A person named Montana left a comment on my blog entry ‘On Violence’. I thought it might be useful to dissect it. His comments are in italics, and were originally delivered in a single solid block of text. I have not edited his text at all, other than to break it up. Here we go:
I love that they asked for “Public Defender”, they know now that there was an undercover FBI agent.
I have no idea what he’s talking about.
The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point.
A sexual slur, and name calling. I never did figure out what his ‘point’ was. I really don’t see why these people feel that they have to lower themselves to the level of making sexual slurs. It really lowers the level of the debate, and adds nothing useful at all.
These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost.
Name calling again. How mature. Well, in point of fact, the Tea Party came about in reaction to the incredible, profligate spending being done by Obama and the Democrats – more than 2 1/2 times the rate under Bush. The name ‘Tea Party’ is a reference to the historical Tea Party which was a protest against unreasonable taxes; a fact that Montana may not know, and a direct comparison to what Obama is doing. There probably are members who were on the McCain / Palin side, but it is irrelevant. Oh, and intentionally misspelling someone’s name in an effort to insult them or convey scorn is a really childish tactic.
Now that their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing, they are crying again.
This is bad grammar (wrong use of ‘their’); unsubstantiated accusation (‘haters’); unsubstantiated denigration (‘not debaters’); and nobody is crying that I can see.
They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones who have guns and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around in the parks playing commando, the majority understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point.
This is a long run-on sentence that takes a bit to parse. He accuses the Tea Party members of attempting to ‘scare, intimidate and force others’; something I haven’t seen them do. What they have been trying to do is to get their elected representatives to do their jobs – represent them. He actually makes a not-so-subtle threat ‘they are not the only ones who have guns’. He apparently thinks most ex-military join militias and don’t pay taxes. And he calls the Tea Party members simpletons – again. This is supposed to be some kind of ‘point’.
My guess is he is probably referring to the militia group now in custody that the news media alleges were planning on killing cops. There were (I think) 17 members of this group. Somehow he implies that all Tea Party members are like these people – without a shred of evidence to connect them, and despite the fact that this particular militia group had its beginning before the Tea Party came into being. Extremely lame logic and poor thinking, but the left would love to make a correlation.
So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn.
He is welcome to his opinion. He’s still misspelling Palin – a technique he must think never gets old. ‘Turn coat Glenn’ probably refers to Glenn Beck. I probably do not agree with Glen Beck on every point, but he does have my respect on one core issue – he strongly believes in supporting the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. It’s hard to see how that makes him a ‘turn coat’.
So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches.
Any misconceptions of ‘my’ group have been generated by the left-wing smear merchants in the blogosphere and the lame-stream media, as Sarah puts it. The Tea Party message is refreshingly clear.
What have we learned from examining Montana’s comment? I think it’s interesting that there is an eerie similarity between many of the negative comments I get on my blog. Left wing comments tend to have the same tone that this one has. It really is striking how similar they are.
Features they seem to have in common (by no means is this scientific – it is just my own observations):
- They are typically not well written or organized.
- There tend to be a lot of misspellings and bad grammar.
- They tend to use a lot of name calling, intentional name misspelling, and sexual slurs.
- They tend to be really short on facts, or reportable, verifiable information.
- They uniformly display a great lack of tolerance. In fact, they are VERY intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share their views.
- They do not seem to be able to employ logic or do critical analysis. Showing them information or explaining why you believe what you believe does not help because they seem to be unable to follow the logic.
- They are not interested in WHY I believe what I believe – they just want me to adopt their viewpoint – without giving me any reason to do so.
Most of the time I do not approve comments like these – see my comment moderation policy.
I hope you found this excursion into the left wing mind useful.