Gay Patriot Header Image

End of Red America blog at WaPo?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:39 pm - March 24, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging

I was one of the first cheerleaders to hail the debut of the “Red America” blog at the Washington Post with Ben Domenech.

However, it seems there is more than a cloud of controversy surrounding blogger Ben. Michelle Malkin has the full report and it does seem that the accusations of plagarism are more than just left-wing character assassination. I trust Michelle’s dogged research on many subjects, so I’m going to have to take her lead on this one as well. And I’m afraid I share her assessment at this point.

I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can’t ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can’t be dismissed as “lies” or jealousy attributed to Ben’s age.

As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I’ve had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I’ve also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.

The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech’s detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

That being said, the knee-jerk attack by the Left of the whole idea of a conservative blogger at the Washington Post serves as a “chilling factor” for any replacement for Ben if it comes to that. The Left seems to think the Post doesn’t have enough liberal viewpoints (um.. read Sections A through D, any page!)…. so I fear the Post will cower and not keep Red America alive. I think that is where we need to step in and help.

**UPDATE** Ben Domenech has resigned. Please email the Washington Post as I already have and urge them to keep Red America alive!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

125 Comments

  1. look what plagiarsim did for Joe Biden hes running for president

    Comment by nuyorker — March 24, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - March 24, 2006

  2. The left gets its way, REd America will likely not get a replacement (my prediction). I suspect it will just quietly get killed, which is what the left wanted in the first place.

    Comment by just me — March 24, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - March 24, 2006

  3. With so many good conservative bloggers, one has to wonder why they chose him, instead of Glenn Reynolds, say.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - March 24, 2006

  4. #3: “one has to wonder why they chose him, instead of Glenn Reynolds”

    As someone on another blog said, it was because they wanted a blogger able to make comments other than “indeed” and “heh”.

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - March 24, 2006

  5. Well said Ian –with your own authority that comes from well practiced rants.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - March 24, 2006

  6. Well, Box Turtle Ben is gone from WaPo according to Sam Seder. I’m sure some conservative organization will give Ben a good job. He’d fit right in with FauxNews or perhaps the White House press office. But I have to agree with Atrios, Ben would best be rehabilitated via this organization http://goarmy.com/

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - March 24, 2006

  7. 1: Actually, those accusations of plagiarism put an end to Biden’s presidential campaign in 1988. They’ll do the same thing if he decides to run for President in 2008.

    3: I suspect most well-known conservative bloggers would not consider an entry-level job at the WaPost a promotion.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - March 24, 2006

  8. #2 — I agree. As with everything else in our culture, the media are rapidly becoming balkanized.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 2:56 pm - March 24, 2006

  9. Well GP, you and GPW should apply for the job. Yes, I’m serious.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 24, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - March 24, 2006

  10. Judging by the defense of Ben mounted by redstaters who not only defended his plagiarism but lied about the college paper he wrote for http://tinyurl.com/58skb , it’s doubtful an honest conservative replacement even exists. Considering the mendacity and corruption demonstrated by what passes for conservative leadership these days, maybe it’s not all that surprising.

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - March 24, 2006

  11. Bruce,
    “… I trust Michelle’s dogged research on many subjects…” Please! No!

    I read her in the Riverside, CA Press-Enterprise. She seldom presents facts. On Chris Matthews she once couldn’t answer his questions with a solid facts. Unless she’s changed her presentation habits, you would do better to “trust but verify.”

    Agape.

    Comment by Gene — March 24, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - March 24, 2006

  12. P.S. I sent the Washtington Post an email supporting a decision to keep the conservative blog.

    All sides need to be heard and considered.

    Comment by Gene — March 24, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - March 24, 2006

  13. I don’t think the conservatives should be unhappy to see him go. I mean, after all how much weight is he going to really carry after this. On other hand its important that WP get a hire another conservative blogger to fill that post soon.

    Comment by Rix — March 24, 2006 @ 3:50 pm - March 24, 2006

  14. But given the way he was treated up until they found the charge that would stick, how willing would you be to step into the job? The goal wasn’t to end his career there, the goal was to end the blog.

    Comment by just me — March 24, 2006 @ 3:52 pm - March 24, 2006

  15. I don’t disagree that there would be “foaming-at-the-mouth” lefties who would also gun for his replacement. But, a charge like plagiarism cuts to the bone which the new guy would hopefully be clear of. Other than that whatever the aforementioned gentlemen choose to throw at the new guy would be presumably in the usual nature of partisan debate and frankly he has to have the stomach for it.
    The real test is whether WP actually get someone else to get a more balanced viewpoint.

    Comment by Rix — March 24, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - March 24, 2006

  16. The Pachyderm Has Left the Big Top

    This was a quick and unfortunate end to WaPo’s laudable experiment in in-house conservative blogging.

    Trackback by Suitably Flip — March 24, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - March 24, 2006

  17. I read her in the Riverside, CA Press-Enterprise. She seldom presents facts. On Chris Matthews she once couldn’t answer his questions with a solid facts.

    Speaking of trust but verify, please back up those assertions with facts.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 4:11 pm - March 24, 2006

  18. In more encouraging news, Rumsfeld to Snarky MSM Reporter: “Get a Life.”

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - March 24, 2006

  19. Since so many Leftys are crowing about supposed “conservative” honesty being non-existent, I have to say five words:

    Jayson Blair, the New York Times

    I rest my case.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 24, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - March 24, 2006

  20. #19

    (cough)

    Dan Rather, Mary Mapes

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - March 24, 2006

  21. Would conservative WaPo readers (both of them) accept a Gay conservative blogger in the “Red America” slot? Many conservatives see the very existence of Gay and Lesbian people as ideologically anathema. Since some conservatives are already concocting conspiracy theories about Domenech’s hiring (viewing the “Red America” experiment as a liberal plot to discredit the Right), one could imagine the outcry if the WaPo were to replace him with a … well, you get the idea.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 6:50 pm - March 24, 2006

  22. #19: “Jayson Blair”

    And he was fired and disgraced. Unlike the whiny little plagiarist whom the redstaters have welcomed back into their fold. No doubt, he’ll be offered some cushy job at one of the noisy right wing “think” tanks or maybe just FauxNews. Perhaps he could get a gig in Iraq ferretting out all those “good news” stories the SCLM so studiously avoids.

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - March 24, 2006

  23. This Ian fellow is a particularly nasty and bitter piece of work, isn’t he?

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - March 24, 2006

  24. #23: “This Ian fellow is a particularly nasty and bitter piece of work”

    Wah, wah, wah! At least I don’t have to resort to use of the f-word in every sentence as one of your buds did last night. If you haven’t done so, you should head over to redstate to watch your comrades fight amongst themselves as it becomes clear that little Ben’s indignant post there conspicuously omits an explanation of one of the key instances of plagiarism – the NRO movie review. The moderator is flailing about with his “banning” sword and has taken out 27 so far and counting of those who dare ask the little twirp to explain himself. It sure is eye-opening to see how a supposedly rational group of conservatives squelches dissent from the Party line.

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - March 24, 2006

  25. Oh-oh, Box Turtle Ben is in even more doo-doo over at NRO http://tinyurl.com/g7ygs

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - March 24, 2006

  26. #24 — That doesn’t sound like a fun or life-affirming activity for a Friday night, but you knock yourself out.

    Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - March 24, 2006

  27. The LEFT should stop gloating???? You’re STILL gloating about Clinton’s hummer!

    Holy fuck, man. You’re such a hypocrite.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 24, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - March 24, 2006

  28. #26: It’s not even 8 PM here but I’m on my way to an art show. Late dinner after. Bye.

    Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - March 24, 2006

  29. Try not to choke on the self-righteousness, assface.

    I’ll be here when ya get back.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 24, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - March 24, 2006

  30. And Bush will still be the President.

    Hurts, don’t it?

    Times like this I wish I were a Dom.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 24, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - March 24, 2006

  31. I gotta wonder how you all reacted to Jayson Blair’s apology at the time…

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 25, 2006 @ 2:06 am - March 25, 2006

  32. why they chose him, instead of Glenn Reynolds, say

    Glenn already has an MSM writing gig.

    Comment by vaara — March 25, 2006 @ 4:13 am - March 25, 2006

  33. #13

    I mean, after all how much weight is he going to really carry after this.

    ’bout as much as the NYT.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 25, 2006 @ 5:29 am - March 25, 2006

  34. five words: Jayson Blair, the New York Times

    Heh™.

    Comment by vaara — March 25, 2006 @ 6:15 am - March 25, 2006

  35. 33: ’bout as much as the NYT.

    More like Ruth Shalit.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 7:57 am - March 25, 2006

  36. One thing that conservative bloggers supporting Domenech, and particularly the people over at Red State appear to forget is that plagiarism is lying (passing off someone else’s work as one’s own), theft (stealing someone else’s work) and possibly copyright infringement. It is interesting that they would dismiss such issues so cavalierly.

    But I suppose that that is what passes for “conservative values” nowadays.

    Comment by raj — March 25, 2006 @ 8:16 am - March 25, 2006

  37. I wonder if Ben will get a six figure book deal like Mary Mapes and Jayson Blair, got, or the journalism awards and applause of his peers, like Dan Rather got.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2006 @ 8:17 am - March 25, 2006

  38. whiny little plagiarist

    Joe Biden, you mean?

    You’re STILL gloating about Clinton’s hummer!

    And again we see evidence that liberals have no morals, ethics, or principles. How else can you explain the fact that they still, after all these years, cannot grasp that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, and not getting a blowjob.

    Amazing.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 8:25 am - March 25, 2006

  39. #29: Gee, another substance-free insult. Let me guess, you’re “buzzed” again.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 8:43 am - March 25, 2006

  40. Someone on redstate claimed that Ben had been called a homosexual. So, I figure if anyone would know whether or not that’s true, it would be the homosexual righties posting here. Ben is young and kind of cute and I figure it’s got to be a pretty small community of homosexual Bush-loving wingnuts. So what’s the dish?

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 8:53 am - March 25, 2006

  41. Ian, that last one comes about as close to incorrigible as one can get. But the GayLeft has a habit of that –like the GayLefties on OutSports who suggested with leering envy that CJSCOTUS Roberts might be a closeted gay given his boyish looks (right), anal retentiveness, Stepford wife and needing to adopt kids ’cause he doesn’t like str8 sex.

    In fact, Ian… do you post on OutSports often?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2006 @ 9:34 am - March 25, 2006

  42. A loving post by a devoted Dem was exhibited on Protein Wisdom stating “There is nothing better than seeing a smug cocksucker get his comeuppance. Sweet, sweet comeuppance. Thanks for the memories, Ben.”

    The love and respect from the Left is just overwhelming when the uppity minorities don’t follow orders on their politics.

    Comment by VinceTN — March 25, 2006 @ 9:39 am - March 25, 2006

  43. #41: “do you post on OutSports often?”

    No, I never have. I may check them out though. Look, I saw the comment on redstate and I was curious. Don’t you think he’s cute? Does the right consider it so terrible to be homosexual that even wondering about a person’s sexual orientation is vile enough to make it equivalent to threatening the person and his family?

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 10:00 am - March 25, 2006

  44. #42: Speaking of love and respect, here’s some from a conservative diarist (Thomas) on redstate: “Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 10:08 am - March 25, 2006

  45. 42: The funny thing about that Protein Wisdom comment is that Domenech has written in support of sodomy laws and the FMA. (He’s not our friend, GP.) I’d suspect the word “cocksucker” is meant as an epithet, not a description — Domenech himself claims to be Straight.

    I don’t think the kid’s reputation will ever recover. Shalit’s didn’t. Still, Domenech did her one better: He became a has-been and a punchline, all before the age of 25. Usually you have to sing in a boy band to do that.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 10:13 am - March 25, 2006

  46. Oh, what the hell: Let’s just post a link to the piece where Domenech praises sodomy laws and another to an assertion of bona fide heterosexuality:

    Sodomy: http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/000992.html

    Straight: http://www.bendomenech.com/2002_05_26_archive.html#77015498

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 10:21 am - March 25, 2006

  47. What’s a washed-up, 24-year-old, healthy, pretend-writer to do in order to rehabilitate his image? I’ve heard that the military could use “a few good men” to handle all the good news actually taking place on the ground in Iraq! Ben should enlist and, unlike most other ‘war supporters’, show that he is willing to fight for what he believes in!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 11:40 am - March 25, 2006

  48. “Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

    That’s pretty accurate.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 11:43 am - March 25, 2006

  49. Sodomy: http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/000992.html

    And of course, the point whizzed right over your pointy little head. Try reading it, instead of having a kneejerk, idiotic “homophobia!” reaction. God gave you a brain for a reason; try using it instead of that liberal groupthink.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 11:46 am - March 25, 2006

  50. #48: “That’s pretty accurate.” Yeah, I suspect it pretty much sums up how most conservatives feel. Thankfully, Americans are beginning to wake up to the dangers posed by such “conservative” attitudes. Hopefully, it’s not too late to stop you and your ilk from acting out your fantasies.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - March 25, 2006

  51. Right on, rightwingprof! We need to show the left about civilized discourse and that their “personal attacks” only reflect badly on them! The best way to do that is to call them animals who aren’t even human, let alone our countrymen! Roosevelt, JFK, MLK, heck- even Billy Graham- animals all who are below human. Yeah, that’s a winning strategy when our President’s poll numbers are in the mid-thirties and we’re fighting an increasingly unpopular war with no end in sight.

    Way to go!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - March 25, 2006

  52. Ian fantasized er, said…

    Thankfully, Americans are beginning to wake up to the dangers posed by such “conservative” attitudes.

    Dream on, sweetie. Your entire worldview is going down the shitter, and bleating the same fallacious mantra over and over again ain’t gonna make it come true.

    Hopefully, it’s not too late to stop you and your ilk from acting out your fantasies.

    I dunno about “my ilk,” but my fantasies have already come true, sugar…

    Just look at what you’ve been reduced to: ranting and seething on blogs that demonstrate just how pitifully ignorant you & yours remain.

    I may disagree with the method by which others on the right voice their disdain for moonbattery, but unlike your contemporaries, conservatism doesn’t demand blind obedience to the collective.

    Not only are you ignorant, but you’re a Borg to boot. And in the interest of not disappointing you, Ian…

    I repeat my invitation for you to kindly go fuck yourself.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - March 25, 2006

  53. I politely said…

    “I repeat my invitation for you to kindly go fuck yourself.”

    Same to Ned, who apparently hasn’t a goddamned clue as to what a neocon is. Much like my dog, he’s been taught what is bad and what is good, with nary a clue as to why.

    Poor little moonbats. Perhaps someday they’ll learn to think for themselves.

    I remain in the Land of Silk & Money

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - March 25, 2006

  54. #49 – Nonetheless, I must strongly disagree with Ben’s point in that article.

    Justice Kennedy’s point in the Lawrence decision was and is valid: that the State should NOT be in the business of demeaning or criminalizing private victimless conduct. Kennedy did not cite, but I would cite, the 9th Amendment, or all major principles of the American Revolution.

    Ben’s point, by contract, was and is invalid. The Lawrence decision does not and can never open the doors to recognition of pedophilia as valid private sexual conduct, since pedophilia, unlike adult consensual homosexuality, inherently has victims.

    Now here’s the main thing I came to say. Sorry if anyone already posted this, but it’s relevant: Ben’s resignation article.

    It sure seems like the charges of plagiarism were way overblown; perhaps even unjust. I love Ben’s parting shot, though:

    “To my friends: thank you for your support. To my enemies: I take enormous solace in the fact that you spent this week bashing me, instead of America.”

    LOL 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - March 25, 2006

  55. Sorry – my 3rd graph should say “Ben’s point, by contraSt…”

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - March 25, 2006

  56. One question to all of you civilized folk. . .

    After your little circle jerk, who gets to eat the bisquit? (I’m guessing probably “HollywoodNeoCon” or “rightwingprof”)

    Boy, you guys sure know how to make valid arguments without resorting to personal attacks!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - March 25, 2006

  57. Sorry, Calarato…

    I believe the guy’s a plagiarist, and as such, he deserved exactly what he got.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - March 25, 2006

  58. Nothing personal about it, ned…

    If you’re an ignoramus, you shall be called out as such. You and your “ilk” are self-involved bullshit artists, and to claim that those who expose you are engaging in personal attacks simply amplifies the perception that you’re incapable of forming anything resembling a cogent argument.

    “If I can’t compete, I’ll find a way around the rules,” right?

    Amazing you can even find the courage to go to work each day, what with my NeoCon buddies praying for the destruction of humanity. And kittens. We hate kittens.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - March 25, 2006

  59. #57 – Did you read the link?

    I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case. You might be right.

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - March 25, 2006

  60. #52: Are you always so cranky in the morning or are you just buzzed again?

    “ranting and seething on blogs that demonstrate just how pitifully ignorant you & yours remain.”

    With all your profanity-laced invective, I can’t help but believe you’re projecting here.

    “conservatism doesn’t demand blind obedience to the collective”

    Oh that’s a good one! You must have missed the dozens of redstate commenters who were banned yesterday merely for politely asking little Benjy for a bit fuller explanation of his NRO plagiarism which, based on the NRO’s own investigation, appears quite extensive.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - March 25, 2006

  61. No, Calarato, I followed Michelle’s links, which I thought were pretty damning.

    NRO reached the same conclusion. Consequently, his protestations are eerily similar to those of that writer James Frey, who seemed to live in a state of perpetual denial, even when faced with overwhelming evidence proving his dishonesty.

    Much like the American Castrati, ain’t it?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - March 25, 2006

  62. Not cranky at all, Ian….

    Simply amazed at your ability to turn truth into utter horseshit. Jesus would be proud.

    As for the Domenech, my position on him has already been stated, genius. Get with the program.

    So please don’t start blaming me for the sorry state of your life. If I wanted to live in misery, I’d go back in the closet. My word, how do you even get out of bed in the morning?

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - March 25, 2006

  63. Apparently the kool-aid wasn’t strong enough for you, Hollywood, so you had to go on to drinking the stronger spunk, I mean, stuff.

    I won’t debate an asshole whose primary tactic is attacking those with whom he disagrees. How do you respond to those who make the same attacks on President Bush? When the left accuses him of being a chimp, an imbecile, a warmongering draft-dodger, cocaine addict- is that also just “calling him out”?

    People like you are going to bring a swift end to our current successes in taking the House, the Senate, and the White House.

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - March 25, 2006

  64. OT….

    This is fun, isn’t it? Nuthin’ I luv more in the morning than poking at the inmates through the bars.

    Scratch that. Long slow handjobs are MUCH more fun.

    No Ian, I’m not drinking again. Just horny and intellectually honest.

    Eric in Hornywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - March 25, 2006

  65. ned said…

    I won’t debate an asshole whose primary tactic is attacking those with whom he disagrees. How do you respond to those who make the same attacks on President Bush? When the left accuses him of being a chimp, an imbecile, a warmongering draft-dodger, cocaine addict- is that also just “calling him out”?”

    Nope. Largely because those tired old She-hag talking points originate from deep within the bowels of insanity. Your a tool. Sorry if that offends thee.

    As for the asshole comment, I’ve known that about myself for years, brainiac. Get with the program.

    People like you are going to bring a swift end to our current successes in taking the House, the Senate, and the White House

    HUH? What the holy fuck does that even mean? Might wanna read what your write before you post it, tiger.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - March 25, 2006

  66. #54: Apparently you missed Box Turtle Ben’s followup:
    http://www.redstate.com/print/2006/3/24/231559/931

    “I want to apologize to National Review Online, my friends and colleagues here at RedState, and to any others that have been affected over the past few days. I also want to apologize to my previous editors and writers whose work I used inappropriately and without attribution. There is no excuse for this – nor is there an excuse for any obfuscation in my earlier statement.”

    So, he finally came clean. But not before he played a WATB in a screed that blamed everyone but himself for his exposure as a fraud. I suspect his finally coming clean had a lot to do with NRO’s investigation and discoveries; he was probably told in no uncertain terms that if he wanted a lucrative future in the wingnut sandbox, he’d better make a full and unequivocal admission and apology.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - March 25, 2006

  67. “wingnut sandbox”

    That’s original. Yeah. Never seen that one before.

    Let’s add to Ian’s list an almost congenital lack of creativity.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - March 25, 2006

  68. #64 “Long slow handjobs are MUCH more fun.”

    Well, if that’s all you’re getting lately, I guess that explains a lot.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - March 25, 2006

  69. Yup. And I’m damn happy to have ’em, too.

    Care to try a different tack? Ain’t nothing you can say about me that’s gonna make you any more credible, hun.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - March 25, 2006

  70. Hollywood, since you obviously know a lot more about the “the bowels of insanity” (living there yourself), I will grant you deference in that area.

    Admitting that you’re an asshole is a good first step, but it’s no substitute for being intelligent, articulate, or knowledgable.

    You’re a waste of time. Good luck in all your future hate-strewn, vitriolic, idiotic rantings!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - March 25, 2006

  71. #66 – No, I didn’t miss it.

    You assume rather too much.

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - March 25, 2006

  72. But in the interest of full disclosure, I’d be interested to know if the downfall of Jayson Blair was greeted with as much joy by our little lib friends as has Domenech’s.

    It would go a long way toward restoring a shred of their credibility.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - March 25, 2006

  73. ned said…

    Hollywood, since you obviously know a lot more about the “the bowels of insanity” (living there yourself), I will grant you deference in that area.

    So can I assume you’re familiar with Los Angeles?

    Admitting that you’re an asshole is a good first step, but it’s no substitute for being intelligent, articulate, or knowledgable.

    Absolutely. I’ve found that my status as a world-class asshole rather compliments my vast intellect, enviable command of the English language and encyclopedic knowledge of EVERYTHING.

    My mom is so proud.

    You’re a waste of time.

    And thus endeth the argument. Right, ned? I was beginning to wonder when you’d finally realize you were in over your head.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - March 25, 2006

  74. ned said…

    Good luck in all your future hate-strewn, vitriolic, idiotic rantings!

    Can someone please point out any thing I’ve said here this morning that can even remotely be considered “hate-filled,” “vitriolic,” or “idiotic?”

    On second thought, I’ll cop to some idiocy. I haven’t had enough coffee yet.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - March 25, 2006

  75. Can someone please point out any thing I’ve said here this morning that can even remotely be considered “hate-filled,” “vitriolic,” or “idiotic?”

    Anything that isn’t the PC party line is “hate-filled,” “vitriolic,” “idiotic,” or “whateverist.” It’s not like English and liberalese are the same language.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - March 25, 2006

  76. #72 – To compare Domenich to Jayson Blair is ridiculous.

    Domenich ran an opinion blog for one week. It turned out that an NRO movie review (another Opinion piece) and some articles he’d written as a teenager had some unacknowledged quotation/use of others’ work.

    Jayson Blair systematically FALSIFIED FACTS AND STORIES (not opinion pieces), at the nation’s alleged “Newspaper of Record”, for a period of years.

    Blair reminds me of Stephen Glass, who did likewise at The New Republic. In this century.

    Comment by Calarato — March 25, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - March 25, 2006

  77. Ah, the joys of comments!

    Ian, Erik, if you would just admit your mutual attraction, and consummate your relationship, you would both be much happier.

    But this particular bit is sooo much fun:

    I’ve found that my status as a world-class asshole rather compliments my vast intellect, enviable command of the English language…

    Um, that would be complEments.

    =D

    Comment by Biff Usually — March 25, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - March 25, 2006

  78. And kittens. We hate kittens.

    Even Viking Kittens?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2006 @ 2:17 pm - March 25, 2006

  79. Can someone please point out any thing I’ve said here this morning that can even remotely be considered “hate-filled,” “vitriolic,” or “idiotic?”

    “I repeat my invitation for you to kindly go fuck yourself.”

    “They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.”

    “This is fun, isn’t it? Nuthin’ I luv more in the morning than poking at the inmates through the bars.”

    “If you’re an ignoramus, you shall be called out as such. You and your “ilk” are self-involved bullshit artists, and to claim that those who expose you are engaging in personal attacks simply amplifies the perception that you’re incapable of forming anything resembling a cogent argument.”

    As a matter of fact, it’s hard to find one post of yours that doesn’t resort to hate or idiocy!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - March 25, 2006

  80. Wow, you guys know how to welcome a person around here! I may be wrong, but the best way to retain Congress and the White House may not to go all “unhinged” as many on the left are. And in-fighting with people with whom you probably mostly agree isn’t the right tactic either.

    A real Neocon, conservative like McCain (the favorite of NRO) is probably our best hope in 2008, but I fear he’s going to be ripped to shreds by those in our own party who irrationally hate him. If you think that this is the best way to convince Americans that we have a winning strategy in Iraq and in the broader WOT, I think you’re dreadfully mistaken.

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - March 25, 2006

  81. 49: Try reading it, instead of having a kneejerk, idiotic “homophobia!” reaction.

    I didn’t use the word “homophobia” to describe Ben’s post, rwp. That’s your word. I said Domenech was “pro-sodomy laws,” because he says in his post — and affirms in the comments afterward — that he believes sodomy laws are constitutional, and that governments should have the power to pass them.

    I won’t make any unsubstantiated claims about the shape or size of your head, rwp, because I don’t have to.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 25, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - March 25, 2006

  82. #77: “Ian, Erik, if you would just admit your mutual attraction, and consummate your relationship, you would both be much happier.”

    Erik should be so lucky! In any event, it appears we’re both committed: me to my partner and Erik to his hand.

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - March 25, 2006

  83. Um, that would be complEments

    Indeed, it would. And I had all but given up on compliment v. complement.

    I said Domenech was “pro-sodomy laws,” because he says in his post — and affirms in the comments afterward — that he believes sodomy laws are constitutional, and that governments should have the power to pass them.

    As, indeed, they should. That’s the beauty of federalism; if you don’t like the laws where you live, you can vote with your feet and move.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - March 25, 2006

  84. A real Neocon, conservative like McCain

    Snort! Chortle!

    Two words: McCain-Feingold

    And if that isn’t enough, he’s a gun-grabber. He’s pro-abortion. There is no way a RINO like McCain, no, especially McCain, can get the nomination.

    Thank God. George Allen in 08. Better yet, Allen-Rice, or Rice-Allen.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - March 25, 2006

  85. And if that isn’t enough, he’s a gun-grabber. He’s pro-abortion. There is no way a RINO like McCain, no, especially McCain, can get the nomination.

    Do you even check your facts before you post? McCain said he would sign the South Dakota ban on abortions if it has provisions for “health of the mother, rape, and incest”. This is EXACTLY what Bush has said about abortion.

    McCain also voted for shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits, against the assault weapon ban, etc, etc.

    What the hell are you talking about? Where are your references?

    RINOS include Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, and Pataki- all headline speakers at the RNC in 2004! And ALL to the left of McCain (and even to the left of comrade Reid, the Dems speaker)

    Get your facts straight!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - March 25, 2006

  86. Ian…I said “handjobs,” which are usually defined as involving a partner, right? Not to say that I don’t have an unusually close relationship with my hand, cause I most certainly do! 😛

    Biff, thanks for the correction, and for helping me in my quest to make a total fool of myself.

    Ned, I had rather assumed your position was that of a liberal who, having taken a neocon moniker, proceeds to mock the right by way of hyper-supporting anythhing we stand for. I will assume for now that I was gravely mistaken, and offer my sincerest apologies for my idiocy. I cop to it freely, being more than aware of my affinity for ridiculousness.

    By the way , as to my question in which I sought examples of hate-filled, vitriloic comments, I DID say I was idiotic. Where another may choose to define my comments as hate-filled, I chose to see them as the penultimate experience in idiocy and humor. Again, sorry for the offense.

    As for any sort of consummation with Ian, unless he’s a bear that likes to play with guns, I’m not interested.

    V the K, I love kittens. It’s the evil Eric that hates them. My St. Bernard hates them, too.

    Alrighty then. That is all. Off to shoot (film, not kittens).

    Eric in Abject Shame

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - March 25, 2006

  87. Oh, and while you were getting your facts wrong, Rice is “mildly pro-choice”:

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm

    “In an interview with editors and reporters in the office of the editor in chief at The Washington Times, she said she would not want the government “forcing its views” on abortion.”

    Sounds pro-choice to me. . .

    For a professor, you sure are misinformed!

    Comment by NeoConNed — March 25, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - March 25, 2006

  88. Addendum…

    ned, your stance on the war is either unconscionably weak or simply ill-informed.

    And just so I don’t disappoint Ian…

    fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck

    Now I’m done.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - March 25, 2006

  89. #84: “George Allen in 08.”

    Oh please, please, please, yes, oh yes!! Allen, YES!!!

    As for Rice, what conservative is going to vote for a pro-choice, African-American spinster? LOL!!

    Comment by Ian — March 25, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - March 25, 2006

  90. #84 — I don’t know where John McCain stands on the Second Amendment, but his open hostility to the First Amendment is enough to sour me on him. Add to that his opposition to tax cuts, his opposition to border control and immigration reform, his ‘Gang of 14’ backstabbing on judicial nominees, and the way he uses the Senate Armed Services Committee to settle personal scores (while putting our soldiers at risk) and he becomes so unacceptable he is the one candidate that would guarantee I would vote for Hillary.

    At this stage, I like Romney, but I don’t think he has a chance. He lacks the mediocrity that is demanded by our political process. He has too many ideas, and that’s a dangerous thing in American politics.

    #86 — Kittens are nice.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - March 25, 2006

  91. McCain co-sponsored the pointless gun show “loophole” law. He also takes money from gun control organizations. He supports the so-called “assult weapons” ban. He favors intrusive mandatory trigger lock legislation.

    As for Condi the Hitlery killer being “mildly pro-choice” I would vote for restricted abortion rights were it up for a vote in my state, as it should be, but Roe v. Wade is nothing more than the SCOTUS waving their magic wand and creating law out of thin air. Not even the nutcase Ginsburg thinks Roe v. Wade is good law.

    Then there’s that problem with McCain and the First Amendment (so-called “campaign finnance reform,” which the liberals loved until it looked like it was going to be applied to their nutty Moveon and other groups).

    And there’s the “gang of 14” bullshit. The only good thing that came out of that was it showed us Frist has no balls, or he would have bitchslapped McCain into his place.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - March 25, 2006

  92. rightwingprof said…

    “Not even the nutcase Ginsburg thinks Roe v. Wade is good law.”

    Absolutely, professor! Considering Ginsburg is out of the closet on her desire to submit the US Constitution to international law, this stance of hers regarding Roe v. Wade should speak volumes as to it’s “bullshit factor.”

    “And there’s the “gang of 14? bullshit. The only good thing that came out of that was it showed us Frist has no balls…”

    Indeed. Contrary to what some of our more liberal friends might believe, I’m about as big a fan of the GOP as Michael Moore. With leaders like Frist & McCain (who is NO neocon, incidentally), I’m beginning to find myself using those thrice-weekly bulk mailings to clean up the dog crap in the backyard.

    If these collective, so-called RINO’s cave in on the GWOT, I may just find myself following in my dad’s footsteps and moving to Thailand.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 25, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - March 25, 2006

  93. Gotta say that while McCain’s pro life views appeal to me, the fact that his name is on one of the worst, most anti constitution pieces of legislation written in my lifetime (maybe history, but I admit I haven’t read every law passed by congress since the founding).

    It would take a lot to get me to vote for McCain, but I don’t think he could survive a primary, the GOP base pretty much hates him.

    Comment by just me — March 25, 2006 @ 7:46 pm - March 25, 2006

  94. At this stage, I like Romney, but I don’t think he has a chance. He lacks the mediocrity that is demanded by our political process.

    Romney is a jackass. The only reason he is where he is is because he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. And he’ll say anything to get where he wants to go.

    Comment by raj — March 26, 2006 @ 9:01 am - March 26, 2006

  95. 83: That’s the beauty of federalism …

    The rights of the individual are not subject to the whims of state and local governments, rwp. The 14th Amendment specifying “equal protection under the law” applies to you, regardless of where in the United States you happen to live. I agree, though, that you have the right to “vote with your feet” and move to places where sodomy laws are enforced — like, for instance, Iran. (Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.)

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 26, 2006 @ 11:50 am - March 26, 2006

  96. The rights of the individual are not subject to the whims of state and local governments

    I’m anxiously awaiting your citation of “the right to sodomy” in the Constitution of the United States.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 26, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - March 26, 2006

  97. LOL, rightwingprof.

    As a denizen of San Francisco, an area overrun with leftists, their selective reading of the Constitution amazes me; they can find a right to anything in there, but they always seem to skip over the Second Amendment, in which the right to bear arms is CLEARLY elucidated, in order to pass a gun ban in the city.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - March 26, 2006

  98. #96: “I’m anxiously awaiting your citation of “the right to sodomy” in the Constitution of the United States.”

    So is it your position that individuals ONLY have those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

    Comment by Ian — March 26, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - March 26, 2006

  99. #96 – Check your 9th amendment, RWP and NDT. That’s where the right to all private victimless behavior resides – be it baking cakes, sodomy or whatever. It’s such a pity that our current half-socialist (or half-fascist; at any rate, overly-government-dominated) America has lost sight of that.

    The American Revolution was intended to establish a Constitutional order where the government’s enumerated powers are interpreted as narrowly as possible, and the people’s freedoms are interpreted as expansively as possible. And, as it happens, any other political order is immoral.

    Conservative and liberal interpretations of the Constitution are both half-right, half-wrong. Conservatives are right if they interpret government’s powers narrowly, and wrong if they interpret the people’s freedoms equally narrowly. Liberals are right if they interpret the people’s freedoms expansively, and wrong if they interpret the government’s powers equally expansively.

    Note: NONE of this is an argument for abortion, pedophilia, etc., so don’t bother playing any such cards next. Those crimes have victims (and so, may be criminialized legitimately or without affecting what I have said above.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 26, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - March 26, 2006

  100. I need to make a correction.

    The right to private victimless behaviors doesn’t ONLY reside in the 9th Amendment. The Framers made the 9th in hopes that we wouldn’t forget. But the right to all private victimless behaviors resides in the Constitution as a whole.

    You see, the very notion of the Constitution itself assumes “by default” (if you will) that the people should be free to do whatever they want in their own lives (without making victims of others), and the government is their highly constrained, highly limited servant who can never regulate anything beyond what the Constitution explicitly permits it to regulate.

    And limited government would be part of the “republican form of government” which the Constitution explicitly requires the States to follow, as well.

    So, NDT and RWP: The burden is on you to point out where the Constitution grants federal or State (for that matter) governments the power to regulate victimless, private sexual behavior. And it doesn’t.

    Comment by Calarato — March 26, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - March 26, 2006

  101. Raj “Romney is a jackass. The only reason he is where he is is because he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. And he’ll say anything to get where he wants to go”

    Wrong again, raj. You really stepped in it this time tho. Mitt wasn’t born with a silver foot in his mouth –the last Democrat broad who used that cliche is the ex Governor of Texas and she used it against Bush 41 at the DNC convention –to great howls of laughter from the floor and snickers from the press pundits in the booth. The best laugh came when the son of Bush 41 cleaned her clock, beat her boney grey ass and put here out to the curb for trash pickup.

    If you knew Romney’s stroy instead of just taking the usual Dem talking pts and re-iterating them here… you’d know that his wealth was self-created, he took his family’s inheritance and donated 100% of it, and he doesn’t take a salary in Mass as governor.

    He didn’t run for office in Michigan –where his family’s name is honored and golden… he ran in Mass –where his father’s legacy was zilch, zero, nada.

    You really need to get your opinions right & informed before spouting, raj. The only jackass is you for your fundamental lack of accountability, civility, or prudent observations. You, sir, have no credibility on that note.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2006 @ 7:34 pm - March 26, 2006

  102. If Romney runs, I hope he gets asked – as Clinton did – about his preference in underwear!

    Comment by Ian — March 26, 2006 @ 8:16 pm - March 26, 2006

  103. 96: I’m anxiously awaiting your citation of “the right to sodomy” in the Constitution of the United States.

    I don’t have to. All I need cite is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    As Anthony Kennedy noted, sodomy laws were used to subject Gay and Lesbian people to unequal legal treatment, regardless of whether we had committed sodomy or not. Let me repeat that, because it’s important: These laws were used in court against individuals who identified as Gay and Lesbian, regardless of whether the state could prove that they had actually committed a criminal act. (Contrast with laws against theft: We don’t use those laws to threaten entire groups of people because we believe they have a predisposition to steal.)

    Because sodomy laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, they were unconstitutional. Simple as that.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 26, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - March 26, 2006

  104. I think a pro-War, troops-supporting, able-bodied 24 yr old man who finds himself out of a job and entirely without credibility from anyone but other Bush-rimming neocons should just go and enlist and put his life where his mouth is.

    Army of One, Be All you Can Be…it’ll make a man out him.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 27, 2006 @ 2:29 am - March 27, 2006

  105. You really need to get your opinions right & informed before spouting…

    Gee, if that were a rule, we’d never hear from raj again. Or Ian. Or Timmeh! Or Mr Mod. Or Kevin…

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2006 @ 7:31 am - March 27, 2006

  106. GoB at #104, almost as predictable as the “conservative gays are self-loathing” or “GOP gays are Nazis”… the chickenhawk card played by an anti-military, anti-Bush, Blame-America-First liberal isn’t ever going to be seen as leading with a strong suit, playing your best card, or even being in the game. You need to stick to the rallies against the Wolrd Bank, urban sprawl, and free-condom-Tuesdays at City Hall. Those work better for you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2006 @ 9:01 am - March 27, 2006

  107. Check your 9th amendment, RWP and NDT

    Yes, let’s:

    Amendment IX:
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Nothing in the amendment gives the SCOTUS the power to create law there. But let’s look at the next one:

    Amendment X:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Since the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to legalize sodomy, that power is reserved to the States. IOW, however desirable the ruling might have been, Scalia and Thomas were correct, and the balance of the SCOTUS exceeded their authority.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 27, 2006 @ 10:39 am - March 27, 2006

  108. So is it your position that individuals ONLY have those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

    Look up Federalism, then get back to me, bed-wetter.

    Because sodomy laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, they were unconstitutional.

    Utter crap, unless you apply the same logic to laws against child abuse, bestiality, incest, etc. The Tenth Amendment grants the States the power to regulate behavior, and that includes sodomy laws. If you don’t like the laws, you can either try to get them changed through the state legislature or move to another state. Or if you want to live in a European style democracy with an all-powerful Federal government, you’re welcome to move to Europe. Just stay inside. I hear the Muslims are beating up fags.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 27, 2006 @ 10:46 am - March 27, 2006

  109. #108: “Look up Federalism, then get back to me, bed-wetter.”

    Projecting, no doubt. I notice you didn’t answer my question.

    Comment by Ian — March 27, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - March 27, 2006

  110. I notice you didn’t answer my question.

    Oh, but I did. It’s not my problem that you’re too stupid to figure it out.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 27, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - March 27, 2006

  111. #110 A simple yes or no question and still no answer, just angry ad hominem insults. Time for your meds maybe?

    Comment by Ian — March 27, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - March 27, 2006

  112. A simple yes or no question

    There is no question, just an idiotic statement.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 27, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - March 27, 2006

  113. “the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to legalize sodomy”

    Hey Professor, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are inalienable rights.

    The 10th amendment reserves the sodomy decision “to the people”
    not to the state.

    Because the 14th amendment comes after, it amends both the 9th and 10th amendments and reaffirms that both liberty and equality belong to each citizen.

    I hope you are not teaching Con Law, Professor.

    Comment by Alan — March 27, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - March 27, 2006

  114. Um, Al, “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

    I hope you are not teaching anything, Perfesser.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2006 @ 5:16 am - March 28, 2006

  115. The 10th amendment reserves the sodomy decision “to the people” not to the state.

    You don’t understand what “respectively” means, I see. And “to the people” refers to the legislature, not the courts. The courts are not a representative body of the government.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 28, 2006 @ 11:18 am - March 28, 2006

  116. Then, Alan, laws preventing pedophilia, polygamy, and rape are unconstitutional, since they abridge liberty.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - March 28, 2006

  117. Then, Alan, laws preventing pedophilia, polygamy, and rape are unconstitutional, since they abridge liberty.

    Those laws are also prima facie cases of “legislating morality.” Which, we are assured, government is not allowed to do.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - March 28, 2006

  118. My 2 cents:
    IMO, laws preventing pedophilia, polygamy, and rape are more than just “legislating morality”. Theres the harm principle..my rights end where yours begin and therefore they would be in violation of someone else’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    Comment by Rix — March 28, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - March 28, 2006

  119. IMO, laws preventing pedophilia, polygamy, and rape are more than just “legislating morality”. Theres the harm principle..my rights end where yours begin and therefore they would be in violation of someone else’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

    A wholly artificial distinction, since one could easily make the case that sodomy is just as harmful as any of the above.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 28, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - March 28, 2006

  120. Well, as far as test of harm in a sexual relationship goes…consent is required from both parties. Now in case of rape -the consent is absent and in paedophilia consent even if present is considered invalid in law as one of the parties is a minor.
    Legal systems, which do bar sodomy, class it under a different head i.e. which they consider ‘mala in se,’ or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are ‘mala prohibita,’ bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent.
    So its not a violation of the harm principle….and though consent is present its a “moral” issue.

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

  121. Now in case of rape -the consent is absent and in paedophilia consent even if present is considered invalid in law as one of the parties is a minor.

    Sorry. Minors can give consent to have sex, inasmuch as they require no parental notification or approval to eliminate the consequences of sex, i.e. have an abortion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - March 28, 2006

  122. Michigan Matt…predictable? Because you thought he should do the same thing?

    Seriously, do you have a problem with joining the military? I mean, they won’t take YOU because you’re a big homo. They wont’ take me for the very same reason.

    They’ll take him tho. And woudln’t he gain a lot of respect? I mean, Elvis Presley did it, and everyone at the time thought he was ruining the youth of the day with his obscene hip-wagging.

    Why SHOULDN’T he enlist, Matt? Don’t just attack my supposed lack of originality, answer the question.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 29, 2006 @ 5:05 am - March 29, 2006

  123. #118 — The idea that one should not cause harm to another is, in itself, a moral concept.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2006 @ 8:39 am - March 29, 2006

  124. GoB, it was predictable for you to suggest it since you have been one dimensional since your first post… nothing more, nothing less. Playing the chickenhawk card isn’t original for the GayLeft, GoB; nor for you.

    Enlistment today would be a good option for anyone who is a patriot or seeks to improve their lot in life; you see GoB, I don’t buy into your anti-military, anti-American liberal bias. But military life isn’t for everyone. I think military service is good; I think those who serve and served deserve our country’s gratitude.

    BTW, I see that someone has taken some of your comments and actually used them as a preface for blog post ala “idiot things liberals say”. Here’s your 15 minutes of fame, dude.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 29, 2006 @ 2:53 pm - March 29, 2006

  125. military life isn’t for everyone

    Then why is it a favorite tactic of regressives to use it against liberals?

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 31, 2006 @ 3:08 am - March 31, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.