Jan Haugland bites off more than he can chew

Ik heb hem over de jaren weten evolueren van interessant en de twee kanten van de zaak tonend tot rabiaat rechts en anti-alles wat maar ergens naar niet-neoconservatief is.

En daarbij is hij ook van ironisch over cynisch tot compleet irrationeel en scatologisch gegaan. Een typische commentaar-sessie op één van zijn posts staat vol met verwijten van “loser”, “fucker”, “idiots”, allemaal gericht op wie volgens hem “links” is. update: meer alhier.

Ik heb het al lang opgeheven om er ten gronde op te reageren, maar deze was toch te goed om te laten liggen. Ene Robert reageert op een post waar Haugland zegt dat Michael Moore gelogen zou hebben over zijn laatste film:

I’m surprised that you, like so many others, still insist on the delusion that politics in America is a “left-right” issue, when historically that political paradigm has not existed in this country for over a generation. And you may not want to start telling others they are “deluded” or “immoral” lest your own inconsistencies be exposed.

As I brought up in the original comment stream, the issue you keep evading is that there is a big difference between the lies of a movie maker, whether for publicity or whatever, and the lies of those truly in power, such as W, Rummy, Black Dick, Wolfman, or Eliot Abrams, the architect of the Central American death squads. When these guys lie, people die. Right now you’re swatting at gnats. And if your crusade is to take a moviemaker to task for lies that really hurt others, then where is your outrage at Mel Gibson for his lurid, but COMPLETELY historically inaccurate S/M version of the death of Christ? Anti-semitism, heart attacks, desecration of places of worship, all resulted from Mel’s “lies.”

Your outrage at Michael Moore’s “lies” rather than the lies of the dangerous men who hijacked our government reads like a man who screams about the lies of someone trying to form a club while staying silent about the lies of a banker who puts you into eternal debt while repossessing your house.

Redeijk interessant, zou ik zo denken, voer voor discussie. Haugland is zijn eigen typische beleefde zelf:

Robert, you simply presume I share your political views. I don’t. And you haven’t argued your case at all, just preached leftist dogma (yes, left-right is not entirely descriptive, but in your case it does nicely).

Het gaat een tijdje over en weer, tot Robert besluit dat het hem eigenlijk niet intereseert om uitgescholden te worden:

Last note — it’s 4:20 here, and so I bid you farewell. That way I won’t perpetuate your self-description as a “loser magnet.” Again, examine your choice of words. You probably need to see a therapist.

Haugland ruikt victorie, en kan het niet laten een laatste “parting shot” te doen:

I see you have given up all pretense of actually having any arguments. If you need to tout your alleged creditentials instead of actually providing arguments for your position (somehow I doubt you see the difference) you have already lost. Your pathetic whining about being called what you are just detracts from a credibility that wasn’t much to write home about in the first place.

Oei. Ai. Dat had hij misschien niet moeten doen. Een zekere mate van quit while you’re ahead zou hem misschien beter uitgekomen zijn:

Since you insist: Sorry you believe that putting others down constitutes a real argument. You definitely project many things from your own subconscious choice of “blaming and shaming” words that lead me to believe you need therapy in a serious way.

BTW (if you know what that means) you were absolute WRONG in your assertion to Michel above about “ad Hominem.” Michel was correct, you were absolutely wrong. Check out your dictionary before you shoot others down. Your ignorance and vulgarity undermine your own credibility.

Pretense? I may “tout my alleged credentials” to whatever degree I choose. Check out your contacts in Washington DC for think tanks, since I’ve been an associate of one. Find me if you can, before you challenge me. And if you still come up a total loser, then I might choose to tell you some of my credentials and other things, like my associations with everyone from Willie Nelson to Jonas Salk. I’ve been around, son. Too bad for you you’re so clueless.

I’ve also written books. Have you checked them out? It’s no pretense. Try “Love Dad: Healing the Grief of Losing A Child.” It’s helped many hundreds or thousands. I lost count. Sorry I can’t “prove” to your satisfaction things that you are ignorant of. Read it if you dare, ranting and petulant child, and then tell me about what you think you know about me or life or death or anything else (not that I expect you to demonstrate such honesty.)

I only discuss affairs; I don’t argue cases, unless a client wants me to. Your arguments are opinions, nothing more. You lose logic and focus with every response, resorting to name calling. Check out the comment stream.

Your nasty, mean-spirited petty stance undermines your own credibility. You sound like someone who couldn’t actually make it in an honest profession, and instead chose to be a self-righteous form of Jerry Falwell espousing a bigoted, narrow reality that gets nasty if debated. So be a fundamentalist if you choose, my brother, but you will find soon enough that your own hatred, vitriol, and ignorance will leave you a very lonely, frustrated man. Peace from someone who was proving it before you were born.

Humor.

O ja, en ondertussen heeft Michael Moore een redelijk overtuigende uitleg gepost op zijn eigen website.