Saturday, January 21, 2006

Hugh Hewitt

We have had a lot of blog attendance lately due to a very popular blog linking to us. Hughhewitt is a great conservative website, previously unknown to me. Head on over and check it out, they link to a post by Riley.

39 Comments:

At 1/21/2006 02:13:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

"Hugh Hewitt is a great conservative website, previously unknown to me."

You need to work on your pandering/shout out skills, TC.

 
At 1/21/2006 02:31:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TC, I'm going to post this comment, from James Young's blog, over here for posterity. I'm sure he'll delete it when he sees it. Do whatever you want with it.

"Crude is the least of your worries with Mr. Young, TC.

I'm crude sometimes; I don't have a problem admitting it.

This guy, Young, admits to supporting discrimination where he thinks it is worthwhile. He supports legislation to effectively enforce this discrimination.

He is currently trying to pressure anonymous posters on blogs to reveal their true identities. For what exact purpose, I don't know, but I suspect he is considering physical intimidation, or some surveillance of his own, since he is a lawyer and can probably procure some access.

TC, you have already experienced his off-the-wall hostility at you for not being conservative enough (in his mind). To me, you are far right already, but to him you are almost as liberal as me. Think about how twisted a viewpoint that is.

So anyway, TC, those are some of my thoughts. I'll save this post, and maybe post it over at your blog too for posterity."

 
At 1/21/2006 03:36:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

willis, which policies does he support that are discriminatory? just curious....

 
At 1/21/2006 03:54:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

His ones on gays.

On commonewealth conservative, Mr.Young..an attorney..

made a joke about "fudgepackers"

 
At 1/21/2006 04:06:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Willis-

Why do you attack me?

Who are you even?

If you have a problem with something on the site..don't read it.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:11:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Nah, I'll respond to it.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:12:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

neocon, James has argued in the past, in favor of legislative discrimination. Of course, he will probably come on here later to defend those very views. Suffice it to say, he supports lawful discrimination in a number of cases.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:21:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

TC: I wasn't attacking you with that first comment. I just thought it was amusing that you said hughhewitt was a great blog, which you previously had no idea existed.

A little strange wording for a compliment, I thought, that was all. I wasn't trying to rip you.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:28:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Poor willis! So ignorant and ill-educated that he chooses to DISCRIMINATE against those who have ideas he doesn't like. Oooooh, that evil discrimination. God forbid people and society should make choices about good ideas/behavior and bad/perverse ideas/behavior. FYI: I also "discriminate" against pedophiles, rapists, burglars, and murderers. You support discrimination, too, willis: discrimination against devout Christians and those who respect the considered wisdom of 5000 years of civilized societies on homosexuality. "Discrimination" is a perfectly fine word that has gotten a bad rap, and is now being used in the service of legitimizing perverse sexual behavior.

And BTW, I'm not arguing in favor of "legislative discrimination" against anyone. I'm arguing against enacting special rights for homosexuals, i.e., redefining marriage as something it's never been.

As for "currently trying to pressure anonymous posters on blogs to reveal their true identities," I have LONG taken the position that anonymity is largely cowardly, and that people who don't have the guts to put their names on their posts (apparently, unlike you) should be called on it. Many agree; some don't. And "off the wall hostility"? You're more of a "lunatic" than you accuse me of being. Have I had disagreements with TC? To be sure. Do I occasionally twist his tail? With relish. But hostility? In fact, TC and I had a very cordial introduction at Tom Davis' Christmas party. No blows were exchanged. And please spare me your ridiculous assessments of my views of him. In fact, I think he seems to be a pretty nice kid.

And "crude," willis? Maybe, when it's called for. Humor (it was a reference in CC's caption contest) is sometimes crude. But in the case to which you refer, in reference to a movie about homosexual cowboys (John Wayne must be turning in his grave) and a sexual act popular among male homosexuals, accurate. And a little dose of reality for those who romanticize homosexuals and their "cause."

 
At 1/21/2006 04:38:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

There we go, like the sun sets, I knew James Young would be here to defend legislative discrimination.

And, for the record, James, I have never thought that christians, or any religious group, should be discriminated against. I do think religion and its mis-use is one of the biggest problems with society today, but I would never advocate discrimination against individuals because of it.

And, the latter part of his post, defending his use of the term "fudgepacking", is self-explanatory, I think. It's ashame, Mr. Young gives a bad name to the Virginia bar.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:39:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I do not have spite for Jim Young.

I will attest to that.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:50:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

(see post #51)

Here, you can find Mr. Young's "fudgepack mountain" comment, along with a none too veiled threat directed at me.

Is it really a wonder, James, that some of us wish to remain anonymous??

I don't trust your sanity. You can't blame me for that.

 
At 1/21/2006 04:59:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Threat, willis?!?!? Yeah, that picture was actually me, with a gun, looking for you.

Oh, grow up.

And an advocate for perverting the language by calling a homosexual pairing "marriage" has no authority in questioning another's sanity.

As for it being "a wonder ... that some of us wish to remain anonymous," I have no doubt that it's because you don't want your ridiculous statements attributed to you. I am perfectly happy to have my comments attributed to me.

 
At 1/21/2006 05:07:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

First off, James, I don't owe you anything. I don't have to let you know my true identity, even if you were a clear-thinking, rational individual.

Since you are, in reality, a crazy man, an advocate of legislative discrimination, posting veiled threats towards me, well, I think that would make ME insane if I were to give you my identity.

It isn't cowardly at all; it is common sense. You don't give out your identity to lunatics. And that is what you are, James: a lunatic.

 
At 1/21/2006 05:57:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

i do not always agree with jim young, however, i do not believe him making a joke (a crude one) is him supporting discriminatory policies. i'm wondering if you have any other cases in which he has supported discriminatory policies. not attacking you willis, just wondering what cases you're refrencing.

 
At 1/21/2006 06:10:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

From one of his recent posts over at his blog: "Discrimination" is a perfectly fine word that has gotten a bad rap, and is now being used in the service of legitimizing perverse sexual behavior.

I don't have the time to search through his posts for more examples at the moment, but I'll get back to it.

 
At 1/21/2006 08:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Young has stated point blank on this blog that any employer should be able to fire an employee on the sole basis of that employee being gay.

 
At 1/21/2006 10:22:00 PM, Blogger Ben Kyber said...

I've had my share of issues with Jim Young.

He did once accuse me of being a political operative posing as a high school student.

This, however, is ridiculous.

Our blogosphere is not the place for personal attacks. We come on here, read opinions of people we disagree with, analyze them, and debate their merits and flaws. Enough of the personal attacks. Willis and Jim Young are both guilty of it. You guys want to debate policy? Lets debate policy.

I know the response this comment will get from Jim. He's probably going to accuse me of personally attacking him because I've stated that I think some of his comments on my blog have been somewhat bigoted. I mean that only from a policy standpoint. I doubt that Jim is really a bigot, I only think that the legislation he advocates is bigoted in nature. There's a big difference.

This whole feud just crosses the line.

As for the "fudgepacker" comment, Jim SHOULD apologize for that. It was insensative, but lets just get the apologies over with and call a truce. I'm tired of watching this stuff. It makes me yearn for the good old days when I would just get on, read Bacon's Rebellion, disagree with the vast majority of points, and make my own.

Lets keep our blogosphere civil, gentlemen. I plead you. Accept this truce, and stop attacking one another.

 
At 1/21/2006 11:28:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I don't recall saying that, Anon 8:40, so I'd demand some evidence.

But if employers can fire employees for tobacco use (an irregularly popular issue among the far Left), then there is no principled reason why they can't fire one for homosexual behavior. 'Course, if the individual had the whit to keep his private sexual behavior private, as it belongs, there is little reason that an employer would have cause to do so.

And Ben, now that you've identified yourself, I have no cause to doubt the truth of your identification.

As to your accusation of "bigotry," or "bigoted" comments, you misuse the word "bigotry" in damning me with faint praise. I'm not intolerant of opinions which differ from my own (and in this sense, only legislation which stifles free speech is bigoted; defining marriage in its traditional sense certainly does not qualify). However, tolerating differing opinions differs significantly from allowing ridiculous assertions to go unanswered. So once again, the far Left is throwing around a loaded term as a weapon which has bears no relation to reality.

In the true sense of the word "bigotry," it is the far Left which is the most bigoted contingent in this debate. By far.

 
At 1/21/2006 11:40:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

BTW, Ben, according to my search, I've made precisely two comments on your website. If that's not accurate, let me know, but neither had anything to do with homosexual "marriage," and therefore cannot form a rational basis for the notion that "I've stated that I think some of his comments on my blog have been somewhat bigoted."

 
At 1/22/2006 12:24:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

arguements , arguements

 
At 1/22/2006 12:33:00 AM, Blogger Ben Kyber said...

I like how in two long posts, you just completely ignored all of the stuff i said about personally attacking people and about the need for a truce in this ridiculous exchange.

BTW, you've made two comments about the anti-gay marriage amendment alone in the past week at my blog.

In total, you've made 20 comments on Blue In VA.

Actually, you made the first comment ever posted @ 5:25 PM on July 14th, 2005.

Its all good though. Let's just move on here...

 
At 1/22/2006 07:45:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

This sorta stuff amuses me.

anon: "James Young has stated point blank on this blog that any employer should be able to fire an employee on the sole basis of that employee being gay."
James: "I don't recall saying that, Anon 8:40, so I'd demand some evidence. But if employers can fire employees for tobacco use (an irregularly popular issue among the far Left), then there is no principled reason why they can't fire one for homosexual behavior."

To paraphrase James: I didn't say that, I demand proof!!! But, I do support that kind of thing...

 
At 1/22/2006 11:51:00 AM, Blogger Ben Kyber said...

Willis...

Give it a rest...

 
At 1/22/2006 01:23:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Will do, at least until Mr. Young speaks up again. I'll be there to help him dig his grave.

 
At 1/22/2006 04:43:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Ben, you're factually correct; I did, and I stand corrected. To explain, I did a search of my name on your site (one of the vicissitudes of age is a failing memory), demonstrating, I suppose, the limits of searches in "blogger." Be forewarned.

Here's one of them: "Once again, a phoney 'equality' argument in favor of special rights for homos.

"Homos have exactly the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that you have, Ben. What this denies them is the power to rewrite the language to force acceptance of their perversion."

The second was a flip response to your first misuse of the term "bigotry" which, as noted above, denotes "intolerance of" --- note, not disagreement with --- "opinions which differ from one's own." It's a useful attack upon an opponent, to those who don't know the definition. Color me surprised that those who want to redefine marriage can't use "bigotry" correctly in a sentence.

As for you, willis, once again, you demonstrate your lack of capacity to understand a simple sentence. I never said "I do support that kind of thing"; I said that, in light of the notion that employees can suffer discrimination for the behavior of tobacco use, "There is no principled reason why they can't fire one for homosexual behavior." It's an inargument of the situational ethics of far Lefties. It's a logical argument, not an endorsement.

Better bone up on that reading comprehension before you take the SAT, willis. Unless I'm mistaken (could be), even Ben is laughing at you.

 
At 1/22/2006 04:56:00 PM, Blogger Ben Kyber said...

I'm not laughing.

This whole situation is disheartening and pathetic. You guys are really taking it down a notch.

 
At 1/22/2006 05:37:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Sorry, ben, but I reject your accusation that I have "tak[en] it down a notch." While I realize that a hazard among you lefties is moral equivalence (you don't remember the Cold War, but I do), 'fact is, I haven't: (1) called willis a "lunatic" on multiple occasions; (2) gone to his website and started posting peurile "Delete this post!" comments dozens of times; (3) thrown around charges like "bigotry," "discrimination," "I don't trust your sanity," suggested that willis is not "a clear-thinking, rationa individual"; or (4) misrepresented what he actually said (see his 7:45 a.m. "paraphrase."

I'd appreciate credit where credit is due before you declare a pox on both houses.

 
At 1/22/2006 06:31:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Well, you did 1) call me a homo-lover, 2) make the infamous "fudgepack mountain" comment, 3) insinuate that a guy with a gun was looking for me, 4) show your support for firing homosexuals based on nothing more than their homosexuality.

What a great guy you are!!!

 
At 1/22/2006 08:27:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Like I said, willis, I never misrepresented what you said. Were it that the same could be said of you. Two naked lies and two incredibly earnest responses to attempts at humor. That's a record, even for you.

You assert that I "call[ed you] a homo-lover." That is, of course, false. And even if I had, what would be wrong with that? How could someone who so actively supports the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name possible take offense at that? Latent decency? I would think that you would take pride if someone labeled you as such.

You also assert that I "ma[d]e the infamous "fudgepack mountain" comment." You have made it infamous, and fail to recognize that it was in the context of a humorous Caption Contest. I wonder what your response would be if Chris Rock had said it? Or Robin Williams? Not that I'm claiming to be as funny as either.

You asser that I "insinuate[d] that a guy with a gun was looking for me." See humor, attempted (n.).

Finally, you said that I "show [my] support for firing homosexuals based on nothing more than their homosexuality." Again, that is absolutely false; what I said was that there was no principled basis for allowing employers to discharge employees for homosexual BEHAVIOR if you accept the proposition that employers may discharge employees for tobacco use. But why let facts and point by point rebuttal get in the way of your slurs and falsehoods? You have a bright future with the far Lefties at Democratic Underground.

 
At 1/22/2006 08:31:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I would way perfer Mr.Youngs conservatism to Willis ultra-left personal smearing.

Mr.Young-

Whatever you need from me to help defeat Willis in this verbal battle, I am yours

 
At 1/22/2006 08:56:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, I appreciate the comments and the offer, but you know as well as I that it's not a matter of "defeat," or "victory." The best we can do is tell the truth. If the Conservative Movement has proven anything over the last fifty years, it's that the truth will out.

And on a personal note, I regret that this is played out here. I particularly regret that your site has gotten the traffic over mine! ;-)

 
At 1/22/2006 09:33:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

OK, correction. Turns out I put a post on my site which supports willis' assertion. In its entirety, it reads as follows:

Well, one of the first things that a parent learns is that children change things.

"Turns out that there's a homo-loving child out there who takes joy in making specious arguments against the considered wisdom of 5000 years of human civilization, and in name-calling against those who defend the language and traditional values. Goes by the name "Willis." He has posted "Delete this comment!!" and other peurile and sophomoric postings not fewer than three dozen times. I've had to delete more childish Willis postings than spam postings.

"Sooooo, from now on, I'll simply moderate the comments before they appear here. And Willis?

"Yours go straight into the trash can. Look at the bright side: it's probably the first thing you've ever earned in your life."

Well, I turned off the comment moderation (too annoying). Soooo, contrary to my 8:27 post, it was only one naked lie. Mea culpa. Chalk it up to severe frustration at a series of childish posts.

The question remains, however, given his ideology, why would willis take offense at this?

 
At 1/22/2006 09:49:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Because James "fudgepack mountain" Young, I don't like you.

 
At 1/22/2006 10:36:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

I'm just impressed I got a pull quote AND that I was above both the Manchester Union Leader and Peggy Noonan!

 
At 1/23/2006 12:04:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

TC, if you want to know what you could do for all of us trying to get at least a marginal value out of your blog, you could delete comments which are not on-topic and consist solely of personal attacks against a person who is not currently on the thread.

In this case, that would be the second comment by willis on this thread.

Willis came into a simple thread of self-congratulatory nature; his first comment was funny (and on-point: Surely there is something oxymoric of a personal endorsement of "great" for a website you had never heard of).

But his second "comment" was simply a personal attack on Jim, who wasn't active on this thread.

Willis has a personal dislike for Jim, as he has stated in this thread. But if you let him post his personal, unprovoked attacks, you are enabling his attacks.

So you, as the owner of this blog, need to step up. Or else you will end up with every one of your threads looking like this, with one poster making personal attacks against another reader, and that reader feeling a desire to defend themselves, followed by some well-meaning but pointless third poster (played in this thread by Ben) expressing a symetry of fault and calling for apologies all around.

Jim is abrasive. But in virtually every case (virtually meaning that there could be a few around that are exceptions), any personal attacks are embedded in a policy dispute.

 
At 1/23/2006 12:06:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Oh, and Riley -- congrats. Sorry that what should have been a place for all of us to pat you on the back was hijacked by the left for their own purposes.

 
At 1/23/2006 09:54:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

can't disagree with you there, ct.

 
At 1/23/2006 11:32:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

critically thinking-

Considering I get personally attacked all the time...and so does every candidate I like..

I think they can stay

 

Post a Comment

<< Home