to me that he is seriously lacking in enough integrity to actually engage in honest debate.

      I might have to visit a school board meeting in Monona just to see how he conducts himself in real life outside his computer monitor and keyboard.

      Delete
    13. I welcome people coming in here to engage in constrictive debate. I do recommend however that you actually read the post first, it would save you a ton of embarrassment.

      Delete
    14. Jeff Simpson wrote, "I welcome people coming in here to engage in constructive debate. I do recommend however that you actually read the post first, it would save you a ton of embarrassment."

      Jeff, Who the heck are you talking to?

      Delete
  5. "I should note that the accusation that I had anything to do with connecting Kyle Wood to Mark Pocan or his husband is an outright lie."

    Yeah, right. Unfortunately, for you Mr. Schnieder, the evidence presented by Jeff clearly indicates otherwise. And considering that you have yet to return with a credible rebuttal suggests that you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on. So, why not just be man and own up to the fact that you've been outwitted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christian Schneider wrote, "I should note that the accusation that I had anything to do with connecting Kyle Wood to Mark Pocan or his husband is an outright lie."

      jack replied, "Yeah, right. Unfortunately, for you Mr. Schnieder, the evidence presented by Jeff clearly indicates otherwise."

      What evidence Jack? Seriously Jack, where is the evidence? Jeff hasn't presented any evidence yet, no facts, nothing. Where are the Christian Schneider quotes that Jeff has presented that clearly show that Christian made the accused connection?

      jack wrote, "And considering that you have yet to return with a credible rebuttal suggests that you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on."

      Actually Jack, you're ethically wrong, morally wrong, just plain dead wrong.

      Jeff hasn't presented a a single piece of evidence yet that supports his claim that Christian made the connection between the reported attack and Pocan. There is nothing for Christian to rebut, just the same accusation with no supporting proof which is typical mojo from Jeff - all accusations - no proof.

      Here's a "fact Jack"; you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on.

      jack wrote, "So, why not just be man and own up to the fact that you've been outwitted?"

      Outwitted by Jeff, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA! Jeff outwit someone, anyone (well maybe he could outwit you), that's not gonna to happen anytime soon but it certainly would certainly be an interesting sight to see.

      Thanks for that entertaining afternoon comment Jack, feel free to return to your soured wine filled bong and Monty Python reruns.

      Delete
  6. Speaking of ethics, Bruce Murphy does a fine job of shining a light on the ethical impairment of Christian Schneider and his band of merry miscreants:

    "What is striking about the whole group — Media Trackers, Sykes and Schneider — is their eagerness to believe a story that turns out to be a hoax and then echo and re-echo the particulars. By contrast, mainstream news organizations waited to publish a story until there was verification, which never came."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jack wrote, "Speaking of ethics, Bruce Murphy does a fine job of shining a light on the ethical impairment of Christian Schneider and his band of merry miscreants:"

      All that might be true, I don't know; I don't follow sites that are biased to the point of absurdity, but none of that excuses Jeff for accusing like he always does without verifiable evidence to support it. In my opinion Jeff is pulling the same kind of unethical crap that that doofus that claimed Mark Pocan's husband beat him up. Jeff is always accusing those he opposes with no facts to support his libelous BS accusations, it's unethical/immoral BS.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack,
      Your hypotheticals don't have any basis in actual fact so I reject the premise of your comment.

      I think you and I might agree if you look at what my argument has been throughout this comment thread.

      Again; Jeff hasn't presented a single piece of evidence that supports his claim that Christian made the connection between the reported attack and Pocan, whether Christian or Jeff are political hacks is completely irrelevant to that fact. Accusations presented in written form presented to publicly smear the reputation of another person that are not based on fact/evidence is written defamation - literally libel.

      If you've taken the time to actually read some of the things that Jeff has accused others of without presenting a single shred of evidence (even when asked numerous times) you might understand why I've chosen to focus on Jeff proving his accusations. If the accusations is supportable with facts/evidence I have absolutely no problem with Jeff writing about it in the manner in which he chooses.

      If your "Mr. Guitar" was supposed to be some kind of snide remark about my pseudonyme it was a poor choice, I take it as a complement.

      Delete
    2. "This comment has been removed by the author."

      No Jack you can't hide what you wrote by deleting it, here it is again in all it's glory...

      ------------------------------
      Hypothetical:

      Imagine if Jeff were so audacious as to declare Christian's writings to be biased to the point of absurdity while at the same time openly admitting that he never reads his writings. One could easily conclude that Jeff is being ridiculously unreasonable and unsound*. In fact, Mr. Guitar, if you were to resort to your usual name-calling ways and call Jeff a complete fking moron for acting in such a manner ... we'd be in agreement.
      ------------------------------

      Delete
  8. the truth is - the Cons have nothing else to attack so when an entertainer goes bad - they salivate. They always equate entertainers with the left, so they start swimming in cirlcles like sharks. Rather than face their own failures as a party of Trump- yes they own him - big time, the likes of Danny boy or the Schneidster resort to deflecting. How’s that wall coming Schneidster? Hmm? Yes they are pathetic human beings who are grasping at straws for relevance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Golden Eagles wrote, “Yes they [Conservatives] are pathetic human beings...”

      That alone proves a deep bias and moral bankruptcy.

      Delete
    2. "the Cons have nothing else to attack"

      I BEG to get some therapy, and after that, a freakin' CLUE!!!

      Lefty has no ideas; their ideology has not only failed everywhere it’s been tried, but failed spectacularly.

      This leaves them with sewing racial division, promoting illegal immigration/Sin Fronteros, victimology, courting those unwilling to work, and class envy.

      Lefty's latest?

      Kamala Harris needs to surround her self with "strong Black men, her White husband ain't gonna cut it.

      It gets worse.

      VA Lt. Governor Fairfax (the other Jussie) is now comparing himself with lynching victims!

      Does the mandatory operation to siphon off all of a Lefty's brainpan contents actually hurt?

      It should!

      The Gotch

      Delete
    3. And now Gay Rights icon Martina Navratilova is in Lefty's Dog House for proclaiming the secular blasphemy that women athletes ought not have schvantzes.

      Doesn't that reduce opportunities for X-Chromosomal Units, which is what Feminista-ism is all about?

      And the two CT HS...um...girls indoor track sprint champs?

      You'll never guess what they have in common

      Ah Lefty; so MUCH hypocrisy, so little time!

      The Gotch

      Delete
  9. Is Schneidster still working as a political hack in the DOT?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No he now works for charlie sykes new right wing website and also for someplace called the fix where their purpose is to attack professors and teachers they feel are too liberal

      Delete
    2. Sykes is going way right again? Do tel us what that website is.

      Delete
  10. Bottom line: Jeff Simpson comes to the defense of Jussie Smollett because ... because ... because Republicans be so bad and I just don't like them. Used to be Democrats like George Wallace would prevent black kids from entering good schools. Now Democrats (and Progressive Danes) like Jeff Simpson stand at the schoolhouse door preventing black kids from getting out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David Blaska wrote, "Bottom line: Jeff Simpson comes to the defense of Jussie Smollett because ... because ... because Republicans be so bad and I just don't like them."

      Yes David, Jeff is biased to the point of complete absurdity that's what happens when a person chooses to be a blind partisan and reject critical thinking.

      P.S. Congratulations on the primary and good luck in the general.

      Delete
    2. Blaska, come on, we know that you're not that stupid. You don't really believe Jeff is defending the actions of Smollett. So, the question is, why are you acting the part of a deceitful flame throwing prick? I'm guessing its a result of poor parenting.

      Delete
    3. jack wrote, "Blaska, come on, we know that you're not that stupid."

      Not a good way for an intelligent person to start a comment; however, that method works great for an person who's only real goal is to insult the messenger.

      jack wrote, "You don't really believe Jeff is defending the actions of Smollett."

      Yes, what Jeff is doing is a classic unethical defense/justification by use of a rationalization in conjunction with intentionally NOT condemning Smollett's actions. It can only be read one way until Jeff stands up for what's right and condemns Smollett's actions without the use of any rationalizations.

      The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”

      This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if “everybody does it,” then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this “reasoning” usually don’t believe that what they are doing is right because “everybody does it.” They usually are arguing that they shouldn’t be singled out for condemnation if “everybody else” isn’t.

      Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

      If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot.

      jack wrote, "So, the question is, why are you acting the part of a deceitful flame throwing prick? I'm guessing its a result of poor parenting."

      Yup as expected, you're back to your only real goal of insulting the messenger. Nice unethical trolling Jack.

      Delete
    4. six, six, six, so much to unpack here....ill touch on a few....

      * Yes, what Jeff is doing is a classic unethical defense/justification --- umm its not that classic because its not what im doing...im pointing out the right wing echo chambers blatant hypocrisy and passion to change the subject to things that dont matter. I never knew who Smollett was or his name until this mess and for anyone on the right to pretend he even remotely represents "the left" is classical unethical justification. trying to make a big deal out of it when he is insignificant to our everyday life, while the GOP that you guys stump so hard for do worse, effect our daily life and you ignore that, Maybe try looking in the mirror.

      Everybody doesnt do it but our Governor and Senator Kedzie sure did ....

      Its funny that you spend so much time on blaskas blog and pretend that you value critical thinking....the irony isnt lost on us.


      Again; Jeff hasn't presented a single piece of evidence that supports his claim that Christian made the connection between the reported attack and Pocan,---- if you actually read my post you would see that I actually presented irrefutable evidence and I also linked to bruce murphy who did the same....

      Your response - when confronted with it .... All that might be true, I don't know. You might have evidence that is true i dont care but im going to never look at it and keep telling you you dont until Blaska comes in here and strokes my fragile ego

      ill respond when you can make a coherent tangible argument


      Delete
    5. Jeff Simpson wrote, "Its funny that you spend so much time on blaskas blog..."

      Jeff,
      I think you're making making an assumption.

      It's true that I've read Blaska's blog, it's also true that I've read your blog, but saying that I "spend so much time" on Blaska's blog is a wild and completely unsupportable assumption.

      Delete
    6. Jeff wrote, "if you actually read my post you would see that I actually presented irrefutable evidence and I also linked to bruce murphy who did the same...."

      No Jeff, you have NOT presented "irrefutable evidence" you've presented biased opinion of what was written and opinion is not fact. It's time for you to put up or shut up.

      Quote Christian Schneider word-for-word where he literally connected the faux attack to Mark Pocan's husband in the column he wrote that you referenced. If you can't do that then you are unethically attacking Christian on this point.

      Prove your accusation now or forever hold your peace.

      Delete
    7. Jeff wrote, "its not that classic because its not what im doing...im pointing out the right wing echo chambers blatant hypocrisy and passion to change the subject to things that don't matter. I never knew who Smollett was or his name until this mess and for anyone on the right to pretend he even remotely represents "the left" is classical unethical justification. trying to make a big deal out of it when he is insignificant to our everyday life, while the GOP that you guys stump so hard for do worse, effect our daily life and you ignore that, Maybe try looking in the mirror."

      Nice deflection Jeff.

      Please quote yourself from your blog post where you specifically condemned Jussie Smollett's actions. Bet you a crisp new $20 bill you can't do it without editing your blog post first.

      Delete
    8. Jeff wrote, "Your response - when confronted with it .... All that might be true, I don't know."

      Jeff,
      Are you intentionally lying or are you really so stupid that you think I'm going to let you get away with that falsehood?

      Here is my comment that included that "All that might be true, I don't know" phrase in its entirety...

      --------------------------
      jack wrote, "Speaking of ethics, Bruce Murphy does a fine job of shining a light on the ethical impairment of Christian Schneider and his band of merry miscreants:"

      All that might be true, I don't know; I don't follow sites that are biased to the point of absurdity, but none of that excuses Jeff for accusing like he always does without verifiable evidence to support it. In my opinion Jeff is pulling the same kind of unethical crap that that doofus that claimed Mark Pocan's husband beat him up. Jeff is always accusing those he opposes with no facts to support his libelous BS accusations, it's unethical/immoral BS.
      --------------------------

      NO you foolish person; I did not say "all that might be true, I don't know" when "presented irrefutable evidence" I wrote that in direct response to jacks post that I quoted so there wouldn't be any question as to what I was commenting on.

      Your statement is a lie and a very intentional lie.

      Don't you have no integrity at all?

      Delete
    9. Poor proof reading after changing the sentence.

      “Don't you have any integrity at all?

      Delete
    10. It's interesting how Jeff left this part of the conversation, it's as if Jeff went from this rhetorical presentation...

      https://c8.alamy.com/comp/B5DPM8/grey-wolf-growling-montana-usa-north-america-B5DPM8.jpg

      ...to this rhetorical presentation...

      https://c8.alamy.com/comp/CTHFFT/scared-subordinate-wolf-running-off-in-the-snow-showing-submissive-CTHFFT.jpg

      I've seen this rhetorical pattern before.

      Delete
  11. Six String, Blaska won a primary ... really? But why would anyone vote for a deceitful flame throwing prick? Oh, never mind. Given that we have one of those in the White House clearly indicates that anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff Simpson wrote, "not so sure he is the troll"

      Pay attention; I didn't say he was a troll, I said he was trolling.

      Delete
    2. Jeff Simpson wrote, "not so sure he is the troll"

      Well Jeff, the totality of comments in this tread from jack should be enough to change your mind on that; if the totality of his comments haven't changed your mind, then you're rationalizing his comments because he's attacking those you disagree with.

      Your choice but it does reflect upon your character.

      Delete
  12. "This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization ... blah,blah,fking blah"

    Holy shit Blaskaman!

    Mr. Guitar, you know, the self righteous moron who comes here preaching the gospel of moral and ethical purity, appears to be a plagiarizing POS!(stands for:'person of significance', I think):

    https://studylib.net/doc/8644879/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions---ethics-al...


    ReplyDelete
  13. I never claimed to be the author you trollinf fool.

    Here is the actual reference link
    https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions/

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeff,
    Did you just change your settings and turn on hyper links for comments, when I tried this the other day it wouldn't accept it, now it does accept it?

    The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I just typo'ed something in the hyperlink before.

      Delete
  16. "I never claimed to be the author ..."

    That's a great excuse ... why didn't Malania think of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh stop your rediculois trolling.

      I’ve got to say thank you for providing that link to the studylib website, I passed it on to the actual author, who just happens to be a friend of mine, I fon’t think they have permission to distribute his list in the manner in which they are doing.

      Delete
  17. You don't think they have permission to post his writings?

    A logical thinking person would conclude otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You don't think they have permission to distribute his writings?

    A logical thinking person would conclude otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t have a clue but it’s probably not likely. The point of sharing it with the actual author is so he can choose to do something or nothing, is choics.

      Delete
  19. Wikipedia:

    "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages ..."

    Well, that describes one David Blaska to a tee. Doncha think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jack wtote, “Well, that describes one David Blaska to a tee. Doncha think?”

      That’s an absolutely ridiculous application of the term.

      Look in the mirror jack and you’ll see exactly what a person that trolls looks like.

      Delete
  20. Well, no one is surprised that you would reflexively and without a moment's thought rush to defend the prick, but if one objectively examines his comment one will see that it clearly fits the definition by way of it being inflammatory, digressive, extraneous and is without a doubt intended to sow discord.

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Winning helps me sleep at night. Thanks for conceding!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I don't have a clue..."

    The clue that gives the answer to whether or not he would object is at the end of the piece that you link to:

    Share this:
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook 1K+Reddit Print Email

    Duh!

    ReplyDelete