Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Rogues Gallery: "fergusrush"

As always, I'd like to type things more substantial but life keeps getting in the way. So, in the absence of the time to discuss anything substantial, I thought I'd type about the insubstantial intellectual abilities of internet troll "fergusrush" who has been grinding my gears at Dr. Dawg's blog lately.

"fergusrush's" modus operandi appears to be to lurk around the internets waiting for progressives to condemn some clearly atrocious right-wing or government behaviour and to then spring with a faux-folksy style and try to introduce doubts in these arguments.

Here he is at this blog, stupidly trying to argue that we should refrain from speculating about the motives of the Surete de Quebec at the Montebello SPP meetings, when they posed as armed anarchists, slunk over to the police lines when they were exposed, pretended to be arrested and then lied about the whole thing:
If you slide over to the Cynic's place and actually read my comments, you'll find that I support an investigation of the SQ and the purpose of its undercover foray. It's a matter of degree here: you have vaulted to the conclusion that sinister intentions are obvious, despite the current lack of actual proof, while I say that such a conclusion is premature. This makes me supportive of right-wing misbehaviour? Perhaps you see sinister intentions in the police action because, as your post shows, it is just the kind of thing you would do?

He attempts to dignify his slavish faith in power to something he probably calls "the rule of law":
Benefit of doubt is what our legal system is based upon, and hence the need for an inquiry.

We're not to make anything of the Quebec police's behaviour until there's a bullshit inquiry (a-la APEC) a year or two later, but the dimwit can't refrain from saying that nobody can blame the police's actions anyway given the obviously provocative costumes of some of the protesters.
And as I've said many times before, if you want to talk, you don't show up dressed for a donnybrook. I'm a union man, I've seen it before.

If it hasn't been clear before now, I'll make it so: I side with the forces of order. We are heirs to a system that allows us freedom of speech, not license to commit mayhem. Despite your belief to the contrary, you do not have the right to sit in on every meeting that will have impact upon you; this is why we have a representational form of government. If you do not like the way your government is doing business, feel free to vote them out. If you cannot do that because a larger number of your fellow citizens votes in favour of the opposing side, you must live with that result and try harder to elect your side next time. You never have the right to violence in public. I would think this stuff self-explanatory.

As I said to the oaf:
You claim that you're the one withholding judgment until there's some bullshit inquiry with no penalties (a-la APEC), but it's quite clear from your words that you have already condemned the anarchists without once trying to muster up any proof of their violent intentions. Meanwhile the "forces of order" having already demonstrably lied about their participation in the event, are now claiming innocent intentions, and you condemn anyone who engages in "idle speculation" about these intentions.

Later, he showed up at Dr. Dawg's blog to try to argue that "evil" is too strong a word for the harpercon government's treatment of Abdelrazik, stranded for six years in the Sudan, perhaps tortured by the Sudanese government due to terrorist suspicions given to them by Canadian intelligence agencies, and routinely promised assistance in getting home from the Canadian government only to have them all retracted at the last minute.
[Evil] Really? No other word?If that is truly the case, you've set the bar for evil extremely low.

While it is undeniable that the government has utterly failed Abdelrazik and has much explaining to do over the affair, surely your own sense of proportion tells you that this cannot be compared to, say, the actions of a serial killer. To do so renders the word "evil" meaningless.

"Confronted with a mean-spirited abuse of power by his guys he can't possibly defend, fergusrush crawls over to to check the definition of evil so that he can argue about something."

"My guys"? Hardly. "Defend"? Why would I do that? I agree with Dawg that Abdelrazik should be returned to Canada; it is reprehensible that it took private citizens to purchase his ticket. I just disagree with the Doctor that the government's actions here are "evil".And, Navvy, in my opinion the dictionary definition of evil quoted by Dawg is not strong enough for what I consider "evil" to be. "Morally objectionable behaviour"? Please. If it were really that simple, the good Doctor would have to make this assertion in every post. That he does not means he must draw a line somewhere, so where exactly?

The stupidity of his premise doesn't even need explaining.

Finally, "fergusrush" feels compelled to to challenge Dr. Dawg's assertion that the ridiculous criticisms of Barack Obama ["The Manchurian Candidate/Muslim/Communist/Anti-Christ riffs"] from right-wing loons like Crazy Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin are evidence of an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" far greater than the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" of critics of bush II.

He attempts to equate the moonbat critiques of Obama ( Obama's Wife Touched The Queen! [Too informal.] Obama Bowed To The Saudi King! [Too formal.] He should have shaken hands. [See the first sentence in this paragraph]. Bush bowed too, but what the heck, he was just receiving a medal. Obama Thinks Austrian Is A Language!* He Gives Bad Gift! ) with leftist critiques of bush II (he's lazy and stupid, he's unelected, he spent more time on vacation than any other president, he fucked-up on 9-11, his claims of Iraqi WMDs were lies, he tortures, he spies on Americans without warrants, etc.). You see, we need to have it pointed out to us, that in his first hundred days, Obama has been no more and no less of a fool than bush II. We have to understand the identity between Michelle Malkin's "Hot Air" and the left-Democrat "DailyKos." Because pompous asses like "fergusrush" say it is so, it is so.
"It's the last, reflexive twitching of this creepy 'total rejection' thing."

You'd almost think these people were saying "He's not my President!" or something.

"...the point is to keep the commentary unrelenting and negative."

Unlike the measured and sober reflections at DailyKos or Canadian Cynic, to mention but two.

"For Pete's sake, they make fun of him if he makes a grammatical

Next thing you know, they'll be calling him stupid. The clods!

"Satire is dead."

Very probably, Dawg, but I fear irony took a mortal hit as well.

In that last one, "fergusrush" tries to pose as a non-partisan observer of the excesses of both the left and the right, saying that he doesn't "have a dog in this fight," but given the oaf's consistent rationalizations for authoritarian goons and the weakness of his criticisms of progressive arguments (evidence of desperation), I'm reasonably certain that "fergusrush's" objectivity is a fraud.

In the end, this is just another example of why the right-wing is comprised of either thugs, morons or moronic thugs.

ETA: Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" try to explain the last issue in such a way that even "fergusrush" could understand were he not too stupid to understand what they're trying to tell him.

No comments: