IDEOLOGICAL PROFILING: Five Ways to Spot Leftist Infiltrators on Your Blog
|
by Richard Poe Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:04 pm Eastern Time |
Archives 51 Comments |
Ever since Soros hatchet-man David Brock opened his MediaMatters.org smear site in May 2004, he has been actively recruiting what he calls a “corps of media activists.”
Mr. Brock is a bit vague on the full range of tactics employed by these “media activists,” but anyone who runs a conservative blog or message board these days has a pretty good inkling of the sorts of methods at their disposal.
We have all experienced “bandwidth blocking” by hordes of leftist trolls, be they agents of Mr. Brock’s Media Matters Action Network or some other likeminded “(c)4” non-profit group.
For obvious reasons, these media activists do not identify themselves as such when they invade our blogs, but alert moderators quickly become adept at detecting them. Here are five ways to spot leftist infiltrators when they begin posting comments on your blog:
1. CONSERVATIVE PRETENSIONS
Many announce that they are conservatives, just before launching into an impassioned and often vulgar diatribe against Ann Coulter.2. PHONY CHRISTIAN CANT
Quite a few claim to be Christians and salt their posts with Biblical quotes, only to give themselves away by making silly mistakes such as mixing up Protestant and Catholic terminology, punctuating every other sentence with some out-of-context reference to damnation and hellfire, posting distinctly un-Christian exhortations to mob violence against certain racial, ethnic or religious minorities and, of course, railing obsessively against Ann Coulter’s miniskirts.3. TRANSNATIONAL ORIGINS
Our uninvited visitors often slip sporadically into British or Canadian spelling, idioms or slang. Run their IP addresses through a locator, and you’ll find out why.4. McCAINIAC RHETORIC
A goodly number express admiration for Republican Senator John McCain, whom they laud for standing nobly above the partisan fray.5. SELECTIVE PATRIOTISM
Most say they supported the invasion of Afghanistan with all their hearts, minds and souls, singing “God Bless America” with each new daisy cutter blast announced on CNN, but now they suddenly find themselves nauseated, ashamed, viscerally repulsed and filled with blind, seething rage over the invasion of Iraq.
Call it ideological profiling. It’s an art, not a science. Not every commentator on your blog who exhibits one or more of these characteristics can be categorically ID’d as a “media activist,” but when it starts getting up into that three-out-of-five or four-out-of-five range, well, you might want to review their registration status.
For more on “media activism” in the age of David Brock, see Andrew Walden’s illuminating post below, “Media Matters: Moonbat Enforcers.”
by Richard Poe
August 30, 2005 08:04 PM ET
Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 08.30.05
Comments
51 Responses to “IDEOLOGICAL PROFILING: Five Ways to Spot Leftist Infiltrators on Your Blog”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...I knew it.
Great post, Mr. Poe!
As I said earlier, these useful idiots are hitting the blogs everywhere right after being given their marching orders and attending their “2 minutes hate”.
These guys could have used Richard Poe’s profiling skills.
Miniskirts aren’t pc anymore?
I think it’s time to stop the lefties.
I have always been a pro-life, Evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jew who was pro-Military, anti-welfare, supply side Zionist. I voted Republican in every election since Eisenhower and thought the death penalty needed to be applied without right of appeal.
However, after reading this intolerant post by Mr. Poe, I’ve decided that I have had enough. The idea that people who post at blogs should be profiled without having committed a crime is worse than anything Hitler, Stalin and Bin Laden combined ever dreamed of doing. I am ashamed of ever having voted Republican.
The last straw was finding out that Ann Coulter herself, the most hateful and mean-spirited woman to ever live, has been party to this crime against humanity.
As it is said in Luke-Paul: 5-22, “Thy self must know what thy self thou hath imposed without doing what thou knew thy neighbor turned thy cheeketh, so sayeth the Lord.”
John McCain is rolling over in his grave seeing how you are banning wholesome, patriotic Amerikans for oil.
-ZM
Mr. Poe,
Thanks for this post. I’ve been waiting for it with great anticipation and good to your word, you delivered.
I’d noticed four of the five telltales you listed. I missed number 4 though. I guess I have a soft spot for McCain, even if I disagree with him a lot.
The existence of these smear-meisters and their minions doesn’t surprise me, but it’s a vivid example of just how low they’ll stoop to destroy their enemies. Silencing opponents isn’t enough for them. They’re determined to sully the reputations of anyone who dares to disagree with them. The vilest part is that their own insincere posts are quoted as proof of conservative iniquity. Honesty means even less to them than honor.
I don’t imagine they’re more than an annoyance to some, but they can be devastating to other bloggers. Mike Jericho and his eurabiaupdate blog was harried off the blogosphere by these weasels. I liked his blog. It was witty and informative. I’ll remember him every time I encounter one of these merchants of deceit. Yes, I do hold it against them.
Not surprisingly, left-wing sites and pundits constantly bleat about the right-wing/neocon/Republican smear machine (formerly known as the vast right-wing conspiracy). They just can’t believe that most of us are honest.
What an insidious enemy of reason these trolls are. They truly are beneath contempt.
After reading your suggestion to run IP addresses through a locator, I gave it a shot. I chose gadfly addresses instead of suspected infiltrators, but the result was interesting. All three that I ran are located in Melbourne. Probably set up on the same network. Under a bridge, no doubt.
I may be a computer illiterate, but I can run a search. Thanks to you, I can locate IPs now. I also learned what IPs, URLs and networks are.
Thank you!
I am suspicious of anyone who doesn’t like Ann Coulter in a miniskirt.
subtrrn writes:” I am suspicious of anyone who doesn’t like Ann Coulter in a miniskirt.”
Well said!
Note the curious absence of moonbat trolls on this thread. I guess the topic hits them too close to home.
I like Ann Coulter. She is pretty and very witty and I like her books! She can really get the liberals screaming as loud as Howard Dean!
As leftist as this makes me, Ann Coulter is seriously, seriously not attractive. Besides the fact that she looks like she’s 70 and has an Adam’s apple, she’s just flat out ugly. Give me Michelle Malkin any day. If not wanting to nail some old hag makes me a commie lefty, then I’d rather be a commie lefty any day than some dude who slums it by doing it with that.
horowitz4evah writes: “If not wanting to nail some old hag makes me a commie lefty, then I’d rather be a commie lefty any day than some dude who slums it by doing it with that.”
Ah! A perfect specimen for dissection and analysis.
Note that this commentator calls himself “horowitz4evah,” suggesting that he is a fan of David Horowitz. But is he really? Let’s ask him.
Mr. horowitz4evah, please tell us what you like about David Horowitz. You must be tremendously enthusiastic about him to adopt such a screenname.
If it were up to me (which it clearly is not), I’d prefer to see a more laissez-faire approach to the moonbat infiltrators on this blog. After all, it is quite instructive to be reminded of the often vile “thoughts” which pervade the minds of those on the hard left — and it would spare us the indignity of having to surf over to Democratic Underground or Daily Kos for this purpose. So, by all means, let them express themselves for all the world to see. Forget about deleting their posts: automatically hi-light them with bold-face type and a neon yellow background.
What?
No moonbat trolls?
Can’t be having that, can we?
Ah, to prove my allegiance. I suppose the only real exposure I have to Horowitz is his championing the position of J-School chair for Michael Savage a few years back. That was an interesting cause and one that warranted attention.
In addition, I saw him speak at my alma mater Colgate University in defense of the students and against the lunatic administration last semester. He’s a rousing public speaker and hence the reason I read his site, although admittedly, I haven’t made it through one of his books.
Thank you for allowing me to prove my appreciation of Mr. Horowitz’s work and not asking me to do so of yours, Mr. Poe, as your entries and writing are as tedious and defensive as can be.
subtrrn writes: “If it were up to me (which it clearly is not), I’d prefer to see a more laissez-faire approach to the moonbat infiltrators on this blog. … let them express themselves for all the world to see. Forget about deleting their posts…”
Dear subtrrn:
Laissez-faire is a poor strategy for moderating reader comments on blogs, for exactly the same reason that it is a poor strategy for controlling immigration at the border.
As soon as the moonbats discover a “laissez faire” conservative blog, they spread the word among their fellow moonbats and begin flooding the comment threads.
Their numbers then increase exponentially. Within a very short time, the moonbats outnumber everyone else. Once that tipping point is reached (on a high-traffic site, the transformation normally takes about five days), you will no longer need to visit Daily Kos or Democratic Underground in order to experience what you call “indignity.” Moonbat Central will offer all the “indignity” you could ever want. It will have become functionally indistinguishable from those other sites.
While it’s possible that you might personally enjoy frequenting a fully moonbatized version of MBC, I can assure you that the vast majority of our readers would not.
Well, then, why don’t we do that to their sites?
horowitz4evah writes: “[T]o prove my allegiance. I suppose the only real exposure I have to Horowitz is his championing the position of J-School chair for Michael Savage a few years back. That was an interesting cause and one that warranted attention.”
Well, if that was your only “real exposure” to Mr. Horowitz, it must have made quite a positive impression on you. Why else would you have adopted the name “horowitz4evah”?
Please tell me what you liked about Mr. Horowitz’s defense of Michael Savage. You said it was “interesting” and “warranted attention,” but those are neutral terms which could indicate either approval or disapproval. I’m asking what you liked about it.
horowitz4evah asks: “…why don’t we do that to their sites?”
Interesting question coming from a person who claims to be a conservative.
Let me tell you something about conservatives, Mr. horowitz4evah. Crashing someone else’s party is not our idea of fun. We respect other people’s space, other people’s property and other people’s right to free association.
I’ll wager there isn’t a solitary soul on this comment thread who would relish the idea of invading someone else’s Web site uninvited – except you, Mr. horowitz4evah.
Except you.
Well, Mr. Poe,
In addition to Horowitz’s move to,
1) bring notoriety to Mr. Savage and hence increase his ratings (his show is the only one on that time slot worth hearing) it’s simply what first brought him on the map for me. I was ending college at the time and I was impressed, specifically, with the savvy of his knowing the best way to change the liberal bias of journalism was to get it at the source. He brought to light the work of Harold Bloom to Salon readers and although Schell eventually got the position at least Horowitz gave voice to the underdog.
2) You gloss over his contributions to the Colgate Community at large for attempting to fight the pc-engineered takeover of fraternities.
3) I also appreciate Horowitz’s loyalty in continuing to employ a half-wit hack such as yourself. You’re not fit to spit on Ed Klein’s shoes.
4) You attack and question my loyalty because I choose to admit the fact that Ann Coulter is flat-out ugly. I am a straight, eligible bachelor in his twenties and am being attacked because I’m not willing to pretend that I find the bulge sticking out of her neck attractive. The only reason her legs get attention is because it draws attention away from the fact that her face hit the wall 15 years ago.
Mr. Horowitz would do well to know that old cranks like yourself do nothing to engender youth movement.
Mr. Poe:
Point well taken. I don’t know the first thing about running a political blog, so perhaps you are correct that this place would be completely inundated by foul-mouthed moonbats. On the other hand, I would hope that not ALL dissenting voices are automatically filtered. I, for one, do enjoy some intelligent debate. The key word, of course, is “intelligent” — and I actually HAVE met some intelligent people on the other side of the aisle, people who are capable of going thirty seconds without using foul language and comparing Bush to Hitler. It’s rare, but it’s out there.
Just a little food for thought. Overall, I think you guys do a great job with this site. It helps me get through my long, ivory tower day.
horowitz4evah writes: “Mr Horowitz would do well to know that old cranks like yourself do nothing to engender youth movement.”
There is NO entity that can “engender youth movement”, unless you offer to give them something!
The “entitlement generation.”
You can thank ALL liberals, and the PC police for all of that!
Horowitz4evah, I’m doing a rundown to see where you come out on the troll sheet.
1. CONSERVATIVE PRETENSIONS
*Well, I think you hit this one out of the ball park. Your Coulter hatred is palpable, too.
2. PHONY CHRISTIAN CANT
*Nope. You’re clean here.
3. TRANSNATIONAL ORIGINS
*Not likely.
4. McCAINIAC RHETORIC
*Nope…
5. SELECTIVE PATRIOTISM
*Nothing yet on this one, either.
Well, Mr. Horowitz4evah, I can’t say you are a classic Lefty troll, but I would say you are extremely rude and hostile.
Question: If you hate Richard Poe so deeply, why have you chosen this thread, or, for that matter, to post at all here at Moonbat Central? Richard is the managing editor of this weblog, and you hate him, so why are you here at all?
If you disagree with him about something, he will engage you respectfully. I’ve had issues where I’ve disagreed with him, but I found him to be a true gentleman in the dialogue despite those differences.
I think that’s because I RESPECTFULLY disagree if I don’t share his or another moderator’s view on a topic. Granted, it is very rare that this happens as I do tend to agree with the overwhelming majority of what they have to say, but, in those rare cases when it does happen, I realize that I am visiting here, that he deserves respect for being the host, and that if it were MY weblog I wouldn’t want some hothead coming in and telling me off every time he saw something that he disagreed with.
What makes you a Moonbat, therefore, is more about your inappropriate behavior, your crudeness, and your general disrespect for someone who never invited you to play in the first place, than it is about your politics.
My advice to you is to lose the anger, class it up a bit, and stop disrespecting people who host the sites that you frequent. It’s just common courtesy.
-MZ
So, in essence, moonbattery refers less to an ideology (yours is one I agree with) than with demeanor. So, were Michael Moore to come on this website and respectfully disagree with Mr. Poe, he would cease being some delusional moonbat and instead be a thoughtful contributor.
In all fairness, I didn’t realize how central Mr. Poe was to this site. I simply arrived here via Frontpage. I enjoy reading many of the postings and simply assumed Poe was a contributor, not the moderator, et al. I apologize if I offended him but I think it’s fair to say that doubting someone’s political beliefs, particularly where one belongs, can indeed be a passion-inducing act.
I responded simply because I thought my input was as worthy as yours. My opinion is that Coulter is an interesting writer and has a sharp sense of humor but it is completely preposterous to claim she has even the slightest inkling of sexual attraction. She doesn’t and you know that. I have no idea why people think that she does. It’s simply realistic to think that guys in their 20s would talk about stuff like who’s hotter, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter? Or, more aptly, Ann Coulter or the guy from mask?
When I disagree about a comment praising Ms. Coulter’s looks I am, indeed, treated disrespectfully, having my beliefs called into question. I responded and would do so again, in kind.
Madzionist writes: “If you hate Richard Poe so deeply, why have you chosen this thread, or, for that matter, to post at all here at Moonbat Central?”
I think I can answer that question. Our young friend horowitz4evah just registered at MBC today and, as of this moment, he has posted comments nowhere else on the blog except on this thread.
It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that he came here for the explicit purpose of entering this discussion on leftwing media activists, and specifically those of David Brock’s Media Matters Action Network.
The next question is why did he find this topic so enticing?
Mr. horowitz4evah? Would you care to field that one?
Of course. I find it SO enticing because I can’t believe anyone with working eyes and an urge to mate with woman would ever, for any reason, do it with Ann Coulter.
I just registered today but obviously have been reading for awhile. Zinging someone for finding Ann Coulter attractive was just too, too enticing to pass up. So I registered.
I’m familiar with David Brock from some scandal at some college in Ohio against Horowitz, none of which I really paid attention to. I also know of him because you have a total hard on for him and blog about him in lieu of international relations matters.
I have posted nowhere else because my friends and I were just discussing how preposterous it is that people find Ann Coulter attractive. Tonight I’ll go back and tell them never to voice that opinion because Richard Poe will cry.
In his very first post to Moonbat Central, Mr. horowitz4evah wrote: “Ann Coulter is seriously, seriously not attractive. Besides the fact that she looks like she’s 70 and has an Adam’s apple, she’s just flat out ugly. Give me Michelle Malkin any day. If not wanting to nail some old hag makes me a commie lefty, then I’d rather be a commie lefty any day than some dude who slums it by doing it with that.”
Okay, Mr. horowitz4evah. You have explained that you are angry at me because I questioned your loyalty to the conservative cause.
But what has Miss Coulter done to you? You have written far nastier things about her than you have written about me.
Did she too fail to pay you proper respect in some way? Or do you always post crude public attacks on women whom you find unattractive, just on general principle?
Yes, if some group of bloggers were to pretend to lust after Helen Thomas’ goiters because they were in love with her writing, yes, I would make fun of them as well.It’s the same thing in this situation. I don’t have any personal contact with Ann Coulter.
Again, on her merits as both wit and whip, I think she’s more than satisfactory. She’s one of the preeminent ones and will go down with Twain. Just because I like her writing doesn’t mean I don’t think it entirely preposterous that people confuse her wit with looks.
We can continue this discussion tomorrow but I’m going to a bar with friends where I will try to hit on women sans adam’s apples.
horowitz4evah writes: “Yes, if some group of bloggers were to pretend to lust after Helen Thomas’ goiters because they were in love with her writing, yes, I would make fun of them as well.”
You did not “make fun” of the bloggers on this thread, Mr. horowitz4evah. You mocked Miss Coulter herself.
The problem is that, even if we were to take all of your excuses and rationalizations at face value, and even if we were to adopt the most charitable possible interpretation of your behavior, we would still have to conclude that you lack the most basic respect for women.
Brutal contempt for women is a leftist trait, not a conservative one. Chivalry toward the fair sex is the bedrock of western civilization.
horowitz4evah writes: “So, were Michael Moore were to come on this website and respectfully disagree with Mr. Poe, he would cease being some delusional moonbat and instead be a thoughtful contributor.”
He wouldn’t cease to be a Moonbat, obviously, but he wouldn’t be acting like a petulent jerk, either. At least that’s something. Knowing Moore’s history, though, I see no possibility that he would ever be respectful at this site.
horowitz4evah also writes: “I apologize if I offended him but I think it’s fair to say that doubting someone’s political beliefs, particularly where one belongs, can indeed be a passion-inducing act.”
You need to give the host the benefit of the doubt and respectfully answer. Commentators are fair game, and I am as tough on those whom I find offensive as anyone here. Good work with the apology; it’s the right thing to do.
horowitz4evah writes: “It’s simply realistic to think that guys in their 20s would talk about stuff like who’s hotter, Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter? Or, more aptly, Ann Coulter or the guy from mask?”
It’s not about who’s hotter, but your unwarranted attack on Mr. Poe. Also, most commenters here are probably older than you, so don’t expect the conversation to go down the path you take with your college drinking buddies. Sometimes it does get a little frisky, but be careful to always have a touch of subtlety and class instead of just being crude.
horowitz4evah writes: “When I disagree about a comment praising Ms. Coulter’s looks I am, indeed, treated disrespectfully, having my beliefs called into question. I responded and would do so again, in kind.”
Richard asked you about your moniker and you blew up. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with Coulter’s appearance. Surely there are uglier women in the world than Ann Coulter for you to worry about.
You almost sound mentally disturbed. You haven’t learned a thing if you think this has anything to do with Ann Coulter. Perhaps you are a Moonbat, but I believe it’s more likely that you are an ill-tempered rookie who doesn’t know the rules of the game. Ease up, man.
By the way, we have an excellent regular commentator here under the moniker “Rightwinger”, who is also a 20-something college student. However, his maturity level and intellectualism far, far surpasses your childish and immature rantings.
-MZ
Eh. Ann Coulter can be hot. Or not. So much depends on the camera angle, the lighting, and a thousand different things. The same thing goes for a lot of women. This isn’t news, though.
Horowitz4evah revealed himself when he said…”I’m familiar with David Brock from some scandal at some college in Ohio against Horowitz, none of which I really paid attention to. I also know of him because you have a total hard on for him and blog about him in lieu of international relations matters.”
Accusations of homosexuality? Classic trolling gambit. Geez. Get this guy out of here already!
Richard Poe wrote: “Mr. horowitz4evah, please tell us what you like about David Horowitz. You must be tremendously enthusiastic about him to adopt such a screenname.”
horowitz4evah responded: “…[I] suppose the only real exposure I have to Horowitz is his championing the position of J-School chair for Michael Savage a few years back. That was an interesting cause and one that warranted attention. … “
Richard Poe countered: “…Please tell me what you liked about Mr. Horowitz’s defense of Michael Savage. You said it was `interesting’ and `warranted attention,’ but those are neutral terms which could indicate either approval or disapproval. I’m asking what you liked about it.”
horowitz4evah responded: “…[Horowitz’s move to] bring notoriety to Mr. Savage and hence increase his ratings (his show is the only one on that time slot worth hearing) it’s simply what first brought him on the map for me. …”
_________________________________________________
A little background may be in order.
Our young friend horowitz4evah is here referring to a lawsuit which Mr. Horowitz’s Individual Rights Foundation brought on behalf of radio talk host Michael Savage in 1998, charging UC-Berkeley with political discrimination for refusing even to interview Mr. Savage for the deanship of its graduate school of journalism (go here).
Aside from being a celebrated radio talk host, Savage has a Ph.D, two masters’ degrees and several bestselling books to his credit. The university specifically sought a candidate with extensive experience in electronic media. Why then would they refuse even to interview Mr. Savage?
Political discrimination was clearly at play, and Mr. Horowitz’s Individual Rights Foundation very properly took on the case.
For some reason, however, our young friend horowitz4evah characterizes the case as some sort of ploy on Mr. Horowitz’s part to help boost Savage’s ratings – a ploy which horowitz4evah pretends to admire.
Now who says the lawsuit was a publicity stunt? The left, of course. They have been bellyaching about it for the last seven years.
The Michael Savage lawsuit remains to this day a major cause celebre among anti-Horowitz leftists, who view it in precisely the same terms that our young friend horowitz4evah has presented it on this thread – as a publicity stunt (see, for instance, this Salon article of March 5, 2003).
Madzionist, I commend you for giving this young man the benefit of the doubt. One should always strive to be fair.
For my part, however, I say he’s a Bolshevist troll.
horowitz4evah writes: �?I’m familiar with David Brock from some scandal at some college in Ohio against Horowitz, none of which I really paid attention to. I also know of him because you [Richard Poe] have a total hard on for him and blog about him in lieu of international relations matters.�?
InRussetShadows responds: “Accusations of homosexuality? Classic trolling gambit. Geez. Get this guy out of here already!”
Actually, I don’t think horowitz4evah meant to imply anything homoerotic in the statement above.
The expression to “have a hard on” for someone can also be a crude way of saying that one has it in for a particular person, or is out to get that person. By this interpretation, our young friend horowitz4evah would appear to be saying that I am out to get poor Mr. Brock.
So let’s summarize our findings. This is what we know about horowitz4evah:
These four points do not paint a picture of a conservative. Any thoughts, Madzionist?
Richard Poe says: Madzionist, I commend you for giving this young man the benefit of the doubt. One should always strive to be fair. For my part, however, I say he’s a Bolshevist troll.
Richard, I’m afraid I have to agree with you upon further review. This line from Horowitz4evah convinced me that this guy is the Troll you said he is:
“I just registered today but obviously have been reading for awhile.”
If indeed he has been reading at this weblog for awhile, as he claims, then he’s certainly no rookie and obviously knows better. If it is not youthful ignorance it must be malice. This Horowitz4evah guy is indeed a Leftist Troll.
You have a good eye for these bums, Richard!
-MZ
Madzionist writes: “You have a good eye for these bums, Richard!”
Thank you, Madzionist. Ferreting out moonbats is as thankless a job as it’s possible to conceive. But I do give it my best.
And now for the question that’s been on everybody’s mind: where can we order our “Women of Frontpage 2006” calendar? (Just make sure that Debbie Schlussel gets a month with the full 31 days.)
For you, Mr. horowitz4evah, we have a very special calendar offer: “12 Months of Richard Poe”.
On my own bilingual blog, people are free to express themselves in English or Profanitese as long as their sentence structures are grammatically correct. I only delete spam and advertisements. But I don’t have the high volume traffic that MBC has. As an Instablepundit, sometimes I just gotta cut through the bullcrap my own trolls bring and get straight to the point (being fluent in Profanitese helps). But here I’m in someone’s else’s forum and have had my knuckles whacked for crossing the line (I push more envelopes than a mail sorter, sometimes) but have found Richard Poe both courteous and kind, even when he’s waving the little red troll nuking button around.
This is a great website, and I wouldn’t change a thing about how it’s run.
But, if my words here provoke a leftist to post on my blog for me to throttle, so much the better.
H-4evah – testing of new troll tactic/model. Covert and “drive-by”.
Keep them on the run McB, DTN, FPM!! Exposure to the light causes them to melt. Do not allow them to re-group!
It’s gotten awfully quiet around here. Let’s flush out some more trolls. This should bring them out:
______________________________________________
subtrrn writes: “I am suspicious of anyone who doesn’t like Ann Coulter in a miniskirt.”
tazzmazz writes: “I like Ann Coulter. She is pretty and very witty and I like her books!”
The three people leftist trolls hate most are Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and Michael Savage, in approximately that order.
Unsurprisingly, our young friend horowitz4evah evinced a fixation on all three.
If we can maneuver the trolls into a position where, in order to escape detection, they have to pretend to like Miss Coulter, Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Savage, all at the same time, they will have nothing left to say.
The only gambit they’ll have left is to pretend they believe in God. Then we can nail them on their theological bloopers.
Don’t the trolls hate GWB most of all? How about this:
President Bush is not only smarter than John Kerry, as his superior GPA at Yale would confirm, but he is also very charming, good looking, and the most moral, decent and competent man to ever hold office. He is also a great cyclist who cares more about the poor than the leftists, who seek to enslave them in a perpetual welfare state of government dependency.
Next up: Donald Rumsfeld
Madzionist asks: “Don’t the trolls hate GWB most of all?”
Actually, no. Not judging by their actions, at least.
If you praise George W. Bush on a blog, your post may or may not draw a few moonbats mouthing the standard talking points, but without real conviction.
By contrast, praise of Ann Coulter, more often than not, draws swarms of foul-mouthed trolls whose posts reveal genuine hatred and rage.
I suspect that the only reason the moonbats failed to swarm this post is that the topic of the thread – moonbat trolls and how to identify them – scared them off. They judged correctly that it was a trap, and did not take the cheese.
Yes, indeed you’ve caught me. I’m not actually a person who reads this blog, I’m Vladimir Lenin, back from the dead, using my time to falsely praise David Horowitz. If this seems paranoid to you it pales in comparison to your own. I’m sorry I ever contributed to this site and it’s surely the last time anyone under 60 will do so.
horowitz4evah writes: “I’m sorry I ever contributed to this site and it’s surely the last time anyone under 60 will do so.”
Interesting approach. Our young friend horowitz4evah evokes the Generation Gap. Note the consistency with which he has harped on this theme throughout this discussion. I think what we’re seeing here is the beta testing of a new strategy from our moonbat friends.
_________________________________________________
horowitz4evah wrote: “[Ann Coulter] looks like she’s 70… If not wanting to nail some old hag makes me a commie lefty, then I’d rather be a commie lefty any day than some dude who slums it by doing it with that.”
horowitz4evah then wrote to Richard Poe: “Mr. Horowitz would do well to know that old cranks like yourself do nothing to engender youth movement.”
_________________________________________________
Evidently our young friend horowitz4evah is unaware that conservative youngsters respect their elders – as indeed he is unaware of so many things about conservative culture.
But horowitz4evah, I’m confused. You said earlier that you did not even know I was managing editor of this blog. How, then, could you know my age?
To learn my age, you would have to read my bio. But if you read my bio, you would have to know that I am managing editor of this blog.
Please explain.
Friends, please tell me if I’m out of the loop here, but I don’t believe I have ever heard any young conservative sounding off on such Yippie-esque themes as the ineligibility of mature persons to help “engender” a “youth movement.” Have you?
I thought that “don’t trust anyone over thirty” routine went out with the Sixties.
Richard Poe writes: “I don’t believe I have ever heard any young conservative sounding off on such Yippie-esque themes as the ineligibility of mature persons to help `engender’ a `youth movement.’ Have you?”
I haven’t.
Love the insight and wit. The arguments here are thoughtful, concise and logically put together.
The moonbats can’t possibly put together a logical argument and I have to agree that for most of them, the very mention of Ann Coulter draws out the slavering snarling beast hiding within.
Ann is a babe and even better, a stimulating intellectual babe.
The guy’s clearly a plant.
C’mon Mr. Poe, do I have to like Michael Savage?