CanadianCynic just doesn't get it

On A View From the North, vulgar left-wing mouthpiece CanadianCynic is trying to attack me with whatever he can no matter how impotent. Check this out:

IRRESISTIBLE UPDATE: I fought this -- truly, I did -- but, finally, I have to draw your attention to the Wonkette-bashing article on McHue's website where, down in update four, we read:

You can't say they weren't warned. I've cleaned out the vulgar, trollish comments and banned those responsible.

"Banned"? "Banned", you say? My word, this can't be the same Jinx McHue who, only recently, was so adamantly defending the notion of free speech, could it? I'm shocked, shocked, that McHue insists on wandering over here on a regular basis, dumping his insulting, right-wing swill all over my blog, and yet apparently denies some of his critics the same freedom over there. Gosh, if I wasn't feeling so charitable, I'd suggest that McHue was a complete hypocrite.

Fish. Barrel. Boom.

Contrary to CC's false portrayl, I've never stated that free speech is absolute. In fact, he should know this as I have made comments about the issue on his own blog here:

Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot enter my home and say anything you want. You cannot say anything you want over a school P.A. system. You cannot lie under oath (well, you can, but you'll get in deep trouble for it... unless you're Bill Clinton). You cannot engage in protest activities in private or semi-private places where others don't want it, and usually you can't protest in public without special permission and licenses.

And here:

CC: And no one was claiming that free speech was absolute and unlimited.

Oh, really?

"To wit....the US Constitution states that Free Speech is a given. Therefore, to suppress it is wrong. There is nothing more to declare."

Sure sounds to me like Gaz is saying the freedom of speech is absolute. "Free speech is a given, therefore, to suppress it is wrong." If someone cannot say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, that is suppressing free speech. If you come into my home and I say you can't swear or blaspheme my religion, that is suppressing your free speech. If a school prevents students from saying whatever they want over the P.A. system, that is suppressing free speech.

CC: This is known as a "strawman argument" -- misrepresent your opponent to refute a position they never took.

Yes, it is. Glad to know you recognize your own argument for what it is.

CC: But, as I said, let's humour Mr. McHue. I'm not sure what he's suggesting here -- that there's no such thing as a right to free speech? Surely that can't be it.

No, it's not. We have a right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. I'm not even suggesting that. I'm asserting that because it's true.

CC: But let's use his own logic, not on the First Amendment, but on the Second. Many conservatives would claim that the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms.

Yes, we do, but again, that right is not absolute.

CC: Using McHue's own logic (which he cannot now disavow),

I don't disavow my own logic, but I do disavow your false portrayl of my logic, hypocrite.

CC: we can similarly say that the right to bear arms is not absolute.

Of course it's not! Geez, man. What was it you said above? "And no one was claiming that free speech was absolute and unlimited." Despite the fact that someone actually did do that, apply that statement to your argument, if you can. "And no one was claiming that the right to bear arms was absolute and unlimited." Contrary to the statement about free speech, this statement is actually true. I never said anything at all about the right to bear arms before this post.

CC: You can't bring weapons to schools. You can't take them on airplanes, and so on, and so on. So what would we conclude from this? Apparently, according to McHue, there is no right to bear arms.

And I trust we can all see just how absurd Mr. McHue's position is.ROFLMBO!!! No, but we can see just how absurd your false portrayl of my position is. I never said anything even close to the effect that since freedom of speech is not absolute, that means there is no freedom of speech. THAT ARGUMENT IS ENTIRELY YOUR OWN LYING FABRICATION.

CC: As if we needed any help.

You need all the help you can get, my friend. Desperately.

CC: Cue: Mr. McHue scrambling frantically to change the subject so as to not admit that he just made a fool of himself. Again.

lol!!! Who's fabricating false arguments I am supposedly making? Who's babbling on about the Second Amendment? YOU are the one scrambling frantically to change the subject, CC. It is YOU who cannot admit being wrong and a fool.

Again and again and again and again.

Notice that CC failed to respond to that last post.

Anyway, this is my response to his latest attack:

It's very simple, simpleton. My blog. My rules. Don't follow them? Expect consequences. It's the same as if you entered my home and started spouting off obscenities.

Besides, the comments I deleted and the posters I banned offered nothing but obscenities. Posters who actually offered something worth responding to but used an obscenity or two had their comments editted only to remove the obscenities and the posters were not banned.

You know, if you don't like my "insulting, right-wing swill" and prefer only to have your vulgar, left-wing offal, then edit out my posts and ban me (I don't remember if that can be done with the base Blogger comments, though). It's your site and that's your perogative.

Nice attempt at once again falsely painting me as a hypocrite, though. Too bad the fish you're shooting at are fake and the barrel is imaginary.

If he bans me, I would have no problem with that. It's his blog and he makes the rules. I would just have to resign myself to responding to his leftist offal here. *winkwink*