US Military Most Admired Institution
(Hat tip: BlackFive)
According to a new Harris Poll, the United States military is the most admired institutions by Americans.
A total of 47 percent of Americans said they have a “great deal” of confidence in the military. Some 38 percent of Americans said they had “only some” confidence and 14 percent said they had “hardly any” confidence in the military.
The military was followed in the poll by small business – a new category in 2005 – with 45 percent of Americans saying they had a great deal of confidence; colleges and universities, 38 percent; the Supreme Court, 33 percent; and Medicine, 31 percent.
At the bottom of the survey, released March 2, were law firms at 10 percent, Congress at 10 percent, organized labor at 12 percent, major companies at 13 percent and the press at 14 percent.
Anchoring the middle was organized religion at 30 percent, the White House at 25 percent, public schools at 22, the courts and justice system at 21, and television news at 19.
So let’s see Liberal America: US Military ranks #1. Small Business is #2. The Roberts Supreme Court is #4. And rounding out the bottom is TV news (19%) and the Press in general (14% and the bottom). Organized religion and “The White House” are way above the overall court system and the media.
No wonder the Democrat Party, Hollywood and the Mainstream Media don’t “get” America.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
118 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Your nationalism bordering on fascism is astounding. The internet is a mighty cozy place for everyone to just throw out statements as fact. (ie democrats and hollywood don’t get america). Do you have any data as to who the 1016 respndents were? Is there any data about how these people aligned themselves politically, religiously, sexually, agewise, etc? No, you don’t.
You state that TV news and press round out the bottom, when it is in fact congress (yes the led congress) rates at 10%, lowest in the survey and only matching up with law firms. Of the 3 branches of government, the villified supreme court comes out on top at 33%.
By any reckoning, all of these areas receive a failing grade with none of them hitting the 50% mark.
Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - March 12, 2006
Ya see? This is why I think Kevin should be MANDATED for frequent and excessive morning marijuana use.
Eric in the Great State of Bliss
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 12, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - March 12, 2006
2: Thanks again for proving that the internet is a place where people can feel superior just by simply making a statement that isn’t true.
Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - March 12, 2006
I disagree, actually Hollywood does get America, well main stream America, just not the insane extreme right.
Comment by Robert Bayn — March 12, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - March 12, 2006
Bruce, it’s all about context. This is the upteenth year the Harris people have done the generalized poll as a mechanism to boost their exposure to policy makers, the press and public; it’s a PR tool for Harris. Year after year, Congress and lawyers are usually near the bottom… in the past, organized religion was pretty low too.
The Harris people do this to gain press –not run a popularity contest on American institutions. It’s right up there in important polling with “Do you like the 1st Lady Laura Bush?”
But there are polls that suggest the Democrats and Hollywood and the leftwing of the Press don’t share the same values or concerns that MS America has… those are useful, insightful.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 12, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - March 12, 2006
2: Thanks again for proving that the internet is a place where people can feel superior just by simply making a statement that isn’t true.
Kind of like when you called me a fascist because you said I’ve never disagreed with Bush?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - March 12, 2006
Really, Kevin. How can you throw out so much attitude and then whine about how your spoken to in turn? In or out, Kevin. Get in or out.
Polls in this country really are a joke. Canadians and Germans may be quite easy to categorize but Americans never will be with any certainty. I never see much reason to even discuss them. The November poll is the only one that matters.
Comment by VinceTN — March 12, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - March 12, 2006
Kevin- It amazes me that you are nearly always the first to pounce on a new posting with a snide, condescending remark. There is nothing bordering on fascism about being patriotic and supporting those who VOLUNTEER for our armed forces.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 12, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - March 12, 2006
Hey Kev…
‘Twas just a casual observation about being all pissy first thing in the morning, that’s all.
Relax, Santa Paranoia…no one was attacking you.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 12, 2006 @ 6:41 pm - March 12, 2006
8: It’s not snide nor condescending. Your post (and I quote) reads: “And rounding out the bottom is TV news (19%) and the Press in general (14% and the bottom)”. I pointed out that you altered the facts that both congress and law firms actually “round out the bottom”. In order to push your agenda about how *you* believe groups are out of touch, you intentionally altered information which, funnily enough, you had described 2 paragraphs earlier.
Just get your facts straight, especially after you’ve just written them.
Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - March 12, 2006
6: Well, I do stand corrected. Let me take the time to read everyone’s blog every day.
Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - March 12, 2006
Thanks again for proving that the internet is a place where people can feel superior just by simply making a statement that isn’t true.
Like people who state that Republicans would be perfectly happy to see gay people exterminated, right Kev?
Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 7:31 pm - March 12, 2006
Kind of like when you called me a fascist because you said I’ve never disagreed with Bush?
The real irony of that is because, if you go to a real hard-core fascist website like stormfront-dot-org and read the forums, you find the exact same attacks against Bush as you find at KOS, DUMB, Move-On, or any far left site. Bush stole the election. Bush invaded Iraq just to get the oil. Bush is controlled by Jews/the oil cabal/big corporations.
Long story short: Kevin, Stephen, Cowpie, and all the other BDS-babies have much more in common with racist, white-supremacist Nazi skinheads than any of the people they call fascists.
Comment by V the K — March 12, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - March 12, 2006
It’ll be interesting to see if the MSM ancient media hightlites this Harris poll. Or if Hardball devotes a week to how Americans detest the media and the press.
Comment by Gene — March 12, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - March 12, 2006
#1
The internet is a mighty cozy place for everyone to just throw out statements as fact.
Well, you prove that with every post.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2006 @ 12:54 am - March 13, 2006
12: i’m just delighted beyond words that the same people here over and over and over again prove my point. Thanks!
Comment by Kevin — March 13, 2006 @ 6:55 am - March 13, 2006
Just for you, wackjob.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 7:24 am - March 13, 2006
Any statistician will tell you that statictics mean basically, nothing. It all depends on how you interpret them. Please do your homework and reference the following college classic – How to Lie with Statistics>
Comment by Matty — March 13, 2006 @ 8:07 am - March 13, 2006
Also, it sounds like you’re implying that one can’t be a Democrat and still have a great deal of confidence in the military. Is that incorrect? I was in the Navy, and I’d say I have even a higher level of respect than ‘great deal’. Yet, I’m a Democrat – middle of the road.
YOU ever served your country in the military? If not, then quit using it as a crutch.
Comment by Matty — March 13, 2006 @ 8:09 am - March 13, 2006
16. Kevers, do you deny posting the following comment?
I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. — Comment by Kevin — October 16, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 8:22 am - March 13, 2006
Matty at #19 “YOU ever served your country in the military? If not, then quit using it as a crutch.”
Although you didn’t direct that slam my way, I’m guessing this is the latest evolution on the “republicans are chickenhawks” nonsense from the far Left.
I wonder, if someone didn’t serve, are you suggesting they can’t honor military service of others? Or is it that ONLY military and ex-military can honor the services? I know some here commenting on DADTDH threads have argued that if you weren’t in the service, then you have to shut up -your opinion doesn’t matter.
I worked for four years with the US State Dept in Central America; does your chickenhawking slam mean that, while I’m around, you can’t speak about anything involving Central America, international relations, or world events? ‘Cause you didn’t serve in the foreign service; I did. That’s silly, right? Right.
I have to tell you, it’s my experience when I hear military personnel or union hall goons try to quiet GOPers with a chickenhawk variation, it’s usually ’cause the soldier or ex-soldier is a Democrat… and I wonder, why would they stoop to using their military status or service to quash an opposing view? Are they that desperate to dominate? Or are they that marginalized and isolated from effective or constructive impact on policy debates they have to play the Military Card like black leaders sometimes play the Race Card?
Matty, I appreciate your service but I keep thinking it’s called the armed SERVICE. You serve or served your country and got paid for it. By taxpayers. Like me. Show a little respect to those who paid your freight; I certainly respect your service. And show some respect to the public marketplace of ideas and political commentary, too –especially since you maintain a blog and should be encouraging dialogue; not dampening it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 9:36 am - March 13, 2006
Because the Nazis were left-wingers — after all, what part of sozialistische in Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei don’t liberals understand? There was nothing rigt-wing or conservative about the Nazis, then or now. And of course, we have Margaret Sanger, who championed birth control for purely racist reasons, yet is held up as some sort of saint by the liberals.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 10:56 am - March 13, 2006
#22 — As I like to point out, Nazi is short for “National Socialist,” not “National Capitalist.”
By the way, Military Branches Met All Active-Duty Recruitment Quotas in February. Sorry, lefties, I know how much you love your “military recruitment down” talking point. (In fairness, the Navy and Marines came up a little short in their Reserve components).
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 11:09 am - March 13, 2006
#21 – MM “worked for four years with the US State Dept in Central America…”
Well, that goes against my stereotypes about the State Dept, and is good to know! Thanks for your service (of a different kind), Matt.
Comment by Calarato — March 13, 2006 @ 11:44 am - March 13, 2006
22
What an inspiration you must be to your students.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - March 13, 2006
Because of the clear and direct way RWP states the facts – Yes, he must be.
Comment by Calarato — March 13, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - March 13, 2006
Not only do I get extremely high evaluations, but I’ve won four university-wide teaching awards.
What part of “I don’t take politics into the classroom” don’t you understand?
Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - March 13, 2006
I’d like to believe that. But you seem so votatile here.
And if you teach at college level, why shouldn’t you express your opinions?
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - March 13, 2006
“volatile”.. .sorry
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - March 13, 2006
Because Hank, I pay my son’s professors to teach him how to think – not what to think.
If I wanted the latter, I would have sent him to a masjid.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 13, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - March 13, 2006
That question was not directed to you.
And if a college student isn’t ready to weigh other peoples opinions, and then decide for himself, he (she) isn’t ready for college.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - March 13, 2006
Hank. this whole blog is directed at EVERYBODY.
Sorry, but if you don’t want to be spoken to out of turn, then I suggest you take your business elsewhere, mmmkay?
Now go get your fuckin’ shine box!
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 13, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 13, 2006
Hank said…
“And if a college student isn’t ready to weigh other peoples opinions, and then decide for himself, he (she) isn’t ready for college.”
And you can keep your fucking snide-ass comments about other people’s kids to yourself.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 13, 2006 @ 2:00 pm - March 13, 2006
#28 There’s an assumption here that people *must* express their emotions.
The same idea applies in so many ways. The assumption that if someone has strong feelings they must be expressed. The assumption that if feelings are expressed that they must translate into actions. How often do we see that? That an expression of disapproval is the same as a wish to lock people up?
Don’t approve of gays? Think it’s a sin? Well then, you must want to hurt them.
ColoradoPatriot talks about self-denial in service and it’s a horrible thing… no one should deny himself. Who came up with that?
It’s no different than the idea that a teacher shouldn’t, or can’t, be expected to separate the classroom from their own personal agendas.
The same could be applied to my best friend from high school explaining how important it was to express your anger rather than control an outburst.
Whatever happened to ideas of self-control, where we admire people who put other matters before their own impulses, be it a hissy fit, sexual attraction, political rantings, or anything else?
Comment by Synova — March 13, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - March 13, 2006
Hank, Eric at #30 does have a good point. I’d rather have had instructors who taught me how to think critically, rather than try to edit out “wrong” opinions that failed to pass the prof’s politically correct sniff test.
And your point about students need to enter college ready to balance opinions or they shouldn’t be there? Bunk. The whole point of college is to develop critical thinking skills, expose students to a wide range of perspectives and opinions, engage in dialogue, learn the rules of the market square of ideas, and grow. It doesn’t happen much in American high schools –and it really doesn’t happen ’til the students get to about junior yr of college.
Having been instructed in the ways of all things Liberal at the Univ of Michigan, I can tell you that instructors and teaching assistants strongly believed that by volition of their office, they were empowered to TELL students what to think, determine which opinions were relevant and approriate and –in the arena of politics and economics– would belittle conservative writers or classic theorists.
In 6 yrs of college, I never ever heard a single U of M prof say “On the other hand, opponents of my opinion would argue…” Never. Arrogance parading as learned opinion.
It’s why a lot of conservatives who attended liberal schools bristle when we see the same kind of arrogance in the press and MSM. Or other elites like the UN or GayLeft.
Nope, Eric made a valid point: students are in school to learn how to think, not be instructed in what to think. And that requires balance on the part of profs, not arrogance of opinion.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - March 13, 2006
And Hank, not to pile on to Calarato’s comment about RWP, but I would have liked to have at least one conservative prof in the College of Arts & Sciences in the 4 yrs undergrad and 2 yrs grad I was there… so, Yes, I think RWP probably is an inspiration to his students –despite your snide innuendo.
Hope you keep it that way, too RWP.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - March 13, 2006
Two reasons.
1. Principle. I am not there to indoctrinate my students. On those rare occasions when politics does come up as part of the class, the floor is open to debate. Since most of my students are Republicans — we are talking about business majors, after all — when I play devil’s advocate, that usually means that I take the liberal position.
2. Academic politics. The political atmosphere at the university is suffocatingly liberal, and alternative viewpoints are stifled by deans and other university administrators. We tend to be low-key as a result.
I will talk politics with ex-students, which happens from time to time, since I have ex-students in the College Republicans. I ran into several ex-students when I saw Ann Coulter speak. But while they are my students, they have no idea what my politics are.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - March 13, 2006
Hank RWP can teach my kids anytime (when they get to college of course).
The reality is that students are going to do better by having to take their own position and defend that. One of my husbands very best proffessors taught a subject that had a variety of defendable positions (some more defendable than others). His teacher taught that variety of opinion, and on their final exam they had to take a position and defend that position. By not revealing to his students where he stood on the issue, he didn’t get his own talking points fed back to him-instead they had to think about each position, its merits, demerits and make a defense. I think this method is far better at developing critical thinking skills, than feeding students your favorite talking points, with a few caveats tossed in, then asking them to take a position and defend it (I suspect many of the students will take the talking points route). To this day my husband still doesn’t know what this proffessors actual position was, but my husband better understands and knows how to defend his position on the issue.
Comment by just me — March 13, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - March 13, 2006
hank, you don’t seem to be getting the better of this one – so, why not just throw in a wild accusation of racism? (as you did with NDT that time)
Comment by Calarato — March 13, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - March 13, 2006
See here.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - March 13, 2006
I agree with rightwingprof here. I keep my political opinions out of the classroom.
Comment by Pat — March 13, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - March 13, 2006
Pat and RWP, let me ask you this then. If a student asked you, outside of class, to present one side of an issue for a project in which another teacher would be presenting the other side, would you do it? Because that is precisely the situation Gryph was insisting was identical to the Jay Bennish “America sucks” rant.
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - March 13, 2006
‘The whole point of college is to develop critical thinking skills, expose students to a wide range of perspectives and opinions, engage in dialogue, learn the rules of the market square of ideas, and grow. ‘
Exactly. And doesn’t that involve different points of view being presented, so that they CAN learn to think critically?
Luckily I had many conservative as well as liberal professors, and although therer were debates, there was never fighting. As below.
“His teacher taught that variety of opinion, and on their final exam they had to take a position and defend that position.”
That sounds very reasonable. just Me
“Whatever happened to ideas of self-control, where we admire people who put other matters before their own impulses, be it a hissy fit, sexual attraction, political rantings, or anything else?”
I couldn’t agree more Synova.
RWP, if it’s true that you can exercise that kind of self control I applaud you.
“And if you teach at college level, why shouldn’t you express your opinions?”
My question was actually a question. I was talking about this, with a friend who taught high school for several years, and although he said that he WAS able to keep his opinions to himself, he thought that by college, the students NEEDED to hear their teachers views. I’m not sure. That’s why I asked the question.
“And if a college student isn’t ready to weigh other peoples opinions, and then decide for himself, he (she) isn’t ready for college. ”
That is NOT a snide remark about anyone here, or their children.
Eric. You obviously have a comprehension problem. You’ve proved it before. Why act like an idiot? Keep a cival tongue in head.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - March 13, 2006
Yes, the military deserves our respect. But that does not excuse Senator Frist for confusing Commander in Chief (military) for President (civilian). Apparently, Frist thinks we should follow our Commander without question. That MIGHT work in the military (Abu Ghraib a countercase), but it has no resonance with the public. If we don’t like our President’s decisions, we can boot him. Not so with the military.
It’s time for the reactionary Republicans to stop with the military appellation when speaking of the President. He’s NOT our Commander in Chief (read the Constitution). Nor is it treasonous to disagree with the President’s policies, even if it gets you court-martialed in the military.
Frist and other reactionary Republicans ought to know the difference. We are not a police state, yet!
Comment by Stephen — March 13, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - March 13, 2006
No. 22: Your inanity astounds even me. Since when does “socialist” mean “fascist” or not? Another categorical mistake! Fascism is a POLITICAL designation, not an economic one. Let me make this clear: Fascism is a form of governance, socialism is a form of economy. The two don’t cross paths. That you have the balls to make a fool of yourself in missing something so obvious is truly incredulous.
Comment by Stephen — March 13, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - March 13, 2006
Exactly. And doesn’t that involve different points of view being presented, so that they CAN learn to think critically?
So are you saying that this can’t be done neutrally? Also, one issue I have with Bennish’s rant was that it was just that a rant, mostly a rant with very little facts, mostly opinion, and what facts he did have were mostly wrong (ie who the major producers of tobacco are, he got the coca and cocoa crops messed up, and while I might kill for chocolate, I think we can agree it isn’t a controlled substance)-some of those facts were facts you would/should expect a high school geography teacher to know-or at least check before giving them.
The reality is that presenting varying points of view is important-especially on issues that are controversial-but how those points of view are presented are important as well. Students should be given the facts and the opinion should come from the students, not the teacher.
I was talking about this, with a friend who taught high school for several years, and although he said that he WAS able to keep his opinions to himself, he thought that by college, the students NEEDED to hear their teachers views.
I actually disagree.
I think one problem you run into, when the teacher provides their opinion, many of the students may just spout back the teachers opinion, either because A-it is what they have heard most of in class, and it is easier to just spout back what they have heard B-they think the teacher will give them a better grade, if their opinion agrees with theirs, or some combination. I think it in the end makes students less likely to think critically, and actually defend a position.
I can’t see what advantage a student has by knowing one way or the other what position the teacher holds, a teacher should have enough grasp on the subject and facts that they could take any position and defend it, and that is how they should teach.
Comment by just me — March 13, 2006 @ 8:39 pm - March 13, 2006
22: Oh please, that whole Nazis were leftists/socialists has been proven to be B.S. The Nazis lied to everyone they could to gain power and that’s what they did. In the end, they were fascists, pure and simple. Their final wave into power was based upon the idea of a conservative government that would restore law and order and make Germany great once again (sound familiar?)
And do read up a little more on Margaret Sanger….it wasn’t racist…it was more from the idea at the time, held by many, that poor people shouldn’t have so many children (something a lot of people believe today), which naturally was targeted at a large number of poor black women in the south. Ultimately though, Margaret Sanger’s primary belief was that all women should have the right to control their own re-production and not let men make that decision.
Comment by Kevin — March 13, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - March 13, 2006
46
That was my question. Can it done neutrally? RWP says that he CAN keep his personal views aside. I think that is admirable. But difficult. I have taught a few courses myself, and have to admit, I’m not a good teacher.
I’m impatient. However, I’m a musician, so politics has never been the problem.
Also, I haven’t listened to the recordings of Mr Bennish, so I have so valid opinion.
…”he thought that by college, the students NEEDED to hear their teachers views.”
“I actually disagree.”
Again, I asked RWP, the question. “why shouldn’t they hear your opinions”? It was a question, and I believe he answered it. I’m not completly convinced that he’s right, but I think he makes a persuasive argument. As do many others here. I thought that this was a discussion. My mistake.
And I think you might be right in saying…
“…when the teacher provides their opinion, many of the students may just spout back the teachers opinion, either because A-it is what they have heard most of in class, and it is easier to just spout back what they have heard B-they think think the teacher will give them a better grade.”
A college student ought to have a better grasp of why he’s there in the first place. But that’s just wishful thinking on my part.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - March 13, 2006
Oh, and thank you for your calm tone. Just Me
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - March 13, 2006
>.I have “no” valid…
sorryr
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - March 13, 2006
yikes
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - March 13, 2006
I’d like to know what everyone thinks of this. I don’t have a “thin skin”, as most of should know by now. But this is not the kind of response that should be tolerated by any of you.
“You’re an atheist along with the whole anti-America, anti-business, anti-GOP, anti-conservative, anti-Life Democrat/GayLeft/Unionized Educator waltz boi…. I hope God wipes that smirk off your face right before she sends your sorry ass to Hell for an eternity. You deserve nothing less. ”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 4:47 pm – March 13, 2006
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - March 13, 2006
Hank, MattMichigan is a disgrace to the human race. His putrid comments don’t deserve attention. It’s pretty awful how his mind dysfunctions, which is one reason I don’t even bother to read his posts. There are quite a few like him, though, on this blog. The elevator doesn’t just not reach the designated floor, it doesn’t even open. Bruce writes about “them” who “don’t get it,” like MSM, Leftists, etc. Okay, many don’t. Many on the Left can’t connect the dots any better than the rightwing. But unlike the moral righteousness and indignant superiority of the ultra-Right-Wing on this blog, at least most on the “Left” have compassionate impulses. I admit to being annoyed when reason and logic are beyond someone, but if they have a heart, I try to understand them. At GP, compassionate or charitable interpretations aren’t even possible. Here, the wingnuts implode. Nothing redeems their comments. And the reality that they think they’re morally righteous and indignant only makes their folly more obvious. So, ignore the wingnuts. Let them dwell in their own incomprehensible incestuousness. Sound your clarion call. Maybe a stray reader will alight onto your comments and find new direction in their lives. That’s my hope!
Comment by Stephen — March 13, 2006 @ 10:14 pm - March 13, 2006
Oh Stephen, I’ll bet you’ve drawn the wrath of of all the crazies now. Just watch.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 10:29 pm - March 13, 2006
Socialism is far more than economics. You look at what has happened in Europe and now Canada. Its all about the government knowing better than the people and the people being kept quiet with security buzz words and social services. It’s all about the CONTROL. The Nazis were socialists (they hated American Capitalism), the Soviets were socialists, the Bathists of Iraq and Syria are socialists drawing their inspiration from Euro-socialist principles.
The Fascists have fallen, the Communists have fallen, the Socialists are falling, and the Progessives are next. You Leftists have no right to control your fellow citizens. Let go of the hate and distrust of the American people and you can stop your bitter marches in the streets and your heartbreaking “understanding” of terrorists and our other enemies.
Comment by VinceTN — March 13, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - March 13, 2006
No. 55 (see also 22, 53-55): Well, I wouldn’t have thought it possible. You literally prove my point (54). I couldn’t have done better if I tried. Educated people know the difference between “polity” and “economy.” “Polity” concerns forms of government, things like democracy, republics, totalitarianism, fascism, plutocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc. “Economy” concerns forms of exchange, things like feudalism, capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, etc. Only Marxism thinks itself uniquely distinct (silly, but communism is a strange hybrid). But “fascism” and “socialism” really have nothing intrinsically entailed. That you still “don’t get it” after being made plainly aware of it should be a source of shame, but here you are proudly displaying your ignorance. Ignorance qua ignorance is one thing, but relishing in it is another. But you are an exemplar par excellence! (That doesn’t mean you are “excellent,” btw.)
Comment by Stephen — March 13, 2006 @ 11:14 pm - March 13, 2006
Here they come…ooooh
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - March 13, 2006
#47 — You can run, but you can’t hide from the fact that the rhetoric from the likes of Stormfront and David Duke sounds a lot more like the rhetoric from MoveOn and Kos than from any neo-con or right-wing organization.
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - March 13, 2006
In Annapolis, Maryland, at a hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify and he did so.
At the conclusion of his testimony, a right-wing senator rose to say, “Mr Raskin, my Bible says that marriage shall occur only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?”
Raskin: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
The room erupted into applause.
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - March 13, 2006
You can’t control an economy unless you can control the society. People have to do “what they are supposed to do” for socialism to work. I understand your need to distance yourself from your fascist brothers in socialism but history is plain to see. Hate on me all you want, it doesn’t change the fact of your political demise.
Fascists states such as Germany, N Korea, and China are/were all over their economies to make them serve the state. A brighter future for all was promised if only the people would bow down to the state. I can’t see the difference in these strands of socialism because I’m only interested in outcomes, not claims.
You can split all the hairs you wish, your world view is dying.
Comment by VinceTN — March 13, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - March 13, 2006
I suspect the real reason the US military has such a high approval rating is because it keeps American reporters on such a short leash. Bush supporters would be unwise to correlate performance with public opinion polls at this time ….
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 13, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - March 13, 2006
WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - March 13, 2006
that was for 60
Comment by hank — March 13, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - March 13, 2006
I don’t see how anyone takes comfort in any opinion poll. You need to believe what you believe and deal with the consequences. I firmly believe that a Democrat landslide in November (Ha! Ha!), will not make me throw away my soul and begin making bigoted statements about American’s intelligence and rooting for harm and destruction on a Democratic administration in ‘08.
Of course, I’m not a socialist or a Southern Baptist delegate so I don’t need to be in control of everyone to feel secure and empowered.
No need for so much anger, Stephen. Its really not all about you.
Comment by VinceTN — March 14, 2006 @ 12:07 am - March 14, 2006
Nor you.
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 12:20 am - March 14, 2006
But unlike the moral righteousness and indignant superiority of the ultra-Right-Wing on this blog, at least most on the “Left” have compassionate impulses. I admit to being annoyed when reason and logic are beyond someone, but if they have a heart, I try to understand them.
Sure. That’s why you insist gay conservatives and Republicans want to strip gays of jobs and housing and send them all to concentration camps.
Oh, and in response to your AU “professor”? Ask him why he supported John Kerry’s push to strip gays of rights via state constitutional amendment because of Kerry’s religious beliefs that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 1:42 am - March 14, 2006
No. 66. NDT: My AU “professor?” What in the world are you writing about? I went to Cal Berkeley. You quote me, then go on an incomprehensible tirade about Kerry, gays, marriage, and all sorts of things that never occurred in any of my posts in this series. Who are you writing to, and what are you trying to say. Maybe, if you got rid of all those epithets, you might be coherent, rather than just ranting and raving about all kinds of chimera. Boy! Did a bunch of you forget your Thorazine tonight? (Not you, Hank.)
Comment by Stephen — March 14, 2006 @ 2:06 am - March 14, 2006
The villagers are lighting their torches.
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 2:09 am - March 14, 2006
I firmly believe that a Democrat landslide in November (Ha! Ha!), will not make me throw away my soul and begin making bigoted statements about American’s intelligence and rooting for harm and destruction on a Democratic administration in ‘08.
Hey, it worked during the Clinton years ….
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 14, 2006 @ 3:49 am - March 14, 2006
Of course. When a student asks me to present a specific side of an issue, he isn’t asking me to present my side of the issue, and the difference is crucial. At the end of the project, the student still does not konw what my politics are.
Frist isn’t confused; you are. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. Either support your nation in time of war, or don’t, but if you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops.
See Article II, Section 1. And while you’re at it, read Section 2, where treason is defined.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 7:34 am - March 14, 2006
#22 MM…
Just a little irony in your statements about your taxes paying a military member’s ‘freight’. As an employee of the State Dept, don’t you realize your paycheck comes from taxpayers as well? Oh – and don’t you realize that people in the military pay taxes, just the same as everyone else?? That tired old routine of ‘my taxes pay your salary’ is unbelievably naive and reeks of a lack of education on the subject.
Oh – and I’d have no business speaking on the intricacies of being an employee of the State Dept in some foreign country – so you’re right… I WOULDN’T talk about it. Quit wasting my tax dollars, MM.
Comment by Matty — March 14, 2006 @ 8:20 am - March 14, 2006
MattyBoi, it’s a tired old game you play: when you can’t defend irrational statements, pick, pick, pick at others in the hope they’ll forget your earlier irrational statements. Irony isn’t what you meant; it’s hard to figure out what you meant. Been taking notes on “effective debate” from Stephen, I see. (jk)
But let’s try to stay on topic for second rather than try to figure out what your rant truly intends at 71… you suggested earlier that if someone hadn’t served in the military –like Bruce– then they should stop using the military as a crutch. I think you need to start reading something other that AmericaBlog and KOS for your news, bubba. It is the old chickenhawk thing –you’re just putting your spin on it. Shame.
Taxpayers did pay your salary in the military –and while there, you likely received up to 33% “discount” on what would have been a comparative private sector salary tax rate if you hadn’t been in the service. So irrespective of what YOU think about it, those of us outside the military did pay your salary and, MattyBoi here’s the important kernel you failed to note, you should be treat others and honor that service by not using it for cheap partisan rhetoric. Like your website’s endorsement of the juvenile and incompetent practice of protesting the WOT by putting toy soliders randomly about town. Cheap partisan theatrics instead of rhetoric.
You can do better, MattyBoi. You can honor your service in the military by remaining true in your support of the mission and the troops. Trying to twist the one while undermining the other isn’t working.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:09 am - March 14, 2006
Stephen at #53 speaking that special paranoia to hank, “Let them dwell in their own incomprehensible incestuousness. Sound your clarion call. Maybe a stray reader will alight onto your comments and find new direction in their lives. That’s my hope! ”
And now were auditioning for martyr? You gotta get rid of the VicitimHood Card the Democrats handed out at the last meeting, guy. It’s pathetic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:12 am - March 14, 2006
hank, still waiting for those peasants with pitchforks to storm your little castle of make believe? It’s going to be a long, dark, cold night for you… and let’s remember, you were the one to use the term “Christofascists” –how you can lecture anyone on tolerance while spewing that kind of hatred and antagonism is incomprehensible to the sane.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:17 am - March 14, 2006
No. 70: I know what the Constitution states. If you know the place where it deals with the President of the United States is the Chief Executive of the country, and one of the President’s functions is to be Commander in Chief of the military, why do you persist in the error that he is Commander in Chief of the people. NOWHERE does it state that the President is Commander in Chief of civilians/people. Commander in Chief is a distinctly military appellation; President is a distinctly civilian appellation. Once again, another categorical mistake, that even when exposed, another wingnut persists in categorical error. Lazy, ignorant, retarded, or just plain stupid?
Comment by Stephen — March 14, 2006 @ 9:24 am - March 14, 2006
Lazy, ignorant, retarded, or just plain stupid?
Gee, do we have to pick just one?
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 14, 2006 @ 10:07 am - March 14, 2006
Yes, it’s shameless self-promotion. If Gene Roddenberry had produced BSG.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 10:10 am - March 14, 2006
#47 – “22: Oh please, that whole Nazis were leftists/socialists has been proven to be B.S… In the end, they were fascists, pure and simple.”
Keep telling yourself that, Kev. It is completely lost on you, like a fool, that THERE WAS AND IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Socialism, communism, fascism, your Left-liberalism, “communitarianism”, and really any form of Leftism all have the same root: collectivism.
Collectivism is the idea that the individual belongs to the group/state, and real economic freedom – making people indepent of the local boss, bureaucrat or busybodies – is somehow wrong. Collectivism necessarily involves (or, IS) dictatorship.
It is possible to have Right collectivism: namely feudalism, monarchism, Iranian or Calvinist or medieval Catholic theocracy, guild privileges, mercantilism. But our subject today is Left collectivism and the rise of the Nazis.
Basically 80% of Germans in the 1920s were Left collectivists of some kind. The three major German Left parties had some key differences, which can be summarized as follows:
Social Democratic Party – internationalist, Evolutionary
Communist Party – internationalist, Revolutionary
National Socilist Party – nationalist, Revolutionary
Dictatorship, or absolute power, is a very great “prize” to those who seek it, and naturally, the 3 were bitter rivals in each wanting their own “gang” to win. But they all agreed that Anglo-American capitalism was the absolute worst; the ultimate nightmare that they were all fighting.
Hitler declared, “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.” Josef Goebbels, who understood the theoretical issues much better, agreed strongly.
In this fine book, Stephen Hicks writes, “Goebbels… represented a strong voice within the National Socialist Party for its economically socialist planks. Goebbels’ hatred of capitalism was legendary, as was his hatred of money. Money, he wrote, ‘is… the embodiment of the principle of evil in the world. I hate money from the deepest depths of my soul… Liberalism [meaning classical liberalsm, i.e., capitalism] means: I believe in Mammon. Socialism means: I believe in work.’
“Thus Goebbels had often been more than willing to make speeches and write conciliatory essays to the Communists…
“In this intellectual and cultural context, it is understandable that voters who favored the Social Democrats in one election often voted for the Communists or National Socialists in the next, often switching allegiance again in the next election.
“It is also understandable… that the National Socialists would score their first big successes among the university students. Students in brown shirts and swastika armbands were a normal sight in classes well before 1932…”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably live to say it again: Socialism equals fascism, and vice versa. Socialists and left-liberals are, philosophically and often at heart as well, essentially fascists.
Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 10:27 am - March 14, 2006
Sorry, paragraph 4 should say “independent”.
Also please forgive the occasional typo on “National Socialist”.
Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 10:29 am - March 14, 2006
Calarato, nice job nailing Kev’s little spinfest to the wall. It’s all about the collective. When liberals can’t actualize what they think should have have by divine right, they take it in a collective construct. True with French liberals. True with today’s tax-and-spend Democrats.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 10:35 am - March 14, 2006
#75 NOWHERE does it state that the President is Commander in Chief of civilians/people.
Because civilians don’t have commanders, idiot. He is OUR Commander-in-Chief because he commands OUR military forces. Of course, I’m not discounting the possibility that your contempt for America makes you think of them as THEIR military forces and THEIR Commander-in-Chief. But congrats on getting TIMMEH! to kiss your ass. I knew if you stuck around long enough, you’d find someone dumb enough to be a fan of your Billy Madison rants.
#77 — Actually, that was quite good. You should tip it to Jonah Goldberg. He loves stuff like that.
Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 10:45 am - March 14, 2006
Stephen at #75 -are you really that dense that when, in time of war, someone uses the term COC it does apply to everyone –the civilian sector, the private sector, the military, the press, the schools, local govt, transit, intern’l relations? In time of war, Stephen, the COC is no longer just COC of the military operations… he or she is defacto head of all societal tools and institutions aimed toward winning.
Why you fail to grasp such a simple, ancient concept in your blind lust to defend your Blame-America-First position is telling to all who are sane.
You need to quit accusing others of being lazy, unread, unwashed and uncultured, guy. You need to pick up a history book and learn something instead of just spinning Wiki factoids or KOS-isms.
I’d recommend you begin with books on the COC function throughout our nation’s glorious history.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 10:52 am - March 14, 2006
And Stephen the Dense, that would make two independent assessments in a row… you have to pick up the challenge and learn at some point. The only way out of your liberal morass is to read conservative authors, gain an appreciation for history, and begin to think critically for yourself.
Hell, even hank-the-Ridor-wanna-b has learned his lesson of late.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 10:57 am - March 14, 2006
#56 – Stephen, what a dope you are. As if “polity” and “economy” can ever be separated in reality (as opposed to mere analytical constructs)! As if they aren’t inseparable in practice!
But hey, we know you love taking concepts and distinctions in a totally twisted, insane way and divorcing them utterly from reality, so, no biggie.
Folks, if (or before) Stephen pulls out his “We are becoming legion” shtick, just remember, in all likelihood he is probably half of the people writing
Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 10:59 am - March 14, 2006
83 I don’t “learn” anything from a brain dead mid-western hick, who tells other people to “burn in Hell for all eternity”. Keep spewing Bozo.
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 11:22 am - March 14, 2006
No. 66. NDT: My AU “professor?” What in the world are you writing about?
That was directed at hank. Learn to read posts before you comment on them.
You quote me, then go on an incomprehensible tirade about Kerry, gays, marriage, and all sorts of things that never occurred in any of my posts in this series.
So Stephen, you claim you never wrote this?
But a “queer” species of Republicanism has recently evolved. At its core it is hostile to the liberal conception of government being neutral to whatever one perceives to be the common good. Instead of that historical paradigm, it has become a government of self-righteous moralists. Many of them want to add the 318 biblical laws to the Constitution. They not only hate GLBT, but they want to punish us by denying us even minimal subsistence: wages and housing. I suspect, if they could, they’d imprison GLBT, but even though their leader GWB has done it repeatedly with other Americans, they’re not sure they can persuade the rest of Amerika to join them.
As I stated, you insist that gay conservatives and Republicans want to strip gays of jobs and housing and send them to concentration camps.
And when you deny that you said that, you are flat-out lying.
I think it’s a pity that you have to lie to cover up your statements, Stephen.
I was feeling sorry for hank, thinking that he was only a misguided puppet who you were manipulating, but as it seems now, he also believes with you that gay Republicans and conservatives all want to strip gays of jobs and housing and send them to concentration camps.
Of course, hank is trapped now; if he admits that you are wrong, Stephen, he makes a fool out of himself for serving as your faithful amen chorus. I think he’ll persist in error instead.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - March 14, 2006
I don’t “learn” anything from a brain dead mid-western hick, who tells other people to “burn in Hell for all eternity”.
No, hank; you apparently prefer to learn from someone who insists that all gay Republicans and conservatives want to strip gays of jobs and housing, then march them off to concentration camps — camps which, according to Stephen’s ilk, are already operating.
So I don’t think it’s Matt’s language that is bothering you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - March 14, 2006
“Concentration camps”?
Where have I ever said anything like that?
I don’t believe I’ve ever said anything about the Government stripping gays of rights, here or anywhere else. This is your fantasy.I’m no-ones “chorus”.
You are a real piece of work
So I assume that YOU approve of MattMishs’ language?
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - March 14, 2006
#42. V the K, I’m not sure what I would do if asked to present an opposing point of view for some student project. If I agreed to do it, and it happened to represent my point of view, I wouldn’t want to make it known that it was my point of view. And I was playing a Devil’s Advocate, especially for an extremely controversial point of view, I would make it clear that I am not necessarily reflecting my point of view.
Comment by Pat — March 14, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - March 14, 2006
hank,hank, hank. When will you learn? You can’t throw around inflamatory words like “Christofascists” and expect to avoid being held accountable for your conduct. This isn’t the Democrat Party; you can’t play the Victim Card to get relief from accountability.
BTW, hank… what part of my indictment of your political and social beliefs were incorrect? You’ve posted here enough that any critical thinking reader could discern the err in your way. Remember that big lie of yours, “I’m just an old fashioned conservative”?
hank, hank, hank… pick up the books and learn –you have to reach out beyond the wiki cites and KOS-isms to grow.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - March 14, 2006
and hank, are you still waiting for those angry peasants with pitchforks to come and storm your little castle keep? How sad; how abysmally impotent of you. No crowds, hank. No one awaiting with breathless anticipation your steaming call-to-arms speech.
come on, take some time out and grab some reading materials, work at some comprehension, and learn… grow. You shouldn’t expect us to act as your professor and give you the answers.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 14, 2006
and thanks hank, for getting the name finally right…. what a crack up.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - March 14, 2006
Two words: gun control.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - March 14, 2006
So I assume that YOU approve of MattMishs’ language?
No, I do not, and I will gladly say it now; Matt, please tone it down a notch. You’re not helping anyone.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - March 14, 2006
Thank you NDT.
Matt, the “err” in my ways? And you make fun of my spelling?
Matt, you are NOT judge and jury. This is a discussion. Not a lecture by YOU.
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 2:33 pm - March 14, 2006
hank, it is always a lecture by you when you start hectoring people and calling them hicks, half wits, Christofascists, etc. Come on, I’m the one who called for you to adopt some civility and decent discourse in the marketplace of ideas… you’re the one who went over the top. Remember? No? How convenient.
I guess NDXXX bought the Victim Card; well played on your part hank. I’m sensing a lifelong career in this field for you. Are you a trial lawyer, too?
And back on topic, we’re still waiting for you to either distance yourself from Stephen’s concentration camp = GOP comments, cease the rah-rah chorus clapping support of his bigotry and lies, and join the world’s enlightenment of truth. (Please, we aren’t going to walk you down, point by point, on all that one more time either)
You can do it hank; I know you can. Accountability is a bitter taste in the Liberal mouth –it’s why they hate standards, hate transparency, and hate testing. You have to be accountable; simple as that.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - March 14, 2006
“come on, you’re little angry Democrat voter wanting to indict all Christians with the Fred Phelps guilt-by-association even though Phelps is Democrat first, white trash second, and a political radical third –three things he has in common with you and other angry Democrat voters.”
Listen Matt, you don’t like me, and I don’t like you. So, I’ll ask you once again, why not just leave each other alone? I will no longer respond to you, as I no longer respond to another person here who continues to bait and bait me. So you can up the personal attacks. I won’t answer you.
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - March 14, 2006
And that said. Here is something for everyone. It isn’t political. Just beautiful.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4776181634656145640
Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - March 14, 2006
hank at #97, “Listen Matt, you don’t like me, and I don’t like you. So, I’ll ask you once again, why not just leave each other alone?”
hank, this is only a discussion, right? Your words there, sport. And how dare you suggest that I don’t like you just because you lie, distort and smear people? I don’t dislike you; that requires some demonstrable action on your part. Granted, I gather you don’t like me and you’ve preferred to make a personal attack in response to my policy rebuttals, but I expect that from liberals, gaylefties, etc. It’s ok; your approval isn’t critical to my self esteem.
No, hank. It’s a not a question of like or dislike or allowing someone to remain unaccountable –as you’ve tried to be for too long now. It’s only a discussion and you’ve chosen to smear, lie, distort, and spin without credulity… if you want to keep your comments on just policy matters, that’s fine. I’d welcome that concession from you –for a nice change of pace.
But when you elect to call people Christofascists who don’t march in sync with your hatefilled speech framework, well, that requires someone holding you accountable. I know, it’s tough for liberals to accept but accountability is important.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - March 14, 2006
“hank…calling them hicks, half wits, Christofascists, etc.”
Or “racists”, or “asshole” (both from the other thread I referenced where he threw them at NDT), etc.
But I agree with you Matt – It isn’t hank’s name-calling per se that I mind; it’s his whimpering hypocrisy in then turning around and whining about the (usually not-as-severe) names he may get back.
And, if any of us dares to notice or comment on the obvious, it’s “baiting and baiting him” – LOL
hank – This is a forum for commenting – People notice and comment on stuff – and if you didn’t like it, you wouldn’t be here – so cut the empty posturing, that everyone with sense is able to see through.
And please, by all means, write that one down in your little file of notes and quote it in the future
Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 6:58 pm - March 14, 2006
Let’s not forget how hank and Gryph have decided to label people who disagree with them “gay-bashers.”
Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - March 14, 2006
#101 – But you see, such name-calling is part of their own process of baiting others.
You see, they must LIKE being told off here. Why else would they keep coming here and knowingly doing things that so richly deserve being told off about? It adds to their sense of martyrdom and being special.
As we see hank do over and over and over: come here; provoke and be snide; get suitably “snided to” in return, or told off; then go for the big Martyr card play. Even to notice and comment on it (as I am doing right here) is, in hank’s mind, an act of persecution, further boosting his martyrdom and specialness.
Right hank? So, you’re lapping this up. But, if I happen to be around and to be feeling perky, I really don’t mind obliging you.
Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - March 14, 2006
#102 — A bit like the persecution fantasies many leftists indulge in. “Oh, that evil Bush must be wiretapping me, because I’m such a dangerous subversive. I even refer to Bush as ‘Dear Leader’ when I post at DU.”
Comment by V the K — March 14, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - March 14, 2006
I always wondered what self-loathing wannabe Ann Coulter homosexuals did in their spare time. I see a few of you are engaged in that gayest of gay passtimes – the circle jerk. 103 comments dominated by four or five emotionally unstable screamers (I thought it was the left that was so angry) more adept at infantile name-calling than refutation by fact typify this site. Face it girls – the Republican party is George Bush and the only support he enjoys these days comes from the intractable ideologists who have little connection to reality or reason. If you think these folks are going to reward your loyalty (at the expense your self interest) talk to Jim Hormel. Remember how nicely they treated him at your convention awhile back? Homosexuals suffer abuse of an extreme nature whenever authoritarians gain control. It wasn’t just Jews the Nazis carted off for extermination. Happy Leviticus 20:13!
Comment by eeeeez — March 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - March 15, 2006
And meanwhile, eeeeez, you and your fellow Democrats can continue to tell us — if your leashes aren’t too tight — why we should happily cheer and clap as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats set out to strip us of our rights and talk about “filthy” homosexuals.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - March 15, 2006
Would you like to try again for a grammatical sentence and the booby prize?
Comment by rightwingprof — March 15, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - March 15, 2006
North Dallas (my IQ is) Thirty: Since I don’t participate in the charade of representative democracy (I’m talking about voting) we have in our country, I have no party affiliation either left or right. If it’s any comfort to your poor conflicted heart, I find John Kerry to be almost as loathsome as you.
LimpWristPurfesser: So what’s the prize? A date with you? That moldy old cheater from your tranny days? Your “I Love Roy Cohn” pin? (I bet he’s a homosexual you can really connect with) Those tapes you made of echoes from your cod piece? A few sessions of aversion therapy? I was sort of hoping that my politics would offend you, but here it’s my supposed inability to construct sentences to your liking. But then when you can’t counter the argument, change the subject and bring up something irrelevant, like grammar. And what is it again that you teach? Pedantry 101?
Comment by eeeeez — March 15, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - March 15, 2006
NDXXX & RWP, are we meeting raj’s b/f in the spirit of 5e’s and a z?
Hey 5e’s and a z, when you post a cogent, rational policy statement… we can respond. Until then, I think you need to wake up raj and get some lessons in debating critical issues.
Nixon once said: I don’t get angry with those I don’t respect. I don’t think you’ll be chumming the waters here again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - March 15, 2006
Isn’t it funny when lefties post sub-literate rants and then get all pissy when you point out how sub-literate they are? I especially like this part…
” I don’t participate in the charade of representative democracy…” No, you just go on blogs and bitch about about people who do. That’s so much more worthwhile.
Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - March 15, 2006
See what I meant in #102? Some of them come here consciously to offend – AND, to be offended. If you keep scoring hits, expect the Martyr card to be played.
Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - March 15, 2006
105: You didn’t read the entire article you linked. The same article indicates that even though they oppose “marriage” and leave it up to states, they:
Don’t support an ammendment banning marriage between same sex couples.
They do support civil unions
They do support same sex couples having equal benefits under federal law.
The whole idea of marriage, for me, is completely semantic. Frankly, I don’t think most same sex couples would care about marriage if the law didn’t give people a whole host of benefits that go along with a government issued marriage certificate. At least Kerry supports civil unions to to give same sex couples these benefits. Do you see any Republicans supporting this? I sure don’t.
Comment by Kevin — March 15, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - March 15, 2006
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(I dare you to try to claim he’s anti-gay. In fact, please do it so I or somebody else can demolish you.)
Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - March 15, 2006
P.S. Not 100% about Pataki and Rudy Guiliani, but I’d be very surprised if they weren’t pro-civil-union.
Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - March 15, 2006
Finally, hasn’t Bush essentially endorsed civil unions (perhaps in a backhanded way) as an alternative to gay marriage? I remember a story about this in the last year, where the inference was plain. If anyone else remembers it, kindly enlighten us.
Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - March 15, 2006
Calarato, yes Bush apparently said he would consider civil unions during the last campaign. However, he saw fit only to mention FMA in his SOTUs.
Comment by Pat — March 16, 2006 @ 7:07 am - March 16, 2006
OK, that makes four – or at LEAST three and a half – major Republican officials who endorse civil unions.
Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 7:47 am - March 16, 2006
Calarato, add Christie Todd Whitman to the list of civil union GOPers. And Bill Buckley. And William Kristol. And Dick Cheney. And Ken Mehlman. And Bill Niskannen.
Kevin, you don’t see any GOPers on your list because you have to get off the Democrat Plantation –go ahead, stand up, loosen those chains, walk down the lane toward the gate, open it up and take a step onto Political Freedom Trail and learn.
But it won’t come until you take the first step of a long journey. Lay down the VictimHood Card and leave the Democrat Plantation… and bring along those other GayLefties who can’t remember what Political Freedom Trail looks like… it’ll be ok. You won’t turn into a pillar of salt.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 9:18 am - March 16, 2006
tHERE ARE FREE POSTERS FOR SOENLOADING ON MY SITE. WHY DON’T YOU REVIEW THE ENTIRE SITE AND YOU WILL SEE IT WILL BE OF GREAT INTEREST TO YOUR CAUSE. http://WWW.NEWWESTMUSICPUBLISHING.COM
Comment by JOOHNNIE NEWKIRK JR. — March 25, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - March 25, 2006