| August 16, 2017 | 218 Comments

Yesterday, I told the story about how someone had mistaken me for a filthy Nazi in Charlottesville. Luckily, someone spotted the perp spreading her lies and sent me a screen shot;

So she has seen the error of her ways as some of my allies explained it to her, but it turns out that her source was our old friend, Ric Bucklew, the phony Navy SEAL. He’s been trying unsuccessfully to sue me in West Virginia so he can be a Navy SEAL again. He can count on the judge reading these the next time we go to court;

Some of his friends might find themselves at his table, too;

As I’ve said, I’m not a Nazi, I have no sympathy for their cause, I wasn’t in Charlottesville. I’m not a racist and I have more than 74,000 posts on this blog to prove that I don’t have a hateful bone in my body.

I don’t like liars, and Ric Bucklew is a liar – he can’t beat me in court, so he thinks he can destroy me on the internet. That’s cute.

Category: Dumbass Bullshit

Comments (218)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. No, You Are Not a Good Person - Victory Girls Blog | August 16, 2017
  1. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    IMHO there is NO end to the slovenly chickenshit stunts that a number of those shmendrik dregs will stoop to.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Those antifa protests are really protests, API. They are staged events aimed at being as destructive as possible.
      The more destructive they are, the more they anger and repel people who might otherwise sympathize with them, even on a very small scale. It’s better to make this kind of thing as public as possible, to show how destructive it is, than to whine about it, suppress it and shove it out of sight.
      The more they beat up people who won’t join them, the more they piss those same people off.

      • jonp says:

        We have seen Antifa vs Nazi’s before. 20’s and early 30’s Germany. The Communists vs Nazis and that time the Nazi’s won. History all over again and isn’t it interesting that the MSM is totally uninterested in exposing who the “counter protesters” were? America hating BLM who riots and chants “Death To The Pigs”, Antifa who burn down everything in sight and loot stores, Anarchists that are pretty silly if you get down to it but can be counted on to show up in black with masks and clubs to join the fun? Wonder who is funding all this rent-a-mob?

    • desert says:

      Just proves you can’t expect honor, from no integrity pukes!

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Ric Bucklew is an amateur at everything he does.

  3. ChipNASA says:

    Yeah, these guys will never learn until a judge stomps on their junk in court and makes them cry for their stupidity.
    Even then, they may *still* “not get it” and believe they’re always in the right.
    I just hope lengthy incarceration is involved for many of these geniuses.
    Sooner rather than later.

  4. Graybeard says:

    Richard “Ric” Bucklew the phony SEAL, huh?
    Richard “Ric” Bucklew the guy who took a dump on his honorable service with a honey-wagon load of lies?
    Richard “Ric” Bucklew the liar?

    Richard “Ric” Bucklew is gonna be so happy to see his name in Google-lights again, isn’t he?

  5. IDC SARC says:

    kinda nice of Bucky to use his real name while being such slanderous D-Bag.

  6. FatCircles0311 says:

    Leftists gonna leftist. What insufferable cunts.

    Does anybody else see the irony of unhinged violent lunatics trying to destroy history and claiming the people that resist them as being “American ISIS”?

    Maybe TAH should do a comparison article regarding the types of people that try to erase history and which groups they belong to.

      • Jeffro says:

        Yup. My thoughts exactly when I saw the flags.

      • CB Senior says:

        “Sorry for Fighting in your Black Panther Party”

        Way to endear yourself to Americans,
        both Flags equally despicable.
        You punch the Nazi with the right Fist and Punch the Commie with the left.
        Equal treatment under the law.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I still think putting them all together in a big stadium and letting them duke it out until only one is left is a good idea. And shoot the one that’s left when it’s over, just to put IT out of our misery.

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        Something Trump gets wrong is that the counter-protesters did have a permit. According to City of Charlottesville records, one was apparently granted to a UVA professor for a protest to take place at the same place and time as the one for the alt-right. The city also knew it was likely the alt-right faction was going to be outnumbered two-to-one as a result of the required crowd size estimate on the permit applications.

        An argument might be made that Charlottsville city officials placed a powder keg downtown, lit the fuse, and hoped those nasty neo-Nazis would get their asses kicked.

        Personally, I’ve got a low regard for the radical-right lunatic fringe. On the other hand, strident SJW demands to pull down Confederate monuments is starting to seem a lot like book burning.

        • jdm says:

          There is nothing conservative or right wing about NAZIS or KKK got that! What part of National Socialist Workers Party do you not get? The Nazi’s where big socialist and liberals hell they where allies with Muslim Countries .

          • Perry Gaskill says:

            I understand what you’re saying, but you might have missed the point, which was that Charlottesville granted permits for both sides. A local guy named Jason Kessler filed for Unite the Right which was representative of those opposed to pulling down the Lee monument. Those supporting Kessler included fringe groups such as neo-Nazis and KKK supporters.

            The other side apparently had no formal name. A permit for it was requested by Walt Heinecke, a UVA professor. This group was made up of SJW factions such as Black Lives Matter, Democratic Socialists of America, and others. They were very much opposed to Unite the Right and supportive of getting rid of the Lee Monument.

            You can put any label you want on things, including calling Lee’s horse Traveller an Episcopalian, but it won’t alter the basic facts. For what it’s worth, my own opinion is that if Charlottesville officials were serious about wanting to avoid violence, they would not have granted protest permits for both groups to be in the same place at the same time.

            One interesting theory in political science, it seems to make about as much sense as anything else when dealing with moonbat fringes, is that the political spectrum is circular instead of linear. Groups such as the KKK and BLM are in that strange place where things loop back around and meet each other on the dark side.

            • Valerie says:

              You do know that Kessler was an Obama supporter and a member of Occupy Wall Street?

              • Perry Gaskill says:

                I wasn’t until you pointed it out. The root source is also apparently the SPLC which wouldn’t seem to have a reason to lie about it. Bizarre or diabolical, take your pick, if true.

            • timactual says:

              “they would not have granted protest permits for both groups to be in the same place at the same time.”

              They didn’t. The “Antifa” people decided they didn’t need to abide by their permit restrictions. What a surprise.

          • Casey says:

            Yeah, and Barry Obama was moderate, and the DPRK really is a democratic republic.

            Just because someone uses a word to describe themselves doesn’t make it true.

        • Yef says:

          Once again, Peter Gaskill doesn’t get it, and falls for the MSM narrative.

          The Nazis and fascists are not right. They are left, socialists and authoritarians.

          They are socialism limited to an specific ethnic group.

          Read about their policies.

          The real right are constitutional conservatives, with freedom for everyone, not just the selected few.

          Why is this so hard to understand?

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              Incorrect, Perry Gaskill.

              Yef is correct, you are not. Nazis were/are leftwing extremists and socialists. They are NOT right-wingers. Neither ar Fascists. What part of REAL history escapes you?

              • Perry Gaskill says:

                Ex, where did I say Nazis were conservatives? That was apparently something Yef assumed in order to pick a fight. Of course the Nazis were socialist; it was part of the name of the party. They were also reactionary in that Hitler wanted to return Germany to the glory days of Bismark. Socialism was the means to achieve a reactionary goal.

                You and Yef might want to dial down what you see as a perceived threat on my part to conservatism, because it’s not true, and it gets in the way of understanding, IMHO, a more interesting set of dynamics. Something such as what Valerie mentions above.

                • timactual says:

                  I believe “nationalist” is a more correct term than “reactionary”.

                  “A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society,”


                  Hitler certainly didn’t want to return to a Monarchy.

                  • Perry Gaskill says:

                    Dunno. Nationalism seems to me to imply sovereignty and geographic boundaries. Being a reactionary tends to be more about reverting back to prior policies after, say, a failure of progressive policies. Also, Bismark was appointed by Wilhelm I who was monarch by heredity. Personally, I can see Hitler wanting to emulate Bismark without wanting to be another Wilhelm I.

              • Ex-PH2 says:

                All right, I’ll accept your response, but you infer in the comment which Yef responded to that the Nazis were right-wing.
                All of these extremists creating disturbances now are left-wing, unless I missed something. I have yet to see any real right-wingers, including TEA Partiers, showing up at these things.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Really, FatCircles, that’s not an article. It’s a major study in disconnection from reality. It’s also an in-depth investigation into what drives this lunacy, other than getting paid to do it, of course. They’re all just nuts, in my view.

    • Commissar says:

      Knock off the erasing history bullshit.

      We don’t have statues up of George III or the Torie loyalists (despite the fact that *we* were the ones committing treason). We don’t have statues in memory of General Santa Ana and Mexican soldiers (despite the fact that many states were once part of Mexico).

      We don’t erect statues of our enemies.

      Confederate statues are statues of traitors. If the South had won we would not be anything close to the world power we are today. In fact the South would have probably not industrialized before WWII (slavery delayed souther industrialization) and it is unclear if the South would even have fought on the side of the Allies or fought at all. The outcomes of WWII would have been decidedly different if the US had been divided into two nations.

      And Civil War was fought over the institution of slavery. Calling it “states rights” is revisionist bullshit. Southern states took both sides on issues of states rights during the first 75 years of our union depending on which side of the issue was to their benefit. Notably they opposed states rights on the issue of slavery arguing that states did not have the right to abolish slavery (several slaveholding states at the time of the signing of the constitution later moved to abolish slavery and southern slaveholding states opposed their right to do so).

      It was not until it was clear that the new non-slave holding states being admitted to the union were going to make the abolition of slavery a political inevitability that the south seceded. And they did it preemptively.

      • IDC SARC says:

        Written with authority…but somehow I doubt you attended a dedication to one of these monuments in question….ever

        So, your assertions regarding their etiology and current presence is speculative and likely tailored to your own bias.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          I guess the all-knowing refuses to recognize that the Civil War erupted to destroy the economy of the South, which was almost entirely dependent on cotton and tobacco farming. Cotton went to textile mills in England, where it was spun into thread to make cloth of all sorts, and ditto linen, which is derived from flax plants, as well as the export of tobacco, shipping of war materials to the South.

          “During the Civil War, Union forces established a blockade of Confederate ports designed to prevent the export of cotton and the smuggling of war materiel into the Confederacy. The blockade, although somewhat porous, was an important economic policy that successfully prevented Confederate access to weapons that the industrialized North could produce for itself. The U.S. Government successfully convinced foreign governments to view the blockade as a legitimate tool of war. It was less successful at preventing the smuggling of cotton, weapons, and other materiel from Confederate ports to transfer points in Mexico, the Bahamas, and Cuba, as this trade remained profitable for foreign merchants in those regions and elsewhere.” – from the Office of the Historian:

          It’s an inconvenience, isn’t it? That you to have to actually dig up the truth and read it, never mind having to absorb it and remember it the next time that bloviating asshole runs his ignorant mouth.

          The Civil War was aimed at destroying the economy of the South, nothing more. Lincoln didn’t give a rat’s tiny little ass about slavery, period. Cotton that did not get to textile mills in England resulted in an economic bobble, because without cotton from Southern states, the textile mills had to shut down.

          Is that simple enough for you, COMMISSAR LARS TAYLOR, you ignorant ass?

      • Jonn Lilyea says:

        But we stole Saddam Hussein’s black beret.

      • SFC D says:

        Apparently, Galileo was wrong. The earth actually revolves around Lars and the sun shines from his ass. Who knew. Time to revise THAT history.

      • MSG Eric says:

        Actually, there are statues all over Hawaii of those “losers” as you put it.

        Hawaiian History is a required class in high school. Most people there speak a variety of words from other languages, including Hawaiian.

        And by your same logic, should we then send every African American who was born in the US to Africa because they are a product of Slave trading? (Between African tribes and slave traders for Europe and the Americas) So we can erase any mention or sight of “bad times” that happened in America due to slavery? I’m sure the Neo-Nazis would love for that to happen.

        The US Government has done some very crappy things to people around the world, but also to its own citizens. Should we remove the entirety of the US Capital because bad decisions were made there? Should Egypt tear down the pyramids because slave labor was used to help build them? Should Japan be wiped off the map because of the horrible things they did to POWs, Filipinos, etc., during WW2? Plenty of examples of bad things throughout history that people seem perfectly fine with….

      • Alberich says:

        We don’t have statues up of George III or the Torie loyalists (despite the fact that *we* were the ones committing treason). We don’t have statues in memory of General Santa Ana and Mexican soldiers (despite the fact that many states were once part of Mexico).

        We do, however, have statues of Sitting Bull (South Dakota) and Quanah Parker (Texas). Since the descendants of the Comanches and Lakota Sioux are Americans, part of reconciliation is allowing them to honor parts of their heritage; and also to pay tribute to brave enemies. This doesn’t stop them being loyal Americans.

        I’ve seen something similar at concerts of the Black Watch Pipes and Drums…they play songs about William Wallace and 1745 and all the rest of it…but they fight loyally for the United Kingdom just the same. If you’ve seen the “ambush” near the end of Gunga Din, that’s the Black Watch playing a song about “Bonnie Cherlie.”

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        False equivalence, Lars. The monuments aren’t to honor a foreign enemy, they’re a means for the South to honor, on its own soil, the sacrifice of its sons. Whether their cause was just is not the entire point to them, and what Berkeley thinks is irrelevant.

        Something else the left chooses to ignore is that, at least from the perspective of veterans, you can loathe the cause your enemy fights for, but still have a grudging respect for his ability to fight well and with honor. A couple of examples might be Irwin Rommel of the Afrika Corps, or Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.

        I also disagree about the states rights versus abolition issue, but would rather debate Hondo, who knows more about the Civil War and the slavery topic than you do.

      • 11B-mailclerk says:

        The Democrats were the insurrectionists then, and apparently mean to be the insurrectionists again.

        Their thugs wear black masks and hoodies, and their message is “shut up and obey or we will hurt you”. A previous incarnation wore white hoods and masks. Same shitheads, differnet garb.

        The goal is to bring down the government, because they don’t like the outcome of the election.

        Just like before.

        Stop this insanity. Stop aiding and abetting it. Open your eyes.

      • swormy says:

        “Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged.” 
        Abraham Lincoln

        Lars, even Lincoln knew we could learn lessons from our history. He wanted to welcome the south back as fellow citizens not as traitors.

        You and yours wish to erase history rather than allowing others to gain wisdom from it.

      • gitarcarver says:


        History is often more nuanced than people would often believe. Forgetting those nuances plus an ignorance of history is a dangerous thing.

        It can be argued that the South seceded, fought the Civil War and filled its military ranks because of “State Rights.” The average soldier or person in the South did not own slaves so saying they were fighting for slavery is contrary to history. They were fighting against what they saw as oppressive government many miles and weeks away in some cases. That’s the common view of the average soldier. For leaders and the wealthy in the South, they too were fighting for “States Rights,” but the number one thing on their list as an example of States Rights was slavery to the point where “States Rights” and “slavery” were interchangable. It is impossible for anyone to argue that for the political leaders and even the well to do, the South seceding was about slavery. The nuance is what the average person believed as compared to the political and well to do.

        However, if you want to say that the South was fighting to preserve slavery, what was the North fighting for? There were still states in the North at the start of the Civil War that had slaves. If ending slavery was the driving issue in the North to fight the Civil War, why did it take over three years to pass the 13th Amendment and over 4 years to have the states ratify as an Amendment to the Constitution?

        It is wrong to view the mores of people 160 years ago in light of today. Back in the 1860’s most people never traveled more than 50 miles away from their homes. Their allegiance was more often than not to their neighbors and to their states far ahead of any allegiance to the Federal government. In fact, when one looks at military units from the founding of the country until WWI, the names of the units were almost always associated with states – not with the government. That’s how strong the ties to states people on both sides of the Civil War were.

        One has to view the choices of men – military men – in the South in that light. For example, Robert E, Lee was a hero in the Mexican American War (while owning slaves.) He was only one of two men who went through the US Military Academy without a single demerit (while owning slaves.) He served as that institution’s superintendent (while owning slaves.) He was was ordered to stop John Brown ar Harper’s Ferry and did so (while owning slaves.) He was offered the overall command of Northern forces by the US government while owning slaves.

        We can sit here today and judge these men for their actions, but I believe it is better to have their contemporaries judge them. That judgement is that only a few people were ever charged with, much less convicted of treason for fighting in the Civil War for the South.

        In fact, both Johnson and Grant installed men who had fought for the South into positions of the US government after the war. That’s how much they thought the men were “traitors.”

        The bottom line is that there will always be people who don’t understand the times, and nuances of that period in history and will fight to continue to display a large ignorance of those times and the people.

        For example, and you make this mistake in a post below, people scream about the “Confederate flag” what is commonly called the “Stars and Bars.” Yet that flag was NEVER the flag of the Confederate States of America. Not ever. It was a battle flag and one that was not universally used by Southern units.

        Does that ignorance make a difference? You bet your butt it does. While one can say that the Southern leaders wanted to protect the institution of slavery and the country they formed had its own national flag (several, in fact) the men in the fields didn’t care. They saw the Stars and Bars being carried by their brothers, their neighbors, and fellow state citizens. The Stars and Bars represented that to the men – not slavery. To deny that is pure ignorance.

        In short, I understand that nothing I say here will persuade you of the nuances of the Civil War. Sadly, nothing I say will cure your ignorance either.

        Have a good day.

        • Elizabeth Conboy says:

          Well said. Thank you.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          On the other hand, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, various Articles of Secession,and various letters accompanying and explaining the Articles all mention Slavery rather prominently.

          The Missouri Compromise, Kansas/Nebraska act, Fugitive Slave Act, etc, were certainly major pre-war points of contention, and were not about Tarrifs or such.

          Simple review of documents of the era and archived news articles shows Slavery was a major point of contention of that period.

          -Southern- writing included.

          • gitarcarver says:

            11B Mailclerk,

            I agree. But once again, please notice the distinction and nuance between the “higher crust” for which the war was certainly about slavery = states rights and states rights = slavery and the common guy digging in the dirt and mud who didn’t like a government miles and weeks away from him as well as being detached from him, trying to tell him how to live his life. In writings of and oral histories of the common man, the intrusion of the Federal government was a driving force to the war.

            I would never – not ever – argue that the Civil War was not fought by the South leaders over slavery. But the way I like to couch and shorten the discussion is to make this statement:

            “The South fought the Civil War over States Rights. The first thing they wanted protected under States Rights was slavery.”

            It seems clear to me that the upper realm of Southern society – the ones who actually held slaves and profited from them – were desperately trying to protect slavery. To them, the effects of the terms “slavery” and “States Rights” were interchangeable in speeches, letters, newspapers, etc. But the common man cared about his land and his family and wanted to be left alone and not deal with Federal regulations. To him, “States Rights” had a different meaning as to how it affected him.

            The problem that I see today is that we look back on the Civil War and try to take a very complex issue and try to boil it down to one thing. I don’t think that works. I think that is bad history or at least a misrepresentation / understatement of history.

            Hope that clears that up a bit.

        • just some feller says:

          Hear, Hear!!

          10 ancestors/relatives fought for the Confederate States of America; none was a slave owner.

          However …
          3 colonial ancestors were major slave owners. Two were Proprietary Governors of Carolina (before NC/SC)- father & son; and one was acting Royal Governor after his brother-in-law died in office. All three had vast plantations just outside Charleston.

        • timactual says:

          The US was often referred to as “These United States”, rather than “The …”. The states were, after all, sovereign nations not long before, and commanded the same degree of loyalty.

          If you can recognize the courage and sacrifice of German and Japanese soldiers without condoning the cause they fought for, then I think we can do at least as much for our own countrymen.

      • USAFRetired says:

        We may not have erected statues of our enemies but neither did we prevent them from doing so and in some the same applies.

        You might start with the American Battle Monuments Commission website and see where we have memorials in places like Mexico and Cuba.

        Or you may want to do a little research and find out in this the 21st Century, the Germans have established similar monuments/memorials inside Russia and other formerly Nazi occupied countries from WWII.

        The National Cemetery where my parents are buried includes Confederate dead, United States Colored Troop (USCT) dead as well as Union dead and the fallen who served in the intervening 150+ years.

    • Commissar says:

      There is also no period in our history better researched, studied, and published about than the civil war.

      Nobody is erasing that period in our history.

      We are just moving forward.


      Something that is long overdue.

      The final flag to fly over the South was the white flag of surrender.

      It is time the south honors that flag.

      • SFC D says:

        “There is also no period in our history better researched, studied, and published about than the civil war.”

        Not by you. Clown.

      • MSG Eric says:

        Actually, I think we know more and there is more information about the Bin Laden raid then any other period in history. I bet we could even find out what kind of bubble gum those Team members preferred to have with them on the mission somewhere.

        It’d be nice if we knew as much about what was going on in the white house and State Dept HQ during a particular 13 hours in Benghazi, but I don’t think there’s even been confirmation of where exactly POTUS and SecState were during that time frame published anywhere….

        I don’t know much about the Civil War, but there are plenty of people who study it and know quite a bit about it and what happened, I’m sure quite a few could present facts from a variety of sources that disagree with your point of view about it.

      • Sparks says:

        If we are “just moving forward”, then when will the rhetoric about slavery still being the cause of blacks being poor, treated unjustly, etc. stop? When will the blacks as a whole, make use of the benefits afforded then through the Civil Rights Act and other legislation designed to help them, give them an advantage in getting an education, a leg up in employment and so forth? The biggest reason I see for the American black community being where they are today is their own choices over the last 4 to 5 decades. What is long overdue is for the black community to live and build their lives by the words of Martin Luther King and not Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their ilk. IMHO.

        • Graybeard says:

          In fact, Sparks, if one were to read the writings of George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglas, one would find that Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of a long line of eloquent and mentally adept men to argue the case for equal treatment before the law.

          None of these men desired to put another person, male or female, down in order to elevate themselves. None of them would receive Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson as a fellow-laborer.

      • Alberich says:

        The final flag to fly over the South was the white flag of surrender. It is time the south honors that flag.

        Already did, in 1865. There was no guerilla resistance. The time to crush and humiliate the enemy is during, and, if necessary immediately after the war. After that, you either cut his throat or help him to his feet…and if it was a civil war, you reconcile. And if part of that is letting people honor their ancestors with a few memorials here and there, so be it.

        Reconciliation worked beautifully – which is why southerners have fought loyally in all our wars since then. The south suffered plenty during the war–and got the message, and there were no rebellions afterward.

        Rituals of humiliation now don’t serve any purpose. Better to see southerners as your fellow citizens, not as a conquered enemy who has to be crushed down psychologically, now and forevermore.

      • Toasty Coastie says:

        Hey Sparkle Pony Commissar!

        Apparently, you have selective history memory. So here’s a refresher Flap Dragon.,_Seattle

      • Usafvet509 says:

        Really? You gonna come here and make me give up my Confederate flag, Poodledick? I’d love to see you try, mouthy little bitch

        • Commissar says:

          I don’t give a shit what flag you fly you ignorant piece of shit.

          Fly your racist flag high. Over your private property.

          But it has no business flying over US government building or flying on US government property. It is the flag of traitors.

          The confederacy is dead. It lost. It was on the wrong side of the war and the wrong side of history.

          Be proud of your pathetic loser mythical alt-history heritage.

          I bet you are one of those racist pieces of shit that use the term “War of Northern Aggression”. A 1950s jim crow era term by revisionist armchair historians.

          But the last flag to fly over the confederacy was the white flag of surrender.

          That is an indisputable fact of history. The confederacy lost. And not amount of historical revision or southern pride myth making will change that FACT.

          • GDContractor says:

            Oh goody. Please call The Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Roanoke Virginia and tell all those nice black folks that they are racist pieces of shit.


          • Jonn Lilyea says:

            Yeah, I’m going to save this comment to send to you when you ask why you got moderated.

            • Commissar says:

              Oh, I am sorry Jon.

              I used bad words.

              I guess people with military experience have sensitivity to bad words because they are never said in the military by anyone ever.

              I would like to point out that it was in direct response to USAFVet509 calling me a “mouthy little bitch”.

              And the number of times my posts, even ones that have no attacks or swearing, are responded to by personal attacks with swear words never even raises and eyebrow with you.

              • RM3(SS) says:

                It isn’t the swear words Lars. It’s your strident and dismissive attitude towards any differing opinions. You come across as an angry dismissive liberal who derides and ridicules anyone who dares to disagree.
                Can you conceive the notion that other people have opinions that differ from yours? Show respect if you want it returned. Calling people idiots and stupid won’t work here.

                • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                  RM3(SS) – many of us have tried since he showed up here to tell him to be somewhat respectful and tome it down, but he continues to shit all over the place over any political subject. It’s just a matter of time before Jonn drops the TAH banhammer of Hell on LARS TAYLOR.

                  • RM3(SS) says:

                    I pity him, he’s seems so oblivious to his deficits. I’m sure it doesn’t help that he lives in the alt-left echo chamber of Bezerkley. What a sad, lonely man he must be to constantly seek attention this way.

                • 11B-mailclerk says:

                  Its his diversion. If he only sees the potty-mouth stuff as the issue, he can’t contemplate the actual problem, and he can keep on being smug about his imagined superiority.

            • Wilted Willy says:

              You would do us all a great service if you get rid of this bed wetting piece of shit! Be gone poodle dick! Red on the head like the dick on a dog!

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              The sneering, abrasive response by Taylor to Jonn’s comment has the most disrespectful slant to it that I’ve seen in a long time. Taylor is so combative, so intent on shaking the hornet’s nest, and so self-centered that he’s really silly enough to respond with a comment about profanity on a blog where comments are frequently awash in it.
              He never takes any responsibility for anything he says, no matter how wrong he is – and he is frequently wrong – and his level of denial is taller than the tassels of the current crop of Silver Queen, now curing on the stalk.
              You see, none of this is his fault. It’s not HIS fault that you disagree with his views, nor is it HIS fault that you actually have the nerve to tell him he’s wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways and about so many things.

              That’s all YOUR fault because PEONES!! PAYSANNES!! PAISANOS!!!

              His blunt instrument mentality accounts for a lot of his dumbassed comments, but it’s his constant poking and prodding to get everyone to lash out at him that you simply cannot ever cure. He will never see anything any further away than the end of his nose. He is manipulative and boring and wastes your time responding to him.
              He’s like that guy who used to try to sit at one of the big round tables in the SUB, where everyone was studying for exams or reviewing papers, and try to generate a conversation when everyone wanted him to just shut up and go away, and said so in plain English.

              So you all just go on being yourselves, doing what you do, and ignore the oaf on the outer rim of the study table, okay?

          • SFC D says:

            A flag, any flag, is not now, never was, and cannot be racist. PEOPLE are racist. Human fucking beings. If an asshat in a white robe waves the US Flag in front of a burning cross, the racist is the flagwaver. Clown.

          • Usafvet509 says:

            Thanks for your permission, Commissar Poodledick. It meams so much to me. As for the rest, you got a purty mouth on you lol.

          • timactual says:

            It must be very comfortable seeing the world in black and white.

          • Jonn Lilyea says:

            Anti-Fa and their flags in Berkeley and in DC;

          • Dave Hardin says:

            Proud of you bro, you are almost starting to sound like you have a pair. Hey, he started it…I see what you did there.

            Took you long enough to stoop to my level. Just don’t ever let these loons know you are not as liberal as you make out to be…or they think you are.

            Love the White Flag comment…I am stealing that. That is probably the only thing white that Trump hates. I usually just skim over your posts…but they are showing promise.

          • just some feller says:

            Lars writes,

            I bet you are one of those racist pieces of shit that use the term “War of Northern Aggression”. A 1950s jim crow era term by revisionist armchair historians.

            Nope; but when I was growing up in Georgia I was taught it was the “War Between the States” … because “no war is civil.”

            I’m certain the invective was not directed at we who say “War Between the States”; n’cest-ce pas?

      • timactual says:

        “Nobody is erasing that period in our history.”

        Correct. Just sanitizing it. It is now becoming a thought crime to differ from the correct line. The Gulag is not far behind. We already have the Red Guards and reeducation classes and they are working on the “two minute hates”.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:


        Our National Policy after that fiasco was Reconciliation, not humiliation.

        Now some folks want to go back and grind noses into the past. Humiliation being primarily an instrument of control. That wasn’t the deal.

        The South may be prideful, but -they- are not the insurrectionists today.

        Oddly, you seem to blame the whole for the actions of a few -powerless- nincompoops. Aren’t you the one usually saying not to blame the whole for the actions of a few?

        Again, the Control-Left is hard at work, spawner of Anti-Free and other assorted anti-American shitheads. The goal is to bring down the elected government, elected under the Constitution.

        In 1861, some folks decided they didn’t like the results of the election. And now the same party is dancing the same tune.

        The folks waving the old defeated banners are not today’s secessionists, nor today’s insurrectionists. Nor are they accomplishing anything except proving we still have Free Speech, and who wants to end it.

        Once again, it is a hard core of so-called Democrats and their Anti-Free minions, opposed to our Constitutional form of government, because America has rejected their Anti-Free agenda.


        • Zip says:

          These Marxists, commies, and useful idiots are so brave, don’t you think? They will apparently only engage an enemy in combat after they have been dead for over 160 years. Such a wonderful display of courage, Comrades, knocking over silent statues and proposing to dig up and remove the long dead remains of Confederate Soldiers (

          I am no fan of the Confederacy or slavery by any stretch, but how does spitting and kicking a felled statue decrease incarceration rates, raise college entrance rates, or improve economic growth in disadvantaged communities? If it does, then I’m all for it; otherwise, this is an unproductive spectacle and we should redouble our efforts to see that our fellow Americans in underserved communities are best positioned for success.

          Should I or any of us prepare our descendants for this type of treatment when our generation is judged against an unknown criteria of historical revisionism in the future?

      • Redacted1775 says:

        “We are just moving forward”. Sure, must be why fascist left wing groups are knocking down statues commemorating a war that ended 150 years ago. Doesn’t look like moving forward at all. Moving forward is the last thing democrats want because they would lose their voting base.

  7. CB Senior says:

    Was not happy being a POSer SEAL, now he steps it up and is a POSer Internet Good Guy.

    Ric Bucklew swing and a big miss.

  8. Claymore says:

    $10 says he’ll claim he was hacked and he never posted any of that.

  9. ChipNASA says:

    Richard “Rick the Dick” “Buttclueless” Bucklew

    Eat it GOOGLE BITCH.

    You just keep racking up the Internet Hits.


    Oh and we’re still waiting for you to ‘cometh” an
    kick all our asses.

    /I love zombie threads and even better Zombie Participants who just don’t know when and how to STFU.

  10. Rock says:

    Jonn, are you countersuing the ass holes that are filing frivolous lawsuits against you?

  11. Thunderstixx says:

    What a cunt…
    Here’s hoping that Mr Tiny gets many evenings of pleasure with this asswipe…
    Don’t pick on our Jonn…
    You won’t like the results…

  12. OldSoldier54 says:

    May the Bird of Paradise crap in his cornflakes, and him not notice until he’s done eating.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      May the Little Blue Bird of Paradise fly up Richard Bucklew’s nose and take another massive shit in his sinus cavity after shitting ALL OVER his birthday cake!!!

  13. Cacti35 says:

    This is what I hate about social media. The fucking ignorant feed off of some damn lie. Jonn is a good man and does not deserve that shit!

  14. RM3(SS) says:

    Nice. Defamation on the internet can be costly, but big Ric the phoney Recon/SEAL was bragging he makes 6 figures in disability so I’m sure he has extra loot laying around. The internet is forever you useless fuck!

  15. Old 1SG, US Army (Retired) says:

    I guess you shaved, got a haircut and ditched the greasy ball cap after the rally…


    I wonder what’s the connection between the bimbette and Buckaroo?

  16. Dave Hardin says:

    You didn’t condemn Nazi’s early enough. You should have posted this while the rally was going on.

    Anderson Cooper, Van Jones, and Don Lemon are going to hear about this. Wait until they find out you support so called gun rights.


    I was not informed this was a FAR RIGHT blog prior to posting here. I was mislead by Jonn to believe it was about Veteran Issues. I should not be held responsible for what these Alt-Right loons post here. Somebody should have said something to me.

    I disavow any knowledge of their actions. I thought that thumping noise was the sound of legit veterans being thrown under a bus…I had no idea they were Bibles.

  17. Deplorable B Woodman says:

    Where does this “Fucklew-ser” live? He needs to have a visit and some counciling.

  18. Patrick408 says:

    Far right blog??
    I guess they haven’t read any of Lars responses….
    Plus this is one of the only sites i open daily to get my phony fix.
    John let me know if there is anything i can do to help with this Ric piece of shit spreading falsehoods about you.

  19. lily says:

    He’s probably a narcissist. They like to use triangulation and flying monkeys to attack.

    Flying monkeys is a phrase used in popular psychology mainly in the context of narcissistic abuse. They are people who act on behalf of a narcissist to a third party, usually for an abusive purpose. The phrase has also been used to refer to people who act on behalf of a psychopath for a similar purpose.

  20. Mark Lauer says:

    Well, Jonn, you can count on me to set the record straight should I come upon any of this bullshit as I read through the stories of the “fight for America’s freedom” between the goddamn Nazis, and the goddamn Antifa.

  21. Usafvet509 says:

    I creeped his FB. Dude even refers to himself in the 3rd person. How do I put screenshots on here?

  22. Usafvet509 says:

    Looking closer, I see he has 3 profiles on FB. 1 for each personality?

  23. Commissar says:

    The only Confederate memorial in Southern California was removed today.

    It was a small monument that stood over the grave of 40 confederate soldiers in a privately owned cemetery.

    I agree with removing confederate memorials from public grounds, particularly government buildings, and I think people who own the private spaces where memorials exist have the right to decide to remove them.

    However, I think there are two places where memorials are appropriate; graveyards and parks intended to preserve battlefield locations.

    So, I feel a little bad this memorial was removed. I tend to think you generally honor the grave sites of those who honorably served their nation (even the Confederate States of America).

    The memorial has been placed in storage. I am sure someone will contact the owner of the graveyard and negotiate a sale that will allow it to be moved to a new location. Unfortunately, the new location is likely going to celebrate modern White Nationalism and not the solemn duty of those that once served in their nation’s defense.

    • 11B-mailclerk says:

      You -could- use your own funds to purchase it, and display it in a manner you deemed appropriate. You could collect donated funds from like-minded folks to do so.

      You have that ability. You don’t have to sit back and watch something happen that you consider wrong.

      Just a thought.

    • IDC SARC says:

      I almost laughed myself right out of the chair when Dinesh says the American Democrats were even too racist for the Nazis to apply their rules.

      • MSG Eric says:

        Dinesh is an excellent speaker and does quite well against antagonists and those trying to “stump” him.

        He provides some very quality response in discussions. The best part is he’s Indian so they can’t say, “You Racist!” because that goes against their own definition of such a thing.

        I really loved when he told a kid who talked to him about, “white privilege and feeling bad about it” that, “well, it sure isn’t stopping you from being a student here at this university. You haven’t given up your ‘seat’ to a minority and paid for them to be here.”

  24. CM says:

    I would say unbelievable but it really isn’t considering the utter stupidity of both that dipshit who now caused death threats to an innocent man and also the pieces of utter dogshit who felt compelled to threaten someone or make those statements without taking the extra ten minutes to merely verify it.

    Sorry to hear you are dealing with this Lilyea. I hope you bury the harshest and most brutal legal hammer down upon him and those who bothered you. I don’t see a single apology from any of them, I don’t see a single “maybe we need to check our sources like even elementary students are taught”. I don’t see shit other than one useless fraud who has never done a single thing worth mentioning in his miserable existence feeling compelled to push death threats on someone who honorably served their country because he is butthurt that he was outed like the worthless and cowardly goober weakling that he is.

    Drive the legal nail right into him and press charges in every single way possible. He want’s the play this game? Cool… show him the penalty for losing such a game and introduce him to the same place he belongs… with the other degenerate life failure social leeching clowns in prison.

    Fuck you Richard you Grimace looking scumbag. I hope they make you hold the soap to the floor and count to fifty cupcake…

  25. Flagwaver says:

    1) Who paid for the charter buses that brought the alt-left to the area?

    2) Who ordered the police to remove the barricades they erected in order to keep the two sides separated?

    3) Who benefits from the violence?

    As for Dick Bucktooth, he can feat on a bag of dicks.

  26. Silentium Est Aureum says:

    I’m fucking surprised that he, one of his idiot minions, or multiple sockpuppets haven’t come over yet.

    Shocked face right here.

  27. Martinjmpr says:

    Well, I’ll risk kicking the hornet’s nest here by somewhat agreeing with Lars WRT the Confederate monuments.

    Context matters when it comes to symbols. Many of the Confederate statues and monuments were put up not in the immediate aftermath of the war (when you would think it would be appropriate for people to memorialize those who fought and died in the war, whatever side they were on) but rather were put up almost 100 years after the war, in the 1950’s and 1960’s during the civil rights movement.

    Ditto for “traditions” like flying the Confederate battle flag and putting the confederate flag onto the state flags of some southern states.

    Those symbols of the confederacy were not put front and center to “honor” the veterans of the war – almost all of whom were long dead by the time the monuments were erected – but rather as both a “screw you!” to the burgeoning civil rights movement and as a means of intimidation to say to the local blacks that “We’re still here and we’re watching you!”

    In that context, the confederate monuments and symbols have no place in the public square. Private property? Knock yourself out, but the civil government needs to represent ALL the people, not just the ones who are still intent on fighting the civil war.

    • IDC SARC says:

      “In that context, the confederate monuments and symbols have no place in the public square.”

      Fair enough to draw the conclusion, but do you think that should be a sweeping widespread mandate with penalties for non-compliance or an issue decided locally?

      Once that’s done would you draw a line regarding, for example, signers of the Declaration of Independence that happened to own slaves or write a paper with opinions about race/gender later disproved with modern genetics? Where does it end?

      How do we avoid appeasement du jour?

      • 11B-mailclerk says:

        There will be no end. No end is proposed or even imagined. Hate only grows.

        When they run out of one sort of target, they will turn to another, and another. Hate and rage grow until all is consumed, or until folks turn away from it.

        The Terror, as happened after the French Revolution, is the -inevitable- result of this madness.

  28. Eric says:

    Harassment and libel. I will stand by the 1st amendment all day until someone uses it as harassment, libel and slander. SCOTUS ruled that even hate speech is protected speech. Personally these people need to felt with by means of the court. A cease and desist order then escalate as needed. To be clear. Saying you’re something you’re not is okay. Getting any sort of goods and services from said lie is illegal.

  29. Martinjmpr says:

    Fair enough to draw the conclusion, but do you think that should be a sweeping widespread mandate with penalties for non-compliance or an issue decided locally?

    Is that what’s happening? Serious question, I don’t know.

    From what I’ve read, it seems like “deciding the issue locally” is exactly what is happening, i.e. local mayors, city councils, and in some cases state-level politicians are deciding to remove these monuments.

    I have yet to see any kind of “mandate” being forced on any municipality. Again, it seems that the local governments ARE the ones removing these monuments, in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, and despite the opposition of a very vocal but very tiny minority. Am I wrong?

    • NotBuyingIt says:

      Though the local governments may be the ones removing these monuments, I don’t think it is in accordance with the wishes of their constituents.

      • NotBuyingIt says:

        By that I mean, I think the issue of whether these monuments stay or go is being driven by people outside of the communities in which the monuments exist.

      • Martinjmpr says:

        If that’s true then their constituents can show their discontent at the ballot box.

        Isn’t that exactly how a republican democracy is supposed to work? The elected officials act in what they believe to be the best interest of their constituents and the constituents in turn can let their elected reps know – by letter, by voice, or by vote – whether they agree.

        • IDC SARC says:

          “If that’s true then their constituents can show their discontent at the ballot box.”

          That’s naive…the organizations are doing what they’re doing, because they know they can’t win at the ballot box.

          These are people that never accept a vote or a verdict that is contrary to their agenda.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        They may be removing them to put them in storage until the noise and fury die down, and there is less danger that they will be damaged or destroyed.

    • IDC SARC says:

      “Is that what’s happening? Serious question, I don’t know.”

      There are organizations and politicians on the national level with that precise agenda. It’s all about appeasement, reparations, privilege, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

      This is much like gun control in that if it starts, there is no stated goal which will end it. Unfortunately, there are organizations that exist only by maintaining goals yet to be achieved.

  30. Martinjmpr says:

    Once that’s done would you draw a line regarding, for example, signers of the Declaration of Independence that happened to own slaves or write a paper with opinions about race/gender later disproved with modern genetics? Where does it end?

    How do we avoid appeasement du jour?

    Yes, the slippery slope argument.

    There’s a quote I wish I could remember (and a quick Google search did not turn it up) that goes something like this: Just because we can infer that a piglet will grow into a pig, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will grow into an elephant.

    Are there people who would love to tear down every statue of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc? Certainly, but they are a tiny, tiny fringe and if they started trying to push an agenda to tear down those monuments they would either be ignored or get a significant pushback from mainstream society.

    There are still people alive today who remember when and why these recent “Confederate monuments” were actually put in place and that’s the reason that there aren’t a lot of monument defenders in mainstream society.

    • 11B-mailclerk says:

      If what you say is true, why is the American Revolution model so rare, and the French Revolution model so typical?

      Because the example of America is largely one of “leave folks alone”, and the others are largely “Now! We will -make- you be the way we -want- you to be!”

      -Big- difference.

      The folks who want to limit Rights mean to reshape us, for our own good of course, and those folks know of no limits to what they may do to others, for they believe their goals are noble, and their opponents reprehensible.

    • IDC SARC says:

      Ahh…you’re regressing to the theoretical and apparently ignoring the realities. playing it safe. 🙂

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You don’t appease if you want to live. You fight it.

      • Martinjmpr says:

        There are hills that are worth dying on but for me, at least, a monument to confederate generals is not one of them.

        • Graybeard says:

          If we had men like Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in Congress today, we would be much better off.

          Their personal integrity and honesty alone would improve the sum total of same in Congress by some 300%

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Well, then what if these anti-US/antifa/socialist groups decide they want to take down monuments to Union soldiers or remove Revoluationary War monuments and rename parks – public places – that are named after Washington and Jackson, simply because they owned slaves?

        Did you even read the article I posted a link to above about someone demanding exactly that right now in Chicago?

        This is NOT about the Civil War or Southern/Confederate monuments. It is about changing history to appease butthurt jerks who see an opportunity to destroy reality. Read the article at that link and then reconsider what you said about Confederate monuments.

        There is NO difference. Do you get that?

  31. MickeyGSM says:

    Years of being a history nerd has finally paid off in recent conversations
    The South was so racist that…

    That Antebellum New Orleans had the largest and most prosperous community of free persons of color in the nation who were often educated and middle-class property owners.

    Jefferson Davis and his wife were so racist they adopted a black boy that Mrs. Davis rescued from a brutal Negro guardian on the streets of Richmond. Jim Limber was raised as their own, with their own children, in the Confederate White House. He only lived with them for a year because of them being separated after Davis’s capture in Georgia. Although there is no documents supporting this it was said by Davis and close friends that he never stopped searching for the boy. The statue in Richmond that was torn down of Davis depicted the boy known as John Limber holding Davis’s hand.

    Diarist Mary Chestnut of South Carolina was so racist that after the war, facing financial ruin, she was still caring for 16 elderly former slaves that had already been emancipated…

    The Confederate Army was so racist it was made up of Whites, Mexicans, Blacks, Jews, Asians and Native Americans who by the way had representation in the Confederate Congress.

    The South was so racist that when French Author Alexis de Tocqueville visited the north and south he states in “Democracy in America” that, ironically the problem of race seemed to be far worse in the non-slave owning states than in slave owning states. Whites refuse to work side by side with blacks; however, this was commonplace in the South. He also noted the general attitude in New England was, that all blacks were aliens and should be deported or colonized back to Africa…The North’s race policy? Many northern states banned free blacks from moving into their states with the intention of residing there (including Lincoln’s Illinois)…why do you suppose the Underground Railroad ended in Canada?

  32. AnotherPat says:

    Interesting article posted by the Military Times on 16 August 2017:

    “There are 10 posts named after Confederates. Should the Army re-name them?”

    And one from the Navy Times:

    “Meet the Navy ships named in honor of the Confederacy”

    First, the Flags. And now the Monuments.

    What will be next? Book and Movie banning of Gone With the Wind? Shutting down CSA Museums? Ending Civil War Re-enactments?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *