Nicely done, Rocco. You've made a bold statement and the leftists are getting their collective panties in a wad. "Robert" will be the last one to pay you a visit, of course. The sniveling limp wrists on the left are big spam artists but, beyond that, are cowardly little weaklings when confronted directly as you have done.
The fact is, Rocco, a taste of their own medicine was more than they could handle. Keep dishing it out.
BTW, what happened to Plaut? I see he's no longer with you.
okay, mr. dipippo - where are the big guns? hehehe...
"The sniveling limp wrists on the left are big spam artists but, beyond that, are cowardly little weaklings."
Ugh. Please don't confuse all of "us" like that. I don't condone personal attacks on Rocco, even though I think what he's done is deeply irresponsible. Making homophobic comments...overcompensate for eroded masculinity much? (That's the only explanation I have for that insult. If you have another, please offer it.)
And as for this "statement," look, my whole point is that we ought to remain anonymous as private people if we want. I don't plan on "coming for you," because the whole idea of stooping to the level of retribution like that in the first place is silly.
Rocco ~ sweet front door! I feel like I'm looking at Tuscany and if I were in Warren I would be honored to bring some vino. Unfortunately I'm on the other side of the country and have no connection to Rhode Island at all. Anyway, I see no reason why anyone has a problem with you providing the traitors info since they are trying to get our leaders assassinated. Perhaps this is the EXACT step necessary to get those bastards to reconsider their treasonous ways. You are a patriot, my friend, and your clever and powerful statement is being made NOT because you came up with it on your own but because they forced you to hold a mirror up to them. Well done, keep up the good work.
Very ballsy. Very handsome. I'm impressed. By the way, great blog and gorgeous front door!
You are definitely a handsome man, and that's a great looking front door, no doubt about it!
Any response to the news that the NYT's photographer had Rumsfeld's permission to take that photo of his vacation home? He and Cheney don't seem too worried about this whole thing. Any reaction from Rumsfeld or Cheney that you know of?
Karma said:
"Any response to the news that the NYT's photographer had Rumsfeld's permission to take that photo of his vacation home?"
If he did, I doubt he expected that security and similar details about his property would accompany the picture.
"He and Cheney don't seem too worried about this whole thing. Any reaction from Rumsfeld or Cheney that you know of?"
To my knowledge, none yet. Be real. Do you really think they'd go public and offer their opinions on this? I'll bet that security has been double-checked and tightened up as required since the Times published the piece.
"If he did, I doubt he expected that security and similar details about his property would accompany the picture....
To my knowledge, none yet. Be real. Do you really think they'd go public and offer their opinions on this? I'll bet that security has been double-checked and tightened up as required since the Times published the piece."
So, essentially you are arguing for a position wherein (a)the security folks or Rumsfeld were imcompetent or didn't know what was being photographed, and (b)you don't have to have any evidence for your position because "obviously" neither would talk about it for fear of jeopardizing secuity.
Let me pose a flip hypothetical question to mirror your own: "Be real. Do you really think Cheney wouldn't call out the Times, especially considering how it was directly 'calling for his assasination' by exposing his personal details? You really think that?"
Frankly, I cannot believe that you really do. It means accepting a vision of them that isn't consistent with past behavior. Rather, I think you are (a)either too deeply entrenched in defensive, hyper-masculine puffery in response to the seige laid on you by "leftists" to make a rational argument, or (b)so ensconced in your ideology that the actual evidence involved in the case doesn't matter to you.
I've been on this blog for two days now for two reasons. You claimed to respect intelligent counterargument ("A common ploy of the Left: destroy the messenger when he or she hits home with a good point, instead of discussing or arguing the merits of that point. In all fairness, some leftwing commenters made intelligent points on the Spiller post and made them well. We welcome you to this site and hope you'll comment here regularly."), but I have yet to see you rationally engage with anything proffered by the "moonbat leftists."
The second reason I came to this site is because I think that liberals and conservatives don't talk to each other enough. We're all divided up in our own little blogospheres (just take a look at your links section), and no one really crosses the divide to do other than hurl insults (this is a case in point). Believe it or not, I don't enjoy reading repeated reactionary insults from either the left or right.
At any rate, sir, you "win." I am convinced that you are not arguing in good faith, and conseqently I won't post here again. But please, if you do anything, think for a second: you (and your left-wing doppelgangers) are poisoning discourse and discussion through shocking silliness. Please stop it.
Somethought,
Would it be better to say "effeminate" than "limp wristed"? I'd hate to offend any of those limp wristed cowards who are easily frightened. Maybe heterophobic people such as yourself should try not to be offended so easily? Sorry, that was too forceful, wasn't it. OK, time for us to have a good cry and I promise to only say happy things from now on!
i nearly forgot to say, "wooo-wooo!"
SomeThought-- I'll answer you in detail as soon as I can. Things are pretty busy here today, as you can imagine.
Rocco
Should prospective guests be required to bring Sam Adams, Gordon's Gin and Bacardi? It is rude to show up without a gift and all you these leftists are known to be cheap.
Did you purchase the Black Book of Communism or the Best of Ann Coulter as return gifts.
Nice suit. If I'm ever up your way I'll take you up on your offer, Like Scotch?
Let me be the first to say that all of this is priceless.
Actually, I think the whole controversy is a plot by stand up comedians looking for new material.
Thank you, Red State brethren.
Great picture, Rocco. And spiffy suit, too.
Is that a camera lens I see hidden in the white ivy geranium to your right and above the lamp by the door to your left?
The consensus is in: Great picture. Living in such a post-card beautiful house must take the edge off living near so many politically correct nit-wits. Judging by the reaction here, you might end up with a few new lady friends if you're not careful.
You know an article is hard-hitting when the 'bats get this agitated. Their hypocritical mock outrage is a sign of their fear.
The New York times is a giant editorial broken into different sections. Headlines that demonize Bush, sports pages that demonize Bush, Travel pages that demonize Bush, financial pages that demonize Bush, etc. The 'bats are mad because you exposed it as the seditious rag that is. Apparently, they thought the NYT's treason was a well kept secret.
If your piece were ineffective, you wouldn't have got such a hysterical reaction.
Here's Mr. DiPippo in his Robert DeNiro/Wise guy persona. "Hanh, do you want a piece of me, do ya?" I say it's effective, frame it! I was born in Rhode Island, but haven't lived in that part of the country since 1940 or so. But wait, is it possible that this is a photo of someone else, at a location other than the real DiPippo residence?
Rocco,
You have caught our moonbat opponents completely unawares. They have stereotyped conservatives as unintelligent warmongers and thus cannot grasp the reality of what they really face.
Determined and intelligent people who can counter the ruthless attacks of the Left with a firm, but evenhanded approach
...
Somethought:
As always, your arguments are based on false premises. Cheney and Rumsfeld work for Bush. They follow his lead in allowing the Times to run amok. This is consistent with past behaviour. Maybe you missed all the national security leaks and criminal calumny the Times has been using to undermine the administration since day one. Not a single instance of treason has been punished. Check Article III, sect. 3 of the Constitution for the legal parameters of treason. You're being disingenuous. With sophistry like that, it's hard to believe you're a leftist.
You projected your side's reliance on ad hominems and emotion on the other side--how original.
You claim that leftists ("liberals"--Hah!) and conservatives need to talk to each other, but all you offer are lies and propaganda.
We're still waiting for the intelligent counter argument.
I signed my name when I called you an asshole. Your comment lacks truthiness.
Jeff
There is something new and decidedly evil about the far left nazi types. Even a small blog like mine has dedicated far left obsessed types unhinged.
It is one thing to post a disagreement and Rocco and I have had several. It is another thing to spam a blog with 200 posts. Posting under twenty aliases, stealing avatars and impersonating bloggers.
We are talking about criminal types of behavior starting with harassment.
Let me hazard a guess and point out, that the square-ness of your shoulders and your countenance does not lend itself to “flying monkey” pop-ins, anymore then it does with these “good fellow’s.”
http://www.mindspring.com/
~dsgna...goodfellows.jpg
“Things, Oh I heard things!”—Some people do not play!
beakerkin points out,
"We are talking about criminal types of behavior starting with harassment."
It goes with the territory and the ideology. It is the only way they can get and maintain political power.
From voter fraud to the tactics of union goons, and everything evil under the sun must be used when your ideology lacks logic.
Beak:
I agree. The blogosphere has its share of misfits and petty criminals. Some not so petty, like the wannabe terrorist arrested by the feds on a tip from Rusty Shackleford at mypetjawa.
These far left Nazi types are apoplectic because we dare to stand up to them. They've had their own way for so long that they've managed to convince themselves that they're fearsome. I'm sure they're real terrors when it comes to key-jobs and video games.
They've abused the Nazi tag so often by hurling it at us that the word has lost much of its power, but their fascist tactics are definitely in step with the Nazi party's.
You're right about them being evil. Sure, I can't stand most of them, but the pathological hatred they spew is so extreme, it matches that of the jihadis. I think these rejects hate us more than we hate the terrorists.
If you ask me, their contemptible spam attacks are a form of terrorism, even if it is wimpy.
"If he did, I doubt he expected that security and similar details about his property would accompany the picture." - Rocco DiPippo
This is the point I've been trying to make with my posts about Linda Spillers. She was the PHOTOGRAPHER for the article. Not only did she have permission to take photographs, she probably didn't even know what was going to be written in the article. So what was the point of making public her contact information? She isn't even a permanent employee of the New York Times.
Mr. DiPippo, you seem like a reasonable fellow, and it was good that you took her information off the site. But you owe Linda Spillers an apology for putting it on in the first place. Mr. Bargholz should join you, as he said some ugly things about her in the thread about her yesterday.
I disagree. Rocco Dipippo should have left Spiller's information up, along with adding any acquired photos of her home and of any security measures she may have in place.
It would be nice for the Autonomist to have a "travel" section.
"I disagree. Rocco Dipippo should have left Spiller's information up, along with adding any acquired photos of her home and of any security measures she may have in place." - mr. beamish
Would you please explain your reasoning? As I've said before, Spillers is not a full-time employee of the New York Times. She is a free lance PHOTOGRAPHER who specializes in "food, dining, travel and house and home photography," and she was hired to do a photo shoot for a story in the TRAVEL section of the paper. You'll notice that she has other pictures in the story, of Talbot Street and Big Al's Market.
You're upset because you think the article reveals the location of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's homes and a security measure. Mr. Bargholz even thinks the article was a deliberate attempt to incite violence. But Linda Spillers didn't write any of the article. Based on my experience with free lance photographers, she probably didn't even know what was going to be written in the article. So why the antipathy towards her? I just don't understand your thought process here.
some ACDC is in order here.
Well I'm upper upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
And I always fill my ballroom
The event is never small
The social pages say I've got
The biggest balls of all
I've got big balls
I've got big balls
They're such big balls
And they're dirty big balls
And he's got big balls
And she's got big balls
(But dippipo has the biggest balls of them all)
"I disagree. Rocco Dipippo should have left Spiller's information up, along with adding any acquired photos of her home and of any security measures she may have in place." - mr. beamish
Would you please explain your reasoning? As I've said before, Spillers is not a full-time employee of the New York Times. She is a free lance PHOTOGRAPHER who specializes in "food, dining, travel and house and home photography," and she was hired to do a photo shoot for a story in the TRAVEL section of the paper. You'll notice that she has other pictures in the story, of Talbot Street and Big Al's Market.
So we should snap a picture of the 7-11 store down the street to include with a photo of Ms. Spiller's burglar alarm?
You're upset because you think the article reveals the location of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's homes and a security measure. Mr. Bargholz even thinks the article was a deliberate attempt to incite violence. But Linda Spillers didn't write any of the article. Based on my experience with free lance photographers, she probably didn't even know what was going to be written in the article. So why the antipathy towards her? I just don't understand your thought process here.
Rocco Dipippo doesn't have to snap the photo of Ms. Spiller's burglar alarm or the 7-11 down the street. I'm sure he can freelance that out.
Mr. Dipippo,
You have brought off another great educational example of the LEFTWINGNUTS ascribing the basest motivations for alledged RIGHTWINGers actions and the loftiest motivations for the LEFTWINGers actions regardless of evidence before during and after.
Congratulations!!!
PS: We know this was actually an excellent involved ploy to gain an excuse to post your picture and personal info to attract those "loose" women out there!!!
Nudge, nudge, wink wink!!!
Thank you ladies, for the personal compliments. Thank you all for your interest and support.
I'll have time to answer your questions, in detail, within a day or two. Sorry for the delay, but time has been tight.
I guess mr. beamish has no answer to my question. At least not a coherent one. Anyone else?
Who is this Erasmus Wembley that feels he rates instant gratification, or for that matter even the courtesy of reading his comment?
My, My, aren't we full of ourselves.--
I know I didn't read it!
There goes that stupid leftist thing again.
I answered Erasmus Wembley's question, plain as day, in my previous post (scroll up!).
Linda Spillers took the picture of Rumsfeld's home security camera. So, it's only fitting to hold her responsible for taking the picture of Rumsfeld's security camera.
This isn't rocket science.
I realize it's a leftist's obligation to the cause to convince others that leftists are morons, but damn, Wembley. Extra miles...
perhaps his scroll up button doesn't work properly. you know, the left is always DOWN with that!
Mr. DiPippo:
If this is how you want to play the game that is fine, but please I hope you have considered the ramifications.
As you have noted someone that you characterize yourself as a "nut" linked to your piece. It is not to much of a stretch to imagine that his blog attracts like minded individuals to the author...
It is also not to much of a stretch since similar things have happened in the past, that one of his readers or perhaps one of yours may take things a bit to far.
How do you think the left will react to that?
You are basically going on a "hunch" here as to the motives behind the NYT piece, and that is all that you have is a hunch. Now that is a whole lot of potentially bad outcomes to risk on a gut feeling.
Here is a little exercise that you can do to see my point more clearly: Take a look at the number of hits you get on your site. Compare the percentage of people in the general population that are for lack of a better word, NUTS. How many potential whackos do you have that read the blog?
What are the potential numbers of all the sites being read that linked to your original piece?
For the sake of illustration let us presume that it comes out after shaving some of the numbers down based upon some considerations like what kind of derangement the reader may have, access to weapons, location etc so that it comes out to about 20.
911 showed us exactly how much damage 20 people can do when motivated by hate.
Getting the point?
There are certain lines that it is best not to cross as they will illicit a defensive response from the other side, and that response could take the form of a needless escalation.
Now it is highly unlikely that the koombiya(SP) crowd on the left is going to do anything other then write a tersely written note or two and quake in their birkenstocks. But not all of what is commonly referred to on the "right" as the "left" are the touchy feely hug a tree types. No, some of the people on that side of the internet that would be caught up in this are not touchy feely, hug it all away types over tea and a cry.
No, some of those people are a bit more shall we say..proactive in defending themselves and not afraid of cracking a skull or two. And some of those people are going to take this recent action undertaken by you and other members of the rightwing blogosphere as a highly provocative action and escalation of what was already a nearly toxic environment, and come up with a plan "B" in case somebody on your side goes over the line and someone like the child of a reporter or photographer gets injured.
Because it could be their kid next.
Now I want you to consider something very highly:
Odds are that each of the photos published would have been cleared by each mans Secret service protection detail, since the reporter would have had to liase with the press officer attached to each mans office and there IS a protocol to follow when photographing sensitive sites.
Also consider that a rightwing site did a puff piece on just about the same subject matter over a year ago.
Now speaking as someone that is considered by the right to be on the left, who is not a member of the touchy feely crowd?
If I ever see someone from the right poking around my house, I am just going to shoot them. I have a 2 year old and I am not going to take the risk of him coming into contact with some Eric Rudolf type, I just can't give them the benefit of the doubt. Alright, one warning shot, but after that no more playing around.
And yes, there are also nuts on the left; neither side has a monopoly on the insane. So it is best not to do things that encourage the whackjobs on the fringe of either side of the political spectrum into doing things that will shame us all as Americans. And no, putting a disclaimer saying NOT TO HURT anyone is not going to do that! The kind of people that will do that kind of violence will see it as you talking to them in code encouraging them covertly...
A whole lot to bet on your gut.
sneaky.
OK, America, before you say, or do anything, first run it by skippythe box.
When I read something as long on words, and as short on substance as this skippythebox offering. I think of the words of Blaise Pascal, in Lettres Provinciales (dated 1657), xvi--
--"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter."
I smell a plagiarized "rat" also!
So, America, before writing, or saying anything, run it by skippythebox and his ilk, or you may cause a potential serial killer to start his rampage.--What a putz!
Skippythebox,
Of course, if a terrorist takes information provided by a leftist newspaper to harm Americans, it's not the newspaper's fault. It's "poverty's" fault, or a "video game" or some shit.
The fundamental difference between right and left is the right believes actors are responsible for their actions, and the left believes actors are puppets of abstract forces beyond their control.
Which do you want steering the ship of state?
Skippy:
Spillers' personal information is public knowledge. This may be obvious to thinking people, but apparently it's too arcane for leftists to figure out. I'll let you in on a little secret. Its called "Google search."
The names of left-wing psychos are legion: John Wilkes Booth, Charles Manson, Son of Sam, Richard Ramirez, John Wayne Gacy, John Hinckley Jr, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., etc., etc. You had to bend the truth to find one you could pass off as a right-winger. Even the hopelessly P.C. Wikipedia admits that Eric Rudolph preferred Nietzsche to the Bible and his biggest supporters were White supremacists. (You know, the kind who uphold the centuries old Democrat traditions of slavery and Jim Crow.)
This isn't the first time I've read one of your empty threats. Talk is for punks. If you want to pretend that you're a tough guy, go to Hollywood. That's the only place that caters to left-wing pussies who want to act like they're men.
By the way, this isn't a right-wing site. It's part of mainstream America.
Father Marx: And up to the time that the NYT did their puff piece that same google search to which you refer would have pulled up a similar puff piece on the same city, covering the same subjects, on as I recall Newsmax.
So, your point again was what?
Mr. Beamish: Since that same information was as I refer to in my above reply to Father Marx, was already available and from a rightwing source no less; I fail to see where your point hold much if any water.
Rightminded: Nothing about my post placed myself as a personal censor of others thoughts or actions, so your characterization of it as such is flawed. All I asked, and in a respectful tone no less, was that perhaps we should all, although I did direct my comments to Mr. DiPeppo in specific; consider the outcome of our actions a bit more when it comes to certain highly charged subjects. And if one has decided upon a course of action that would generally go over the line one should do so with something more then a gut feeling to go upon for justification.
And as we can see from the recent dust up over threats made to the child of a noted rightwing blogger, it took very little time in escalating from an implied threat to explicit threats.
Now considering someone literate enough to quote Pascal may not be versed enough in the way things are settled on the schoolyard it may have escaped you the cause and effect of all of this. But it generally goes: Veiled threat, outright threat, push, shove, punch, kick..and then the rest can get extremely messy depending upon the rules of the particular neighborhood you grew up in.
And the general rule of thumb is if one is unwilling, or does not intend for this event chain to reach its' crescendo; you do not initiate it. Because once done it is no longer YOURS to control, but has a life all its' own. Like a fire, in the early stages of it you can put it out without much effort. But once it grows beyond a certain point you are going to play hell putting it out!
If you will notice, although lengthy, my response is measured, respectful and non accusatory. In short it is an offer of a bucketful of water to put the fire out. You can choose to do the same and quell this blaze before it grows any larger, or you can choose to add additional fuel to it.
"Veiled threat, outright threat, push, shove, punch, kick..and then you either kicked ass or got your ass kicked, but the mere fact that you fought usually meant no one fucked with you anymore, because they had a fight on their hands.
I do not know how old you are sonny, but those gut feelings can be quit the vatic revelations of the truth.--Learn to trust them!--No charge this time.
"You can choose to do the same and quell this blaze before it grows any larger, or you can choose to add additional fuel to it."
In nature one of the most rejuvenating forest saving designs is a freaking forest fire.
"Burn baby burn
disco inferno
burn that mother down."
Aren't you going to be late for your late morning sermon?--Hallelujah Rev, Rev their ass up!
How about a sermon looking at Pinch sitting up front with that goofy grin on his face,
"We are gathered here today to point out that any and all actions taken to defeat Worldwide, murderous terror could be twisted, spun, and perverted into some type of imaginary assault on our civil liberties.
To even proffer the link between what we do to combat the evil of Al Queda to somehow dangerously diminishing our civil liberties to me speaks volumes with regard to the naivete, or treachery of the one doing the proffering."
YOU CAN TELL MUCH FROM WHAT A PERSON CHOOSES TO PREACH ABOUT, AND TO WHOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
skippy needs to start thinking a little more outside of the box!
What a horrid way to go through life.--Always only concerned about whether or not you will be adding fuel, or water to the fire--How someone may or may not take what you say the right way.
I FEEL FOR YOU SKIPPY, YOU MUST BUY THE FOLLOWING AND HAVE IT FRAMED, AND PLACED IN A PROMENIENT PLACE.
http://www.dreamstime.com/outoft...box-
image772862
Skippythebox,
You want to hold Rocco Dipippo personally responsible if some idiot physically assaults Spillers or the New York Times. It won't be the idiot's fault.
Similarly, to the left terrorism gets blamed on "American foreign policy," a shooting spree in a school gets blamed on "video games," teen smoking gets blamed on a "cartoon," etc. Never the terrorist, the shooter, the smoker. Holding people responsible for their own actions is anathema to the left.
Which is why the left's call, particularly under the moron John Kerry's campaign, to treat terrorism like a law enforcement problem is empty. The left is doing everything it can to destroy any law enforcement counter-terrorism effort - we can't profile, we can't monitor, we can't surveillance, we can't track finances, we can't trace phone records... Every effort that would produce evidence for a court of law has been hamstrung by the left.
The simple answer to the question "how would the left fight terrorism" is "they wouldn't."
So what's wrong with publishing your address? If the NYT's fair game, aren't you? Isn't Horowitz?
Commenting by HaloScan
