Creep: Daniel Shevlin

Today’s creep, Daniel Shevlin of Missoula, comes from the pages of the Missoula Independent. This is what he had to say:

Praise be to Allah

Thank God for freedom of speech, eh American Liberal? I mean, in what other country are you free to support terrorism, without fear of reprisal? Only in America, my friend. Just today, I heard a liberal friend of mine rage about “threats” coming from Israel directed toward Iran. Let’s remember the only threat worth mentioning coming from the Middle East lately… “Israel will be wiped off the face of the Earth.” Oops, sorry Liberals, that quote comes from your friends, the Iranians—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be exact. The Hezbollah terrorists break into the nation of Israel, kill two soldiers on Israeli soil, then commence bombing innocent civilians with rockets…yet you defend them. Women have about as many rights in Islamic countries, like Iran, as my Doberman pinscher has here in America, yet liberals violently defend them. Islamic terrorists strap bombs on 8-year-old children to kill other children, and the American liberal supports them. The Islamic terrorists want to kill anybody who is not Muslim. Sounds kind of like what Hitler and his Fascist dictatorship also wanted, doesn’t it, American liberal? They wanted to kill everybody who wasn’t up to their notion of the “master race.” Homosexuals are killed by the hundreds in Muslim countries, by burning alive, stoning to death, or beheading in public squares, yet the American Liberal says nothing and continues to defend the Islamic terrorist completely. Muslims believe that if they kill innocent people who are not Muslim, then they will be rewarded with a “river of wine, a river of honey, and 72 virgins,” and the juggernaut of liberal support continues. How tragic and bizarre (not to mention hypocritical) is the American liberal’s defense of Islamic terrorism?

Ugh. Tripe like this constantly challenges my unqualified support for the First Amendment. Still. I stand up now and proudly defend Mr. Shevlin’s right to free speech.

But, just because you can say whatever you want (listening, Dennis?), that doesn’t mean you are free from bearing responsibility for your comments.

So…with that in mind…Daniel Shevlin, you are a complete and utter *sshole.

Here’s why: Shevlin is using a classic straw-man argument, creating a fictitious point of view, then attacking it. In this case, the fiction is odious, a “terrorist lover,” a “supporter of Iran,” and the rhetoric around those terms are so framed that no questioning the terms or semantics is tolerated. And the basic premise is that liberals are traitors.

In reality, of course, liberals do no like terrorism. Where we differ from our conservative friends is how to pursue terrorists, not whether we should pursue them. And in reality, liberals, who are asking for real national security, an end to an ideological war, and end to the corruption and cronyism that plagues our nation’s Republican party, liberals are hardly unpatriotic. We are fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Shevlin is hardly a conservative friend. I’m not sure why he’d write something so hateful and distorting, which completely misrepresents liberals. He can’t really believe this, can he? To me, it sounds like the withering assuredness of a loony whose world view is being challenged by reality. Instead of actually working to solve some of these problems, which the conservative ideology has thus far showed it’s incapable of doing, he lashes out at any opposition.

Advertisements

  1. Not only that, but he is confusing empathy with sympathy.
    Lemme break it down for you:

    Empathy == understanding.

    Sympathy == agreeing.

    It’s one thing to empathize, it’s another to sympathize. He probably views some of us on the left empathizing with Terrorists. However, in his eyes, we are sympathizing. That’s where he gets confused.

    We empathize because we want to stop terrorism. Republicans today have forgotten this rule in warfare except at the ballot box: Know thine enemy.

  2. Daniel Shevlin

    Good evening, people of limited intellect. I have just become aware of this website this evening, and am proud to discover that I have been named ‘creep of the week’. Indeed, truly an honor. First of all, quite an amusing retort to my point, even if you said absolutely nothing. Mr. Samuel Abram: You state you “empathize because we want to stop terrorism”. Well, let’s take a look at that view critically, shall we? In 1993, Muslim terrorists bombed the World TRade Center. In 1995 through 2000, we had the USS Cole bombing, the Riyadh bombings…several other acts of brutal Islamic terrorism. Who was president? Bill Clinton. Now, if liberals actually want to stop terrorism, as you ridiculously state, then why didn’t Clinton or any other liberal at the time do a damn thing? ‘Know thine enemy’. Indeed. Sun Tsu…Very intelligent man. Let’s see…Muslims want to kill anybody who is not Muslim. That’s pretty much all you need to know about them, wouldn’t you say? They’ve not only been killing innocent non-muslims for centuries, they’ve been killing themselves for centuries…Shiites, Sunnnis, Kurds…all have been at war with each other since the inception of the Islamic religion. 80% of all the deaths that have occurred in Iraq within the last 4 years have been sectarian…meaning Iraqi muslims killing Iraqi muslims. And yet, I don’t hear one liberal say anything about this…interesting.

    Another amusing point: “liberals are asking for real national security”… Huh??? What is the liberal idea of ‘real national security’? Is it the same security that enable the terrorism against American targets throughout the 90’s? Is ‘national security’ the reason Clinton bombed Iraq throughout his entire presidency..(while not one liberal protested). How about when Clinton slaughtered Bosnians by the thousands…where was the threat to US national security there? Where were the liberals demanding to know why? How about when Clinton invaded Haiti, killing untold thousands? Where was the protests then?

    Whoever runs this ‘site’, still hasn’t countered one point I made in my original letter. Where are the liberals to condemn the way the Muslim world treats women? Where are the liberals to demand equal rights for women and homosexuals who are oppressed in the Islamic world? Where? Why do women have to sit in the back row of any public gathering in Muslim countries? Where is NOW demanding equality? How about you join with me, quit being indoctrinated hypocrites and start demanding the Muslim world treat women and homosexuals with equality? Not alot to ask for is it? But when I demand equality for women and homosexuals, I get labeled a ‘creep’ by the liberals. Indeed….fascinating. Good day.

  3. Daniel Shevlin

    Oh, and one more thing…liberals are ‘fighting for the constitution’? WHAT? What liberal has ever fought for the 2nd amendment? That’s in the constitution, isn’t it? Oh, I see…you only fight for those parts of the constitution that you agree with. Quite fascinating, I must say. A person’s bullshit-detector sure gets alot of work in 4and20blackbirds. Wow.

  4. Real quick here, Shevlin: Jon Tester’s position on the 2nd Amendment. Tester: “With things like the Patriot Act, we’d damn well better keep our guns!”

    Burns: Supports the Patriot Act.

    So the GOP throws even the 2nd Amendment under the bus. Hey, if you’re for dictatorship, that’s cool. Maybe you could take a bunch of like-minded friends and some prominent Republicans and buy one of those Pacific Islands and set up your little fantasyland there. You can take turns on each other with the handcuffs and bullwhips.

  5. Daniel Shevlin

    You still haven’t said anything about the points I made about the American liberal not defending womens and homosexuals’ rights in the Muslim world. Why not? I want a ‘fantasyland’ because I want to know why liberals won’t support freedom for women and homsexuals in the islamic world? O man. Still, I give you yet another chance to tackle this important issue.

    PS: EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in the US house of reps and Senate voted FOR THE PATRIOT ACT. THEY READ IT

  6. Daniel Shevlin

    And uhmm….let’s see, oh unlearned one…the Patriot Act has been in effect for how long now?? Couple of years? I haven’t seen one government agent come to my house or anybody elses’ house and demand that they give up there guns. Does the Patriot Act say anything about law-abiding citizens not being able to keep their guns?? I think not. I’ll give you a moment to contact your handlers from the DNC, so they can tell you what you think about this and the other issues you seem to be ignoring with great alacrity.

  7. Daniel Shevlin

    How about it, indoctrinated liberal? Why haven’t you yet countered what I said in my original post? do I have to repeat them for you? Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years, liberals said nothing. Why? Clinton massacred Bosnians by the thousands. Where was the threat to US security? Where? Where were you? Why did Clinton invade Haiti, killing thousands of innocent civilians? Where were the liberals then? Where? Where were the protests? Where? Did you know that if a woman commits the ‘crime’ of adultery in Saudi Arabia ( a muslim country), she gets beheaded in public? Did you know that if a woman gets caught driving a car in Iran and other muslim countries she gets beaten by the ‘police’.? Did you know that homosexuals are burned alive in public squares in muslim countries? Did you ever hear about the Halabja Massacre of 1988? That’s when Saddam Hussein’s army gassed the Kurdish village of Halabja, killing over 200,000 men, women and children. Gasp! Yes, he used weapons of mass destruction! Lol. Where were you then demanding justice, liberal? Where were you during the decades of rule under Hussein where an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqi’s were tortured to death? Yet, George Bush is the ‘evil one’. How very humurous. How very hypocritical. How very American liberal.

  8. Daniel Shevlin

    Oh, and by the way…I’m a registered INDEPENDENT. So, sorry to disappoint you. Everybody who disagrees with a person like yourself is labelled a ‘republican’. And we’d all love to know EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES STRATEGY IS FOR DEALING WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISM AND IRAQ, SHOULD THEY WIN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE. Not one democat has let us know. But, i’m sure you know exactly what their plan is. Step by step. So, let’s hear it. I want to know EXACTLY, step by step, what the democrat strategy is.

  9. Daniel Shevlin

    So, ‘touchstone, how about it? We need to know from you why EVERY Democrat voted in FAVOR of the PAtriot Act. I mean, they read it. They understood what it said. They knew what it said…yet they voted for it. Hmm….that’s very interesting, wouldn’t you say? You see…George Bush didn’t wake up one morning and just sign the bill into effect. It had to pass congressional approval. And it did, with Democratic support. Why??

  10. Daniel Shevlin

    Here “Touchstone” are some interesting quotes made by liberals about the war in Iraq….

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    “This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    “Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities”—From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

    “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

    “What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.”—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

    “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”—Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

    “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”—Bob Graham, December 2002

    “Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”—John Kerry, October 9, 2002

  11. Daniel Shevlin

    Interesting, wouldn’t you say, “touchstone”? Pretty good quote from John Kerry, isn’t it? And the one by Ted Kennedy…in favor of ‘disarming’ Saddam Hussein. Hmm…they all wanted and favored the UN resolution 1441, which authorized force against Iraq. Yep…it was a UN resolution which authorized force in Iraq, not a Bush resolution. Facts are fascinating, aren’t they? Now Kennedy and Kerry say there never was WMD. Wow. The old ‘waffle democrats’ still in full force.

    One point that I do have to concede is that I was wrong when I stated that ALL democrats favored the Patriot Act into law. Exactly 43 of Democratic Congresspeople voted in favor of it. Still, it would not have passed without their support. So, why did they vote for it??

    So, what have you to say about these quotes I provided from liberals who supported the war in Iraq?

  12. Daniel Shevlin

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”—Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    My Lord in Heaven! These are fascinating quotes, are they not??

  13. Man, you need a “vacation.” And some “rest.”

    Um, I don’t agree with all Democrats. I think it was a mistake to pass it so quickly, but to be fair, they were pretty much pressured into it.

    As for the quotes by Dem lawmakers, I suspect they were speaking about Saddam’s threat after viewing the intelligence doctored up by the administration. Many other reasonable people were suckered into the war, too.

    As for defending women, gays, and other minorities, I’m all for it, here as well as in Iraq. I don’t believe I ever said anywhere that I approved of religious extremists’ intolerance, anywhere. In fact, I don’t think I ever said Muslim extremists weren’t a real threat or needed to be dealt with.

    You’re making classic strawman arguments, putting words in my mouth, and repeating the talking points of the unhinged right. Sorry I insulted you by calling you a “Republican.” (Isn’t it funny how no one wants to be associated with them anymore?) Since you’re repeating all of the worst of the GOP, I assumed you back them.

    BTW, thanks for proving again that you are a complete *sshole.

    You calling me a liberal is the highest praise I can think of for having a left-leaning ethos.

  14. JediPeaceFrog

    Hey Touchstone, I wonder if you would have the balls to call me, Daniel Shevlin, an asshole to my face?? How about it, touchstone? Why not give me a message about where you live, then i’ll come over, then you can hurl your vitriolic hatred to my face..instead of doing it, like a typical liberal, hiding behind the internet?? What do you say, touchstone? You see, if you want to insult somebody, you should be willing to do it to that person’s face. You, of course, never will. So, again I invite you. Hell, send me your email, then i’ll give you my address, then you can come over to my house. Whaddya say, chicken-shit liberal? Have the balls to insult somebody to their face?? I’ll be waiting. LOL.

  15. JediPeaceFrog

    I see that your name is Jay Stevens. Well, that shouldn’t be too hard to find. A little detective work will allow me to find out where you live. So, Mr. Stevens, you want to call me an asshole, fine. One of these days, sooner than you think, i’ll be knocking on your door. And i’ll give you the opportunity to call me an asshole to my face, ok chicken-shit? See ya soon.

  16. obamaisajoke

    Hey dipshits…how’s that ‘hope and change’ thing working out for you? Where are the jobs? Where is the end of all wars? How come Obama employs over 100 lobbyists in his regime, when he swore that he wouldn’t? Why was Obama the prime beneficiary to BP oil money for the last 5 years? You fucking libs are a fucking joke! Obama gone in 2, Pelosi and Reid gone in 4 months! Thanks libs!

  1. 1 Hey buddy, can you spare a pickle? « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] a point, so I’m not immune from criticism. I know Jay’s officially retired the “creep” category, so hopefully the level of discourse can remain above personal attacks. But […]




Leave a Reply to touchstone Cancel 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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


  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,669,579 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,738 other followers

  • September 2006
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Categories


%d bloggers like this: