Thomas McCullock finally responded. It took 9 months of letters, but he finally gave in. But then he didn't give me a real response. Just some verbal abuse. Oh well. Typical of the Left that don't listen to anyone but his or her own kind. Yet his website had stated:
"The views presented on this website may or may not represent the views of the owner. The idea is to make you think, not just tell you what I think. I won't give Democrats, progressives or anyone else a free pass. (I even criticize my own positions.) The answer to right-wing propaganda isn't to balance it out with left-wing propaganda; the answer is honest objectivity. So, while the positions presented on my website don't always represent what I personally believe, I feel it's necessary to be honest enough to challenge our beliefs with compelling arguments. If we don't, then our opinions matter little."
Sounds like a balanced website. Ready to challenge and engage every opinion. Willing to post and listen to various opinions. Whoops. NOT! Since I called him on it, he has removed the "/about" section including the above quote from his website. The "truth" Mr. McCullock posts here is:
"I did respond to this nutcase. But rather than engage in a dialogue, he commenced to sending me this same email, over and over again. Every day. For months. So I put the twit on my "blocked senders" list."
So he blocked my emails instead of responding because he didn't agree with them. Now it's my understanding that a "dialog" is between two people. If he never responded, there is no dialog. Even if he didn't agree with what I had to say, according to his website, he should have allowed it in his Letters section. So now the truth is known. On to the nice emails he sent to me. Email #1, day 1 of response:
Do you actually have a brain, or do you just have some psychotic compulsion to send the same damn thing over and over again. If you want to dialogue, then dialogue, but quit acting like a f***ing MORON.
So I sent him a dialog response:
I can't see how [that you say your site is balanced] is possibly true seeing as how you won't print even letters that bring dissent to things written on your site. It seems like the one who is biased to one view and is suppressing the freedom of speech and expression is you, Mr. McCullock. I send it over and over because you have never replied to it. I send it over and over because I "want to be heard" (according to your web site). The letter below your reply IS my dialog. If expressing my freedoms by sending you a letter is making me an "f****ing MORON", then I pity you, sir. You are calling all those who express dissent and opinion on your site by the same name. I hope you will be a real man and tell them so directly or post it on your home page. They should be informed of the truth of how you really feel about dissent and opinion. I'm thinking that if you call them names they might just go to other sites that allow freedom of speech and expression. Hope this helps explain things. Pete
So he banned my normal email, then my online email account. So the next day I also sent him the response on my Gmail account. I thought he wanted dialog, but instead it infuriated him. Email #2, day 2 of response:
I did reply to it.
You responded by sending me the same f***ing crap, over and over and over.
Then he proceeded to update his website to say anyone could feel free to voice their opinion except the idiot who sends more than one email. Nice! Then he sent me email #3, day 2 of response:
I've updated my about page just for you. Feel better?
Don't bother replying, you clearly won't engage in honest dialogue, so I've added you to my email blacklist. goodbye. get help.
So now we don't know what "honest dialog" is. I try to respond honestly and non-abusively to his website's Letters section. What I get is a guy who is so far to the left that he won't let anything non-lefty into his inbox or on his website. Then I get verbal abuse instead of the honest dialog he keeps talking about. I'm not sure I understand the far-Left's mindset. If I were a lefty that day after day protested in front of the White House, I'm sure I would have been heard. If you're tenacious and persistent and Moderate (or God forbid, Conservative) you are not allowed a voice. Your dissent is NOT allowed. Shut up and sit down! If you don't like it, leave the country! Then he removes any hint of text involving allowing balanced content on his site. Oh well.
Below is the start of letters to ThomasMc.com. Enjoy.
Ever notice how those from the far-left won't admit they are indeed, far-left?
Ever notice that the farther you go to the Left, the farther towards the right
the Middle seems? Ever notice how dissent is one-sided for those on the far-left.
President Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism".
It becomes very clear to me that this quote only applies to the left, smearing
the current President. They don't apply it to rationally putting to question
government actions. That would require facts, figures, and research, and all
of these, it would seem, are foreign to the far left. Does the extreme left
think they are above reproach and any question of action? Well, this site
won't print letters that have a different view then their own. See for yourself.
The original page is here. Here
is the first paragraph from the link:
There is a lot of talk these days about patriotism and dissent. Most Americans have confused Patriotism with Nationalism, though the two are often diametrically opposed. Waving a flag is Nationalism. Dissent is Patriotism. "My country, right or wrong" and "USA: Love it or Leave it" is Nationalism. Pointing out dangerous flaws in government policy is Patriotism. Telling people to "Shut up and get in line with the President" or "If you don't like it, move to France" is the antithesis of Democracy.
The letter I have been sending them daily without response since July 8th, 2004 is as follows:
I was researching some Pres. Jefferson quotes and came upon your "Dissent and Patriotism" page. One thing I noticed is that you state that "flag waving is Nationalism." However, you did not state the obvious; that flag waving is also Patriotism.
The quotes are all from great Americans, some of them Presidents. I don't quite understand why your site seems to have limits on the Patriots you list. According to the great men's quotes and the written definition, there are other great men who should be named who have found flaws in the government and have striven to protect the country from the government. During the 1990s one could easily say that Newt Gingrich was a Patriot. All the men who would not let President Clinton get away with perjury were Patriots. All the men who embraced the impeachment trial were also Patriots. Those who dug to find the truth in Whitewater must be Patriots as well.
In 1939 and 1940, 80% of Americans were against US involvement in the European war with Hitler. According to your definition of Patriot, (it's antonym being "traitor") then all US soldiers who went to fight Hitler instead of Japan, are traitors. All those that died in North Africa and Europe died not as heroes, but as enemies of the country's popular opinion. Only those who fought the country that actually attacked the US to declare war (Japan), are Patriots according to the definition listed. If you stress the current Patriots you should also mention the past ones for a sort of balance.
Who would you say the Patriots were in the Civil War in the US? How about with the Texas situation with Mexico? Who were the Patriots in the Chechnya/Russia situation? Or the Serbian ethnic cleansing in the 1990s? Or the slaughter of thousands of Indians in our country in the 19th and 20th centuries? How about the takeover in Hawaii? And how about the immigrants who bring their own heritage and values here and think the Constitution is an open book?
Many of these questions are answered differently by different people depending on how one was brought up (family values), where you lived, what ethnicity you family is, and what age one is (what era were you when these events took place in your family). Currently I see questions such as these answered solely on the fact that they hate the government official in question. President Jefferson also said, "It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions." So does someone like Mr. Soros have America in mind or does he just hate the President? If you research Soros you will find in his past he was accused of destabilizing world currencies and wrecking the economies of nations. Did he have patriotism for a certain country in mind then? A French court found him guilty of insider trading and fined him $2.3 million in 2002. Then in the article by Charlie Reese, Soros seems to state we're in a "laissez-faire capitalism" society. That idea has been lost since the 1930s. I know his idea of current "social Darwinism" is false as well. That died when Industrialized nations began making laws about public health, child labor, and the control of monopolies of various types. Does he love money, the American people, or his animosity of President Bush himself?
I suppose I don't fully understand the definition of a Patriot; at least not the one that is written about in your stories through ThomasMc. I supported President Clinton in what he did. I heard alot of left-wingers saying, "love it or leave it" at that time. Even though he invaded 8 countries without Congressional approval, I felt it was for the protection of America and it's values. I feel the same with the current administration, much to the chagrin of most of your readers. But how can anyone support both these administrations, one might ask. I live in PA for starters. Some of the people I know don't even vote here. People here figure if they do their 40, take their check and go home for the weekend, they're living a full life. They could care less who is President; I've asked them. If the one they didn't vote for gets in; so be it. They don't try to find something wrong with the man or smear him because they feel anger for "not being heard".
The President and Congress are civil servants and are only men. They can only do what they feel is best for the country. I realize that this sort of "complacency" angers people like Michael Moore and that voice. But if everyone stood up and "fought for what they believed in" all the time, there would be no time to live one's life. The people here live their lives and are no less an American than one on a soapbox. Then I ask, "does this make them traitors because they don't voice dissent?" Or are they Patriots because they love and respect the country that they live and support its authority and interests. That's Webster's definition of Patriot. Is it the true one?
Thanks for listening,
This letter never has, and never will be posted by this site.
Definition according to Webster: "patriot--one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
Another definition according to Webster: "democracy--a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections;
democracy--capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S."
---Notice they capitalized the word democracy on ThomasMc. So I guess, "..Telling people to 'Shut up and get in line with the President' or 'If you don't like it, move to France' is the antithesis of Democracy" is a true statement under the last section of the definition. Freudian slip? I think not.
This letter also posted at MySpinZone.net