Saturday, October 24, 2009

One Nation Under God.

I've no idea where this fits into the conservative game of denunciation, but the mouse-over text associated with of "Professor", "Immigrant", "Mr. Hollywood", "Liberal News Reporter", and even "Thomas Payne" are absolutely priceless.

The good news is that Jesus is back, and he's armed with the the U.S. constitution! Take that, you heathen!


46 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Well, Audrey, so far as historically-ignorant nitpicking critiques so, perhaps this may begin to pass muster.

If that's all one is interested in.

Audrey II said...

As coherent as ever, Pat. Thanks for your contribution.

Patrick Ross said...

If you say so.

Personally, I'm pretty curious about this "religious nonsense" bit. Care to elaborate about that?

Audrey II said...

No, not "if I say so". I think the incoherence of your above reply is as self evident as the logical invalidity of choosing to slay the "conservatives hate art" strawman. Nothing like staying true to form, eh?

The need for further elaboration on why McNaughton's piece would be considered religious nonsense says volumes Pat. Thanks again for the assist.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Audrey? Really?

You can't think of any reasons why a painting depicting Christianity as a central influence on the development of the United States -- right down to its Constitution and, beyond that, the Declaration of Independence -- would be anything other than "religious nonsense"?

Perhaps something historical?

Audrey II said...

I think that the painting and its various elements make it pretty clear that the artist was attempting to depict more than mere "Chistianity as a central influence on the development of the United States", as does the mouseover commentary that he's so graciously provided.

I'm comfortable calling an octagon an octagon. Best wishes on others finding your it's-just-historical-acknowledgment triangle compelling, Pat.

Patrick Ross said...

That's a nice strawman argument you're trying to pass off, Audrey (funny how you always consider yourself entitled to do that).

There's certainly a political argument in McNaughton's painting -- one that people are entitled to agree with or disagree with.

But the supporting evidence for the centrality of Christianity's influence on American history -- especially on the Constitution and particularly the Declaration of Independence -- supports the basis of McNaughton's argument rather strongly.

That would mean that there's much more than mere "religious nonsense" to McNaughton's painting.

Hey. If the kind of historical work that supports the basis of McNaughton's piece is compelling enough for a Master's Thesis at Yale, it should be compelling enough for someone who's entirely ignoranct about what a Master's Thesis is in the first place.

Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot about that whole "ignorance" thing. My bad.

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, the interesting thing is that your argument to date hasn't been that there's more than a historical argument to McNaughton's painting. Your argument has been that there's less than a historical argument, and that the painting is nothing more than "religious nonsense."

You made this argument to the extremely irrational extent that you've even said that any suggestion that you may need to defend your argument instead proves it (which is a rather curious notion if you actually think about it -- which you almost certainly haven't).

I guess you just don't realize that if there's a historical basis for McNaughton's argument that there's more than mere "nonsense" afoot in this painting.

Unlike yourself and your cohorts, Audrey, I don't lionize intellectual laziness. Especially not the kind of intellectual laziness that thinks it can counter an argument by simply dismissing it as "nonsense" so that one never actually has to generate a cogent argument.

Audrey II said...

"See, Audrey, the interesting thing is that your argument to date hasn't been that there's more than a historical argument..."

Reading comprehension, FTW!!!

"Your argument has been that there's less than a historical argument, and that the painting is nothing more than "religious nonsense."" (emphasis mine)

The irony of inserting an additional qualifier to my argument in order to erect a strawman to attack might be lost on some, but I'm guessing it'll give most a bit of a chuckle.

"Unlike yourself and your cohorts, Audrey, I don't lionize intellectual laziness."

Your replies repeatedly depend on the intellectual laziness of others, Pat. Only someone too lazy to scroll would be unable to move up and see the difference between what was actually put forward and what you're railing against, yet here you are, post after post, appealing to that sort of thing. The Rhetoric of Assholery strikes again!

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Audrey? Really?

Because interestingly enough, my arguments on this matter have been based on, you know -- actual historical evidence.

For example, I have the work of a Yale scholar that backs up my argument.

Whereas you've just ranted "nonsense" over and over again, without making any kind of attempt to even make a cogent argument.

I can see plenty of legitimate things in McNaughton's paintings that an individual could object to -- the political argument in McNaughton's piece is evident, and these matters are very debatable. There is an argument to made against McNaughton's work.

"It's nothing but religious nonsense", however, is not that argument, and especially when you refuse to defend it.

Audrey II said...

Really, Pat. I (really, really, totally, really) feel no obligation to defend an argument that I've not made, and am quite content to continue to draw attention to the desperate strawman slaying that you've again decided to indulge in.

The "nothing but" qualifier is yours and yours alone. There might be readers here to intellectually lazy to scroll up and see for themselves where in the sequence of replies that you originally erected that straw-stuffed shirt, but I'm really (REALLY!) not really interested in appealing to that kind of crowd.

Best of luck with reaching your intended audience, Pat. Maybe they'll even fail to notice your abandonment of your "conservatives hate art" schtick!

Really.

Patrick Ross said...

Who's desperate, Audrey?

It seems that you're desperate to avoid having to defend your argument.

The "nothing but" qualifier is actually extremely meaningless when one considers what nonsense actually means.

You seem to speak English. Is it really too much to expect that you understand it as well?

Let me put it to you this way, Audrey. The political argument McNaughton makes in this painting are based on beliefs stemming from the central influence Christianity has had over the development of the United States, both pre- and post-revolution. Do you deny this?

Audrey II said...

I think it's quite obvious who's the desperate one here, considering you've gone on for 7+ replies and 2 entire posts on your own site now railing against something that I never once argued. In order to do this, you've had to invent and repeatedly attempt insert entire phrases that I never wrote. For such a "meaningless" qualifier, you've been pretty intent on tilting against it.

McNaughton may or may not have had other ends in mind in addition to the obvious religious one when he crafted his painting. My comment on the latter is just that, and not the comprehensive treatise that you've been frantically attempting to turn what I didn't say into.

I can understand why you're trying to divert discussion away from what I did comment on to what I did not, but the whole "nothing but" argument you've now (whatever became of the whole "Conservatives hate art" angle, Pat?) chosen to have the vapours (over in no less than 3 separate threads!) is yours entirely, not mine.

Thanks for yet another round of "What Patrick Ross would rather talk about when he's not interested in addressing what's actually been said/written"! As always, it's been both telling and appreciated.

Patrick Ross said...

"I think it's quite obvious who's the desperate one here"

You're right, Audrey, your disingenuous attempts to distance yourself from your original argument make it absolutely obvious who's desperate.

After all, Audrey, you were the one who labelled the painting "religious nonsense", then suggested that the very notion that you would have to defend that argument proves your point.

(Which is pretty much the kind of intellectual laziness you've become known for in non-sycophantic circles.)

Let's face it, Audrey. Now that it's been demonstrated that the painting is far more than "religious nonsense", and is actually extremely defensible considering the historical influence Christianity has had on the United States, and particularly on the Constitution. Suddenly you want to try to revise your argument after the fact.

It's too bad, Audrey, that -- nope -- I'm not going to let you do that.

You're just desperate to avoid revealling your utter ignorance about the influence Christianity had on the development of the United States and its Constitution.

The utterly hilarious thing about it, Audrey, is this:

It's too late! Your igorance is already plainly evident, and now you're trying to camouflage it with arrogance.

It isn't working. Time for a new desperate measure.

Sparky said...

Watch out Audrey! Patrick's on the war path!!
Your labels are now the crux of your argument!
Well, it's actually true if you want to apply the "right wing self-unawareness" to Patrick...
We could go on to discuss how, in combination with this painting, some 'conservatives' are of the mind that the Bible itself shows a 'liberal slant' and must be redacted to fit in better with their mindsets.
Patrick will reply now.
I'll be pre-emptive--Nonsense indeed.

Audrey II said...

Sparky, the post tags you use aren't comprehensive, all-encompassing commentary on the subjects you discuss? Oh, the intellectual laziness!

Filling the "lack-of-label" with a straw-stuffed shirt to beat takes the logical invalidity of "lack-of-commentary" giving of attributes to a vacuum to new levels of untenable and logic-free rhetoric.

As I'm sure you're aware, "The Diamond Kid"'s/"Cash Kid"'s/"Thunderbolt Ross"'s entire "so what you're saying is..." routine has been commented on both here and elsewhere in the blogosphere quite extensively. I used to be surprised at the lack-of-self-awareness involved in his eagerness to provide further examples of it, but's almost as if he can't help himself. He's a one pony show, and that pony has unashamedly been posting "endless largely meaningless rants" and being "an asshole". Gotta hand it to the "Diamond Kid" on successfully meeting his lofty goals!

We now return you to the regularly scheduled effort to argue through repetition that the octagon posted above is really a triangle. Pay no attention at all to the whole "conservatives hate art" rhetoric of assholery.

Patrick Ross said...

Sigh. And there it is, folks: Sparky and Audrey in all their disingenuity.

I mean, seeing as how they want to overlook this, and all:

"The need for further elaboration on why McNaughton's piece would be considered religious nonsense says volumes Pat. Thanks again for the assist."

Yep. Too bad about that.

Audrey: an individual so obtuse she once built a tree fort out of ignorance!

And Sparkles: an individual so inept he actually managed to hang himself with the rope ladder.

Audrey II said...

I don't want to over look that at all, Patrick. I've been repeatedly pointing out the difference between what you're railing against and what you've quoted above.

Keep right on screaming "triangles" all you want, Cash Kid. The octagon is still sitting there in plain view for anyone capable of scrolling up to verify for themselves, and it won't magically change by virtue of your repetition.

Patrick said...

So then you're back to the old habit of simply disavowing your terrible arguments.

I'm sure there's a reason why that doesn't surprise anyone.

Sparky said...

My god--Patrick projects every single time he opens his disingenuous yap.
"So then you're back to the old habit of simply disavowing your terrible arguments"
Most people when shown how much of a hack they really are usually have at least the grace to stop yipping. Not Patrick!
Damn those torpedos, Pat! Full speed ahead! Throw around more of your "intellectual heftiness". I'll just make myself comfortable here with the octagons, the undercover agents, the deficit, the 70 percent of the blogosphere, and, well, almost every other thing you were wrong about while you try to 'bring us up to your level' of 'disavowing terrible arguments'.
Lack of self awareness, indeed.

Audrey II said...

Of course that's what's occurring, Patrick. I'm "disavowing" my argument by not only leaving it posted above without alteration, but repeatedly drawing attention to the difference between it and the stuff-shirt that you're intent on erecting and trouncing. Your brilliance truly knows no equal.

As you've now brought it up multiple times in this thread, who are these "anyone"/"circles" people that you've been referring to? Any links? The only one that I'm aware of that's expressed the kind of conclusions about me that you're referring to is you. Who are these "others" out there that agree with your claims about me?

You've made it clear that you're not really interested in addressing what I actually said, but might want to reconsider waving the "what others think about you" sword. The internets have a long memory.

Sparky said...

Audrey, don't you know who these 'others' are??
"For the most part, the whole of the blogosphere" are these others.
Is as obvious as the triangles on your shoes!

Audrey II said...

I suppose that 98 out of the first 100 hits of this blog search prove you right, Sparky.

Now all that remains for you to do is to stick your fingers in your ears, refuse to address what others say in response, and repeat "I win" until others stop talking to you (any similarity between this and what occurs on a regular basis in Kindergarten classes is entirely coincidental). Anything else would be "intellectually lazy"!

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, here's the problem for you. I know your fellow ideologically-motivated cretins won't admit to this any more than you will.

When you were questioned about your insistence that McNaughton's painting was nothing but "religious nonsense" (and do I really have to break out a dictionary and define nonsense for you, Audrey? Do I really have to do that?) You were extremely comfortable with it, to the extent that you suggested the idea that you should elaborate on and defend that argument was itself proof of it.

(Again, no rational or honest person would think this way, but no one who is rational or honest actually credits you with those traits.)

Until you find out, and I think we both know precisely where, that the argument at the basis of McNaughton's painting -- that Christianity was a strong central influence on the development of the United States of America, including its Constitution, was firmly grounded in fact.

So now you want to insist that the "nothing but" qualifier is inappropriate, when it apparently has yet to occur to you that, considering the meaning of the word "nonsense", anything that is nonsense couldn't possibly be anything but.

But go ahead: just keep running away from your argument. After all, that's much easier than actually debating any topic.

Sparky said...

Wow Patrick! You just love slaying your very own strawmen, don't you!
And it's mighty hard to take you seriously when you get up on your high horse about 'actually debating any topic' when your buddy Iceman deletes any comments he doesn't like. Why don't you post some of your indignant (yet completely misplaced) yippage there?
We'll be waiting...

Patrick Ross said...

Shorter Sparky:

"Waaaaaah! Someone else deletes comments! Waaaaaah!

But don't even ask me about Robert Peter John Day deleting comments from his blog that are unflatteringly truthful. Everything that guy does is OK! Hooray!"

Sparky said...

See, Patrick, here's the problem for you. I know your fellow ideologically-motivated cretins won't admit to this any more than you will.

When you question Audrey about her "insistence that McNaughton's painting was nothing but "religious nonsense"" and Audrey pointing out that she never insisted that at all--that this was your interpretation--yet you continue to flog this point (as you are prone to do), you look like an idiot. This is where we can use Audrey's label--"lack of self awareness" (but then again, we can always use that label when dealing with you)

Do I really have to break out a dictionary and define nonsense for you, Patrick? Do I really have to do that? 'Cause you're certainly showing a textbook example of utter nonsense here.

You were extremely comfortable with erecting your own straw men, to the extent that you keep doing it with every subsequent comment, even after it's shown that they are, indeed, straw men.

Again, no rational or honest person would think this way, but no one who is rational or honest actually credits you with those traits.

So you want to insist that the "nothing but" qualifier is something Audrey wrote, when it apparently has yet to occur to you that, well, she didn't

But go ahead: just keep running away from Audrey's argument. After all, that's much easier than actually debating any topic.

You really have to stop projecting, Patrick. You truly do. Seek help. Get off the 'puter and go outside. Leave the intelligence to, well, intelligent people. Finish your education and get some rl experience 'cause right now, by every subsequent comment you make, you show youself to be an obtuse (wilfully or not--matters not) disingenuous hack with a huge chip on your shoulder directed at people smarter than you.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

Sparky said...

"But don't even ask me about Iceman deleting comments from his blog that are unflatteringly truthful. Everything that guy does is OK! Hooray!"
God you're a disingenuous hack--Kevron immediately comes to mind. cc deletes you, you delete kevvy, and both of you are happier for it. Who am I to get in the way of your collective happinesses?
However, here's Patrick's comment in the very same thread--
"Yeah. You'll be having to deal with intellectual heavyweights like Sparkles, Ti-Guy and Kevron."
So I was referenced directly, and I rebutted your inane comment directly (using no profanity and/or other 'bad language') and yet deleted.
Therein lies the issue.
Hey, is his blog and he can do with as he pleases. It just shows a echo chamber mentality that is standard procedure for you 'and your ilk'.
"[T]hat's much easier than actually debating any topic"
Your words, Patrick. But you've never been interested in the debate. Ever. You're interested in your opinion and nothing else. You'll repeat your misunderstandings, or misinterpretations, or deliberate misrepresentations of what others said over and over again in order to, what? Win? Win an argument based on your fallacies?
Well, Patrick, have at it.
"Nothing but nonsense", indeed

Sparky said...

Thought you would be amused by that. Glad I could bring a smile to your otherwise dreary life.

Patrick Ross said...

Yeah, Sparky, and I think we all know precisely how you tried to rebut there -- by spouting tired old half-truths and crowing about the hollow "triumphs" of other people.

Basically, strolling in there in full-out bloviate mode, set to maximum.

And, oddly enough, Sparkles -- is Iceman the topic of this thread? Was he ever the topic of this thread?

Hmmm?

Sparky said...

Oh it just logically flowed from your idiocy.
Brought up as yet another example of your hypocrisy and idiocy which, as demonstrated again, you failed to deal with.
"Tired old half-truths." where? what? Show your work. You're spewing nonsense again.
"Crowing about the hollow triumphs of others" what others? why are they hollow?? My god can you back up anything you say?
You were, and continue to be, wrong. That's just gotta suck for you.
Patrick Ross--a legend in his own mind.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparkles, were your parents twins, by any chance?

Or perhaps you were the result of inter-breeding toward a human and a ram? Because with a skull that thick, there's not much room left for brains.

Sparky said...

Ouch--you got me where it hurts!! Insulting my parentage!! Your ad hominem cuts so deep!!
*snif*!
Oh wait, no.
See, Patrick knows he has no defence at all regarding his disingenuous rants. After he wastes all his hackery skills, he falls back to insults, 'cause that's all that's left.
I stated a long time ago that what Patrick (and others in this here 'blogosphere') thinks about me is irrelevant. 'Cause it is.
It only matters about the truth. Patrick never grokked that. Ever.
No, he'd rather obfuscate, lie, throw around ad hominems... instead of actually sussing out the truth.
Over and over again he's not faced what is--instead he yips about, well, just read thru these threads... He covers the entire gambit (again) of wasting everyones time by ignoring the actual debate in favour of his brand of idiocy.
Well, have at it, Patrick. Ad hominem away.

Patrick Ross said...

No, Sparky, you've just made if perfectly evident that you can't own up to your own attempts to sew distraction in the course of your failed attempt to intervene in this debate and rescue Audrey from a well-earned defeat.

So, really, all that's left to do is insult you. You consistently refuse to honestly engage in any debate of fact, so this is pretty much all you deserve.

Needless to say, the "Sparkles the Magical Retard" title is one you quite richly earned for yourself.

Audrey II said...

Debate? There's been no debate here, Patrick. There's been you attacking strawman of your own erecting and umpteen replies of you justifying doing so / pointing at all ends of shiny objects in a pathetic attempt to distract from it. That you would confuse either for "debate" or "defeat" says alot about your grasp of either construct.

I implore you to continue to post more "debates" and "defeats" like these, Thunderbolt. I'm sure I'm not the only progressive that takes comfort in the ongoing examples you so graciously provide of the kind of intellect/self-admitted-assholery that the next generation of conservatism might bring to the table.

Patrick Ross said...

No, Audrey, there's been you making terrible arguments, standing by those terrible arguments, then proving extremely desperate to back away from them once it's proven that they're baseless.

I've tried on numerous occasions to get you to discuss the deep historical significance of Christianity to the development of the United States and its Constitution.

These historical links prove that the argument McNaughton makes in this painting is more than "religious nonsense", and that much of it has a historical basis to it.

Just because you refuse to debate honestly -- to the extent that you won't even take responsibility for your own arguments, as usual -- doesn't mean there hasn't been a debate.

It just means that you capitulated very early.

Sparky said...

k, let's take this from the top
Audrey posts this as a blog--
One Nation Under God.
I've no idea where this fits into the conservative game of denunciation, but the mouse-over text associated with of "Professor", "Immigrant", "Mr. Hollywood", "Liberal News Reporter", and even "Thomas Payne" are absolutely priceless.
The good news is that Jesus is back, and he's armed with the the U.S. constitution! Take that, you heathen!

Patrick focuses on a label--
Personally, I'm pretty curious about this "religious nonsense" bit.
ignoring the actual blog. But that's Patrick. Wish Patrick focused on the label "right wing self unawareness" but that'd be too honest.
So we go on...
would be anything other than "religious nonsense"?
Patricks got a burr in his saddle about this particuar label.
Audrey tries to bring it back to her actual blog but Patrick's having none of that--
That would mean that there's much more than mere "religious nonsense" to McNaughton's painting
attributing a concept into the conversation that Audrey never explicitly or implicitly stated. Which Audrey pointed out, but again. Patrick is having none of that again...
See, Audrey, the interesting thing is that your argument to date hasn't been that there's more than a historical argument to McNaughton's painting. Your argument has been that there's less than a historical argument, and that the painting is nothing more than "religious nonsense."
If anyone cares to scroll up--as Audrey stated over and over again, you'd see that Audrey made no such claim at all. Anywhere.
It's amazing that this has to be stated at all, but we're dealing with one of the most obtuse persons I've ever had the misortune of dealing with, so onward...
Whereas you've just ranted "nonsense" over and over again, without making any kind of attempt to even make a cogent argument.
Really, Patrick? Really?? Audrey ranted about
"nonsense" over and over again?? Seriously???
I'd love to see the world through your eyes--I mean, no one else sees this--no one but you.
And more--
The "nothing but" qualifier is actually extremely meaningless when one considers what nonsense actually means
"Nothing but" is introduced. 'Cause, we all can see that Audrey stated that all over the place. Oh wait--that was Patrick setting up a straw man to knock down and look all so smart.
Actually, I had originally intended to quote all of Patrick's inanity but now I'm bored and hungry. The point's been made clearly and concisely to all but Patrick, as he'll demonstrate below.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

That's a whole lotta time wasted for something I can't even begin to take seriously.

Patrick Ross said...

But by all means, bloviate away.

Sparky said...

None of us take your lies and obfuscations seriously, Patrick. We just like pointing them out.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, you'd have to convince somebody with a mind of their own that they're actually lies, as opposed to people like yourself who are ideologically invested in never admitting the truth.

Sparky said...

"Ideologically invested"--k then--that's the ticket! You go with that.
Never admiting the truth? Triangle much, Patrick? "Hollow victories"? I see some real truthful admissions there. You're such an example!
Patrick, you really have to stop projecting. It won't serve you well through your life.

Patrick Ross said...

Right, Sparky, right.

Continually falling back to crow about the hollow "triumphs" that you can never win on your own will serve you real well in life, too.

Next time you're out to buy your daily crack hit, I suggest you stroll down to the local school yard and take a good long look at the schoolyard bully's toady.

(Every bully tends to have one.)

See that specimen of humanity? That's you. The bully's toady is one of nature's habitual losers.

And so are you.

Sparky said...

Really, Patrick? Really?
That's what you come back with? Ad hominems??
Yeah, if we're offering suggestions regarding educational institutions, then I suggest you just go back to school and try to learn something--is called 'discernment' and, sadly, it's something you're completely lacking.
And with that, I'm done here as well. As always, I'll leave it open to Patrick so he can at least win his 'last post' game 'cause he hasn't won anything else (and he's only batting about 500 in this particular game of his...)

Patrick Ross said...

Bloviate, baby, bloviate!

I think Sparky just had one of this "oh, shit" moments in life where he just discerned that his particular game is... actually kind of pitiful.

It must be frustrating, having to go through life harping about other people's "victories". To never be able to win one of your own.

But don't mistake that for sympathy. I've never had sympathy for bullies, nor do I have sympathy for the bully's toady.

After all, what is a bully's toady but someone who desperately wants to be a bully but is just too inept to accomplish the goal?

Post a Comment