Wulfgar: Idiot
July 15th, 2008 by Wiley Cody
Wulfgar forwards the suggestion that Republicans consider the 9/11 attacks to be in their favor.
My God.
My God.
Even for Wulfgar, this crosses the line. What a completely insulting thing to say. Insulting to Republicans, sure (that’s par for the course), but more insulting to the victims and their families. 9/11 - and the resulting pictures of destruction and death wrought on the United States and the very act itself - doesn’t favor any party or person. It was a heinous act of evil that is not a symbol for any party. Remembering that horrible day is not a rallying cry for a political party.
Perhaps what Wulfgar is noticing is that the American people trust conservatives more then gut-the-military Democrats when it comes to national security. Maybe he’s noticing that conservatives are more likely to remember that the world has evil in it - the evil that was demonstrated in September 11, 2001 - while liberals have forgotten that such evil exists outside of the Bush Administration.
But since the warrant for his point is a timeline, let me suggest that Wulfgar go find a clue and read the 9/11 Commission Report. I read it. It’s free, right there on the internet.
And if that has too many words for Mr. Bookstore, here’s an convenient time-line provided by the United States Army. And while you’re looking at it, try to remember Bill Clinton was inaugurated January 20, 1993 and left office January 20, 2001.
Update: If you love blog pissing contests, keep reading past the page break.
Call and Answer from Wulfgar’s Update on the page I link to above.
I was sincerely of the belief that Wiley Cody at BullShit Cairn was smarter than your average garden slug. I was sincerely wrong in that belief. In his first virginal steps into the selling Republicant outrage, he meets the World Wide Web, falls down and goes boom. Lets see if we can spot how many ways Wiley can be full of shit in one post:
Aw, Wulfgar, your outrage would be so much more intriguing if outrage wasn’t your default setting.
1) The post, this post, over which Wiley has an outragegasm, was mostly just a copy of a post from Atrios. It’s bad enough that Wiley attacks me for thinking there was a point to the writing, but far worse that Wiley doesn’t have a clue that I didn’t write it. Strange he could have missed that, but not surprising considering the number of righty websites who appropriate others words without attribution. Yup, he’s an idiot.
Yeah, I’m familiar with how blockquotes work. I have even been known to use them from time to time. I’m just struck by this nagging memory of you insisting that your blog was your property, and that you “own copyright on everything [there].”
Since your name was over the quote I presumed that you were quoting it because you agreed with it. Unless your blog was hacked and someone else posted under your name, the fact that you didn’t key the specific words doesn’t mean you aren’t held accountable for posting them on your property at your own expense. Of course, if you’d like to disavow yourself of the quote, I’d understand that too.
2) He completely missed the link in that quote, which would have given context to the quote itself. The link pointed directly to the same billboard pictured here. Again it is unsurprising that many right-wing idiots won’t follow a link. When that was harshly pointed out to his dim self, Wiley tried to cover his stupid ass with a comment a) telling me what I should have written to please him, b) dismissing the exploitation of 9/11 from the guy who really committed such an act, with a fantasy that he was really just profiteering. That’s ‘worse than what I did’ (remember, I didn’t do a thing, Atrios did) but obviously understandable when the real outrage should be the fact that I would notice and comment on the stupidity. It’s hard to believe that someone can have a website and truly be that partisan … and dumb. It’s easy to forgive Wiley, if only because he was flailing around trying to hide the fact that he was too idiotic to even know what the discussion was about because he was too stupid to follow a simple link.
I) I appreciate your forgiveness. I really do. And without me even asking you. You, sir, are a gentleman scholar.
II) Remind me, again please, why you - on your property and with your time on your blog - don’t think that the words you chose to quote shouldn’t be accountable to you?
III) I was careful in my choice of words in the original post, by the way. I didn’t say you wrote anything - I said you forwarded the ideas. In my basic understanding of internet vernacular a “forward” is directing someone else’s comments under your name. Does that mean something different to you?
IV) While there was no link - maybe that’s why you were confused - the billboard we’re both talking about had a fancy web address (sometimes called a URL) on it. I went to that website, which is where I discovered that neither the billboard nor the song or website is affiliated in any way with the Republican Party or anyone really except for the artist. The billboard isn’t a political message - it’s a commercial one. So, yeah. It’s a bit silly trying to fit that square peg of political critique into the round hole of commercialism.
V) If you’re going to refuse accountability for what you post on your website, will you also revise “Da Rules” to indicate that you don’t really have any ownership of the ideas you post here?
3) Wiley doesn’t understand English. He accuses me of painting all Republicans with the shame of the asshole who purchased the billboard. I never did that. And since he remains utterly confused by who wrote what, I should point out to this toddler that Atrios never wrote that either. What was written is that Republicans who politicize 9/11 are denying reality. The evidence was the billboard. The Internets could come up with a helluva lot more. Wiley can deny it, and lay the blame at my feet, but I have to ask: which more stupid, denying reality or claiming that I am morally responsible for it?
I) Since we’re splitting hairs on authorship here - I made the mistake of taking you at your word that you owned what was posted here - I’ll clarify: You didn’t accuse all Republicans of anything; Atrios did. You just made it seem that you agreed in a very convincing manner. Do you stand by those words or not?
II) Since I don’t understand English, I would appreciate a lesson. Specifically, when you say quote, “I’ve never quite been able figure out why the image of the burning twin towers is seen by Republicans as something in their favor,” why do you use “Republicans” instead of “this Republican,” or “a Republican”? As I understand English - and you can correct me if I’m wrong - most words use different forms for singular (indicating one) and plural (more than one). Since the almighty billboard you are referring to via your Atrios’ link is the handiwork of one (presumed) Republican, why is the plural of Republican being used to describe the actors? It might just be a simple error on your part - big misunderstanding. Maybe you didn’t copy-paste the quote correctly?
4) I have some questions for you, Wiley? What “line” do you wail that I crossed? You never clarified. And precisely what do you think you can do about it?
I) Oh, it’s a rather arbitrary line. Sorry, I was using a figure of speech there. Me and my clumsy English.
II) I can write a mean-spirited post and call you and idiot. Check.
5) In the perfect convergence of stupidity and hypocrisy, Wiley clutches his pearls at my having ‘crossed some unspecified line’ of politicizing 9/11, and then Wiley himself does it.
“Maybe he’s noticing that conservatives are more likely to remember that the world has evil in it - the evil that was demonstrated in September 11, 2001 - while liberals have forgotten that such evil exists outside of the Bush Administration.”
Actually, I/Atrios was suggesting that the asshole with the billboard doesn’t understand history, any more than Wiley does (which means not at all). Ya see, I’ve read the 9/11 commission report. I even have a hard copy. And I remember full well how the Bush administration tried to politicize even that, and how few of it’s suggestions for the administration have been implemented, or work if they have. FEMA, anyone?
But what’s striking is that the timeline I/Atrios portray is absolutely accurate. The remedial garden-slug Wiley can’t show one inaccuracy to it. To his credit, he was smart enough not to try.
I) How can you say I also crossed the line when you just said that you weren’t clear on what the line was? That’s a bit like saying you don’t know what the speed limit is and then two seconds later accusing the driver of speeding.
II) I’m not politicizing 9/11. I’m suggesting that your attempt to politicize it is based on a faulty premise.
III) Why are you suddenly using I/Atrios interchangeably? Are you now claiming credit for what you posted?
IV) Actually you/Atrios are suggesting the Republicans don’t understand history - if you/Atrios had said “the asshole with the billboard” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
V) Yes, your timeline is accurate. But it’s also incomplete. See, Wulfgar, I think you’re actually a mite smarter than a garden slug, so I know you know what I’m talking about here. Yeah, what you posted is correct. But even moonbats are telling you that your timeline is a bit… truncated.
VI) Truncating a timeline this drastically is blatantly dishonest, and you know it. It’s interesting that in conflicts, opposing sides often trace the origin of the conflict to different starting points in which their opponent causes the conflict. Same here. For political reasons, it makes sense to use a timeline like the one you have. For practical ones - necessary for finding solutions - you need to consider a lot more than a mere timeline.
VII) Frank Herbert in Heretics of Dune: “There was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a tall wooden fence. Each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence and across the narrow opening — first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hindlegs, and lastly the tail. One day, the man leaped to his feet with the light of discovery in his eyes and he shouted for all who could hear him: “It is obvious! The nose causes the tail!”
VIII) I wasn’t blaming 9/11 of Clinton (as you were blaming it on Bush). As the 9/11 Commission Report explains, there’s plenty of blame to go around as the attack was the result of a systemic failure. By trying to lay the blame on Bush for political reasons, you are actually ignoring the necessity to make changes beyond electing a new President.
6) Wiley pulls a well known Republicant tactic out of whatever passes for an ass on garden-slugs. 9/11 was Bill Clinton’s fault. Whatever Clinton didn’t do completely excuses George Bush from the shame of doing *nothing*. In fact, we can excuse W because Osama’s mother didn’t abort him. Or let’s blame Thomas Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence. Or we can point to one holy hell of a lot of circumstances that still cannot exonerate Bush for having been warned … and doing nothing.
Nope, I didn’t say it was Bill Clinton’s fault. I merely said there were relevant events occurring when someone other than Bush was President. That’s a relevant observation.
7) Wiley can’t resist an attempt to demean my employment, though he’s too stupid to realize that a) he’s just crossed a well known line of discourse on the Intertubes (don’t stalk people, you fucking moron. That works in real life too), and b) there is nothing wrong with my employment at all. There is nothing wrong with my employment. You got a problem, specify.
I) I merely stated your presumed employment with no normative implications whatsoever. You work at a bookstore, right? If you took that as demeaning, I dare say you brought that value judgment into the discussion yourself. I have absolutely nothing wrong with your employment, but it sounds to me like you do…
II) Based on Da Rules, your employment is off limits on your site. You also say that you get to make Da Rules because it’s your site. I respect that. But how presumptuous of you attempt to dictate to me what rules I must abide by on my site.
Wiley writes:
The fact remains, however, that his time line by itself warrants the title “idiot”…
I’ve shown quite clearly that it doesn’t. It’s accurate. Wiley calls the completely unestablished point a “fact”, the true sign of an idiot. Thus he is a hypocrite, yet again. When I was growing up, back when common sense actually meant something, there was a term my peers and I used for people so willfully stupid that only profanity could get across the depth of our derision for them. That term was “Dumbass”. To this day, I don’t use it lightly. But Wiley has earned the moniker. After this episode of having his ass kicked by reality, he truly deserves the title. He’s a dumbass.
(And SteveT, I’d really like to know exactly what points you “disagree” with me/Atrios on. Do you care to clarify?)
I’ve already addressed the shortcomings of your timeline - and I’d just direct you to follow the link above to Steve T’s post about it - in case you forgot.
