Hilarious Exchange with the RGI (Part II)

There’s even more in the growing exchange between the gaggle at Brotha Wolf’s blog and the newcomer on the scene, SnowMan (here). Even I weighed in! Yep. Little ol’ me! The banned xPraetorius.

In the beginning of the set-to, SnowMan challenged Brotha Wolf and, by definition, his followers to backup BW’s claim that Bill O’Reilly is embroiled in a scandal similar to that which sank Brian Williams — the revelation that Williams lied about being in a helicopter that was forced down by rocket fire in Afghanistan.

O’Reilly, the allegation goes, didn’t actually get close to combat during the Falklands War (all the way back in 1982 — nearly 33 years ago!) as he says he did. Nor did he, the story continues, rescue his own cameraman from rioting Argentines during that same conflict.

Well, as it turns out, O’Reilly was right and those who are accusing him are wrong. SnowMan very bluntly gave BW that message, then proved it with chapter and verse. The exchange is instructive because, other than the passion exhibited by SnowMan, it is a typical argument between the right and the left. The guy on the right trots out chapter and verse, and the guy on the left interrupts, and evades, and insults, and talks over him, and jeers, and interrupts some more, and evades some more, before storming out saying that the guy on the right just isn’t worth his time.

The argument follows exactly the template of so many left-right arguments. The left always does this, especially when they’re way overmatched, as they were in this exchange. However, the left can never be wrong. Their entire intellectual edifice is based on a massive collection of lies, fraudulent “facts,” (77 cents on a dollar; one in five women sexually assaulted, racism, etc.), inventions and other smoke and mirrors.

If the left were to lose one argument, then they know full well that their entire rickety, contradiction-riddled, people-squashing house of cards risks falling down around them. It’s this house of dirty, slime-dripping cards that gives them their power. It’s how Obama was elected — twice! — and how they hope to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2016. It’s why the left shout down opponents, block them from speaking at universities, talk over them, make ludicrous accusations, exclude them from the media, censor them and more.

SnowMan smashed through all that and pulverized the arguments thrown at him. In the beginning, I was enjoying the argument, and the rather obvious fact that Brotha Wolf and his flock were completely unarmed before The Man of Snow.

However, as brilliant as SnowMan was, he was equally obnoxious, with his insults and his name-calling. It diminished, I thought, the impact of his obviously superior argumentation. I think this little exchange can serve as an example of close to how we should conduct ourselves with (in this case) the Race Grievance Industry, and the left in general.

It’s certain that we can dominate these exchanges, but that we must not start the gutter behavior. We can engage in it, if the left goes there, as they almost always do, but we should never start it. Furthermore, we should start off by admonishing them preemptively not to start the gutter behavior; then call them out — immediately — when they do, and only then engage in it only if they ignore our polite warning not to do it. Then, we should have at it with gusto, because we can beat them in that as well. Never forget: there’s a simple reason we beat them every time if a debate stays on topic: they’re not too bright.

There. That was SnowMan’s infraction. He started the sniping. He beat the living snorg out of Brotha Wolf and his followers’ arguments, but he, SnowMan, started the name-calling, and nullified his victory by engaging in the disreputable tactics of the left first.

I think we should always start out on the high road, for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is: we have the facts and the best arguments. We’re poorly served when there are useless, or irrelevant, or subject-changing distractions. That’s exactly why the left do it!

Otherwise stated: the left is in big trouble when debates stay on-topic, and focused, and deal with the facts instead of irrelevancies. That’s why they immediately go for the accusation of racism. Or of lying, or a thousand other slanders. They’re laying the groundwork for when the debate starts to go sour for them, as it inevitably does. At that point they can dismiss you as a racist, lying scoundrel, so your point of view is wrong too.


You see, the left has a track record! This country has been moving steadily leftward since its founding, but much more rapidly so in the past seventy or eighty years. The left understands that, and read this well, every major initiative they have launched, ostensibly to resolve a stated problem — poverty, hunger, drugs, unemployment, corruption, crime — has failed miserably.

The measure of success for these things is simple: what is the extent to which the initial effort has shrunk or grown since its inception. If the effort, and its accompanying departments and bureaus and Agencies have shrunk, it can be only from success in its endeavors. If it, and its hangers-on, have grown, it can be only because it has all failed. How are the various wars — on poverty, on crime, on hunger, on drugs — going? Yuh. Not so well.


I then joined in! To admonish SnowMan to moderate his tone. SnowMan’s points were right on the nose, and he demolished Brotha Wolf and the couple of others of his acolytes, who, true to form, joined in with only the accusations of racism, and the usual evasions and deflections.

However, SnowMan broke my cardinal rule: don’t be the one to start the name-calling.

I don’t much blame him… it’s pretty much inevitable when you engage the Race Grievance Industry or other bastions of the left. They don’t have the arguments, so they jump immediately into irrelevancies and name-calling.(1) SnowMan might have been acting preemptively. That’s fine for war, but this is not war, but debate.

We don’t have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can respond with withering replies, if we’re on our toes.

If someone calls you a racist, you could say something like “Only a moron would make that accusation. Are you a moron?” Or, “I won’t even dignify that steaming pile of demented tommyrot with a response,” and go right on with your point. Or: “Okay, let’s pretend I’m a racist. Why not? After all, I’m pretending you’re not a half-wit by being here. However my qualities as a human being have no bearing whatsoever on the correctness of my arguments. What’s your excuse for your jaw-droppingly stupid arguments?” Then smile politely. Or, (the daring, give-’em-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine) “Everyone knows that the Race Grievance Industry, of which you’re a proud member, is full of frothing, unbalanced racists — needless to say, a true racist would accuse others of racism; it’s just projection.” And go on with your next point.

Never let the scurrilous accusation go unanswered except with something that pounds it into the dust.

I’ll repeat it: We don’t ever have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can perform debate jiu-jitsu. Their thoughts and ideas are old, faded, fat, flabby, feeble, flaccid failures… if some blubbery thing like that comes waddling at you wheezing, “Racist!” Just step aside, let the old gasbag lumber chuffing by, and respond as mentioned above. Take the air out of these garbage accusations!

SnowMan did exactly that. If only he hadn’t started the name-calling!

Now, this SnowMan chap is an excellent writer, and I wish he were in our stable of writers. Though, I wonder whether I’d have to edit his output so much that it wouldn’t be worth it. I can’t know that because I know him only through this one, ultimately very entertaining, exchange, which I’ve reproduced in its entirety, below.

My post is the last one, in which I excoriated SnowMan for his approach.


When Conservatives Face the Music

This Bill O’Reilly scandal, and that’s what it is naysayers, has gotten worse and worse for the conservative commentator. In fact, you know it’s gotten bad when even your fellow conservatives call you out on your lies. After Brian Williams got caught in a fib, O’Reilly saw fit to scold him. And then, you know what happened after that. It was all downhill for the man who loved pointing fingers at the world, but too full of himself, along with something else, to admit his own flaws, one of them being that he’s apparently a pathological liar.

Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:

The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”

“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.

“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”

O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”

Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.

The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.

  1. SnowMan said:

    March 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Just another moronic post, Brotha Wolf. There is no O’Reilly scandal.

    What O’Reilly said has already been corroborated, so your whining is just silly. I’m enjoying your desperation, though.

    You and I both know that the nitwit David Corn has nothing to fear from Bill O’Reilly, or from anyone else at FOX News. It’s funny to hear you left-wing dealers in fake hysteria fabricating the sillinesses that you know will get your sheep followers all in a lather. Go ahead, name the last time that someone in the media was physically harmed by someone on the right. Go ahead. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.

    Want more proof? O’Reilly is the biggest name in cable talk. If there were really something there, it would be all over the news, and especially on all the rivals of FOX. They all SALIVATE to bring O’Reilly down.

    But there’s nothing. Anywhere

    Go ahead. Go to http://www.msnbc.com. Search “O’Reilly” on the site. You come up with something from back in august of 2013 — nearly two years ago.

    CNN has something, and it’s all the stuff that has already been shown to be false. See if you can guess which two cable networks would be the most eager to get rid of O’Reilly. Yup. MSNBC and CNN, and CNN has become the National Enquirer of cable.
    So, again, nothing anywhere.

    Either way, even if it were to be true, it would be the odd exception that proves the rule that America’s political right-wing is the least corrupt political group in America, while the left is by far the most corrupt. Why? Because this happens all the time on the left, going back to Dan Rather and his fraudulent reporting on George W. Bush, and before.

    The other proof is that the odd time that it happens on the right, you whining lot on the left jump all over it, because, FINALLY, you think, you have something.

    Last, and most convincing proof: if there were something there, it would have been broken by Drudge, and there’s nothing on Drudge.

    It happens a thousand times on the left, and all you lot say is, “nothing to see here.” It happens just once on the right and somehow it’s proof that it’s everywhere on the right.

    You called O’Reilly corrupt. Prove it. Examples. Otherwise, you’re just a cowardly liar.

  2. Snowman,

    There are articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times. And O’Reilly has shown that he can’t take the news.

    In any case, this has shown how far downhill journalism and news has gotten. Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly or Brian Williams, it proves that there must be some kind of reform where people can trust the news again. Period. That in itself is not a liberal or conservative matter. But conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth. That is something that can not be overlooked. Period. You can get upset and angry all you want, but the truth is that O’Reilly and Fox News represent the worst news has to offer.

  3. Exactly, ‘Wolf-the lack of journalistic integrity and actual, Qualified reporters with a true sense of dignity and above all Honesty are neither a “Left” nor “Right” issue, but rather a pressing matter that every citizen should be concerned about (for those who give a rat’s azz about Real news, that is)!!!

  4. SnowMan said:

    March 2, 2015 at 5:40 am

    Two things: (1) Point me to one such article, and please make it a credible one. The ones at CNN were nothing… already debunked. And obviously nothing from Corn would do. Something credible.

    (2) You said that “conservatives are at the forefront in trying to destroy truth.” That’s a bunch of hogwash. Again, offer credible evidence, or you’re either proving that you’re completely ignorant or lying.

    Credible evidence is not “Everyone knows,” or “This non-credible publication said.” Credible is facts from credible sources. At this point, you’re just saying things.

    Left-wing media is OFTEN caught just making things up. Remember Dan Rather? The right-wing media, or FOX News has never been credibly accused of making things up.

    So again prove it.

    • I have a feeling any kind of source I cite will be immediately dismissed by you as being “leftist” and therefore untrue by default in your view. I can’t prove something to someone who automatically dismisses opposing opinions based on facts. So, why bother? By th way, I know you’re type. So, don’t think I’m naive enough to fall for your trap of me going out of my way to cite sources you will discount anyway because they’re simply not conservative. Nice try.

      • Why oh why, do these white racists presume that all black people posting here are ‘liberal’? Oh, I know why, if they had two brains they would be twice as stupid. Ideologues of the world unite!

      • SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:12 pm

        Again, failing to name such “facts” proves that you’re engaging in nothing but AT BEST conjecture.

        I’ll make it easier for you. A fact is something that we all agree is a fact. That DOES rule out everything from the ideological media. Example: when Dan Rather smeared George W. Bush, eventually it came out that he HAD smeared George W. Bush. It’s an accepted fact now. The document he used was forged, and there were ways to determine that and they were made public. You say there are “articles to have shown that O’Reilly has lied numerous times.” Okay point to one. Not an opinion piece like the bilge you posted above, but an actual article containing actual facts.

      • A fact is something that is objectively proven to be true. Why don’t you show me proof of your claims and we’ll see if they are objective or biased in favor of you? Since you’re so hung up on proof, why not make the first move? Provide links or something, instead of ranting.

      • And if you want articles to see, go to my twitter page and take your pick. In case you missed it, it’s on the left side of the blog.

        Also, don’t assume that I’m “leftist” simply because I disagree with all that modern-day conservatism is about. I also have a problem with modern-day liberalism. So, don’t assume that just because I disagree with one, I agree with the other.

      • SnowMan said:

        March 3, 2015 at 1:20 pm

        Herneith, you’re either a blithering idiot, or you just play one on blogs. You have no idea what color I am or even what country I’m from. If YOU had two brains, that would be three more than you have now. Better put something over your ears, or that howling vacuum between them will suck in even more debris.

        You DO have one point though. You might not be a liberal. You’re just not bright enough to realize you’re one of their stooges..

        Morons of the world unite!

      • Hold up! So you assume that just because she’s not a conservative that means she plays for the other side? You know what they say about those who assume. They make asses out of themselves. And yet, you seem to be proud of being one. More power to ya.

      • Herneith, you’re either a blithering idiot, or you just play one on blogs.

        Is that you Scott Walker?

      • SnowMan said:

        March 4, 2015 at 1:00 am

        You flunked, Brotha Wolf. You made the accusations, you have to provide the proof.

        If you look at the top, you’ll see that it’s YOUR name on the topmost post. Not mine. Your evasion shows you have only baseless accusations. Anyone can just repeat things … like sheep. That’s disgusting behavior, even for a racist like you.

        About Herneith. And about you. Whether both of you like it or not the DEBATE takes place on the left-right axis. You spend all your time attacking the right. You’re not attacking the right from the further right. Furthermore, you say nothing against the left. Your pretense that you’re part of some “third way” is transparently false. A lie? Simple ignorance? Who knows? Who can read another’s heart?

        I peruse your blog quite a bit just to find out what the blind followers are saying, and Herneith is a regular poster (not a contributor). She’s the same way: one who has the vanity to think she’s some brave, independent thinker, when she’s nothing more than a tiresome, preening, leftist dupe.

        As regards my challenge, the burden of proof is yours, since you made the accusations. I’m telling you that you have no ACTUAL proof. The fact that you offer none proves my point.

        I win.

      • You win? Fine. Whatever makes you feel happy and superior. That doesn’t change the basic theme of this blog that even conservatives need to hold themselves accountable for their actions. And Bill O’Reilly needs to man up and do some soul searching seeing as how he’s been lying for years.

        So, you can boast about how you’ve “won” all you want. It doesn’t change the truth that O’Reilly is a liar, and overall asshole to boot. Then again, seeing as how you’ve been behaving in my blog, I can see why you’re defending him.

        I attack the right mostly because the right attacks people like me, which is true. Only the right is bold enough to do so.

        In any case, I see you’re nothing more than a troll who’s too immature to have an intellectual conversation with. Like I said, if that means you’ve won, go ahead and think that. But it doesn’t change my point that your side, and a certain someone on your side, need to be held responsible for your actions.

        Oh, and if you think that I’ve allowed liberals to get away with their BS, it shows you haven’t been reading my blog until recently.

        Anyway, I’m done. Good bye.

      • snowMan said:

        March 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        Yep, BrothWolf, you’re done alright. And before you even started! Pretty pathetic. You didn’t offer one single thing in support of your accusations and somehow you think that passes for an argument? Are you a moron?

        Again, I challenge you. You made another assertion. You said that the right attacks people like you.

        Again, prove it. Give me one REAL piece of evidence that the right attacks people like you.

        If you don’t prove it, then you show yourself to be nothing but a cowardly, racist, narcissistic bully, taking cheap pot shots at innocent people for kicks, and hiding behind all the other racialist whiners out there.

      • snowMan said:

        March 5, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        Go ahead, point me to where you somehow take the left to task.

        I already know the answer to that. You take the left to task only when they’re not leftist enough for your taste. And when they don’t grovel enough before your race-obsessed, reactionary, whining bullsh*t. And you pretend you’re not on the left? You’re not too bright, are you?

      • I’m not going to bend over backwards for a troll.

      • Now, go ahead and still act like an asshole showing the world your bullying attitude, and beg me to kick you off my blog.

      • snowman said:

        March 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm

        Let’s see, let’s see. Rolling Stone. Wasn’t that where we learned all about all that rape going on? Oh, yeah. That was faked. Strike 1.

        Raw story and Keith Olbermann? More fraudsters. Strike 2

        Politifact? You mean Politi-FICTION, don’t you? Left-wing organization known for getting it wrong? Lying? I don’t know. Who can read another’s heart? It’s pretty well known they’re always wrong, though. Strike 3.

        Newshounds? Same as Raw story and Politi-fiction. Always wrong due to an ideological obsession. Strike 4.

        Congratulations, Brotha Wolf. You got more strikes against you than you’re even allowed!

        I did mention, didn’t I, that the ideological press were out of bounds? Why, yes I did. Just above.

        How about some REAL facts? Facts you and I can BOTH agree on: #1: O’Reilly denied the allegations. #2: A military guy backed up O’Reilly’s story IMMEDIATELY. #3: O’Reilly’s still on the air, having, apparently NOT faced any music. #4: Brian Williams IMMEDIATELY admitted it because he knew he was caught. #5: ABC did NOT back up Williams, while #5: FOX News IMMEDIATELY backed up O’Reilly. #6: no one else in the non-ideological press is talking about it. #7: CNN and MSNBC would be ALL over this if there were something there, since their deepest fantasy is to depose O’Reilly.

        Look, I have nothing but respect for the ideological press — both left and right-wing. They are honest, if sometimes overzealous. But, their zeal gets the better of them too frequently. So, that leads to fact #8: your “scandal” is going nowhere, because there’s nothing there, and you have nothing, but just spouting the wishful thinking of others. And, again, you have provided nothing in the way of credible support for your original hypothesis. That makes you nothing more than a vicious rumor-monger. Sorry, but that’s the lowest of the low on the internet.

        I extended another challenge to you: prove to me where, as you say, “the right attacks people like me.”

        First: who are “people like you?” Second: How does the right attack you?

        Then there’s my other challenge to you: How do you criticize the left? Show me an example. (And I’ll bet you that I can show YOU an example of where you simply criticize the left from even FURTHER left.)

        You call me a troll, but my questions are really very simple. Yet, you haven’t been able to answer one single question with anything but garbage. You really don’t like to challenge your preconceived notions, do you? That’s just a recipe for always getting it wrong. Well, you racists are all living in the past anyway. I shouldn’t be surprised at this.

      • You are banned. Goodbye.

  5. @Snowman; did I strike a chord? I don’t debate white racist deluded loons such as yourself. You are only fit for derision. You froth at the mouth!

    • snowMan said:

      March 5, 2015 at 1:16 pm

      @Herneith: You don’t debate anyone. I’ve read your material. It’s vapid, self-obsessed, moronic, devoid of substance and juvenile. It probably reflects its author. But, you are right about one thing, you don’t debate. You’re pretty much incapable of it, since you lack the necessary tools between your ears.

  6. LmaOoooooooooooooo, Tell ‘em!!! X-D

  7. Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Snowman!

    Look, I sympathize with your point-of-view, but you are waaaaayyy out of line with your sneering tone and your name-calling.

    I’ve been banned from this blog, but I have to extend support to my erstwhile friend Brotha Wolf, and call foul on SnowMan. I hope Brotha Wolf will print this in the interest of increasing civility in these and other forums!

    Just because you hold a certain point-of-view, Snowman, doesn’t mean that someone else can’t disagree with you because they sincerely hold a different point of view. The name-calling, the snide tone and sneering have to stop. They only damage your credibility, and makes you come off as a jerk.

    BW, I hope you’ll allow this to appear, as I was kind of enjoying the exchange. As you know, this Snowman character has ideas that seem more or less compatible with some of mine, but his tone is intolerable, and I’m writing this in support of you.

    As you also know, I tried always to be respectful here with people who were respectful with me. However, Snowman didn’t give you or anyone else a chance before dumping all over you! That’s not my way, and I’d like to let Snowman know that it shouldn’t be his way either.


    — x




— xPraetorius


(1) – We did an extensive analysis of leftist debate evasions here. Search for “Compendium of reasons for editing content from the RGI.” In the rather long post, it’s about three-quarters of the way down. That compendium lists all the ways the RGI, and the left in general, duck and avoid actually talking about an issue. It’s a list of things they do in writing, but they do the same things is speaking as well.

One thought on “Hilarious Exchange with the RGI (Part II)

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: