Tuesday, November 17, 2009


...iz hard 2 do.

(h/t Instaputz)


Patrick Ross said...

It's true. Intellectualism is hard work.

So on that note, the power of Christ compels ye! Return to yer grave!

Wait... do exorcisms work on Zombies?

Audrey II said...

Questions about exorcism efficacy would probably be better directed at GOP luminaries like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal.

Not that the expected "Look! Over there!" effort isn't appreciated, but do you have any thoughts you'd like to share on the topic at hand (Goldberg's tweet)?

Patrick Ross said...

Other than noting that Twitter makes for a poor political medium? No.

But the invitation for you to offer some indication that you're even familiar with -- let alone capable of offering a coherent critique of -- Goldberg's ideas remains wide open.

Awake yet?

Sparky said...

Ahh, cyber-stalker extra-ordinaire is back, and, as usual, contributes nothing to the discourse at hand.

How's your racist meanderings thru sock puppets treating you these days, Patrick?

Patrick Ross said...

(Speaking of people with nothing to contribute.)

I'm just waiting for Audrey to demonstrate that she actually understands Goldberg's ideas, and can offer a proper critique.

Audrey II said...

While I think it's brave of you (or is it Patsparky?) to admit that the only thing that you're willing to contribute to the topic being discussed is a blaming of Twitter for being a poor political medium, I would be remiss (asleep?) if I did not point out that "intellectuals" like Goldberg, Meghan McCain, and Palin continue to repeatedly embarrass themselves through it.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, much like individuals like yourself continue to embarrass yourselves through your obsession with deriding people whose ideas you're clearly not only entirely ignorant of, but incapable of actually rebutting.

That is, if only you were smart enough to be embarrassed.

Audrey II said...

I can only hope to someday ascend to a Patrick-Ross-like "smart enough to be embarrassed" level. Cheers for the most ironically hilarious posting of yours to date!

In the mean time, I guess I'll just blame Blogger for my non-Patrick-Ross-ness. That's apparently the "smart" thing to do.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey, if it were the limits of blogger that's hampered your ability to use it as a political tool, that would be one thing.

It's your own lack of ideas -- or even of anything to contribute -- that hampers your blog.

Because let's face it, Audrey, on the topic of Jonah Goldberg, you simply have nothing to contribute. That's the source of what you call your "non-Patrick-Ross-ness". All we have to do is look at the evidence (and I know you do poorly with evidence, but let's try this anyway):

My contribution to the discussion of Golberg's ideas...

And your distinct non-contribution.

One of us knows what Goldberg's ideas are, and are prepared to discuss them.

One of us has no intention of actually familiarizing themselves with Goldberg's ideas, but wants to denounce them anyway.

I know which one of them is the intellectual thing to do. Rather sad that you can't say the same.

Audrey II said...

Your critique has been filed, as always, under "If I ever want to achieve Patrick Ross' blogging reputation".

In the mean time, I'm more than comfortable with the distinction between our commentaries, and quite appreciate you pointing it out. Why, it's almost like being criticized by Dick Cheney on Afghanistan!

Poor Jonah, his brilliance hamstrung by the limits of Twitter. If only he had discovered Wordpress, he might have been able to better disseminate his wisdom to the masses.

Patrick Ross said...

So then you're comfortable speaking in ignorance of a person's ideas and pretending to critique them while saying nothing of value.

Well, yeah. I guess that sounds like you.

Audrey II said...

"So then you're comfortable speaking in ignorance..."

Yes, Pat. That's exactly what I said. Reading comprehension, FTW!

"and pretending to critique them while saying nothing of value."

There was nothing of value to Goldberg's incoherent tweet in the first place. That was the point.

You're now playing the same ideological welfare card that's now become en vogue on the right... demanding merit rather than earning it. It isn't up to everyone else to grant Goldberg's twitter brain-farts unearned consideration, it's up to him to say something of merit. He didn't, and I called attention to it.

I doubt that anyone reading this will be surprised at the bluster you're attempting to substitute for your unwillingness to address that.

Patrick Ross said...


You wouldn't know if Goldberg's work hasn't earned him merit. You aren't even familiar with it.

That's the point.

Whereas you attempt to claim merit you categorically refuse to earn, despite being given numerous opportunities. For example, you've been given numerous opportunities to earn merit for your criticisms of Goldberg's ideas. To date, you've refused.

So, speaking of ideological welfare, I'd say that you've gotten that all wrapped up.

Audrey II said...

"You aren't even familiar with it."

I'm quite "familiar" with the tweet I commented on. I asked you in response to your first comment in this thread what you had to say about it. You flippantly attempted to blame twitter for Goldberg's incoherence.

ROTFL away, "Thunderbolt". You've already refused multiple times in this thread, but if you ever do decide to comment on the intellectual merit of Goldberg's tweet, you'll please let us know?

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey, seeing as how you're the kind of idiot who has to have everything spoon-fed to you, I'll just point out that Twitter tweets are limited to 140 characters or less.

Which kind of makes it hard to tweet entire political statements.

Which brings us back to -- what was it I said about Twitter, again? Oh, right. That makes for a poor political medium.

(We're still waiting for Audrey to explain which of Blogger's limitations prevent her from blogging more than a line or paragraph at a time.)

That being said, Audrey, what Jonah Goldberg is saying in his tweet is plainly evident. That is, unless you're being intentionally dense. You've already chosen the path of intentional ignorance vis a vis the ideas you pretend to critique (without, oddly enough, ever offering an actual critique), so it really isn't anything resembling a new or shocking addition to your blogging repertoire.

Audrey II said...

I'm well aware of Twitter's character-count limits. Yet, Meghan McCain, Jonah Goldberg, and Sarah Palin, etc... all continue to embarrass themselves via this medium of their own volition. Those self-inflicted wounds are hardly Twitter's fault.

I don't think there's anything at all "evident" about Goldberg's tweet except for it grammatical and logical incoherence. You're certainly welcome to claim that that isn't a "actual critique", but I'm quite confident that there are others out there who agree with me.

I do greatly appreciate the blogging advice, though. If ever I wish to cultivate the impeccable blogosphere reputation of Tha Cash Kid (Motherfucker, don't you know???), I'll be certain to consult it. In the mean time, I'm quite content with the contrast between my "repertoire" and your rhetoric of assholery.

Self-awareness FTW!

Patrick Ross said...

I suppose what you have yet to clue into, Audrey, is that the self-inflicted wound here is your own.

Anyone with a familiarity with the english language and a full selection of properly-working neurons can decipher precisely what Goldberg means here.

So either your brain just doesn't process language properly (which would explain a lot) or you're just playing ignorant (which would also explain a lot).

As for your blogging reputation, Audrey, your reputation is nothing more than a fourth-rate Robert Peter John Day-wannabe.

It may play well among the denizens of the Hateful Left, but once you get outside that particular collection of pathetic people, well, at that point you're just a nobody. In your case, a nobody who doesn't know the difference between astrology and astronomy.

Not to mention an intellectual coward who wouldn't know intellectualism if someone dropped the collected works of Benjamin Barber in your lap.

Sparky said...

"The Hateful Left"??
Let's take a quick poll right now--who in this very thread has posted racially charged comments recently.
Right--one Patrick Ross.
"Intellectual coward"??
This from someone that has yet to apologize for any of his 'misstatements'.
Has Patrick Ross offered an unequivocal apology anywhere for the following--
Octagons instead of triangles--he blamed the blurry photos
No Deficit--he ignored the actual original discussion, went on a tirade, and in the end, the deficit was there anyway yeyt no apology
'The whole of the blogosphere'--he made up his own criteria as to what that meant and ignored reality--no apology
stating that msnbc is exactly like fox--that he himself, in the very same comment thread, posted at least two points of difference (in his mind anyway)...
And now, to top it off, posting racist comments -- no apology
Intellectual cowardice is obfuscating and goal-post moving so you don't have to say you were ever, ever wrong.
Not only is Patrick Ross a disingenuous hack that will do or say anything to 'win', he's a coward when he's called out on his hackery.
"Hollow victories" indeed.

Sparky said...

Moreover, it's good to see that we're finally getting to the crux of who Patrick actually is.
See, Patrick has stated that he's always been 'above' the 'left vs right' partisan nonsense.
He's prided himself on rising above the radical and entrenched 'denizens' of those particular groups and blogged from a 'neutral' position.
Over time, however, there have been a few signs, one of which is his adamant stating of 'pro-abortion' instead of the neutral 'pro-choice' descriptor.
However, when a person posts racist comments and uses terms like 'hateful left' (combined with the aforementioned 'pro-abortion') we get a very clear picture of just what side Patrick is on.
Combined with his idiocy and disingenuous hackery, Patrick is pretty much ensconsed in the 'radical right'. He just dolls his posts up with more 'high falutin'' words to sound all intellectual-like. Of course it always helps to accuse everyone else of having his very own shortcomings 'cause that'll make him sound even smarter.
Yeah, that's pretty much Patrick.

Audrey II said...

Thanks, Pat, for yet another illustration of the very contrast I referred to above!

I humbly defer to your obvious expertise on the English language, civility, and intellectualism.

We now return you to yet another "endless, largely meaningless rant". Troll away, Tha Flamethrower.

Patrick Ross said...

Bloviate, baby, bloviate!

See, Sparkles, I'd be angry too if I were in your shoes. You and your cohorts on the Hateful Left -- and feel free to familiarize yourself with the precise meaning of this term -- have made it clear for a good long time that your politically defining characteristics aren't left-wing beliefs, but rather your hatred for anyone who doesn't share them.

That's what the obsession with labelling anyone who disagrees wtih you as racist has been about all along. The idea that your friends would write an ideological free pass for racism simply proves that.

You don't have to like it. And frankly, no one of any consequence cares if you do.

And you can pout about my refusal to satisfy your continual (and, at this point, predictable) rehashing of old half-truths about my "misstatements" until the cows come home.

There's no reason in the world why I should do anything to satisfy the demands of ideologically-motivated liars.

So really, Sparkles. Bloviate away. It doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change the fact that Audrey pretends to critique ideas she doesn't understand, and is too intellectually lazy and cowardly to familarize herself with so that she can offer a knowledgable critique.

Audrey II said...

I'm very comfortable with wagering that there are many more out there that will also be unable to recognize the brilliance of Jonah's tweet. You're certainly welcome to your opinion that it's due to "intellectual laziness" and "cowardliness". I think the fault lies with what Goldberg wrote and I'm willing to test that. I challenge you to layout Goldberg's argument in standard form and test it for logical validity. Do try to keep the parsing to a minimum.

I hope that hanging your hat on Goldberg's tweet representing a cogent, coherent argument that the rest of us are just too partisan to appreciate works out well for you, "Tha Flamethrower". It would be unfortunate for you if this turned out to be yet another example of you insisting that others' faults are keeping them from acknowledging the triangles that you see.

Patrick Ross said...

You see that's interesting, Audrey, that you think you can lay out challenges and think you have that kind of credibility.

You have, on numerous occasions, been challenged to familiarize yourself with Jonah Goldberg's ideas before you attempt to critique them.

You've declined that particular challenge.

So you have no credibility to be issuing challenges to people.

Besides, you understand full well what Goldberg was saying in his tweet. You just won't admit it because you're playing igorant because you think it gives you a rhetorical advantage.

Audrey II said...

What "idea" does Goldberg's tweet communicate that you think I'm unfamiliar with? I understand what knee surgery and abortions are. I understand the constructs of triage and health insurance and how they apply in various types of healthcare systems.

Dissemble all you want, Pat. I've proposed that our opposing claims regarding Goldberg's tweet be tested. If you're unwilling to participate in that test, that's fine (and not entirely surprising). It just again illustrates the contrast between Tha Cash Kid's Rhetoric of Assholery and what's being posted here, a distinction that I'm not only happy with, but also enjoy your assistance in repeatedly drawing attention to.

1 reply where Ross has run away from the challenge to support his claim, and counting. Any wagers on how high that number is going to get?

Sparky said...

My guess? The closet racist will hit 100+ posts of redefining what was stated.
I love the illogic of Patrick. There's so much wrong in one place that it's hard to know where to begin...
First we have this--
"That's what the obsession with labelling anyone who disagrees wtih you as racist has been about all along. The idea that your friends would write an ideological free pass for racism simply proves that"
Yeah, because you'll find lots of comments everywhere from me labelling others as racist all willy-nilly like. Oh wait, no.
Where did I use the term 'racist' recently... hmmm...
Oh right, I called Patrick 'racist' 'cause, well, he, as stated by his very self, posted racist comments. Obsession? No. See, Patrick has a tough time separating facts from his little version of reality. Calling a racist 'racist' isn't an obsession, it's pointing out the truth. And calling something an obsession that, before Patrick went on his little pseudo-sparky binge, I can't remember me ever posting that word... wow. Hyperbole much?
"And you can pout about my refusal to satisfy your continual (and, at this point, predictable) rehashing of old half-truths about my "misstatements" until the cows come home."
Satisfy my continual...?? No, just pointing your continued hypocrisy in calling everyone else to task based on your disingenuous hackery when you can't even be man enough to apologize for your blatant and well documented misdeeds.
You accuse others of 'intellectual cowardice'. Yet you don't apologize or offer a 'mea culpa' for when you're wrong. What's that say about you? Speaks volumes over here.
And then the irony--
"There's no reason in the world why I should do anything to satisfy the demands of ideologically-motivated liars"
Wow, self unaware indeed--right out of the mouth of a lying racist disingenuous hack. Patrick's list o' lies has been very well documented here, as well as elsewhere... and he again has the gall to accuse others of same. "ideologically motivated"--pro-abortion? 'uncle tom'? 'hatred of the left'?? Those are all 'radical right' terms, Patrick. Again, the hypocrisy is astounding.
Sooner or later, however, you have to put up or shut up. That point has long since gone by with Patrick and now we're just left in this infinite loop of pointing out the hypocrisy and disingenuity in every post that Patrick makes.
For posterity, mostly.

Patrick Ross said...


Audrey, the "intentionally dense" angle has pretty much been played out here. And naturally you bank on other people to be willing to mimick you in that role.

When your cohorts so willingly engage in sycophancy, it's pretty much to be expected.

Much like Sparkles the Magical Retarda and his magical bloviating.

Just the same old half-truths and lies. Played out. Boring. (Get new material.)

Audrey II said...

2 replies now where Ross has run away from the challenge to support his claim, and counting.

I think we both know why you're not willing to put Goldberg's argument into standard form, and I think the readers here will recognize why too. "Intellectual cowardice", indeed!

This isn't be the first challenge that you've impotently been unable to meet, nor will it likely be the last. If you think your "I'm bored" schtick is fooling anyone, I think you're as mistaken as always. Run Thunderbolt, run!

Patrick Ross said...


If you say so, Audrey. But at this point, you'd say absolutely anything to convince yourself you can still win this.

The truth is, you can't win this, you capitulated long ago, and thus lost the moment you wrote your post.

Isn't reality fun?

Audrey II said...

3 replies now where Ross has run away from the challenge to support his claim, and counting.

There's another difference between you and I. I'm not here to "win" anything. No wonder you're so keen on employing assholish rhetoric.

There's an easy way for you to show that you're right: Put Goldberg's argument into standard form and demonstrate its logical validity. If, on the other hand, all you're going to do is keep on blustering and running away from supporting your own position, I'm quite content to continue drawing attention to it.

Patrick Ross said...

Right, Audrey, right. And I totally believe you when you say you don't care about winning.

And you're really nobody at all to be making challenges, let alone lecturing people about meeting them.

What you need to understand is that you accusing me of running away from a challenge I can't even begin to respect comes from a person I can't even begin to respect.

It means nothing in the slightest.

Not to mention I'd be indulging you in your little game of willful ignorance, which I'm not about to do.

Maybe you should think about meeting the challenges issued to you before issuing any challenges. There's a mighty fine idea.

It's becoming pretty evident that you're intent to continuing to live the life of an intellectual coward, and it's actually kind of boring, so I'm going to explain to you how the rest of this is going to work.

I've achieved my objective in this thread -- revealling the fact that you continue to refuse to familiarize yourself with Goldberg's work before trying to criticize it (in fewer words, you don't know what you're talking about).

Now your ducking and weaving has become really, really boring. So I'm going to move on to more interesting things. You and Sparkles will comiserate for a while until you can convince yourselves you totally pwned me and I'll be off somewhere else laughing at how incredibly deluded you are.

Then, the next time you spout off about ideas you know nothing about, I'll come back and highlight your willful ignorance all over again. Sparky will bloviate, posting rants multiple paragraphs long, I'll laugh at him again, and when I've achieved my objective (again), I'll move on to more interesting things.

Repeat you and Sparkles whining a while longer, and repeat the whole mess all over again.

So on that note: dance, Zombie! Dance!

Audrey II said...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, "Cash Kid". You've already shown that when you've committed yourself to an a priori conclusion of triangles and no deficits, a reality of octagons budget problems won't get in your way.

This bizarre requisite that one must be someone that Patrick Ross respects before they can issue a challenge is an even more pathetic explanation for your above failure than the "I'm bored" routine you tried. Who do you think you're actually fooling?

You've yet to identify anything about Goldberg's tweet that I'm "unfamiliar" with and you've yet to supply a logically valid summary of Goldberg's argument. In true Rhetoric-of-assholery form, you've prematurely declared "I win" while impotently failing to much more than bluster and chest thumping.

Unlike you, "Thunderbolt", I don't need to declare victory over and over and over again. I'm content to let you hang your own arguments and draw to attention to the spectacle of it all.

BTW, that's 4 replies now where Ross has run away from the challenge to support his claim, and counting.

Sparky said...

Patrick doesn't have to support his claim. Ever.
That's just the way it is--Patrick's reality.
See, us 'intellectual mortals' really don't get the complexity of those that have 'intellectual heftiness'--the likes of Patrick and Jonah...
When Jonah tweets, "Dems want a health system that says when you can knee surgery, but demand abortion coverage because women should control their bodies", Patrick is 'intellectually hefty' enuf to read past the grammatical gaffes, the logical fallacies the inconsistent-with-reality suppositions that Goldberg makes and comes up with, well, whatever his smarty heftiness comes up with--which, by the way, he won't convey to us mere mortals 'cause, well, that's just not how it works!
Win for Patrick!
Of course, Patrick has never jumped on anyone 'on the left' for making grammatical gaffes, logical fallacies or inconsistent-with-reality suppositions. Ever. Because, if he did, that would be a little hypocritical.
Oh wait, this is Patrick we're talking about.
See, as always, IOKIYPR

Post a Comment