JAMES YOUNG ANGRY OR SEXUALLY REPRESSED?...YOU MAKE THE CALL!
In reading and analyzing the volumes of James Young posts, I have noticed a very disturbing trend, which I will be continuing to examine. I have collected several threads from throughout the blogesphere, and will be running a series of posts, exploring this theory. I think I have found the well-spring from whence his anger flows: James seems to be quite fixated with sex. If you read the thread below, taken in its entirety from Skeptical Observer
(OSL:
http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2006/03/just-thought.html#comments)
you will see many overt and veiled references to sex, sex-acts...and the exchange of bodily fluids. I have highlighted his references and inuendo in RED.
He sounds a bit like the Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper from the movie "Dr. Strangelove", with his references to bodily fluids:
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "
We all know what Jack was refering to.
Also notice the Magnus Crannius also chimes in with a fluid reference of his own. Since he's a sometime public supporter of James Young, one has to ask : what's up with that?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Just a Thought
The far Left blogosphere in Virginia has made much of Attorney General Robert McDonnell's response to a question asked by a
supporter of sodomy. I saw another reference to it just the other day.In light of their support for this question, shouldn't Conservatives ask prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "
Spit, or swallow?"UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I really don't want to know.UPDATE 2: Well, it seems Vince wants to stir the pot, too. Given his number of hits, I suppose I should be grateful. Oh, and Shaun has it exactly right in his comments (hence, showing it to my friends here). I'm reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago, with a wonderful
old lady named Ruth Fry. Long-time PWC Republicans will remember her as a Gold Star mother who, at 88, tragically lost her life in a traffic accident on Minnieville Road, broadsided by a truck going too fast just after George Allen's election as Governor in 1993 (an event that made her giddy). One time, my wife and I were giving Ruth a ride to a political event, and completely out of the blue, she raised the issue of
condom distribution in the schools. Ruth was a few years older than my grandmother (still kickin' like an Army mule at the time, at 79), and it was an entirely
uncomfortable conversation to have with that wonderful woman.And who did we have to thank for that privilege? The far Left and the licentious society that they are trying to/have created.
posted by James Young @
12:29
postCount('114192551737134445');
Comments
postCountTB('114192551737134445');
Trackback 15 Comments:
At
Thu Mar 09, 08:28:25 PM EST,
NoVA Democrat said...
Mr. Young, this post is below you.
At
Thu Mar 09, 09:39:51 PM EST, Anonymous said...
Okay...I am done with this blog for good. NOVA Democrat and others...we should really boycott this blog. By continuing to read it we are enabling his vicious ways. I am done. Tony Ares
At
Thu Mar 09, 10:17:09 PM EST, NOVA Scout said...
Jim: this doesn't even begin to make sense. What the hell are you talking about? Even a conservative McDonnell supporter like me thinks it's absolutely hilarious that he denied knowledge or recollection of whether he had ever violated Virginia's totally anachronistic sodomy laws. It has to be one of those "worst moments in amateur politics" highlights. Even a passionate Hillary opponent like me has to wonder how the inside of your head works to take the old and largely forgotten McDonnell gaffe and equate it to her, particularly in such crude terms. I thought the guy with the problem you allude to was her husband and his office squeeze. How did you get from point A to point B on that? Then how did you get to the point where you thought you should share that with anyone who has the misfortune or curiosity to stumble into your blog? It is disturbingly bizarre. You may want to just take the comment down with the same sort of censure that you usually apply to Willis.
At
Thu Mar 09, 11:34:08 PM EST,
Willis said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At
Fri Mar 10, 09:30:51 AM EST,
James Young said...
Perhaps, NoVA Democrat. Thought occurred to me. Call it a bad day. Or response in kind.
I am equally disinterested in both.As for you, Tony, someone who smears with as broad a brush (i.e., support for school choice equals racism), that just breaks my heart.nova scout, you seems to have forgotten that this is the woman whose husband answered the question "Boxers or briefs?" That's what the hell I'm talking about.
At
Fri Mar 10, 08:14:08 PM EST,
Willis said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At
Fri Mar 10, 08:42:01 PM EST, NoVA Scout said...
Not even a good try, James. YOur post still doesn't make any sense and is still gratuitously vulgar. Until now I would have thought it impossible for anyone to make me feel a bit of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. I'm sure I'll get over it as soon as I think back on some of her recent pandering over the Dubai ports issue. But, James, I think you've gone totally 'round the bend. This is disgusting and gives aid and comfort to people who might be inclined to think that opposition to the Clintons is based on sexually deviant psychoses held by overly repressed fringe Republicans. Thanks a lot. Also many thanks for reviving the McDonnell story, a story that had largely been forgotten until you revived it to provide a predicate for your gutter talk.
At
Fri Mar 10, 11:41:10 PM EST, Anonymous said...
Are comments like this truly Conservative? I thought Conservatives were supposed to hold the moral high tone?puw
At
Sat Mar 11, 08:01:20 AM EST, NoVA Scout said...
puw: you're thinking of traditional conservatives of the old school. It's pretty hard to imagine William F. Buckley saying something like what Young has posted here. But this is a somewhat endangered (or at least very quiet) species these days.
At
Sun Mar 12, 12:19:52 PM EST,
Shaun Kenney said...
...as opposed to liberals, who can get away with saying this and worse because hey -- you're progressive!You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Is NOVADemocrat the only one among you with an ounce of common sense?James' point is well taken. If questions of oral sex and sodomy are fair game against AG McDonnell, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tables are turned?Pathetic... all of you... which is precisely the point (and the trap) James wanted to make. Some intelligence would have sniffed that out, but at least three of you didn't make the cut.
At
Sun Mar 12, 01:53:32 PM EST, Anonymous said...
I plead with my fellow Progressives. We are empowering these people by reading their stuff. Have you noticed that they won't read/watch our stuff but we read/watch theirs. Our open- mindedness is killin our cause. We help the ratings of Fox because while we know they are evil...we are curious. They won't watch CBS. They are closed-minded bigots. They won't read Arriana Huffington but we typically will check out the Neo-Con Matt Drudge. I am guilty too because I am reading this blog! Why do I keep reading? I guess it's like peaking in on a Klan rally. Watching pure evil is scary but interesting. We need to stop.
At
Mon Mar 13, 12:05:12 AM EST,
criticallythinking said...
TooConservative is back from his trip, and he just noticed this. So he posted a comment over at his site to drive up his numbers again.Of course, most people over there (which include nova democrat) are very upset.I find it funny though, given that one of their listed contributers goes by the pseudonym of
"Mitch Cumstein", i.e. "Mitch Cum-Stain".Of course it isn't spelled that way, but everybody who understands the source of that name knows exactly what it was supposed to mean, which was why the name was funny in the movie.TC seems to be deeply distressed by your language, Jim. Maybe you have to remember that sometimes children read your blog.... :->
At
Mon Mar 13, 09:11:30 AM EST,
James Young said...
Well thanks for the psychoanalysis, nova scout! My degree is in law, not psychology, so I won't respond in kind, save to note those "who might be inclined to think that opposition to the Clintons is based on sexually deviant psychoses held by overly repressed fringe Republicans" are as eager to belittle with amateur psychology as you are.And Shaun, thanks for the comments. Amazing, isn't it, how our incredibly-earnest friends on the far Left are upset when someone attempts (with
tongue firmly in cheek) to turn the tables on them?And as for you Anon 1:53, I would note that I link to a number of "Progressive"/Liberal/Far Left websites which don't return the courtesy. There are some notable exceptions (VC comes to mind, as does Ben Tribbett), but by and large, those to whom I --- and other Conservatives --- link do not link to me.
At
Mon Mar 13, 02:03:54 PM EST,
Too Conservative said...
charles-my hits are already up.This helps Jim Young
At
Tue Mar 14, 02:41:43 PM EST,
Waldo Jaquith said...
If questions of oral sex and sodomy are fair game against AG McDonnell, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tables are turned?It seems that neither James nor Shaun is aware of the context of Mr. McDonnell being asked this question.It is
this Daily Press article to which people are referring. McDonnell asserted that Newport News Circuit Judge Verbena Askew may not be suitable to be a judge, given that she's unmarried and single, and thus a potential lesbian. By way of explanation, he said that homosexuals violate Virginia's "crimes against nature" statute, and we can't have judges who are criminals. It was at that point that he was famously asked if he'd ever engaged in an act of sodomy.It is wholly inappropriate for government (or the press, or, indeed, bloggers) to be involved in such private elements of somebody's life. But given that Mr. McDonnell believes that private sexual acts should be subject to governmental regulation, I think it is wholly appropriate that he be asked about it. Turnabout is fair play.Were somebody to ask such a question of, say, Bill Howell, I'd be the first to cry foul. To my knowledge he has not publicly questioned people about their sexuality, and so any such questions ought not be posed to him. Ditto for Sen. Clinton. If she has sought public discussion about people's private sex lives, I'm not aware of it; if my memory of her husband's impeachment trial is accurate, she's rather opposed to such discussions being made public.If Mr. McDonnell wants private sex acts to be public fodder, his ought to be public fodder, as well. But I can't see why Sen. Clinton has to do with that any more than Bill Howell or Mickey Mouse.Ew. Mickey Mouse. Gross.
James Young VS. The World (Part 1)Here's a flash-back to December of last year, where we are treated to some classic James Young posts. This commentary from James is heavily influenced by the Christmas spirit, and just barely drips with his usual vitriolic venom. I have to wonder how James found time to do all of this heavy thinking, and posting, and STILL have time for his favorite holiday activity, GOING DOOR TO DOOR TELLING CHILDREN THERE ISNT ANY SANTA CLAUS! But that's James..a true mutli-tasker with excellent time-management skills:James Young said...
You know, Mitch, every time I read something you write about Lingamfelter, I get the sense that you're either Buck Waters or a supporter of his. Sounds a lot like sour grapes.
1/03/2006 04:47:42 PM
James Young said...
Vince (and Anon 9:49), it'll be a lot easier to smell the coffee if you take your nose out of Chairman Sean's a**!And as to your 11:14 comment, if Chairman Sean were honest, he wouldn't have put out dishonest campaign literature claiming to have "lowered taxes." Or lied about the straw poll at the PW County GOP Convention, where he lost by 70%-30%. Maybe a lot said about him here has merit; maybe not. But I know personally of two occasions where Chairman Sean has chosen -- knowingly and enthusiastically -- to tell bald-faced lies. I can't respect someone like that, no matter his political stripes.
1/03/2006 04:55:32 PM
James Young said...
Nice try, Vince, but I get back to who it was who supported Chairman Sean locally. Present company excepted, I can identify at least two far-Left types who sported Connaughton stickers on their cars. One up the street from my house contemporaneously had a few far-Left stickers on their vehicles; another that I pass regularly now sports a Kaine for Governor sticker. An unscientific method, to be sure, but one which reveals something (what, I'm not sure) about some of those who were enthused about Chairman Sean.
12/27/2005 10:24:02 AM
James Young said...
A little late to this thread, but Anon 7:35's comment is simply misinformed. The PWTA's pledge (I am a founding member, and have continued on the Executive Board) has always taken account of population growth and inflation.Once again, an ill-informed slander against the limited government crowd (you know, like the Founders) which bears no relation to reality.
12/14/2005 09:46:26 AM
James Young said...
Even with my tongue-in-cheek appellation, compared to the guys at Raising Kaine, y'all are CERTAINLY right-wing!
12/12/2005 10:40:56 AM
James Young said...
I would like to associate myself with rtwing extrmst's remarks at 8:18 p.m., particularly his comments about Tom Davis. Those are the qualities that distinguish Tom from the likes of Chairman Sean. I would imagine that there are quite a few conservative fire-breathers in Prince William (some would say that I am among them), for example, who harbor no ill will towards Tom, but wish to strangle Chairman Sean's ambitions aborning because of his unremitting hostility towards them, evidenced by his behavior in attempting to take over the County GOP by packing a meeting with individuals -- some known Democrats -- after his embarassment at the County Convetion's straw poll, about which he lied in print (claiming that the ballot box was stuffed). Tom, on the other hand, has always been truthful in his dealings with me, and willing to have honest disagreements without harboring ill will after the battle is done. Chairman Sean could learn a lot from him, though I am increasingly doubtful of his capacity to do so.
12/09/2005 11:18:12 AM
James Young said...
nova scout said "Bolling's campaign literature is devoid of references to any other area of activity or accomplishment. I think it's safe to assume that if there were anything mroe to the man, his people wouldn't keep it a secret."Aside from the fact that these comments come from someone who cowers in pseudonymity, let us not forget that a man so "devoid ... of activity or accomplishment" still managed to beat Chairman Sean. What does such a result tell us?
12/07/2005 02:26:51 PM
James Young said...
nova scout clearly comes from the George Orwell school of historical analysis. How else could he ascribe the term "fiscal discipline" to a politician who increased taxes on his constituents by an average of 50% in five years? Remember to clean out that memory hole regularly, though, nova scout.I note that it wasn't me who observed Chairman Sean's "vote for me because I'm from NoVA"; that was gophokie and adam, and rightly so.As to your p.s., nova scout, I make the distinction between those who post anonymously and those who use a consistent pseudonym. The former usually use anonymity to club others with statements to which they are unwilling/afraid to ascribe their names, probably with good reason. At least consistent pseudonymity gives the regular reader something of a record --- albeit limited to comments posted --- by which to judge new comments, and is therefore slightly less contemptible. Of course, for all we know, you're simply a Democrat masquerading as a Republican, particularly since you consistently embrace the irresponsible tax-and-spend policies (i.e., Chairman Sean as a paragon of "fiscal discipline," a claim that can be made only by those who don't pay his bills) and rhetoric ("The primary vote tells us a lot about the sophistication, credulousness and discernment of a considerable segment of the GOP primary voting core. There were a large number who uncritically bought into the vapid inanity of Bolling's attacks, who were seduced by facile labelling and who discounted Bolling's rather limited resume as not particularly important") of the far Left.However, I will agree with one comment made by nova scout. It would have indeed helped the GOP had the party had a "strong candidate from Northern Virginia." It would have been even better if we had had the opportunity to vote for one in the primary.
12/08/2005 09:40:58 AM
ALL JAMES...ALL THE TIME:My idol, the Lord Humungous of the Blogesphere, knows how to treat commentary on HIS blog.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8987/18004l0wr.jpgJames Young doesn't tolerate ANY dissent from "guests" at his site. You few who are foolish enough to make challenge James Young, , deserve what you get.
James Young scoffs at those who try to reason with him. James Young sees that as weakness. Pennitantary rules apply at the Skeptical Observer. Screw with James, and you will end up like this:
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/2205/f100humungous7kd.jpgPublic Service Announcement From Young Jimmy; Here's just a couple of examples of what happens when someone has the nerve to challenge JAMES YOUNG's opinion, in HIS HOUSE:http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9849/roadwarrior1658yf.jpgAt
Sun Apr 02, 08:49:18 PM EDT, NoVa Scout said...
PS: I agree totally with James Young that, unless the law otherwise mandates it, there is absolutely no reason to have a special election in the summer and then have to go through it all again in November. The best result from an effective government standpoint would be to do this in the context of the General in November. Again, this is part of my policy of always acknowledging when James has a good point.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7692/roadwarrior19ja.jpgOkay Good...NoVA Scout is agreeing with his Lord Humongous, but of course NoVA Scout cannot possibly be completely right, so he requires some mild correction:http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6945/humungous4rj.jpgAt
Sun Apr 02, 11:57:09 PM EDT,
conservative one said...
nova scout, remember that this november is not a state election, it's a federal election. If you had a special election this summer, the winner would hold the seat until the state election in 2007.The advantage of waiting until november is that you have polls already set up, and people coming for a big election, so you don't have the problem of low turnout, and don't spend a lot of money and time on an election for a single district in the middle of the summer when people want to be vacationing with their families.
Nova Scout shows his gratitude...At
Mon Apr 03, 02:57:03 AM EDT, NoVA Scout said...
C1: thanks for straightening me out. I'm not sure what I was thinking as to this year. I guess I'm so curious about what will happen in the GA races in 2007 that I just chopped a year off the waiting period. My only other excuse is that I'm about 12 time zones west (or east) of you guys at the moment and jet-lagged. Calendars apparently aren't my strong suit in this condition. But the merits of November stand, for the reasons you mention.
...But he makes the mistake of putting himself on the same level as the Master of the Blog Wasteland: http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7100/roadwarrior1923rk.jpgAt
Mon Apr 03, 10:29:21 AM EDT,
James Young said...
Careful, NoVA Scout. Here's what one idiot (Comment 22) said to me when I dared to mention --- like you, as a point of reference --- my frequent travels: "You know, it would have been just as easy and a lot less pretentious to just make your point without all of the additional 'Look, I wear big-boy pants!'" http://tooconservative.com/?p=401#commentsBTW, I DON'T apply that comment to you. Indeed, I find it interesting that the idiot doesn't, either. And how Chairman Sean's lapdogs can't even leave attack mode when one expresses sympathy for what may (or may not) have been the justification for his action.
So far, so good. But here's where NoVA Scout makes a grave error. He dares to disagree with Mighty James Young, and will suffer his wrath:http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5033/warrior0wq.jpgAt
Tue Apr 04, 11:14:23 AM EDT, NoVA Scout said...
Jmes: re your 1029 post from Monday AM: sometimes I have not the slightest idea of what you're talking about. And your reference to connection is completely perplexing. You are truly obsessed. The man's name had not even been mentioned in the thread. The only thing happening was a fairly technical discussion about whether it was necessary/advisable to have a short-fuse special election in the 50th. What causes you to wing off like that? It's probably not harmful to others (although it is profoundly off-putting), but it surely isn't healthy.
At
Wed Apr 05, 09:26:56 AM EDT,
James Young said...
Well, NoVA Scout, I certainly beg your pardon for assuming that you read other blogs (http://tooconservative.com/?p=401#comments), rather than just being "obsessed" with attacking me.Oops! Looks like my reference (post 22 on that thread) shouldn't have been obscure, since you posted (post 29) on the thread to which I rather obscurely referred, and now explicitly reference, AFTER the insulting comment to which I refer.And what's not "healthy" is your rather childish pop-psych references, aside from the fact that the reference was not to Chairman Sean, but to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs."And I wasn't even referring to you as a "lapdog" on this occasion; rather, I was criticizing lapdoggish behavior in the reference. I guess that expecting you to join in that legitimate criticism was just too much; you apparently thought it'd be more fun to indulge your belittling little pseudo-psychoanalysis.So what's more off-putting, I wonder? My legitimate reference, or your misrepresentation of my reference to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs," coupled with your childish pseudo-psychoanalysis?
At
Wed Apr 05, 08:52:34 PM EDT, NOVA Scout said...
You might want to re-read through the thread again - and then go get help. I think my observation about it being a discussion about the wisdom of a short-bell special election is objectively correct.
At
Wed Apr 05, 09:30:57 PM EDT,
James Young said...
NoVA Scout, your dime-store psychology is terribly impressive. Nearly as impressive as your knowledge of the use of analogy. Of course, that this thread is "a discussion about the wisdom of a short-bell special election is objectively correct." It's entirely fair to point out that one of your comments was in the nature of a comment for which I was savaged (by Chairman Sean's lapdogs) elsewhere. It's too bad that your knee-jerk need to take up for the man causes you to ignore that the type of comment that you made is akin to the type of comment for which I was savaged elsewhere, and that the savaging was at the hands of Chairman Sean's lapdogs. Indeed, it's too bad that your knee-jerk support for the man causes you to ignore that this was a comment about his lapdogs (unless you know something the posters that I don't) rather than one about him.It merely demonstrates that your intellectualism and objectivism is as feigned as your expertise in the field of psychology.And I hope you enjoy this little back and forth here. This is the kind of crap that will cause me to block your comments in the new Haloscan section. Behave, or cast your aspersions/play your games/shovel your manure on someone else's website.
At
Thu Apr 06, 07:35:34 AM EDT, NoVA Scout said...
Gee whiz, James - you sure know how to scare the hell out of a guy. I'm assuming you're just making a stab at light humor. I can't imagine that a blogger would actually ban a commenter based on disagreements. To do that leaves you open to the presumably unwarranted inference that you're an extremely prickly guy who can't handle the rough and tumble (even though I'm hardly rough) of blog exchanges. I don't comment on this site frequently. Ironically, in this thread, my sole purpose in commenting initially was to AGREE with you that the election to fill the seat in the 50th ought to be postponed until November, if there is no legal compulsion to have it sooner.My blog behavior is above board. Generally, I think my input in virginia blog circles, while frequently disagreed with, is regarded as a cut or two above "manure." I have advised you to do something about your Connaughton fixation. I don't think that's bad advice. It detracts from your ability to contribute and pops up in the strangest places. I would get more out of your site if you could lower the level on that considerably. I doubt that I am alone in that regard. That's just my opinion. I have no idea whether the folks who were ribbing you about your non-sequitur Premier Executive boast at the other site were Sean partisans or not. Your comment was the sort of thing that gets ribbed in blog circles frequently. This is sort of a schoolyard medium in which there's a lot of razzing that goes on. So I think you would have gotten a few jibes whether or not Sean Connaughton was an extremely popular Conservative Republican elected official in Northern Virginia. To turn it into a "Sean's lapdogs" event seems more than a little bit of jumping at shadows.If you don't like my advice, which is sound and intended to be constructive, don't take it. It's entirely up to you.
At
Thu Apr 06, 09:55:09 AM EDT,
James Young said...
Well, gee, whiz, NoVA Scout, it's difficult to imagine how "constructive criticism" can be derived from your dime-store psychoanalysis.In fact, the only one "fixated" on Chairman Sean here is you. Let's go over the timeline once again, for those who aren't paying attention, and for you, who prefers not to.1. I post this comment about the impending election in the 50th.2. On another thread, I note that Chairman Sean may, indeed, have had good cause to miss the PWC GOP Convention, noting my own experience as a possible reason.3. I am immediately attacked by one of Chairman Sean's lapdogs with the "big-boy pants" comment.4. You comment here, qualifying that comment by noting your "only other excuse is that I'm about 12 time zones west (or east) of you guys at the moment and jet-lagged."5. I compare your comment to the attack made upon me in that other blog thread to an attack by Chairman Sean's lapdogs.6. You immediately attack with your dime-store psychoanalysis, falsely claiming that my "reference to Connaughton" --- the reference was to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs" --- "is completely perplexing."That's the kind of dishonesty and belittlement, your pretensions of "constructive criticism" to the contrary notwithstanding, that rightly gets one banned.
At
Thu Apr 06, 07:22:45 PM EDT, NoVA Scout said...
Glad we got that straightened out.I think I'll just mosey on out of here. At times I just don't feel welcome.
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5745/711kc.jpgAt
Thu Apr 06, 08:57:11 PM EDT,
James Young said...
Go with the feeling. Go with God.
So there you have it, O lowly inhabitants of the Skeptical Observer. NoVA Scout should be thankful for the blessing bestowed upon him by James Young. Life here is Nasty Brutish and Cruel. The best one can hope for is that James Young, the Humungous will have pity on you, and end your sufferring quickly. Learn and be warned. James Young, the Lord Humungous will not be challenged or trifled with!
JAMES YOUNG"S GREATEST HITS: A TRIBUTE TO A "GREAT MAN" , A LEGEND (IN HIS OWN MIND), MY "IDOL", JAMES YOUNG
So that those who don't know James Young, I, Young Jimmy, disciple of his mondo humongusness, have put together this montage, can know what the master is all about. You may have seen his "gospel" on this blog or that, but it isn't until you've seen his words collected in a single manifesto. Read on, and thank whatever spiritual-being that you pray too, for being blessed to live in the same time as James Young, dare I say, the James Young Epoch? As to you Nattering Nabobs of Negativity, who would call the "Young Jimmy's Epistle to the Bloggers" and Apocryphal work, I offer the following, collected from the various scrolls-of-the-blogosphere, with supporting source links for context.
James Young is a reader of great books, and a literary critic:
ItÂs not difficult to figure out WHAT book is sitting next to you, Chad, but itÂs certainly discomforting to contemplate that it IS sitting next to you.
I certainly hope that itÂs from the library, and that ydidn'tidnÂt enrich the author by paying for it.
Comment by
James Young  4/9/2006 @
11:03 pmOSL (Original Source Link):
http://vaconservative.com/archives/2006/04/09/the-venerable-book-meme/#comment-102746Not only is James Young a compassionate man, and has respect for the departed, he is also loyal to those who defend him against heathen non-believers:March 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pmIsnÂt it funny how the people who revered Harry, and purport to have been his supporters have felt free to use his death as an opportunity to attack people who occasionally disagreed with Harry on policy matters (most notably, the 2004 tax increase) on BVBLÂs site, and then attack me for merely calling attention to their attacks? ItÂs even more funny that they do so while cowering in anonymity/pseudonymity (with the exception of AWCheney, who at least has the courage to attach her name to her slanders).
ItÂs truly sad that they would diminish HarryÂs memory by claiming association with him.
And ÂSteve Chapstick, who do you think youÂre kidding? You donÂt even have the courage to attach your name to your slanders. Even if dueling were in fashion, and you showed up at all, youÂd simply befilth your britches. Â
James YoungMarch 30th, 2006 at 9:39 amt is a little over the top. It might be nice if those of you who like to run hate campaigns against me would recognize that you are, too.
As for your comment, Scott, I would expect that a simple modicum of gratitude would cause you to eschew comments like that.
Then again, perhaps Stalin was right, and gratitude is a disease of dogs. Â
James YoungOSL:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:CJFfwxwkYXgJ:tooconservative.com/%3Fp%3D380+%22James+Young%22+VA+Virginia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26James Young is a loyal conservative Republican, who supports Party Nominees, regardless od ideology, in accordance with the oath taken, when one joins the party:
April 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pmIf ideology is not a factor  and no one has credibly suggested that it is  then you cannot deny the fact that the 10th District CommitteeÂs performance has been wanting in recent elections. I know, I know: there are a lot of people who want to blame the candidates. At least, when itÂs candidates for Delegates. My guess would be that many of those who trash people like Dick Black wonÂt admit that Jerry Kilgore was a drag on the ticket. But the answer to mediocre incumbents is to run in a primary against them. Â
James YoungJames is a student of Bushido, and likes to speak in Sun-Tzu'esque terms:April 11th, 2006 at 10:51 pmJust as liars hate to be identified as liars (even the Great Prevaricator), so  too  cowards hate to be identified as such.
That you post anonymously speaks volumes about your character. That you fail to address a single point that I made in my comment, likewise, speaks volumes. Â
James YoungOSL:
http://tooconservative.com/?p=432#commentsJames Young is an astute observer of the obvious, but this does not detract from his Christian, Compassionate side in the least:April 7th, 2006 at 6:43 pmInteresting, isnÂt it Vince, that the most ardent supporters of your assertion are the far Lefties and partisans of the radical homosexual agenda? Â
James YoungApril 7th, 2006 at 11:47 pmI thoroughly associate myself with Charles comments. Partisans of the radical homosexual agenda have moved their war against nature to a war against language, and are mightily pissed that mainstream Americans are pushing back.
And are you referring to semantics, Greg, or some antics (which is usually what we see here)? You are of course aware of Mona CharenÂs wonderful observation: ÂWhat used to be the Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name has become the Love that Will Not Shut Its Mouth.Â
IÂm not usually given to quoting Scriptures  keenly aware of my limitations, following Dirty HarryÂs advice  but I also seem to remember an admonition by one of those biblical guys to ÂGo forth and sin no more.Â
ThatÂs one that those who wish to mainstream perversion, including our young host here, seem to have forgotten.
And one more thing: itÂs quite clear that Ât is the unlamented ÂPastor John. Â
James YoungOSL:
http://tooconservative.com/?p=426April 6th, 2006 at 9:12 pmI may be mistaken, but IÂm pretty sure Tony doesnÂt have any children. If not, though, and given the nature of most of these comments, I suspect some of the people around here to be raising their eyebrows about that.
As for some of the comments (particularly Greg 37), I suspect that a Miller run would garner support from many of the same people who supported Chapman.
Objectively, he is a better candidate (already an office-holder; sorry, Steve), while having virtually the same ideological credentials as Chapman, and not having engendered the irrational animosity which characterizes many of the slurs against Chapman here. ChapmanÂs strength in the last primary  45% against a Harry Parris is no mean feat, no matter how those here despicably belittle him  was obviously a function of GOP dissatisfaction with HarryÂs tax vote, along with failure to produce for pro-lifers, though the latter, probably to a lesser extent.
And a big ole ÂLOL out to BVBL (Post 5). A pseudonymous poster accusing someone of being Âflat-out dishonest, and a Âmediocre bottom-feeder. Precious! Â
James YoungJames Young is a Martyer for the cause, and does not bring these attacks on himself. Shame on you, you mean people!:
April 7th, 2006 at 10:17 amWhy is it that all of the TC post that end up with 50+ comments always turns into a Jim Young v. The World? It always seems to happen between comments 40 and 55 in these postings?
CanÂt we stay on topic, just once? Â
HironsApril 7th, 2006 at 10:51 amAs for Steve ChapstickÂs comment (No. 54), I donÂt understand why he or she is speaking in the third person, since it is patently obvious that S. Chapstick is probably BVBL pretending to create a groundswell. I also note that individualÂs incredible gift for the obvious. No, I donÂt defend Chapman, though I will not join you in calling these spleen-ventings Âargument. They arenÂt. TheyÂre simply slurs against someone who obviously touched up quite a few egos by earning 45% of the GOP primary vote in the 50th District.
To answer your question, Scott (Post 64): because there are quite a few people here who have, letÂs see, and Âunhealty obsession with attacking me. They can rarely do so for my opinions, or for my authority to speak on certain issues, and they certainly canÂt compare their meager records to mine, so they must cower in the shadows because of the fact that I couldnÂt bring myself to put on a coat and tie for a Saturday convention in which I intended to play very little role, and because IÂm not the perfect physical speciment that we must suppose them to be (since they remain anonymous and since it would only be an appropriate counterpoint to their woeful lack of character). As for my personal hygiene, I bath at least once a day. That these comments offend Kris, given our psst (and probably future) disputes says much about the character of the attacks (and, I must concede, something favorable about hers) which are, of course, of a piece with those against Steve Chapman.
Never let it be said that I donÂt have a sense of gratitude. Thanks, Greg (sorry I couldnÂt remember your name in another thread; wonÂt forget it again); thanks, Kris. I certainly appreciate your comments, and hope that, were I to see similar things posted about you, I would similarly rise to your defense against these cowardly little kitteÂ
er, lions.
As for you Jack, youÂre factually wrong. I raised the issue with regard to the 10th District list, which was done first. I was voted down. After the same procedure was tried for the Committee, I raised the issue again, and Michele joined my effort. It is of little surprise to me in this thread that someone gets the facts wrong about that. Perhaps you just missed it, but IÂm sure that Charles Reichley, Jim Riley, and Jim Ebel will back me up. They were all there.
Of course, now, I suppose one of these boobs will accuse me of having a ÂSee, I wear big-boy pants attitude simply because I dared to defend myself with the facts. Â
James YoungJames Young seeks common ground with those who disagree with him, and the UN flag should bear a picture of James Young holding an Olive Branch. He is a genlteman who respects women, even when he disagrees with them. James Young would NEVER resort to name-calling, as this would put him on the same level as those heathen anonymous bloggers. James Young always turns the other cheek:April 7th, 2006 at 6:46 pmI appreciate the support, Anke.
Notwithstanding the fact that you misrepresent my comments as Âmean, personal attacks.Â
ÂCourse, IÂve never tried to put you in jail. Â
James YoungApril 8th, 2006 at 10:14 amOh, and BTW, crone, IÂm still waiting for that apology for your misrepresentations. Â
James Younghttp://tooconservative.com/?p=424#commentsApril 8th, 2006 at 12:00 amAnke, you give no context. For the uninformed reader, here it is: as for the first, I was pointing out the character of your use of the word Âdispersions, rather than Âaspersions, as the context suggested. As for the last three, I was responding to a post in which you implied that I misrepresented myself, and did so with shoddy, half-a**ed research.
Perhaps calling someone a Âliar is acceptable where you come from. It is not where I come from. DonÂt be surprised when someone responds to your slurs with accuracy, if an excess of vigor. Â
James Youngh
ttp://tooconservative.com/?p=424#commentsYou know, one has to wonder whether the fact that some of the types posting here were Harry's "supporters" is one reason why Steve Chapman won as much as 45% of the GOP vote.
Posted by:
James Young March 29, 2006 at 11:17 PMNJH, I'm not surprised that you misrepresent my post. What is truly despicable is your double-standard. You attack me for merely bringing attention to the hate campaign being waged by those who call themselves Harry's "friends" and "supporters," those who are Hell-bent on treating political differences as personal differences, yet say not a discouraging word about the hate campaign itself. It's despicable, and diminishes the man's memory. I have discussed not at all any prospective candidates for his seat.
Posted by:
James Young March 30, 2006 at 09:25 AMWhy should you, NJH? You've lied about the facts, and lost the debate.
Posted by:
James Young March 30, 2006 at 02:18 PMJames Young is respected throughout the blogosphere, or his sage an pointed commentary. He is beloved by bloggers, and serves as a true example of what we should aspire to:I don't think James Young's personality and lack of class was at all misrepresented by his post on Virginia Virtucon -
Upon VV posting of Mr. Parrish's death and linking to several bloggers who had also announced the info, Mr. Young had the first comment on the thread - claiming that he had posted about this FIRST. VV has since removed his distasteful comment.
But the fact that he could even MAKE such a post should give an outsider a clear glimpse into what kind of man he REALLY is.
And it served as a perfect illustration of all the little temper tantrums he throws over who had the biggest, baddest, and bestest YR club EVER.
NJH hasn't LIED about anything. It seems he just doesn't think that days after a man's death is the APPROPRIATE time to talk about what may or may not have been the mistakes he made in his life. That YOU think it IS appropriate, speaks volumes.
Posted by: Robert Hart
March 30, 2006 at 02:35 PMThat's kinda the point, Bobby: nowhere did I ever "talk about what may or may not have been the mistakes [Harry Parrish] made in his life" since his passing. And I defy you to point to the post where I did. That was Christopher, and I don't endorse the timing of his comments.
Posted by:
James Young March 30, 2006 at 06:29 PMWell, Bobby, I note that you don't take up my challenge to "point to the post where I" "talk[ed] about what may or may not have been the mistakes [Harry Parrish] made in his life" since his passing," so I assume that you concede the point that I haven't.
However, I will take up yours. You ask "There is a HATE campaign being waged by Parrish "supporters"? Where?"
Well, try here (
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24606153&postID=114349731368427760), And if that's not sufficient, feel free to read some of the posts above. To be sure, some of these comments were provoked by Christopher's untimely commments, but they are nevertheless a hate campaign, being waged by, among others, the campaign manager for Harry's last primary campaign.
And I agree with Anke that someone who levels the charges that Christopher has really should identify themselves more fully.
'Course, that's a standard that I apply uniformly. Anke only seems to object to anonymous/psuedonymous criticism with which she disagrees. The post site referenced above contains no such criticism of anonymity/pseudonymity.
Posted by:
James Young April 01, 2006 at 03:48 PMJames Young is a man of controlled emotion, in the tradition of Gahndi, Buddha, an the Messiah himself. James doesn't let his temper get the best of him. He is like water flowing around the rock. He is the Spock of the universal blogosphere:
Anke, maybe you should explain, then. I read his post, and understood it to reference activities by you and Kenny Klinge during the 2004 primary campaign. If I'm mistaken, by all means, enlighten me. By referencing me, I understood you to be criticizing the leveling of charges anonymously/pseudonymously.
In any case, this is getting tiresome. You attack Harry's last primary opponent, and then act aggrieved. You wrongly accuse me of lying (with half-a**ed "research" about a fact you could have checked with my boss, your old "comrade in arms," assuming he would even return your calls) elsewhere, and then threaten me with a lawsuit.
Grow up.
Posted by:
James Young April 01, 2006 at 08:45 PMAnke, "angry" suggests an investment of emotion of which you are not worthy. "Contempt" would be accurate. But your Cracker-Jack-box psychology is quite entertaining.
You continue to make your little threats of legal action. Rest assured that, if you manage to find a shyster to file a frivolous suit, I will take great satisfaction in responding, in a suit in which you are suing me over comments responding to your implication and/or specific statement --- based upon half-a**ed research --- that I had misrepresented myself, with a counterclaim. I suspect that you'll end up not only paying a judgment, but paying my attorneys' fees, as well. And you should certainly consider my privilege to conduct discovery, including a deposition on your --- and Harry's campaign's --- role in the charges against Steve Chapman.
You keep griping, though. It is readily apparently to all that you define as "too far" those who dare to expose your sleazy tactics and double standards. You attacked Steve Chapman within a day, if not within hours, of Harry's death. Is that what you are talking about when you use the phrase "when almost everyone else was agreed that this behavior was inappropriate"?
And BTW, I'm glad to see that you are not so "deeply affected" by Harry's death that it has interfered with your continuing hate campaigns. Your pretensions are betrayed by your rhetoric.
Posted by:
James Young April 02, 2006 at 12:57 PM"Courtesy of any further responses"!?!?!?!
"Courtesy" has nothing to do with your responses.
As for "responses," you apparently missed the point of my post, which was please, just shut up and spare us your pretensions of mourning over attack-dog political strategy.
Posted by:
James Young April 02, 2006 at 05:07 PMApril 5th, 2006 at 9:55 amThis is all pretty pathetic, and gives credit to the notion that both Vince and most of his posters need adult supervision.
I donÂt know who IÂll support when all the candidates declare themselves, and I donÂt associate myself with all of the praise of Chapman by some of these posters, whether signed by real people or posted tongue-in-cheek pseudonymously. I thought Chapman superior to Parrish in the 2005 primary, given the latterÂs surrender to Governor Marky MarkÂs unnecessary tax increase, and in light of the despicable behavior of ParrishÂs campaign operatives, which I prefer to believe was undertaken without his knowledge. ItÂs hardly surprising to see that, as to the latter, it continues.
The only meritorious thing in this entire Chapman-trashing conversation is that AWCheney is the only one courageous enough to put her name on her slurs. Â
James YoungJames Young is gracious, and and respects his opponents:April 5th, 2006 at 10:09 pmI was referring to things said elsewhere. Whatever else her flaws, so far as I am aware, at least Anke stands by what she says. That, at least, is deserving of SOME respect. Â
James YoungOSL:
http://tooconservative.com/?p=410#commentsJames Young, DOES NOT PICK ALLEGORICAL NITS! He is also an expert at septic-tank observations:April 3rd, 2006 at 11:40 amMitch 19, the actual phrase that I think that I consistently use is Âlaboring in the vineyards, but close enough for government work.
As for your description of what qualifies, it suggests that one of my surmises as to your identity was incorrect, as there are some (mostly associated with the crowd that believes the sewage emanating from Montclair as a sweeter odor than that emanating from other developments) who count community involvement as they define it as the ONLY legitimate measure of qualification. Â
James YoungApril 3rd, 2006 at 6:30 pmMitch, regarding your Post 40, you state that you Âhave disagreed with the notion that Âlaboring in the vineyards is the only Âlegitimate measure of qualification.ÂÂ
I donÂt know of anyone who takes that extreme position, which strikes me as a caricature. Certainly, I donÂt now, and never have. Who has taken that position?
I WOULD certainly suggest that failure to labor in the vineyards calls into question oneÂs commitment to the principles and beliefs of the Party from which one seeks a political nomination. Â
James YoungJames Young, in addition to being a lawyer in the Milagro Beanfield War, is also an accomplised psychoanylyst. His diagnosis helped a misguided blogger get needed help. BVBL is now happy, healthy, and living in Kansas, blogging about corn futures:April 3rd, 2006 at 9:22 pmSounds to me like BVBL, aside from being a coward, has a personality disorder, since he claims to endorse positions which many would characterize as ÂUltra Conservative. He simply attacks those he dislikes, perhaps because of some hidden agenda (probably because he attacks those who have demonstrated his idiocy).
What a fine, dispassionate observor of politics. Â
James YoungApril 5th, 2006 at 10:13 pmOnce again, NoVA Scout treats us to his dime-store psychology. Always good for a laugh.
I make no such pretensions. But one has to wonder about the disorders underlying claims to authority by one who so assiduously hides his identity.
And NoVA Scout, I have a record of fairly criticizing even those I like when they have strayed from the path of virtue and righteousness. But, of course, shallow types like you would rather promote and indulge a self-serving caricature, rather than deal with reality. Â
James YoungJames Young is a warrior. He subscribes to a warrior's code. He defends his positions like a solid attorney would, and would never, never resort to name-calling. To those who would call him a hypocrite, for resorting to name calling, while critcizing those who blog anonymously, Young Jimmy says : Get thee behind me Demons of the Blog...for for thou art anonymous, and therefore liars and unclean:
OSL:
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2006/03/harry_parrishs_.html#comment-15557040 said...
Wow! A coward who fails to identify himself (or herself) declares war on me. Ooooo, how scary! And you attack my "honor" while hiding in anonymity and anonymously slandering someon you identify as a "Chapmanite"? That's kinda like being called a "liar" by Bill Clinton.BTW, jerk-off, I said nothing about the "future of the 50th." I merely noted the classlessness of the idiots posting on YOUR site which attacked others.Your a coward, and you're pathetic.
10:55 PM
said...
Yeah, Mitch. We could play the same game whenever you launch one of your pseudonymous personal attacks, or snuggle up to Chairman Sean's fundament.
11:12 AM
said...
Harry'd be sooo proud, Cum-Stain.
1:37 PM
said...
I didn't start squat, NJH. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good caricature.
8:52 PM
OSL:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24606153&postID=114368094731263517 said...
Anke, you're despicable. It's too bad that a woman of your advanced years remains so immature as to confuse/make political differences personal ones.
12:51 PM
said...
And BTW, my post was a "notice." I am hardly responsible for how others characterize it.
12:51 PM
said...
Anke, you're also a moron. It's "aspersions," and they're your stock in trade. And while I resisted the urge to say it before, I'll say it now: it's a damn shame that, in his last campaign, Harry associated himself with, and was diminished by, people like you and your vile and despicable tactics, which were so shameful that you tried to lie about them.And BTW, plenty of people like me, Anke. That you, and the likes of you, don't is a mark I wear with honor.
4:17 PM
said...
Anke, at least you're not the coward that "Mitch," "BVBL," and "Not Ben" are. And I like how you throw around that "Nazi" phrase so freely. Just moving farther and farther left, huh? 'Cept, it wasn't about spelling. "Espersions" would be a spelling error. Using "dispersions" when you mean "aspersions" is just plain stupidity.And BTW, "schoolyard name-calling"?!? From she of the label on TC, only recently eschewed? You left the playground hours ago, and feel free to attack others. That's too funny.As for you, Mr. Cum-stain, I just guess that somewhere along the way, you were given some bad advice. Someone convinced you that cowering in anonymity and childishly attacking your betters was cool. Maybe you feel like it's working for you. Who knows? But I don't doubt you'll be surprised when people treat you accordingly when you are associated publicly with your foolishness.You are the people who have used the occasion of Harry's death to attack Steve Chapman. That there are those who recognize it for what it is and identify it must be frustrating (just as the fact that Steve won 45% of the vote in that race must be), I know, but it is your behavior which is uncivilized.
11:05 PM
OSL:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24606153&postID=114358156875609134Thank You for taking the time to listen to my ministry. James Young is paragon of issue, a martyr of merde, a conniseur of chiotte. After reading all of James Young's comments, and placing them in their proper perspective, I would hope that you will give Grand-Master James, the respect he deserves.
