Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Watch Connie Squirm! In Your Dreams, Simpson

As I've said, Simpson is not stupid, he's just ethically challenged. But he will pretend ignorance and stupidity if he thinks he can make a point with them. 

(I've pointed out this flogger practice before:
There's more, but you get the idea....)

For example, he posts a Tweet from the SaveConfedMuseum feed and says "These folks..."  There's more than one? He knows this? He knows who "they" are?

So some unknown person ("These folks" to Simpson) makes a Twitter account and posts a picture of Susan and a link to my blog, and that makes us mental clones ot this unknown person? If Simpson believes that, he has bigger mental problems than I want to deal with.

But I don't think for a moment he believes it. He knew he was lying when he made the post. What's interesting is how many of his followers will swallow what he says without a single neuron firing.

Now, I wouldn't put it past him or one of his myrmidons to make a fake account (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) pretending to be a bizarre proponent of Confederate heritage (racist, sexist, bad speller, etc.) and then "discovering" it and "pointing it out" to his gullible peanut gallery. But I also don't doubt that it could be some gung-ho heritage person. Somebody a bit over the top. The heritage community is huge -- there's bound to be a weirdo now and then. (There are kooks on their side, don't forget. The semi-literate Ed "Crawfish" Sebesta, who "monitors" Tommy Hilfiger Corp. for "Confederate symbology" on their clothing, comes to mind.)

Which is it in this case? A genuine Confederate heritage nut, or a flogger or floggerette trying to make heritage folks look bad?

There is a history of doing that on their side:
http://bashdixie.blogspot.com/ (Simpson's fake blog made solely to attack me)

I really have no idea which it is. Don't care, either, because the only ones who believe it are folks on his side who need to hate and put down somebody in order to generate the warm fuzzies of (fake) moral superiority in themselves.

Susan and I are both on record, long since, on Facebook and elsewhere, supporting US Armed Forces personnel, both active and vets.

What's going on here is Simpson throwing a tantrum because I threw off on his profession, his flogger colleagues and the whole flippin' educationally and morally bankrupt academic establishment in this country. I've already identified why he has it in for the VaFlaggers, although that doesn't explain his personal hatred for Susan. As for me, I'm not sure why he puts so much importance on the personal blog of a retired property and casualty claims secretary in Florida.

And I'm sure the tantrum was intensified by my reference to "Pedophile-loving," but there was more connection between him and his pedophilic commenters than there is between Susan or I and this anonymous Tweeter...

Hey, when crap is thrown at me, I pick it up and throw it back. If you don't want it thrown back at you, don't throw it at me first, capisce?


  1. A person who will post using a fake name has no credibility, it's kinda like the No Documentation thing.
    Do I think that the Floggers would stoop as low as to create a fictional account to discredit the Flaggers ?
    YEP !
    While browsing the F/B pages of Flaggers I noticed a number of them have post honoring Close family members and friends who are Veterans.
    Yet Simpson and his boot licks don't seem to notice, heck as much time as they spend looking for negative things to harp about and when failing to find anything, fabricating or twisting what they need, you'd think the would stumble across the same things I have.
    But hey it's all about the spin when it comes to flogging.
    I ain't seen any floggers praising their close family and friends who are Vet's,
    what's up with that ?

    1. Floggers and their ilk are colossal hypocrites.

    2. LOOOL I just realized I wasn't using my real name with my post.
      But it ain't hard to figure out who I am !

    3. Even LS members who don't support imperialism still honour their kin who fought in the wars. Of course you could have that one guy who goes a little too far with his opinions, but to paint an entire movement or organization with a broad brush is just ridiculous.

    4. Ridiculous, but with a not ridiculous motive behind it. I won't go so far as to say a sinister motive, but certainly an unscrupulous one...

  2. I think the word you're looking for is "disingenuous".


Comments are welcome, but monitored.