Saturday, May 1, 2010

Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

In a recent post, blogger Donald Douglas a.k.a. AmPowerBlog, a.k.a. americaneocon (No, there is no second "n." He's America neocon, or American eocon... We're not sure which) asserted and blurted Repsac3 Banned from American Power. Yes folks, it's official (he even says so, below); I am banned from Donald's public blog.
Oh, the horror.
Oh the humanity of it all.
Oh my God, he must be kidding if he thinks that's gonna keep me from challenging his neo/social conservative doublespeak whenever and wherever I deem appropriate...

Let's read further, shall we?...:
As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.
Leaving aside the everpresent ad hom contained in any Douglas post, comment, or message to or about those with whom he disagrees, my "trollery" pretty much consists of replying to his posts very much like every other person who comments on his blog. (In fact, I think I'm less trollish than many, in that I don't often engage in name-calling or other pointless foolery. I simply dispute the post, and move on. That's not to say that I never call anyone stupid (or whatever), but I surely do so far less often than, say, Professor Douglas, or the Daves.) Of course, I am more likely than most to disagree with Donald (which appears to be the definition he's using for "troll," these days), but I wasn't aware that was a banning offense. (and if it is, it makes Dr. Douglas a coward.)

Now, let's talk "halfrican." First off, I referred to Donald this way two or three times, the last being on April 4th--so it isn't as though Mr Douglas is reacting to something that happened recently; While Donald feigns ignorance, he knows very well the point I was making in using Rush Limbaugh's term for Barack Obama, Hallie Berry, and others of mixed racial heritage (including, one assumes, Donald Douglas, himself), and that I stopped referring to him (or anyone else) that way the moment Donald admitted he found it offensive--which one thinks he would've done when Rush referred to him that way (by extension, anyway). Of course, he didn't. The point though, is that Donald may claim this is his justification for "banning" me, but it's pretty obviously a made up excuse. Personally, I think Donald just doesn't like that I don't accept what he alleges at face value, and that I tell folks when he's wrong or acting like a bully... ...even on his own blog... (Maybe so, maybe not, but I know what I believe...)

Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments,...
Trolling his comments... catching him in what was likely an intentional lie to deceive his more gullible readers... It's apparently a fine line, with Donald... (More on the likely intentional lie, below.)
...and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:
Actually, what I left was a link in support of the assertion I was making which, because it was about an issue raised by peace groups (as was the false claim Donald made) appeared on the "One Minute for Peace" site. (I've yet to find the source of the original flyer to which Donald was reacting, and I suspect, lying about. Again, more on that below.)

I'm not sure what the video had to do with any of it--and while Donald included it in his post, he doesn't say, either--but it's a thought provoking video, nevertheless. The premise of both the site and the video is that it'd be a good thing if we spent more money on supporting peace--say, the amount of one minute-worth of the annual military budget (Annual budget=approximately 3 trillion dollars. one minute-worth of that annual budget=about $1.98 million). One can agree or disagree, but it's hardly a radical, dangerous idea.
One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles.
Wow, a "social justice" organization. (in this case, a religious one.) We all know what that means according to Glenn Beck, and just in case we didn't, Donald comes right out and says it: Commies. (Will the McCarthyist red-baiting from some on the right never cease?) It's a neat trick Donald plays... If you follow the "long been criticized" link (to Wikipedia, which is seemingly only considered trustworthy by folks on the right when it says something they like), you'll note that for the most part, the folks who've "long been criticizing" the "friends" and suggesting that they're communists are social conservatives like Donald. It's like what FoxNews does... Report that someone or something is controversial, and then justify repeated hit pieces on that person or thing by saying that "some say" there's controversy surrounding them.

The fact is, I don't know much about the "Friends," other than that they're another "liberal" religious tradition, and thus not respected by some on the "religious right." (See what Donald had to say about Unitarian Universalists--my "liberal" religious tradition--in the "nihilist" sidebar at right.) But it doesn't really matter because, whatever the truth is about them as regards communism or whether some Quakers believe they've become too political and strayed from their religious roots, it doesn't make what they say about the US military budget any more or less true. Donald is creating a smokescreen. Commies or not, the numbers they cite from the US OMB are either correct or they're not, and suggesting that they're commies doesn't make those numbers more or less factual or accurate. (Finally, we're getting to the meat of the thing...)
And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are from

"the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."

But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:

Welcome to the meat: Here's the story: In an earlier post, Donald mentioned seeing a flyer from a peace group that he says) claims that military spending is 59% of the US budget, and goes on to call that propaganda, saying that it's only 19% of the US budget. To whit:

(From American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story): "Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays):"

Suspicious, I did a little research, and determined that it was likely that the banner was referring not to the entire budget--which would put military spending at somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of the pie, but discretionary spending, where is is indeed about 59% of the pie. I replied to his assertion thusly:
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at"
- Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
You'll note that in the example above--from this current post, I mean--that Donald again ignores the fact that the "Friends" refer to "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending." (though he does quote them using those words), and talks about/shows a pie chart of the entire budget. Sorry Donald, but they are still not the same thing, and conflating the percentage of the whole budget alloted to the military (or the percentage of GDP alloted to the military) with the percentage of the discretionary budget alloted to the military is dishonest and wrong. Try comparing the numbers that the "friends" (and the creators of that banner) were (likely, in the case of the banner folks) using, and get back to us.

Everything else Donald says in the post about the rise of entitlement spending and the decline of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, may in fact be true... (Perhaps I'll check it out later.) But none of that changes the fact that the 59% Donald disputed was a percentage of discretionary spending, and thus his claims of "propaganda" based on the whole budget were sadly mistaken at best, and itself propaganda at worst. (The fact that he's still trying to make the discredited claim after having the discrepancy pointed out to him might give the reader a clue as to whether or not it was an honest error.)

But back to the other point of Dr Douglas' post:
I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.
Here's the thing... As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well. Folks are welcome to judge me as they will, but standing up to Donald's bullying ways has become a habit, and I'm not going to stop because he wishes I would... (Of course, were he to stop treating others so poorly, I'd have no choice but to stop calling him on his behavior and the mistruths in which he engages to smear others...) I think I've said it before... As long as Donald keeps acting the fool, I'll keep pointing and laughing at him. The other folks who're involved with American Nihilist (whether as writers, "fellow nihilists" -- other folks on Donald's extensive "enemies list," or readers) can do as they like, but I intend to continue exposing Donald Douglas for the man he is... ..."banning" or no banning...


Octopüß said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
repsac3 said...

It's funny... and I appreciate your concern, of course, Octo... but this is well-travelled road. The man has reduced himself to a walking talking stereotype, and I intend to use him to expose those Cons who think like him, whenever the opportunity presents itself, and in the process clean up and return to him a little of what he puts into the blogging world.

I've never asked anyone to join me--though anyone who wishes to is certainly welcome--but I would appreciate it if you'd resist the urge to stand in my way.

Unfortunately, we just disagree. You've employed tactics that in my opinion are no better than the ones some conservatives use--and multiplied the offense by employing other bullshit tactics to whitewash criticism of your doing so--and obviously, you're having problems accepting my tactics, as well. Obviously, these disagreements over method have led to an impasse that's... well... impassable.

It'd probably be smarter if we just don't discuss these differences of opinion and method, and instead focus on the shared tasks at hand (maintaining a left-of-center majority and minimizing the impact of reactionary thought and deed), but I'm willing to continue discussing one or both of these subjects if you feel you have something more to say on one or the other of 'em.

I get where you're coming from, and invite you to run your own online life however best suits you... but I'm entitled to do the same, and I intend to do just that, even when it conflicts with your unsought council.

Octopüß said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
repsac3 said...

I see you are willing to discuss this further...



I'm not quite sure what it is you see as being contradictory between those two quotes, particularly since they were not even discussing the same specific subject.

In the first one, from April 27th, I was talking specifically about the AmNi post where you posted the info about the place where Americlown works, a fact which is pretty evident from reading the quote in full, rather than cutting it off before it even gets going:

"Considering the fact that you turned tail and left me to endlessly speak up for and defend this friggin' post where you out his bosses and all but suggest folks harass them--a post I never agreed with in the first place, but felt you had the right to post here, regardless--and that while I'm sticking up for your right to post, you're quietly removing my Swash Zone authorship and later deleting that comment--Octo... you''ll forgive me if I don't take your advice as seriously as I otherwise might, or feel the need to justify much of anything I choose to do here..."

The second quote discusses responding to Americlown in general, and I stand by what I said. I never have asked anyone else to do what I choose to do as far as he's concerned.

If it's this important for you to diagnose and disapprove of my "condition"--which, I hasten to add, again has you making an allegation very similar to the one Donald himself makes, and which I generally attribute to his not enjoying being served the same bullshit gruel he regularly dishes out--so be it. You're wrong, but you're welcome to be wrong.

But why you feel the need to fight me on this--essentially joining Douglas, against me, echoing the charges he makes, I cannot fathom. I think it'd be far better if you'd aim the guns outward, but you do whatever you believe you must.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with the tactics you chose, and kinda got hit by both Americlown and by you for saying so.

Do what you want, Octo... Think I'm obsessed, believe I'm wrong, convince yourself that you're qualified to judge...

But let me know if/when you're willing to be an ally rather than an enemy, because I've no more time or respect for Docto Octo diagnosing me across the internet aether than I do Americlown's Doc Sanity (or Americlown himself) purporting to do the same.

I've made it abundantly clear why I do the things I do, and if my reasoning or explanation doesn't pass your exacting standards, you're welcome to troll other waters for those you believe to be better men than I.

I'll continue to have your back whenever I think you deserve it, but when it came to that one post, I was the only one left defending what you wrote--including you. And if you weren't even willing, I didn't see why I should be...

Whatever, my friend.

I wish you luck, and peace, and all the folks you find worthy... ...and who find you worthy.

Octopüß said...

repsac3 - But why you feel the need to fight me on this--essentially joining Douglas, against me ...

This didn't seem to bother you when the roles were reversed. You espouse a double standard, and now I am pissed.

repsac3 said...

I'm sorry you feel that way, Octo, and that you once again resorted to the delete button to express your disagreement and displeasure. As you're no longer willing to discuss it--and more importantly, stand behind your words--I guess the conversation's over, at least as far as this particular topic is concerned.

I hope we can work together where we agree, and I wish you well, regardless.

Debbies Best said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbies Best said...

It's about time someone got wise to this Left Wing MoonBat..And a putrid asshole.

repsac3 said...

First off, DB...

Who in the fuck are you, and what in the fuck are you on about? I mean, have we ever crossed paths or discussed a blessed thing anywhere on any blog before? If not--and I'm pretty sure we haven't--what's with all the dang vitriol?

Second, is there something in particular that I've said that has you engaging in all the ad hom, or are you just out trolling, and generally tossing your feces around at any liberal who manages to catch your eye?

You're welcome to come on back if you have something intelligent to say--or if you just want to keep proving yourself an ass, if that be your wish--but if you are coming, I'd much prefer the former...

For someone who's had their blogger ID for a whole month, almost, you could do far better than you did here, this time. With all respect due Steve Case's baby, this ain't AOL...

It's about time someone got wise to this Left Wing MoonBat..And a putrid asshole. - Debbies Best - Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:01:00 PM EDT

(With all respect due my buddy Octo, that "deleting your comment after someone's replied it" stuff is childish bullshit... I guess I know what I have to do going forward when it seems likely to happen...)