I’m moving back to Blogger, so if you want to keep following the fun, please update your bookmarks and blogrolls accordingly. So long, WordPress! Here’s the latest, greatest incarnation of Calvin Freiburger Online!
I don’t know whether or not Chris “Capper” Liebenthal was blogging about politics on the Wisconsin taxpayers’ dime, but I do know he’s a weaselly little punk.
(Hat tip: Boots & Sabers)
Even if you aren’t violent, you are fanning the flames, inciting those that may be on the edge. There is more at stake here than whether someone is for or against the issue. There is the rule of law. This misogynistic thinking imitates Sharia law. This is America.
Blogosphere Tip of the Day: if your opponent can’t respond to your arguments with anything other than lying, hysterical hatred, you’re allowed to declare victory, and there’s probably nothing to be gained from a continued dialogue with said sore loser.
Reminder: there are lots of great conservative t-shirts at CFO’s official Conservative Armory. Pro-life, anti-Obama, pro-limited government, anti-Democrat, and one of the ‘Net’s only sources for anti-Ron Paul gear, we’ve got you covered. Be ready for the next tea party or campaign event in your area with that trademark CFO wit and wisdom that’s driving the blogosphere wild!
You like me! You really like me!
“It’s much easier to call people who are smarter than you are names then it is to argue facts, thanks in no small part to our liberal educational system.” – Randy
“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal
“Enjoy that 100 trillion dollar currency debt you fools have mortgaged your children to them banksters.” – joe
“The author is another neocon Jew.” – Joseph Zrnchik
“…a man with a sheep’s brain…” – Bob
“Unintentionally Hilarious” – JB
“…just awful…” – More Stew
“What a sickening, hateful, sheltered, judgement, Friedburger brain bubble boy. He’s one of the the perfect examples of intelligent design. Cripes. What a creep.” – CJ
“…misinformed…” – Lord Howard Hertz
“Good God.” – Zach W.
“…dude if you are a polysci major I suggest you do a little more research before writing your blog because you lack any real depth of knowledge in the topics you discuss. Spend a little more time studying and less time dreaming up stuff.” – LeftofLiberal
“…desperation…illegitimate…” – annica2
“Boy you really are a fanatic nut head.” – RightWing
“Keep dreaming, but the reality is, you are the joke of this nation. The silent majority will just simply go back to the polls and vote Obama back in and you imbeciles can rant for another four long years. You will never learn. The dumbing down on the Right is almost totally complete!” – Liberallyproud
“…confused reasoning…” – PalmettoPatriot
“Trading insults gets you nowhere. It only benefits those who have nothing to say. As you mature you will most likely have a better appreciation for civil discourse and refrain from trading insults much less initiating such exchanges.” – The Inquisitor
“If you can’t win the debate, start name-calling, eh?” – John Galt
“Study history sometime.” – Elijah
“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.” – M.P. O’Neal
“Not a good way to advance a cause.” – princeliberty
“…you and the neo-conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering liberals.” – freedomfor you
“You’re arguing against a premise you wrongly inferred from the quote you posted. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, if you can comprehend what you’re reading that is. In this case you can’t.” – ED
“Carl your embarassing egotistical remarks are astounding for someone writing a publication with how many readers? It seems half of them don’t even like your obviously biased and ethnocentric reporting.” – James
“Perhaps, Calvin, you should try another line of work.” – Rightwingarbage
“You are not in tune with America…” – truthbetold
“Thumbs down…extremely biased…You wrote a very poor article.” – sas473
“More incessant neocon babbling…” – Carpe Cerevisi
“…another lame attack from a RINO…” – delapaz
“This article is terrible.” – T. Evans
“Why did I just subject myself to the slandering overtones of a hyped up alarmist co-ed, which was expected prima facie by the name Calvin Frieburger, in order to get my intellectual fix this morning. It’s usually the poli-sci guys that cry the loudest when they’re getting the crap kicked out of them for bloviating to everyone. AAAAh!!!!!” – A Smith
“This is bad journalism.” – Joseph
“…you know nothing about the military.” – David
“One only has to read the title of this faulty hitpiece to know it deserves all the contempt possible and it simply 100% baseless misinformation.” – Stefan
“…Zionist…” – Edip Yuksel
“I could not read much more than the 1st paragraph or 2, Calvin, you are completely wrong on so many levels. You may have a few facts straight, but your inferences are miles off target.” – JR
“Hypocrisy thy name is JEW! So Paul is disqualified from being taken seriously in American politics for some ‘unacceptable’ connections with white ethnocentrists. Meanwhile having deep connections with Jewish activist organisations the ADL, AIPAC, AJC etc etc is just fine. Why on earth shouldn’t Paul be ethnocentric enough to stand up for the interests of the traditional population of the United States? You know – the ones who’ve died in their thousands in Iraq for Israel? I’m sick of hyper-ethnocentric Jews telling us who and who is not a legitimate participant in the American political process.” – Peter Mansfield
“…stupid sh**…” – Steve
“The author of this propaganda is a BLATANT IGNORANT IDIOT.” – freeme
“…basically neo con apologist…” – Hammer
“If a college kid getting the typical US socialist education thinks there’s a problem, it’s practically 100% certain that the opposite is the truth.” – Syd Barrett
“Totally twisting of facts!” – freedom lover in KY
Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?
My mother, Peg Freiburger, had an important editorial in Friday’s Fond du Lac Reporter:
A news article in The Reporter (Feb. 12, by Sharon Roznik) on 2009 Assembly Bill 458 requiring changes to our school’s sex education instruction leaves out the most important information.
Why? This bill now allows Planned Parenthood as agents of the state under the Department of Health Services to come in to our schools and teach their version of “healthy sex” to our kids (SECTION 10. 146.89 (3r) (e)).
You know, the same organization that has been caught on video in Appleton, in Milwaukee, and other clinics across the country giving false information to young girls regarding whether her baby has a heartbeat, what the dangers of abortion are, and failing to contact authorities in cases of rape to girls as young as 13.
A recent report from International Planned Parenthood Federation advocates children age 10 and over “be given extensive sex education, including awareness of sex’s pleasures.”
Why does PPH do this? For the money! The more sexually active our children are, the more money PPH makes selling birth control, STD medications and abortions.
In 2007 in Wisconsin alone, more than $5.4 million was taken through our tax dollars and given to Planned Parenthood. Part of this was used so girls as young as 15 could receive free birth control, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
It is pathetic that in Fond du Lac we have a county health officer and a county board of health member/pediatrician who apparently find this acceptable for our children.
Those who support such a thing should read the bill. Then they could explain to the community why it is OK to have a bill that will not allow school employees to tell Johnny that he shouldn’t have sex with multiple partners (Section 4, 118.019 (2) (a) (9) (b)), why they are supporting an organization that has stated that religious groups, such as Catholics, “deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex,” (Fox News link above), and why they support an organization that had Valentine’s Day cards this year with condoms on the front and “I like playing with you” written on the inside.
Even though this bill is now law, we in Fond du Lac can do something about it. Since the state has deemed it necessary to take away our local control as to what we want our children to learn about sex, we can opt to remove sex education completely from our schools.
Let’s devise other local programs to help our kids deal with the pressures and consequences of sex before they’re ready. Let’s develop a community program outside the schools that reflects the faith and values we hold dear in our community.
The implication of this comment is the writer would prefer kids be kept ignorant about sex. That ignorance is somehow preferable to knowledge about the reality of sex too young.
Of course, to come to this conclusion, Cobweb has to completely ignore the letter’s main point, all the sleaze surrounding Planned Parenthood – including criminal conduct – and the supporting evidence Mom provided. “The implication of this comment is the writer would prefer kids be” subjected to the influence of an organization willing to ignore statutory rape and promote dangerous personal behavior to sustain their profits.
Further, Mom doesn’t say she’s against age-appropriate sex education in public schools. She is arguing for the people of Fond du Lac’s right to decide these matters for themselves, not be dictated to by radical, out-of-touch politicians in Madison. But if the state insists upon giving our money to Planned Parenthood, and subjecting our kids to their twisted “values,” then looking outside of the school system for their sexual education is the preferable alternative. Cobweb is free to disagree if she likes, but that doesn’t entitle her to mischaracterize others as believing in “ignorance.”
…to completely and utterly geek out. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the lightsaber, the signature weapon of the Star Wars films:
Well, it turns out good old Earth science is much closer to making them work in real life than I ever would have guessed:
Truly, a ray of hope for humanity’s future at the end of such a grim week (hey, I’ll take what I can get).
I initially figured Capper was a shoe-in for the “Most Embarrassingly Self-Defeating Blogger in Wisconsin” Award—misattributing comments to people based on nothing but a first name, then digging in your heels when called on it seems pretty hard to top. But we have a new contender for the crown: our old pal Scott Feldstein.
Veterans of Wisconsin blog debates know Scott well as a foul-mouthed, hypocritical leftist who would rather conjure up dishonest, unconvincing reasons for ignoring & dismissing opponents’ views rather than actually debating them. In December, this charade devolved into an even more pitiful form: not only rationalizing why he shouldn’t believe his opponents’ claims, but fabricating reasons to suspect that his opponents don’t even believe their own beliefs!
His “reasoning” was—you’re gonna love this—pro-lifers don’t really see abortion as a human rights issue, because if they did, they’d all oppose abortion in rape/incest/life-of-mother cases, too, and they’d also support the sex-ed and condom distribution policies Scott likes; but because they don’t, it’s really all about controlling people’s sex lives.
Of course, Scott was confronted (by me and others) with credible arguments against all of this (by the way, here’s the latest counter-example to his anti-abstinence studies), but remained “skeptical.” Mind you, he couldn’t offer any good reasons for his skepticism, but proceeded to flaunt the nonsense anyway, as if he’d done…well, something to prove any of it or refute his opponents’ objections. As Allahpundit once said of Dingy Harry Reid, “like a two-year-old who’s just crapped on the carpet, he’s curiously proud of it.”
(Oh, and he also demanded to know what Planned Parenthood lied about, then when I told him exactly what Planned Parenthood lied about in painstaking detail, he ignored it for a hundred-something comments. ‘Cuz he’s such a stickler for the truth.)
But it gets better, my friends. Oh, does it get better.
This week, abortion came up once more on Boots & Sabers. Allow me to quote verbatim, so we can all revel in the majesty that is Scott’s madness:
If you believe—as you say you do—that a 3 month fetus is the legal and moral equivalent of a toddler, then you would either a) be storming the abortion clinic like Rambo to kill the murderous individuals who work there, or b) you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death. Of course there is a third explanation: You do know that 3 month old fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of you and me.
So, lemme get this straight: unless you also believe in abandoning the political process and the rule of law and killing abortion doctors, you don’t really believe in an unborn baby’s right to life.
There’s really only one way to respond to that:
Make no mistake: These aren’t sincere questions that Scott would stop asking if only someone would give him a good answer. He’s simply displaying a common tactic of left-wing hyper-partisanship: the need to attribute the beliefs of one’s opponents, no matter how sincere or well-argued, to any sort of ulterior motive other than the stated motivation, no matter how specious the evidence.
If Scott truly believes what he’s saying, then his ideology has so fully warped his mind that his capacity for rational, objective thought is completely gone. But I suspect he does know better. I think it’s all propaganda: he’s supporting a heinous practice, recognizes somewhat the odiousness of his position, and will throw out whatever he can to deflect moral judgment and make the other side the villains. Indeed, he deployed this gem of a point as a way of not answering The Family Guy, who noticed he described abortion as “sad and distasteful,” and asked the obvious follow-up: “If it’s nothing more than a lump of tissue, then why is it sad? Are you sad when you have a wart removed? It too was alive.”
UPDATE: As if we needed another indicator of how messed up the left-wing, pro-abortion mind is, consider the following: Scott says that because humans develop incrementally, meaning that in the period between just-conceived zygote and just-delivered newborn, increasing moral consideration should go along with increasing complexity (he also voted for a guy who had a a problem with those just-delivered newborns, but I digress). He also says that “a 12 week pregnancy can be terminated for any reason at all.”
Okay, so at 12 weeks, it must not be very developed or person-like, huh? I mean, it’s not like it would have any of the biggies, like a heartbeat, a fully-formed brain, or the capacity to feel pain.
Something seems to have failed rather significantly in Scott’s efforts at drawing “reasonable” distinctions. How do you think he’d respond to that? If you guessed “dodge & deflect,” give yourself a cookie.
Pitiful. And monstrous.