Patrick McClarty, The Foolish Liar, Part 2

First, go read this post by Paddy McClarty: Pants On Fire

(UPDATE: Paddy has now deleted the post)

Done?

Great. Let’s discuss it. You form your own conclusions after my rebuttal, if you care or want or have a whim to form any conclusions, or even give a hoot about this.

When he’s not launching racist slurs against Catholics, Ian Scott enjoys the cop-out position of “libertarian”, where instead of encouraging group hatred of ethnic groups he turns to denouncing all states. As if libertarianism was only okay with group/racial identities, and not at all at ease with the state.

Racist slurs against Catholics. Right. I used the term “Paddy,” which according to some database, is supposed to be a “slur.” Funny that, among my friends from Ireland, it’s used quite openly in mixed company, and no one gives a shit. Goes to show you that “slur” is in the mind. What other “slurs” am I guilty of? Hmmm.. McClarty doesn’t say. He does however discuss that I once posted on a Roman Catholic doctrine which I find weird. Of course, McClarty doesn’t provide all the context – perhaps he himself doesn’t know all of the context, but it had to do with a commenter on my blog going on about Roman Catholicism in one breath, while going on about cannibalism in another breath, and making some strange comparisons.

“Well, even if libertarians were against the actions of the state, Ian would fail his own basic integrity test (it wouldn’t be the first). Here’s Ian on his own site:

Regarding the assertion that I said “Ireland should join the Commonwealth”:

This is an outright false misrepresentation of anything I have ever written about “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, or anything I have ever believed.

Here he is on my own site, not so long ago:

If the South could compromise, and agree to be within the “commonwealth,” I bet you’d find a lot of folks in the North more open to the idea.

My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.

So were you lying now or then?”

Uhhh… can anyone point to where I wrote as McClarty claims, “Ireland should join the commonwealth?” You won’t find that. Instead, McClarty twists my words in a discussion on one of his blogs in the comment section and magically, mystically, and insanely comes up with this assertion that does not exist.

Who’s lying, McClarty? In fact, I’d encourage you to read the complete discussion that McClarty links to. Isn’t it interesting that McClarty has chosen to leave out many of my words so he can try to justify his insane beliefs as being “fact?” For further context on what I wrote, where McClarty quotes me:

” I’d far prefer to see both the North and South get completely away from religion, see a growth of libertarianism in both parts of the island, and perhaps, even join together.

If the South could compromise, and agree to be within the “commonwealth,” I bet you’d find a lot of folks in the North more open to the idea.

My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.

Personally, I wouldn’t be against a “united” Ireland. In many realistic ways, it already is united. No hassles at border crossings in the quiet counties, business and trade go back and forth freely (even if regulations say otherwise – many are able to ignore the regulations freely).”

Ian Scott, at Renegades

Now there you have in greater context what was written. Can any sane thinker after reading that come to the conclusion that I was even attempting to say that Ireland should join the commonwealth? What I wrote was that if they did, perhaps more in the North might be open to the idea of a united Ireland. How McClarty can have the gall to to misrepresent me is beyond me.

Hopefully McClarty will have some integrity and not edit or remove any of my comments at his Renegades blog, and if you’re interested in really knowing what I wrote, please go check it out. Near the end of this discussion, McClarty himself writes,

“Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad.”

Yeah, McClarty, you really ought to write with more scrutiny. Check your insane thinking at the door as well, before you start to write and make assertions about what other people have written.

On this latest Shamrocks post, McClarty further shows his “insane thinking” when he quotes me and then offers up his own comment:

“So were you lying now or then? Fortunately, Ian has an excuse:

Unfortunately at this time, I am unable to locate the what I wrote

Oh yeah? What an amazing coincidence.”

Here’s the “amazing coincidence”: I’ve been blogging and commenting on blogs for over 2 years. I don’t recall upon which blogs exactly I have commented on specific subjects. On the day McClarty’s post came to my attention, I did spend some time trying to recall and search for my comments, including a search of the database on my former blog. Time restraints however, prevented me from continuing my search as I had a previous engagement planned. Amazing coincidence? Well I suppose in McClarty’s mind, but then McClarty seems to have a propensity for not pointing to reality, but to the fantasies in his mind.

McClarty’s insanity continues:

“How about his endorsement/defense of Rev. Paisley? Ian thinks that asserting his pro Paisley stance is a lie. Hmmm, really? Because that’s not what you wrote before:

Rathlin Island is 100% Catholic, and is Paisley’s riding. In all of the recent elections, he has received almost, and one time completely, 100% of the ballots cast.

Why? Because Paisley has taken a real interest in these people, and fought for things for them. If you base a man on his actions, and not just his words, then one must agree it’s hard to see how he thinks all Catholics are garbage.

He’s even met with Republic Islanders, who by virtue of their demographics, were Catholics, to give them advice and assistance politically, in dealing with their issues with the Republic of Ireland.

What qualifies as a ringing endorsement, Ian? How about that BS story about some old Catholic woman who voted for Paisley which was your defense of all his actions over the last 50 years.”

Got that? Pointing out facts is a “ringing endorsement” in McClarty’s mind. No, let’s not concern ourselves with more information that might motivate us to be rational in our beliefs, or end up writing such things as “Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad.”

McClarty claims that I offered up my experience in a Belfast restaraunt as a “defense of all his actions over the last 50 years.” My response? See this post of mine. Pointing out experience that doesn’t fit the “generalizations” is now, in McClarty’s mind, a “defense of all of someone’s actions. What a nonsensical logical leap, that is.

McClarty’s insane thinking continues:

“But if Ian misrepresents himself or his positions, or is in any way inconsistent in his “recollections”, it might be because of his inferior community college education…”

*Yawn* My “inferior community college education” now is somehow worthy of McClarty’s interest. Do I even need to comment on this statement by McClarty? But let’s carry on here… because now McClarty shows himself to be a liar extraordinaire:

“… or the muddying of his mind over the years he spent beating helpless people in “protecting property”:

Want to know the most efficient way to wake up an alkie that is seeking refuge from the bitter cold in a lobby somewhere, and sleeping his drunkeness away? You really want to know?

Ok.. here’s how you do it. You stand about 2 feet away from the sleeping alky’s feet. You make sure his feet are standing upwards, with the heels on the ground and his toes pointing upward, if you can.

Yep. So by Ian’s own words, Libertarianism is:
1) Claiming that group politics are illegitimate
2) …but ok in the attack of Catholics
3) Group sanctioned violence in defense of a state is wrong
4) …but beating the crap out of sleeping bums for money is acceptable.”

So McClarty quotes me (out of context again) in regard to a method I have seen used in waking up flea infested drunks sleeping in the lobbies and common areas of private property, drunks who were so inebriated, yelling at them was not going to wake them up. Granted, I should have written “One of the most effective ways…. There is another effective way to wake them up, and that is to use smelling salts, but you have to get so close to the person, you might put your own safety in jeaopardy if the drunk wakes up, swinging.

But regardless, because I write that it is “effective,” McClarty has the gall to assert that I believe “beating the crap out of sleeping bums for money is acceptable.” This is not the first time McClarty has made this sort of assertion about me.

What is truly disgusting to me is McClarty’s assertion that I beat helpless people. I wonder if McClarty recalls that Commandment about bearing false witness? This is an absolutely disgusting, outright false, and one of the most vile assertions McClarty makes. Absolute despicable rubbish. I suppose it is one thing to take one’s political or philosophical opinions out of context, but to make accusations such as this is simply beyond the realm. McClarty has a very sick sick mind for him to even remotely justify this wild and despicable lie that he puts forth.

In fact, where he gets this from is a post I wrote a year or so ago, maybe more, that I subsequently removed from my old blog because I wasn’t sure I had made the point I was trying to make and I had plans to revisit the post at a later time. When I first discovered McClarty’s assertions that I personally had beat up bums, I sent him a private email with the full contents of my post, and invited him to show me where I had ever written such a thing. Once again, he responded with some out of context quote.

The fact of the matter is, I saw this “technique” for waking up inebriated, flea infested bums used, and despised it. But I’m certainly not questioning it’s “effectiveness.” I also wanted to engage McClarty in a discussion about justifiable use of force according to law when removing trespassers from property, but that never came about. Instead, McClarty just wanted to explain how he formed his belief that I actually supported and engaged in “beating the crap out of sleeping human beings.”

All the more outrageous, from my own personal point of view regarding McClarty’s assertions is the fact that for years, I was one of a small group that often had to put up with character assassinations by others because we stood up when we saw outrageous actions done against those who were “helpless.” Because we wouldn’t put up with it or be a part of it. In one of my later years in this occupation, my annual evaluation was marked poor because it revolved around the idea that I did not “make good use of legislated authority.” Needless to say, my evaluation was conducted by another insane thinker who’s idea of “good performance” was that of making arrests, getting into fights, and charging people. My philosophy was entirely different and as far as I’m concerned, worked quite well.

I can relate a number of stories about my later years (yeah, when I was young and green, I didn’t have the same courage and foresight or confidence that I had after a number of years of experience under my belt) when I threatened my “back up” with arresting them if they didn’t lay off immediately. I wasn’t about to put up with shit from “bad people” who were criminals, and I certainly wasn’t going to put up with shit from egotistical law enforcement folk, either. I can relate to you about a number of times when I’d have to tell my partner to “Back off!” or face me arresting them for their actions.

The downside of that of course, was that often when I needed back up or assistance (which was seldom compared to many others), it was slow in coming depending on who I was working with. I would have no issues with arresting an asshole, whether they were a citizen, or someone wearing a uniform if they were assaulting someone. I might not have had the respect of everyone, but I had the respect of those that mattered – those I was serving. So McClarty, you can go take your lying assertions and stick them up your ass.
McClarty, let me remind you once again, about your own statement:

” Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad”

Not only scrutiny, McClarty, but with a sanity check as well.

7 thoughts on “Patrick McClarty, The Foolish Liar, Part 2”

  1. So….did you or did you not attack sleeping people? You seemed pretty proud of it at the time, so I’m not sure why you take it issue with it now.

    Ahh, I wrote: “Okay, I should probably consider what I write with more, uh, scrutiny. I’m not trying to come off as hostile, but that’s kind of what it looks like I suppose. My bad” when I actually gave a shit about who you were as a person. Y’know, before it became obvious that you hated Catholics by comparing them to Hannibal Lector, and before I knew that you had a long standing propensity for violence. And before it occurred to me that your IQ was inversely proportionate to your ignorance.

    Forget the male groupie antics in references to Jay Jardine and your supposed adherence to the doctrine of libertarianism while being heavily invested in sectarian politics and anti-catholicism- Your total lack of philosophical and personal integrity has already been established.

    The real question is why you have a radical political stance which you bare absolutely no loyalty towards? Usually, in terms of radicals and their politics, it’s a question of personal experience.

    why would a small business guy with an ex wife and children [that live with their mom] decide to that “government interference” in his life was so intolerable?

    ……..queue the clearing clouds and sunshine breaking through……

    Rationalize your position however you can…starting…now!

  2. “You seemed pretty proud of it at the time, so I’m not sure why you take it issue with it now.”

    Again, your insane lying assertion.

    The rest of your comment contain the wild projections of an irrational insane thinker that is unable to differentiate between his projections and reality.

  3. Ian:

    ha! Too funny!

    I know 4 year old Japanese girls with more maturity and a stronger grasp of the english languaage. Where to start with this joker? Just because someone makes a “judgment call” does not make them a “liar”. This is pretty basic, but apparently just saying and repeating nonsense is good enough for you. I’m sure this line of exceptional thinking was grounds for a pat on the head from your helpers during the rides on the short bus to grade school, but it hardly makes for convincing material.
    ————————————-
    “Also, whether your A.D.D. afflicted mind can stomach it or has just repressed it, your constant defense of paisley and your BS stories about how some fictitious catholic woman voted for him as some kind of shield is about as plain a defense/endorsement as you will find. You’ve defended him on numerous occassions and even voiced very positive opinions about him.:”

    A.D.D. afflicted mind… is this an attempt at smearing me, or those afflicted with ADD?
    —————————-
    holy geez…uh, Ian, this is sad. If you have to ask, then it’s clear that it was definitely an attack on ADD sufferers because they have really been slandered for having been associated with you.
    ————————–
    “ok, so you’re saying the only hope for the troubles is for ireland to join the commonweatlh. That’s what you wrote. I’ll assume that you “want” the troubles to end, so you would wish for the republic to join the commonwealth.”

    Go ahead and make your silly assumptions instead of just reading what I wrote, Liar.
    —————————
    The only assumption is that you’d want the troubles to end. Is that not true? Do you understand the issue? Do you understand paraphrasing? Please inform and enlighten.

    ———————–
    “libertarianism is a casual shirt you pull out and wear when it suits you. Seriously, when you have a july 12 posting ranting about catholics for the nth time, you should really drop the pretense of calling yourself “libertarian”. when you’ve beaten sleeping people for living, you don’t have the credibility to call the violence of Israel “evil”.”

    It is no casual shirt at all. My July 12th post was not a rant whatsoever. Again, you lie.
    ———————–
    Thank you for telling me that a metaphor is not literally a casual shirt. There was a lot of confusion about that. Thank god.

    Why don’t you just post your july 12th writing so we can all judge? It’s actually lucky you didn’t post your July 12th BS because there would have been so much more ammo it would be ridiculous. Another anti catholic rant on the worst possible day of the year? Oh and again, a characterization of “rant” is not a statement of fact. It’s a characterization.

    To recap “opinions do not equal facts”. Think about that before posting anything. Think about it… consider it.
    ————————
    Your assertion that I’ve “beaten people” is again a lie.
    ————————
    You wrote it on your website. you attacked sleeping people. they were asleep. You attacked. beaten, attacked, whatever. get out a thesaurus and peruse the pages. (PS: a thesaurus is not a type of dinosaur. Not a type of dinosaur. Not.)

    Again, just because I don’t repeat word for word what you write, does not make it incorrect. Again, it’s called “paraphrasing”.

    Just because you say you “efficiently” kicked the crap out of sleeping bums is not much different. Apologies.

    In fact, it seems you are in denial about a host of issues and your relative lack of cognitive skills required to deal with them is not helping matters. What to do when you define yourself as a free thinking libertarian when the cold reality is that you’re a violent and ignorant racist, endlessly rationalizing and denying your actions and fears?

    This is the last call to you in your mental abyss and I hope it was enlightening. You can now proceed with more hyper convincing debating points such as calling me a “liar”, referring to adjectives as “lies” and last but not least, literally translating metaphors.

    You a fan,
    A phony, a fake, a pussy, a Stan
    –Nas

  4. “Just because someone makes a “judgment call” does not make them a “liar””

    Well, you’re a liar because you asserted I wrote something that I did not write. It’s been shown to you several times already – I never wrote what you claim I wrote. Your judgement is pretty fucked in the head.

    ““ok, so you’re saying the only hope for the troubles is for ireland to join the commonweatlh. That’s what you wrote.””

    I did not write that at all. My words have specific meanings. I wrote on your blog, “My own sense says that might be the only hope in the long run.” If you want to quote what I wrote, why not just quote what I wrote?

    Do you understand what the word “might” means? Leaving it out puts a totally different meaning on what I wrote, doesn’t it? I don’t know where you learned English; maybe that’s why you understand 4 year old Japanese girls so well.

    Were you attracted to the 4 year old Japanese girls?

    “The only assumption is that you’d want the troubles to end. Is that not true?”

    At this point in my life, I really don’t give a shit.

    “Why don’t you just post your july 12th writing so we can all judge?”

    If you read it, you’ll know why it was removed. I’ll post an excerpt for your forgetful mind:

    “Depending on who reads it, and how “personal” it might be for a good friend of mine, this post may not last very long on my blog.”

    That was the very first sentence. Did you miss that?

    “It’s actually lucky you didn’t post your July 12th BS because there would have been so much more ammo it would be ridiculous.”

    Ammo for what, exactly? Your silly projective mind?

    “Another anti catholic rant on the worst possible day of the year?”

    Did you have a bad July 12th this year? Happy belated July 12th to you, McClarty. I love getting “your goat.” Maybe someday, you can even “ride on a goat.”

    “You wrote it on your website. you attacked sleeping people.”

    You are a liar. I wrote no such thing. I even privately sent you the article after I removed it. Quote word for word where I wrote that, McClarty. You lie. You made your lying assertion on someone else’s blog in a comment section; I believe it was Bound By Gravity – and then I sent you a copy of the article. Recall that? Go ahead dude. Quote me, EXACTLY, what I said.

    “Again, just because I don’t repeat word for word what you write, does not make it incorrect. Again, it’s called “paraphrasing”.”

    Your paraphrasing is the type that changes meaning of the original ideas that were being communicated. You lie.

    “In fact, it seems you are in denial about a host of issues and your relative lack of cognitive skills required to deal with them is not helping matters.”

    You are in denial about a very basic concept called “telling the truth.”

    “What to do when you define yourself as a free thinking libertarian when the cold reality is that you’re a violent and ignorant racist, endlessly rationalizing and denying your actions and fears?”

    Violent? Point to any violence, McClarty? Notwithstanding your lie about what I wrote, you earlier claimed I had a “propensity for violence.” Explain your evidence for this “propensity.” Your insane projections upon my words? You’re a fucking idiot. Amazing that you, 3,000 miles away, can read some of my words and come up with some idiotic assertion that I have a “propensity for violence” when the dozens of my friends that I see on a regular basis, and the people I live with have never seen such “propensity.” Man, you could make a ton of dough putting your projections to good use… if only they were correct.

    “Just because you say you “efficiently” kicked the crap out of sleeping bums is not much different. Apologies.”

    Carry on with the apologies. Perhaps in my next post, I’ll write about “efficient” methods to kill someone. You gonna project that must mean I’ve actually killed someone?

    Patrick, were both your parents retarded, or just one of them?

  5. By the way:

    “holy geez…uh, Ian, this is sad. If you have to ask, then it’s clear that it was definitely an attack on ADD sufferers because they have really been slandered for having been associated with you.”

    You’re the one that did the associating, Patrick. So, I guess that means you are the slanderer?

    Interesting, that.

  6. Ian,

    Why do you waste your time with this guy Patrick? Clearly he is a pompous moron. Have a read through his blog: it is full of absolute crap. Anyone having a look can quickly see that he must be a lonely loser with too much time on his hands. His “writing” is basically a copy and paste job with some ridiculous obscure comments thrown in.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top