Hearts and Minds: Vance and the Langers…

Another reason to watch Hearts and Minds tonight… That and another appearance of our old friend and blog rival, David Vance…

  • Mick,

    I look on us as veterans of the blogosphere! Did you read about the fact that there are going to be ONLY 100 Million blogs next year! And yet people find time to visit our offerings….!!

    Seasonal wishes to you and all my ..ahem…followers here on Slugger! If you lot ever meet up with me, I’m in trouble….

  • willis

    It will be a lot easier now we know what you look like!

  • hmmmm

    hmmmm…. hes not so boring to look at.

  • beezer

    Apparently the beeb thinks differ…the link on their website goes to the snooker !!!

  • GrassyNoel

    I’m a bit gutted I missed that. I keep mising him on TV & I still don’t know what he looks like.

    What was he on about anyway? Presumably he wants to re-introduce internment and deny Catholics the vote in next year’s elections?

    Only ‘joking’, of course, in case he threatens to sue…again…

  • Grassynoel,

    You mean Catholics have the vote?…….omg….whatever next.

  • Submariner

    You mean Catholics have the vote?…….omg….whatever next.

    Indeed they do inspite of the best efforts of Unionists

  • Aiken

    I’ve seen David Vance both on the TV and his podcasts several times. However, I’d be fascinated to know what his colleague Andrew looks and sounds like. Anyone ever seen this guy on the TV??

  • Fraggle

    He looks like Les Dennis for those who are wondering.

  • Fraggle,

    Who – Andrew???

  • Submariner

    . However, I’d be fascinated to know what his colleague Andrew looks and sounds like.

    Adolf Hitler id say, Judgeing by Mc Canns recent comments on ATW that Nationalists are a Sub-Species.

  • Slugger O’Toole Admin

    You can see the programme on line till next Thursday… And put Fraggle’s comparison to the test…

  • hmmm

    Now that we know what he looks like, does anyone know if he’s taken?

  • George

    Hmmmm,
    that sports jacket he is wearing is one only a wife would buy so I would assume he is.

  • Cahal

    Politics aside, Vance’s piece wasn’t very effective. I pretty much lost interest seconds into his analysis. I think it might have been the way he talks – sounded like he had just run up ten flights of stairs.

    I wander if the BBC will be putting on a dissident republican next time for the sake of balance.

    Anyway, the Barry Mc Elduff’s comment about the 9 county Ulster fry was pretty funny.

  • Truth and Justice

    For once Vance was fair he had a go at all the parties

  • bertie

    “I wander if the BBC will be putting on a dissident republican next time for the sake of balance”

    Balance in the sence of a murderer to balance having someone opposed to murder

  • Submariner

    Balance in the sence of a murderer to balance having someone opposed to murder

    Bertie you might want to ask Mr Vance his views on the Stern gang and other Jewish terrorist groups involved in setting up the State of Israel and see if he is opposed to murder for political ends.

  • The Pedant

    Hmm, is a closet gay the same as a transvestite? I’d have thought they were different animals altogether.

  • I Wonder

    Bertie:

    [Play the ball – edited moderator]

    You might wish to reflect on his views that SF leaders should be shot if they resist arrest, what the Army should have done to the civilian populations of south Armagh and west Belfast and his recent views that Israel should “bomb Lebanon back to the Stone Age.”

    I can only assume his threats to views challenging his own here and elsewhere are echoed in corresponding threats against supine BBC producers who allow him a degree of airtime out of all proportion to his historical electoral support – 1405 votes. Perhaps in the aftermath of a resounding electoral defeat for everything he stands for, early next year, he may choose to exercise the right to silence.

  • Wow – I look away for a few days and I’m accused of supporting murder, being gay, and threatening the BBC. Wonder which is worse?

    I suppose a right of reply ia required!

    1. I understand that Slugger poster “I Wonder” is rather bitter against me, from previous posts, [the ball, david – edited moderator] Of course all sensible people know I do not advocate murder. I do advocate that terrorists be brought to justice and have no issues with killing such vermin.

    2. Intrigued to learn that I advocated some sinister fate to befall the population of South Armagh, where I was born and where family live. Perhaps masochism is another vice?

    3. Maybe I should conclude that some hate fueled third raters that infest Mr Slugger’s emporium with asinine dross are beyond further comment. Yes, I think that’s about it.

    The comments about Andrew on this thread are shameful and I would ask that Mr. Slugger removes such rubbish. It does not illuminate Slugger, even at Xmas.

  • The Pedant

    Mr. Vance, did you actually write that Israel should “bomb Lebanon back to the Stone Age”? If so, then it would seem that you do indeed advocate murder on a vast scale. Or did you mean that Israel should be careful to target only those buildings, and centres of trade and technology built since the Stone Age?

    And there really is nothing wrong with being gay. Many of the greatest men of history, both early and recent, were gay.

  • Mr Slugger,

    Thank for removing the garbage. I forgive the little edit on my own comment, as it is that time of the year for seasonal spirit.

    Pedant,

    Did I not say that “Hezbollah” should be bombed back to the Stone Age? If so, I apologise. Evidently, based on their barbarism, they have never left it. Conflating Lebanon with Hezbollah might suit your little agenda, not mine. It’s rather like equating all Roman Catholics with the IRA, a pathetic and contempible ploy by the moral vacuous.

    If you want to debate such topics, they are covered in rather more detail on ATW than Slugger, suggest you find the courage of your convictions to participate over there, if you can.
    I’ll not be holding my breath.

    BTW – your imagined history of gayness through the ages sounds a sure-fire winner – why not get Mr Slugger to publish it for you, since he evidently finds it pertinent to the debate here. Yes?

  • I Wonder

    Mr Vance did indeed advocate that Lebanon, not specifically Hezbullah, be bombed back to the Stone Age.

    This was made against a background of daily TV coverage of evacuated women, children, babies from Beirut, which victims he charitably labelled “rats.”

    The producer of Hearts and Minds is, understandably, shielded from such comments.

  • kensei

    “Evidently, based on their barbarism, they have never left it.”

    Could you explain how killing hundreds of thousands of people and maiming many others by dropping bombs on them is any less barbarous?

    “Conflating Lebanon with Hezbollah might suit your little agenda, not mine. It’s rather like equating all Roman Catholics with the IRA, a pathetic and contempible ploy by the moral vacuous.”

    Excellent. Now, if you could just explain how you manage to “bomb back to the stone age” a dispersed guerilla group without wiping out Lebanon in the process, you may at least begin to see some kind of reasonable point visible on the horizon.

  • Mick Fealty

    Perfect case of changing the subject to launch a attack on the man.

    As David has said, if you want to take a swedge at him for something he said on ATW, go there and take your chances!!

    Now anyone care to take David on over what he put out on Hearts and Minds?

  • I Wonder

    Mick

    As a point of information, what he says and how he presents himself on H&M is in direct contrast to how and what he presents on ATW.

    It is not in any sense ad hominem to point out that contrast, however much vitriol and naked threat (amazingly for a defender of “free speech”) the individual presents when the contrast is exposed and evidenced.

  • Mick Fealty

    Where’s the contrast? You might have half a case if the instances quoted were even mildly related to what Vance was talking about on H&M. As it happens, it is more in the ‘don’t listen to him‘ category.

    I have had a long fight on this site with illiberal instincts of some individuals (from right around the political spectrum) who refuse to approach text, but prefer to fight on (often falsely alleged) context of their opponent’s past words/deeds.

    No one is asking you not to disagree with him, far from it. But everyone deserves a fair hearing.

  • kensei

    “Perfect case of changing the subject to launch a attack on the man.

    As David has said, if you want to take a swedge at him for something he said on ATW, go there and take your chances!!”

    Are threads to be so militantly policed here so they stick must rigidly to the topic? I’m not attacking the man, unless you count two fair questions on a ludicrous position as attacking the man. If he hadn’t have tried to defend the indefensible, then I’d never have replied. Basically, you are letting him off the hook on it.

    As for going ATW, I’d prefer not to play with Vance where he is basically master of the domain and surrounded by groupies, thanks.

  • Mick,

    Thanks for trying to keep this on topic. I will happily debate on the words that I used on H&M and stand ready to be challenged on such. Other topics warrant discussion elsewhere.

    Keeping threads on topic is so very tricky and a feature of the blogosphere in general. I know when some people on Slugger see my name on ANY topic they appear to see red and descend into the abuse already evident on this thread. It’s a shame as I can assure all that I mean every word I write on both H&M and ATW.

  • I Wonder

    If it is “illiberal” to oppose intolerance and to expose inconsistency, so be it, I’m “illiberal.” I note, for the record, that DV “means every word” he writes on ATW. That’ll come back…

    Now, back to the real world.

    Honestly, Mick, I wonder about u sometimes. 😉

  • Aiken

    Sadly, I think David tends to take a lot of flack for the rancid opinions his colleague regularly emits over at ATW. Whilst I view David’s opinions as perfectly valid, to judge Andrew by his commments would require his committal to a mental asylum!

  • Aiken,

    Just to say that the ATW team of writers now number Alison, Richard, Tom, Mike, John as well as Andrew and myself! Hope you get a chance to study this diversity of writers from around the UK!

  • The Pedant

    David Vance:

    “If you want to debate such topics, they are covered in rather more detail on ATW than Slugger, suggest you find the courage of your convictions to participate over there, if you can.”

    Thank you for the invitation, which I decline. Kensei puts it succinctly and well in his post of 12.38 p.m. I generally find it a futile exercise to engage with sub-BNP debaters and those who view the world in infantile black-and-white terms:

    Israeli good, Arab bad
    Capitalist good, socialist bad
    Brit good, Paddy bad
    U.K. good, Europe bad
    Heterosexual good, homosexual bad
    Indigenous good, immigrant bad…

    And so on. To make matters worse, ATW appears to have embraced uncritically just about every opinion that makes the American Right a joke, albeit a dangerous one. Global warming is a liberal conspiracy; gas-guzzlers do not contribute to our environmental problems. Although I have not lingered long enough to find out, it would not surprise me if Creationism (or Intelligent Design) were also an adopted tenet. I do not know where they stand on black people, but I do not expect to be surprised.

    If any doubt remained about the wisdom of participating in the wholesome chit-chat ATW engages in then the sight of this phrase, in bold brick-red capitals, made my mind up:

    THE IPSWICH WHORES

    Sweet Jesus. I think it wiser to steer clear of such people. They ought to be left to rant among themselves and not detain the rest of us with their demons.

  • Pedant,

    I doubt your decline to visit a site where your narrow prejudices will be challenged is too heavy a blow for us to suffer. However I was amused at the scale of your cliched misrepresentation of ATW.

    1. I have consistently critised the Olmert administration. I have attacked Israeli military strategy. I condemn Kadima, the majority minority party. This is reflexive pro-Israelism?!!! LOL
    2. Failed Socialism may set leftist hearts on fire, but why does supporting capitalism strike you as “infantile”?
    3. I have never characterised Irish people in the way you allege. Perhaps that speaks volumes about you?
    4. I prefer a nation state to a supernational bureaucracy. A perfectly valid opinion.
    5. The Bible takes a clear view on homosexuality. I repeat it. Your problem. Not mine.
    6. Illegal immigration is a major issue, except for juvenile multicultis.

    As for Mike’s headline, I note you manage to avoid all context, which is fine. I expect no more.

    I’ll leave you children to play here, best stay away from mature discussions, after all, Pedants have limited worth.

  • Madradin Ruad

    Pendant – Like David said, ATW is all the better for the absence of a narrow minded big0t such as yourself – have a nice day. 🙂

  • The Pedant

    David Vance:

    “If you want to debate such topics, they are covered in rather more detail on ATW than Slugger, suggest you find the courage of your convictions to participate over there, if you can.”

    “. . . best stay away from mature discussions, after all, Pedants have limited worth.”

    Please make up your mind. Are you inviting my participation or not?

    “. . . your narrow prejudices . . .”

    I am intrigued. Have I written anything here which reveals my prejudices, narrow or no? Can my criticism of the seemingly narrow prejudices of others be construed as evidence of my own narrow prejudices? That is a curious and rather novel proposition.

    I do apologize for accusing ATW of having an anti-Muslim/Arab bias. I was evidently mistaken. Entire minutes, even hours, can pass without a single criticism of the adherents of Islam appearing on your blog.

    I did not allege that you personally were guilty of Paddy-bashing. We must look to Mr. McCann for such.

    I made no allusion to “illegal immigration”.

    The Bible is as ambiguous on homosexuality as it is on a whole raft of issues. One may take from it that which best fits one’s own prejudices. Unfortunately, the gay community has been made to suffer great hardship at the hands of those who interpret the Bible as they will. And yes, you are correct: their suffering is my problem; they are, after all, my fellow human beings.

    “As for Mike’s headline, I note you manage to avoid all context . . .”

    The context is: “The broadcast stories of THE IPSWICH WHORES are not, in themselves, unusual; but they do reflect a side of our society which, to the law-abiding amongst us, is almost unreal.” The phrase links to a BBC story which does not contain the phrase. Those words are an ATM invention and you, as blog owner, have allowed them to stand.

    In any context, unfortunately chosen words, for example JESUS THE PAEDOPHILE, will surely shock and dismay. If you do not appreciate this point then so be it.

  • The Pedant

    For ATM read ATW. . . .

  • Pedant.

    1. Since you refused my earlier invitation to debate on ATW, I assumed that the discussion had moved on. Or have you changed your mind? Try and be consistent.

    2. Referring to those many people who post on ATW as “sub BNP debaters” and “infantile” is a pretty good instance of your narrow prejudices, since the people concerned are neither.

    3. ATW takes issue with those who follow Islam and who practise Jihad. It has an issue with those who follow Islam and seek to impose Sharia on our pluralist democracy. That you conflate this with our view of all those who follow Islam is not my problem.

    4. The Bible is not in the least ambiguous on the sin of homosexuality. The Christian position is not in the least ambiguous – hate the sin, love the sinner. The moral relativism you exhibit on this cuts no ice with informed theology.

    5. On ATW, our writers are given freedom to express opinions. Mike has expressed his own views, using his own words, and I am content for him to defend what he has written. You may have noted that others, including myself, have also covered this topic, but our treatment is different. The thing about those of us in the conservative blogosphere is that we allow dissent and varied opinion, as you will have observed in the thread that followed Mike’s post.

    Jesus the paedophile, as a headline,is indeed salaciously attention grabbing but factually wrong. I do believe the Ipswich murder victims were prostitutes. I hope you appreciate the difference.

  • The Pedant

    David Vance:

    Thank you for the further information, in light of which I shall most certainly not be participating in the “mature discussions” on ATW. You will understand that Slugger O’Toole fulfils my debating needs.

  • Pedant,

    I can quite easily understand that.

  • The Pedant

    Mick Fealty:

    Would you be so kind as to remove the insulting three-word reference to Jesus contained in my post of 20 December, 9.29 p.m.? I am sure you will agree that it would be insensitive to allow the phrase to remain at this time, as we prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

    As you no doubt realize, the phrase was intended to illustrate the effect of usage on original definitions. Strictly speaking, a paedophile is a “lover of children”, but of course that definition is no longer current. Similarly, although the tragic victims of the Ipswich killer were undeniably prostitutes, to refer to them in bold type as “the Ipswich whores” is vicious and cold-hearted. Our present-day usage forbids it to all except the gutter press. I do hope that Mr. Vance will remove it from his weblog.

    Thank you.