Tuesday, September 14, 2010


On July 18, 2010, a loony leftist named Len posted on his blog, ‘The Existentialist Cowboy’, a blog bit titled “More And Murrow: Conspiracies Of Rich Men; Wires And Lights In A Box”. The gist of his post is that Rich Republicans are conspiring against the American people; beware the Rich Republicans. According to Loony Len, the Rich Democrats are OK, they’re trustworthy. (Or at least that’s what he seemed to think when he was arguing with me. His August 26th post seems to indicate that even this Obama-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong is dissatisfied with his savior’s performance in the White House.)

Well, sometime later, I read Loony Len’s loony blog installment and I posted a comment. Now in the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll tell you that I had attempted to post a comment at ‘The Existentialist Cowboy’ once before – that was back in September of 2009. But Loony Len Hart had the comment moderation system in effect back then, and he refused to post the comments I had submitted to ‘The Existentialist Cowboy’. To read the full story of that episode, see my blog bit titled ‘Sex, Tattoos & Violence R Us - #4’ and scroll down to the subheading Puss In (Cowboy) Boots.
So, I was surprised to find after submitting a comment to his ‘More and Murrow’ blog bit that Loony Len no longer had the comment moderation on and my comment posted automatically.

I don’t have the precise dates of when I posted and when the Cowardly Cowboy responded to me because he doesn’t have his system set up to record the dates of comments, just the time of day that they were posted (yeah, that’s bright). At any rate, it was probably in late July that I submitted my comment. It’s not my modus operandi to seek and destroy liberals, but certain ones (the loud and obnoxious “anti-McCarthy” ones, to be specific) tick me off enough that sometimes I’ll initiate a personal one-on-one… uhm… “discussion”.

Below are copies of the comment exchanges that took place in late July of this year between myself and Loony Len, the cowardly existentialist cowpoke. I apologize for all the profanity, but it seems the Cowardly Cowboy resorts to the “F-word” when he feels frightened by a serious challenge. Note that when I am quoting something that L.L. wrote, I will put it in red italics, and when L.L. is quoting something that I wrote, I will put it in green italics:

Stephen T. McCarthy to Loony Len:

[Conspiracies are how things get done. If its 'legal', it's a company! If it is illegal and performed by two or more people working for the 'common bad' it's called a conspiracy.]

In the first place, it doesn't have to be "illegal" in order to be a conspiracy. From the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, OR evil purpose. "He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government."

Not all legal conspiracies are "corporations".

Secondly, one hardly needs to seek out FINDLAW and the Cornell University Law library online in order to determine whether or not conspiracies exist. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about world history already knows that conspiracies are the rule, not the exception.

But it's almost funny that someone writing about the evil of conspiracies should mention in a positive light a man like Edward R. Murrow, himself being a member of a conspiracy.

Oh, yes, Murrow was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a legal conspiracy founded on the idea that "The Rule Of Law" in America (i.e., The U.S. Constitution) ought to be overturned and/or usurped and replaced with a global government founded upon Socialistic principles. In other words, the very embodiment of the dictionary's example, "He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government."

In fact, so valuable did the CFR find Mr. Murrow in its slick, underhanded, anti-Constitutional promotion of global government, that the Council even went and named a fellowship award after him. Now THAT'S an honored conspirator!

And lastly, Len, although you do often post the truth on your blog, you are highly selective about the truth you choose to post. The fact of the matter is that you are merely an apologist for the Left Wing of The Great Conspiracy that is determined to wreck the U.S.A. and deliver it into the hands of those who wish to see Marxism and/or Keynesianism on a global scale.

The Great Conspiracy (of which Edward R. Murrow was a member) operates by design from both sides of the political spectrum. The Republicans and the Democrats secretly act in concert, utilizing the Hegelian Dialectic to move us ever Leftward into the Global, Totalitarian New World Order.

When you post hysterical stuff like this...

[The GOP owns every recession/depression it ever presided over. The GOP owns the transfer of American jobs and industry to China. The GOP owns a consistent pattern of anemic growth --if any!]

...you are claiming that only one political party is involved in the conspiracy, and that the other side is in opposition to the goals of the conspiracy. But any reasonably intelligent person realizes that the best, most effective conspiracy is one in which the conspirators "own" both sides of the argument. It's called "controlled opposition", as I'm sure you know.

When you put the spotlight on only one half of the conspiracy (i.e., the GOP), you play right into the hands of the conspirators. Unless, of course, you happen to be consciously using the "divide and conquer" tactic in order to further the aims of the conspiracy. Which, frankly, is EXACTLY what I have suspected about you for as long as I've been aware of your blog.

Len, let's see if you have the confidence and the intellectual honesty to post this comment of mine.

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Loony Len to Stephen T. McCarthy:

BTW --I have REAMS OF official STATS that PROVE that the GOP OWNS every recession/depression since 1900.
5:45 PM

This nonsense didn’t satisfy Loony Len, so he returned an hour or two later and posted a second comment to me.

Loony Len to Stephen T. McCarthy:

[And lastly, Len, although you do often post the truth on your blog, you are highly selective about the truth you choose to post]

That's called editorial discretion. I suggest you call the Washington Post and TELL them what to put in and what to take out of their editorials. Then --FUCK OFF!

I post what I am interested in! That's why I blog -you idiot --and I don't need your permission to do so. FUCK OFF

Likewise, I have not seen a word by Jacob Bronowski about the PRICE of rice in China. SO FUCKIN WHAT?? I suspect that J. Bronowski did not address the issue of rice prices in China because he did not give a shit. Comprende?

Secondly, I've read a sizable chunk of case law re: CONSPIRACIES. More than you! I did not ask nor have I needed your 'feedback' in this area.

I was able to learn what I needed to know in the volumes of established case law that is --in fact --in the public domain.

Now --if you have a legitimate complaint, state it! Otherwise, shut the fuck up! Next time, I will just delete your sorry ass for irrelevance.
[you are claiming that only one political party is involved in the conspiracy, and that the other side is in opposition to the goals of the conspiracy.]
That is PRECISELY what I am claiming. Maybe you are NOT as STUPID as I had concluded after all.

I love a good debate. BUT --you 'AIN'T' it. You are rather a waste of precious time.


Come back when you have SPROUTED a brain stem.
5:57 PM

Stephen T. McCarthy to Loony Len:

Hokey-Smoke and Hoo-Wee! Len, I don’t believe I have ever seen you respond this angrily to a commenter before. And that alone tells me plenty. I really struck a nerve. Man, if that nerve had been a vein of gold instead, I would be retiring from the U.S. work force as of today.

Calm down, Brother, or that apoplectic fit is going to bring on a massive heart attack!

Would you have said all of that in an actual nose-to-nose encouncter with me? I think NOT! And I’m surprised that you responded that way because I wouldn’t have taken YOU for one of those Internet “virtual tough guys”. I thought you were too cerebral for that kind of posturing.

[Next time, I will just delete your sorry ass for irrelevance.]

In truth, I’m a bit surprised that you haven’t already deleted my comment. But I can give you credit for that little anyway.

[Note: The subject of Len’s blog installment was conspiracies against the people. I was pointing out to him that not all conspiracies against the people are of the Republican variety. How was that a case of “irrelevance”? Would Len consider that I was being relevant ONLY if I was agreeing that all political conspiracies are Republican in nature? In other words, is only that which agrees with Len’s viewpoint relevant to the discussion?]
[you are claiming that only one political party is involved in the conspiracy, and that the other side is in opposition to the goals of the conspiracy.]

[That is PRECISELY what I am claiming. Maybe you are NOT as STUPID as I had concluded after all.]

Ha! So, that IS precisely what you are claiming, is it? And you’re calling ME “stupid”???


Well, I certainly agree with that. But I also happen to be aware of the fact that the Democrat Party is nothing more than the other side of that same “Crime Syndicate” coin and that it is just as “kooky cultish”. (Hmmm… Does that make me twice as smart as you?)

Fortunately for We The People, there are some websites and blogs out there that examine The Great “New World Order” Conspiracy from a nonpartisan perspective, and which are justifiably critical of BOTH parties that the conspirators “own” in the political paradigm (and my own blog happens to be only one of them).

Hey, get some rest, Len, and I’ll try not to disrupt your dreamworld again in the future. I think the strain is just too much for ya.

~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’

Postscript: The F-word does not a scholar make.

I had already entertained the idea that I might post this exchange as a blog bit here at ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’, but when Loony Len did not respond to this last comment and allowed me to have the last word, I figured it would not be exactly fair to post this on my own blog. I figured that if he was willing to let it drop at that point, so was I. I did check back from time to time, to see whether or not the Cowardly Cowboy had returned to sneak in another comment on me, but when a considerable amount of time passed with nothing added, I figured it was over and done with. I decided I would not post this exchange at ‘F-FFF’ nor would I submit any further comments at ‘The Existentialist Cowboy’ blog. That dude just isn’t up to a real debate.

I went on my vacation to "McCarthy Country" (see the blog bits below this one) and upon my return, it occurred to me to recheck Loony Len’s blog, but I thought to myself: Nah. If he hadn’t returned for 4 or 5 weeks, he’s definitely moved on and left that little episode in the past.

But just this morning something told me to take a final look, and to my surprise(!) I found that Loony Len had indeed returned, and what he did was delete BOTH of my comments. But oddly, he left his previous replies to my comments posted on his blog. So there he is arguing with a totally nonexistent enemy. Did this dumbass liberal not realize that some readers might wonder what had happened to the comments from that invisible Stephen T. McCarthy fellow whom the Cowardly Cowboy was repeatedly telling to “fuck off”?

Well, there you go, folks. That’s a perfect example of the sorts of tactics that liberals must resort to in order to give the (phony) appearance that they’ve won an argument! And don’t EVER believe it when a liberal goes on one of their patented anti-censorship tirades. Loony liberals never hesitate to scream against censorship, but in truth they almost always approve of censorship that is advantageous to their cause. When it comes to censorship and liberals, it all depends upon whose ox is getting gored.

There was only one problem with the Cowardly Cowboy’s trick. Loony Len hadn’t considered the possibility that I might have kept copies of our comments for six weeks. Ha! Yeah, I’ve had enough debates with these socialistic fascist creeps to have learned a trick or two of my own.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
‘Loyal American Underground’

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


  1. Stephen-

    I'll butched my mother's old saying, but it was something about when you wrestle in the gutter you get dirty.

    I just read this idiot's blog, and he's just not worth the time.


  2. That's great! Did you send him a link to this post? Sounds like made him so angry that he went to irrationality overdrive.

    I had a similar situation this weekend. A site posted a piece condemning book burning (which I don't agree with either) but they did not like some statements I had made, which I felt were rational and politely offered, but in disagrreement with their views. They later commented that they had decided not to delete my comment.
    I guess for them, like the cowboy, censorship is selective.

    I'm glad you stood up to Len. There was no excuse for him reacting the way he did and using the foul language.

    I think you can find better sites that will appreciate your intellectual debates. But then again maybe not.

    Tossing It Out

    >>when you wrestle in the gutter you get dirty.

    I don't mind being dirty if it means I also had the opportunity to wrestle.

    Life is too long to take sh#t from people! (Feel free to quote me.[:o)

    r-LEE-b ~
    >>Sounds like made him so angry that he went to irrationality overdrive.

    Ha!-Ha! I know. He blew his top so quickly that I knew I had really tazed a nerve. He'd be a lousy poker player.

    No, I haven't sent him a link to it ...yet. But I might. However, my intuition says that he quite possibly monitors my blog anonymously (not publicly). So there's a good chance he'll find it on his own. But I know he's afraid of me (and rightfully so), and thus he probably doesn't have the "courage" to openly challenge me about conspiracies (and sure as hell not about Senator McCarthy).

    >>I had a similar situation this weekend...

    Hey, c'mon, Brother, how come you don't tell me these juicy things?! I'd love to check it out. Please send me a link, if you don't mind. (And if you don't want to do that here, then please Email it to me ...if you don't mind.)

    >>I'm glad you stood up to Len.

    What, r yaz kiddin'?! I'm my Mother's son and my Brother's brother. I've stood up to bigger punks than Len, and plenty of times. Libs don't skeer me. "I'll fight 'em with one paw tied behind my back! I'll fight 'em standin' on one leg! Rouwwwrrr! And that goes for their little dog, too!"

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  4. Stephen--
    Here's the link to the site that almost kicked me off and by the time you get to it they may do after my most recent comment.


    Some of the comments countering mine are a bit long. Not sure which one side you'll will agree most with, but they just irked me a bit.

    And sorry, I was making a joke with the cowboy and it seems like now he's deleted your comment and my comment as well. I was just good naturedly poking fun at him, but I guess he didn't like it too much. At least he left Larry's comments for now.

    Tossing It Out

  5. r-LEE-b ~
    Hell, I didn't even know that you and Larry had left comments for him. I'm glad you mentioned it (if a little late). I wish you would have mentioned it earlier because I would have liked to have read what you wrote to him. Care to regurgitate it to me in a nutshell?

    But Loony Len had already deleted my comments. What you meant to say is that he has now deleted his own comments that were posted in response to mine.

    But that tells me that he is very much aware of this new blog bit of mine. He obviously figured out why he was suddenly getting new comments on that old installment, and he deleted his remaining comments to me because (after reading this post) he saw how I had ridiculed him for deleting my original comments but leaving his responses to me posted there.

    What's funny is that after telling me that this idiot's blog is just not worth my time, L.C. went and posted his own comment to the idiot.

    And by the way, I read Loony Len's response to L.C.'s comment. What a complete maroon! Can you believe that slop he replied with?! I mean, if this guy REALLY believes that sh#t, he's the most delusional person I've encountered in a decade! Unbelievable, really UNBELIEVABLE!

    Boy if he ever tried to take me on in a debate about conspiracies and the downfall of America (a subject I've studied in-depth for 16 years), I'd eat his lunch, take his nickel for milk and make him hold my history book while I played kickball.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  6. I should have copied my comment, but in a nutshell I said something like:

    "I don't understand why you are going on such a irrational rant against this McCarthy guy when there is not even a comment by him.

    I must be missing something. It makes no sense that you would get so angry and use such foul language against your imaginary friend."

    Just a good natured poke, but I guess he didn't like it.

    Tossing It Out

  7. Ha!-Ha!
    I love it, BROTHER LEE! That's good stuffs. :o)

    I read your comments on that other blog and all of the responses to you. I intend to post just a little sumpin' there myself but probably won't find the time to do it today. Perhaps after work tonight or tomorrow morning.

    You handled yourself very well there and I essentially side with you. I don't usually butt in unless it's some B.S. being spewed about McCarthy, but I have a couple of corrective points to make there which you will find supportive.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  8. Stephen-

    I will say I did leave a comment on this blog and got a response that, while I disagreed with a lot, was a lot more civil than his reply to you.

    You do seem to equate bloggin commenting with a debate or a fight, and I just don't get into it like that, so I'm sure I come off as more passive.

    But if he's starting out from a belief that Democrats are inherently good and Republicans are inherently bad, I don't know that any amount of logic or intelligent debate can overcome that.

    Especially when BOTH parties inherently bad!

    I just don't view this stuff as a "fight" or leaving comments as "standing up." And when someone leaves me a comment, no matter how antagonistic, I don't feel like I'm "taking s@#t" if I delete it.

    I fell into that trap once a long time ago (I believe I shared the old Todd mailing list story where the guy cut and pasted my comments and posted them out of context to the group) and decided then that this stuff is too meaningless to get upset over.

    And you said it pretty good yerself-most of these folk wouldn't have the cajones to say this stuff to your face.

    All I am saying, is give the delete key a chance!


  9. And Stephen-one last thing...

    > I'd eat his lunch,
    > take his nickel for milk
    > and make him hold my history
    > book

    You kind of hurt your tough-guy image with the image of carrying a history book.

    It was and is UNCOOL to carry books.

    And although reading them is necessary to be informed, a true tough guy does not admit to it.

    Did you ever see Charles Bronson put a book down before shooting the mugger? Did ya?

    >>You kind of hurt your tough-guy image with the image of carrying a history book.

    Heck, I didn't even know I HAD a "tough-guy" image. Cool.

    It's not a "real" book though. It's one of those hollowed-out hiding places for stashing money and jewels, but I use it for storing my .44 Magnum... and yada-yada blah-blah... you know how the rest of that little monologue goes ...punk.

    And thanks for all the good advice about civilized behavior an' all. It sounds good on paper (and looks good on the computer monitor) but the dude who publicly denigrates Senator McCarthy has already picked a fight with me... whether he knows that or not. And all I am saying is give the uppercut a chance.

    [Besides, you're definitely more competitive than you like to let on, or than think you are. Not that there's anything wrong with that.]

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  11. One of the reason's I like reading your posts is that you can react/respond to negative comments about government and conservative values. As I stated in one of my posts, I'm not a spontaneous person and I have to think about what's been said. Then about midnight, I sit straight up in bed with what I want to say in response. It makes me want to pick up the phone and call and give them the context of how I really feel. My daughter is like you, currently, she's working up a response to my brother and sister-in-law. She had sent an email out with a point of people placing crosses in their yard protesting removing something from the local government. That was the point of the email, but apparently, there was a negative comment regarding Obama, which is what they pounced on. The comment that she's responding to is "the Democratic party is more like Jesus in the Bible".

    I applaud her tenaciousness, but as I told her, be very sure of your facts as that is what they will jump on, not the truth of her response, but her weak points and the truth won't be addressed.

  12. One think I have learned though is that there are some people, no matter how much truth you point out, will never agree or change their mind. And since I don't enjoy verbal confrontations, I tend to ignore, not forget, but ignore.

    I have been thinking about the "global bankers" focusing on dividing the political impact by having the parties be so much against each other they're not paying attention to the legislature being passed". You really have me thinking about that!

    I had to post with two comments as the computer said "Comment too large!"

    What do you think about this comment on Politics Daily posted today "Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) came out on top of a presidential straw poll held at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington this weekend. Pence also won the straw poll for vice president."

    Who is Pence?

  13. J!3 ~
    First of all, I want to thank you for being one of only a few of my blog's "Followers" who actually and regularly reads my blog installments. Thank you!

    >>The comment that she's responding to is "the Democratic party is more like Jesus in the Bible".

    Ha! Well, for anyone to say that either political party is more in accord with the viewpoints of Jesus is just plain silly. BUT... if one were to jump into that silly situation, I would recommend starting with a biggie: "Thou shalt not murder", and immediately jump from that to the general position that most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans take concerning the question of ABORTION! 'Bye-'bye Dems!

    As far as Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana is concerned, I hate to shatter your perception of me being up-to-date on every politiCo., but I'm afraid that, to be honest, I don't know much about him. I have heard his name mentioned, but I am not familiar with his positions.

    I can tell you, however, that as a rule of thumb, I am immediately skeptical of anyone that The Republican Party endorses in their official capacity. I don't know if this applies to Pence or not, but if it does, my instinctual thought about the candidate is (as Wilson said in 'Shane'): "Prove it!"

    Both of the major political parties are, for all intents and purposes, owned by the Council on Foreign Relations, so I am far more interested in third party candidates (Republican Ron Paul being "The Great Exception").

    Had it not been for "Dr. No" (Ron Paul) throwing his hat into the ring during the 2008 Presidential Election, I would have voted for The Constitution Party's candidate. In the previous election, I did vote for their candidate, Michael Peroutka.

    The Constitution Party represents my political position far better than either of the two mainstream parties do.


    Please check them out. I suspect you'll find little about their platform that is in opposition to your own political viewpoint.

    J!3, one thing I've been meaning to axe you: In the last blog bit in which you promoted my 'STUFFS' blog (thanks again!) you said that there are times when you've read what I've posted and thought to yourself, "No way". I've been wondering... will you give me an example of a couple of different things I've previously written that have had you thinking "No way"?

    I'm just curious to know at what point you've felt I went "too far out there". Thanks!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  14. I'll go back and see, and it wasn't so much over the top as that "is a viewpoint I would never have entertained", and I wondered if you did or just playing devils advocate, which you do a lot!

  15. Remember this is when I first started reading you on a regular basis and didn't have a clear picture as to who you are, well of course that's the way it is, but I can grasp a little quicker when I think you're "grinning" as you write. Two that I found right away were Reincarnation and the Holy Bible, I'm still wondering if you believe in reincarnation as I didn't find the scripture you gave really clear on believing in "for", and God and The Devil, when you went on to describe "The Martini". I believe somewhere I commented that "maybe you really didn't want people to have the view that you might be a drunk or something similar.

  16. Hello, J!3 ~
    I'm sorry about the slight delay in responding to these comments of yours, but I had my hands full yesterday, trying to visit all of the participants of Alex Cavanaugh's 'Top Ten Television Shows Blogfest', leaving comments of my own and answering comments left for me. But things are back to normal now.

    >>a viewpoint I would never have entertained", and I wondered if you did or just playing devils advocate, which you do a lot!

    Actually, this might frighten you, but I don't think I EVER play devil's advocate. At least I can't recall right off the top of my mind having ever done that on my blogs. So, if I say "I believe such-and-such and so-and-so", I think you can be certain that I really do believe them, regardless of how wacky they might seem right out of the chute.

    My guess was that you probably thought my pro-Senator McCarthy stance was a put-on, and perhaps my stated belief in the existence of a huge political conspiracy designed to ruin our Constitutional Republic and dominate the world was not meant to be taken seriously. Those are the two things I imagined you had in mind when you've thought "No way" after reading some of my blog bits. At any rate, just so there's no misunderstanding, please know that I most definitely am pro-McCarthy and I KNOW there is a political/economic conspiracy against We The People at work.

    >>Two that I found right away were Reincarnation and the Holy Bible, I'm still wondering if you believe in reincarnation

    Absolutely. I feel the Biblical references I provided in that 4-part blog bit indicate that reincarnation is solidly supported by God's Book, for those willing to "accept it" (as Jesus said regarding the Elijah/John The Baptist connection).

    >>and God and The Devil, when you went on to describe "The Martini".

    Oh, heck, that was some time ago and I can't even remember now what I wrote in that one. But I know it was short and I know it was me just being silly. Yes, I believe in the personification of evil (or a "devil" if you prefer the term) but I don't believe he wields the martini like a sword and I don't believe that pink elephants are his demons in disguise.

    Hey, JUDY!3, one last thing. If/when you find the time, would you mind checking out my friend's blog, "BACK IN THE USSR"?


    He definitely posts some high quality political blog bits and "Back In The USSR" absolutely deserves more than just 3 "Followers". Also, I think it might appeal to you. Please check it out sometime and see if you think it's something you'd be interested in reading on a regular basis (if you don't, no big deal). But he's conservative, too - Constitutionally so - and I think he posts some insightful and often humorous political stuff/s. His is one my very favorite blogs that I "Follow", and that's not just because he's a friend of mine.

    Yak Again Soon, eh?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.