Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

A Neocon Attacks My Diary Entry: My Response

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It


Can't fit this into the 'reply to this' section after this guy's extensive rambling attack on what I said. For the record, I stand by what was said in my "Open Letter to the Neocons"


There is a professional neocon harassment artist who likes to frequent Op-Ed news and write right-wing based denunciations of mine, and maybe other peoples' writing here on Op-Ed News and he comes out of the woodwork to attack me when he doesn't like what I say in my diary entry. He did this for my latest but one a diary essay I wrote attacking neocons for their unfairness in not even allowing Barack Obama a chance before they pull out all the stops to try to discredit him and his presidency. This guy took a lot of trouble to launch a sarcarsm-filled, name-calling, paranoid huge ad hominem attack on me sarcastically accusing me and other progressives of wanting to implement totalitarian tactics against neocons and in a snide, insulting manner impugned my motives, tried to discredit my statements made in my diary and in general put out his own sarcastic putdowns of me and other progressives whose beliefs he caricatured from his own paranoid fantasies, posting his objections in the comments section of my latest diary entry.

It is his right to do so, but it is also my right to put out and post a new diary entry responding to his comments because there isn't any other way for me to to provide an example to Op-Ed News readers of how neocons twist truth, turn everything around, set themselves up as some kind of arbiter of other peoples' minds, politics and behavior and how they are like cultists who have a set ideology with which they define reality, and not the other way around. I have labeled this man "neocon critic" so as not to draw undue attention to his name and person. I am more interested in demonstrating how he holds the typical truth twisting, blame shifting neocon mindset and his remarks are more paranoia and personal attacks than actually disproving any statement I made in my original essay. I have posted his comments interspersed with my answer to his comments. Here it is:


NEOCON CRITIC: (The following is a comment Mr Murphy made about my diary entry. He said, "Here is a person ruled by emotions only" (he is referring to me by way of a put down. Neocons love put personal attacks and ad-hominem put downs) .

MY REPLY: On what basis do you make that snide remark? And if I do sound 'emotional' in my diary, it is from a sense of outrage at the essentially underhanded, dishonest, and lying nature of the John McCain/Sarah Palin/RNC campaign. If you are NOT outraged by such behavior, then there is something wrong with you. And let's get something straight. Why is it that you necons always start out from a premise of your own supposed superiority? You people employ slander, lies, misinformation, sloganeering and ad hominem attacks, but you can pose as the 'calm, rational' critic of my diary piece. So your acting as though you had the knowledge or moral composer to put me down and 'psychoanalyze' me shows just how smug, arrogant and self-congratulatory you are. This is typical of neocon behavior. You guys always think you are morally superior. This will come out in your critiques (below) of other statements I made. Who made you the analyst here? And what are YOUR credentials, especially seeing that your side of the aisle has just finished eight years of the most corrupt, inept and dirty dealing tenure in both Congress and the White House that America has ever witnessed at the hands of George W. Bush and the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress (even after 2006 because of Republican obstructionism in the Senate).

MY ORIGINAL DIARY STATEMENT"...Obama has won in more than than fair and square fashion."

NEOCON CRITIC: How can won win an election that reflects "more than" fair and square? What does that mean? Not only was it fair and just BUT it was tasty too? Continue to pat yourself on the back with this one.

MY ANSWER: I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to underscore the fact that Obama won by a rather substantial margin over McCain. And it wasn't just an electoral college win. He won by several percentage points over McCain in the popular vote. Contrary to neocon claims, McCain didn't even get 50 percent of the popular vote. Maybe you can pat yourself on the back for your unnecessarily insulting dig.

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT: "Yes, in spite of your (Republican) vote rigging, your manipulated mainstream press, your Republican owned voting machines that are easily hacked and have frequent glitches, your slander (made during the McCain campaign and many other previous Republican campaigns), your vote suppression (see below), your bought off election officials (in red states) and your attempts to arouse fear among the populace, you (guys) LOST."

NEOCON CRITIC: So, then, you have evidence that the aforementioned actually transpired during this election at the hands of the (dramatic gasp) neo-cons? Or are you just speculating here because it too sounds tasty? I have lots of evidence

MY ANSWER: There are a great many sources of information on this subject of Republican dirty tricks in vote manipulation (via electronic voting machines in Ohio 2004) and voter suppression (of minorities by the use of 'caging' in a number of states during this last election campaign) but it would be hard to even begin to put out here a list of it all in the space we have to discuss this. And that is it anyway that you ask for sources? An example of a good article for you to read might be this one as follows. "Republican Vote Supression, A Guide"__click here

Of course, I believe you are being disingenuous to ask for sources because you are trying to set a trap and a) either make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about, or b) entice me into some answer that you can easily say you are dissatisfied with. You aren't interested in really knowing what evidence is out there for Republican dirty tricks in vote manipulation during the 2000 and 2004 elections, and then of course there is the 2008 election cycle in which Republicans made a big stink about ACORN with UNproven allegations of attempted Democrat voter fraud, allegations which were debunked in both court and by fact check organizations. Your party threw up the ACORN smoke screen so you could hide your own Republican efforts at voter suppressioin. Here's a good start for the 2008 election:

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT: "The majority of the American people lit the gas and you p####-off snakes are coming out of your holes into your blogs, your pulpits and your political hack machines and you're hissing and striking at Obama before he even gets into office."

NEOCON CRITIC: Hmmm. The last time Progressives check for me -- a sheeple, freedom of speech was a protected right."

MY ANSWER: Funny you as a Republican should speak of freedom of speech being a member of the party that in the last eight years has suppressed freedom of speech by removing the fairness doctrine from the FCC and has manipulated Iraq War and national news through a huge spin-lie-apparatus driven by a lapdog right-wing press propaganda machine. So what is this about protected rights, when your president engaged in warrantless spying on American citizens? Where is my freedom of speech when it comes to Republican hegemony of the airwaves? And besides, you are being scurrilous to suggest that I am against freedom of speech. Nobody buty you brought up freedom of speech. My point was in my diary that you neocons are coming out of your holes and doing everything you can to attack, lie, obfuscate facts and shoot down Obama before he even gets into office by your organized whisper campaigns and your network of church pulpits and radio shows. Nobody mentioned freedom of speech, but since you do, by the way, I don't see Rush Limbaugh or any of your neocon heroes allowing liberals to come on their shows or post to their blogs or offer to debate liberals in a neutral setting and let the fact checking begin on many neocon claims which are at best dubious or outright half-truths or untruths (and don't ask me for a catalog of those here as a debating ploy because they are too numerous to list and if I did you would find a way to deny plain fact because that is often what neocons do)

NECON CRITIC: However, isn't your claim similar to what Progressives did to President Bush not once but twice - in 2000 and 2004?

MY ANSWER: What are you even talking about? What did progressives supposedly do to President Bush in 2000 and 2004? Most of the wrongs done have been the reverse. Bush promised to be a uniter and turned out to be one of the worst partisan presidents we ever had who usurped power in many areas and suppressed dissent through intimidation (calling people unpatriotic) and appropriation of powers he did not have under the Constitution. Your people are the ones who stopped the vote count in 2000 and then again you changed votes in Ohio in 2004 to get Bush put back into office. And if you ask me for evidence, I suggest you go look it up yourself. Just Google "Vote Rigging in 2004 election" and "Fraud in 2000 Florida vote count"

NEOCON CRITIC:But, of course, you were justified in each of those instances because those were fraudulent elections, right?

MY ANSWER: I don't know what you are talking about that progressives supposedly did that was wrong, but in answer to your sarcastic rhetorical question, actually YES the election in Florida WAS fraudulent: The Supreme Court had NO authority to intervene and stop the recount of disputed votes. There should have been a new election called in Florida with safeguards against suppressing the minority voting areas in Florida. And DON'T SNEER. Your modus operandi is to call into question my statements while you put out factually questionable statements of your own as you become sarcastic to try and make me look stupid.

Well, here is a quote from Wikipedia about the 2000 election outcome: (Quote) "Bush narrowly won the November 7 election, with 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 (with one faithless elector abstaining in the official tally). The election featured a controversy over who won Florida's 25 electoral votes (and thus the presidency), the recount process in that state, and the unusual event that the losing candidate had received 543,895[1] more popular votes than the winner" (unquote).

NEOCON CRITIC: Huh. I think I see a pattern of denial manifesting itself in this open letter, but let's continue to read your rant... I mean... letter

MY REPLY: My turn to be sarcastic, Mr.psychologist...I'm sure you think you just played 'gotcha'. I'm not in denial. You are, "my friend". You are the one who is denying the reasons for my anger against the neocons and Republicans over their low down, and dirty tactics.

MY STATEMENT: "When we, the American people vote for someone, who the hell are you snakes to try to overturn it."

NEOCON CRITIC: I agree. So, what gives with those uppity folks in California that are trying to overturn the will of the people regarding gay marriage?!?

MY REPLY: I don't agree with the gay community in California trying to overturn the results of Proposition 8. But there is evidence that big money from the Mormon and other churches and distortion of what Proposition 8 was about did play a role in the feeling of outrage among the gay community.Nevertheless, I agree that they should not be trying to overturn what was voted in by the public.

NEOCON CRITIC: Hey, wait! I think those uppity folk are actually Progressives!

MY ANSWER: Well, aren't you being cute? You don't know what all progressives think and I'm about sick of your sarcasm. It sounds like you are the emotional one and the insecure one. You aren't too secure in your own beliefs or you wouldn't have to disguise your own emotionalism. with sarcasm and false claims abour your straw men you set up as 'the typical progressive'.

But... but... who the hell are you to try to overturn the American people's vote? What is a Progressive to do in such a situation? I know! Label those miscreants as right-wing, fundamentalists whose only purpose in life is to be sheeple that worship a false god.

AHA. so your wild cuckoo comes out. Who is the one ruled by emotions now, Mr. Phony Green Beret? If you were any kind of a true patriot or hero, you would not hide behind a military uniform to identify your supposedly superior status. True heroes never wear their military service on their sleeves and why were most of the true heroes who went to Vietnam DEMOCRATS and almost all but Chuck Hagel and John McCain of the Republicans were DRAFT DODGERS? All of a sudden you neocons are the victims and progressives whom you call 'sheeple" and say we worship a false god...Who made YOU the arbiter of who worships what? If you were a genuine Christian you would never act like you are doing. You right wingers who pose as Christians disobey just about everything the Bible teaches, such as not oppressing the poor, acting out of self-sacrifice (not dirty tricks to win and being 'attack sheep". (by the way you are an unoriginal copycat using "sheeple" because : progressives first used the word "sheeple" to label you right wing neocons .

"You've had eight years and you can either get out of the way or you will be gotten out of the way with rattlesnake roundup time."

NEOCON CRITIC"Get out of the way", huh? So, what's your version of democracy? This sounds strangely like a dictatorship, does it not. Regardless, what really does this mean? Are you going to now hold kangaroo courts to "make right" the past imagined wrongs? This can only be taken as a threat of the serious kind.

MY ANSWER: Boy are you paranoid! It is you cons who have had kangaroo courts (Guantanamo, The "Patriot" Act, power of detention of American citizens without writ of Habeas Corpus only needing to label them 'enemy combatants' to strip away Constitutional rights)...boy are you cons hypocrites to point the finger at what you're best at, which is suppressing others' rights.

NEOCON CRITIC: No offense, but I think it's human reaction to "coil and hiss" at such a threat -- not unlike what the Progressives did for the past eight years -- oh, sorry -- 14 years.

MY RESPONSE. As usual, you twist white into black and black into white, and call evil good and good evil. You cons are really similar in your methods to cultists who redefine what others say and reinvent all reality to fit your preconceived ideology. You actually possess no real sincere values. You only care about winning in any way possible, no matter how low or unethical the way you do it. And you guys really come off self-righteous, smug andy worshipping your own (self-ascribed) 'moral superiority'. You are very much like the biblical Pharisees...and yet ironically you claim to be 'christians." You give Christ a bad name actually on the neocon right. You are creating a lot of hatred of evangelical christianity out in the secular world. I see that hatred growing in response to your strong-arm tactics while George W. Bush was on the ascendancy..

NEOCON CRITIC's further comment, ie.second half of his reply to my original statement(above)

"Interestingly, though, the Progressives are still able to talk about their snake analogies under such a brutal and fascist regime."

MY ANSWER: What 'brutal, fascist regime are you imagining? . You must be describing yourselves under the Bush regime and the Republican reign of terror for the last fourteen years beginning with Newt Gettingrich and his Contract to Destroy America and Feed the Plutocrats.

NEOCON CRITIC: Why aren't they in those dreaded FEMA camps being re-educated? asn't martial law been imposed as was widely as was foretold by Progressives? Where are the multiple false flag operations that would permit King George to remain in power 4-eva?

Oh now you want to insultingly imply that it is liberals who are paranoid over the secret detention camps that REPUBLICAN presidents set up and were close to being activated by Bush's executive order giving himself power to declare a state of emergency and declare martial law in the event of public chaos....George Bush set up a lot of bad precedents in usurping power and abrogating Constitutional guarantees, so we had a RIGHT to be paranoid. Maybe it didn't happen and thank God Bush didn't realize our worst fears, but your insulting sneers are typical of a neocon who twists the blame to the wrong people. YOUR party is the reason for such well founded paranoia. The "FEMA re-education camps" (don't know where you came up with that) was actually a program Bush fine tuned called "Operation Garden Plot" which was secret detention facilities complete with manacles for political prisoners in case of massive public unrest. Now you are cynically saying Democrats were unnecessarily paranoid about Bush's intentions to declare martial law. Well, maybe we were paranoid, but with good reason, seeing the other Bush/Cheney high handed policies and the launching of internationally illegal preemptive war in Iraq. And why must you cons twist the truth and blame shift. Your comments are a real example of twisting what Progressives were doing in being afraid of a Bush dictatorship. Your party is the one which espouses martial law, detention of American citizens and 're-education' of people who don't agree with your neocon global conquest policies that have made our country so hated. And by the way, I'm sick of you creeps always implying that progressives are totalitarian Communists. It is your party that is much more totalitarian than any Democrat ever thought of being. No Democrat has abrogated Constitutional rights like you Republicans have. And now you aren't content to do that but you and your party want everyone foreclosed on and put in the streets with no health care, no jobs and saddled with monstrous debt from your useless quagmire wars.

NEOCON CRITIC: Could it be... just possibly be... that the Progressives were full of crap all those years and just got it plain wrong?

MY ANSWER: Could it just be that YOU cons are foll of crap and got it plain wrong?

NEOCON CRITIC: Have they been playing upon their own fears all these years?

MY ANSWER: Have you?

NEOCON CRITIC::Were they venting their rage at the wrong target? Were they frustrated at themselves for consistently falling short of their own idealistic targets and objectives that they needed to deflect their fears, angers, and resentments onto the American populace?

MY ANSWER: There you go playing psychologist again. Who made you an expert? In fact it is you cons who PROJECT WHAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF ON OTHERS AND DENY YOUR OWN CULPABILITY. You are looking in the mirror and projecting it on me, Mr. Con

NEOCON CRITIC : Who knows; only they can answer those questions and live with the results. But if Progressives believe they have been given a mandate to "clean up" their imagined snakes, they are committing the same imagined injustice that they accused the Bush Administration of doing. But in their minds, it's all good because they have been right all along.

MY ANSWER Nobody said anything about progressives being unfair and doing to you what YOU have done to us during the last eight years. In fact is is Obama who is ran on the platform of reaching out to you cons, but by your hate and venom being spewed by the likes of Dobson, Limbaugh et al..there seems to be no working with you . You are not interested in being fair. Your only objective is to try to shoot down Barack Obama before he even gets a chance to try to fix the mess that YOU made. No progressive ever spoke of suppressing rights or freedoms..that is your bailiwick, as a neocon. That's what YOU do.

NEOCON: CRITIC Amen to self-delusion, and what a wonderful ideology Progressives have.

MY ANSWER: You got it backwards: You cons won't admit your past eight years of failures. You are the kings of self-delusion.

(At this point I cut out a section of this idiot's ravings, calling me "Comrade Lorenz" and claiming I stand for totalitarianism. This guy is a mental case. I never said any of that. He's giving free rein to his paranoia and I don't have the patience to reply to every single line...)

(I resume line by line here)

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT"Who are the terrorists when you people are all issuing veiled calls for Obama's assassination?"

NEOCON CRITIC: This is a serious accusation. Where is your proof that "neo-cons" have issue veiled calls for President-elect Obama's assassination?

MY ANSWER: Don't you listen to the news? Haven't you read recent news accounts of a huge uptick in right-wing threats against Obama's life? Didn't you watch the campaign when Palin was whipping up the crowd people yelled "kill him" (about Obama)? I'm not making this stuff up. Where have you been? And why do you take my legitimate fear that is being borne out in the news and then running with it to write crap like the following?

NEOCON CRITIC: "Or is this more of your speculation that now believes what the once-evil main stream media is reporting? Your conjecture here is only being used to "justify" any action taken in the future to separate the head of the snake from its body before "real harm" can be done. Hmmm. What other group of people in recent history were also vilified...? Oh, right! The Jewish in Fascist Germany! "

MY ANSWER: WHERE did you get this garbage? You're just raving your own delusional paranoia here about something you've constructed in your own mind. And I AM psychoanalyzing you here....You need to go see a psychologist, buddy. You are really paranoid.

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT "We're not afraid of your right wing threats..."

NEOCON CRITIC: This is outright denial in that you appear to be quite fearful in this open letter, and as a result, you're lashing out in a very dramatic and public manner.

MY ANSWER: I'm not showing any fear other than a legitimate one that people in your party and on your side want to hurt the new president. and I have legitimate factual evidence to back up my fears seeing how much hate is spewing from YOUR side against the new president elect.

NEOCON CRITIC: But once again and like the past eight years, you're fighting only the shadows of your own fears.

MY ANSWER: You have identified your own scenario "fighting only the shadows of your fears." My analysis of neocons is spot on and has eight years of factual record to back up what I say about your party being dirty, low down, lying, slanderous and below-the-belt. It's a matter of public record, not just my opinion.

I'm done arguing with you. Don't read my diaries if you don't like what I say. I have taken a lot of trouble to respond to you but I fear you are an endless source of obfuscation, baloney and paranoia and I'm done here.

NEOCON CRITIC: Obama was elected based upon his cute and tasty message of "hope" and "change". Huge expectations await him. And while I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I fear Obama will fall far short of delivering on those expectations. That's nothing more than the reality of the world in which we live in.

MY REPLY: And your party and your right wing carpers and demolition talking heads will do their best to be sure he fails.

Enough of your BS and your sarcasm. I won't print the last piece of sarcastic crap you said about it not being progressive's fault if Obama fails...just another instance of your snide sarcasm. You cons deal in this kind of crap: innuendo, falsehoods, blameshifting, slander and doing all you can to portray yourselves as superior, more patriotic, more moral, when in fact you are total NIHILISTS who believe in nothing except winning at all costs, self aggrandizement, fascist economic policies and you're moral hypocrites, being ten times guiltier yourselves of what you accuse Democrats of.

NEOCON CRITIC: Grow up, get a backbone, and accept some personal responsibility if things go south. Otherwise, stop whining about problems and events that haven't even happened and start living in the solutions.

Why don't YOU grow up, get some backbone yourself. You seem to be a really sarcastic, smug piece of work who sets yourself up as judge of Progressives and me in particular, whom you feel qualified to psychoanalyze. Therefore I do you a similar 'courtesy' in my answers to you based on your fantasies about Progressives' intentions and political beliefs and future treatment of the neocon opposition. First off I don't think you are that wonderful if you can defend eight years of neocon mismangement of our country and especially since you appear to have the gall to go on someone's else's diary and write all the malarky that you wrote in my diary comments section on here...and you think you have some smug superiority over me and some idea of what I think or who I am...you don't even know me...your ideas are straw men you, in a fashion similar to all cons I've observed, love to set up from which they launch their ad hominem attacks.

Have a nice day and I do not welcome comments of people like you who are dishonest in your treatment of what I said and in your attitude of slanderous put downs because you don't like what I say. I gave you a hearing and answered you. I'm done. I won't dignify your "input" again with this much effort. Your smug air of superiority doesn't merit a response, really.


I live in the Pacific Northwest and I am interested in current affairs.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles


The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Mr Lorenz, I have put up with the ad-hominem throw... by Stanimal on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:32:05 AM
"He claimed in his last article to appear on ... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:26:16 PM
- leave the trolls like our Mr Murphy be, John, th... by siamdave on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:17:18 AM
These people are not exactly harmless. Look what t... by John Lorenz on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:29:06 AM
"For the record, I stand by what was said in ... by Tom Murphy on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:37:47 PM
"I do not welcome comments from people like y... by Scott on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:50:06 PM
You cons b*tch about progressives 'shutting&nb... by John Lorenz on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:13:47 AM
"Progressive comments are not welcome there.&... by Tom Murphy on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:37:07 AM
for the Republican pin-head I was referring to was... by Stanimal on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:26:13 AM
...it's the Civil War all over again.Apparentl... by Richard Volaar on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM
You did specify in your response diary entry above... by Mark Sashine on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM
"You people don't document your slander..... by Scott on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:13:22 AM