TheDougem Debating with an Occupy San Diego Sympathizer

Howdy folks!

You may know me from an interview I did in the past with Stalin on the War Room podcast and from a few appearences on the War Room Podcast. I have a now active blog here where you can find out more about me and what I do.

I was encouraged to post two articles that may be of interest to you folks. Recently, I've been trying to reach out to Occupy San Diego to try to get civil discussion going between me and them in regards to their agenda, and to try to get a response from them in regards to unpleasant incidents they've been involved in recently.

I haven't been able to get much response. What I have gotten has been..combative. You can find my first discussion here:

No-one responded to my question about whether or not to respond openly to a pm I got – so I decided to go do it anyways! Below is the message in full. I understand it’s a busy week for everybody – but all the same I hope I get you folks on the weekend. The video in question is linked in my previous post.
Quick note to site newbies, please read the about tab before jumping to conclusions about how I tick, kay?

Aaaaannnnnddd here we go. The user in question is drysift and their pm was as follows:

“@drysift “Got exactly what you deserved.” So thuggery is justified if it’s against someone you disagree with? As a tea party member my group and I were briefly considering sending a delegation down to talk with you folks as an olive branch of sorts. You can bet we’ll steer clear now. Like it or not, you fellas have given us the impression that you’re only interested in provocation and shouting when you encounter things you don’t like. Quit excusing bad behavior so much.”

..And my response to you is exactly what I said before..

No, she wasn’t reaching out. She went to interview people she thought would make Occupiers look bad, and she got exactly what she deserved.

(The part you apparently missed..)

Quit scouting homeless people to represent Occupiers. The COPS DROP THEM OFF there for free food and shelter, that’s it. The Tea Partiers have their share of crazies too. When you’re ready to see the good in Occupy and take some responsibility for your own actions, we can talk!

Aww homeless people got ya’ shakin’ in your boots?

Bring your olive branch. Occupiers would love to hear their representatives debate with peaceful people, but leave your guns, gun-strapped toddlers, biased perspectives, and sarcastic remarks at home. Occupiers have had plenty of documented (on youtube) civil debates with opposers, but they have NO TIME for aggressive haters.. which you borderline on.

So come in peace! OR, you can come film and harass the poor homeless for a nice piece of propaganda if bias is your agenda, but don’t cry to youtube when your smart mouth gets you hit.

Thanks for your opinion,

Non-Polarized Intellectual”

Ohohoho, where do I start? Remember, here is the context video in question. I was replying to this comment specifically:

“No, you weren’t reaching out. You went to interview people you thought would make Occupiers look bad, and you got exactly what you deserved. Quit scouting homeless people to represent Occupiers. They cops drop them off there for free food and shelter, that’s it. The Tea Partiers have their share of crazies too. When you’re ready to see the good in Occupy and take some responsibility for your own actions, we can talk! Retorting to an apology with insults is very childish, grow up.”

Folks, remember on my last podcast how I mentioned that I felt Occupy Wall Street was a mob and how that was bad? Allow me to use some more of this user’s actual posts before I continue. I’d suggest the more enterprising of you open the comment thread yourselves, tap in ‘drysift’ into the search bar and have fun reading. Go ahead, I’ll wait. To find my comments, you would of course search for ‘TheDougem’. I’m calling out drysift – I’m not going to hide.

“LOL you boomers and your two party system. There is no left or right, Occupy belongs to neither.

I personally find it funny that the bitch in the video got her camera knocked out of her hands. That’s what happens when you harass homeless people. Why bother? Because she wanted to scorn Occupiers. She chose the poorest, most ignorant people she could find, and she got exactly what she asked for.

Meanwhile, you crazies laugh when the cops almost killed Scott Olson, a two time war vet.”

—

“I can hardly wait to read of your abuse in a nursing home somewhere. Generation Y is going to punish you for demeaning the movement we started to combat the corruption your lazy generation left us with. Mark my words, you will suffer like you’ve made us suffer.

- Educated, young American prospect”

So! With the context of this commenter’s lovely, civil nature and upbeat attitude established, let’s roll with the beginning of the message. They quote one of my closing comments on the thread before I myself got blocked just like she did – probably because I broke the maxim of “Don’t feed the troll.” My mistake, if the video maker sees this I apologize for being part of the swarm who couldn’t help themselves.

“@drysift “Got exactly what you deserved.” So thuggery is justified if it’s against someone you disagree with? As a tea party member my group and I were briefly considering sending a delegation down to talk with you folks as an olive branch of sorts. You can bet we’ll steer clear now. Like it or not, you fellas have given us the impression that you’re only interested in provocation and shouting when you encounter things you don’t like. Quit excusing bad behavior so much.”

You are reading a frustration, irritated Dougem there! I took the freedom to emphasize a few words with bold, and will continue to do so as we go. Words are important, folks! And I’m being directly honest here – the San Diego Tea Party – my group – was at the time considering a delegation. They actually did one yesterday, but more on that in a future post. When we talked about it at one of our meetings, our concerns were based off of countless videos of anger, disruptance, violence, clashes with the police – I don’t feel it’s unreasonable that we concluded that for whatever reason - the movement is tied with unpleasantness. Street shouting is not conducive to meaningful debate. Sitting down in a calm, neutral setting and taking turns talking is – and was what we were considering inviting some occupiers to.
We strongly believe in civil debate and listening to opposing viewpoints. America is about tolerance and agreeing to disagree about some things in the interests of peace, freedom, and focusing on our daily lives. I can with complete confidence speak for my tea party chapter in this regard. If you have problems with the tea party? Great! Take it up with the locals. I’m sure they’ll be happy to speak with you if you are civil and polite.
Members of my group – probably about 3 or 4 – went down to do a follow up of sorts. Details are fuzzy, but I do know there is film and pictures which I will share in due time. Back to the pm!

“..And my response to you is exactly what I said before..

No, she wasn’t reaching out. She went to interview people she thought would make Occupiers look bad, and she got exactly what she deserved.”

She went out to supposedly make you guys look bad? Oh boo-hoo. Cry me a river. That’s just too darn bad. It certainly isn’t fair! And guess what? Life ain’t fair. Now, IF you are correct – I won’t necessarily support what she did. HOWEVER. That does not mean that the people in the video were justified in committing assault. That’s what that was, plain and simple. Adults do not physically lash out of they don’t like something. Adults don’t throw temper tantrums if they want to be taken seriously. I see children in that video. No one looks good – but the occupy members in there look far worse.
WELL THEN WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE??? Gee, I dunno – offering to do a one to one interview with the video taker? How about – responding in a calm, rational, civil, and polite matter? Maybe inviting them to talk things over lunch or in a park – ie, in a quiet setting not charged by anger? Maybe even – GASP – TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK! Ie – refusing to respond. You can do that. Say “No thank you” or “I’d rather not discuss that” or “I don’t care to speak with you”. All very simple, easy things.
You advocate mob violence and mob, street justice in that sentence. If you actually read this – answer me this – Are you attempting to justify the use of physical force in political disagreements, and do you also justify the use of physical force to actively prevent the act of filming or taking pictures of occupiers in public spaces?
Moving on!

“Quit scouting homeless people to represent Occupiers. The COPS DROP THEM OFF there for free food and shelter, that’s it.”

They do? -Really-? Where’s your proof? Show it to me, and then we can talk about this ridiculous assertion. Even assuming that the homeless were there for whatever reason – Why not welcome them and do some community service and outreach? I’ll be frank – I don’t buy that these are homeless people. Even if they were – they seem to think they’re a part of your movement! As for them being disruptive…

“The Tea Partiers have their share of crazies too. When you’re ready to see the good in Occupy and take some responsibility for your own actions, we can talk!”

Primarily because those on the left or in the “Progressive” field looooove to fantasize day and night about how racist, bigoted, and hateful the tea party is. The assertion that there is the same proportion of nuts in the tea party as there are in the occupy movement is patently absurd. Compare these photos of the Occupy Oakland camp to a tea party protest in San Francisco.
You know what the tea party does with crazies they identify? They rapidly get shunned with clever things like impostor signs. This is common at tea party events because the crazy people do not represent us and we are very willing to call them out. And guess what? When the Tea Party and the Green Party had dueling rallies one day – there was no violence! Shocking! Thought I would throw that in there, since, you know, your people seem to have problems here.

“Aww homeless people got ya’ shakin’ in your boots?”

You should be shaking in your boots because, according to you, they’re being agitators! Who does that reflect on? That’s assuming we accept your argument about provocateurs. As I said above – why are you not naming and shaming these people? You can easily distance yourselves from them. Homeless people need help if they are willing to accept it. If not? Okay, fine, we move on. We don’t get our panties in a knot over their erratic behavior. They want attention. You don’t encourage their destructive behavior if you are allegedly so upset and damaged by it.

“Bring your olive branch. Occupiers would love to hear their representatives debate with peaceful people, but leave your guns, gun-strapped toddlers, biased perspectives, and sarcastic remarks at home. Occupiers have had plenty of documented (on youtube) civil debates with opposers, but they have NO TIME for aggressive haters.. which you borderline on.”

So, first you invite me and my group to come down, and then you proceed to lash out with your stereotypes about my movement. That doesn’t seem very non-hostile, does it? Have you heard of words like please, and thank you? Are you truly wondering why I think you people are interested in the scandal, the controversy, the heat of the moment more then you are about actual debate? And here’s a newsflash -I WAS THERE ON OCTOBER 7th. In person, and I took 122 photos and 6 videos totaling around 20 minutes, and I posted all of it online. BEFORE I made any editorial remarks! Oh my! Shocking! Since then I’ve heard at least a dozen phone and youtube interviews – and you know what? I still disagree with your movement.
As to me being an “aggressive hater?” I resent the fact that you claim to speak for the “99%”. That’s ridiculous. No movement can claim that - especially a movement that is so vague and scattershot in its ideas. So – since you profess to speak for me – I will hold you to a very high standard. I do the same with my tea party fellows, by the way. I refuse to associate myself with anyone who uses mob tactics to achieve political goals. That simple. There’s also the fact that I had recently watched this video in which occupy DC actively prevented conservatives from leaving a dinner and injured a grandmother and several others. I would love to see you try to justify that in any way. I even wrote a blog post about it that I would also challenge you to read.

“So come in peace! OR, you can come film and harass the poor homeless for a nice piece of propaganda if bias is your agenda, but don’t cry to youtube when your smart mouth gets you hit.”

As noted above, I already have. I intend to in the future. I still call bullshit on the “Poor homeless” who you bemoan in one sentence and attack in the next.
I have a smart mouth? I’m crying to youtube? Who’s the one with dozens of comments on a single video deriding baby boomers, fantasizing about violence, and insulting people left and right? It certainly isn’t me. Let’s hear a little more from you, in fact.

“Can’t handle the truth? Bitch asked for a fight and she got it. LOL Tea Partiers are such a useless minority of old, uninformed baby-boomers who created the mess we are in today. What makes you think anyone at Occupy is going to listen to a word of what some old perpetrator has to say?

Just remember who is going to take care of you in the nursing home when you’re old. “Punish with impunity,” “You reap what you sow.” You’ll learn to pick your fights the hard way.

Take care! “

—

“LOL only in a perfect world Mr. “utopian socialist.” The Tea Partiers aren’t ready to negotiate, and everything they stand for, Occupiers stand for and more! So fuck the Tea Partiers, we don’t need them! They are all too old and stubborn to accomplish anything, and they are entirely to blame for this mess to begin with. You make zero sense.

LOL you’d never talk to me like that in person. I’d dot that eye for you, peasant.”

—

“LOL I’m hardly the one polarizing the two protests. That is the Tea Partiers job, as is clearly demonstrated by BacktoAmerica’s changel. They are out to smear our cause, and I am out to merely defend it. Occupy accepts all views and opinions, but watch your tone, because we don’t accept bullshit.

Furthermore, Tea Partiers will call us young, lazy and immature. If we are so young then how could we possibly have created this mess? There you go contradicting yourself again Teabagger.”

—

“Hahahahaha change the video title to:

TEA PARTIER ON HER PEROID GETS WHAT SHE ASKED FOR.

You asked for the fight, get real. This is exactly why society laughs at Tea Partiers.”

So pardon me if I’m going to call you out for the arrogant, hateful, bile spewing piece of venom that you are. I’m man enough to admit that I’m not right all the time, I’m certainly not egotistical enough to presume to speak for other people, and I’m never going to put down people solely for their political identity. As I’ve said before, and as still applies – even if I disagree with occupy and their tactics, I do not hate them as people and I respect their right to protest. I reserve the right to assert that I think they’re being incredibly immature – and yes, I resent that they seem to be able to break laws left and right with little to no consequences. Finally, and very tellingly, your last comment on the video was as follows – and this was in reply to another user, not myself:

“Alright man. I’m tired of arguing, I’m sorry. I just don’t like to see people scorn all Occupiers over the actions of a few. I don’t even support all the agendas in the movement, but I support people who want to make the world a better place. The world needs help and the Occupiers want to help. Last night I realized that this bickering is going nowhere. I think you, BacktoAmerica and I should all just reassess our tactics, and stop taking sides. I want to make peace, not instigate war..”

Was that so hard? I and many others are tired of bickering. Occupy really does seem to be all about just that – bickering. I actually am willing to believe that there are people in the occupy movement who want to do positive things – and that’s great. But by doing these occupations they are enabling radicals to control the agenda. Get over that problem, figure out a way to deal with those people and really prove to us that they aren’t calling the shots, and maybe – just maybe – people will listen to you.
Also, try to keep in mind that when you spew venom people will – and should – call you out on it. I’d expect any of my audience to do the same to me. I think people should be held accountable for their actions, so let’s start doing that, hmm? It’s one of the key steps in realizing that every single one of us is an imperfect human being and still have many many things to learn in life.
Thank you, ‘non polarized intellectual’ drysift, for your opinion. I will actually give you credit for that last comment which seems allmooost like an apology of sorts. I eagerly await your response.
-Douglas Martin AKA TheDougem
Note: The user who banned -both- of us has full rights to moderate discussion on her video. This is why Youtube is a terrible place to debate, and why I took the time to post a giant post here – on my own blog. I enthusiastically encourage debate and discussion and I will never tear down a comment because of political disagreements. Be polite, be civil, and don’t be a troll, but at the same time I believe in people letting their words show just who they are. Please bear that in mind before replying.

Part 2:

So! As stated earlier, drysift got back to me. If you haven’t read the first part, please do so – otherwise, if you enjoy things being way out of context or you’ve already caught up, the reply and my rebuttal can be found after the jump. Before I go further, a quick disclaimer: I know this person is not the entire Occupy movement, and I would -love- to speak to an Occupy San Diego person especially regarding some of my issues. As long as that person doesn’t behave like drysift here.

Public call to BacktoAmerica: I am very interested in giving you space and air time to air your case if you so wish.
As I said I would do, here is drysift’s response in its entirety before I address specific points. Like before, this was a private message via youtube.

“Re: Channel censored me for speaking truth.

I find it biased that you didn’t bother to post any of BacktoAmerica’s comments, as they are filled with “venom” as you call it. You didn’t even bother to mention that I asked her to debate LIVE on tinychat, which she silently (for a change) avoided by blocking me. This speaks volumes about her credibility. I would encourage you to do more research, and watch her other videos where she follows people as they are walking away from her. That is called harassment; a crime that this particular Tea Partier enjoys to commit. You are missing half the story, so honestly I can’t respect your blog, and I don’t care to debate with cowards who quote me out of context. This is a very typical conservative, biased media tactic, but do I care? No, Because the people who read your blog are likely as partial as you. Furthermore, if you had a counter on your blog, it would probably read “002″ because you and I are the only people reading it.You could really benefit from brushing up on world history, and civil disobedience, but it would appear you’re busy playing video games.End of conversation. Have a nice life.”

Oh boy. Let’s start unraveling this from the beginning.
First off, before I get into anything else – note that this was a private message in what should be understood at this point is a conversation out in the open. Intentionally or not, drysift is minimizing their exposure. There’s no way for you the reader to directly talk with them outside of going out of your way and off this site to do so. You’ll quickly note this a running theme.

“I find it biased that you didn’t bother to post any of BacktoAmerica’s comments, as they are filled with “venom” as you call it.”

Now normally, drysift would have a great point here. Pulling comments out of context is usually a very poor way of making points, HOWEVER. Every single comment of theirs I pulled were from a video that I referenced, and I even provided a direct link to the comment thread for people to go see themselves. In addition, I posted the entirety of the comments I chose to share, rather then snipping a sentence here and there. If I could have, I would have made those direct links to contextual comment threads – but Youtube doesn’t allow for such things. That’s why we’re over here!
You miss the point I was trying to establish, which was that your general running theme in your comments when I entered the discussion was an extremely hostile attitude. No matter how pissed off or angry you are, if you want people to take you seriously and see you as mature and approachable, you measure your words. In every circumstance. It takes discipline, it’s not a lot of fun, but you come off as credible and at the very least open to other thought. I still contend that you are a very close minded person with a persecution complex.
Calling for death and relishing thoughts of violence are ugly and reprehensible no matter who does it. Anyone of any political stripe should avoid falling back on that rhetoric and giving in to anger. It may feel good in the moment, it may make you feel satisfied and better, but in the end it’s really not productive. It gives your opponents reasons to belittle and ignore you, and it spooks people trying to learn more about you. It also attracts people who do savor violence and hatred.
So, fine, let’s assume that BacktoAmerica’s comments somehow justified calls for her death. Allow me to pull a sampling of her comments – and folks, apparently because drysift thinks you need your hand held through the process of personal research, go to the comment thread. Hit ‘ctrl f’. In the search bar, tap in ‘drysift’ and scroll around. Then type in ‘BacktoAmerica’ and scroll around. Now let’s hear from BacktoAmerica’s responses to drysift:
Actually, because drysift is so offended about a lack of context, allow me to share their first comment on the thread directed at BacktoAmerica! Who, by this point, had posted only two short comments that weren’t controversial at all.

“@BacktoAmerica Hahaha all your supporters here seem to want to sue. I think it’s YOU Tea Baggers who “rely on government” to protect you from all the people who hate you.”Tired of paying for all you”

There again, you contradict what you say, because you bible-thumping drones are responsible for pushing non-constitutional legislation. You’d be happy to pay for your kids to sit in jail for pot, as you guzzle down toxic solvents, but not for sick and dying cancer and MS patients like my mother.” -drysift

Very civil, very polite. Not full of insults or name calling or coming off as a troll at all. Allow me to post the evolution of the exchange:

@drysift seriously, like what you say matters, we are tired of paying for all you little freeloader, you are entitled to nothing! What the government gives it can also take away. We tea partiers will start our own communities and take care of only us and you dependent little punks, sorry excuses for human being will shrivel up and die, because you rely on GOVERNMENT not yourself! You selfish little pukes! – BacktoAmerica

-

@BacktoAmerica Hahaha playing by your rationale, the tax would only come out of your pocket anyway. You’re such a goon. You Tea Partiers love to shoot your own foot, and then blame your kids. I’m literally laughing at your fallacious arguments. -drysift

-

@drysift “TAX THE YOUTH” !!!!!!!!! -BacktoAmerica

Now maybe you could say BacktoAmerica’s comments about people shriveling up and dying was a little excessive – but not she’s not calling for violence, she’s not saying that she will go out there and kill them or telling other people to do so. She’s citing a potential consequence of the party’s own actions. Inciteful, but not ludicrously so.
drysift parries with…well, not really much of anything. Their statement doesn’t make much sense and is just escalation. More insults, more goading, and it works to a point, getting that response.
There’s a break in the comments, and then:

@BacktoAmerica I can hardly wait to read of your abuse in a nursing home somewhere. Generation Y is going to punish you for demeaning the movement we started to combat the corruption your lazy generation left us with. Mark my words, you will suffer like you’ve made us suffer.

- Educated, young American prospect -drysift

-

That’s the problem they have nothing to lose, misery wants company -BacktoAmerica

-

@BacktoAmerica I find it funny how you call the woman an Occupier in the title, but in your comments you refer to her as a homeless? Is Occupy supposed to be held accountable for the homeless baby boomers that your generation left for dead? I don’t blame you for being ignorant. Your generation was raised on the biased boob tube. lol -drysift

-

@BacktoAmerica Take your bullshit and go home crybaby.-drysift

More insults. drysift misses a point here – in the video description they’re cited as homeless – BacktoAmerica was seeming to say that the occupy people, through the act of occupying, were rendering themselves homeless and/or attracting some of the normal homeless under their wing.
This is a sticking point with drysift. Because they are homeless, they’re ruining the image of Occupy. So why are they there? Why are you allowing them to be there and represent you with their opinions that very ‘oddly’ seem to coincide with yours? And again, we see more insults.
And later…

@drysift That is what I was doing reaching out and got cold cocked!! So, be quite! These people have no agenda but to steal, sit on their butts , complain and take hand outs. The problem is the Big business, UNIONS and lobbyist BUY politicians and no longer represent me or you. DENOUNCE these lawless anarchist , they we can talk!!! I did nothing to deserve being hit by a homeless, drug addict, claiming to be an Occupying protester. I AM NOT THE BAD GUY HERE, the OCCUPY MOVEMENT IS! -BacktoAmerica

Wait a second here! BacktoAmerica was the one who got punched because she was for sure the one taking the video? WELL THAT EXPLAINS SOME THINGS DOESN’T IT? She’s pissed, and very understandably so – but even then she doesn’t start lashing out to the degree that drysift has. If you are seriously trying to equate her statements with yours and say they are equal in bile, you’re a damn child. Perhaps BacktoAmerica should have measured her statements more, but she’s clearly being incited, and -was- attacked. We can understand her anger.
drysift, if you even read this – Why don’t you start pulling specifics? I’m doing an awful lot of work for you. BacktoAmerica’s statements were inciteful? Fine. Which ones? Show me. Justify yourself.
…Moving on! And goodness, we’re only on the second freaking sentence.

“ You didn’t even bother to mention that I asked her to debate LIVE on tinychat, which she silently (for a change) avoided by blocking me.”

I saw that comment, which was posted waaaay up in the tree after you had well established yourself as a very combative person. What possible reason would BacktoAmerica have to engage with you at that point when you presented yourself as someone very willing to toss out insults, and likely not act in good faith?
I’m actually willing to spar with you, like I am here. Hell, I’ll even invite you to call on to my podcast tonight in the second hour. If you are so oppressed and being shut down by bias, why would I do this, even after all of what I’ve said so far?
There is such a thing as diffusing a discussion. It is entirely within BacktoAmerica’s rights to refuse to speak with you – on her video. You forget that I was blocked as well – and as I said, it was probably because I engaged you. And I’m not upset! It’s her video! It’s her comment thread! That’s why we’re here. No blocking. Nothing in the way. No “Censoring”.
On to sentence three! We’re making excellent progress, aren’t we folks?

“This speaks volumes about her credibility. I would encourage you to do more research, and watch her other videos where she follows people as they are walking away from her. That is called harassment; a crime that this particular Tea Partier enjoys to commit.”

She has 9 other videos. I’ll even invite my audience to go watch them and draw your own conclusions before I draw mine. One again – drysift throws out a charge with no solid reference! Let’s check that statement. Note that I am required to sift through the videos myself, and guess at just what drysift is referencing! Once again, I’m doing more legwork for them.
The first incident of alleged ‘harrassment’ occurs in this video, a roughly 8 minute compilation of protesters of the SB 1070 bill at ~2:30
That was harrassment? That guy is wandering around yelling at people to go back to Europe! He shoves his hand at the camera for a moment, then continues to wander around. If anything, that man almost committed assault. Unfortunately for him, yes, you can be filmed in public. If you’re upset about that and about your views being shown to the world, that’s just too bad.
At minute 4:20 – just something I HAD to point out. You have dueling chants – “US SUCKS! RAPE WAR blabla”. BacktoAmerica herself cries out “PEACE AND LIBERTY” and get a good USA chant going…which then gets parried with a “NAZI GERMANY” chant. ie, America sucks.
And THEN we have someone proudly claiming they’re a part of Aztlan! An extremist hispanic racial group pursuing the goal of ‘reconquista’. Arguably a racist based on the little exchange that follows, and while BacktoAmerica gets the last word, the other woman drifts away…and that’s that. Not really harrassment there, either.
There’s a moment in this video where she walks with a pair of ANSWER activists – who continue to engage her as they walk! Again, not harassment.
And of course, the video that started it all – in which, by the way, we have activists being filmed in a public space taking issue with legal activity and directly reacting with physical force - which is DIRECTLY ILLEGAL.
..and that’s it! THAT’S IT. Three, at best four incidents of so called ‘harassment’, the majority of which aren’t really anything at all. If anything, the people being filmed come out looking rather bad from those moments.
I’m open to being proven wrong drysift! But after this post – I’m done doing your work for you.
Your claims are baseless. You exaggerate and inflate little issues without linking to them – possibly hoping that I or anyone reading your comments will simply accept your claims at face value. And in the same breath – you downplay or simply ignore any belligerence or bad behavior from those on your side. Sorry, we’re not talking in vague generalities today. We’re sticking to specifics and facts to the point of painful tediousness today.
Moving on!

“ You are missing half the story, so honestly I can’t respect your blog, and I don’t care to debate with cowards who quote me out of context. This is a very typical conservative, biased media tactic, but do I care? No, Because the people who read your blog are likely as partial as you.”

This could almost speak for itself. drysift, up to this point, I have devoted over 5,000 words to painstakingly dissecting your comments, referencing the things you told me too, pursuing the leads you have asked me to, even playing defense for you and pursuing your claims of harassment and how your argument of ‘b…but they did it too!’ was justified.
At this point your words are just laughable. I am going way, way, WAY out of my way to accommodate you. As said multiple times – I provided links. I provided prompts for the reader to dig into the source, and I established context in what I felt was a fair stance. Am I biased? Sure. Am I open about it? Uh huh. Do I still give you plenty of air time, and most importantly, the chance to respond? YEAH.
Quite simply, you are projecting your tactics onto me and onto my readers as you continue to throw out insults and belittlements. Who’s looking like a coward here, person who so far has not responded to my first reply in any meaningful or specific way?
Moving on!

“Furthermore, if you had a counter on your blog, it would probably read “002″ because you and I are the only people reading it.”

As of the time you sent your message, 24 people had read the post. Right now, 34 people yesterday alone read the post, bringing this blog’s total lifetime views to 518. Congratulations, drysift, you alone are responsible for 5% of my blog’s lifetime traffic!
So you throw out more assumptions, ignore my other mediums of communication like my youtube channel and my podcast, and pretend that my audience doesn’t exist. Even though the site, right there in the upper right hand corner, lists lifetime views. Much like one of the protesters in BacktoAmerica’s videos – sorry, dear readers! I guess you don’t exist and thus you just don’t matter anymore. Darn.
Moving on!

“You could really benefit from brushing up on world history, and civil disobedience, but it would appear you’re busy playing video games.”

drysift, you are speaking with a HISTORY MAJOR. Much to my audience’s consternation, the last gaming video I posted was all the way back IN APRIL. This name calling thing isn’t working out all that well for you, is it? Keep making yourself look like an arrogant tool! I hardly have to type anything in response now!

“End of conversation. Have a nice life.”

…Typical. This is so very typical of radicals like you. You throw out a bunch of charges…and leave! Leave it all hanging out there, not bothering to want to listen to a reply or any kind of response. Because you’re just right, aren’t you? You are the righteous party here, clearly. Everyone else hates you, so they deserve your hate and loathing and are just not..-worthy- of your time.
That’s what you give off to me, drysift, by your attitude.
Regardless of the attempt at a close, guess what – I responded to them yesterday!

“Before I reply to your statement in full, do you have any evidence regarding the police supposedly dumping homeless off at San Diego, and are you going to answer my question about your opinions on the use of physical force on the part of those in occupy to disrupt what they see as hostile questioning and filming?I’m giving you an open forum. I’m posting your entire comments, I’m linking to relevant source material, and I’m very willing to debate on even ground. Why else would I post all the sources if I were a republican hack only interested in belittling?We aren’t the only ones looking at the blog, by the way. 26 people in the last 12 hours alone have read the specific post. I have 216 subscribers, and at least 100 unique people listen to any one podcast that I do. You have a chance to reach people and make a case, if you so choose.To be 100% clear – I am willing to post your full reply along with any links that you care to share presenting evidence or cases of evidence. It’s your choice.

-Doug”

It didn’t take them long to respond.

“Google lotion man, the proof is in the video, find it. I never asked for an open forum. I don’t want to be on your lonely blog, and I could reach more than 100 people in my sleep. Post more comments revealing BacktoAmerica’s “venom,” and you MIGHT earn my respect. Until then, no, I’m not answering any more of your questions.Now kindly dismiss yourself.”

Once. Again. I apparently must continue to jump through hoops and off tangential cliffs in order to get a response. For the record, folks, lotionman is a man… FROM OCCUPY NEW YORK. Not San Diego! drysift – I’m done for today. I’ve rebutted, sourced, and written enough into the darkness without getting any meaningful, actual reply. It’s -your- turn. I want links. I want specific citations. I would appreciate a response similar to the manner in which I have responded to you, as would my audience and others simply trying to figure out what the heck you folks stand for.
I don’t even care about the insults and name calling at this point. You’re only damaging yourself. I am giving you one more chance. Will you finally reply to my statements, or am I just going to get back another paragraph that further shunts us off topic?
Audience – I heartily encourage you to share your thoughts below. As stated..manymany times, I don’t censor. How fair have I been? What do you think of drysift? Of BacktoAmerica? How would you compare the two?

Part 3:

What’s this? A twist?

“More bias. Blocked. I’ll be in tinychat.com/debate @ 7pm on Monday. Lets see how many people you can get to meet there.”

No, drysift, I’m not going to roll unless enough of my audience wants me to. I’ve brought up my concerns, fleshed them out in agonizing detail, and you’re leaving it all hanging unchallenged. Not only that – but you name a time and place – without even checking to see if I am able to go! Are you maximizing my chance of not being able to show, drysift, so that you can claim an empty victory?
My audience are free to go. I won’t encourage them to because I am willing to bet good money that it will just descend into a flame war – know this ahead of time folks. It’s your choice and yours alone.

Thanks for reading
His latest show that will recorded tonight (The 18th) at 8pm Pacific time:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thedougem/2011/11/19/skeptic-conservative--111811

Observer92 has kindly done some edits to my post above to clean things up. Thanks!

I'm about to read it, but before I do, mind if I ask you some questions? I will go ahead and ask them anyway.
When you say you are a conservative, you mean economically, right? Personally I prefer the term "neo-liberal" because the word conservative is just an ugly, negative word. Also social conservatives piss me off. Would you associate yourself(or at least your views) with the Libertarian party? Because I do, and I just wanna know if we are of the same mindset.

Actually that's a lot of reading I'll do it some other time.

Dougem, I agree that the Occupy movement is by no means the most legitimate one on the block, but I wouldn't waste your time with this drysift fellow. He seems to be nothing more than an average 'rebellious' teen who's aiming their angst at 'the establishment.'

Shaw, his website 'about' page has this to say:

Added part 3 to the post. Please go to the link for part 3 as it contains a poll.

Thanks for including that. To answer the prior post, I have libertarian sympathies - to be more specific, I would be someone in favor of state power over federal power. Right now my views are primarily motivated by what I see as a deeply corrupt system - I think that should be cleaned up before any other major things are done.

As for social issues and other such things - I have opinions, sure, but they're usually moderate and are along the lines of 'let the locals figure it out' ie - figure it out state to state, or even city to city. Don't try to push things on everyone else, give people who really don't like it an out.

People like me are usually termed 'independent conservatives', but at this point that may not even be entirely accurate. I am a proud and active member of the San Diego Tea Party - a local tea party group that more or less lines up nicely with my views, and yes, considers staying out of social issues a key priority. This group is particularly interested in anti corruption and fiscal conservatism more than anything else.

I wanted to ask kindly that you folks check out part 3 linked above by Observer. I have a poll there putting it up to my readers whether or not I should debate drysift on Monday night. Yes and no are options, as is an option calling into question drysift's standing to get mad at me. There is also an 'other' option with the opportunity to fill in your own reason, and I encourage all of you to be creative in your responses.

Thanks again for looking at my content

EDIT: The series ain't done yet. I will close in a few days with a detailed explanation of why exactly I'm doing this, it's very deliberate and to prove a point. This is not normal Dougem behavior towards obvious trolls!

Giving states more power than the government is precisely why the Articles of Confederation were a disaster. Also, it kinda gave us the Civil War.

They were?

No, a strong federal government causes civil war. And the Civil War was more the result of oppression and social conservatism, with states' rights as a background issue.

Colossally so.

No they weren't.

The Articles were a disaster in every way, shape, and form you might imagine.

No they weren't. They were the greatest thing to have ever happened to anybody, ever. The entire world and then bits of other worlds prospered under them.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you on nearly every level and could voice his reasons more eloquently than I.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed15.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed16.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed17.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed18.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed19.htm

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed20.htm

Finally! What I was trying to demonstrate was that nobody was providing evidence as to why the articles of confederation where so bad. People(Kal) were simply making statements with no backing. And if one thing pisses me off, then that is one of them. Some asshole(me) could just as easily come along and say, "huh huh no you're wrong" as you can say "It was bad mkay?" I don't actually believe the articles were a good thing. And I thought I was making it fairly obvious that I wasn't serious.

That's why I didn't bother responding.

But the Federalist Papers aren't 'evidence' of anything. They're a cumulative manifesto.

Oh god, I was dumbfounded that any person thought the AoC were a good idea.

Who said anything about the Federalist Papers? Personally I wouldn't trust anything made written by Hamilton...

..Wow, this exploded in a direction I didn't expect XD

I should clarify - I'm not someone who's all out STATES RIGHTS HRNNNGG CIVIL WAR RAH RAH SOUTH. And that was primarily about slavery and the institution around it anyway.

In a nutshell, I think the feds, especially since the 1950's, have an excess of power and are just failing hard at their jobs. I want a tip of the scales back a bit more towards the states, not a return to an extreme that obviously failed miserably. Power is supposed to be shared between federal and state government and right now the federal government can almost make states do whatever they want them to do by threatening to revoke funding.

10th amendment, anybody?

Care to give examples of what you want to give the states power over?