# Dogface and the Liberals of Doom **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 17, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066 "2003-09-17T01:09:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/1 "2003-09-17T01:09:37Z")
In [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211359) Great Debates thread, Dogface gets right to the point in his first post: > [@](#): > > In the modern day, it is the liberals who have repeatedly yammered on and on about how “evil” it was to use the bomb. Thus, revisionist history that says that the only reason it was used was to intimidate the USSR is liberal, since it adheres very strongly to the current liberal party line. Remember, the liberal line is “USA bad, no matter what, USA bad”. Don’t tell us why you think the show mentioned in the OP is wrong. Just throw out that tired old line about liberal anti-Americanism. Hey, I can understand. It can be difficult to consider views of history that differ from your own. But you could at least try. If Dog had stopped there, I wouldn’t be making this post. Unfortunately, he (you are a he, right?) must not have spewed enough ignorance and horseshit to satisfy his liberal-bashing urges, and lets loose with another gem: > [@](#): > > I see you can’t actually read what I write. Please quote SPECIFICALLY where I stated that sympathy for the victims is anti-American. I want a SPECIFIC quote. Asking Lissa to specifically quote where you said sympathy for the victims is anti-American? Ridiculous! Here’s the relevant quote: > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, some people seem to feel that any sympathy directed towards the victims is anti-American. “Some people”. Hey, it must apply to you. You’re some person. When this interesting \> \> ACTUAL QUOTATION! \< \< is shown to him, Dogface responds: > [@](#): > > Gee, maybe it was the way you DIRECTLY ADRESSED ME BY MY HANDLE in order to make the accusation that you’re now trying to weasel out of. No, dipshit! Your handle was put in there because the first part of the post was directed towards you and your your crazy-ass allegations against liberals! It was NOT there to say you called sympathy anti-American! Fucking idiot. More political masturbation: > [@](#): > > I am talking about the blind, mindless, knee-jerk liberal attitude, every bit as stupid and short-sided as its converse among conservatives, of demonizing the USA whenever possible and rewriting history. Whoa, Doggy! Slow down! Don’t want to blow your load yet, there’s more liberals to condemn! I must admit I enjoy your attempt at being fair and balanced. Hoping that your steaming pile of shit would be overlooked if you threw in an itty bitty diamond, eh? I guess you didn’t think you had spread enough crap for the day, which would be the only explanation for this: > [@](#): > > The truth is that the left in the USA WANTED the bomb to be used and the right did not and now they very CONVENIENTLY sweep that under the rug because it doesn’t agree with their current groupthink of “everything the USA does is bad, no matter what”. Gasp! You, sir, have uncovered the Vast Liberal Conspiracy to “CONVENIENTLY” sweep 60-year old opinions under the rug. As you certainly know, opinions do not change over the years. Ever. Also, all of us modern liberals are in fact re-animated World War 2-era conservatives, brought back to life to spread vicious anti-American lies. Mwahaahaaaa! As you can see from my snarky comments, Dogface is… what?! There’s _more_? Say it ain’t so! I’d like to spare you (and myself) Doggy’s raging hard-on for ignorance and general asshattery, but my rant would just not be complete without it. Responding to to a strawman accusation (referring to his “knee-jerk liberal attitude” comment): > [@](#): > > After four years of that sort of rubbish spewed by the “liberals” at my college, I got my degree and was free. Not a straw man at all. It’s reality. I’ve experienced it. Certainly not a strawman. Wait, what was it we were debating? :smack: begin bonus rant After reading these posts, it’s interesting to note that [Dogface said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3963457#post3963457) to reject a political ideology which demonizes its opponents. But then, it’s probably not fair to bring this up. After all, this is the thread where he accuses Chomsky of claiming that the Khmer Rouge never committed a single atrocity. Interestingly, Mr. Dogface did not return after he was shown to be incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/2 "2003-09-17T01:17:59Z")
I like the term, “Liberals of Doom.” I’m picturing Howard Dean tricked out like the guitarist from GWAR. ---
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/3 "2003-09-17T01:37:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > \*\*I like the term, “Liberals of Doom.” I’m picturing Howard Dean tricked out like the guitarist from GWAR. \*\* [What, like this?](http://208.56.81.82/i%20am%20doctor%20dean,%20let%20me%20remove%20your%20internal%20organs.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/4 "2003-09-17T01:59:41Z")
\ _ **ARE YOU READY TO LEGISLATE?!** _ \ ---
**Author:** ![Doomtrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/0ea827/32.png) [@Doomtrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doomtrain)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/5 "2003-09-17T03:30:03Z")
I was actually picturing a version of the Fightin’ Genius Time Commandos from that episode of The Tick. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/6 "2003-09-17T04:21:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cheddarsnax \* > \*\*[What, like this?](http://208.56.81.82/i%20am%20doctor%20dean,%20let%20me%20remove%20your%20internal%20organs.jpg) \*\* AAAH! Looks like some kind of mutated giant lizard. Must be from the radiation! OH NO! DEANZILLA IS COMING RIGHT FOR US! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/7 "2003-09-17T04:22:21Z")
In addition, it’s instructive to note that the Manhattan Project was authorized by that notorious ultraconservative, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and that orders to use the two Japan bombs were given by rock-ribbed Republican Harry Truman. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/8 "2003-09-17T05:32:45Z")
My understanding is that American citizens were told at the time that bombing Japan was the only way to end the war and would result in more lives being saved. I don’t think they had any way of knowing how horrendous those bombs were. Now when historians examine unclassified documents, many believe that the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering anyway. That’s not revisionist history in any bad sense – not when you finally have access to historical documents that you didn’t have before. I don’t defend Harry Truman’s decision, but I have always thought that he had the support of most of the American citizens when the bombings brought the war to a close. If Conservatives or the right-wing did not support the decision, I would like to know more about their thoughts. V-J Day was my first memory. I didn’t have a clue about how awful it really was until I was a freshman in college and saw a book of photographs. I looked a every picture and could feel my heart sinking. Like it or not, we do have blood on our hands. And as ill as it makes me to think of the bombings, I cannot put myself in the frame of mind that the GI Generation was in after four years of war and death and sacrifice. _I can’t know how I would have reacted then._ ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/9 "2003-09-17T05:59:59Z")
Don’t turn this pit thread into a debate… :gasp: But I do have one serious question: > [@](#): > > The truth is that the left in the USA WANTED the bomb to be used… Who was the “left” was that wanted to use the bomb? First of all, if you knew about the bomb you were in an elite circle, under investigation, or dead. Certainly two, possibly all three. The “leftist” scientists were of mixed mind, but mostly against. Some of their objections were based on the theory of a runaway nuclear reaction destroying the world. Hard to spin that politically. The generals and admirals were split. The politicians that knew were split. I don’t recall, ever, hearing a political spin put on the decison to drop the bomb. There were dozens of considerations that went into it. For example, they considered a demonstration of the bomb. It was ruled out as too risky because the Japanese would have been notified where to look. Hence, expect every fighter in the Japanese air force. Worst of all, a dud is dropped and recovered by the Japanese… OTOH, > [@](#): > > In the modern day, it is the liberals who have repeatedly yammered on and on about how “evil” it was to use the bomb. Thus, revisionist history that says that the only reason it was used was to intimidate the USSR is liberal, since it adheres very strongly to the current liberal party line. Remember, the liberal line is “USA bad, no matter what, USA bad”. this part was some pretty good hyperbole. Not all true, but good for effect. The problem with area-of-effect postings is that they get you pitted. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/10 "2003-09-17T06:14:21Z")
All hail Gusher Jizmak! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/11 "2003-09-17T16:41:31Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **Dogface** _: > > The truth is that the left in the USA WANTED the bomb to be used… > > _Originally posted by **Beagle** _: > Who was the “left” was that wanted to use the bomb? The answer to the latter question shows the simplistic dishonesty of the previous statement. There were opponents to the use of the bomb (nearly all _post facto_ since (as **Beagle** notes) the bombs’ construction and use were secret) on both sides of the political spectrum. However, among those who expressed reservations about, or even opposition to, the use of the bombs were: (on the Right) Former President Herbert Hoover General Dwight Eisenhower Admiral William Leahy Editor (_U.S. News_) David Lawrence (on the Left) Socialist leader Norman Thomas Economist Stuart Chase Columnist (_Christian Science Monitor_) Richard Stout _Commonweal_ (a liberal Catholic magazine) _Christian Century_ (a liberal Protestant magazine) _Common Sense_ (a liberal secular New York magazine) _Progressive_ (a liberal secular Wisconsin magazine) Among those on the Left who cheered the use of the bombs were: _Daily Worker_ (official publication of the CPUSA) _The New Masses_ (another publication by the CPUSA) _Nation_ (a liberal weekly) _New Republic_ (a liberal weekly) _PM_ (a liberal daily published in New York) The majority of the country–Left and Right-- felt, at the time, that the use of the bombs was simply an end to the war. The later analyses regarding the extent to which the decision to use the bombs was driven by other factors than simply military expedience have been driven by continuing access to earlier documents and the _historians_ (as opposed to the pundits) who have waded into the discussion have not, generally, been driven by politics. _closed italics tags - ub_ ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/12 "2003-09-17T17:47:20Z")
I just love posts that read like this: “blah blah blah liberals blah blah liberals blah blah socialists blah liberals blah blah blah blah liberals blah lib’ruls blah blah bunchajerk liberals blah blah liberal blah.” …as if just saying “liberal” is enough to refute any argument! I’ve learned that I can safely ignore any posts that average one use of the word “liberal” per sentence. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/13 "2003-09-17T18:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cheddarsnax \* > \*\*“Some people”. Hey, it must apply to you. You’re some person. When this interesting \> \> ACTUAL QUOTATION! \< \< is shown to him, Dogface responds: > \*\* Unfortunately, it seems that “I see you can’t actually read what I write” is **Dogface’s** way of saying “I didn’t mean what I just said.” Julie ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/14 "2003-09-17T18:35:11Z")
**Tom** : You can add I.F. Stone and Owen Lattimore to that list of Leftists who supported the bomb. I just made a very similar point to yours in the original GD thread, but i don’t expect **Dogface** to actually address the issue, either there or here. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/15 "2003-09-18T04:29:32Z")
You know, what really pissed me off about what happened in the other thread between \*\*Dogface \*\* and myself is that he refused to answer my question. (I asked him for examples of books which tout “America is wrong, not matter what.”) Had I wanted to fight, I’m sure he and I would happily be trading snarky remarks, but because I asked politely to see examples of what he was referring to, I get the silent-treatment. I’ll admit I’m an odd person, but when someone asks me for proof of an assertion, and I find I cannot provide any, I find myself questioning my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/16 "2003-09-18T10:38:47Z")
This thread sucks! _Liberals of the Lost Ark_ was much, much better. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/17 "2003-09-18T18:18:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\*You know, what really pissed me off about what happened in the other thread between \*\*Dogface \*\* and myself is that he refused to answer my question. (I asked him for examples of books which tout “America is wrong, not matter what.”) > > Had I wanted to fight, I’m sure he and I would happily be trading snarky remarks, but because I asked politely to see examples of what he was referring to, I get the silent-treatment. > > I’ll admit I’m an odd person, but when someone asks me for proof of an assertion, and I find I cannot provide any, I find myself questioning my opinion. \*\* Well, **Lissa** , you’ll be happy to know that, in principle at least, **Dogface** claims to be as concerned about fighting ignorance and providing evidence as you are. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=210936), he takes someone on another message board to task for a close-minded, ignorant attitude to the debate over second-hand smoke. **Dogface** ’s OP is quite reasonable, and the woman that he’s pitting seems to be something of a moron. But **Dogface** can’t resist blowing his own trumpet, asking: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > \*\*What’s so great about ignorance that people persist in it so vehemently? Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is ignorance. The more I learn, the more happy I am. Yes, the fewer illusions I have, but when I find myself dis-illusioned, my response is to adjust my model and work accordingly. > > So why is this such a rare behavior?\*\* Why indeed? We might ask the same question after examining **Dogface** ’s attitude in a few other threads. Let’s examine the evidence, shall we? My first encounter with our friend was in the [In frightens me that people don’t know these things](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=193236) thread. Now, the thread was in IMHO and was going along fine, until **Evil Captor** made a realtively harmless, but still somewaht gratuitous reference to Bush and the Republican voters: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Evil Captor_ > \*\*I once was talking with two administrative assistants who had been using computers to do word processing for several years. When in the course of our conversation I mentioned the “Save As” button, they asked me, “Yeah, I’ve never used it. What’s it for?” > > I mean, there’s a REASON so many people voted for Bush.\*\* There was really no reason to insert this comment into the thread, but most people chose just to ignore it. But not our friend **Dogface** , the crusader for truth. He chimed in: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > **And nearly as many voted for Gore. Obviously stupidity causes Democratism.** The political jab here didn’t worry me in the slightest; after all, he was responding to someone else’s snarky comment. What concerned me, especially in a thread about what people do and don’t know, was **Dogface** ’s apparent belief that more people voted for Bush than for Gore in the 2000 election. I decided to offer a corrective, in which i was careful to note that i wasn’t trying to be combative: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mhendo_ > \*\*[nitpick] > > Actually, more people voted for Gore. > > (And no, this is not some sort of whine about the 2000 election. It’s simply a fact that Gore won the popular vote.) > > [/nitpcik]\*\* Well, **Dogface** was having none of it. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > \*\*Rubbish. Gore lost the popular vote. Bush won it. It all depends on which count you use. > > If you don’t want to get into the matter, then you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place.\*\* We’ll leave aside the matter of my “bringing it up in the first place,” which i had not. Now, i admit that this post did give me pause for a moment. I thought that maybe, despite all my reading on the 2000 election, i may have missed something and that Bush might, in fact, have won the popular vote as well as the electoral college. So i went looking for statistics. The first place i looked was Republican and other conservative websites, because i figured that if Bush had in fact won the popular vote, those websites would be trumpeting the fact. But i found nothing. So i searched more widely, and posted the results for **Dogface** to read and, if he wanted, debate: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mhendo_ > \*\*\*\*Well, at least you’re providing plenty of fodder for the issue raised by the OP. It’s lucky that not all the conservatives on this board are as ignorant as you are, or we’d never have any interesting debates. > > Firstly, it wasn’t even me who “brought it up in the first place,” if you’d even bother to pay attention to whose posts you are addressing. > > Secondly, as **Marley23** pointed out, even if we ignore the whole fiasco in Florida and give the Republicans every vote that they claim, Gore still won the popular vote. > > According to [this site](http://www.2001inaugural.com/2000-election-map.html) the figures are: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 50,996,582 (48.4%) > Bush - 50,456,062 (47.0%) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 267 > Bush - 271 > > [Wikipedia](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000) gives the following figures: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 50,999,897 (48.38%) > Bush - 50,456,002 (47.87%) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > [This site](http://www.presidentialelection.com/president_files/past/2000.htm) says: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 51,003,238 (48.38%) > Bush - 50,459,624 (47.87%) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > [This site](http://www.polisci.com/almanac/exec/rper.htm) has closer figures than many of the others, but still has Gore ahead by over 200,000 votes. > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 49,738,138 > Bush - 49,530,305 > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/), which you’ll probably disqualify for being too liberal, says: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 50,996,116 (48%) > Bush - 50,456,169 (48%) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > And [this one](http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html) gives the following figures: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 51,003,238 (48.38%) > Bush - 50,459,624 (47.87) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > And if none of these convince you, perhaps you might believe the [Federal Election Commission](http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm), which says: > > Popular Vote: > Gore - 50,999,897 (48.38%) > Bush - 50,456,002 (47.87%) > > Electoral College: > Gore - 266 > Bush - 271 > > Note that i make no argument about whether the electoral college system, in which the winner of the popular vote can still lose the election, is fair or not. That is beside the point for this debate. The point is that Gore won the popular vote, and that the debate over Florida is totally irrelevant to that, because Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes, according to the Federal Election Commission’s own figures, and even the most optimistic Republicans never claimed that the differential in Florida was more than a few thousand votes. > > Now, of course, this whole discussion will have been in vain if you’re one of those people who thinks the electoral “college” is a place where they train politicians. And that wouldn’t surprise me too much. But i assume that anyone who makes an argument about American presidential elections has at least the most rudimentary knowledge of how they work. > > Is it dark where you are? If you pull your head out of your ass, things might become clearer. \*\* I concede that a few of my comments were a little too snarky for IMHO (and i apologized and said that a Mod could remove the offending portions), but i think i made my point about the popular vote. If **Dogface** could have presented me with some alternative statistics or websites that disputed the ones i had found, i would have been happy to look at them. So, what was **Dogface** ’s reaction to this? Nothing. Nada. At first i just assumed that he hadn’t been reading the Boards for a while–i mean, we’re allowed a life away from SDMB, right? But the thread was still going six days later, and **Dogface** returned, only he apparently had no interest in continuing the debate, and had moved on to other issues. So i decided to prick his memory: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mhendo_ > **It’s good to see you back in this thread anyway, Dogface; i was beginning to miss you. I notice you abandoned your argument about the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential election very quickly and very quietly. It’s a bit depressing to march into a thread all self-righteous and belligerent, and then find out you were wrong, isn’t it? Once again, the OP’s thread title demonstrates its relevance.** The response was rather predictable: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > **Yes, and it’s quit something to be the sort of jackass you are and reduce everything to a personal slam.** About then, other people were telling us to take it elsewhere, so after a final recitation of the argument, i left the thread. All i was hoping for, in making my point, was that **Dogface** might simply concede that he had erred. Plenty of people confuse the electoral college with the popular vote–it’s a common and perfectly understandable mistake, and i wasn’t looking to crucify anyone for it. But **Dogface** ’s reaction makes his whole “The more i learn the more happy i am” schtick seem a little disingenuous. Interestingly enough, **Dogface** made a [comment](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4001315#post4001315) on the electoral college system only half an hour ago that tedns to confim that his attitude to the whole thing is little more than anti-liberal ranting: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > \*\*The winner is whoever gets the electoral college majority. Everything else is fluff. > > Democrats have shown themselves over and over to be utterly incompetent when it comes to that. In the last election, had they shown the SLIGHTEST competency at all, there would have been no controversy over Florida. > > Look at it this way: Democrats claim that the vast majority of people support their ideals. So just how stupid did the Democrats have to be to end up making the whole thing ride on getting one state? > > Or are Democrats just a bunch of liars? Your choice. Either the vast majority of people support them and they’re too stupid to capitalize on that or they’re bald-faced liars about their level of popular support.\*\* Then there was [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=210307). Someone made a comment about reading Noam Chomsky who is, i admit, a rather controversial character in American politics, but also one who is often misrepresented by his opponents. **Dogface** had only this remarkable piece of insight to offer: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > **Noam “Great Wopping Loon in the Ivory Tower” Chomsky still claims that the Khmer Rouge never committed a single atrocity.** I concede anyone the right to disagree with Chomsky’s political views, and i know that many of his positions offend a lot of people, but i happen to believe that **Dogface** ’s assertion here was wrong, and my belief is based on considerable reading of Chomsky’s own works on the subject of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. So i offered the following: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by mhendo_ > \*\*Bzzt. Incorrect. Try again. > > But if you had actually read his work instead of parroting what you hear from others, you’d already know this. > > May i suggest that you start with the two-volume work by Chomsky and Edward Herman, _The Political Economy of Human Rights_ (Boston: South End Press, 1979). Then maybe look at the stuff Chomsky wrote for _The Nation_ during the mid to late 1970s. That should give you a good starting point. If you’re still stuck, you might want to look at [this article](http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html) by Christopher Hitchens, in which he summarizes the debate and gives some other references that you could follow up on. When you find a denial that Pol Pot committed any atrocities, come back and report it, including page number/s. > > It is true that in [this 1977 article](http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html) Chomsky and Ed Hermann referred to “alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities,” but the reason for this was that the article itself is a review of other works on Cambodia and was devoted to showing the problems of interpretation and evidence-gathering that appeared in those books. For example, in the case of Ponchaud’s book, Chomsky and Hermann dispute his information-gathering techniques and some of his evidence, but call the book “serious and worth reading.” Concluding the article, the authors say: “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments.” Their main point was to demonstrate inconsistencies among the stories, and injudiciousness in weighing different types of evidence. > > Chomsky did not, and does not deny that Pol Pot carried out those awful crimes; in fact, he is a big fan of one of the most important indictments of Pol Pot–John Pilger’s film “The Killing Fields.” And if you check the Appendix of Chomsky’s 1989 book _Necessary Illusions_, you’ll find numerous references to Khmer Rouge “atrocities.” > > Basically, while Chomsky did call into question some of the numbers being thrown around in the late 1970s about how many people had actually died under the Khmer Rouge (above the normal death rate), and while he outlines the way in which heavy US bombing of Camodia helped to create a situation in which a demagogue like Pol Pot could rise to power, he was not, and is not, an apologist for Pol Pot.\*\* The response from **Dogface** to a fairly reasonable argument backed up by citations? Another resounding silence. He has been similarly unresponsive to arguments offered by me and others in the Hiroshima thread that prompted this Pit thread, as you have already noted. This despite the fact that he was happy to wade in with virulent anti-liberal vomit, but was unwilling to back it up with even a scintilla of evidence. Even in the thread about second-hand smoke, he made an ass of himself, titling the thread “I weep for America.” A few people noted that this represented a ridiculous generalization, for example: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ThinkThenTalk_ > \*\*I understand where you’re coming from Dogface and your frustruation. > > But, on a side note, I think the most ignorant thing about this thread is your title. You nitpick on this woman for being so bull headed and ignorant, yet you make a thread called ‘I weep for America’ because one chick disagrees with you? Are all Americans ignorant now? > > You should probably change that to something relevant ASAP.\*\* and > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by spooe_ > \*\*How 'bout this for a title? > > _I weep for this individual bonehead…_\*\* and > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Waverly_ > **So… Dogface has learned that the world is inhabited primarily by craven yo-yo’s. Now your obligation is to mock them, not weep for them. And they ain’t all American, either.** and > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by smeghead_ > **So…you run into one stupid person on the internet, and jump immediately to weeping for all of America? Where do you live, Dogface, so I can start weeping for your country?** Of course, by now you can guess what happened next. That’s right. Absolutely nothing. **Dogface** abandoned his own thread more quickly than he started it. His own most recent attempt to start a Debate is this gem, [Wacky-nutso Politics: The Price of Prosperity?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=211836). Well, if his premise also applies to Wacky-nutso debating tactics, then he must be about the most prosperous person around. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/18 "2003-09-18T18:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vibrotronica \* > \*\*I just love posts that read like this: > > “blah blah blah liberals blah blah liberals blah blah socialists blah liberals blah blah blah blah liberals blah lib’ruls blah blah bunchajerk liberals blah blah liberal blah.” > > …as if just saying “liberal” is enough to refute any argument! I’ve learned that I can safely ignore any posts that average one use of the word “liberal” per sentence. \*\* **LIBERAL!** **BLUCHER!!** ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/19 "2003-09-18T18:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chefguy \* > \*\ ***LIBERAL!** > **BLUCHER!!** \*\* [sound of whinnying horses] ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066/20 "2003-09-18T20:19:54Z")
I don’t think I’ve ever participated in a pile-on here yet, but in this case it seems warranted, and I feel strengthened by **mhendo** ’s rather lengthy post. Lately I have considered tentatively pitting **Dogface** myself because of his habit of posting drive-bys in which ignorance and wilful misreading vie for pride of place. It irritates me no end and hinders proper debate. I’ve seen him do it whenever he feels his cherised Republican America is under attack. He peeks in the thread, throws in a prickly post, and goes his merry way without every looking back. He’s like a debating guerilla. I don’t mind a good debate, but someone who only posts drive-bys is actually detracting from a debate. You have to work hard to put in a proper reply, and are left without an opponent. The next time this happens, you’ll think twice whether to reply to such a poster. In this way someone can seriously diminish the wonderful debating culture here at SDMB. If you don’t want to debate, don’t post, or at the very least post in a less abrasive and uninformed manner. Actually I’ve never noticed him exhibit this kind of behaviour until a few weeks ago. Coincidentally around that time **Dogface** achieved immortal fame by his inadvertent triple-post that spawned the current fad of interbellum life-negating beams. Did that snap something in his mind? Let’s hope for his and our sakes that he grows out of it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dogface-and-the-liberals-of-doom/202066.md?page=2)