« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The 2 Minute Hate: How the Liberal Left Uses Old Tactics to Demonize Conservatives, From 1964 “Daisy” Commercial to 2012 SWATting Erick Erickson. Hit back, watch For Greater Glory this Friday.

(3rd in A Fortnight for Freedom Series, For Greater Glory PLEDGE.)  In the “two minute hate” depicted in George Orwell’s book 1984 (required for high school students in my day), the party members’ daily ritual included the watching of a 2 minute video designed to whip up personal hatred for the enemies of the party.

Some of those watching would actually get so whipped up by hatred as they watched that they would physically assault the screen to vent their hatred (see excerpt HERE).

In 1964 the most infamous and notorious example produced by a student of that 2 minute hate was shown with conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the target (see Goldwater “Daisy” commercial of 1964).

If you’ve not read Erick Erickson’s piece about how he has been attacked with the latest hate-tool of the radical left – SWATting – I urge you most strongly to do so, and to also circulate it.

This ought not to be a topic of interest only to movement oriented conservatives but for any fair minded American interested in seeing issues debated during election campaigns.

RedState Chief Erickson has recognized that his being the object of one of these “two minute hate” campaigns – in this instance a SWATting attack by the left – is actually a badge of honor to mark his success fighting the left.

So called “SWATting” as Erick explains, is when the local police get a phone call pretending to be you, where you admit to having just shot and killed your wife.  Then police or sheriff’s deputies show up – or a SWAT Team (Special Weapons & Tactics) at your house with guns drawn as if they are there to combat a crazed wife killer – you.

Yes, they are “locked and loaded” and ready to shoot.  You.

Gee what great fun the lefties have, no?

This is just one of the many versions of such attacks on conservatives such as “google-bombing and other attempts to smear and demonize conservatives and (they hope) ruin their lives, get them fired, destroyed, etc.

There is another RED STATE report about who has perpetrated such evil, which I highly recommend to you HERE.

If you complain in any way about such treatment – such as is described in these two recommended articles – you are either ignored by the “mainstream” media or else they say that you are just whining and you are a complainer.

Watch for an increase in personal attacks on conservatives as part of the “campaign” to reelect President Barack Obama and help his allies keep control of the U.S. Senate and House and continue their quest to “transform” America.

The secular liberal-left cannot debate conservative value voters on issues because they usually lose in any contest which is even remotely fair and even.

And so what do they do?

They always attempt to make it personal, to find some mistake or supposed gaffe or flaw in the conservative candidate, and focus on that instead of speaking about issues where they differ with us and where they will be required to explain their future plans to voters.

They attempt to focus attention away from the issues where they usually lose, and on to any mistakes or character flaws of their target.

If Rush Limbaugh used a bad word to describe Sandra Fluke – a woman attending an expensive law school who needs the taxpayer to pay for her daily sex habit – then you can use “the two minute hate” on Rush Limbaugh.  They did.

It matters not that he apologized.  Those who had taken their “two minute hate” dose just kept going on and on.

The root problem with this approach that many people overlook can be found in the words of one of the 10 Commandments:  “Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.”

But my citing that will of course, enrage such denizens of the left who watch carefully on these pages for any “error” they can attack.

Imagine.

The very idea that law, or our actions, should be governed by such a quaint old idea as “moral right and wrong.”

I recently wrote a 3,213 article but made the mistake of typing “Spartacus” where it should have said “Barabbas.”  (see yesterday’s A Call to Conscience for Religious Liberty: For Greater Glory).

The entire point of the article was to help explain why a Christian with an “informed” conscience is not the same thing as someone who uses their “conscience” as their guide.

You might have a malformed or uninformed conscience, for example.

You might abort your baby and tell me it is OK with your conscience, for example.

The simple word “conscience” can mask self-centered narcissistic behavior or the behavior of a Saint or of someone we might admire.  It all depends on whether it is an “informed” or a “malformed” conscience.

I gave a number of examples in yesterday’s offering.

In one of those examples, the people chose Jesus and not Barabbas to crucify.  I confused two anti-Rome rebels in what I typed – Spartacus instead of the correct name, Barabbas.  Of course I know who Barabbas is, contrary to the personal attacks which followed.

But what happened is instructive – there are a few “Red State Watchers” whose apparent assignment (whether self assigned or otherwise) is to echo everything they read at Daily Kos, Media Matters, or from wherever they got their “daily dose” of the “2 minute hate” to attack conservative value voters who dare write here.

And of course if you say “I’m a conservative but” in front of your echo of the “2 minutes hate” then we are supposed to ignore the source of the attack?

Hint: Fruit.  Tree.

Even after I corrected the mistake (the attack happened within minutes of my post – several “watchers” pounced) – done within minutes of the post – the attacks continued and continued.

If you check the “comment” section after yesterday’s article (and several others that I wrote before yesterday)  you will see an example of the output generated from “the two minute hate.”

What is written to “critique” my article has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.

When I have defended myself from such personal attacks that are totally irrelevant to what I wrote, the usual tactic is to then complain that I am complaining.

It would be humorous except that the secular liberal left has no humor at all and a very thin skin.

So if a conservative defends himself he is wrong and if he does not he is wrong.

Get it?  No matter what you say or write they will still launch personal attacks aiming to discredit YOU without ever touching your argument or rationale.

Please bear in mind that in Orwell’s 1984 it was the members of “the party” who watched “the two minute hate” and got suitably whipped up.  It was not a “two minute hate” for the masses but for the “leaders,” ie. the “intelligentsia” or apparatchik.

Conservative “values voters” who have not read 1984 or who have not seen the hateful “Daisy” commercial or have not actually read any of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals are of course, very shocked when they read or hear of such attacks.

The vitriolic nature of such attacks is against their nature and often leaves them stunned and confused.

Often, they are distracted by the attack.  Of course, that is the purpose.

The negative and personal, vitriolic attacks are used because they fire up the left, turn many “middle of the road” voters against us and even confuse many who are part of the conservative cause.

The only way to fight the “2 minutes hate” of the left is to expose their tactics so that it boomerangs on them and helps you promote our cause.

In my case, the most widely recommend articles I have written here at RED STATE are the ones which are attacked the most bitterly by people who sound as if they are fresh off of viewing/imbibing of “The 2 Minute Hate.”  Perhaps they took 3 minutes in some cases.

The more the “hate attacks” have gone on and on (often very repetitive and usually very much ignoring what was actually written), the more people are attracted to reading my articles and then “recommending”.

In one such hate attack the haters assured me that they were very expert at measuring the analytics of RedState and that their 100+ comments – generated by about 4 people (including my defense/replies) – were more of a measurement of what a bad person I am and a terrible writer, than were the 110 people who “recommended” the article one way or another way (there are several ways you can do this here at RED STATE).

Sure.  I should ignore 110 who “like” what I wrote and want me to continue, and instead listen to “advice” from haters who want me to stop, and who sound no different from those who write at Daily Kos, Media Matters and Huffington Post, and who here number about 4 “people” (assuming it is not one person with four accounts?).  Right.

The “boomerang” effect is that their attacks draw more attention to what you said in the first place.

So lesson learned: stand your ground, defend your position and show how they are using hate and personal attacks to hide the truth – they have no answer to what we are writing and saying.

Counter their negative with some positive, is my suggestion to my conservative friends. When you see them doing that to someone whose offerings you appreciate jump in to say something positive or better still – help circulate articles like the two I mention above.

Check the “fruit on the tree” when you are offered information – and if they are using the tactics of the left then walk away, ignore them, defriend them on Facebook, protect yourself from such junk.

It is difficult for me to imagine someone watching the For Greater Glory movie starting this weekend (in select cities) who will not better understand what Barack Obama is doing when he attacks the Catholic Church with his “mandates” requiring them to provide that which their Church’s teachings forbid.

Rather than debate how the First Amendment requires that the federal government is constrained from doing what it is now doing they would of course, much prefer to simply demonize Catholic clerics who speak out against their being forced to violate their conscience and act contrary to their Church’s teachings.

You will see this clearly in the movie For Greater Glory (see the movie trailer, HERE).

The Cristeros – the Catholics whose battle cry became “Viva Cristo Rey” (Long Live Christ the King) countered the demonizing of their Church and their priests by resisting.

When the resistance became too much of an irritant to the secular government of Mexico, the government simply turned up “the two minute hate” and sent armed troops to arrest, jail, torture and kill the priests and those Catholics who defended them.

Skeptical?

You didn’t read, listen or watch “the two minute hate”?

Silly.  I said it was just for “the party members.”  You and I are not supposed to see it.  It is for the secular liberal-left.

(disclaimer: for liberal-leftists who will take this literally.  It is a metaphor.  Like when you “haters” said you wanted to “kill Rick Santorum” but it was only “metaphorically speaking.  See my May 10 offering HERE in which I rebutted your metaphorical killing of us Santorum supporters).

So how am I so sure that they watched before they attacked us?

Because The Book I read (never enough I must admit) says you can know the tree by checking the fruit.

Erick Erickson was attacked by the people who watched and were whipped up by “the two minute hate” and most likely even attended the “one week hate” that 1984 speaks of.

Oh don’t go and take me too literally now.  I am already imagining the leaping to their keyboard (or whipping their thumbs into shape) to deny it all and say they don’t know who George Orwell is, or they missed yesterday’s 2 minute hate or whatever.

Calm down, the couple of you secular-liberal leftists or mimics who are reading this.  It is a figure of speech here and most readers understand my point.  Regardless of whether you are a leftist or you just sound exactly like one isn’t the point.

Some of my most pointed columns in defense of values voter issues in this RED STATE have also subjected me to personal attack and attempts to “demonize” me.

When they cannot find something to insult me over they often simply make something up, such as “you people say such and such.”

After raising that strawman argument they will then go on and on attacking the strawman of their own construction.

This week we saw another attempt to demonize Mitt Romney by using the “birther” issue (as the secular liberal-left calls it).  It was fascinating to behold.

Long ago, before he became a Senator and a potential future U.S. President, someone wrote a promotion for Obama and quoted him as saying he was born in another country, and later raised as a Muslim in another country before finally making it to Hawaii.

That “promotional material” was recently discovered and reported.

Consequently, Donald Trump, who has spoken on this subject before, was asked about this, and simply suggested that this new information bears investigating.

Immediately from the White House we saw the result of the “2 minutes hate” come out.

In fact I was very amused to see the reasonably “fair and balanced” reporter Greta Van Susteren on Fox TV News questioning Trump about this last night.

Greta simply reiterated the liberal line that the entire line of questioning was absurd and did Donald Trump really believe that Barack Obama was born in another country?

Trump – and I’m no fan of his – simply kept pointing back to the original article and original words and asking, why is no one investigating what was actually said?

In fact, being an agnostic on the “was he born American” subject (ie. to the liberal-left that is, “birther”), I have paid close attention to what Trump has said.  He is very careful never to be an advocate.  He simply “raises the question” each time.

The only way that the left rebutts Trump on this subject is the use of ridicule and the “straw man” argument.

The entire “issue” in other words, according to the left, is about the “crazy birthers” and not about the book publisher who said that he published what Barack Obama said, ie. that he was not born in America and was not raised in America.

That’s “fair and balanced” reporting?

No.  It is the result of some people who watched “the two minutes hate” and then vented at Donald Trump.

I have to credit Trump – he was not only NOT thrown off by the junk thrown at him – the personal attacks – but he asked Greta, isn’t it a serious question, if you are not allowed to be President if you are born in another country, and this credible source says that Barack Obama told him that he WAS in act, born in another country, why ask me?

Why not investigate and get at the facts, said Trump.  While Greta kept acting like she was “just asking” she never did respond to what he said.

Naturally, this “issue” is used by the left as another opportunity to demonize conservatives as “birthers” who are all crazy and irrational, and Mitt Romney was even asked why he would associate with people who believe this like Donald Trump.

But I noticed that Donald Trump at no point said he believed or didn’t believe Barack Obama was American born.  Does anyone care to focus on what he actually said?  Nope.

That is how the two minute hate works.

The left gets themselves “whipped up” with their two minute hate.  You and I won’t see what they are watching and reading.  We will only see the outcome of their being whipped up.

But you can if you want – just go to Media Matters, Daily Kos, Huffington Post or other hate sites like them.

That is where the “2 minute hate” starts.  And then look in the so-called “mainstream media” and yes even a “fair and balanced reporter” like Greta.  And you will see the influence of those haters.

I don’t claim to know whether someone read/listened/watched the actual “2 minutes hate” or were they influenced by someone who did.

Daily Caller last year reported on how a number of reporters had a little online “club” where they shared ideas on how to demonize conservatives, providing many examples.  They reported the actual emails of reporters who claim to be “fair and balanced” but who are actually leftwing activists plotting how to demonize conservatives, including how to lie about us.

I believe that Greta Susteren is not of their ranks but she certainly fell for their minsinformation and used their tactics on Donald Trump in yesterday’s segment, even to the point of referring to the “birthers” by that disparaging name used by the liberal-left.  Hardly fair and balanced, Greta.

I’ve seen example after example of the hate tactics of the left over a period of many years and many good people who fell for it.

They actually fight it out among each other to see who can come up with the most “clever” and effective ways of demonizing conservatives, aiming to disrupt and destroy our cause.

The SWATting of Erick Erickson is but the latest example.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Knowing and sharing the truth, is the best way to counter the lies and hate tactics of the secular liberal-left.

Know and recognize the tree – the origin of the hate – by the fruit.

Remember as Saul Alinsky knew, Satan is the Father of Lies.  The tactics of the 2 minute hate, are lies.  The antidote to their poison, is the truth.

Of course the dark hates the light.  Of course the light pushes back the dark.  Be not afraid.

I give prayerful thanks that Erick Erickson and his family are safe after the potentially deadly SWATting attack on them.  Like him, my reading about and even experiencing similar hate attacks after some of my articles here, only strengthens my resolve.

Friday, just two more days, and you can “register” your vote for truth by watching For Greater Glory to see what happens when the hatred turns to violence as it so often does.

For Greater Glory: a true story of what happens when the government attempted to forcibly “secularize” the country, as they did in Mexico in 1926.  Starring Andy Garcia.

Viva Cristo Rey (Long Live Christ the King).

Pledge to watch, this weekend or later.  Pledge to action to defend religious liberty.  Pledge to vote, to speak out and to be undeterred by the “two minute hate” and by those influenced by that poison to attack us as they do.

Viva Cristo Rey.  Make your Pledge here at Facebook, now.

*

3rd in “A Fortnight for Freedom Series,” see For Greater Glory PLEDGE on Facebook.  Previous Articles:

 For Greater Glory Movie Takes Aim at Government Suppression of People of Faith but May Not Come to a Theater Near You on June 1 Unless You Act. (5/23/12)

A Call to Conscience for Religious Liberty: For Greater Glory (4/29/12)

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there.  I maintain a 5x a week, weekdays writing schedule at RED STATE.

You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do (if this is reprinted on any other website, that is).  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBxPv8C58dg&feature=g-all-u

    Just look at the comments.

  • gekster

    • commonsenseobserver

      Can never figure out HTML :P

  • commonsenseobserver

    Remember the Trump nonsense, and how Obama is contrasting Romney and McCain?

    Imagine if we compared Obama with another hated figure on the liberal left- Bill Clinton. Replace Romney with Obama, and replace the centrist Republican nominee with the moderate Democratic President.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Quit using diaries to reply to people who corrected you in the comments. That’s what comments are for.

    If you don’t like being corrected on Biblical knowledge, well, tough. We’ve got Christians and students of Christianity here, who take it seriously.

    Concocting conspiracy theories to avoid admitting you were wrong is ridiculous.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      …I have read some of your material in the past and especially appreciated your Midway article I read earlier. But I must dissent from your dissent.

      First, you are making clear you too, haven’t actually read the article and are simply criticizing my defense of what I wrote. As I have written about 5x so far, within 3 minutes of posting the article someone wrote in (a frequent past critic) to tell me that my typing “Spartacus” instead of the correct “Barabbas” gave them what they wanted, a reason to write, and so they stopped reading at that point in order to make their criticism, their only apparent reason for reading. Within 2 minutes of their message post I made the correction. Since then I’ve read one criticism after another, and now I see you holding me out to be a Bible Scholar.

      I do not know if that is a job offer or a recommendation but I wish to politely decline the new position of Bible Scholar (is that different from being a Contributing Editor?). But your thought is appreciated. I won’t go on further about Spartacus vs Barabbas other than to say that with over 3200 words, one type is hardly the summary of the entire article – and in any event it was one of the handful of examples I provided to illustrate my point. Again, I do not get the idea from what you wrote that you actually read my article but only read the criticisms.

      Second, I do appreciate your sense of humor. Two of the people who are my strongest critics have plainly written in the past that they do not like Christian conservatives. Further, they are doing exactly as my article explains was done to Rush Limbaugh and it is very relevant to the central point of the article. Those who do not like conservatives won’t be swayed by your logic and are not here to debate issues. The point of the article is that they want to hurt conservatives. I provided links to two specific articles posted at Red State which very much illustrate this, including the recent story about what happened to Erick Erickson. I’d hardly think what he wrote is a “conspiracy theory” although that sounds like something David Axelrod would say to dismiss such a report.

      Further, I did not see you write a criticism of the fellow who posted the article that was placed on the recommended list of Red State, in which he celebrated his theory that Rick Santorum should “die a metaphorically violent death.” His blast at all of us who supported Santorum was not only tolerated here but was promoted to the “top of the pile” by the editors.

      But then, when I wrote a response to that article, specifically NOT using the “comments” section because I wanted to write a more detailed essay about this topic, you didn’t admonish me but my article was instead placed in the “recommended” section (over your objection?). http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/05/11/good-news-rick-santorum-and-the-values-voters-will-not-die-a-metaphorically-violent-death-but-are-here-to-stay/

      The people who are criticizing me here – including yourself – do not actually appear to have read any of the article in question here but are simply criticizing me personally. That was of course, the entire point of my original article – it is what the left does and they have ALWAYS done this.

      Most important, it is their claim that I used the diary improperly. I wrote an essay which mentioned IN A VERY SMALL WAY the criticisms which you see here. The article dealt with how the left always demonizes us and tries to make it personal. I think it demonstrates you did not read the article, if you think differently, and I don’t think that is the usual scholarship I’ve seen in other articles/posts of yours in this space (which I have enjoyed).

      There are no conspiracy theories that I have “concoted” here, unless you think that what Alinsky suggests his followers do, is not in fact being done, and unless you think that Erick Erickson’s recent report of how SWATting is now being used against those the left has targeted, and his and other people’s reports here about these tactics, are all part of this “conspiracy theory.”

      I would guess that with all the time you clearly must have taken to write that excellent article about Midway, particularly your conclusion about that battle’s similarly in impact to the Battle of Gettysburg, you might not have the time to read everything you might like. But it is hardly fair to me with the effort I put forth to write reasoned articles which support our cause, for you to weigh in here as you just did.

      With all due respect Neil, you were off base. There are no “conspiracy theories” only facts about what leftists are doing to conservatives and in my case, an example is being made out of me to show how such Alinsky style, personal attacks, boomerang on the people who employ such tactics and actually boost readership of the original article. I am sure that is not the intent of those who have repeatedly posted criticisms here but that is what has happened, and what they write here has nothing to do with my article, amusing as their words are.

      I am honored by your attention and thank you.

      • aesthete

  • westcoastpatriette

    with all due respect, your diaries are beginning to sound a little paranoid. I am just as socially conservative as you but I don’t consider most RS posters who disagree with me on the finer points of public policy my enemies. And I don’t put them in the same category as the hostile left just because they may disagree with me. I think you go on the attack and make these accusations rather than accept any criticism or comments that may challenge you, which diminishes your credibility in the long run.

    Also, your boasting about the length of your diaries dampens your credibility as it makes you sound like you think verbosity means you are an expert. To the contrary, I do not read most of your diaries as they are too long and rambling to keep my interest. Maybe you need to check your ego at the door and tone down your attitude a little.

    Now, are you going to attack me, too?

    • rwp4liberty

      This is Henry

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …instead of so much complaining? You wrote, “And perhaps if he would stop summarizing everyone else

        • rwp4liberty

          …what few readers you have here recognize the same thing I recognize – that you attack anyone, including fellow conservatives, who disagree with you in the slightest or point out an error in your writing. You injected yourself into a post after I commented on SJ’s page, and you saw fit to attack me and suggested I was a neocon or tin-foil conspiracy theorist. My opinion of you is validated by your own readers; I have yet to see anyone validate your opinion of me.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      thanks for your comment about the comments WestCoastPatriiette. I prefer to spend a little more time reading and responding to the actual articles posted here rather than the criticisms from people who did not read them. Your claim that I treat people as enemies has nothing to do with what I wrote. There are a FEW people at RedState who post messages to attack values voters posts, which sound similar to what we see at leftwing hate sites. I cited examples. Most of my article deals with the recent attacks on conservatives by the left, including the SWAT attack on Erickson and others. Your expertise about my “credibility” is a bit in question since I don’t only look at comments here by people who make clear they don’t read my articles but also look (more important) at the number of people who recommend the article. Those who so endorse the article usually outnumber the critics by at least 20 or 30 to 1. Also, I have not a single time “boasted” as you claim, of the length of any of my articles although it is a regular method of attacking me to say they are too long (again: from people who DO NOT read them – so why would I listen to someone who says they do not like me, but advise me to write shorter???? sounds pretty crazy to me). You have taken out of context what I wrote, and instead, read only the critics’ material. When I mention 3200 words, the context was, that within 3 minutes of posting that, a critic posted a message about my big “mistake” in mentioning the Roman rebel “Spartacus” when the correct reference was the other Roman rebel, “Barabbas.” The “correction/critic” posted within 3 minutes or so of the article being posted, and I responded within about another 2 minutes by correcting the error and acknowledging it, while at that time, pointing out that one typo out of 3,200 words is a bit much to claim as the reason that writer thinks my article sucks. In this later article, I point out they have done the same thing with Rush Limbaugh – weeks after his apology for his calling Sandra Fluke the unfortunate name, the left continued attacking him as if he had never apologized.

      You appear to have fallen for this silliness. I have written at least 4 or 6 times so far, what I just wrote here but, they keep repeating it as it that one typo with one single word, was the “defining moment” of the entire article, and one critic even suggesting that I must defer to the other Bible Scholars here when they “correct” me. That critic has still not responded to my note – why isn’t a 2 minute turnaround and acknowledgement OK? Oh. I must also commit suicide, and stop writing as a result? That seems to be what they wanted with Rush Limbaugh.

      Now, since you do not read “most” of what I write, how much credibility should I give your “advise” to me on how to write articles here my friend? You appear mainly to make an appearance here, to comment about your agreement with the other comments made criticizing me. You serve as a splendid example for those who want to influence public policy, about what NOT to do. We ought to be cognizant of what our critics are saying but be most influenced by those who support our purpose and who act as our friends.

      Your suggestion that I will now “attack me too” as you put it, once again suggests that I have to agree with your critique or else somehow, I am not being a good sport. But I don’t agree with you my friend, but welcome your dropping by and posting in my comment section to help boost my readership. Thank you.

      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        Thought your RS readers might appreciate knowing that in your frequent references to the word “recommend” and its variants–as here:

        I don

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          reveals that over 1/3 of the comments here are from the author rather than readers. I’m not inclined to see what that ratio is with regard to the combined diaries, comments, recco’s – just another number to me.

          And FWIW, I had the same thoughts with regard to recommendations. I’d be willing to bet that most here gauge the successfulness of our diaries by the number of recommendations from redstate commenters rather than our Facebook friends in addition to the number and quality of comments as well as the variety of commenters.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …again, same suggestion Melody. I didn’t say a word about my facebook friends as you claim. Those who have Facebook accounts may, if they choose to, recommend an article from RedState to their friend list. Contrary to what you say, there is no such requirement that the author must be friends with the person recommending the article and it is rather silly to claim I said that, unless you are purposely putting misleading information in your comment. You can use a Red State “Recco” as some here call it. That way, the handful of people ALREADY reading scanning this article will see that. Or, you can click “like” to send a message to your Facebook friend list. Some of the people who do that have a few hundred friends of their own. They and their friends are mostly not people that I know. It is a lie to state othewise and you have no basis to make such a claim, none. And, as I have said, the commenters/critics here, appear to be in a state of shock that anybody they are criticizing here, will actually defend themselves as I have done. Most of them have made clear they didn’t read what I wrote and are just having fun attacking me. All good, because as I keep saying, you all are generating increasing interest in my articles by doing that. Each round of criticisms has increased the number of people who READ MY MAIN ARTICLE which you have not, and who then RECOMMEND IT TO THEIR FACEBOOK FRIENDS. The count stood at 27 a few days ago, five days after I posted the original article. Now it is 51. I haven’t done anything except respond to the criticisms here – which again, have little or nothing to do with what I wrote, and often, such as your message here now, have nothing to do with anything factual. There is no relationship to the number of COMMENTERS who write critiques, and the number of people who RECOMMEND, except that the half dozen doing the criticizing are helping to draw more attention to people who come here and read and recommend. Thanks again folks. and most of you appear to still not comprehend the basic math of this.

          • gekster

            Are you that nieve or just that much of a homer.
            And that’s not saying much for homers.
            And if you article is so great, why not more than 51.
            Is that all the people you know and thier frinds who give a crap?

          • checkmate2012

            n/t

          • gekster

            I should know better, but I dom;t.

        • westcoastpatriette

          Well meaning as your comments are, I highly doubt hanover’ will consider them “friendly tips.” :)

          • gekster

            like he has in the rest of the comments, it will be in such a way to provoke more comments from those being replied to, his aim being able to claim “I wrote an article on RS, and look at all the comments I have”, never saying that 1/3 of the comments are his.

            And for what it’s worth, Neil has Hinz ruled him.

          • westcoastpatriette

            That’s why I’m not answering his rep[y to me above, but I couldn’t resist replying to Cinco.

            See below where I suggested PTTP hinze hanover’. Hanover replies saying he has no idea what the code means. Hahaha. But, really. He is really full of himself and his diaries and comments are getting more and more grandiose by the day. So, he really does deserve the Hinze.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            my diaries are getting more grandiose by the day… LOL haven’t posted a diary since last week, until a little while ago. Yet each day eh? a little childish there with your offer but I say nein to your heinze tho it sounds so generous of you. Thanks again for writing.

          • gekster

            Place Hotdogs in a pan with twice as much water.
            Bring to boil and turn off heat.
            Place in a hotdog bun or plainn piece of bread, and garnish as you wish,
            Yum.

          • checkmate2012

            is word you should look up, but I’ll do it for you and hope you add it to your vocabulary.

            succinct (adjective):
            1. expressed in few words; concise; terse.
            2. characterized by conciseness or verbal brevity.
            3. compressed into a small area, scope, or compass.

            Allow me to make up a new acronym for you posts and comments:: BH= bandwidth hog

            And yes I read your whah, whah post. Please move on already |-O

        • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

          most constructive comments in the thread award to you… and in fact I very much appreciate it. I had no idea that there is an “etiquette” to this as you suggest. However, you missed my repeated earlier comments that within 3 minutes of my posting that article the “critique” came along and it wasn’t just a critique, it was a criticism and a rationale – said the post – for not reading the article because of the one mistake. Within another 2 minutes or so I’d posted a correction and a comment SAYING that I did acknowledge the mistake. The next post I did, I noted that as with Rush Limbaugh, 2 weeks after his apology they were STILL saying he’d refused to apologize for the Sandra Fluke mistake. It has been repeated so many times that some folks — apparently including you – think that this is true and appear to have no idea that it was corrected within about 5 minutes of being posted. Those whose main purpose is to CRITICIZE (NOT critique) my articles don’t appear to ever be ready to acknowledge that with over 3,200 words, ONE SINGLE WORD of a typo is not the entire article or even accurate to say that I refused to make the change or acknowledge the mistake. It tells you more about their intentions, this carrying on.

          Yes, you are correct, my math includes “likes” and I have explained several times why I think this is important. I don’t mind if you don’t agree with me, contrary to what they claim. But just because you or somebody else might not agree with me doesn’t make me wrong for not buckling under to your viewpoint.

          In fact I will go a step further if I may. Respectfully I ask: which is the more valuable “recommendation” to have, if you are interested in actually influencing public policy?

          If you get 5 of the people here who admit they haven’t read the article whose author they delight in criticizing, to switch positions and “recommend” what does that mean? It means that IN THIS GROUP of already convinced people, Hanover Henry is recommended…

          ….in contrast with 51 people who, for the sake of the argument, have a Facebook friend list the same size as mine (300) – which means they have recommended the article to 1,500 people EACH of whom, is being told they ought to come over here to RED STATE which they have mostly never done before, check out this one article AND ALSO CHECK OUT REDSTATE.

          You still think I should follow the advise of my math-challenged and logic-impaired critics here and follow THEIR advise of how to measure success, and how to conform my writings to THEIR standards after they say they don’t like what I write?

          Perhaps if that is your view, you might explain to me the benefit to RED STATE and to our cause, of us just talking to each other who are already here at RED STATE, instead of trying to reach other, new people, and bring them in?

          Mind you, I rather doubt that 99% of the new people my articles bring in here, actually read this far down … I think after a short number of sentences attacking me – the person whose article they came here to read – they will simply move on. This thread is for the small group which has admitted they don’t actually READ the articles they criticize.

          Your comments on the other hand, are much more clearly in the nature of a CRITIQUE and I humbly thank you for your efforts.

          I would be happy to engage anyone on this site who provides any constructive commentary and believe I have done so repeatedly. I have also gone to great lengths to introduce new people to RedState.

          There have also been a lot of positive comments but the anti’s do in fact outnumber because (a) they post repeatedly the same points, (b) they have others who read their post and then post a similar criticism, often admitting that they also have not read the article, and (c) the conservative-Christian or values voter types who favor my articles, do not enjoy spending their time the way that some of these “critics” appear to. They often have families, wives, children, jobs, and other hobbies and they just flat out do not see any benefit or enjoyment for such “riposte.” It does not seem designed to bring in new people as I just said. It is speaking to others already here and already like-minded. It is more negative than positive.

          Most of my personal friends feel that there is no such thing as “constructive criticism” – when you tear someone down it is never constructive, and is the opposite of edification, which is what they prefer to do among friends.

          Much of my defense of my writing concerns plain English – such as my NOT calling any particular person an “Alinskyite” but rather, that the tactics we decry are sometimes used here against fellow conservatives. You can simply scroll up and down these comment pages and pull all of the perjorative words to see what I mean. They weren’t words I wrote about anyone here. They are what was written about me personally, often by people who admit they did not and will not read what I wrote.

          And so, why would anyone wish to take advise from those who say they do not like you, say they think your writings are awful and who say they didn’t read what you wrote?

          Furthermore, I do expect a modicum of fairness and respect in our exchanges here – it does say “be respectful, or be banned.” When I do not see it, I do not feel any compulsion to thank the person for their insult and negative. Should I?

          In your “critique” you did not actually get to the heart of the matter until your third paragraph and that is the key point. You didn’t really rebut the 25 or 30 to 1 count that I suggested, of favorable versus unfavorable. If there are today, 51 who recommended the article to their facebook friend list and there are 5 who do not like it, that is 10 to 1 for this article. But in other cases it is 25 to zero, or 35 to zero. I am just taking a guess that it evens out to 25 or 30 to 1. What possible reason would anyone suggest more weight be given to people who say they didn’t read the article whose author they are criticizing, and who say they believe that THEIR comments are the sole analytic which should be considered when evaluating an article? And, when I do not agree with that, and keep posting my reasons – and yes I am repeating because the same criticism keeps repeating – that is then called unreasonable?

          My new post today suggests that it was Scott Walker’s refusal to compromise with people who said he was a failure and they didn’t like him, that is the reason for his success in Wisconsin.

          Thank you again for writing, and seriously, I welcome any comment from you anytime, including any “private” comment you might care to make at my Facebook “page.”

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            While a pattern of deflecting all criticism by established voices in a community is no conclusive indicator of the validity your own points or your critics’ charges, the incorporation of error into your deflection is at the very least immature and sends the community a strong signal that little reason remains to engage you, regardless of FB likes, word count, or even potential agreement in principle.

            Within a single paragraphy you have now posted three errors, the first a statement which you can not possibly verify–and which is false–the second and third statements that anyone can verify–and are also empirically false:

            However, [error 1:] you missed my repeated earlier comments that [error 2:] within 3 minutes of my posting that article the

          • acat

            – C.S. Lewis

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            “Just this once”–Joy Gresham Davidman in response to Lewis’ marriage proposal, on what both assumed would be her deathbed, as recounted in the more recent Shadowlands screenplay–not to be watched without cases of tissues.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    …continue to be employed against conservatives including here at Red State and per the usual, they object even more strongly if you point it out, and redouble their attacks.

    Joining in such attacks we now find Richard Persing of Facebook, aka rwp4liberty of Red State. Ironically, he appears to agree with me about this, because originally wrote on 2/14 ” I find it stunning that websites that claim to be the conservative alternative to the liberal mainstream media employs the same liberal tactics to destroy the most conservative candidate we have running in this years election.”

    But then both at Facebook and now here at Red State, he employs the very same tactic which he objected to on 2/14. He wrote three paragraphs supposedly about my article, and not a single sentence indicates that he has any knowledge of what I wrote, or what he differs with me about. He is simply (a) bashing me and (b) objecting to my objection to his use of the very same liberal-left tactic of attacking conservatives ad hominum which HE complained about on 2/14.

    I wrote an entire article here – 3000 words – showing why such tactics by the left are objectionable, and all that I see are articles attacking ME and complaining when I point out the obvious. Out of all of that, one single word of 3000 was a mistake, was admitted to in under 5 minutes (with the criticism occuring within 3 minutes of the post, so my correction took less than 2 minutes).

    But the bashing continued on and on, through and into the next article that I wrote a few days later. If anyone can find a single sentence of what anyone using those smear-attack leftwing tactics is FOR, or even a clue as to why they find the tactics of the left which I objected to, defensible, would love to see where that is in these comments threats. In fact, the attacks have very little (if anything) to do with what I wrote about – their main purpose appears to be simply to demonize me.

    It is in my view, rather silly to claim I called myself a Bible expert because in the number of examples I provided of the apparent conflict between “the rule of law” and “my conscience is my guide” one of them contained a mistake or typo which I so promptly admitted to, and now there are a fresh spate of comments today making it sound like I won’t admit to my “mistake” or accept “differences.”

    I don’t agree with the bashing. I admitted to the typo. That didn’t satisfy the leftwing character assassins with Rush Limbaugh and it didn’t satisfy those who use the same tactics here at RED STATE to attack me personally and whose complaints appear to have nothing to do with the articles I write here.

    Here is what I already wrote in response to Richard Persing (aka rwp4liberty) at facebook. He came over here to bash me again rather than respond to what I wrote back to him at Facebook.

    Since this is plenty enough of a response I don’t see why I’d need any further comment about him, and I therefore simply cut & paste from that Facebook thread to drop it here.

    “thank you for your continuing name calling campaign Richard. I didn’t ever accuse you of being a “neocon” and that is just one more silly example of your making things up. I said you are being a neo-con basher, using the same arguments those folks do, over and over again, people who, I wrote, have little or no clue what a neo-conservative is. You’ve rebutted nothing. You pretend to be a conservative and yet you spend most of your time here attacking me and creating strawman arguments you can then rebut. I’ve written plenty at Red State for you to criticize, why invent what you claim I wrote, and take out of context what I wrote here? And it is your contention that I write at Red State because I “seek SJ’s approval”? Then you use the word “jackass” on me? You keep calling attention to your attacks on me while offering very little of constructive criticism. And, I am happy to be a follower of people who I agree with, and regarding Steve Johnson, I find that I either agree with what he posts here, or else, I agree in general with his sentiment. Unlike you, I am aware of how to voice some minor exceptions or differences without insulting him. I took such minor exception when I agreed with the other writer that the problem is Barack Obama – which prompted you to ignorantly call me a “partisan hack.” When I objected to your name calling you then did more name calling (as you did again just now) and accused me of doing name calling. This is very juvenile of you.”

    I agreed with another writer at Steve Johnson’s thread, that it wasn’t an issue for us of objecting to drone strikes but of our not trusting Barack Obama with that weapon. His difference of opinion isn’t a matter of “right and wrong” but of opinion – several of us agreed in general with Steve’s applause for the use of unmanned aerial drones but are concerned about how President Obama is using them.

    That was sufficient for Richard to kick off his bashing and his personal attacks, which he has continued here. I invited him to find something of policy to take exeption to, such as anything I write here at RED STATE. Seemingly he came over here to continue attacking me – but still nothing of policy. He simply continued his personal attacks here, which he has done there.

    As I keep saying, these attacks – very much reminiscent of what the radical left always does to conservatives – can be used to build more interest in our position, rather than allow them to make us feel dispirited. They boost attention for the ORIGINAL article, which in their zeal to attack, they almost totally ignore.

    In summary: the continued criticisms of me by people who use the same tactics which the left uses to demonize conservatives rather than discuss and debate issues – - and which sound precisely like the “google-bombing” tactics of the left at their hate sites, have nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn’t write about the few who use these tactics here, but about what the left does to demonize conservatives rather than engage in honest debate.

    The fact that a few people here use these tactics only serves to illustrate my point. Our best way of responding to this is to carry on and continue and not let them deter us. I wrote to object to what these tactics of the leftwing – such as “SWATting” which has been used on Erick Erickson – and to point to a positive and constructive alternative – enjoy the boost they are giving us in attention for what we are saying, and do positive good things such as (in this case) to watch the movie FOR GREATER GLORY this weekend.

    The fact is, a small handful write many, repetitive negative, bashing attack posts which have little or nothing to do with what is written by us conservatives, and MANY times there number, keep clicking “recommend” to send the link to the article to their friend list. The usual number is 20 to 1 or better (as much as 60 to 1 on one occasion). I’ll take advise from the greater number who “recommend” my writings to their Facebook friends and twitter followers instead of the small number who demonize conservative, values-voter oriented articles here.

    • PowerToThePeople

      and your self proclaimed victim status is boring.

      Poor, poor you. There, now someone has acted as if they give a damn, move on!

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …oh my you should take up reading… I’ve only been thankful to you for posts like this, which keep boosting the number of people who read my articles, although I can see that you have neither read anything I wrote, nor wrote anything that connects to anything that I wrote. But it all helps, for which I thank you powerful one. God bless you. I don’t at all feel victimized. I feel that God is awesome, enabling me to share with so many good conservatives, ideas on how those who attack us using Alinsky-style personal attacks designed to demonize us and hurt us, so often see those attacks backfire on them as has happened here, with an increasing number of people reading and recommending this article, a week after it was posted. Why in the world would I complain, you are helping me – boosting my readership every few hours. Carry on!!!

    • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

      Facebook is down about 30%. Keep posting, I’m shorting FB.

      • checkmate2012

        Glad you’re back my pirate friend:)

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …not really… the least involved with social media (sadly) are the values voters. I wish it weren’t so. At the recent PA Leadership Conference, the “social media” seminar speaker commented at how sparely attended the 3 hours workshop on this topic was, and how the PA state capital is dominated by the left because they can create the illusion of numbers – in much the same way you guys are trying to do here, because they make better use of social media than we do. I most certainly don’t recommend just Facebook but it is silly of you to suggest we should just leave that medium to Obama, whose numbers there are more than double the combined numbers of everyone who either ran for President or was considered a potential candidate. and in the last election he had over 300,000 “real life events” from that base, and raised $36 million. So you can laugh away all you like but our side is getting clobbered on that battlefront. I was delighted to see the “crash” of their stock this past week. But again, I don’t get the idea that your comment was anything except part of the google-bomb attack on me for which I thank you most heartily. Every bit of help to boost readership is appreciated, even though I’ve not read anything here so far to indicate that anyone posting here, has actually read any of that. The insults offered seem to have nothing to do with the article and are instead all focused on that old Alinsky idea to simply insult and demonize the party you are criticizing, not discuss any issue. That was of course, my original point.

        • acat

          nor should we “leave [facebook] to Obama”, any more than we should leave television to Obama.

          Facebook is a tool, Red State is a tool, the point of the tool is to increase efficiency and community between relatively like-minded conservatives despite geographical isolation.

          If you want to throw away the tools, then .. propose alternatives.

          Mew

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            …at least, that was the opinion of the “instructors” who did the workshop on how to make use of social media to influence public policy, at this year’s annual PA Leadership Conference, a subject I wrote about several times already. The left has an enormous advantage over us conservatives in the state capitol of Harrisburg and that has been used time and time again to create the illusion that they have larger numbers than us. I must have written at least 4 articles citing specifics, including the left’s scaring the hell out of enough GOP State Legislators who then withdrew their sponsorship of HB 1077. If you want to debate them on this by all means go ahead and propose that for next year. In the meanwhile, I have proposed alternatives – which is, I have proposed to Christian conservative activists that more of them should have been in the room for that 3 hour seminar. I have given strong praise in my articles for the work of American Majority and Leadership Institute for their training for conservatives. These are all tools, exactly as I also said, and if conservatives don’t use these tools more, then our opposition will continue to create the illusion of bigger numbers and spook the legislators we helped elect, into running for the tall grass. Happens again and again. What is fascinating is that your “critique” here manages to criticize me even when you agree with the point I’ve made again and again at RED STATE about our need to encourage people to participate in social media a lot more.

            Of course, I also have to share some important details – such as the appearance of very rude attacks (your word: criticism) for some of the articles I have posted should not intimidate people into backing away from this media. The left (and some here) use those tactics because they get away with it. Most older people know you’d never say that in person to someone because the chances are sometime, somewhere, someone would punch you in the mouth for speaking to them or to a friend of theirs in that way. With social media and especially anonymous posts, you can see rather wildly rude commentary being put out and any attempt to defend yourself may be greeted by even wilder attacks.

            To those worried about that I suggest, they simply create a free yahoo, hotmail or google account and use that for their political work and commentary and not worry about the smear artists out there who delight in insulting those who uphold conservatives views.

            Increasing community of course, is best done by finding those things we agree on and emphasizing that, versus the “die a metaphorical death” type of shtik we’ve seen here speaking of Rick Santorum and his supporters. I really never imagined that I’d end up as one of his supporters, never thought that highly of him, and like many others who supported him, it was only after going thru a couple other candidates that we ended up supporting him. The amount of vitriol directed at him and his supporters was most certainly not designed to “build community” as you put it.

            So my alternative is to continue to try to give voice to the values voters who so often feel they are underrepresented in the conservative community, while encouraging them to ignore the negative material directed at us which they will read here, and encouraging them to make use of this media and social media.

          • gekster

            Take a bag of ramone noodels, and put them in a microwave safe tuperware bowl with two cups of water that has a lid.
            Don’t presss the lid on but mearly place it on top.
            Microwave on high for four minites, and then let it sit for three minutes. Serve.
            Be carefull because it is hot.
            Yummy.

          • acat

            On a more serious note, hanoverhenry sorta buried the lede in his reply, but he has a valid point. The right – especially the non-urban non-young right – don’t have a *clue* how to use online resources.

            I’ll just point out that the Ryun Brothers and their outfit American Majority ought to be able to do more than just run a half-full seminar …

            Mew

          • checkmate2012

            I was defining succinct!

          • gekster

            Your always there with the ad lib.
            LOL no problem

    • rwp4liberty

      I wrote that I do not believe the US should be bombing targets with unmanned drones in countries we are NOT at war with; I have no problems with using weaponized drones in war with countries we ARE at war with. I dared to suggest that we are not the rulers of the world, and that Obama (or any other president) is not empowered by the constitution to be the world’s judge, jury, and executioner. You accused me of being uneducated in the founding documents, but never validated your opinion by referencing the constitution. Prove me wrong, cite the clause in the constitution that empowers Obama to assassinate people in countries we are not at war with! You won’t, because the authority doesn’t exist, therefore you attack.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        Very simply, that is not true. You are simply criticizing my writing, which you never read, and then claiming I said things that I never wrote. You do expertly ape what Saul Alinsky teaches – make it personal when you attack your target, and avoid his issues.

        Again, your “argument” has nothing to do at all with this article I wrote here at Red State. You are carrying on an “argument” you started on Steve Johnson’s facebook page after you criticized him for saying what most people believe – he applauds the use of drones to kill the terrorists who have attacked us.

        Contrary to your lie here, I did not completely agree with Steve but as I have already said there and again here, I agreed in general with his sentiment, but more with the other person (named “Fedei”) there who took POLITE exception (unlike you with the more in-vogue among leftists, attack posts) to Steve. I wrote to explain my exception to the post by Steve:

        “Agree with Fidei I do – it is a matter of whether or not you trust a government with Obama in charge. I spoke with leftists years ago who simply hated Ronald Reagan so much that they didn’t want to build a missile defense shield to protect us from nuclear missiles from Russia. They feared Reagan more than they feared Soviet missiles. They were irrational. We are rational. FACT: there will be no trial of dead terrorists (good!) but also no questioning of terrorists to get more information (very, very, very BAD). It is easier to send drones. It requires more effort and risk to send a SEAL or Rangers team to snatch a target. Obama’s the problem for us. He continues to denigrate Bush who questioned 3 terrorists with waterboarding – leaving no mark on them, no permanent hurt of any kind – while he kills terrorists without questioning them, and leaves questions as to WHO is chosen to die, who is chosen (if any) to capture? And if David Alexlrod is part of the decision making team, does that worry anybody else besides me? He is in the room as Obama chooses targets to die. It is Obama that is the problem, not the idea of killing an enemy of America on a battlefield.”

        Hence, contrary to what he is lying about here, I did not argue with him about this subject, and didn’t care to get into an argument about this. He is having a fine argument by himself, creating both sides of the argument, and making the usual “you are a neocon if you don’t agree with me” silliness.

        In general, Steve Johnson has been well above average in consistently articulating mainstream conservative values. He might not satisfy everyone all the time, but he has a “maximum sized” Facebook page from having run for Lt. Governor, and is active in a variety of ways for our cause. I don’t mind that I have a minor exception to him on an issue which apparently animates rwp4liberty aka Richard Persing so very much (although again: apparently not enough to write anything original).

        Regarding Richard Persing’s urge to criticize me he has written nothing here that in any way connects with what I wrote here, and is being less than honest about what he and I wrote at Steve’s facebook page.

        In a transparent attempt to hijack that and this thread, he makes a blatant attempt to enlist the one worlder and libertarian/Ron Paul crowd to his banner by creating an argument that is unrelated to what was originally written – there and here.

        While he of course has the right to post whatever he wants, I note the irony of the “free speechers” constant attempts to personally demonize people they claim to disagree with. It is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. And as I continue to mention in my articles here, this “demonizing” of conservatives (especially the most hated variety of the group- the Christian/values voters) is a frequent tactic of the radical left, attempting to silence, ban, banish, demonize and discredit us.

        It is a tactic that while being employed apparently the playbook says you must also loudly deny you are doing what it is you are clearly doing. It is the very definition of Orwellian.

        Nor did I wish to engage him on the subject which seems to animate him, attacking conservatives who might not agree enough with him that it isn’t Obama that is the problem, but America’s attacking terrorists who hide in other countries unless the Senate first declares war on them. That is a fine topic for him to write an article about (noting that it appears he doesn’t write original articles about anything) if he wishes.

        But his subject is in no way related to what I wrote here. However, if he wishes to attempt a “hijack” of this thread that’s fine – it just drives up the count of the number of comments made here, creates more “buzz” about the original article, and hence more interest in my original article, which is in no way connected to his criticisms of me, my writing style, or those who, like Steve Johnson, simply wrote a short, couple sentence Facebook message on his own page to applaud the idea of killing those who are attacking Americans. Since the attacks on me kicked in here again, the number of people who have “recommended” my original article (and hence my readership) has continued to increase. Thank you folks.

        • PowerToThePeople

          about all this? And wow, you claim to be Christian. You should take every thing down that alludes to you being a Christian as you are hurting the faith tremendously. Your attitude is so nasty, Christ is embarrassed for you.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            … so it is better when someone criticizes you, to not respond? When someone attacks what you write, to be silent? Well, you don’t say that in your biography, but say you “despise” those who do not see things your own way. If a Christian defends what he wrote – bad? Most of the criticisms you see here have nothing to do with what I actually wrote. In some instances, these folks have admitted they don’t read what I wrote. Most recently, I accepted the correction of the word “Barabbas” to replace “Spartucus” within less than 5 minutes of the actual post, but the criticisms continued for the next several days, driving up the “comments” and therefore, driving up the readership of the original article. For you folks who count “comments” as the coin of your realm, instead of the number of people who read the larger, original article, carry on. Your help is appreciated. We are now boosted to 29 “recommended” here on this article, up from 21 when you started. Go go go. It shocks you that some of those who write in defense of the values voters issues, are actually a tiny bit internet literate? The way to combat google bombing is to go with the flow and MAKE USE of the wave which you guys are creating for me. That makes you mad as heck but no amount of “despising” alters the truth – you are boosting the readership of my original article, which has nothing at all to do with all the complaints you are filing here. Thanks again power!

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            kinda funny that juxtaposition from a guy who “despises” those he does not agree with …. but I have to wonder, exactly what are you disputing, other than “despising” me in general terms? You are speaking for Christ and claiming He is embarrassed for me? (1) that borders on sacrilege, (2) it is the usual claim of the secular left against Christians because we are sinners – and shows their ignorance; of course we are sinners that is our religion friend, why betray such ignorance with such a claim? I don’t have to first become perfect and THEN become a Christian, (3) you prefer your values voters to be silent rather than defend their views? You think that is an original idea? (4) who is crying – I keep celebrating your helping me boost readership of my articles – I have yet to make any complaint because I have every reason to be cheerful. You guys are the ones doing the complaining and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote – you couldn’t find a sentence about my article in all of these complaints. But please, do carry on.

          • PowerToThePeople

            that is simply in your mind.

            As to your claiming to be a Christian then acting like an idiot, aggressor, liar, playing the poor me victim, and so on, you are doing nothing but damaging the faith you claim. You try to switch it on me, but see no where will you see me claim to be a Christian. I separate the two and know that I tend to get out of hand and by doing so would damage who I claim to be. You should try the same if you plan on continuing the whole ignorant facade.

          • westcoastpatriette

            he’s getting more and more irrational with each post.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and I am starting to wonder if HH is the original mind of the Stricia, Eye of Mitt, and Anti Gak. I think when his paranoid mind allows on of the personalities out, we then see one of the others I mentioned.

            Now applying the Hinze rule to this moron.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            must be all in code, because I haven’t any idea what you are saying here but I am sure there must be someone else who will enjoy it. I did get the idea you do not approve of me, although it clearly has nothing to do with the article I wrote, and which you clearly didn’t read. Thank you for writing though, it is all helpful.

          • acat

            I do not believe he is Eye of Mitt. It’s hard to fake a writing style, especially a *verbose* writing style, when the natural style is terse.

            The two are so stylistically opposite that I just don’t see it.

            Mew

          • gekster

            He can barly hold onto one personality let alone three others.

          • PowerToThePeople

            it was just a cheap shot referring to his obvious and factual lack of mental reasoning and mental normalcy.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            and I thank you. Paranoid? Delusional? This must be a classic post you just did there. Did you check under your bed? Look in the closet? “…this moron” … such intellectual verve. You must be so proud. Thanks again for writing.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            that’s why each time you post that sort of criticism – which has nothing to do with what I wrote – you boost interest in my original article, which plenty of other people are reading and then recommending (49 as of a few minutes ago – and I wrote this last week)… Thank you sir.

          • PowerToThePeople

            are you saying that out of the losers on facebook, you were only able to pull 49? Not much of a thing to celebrate.

            Take your pills, you will be OK after.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            Don’t feel so sad PowerToThePeople. You too, can get some people to read what you post, even though you only posted 4 articles in the last year and just about nobody read or recommend 3 out of the 4.

            Don’t be so discouraged.

            First, you need to learn what it is you should measure to know what works and what doesn’t. Of the 4 articles you wrote and posted here, three of them got between zero and one (1) recommend or “like” to people’s facebook accounts.

            Not good friend, not good. And don’t be so confused about this.

            The number of people who actually read your articles is not shown but, you get an idea of how popular your writings are by the much more important number, HOW MANY who read it, liked it enough to recommend it to their own friends? I can see you are so discouraged that you have basically stopped writing – 4 articles in a whole year? But wait…

            Great news power… the one article that actually generated a lot of recommends, was the one in which, like me, you noted how the left attacks the heck out of us, demonizes us – in other words, exactly the same subject which I wrote about. Although you did not document it as well as I did, I thought it was a terrific article you wrote.

            In fact, I enjoyed that column of yours the most and am happy to also “recommend” it to my own Facebook friends (about 300, most living in PA), and to make you happy, I will recommend it here with the link (although from the comments I read here, this is not a popular subject with this “crowd” of 4 to 6 critics). I loved it when you wrote:

            “It has become the daily norm to see malicious vile coming from the left directed not only at us as Republicans, but towards our way of life as well.

            “I saw that American Patriotism was alive and well no matter how hard a small minority try to destroy it.”

            (yes I know… the critics might seize on “malicious vile” to point out that the word “vile” should be used in front of a noun but never mind, I thought it was a very nice turn of the phrase and most certainly original but then, I’m not the “critic” these other folks are here, who keep helping me drive my readership up).

            Now, I don’t write about “Republicans” so much as you did there, but from my perspective that’s close enough to my own views for me to give a loud cheer for that article you wrote – and urge you on to write more like that.

            You got 24 people (and 25 when you count my “like”) for that article versus the total of ONE “like” for the other three articles you wrote in the entire year.

            I know that some of the other folks whose criticisms you’ve joined in with here, would tell you to look at the “comments” to determine how popular your articles are but, by their standards, it can be rather confusing. First, people are commenting on each others’ comments, not on the article which none of them read.

            Second, do they mean that a lot of “buzz” (ie. talk) by a few people, is a positive measurement of success? Then by their standards the articles they detest the most and which generate the most personal attacks against me, are my best articles.

            Or, do they mean, a lot of comments generated by a couple of people (like them) are a BAD thing?

            Well, not to worry about it my friend, PowerToThePeople. You have about 3 comments in one year for all four of your articles. I get more than that thanks to these buzz-ards here, in a few hours, than you get in a year. So I suspect they’d claim a lot of buzz is bad, and so, everyone ignoring your articles, is good. The fact is, the google algorithm measures it as “success” when there is a lot of buzz for an article – and whatever negative they post, the facts are that more comments from them have continued to boost readership (and recommends) for an article I wrote a week ago.

            So I suggest, don’t listen to that silliness. The less than half a dozen people in here doing all of the criticizing, have no articles posted at RED STATE which generated the number of “likes” (recommends) in the past year, which even come to half of the total of this one article. And I say that having myself clicked “like” on at least two of the articles written by my “critics” here.

            And keep in mind, as I share that detail they want to overlook, that my usual “likes” number is 20 or 25 minimum (well, I am still shocked that my article about the Chinese “dissident” as the media calls right to life protester Chen, was below that – no one seems to care about the “Chinese dissident” and we continue to buy Chinese products happily). So my minimum number, outpulls even articles which the editors of RED STATE placed in the “recommend” section “above the fold.” Usually every time I post. (though I am grateful that on six occasions the editors here have placed one of my articles in the “recommend” status).

            So, you can see that when you do this rebuttal of criticism, when you write an article like the one that you also wrote (albeit with less detail), you may then get targeted by some of the people who are unable to attract much readership on their own and who are themselves, the critics, not the creators, most of the time.

            Now, unlike you, I actually read a few of the articles you wrote before commenting, and I looked at the numbers available via RED STATE.

            You can learn from these numbers or not, as you like. But you’re the one who wrote an article with 25 “like” versus the other three which had virtually nobody recommending them. If you want to reach more people, you need to pay attention to the positive feedback, not just measure the number of complaints. The complainers are basically saying, “I do not like you.” They are not your very best source of advise. Those who recommend, are.

            Now of course, sometimes I just want to write what I feel like without any regard for what you or somebody else thinks. In fact, I can honestly say that every single article I wrote here at RED STATE was more focused on my own beliefs. But consider this:

            The purpose of the Alinsky tactics of demonizing us conservatives – which you also wrote about in your MOST POPULAR column of the 4 you did in the past one year, is to discourage YOU the writer/speaker as well as anyone else who would DARE consider writing like that. It is also to discourage people from reading/listening to what you write/say. Clearly, that is the stated purpose of at least several of my critics here. And as always, they get very upset if any of their targets defends themselves and hits back.

            But when you look at the numbers and the facts – which was the point of my article by the way – you see that their efforts can BOOMERANG back on them, particularly if you “stand your ground.”

            So, instead of being so despondent Mr. “PowerToThePeople,” that nobody is reading your articles or even commenting on what you wrote, and then becoming a “critic” like these other folks who are criticizing me so much (without actually commenting on what I wrote or indicating they even read the article), why not take away from this experience, a positive message?

            And, perhaps a few of the critics here, might help boost your readership of that article, by going over there and posting an attack on you – perhaps you also will have your “likes” doubled in a few days – even well after you posted that article on Oct. 3, 2011.

            I most certainly feel very encouraged reading that article of yours – it was emotional, positive, constructive as well as making clear that you oppose the “demonizing” tactics of those who criticize what you call our very way of life.

            I hope you too, will feel encouraged, and write a little more often than 4 times in a year – original articles, not the sort of “criticism” that you yourself, criticized on Oct. 3, 2011, in that article I recommend, which drew 24 positive responses (and now 25 with my “like”).

            http://www.redstate.com/powertothepeople/2011/10/03/i-saw-american-patriotism-in-gamecock-nation-today/

          • gekster

            You do realise that you are more or less posting to your self.

            It’s over a week old, and your vain attempts to keep it alive are,
            well, vain.

            Don’t reply, as I will not post on this thread again.
            Point it out though to the maroons that read you,
            and maybe get a couple more FB likes, as that is what seams to be your goal as opposed to trying to inform.

            (and no, I don’t read your articles, but take interest when my friends names are used)

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            … sounds like you think somebody with a Facebook account is disqualified when they “endorse” an article to their friends, in your view, and that your method of measuring, is simply how many of the closed group of pre-existing friends, posts a comment to praise you? OK. To each his own. When people read an article on Red State there are several ways they can register their view of what they read, and your belief is that if they own a Facebook account, that is not a legitimate method. Good for you.

  • funwithknives

    and never gets any better. What’s to like or even give him a Recco?

    Ever measure any of your posts? I’ve no doubt that if you’re 1/2 as smart as your reflection thinks you are, you’d be a GEnius.
    But you’re not ,and aren’t.
    “Writers” such as yourself {using you specifically as an example} promote vast amounts of M E G O, to very little positive effect.
    Some call it, ‘Snoringly Perfect’, and on you it seems to fit.

    Try keeping the length down to …say 5 inches or so. I know I, for one, will not mind in the least……….

    Oh and FYInfo, I’m not on Twitter, FB or anything else but Discus.

    Just TCB right here……….

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      … and that has nothing to do with your message but then, turnabout is fair play since what you wrote, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the article I wrote, and whose author you are criticizing. I just wrote about this very topic and again: you wish for me to measure the number of criticisms by a half dozen people instead of the 49 people who have, thanks in part to all this criticism, now recommended the article? OK. You go with that idea. I wish to politely decline to follow such advise, noting that there are plenty of people who think you should follow the advise of critics who clearly say they do not agree with you. You wrote an entire little diatribe there with nothing but insult and not a word connected to the article you are writing about. And you only help boost readership for the article. You guys are awesome! Thank you, and God bless you.

      • funwithknives

        searching for Real Writing ability and Real Talent to criticize someone so totally boring.
        What I wrote, you see as criticism. Not so, by any stretch.
        Just how your stuff affected me and possibly a few others.
        It ain’t always about you, Hank. You insult your self-supposed audience by the shilling you give yourself.

        Not in a million years [give or take a day]would I ever attempt to criticize you. It’s not needed.
        If a large measure of writing success is a few dozen reccos hereabouts, you win. “Huzzahs”, all around. But that is mighty thin gruel. Go get something accepted and published and get back to us H H non-enjoyers.

        I collect Knives. Hence the moniker. Guns too. Weapons of all kinds.
        Throw ‘em, shoot ‘em, have tons-a-fun with ‘em. What was the point? Kinda feeble at ‘snide’, too.

        Oh and BTW, God blessed me with taste, and objectivity. Think of this exchange as His Will. He made me do it for your own good.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Really? Otherwise seemingly intelligent people use that as an algorithm? I notice that the handful of people who have done all the criticizing here don’t like to talk about how they are helping boost more readership for the original article, which none of them have actually commented on. We started out a few days ago with 21 people recommending this to their facebook friend list but with the repeated attacks it is now at 49, up from 37 this morning before Richard Persing aka rwp4liberty launched a fresh round of personal attacks on me here and at Facebook on a mutual friend’s page. So the number of critics times the number of criticisms written = success, in your mind. OK. Carry on. And, thanks again, for your help. This has now become the 2nd or 3rd most widely read article I’ve written here thanks to you. And it is highly amusing for me to measure the readership of those who keep blasting away at me, betraying each time that they’ve read nothing of my original article… I offered my view and see in reply, less than half a dozen people simply insulting me and whining away when I note that their tactics are exactly what I wrote about, exactly what is employed by the left to attack conservatives and most especially, those of us who write from a values voter perspective. Yep. I should measure the number of complainers instead of the number of people who told me – and all of us who bother to look – that my original point was worth sharing – this is a reprehensible debate tactic employed by the left, to simply insult and smear conservatives they do not agree with.

    • acat

      It’s not a great measurement, but in the utter absence of other measurements – let’s face it, you’re no Michelle Malkin or Ace of Spades – it’s what’s available.

      I don’t mind increasing your readership. Think of the dozen or so people who read you because of me as my birthday gift to you. It costs me nothing, and apparently you enjoy the attention.

      Mew

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        since you were the whole theme of the article, wouldn’t he actually owe any readership to you (ok, you and Donald Trump for some strange reason)? Henry since I read the article, I’ll offer some constructive criticism. First, pick a theme, any theme and construct the writing around that theme. The article is extremely difficult to follow. You go from Erick Erickson

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …I do. And thanks for writing.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        acat you are mixing me up with someone else… perhaps a dozen is the number of people who have read your comments this month or this year? Dunno… but this one article has 51 people who recommended it and hence, some multiple of 51 is the readership (clearly not including my friendly critics). As I’ve said so far, about a half dozen or more times. I wish there were other methods of measuring our readership. The “intensity” is certainly something to measure for example, ie. how many people would go out and vote because of something one of us wrote, would be great. Ah well. Work with what we have, even if some of us ((GRIN)) cannot get the number right. 51, up from 29 two days earlier after the fresh round of criticisms in the two days ending yesterday, and after a week that the article was posted. Thanks again for writing.

        • gekster

          May be a few of your friends on FB, but no one here sees any value in your tripe.

        • aesthete

          is somewhat akin to the crack whore who says, “I’ve been paid for sex by multiple men, therefore I must be sexy”.

  • Bill S

    TL;DR

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    TLI.

    p.s. actually pretty funny. you chimed in here to indicate you haven’t read the article but are one of the only people who flat out admits that in criticizing the author, that is so. I do appreciate your visit and your honesty. Perhaps at some point you will be able to read more than a few sentences in one sitting and who knows, perhaps entire newspaper articles after that. Good luck Bill.

  • Viet71

    Not taking sides, and my thoughts don’t matter anyway.

    I just wonder about seizing the moment — last night’s victory in Wisconsin — and joining forces.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      My inclination was to ignore the entire thing, but I don’t like to see commenters like acat and aesthete accused of using Alinsky tactics because the author can’t take a little criticism or because they disagree with him. We get enough victimhood from the left.

      And your thoughts do matter.

      • Viet71

        That’s pretty much my motto.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        if you think the entire article with citations provided and so many specifics, was about ACAT, and if you admit to not having read the article, then how can you know what you are talking about there? And as I wrote, if the personal/demonizing thing is what someone uses to target someone they do not agree with, instead of simply sticking with what parts of the article you do not agree with, then that is in fact, exactly what Alinsky teaches, and therefore the method being used is what I call attention to. In the case you are so alarmed about I spoke of the “conscience” versus the “informed conscience” disparity. But a few people want to open up a new thread about Bible Scholarship instead, which is in no way related to the point my article discusses. And, I rather enjoy criticism, even though the critics don’t appear to know much about what my article was about, and even though they focus on me personally so much. There are comments about the comments – such as yours – but very little about the actual article is here. If I tend to dissent from the dissenter, you make it sound like that’s somehow a very bad thing to do. But thanks for writing.

        • lineholder

          ROFL! Barking up the totally wrong tree there, hanoverhenry. Big time.

          Sounds more like she’s hitting too close to home about something….you sure did get defensive in a hurry.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            At this point, all I read from hh is blah, blah, me, me, me, blah, insult mod, blah, blah, insult regular, blah, blah, insult mod, blah, blah, me, me, me.

          • gekster

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            … aside from the obvious that you didn’t read the article whose author you join in criticizing, you also make the claim that I wrote something I never wrote, never called anyone here an Alinskyite but simply responded to what Melody said. Your claim of what I wrote is delusion my friend. Why not read what you are criticizing first so that it is at least related in some way to the writing? ROFL you are “barking” without relating the bark to anything I wrote.

          • gekster

            Take a slice of bread, and spread a generousl layer of peanut butter on it.
            Lay another slice of bread on it.
            Yummy.

          • lineholder

            Isn’t that an assumption on your part based on the fact that I haven’t responded to the situation in the way you might want me to respond?

            I read it. The structure could use some work, HH. Longer paragraphs are your “friend”. You jumped from subject to subject like “Liza jumping from cake to cake”, as the old saying goes.

            This piece was so difficult to follow that I still have very little sense of what the main point is that you were attempting to make.

            You’re acting as if you are writing to gain accolades from people rather than simply attempting to engage the readers in sincere discourse. (Comes across as ego, plain and simple)

          • lineholder

            It’s really tempting at this point to just leave you blowing in the wind. However, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may actually be attempting to accomplish something positive. For that reason, I’ll be honest with you in offering you a piece of advice….

            It’s relatively obvious that you are using RS as a means of attempting to build up a facebook following for yourself. That’s why you put so much emphasis on the “likes” you receive when there are no recommendations of the diaries you write coming from inside RS.

            Please use some common sense. So far, you have edited diaries you have written and included things in those diaries that could give RS a bad reputation. Go too far with it, and the mods WILL cut you off in the blink of an eye.

            You’re displaying a lack of understanding about Conservatives. We don’t engage in the “two minute hate” theories you’ve espoused…even though you’ve attempted to insinuate that we do.

            Simply put, Conservatives “do not suffer fools lightly”. Prudence is your better option, HH. Take it for what it’s worth.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          Too much rambling. I didn’t learn anything new from it. There are many other diaries I find more interesting and worthy of my attention. I doubt I’ll read another one, much less comment again, but never say never.

          Happy now? I commented on your diary.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Most of us come to RS because we enjoy the intellectual banter as well as discussing/debating political ideas. From time to time, a diarist comes along who challenges us for various reasons and some of us decide to take them on — which may include confronting the veracity of their diaries.

      And this in no way diminishes the jubilation most of us feel over last night’s victory.

      • Viet71

        n/t

    • acat

      don’t much care. It boils down to some folk don’t abide folk who aren’t 100% in agreement with ‘em.

      Mew

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        and the way some of those people react is they find something to criticize each and every chance they can, and invent new reasons to post criticisms, which are in no way related to the article whose author they are criticizing. And some critics are SOOOOO thin skinned it is actually rather amusing. They are very capable of dishing it out but they HOWL to the heavens if you in any way reject their criticism of the article they actually admitted to not having read. Hilarious. But I do appreciate your writing.

      • Viet71

        no text

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    another agreement yes… but enough about boosting this article I’m about done with a new one about yesterday’s great victory and just wanted to register that I agree with you very much.

  • Viet71

    I take no sides. Object to name-calling. Prefer focusing on the un-friendlies.

    Let’s win the war, hanoverhenry. The battles you want to fight can wait.

    • acat

      My criteria for allies are pretty straightforward.

      Can he shoot?
      Will he shoot at my enemies?

      Mew

      • Viet71

        none text

        • Stricia

          anybody (or anycat) would be good if they practiced at it 13 to 18 hours a day like acat.
          Talk about homebound! And you guys think “I” need meds.
          Sad, really.

          • acat

            As you’ve not borrowed my shoes to walk a mile in ‘em, I’ll just politely ignore your mindless blather.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Something risen from the dead mindlessly walking atound.

          • acat

            . . .

          • gekster

            Came back from the dead. check
            Mindlessly trolling around. check
            Appears to be looking for brains. check
            Smells of death. check.

            Yup, I think so.

          • acat

            (really not my type)

          • gekster

            What can I say.

          • acat

            lock and load.

            Mew

  • acat

    Over at Ace of Spades, there’s a letter from Saxby Chambliss to A.G. Holder regarding the practice of SWATting.

    Once again, Ace of Spades is *not* politically correct, and is especially raw in the comments .. but the article is worth reading.

    Mew

  • civil truth

    Let me ask you a few questions to perhaps move the reference frame. I’m not necessarily asking you to answer them publicly, but I do want to perhaps help you step back and take a different perspective.

    1) What is the stated purpose of RedState?
    2) What is the stated reason RedState has diaries

    3) What is/are your reason(s) for being part of the RedState community?
    4) What is/are your purpose(s) in writing a diary [in general, not this diary in particular]

    5) How do you measure the value of your contributions? Or to put it a different way, what “keeps your battery charged”?
    6) What importance do you place on nurturing relationships?

    7) Are you on a track that will lead to fulfillment of your goals for your time at RedState?

    And finally…

    8) How does your involvement with RedState comport with the calling God has entrusted you with?

    • barleycorn

      Well stated.

  • Pingback: Google testing

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: phen375 diet

  • Pingback: hgkrujfsghndthnjedts

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: great post to read

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: right here

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: chauffeur hat

  • Pingback: imitation designer bags

  • Pingback: link

  • Pingback: high intensity training

  • Pingback: software toko program kasir terbaik

  • Pingback: paleo recipes

  • Pingback: Clicking Here

  • Pingback: online rubrikkannonser

  • Pingback: panasonic 160a

  • Pingback: leappad 2

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: read more

  • Pingback: gsniper 2

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: shipping policy

  • Pingback: Lainaa

  • Pingback: Discover More

  • Pingback: acheter casque beat

  • Pingback: pond5 promo

  • Pingback: seo fabrikasi

  • Pingback: Fletcher Hoeke

  • Pingback: monoloop.com

  • Pingback: dunedin

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book

  • Pingback: dubai real estate

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: check site now

  • Pingback: muscle gain supplements

  • Pingback: the best legal steroids

  • Pingback: alternatives to steroids

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: look what I found

  • Pingback: spybubble squidoo

  • Pingback: retail malls

  • Pingback: acer laptop

  • Pingback: Jodi Demarest

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Used Classified Cars

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: check my website

  • Pingback: Lower left abdominal pain

  • Pingback: astral projection scientific evidence

  • Pingback: easy astral projection

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: Web Site

  • Pingback: Full Report

  • Pingback: Suggested Internet page

  • Pingback: buy green coffee bean max

  • Pingback: homes for sale in Indianapolis Indiana

  • Pingback: Best Credit Repair

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: sony battery

  • Pingback: Read Full Article

  • Pingback: toronto plumbers

  • Pingback: Sweet Potato Casserole

  • Pingback: tartamudez tratamiento psicologico

  • Pingback: askjolene

  • Pingback: Sharebuilder promo code

  • Pingback: government mortgage help

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: Make Money Youtube

  • Pingback: Hockey

  • Pingback: gain followers on tumblr

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: tas super

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: facebook news

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: inquiry

  • Pingback: active instagram followers

  • Pingback: "???"

  • Pingback: black mold removal

  • Pingback: meio ambiente

  • Pingback: Rent a dumpster

  • Pingback: Rent a dumpster

  • Pingback: logos quiz game

  • Pingback: galaxy s3

  • Pingback: land of nod discount code

  • Pingback: free sex hookups

  • Pingback: check it

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: cheap car insurance quote

  • Pingback: auto accident boardman

  • Pingback: buy zynga poker chips

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: female hair loss treatment

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: video games

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: lida satis

  • Pingback: craft ideas

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: this hyperlink

  • Pingback: dustyduck.wordpress.com