Tuesday, April 21, 2015

An Example Of Reactionary Right Thinking Passed Off As Conserative and or Libertarian Thinking...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Who's Your Daddy

The real question is, how were they allowed to harass people like this and do they really believe this will help the cause?

Who's Your Daddy, is a supposedly conservative libertarian weblog with a fair amount of  right wing reactionaries as well as sorting an ample number of  sock puppets   that truly demonstrate the deception that is prevalent in the internet. Anonymity gives voice to all sorts of wacko birds and crazy activity. You'll find a remarkable number of characters that fit the definition on right wing weblogs such as Who's Your Daddy.

Unfortunately the number of wacko birds on the right outweigh the number of rational and reasonable conservatives. At least that's the way it appears given the comment section of sites like Who's Your Daddy.

Aside from the usual wacko delusional drivel this site is also well known for it's occasional smut content as well as a abundance of racist comments by the regular reactionaries and sock puppets.

While this true conservative/libertarian site  does not wish to advertise the false conservative libertarian values of sites such as Who's Your Daddy it does believe it instructional and necessary to highlight such anti American sentiment and beliefs that find their way to publication anywhere.

This site encourages all rational and reasonable liberty loving Americans to peruse the archives of  Who's Your Daddy and affiliate site FreeThinke to understand the depth of the far right's hatred for real American values.

You can find examples of  real fear and hatred HERE and HERE.


  1. Last September/October of 2014, I crossed swords with these people when I wrote a defense of Shaw who had received threats of sexual assault – illustrated with crude pornographic images - sent to her personal email box.

    Please note: An open Internet forum is not the same as a private email account. Outright threats of sexual violence and unsolicited pornography sent to a personal email box constitute “STALKING” and are violations of Federal law.

    I posted two back-to-back articles online that contained actual screen shots, live links, and other documented examples – enough evidence to convict beyond any reasonable doubt in any court of law.

    In response, the Pinocchio Lady of subject “Smut Hut” deleted all linked posts and comments in a lame attempt to cover up her complicity. Too late! Months later, the captured screen shots speak volumes – and will continue to stand as documented testimony as long as the Internet exists.

    After deleting the online evidence, Pinocchio Lady denied the accusations, denied the evidence, and defended the offenders.

    In one of my posts covering cyber-bullying, I asked: “Why go there?” Why subject yourself to constant verbal abuse and vituperation? Why enable predators and stalkers by legitimizing them? Why wallow in the veritable sewers of humanity?

    If you really want to make an ethical and moral statement, stay away and accord them NO attention whatsoever.

  2. Legs, you are spot on, there is no need for vulgar attacks just because you disagree with someone. One of the problems with having an open blog, no moderation, is you have wackos who will post disgusting things. The only way to control content is through moderation but some choose not to control content.

    One of the problems with tight control is you have no diversity in the discussion. Just because someone chooses to have an attack site doesn't mean they should be personally attacked.

  3. You're kidding right skudrunner? If you're not it sure is twisted logic. Which of course renders you part of the problem. Excusing the kind of behavior accepted by, encouraged, and posted on referenced site is not an issue of free speech, it is exactly as (O)CT(O)PUS described it. It is criminal behavior and to speaks volumes as to the characters that engage in the unethical and illegal behaviors.

    I would hope you realize this skudrunner and would join in denouncing it. After all; you're a smart guy.

  4. RN, Skud likes to go there and fire his missives free of any chance of retort. Much like he does here, or at PE, where he will seldom return to answer questions after he is challenged with differing viewpoints and facts.

    While he is not even in the class of the majority of the contributors at those two sites, his fairly frequent participation, like yours, only encourages them.

    I'm with OCTO... why take the bait? You are only helping drive traffic as they respond not to anything you say, rather to your simple presence.

    As Skud has said, Lisa, Free and Geez have all made it clear that they do not desire any viewpoints that differ from their world view. They and their readers, except for a few, are unable to have a civil conversation without resorting to name calling, personal insults, and porn references.

    1. Of course your point is a valid one and I suppose it makes sense to just stay away and ignore the riff raff and low information and or low intelligence traffickers at that site. However, and perhaps this is trite, if so please feel free to say so, but giving those folks the opportunity to expose their bigotry, racism, and unethical behavior at my expense isn't all bad. I'm certain good people visit that site no as well as the riff raff that make it what it is. The more who see it when they visit the better IMO.

      skudrunner is right about one thing for sure... Those that get into personal attacks have little to say so they attack. Those who swear are expressing the lack of a vocabulary so the swear to take it's place. From what I have read the posts are defiantly unethical... skudrunner is a southern conservative and his acknowledgement does say something, I believe it represents a large share of republicans and conservatives that disdain sites like Lisa's and other reactionary right blogs.

    2. David,

      You are incorrect, I almost always return to provide an answer to a question and do not attack and run. For that matter I don't attack a person but may just have a difference of opinion that may be taken as an attack, but not on a person. There are times where I do not read the post for a few days and it becomes stale but in most instances the reason you do not see a response is from administrator moderation.

  5. I have never seen the vulgar posting legs is referring to. You choose to control content, which is your right, some do not. Those that get into personal attacks have little to say so they attack. Those who swear are expressing the lack of a vocabulary so the swear to take it's place.
    From what I have read the posts are defiantly unethical but as to the legality, legs is a better sourse because I am not an attorney.

  6. Well Skud, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    As for your not seeing the vulgar postings, just click a few links that the folks there provide, if you dare. Racist, offensive and oft times pornographic smut that no one from the "party of family values" should be posting.

    I especially like when, instead of trying to engage me here, or at PE, they use other blogs to mischaracterize my views, demean me, my friends and my work among some of the poorest of the poor in Mexico.

    Again, wonderful behavior from representatives of the conservative family value God loving and respecting party.

  7. You guys know the history of that Skank Tank and its blog mistress. She allowed the juveniles, Radical Redneck and Rusty Shackleford to post pornography, racist images of the First Lady, in addition to attacking me when I do not participate in that congregation of fetid vapors.

    Lisa allows those creeps to sully her blog any way they choose. SHe giggles at their smut, and they tell her what a great blogger she is. She is obviously a very needy person to want the approval of scoundrels and low-lifes, as well as an older man, who should know better, who encourages the sewerage produced on Lisa's blog. This guy let loose a string of the most hateful, vulgar, menacing threats and curses I've ever seen on the internet. All directed at people he disagrees with politically. It doesn't get any sicker than that. Not one of her regulars had the character or courage to condemn those insane rantings. They are all, essentially, moral cowards who believe allegiance to their tribe trumps everything, even the rot that flows daily from that distopian trough.

    I agree with the others here, Les. Why sully yourself with the offal they leave there every day.

  8. Scud: “One of the problems with tight control is you have no diversity in the discussion. Just because someone chooses to have an attack site doesn't mean they should be personally attacked.

    Threats of sexual violence, bullying, and stalking have no place in any forum, offline or online, under any circumstances!!!! Even on this subject, you are being dishonest and disingenuous. There is no excuse for tolerating anti-social behavior under cover of “diversity.” Either you have - or you do not have - a moral compass capable of making this distinction.

    The Pinocchio Lady and her retinue of abusers have NOTHING IN COMMON with politics or civil exchange. Compare the Smut Hut forum with this one. Here you will find honest discussions among friends who do not ABUSE people for sport. Here, any commenter may argue a point without fear of being dehumanized and condemned.

    In contrast, one cannot deviate one iota from the narrow catechism of the Smut Hut without being ruthlessly stereotyped and condemned (and I can hardly blame RN for needing to re-establish his conservative and libertarian credentials after being so ruthlessly mistreated by these thugs).

    You will never find a reasonable discussion of newsworthy events at the Smut Hut. On any given topic, the Smut Hut quickly degenerates into nothing more than Punch-and-Judy Show of defamations, taunts, and gratuitous ad hominem attacks upon other people. It is a soap box for screaming misfits, sociopaths, and malcontents - nothing more! AND A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.

  9. Scud: "I have never seen the vulgar posting legs is referring to."

    From what I recall, you read my articles cross-posted at Shaw's place - and STILL denied the evidence of abuse. Either you did not click on the links, are willfully blind, or your reading comprehension has a shorter half life than a quark.

  10. You do recall incorrectly. While you are recalling, please point out one time where I attacked anyone. I have a difference of opinion with some people on several boards but I do not resort to personal attacks. I may have read some of your post but never clicked on any link so I repeat that I never saw what is being referred to. I don't deny that it happened but I never saw it. People on an open forum sometimes show their ignorance.

    I do believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion but personal attacks on someone for theirs is unacceptable.
    Some just resort to threats because they don't have the mental resources to deal with a contradictory opinion. I believe in taking personal responsibility and that all lives matter.
    I didn't know a food product had a short half life.

  11. I seem to remember the same skudrunner. But that aside, do you or do you not denounce threatening e-mails and stalking of individuals via the internet? Do you or do you not denounce bigotry and racism?

    By the way, I believe (O)CT(O)PUS is referring to this quark

  12. I have made my take on this issue and am quite clear. Are you planning an internet church with the Rev David with all the denounce verbiage?

    Legs needs to be a little less vague. I have never heard of curd having a half life but you never know.

    1. Skud, I'm not a reverend... just a guy trying to do a little good in a few small corners in Mexico...

      As for denouncing, I could really care less if people denounce views with which they disagree. Unless, and this is the crux of the matter for me, they claim that others failure to denounce objectionable views, signals support for those views.

      We have been treated to that for years by the GOP and their partisans who have flatly stated that since moderate Muslim clerics do not denounce enough the radicals, it is proof there are no moderates in Islam.

      Yet when that logic is turned around, they run from it.

      It is a simple case of intellectual honesty.

      Just sayin...

  13. skudrunner, you're being deliberately evasive and trite. Your refusal to connect the dots and take a firm stand denouncing the Smut Hut Stench Trench and Bigot/Racist shack aligns you with them. So, grow some balls or be gone.

  14. Scud,
    Had you clicked on the link provided by RN, you would have discovered something about “quarks.” These are sub-atomic particles that form the building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons – which in turn are the building blocks of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen – which are the building blocks of organic molecules that give rise to life on this planet. It appears, however, that you prefer to be steeped in ignorance. Particles with a short half life are the most radioactive of all, you have turned radioactive.

    Your oppositional defiance is duly noted, but know this: If you insist on playing the FOOL, then you will be treated as a FOOL (and I can think of other words rhyming with “curd” that apply to you).

    Oppositional defiance is the way children behave. If you refuse to act like an adult in this room, then you should play with Pinocchio of the Smut Hut, who is far more likely to validate the juvenile delinquent in you.

  15. Frankly, RN, I do not know why you bother going there, those sites. Watching paint dry is more fun, and watching shit decompose is more enlightening than the shit-bits offered there. AND...that goddam FreeDinke is really really a bad poet.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.