Thursday, June 16, 2005

Jim Young has apparently felt the need to comment on our blog over at Skeptical Observer. I will leave it to you readers to comment on this one. But just so he knows, we're not all Prince William GOP posters. If we were then we would probably be a Blog dedicated to PWC Issues and not all of No Va. ... Yes I know by posting this I give him the attention he so desperately craves. Such is how things go.

17 Comments:

At 6/16/2005 12:05:00 PM, Blogger Mitch Cumstein said...

It's official! I am a cowardly squish. Oh well, I've certainly been called worse by much better people. I even had a dog once that looked at me in a sort of crooked way. And, no, the dog's name was not Nixon.

 
At 6/16/2005 12:57:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Mitch, nothing I haven't said elsewhere.

And if I'm the one who "so desperately craves" attention, why are you in the blogosphere?

And Y'ALL have criticize ME for questioning motives?!?!

You squishes are just rich. And cowards. If you can't post under your own names, you probably don't have anything which does your name credit by being associated with it. And if you can't face the consequences of being identified with your remarks/attacks, then you are, indeed, cowards.

Who could it be, I wonder? O.P. Ditch? Hector Quintana? One or both of the Nohes? Buck Waters? Jim Cech? Jim Caddigan? While the possibilities aren't endless, they are predictable.

 
At 6/16/2005 01:00:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And cowards -- I don't need to blog to get attention. My professional work and credentials, as well as my family, provide me with all the "attention" I might want ... the former, too much, frequently.

 
At 6/16/2005 01:03:00 PM, Anonymous Pachyderm Princess said...

James, what does it matter if we use our real names or not, you'll resort to name-calling and slander either way...and this way is much more fun.

 
At 6/16/2005 01:10:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6/16/2005 01:18:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh, princess, people like you keep making these broad accusations yet you offer no proof! Your little hate campaigns are so flattering, if as vacuous as your little head!

 
At 6/16/2005 04:26:00 PM, Anonymous James Young's Saggy Ballsack said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 6/16/2005 04:43:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Gee, where are those guardians of public morality who rail against me? I guess it's just another hypocrisy coming from liber... er, "moderates."

But JYSB's post isn't surprising. I hear K.C.'s in Manassas is where all the cowardly losers were on Tuesday night. Like I said on a post on my own blog, the types of people who support you say a lot about you.

The level of your hateful rhetoric also reveals much. Like about how much you fear anyone who has insight and tells the truth about you and the candidates you support.

 
At 6/16/2005 04:56:00 PM, Anonymous mitch's wife said...

Jim Young states that Pachyderm Princess fails to provide proof that he will resort "to name-calling and slander" and then states that she has a "vacuous little head."

Isn't his own statement proof enough?

Hmmmm?

 
At 6/16/2005 05:56:00 PM, Anonymous Pachyderm Princess said...

Coward, vacuous as your little head, cowardly losers- Pot thy name is kettle.

Also, why on the other blog is RD (hardly a name) praised for not "hiding behind anonymity." Please James, I expect better...no I don't.

 
At 6/16/2005 10:29:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

I for one, welcome any and all GOP blogs dedicated to VA politics. We may all argue and some may genuinely dislike others within the party as well, but the bottom line is that we all have some commonality that has drawn us into the Republican Party. I actually just found this blog on account of the link from Jim Young's blog.

I don't see the divide here being moderate vs. conservative (or liberal vs. ultra right-wing) as much as I think that the two camps are divided into the ideologically pure one and the pragmatic one. One side says we have to be true to our party's ideals at almost any cost otherwise what good is it having them while the other side says let's look at the best way to advance our party's agenda by electing our candidates first and then getting things done piece by piece.

I would propose that each side needs the other to some degree. The ideaologues help advance the issues that our party needs to run on while the pragmatists help frame things from an electoral perspective to get our candidates into office so they can govern.

Now, I understand that tensions are still running high from the primaries. I was 2 for 3 myself statewide being a Connaughton supporter. I have friends that went 0 for 3 while others went 3 for 3. (I don't know of anyone who went 1 for 3, though, but I'm sure they're out there.) Do I want Bolling to win the Lt. Gov. race now that he is the nominee? Of course. Would I ever support him in a contested primary for anything else? Probably not. (Sign me up for McDonnell for Governor '09 right now.)

The bottom line is that we don't all have to agree on everything and we don't even all have to work on behalf of the same candidates. I'm sure that many Connaughton supporters will work for either Kilgore of the generic statewide ticket, but not for Bolling specifically. By the same token, I'm sure that there are some of those people who supported Bolling simply because they wanted to defeat Sean will not be as involved in Bolling's fall campaign now that their main objective has been fulfilled.

Let's keep our eye on who the real enemy is -- Little Timmy, Looney Leslie and the Other Dude.

 
At 6/16/2005 11:46:00 PM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Your dead on Jim. Welcome to the Blog and hope you post regularly.

 
At 6/17/2005 12:49:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

I'm sure there's history here that I am blissfully unaware of, but:

If you are all going to use pseudonyms so you can't be identified in the real world, it doesn't seem reasonable to ridicule Jim Young for his speculation about the scope of the bloggers here being PWC.

The claim that "If we were then we would probably be a Blog dedicated to PWC Issues and not all of No Va." isn't logical: If you were all PWC bloggers, and also used pseudonyms to hide your real identifies, you could also be expected to hide the scope of your interests by using a "pseudonym" for the blog itself, so as to help hide identities.

It is clear that some of those blogging on this site have a detailed knowledge of what happens in PWC and are certainly PWC posters.

And I don't see how making fun of a person's dead dog, especially when that person isn't participating here and has no relation to the person you are attacking, is good form, especially for a person writing under a pseudonym.

Charles R.

 
At 6/17/2005 09:48:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, princess and mitch's wife, apparently you don't understand the difference between describing attributes ("coward," surmised from hiding in anonymity; "empty little head," surmised from your inability to distinguish the two) surmised from behavior, perhaps in a well-deserved ridiculing tone, and name-calling.

And thank you for proving my point. The best you could come up with was that?!?! When you choose to hide behind a pseudonym, don't be surprised when others come up with their own, more accurate ones.

As for "slander"? First, you can't slander someone who cowers in anonymity. Second, anyone who believes that they've been "slandered" by me (and I've heard some scandalous things about some about whom I have written that I HAVEN'T used) should sue me. As you well know, you'd be laughed out of court, and probably pay for my attorney, as well. I, on the other hand, would have cause to do so ... if you cowards weren't afraid to attach your names to your slanders and hate campaigns.

I know you guys hate insight, especially insights into yourselves. They're usually the most painful kind, which is why you pseudo-conservative "moderates" have launched repeated hate campaigns against me. The truth hurts, especially when it's truth about your motives and the frequent emptiness of your strategies.

 
At 6/17/2005 10:09:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Jim Riley: Of course, one reason you have earned my respect is your willingness to attach your name to your posts. To be certain, I have and will disagree with you. But you cannot be criticized as a coward.

You comment that "the bottom line is that we all have some commonality that has drawn us into the Republican Party." Sadly, there are some who have been drawn to the GOP by its electoral success and now, having been welcomed, demand that it abandon its principles, which go beyond "let's get our guys elected." I would distinguish between the likes of the late Gerry Cleary (I don't think you knew him) who was a former union boss and prominent Democrat, and certain of the self-styled "moderates" now so hypercritical of those who brought the PWC GOP to its current dominance.

And I would dispute your assessment of the divide. I have much more respect for a "liberal" argument well and honestly made than for one that tries to dress itself up as "conservative." My main criticism about Chairman Sean has always been his attempt to misrepresent himself as a tax-cutter.

I'm never against an appropriate compromise. But the key word there is "appropriate." So-called "moderates" who lack the foresight to recognize when they are empowering and perpetuating their enemies by the grant of special privileges or allowing them to set the terms of the debate -- Sean's comments about unions at the PW Committee of 100 debate are a case in point; his failure to demand that County bureaucrats write a budget which does not include a massive spending increase is another -- evidence: (a) woeful ignorance; or (b) active opposition to fundamental principles.

And I agree that each side needs the other to a degree. I have no doubt that many of the cowards posting here anonymously have or will come to me when they need something, and what they fear is appropriate treatment were they to be identified.

And shame on you, Jim! Such name calling of our esteemed Democrat rivals! I wonder if the self-appointed guardians of ... some principle or another will attack you (as they have attacked me), or give you a pass because they see you as a friend. Or is it a "principle" of convenience?

You know, one reason I provoked the ire of Ella Shannon a few years back was because I wouldn't criticize Steve Keen when he resigned from the GOP Committee because he couldn't support "all of the Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election." Was his failure to support that individual a wise choice? I think not. But within that rubric, his action was a choice worthy of recognition for its integrity. I was attacked because I wouldn't criticize him in a paroxysm of partisan bile. Funny, isn't it?

 
At 6/17/2005 12:21:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Well, no sooner than I blog about this than the Washington Times runs a story about Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and founder of the Free Congress Foundation that mirrors what I wrote:

When Paul M. Weyrich came to Washington 40 years ago, the conservative movement was largely a playpen for right-wing intellectuals.

He helped bring it structure, discipline and, gradually, dominance over the Republican Party, which has been winning elections ever since.

Mr. Weyrich, the founder and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said conservatism, though built on ideas, is not an ideology.

"It's anti-ideology, a way of looking at the world, a way of life," he explained.

What's more, "conservatism gets off course when it becomes an ideology," he said

Full storey can be found here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050617-125248-4355r

 
At 6/17/2005 01:07:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

Jim R. - I went 1 for 3.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home