89 Charles 1/21/08 1:05:49 pm 2 re: #88 cochise4c2
I don't know why reliapundit was banned at LGF...
But you could probably make a pretty good guess based on what he's been posting elsewhere.
- I WAS BANNED AT LGF BECAUSE I CRITICIZED CHARLES.
- THAT SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHARLES AND LGF.
- THE COMMENTS I POSTED AT LGF WHICH GOT ME BANNED WERE POSTED HERE AS FULL POSTS WITH LINKS.
- I STAND BY EVERY WORD.
Basically I have argued this: Garry Kasparov marches alongside the Russian Communist Party in rallies against Putin. The Russian CP is far FAR worse than the BNP or VB. Does this make Kasparov as bad as the CP, or wrong or stupid!? NO.
And if Kasparov is right to do that - and if FDR and WSC were right to be allies of Stalin in WW2, then Europeans who today are fighting "creeping sharia" are right to ally themselves with VB - and other even less savory parties.
I have also pointed out that Charles is hypocritical: Charles thinks it's fine if HE'S allied to leftists who hate Fallaci and Ayaan Ali Hirsi in order to fight counter-jihadists he thinks are racist. Charles doesn't require of himself that he only be allied to people with whom he agrees 100%. But Charles requires it of others.
If Charles doesn't have to agree with everything Oyvind Strommen ever wrote or currently believes, then the European counter-jihadists don't have to be in 100% agreement with each other.
In fact - from a moral war point-of-view - Charles is on much weaker ground, for he is allied with leftists to fight counter-jihadists, whereas Gates Of Vienna, for example, is allied with VB to FIGHT jihadists. The battle Charles has with BNP is of a much lower moral order than the fight Europe has with creeping sharia, dhimmitude and Islamicization. Charles's foe is a phantom - the BNP has injured no one and diminished nobody's rights; the foes of counter-jihadists are real.
IN CONCLUSION: (1) Charles is NOT more morally pure or principled for is stand than Gates of Vienna or FDR or Garry Kasparov. And (2) Charles - in his infantile (and hypocritical) quest for moral purity - is doing damage to the counter-jihad movement in Europe. This is bad and sad. And, (3) By banning people Charles further proves his outlook is basically infantile.
GO LIZARDOIDS GO!
Er um... as in go away.
OH AND CHARLES, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS DISCLAIMER OFF YOUR WEBSITE:
Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.Obviously - since you police the comments and commenters closely - this statement in NOT TRUE. The comments DO reflect you and your views and LGF. Or you wouldn't ban people you disagree with.
Either you reinstate everyone, or remove this disclaimer - or admit you are a hypocrite.
Your choice.
Gotchya! Heh.
*******UPDATE: LGF seems to love GEERT WILDERS. Which is a little odd because Geert is lumped together with VB (as islamophobic racists) by most of the euroleft that Charles seems to be taking his cues from. Here's what WIKI says about Geert's proposed policies (which I really like!):
I wonder if Charles approves of these proposals? The first one seems like it would be especially repugnant to Charles. If Charles doesn't approve, will he shun Geert like he does Gates of Vienna, or embrace him anyhow - as he does Strommen. Because Charles' position is hypocritical (and seemingly entirely arbitrary) it's impossible to predict.In recent interviews Geert Wilders more than once indicated that the Dutch constitution and European Convention on Human Rights should be changed or temporarily revoked if necessary to better protect the Dutch people from Islamic extremism.
He is in favor of stripping criminals with dual nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them to the country of their original nationality. This has led to considerable criticism.
5 comments:
Quick!!! Someone call the Waaaaahmbulance and tell them that we've got a hypocrite with a long history of deleting comments on his own blog, whining about the moderation on other boards!
It's nice to see what goes around, comes around, even if it did come at the hands of a bottomfeeder like Charles.
Indeed, McCoy. Here a couple of oldies but goodies:
The Latest Cut and Run Adherent: Unreliapundit
Unreliapundit Runs Away Completely
But, perhaps our little 'pundit has grown a little since then, and realizes that his own past behavior was "infantile".
you guys are HUGE assholes - like charles.
you were never banned.
witness these comments.
charles didn't delete stuff; he banned people.
fir an idiotic reason which you don;t address. typical.
i deleted your comments when they weren't germaine.
that's my right.
charles claims that he has open comments (see his disclaimer)- but doesn't.
i make no such claim. i have no policy. i delete what i want for whatever reason i want.
and ban NOBODY.
in fact, i have serious disagreements with co-bloggers here.
I DEMAND NO UNIFORMITY.
that's for stalinists - like charles.
THEREFORE: NO HYPOCRISY HERE.
move along you trolls.
i don;t accuse charles of moderating comments/deleting comments - but shunning.
there's a diff.
but you guys are morons who don;t see the diff.
buhbyee.
"charles didn't delete stuff; he banned people."
Deleting comments that you don't agree with (or, as was a much more common case, lacked the ability to coherently respond to) is the same level of blog censorship as deleting, just done manually. You threatened to ban me as well, but I was pretty sure that you couldn't figure out how, so you just resorted to daily deleting my posts. Your objection to your treatment at the hands of Charles is like a cat burglar getting held up at gunpoint and saying, "I don't do armed robbery," in an offended tone.
"fir an idiotic reason which you don;t address. typical."
I couldn't care less why he banned you or if it was justified. It's simply hilarious as far as I'm concerned, given your past. Please cry a river. Oh wait, you already did in this very post!
"i deleted your comments when they weren't germaine."
Very funny. As you well know, my posts were always in direct response to your posts/responses, with each point that you made addressed and destroyed in turn. Just look at the posts I referenced above. They are perfect examples. As I pointed out in these posts, it was sad to see a grown man with such bluster run screaming from the fray time and time again.
Post a Comment