Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yes, this is a post about Pat. If you're feeling sorry for him and don't think I should make fun of him anymore, don't read this post. That is all.
This is hilarious. Erik Wekerle of the blog Operation Yellow Elephant, decided to have a little fun with Pat. Noting Pat's love of war porn, he sent an email asking why he wasn't serving in the military and he got a predictably idiotic response. The full email response from Pat below the fold.
I've looked at your blog. (it's called Google) and I see that you are a liberal. I have no intention of answering your question. Because I know the idiotic game that you are trying to play against me here and I am not interested in playing it. My personal life is none of your damned business.Let me also warn you. You publish anything on that idiotic liberal blog of yours, that Ido (sic) not happen to like and I will SUE you in a court of law. A (sic) do not tolerate libelsagainst (sic) me and it seems your (sic) making a profit from smearing Conservatives. I will not tolerate it. I will sue, if need be. If you don't like what I write on my blog; then do not read it. Simple as that. You can criticize what I write, that is fine. But if you smear ME. I will SUE YOU. Period. I happen to have a good friend, who is a lawyer and will take my case pro-bono.
Further more, before you write and smear me. Know this. I am a unemployed, Disabled, man, who has not worked since 2005. Full time since 2000. I started blogging in 2006, As a "Left of center" blogger. I switched sides because of the bullshit that happened in this election.
Further more, do not contact me again, ever. If you do, I will file stalking charges against you as well.
-Patrick
http://www.politicalbyline.com/
LMAO. Well Pat, your imaginary lawyer friend must like getting sanctioned if you really think he's going to file a lawsuit against someone merely for writing something you don't like. As for stalking charges, that's simply hilarious. As someone who has published (what you thought was) the address of someone who criticized you and openly invited people to pay him a visit, you are far more on the hook for stalking charges than those (like me and Erik) that you keep accusing of stalking you.
My readers are right. If I had invented you as a foil, no one would believe it. You're too ridiculous not to be a real person.
Politics
Comments
I wonder what Patty thinks is left of center? The imagination boggles. I also wonder if Disabled is worse than disabled and if he helps his mom with the laundry at least.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 9, 2009 9:33 AM
"I am a unemployed, Disabled, man, who has not worked since 2005. Full time since 2000"
I must admit that I feel a little uneasy to mock this guy.
But, his stupidity aside, I think no one should be considered "different" and, therefore, not able to withstand (or not worthy of) criticism.
Posted by: diegopig | December 9, 2009 9:35 AM
Well, I found this pretty shocking and quite disturbing. Pat has friends? Is there some kind of version of facebook aimed exclusively at paste-eaters looking to meet similar?
Posted by: Mill | December 9, 2009 9:45 AM
"If you don't like what I write on my blog; then do not read it."
Compared to:
"If I don't like what you write on your blog; then I will sue you."
Posted by: JohnV | December 9, 2009 9:55 AM
Damn the Patster is good!
There really is a thing called Google (who'd of thunk it?). And guess what? There is a hyphenated and an unhyphenated website dedicated to the eaters of paste.
Think we should email 'Postman' Pat? He probably needs a few non-imaginary friends. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 10:00 AM
Erik is in so much imaginary trouble now!
*Also, I'll give Pat the benefit of the doubt and assume he's telling the truth about being disabled. Of course, a few weeks ago he steadfastly refused to believe that any of the readers here actually served in the armed forces, even when evidence was provided. So I think we could be forgiven for not believing that Pat is telling the truth about his situation.
Posted by: Imrryr | December 9, 2009 10:03 AM
Looks like someone ran out of "(sic)" tags. There are plenty of superfluous commas, odd periods and inappropriate capitalization that didn't get that treatment.
Posted by: Dave W. | December 9, 2009 10:04 AM
If I stalk Pat I will sue myself. And I'll win, even though I have a fool for a plaintiff.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 9, 2009 10:07 AM
I have a hard time having any sympathy for Pat. First he was upset about being unemployed because of the economy (but everyone else who is unemployed it's because they're lazy). Now he claims it's because he is disabled. Given his changing stories, I am rather skeptical of this claim, but, assuming it is a true statement, then why does he blame his lack of employment on the economy until it becomes convenient to blame it on his disability? I also have a problem with it because, as I mentioned in the earlier "Pat" thread, my mother was disabled yet worked and worked hard for her entire life.
This guy appears to have absolutely no clue when it comes to political ideology. He was left of center? What "bullshit" happened in this election that allegedly turned him into a nutball? As someone who actually is left of center, I have a hard time seeing any aspect of Pat being left of center aside from his utterly delusional state shared by fellow nutballs across the political spectrum. He doesn't appear, from anything I've read of his, to stand for anything "left of center." He also appears, to be quite honest, to be rather anti-American in that he opposes most of the principles that we are supposed to stand for. Free speech? Apparently only for Pat. Freedom of beliefs, only if you agree with Pat.
Truly a sad individual who appears to have excuses for each and every one of his flaws or failings, none of which (conveniently) leaves any responsibility left over for himself. Hmmm, he's not a traditional conservative either, no personal responsibility ... just a wack-a-loon I guess.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 9, 2009 10:20 AM
Shorter Pat:
I believe in free speech only for people who agree with me. I support wars that there is no chance I will have to fight.
I rely on goverment support to live. I considered myself left-of-center until the left elected a black man.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | December 9, 2009 10:26 AM
Pat's fixation with stalking is one of the things I find most curious about him. The logical explanation would be projection--as he's proved himself more of a stalker than anyone he's levied this accusation against--but it's nonetheless very strange.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 9, 2009 10:26 AM
As he-said/she-said situations go, this is fairly dangerous. The currently popular charge here in NC is "Cyberstalking." Really, the only evidence required is contacts by phone, email, text, MySpace, etc, that the receiver claims were unwanted. Our statute is incredibly vague.
Typical case I was involved in: Guy emails ex-girlfriend 3 times about an upcoming date that was already set up. She takes out a warrant. He lives out of state and doesn't know. On the way to meet her for the date, he goes through a sobriety checkpoint, warrant is served, he goes to jail.
Verdict: Guilty! The fact that she didn't answer email #1 is apparently enough notice that he shouldn't have sent #s 2 and 3.
Be careful. Even idiots like Pat can use our ridiculous criminal injustice system to their advantage.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 9, 2009 10:27 AM
Regarding Pat's change from "left of center" cant to batshit crazy cant:
I chatted on MSN with a fellow ex-pat here in China. He was already retired when Obama was elected, and says he came to China because of the election. I pointed out that I didn't think Obama was all that much different from Bush (other thane being more intelligent, more articulate, and less beholden to born-again Xianity ideas). He offered no reply.
I mean, seriously, I voted for Obama, but he's not really all that different from W, at least politically. So why do nutjobs like Pat regard him as part of the leftmost end of the political spectrum?
Posted by: wheatdogg | December 9, 2009 10:33 AM
Pat wrote:
But if you smear ME. I will SUE YOU. Period.
Wait, is Pat a Scientologist?
Posted by: foole | December 9, 2009 10:39 AM
'What "bullshit" happened in this election that allegedly turned him into a nutball? '
The black guy won, that's the 'bullshit' to which he refers I believe.
Posted by: Rev Matt | December 9, 2009 10:46 AM
Bearing in mind that Pat is (allegedly) a disabled, unemployed truck-driver who lives with his parents (an therefore not likely to have a whole lot of money) think of the kind of lawyer he would be able to afford.
Even if his (alleged) lawyer friend was a real hot-shot. and was willing to take on his (alleged) friend's case pro bono, do you think Pat's (alleged) friend, knowing how well Pat would present in court (particularly under cross-examination), would agree to take the case*?
If I were Pat's (alleged) friend, I'd have urgent business out of state when Pat's case came up, wouldn't you? -DJ
------
* Notwithstanding the perceived conflict of interest.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 10:54 AM
The more I read these excerpts from Pat's blog the more obvious it becomes that Pat is suffering from sort of mental illness. Is it amusing to poke fun at mental illness? I think not.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 9, 2009 11:16 AM
There, I think that's all of them.
I haven't gone to his blog. Does he have an archive of posts going back through the election of 2008 and into 2006 when he started? Is there a post that explains his decision to switch and prior to that some evidence of his prior positions that are "left of center"? Just curious.
Posted by: chris | December 9, 2009 11:17 AM
"I've looked at your blog. (it's called Google)"
This just about ripped my sides open.
As an unemployed, disabled man I find Pat offensive.
Posted by: noisebastard | December 9, 2009 11:28 AM
Cheddar @ 17:
But how his illness effects his politics should concern us given much of it is common to about 20% of American voters and they are having a vastly disproportionate impact in both our politics and in the public square in general. It's not like his positions are unique, they are in fact, mostly definitive. A couple of days ago Dogmeatib provided a video link to Palinistas being interviewed at a Columbus, OH Palin book signing. They were asked open-ended and fair questions regarding why they supported Ms. Palin which revealed the same type of fatally flawed critical thinking Ed reveals with Pat only these people were marginally more ignorant than Pat.
I'm cognizant of what aspects of Pat's situation you're using to argue your point outside his politics and I agree it's a good argument. I just think that exposure to this sort of argument is healthy given it's not unique, but instead defines one aspect of the public square.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 11:32 AM
Pat started out as "left of center" by Faux News standards: he started out left of Michael Savage.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2009 11:58 AM
Pat started out left of center? I'm thinking he's soft centered, not tasty, just soft centered.
Somebody was issuing a cautionary note about poking Pat with a stick the other day. This: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/us/10shooting.html, is not about him, but you never know.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 12:10 PM
Chris (#18) - Pat's fully sic* :) - DJ
---------
* NOT!
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 12:21 PM
If anyone really did have a blog named Google, how would you find it?
Posted by: James Thompson | December 9, 2009 12:22 PM
James Thompson - How sweet would that be? Imagine all the accidental traffic you'd get, and, best of all, Google couldn't sue you, because how would they find you? ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 9, 2009 12:32 PM
The "I will SUE YOU" reminds me a lot of the classic Jerky Boys routine, "Punitive Damages"
Posted by: cm | December 9, 2009 12:40 PM
Didn't read. It's not that I feel sorry for him; I'm just bored with him. At this point this feed is a little like my cat. She's fun most of the time, and it was kind of cool when she showed me what a good hunter she could be, but now all the dead rodents and birds on my doorstep are getting annoying.
Posted by: Twewi | December 9, 2009 1:19 PM
Could the internet psychologists please give it a rest? Thank you.
Posted by: Wes | December 9, 2009 1:52 PM
James Thomas,
google -site:google.com
(3rd result)
Posted by: qbsmd | December 9, 2009 1:57 PM
You really should have added "(sic)" a lot more in that letter.
Posted by: catgirl | December 9, 2009 1:58 PM
re: 20 and 28:
Good points both. True, sometimes this sort of thing can end up looking like a public whipping or at least a form of throwing rotten cyberfruit at a man locked in cyber-stocks. However, Michael Heath makes a very relevant point: that this sort of "discourse" (i.e., "Obama won = country is going down the tubes) is a significant part of our larger political discourse. With that in mind, who's to say that Pat and his ilk are somehow "off limits" due to some sort of mental illness, as proposed by Cheddar. To Cheddar's point, I would only say that it would be inappropriate to make fun of Pat's sort of "mental illness" only when people with that mentality are not allowed to vote due to mental incompetency. However, since they are allowed to make decisions based on faulty reasoning, they continue to be fair-game in terms of analysis and cutting commentary. Therefore, I also support Wes' assertion of asking the internet psychologists to please give it a rest.
Posted by: Umlud | December 9, 2009 3:03 PM
Umlud:
It is one thing for a person to make lazy or stupid arguements when presenting their political ideas. Certainly many of the pro-Palin/ anti-Obama crown are guilty of that many times over. But Pat goes the extra mile by raving on and on in a delusional manner. This really has zero to do with politics and everything to do with...well...being delusional.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 9, 2009 3:31 PM
Keep stinging Pat.
I want him to start putting himself on You Tube.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 9, 2009 3:49 PM
Cheddar,
You may be right about Pat's (and others) delusional behavior/comments but the echo chamber effect may be a large contributor to the problem. By mocking, debating, yelling, arguing, and laughing at him, we may reduce some of that echo thereby actually helping him. Got to hope.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 9, 2009 3:51 PM
Haha! I was wondering why Operation Yellow Elephant was having a bump in traffic today. Thanks for coming by.
After I alerted Pat that I wrote a post on him he responded (I'm expecting a subpoena any day now). Please excuse Pat's PHD mouth:
Patrick to me
Two Words Punk...
FUCK YOU
You pussy assed mother fucking Liberal piece of shit.
and I mean that quite sincerely.
-Patrick
http://www.politicalbyline.com
Posted by: Erik Wekerle | December 9, 2009 3:54 PM
Full disclosure, Cheddar, I've had depression, which I think qualifies as having had a mental illness at one time. I still take antidepressants to keep my mood up.
That said, I don't care if the dude's mentally ill or not, he's a maladjusted wackjob and I'm gonna make fun of him. Dude needs to be put in his place.
Posted by: Katharine | December 9, 2009 3:59 PM
Oh, so scared-shitless coward uneducated idiot mama's-boy little Pat thinks he's going to be able to get legal charges against anyone?
Dude better talk to his lawyer friend, I think the lawyer's going to say no.
:P
Posted by: Katharine | December 9, 2009 4:02 PM
There is a huge difference between mental illness and insanity. Pat, while clearly mentally ill to some degree or another, is not crazy. His beliefs and ideas are certainly crazy, but I don't see enough evidence to call him truly insane. The difference lies in the person's agency: people who are merely mentally ill (but not crazy) have a degree of control over their actions in a way that crazy people do not. I say this as a person who was battled depression and anxiety her whole life.
It would be morally wrong to make fun of a full-fledged insane person. I don't think it's wrong to make fun of Pat.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 9, 2009 4:09 PM
Not only is it not wrong, it is frigging great.
Posted by: JohnV | December 9, 2009 4:53 PM
I would be sympathetic to the "Pat's delusional, just leave him alone" line of argumentation, except that he's only a LITTLE bit more delusional than the average for the tea-bagger/birther Right. If 30+% of the electorate is delusional enough to be considered mentally ill, so much so that we ought not to engage their opinions because it would be cruel... well, shit.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 9, 2009 5:56 PM
Rob Jase "I want him to start putting himself on You Tube."
*Ahem*
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 9, 2009 6:14 PM
Dogmeat@9 :
as a Disabled person myself , i can answer that . during a Solid economy it is pretty damned hard to find work. and then when the economy sours. work for the disabled becomes almost impossible.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 9, 2009 6:25 PM
Folks, Pat reported me to my IP for cyberstalking. I got an e-mail from them telling me to go to my room, literally. Later after a few e-mail exchanges, someone from Centurylink, who read our e-mails to and from, said I deserved a gold "metal". Although now I can't e-mail Pat anymore. So sad. Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 9, 2009 10:31 PM
BTW, the work that Erik is doing over at operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com is good stuff. As a veteran I greatly appreciate it. So, go over there now and again and put him on Pat's kind of crap when you see it. I have several times, very satisfying. Thanks again, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 9, 2009 10:35 PM
Kersham @12, really any unwanted email? just as an example I get me electricity bill electronically. If I was in NC could I sue the power company on the grounds that a demand for payment was unwanted? Surely there must be some limts, although your example suggests they are in the wrong place.
Posted by: Matty | December 10, 2009 6:12 AM
James Phillips @ 43:
We know a defining attribute of conservatism is willful ignorance, but that's really pushing it an unimaginable extreme. I didn't even know a person could successfully make such a request, let alone have another's ISP control the destination of a client's email.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2009 7:29 AM
Vic,
I realize that as well, problem with that is that Pat states he's been fully unemployed since 2005. Unemployment in Ohio (2005) was a bit high, 5.9%, but not as bad as current conditions. By 2008 it hit 6.5%, which was getting bad, but still not horrendous. In each case Ohio was above the national average, but not by a huge margin. In that same time period, 2006-2007, unemployment in the United States actually dropped below 5% for 27 straight months. I would argue that while Ohio's rate would still likely be higher during that stretch, it would also likely be below 5.5% which is, economically speaking, rather close to a normal market situation. Now for 2009 this would be a viable excuse, in fact the unemployment rate among the disabled has been roughly 50% higher among the disabled than non-disabled (13% vs 8%, etc.), but what about the previous four years?
Regardless of labor statistics, unemployment, etc., the issue is more a matter of the fact that this claim is being made by Pat, someone who refuses to accept statements with evidence from others let alone statements made accepted at face value. In addition we have the added issue that Pat blames virtually everyone else for his circumstances which, again, suggests a less than honest individual.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 10, 2009 2:13 PM
This guy is (sic).
Posted by: brundlefly | December 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Micheal Heath @ 46: Technically they can't. However, I was told that if I contacted him on his site or via e-mail, they could cut my service. So... Thanks, James
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 10, 2009 6:33 PM