Hooray for HATE MAIL!

Awesome! It is hate mail time! It has been awhile since I got some hate mail, so I was beginning to worry that I have become inoffensive and meek. If I’m not offending somebody, then I’m failing. Luckily, a moon bat happened to read my thread about why right wingers are so filled with hate. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/understanding-media-or-why-are-you-right-wingers-so-filled-with-hate/ As usual, the guest is in italics and my response is in bold.


It’s really telling that the author of this unhinged spittle flecked rant

Yep. Filled with boundless rage. That’s me. I’m kind of like the Incredible Hulk of fantasy novelists.

immediately cast the shooter as ‘left wing’ yet spends most of this angry rant supposedly upset when people on the left do the same thing, trying to assign blame to the right.

Uhm, I do believe the entire point was that your side STARTED IT. To be fair, I believe I spent most of the post discussing how he was a nut more than anything. But don’t let your lack of actually reading my blog post stop you from pontificating on it.

If you want to play the blame game, fine, let’s do it.

Yes, but your side does it so much better.

How many liberals talk about the gold standard? That’s straight up tea party, Ron Paul nuttiness.

Actually, the only people I’ve heard that really take up that issue are the Libertarians rather than the Republicans. I kind of fall between the two, because I’m registered as a Republican only because Libertarians can’t get elected to county dog catcher.

How many liberals talk about the ‘illegitimate tyrannical government? That’s pure Alex Jones paranoia.

Yes, I’ve not heard anyone on the left use those terms since… Well, 2008. Oh, and after the elections in 2004 and 2000.  

You see how easy it is? It doesn’t help the matter at all.

You are right. The most helpful thing to do is blame Sarah Palin.

No one said Palin is responsible for this shooting,

It was only insinuated by the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, the Democratic Underground, a dozen senators and congressmen, and the sheriff that failed to prosecute the killer on earlier violations.

or at least no one worthy of paying attention to.

Looking at the above list, pretty much.

People are saying that Palin and many on the right have been using excessive language and rhetoric for a few years now, and while unrelated, it’s not something that should be done in a civil society.

As long as we are a free society, there is no such thing as excessive language or rhetoric. You should be able to argue for what you believe however you want. And when you lie about it, you should be called on it and made to look like a fool.

Let me try to address this in all seriousness. I find that most liberals have no concept of history. Our country was founded on impassioned debate, then we had a big war, then we had more impassioned debate. America is built on passion, on fighting for what you believe to be right, on struggle, on effort. The fact that the first amendment is the First Amendment displays this.

Our language continues the tradition. You want heated rhetoric? Read the debates between Lincoln and Douglas. We are such a CIVIL society that at one point we broke in half and held a war. Wait… what was that one called again?

You think it is bad today? Then you are a fool with no concept of history. Once upon a time, a republican president sent the US Army to roust a camp of 15,000 peaceful marchers. They were removed with tear gas, bayonets, and tanks. Several marchers were killed and hundreds were injured. That was in 1932 and it was not that abnormal an event in our history.

There have been duels between government employees. The Sergeant at Arms has used a club to break up congressional debates. Honestly, compared to our forefathers, our current leadership are a bunch of pansies.   

Why is it so important to use violent language in a political debate?

Almost all political language is based upon violent terms relating to warfare, because the two are related. We have “campaigns” in “battle ground” states. Politics are what societies have when we’re not having war. War is a continuation of politics, and always has and always will be.

A better question is, why do we have to destroy our right to free speech?

I think the Democratic Underground is populated by a bunch of morons, but they’ve got the right to say whatever they want. They can burn effigies of George Bush if they feel like it. Skinheads and Black Panthers can say whatever they want to, no matter how awful it is, because this is America.

Irony is just not a frame of mind right wingers are really capable of processing.

Oh, trust me. We do irony just fine.  

The immediate defensive tone taken by those on the right is very telling.

Because if I walked up to you in public and called you a child rapist, wouldn’t you get a little defensive? Maybe if I only said you were a supporter of pedophilia, but that some horrible crime only happened because you were such an awful wannabe child molester, then do you think you might get a touch defensive? Now, what if representatives of every major news station in the country showed your picture as soon as there was a report that a pedophile had been arrested? Defensive?

So, when the half the country that believes what I believe gets immediately blamed for something that we had nothing to do with… Duh.

Oh, and if we are silent, you just do it more and say that our silence shows we feel guilty. If we defend ourselves, it shows that we are defensive about something because we feel guilty. Ironic… See? I told you above that we understood irony. We have to live it every time we turn on the news.  

Maybe, just maybe, you can think twice before casting tens of millions of Americans as traitors

For the record, I don’t throw around the word traitor, (like the left did all the time with generals, vice presidents, and military contractors like me) because treason is a very specific law. Treason is not defined as “anything that disagrees with me”.

or saying stupid things like liberals want to implement socialism

Liberals don’t want to implement socialism. Liberals are just useful idiots used by socialists to implement socialism. Get it right. Nikita Khrushchev figured that out a long time ago.

to take away all your guns.

Nope. There hasn’t been six different pieces of federal gun legislation proposed this week. Not at all… No magazine bans. No new assault weapons ban. No ban on a gun within 1,000 feet of an elected official… Nope. Imagined the whole thing.

And for the record, if my side really was as dangerous, evil, scary, crazy, mean, and hate filled as your side seems to think we are, you would need a lot more than a thousand feet… The people on my side can hit squirrels at that.

That’s just crazy talk, plain and simple. No one is coming for your little guns, people.

That would be difficult… mostly because we have guns.

You are free to carry them to tell the world what a failure of a man you are thinking your gun equals the glorious lack of manhood between your legs.

You got me there. My penis, though it has been sufficiently keeping my wife happy for thirteen years of marriage, is completely inadequate for self defense purposes.

I do love that one. Lefties love to use Freudian BS as if I have a gun only to compensate for the size of my equipment. (which is really kind of funny since I’m 6’5”, can palm a basketball, and wear a size 15 shoe… draw your own conclusions) Nope, I carry a gun because I can’t throw a 230 grain lead projectile at 850 feet per second with my dick. Also, in a second amendment sense, I highly doubt that my penis would be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, either.


Who wants an autographed copy of The Grimnoir Chronicles: Hard Magic?
HUGO AWARDS! It is time to get your nominations in. And yes, I'm eligible.