The Black Pot Talks Again

[UPDATE Below]

UPDATE TO : The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again

The following is what Dave Stancliff wrote on this blog March 16, 2011 9:54 AM.

I've taken the time to repost it here because what he says is the absolute proof of why I commented below, "The Pot Calls The Kettle BLACK, Again," on his Sunday Opinion published by the Times-Standard. Apparently it is entirely alright with them (Times-Standards' publishers and editors) that he, again, demonstrates his incapacity to distinguish the difference of commenting upon the issues of which he writes and making "demeaning," "slandering," oportunistic "attacks" on him personally. What he wrote is there for EVERYONE to read. I didn't put words in his mouth. Since he equates his worthless opinions with his personal self-worth and self-esteeem as an individual, EVERYTHING becomes about him. Hence, all his perseptions and resultant foul accusations simply originate within his mind. To talk about what he writes is to talk about him. Disagree with his opinion writings and you demean and slander him. These are HIS rules of engagement as he defines himself.  That is also why he is totally and demonstrably incapable of defending his opinions and what he wrote, opting instead for his repeated ad hominem assaults.

His record for initially attacking me and judging my motives are extensive on this blog and is exactly what he just did - personally attack me again, exactly as quoted below. What's really scary is this statement and what it represents: "Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me." By definition, this state of mind as expressed in this statement, is a Persecution Complex. Wikipedia defines this repeated accusation as Persecutory Delusions.

I would encourage everyone to read the thoughtful, non-inciting article by Nat Hentoff in today's (Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Times-Standard) on this same issue and what Dave Stancliff says in the Sunday Times-Stanard and then compare what he says below:

Dave Stancliff:
"This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people.."

You're showing your true colors again Joe, by personally attacking the messenger (me)with words designed to demean (and thus supposedly weaken my opinion)such as "effeminate." Slandering me does not strengthen your position, it merely reveals that you have a vendetta against me and take every opportunity to attack me.

You say you're not supporting the WBC to summerize...
so is a person supposed to ignore everything you said prior to that claim?

Perhaps you ought to re-read what you wrote.

You expect respect (and howl wehen you think someone has affronted you)but you show NO RESPECT for others opinions.

You're the one who needs to examine your conscience; not the grieving father (Albert Snyder)you've chosen to demonize.

What gives you th right to judge anybody...especially so harshly and mean spiritedly?

I just hope you don't have a loved one who dies someday - and their funeral is disrupted by a hate group (please don't waste your breath saying the WBC is not a hate group - read up on them).

---

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]

Here is another unrequested comment from Dave Stancliff. His issue with "me" is clearly stated. Why, is anyone's guess. His comment is quite clear and self-defining, as are his actions. He is totally incapable of understanding "HOW" he "attacked" me? UNBELIEVABLE! Why he is unable to distinguish the difference between his blatant accusatory comment and its self-defining reality, says more about him than anything. Compare Dictionary.com's definition of:

ad hominem–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

ALSO:
World English Dictionary
ad hominem (æd ˈhɒmɪˌnɛm)
— adj , — adv
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason
[literally: to the man]

His As It Stands opinion in the Sunday paper is as ad hominem as anyone can get.

--Joe

Pot Calls the Kettle BLACK, Again

[UPDATE Below] [Update II]

Why a civilized society needs “LAW” is, again, demonstrated in the Sunday, March 13, 2011, issue of the Times-Standard, As It Stands by Dave Stancliff. This article: “Recognizing when not to die over an issue" is a classic example of how emotional, effeminate blather can motivate people to deprive others of the very same rights they enforce upon other people. Here Stancliff piously rails against a religious people (Baptists) for enforcing their legal rights that offends his moral sensitivities while he wantonly commits the same sin.

I'd like to point out that everyone one of these soldiers freely chose to put their lives on the line. As such they made themselves morally, ethically and legally responsible for the consequences their actions. Vietnam era military faced a different situation. Most of them were compelled by law as they involuntarily drafted. It took strong moral convictions to stand against the obscenity of that war and the lives lost. History has judged the value of that conflict and everyone that supported it.

When you consider the history of the American military's wanton butchery of innocent civilians from the U.S. Civil War to the present, and the attitude as expressed in this article by Dave Stancliff, it is easy to see how he can justify this kind of thinking when he considers the military, in particular “the fallen” his family; his brothers and sisters. You can also understand the morally corrupt, anarchistic attitude of the father of the deceased soldier, Albert Snyder, justifying the Rule of Man to use violence because he like the Supreme Court's ruling. Alber Snyder should look to his own conscience before judging someone else over his deliberate actions as he tries to justify the death of his son.

What these people are doing may be in bad taste. This Report is certainly NOT supporting them anymore than the Times-Standard and their incitable Opinion. It is for these very kinds of people emulated in this example that we need Law. It's the only protection we have from these hate and warmongers' ultimate tyranny. These are the real "bad people" everyone should fear.

[UPDATE :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
To the Times-Standards credit they published, right under a fitting cartoon on page A4 for Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Nat Hentoff's rather lengthy article: “Our First Amendment protects speech we despise, too.”

Mr. Hentoff's approach to this issue is far more evenhanded and levelheaded than Dave Stancliff's regarding the much cherished and sacred right of free speech for EVERYONE.

[UPDATE II :: Wednesday, March 16, 2011]
What happens when you lie to the American people for why they should go to way and the dutiful military fall into lockstep. Death is the ultimate cost of war that EVERYONE needs to face up to. The following is an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Salon.com article:

[W]hat's even more striking is that a mere 17% of the American citizenry "strongly believes" that the war was worth fighting (see this very good analysis of how dubious is the administration's new positive war spin).

It may be that some policies should be continued as desirable no matter how little public support they command. But war is different. Wars are supposed to be fought only when the citizenry is behind them and they are absolutely necessary. It's almost impossible to imagine a situation where a war should be continued when only 17% of the nation's citizen "strongly believes" it's worth fighting. Almost by definition, a nation shouldn't be fighting a war -- especially in another country -- if such a small fraction of its citizens believe it's truly necessary. What justifies sending fellow citizens off to die -- let alone killing people in the country we've invaded -- if so few people believe it's worthwhile let alone necessary? But this underscores yet again the most ingenious and valuable achievement of the National Security State: enabling endless war while appearing to impose costs on only a tiny percentage of the population, thus ensuring that pointless, unnecessary, unjust wars will continue without much resistance even when the vast majority of the public recognizes them as such.

Read the complete article here.

--Joe