As raj would write, everyone knows….

But you get merit points for pure, hateful speech. But you’ll need to go an extra mile next time to eclipse some of the others here who up their merit points on hate speech by mixing in a goodly dose of religious bigotry and intolerance.

Get those added into your speech and you’ll be heading for the top of the heap.

And let’s discuss Karl Rove for a bit. This guy is without a doubt the nastiest, meanest, slimiest closeted homosexual since Roy Cohn or J. Edgar Hoover. If the stories are true, who’d want to run into *that* thing in a leather outfit. yuk. Of course this guy’s history proves that he’d kill his own mother to advance himself, so being gay or not probably really dont’ matter with him.

That’s because they “feel” the story is true. For liberals “feelings” = “facts” and “opinion” = “truth”

As you wish. Of course, the more limited the boundary, the more limited the applicability of the point.

Um, Raj in #4, I’m just responding to Andrew’s post.

And I was responding to your post. Hence my question in #4 Why do you limit it to issues relating to parents and their gay children?

And Raj, I cited specifics — and if need be, could find links, even on this blog, to Kerry and Edwards’ comments on the Vice President’s lesbian daughter in ‘04.

There’s no need for you to find links. I suffered through the 2004 debates–my partner likes to listen to these bloviation sessions–and I know what was said. But what was said by Kerry and Edwards is pretty much irrelevant to my question, isn’t it?

Bush Derangement Syndrome! Whatever happened to the conservative for gay rights who could stand up to the liberal crowd guy we used to know? Yes; I’m afraid he has fallen prey to Bush Derangement Syndrome. Before Andrew became infected, he…

Fair point, Gryph in #13, but again I refer you back to Athena, er, Peggy, who can be quite passionate without being snide or insulting.

And I tend to find BIll O’Reilly so irritating. Back in his saner days, Andrew delivered a stinging rebuke of O’Reilly which I thought so good I printed it out and kept it on my desk for months. Now, alas, Andrew seems to be imitating the man he once so effectively skewered.

I just want to point out that Andrew is an editorialist, not a reporter, it is his job to evaluate information and give commentary in a passionate manner

It is not his job to misrepresent himself as a conservative.

Once again, Andrew seems eager to use any news, even that favorable (on gay issues) to the President (or Vice President), to attack the president and his advisor’s rather than to consider the information in a dispassionate manner.

I just want to point out that Andrew is an editorialist, not a reporter, it is his job to evaluate information and give commentary in a passionate manner. He is not paid for just presenting information, he is required to also give his opinion on it. That means, at least to some degree, he must to care about the issue discussed.

The dispassionate observer and recorder of human events is the role of a regular reporter, not someone on an editorial page. There are vast variations in style, for example, compare Bill O’Reilly and Andrew, but both still have the same job.

Ick.

It’s a feasible and fair postulate by Sullivan –who I rarely read. It doesn’t translate into “Sulivan’s not a conservative” anymore. And when does attacking the Prez/Veep tranlsate into someone not being a conservative… does George Will ring a bell, Pat Buchanan? Bill Kristol?

And, just for the record Dan, you have GrampaGryph’s standard of mixology all wrong –that spew of his was 90% bile and pure Bush Derangement Syndrome in acute hyperventing presentation… about 3% of it was honest or valid criticism. But it was 100% Gryph.

Well said, Granddaddy.

And Raj, I cited specifics — and if need be, could find links, even on this blog, to Kerry and Edwards’ comments on the Vice President’s lesbian daughter in ’04.

And Patrick, as usual, a mix of honest (& valid) criticism — and a little bile! In this post, I was referring to Andrew’s eagerness to attack the president and vice president as an indication that he’s not conservative.

Once again, Andrew seems eager to use any news, even that favorable (on gay issues) to the President (or Vice President), to attack the president and his advisors rather than to consider the information in a dispassionate manner. Doesn’t seem very conservative to me.

Well lets see what “Conservative” means according to Karl Rove in his June 22, 2005 speech.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

Lets see:
Higher taxes are now guaranteed by the Bush and GOP deficit spending and insanely Pork bloated federal budgets.

Fewer regulations? Curbing the size of government? Let see, Bush and Co. created the bloated monstrosity that ate and destroyed FEMA, otherwise known as the Department of Homeland Security. And as for measuring a government program on basis of effectiveness. Does “Well Michael (Brown) your doing a heck of a fine job!” come to mind?
As far as a less litigious society goes. Remember the Terry Schiavo Act? With Congress and the President interfering in the personal lives of a single American family in such an intimate and unwarranted manner, they could not be described as “less litigious”. Maybe Rove means attempting to remove all environmental regulation whatsoever.

Accountability? In the Bush Administration, this means Bush rewards loyalty over competence. Rumsfield in, Shineki out.

Parental choice in Education? It means let parents send their kids to any private school they want to and then tax me to pay for it.

Culture of Life? When the Bush Administration outlaws fertility clinics, which throw away and and destroy far more embryo’s blastocists etc., than Abortion or Stem cell research could ever hope to do, then I’ll believe they want a “Culture of Life”. Get real.

Measured by Karl Roves standards, Bush and the rest of the GOP are not much in the way of being conservative either.

And of course wouldn’t ya know it, but Andrew also refers to yet another exhaustively documented report that shows that torture, murder, rendition, kidnapping and false imprisonment has occurred and continues to occur, in America’s military and CIA run prison systems, which we are not supposed to know about since they are “secret”. All under this Presidents rather odd view of defending American values by destroying them.

Also, using unproven sources….

THis is a joke, right? Others around here don’t cite to sources. And you believe that I am supposed to?