Sunday, July 23, 2006

Pants On Fire

When he's not launching racist slurs against Catholics, Ian Scott enjoys the cop-out position of "libertarian", where instead of encouraging group hatred of ethnic groups he turns to denouncing all states. As if libertarianism was only okay with group/racial identities, and not at all at ease with the state.

Well, even if libertarians were against the actions of the state, Ian would fail his own basic integrity test (it wouldn't be the first). Here's Ian on his own site:
Regarding the assertion that I said “Ireland should join the Commonwealth”:

This is an outright false misrepresentation of anything I have ever written about “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, or anything I have ever believed.

Here he is on my own site, not so long ago:
If the South could compromise, and agree to be within the "commonwealth," I bet you'd find a lot of folks in the North more open to the idea.

My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.

So were you lying now or then? Fortunately, Ian has an excuse:
Unfortunately at this time, I am unable to locate the what I wrote

Oh yeah? What an amazing coincidence.

How about his endorsement/defense of Rev. Paisley? Ian thinks that asserting his pro Paisley stance is a lie. Hmmm, really? Because that's not what you wrote before:

Rathlin Island is 100% Catholic, and is Paisley's riding. In all of the recent elections, he has received almost, and one time completely, 100% of the ballots cast.

Why? Because Paisley has taken a real interest in these people, and fought for things for them. If you base a man on his actions, and not just his words, then one must agree it's hard to see how he thinks all Catholics are garbage.

He's even met with Republic Islanders, who by virtue of their demographics, were Catholics, to give them advice and assistance politically, in dealing with their issues with the Republic of Ireland.

What qualifies as a ringing endorsement, Ian? How about that BS story about some old Catholic woman who voted for Paisley which was your defense of all his actions over the last 50 years.

But if Ian misrepresents himself or his positions, or is in any way inconsistent in his "recollections", it might be because of his inferior community college education or the muddying of his mind over the years he spent beating helpless people in "protecting property":
Want to know the most efficient way to wake up an alkie that is seeking refuge from the bitter cold in a lobby somewhere, and sleeping his drunkeness away? You really want to know?

Ok.. here's how you do it. You stand about 2 feet away from the sleeping alky's feet. You make sure his feet are standing upwards, with the heels on the ground and his toes pointing upward, if you can.
Yep. So by Ian's own words, Libertarianism is:
1) Claiming that group politics are illegitimate
2) ...but ok in the attack of Catholics
3) Group sanctioned violence in defense of a state is wrong
4) ...but beating the crap out of sleeping bums for money is acceptable.

..You know what's extra funny about your "integrity"? You spend a good portion of your time denouncing Small Dead Animals as "Small Dead Minds" because of the attitudes of conservatives on the site, but yet when push comes to shove you turn around and kiss Kate's ass telling her you "deeply respect" her views and her site.

What garbage. No wonder she told you to fuck off.

2 comments:

Ian Scott said...

Thanks for pointing out on your own blog how much of a bullshitter and liar you are.

You asserted in your earlier post that I had written that "Ireland should join the Commonwealth."

That is quite a bit different than what I did write, isn't it?

But of course quoting me directly in your earlier post simply wouldn't have provided you with the same "feel" for your post. Naw, better to say that Ian Scott said, "Ireland should join the Commonwealth" when there was never any "should" in there at all.

Shamrocks! said...

Ian:

It's called paraphrasing-consider using a dictionary.

Just because someone doesn't repeat word for word what you said doesn't mean it doesn't have the same meaning.