Gay Patriot Header Image

How Do Liberals Sleep At Night?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:17 pm - March 3, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Liberals,War On Terror

Because of our political beliefs and unabashed love of America, Dan and I (and probably Nick and John, too) have been called many things here @ GayPatriot and before we launched this blog. A sample is the tired, old epithet: “Gay Republicans are like Jews working for the Nazis”…. you get the idea.

This knee-jerk, simpleton and ignorant attitude comes mostly from hard-core liberal gays who think with one mind and never depart from the Gay Party Line or the Leftist Mantra on any issue. I now have the pleasure to expose hypocritical these people are and how their true colors are quite easy to illustrate.

Thanks to one of our commenters, RightWingProf, for tipping me off to a very interesting exchange of postings between Tim Blair and Cathy Seipp.

Tim Blair picked up on a column Cathy wrote in the LA Times called “The fascists of free speech.” It is similar to the thought behind this posting I did earlier this week. It is a paradox that the charges leveled against President Bush and conservatives are actually committed by those complaining the loudest. Those who scream how Bush is quashing free speech are the very ones who are actually doing it.

Cathy’s money quote that Blair highlights is this:

But let’s also say that one of the great paradoxes of our time is that two groups most endangered by political Islam, gays and women, somehow still find ways to defend it.

Tim Blair adds this gem in his post:

A tip for pro-Islam leftists: when next you feel the need to defend political Islam, just imagine you’re defending anti-gay, anti-abortion, Darwin-opposing southern US creationists. You may be surprised at the change in your thinking.

Let me add a new thought to the dialogue…. before you toss out stupid bumper sticker-like insults and accusations that the Human Rights Campaign creates using your unaccountable money, look in the mirror and ask yourself how our community was better served when Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years and when a Democrat President implemented DADT and signed DOMA in the dark of night.

And how can any self-respecting gay or lesbian American be on any side of the War On Terror except on the side of those of us who want to defeat Islamic fascism that directly murders (not passes legislation against) gays and lesbians.

Paradox check, indeed!

PS — I love being called a picnic ant! ROFL!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

156 Comments

  1. I read the Independant Women’s Forum blog and was directed to Cathy Seipp’s opinion peice from there. The “gays and women” remark was sort of an aside given to support the main idea which was that a book store supposedly dedicated to opposing censorship and banned books, did nothing of the sort. It wasn’t about the freedom of speech but about a political agenda. Certainly it’s *some* gays and *some* women, but the parallel to not being really for the publication and distribution of banned books is that for some it’s not about gay rights or equality for women but rather about a political agenda… opposing US conservatives.

    And when talking about Islam it *is* very useful to consider anti-gay, anti-abortion, Darwin-opposing Southern US creationists… though when I’ve pointed that out before it has been sort of turned around to make the point… who can we expect to more realistically deal with the middle east? Who understands the mindset better? If we’re going to pick our experts on dealing with the mid-east I’d go with the Bible Belt waaaaaaay before I’d listen to the liberal and European elite.

    Comment by Synova — March 3, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - March 3, 2006

  2. And how can any self-respecting gay or lesbian American be on any side of the War On Terror except on the side of those of us who want to defeat Islamic fascism that directly murders (not passes legislation against) gays and lesbians.

    That is a pretty over-the-top and hysterical accusation. So I’ll give it an appropriately over-the-top and hysterical reply.

    Does it at all trouble your conscience that a government Administration that says its fighting to protect the American way of life is torturing, kidnapping and even murdering innocent people in order to accomplish this? I suspect not. Considering the persistent blind eye you have turned toward the ever-growing mountains of evidence. The accusations coming not from Liberal think tanks but rather from soldiers in our own military. Even Conservative Christian soldiers such as Fisher. You blithely ignore them and the ever-growing evidence. Well. you are in no position to be pointing a moral finger of judgment at anyone Bruce.

    Did it ever occur to you that many of the gays and lesbians you claim are “against” the War on Terror simply don’t trust the people and the Government that are waging it?

    Did you ever consider that they have good reason? Especially under the present leadership? The leadership that even if you put torture aside has encouraged the legal disenfranchisement and even destruction of our families? Or how about DADT? You never fail to point out that it was a Clinton policy. But you do fail to mention that Bush fully supports it.

    Soldiers don’t usually fight just for ideals and causes Bruce, in practical terms they fight for each other and to protect their families back home from harm. But now we have a situation where there are gay and lesbian soldiers in the field fighting to protect all of us, while their own government and its leaders are attacking their families back home. Does that bring you any sense of shame as a GOP’er? Or even just as an American? Shouldn’t it?

    Bruce, just because everyone doesn’t vote GOP or doesn’t want to join your GOP/Bush cheerleading squad doesn’t mean that they are all automatically on the side of Islamic fascism and what it represents.

    You imply above that we should support Bush and GOP because they are the lesser of two evils. You are probably even right. But that doesn’t mean the GOP and Bush should be absolved of the evil that they have done and continue to do. Its still evil.

    Of course you can claim that the reason I object so strongly to Bush and his team is because my personality must be centered on and is obsessed with my sexual orientation. I’m just too gay to understand the stakes.

    The idea that mine and others objections might stem from our moral centers, our sense of right and wrong, rather than our sense of Right and Left, is not one you ever seem willing to consider.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 3, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - March 3, 2006

  3. Did it ever occur to you that many of the gays and lesbians you claim are “against” the War on Terror simply don’t trust the people and the Government that are waging it?

    Did you ever consider that they have good reason? Especially under the present leadership? The leadership that even if you put torture aside has encouraged the legal disenfranchisement and even destruction of our families?

    Not really, because they have no trouble supporting people who advocate stripping gays of rights, legally disenfranchising them, and destroying their families because of these peoples’ religious belief that gays are born inferior — as long as these people are Democrats and pro-abortion. Indeed, they call these people and their actions “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Moreover, how well do these glbts recognize torture or internment? Let them prove first that the concentration camps for gays that they insist are operating in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon are there before we start listening to them about anything else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2006 @ 7:19 pm - March 3, 2006

  4. That is a pretty over-the-top and hysterical accusation. So I’ll give it an appropriately over-the-top and hysterical reply.

    Actually, it’s not.

    Bruce, just because everyone doesn’t vote GOP or doesn’t want to join your GOP/Bush cheerleading squad doesn’t mean that they are all automatically on the side of Islamic fascism and what it represents.

    Yeah, but when the alternative is humping the legs of Turban Durbin, The Swimmer, Cindy Shehan etc., it does.

    But that doesn’t mean the GOP and Bush should be absolved of the evil that they have done and continue to do.

    The evil that liberal kooks fabricate, you mean.

    The idea that mine and others objections might stem from our moral centers, our sense of right and wrong, rather than our sense of Right and Left, is not one you ever seem willing to consider.

    That’s ’cause liberals don’t appear to know a damn thing about “moral centers” or right and wrong.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 3, 2006 @ 7:28 pm - March 3, 2006

  5. PS — I love being called a picnic ant! ROFL!

    I, for one, welcome our new gay insect overlords.

    Comment by Kent Brockman — March 3, 2006 @ 7:31 pm - March 3, 2006

  6. Patrick, Patrick, Patrick:

    “Does it at all trouble your conscience that a government Administration that says its fighting to protect the American way of life is torturing, kidnapping and even murdering innocent people in order to accomplish this?”
    Please allow me to defend my fellow servicemen and women against your accusations (and yes, whether you want to admit it or not, that was just that)…
    “torturing” I have still not seen any evidence of the government sponsoring this. In fact, that we’ve ruined peoples’ careers and sent people to jail for this says a lot about us and what our Nation is about, especially in comparison to the people we’re fighting against, who do do these things as a matter of policy (somthing Kennedy, Durbin, and others acccuse us of doing). That is the huge difference. People like the Left in America have a hard time realizing that if it interferes with their preconceived notions about Bush & Co.
    “kidnapping” Wha? I’ve been through this on an earlier post somewhere I think.
    “murdering” This is getting tiring, really. Do you know how long the Iraq liberation could have lasted? About 12 seconds. We could have leveled the whole friggin country. We didn’t. You know how long it should have lasted? About 8 weeks. We could have leveled every friggin mosque the terrorists were (and have been) using as military command posts (by the way, the Geneva Convention says we have the right to do so). We didn’t. The US Military is by far the absolutely most humane armed forces this world has ever seen. Comrades of mine are put in more danger today than they need to, and do you know why? Because we take such extreme care to not harm civilians and holy sites (etc.). When people say the sort of thing you’re saying, Patrick, it makes my blood boil. It shows an incredible lack of perspective, respect, knowledge, fairness, or a combination of all. You should really know better.

    “Did it ever occur to you that many of the gays and lesbians you claim are “against” the War on Terror simply don’t trust the people and the Government that are waging it?”
    That occurs to me everytime I hear them, Patrick. In fact, that’s all I can come up with for a reason as to why they’d possible side with our enemies, and it makes me sad. Did it ever occur to them that we’re at war fighting a common enemy? Did it ever occur to them that in a war the noble and (yes!) patriotic thing to do is to leave politics at the water’s edge? I’m surprised how far we’ve come as a Nation that in this day and age (much like Clinton’s–and I was guilty of it then, I can admit, and amashamed of it looking back), political enemies of an administration would let their own partisan differences cloud what is best for the future of democracy and liberty. But thanks for at least admitting it.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 3, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - March 3, 2006

  7. As I’ve experienced/said before, and will doubtless live to say again:

    Gryph severely misrepresents his opponents, to a truly contemptible degree involving no intellectual honestly or integrity.

    Comment by Calarato — March 3, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - March 3, 2006

  8. As I’ve experienced/said before, and will doubtless live to say again:

    Gryph severely misrepresents his opponents, to a truly contemptible degree involving no intellectual honestly or integrity.

    I’m simply imitating the writing style of the author of the original post. Who has admitted that he purposely tries to create outrage. Why should I not do the same? Seems to me you have a double-standard Calarato . If you want “intellectual honesty”, your not going to find too much of it around here, where everything sounds like it’s a re-processed GOP press release.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 3, 2006 @ 11:01 pm - March 3, 2006

  9. “Four legs good. Two legs bad.”
    “Four legs good. Two legs bad.”

    “Republicans good. Democrats bad.”
    “Republicans good. Democrats bad.”

    Ovine bloviators need love, too.

    (One can’t get very many Dems to bleat the same message for very long. We’re too independent.)

    Comment by Gene — March 3, 2006 @ 11:21 pm - March 3, 2006

  10. And now, Gene shows he knows nothing about this blog or the people on it.

    Nor about his own kind, Democrats, for that matter – LOL 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 4, 2006 @ 1:33 am - March 4, 2006

  11. #8 – So Gryph, long story short: in your way of living, two (perceived) wrongs would then make a right????

    And, I am searching #0 for the place where Bruce severely misrepresents his opponents, and it isn’t there. Accusatory and edgy? OK, yes. Actual misrepresentation of key facts in the world, and/or of his opponents’ stated views and personal histories? No…

    So Gryph, you’re at the same old same old….. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…. standard Gryph thin skin……. plus dishonesty……….. I can’t…… keep…… forehead…… off….. keyboard…….. buh bye……. clunk

    Comment by Calarato — March 4, 2006 @ 1:43 am - March 4, 2006

  12. Bruce, as a stubborn Goldwater Republican I frequently disagree with your conservatism. But I want you to know that I recognize, respect and admire your unabashed love for America. I, for one, will never question your patriotism no matter how intense we might disagree on an issue.

    I just hope that you and some of the most outspoken of the conservatives posting comments realize that most of us who sometimes, occasionally or frequently disagree with you guys also are patriots who unabashedly love America. We may have different takes on what’s best for America but, in the end, we all share a desire to see America and Americans succeed.

    Some of the insults the Bill O’Reilly-type personalities toss around are unfair and unnecessary. They cheapen the debate. For example, I really resent it when a war critic’s patriotism is questioned, whether on this website or somewhere else. (I, for one, still think we had no business going into Iraq — and that the war in Iraq diverted resourses from the broader war on terror — but I spent 35 years helping build civilian support for Air Force personnel and the USAF mission and will not tolerate anyone saying I don’t support the troops simply because I question the commander-in-chief’s mismanagement of a war that unnecessarily put them in harm’s way.) And not all “liberals” are secular socialists bent on destroying America, despite some of the acusations frequently made here.

    Bruce, you and I have no disagreement on the threat Islamists pose to our way of life. And I think it’s almost criminal that the American left is so anxious to ignore the threat and, in some extreme cases, sympathsize with their aims. There may be some hope, however. I was encouraged, albeit surprised, that one of the real nutjobs on the far left, John Aravosis at Americablog, has finally begun to criticize Islamic violence.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 4, 2006 @ 3:52 am - March 4, 2006

  13. #8

    That’s the WORST CYA job I’ve ever seen.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 4, 2006 @ 5:20 am - March 4, 2006

  14. (One can’t get very many Dems to bleat the same message for very long. We’re too independent.)

    A fine example of the liberal dream world. That’s all “Dems” do is bleat the same message over and over and over. Then they find a new talking point and bleat that over and over and over. Then they go back to an old talking point and bleat that over and over and over again. Doesn’t even matter that they’ve been proven wrong and/or lying.

    Speaking of which, when do you think the leftwing bloggers and MorOn.org etc. will acknowledge that the AP “corrected” their article (lie)about the “Secret Katrina Video”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 4, 2006 @ 5:25 am - March 4, 2006

  15. Thanks for repeating just about everything Anne Coulter has already said. “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, “You support terrorism if you don’t support Bush” blah, blah, blah.

    Sorry, but I can support the capture of the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks (which, by the way, that moron Bush and his cronies have yet to accomplish, thank you very much) without supporting an elected official with whom I don’t agree politically.

    Just because I don’t support the tactics being used by this administration as an excuse to keep oil flowing to America doesn’t mean I’m not patriotic, so I wish you folks would get off that band wagon. I don’t think anyone needed that #1 mental midget of a president to announce to the world that America is addicted to oil. No shit, Sherlock. More pandering to the public over the high price of gas during the fallout from Katrina whilst he and his pack of rabid dogs continue to practice their “don’t do as I do, do as I say” philosophies.

    It’s funny, but I notice that no recent posts here show that in news this week, the president is at 34% approval ratings in the polls or that video has come to light proving that he was told the day before Katrina struck what a devestating affect it would have and that the response FEMA had would be woefully inadequate. I’m heartened that I still have that picture of him looking concerned from Air Force One in his low fly over as he returned to DC from his little vacation.

    I’m heartened to see that we are getting more proof that what this guy says doesn’t jive with his actions; looks like America is finally waking up to it.

    Comment by Kevin — March 4, 2006 @ 7:19 am - March 4, 2006

  16. Speaking of free speech, see this (warning: the Emperor Misha I is not for thin-skinned wussies).

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 4, 2006 @ 8:08 am - March 4, 2006

  17. Bruce, who can take you seriously? You write:

    “This knee-jerk, simpleton and ignorant attitude comes mostly from hard-core liberal gays who think with one mind and never depart from the Gay Party Line or the Leftist Mantra on any issue.”

    Substitute “conservative” for “liberal” and “Rightwing” for “Leftist” and you’ve held yourself up to your own mirror.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 8:32 am - March 4, 2006

  18. BTW, Patrick (gryph) couldn’t have expressed my own views better.

    We all have our loyalties based on our associations and affiliations. Maybe it’s because I really am a conservative and really am a Republican that I find GWB so offensive. By all indepedent criteria known to me–from our country’s founding, through war and expansion, to our present state of affairs–not only is GWB not a conservative, nor a Republican, nor in my mind much of an American. Anyone who holds himself or his office above the law, or believes the ends justify the means, or misrepresents himself and his views to deceive, or uses religion as a position of privilege, or denies any minority less than full and inclusive rights, or appoints totally incompetent people to misrule the country, etc., is neither conservative, Republican, nor American. Anyone who believes he’s above the Constitution, that God has chosen him for “this purpose,” runs policy decisions by religious theocrats for their approval, doesn’t know what’s being done by his own administration (Dubai), and puts political donors in key policy and functionary positions to the detriment of all, is a bogus, spurious, and false representation of what he thinks he is: A conservative, Republican American.

    If Bush were of “the other” party, I probably wouldn’t expect so much and be so disappointed. But he’s of my party and claims my credentials, and he is a total fraud. During Vietnam, a bumper strip, “America: Love it or Leave it” was ubiquitous. It was a patently false dichotomy that I thought was buried with the Vietnam fiasco. The mantra should have been: “America: Love it and Correct it.” Slavery was wrong. Denying women the vote was wrong. Vietnam was wrong. Abuse of the environment was wrong. And who was behind each of these corrections? Republicans!

    Bush is a theocrat, not a conservative, and doubtfully a Republican. Never has public policy so encroached on personal lives so intrusively as it has under Bush. The morning-after pill denied. Condoms denied. Abortion denied. GLBT denied. Equality denied. Science denied. Responsible leadership denied. Ever since the Moral Majority infiltrated the Republican Party back in the Seventies, it’s no longer the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, or even Reagen. Our Bill of Rights has been abridged. Habeas corpus denied. Kidnapping, rendition, and torture used. A bogus war begun on spurious intelligence known to be one-sided. And it’s all totally unAmerican.

    There’s more than a war of terror involved, there is a culture war as well. And on each issue, Republicans have suddenly come down on the opposite side. The Theocrats vs. The Liberals (used here in its historical sense). Your “Right” vs. “Left” is a cultural war, not a political one. Yes, there are baffy intellectuals on the “Left,” whatever that means, who hypocritically espouse multiculturalism but undermine pluralism. Yes, there are baffy rednecks on the “Right,” whatever that means, who hypocritically want to impose a fundamentalist biblical mentality on the rest of us. Intelligent, responsible, and autonomous GLBT anathematize BOTH.

    If “Gay Patriot” defended historical conservatism, historical Republicanism, and universal equality, we might have our policy differences, but would largely be in agreement. If it defended the Constitution against its assailants, we would largely be in agreement. If called to light the errors and omissions glaringly obvious, we would be largely in agreement.

    But, not unsurprisingly, “Gay Patriot” uttered not a word about Dubai. Not a word about rendition, torture, and denial of habeas corpus. Not a sour word about the incompetence, if not malfeasance, of Katrina, unless it was a Democrat. Not a word about the war’s incompetent mismanagement. Not a word about the GOP’s assault of GLBT. Indeed, you go out of your way to “read into” the slimmest of lights beacons of rays. It’s such a stretch that it’s become laughable, and also disheartening. It’s so disingenuous, credibility isn’t even in question.

    But I’m essentially repeating Patrick’s point. You are trying to defend the indefensible to the point of absurdity. Start dissecting “claims” and “arguments” and avoid “epithets” and “perjoratives.” Many of us are in for the War for Our Lives, something you don’t seem to take very seriously. Several of us think you’re a group of “ex-gays” parading as queer; obviously not all, but several very likely. You have become so provincial and narrow in your petards, that you can’t see the ones lobbed right on you by “your kind.” There’s absolutely everything right about being gay and genuinely conservative, but not gay and an apologist for theocracy. Sadly, you still don’t see it.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 9:50 am - March 4, 2006

  19. Well, I did try to reply but have been blocked by the spam filter.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 4, 2006 @ 10:51 am - March 4, 2006

  20. Stephen, I feel nothing but heartfelt compassion for your suffering.

    If I had to awaken each day with your mindset, I no doubt would have jumped off a freeway overpass by now.

    Indeed, you’re the far superior victim. You’re also a completely irrational tool.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 4, 2006 @ 11:35 am - March 4, 2006

  21. fighting to protect the American way of life is torturing, kidnapping and even murdering innocent people in order to accomplish this?

    Stop! Stop! Oh dear, where are my kleenex? I haven’t laughed that hard in years.

    Sorry, but I can support the capture of the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks

    And go to protest marches to support the “rights” of all the other terrorists.

    It’s funny, but I notice that no recent posts here show that in news this week, the president is at 34% approval ratings

    Ah, another math-illiterate liberal!

    Bush is a theocrat

    Not another one! No, my side still hurts!

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 4, 2006 @ 11:37 am - March 4, 2006

  22. Indeed, you’re the far superior victim. You’re also a completely irrational tool.

    Eric, you’re the only person from Hollywood I have ever considered liking.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2006 @ 11:47 am - March 4, 2006

  23. #12 – Jack, Jack, Jack –

    Have you ever called the vicious terrorists we’re fighting in Iraq “minutemen” and “freedom fighters”?

    Have you ever called for their victory?

    No? I didn’t think you had! And that’s why nobody here (that I personally have seen) ever questions your patriotism, even when they question your facts or thought process.

    But Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and (now) even John Kerry have essentially compared our troops to terrorists, and the (real) terrorists to freedom fighters. I absolutely reserve the right to question their patriotism.

    Comment by Calarato — March 4, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - March 4, 2006

  24. (#23 cont.) Do you see the distinction there?

    And for the record: Barry Goldwater would do the same.

    Goldwater was a no-holds-barred, no-bullshit, conservative patriot. (Victory against North Vietnam, using nuclear weapons if necessary, anyone? “Extremism in the defense of libery is no vice“.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 4, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - March 4, 2006

  25. Caraloto says:

    #8 – So Gryph, long story short: in your way of living, two (perceived) wrongs would then make a right????

    That would be George. W. Bush’s theory, yes. It’s ok to torture and murder people who torture and murder. Of course not to mention the civilians that get caught up in his dragnet. So yes, by the moral standards of the GOP, two wrongs do in fact make a right.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 4, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - March 4, 2006

  26. Many of us are in for the War for Our Lives, something you don’t seem to take very seriously.

    No, because, as I pointed out, Stephen, you and yours have ZERO problem with being stripped of your rights and legally put into second-class citizenship because of peoples’ religious beliefs; indeed, you rewarded the people who openly, blatantly advocated it with tens of millions of dollars.

    Then you start shrieking about concentration camps existing and operating for gays, but run away whenever proof is demanded.

    Several of us think you’re a group of “ex-gays” parading as queer; obviously not all, but several very likely.

    Of course you do. You see, in the liberal mindset, queers can only think, feel, and react in one way, since sexual orientation automatically determines worldview and thought process. Your rationalization of people not agreeing with you is to deny their sexual orientation.

    I also consider it as informed as your fellow tool Kevin’s claim that I’m a fascist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - March 4, 2006

  27. NDT: I don’t respond to anonymous monikers. People too afraid of being “known” aren’t worth my time.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - March 4, 2006

  28. And “Stephen” is not an anonymous moniker? LOL 🙂

    (The only reason anyone would know your real name is because I mentioned it in the past, in connecting anonymous poster “DSH” to you. I could mention your name again, if you’d like.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 4, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - March 4, 2006

  29. Okay, so your mindfuck just won’t allow you to believe in the preponderance of evidence of GWB’s malfeasance, illegality, and deception. Even when other conservatives can no longer rubber stamp this administration’s barbarity, you’ll defend him with your lives. What troubles me (and apparently other readers) is how willingly you are to suppress the very core of identity in order to defend the indefensible. You must live horribly conflicted lives.

    Me? I find solace in reading Burke, Oakshott, Hayek, and even Scruton, REAL conservatives!!! Plus, there are other forums which are “right-of-center” (whatever that means) that aren’t afraid of the truth (e.g., Right-Thinking from the Left Coast). And IGF’s Paul Varnell, Dale Carpenter, Andrew Sullivan, etc., are intelligent conservatives all. Even if many here “don’t get it,” they do. They’d never blind themselves to the disaster of GWB, not for any “patriotic,” jingoistic, or chauvinistic reason, anymore than a German would now blindly follow any Leader.

    Frankly, I don’t know what’s scarier. GWB at least is finally being exposed and vetted so fully, even (yes, even) Republicans are abandoning ship. Even right-wing, religionist zealots can’t tow the line for an administration that blatantly and arrogantly disregards law. I’m not the only one experiencing deja-vu ala Nixon. And now that Michael Brown has exposed his president for the callous disregard he showed during Katrina, we now see that the root of the problem really is the head.

    Or, a handful of “gay patriots” that march to the diktat of the Leader unswervingly? Your silence over FISA, NSA, torture, imperialism, and Dubai in just this past week alone has been deafeningly apparent. You can’t, you won’t, face the truth, despite the avalanche of “bad news.” You just won’t go “there,” despite everyone else becoming more than slightly bothered by it all. The theocrats may be calm and passive, but they alone in light of the incompetence, illegality, and deception. Again, your silence is deafening.

    Your concern? Incredulously “the persecution of believers.” It’s so preposterous that it does not deserve comment. Believe me, the ONLY ones being persecuted right now are GLBT and some Arabs. Many of the Arabs deservedly so. But the GLBT? What have we done to warrant this Culture War against our very existence, our love, and our families? As Edmund White observed, the communists have gone, and in their stead are GLBT. Why? What have we done to deserve such opprobrium and hostility by the Republican party? What happened to Goldwater’s tolerance of gays, his insistence they serve in the military, and his “live and let live” doctrine? How did it get so perverted in a right-wing war over our just being? And, the worst part, you defend it! What does “gay” mean to you? Probably some bizarre construct like your “conservatism.” Neither of which exist in the real world, but in the imaginations of “social conservatives.”

    The answers to these rhetorical questions are patently obvious, which is why many of us scratch our heads. Patrick, Jack, myself, and others are calls to hold the mirror up to yourselves. Ecce, homo! By defending GWB’s “compassionate conservatism,” you’re participating in (y)our own annihilation and ruining the genuine article of conservatism. If you were satire, you’d be great! But you actually believe in “your mission.” In light of last week’s revelations alone, and your total abnegation of it, you’ve defied any meaningful significance to “gay” or “patriot.” It’s become the new non sequitur.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - March 4, 2006

  30. No. 28: Caught, you pervert! By your own self-admission.

    Several months ago Calarato seemed to take an inordinate and perverse kind of pleasure in naming me on this blog as if I cared. You were so self-indulgent about it, it really stood out. Now you’ve exposed yourself for the pervert you really are. You really do think your “outting” me! Sick! Especially queer sick!

    North Dallas Thirty seemed to get the very same perverse pleasure when he thought he had “outted” me on Malcontent. Really, you two, who hide behind monikers, does the knowledge of YOUR own identity scare you so much that you think other people’s identity bothers them? Obviously, you two do, otherwise (1) you’d use real names, and (2) and wouldn’t delight in something so obviously perverted.

    This is SO childish I can’t believe I’m even doing it, but you perverts need to be exposed for what you are.

    I’ve never shied from who I am: My full name is David Stephen Heersink. I’ve gone by Stephen my whole life. There’s even a cute anecdote. The name as scrolled above was given to me at the time my parents left the hospital, but by the time they baptized me three weeks later they changed their minds and named me Stephen David Heersink. Sadly, Ceasar prevailed over God, and I have had to go through life using D. Stephen Heersink. It’s on all my business cards, stationary, files, etc. Frankly, it’s been an annoyance.

    But I’ve always used my middle name Stephen. Then the Stephen on IGF and I had to differentiate ourselves endlessly, so I started using my initials DSH on that Haloscan. I ordinarily prefer Stephen, but I don’t pay attention to what the Haloscan has in it, as long as its already filled in.

    So, idiot, Stephen really is my name. Do you know what a moniker is? Back when NDT thought he had done something mischieviously wicked on Malcontent (doing exactly what you did), I called him on it. Come out from behind that moniker, let us know who you really are? His refusal was pathetic, but it exposed him for the hypocrite he really is. Now you’ve done the same!

    I know some of the views on this blog are wacky, and in fact, both NDT’s and yours are especially wacky. ThatGayConsevative’s belongs among you. I don’t respond to wacky, even when challenged, and certainly not even when threatened. But now I have extraordinary reason to ignore both of you: You both are both so scared that your own identities will be known, that you project that fear onto others, but looney as that is, you have no compunction about “outting” (so you perversely think) someone else. You’re not only wacky, you’re perverts. There’s simply no other word for it. Hypocrite is another.

    BTW, I can be Googled. I’m among the top reviewers on Amazon.com. I live in San Francisco. I’m 53. Born and raised in California. I am a registered Republican. My lover of 18 years died 5-1/2 years ago. I am presently dating. I received my B.A. from U.C. Berkeley, my M.A. from Mills College, Oakland. Majored philosophy. My career is in banking and teaching collegiate humanities. I’ve lived in the same residence for 29 years. There’s much more on Amazon.com if you’re really curious. Yes, I’m HIV+. I’m gay. And above all, I am not afraid to be known (even if you are). And no, my physician and other information are NOT your business and not in the public domain.

    Numerous blogs, including this one, have used my epistolary comments as points of reference. And you?

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - March 4, 2006

  31. Stephen, you’re raving. Seriously. I’m not a Conservative, btw. I’m a conservative-libertarian and registered Libertarian (mostly because I find chaos fascinating and the Republican party little different than the Dems, most of the time.) There’s a whole lot about GWB that isn’t even a little bit conservative.

    But when you talk about illegality and disreguard for the law, murders and tortures… you’re raving. You list all this stuff… Dubai? What about Dubai?… and don’t give citations. It’s all supposed to be assumed to be true because politically motivated people said so? Someone made an accusation and you believed it?

    Details… your comment was long enough. Maybe just tell me what is wrong about Dubai to start. What about Dubai is evidence of GWB’s malfesance?

    Comment by Synova — March 4, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - March 4, 2006

  32. Yes, I’m understanding: it was the DEMs who ran referenda against gay marriage, oh, yeah, I forgot. Pathetic.

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 4, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - March 4, 2006

  33. PS Feel free to watch the Republicans wondrous, thundering support of the gay lifestyle here. And you guys say liberals are in fantasy-land?

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 4, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - March 4, 2006

  34. “when Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years and when a Democrat President implemented DADT” — yes, right, that was when the Republicans were all screaming for full rights for gay people, right. I had forgotten about that.

    Comment by blog responder, resurrected — March 4, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - March 4, 2006

  35. Synova: Your name is new to me, and I’ll take it you don’t read newspapers or periodicals. Are you really unaware of the Dubai controversy? Seriously? I suggest you Google it. The New York Times, Washington Post, and even the Washington Times (the Mooney paper) have copious articles just this week. Basically, the story in Cliff Note’s form is: The Administration approved the Government of U.A.E. contracts to operate six U.S. ports, succeeding a British company. The U.A.E. is relatively “moderate” by most Arab standards and is a U.S. ally. But not unsurprisingly, like many Arab states, the government thinks one way, the people another (Pakistan is another example). Now, Homeland Security was given failing grades by several congressional and governmental agencies. One of the principal concerns was lack of security at U.S. ports. So it has struck many people, Republican Senators especially, Jon Kyle, Ted Stevens, Peter King (the list is long and includes representatives), are opposed to an Arab government having total control of six U.S. ports. Call it discomfort, unease, provocative, Arab-bashing, whatever; it’s dominated the headlines for over a week, but obviously you’ve missed this story. Well, it turns out you are not alone. When questioned about his own administration’s approval of the deal, Bush did not know about it either. Some might have perceived an awkward moment for the guy. But after consulting staff, he’s now apprized, and insists we go forward with the deal. Congress appears inalterably opposed, both Democrats and Republicans. I guess they read intelligence reports, and something has caused them a great deal of angst. It may have something to do with the Arab hate of the Western model, and surrendering six U.S. ports to Arab control just makes some people uneasy (are you sure this is news to you?). Well, even the chairman of the committee to approve the deal is opposed, and if you don’t know it, Republicans hold all the committee chairmanships. They get to do that when they are the dominant party. Several national polls (I guess you weren’t contacted) demonstrated visceral opposition to the whole idea. And, since Republicans can pretty much dictate things (see the Frist action of 3/4), and since the public (you excepted, of course) is adamantly and overwhelmingly opposed, congress just cannot bite this one for the “Gipper” (different president, but same party). Golly, I have to say even this causes me considerable angst, not that I am anti-Arab or anything, but it’s pretty well known that Arabs don’t generally like us, indeed many want to eliminate us, so why would we surrender six ports to their control? Just a rhetorical question, mind you, but I’m sure it’s pretty much the same question on congress’s mind too. Despite the opposition, Bush is holding firm (no surprise there). Well, Synova, just between the two of us, this bird ain’t goin to fly. Call it queer intuition. Possibly common sense. But after 9/11 (you did catch that didn’t you, it certainly was news, and Bush certainly talks about it alot), people across the ideological spectrum can’t believe this deal was even considered, much less approved. (I’m sure it has to do with that Arab-thing, but no one wants to sound prejudiced against Arabs, so we just talk around it.) That’s where the story is, as of today. One of the things democracy requires is an educated public; after all, they can vote, and voting requires making decisions. It appears most of the public is very aware of this issue (you sure you haven’t heard about it? Not even on talk radio?) and will not budge from its opposition. Unsurprisingly, Bush seems to be of a similar, but opposite, disposition. Oh, Synova, forgive me. It finally connects. You must get your news from Gay Patriot, and Gay Patriot is about the only blog that hasn’t brought this subject up. For heaven’s sake, when I put “Dubai” in the Search on the New York Times, over forty articles are listed in just this past few days. But if you only read Gay Patriot, you wouldn’t have a clue about this whole thing, now would you? I thought your ignorance odd. Pretty much everyone seems to know about this story, and it’s not quite a week old. But, Gay Patriot hasn’t raised the subject at all. In fact, I think I made a comment about how odd that was? I mean it really is big news. I mean BIG news. I don’t know if it’s bigger than Katrina, or if its bigger than Michael Brown’s tale about White House indifference to Katrina (it’s been a big story too). And then there’s the other BIG story about how Bush knew ALL intelligence back in 2001 stated Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S., under any circumstance (that’s been a big item too), but that he, Cheney, and Powell said just the opposite. But now that I think about it, Gay Patriot has not raised any of these issues, so no wonder you’re news-deprived. But I promise you, Synova, put the word “Dubai” in your browser search mechanism, and I guarantee you’ll find hundreds, maybe even thousands, of articles about it. Oh, and thank goodness you’re not a conservative.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - March 4, 2006

  36. Synova: A final thought. Thank you for reminding me why I am not a libertarian. Strong sympathies, mind you, but still basically a conservative. If you’re are the future of that party, they don’t have a prayer.

    Comment by Stephen — March 4, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - March 4, 2006

  37. It is fascinating to me that the donks are staking their return to power on racism, but racism is a historical norm within the Democrat party. “We don’t want them ragheads in our ports” is just an update of “We don’t want them niggras in our schools.”

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - March 4, 2006

  38. Yes, I’m understanding: it was the DEMs who ran referenda against gay marriage, oh, yeah, I forgot. Pathetic.

    And there, my friends, is denial in action:

    Sen. John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    Meanwhile, do you want to see who’s sponsoring and promoting the event in which prominent gay leftists and Democrats claimed there are gay concentration camps in operation?

    Four queer political clubs — the Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats, the Stonewall Democratic Club, the Lambda Independent Democrats of Brooklyn and the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens — sponsored the event that was moderated by Paul Schindler, the editor in chief of Gay City News.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - March 4, 2006

  39. And actually, Stephen, the point in “outing” you was simply to reveal how you change names depending on what you’re going to post. What I did over on The Malcontent was to reveal the fact that you were posting under multiple identities in support of your own posts.

    As I recalled, you tried this same stunt before, and I answered; when you whined that that wasn’t good enough, my friend Jack Malebranche saw fit to put you in your place, my favorite part of which is this excellent rejoinder:

    Using your real name doesn’t make your arguments stronger or more convincing. Arguments, and facts, stand on their own.

    And that’s the difference, Stephen.

    I have repeatedly shown how liberal gays like you couldn’t recognize homophobia practiced by a Democrat if it bit you, and I have provided numerous quotes and links to show how you and yours regularly praise homophobic Democrats and invent wild, fanciful accusations about conservatives, including concentration camps and stripping them of jobs and imprisoning them.

    And the best argument you can muster is “You use a pseudonym, so you must be wrong”.

    So did Ben Franklin.

    And the supreme irony, Stephen, is that if you’re as active in the San Francisco gay community as you claim to be, you’ve probably already seen me. Indeed, if you want to know what I look like, you can go over to my blog; there are pictures aplenty in my post.

    So, to summarize…..nice try.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - March 4, 2006

  40. Amazingly enough, Stephan. I’m entirely aware of the Dubai ports deal.

    The difference is, I’m not afraid of Arabs.

    The Dubai company has a stellar world wide reputation, an intrinsic interest in retaining that reputation, and will do a fabulous job at managing those ports.

    Telling me that pols are running around flapping like chickens is *also* not news.

    What you failed, utterly, to do was to explain in any sort of concise manner why the Dubai port deal proves GWB’s malfeasance.

    As to the Libertarian thing… I know they don’t have a chance of winning anything. If you’re going to try to insult me, find something that stings, okay?

    Comment by Synova — March 4, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - March 4, 2006

  41. The first time I heard the word “raghead” it was spoken by Ann Coulter.

    Comment by hank — March 4, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - March 4, 2006

  42. #37 Racism or at the least playing to xenophobia for affect. They’ve taken a common gut reaction (how many people had *any* idea our ports were managed/owned by foreign companies?) and instead of going with what is *right* they’ve taken the opportunity to fan those flames and play on those emotions for political gain.

    Comment by Synova — March 4, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - March 4, 2006

  43. Ann Coulter is offensive on purpose. (Though I find it hard to believe you never heard *anyone* use the term raghead.)

    Still, the Dems have picked an interesting time to try to out-hawk the hawks.

    Comment by Synova — March 4, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - March 4, 2006

  44. Then, hank, if you find HER speech offensive, why not that of Democrats who are running around comparing Arabs to devils?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - March 4, 2006

  45. ‘Arabs to devils?”

    That sounds like something the arabs would say about the US.
    “Great Satan? Infidels must die?”

    Also 43. Did you catch her gay smear the other day?
    She used to provocative . Now, she’s just evil.

    Comment by hank — March 4, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - March 4, 2006

  46. #40 — Not to mention, the port in Dubai services the United States Navy… although one could not blame them if after this incident, they told us we were no longer welcome there.

    I guess as long as they just work at gas stations (like Hillary said of Gandhi) they’re still okay, though. Or, do you also try to avoid those shifty-eyed, dark-skinned, rug-kissing heathens at the ‘On The Run,’ hank and Stephen?

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - March 4, 2006

  47. Robbie had the scoop on the Arabs-to-devils comparison.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - March 4, 2006

  48. #46
    I don’t have a car, I don’t drive.
    I don’t know what an “on the run” is.
    My best friend is from Iran.
    And you are full of shit.

    Comment by hank — March 4, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - March 4, 2006

  49. Gentlemen:

    Reading the post on this site is enlightening. I will soon be 55, a lifetime Conservative raised as a Democrat and am straight.

    Take a few seconds of your time and read my post for you may gain from it for I have gained for writing it.

    President Bush:
    I voted twice for President Bush, but would not vote for him again. President Bush has made to many mistakes:
    1. By not protecting our borders (how many terrorists have entered America through our unprotected borders – thousands or tens of thousands),
    2. A failed policy in Iraq and staying way to long in Iraq (nearly 2,300 Americans killed and approaching $200 billion in tax dollars expended – nearly a $1,000 per man, woman and child in America) I want my $1,000 back.
    3. The fiasco of a port deal that the majority of Americans are against.
    And way to many others.
    I have informed my Congressman and Senators of my disenfranchisement with the Republican Party and if it is not fixed I will vote Democrat for the first time in the national elections.

    I see many similarities between the exchanges among those that post here about deep felt feelings: some that have been beaten into you others that are perceived and generally will not stand the test of truth.

    Gay Marriage:
    Why fight a losing battle that alienates the majority of America. If you want to get laid it is not best not to alienate the one that you want to be with, because you will not get laid.

    If you want equal rights and the right of recognition, come up with a different name for the union of a man and a man and a woman and a woman. Conservative America can be sold on this and accept will finally accept this. The majority of us aren’t gay bashers.

    Conservative America & Christianity:
    Conservative Americans and Christians in general do not agree with the gay life style, but we generally have a live and let live attitude. Calling all Conservatives and Christians gay bashers is like calling all gays child molesters and rapists. The statements do not stand the test of truth.

    There will always be those on both sides of the discussion that will never accept the other, but these are the exception instead of the general rule.

    Islam:
    Regardless of the post by several, the greatest threat to the gay community is not Conservatives and Christians, but Islam.

    Islam has no tolerance for infidels (non-Muslims) and even less for gays. If Islam conquers the America, infidels will either convert to Islam, become slaves or be executed. Gays will not have this choice. When a gay person is found by Muslims, they are beaten and stoned or beheaded.

    There is a war being wage in America in the press by political correctness toward Islam and Islam claiming intolerance and racism toward Muslims and we are not wining the war in the press.

    The UNC incident with the Muslim man driving a car into the college crowd because America is against all Muslims is just the beginning in America.

    You can continue to argue and debate the problems real and conceived between the gay community and the rest of America and allow Islam to conquer America and suffer death under Islam\
    or
    Join in the fight against Islam and continue to have a gay community in America even if it isn’t perfect, but a whole damn greater life than under Islam.

    The Texican,

    Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

    Comment by The Texican — March 4, 2006 @ 10:53 pm - March 4, 2006

  50. I’m not going to vote for Bush again either. 😉

    1. Borders can’t be protected without destroying our freedom. Could they be managed better? Yes. Could we do *something* about the border with Mexico? We certainly ought to. Where are the Dems on border issues? I’m afraid, Texan, that you won’t be any more pleased with the Democrats then you are with the Republicans.

    2. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. If you think that our involvement in Iraq should have been hit and run, you will be happier with the Democrats.

    3. Most Americans are idiots. The port deal is unexceptionable except for the fact that some on the right and left are xenophobic and all on the left are willing to take political advantage of the situation. The “fiasco” is manufactured. Enjoy your new buds.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 12:58 am - March 5, 2006

  51. #41 – The first time I heard “raghead” it was spoken by one of my high school teachers in 1979. So, it’s been around awhile. Coulter is still over-the-top for my taste, but sorry to disillusion you hank on your little point there.

    #48 – And there, hank plainly loses it – i.e., the argument.

    NDT:

    In one of these threads, you pointed to an old thread where Stephen said to hank “We [people of our messed up viewpoint] are becoming legion” and I quoted Mark 5:10.

    Well, I didn’t realize how right I was! I hadn’t known about the whole thing with Stephen / DSH / David over at Malcontent that you quoted. How messed up is THAT? LOL!

    I mean, I had assumed that the constant Stephen / DSH switchovers in this place could be partly “innocent”, because maybe he just had 2 computers or something and hadn’t synchronized them… Not because he was REALLY trying to appear as multiple people (or “becoming legion”) in support of his posts!

    But then I find out, over at Malcontent, not only is he trying to do that for real, it’s THREE people now! ROTFLMAO! 🙂

    And each identity (Stephen, DSH, David) is a partial derivative of his real name – but it’s not like he ever states his name or intends for us to know it (as “Bruce Carroll, Jr.”, “B. Daniel Blatt”). He may as well be calling himself “hank”, as “Stephen”. And then, to top that, not only is he hiding behind an anonymous moniker – he’s hiding behind THREE! Unbelievable!

    And then he has the nerve to trash you (and I suppose me – again, I haven’t bothered to read the extra long rants posted today) over each having one moniker! The nerve! When will it end? 🙂 That is, when will Stephen hit bottom? Is it possible that one day, he will finally cease to amaze?!

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 1:16 am - March 5, 2006

  52. Calarato, #23: in my comments, #12, I wasn’t talking about those leftists, like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, who think America is the enemy.

    Some of the readers posting oomments here regularly impugn the integrity of those commenting with whom they disagree and frequently come close to questioning the loyalty to America of those commenting with whom they disagree.

    It’s absolutely outrageous , to cite an example, for someone to call Stephen “insane” and to express surprise when he posts something with which you agree. He disagrees with “modern conservatism” and those who support it in a kneejerk fashion. As such, he deserves respect not ridicule Just as every person who posts here deserves respect for taking time to express his or her views.

    I had the honor of knowing Barry Goldwater. If he were alive today and posting comments here, some of you would be greatly shocked by what he might say about the Bush administration, Bush’s war in Iraq, the theocrats who are using the GOP as a vehicle to achieve only God knows what, “modern conservatism”, etc.

    I’m not sure Bruce really means it, but he consistently paints “liberals” with a broad brush. Not every Democrat who disagrees with the policies of the Bush administration is out to destroy free enterprise and American democracy.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 5, 2006 @ 1:46 am - March 5, 2006

  53. #4You’re right. Anyone who says he’s not afraid of arabs needs his head examined. Even if he’s “been to the UAE, and knows ALL about them.” Well, guess what ? I’ve been there too, and don’t know a thing about them. None of us does, They hate us with a blind fury.

    I was here in NYC ON 9/11, and I stayed here to help out, by serving food and coffe to the firemen and cops. It was horrible. The smell alone lasted for a month. But harder still was trying to lead a “normal” life. Taking the subway to work, going to restaurants and the theater (which were close to dying), trying to support the city which was gripped by fear. Soldiers with machine guns in the subway?FEAR So anyone who says he “isn’t afraid of arabs” hasn’t seen what makes them ecstatic. There was dancing in the “arab streets”.

    I might not be fighting in Iraq, but I’m here, and I’ve stuck it out. I love my city and my Country.

    I don’t have children, but when I read that 12 muslim men (arabs by the way) tried to kidnap the daughter of one of the Danish cartoonists, I felt fear. Fear for that girl who had done NOTHING. So anyone who says they “don’t fear arabs” (especially after the relentless indoctrination Bush and Co. have been feeding us) should at the very least think of the children.

    I’ve asked many times if anyone else who posts here, lives in a port city. Apparently not. But they “aren’t afraid of arabs”. Well I am. And so are the dockworkers, the longshore men, and the citizens of this great city.

    We’ve been attacked once, and that was one time too many.

    I’m sure the nasty little triumvirate here will make fun of this post. I don’t give a f**k.

    So I am afraid.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 2:19 am - March 5, 2006

  54. That was in response to #49. Sorry.

    Thank you Jack 52, I’ve been called “crazy” here more times than I can tell you. Consider the source.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 2:25 am - March 5, 2006

  55. #52 – “It’s absolutely outrageous , to cite an example, for someone to call Stephen “insane” and to express surprise when he posts something with which you agree.”

    No it isn’t, Jack. Please see #51 and related earlier posts. Stephen is truly a nutjob. He truly deserves ridicule, not respect. I mean that, with evidence / experience to back it up. For months, his behavior here has been alternately wild and reprehensible.

    As for Goldwater: Please don’t speak for the dead. That’s insane. Note that I gave actual Goldwater positions and quotes.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 2:43 am - March 5, 2006

  56. P.S. And speaking of Goldwater quotes, before you bring up “Every good Christian should give Jerry Falwell a swift kick in the ass”, please note I agree with that.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 2:44 am - March 5, 2006

  57. #53 – ????? I guess I haven’t followed the ports / arabs comments nearly enough to know what you’re after here, hank. I fear, not arabs per se, but certainly Islamo-fascists – as I harp on all the time. Most of your comments in #53, I have to agree with.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 2:49 am - March 5, 2006

  58. #56 P.P.S. I guess I’m not done with this…

    Jack, in #51 and earlier related posts, we reviewed Stephen’s behavior of using multiple anonymous monikers – then accusing others (!) of hiding behind anonymous monikers. (hank, do you ever do that? Whatever our problems have been, I would NOT assume so…)

    But we could go, instead, into many examples where Stephen has accused people of the wildest things that had nothing to with their actual (stated) views and actions. (MANY.)

    I prefer, however, to veer into one small example from past substantive discussions when I cared more: His cherished canard that with Iraq, “we invaded a sovereign nation”. Ummm…… No.

    Christopher Hitchens has summarized it best:

    “Iraq had lost its sovereignty as far as a state can do under international law. There are four conditions under which a state may be deemed or said to have sacrificed its sovereignty. These are: if it participates in regular aggressions against neighboring states or occupations of their territory; if it violates all the letter and spirit of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, and in other words, fools around promiscuously with the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; third, if it should violate the Genocide Convention, the signatories to which are obliged without further notice to act either to prevent or punish genocide; and fourth, if it plays host to international gangsters, nihilists, terrorists, and jihadists.

    “Iraq met all these four conditions repeatedly, and would demonstrate its willingness to repeat them on many occasions. Its sovereignty was at an end, it was under international sanctions, it was a ward of the international community. Its people were being starved in order to build palaces for their psychopathic dictator. And it was further more imploding as a state and as a society that the divide and rule policy of the Baath party had led to appalling ethnic and confessional hatreds within the country.

    Whatever else you may have to say about the Iraq war, this one point – that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had lost all right to (or protection of) the legal and moral term “sovereign” – is not one that rational people debate any longer. The jury came in. The question is settled (for rational people).

    To maintain or pretend otherwise – i.e., that in Iraq “the U.S. invaded a sovereign nation” – in the face of so much contrary evidence and logic, and the basic meaning of the word “sovereign” – is, and at this late date should be called, “nuts”.

    Sorry but there it is. Now, that’s one example, on top of #51 type of issues and the many many other types. Stephen deserves no respect and gets none from me.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 3:32 am - March 5, 2006

  59. Calarato, #55, don’t start calling me insane. You throw that word around a little loosely. It’s a specific mental health condition and I don’t think you’re qualified to diagnose anyone. I don’t always agree with Stephen, but nothing he’s ever posted on this blog justifys your calling him “insane”. It’s OK to disagree with him — to strongly disagree with him, or anyone else, for that matter — but is it necessary to get so damn mean about it?

    You and a couple of other people posting here seem to believe your opinions are the only ones that count, that anyone who doesn’t toe the line is wrong. But your opinions are nothing more than opinions.

    I would never attempt to quote the dead. My opinion about what Barry Goldwater might have to say about what’s going on today in Washington is based on what he said and wrote when he was alive. I can count on one hand, with one or more fingers to spare, Bush policies that I think Goldwater would be likely to support. Goldwater would be so contrary he’d make Chuck Hagel seem like Bush’s most loyal supporter. But that’s just my opinion.

    One thing that’s not just an opinion is the fact that Barry M. Goldwater was an honorable man and Washington in 2006 is seriously lacking honorable men on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 5, 2006 @ 4:39 am - March 5, 2006

  60. I’ve been there too, and don’t know a thing about them. None of us does, They hate us with a blind fury.

    So, you “don’t know a thing about them” but state confidently that “they hate us with a blind fury?”

    Whatever, dude.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2006 @ 9:38 am - March 5, 2006

  61. #60
    You have absolutely no respect for any opinion that doesn’t march in lock step with yours, do you?
    That’s why it’s hard to have any respect for you.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 10:01 am - March 5, 2006

  62. #61 Hey, he pointed out an obvious logical falacy you stated. You don’t know a thing about them, but they hate us with a blind fury.

    Sure it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Doesn’t make it logical. Fear usually isn’t logical anyhow. And it’s not a reasonable basis on which to make policy decisions.

    I’m disgusted. I’m disgusted with the Republicans that are, I suppose, doing what their constituents want them to do and being seen to run with Chicken Little. I’m disgusted at the Democrats who see political gain to be made in attacking Bush. I swear none of these people ever heard of the word “leadership”. They’re followers, every stinking last one. They’ll follow the polls before they do what’s right.

    What ever happened to post 9-11 calls for fairness to Arabs? To Christians that stood guard at US mosques and people up in arms prepared to defend Moslems from ignorant violence? To all those moralists who attacked the “right” for demonizing an entire race? What happened to that? Forget the calls for moderation and fairness and tolerance. Forget trying to stem the tide of irrational fear.

    It’s more important to attack Bush, isn’t it.

    That is so… pathetic.

    Worse yet, it’s dangerous.

    It’s dangerous in the message it send to Arabs and Moslems, because it says we see no difference between the Islamofacists and Islamists and terrorists and those Arabs firmly in the 21st Century. It says we view a respected and world class port management company, with ports all over the world that we use every day and that ships cargo to us every day, as the same as a bunch of neck-choppers in Fallujah.

    Fabulous message to send.

    And it dangerous because NO ONE is holding the line on racial hatred and fear in this country. NO ONE.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 11:52 am - March 5, 2006

  63. Jack Allen said…

    “You and a couple of other people posting here seem to believe your opinions are the only ones that count, that anyone who doesn’t toe the line is wrong. But your opinions are nothing more than opinions.”

    Jack, that’s patently false, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your modus operandi. To wit: the few regular contributors to this blog’s comments section you refer to have historically and invariably taken issue with Stephen and his ilk when the latter have clearly lied, or otherwise attempted to obfuscate the facts of an issue. To not do so would be to lend credence to utter horseshit.

    My rhetorical question to you would be: who the fuck decided that only the liberal was capable of “speaking truth to power?”

    You also said…

    “It’s OK to disagree with him — to strongly disagree with him, or anyone else, for that matter — but is it necessary to get so damn mean about it?”

    Excuse me, but have you spent any time at Kos, Atrios or DU? Those unconscionable assholes appear to actually glean sexual gratification from assaulting opposing viewpoints (that is, if they don’t ban you first). Here, at least, Stephen is free to continue his descent into the abyss, unabridged and uncensored.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 5, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - March 5, 2006

  64. You have absolutely no respect for any opinion that doesn’t march in lock step with yours, do you?

    I have absolutely no respect for opinions that can’t be supported logically, if that’s what you mean. Other than that, I have nothing to add to what Synova stated so cromulently.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - March 5, 2006

  65. Synova. May I point out to you that “hate” is an EMOTION. One doesn’t understad hate. One feels it.
    There is logic in what I said, but being in the upside down world of raving Bushies, oh well.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - March 5, 2006

  66. hank said…

    “May I point out to you that “hate” is an EMOTION. One doesn’t understad hate. One feels it.
    There is logic in what I said, but being in the upside down world of raving Bushies, oh well.”

    Well hank, dear, I would remind you that in our “upside down world,” it was YOUR little buddies who carried around signs depicting the President’s severed, blood-dripping head, and my personal fave, the asshole who wrote on HIS sign…

    I LOVE NY – ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THE WTC

    Tell me hank, my little retarded one, although I work in an industry that deals exclusively in fantasy, I have no idea how it feels to actually live in such a state. What’s that like?

    I don’t hate you hank, I just think you’re a pube-encrusted dildo. There is a difference, you know.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 5, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - March 5, 2006

  67. You must have misunderstood everything I wrote.
    Please reread.
    What do you mean, “my little buddies”? What “signs”? What the hell are you talking about?

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - March 5, 2006

  68. Comment #50, Comment by Synova
    1. Borders can’t be protected without destroying our freedom.
    —-
    Just how wouild our freedom be destoryed if the borders were locked down. Americans could still walk back and forth across the border at border stations and non-Americans with the correct paper work would also be allowed to cross.
    ——————–

    2. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. If you think that our involvement in Iraq should have been hit and run, you will be happier with the Democrats.
    —-
    Just what has our involvement in Iraq gained except 2,300 dead American soldiers, $200 billiion more in debt and $60/barrel oil. We need to cut our losses and leave and let the Muslims determine who is going to rule in Iraq.
    ———————-

    3. Most Americans are idiots. The port deal is unexceptionable except for the fact that some on the right and left are xenophobic and all on the left are willing to take political advantage of the situation. The “fiasco” is manufactured. Enjoy your new buds.
    —-
    Calingl me an most other Americans idiots is acceptable as long as the port deal fails. We do not need foreign countries or companies operating and managing our ports. As to the UAE, in 1991 the UAE stated that America was thier number 2 enemy after Israel. The UAE does not allow any Israel goods or goods with any Isreal made parts into the UAE. THe UAE recognizes the Taliban.
    HOw much more do you need to realize the UAE is no deal for AMerica. Go Google.

    The Texican,

    Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006

    Comment by The Texican — March 5, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - March 5, 2006

  69. We need to cut our losses and leave and

    send the message to the world that we are a nation of pussies and do not have the stomach to defend our nation or our freedoms.

    Yes, that has worked wonderfully every time we’ve done it. Vietnam. Lebanon. The Sudan.

    Don’t think so.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 5, 2006 @ 2:17 pm - March 5, 2006

  70. Freedom at the cost of freedom?

    Or safety at the cost of freedom?

    Who manages our other ports? Find out and get back to me.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - March 5, 2006

  71. No. 64: Vin the K: “I have absolutely no respect for opinions that can’t be supported logically, if that’s what you mean.” Hey, then why don’t you give it a try?

    Comment by Stephen — March 5, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - March 5, 2006

  72. 70
    Almost all our ports are managed my multi-national corps., and have been for years. That shouldn’t be a problem. However, in this case the hiring of new emplyees will at the discretion of the new owners. Also not a problem at this point in time. But with only 5% of the cargo ships being examined (something new which has come to light), and with the Coast Guard and customs strained to the breaking point, this trasfer has put fear in the minds of the public. It was bad timing, combined with a lack of transparency.
    Oddly only one world port is managed by American Co. It’s in Iraq.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - March 5, 2006

  73. That should have been Somalia, not the Sudan.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 5, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - March 5, 2006

  74. #72 Thanks hank. I appreciate it.

    I’m not going to dispute that the idea of Arabs running ports in the US bothers people. It does. My dispute is with the idea that those feelings are a solid basis for policy. For *politics* sure… but playing on people’s fears instead of helping them to see past them is not admirable. Not even a little bit.

    The lack of transparency, I just don’t see. A whole heck of a lot of deals are made we never hear about because they just aren’t interesting. Almost no one even knew our ports are run by foreign companies. The press and whoever else doesn’t find this interesting. It’s never been a secret. It’s never been obscured. It’s just that no one cared.

    The Dubai company manages other ports around the world and ships from those ports ship cargo to US ports all the time. The only difference in having them managing ports at this end as well is that they might end up managed more effieciently.

    Other than the initial “What do you mean we don’t own our ports!!” and emotional reaction to the idea of “Arabs” owning some of them… we’ve news reports falsely claiming that they’d be running security in the ports and a bunch of politicians going on about how Bush “bungled” this.

    What do they mean by “bungled”? Why, that he did a crappy PR job on it.

    Is that good enough reason to fan fears and encouraged hatreds?

    I don’t think so. We’ve got a company who is, by all accounts, more than qualified. The ports they run have stellar reputations.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - March 5, 2006

  75. Very busy today – Glancing over things most briefly, then leaving.

    It seems as though some people are unclear on “respect for others’ opinions”, i.e., what that concept ought to mean. Let’s review.

    An opinion is “a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge“. (Oxford English Dictionary) As distinct from – you know – knowledge. Or facts.

    There are several posssible reasons why an opinion (that is, a view or judgment) could be “not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”:

    (1) If the matter is inherently subjective (e.g., chocolate vs. strawberry);

    (2) If the matter is in fact objective (or subject to knowledge and definite conclusions), but, the person’s knowledge and/or logic happens to be either flawed, incomplete, or weighted on a totally different set of values (from one’s own);

    (3) If the person, for deep reasons of their own, is willfully and egregiously impervious to knowledge, i.e., lacking in fundamentals of intellectual honesty.

    Do I, or should anybody, respect opinions/people in category 3? HELL NO. Get over it.

    Categories 1/2 are another matter and I have civil disagreements (or exchanges of views) with people in those categories.

    Stephen, raj, and (now) Gryph have, over time, shown themselves to be part of category 3. They deserve no respect, and get none from me. If you don’t like it, don’t read my stuff.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - March 5, 2006

  76. Oh, and excuse me, also QueerPatriot (or Reader or PussyPatriot or whatever multiple personality / moniker, like Stephen, he/she/it happens to feel like hiding behind today).

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - March 5, 2006

  77. What I meant by a lack of transparency is, that there was supposed to have been a 45 day waiting period before the deal was finalized. By bypassing that, it makes the adminisration appear less than open with the people (whether they intended to be or not). Plus. as I heard this morning from all the talking heads on TV; we have had 4 years of heightened alerts, of “wih us or against us”, “axis of eveil” ect. It’s hardly a surprise that this should bite the administration on the ass.

    As I mentioned in another post, I travel alot by ship, and the world ports are shockingly porous. Especially in Istanbul and Kushadasi Turkey. I don’t know who manages those ports, but you may recall it was after leaving Istanbul several moths ago, that a young man on a Royal Carribbean ship vanished. It’s never been solved. And nobody wants to talk about it.

    BTW, do you understand what #66 is trying to say to me? I think he’s trying to offend me:) But I don’t know what he’s talking about.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - March 5, 2006

  78. God, I can’t proof read. Sorry about all the goofs.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - March 5, 2006

  79. Hank, you attempted in an earlier post to link blind hatred to supporters of the President.

    “May I point out to you that “hate” is an EMOTION. One doesn’t understad hate. One feels it.
    There is logic in what I said, but being in the upside down world of raving Bushies, oh well.”

    My point was to let you know that the phenomenon of sheer hatred, and the infinite insanity that results lay squarely at the throne of the American left.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 5, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - March 5, 2006

  80. Again, you have ENTIRELY misunderstood my post. Go back and read it from 53 on before you put your other foot in your mouth.

    The “hate” I speak of there is Muslim hate for the west. It has NOTHING to do with Bush.
    I voted twice for Bush

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - March 5, 2006

  81. What would “upside down world of raving Bushies” mean?

    I only voted for Bush once, reluctantly. (I voted for Lieberman in the primary season.) I guess you’d have to be more of a Bushie than I.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - March 5, 2006

  82. I was over-reacting perhaps. But there ar some who won’t even entertain the idea that some of Bushs’ policies may be wrong. Rereading this frustrating thread is like looking at a game of Telephone. You remember, where you whisper something to your neighbor, and then he wqwhispers it, etc. And at the end it’s all different.
    Well, that’s this thread.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - March 5, 2006

  83. I’m trying to think of somebody here who would never criticizes Bush, and I can’t.

    I admit I haven’t seen Eric criticize Bush yet, but he’s a relative newbie, and from the tone of his posts, I’m quite sure he would criticize Bush when necessary.

    hank, sorry to keep slagging on this, but your comment “there are some who won’t even entertain the idea that some of Bushs’ policies may be wrong”… I have to challenge that. It’s incorrect.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - March 5, 2006

  84. P.S. Admittedly, there are a lot of people here who are disgusted with all the stupid, DISHONEST criticisms of Bush floating among the irresponsible Left. Count me in, as I’ve made clear.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 7:15 pm - March 5, 2006

  85. I don’t have children, but when I read that 12 muslim men (arabs by the way) tried to kidnap the daughter of one of the Danish cartoonists, I felt fear. Fear for that girl who had done NOTHING. So anyone who says they “don’t fear arabs” (especially after the relentless indoctrination Bush and Co. have been feeding us) should at the very least think of the children.

    I don’t “fear Arabs”.

    I fear and distrust criminals and terrorists, regardless of their ethnicity.

    I didn’t spend the night of 9/11 and 9/12 protecting a mosque

    I’ve asked many times if anyone else who posts here, lives in a port city. Apparently not. But they “aren’t afraid of arabs”. Well I am. And so are the dockworkers, the longshore men, and the citizens of this great city.

    Live in San Francisco, work in Oakland. Am well used to racist longshoremen and their union leaders who, despite having direct ties to organized crime, are ironically pointing the finger at a company which is respected world-wide for ports management — and who are obscuring the fact that port security is provided and enforced by the US military.

    I mean, really. Not even airports, which is the one place terrorists have consistently shown they’ll go, are guarded by the US military.

    Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer are lying racists who will say and do anything to get elected. Learn that now.

    As I mentioned in another post, I travel alot by ship, and the world ports are shockingly porous. Especially in Istanbul and Kushadasi.

    And just the other day, when I went to the Oakland terminal, I was required to show two forms of recognized ID, including my passport, my company badge, and to have my briefcase and vehicle searched (which they were).

    Porous, my ass. This is the real world, not Carnival Cruise Lines.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2006 @ 7:39 pm - March 5, 2006

  86. Calarato, I’m from the WF Buckley school of conservatism. As such, I tend to vote on three issues alone:

    Economy, Borders and the GWOT.

    So far, the President has managed to royally fuck-up the first two, and has managed to maintain a rather tenuous hold on the War. I am more than happy to thoroughly rake the man over the coals when called upon to do so, but recognizing that our community would be among the first to lose our heads should the islamists be permitted to prevail, I’m choosing to forego high gas prices and the plague of illegal Mexican gangbangers in favor of national security concerns.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 5, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - March 5, 2006

  87. Not sure what side this helps anymore, but, Muslims protest against terrorism in Bahrain. (hat tip Instapundit)

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - March 5, 2006

  88. #86 – Well, Buckley, bless his aging heart, is unfortunately sounding wobbly on Iraq these days. It’s a pity because in fact, we are winning there as we speak. (And yes, controlled draw-downs / returns of our troops is appropriate in 2006.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - March 5, 2006

  89. 85
    A port city affected by the sale.
    You throw “racist” around pretty easily for someone who has made EXTREMELY racist remarks on this site.

    I gave you an example of “porous”: Istanbul.
    Get a life. I’m not talking about Carnival Crusies.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - March 5, 2006

  90. Eric, I believe you owe me an apology.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - March 5, 2006

  91. #86 — I’ll give you that Bush has screwed the pooch on the borders, but the economy? 4% GDP growth and 4.7% unemployment? That’s not exactly a royal fuck-up… especially considering the global rise in petroleum prices.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - March 5, 2006

  92. A port city affected by the sale.

    Oh, that’s right, I forget — those are the only ones that have to worry about port security or apply it.

    And do you think that those cities’ ports are as porous as Istanbul? Really, now.

    You throw “racist” around pretty easily for someone who has made EXTREMELY racist remarks on this site.

    Really? Such as?

    Get a life. I’m not talking about Carnival Crusies.

    No, you’re just hoping that the average American, whose experience with ports is limited to that, buys into the rhetoric.

    Again, Democrats trading on ignorance and racism. I almost fell out of my chair when you compared the ports of New York and Baltimore, etc., to Istanbul, which anyone with half a brain would KNOW is spurious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - March 5, 2006

  93. Anybody who has read your racist ravings here knows what I’m talking about.
    i never compared thoses ports in that way, and you fucking know it.
    You leave me numb and speechless.
    bye

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - March 5, 2006

  94. Also, about the ports… what I’m wondering now is if most of the people who formed their opinions during the inaccurate media hype early on (“Bush is selling our ports to terrorists”) have since learned more (The ports are not being sold, only the company that loads and unloads cargo, security has nothing to do with the deal, et cetera…) but pride prevents them from changing their opinions. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. And people have so much invested in their positions, it’s doubtful anyone would want to change at this late date.

    Comment by V the K — March 5, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - March 5, 2006

  95. hank, this is honest: I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Forget about digging up links: What has been the racist content of NDT’s posts, that I’ve missed? (I usually read all of his!)

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - March 5, 2006

  96. Anybody who has read your racist ravings here knows what I’m talking about.

    Oh no you don’t, hank.

    I want you to cite them, immediately. Now. Directly. Show the remarks you characterize as “racist ravings”.

    Let me give you an example of how that’s done to bolster an argument and support accusations:

    i never compared thoses ports in that way, and you fucking know it.

    Wanna bet? (added emphasis mine)

    As I mentioned in another post, I travel alot by ship, and the world ports are shockingly porous. Especially in Istanbul and Kushadasi, Turkey.

    Now, unless New York, Baltimore, etc. aren’t world ports, that statement DOES compare them. Care to disagree?

    In short, Hank, if you want to accuse someone of racism, you’d better be prepared to back it up. You apparently aren’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 5, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - March 5, 2006

  97. #59 – Jack –

    Please point to where I have ever called you insane? Ever? Please?

    There – I didn’t think you could do it.

    In #55, I said it was insane for anyone to try to put words in the mouth of a dead person, as you tried to with Barry Goldwater in #52, and I stand by it. That argumentative tactic or form of behavior (note TACTIC or BEHAVIOR) is insane.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 8:48 pm - March 5, 2006

  98. P.S. now Stephen, yes, I call insane as a person – that’s different – again I stand by that.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - March 5, 2006

  99. 96
    empty bullshit as always from you.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - March 5, 2006

  100. hank,

    Please enlighten us – What has NDT said that you find racist?

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 10:26 pm - March 5, 2006

  101. I had understood the “45 days” not to be a waiting period but to be the maximum time the office approving the sale had to approve it. They had to give their answer, yes or no, before 45 days and that is what they did.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 11:27 pm - March 5, 2006

  102. That’s a different sort of thing than having a required 45 days before approval. Very different.

    A person can still reasonably say, why did they put the approval through so quickly? (Does anyone know how long it actually took?)

    But to imply they have to take the whole 45 days or they did something contrary to the rules they are supposed to follow? That’s not even honest.

    Comment by Synova — March 5, 2006 @ 11:47 pm - March 5, 2006

  103. If I had time to wade through the past posts, I still wouldn’t do it. It was on Malcontent I believe. My mistake. Something about “when black pols speak, the left takes it as gospel. But when white ones say the same , they are silenced.” Some crap like that.

    At this point I really don’t care, since NDT is happy to link meaningless old posts to “prove” his points. As I said in 53 , there are people here who create their own reality. I don’t give a fuck.

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - March 5, 2006

  104. Synova. I’m not clear on the terms of the 45 days.
    Take a look at this.\
    Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal
    In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day “review” of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day “investigation” is necessary to address national security concerns.

    The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer.

    A

    Comment by hank — March 5, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - March 5, 2006

  105. Thanks for making some effort to describe it.

    Honestly, from the little you’ve given, it sounds much more like NDT was highlighting and attacking the Left’s racism, not expressing or promoting racism.

    Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - March 5, 2006

  106. To go a bit further, hank:

    You periodically get into fights here on positions that aren’t very defensible, and later regret it. I’m beginning to wonder if tomorrow morning, your thing with NDT here will be one of the times.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 12:02 am - March 6, 2006

  107. Sorry I don’t know what happened there.It posted by itself.
    CFIUS did not conduct the 45-day investigation provided for by statute if the acquisition has the potential of affecting national security. The New York Times further noted that a September 2005 GAO report — issued one month before CFIUS reviewed the port deal — criticized CFIUS for investigating only eight of the 470 deals it reviewed since 1997 and “said the Treasury Department, as head of the interagency committee that reviews such deals [CFIUS], had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment.”

    And a link I hope.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/

    As I said before, it was simply ill-timed. and not presented in the most graceful way.

    We have outsourced our ports for years to multi-nationalswithout a problem. But it is an accident waiting to happen.

    The good thing is, that perhaps people will realze that the ports are porous, and are an entry way to our country.

    Scrutiny isn’t a bad idea at all.

    I’ve said enough.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 12:08 am - March 6, 2006

  108. I appreciate the calm tone of voice and the information, hank.

    Comment by Synova — March 6, 2006 @ 12:26 am - March 6, 2006

  109. Eric In Hollywood, if you’re still around I’d like to go back to your comments in #63.

    First, I can’t speak for “liberals”. While I dislike the contemporary definition of political thought, I’m generally a “pragmatic centrist” who sometimes tilts left or right depending on specific issues. I’m a “liberal” on social issues like abortion rights, full equality for gays, separation of church and state, censorship, stem cell research, etc. But I tilt to the right (I hate what the term “conervative” means today) on issues like taxes and spending, foreign policy, national defense, the states’ role in our federal system, etc.

    Secondly, I can’t comment on anything that Kos, Altrios and DU do. I’ve never been to those leftist blogs because I don’t want to read their crap. I limit my daily heartburn and high blood pressure to a quick scroll through Americablog — and that’s only because I enjoyed an Internet newsletter John Aravosis wrote way back before his ego required constant adolation from far left bloggers and the MSM.

    North Dallas Thirty, in #92, you reinforce one of my earlier comments when you dismiss something someone posted with a “anyone with a half a brain” snarl.

    Calarato, in #97, you answered the question you asked me. When you accused me of quoting the dead you said, that’s “insame”.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 6, 2006 @ 12:46 am - March 6, 2006

  110. “hank”, if you’d ever like to chat a bit away from this blog, contact me at quarterback7fan@yahoo.com

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 6, 2006 @ 12:54 am - March 6, 2006

  111. #109 – Exactly, Jack. “THAT” (tactic, said I) “is insane”.

    Not “you” are insane. “THAT”, as opposed to “you”. Clear?

    To put it another way: Could you kindly separate yourself (sense of personhood and identity) from a small mistake you committed?

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 1:13 am - March 6, 2006

  112. Meanwhile, permit me to re-iterate: Attempting to speak new words for the dead, as an argumentative tactic, is insane.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 1:16 am - March 6, 2006

  113. (Oxford English Dictionary: “extremely foolish; irrational”)

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 1:18 am - March 6, 2006

  114. North Dallas Thirty, in #92, you reinforce one of my earlier comments when you dismiss something someone posted with a “anyone with a half a brain” snarl.

    I believe this is to what you were referring:

    I almost fell out of my chair when you compared the ports of New York and Baltimore, etc., to Istanbul, which anyone with half a brain would KNOW is spurious.

    And that was in response to hank’s comparing the security at Istanbul to that at New York and Baltimore. Of course, the fact that he based his condemnation of Istanbul on the fact that a person was mysteriously murdered on a cruise ship that had docked there was a pleasant counterpoint.

    So, in short, Jack, it would behoove you to come up with a better reinforcement than me pointing out visible logical fallacies in someone else’s argument.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2006 @ 1:28 am - March 6, 2006

  115. If I had time to wade through the past posts, I still wouldn’t do it. It was on Malcontent I believe. My mistake. Something about “when black pols speak, the left takes it as gospel. But when white ones say the same , they are silenced.” Some crap like that.

    You mean this?

    I think the other members are forgetting the hierarchy here.

    Blacks are the most reliable Democratic voting constituency; therefore, they are always right where Democrats are concerned.

    Jews are on paid Democratic spokesperson Cindy Sheehan’s bad list and as such can be ignored.

    Gays will do whatever Democrats tell them, so why waste money or time on their concerns?

    Or maybe it was this one?

    Or this one?

    Or maybe this quote?

    As other posts here have shown, Hurricane Katrina disproportionately affected whites in terms of death and losses. But since white people won’t do what Democrats tell them automatically, Dems don’t care.

    Or maybe it was this one.

    Tell us, hank; where is the racism?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2006 @ 1:41 am - March 6, 2006

  116. For the record: The stuff NDT has linked are him highlighting the racism and hypocrisy of the Left (as I suspected) – not advocating racism.

    And hank has come up empty, on substantiating hank’s charges with something different.

    On present information, it is sure looking like hank’s charge was unjust and cognitively “way off”.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 10:09 am - March 6, 2006

  117. Hank, I thoroughly misconstrued your earlier post, and reacted inappropriately. I do apologize.

    Jack, I concur with your distaste for GWB’s version of conservatism, wherein the President obviously lacks the courage of many of his convictions. Even National Review and The Weekly Standard now find themselves staunchly defending the Administration for no other reason than the War.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 6, 2006 @ 10:13 am - March 6, 2006

  118. “Of course, the fact that he based his condemnation of Istanbul on the fact that a person was mysteriously murdered on a cruise ship that had docked there was a pleasant counterpoint.”

    “PLEASANT”?
    You find it a “pleasant” counterpoint to read about someones’ murder?Well, good for you.

    And again, I was NOT comparing The Port or New York or Baltimore (never sailed from that one myself) to Istanbul. You ,like Eric, read one thing and see another.

    Nice try with your anal links to YOURSELF. Keeping a scrapbook? None of those is the post to whichI referred.

    I’ll say you what I said to Cal sometime back.It’s paraphrasing so don’t demand a “link”

    I don’t want to go on and on beating a dead horse in your determined effort to “win” an argument. I stay away from him as much as possible. And from now on I will stay away from you. Do me the same favor.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 10:19 am - March 6, 2006

  119. Eric, my impression from dealing with Jack is that

    (1) he is against the Iraq war,
    (2) he believes Barry Goldwater would have opposed it, and having once met Goldwater, would like the privilege of putting new words in Goldwater’s mouth to that effect.

    Jack, if either of those is false, feel free to correct me. If either relates to my failing to understand something quite different that you had attempted to say in this thread, feel free to point it out constructively.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 10:21 am - March 6, 2006

  120. #118 – “I’ll say you what I said to Cal sometime back.It’s paraphrasing so don’t demand a “link””

    Not good enough, hank. If you can’t provide a link, then at least provide a slightly better description of what you think was said (or remember being said).

    Racism is a serious charge, which is why I am taking it all seriously.

    The very little description (of what you remember) that you have provided, comes off as NDT being a critic of racism – the racism of the Left, that is.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 10:24 am - March 6, 2006

  121. In fact, let me go a little farther:

    To charge someone with racism, lacking valid evidence or justification, is wrong.

    hank, under the rules of intellectual honesty, it is time for you to either apologize outright for the charge, or to come up with new evidence / explanation / justification.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 10:34 am - March 6, 2006

  122. I don’t want to go on and on beating a dead horse in your determined effort to “win” an argument. I stay away from him as much as possible. And from now on I will stay away from you. Do me the same favor.

    No.

    You’re a slanderous liar, and you need to be exposed as such.

    Anybody who has read your racist ravings here knows what I’m talking about.

    Then, when cornered on that, you admit that you couldn’t provide quotes and were “paraphrasing”.

    It’s paraphrasing so don’t demand a “link”

    I fully intend to make sure that every post you make here from this point is followed by a reminder from me of how you accuse people without evidence and how you fall back on “paraphrasing” to cover that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2006 @ 11:52 am - March 6, 2006

  123. I was paraphrasing what I said to Calarato. You just prove my point. You read, but don’t comprehend.

    If it makes you happy. I withdraw the accusation. I’m sure I must have been wrong in seeing racism behind anything you have ever written. Good luck in your Presidential campaign

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - March 6, 2006

  124. In context, the above seems well intended to be taken as a sarcastic non-withdrawal (of the accusation).

    hank, not good enough. You can do better. (And ought to.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - March 6, 2006

  125. There’s a sizeable difference between Phelps and Wilson, hank.

    Phelps is a white man, and as such, is not automatically right.

    Wilson is a black man, and for that matter, a black preacher, so he IS automatically right. Especially when it comes to Democrats.

    Thus, airing Phelps’s antics merely exposes potential idiocy to a wider audience for ridicule.

    Airing Wilson’s antics exposes potential idiocy to a wider audience for acceptance.

    Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | February 09, 2006 at 10:05 AM

    You can nevershine enough light on the roaches. Black or white.

    Posted by: hank | February 09, 2006 at 10:44 AM

    Probably not; however, Hank, be aware that shining the light on a white roach is “being truthful”, and on a black roach is “racist”.

    Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | February 09, 2006 at 11:18 AM

    Well I live in NYC, and we don’t see it that way at all.

    Posted by: hank | February 09, 2006 at 07:54 PM

    North Dallas,

    But brother I heard many people, black AND white, mocking and criticizing the Rev’s comments when they first came out. From NPR’s ED Gordon Show to the Washington Blade, a lot of people wondered what the devil was on the guy’s mind (aside from homophobia). So I guess I’m confused why you keep insisting that black Democrats can get away with homophobiac comments.

    peace

    Posted by: James | February 10, 2006 at 07:38 AM

    Because I live in Dallas.

    T.D. Jakes is an outstanding example, but there are better ones — the local Democratic Party sabotaging the runs of transgender individuals like Monica Barros-Greene, black Democratic homophobes like Dwaine Caraway, and two-faced bigots like Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is famous for supporting gays when she’s standing in front of them and bashing them as societal ills when she’s everywhere else. Heck, Ron Kirk is a homophobe by HRC’s definition, and nobody says anything about it.

    And to expand it to the “black roach” concept that I tried above:

    — Dallas’s black police chief presided over scandal after scandal after scandal, but every time, Eddie Bernice Johnson and the Democratic Party, dominated by blacks, said it was “racism” that was causing it.

    Google “Terrell Bolton” and “Dallas” and “scandal”.

    — While you’re there, google “Wilmer-Hutchins” and “corruption”, and you’ll see how a predominantly-black school district was shielded by Democrats from investigation by using cries of “racism”, even as it was systematically looted of millions of taxpayer dollars and students were forced to sit in buildings that were later condemned.

    It goes beyond homophobia, James. It is nothing more than the Democrats using blacks as a cover for rampant incompetence and corruption.

    Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | February 10, 2006 at 10:05 AM

    Must be that southern water. 😉 I don’t know of any Dems near me who give Willy any credence whatsoever.

    Posted by: Jamie | February 10, 2006 at 10:43 AM

    North Dallas,

    I’m going to have to slightly disagree. First corruption, alas, knows no political party or ideology. History is filled up with Democrats and Republicans who have kept their hands in the cookie jar. This of course doesn’t give anyone a pass when they get caught. And your own words undercut your argument. If all of these scandals are getting play in the press, then where is the free pass? And all cities, be it Dallas or NYC, have histories where the politcal machines protect their own. The faces may change, but the same old stuff happens.

    *****
    Gee, a Democrat being a racist at a union rally. Who’d have thunk it?

    Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | February 28, 2006 at 12:13 PM

    Make of this what you will.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - March 6, 2006

  126. Eric, I missed your post 117.
    I accept your apology. And thank you. It’s the first time anyone here has acknowledged a mistake.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - March 6, 2006

  127. “You’re a slanderous liar, and you need to be exposed as such. ”
    NDT

    You have to know someones name in order to “slander” them.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - March 6, 2006

  128. #51 – slight continuation / correction for the record:

    I realized that, because Stephen does put his full name in this thread, people could easily get the wrong impression about his defense of himself and his (recent) past behavior that #51 alludes to.

    For the record: Stephen put his name in this thread **after having been** caught/exposed trying to hide behind multiple anonymous monikers, in other threads and fora. Likewise when he was caught/exposed on Malcontent.

    In other words, he does it strictly after the fact, as an argumentative tactic to try to save face or make his behavior look less reprehensible in retrospect. By inference, then, he would not be sorry to have practiced a deception on people; only sorry he was caught.

    Back in 2004 or early 2005, I was (perhaps – I believe) the first on GayPatriot to connect “Stephen” and “DSH” to longtime well-known Internet crank, D. Stephen Heersink. (Certainly others could make, or have made, the same connection in other times and places.)

    To the best of my limited knowledge, at no point in Stephen’s back-and-forth identity-switching on GayPatriot does he tell people, “Oh by the way, the DSH posting here is me – Stephen” or vice versa…. without someone having caught/exposed him first.

    For Stephen to suddenly claim, in this thread, that he has been forward and honorable in his name-switching, and not tried to hide behind multiple anonymous monikers in support of his own posts, is a deceptive tactic. Take it as such.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - March 6, 2006

  129. #126 – Yes hank, wouldn’t it be nice if you could ever do that?

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - March 6, 2006

  130. #125 – Explain it to me like I’m a nine year old, hank. What’s the racism?

    People who have taken reading comprehension courses can see (even with all the missing context) that in what you’ve quoted, NDT is criticizing the racism of others. And that criticizing racist double-standards is not advocating racist double-standards.

    I suppose you could still make some amazing new argument, but it sure looks like you are riding a losing horse here, hank. To the bitter end.

    In other words: Your defense of your charge about NDT’s racism is an empty one, and you know it.

    If, note **IF**, you want to demonstrate any ability to be a responsible person in this particular forum (GayPatriot), you will apologize to him.

    I emphasize the “IF”, because of course I am not “telling” you to. In my mind, it’s entirely possible that, for a mysterious purpose of your own, you could intend or desire to look as bad as possible, at least on GayPatriot.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 2:35 pm - March 6, 2006

  131. LOL….and yet, hank, you seem to have managed quite nicely without.

    As I pointed out to Stephen, there are reasons aplenty to post under a pseudonym, aside from Jack Malebranche’s excellent argument as to why use of one is irrelevant to one’s points.

    Moreover, as I’ve also mentioned, I’m not exactly anonymous; people know what I look like from different angles, on multiple occasions. Plus, I have seen fit to reveal my identity to several other commentors here, once I trust them to respect my space.

    And I stand by my words as reported.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - March 6, 2006

  132. then sue me asshole

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - March 6, 2006

  133. Well that about wraps it up! 🙂

    False charge…. then snarl of hostility where the apology should be.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 3:44 pm - March 6, 2006

  134. Calarato, why do you feel the need to meddle in this. I ‘ve kept my promise to you. Idon’t contact you at all anymore. You have no right to lecture me or anyone about ethics or etiquette. You are no arbiter of virtue. You’ve been taken to task on this thread for calling people “crazy”. I’ve been the brunt of your vitrol too often myself.

    ‘AS IN:

    ” It’s not your problem or concern. Just as your various mental problems and peeves are not mine.”

    “Hank has felt “off” to me for awhile, in the following way. – One day I’m Satan (to hank). The next day I’m “really balanced”. Then I’m Satan. Then I “have a lot to offer”. then I’m Satan. Then “we just got off on the wrong foot”. Then I’m Satan… etc…

    During all this, I’m really the same as always. So I know hank’s comments on me are not really on me. Having a wildly oscillating view of somebody is a psychiatric symptom, in fact, but I can’t remember the name. ”

    There’s alot more you know. And since you INSIST on links. Show me where I ever called you “satan”.

    You don’t run this blog. So why (unless you thrive on arguing) don’t you butt out?

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - March 6, 2006

  135. Wow, that’s amazing! You think about me so much, you actually kept notes! LOL 🙂

    hank, you’ve asked about my interest in this. I don’t owe you an explanation. But, out of generosity, I will kindly give you one anyway. It’s threefold:

    (1) I want to know what kind of person you are. Whether you are intellectually honest.

    (2) I have been respecting NDT all this time. If he is a racist (and your floundering has made clear that he isn’t), I need and want to know.

    (3) Bystanders’ objection to injustice. An injustice done to one, is an injustice to all.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - March 6, 2006

  136. So to sum up:

    Clean up your act, hank, or continue to face my objections – at times of my choosing, of course. (When I’m busy and/or I don’t care to bother, then of course I won’t.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - March 6, 2006

  137. Oh, and just to be very complete and thorough with you – You seem fairly obsessed with the “Satan” comment – so kindly permit me to relieve you of that.

    You see, it was a metaphor. Look up what that is. Then think how what I said might have been metaphorical. (Satan = source of evil. In your cyclical way of dealing with me, at the time I wrote that, one day you would respond to me as if I were the source of evil in the world; the next day… etc.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - March 6, 2006

  138. LOL what a weasly way to try and squrim out of admitting that you can’t prove something.. You just make things up, and try your childish little schoolboy psychobabble to make it go away.
    I really haven’t even thought about you for a long time. Why do you keep contacting me?
    And no, I don’t keep “notes”. It’s simply that you’ve written so many… shall I say “evil” things about me, that was a snap to find a couple of them.
    Now I’ve wasted enough time with you.

    Comment by hank — March 6, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - March 6, 2006

  139. Very last P.S. hank – I need to leave after this…

    Don’t misrepresent me. At *no point* in this thread have I called any person “crazy” (or another word like it), except Stephen and with a specific explanation and meaning that I took the trouble to spell out.

    Just because Jack Allen misunderstands and misrepresents a comment of mine (as calling him personally crazy – huh??) does not make it so.

    And for the record, note I went out of my way to provide Jack the full explanation in #113 and above.

    When you lecture or correct me, hank, you have a moral obligation (whether you choose to face it or not) to do it based on facts. I never object to being corrected when the correction is valid, i.e., based on facts and reality. Our problems partly stem from the fact that, 19 times out of 20, your corrections of me are NOT based on facts or reality. (As here.) If only they were!

    Judging from your thing with NDT in this thread about him supposedly being racist, of course I do infer that you probably will mis-represent me, whenever you want to. But you’ve been formally asked and advised not to, now.

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - March 6, 2006

  140. #138 –

    “contacting” you? When and how would I do that? You’re totally anonymous to me (and vice versa).

    And as for your thinking about me – LOL – well again hank, Mr. “I refuse to go through old posts and find links”, you are obviously keeping notes or mental pointers of some kind, somewhere! ROTFLMAO 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 6, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - March 6, 2006

  141. LOL what a weasly way to try and squrim out of admitting that you can’t prove something.. You just make things up, and try your childish little schoolboy psychobabble to make it go away.

    Does anyone else besides me see the irony in hank making that statement, especially in light of this previous one?

    I’ll say you what I said to Cal sometime back.It’s paraphrasing so don’t demand a “link”

    Oh, and by the way, hank:

    then sue me asshole

    As I recall, our lawyer friend PatriotPal’s going rate was somewhere in the range of $400/hour.

    I wouldn’t waste the $6.60 of his time it would take on you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 7, 2006 @ 1:35 am - March 7, 2006

  142. Re: irony – Oh, of course, NDT. Hank’s projecting again. He made up rubbish in this thread, and apparently thinks he that if slings additional personal names (“asshole” or whatever), he can weasel out. Best defense is a continued offense, eh?

    hank – Add that to your mental notes about me and do quote it next time, OK? You know, now, that it gives me a tiny thrill 😉

    NDT, totally OT: the chromium1212 should have an e-mail.

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 2:55 am - March 7, 2006

  143. Regarding Calarato’s comment in #120:

    Yes, “racism” IS a serious charge. Glad you think so. I happen to think it’s just as serious for you to make accusations about Stephen’s mental health — especially since he’s no longer an anonymous poster of comments. Readers know his full name, where he resides and what he does for a living. And it’s serious for you to repeatedly insist you have every right to call him insane.

    As far as your remarks about me are concerned, I know the dinstinction between a person and the tactics a person uses. But there’s a big difference, as far as I am concerned, between saying a person’s (alleged) tactics are foolish and saying a person’s (alleged) tactics are insane. The latter is an unnecessary slur.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 7, 2006 @ 4:11 am - March 7, 2006

  144. But, Calarato, let’s go back to your comments in #119, in which you presume to tell Eric what I think. To wit:

    “Eric, my impression from dealing with Jack is that 1) he is against the Iraq war, 2) he believes Barry Goldwater would have opposed it, and having once met Goldwater, would like the privilege of putting new words in Goldwater’s mouth to that effect.”

    Since the anonymous Mr. Calarato has taken over this blog as his own and determines who’s right and wrong, who’s mentally healthy enough to participate, I guess I’d better burn the midnight oil and set the record straight for you, Eric.

    First, saying I’m against the Iraq war is a distortion. I WAS against going to war in Iraq. And there is a difference.

    I fully supported the decision to invade Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and destroy bin Laden’s base of operations. One of the reasons I opposed expanding the war to Iraq was that it would divert resources from the broader war on terror. (There is some evidence that that has happened.) Another reason was that as President Bush lobbied Congress for authorization the reason for war seemed to change every week and, rightly or wrongly, he never convinced me that Saddam was enough of a threat to the United States to justify the war we are in. And, very importantly, with the tax cuts and the unwillingness of Bush to ask Americans to make wartime sacrifices in other areas of the federal budget, I wondered how this war was going to be financed without the Pentagon ultimately making cuts in readiness not directly related to Iraq operations. (That has come true and when I have more time and space I’d be glad to write about some specific negative impacts on the military.)

    Once the decision was made and troops went into Iraq, I put a yellow ribbon on my car. I was worried that Rumsfeld and Cheney took us in on the cheap (we didn’t have enough troop strength). I have been critical of the obscene delay by the Pentagon in getting armored Humvees to the front and in getting sufficient body armor to the front.

    I have been critical of the neocons’ management of the war, Iraqi reconstruction, etc. Am I glad Saddam was removed from power? Yes.
    But I’m not sure it was worth our human and financial sacrifices. Do I want to cut and run? No. We’re there and have to see it through to an honorable conclusion. For me, that means a stable Iraqi government, Iraqi defense forces capable of maintaining their own national security and (after one and two are a reality) a substantial drawdown of American forces, leaving in the Middle East a tactical force sufficient to back up Iraqi forces if necessary.

    Continued into next comment (nned to take a break).

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 7, 2006 @ 4:55 am - March 7, 2006

  145. (Continuting comment from #144):

    I now want to deal with Calarato’s continuting false allegations about what I said about the late Senator Barry M. Goldwater. I NEVER wrote that Goldwater WOULD oppose the Iraq war. Way back in #52 I made an observation that some people “would be shocked by what he MIGHT say” about a number of contemporary issues, including the war, Bush’s conservatism, etc. (More about that in a minute or two.)

    Then the all-knowing Calarato said of me, “having once met Goldwater”… The anonymous Calarato doesn’t know me, he knows nothing about my relationship with Barry Goldwater. I would never say that Goldwater and I were friends, but I did know him. In a private e-mail to GayPatriotWest I made a mistake in writing that I first met Goldwater in 1963. Actually that was the first time I had face-to-face contact with him after Nixon’s 1960 defeat and the rise of the Goldwater presidential campaign. I visited with him at the Capitol in Washington several times in the late 1950s (when he wasn’t thought of in presidential terms because of expectation of Nixon’s election) and occasionally corresponded with him in the early 1960s. We also corresponded on occasion while he was out of the Senate after his 1964 defeat. I saw him on numerous occasions, in Washington and elsewhere, after he returned to the Senate. After he finally retired from the Senate we somewhat kept in touch and I received several handwritten letters from him in the years before his death. And none of that is really important here, except that I greatly resented Calarato lying about me.

    Finally, in #119, Calarato wrote I “would like the privilege of putting new words in Goldwater’s mouth…” That repeated his false allegations in several posts above that, in regard to Goldwater, I was insanely trying to speak for the dead to reinforce my own points. As I stated back in #59 — and I thought once should be enough for a man as smart as Calarato claims to be — “I would never attempt to quote the dead.” I explained that whenever I speculate about what Goldwater “MIGHT say” about contemporary issues (which I rarely do) I base my speculation on what Goldwater said and wrote while he was still alive. Goldwater’s politics and principles never changed. For example, he didn’t talk about gay rights in the 1960s but he did talk about how wrong it was for government to intrude into the private and personal lives of Americans, so it was no surprise when late in his life he spoke out strongly about full equality for gays. I would never state flatly that if alive today Goldwater WOULD oppose the war. But based on his close relationship with and strong support for the military and his positions while a member (and sometimes chairman) of the Senate Armed Services Committee I might (I haven’t yet, by the way) risk speculating on how Goldwater MIGHT feel about going to war in Iraq, Bush’s conduct of the war, etc. It would likely be done privately, however.

    BTW, I love history and find it interesting when historians and writers of our day wonder (and even sometimes speculate) how great historical figures — based on their thinking and behavior in their day — would handle contemporary issues and challenges. It’s interesting, nothing more.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 7, 2006 @ 6:07 am - March 7, 2006

  146. Jack –

    I’ve given fully adequate answers to most of your points already. In the above posts, you are not visibly listening or adjusting to new information, and that raises the question of whether any good will be accomplished by my attempting once more to explain anything to you.

    So, Jack, why should I take the time? Out of generosity, shall I make a final effort?

    #143 – First of all, can we AGREE that we are speaking English, and the dictionary is a reasonable arbiter of the meaning of words?

    And can we agree that among the *COMMON AND ENTIRELY CORRECT* usages or definitions of “insane”, is: “extremely foolish; irrational” (per Oxford English Dictionary)?

    With a little thought, Jack, that by itself answers any point you have about my use of the word “insane” in connection with Stephen, his views, behavior, or character (observed by me over a period of years here; yes, years).

    But if you must know: indeed I don’t rule out the word’s primary meaning in his case – given his erratic behavior at GayPatriot (not at all limited to usage of multiple anonymous personalities/monikers). I have no conclusive evidence for the hypothesis that he might be mentally ill. And I have no conclusive evidence for the hypothesis that he might be perfectly mentally healthy. It is an open question for me.

    And that’s my opinion, OK? Can you please accept, for the time being, that (1) we might have a difference of opinion here; and (2) it’s POSSIBLE that I might know something about Stephen (from my longer observation) that you don’t? and that I still haven’t mentioned in these discussions?

    #144 – “Since [I think I have] taken over this blog…”

    Now who’s engaging in slurs, Jack?

    Do you care to practice what you would preach to me?

    Please put your rage to the side and notice how carefully I had said *MY IMPRESSION… SUBJECT TO CORRECTION FROM YOU* was that you were against the Iraq war.

    And indeed, Jack, you go on to confirm precisely that you were against the war – you think we should not have undertaken it.

    Which then raises the question of what cause you, Jack, would have to be enraged (or to cast slurs) at my expense, for characterizing your position as I did, both pretty accurately *and yet with intentional tentativeness*?

    Final note for #144: I’m glad that you’re glad that Saddam was removed from power.

    #145 – Now, Goldwater.

    “Would be shocked by what he MIGHT say” is a cop-out on your part, Jack. I mean, honestly: Why bring up Goldwater at all, if not in an effort to create a distinct impression in the mind of the reader that Goldwater actually WOULD (not MIGHT) say things agreeing with your position on the Iraq war?

    Dear readers: Anybody who plausibly or honestly thinks Jack tried to bring in Goldwater to underscore the *rightness* of the Iraq war, or because Jack thinks Goldwater would have favored it – please raise your hands?

    Re: my having said, about you, “Having once met Goldwater”…. Please note I got the idea from a statement of YOURS in a past thread – which shows I’ve been paying attention. And if it turns out you met him more than once – good for you!! And thank you for the additional information! 🙂

    But how you can characterize a off-hand statement of mine that you’d met Goldwater as an intentional falsehood – see Oxford English Dictionary for “lying”, your word – is beyond my ken.

    Once again, that raises the question of what cause you, Jack, would have to be enraged (or cast slurs) at my expense.

    Next, you return to the subject of “what Goldwater MIGHT say” in support of your personal position against the Iraq war having happened, and insist you were merely “speculating” based on statements of Goldwater’s from when he was alive – not presuming to speak for him.

    OK, fine. Newsflash: Others are fully entitled to do that much, as well. And Goldwater hinted (or perhaps stated – I would have to re-check the quotes) that the U.S. should be nuclear-bombing North Vietnam because of the importance of winning that war. That *seems like* a man who wouldn’t stand for crap from Saddam Hussein for ten minutes. (While the U.S. took it for twelve years!)

    Overall conclusion: You show in your words, Jack, a rage at me not grounded in justice. You have made a series of emotionally hostile arguments over things I have said that were mostly either (1) consciously tentative, or (2) quite correct.

    And for the one exception – for my not knowing a priori that you had met Goldwater more than once, and for my using a sloppy wording that made you think I had been stressing “once” – I now apologize.

    Given your state, or the overall (lack of) quality of the majority of your above statements trying to ‘get me’ so to speak, I have now spent way more time on you than is deserved. I won’t be addressing these matters again.

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - March 7, 2006

  147. P.S. I will, however, offer one inevitable Calarato afterthought.

    When I’ve sunk some time/thought into writing something, especially something long, my brain sort of automatically continues to “chew” on how I might have summed it up more succinctly.

    Jack, watching the ebb and flow of this whole thing from the beginning, it’s really very simple:

    You wanted to invoke Goldwater in support of your anti-Iraq war position, in some fashion. And I refuse to let you. And you’re sore.

    And you enjoy Stephen’s writing, because he also argues anti-war. And in #58, in addition to stating my opinion of Stephen as a character, I highlighted one aspect or piece of his anti-war argument structure that is completely, gonzo, certifiably nuts. And you’re sore.

    I walk away knowing in my heart that this is what it comes down to. (But don’t worry, I do not expect you to admit it.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - March 7, 2006

  148. (“anti-Iraq war position” meaning, as YOU said, that we should not have gone into Iraq)

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - March 7, 2006

  149. I should make hurtful crack, since I know that’s what YOU would do. But really this is just pitiful.

    Comment by hank — March 7, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - March 7, 2006

  150. “a” hurtful…..

    Comment by hank — March 7, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - March 7, 2006

  151. Calarato, #147, none of us could survive without the P.S., P.S.S., etc.

    First, going back a couple of your recent comments: I do sincerely believe you try to dominate this blog and on some subjects pretty much take it over. I think you’re unnecessarily rude toward those with whom you disagree. If you think that that’s a “slur” against you equal to your frequent use of “insane” to describe people, it isn’t worth arguing with you about it.

    The war in Iraq is a good example of how you twist a word here and there to distort someone’s position. In your initial message to Eric about me, you said your impression was “Jack…is against the war in Iraq.” I don’t want to sound like Bill Clinton but the important word there is “is”. I carefully explained that I opposed going into Iraq, and why, but I made clear that once the war started I got behind it, although I have been very critical of Bush’s handling of the war. I clearly stated that I do not want to cut and run, that we have to stay in Iraq until our mission’s concluded. Yet you twist my opposition to going to war to make it sound like I oppse the war now that it’s a fact. (I’m in good company when it comes to people who opposed our entry into various wars but then supported the efforts once hostilities began.)

    You claim I’m “sore” because I wanted to invoke Barry Goldwater in support of my position on the war and you won’t let me. You’re way off base.

    Only I know what I’m thinking. No matter what I say you’ll refuse to believe that I am sincere and honest in making a distinction between what Goldwater WOULD say and MIGHT say. I explained in some detail that I would never presume to state what I think he WOULD say if alive today but it’s possible, likely only privately, that I’d speculate, based on what he said and wrote while he was alive, what he MIGHT say about contemporary issues. (BTW, the truth is I never said what I think he MIGHT say about the Iraq war and related issues; only that I thought some people would be shocked by what he MIGHT say.)

    You also claim that I like (did you also mean “defend”?) Stephen’s writings because he, too, is anti-war. I do agree with Stephen on a lot of points but he and I are not on the same page about Iraq. Unless I missed something, wasn’t he the one disputing our right to invade a soverign nation? I think we had a right to do it, I just wasn’t convinced we should. And the Stephen I read is a lot more anxious to get out of Iraq than I am. And you claim that I’m sore because you showed that one of his arguments was “gonzo, certifiably nuts”. Wrong again.

    If I am “sore” about anything — and, frankly, until you accused me of being sore I hadn’t given it any thought — it’s the way you throw around accusations about people’s mental health. You can resort to the dictionary all you want to back up your use of terms like “insane” but in the real world, epecially among the poorly educated (which I know doesn’t include you) words like “insane” and “nuts” are as hurtful and demeaning as “nigger”, “kike”, “fag”, etc.

    I deeply regret that sometimes when I get wound up I’ll slip up and use something like “half-wits” to describe Fred Phelps’ followers or “nutjob” to describe extremists on the right and left. But I don’t sit and think about it before using such a term. You very intentionally try to demean people like Stephen. (It really bothers me, Calarato, when people show disrespect for the seriousness of mental health issues by using something like insanity as almost a joke. If you want to have a serious discussion about why I feel so strongly, you know how to contact me away from the blog.)

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 7, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - March 7, 2006

  152. Gentlemen:

    Goldwater would have been president if he had not stated that he would nuke Hanoi to end the war.

    Islam intends on continuing terror and causing severe damage across the civilized world until the world surrenders or the civilized world finally stands up and fights.

    The port deal will fail because the common American contacted their politicians at rate of 8 to 1 and told them no port deal.

    It is time to stand up and protect America or there will be no America.

    The Texican.
    Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

    Comment by The Texican — March 9, 2006 @ 12:50 am - March 9, 2006

  153. Texican: Barry Goldwater “lost” the election on 22 November 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated. The American people were in no mood a year later to change presidents so soon.

    The 1964 election might have been closer had Goldwater not been so honest and candid about his positions on the Vietnam War, Social Security, TVA, etc. But he was an honorable man and put principles above politics.

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 9, 2006 @ 2:20 am - March 9, 2006

  154. Goldwater would have been president if he had not stated that he would nuke Hanoi to end the war.

    Actually, no, that is not what killed his race, nor was Kenedy’s assassination (but since I asssume neither of you is old enough to remember, that’s okay). Barry Goldwater’s campaign was killed because he said, quite correctly, that he would not support the Civil Rights Act.

    Principle can sometimes bite you in the ass.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 9, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - March 9, 2006

  155. #154, I’m surprised anyone’s still around posting on this.

    You make me feel “young” but, no, I’m old enough to remember those days. In fact, I was quite active in supporting Goldwater in 1964.

    Goldwater had looked forward to campaigning against Jack Kennedy, whom he liked. He knew it would be a campaign of issues, focusing on clear differences between conservative and liberal philosophies. When Kennedy was killed, a little oomph seemed to go out of Goldwater’s ambitions.

    I, for one, felt that at times after that, Goldwater wasn’t leading the “crusade” as much as he was carried along by it to San Francisco and the nomination. Fourteen years later, Senator Morton, who was chairman of the ’64 convention, but in 1968 was chairing Nelson Rockefeller’s campaign, told me he too thought Goldwater had lost his enthusiasm but was caught up in the tide of a movement.

    From the time Johnson was sworn in aboard Air Force One I don’t think there was any objective observer who doubted that he’d be elected in 1964 no matter who the Republicans nominated.

    Goldwater’s honesty fueled the size of the Johnson landslide. That included, as you note, Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (one of the few times, by the way, that I differed with Goldwater). But there were a lot of issues: privatizing the TVA, major reforms of Social Security, getting tough in Vietnam.

    Do you, rightwingprof, remember the old joke? “The Democrats said if we voted for Goldwater we’d send America boys to die in Vietnam. I did and we did.”

    Comment by Jack Allen — March 9, 2006 @ 8:16 pm - March 9, 2006

  156. Aren’t you doing the same thing that you don’t want done to you? That being lumping all “gay liberals” into a box (moonbats, or whatever you’re calling us today), when you yourself, a “gay republican”, and those who hold similar views don’t want to be lumped into a box (such as gay republican or whatever those who disagree or supposed to be calling you today)? Although you do it, you could no more put me into a box than I could you.

    Yes, I strongly dislike Bush. I think he’s incompetent, a terrible head of state, and bad for the country. I think the direction of this country under Republicans has been horrid, and while the Democrats didn’t do such a great job either, it is far worse, in my view, under Republicans (please look at one fact alone: mismanagement of the nation’s treasury). Would Democrats do better? Who knows? Probably not, but the Republican path is sure as hell is not working.

    Finally, a little off point, but related is now that the right controls every branch of government, why is the right constantly whining about how terrible the liberals are, particularly since we’re disorganized and ineffective and haven’t really been in power since the mid 90s? The right has had 10 plus years now and everything is still the fault of Clinton and the liberals.

    It seems to me that the right is only happy when it controls all branches of the government AND those who disagree shut up and go gleefully along.

    Comment by DanielFTL — March 10, 2006 @ 5:19 am - March 10, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.