California week starts here, with a Southland Blogger who whings a lot and has no clue how Politics works.
Heck, Jason and Doug, feel free to make fun of this Blogger.
Let's start with Lonewacko's Blog:
1) NO BLOG ROLL -- Thus an island, alone, on the 'net.
2) No links to other Bloggers -- Again, an island. Why link or support when Loneewacko can't link?
3) Hates on Glenn Reynolds "Instapundit," who gives "Instalanches" to help other Bloggers -- he gets it. I've never heard of a Lonewackolanche.
Now let's have some fun, here is a typical Lonewacko comment found all along the 'net:
"The results were caused by, among other things, low turnout, the Dems cratering with the "white vote", fewer young people voting, and in general a decision to send a message to DC. They weren't caused by people suddenly deciding to be GOP or libertarian teaparty types, no matter how delusional the latter group wants to be.
"And, the long-term trends are against the GOP due to the mass immig. that their leaders worked with the far-left to bring about. GWB is responsible for 5 million new illegal aliens and they might end up voting and their U.S. citizen children certainly will. And, the leaders of the teaparties also support mass immig. In other words, the teaparty base is following people whose policies reduce their power (in addition to raising their taxes). Stupid? Yes, the teaparties are incredibly stupid, even if those who are using them tell them otherwise.
...
"Because teapartiers are vile idiots (see the link to follow) I have to point out that there's a 99% chance that any replies to this comment from 'partiers will be full of lies and smears. That's who they are and what they do. No teapartier has ever been able to present a valid, logical counter-argument to anything I've ever written. Instead, all they can do is lie and smear. That's part of the reason why I encouraged everyone to hold their noses and vote for every one of their opponents. And, I'm basing that on covering politics for over eight years in over 9000 posts. I have never seen a more malignant group than the teapartiers. See my site for all the details."
Lonewacko is referring to this post:
I'm also making these specific recommendations:
* I very strongly urge everyone to vote for or encourage others to vote for Mark Kirk. The last thing we should want is his opponent in the U.S. Senate. Yet, the teaparty "patriots" are largely ignoring that race because they feel that Kirk is a RINO.
* I also urge everyone to vote for or support Tom Tancredo for Colorado governor. That's a three-fer: it would be a strike against illegal immigration supporters, the teaparties, and the GOP establishment. (Note that some leaders are part of two or all of those groups).
* UPDATE: I forgot to add another person I urge you to vote for: Jan Brewer.
* In every other race, vote for the Democrat. That includes Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.
So, Lonewacko's ONLY issue is hating Illegal Immigrants and he is willing to vote every Liberal (who support the Right to make every Illegal Immigrant a voter) in to shoot down the Tea Party, a band of Fiscal Conservatives.. Confused? Don't be, here is the next episode of Lonewacko idiocy!
"This guide briefly explains how to ask politicians and political leaders tough questions. These are the types of questions that politicians fear, the ones that will reveal the flaws in their policies and their lies. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is completely corrupt and refuses to ask really difficult questions. That means that the rest of us have to fill in the gap. After asking one of your questions, upload the response to video sharing sites and promote it."
Dude or dudette, politicians are people. People who have a lot of friends who vote for them. They are elected because they know how to get past stupid (or "smart" questions). Heck, before you even sit in a room with a politician, they might fill the seats with their partisan allies so you won't be able to ask your "smart," question.
In politics, it helps to understand human nature. Not something Lonewacko understands.
Another sign of not knowing your fellow American voters:
"Leaders of the Tea Party "Patriots" and the New American "Patriots" - together with the gay group GOProud and Tammy Bruce - have written an open letter to the GOP urging them to avoid "social issues". Instead, they want the GOP to concentrate on their message of "economic freedom".
"Obviously, what they want is incredibly poor strategy and in line with all the other stupidity surrounding the tea parties movement."
So, according to Lonewacko, everyone in America is stupid for not following his/her issue, but he is not allying with anyone because they are stupid for not supporting his/her issue.
Politics is about coalitions. Lonewacko shows ignorance of his/her own local politicos. Does Lonewacko know who is the Chair of his or her local Central Committee? Has Lonewacko built any coalitions to bring his/her issue to the fore? Heck, does Lonewacko KNOW HOW to build a coalition?
NOPE -- thus, Lonewacko is the stupidest Blogger on the Whole Political 'net.
Even in the Blog Post describing Lonewacko's main issue: Stopping Illegal immigration shows no understanding of how Politics and policies work.
My question: Why is Lonewacko an idiot when it comes to Politics and Blogging?
UPDATE 9:01PM PST: Hello Insty Readers! Explore and enjoy the Valley! And I also fixed the font too!
Tiny fonts kill my eyes!
ReplyDelete* I very strongly urge everyone to vote for or encourage others to vote for Mark Kirk. The last thing we should want is his opponent in the U.S. Senate. Yet, the teaparty "patriots" are largely ignoring that race because they feel that Kirk is a RINO.
ReplyDeleteToo funny. I'm a very strong TEA and I encouraged my readers to vote for Kirk.
And some guy in the comments here was taking a swipe at me for doing it. (Kirk not libertarian enough).
Go to the link to find my answer.
Short version: Kirk won.
Oh yeah. What is with the tiny fonts? And white on blue. Or worse blue on blue. Don't they teach readability at your page layout school?
ReplyDeleteM,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments!
Well, I've been using these same colors and fonts since I started the Valley in March of 06, I even got 'lanched a few times since then.
However, the link colors are Purple on Blue, it can be seen.
And muy other explenation:
'm also a Goth, so the dark colors fit.
Thanks for visiting!
The Lonewacko -- a Coalition of One!!!
ReplyDelete[For a Reason]
I'm kind of assuming I've also seen his comments on other blogs under a different nom d' web since the rants are all but identical.
I don't think that your post is terribly effective because it's too scattershot and laden with internal logical inconsistencies. If you want to attack a blogger then do it properly and don't offer up a hatchet job which fails in its mission.
ReplyDeleteSo, according to Lonewacko, everyone in America is stupid for not following his/her issue, but he is not allying with anyone because they are stupid for not supporting his/her issue.
The correctness of a proposition is not determined by how many people support or oppose the proposition. It very well could be that people are stupid for not supporting this guy's proposition. Your line of argument doesn't undercut his proposition. In fact, you don't address the merits of his position at all and for someone who bills himself as "The most Dangerous Conservative Activist on Earth" your tactic of employing a logical fallacy doesn't make you look so dangerous.
As for the second part of the quote, you're guilty of the very thing you accuse this LoneWacko of doing. You're not allying with him because you view him as stupid. He's monomaniacal on his issue, which is fine, but that turns your off. Your argument is that he should reach out and form coalitions because doing so is a testament to his political sophistication. The thing is though, LoneWacko doesn't appear to be too interested in furthering his reputation for political sophistication, that's your goal. You're judging him for not meeting your standards of how to operate in the political realm and yet in this very post you're targeting someone for ridicule when you should be reaching out to him to draw him into your political coalition. How smart does that make you look?
You write "Now let's have some fun" and then you quote this comment left by LoneWacko.
"The results were caused by, among other things, . . . . .
When you write "Now let's have some fun" you're teasing the reader with the expectation that you're doing to disassemble the comment and show how ridiculous is the reasoning and conclusions. You didn't do that at all. His first paragraph has a number of defensible propositions. Plenty of analysts have opined that this election was not an endorsement of Republicans but was more a rejection of Democrats. Rubio and other politicians are making the same point.
In the 2nd paragraph he accurately describes GOP collusion in enabling illegal immigration. He draws a defensible conclusion that the votes of the illegals, when they become legal, and the votes of their children, will be directed towards liberals who have policy platforms that are predicated on racial identity politics and the redistribution of wealth and that should these events come to pass they will work against the interest of Republicans and Tea party activists. He states as fact that "the leaders of the teaparties also support mass immig." Do they? I don't know, but if they don't then you have some ground to ridicule LoneWacko or you could invoke the argument that the Tea party movement isn't a top down movement so it doesn't matter what they leaders of the movement believe, what matters is what the rank and file of the movement believe and you could link to some evidence of their position on illegal immigration to prove wrong his conclusion that they're slitting their own political throats. If you did that then you'd be having fun with highlighting LoneWacko's comment. But you didn't do that. I'm still waiting for the fun to begin.
ReplyDeleteOK, the third paragraph looks like it might provide some gold to mine. He's getting heated in his denunciations of the Tea party people. The fact that he's getting heated doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsity of what he's written. Have you invalidated his argument? No, you've just assumed that his heated rhetoric is sufficient proof of the invalidity of his argument. You then give us some background by pointing to another post.
In this post he makes his voting recommendations. From what you've presented his strategy doesn't look much different from the strategy used by many conservatives in the '06 and '08 elections - punish the conservatives who aren't holding to "true conservative" principles and elect liberals and this will teach future conservative politicians that they must advocate "true conservative" principles if they wish to earn the support of conservative voters. Many conservatives have learned the hard bitter truth that comes part and parcel with this strategy - that it is better to live with RINOS than to have liberals elected in their stead. LoneWacko apparently hasn't learned this truth or doesn't believe it, but he's certainly not alone. Even Tea party activists hold this position when they elected O'Donnell instead of Castle in the primary. LoneWacko wants true blue immigration restrictions or nothing in order to teach the conservative base that to earn their support a candidate must be a hawk on immigration restriction.
I'm still waiting for the fun to begin. If you're really "The most Dangerous Conservative Activist on Earth" then you punch like a girl. Look, I get that this LoneWacko is a one-issue gadfly and if you wanted to take him down a notch, then you should have ripped apart his arguments or made a case that his, or anyone's, monomaniacal focus on a single issue results in people tuning out the message because the messenger looks unbalanced. You didn't rip apart his arguments and you didn't make any case against him other than this attempt to smear with faulty logic. In fact, you've done more damage to your reputation than to his.
What the heck does "whing" mean? I see it everywhere and just can't figure out what it means. Can anyone enlighten me? Whine? It means whine? W-H-I-N-E.
ReplyDeleteCrap, that bugs me, dunno why. Just like loose instead of lose. Is English really that difficult?
This lonewacko guy needs a dose or two of whatever the blogging world's equivalent of lithium is. Might help him make a coalition of the voices in his head.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I have to agree with the other posts--tiny white font on blue background is kinda hard for my middle-aged eyes. Interesting content, tho!
He's just at troll. Ignore him and he'll go away. Or spend the last ounces of his insanity shouting into the void of irrelevance.
ReplyDeleteEither works.
LoneWacko does tend to confuse. Does that make me stupid because I am logical? Or worse, does that make me a Democrat because I am logical?
ReplyDeleteLonewacko has been around for ages. He used to post at Daily Pundit, too, but I haven't seen him around for quite a while.
ReplyDeleteThere is, beneath the obsessive ranting, some merit to his arguments about immigration, especially illegal immigration. That said, nobody pays attention to them any more, because most observers think he's exactly as his ironic appelation implies: A Lone Whacko.
But does irony apply when it seems to be the truth?
THT,
ReplyDeleteWhen Lonewacko has a Fundraising idea shot done by a Gubanatorial candidate, then we can talk about LW's influence.
LW's views and actions are contridictory -- he goes on every single Blog and asks "Why doesn't anyone fiollow MEEEEEEEEEE?"
LW has NO coalitions or Blogroll and holds contridictory positions. Calling everyone "Stupid," is not a way to make friends.
Unlike LW, I am active in real time trying to get both Bloggers and politicos to support my ideas.
I know who my Central Committee chairman is, LW does not.
And to all:
ReplyDeleteI gues I will be font changing during the week. This is Calif9rnia and Los Angeles week, so stay tuned on how and why the Red Tide did not hit here in the Southland.
Some of these posts this week will end up in an article. Stay Tuned.
And to quote Disreali: I must follow the people.
http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2008/09/tha-adventures-of-lonewacko.html
ReplyDeleteSo what's the problem? Lonewacko at least has candor on his side - he's alone, as you have documented, and he's wacko, as his own writings testify. No false advertising there, for sure.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't get is his bizarre claim that the Tea Party is colluding in the plot to pack illegals into the US. That's not a symptom of wackiness, it's a clue that brain damage may be involved.
This site wrote about me yesterday and got a link from Instapundit, and I didn't find out about it until now. That's some influence!
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't much to reply to here since Eugene Delacroix (do I have that right?) doesn't really say much.
But, Delacroix does lie.
You won't find me "hating Illegal Immigrants".
And, Delacroix is lying when he claims I wanted to vote in "Liberals". As it says at that post "the GOP is going to have big wins across the U.S. no matter what. I'm simply suggesting going against that trend in order to send a message." Can't Delacroix read and understand?
Regarding smart questions, Delacroix clearly isn't smart enough to realize what a smart question is, and how smart questioners can show how someone's argument is faulty. What politicians say is full of holes and they're able to get away with it because the MSM lets them. Delacroix isn't standing against that.
Regarding building coalitions, that's not my forte. It'd be great to find others who are more meet-and-greet types to help me build a coalition. Heck, even Delacroix might be able to do that, except he's shown above that he just isn't that smart.
As for the disclaimer about "vile idiots", I've included that or similar in comments because every single teapartier who's replied to any of my comments have shown themselves to be vile idiots: they lie, they mislead, they smear, and they're completely unable to present a valid, logical argument against anything I've ever written. Delacroix' content-free post is no different.
P.S. The Urkobold link is from when I used to comment at Reason. I stopped after a particularly vile smear, and none of those at Reason - contributors or commenters - were ever able to present a valid argument to anything I wrote: 24ahead.com/s/reason-magazine
P.P.S. "tom swift" is another example of muddled thinking. I'm not claiming that the base of the teaparties is "colluding" to encourage illegal immigration. My claim is that they're useful idiots for those who do in fact support mass/illegal immigration. They're going along with them by doing things like largely ignoring the issue for over a year. That isn't the same as "colluding".
LW,
ReplyDeleteBut you forget that any politician can put their allies in the room and leave your questions out in the cold.
Unless you live in the Beltway, you don't have that chance.
And keep calling everyone who isn't you "Stupid," you won't have anyone following your views.
Take some lessons in leadership first befoe you ask others to follow ON EVERTY SINGLE BLOG YOU COMMENT ON.
Here's a quick leadership lesson for you:
1) Sometimes you have to follow others to get it. and
2) If you don't support anyone else's windmills, no one is going to support yours.
have fun whinging around the 'net looking for followers.
The Tea Party isn't ignoring the issue of illegal immigration. If you can't hear what they're clearly saying, that's hardly their fault.
ReplyDeleteObviously, illegal immigration isn't the Tea Party's top issue - solvency is. If the US, through gross financial mismanagement, is reduced to third-world status, the illegal immigration problem will most likely fix itself - who would want to move to a bankrupt country filled with bankrupt employers? Solvency first, other policies later. It's not all that mysterious.
When Lonewacko has a Fundraising idea shot done by a Gubanatorial candidate, then we can talk about LW's influence.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that he, you and your audience were discussing his goal of increasing his influence. I get that this is a theme to your argument, but if the dude isn't focused on raising his influence, then you can hardly fault him for failing to achieve influence. It appears to me that his principal mission is to get out a message.
Secondly, he may be employing a sophisticated messaging strategy, even if inadvertently. If his principal mission is to get more people working to stop illegal immigration then it doesn't matter if he personally is credited with influence so long as his ideas get into circulation. He could be following a triangulation strategy - he offers himself up to be denounced by those in the middle who accept his arguments but can point to him and say "At least I'm not as bad as him" as they work to convince the undecided. Clinton and welfare reform is a classic example of this technique. Clinton could sell it because he wasn't as bad as those "Awful, uncaring, cold-hearted Republicans." Did the Republicans care about how Clinton described them as he triangulated off of them or did he care more for actually getting welfare reform passed?
LW's views and actions are contridictory -- he goes on every single Blog and asks "Why doesn't anyone fiollow MEEEEEEEEEE?"
I don't know anything about that. If he does this, then your post failed at making this the case against him. Write another post and provide evidence.
LW has NO coalitions or Blogroll and holds contridictory positions. Calling everyone "Stupid," is not a way to make friends.
You've simply asserted that his goal is to build a blogroll and form coalitions. Yes, I get that you think that these are essential benchmarks which indicate that a person has some influence over others, but it's not clear to me that LW thinks these are important achievements which take precedence over the positions he espouses. Like I noted in my earlier comments, it seems that you're criticizing him for not following the path that you're following.
Unlike LW, I am active in real time trying to get both Bloggers and politicos to support my ideas.
Good for you. Have you ever offered yourself up so that others could triangulate off of you? It seems that you have a vision that marries your ideas to your advocacy of those ideas. It seems to me that LW is more interested in his ideas getting exposed to a wide audience than he is in getting credit for his ideas.
I know who my Central Committee chairman is, LW does not.
Good for you, but so what? There are multiple paths that people can follow in order to achieve their political aims. You're following your preferred path, he's not, he's following another path, a path you either don't understand or don't support.
TWT,
ReplyDeleteTo get any idea across and get other people to like and follow them, you have to "play well with others,"
LW has proven otherwise.
LW would rather call everyone "Stupid," then actually doing the hard work of convincing others of those ideas.
It's not riocket science, but to LW apparently it is.
If LW can stop going 'round the 'net calling everyone idiots, he might actually have some support for his ideas, I've told LW of his errors and continues to persist in his own idiocy.
For that, there is no cure.
To get any idea across and get other people to like and follow them, you have to "play well with others,"
ReplyDeleteYou've constructed a compound proposition. Point #1 AND Point #2 require that one "play well with others."
You may be right but only if LW is interested in following your compound model. It's not clear to me that if his goal is only Point #1, "to get ideas across" that he has to "play well with others." The Minutemen who patrol the border are not working to build coalitions and become political players, they're only interested in controlling the border. People demonize them for being vigilantes and racists but those criticisms have no impact for the group's efforts work to highlight the loose border and the news that they create allows others, like Gov. Brewer, to take action without specifically endorsing citizen patrols and the other tactics of the Minutemen. The point is that they're not "playing nice" and yet they are effective in pushing a message.
LW would rather call everyone "Stupid," then actually doing the hard work of convincing others of those ideas.
As others in this comment thread have already noted, his ideas do have merit. He's just in a position where he can't take them any further. For me, I don't need someone to hold my hand and be nice to me and flatter me and what not in order to get me to pay attention to their ideas. The merit of the ideas will speak for themselves. If I accept LW's ideas on illegal immigration I don't need to champion him as a leader. I can accept his ideas and propel them into my own political networks. I can say "Good ideas LW but you're too much a lone wacko in order to be the face of the ideas. You've done good and now I'm going to take your ideas and mainstream them." I doubt that he would be personally crushed by my not accepting him as the figurehead for some movement so long as the movement progresses.
This is just sad, but:
ReplyDelete1. Of course pols will stack the audience with their supporters. Yet, Youtube has hundreds of examples of people asking pols questions from the other side. The problem is that those questions aren't that good (or they're just tantrums and not real questions). This site - and almost no other r/w blog that I know of - isn't encouraging better questions. In most cases they just encourage stupid behavior: waving signs, throwing tantrums, etc.
2. I don't call people and things "stupid" gratuitously; they have to actually say or do something stupid first.
3. It's probably best that why I do things a certain way remains a mystery to most. Those who figure it out and who want to oppose illegal immigration can tweet me @24AheadDotCom.
TWT and LW,
ReplyDeleteThese are the last words on this subject (for now):
"Playing well with others," is the only way to get ideas across. When LW jumps on other people's Blog's and calls those who don't support him "Idiots," he loses support.
He goes onto multiple blogs looking for people to follow him. By giving every excuse in the book why LW should only look out for LW, I laugh at his so-called superior intellect.
Thread the needle anyway you like, LW's repputation in the Blogosphere is lower then mine, no matter what you write.
I stick to my ideas and ideals, but I am able to get more people onboard because I don't dun them to death (as LW does very well).
There is a tale of two bands I know in LA -- one band only networks with those who have already suceeded and is not well known among the music scene on Sunset.
My friend's band works with others and plays all across the basin and in other parts of the country. because my fried plays well with others, her band gets more gigs then band mentioned above.
keep that in mind.
And finally, anyone who says what they do is a "mystery," has pulled out the "poser," card forevermore. Be tranparent and let the world in, maybe you might get a friend or two in the Blogosphere.
We're done.