Hello, possible referral from Cathy Young's blog! Here's a helpful hint. Before you nod your head in agreement that I am just another liberal-basher, you might want to ask yourself two questions: 1) Does this tone really sound super serious like others who write constantly against the left? 2) Why would a political libertarian be sympathetic to a group whose beliefs are based on those detailed in F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom? While I normally don't stray into liberal-bashing like some conservatives do, I make no bones about it that I am not sympathetic to them like many of Cathy Young's colleagues and readers at Reason for reasons described in part here.

Two samples of moonbattery up for disection:

Exhibit A:

sgo said...

It may be your blog, but the comment is attributed to someone else. You have no right to change the content except to make it age appropriate or remove it.

Who says? We can do anything we please and if you don't like it then you just don't have to comment at all. The problem here was that the editor forgot to put in the strikeout and italics to set the edit apart from actual comment.

And for your information "carlito's" edited comment was deleted less than a few hours after it was edited. (see here) It's really a shame that you right wingers have archived it for perpetuity thus undermining my (the liberal avengers webmaster) attempts to keep the offensive edited comment from being offensive to carlito forever.

Good job assholes, you really owe carlito an apology.

Exhibit B:

weeziejefferson said...

LMAO!! You wingnuts get funnier and funnier.

A CHILLING effect, eh?

LMAO!!!!!

Notice in Exhibit A that you have several normal characteristics of a normal left-liberal caught with his or her pants down. First, you have the "nuh uh!" behavior, that quintessentially childish form of redirection that mindlessly asserts something else that no mature human being would accept as an explanation for the behavior that is under fire. It is your blog, but the comment is attributed to someone else. Putting words into someone's mouth in a way that seriously makes others believe they said it is libel, which is indefensible from a free speech point of view. second, you have projection of blame and the customary, "sorry, but..." which is obviously no apology at all. A normal, sane, mature person would ask why the editor was even editing someone else's words except to correct formatting or to censor profanity. A typical left-liberal on the other hand, finds it entirely acceptable to edit a "wingnut's" words to sound "more intelligent," which is to say, more agreeable with the left-liberal's beliefs. Then, when all else fails, the left-liberal shouts indignantly about how they should be regarded as the hero of their own catastrophe. Then, when that is done, the final charge is that the person who called them out is in fact the one who is guilty of victimizing the person who was libeled or slandered, no the person who observed that what they did was tantamount to libel or slander.

Now, in Exhibit B, you have the comment that is completely lacking substance. It makes unsupported assertions that the opponent is stupid, ridicules what they are saying without even attempting to explain why and then ends with some sort of asinine, poorly worded finale.

Not every leftist is like this, but then not every Nazi had a stomach for genocide.