Pissing Off Patrick

It seems that calling out Patrick Burns (a.k.a. Terrierman) over his apologist whitewashing of the bigot Jeremiah Wright is still a sore spot for my fellow dog blogger. Not only did Pat immediately remove his link to my blog from his blogroll, he deleted several of my comments on that post and others and has since vetoed all new comments on his blog and removed my comments on the Bark Obama site. He doesn’t respond to e-mails.

For someone who dishes it out daily, Old Patty sure can’t take it. What a wuss. Only the insecure resort to censorship and only cowards sling out insults and then put their fingers in their ears and sing “I can’t hear you, nah nah nah nah nah nah.”

Deleting comments doesn’t make the ideas go away, Patrick, and ignoring issues doesn’t mean you don’t have to face them.

On Wright: No matter how in the tank you are for Obama, J. Wright is a bigot, a fool, and a hate monger. He is a race bater. And you should condemn him for the scum that he is. If Wright weren’t your candidate’s pastor, I seriously doubt that you’d whitewash his idiocy the way you have tried to. That calls into question your judgement and objectivity. Crazy pastors are crazy pastors, no matter if they’re preaching to your guy or the other one.

But Wright isn’t the only issue you want to silence me on. Let’s hash out some recent comments that you don’t want out there.

You wrote, “If you subsidize stupidity and inefficiency, you get more of it,” regarding the governement giving handouts to the undeserving, thus encouraging their bad behavior. Your example is applied to the US Auto industry, but apparently you don’t want to hear me say, “funny, I feel the same thing about affirmative action and welfare.” Gosh Patrick, can you say logical relativism? Undeserving minorities deserve handouts but undeserving employers don’t? Who about we cut them both off from the public tit?

Now you’re ranting about John McCain saying that he is a “proven failure as leader of his own party” because the House failed to pass the Bailout bill (never mind that you seem to be against rewarding stupidity and inefficiency with tax payer’s money), but that “Nancy Pelosi made the calls and, as a consequence she got her Party in order.”

Do you really believe that, Pat? Reality sure doesn’t.

Most Democrats who have anything to lose voted against the bill. More than half (25/48) of the freshmen Dems voted against, 10 out of 15 Dems in close re-election bids voted against, and even 4 of the 11 ILL Dems voted against the bailout.

Numerous House committee chairs (all Dems) voted against the bill.

Barney Frank could have found most of the votes needed to pass this bill if he simply got all the Dems on his own House Financial Services Committee to vote for this bail out. If the Democratic House leadership can’t even get the Dems most intimately familiar with this bill to vote for it, where do you get off singling out the scape goat Republicans for sole blame?

The ACTUAL Leadership, in the House, Dems, didn’t come through. So it’s really silly for you to say that Pelosi got her party in order when she didn’t. If Dems had the balls, they could pass this stupid bill all by themselves. The truth is that they have no idea if this is a good idea or not and they’re big pussies who don’t want to get blamed if it goes bad or miss out on the glory if it works.

All for the best though, this bailout is a horrible gimmick and both of the Presidential candidates are pandering to the public by wanting it passed.

And again, just today, you can’t stand looking in a mirror when you spew your invectives. In one of your comments to your recent post rumormongering a sex scandal, you said, “John McCain’s plan for economic recovery (marry a beer heiress) may work for some, but it won’t work for most.”

I correctly pointed out that “#$%^ing the rich and taking their money IS the Democratic recovery plan.” How is John McCain living off his wife’s money any different than Democrats living off of his wife’s money, except that SHE AGREED to the deal with John?

See this chart, Patty? This shows how Obama wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor. But the rich don’t get veto power like Cindy McCain had over if she wanted to share her wealth with Johnny boy, and none of us can sign a prenup with Uncle Sam to prevent greedy politicians pandering to their electorate by taking our money to spend on their pet projects.

You look like a fool when you criticize your political enemies with insults that are so easily applied to your own philosophy. Is it really that hard to say “Wright is a crackpot but I’m voting for Obama anyway” instead of the dizzying spin? Is it really hard to admit that entitlement fraud is inappropriate on the left and the right? Is it really that hard to admit that your political philosophy requires massive income redistribution carried out by taking huge chunks of money from the wealthy and businesses of all sizes and giving entitlements to the have-nots?

But your intollerance and self-imposed deafness isn’t limited to your political leanings, you’ve also chosen to ignore and supress my observations on your incorrect facts regarding dogs.

Here’s a comment of mine that you simply want to ignore since it proves your conceptions wrong:

I picked up a decent pedigree program and can illuminate the previous debate.

You said:

“It is claimed, for example, that all border collies can be traced back to Old Hemp. This is certainly a lie, but it would not matter if it were not, since Old Hemp was crossed with something else quite a lot, wasn’t it?”

It’s true. I traced my own dogs back to Old Hemp (my Dublin happens to be a sire line heir, i.e. they would share the same last name if they were humans). I also traced Wiston Cap back to Old Hemp.

Since there hasn’t been a dog registered with the ISDS in some years that is not related to Wiston Cap, it is TRUE that EVERY ISDS border collie can be traced back to Old Hemp.

You said:
“One dog does not a breed make. At this point, old Hemp’s bloodline has been cut and sliced down over the last 130 years that probably not one atom of him exists in any dog alive.”

My own dog, is at least 1.25% Old Hemp, and I’m not even close to tracing every line back as far as the beginning. The shortest distance so far is 14 generations and the longest is 40.

And while it might be true that Old Hemp spread his genes far and wide, we have only 3 documented lines. x Ancrum Jed, x Fan, and x Old Nell.

You said:
“As for the various Cap dogs — Wiston Cap, Wilson’s Cap and Winston’s Cap — the gene pool behind these dogs was quite varied, and they were crossed into varied gene pools too.”

Wiston Cap’s sire has a COI of 20.7% and his dam has a COI of 10.9%; his own is above 5%. And again, those are just minimums, I don’t have the entire ISDS database. By my count, Wiston Cap goes back to Cap 3036 more than 30 times.

And it’s true that dogs like Wiston Cap were bred into diverse gene pools. In fact, Wiston Cap was bred into EVERY gene pool… In only 30 years, he’s the new Old Hemp, all the Border Collies are related to him!

And it’s not just WC, the pattern is repeated again and again with successive hot trialing dogs.

So you’re all well and good when you want to apply your facts against the Republicans or the Show community, but when the facts or arguments don’t support your position, you want them to go away. It’s pretty cowardly to throw rocks and kick dirt in people’s face and then run away lest they throw rocks back or even just dust of your dirt that doesn’t stick. And plenty of it just doesn’t stick.

About the Author

Christopher is currently owned by four Border Collies: Dublin, Celeste, Mercury and Gemma.