Sunday, November 3, 2013

Silly Posts and Comments from Flogger Blogs

 ~ Crossroads ~

Simpson is gradually backing into stirring up hatred for the Virginia Flaggers again, after some time off to wander in the desert crying, "Rob Walker! Rob Walker!"

Now, he's featuring Kenye West claiming the battle flag and asking  “It’s my flag now. Now what are you going to do?”

Well, Simpson, Kenye and anyone else who's interested, what I'm gonna do is ... nuthin'. I realize this is a PR gimmick for Kenye, who is an entertainer, and has to do something to make an impression on the public. He will tire of this and move on to some other PR gimmick, sooner or later. It's what celebrities do.

Wonder Woman weighs in with "Good point. It’s MY flag too, and I took it from the losers and replaced it with the US Flag. Whatcha gonna do Flaggerettes?"

Well, Wonder Woman, if you've already smeared  it, besmirched it and lied about it -- as you certainly have -- it is NOT your flag. You didn't take it from anybody -- we all still have it. You haven't replaced it with the US flag, because it can't be replaced. However, I'm glad to see you've learned to call the US flag what it is rather than calling it the "American" flag. (The Confederate flag is an American flag, sugah... Don't believe me? Fill in the blank: "The Confederate States of _______." I'll give you a hint. It starts with A and ends with a, and it ain't Antarctica.)

In the past, I've hesitated to mention of  the lack of intelligence exhibited by our critics, and have done so only a handful of times, because that's usually something people have no control over. Besides, it's too much like what the floggers do -- they love to gratuitously ridicule the intelligence of people they don't like or disagree with.

But I dunno, folks, I'm seeing a lot of stupidity coming out in flogger posts and comments lately. 

Simpson seems disgruntled that VaFlagger Judy Smith's tweet said Jamelle Bouie of the Daily Beast was a lying sneak for misrepresenting himself to the VaFlaggers as a Newsweek reporter at a recent flagging.

Simpson reminds the peanut gallery, "To make the implicit obvious, Newsweek owns The Daily Beast. No misrepresentation whatsoever." In fact, he is so unsure of his floggerette peanut gallery's intelligence, he reminds them of that TWICE in the same comment thread.

If I've been reluctant in the past to mention flogger lapses in intelligence, I've frequently pointed out lapses in flogger integrity. This seems to be a case of both...

The Daily Beast is owned by Newsweek. So? That's supposed to establish some kind of credibility? So one leftist publication owns another leftist publication. Whoop-dee-do.

However, it is more accurate to say that BOTH are owned by the The Newsweek Daily Beast Company, which was created when they merged in November 2010, although there is some indication that the companies are owned separately now. As of August 3, 2013, Newsweek is owned by IBT Media, owner of the International Business Times, and The Daily Beast by IAC/InterActiveCorp.

But even if Newsweek DOES own The Daily Beast, that doesn't make Bouie a "reporter for Newsweek." His "reports" appear in The Daily Beast, that makes him a reporter for The Daily Beast. He might be an EMPLOYEE of Newsweek, or whatever company owns the websites this week, but he is not a REPORTER for them.

There seems to be a problem with integrity for some Daily Beast writers, just like there is with floggers. Google "Gerald Posner".

Re: Simpson's comments to Billy Bearden ... once again -- is it deficient flogger intelligence, or deficient flogger integrity, that prompts Simpson to confuse the defintion of "friend" in the Facebook/digital age? He's a Facebooker himself, so he knows firsthand what "friend" means in social media.

In this case, IMO, it's not a lack of intelligence at play, but the same abysmal lack of integrity Simpson consistently demonstrates at his blog.

 ~ Kindred Blood ~

Like a kid with ADHD, Corey has wearied of  harassing John C. Hall, Jr., and now has Barry Isenhour in what passes for his crosshairs...

Re, one of Barry's FB posts -- this one about Black Confederates -- Corey writes, "The Va. Flaggers seem fine not to question any of this a (sic) just put him down as a soldier."

I note first of all that Barry is not THE Virginia Flaggers. He is A Virginia Flagger.

 "This is done so that they can try and remove slavery from the cause of their ancestors."

Once again, I feel a little silly having to point out the obvious, but Corey, you don't know the motives of all "they" --  the Virginia Flaggers. You don't even know the IDENTITY of all of them.

As is typical of floggers, you're totally defining Barry's interaction with others on the basis of one thread on Facebook -- and ignoring the dozens, likely hundreds and maybe thousands of positive interactions he has day after day, month after month, year after year.

And what piddling stuff you choose to define him! A belief; an opinion -- as opposed to deeds and actions. For example, as far as I know, Barry doesn't make fake profile after fake profile, dishonestly trying to get access to cyber-places and info of people he is hostile to, so he will have something he can put on his blog to try to embarrass them with -- or worse, drum up hatred for them.

LibertyLamp, who is the "they" you are talking about? If you're referring to historic Confederates, they weren't on the wrong side of everything -- at least, no more than the people who came down here and made brutal war on them were.

If you're referring to Confederate heritage supporters today, you should probably understand that there are lots of them, and "they" don't all think alike about Black Confederates or anything else -- and thinking that "they" all do makes you, well, prejudiced and a stereotyper -- which is akin to being a bigot.

Re: Black Confederates -- some heritage folks staunchly support the idea. Some are thoroughly scornful of it. And some are quite indifferent. I'm in that category. I don't know whether there were black Confederates -- I don't care whether there were (although I don't fall down an have seizures if some other heritage advocate has a different opinion).

I don't believe black soldiers have to be "found" in the Confederate army to give legitimacy to the Confederate cause. It stands on its own. However, I do favor recognition for anybody -- white, black, any color, young, old, male, female, military, civilian, whoso-flippin'ever -- that helped the Confederate cause.

"Even" Gone With the Wind was fiction, LibertyLamp? Well, duh. That's what makes it a novel. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the tales Peggy Mitchell heard weren't factual. (This has to be pointed out to people of such lofty intelligence and anti-wacist integrity?)

You seem to have a very simplistic -- dare I say it, black-and-white --  way of looking at things. You appear to believe in the false dichotomy that crops up from time to time in flogger blog posts.

Yup. I've had you people pegged for a loooong time.


  1. The existence of Black Confederates tell an interesting part of Confederate History that is purposely left out of Simpson and the Lincoln lover's version of history. They are terrified of the prospect of one Black Confederate. Even if "one" Black Confederate is found in the ranks of the Confederate Army, Simpson and his crew are proven to be liars again and again. Yankees, especially Yankee authors, must disprove the existence of Black Confederates, because they have spent a lifetime belittling/ridiculing/lying about slave attitudes towards their masters and overall slave life in the south.

    One of the Lincoln lover's favorite cliches is, "Oh! "that slave" was only a wagon driver, or "that slave" was only a cook, he didn't carry a rifle or engage in combat, so that proves "that slave" was not a Black Confederate soldier. I have several white Confederate soldiers in my family who were only "wagon drivers." They were considered to be Confederate soldiers the same as any other Confederate soldier. Simpson and the Lincoln lovers are terrified of being exposed for lying all these years about the plight of blacks in the south.

  2. Janice,

    No historian has ever said that some blacks fought in the Confederate ranks. Your portrayal of historians only shines a light on you lack of understanding of the historical scholarship on the war and the various aspects of the war.

  3. I have an excellent understanding of "historians," especially "Yankee historians." Just because you don't know of a historian who "ever said that some blacks fought in the Confederate ranks" doesn't mean it ain't true.

    You been reading the wrong history books! Or maybe you haven't read "any" history books - only fiction from James McPherson or Eric Foner and the Lincoln Cult. These jokesters wouldn't even make a good pimple on a WM's behind.

  4. I'd be interested in knowning what accounts for as a historian?

  5. Well Janice since you seem to think you know better than two distinguished Civil War Historians, please provide insight to what they got wrong...just one thing.

  6. "This is done so that they can try and remove slavery from the cause of their ancestors."

    I guess Corey forgot about my recent post,

    I know he stopped by.
    Selective amnesia ?

    I've posted several times about Slavery AND my ancestors part in it.

  7. And Yankees bring up Slavery so they can try and remove New England supremacy from their ancestors' cause. They also bring it up for another reason. To avoid the fact that in 2013, sixteen states, with 17% of the land and 38% of the population, have nearly 100% of the political power. Regard the other thirtyfour states as colonial posessions. Hold them in a state of suzerainty and enjoy supra rights and priviliges the others don't. The chief among such rights, being superior right of rule. The war wasn't fought to free slaves, or supress rebellion. It was fought to enforce the rule and authority of Massachusetts and to make Boston the primary, and NYC and Chicago the secondary capitals of the U.S.

  8. Right James, because that is all over the primary sources of the time...get real.

  9. If a slave isn't equal to a "human" master, how can he register as a soldier in the first place?

  10. I dunno, Toby Glass, but armies as far back tasthe Romans and maybe farther, impressed slaves -- particularly those from conquered peoples -- into the ranks.

  11. Connie, this may not really interest you. But Osprey Publishing has published "Civil War Railroad Tactics." It delves, in a short chapter, on free Black railroad men on Southern roads like the L&N RR, RF&P and A&W. It mentions the use of impressed, and sometimes voluntary, slaves in track and bridge work by the U.S.M.R.R. If I recall it correctly, there's an anecdote about black train crewmen having taken a few shots at enemy troops near the front. But these were civillian railroad employees not in the C.S. chain of command.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.