Gay Patriot Header Image

Why Do They Hate?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:16 pm - October 11, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred,Civil Discourse,Liberals

Shortly after 9/11, Newsweek ran a cover story, “Why They Hate Us” about Muslim animosity to Americans. The very title suggested that there was something about us, something about America, that was detestable. For, it seems that to many on the left, the natural assumption is that if there is a problem is the world, it is caused either by American directly or by reaction to our supposedly imperialist politics.

Just as so many hate Americans, they often hate those of us who wear our patriotism on our sleeve. Those of us who love our nation (even as we acknowledge its flaws) and defend its values. They seem to concur with Samuel Johnson’s observation that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

And then there are those who hate Republicans not so much because of what we stand for, but because of what they believe we stand for. Sometimes, it seems, to your humble bloggers at least, that many gay leftists reserve the greatest amount of contempt for people like us, gay Republicans and conservatives. All too frequently, they comment to this blog, misrepresenting our ideas, drawing our words out of context and repeating the same stock phrases that we are self-hating, the equivalent of Jewish Nazis.

There was a time when their words of scorn and animosity would upset me. Now, I found them more amusing than irritating. I have learned that as with most hatred, the issue is not necessarily the object, but quite frequently the subject. That is, when we ask the question Newsweek posed, Why Do They Hate Us, it might help to focus on “they” rather than “us.”

To be sure, there are times when hatred is justified. It’s easy to hate terrorists and others who would kill us just because we’re Americans. Or to hate a rapist or other such scum who would take advantage of an individual for his own pleasure.

I expected that when I finally posted my piece on Changing my Blog Moniker that someone would comment offering a nickname which would define me not as I am, but as our angriest adversaries see us. Fortunately, only one person offered such a comment.

As I read his words, I wondered why he hated so much. I realized that I serve just as the object for his animosity, not its justification, nor its explanation. I hope he will take the time to look within and wonder what it is that makes him hate so.

-Dan: GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

86 Comments

  1. I think some people, because of nature or nurture, have a need to hate, just as other people have a need to love, or a need to help others. On the left, hate is accepted, appreciated, and promoted provided it is directed at the right people. I think people who have a need to hate are just drawn to the left, because as long as they are hating the right people, they get affirmation and approval.

    On the left, you can call for the president’s assassination (Air America Radio), you can express the desire that conservatives be tortured (Andrew Sullivan), you can say the victims of the 9-11 terrorists deserved it because they were “Little Eichmanns,(Ward Churchill),” the leftist Attorney-General of California even expressed the desire that someone he disliked should be prison-raped, you can express indifference to brutal murder (Kos), and it’s all cheered and accepted. Whereas the left labels any and all dissenting opinion on the right as ‘Hate Speech.’

    You can also fairly say that Ann Coulter goes over-the-top sometimes, but compared with what regularly comes from the left, she’s Pollyanna.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - October 11, 2006

  2. “As I read his words, I wondered why he hated so much. I realized that I serve just as the object for his animosity, not its justification, nor its explanation. I hope he will take the time to look within and wonder what it is that makes him hate so.”

    Whoa, “the object of his animosity.” Brilliantly put, and true.

    Comment by DoorHold — October 11, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - October 11, 2006

  3. People hate what they fear.

    The left hates the right because they (the left) fear the right is – well – right.
    Knowing you’re on the wrong side of history (and humanity) can force the mind to do terrible things – like vote for John Kerry or think Howie Dean is ‘mainstream’.

    Intellectual bankruptcy and moral equivalence brought to its natural conclusion – the gutter.

    Everything is equal and nothing has a greater value- culture, customs, countries.
    If they’re terrorists, then so must we be.

    Vera’s motto: If you believe in nothing – you’ll fall for anything.

    Now a laugh, perhaps a smile ~

    As for the wacky ‘Shaira-polozza’ and ‘forced conversion’ crowd, Vera offers:

    Vera’s Top Ten Reasons Why She Can’t be a Muslim

    1) Turbans make Vera look like Norma Desmond…in drag
    2) Suicide belts make Vera’s look too hip-py
    3) Black burquas are so ‘90’s – as in the 790’s
    4) Crush on Celeste Holm wouldn’t square with the local Imam
    5) Can’t get a decent Martini in Mecca
    6) Three words: Fried Pork Chops
    7) 5 X daily prayers cuts into Vera’s afternoon cocktails
    8) Call to prayer sounds like cats being strangled
    9) Big ‘Mo’ isn’t exactly Vera’s kind of ‘mo’: if you know what I mean…
    10) They’re actually a cult…

    GPW – don’t let the nuts on the left upset you – name calling is the last refuge of the illiterate.

    Cheers…

    Comment by Vera Charles — October 11, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - October 11, 2006

  4. You have a point Vera. After all, hate is very powerful. And it’s a whole lot easier to get your comrades to hate conservatives than it is to explain away the failures of socialism or reconcile the myriad hypocrisies of the left. (Mark Foley is a dangerous predator, but Gerry Studds is a respected statesman. Tom DeLay is corrupt, but Harry Reid is swell.)

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  5. It’s not always easy to be happy.

    But if you’re not happy, you have three emotions from which to chose:

    1) Sadness
    2) Fear/Anxiety
    3) Anger

    Of the three, many seem to find anger the least unpleasant, since anger tends to focus outward, rather than inward. And it can even be exhilarating at times, like a drug.

    Most angry people are that way because of their unhappy internal state, then later find a pretext for their own anger.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 11, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - October 11, 2006

  6. Don’t worry, once the Democrats regain congress and the possibly the presidency in ’08, the world will be our friend again, poverty and homelessness will be go away, global warming will dissipate, our basic civil rights will be restored, the economy will be righted and all the “-isms” will just go away.

    The Newsweek will have run an article called “Why they love us so”

    Comment by ShermanStreet — October 11, 2006 @ 11:00 pm - October 11, 2006

  7. What I hate is the advice by some to Americans traveling overseas to say they are Canadian; I guess so they won’t get the anti-US jibes.

    On second thought, no, I don’t hate that. But I do, um, “take issue” (is that ok?) with the people who follow said advice. Or those who think they should.

    Ah, but what do I know? Just another dumb American here: not willing to hide who I am just so I can fit in. It would be so much easier if I played along and not make anyone feel…uncomfortable.

    But then again, life ain’t always easy 😉

    Comment by Gustav — October 11, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - October 11, 2006

  8. Having traveled extensively in Canada, Mexico and Europe, I have NEVER apologized for being an American, nor (during both Clinton and Bush administrations) ever disavowed my government abroad, even if I didn’t agree with their policies.

    Matter of fact – in my travels in the 1990s, it was worse being an American abroad than it was the past 5 years. When I went to Britain and France in 1999 during the impeachment crisis, I was constantly asked “why is your president so intent on ruining your country?”

    I honestly replied: “That is something for our government to determine, not me.”

    Sad but true.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 12, 2006 @ 12:01 am - October 12, 2006

  9. I was in southern Europe a few weeks ago and didn’t get any anti-American vibes.

    However, I did learn that vendors tend to think of Americans as “rich” and overcharge accordingly. When I spoke halting English with an unidentifiable accent, I found I saved a lot of money – case in point – 1.5 L bottled water dropped from e5.00 to e1.00 or less.

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 12, 2006 @ 12:02 am - October 12, 2006

  10. You said that people on the left hate those who wear patriotism on their sleeve and on that, you’re wrong.

    As someone who considers himself liberal, I am not ashamed to say that overtly patriotic displays make me uncomfortable. And there is a simple reason for that. It’s best described in a recent quote made by a German, commenting on the recent burst of patriotism in Germany as a result of their hosting of The World Cup.

    “I want people to remember, that when it comes to national pride, in a second the dream can become a nightmare.”

    And nobody knows that better than Germany. That’s why it makes me uncomfortable. Nationalism and patriotism can be good. It can also very quickly turn bad.

    Just because it hasnt happened here, doesn’t mean it couldn’t.

    Comment by Chase — October 12, 2006 @ 12:14 am - October 12, 2006

  11. My brother works for the Secret Service and has to travel extensively to many countries that aren’t exactly high on the vacation list and because he speaks many different languages, he does often hide the fact that he is American for his safety.

    Particularly in Mexico City, they will kidnap Americans so as to exort money from their families back home. Because of the kidnap threat, when in Mexico City, he was told to not even risk leaving the American Embassy and hotel compound there.

    If you go to places like Mexico City, Jakarta and Shanghai, it is sometimes in your best interest not let it be known you are from America.

    Comment by Chase — October 12, 2006 @ 12:36 am - October 12, 2006

  12. Chase, I did not say that all people on the left hate those who wear our patriotism on their sleeve. The term I used was “so many” as I recognize that there are those on the left who do not hate patriots.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 12, 2006 @ 12:46 am - October 12, 2006

  13. And just to answer the original question, why they hate us…

    The answer is simple. An ever present racism pervades the enitre Middle East. While they might point to policy issues, it is that racism which is the root of the cause.

    Comment by Chase — October 12, 2006 @ 12:52 am - October 12, 2006

  14. #10

    That has to be the sorriest excuse for anything that I’ve ever read. You can’t possibly be that paranoid.

    As for myself, I want to get a Gonzales flag to fly next to my U.S. flag.

    As for Why do they hate us?, who really cares. They do and that’s that. There’s no since in wringing your hands over it and there ain’t no sense in trying to change who we are just to make everybody else happy.

    I’m not one who particularly gives a rat’s a$$ if you like me or not. That’s your problem, not mine. I won’t change who I am just so you’ll like me. Did that too much in my younger, dumber days.

    Screw ’em.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 1:16 am - October 12, 2006

  15. Wow… your ability to diagnose the psychological condition of people who you have never seen or talked to is almost as uncanny as Dr. Frist’s ability to diagnose patients who he has never seen or talked to. Is that a purely Republican skill or what?

    And I dare say that your assessment of your commenters is just as spot-on as Frist’s declaration that Terri Schiavo was conscious and alert and talking (never mind the fact that the autopsy found that her head was filled with nothing but goo).

    Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 1:41 am - October 12, 2006

  16. And I dare say that your assessment of your commenters is just as spot-on as Frist’s declaration that Terri Schiavo was conscious and alert and talking (never mind the fact that the autopsy found that her head was filled with nothing but goo).

    Yeah. She should have been aborted in the first place saving us the time and trouble.

    As far as diagnosing from a distance, doctors (and intelligent) generally do it all the time. It’s called forming an impression based on the information at hand. Just like I don’t have to meet you or talk to you (gracias a Dios) to conclude that you’re a miserable, ignorant wretch.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 5:07 am - October 12, 2006

  17. #16

    Intelligent people, that is.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 5:07 am - October 12, 2006

  18. Chase writes: “You said that people on the left hate those who wear patriotism on their sleeve and on that, you’re wrong. As someone who considers himself liberal, I am not ashamed to say that overtly patriotic displays make me uncomfortable.” And then goes on to cite the reason for that uncomfortable feeling that others here rightly point out is paranoid –and I think unreasonable and silly.

    If I could, I’d ask Chase if Prez RR standing on the cliffs of Normandy paying tribute to the Last Generation’s fallen heroes “overly patriotic”? Is singing the Nat’l Anthem before a baseball game “overly patriotic”? Is draping the casket of a fallen soldier being “overly patriotic”? Is paying tribute to the men and women serving in the WOT “overly patriotic”? Is a 4 yr old boy waving a flag in an Independence Day parade “overly patriotic”? Or for that matter, is our family’s tradition of signing our own names on a copy of the DofI on July 4th (right below the signatories) “overly patriotic”? Is thinking that America is a great land, peopled by some of the best minds and souls in the world, with a destiny to lead the world toward greater freedom and liberty “overly patriotic”? Is honoring our country’s great traditions “overly patriotic”?

    Patriotism, openly displayed, may make some Americans feel uncomfortable.

    Chase, I can’t begin to imagine why that is for you –simple reason you offered I would set aside as not compelling. You shouldn’t confuse true patriotism from false nationalism. And true patriotism begins with the acknowledgment that America has erred in the past, will make mistakes in the future but is still the world’s last best hope for mankind.

    I can’t imagine why, confident in the ideal, anyone would feel uncomfortable with patriotism in America. Unless those people feel the weight or burden of America’s “mistakes” and the attendant guilt that may derive.

    I’m teaching my sons to be patriots, Chase. I’m teaching them that our freedom and liberty is God given –as the Framers believed. I’m teaching them to sing the Natl Anthem loudly at all of the Tiger baseball games we’re now going to… and I’m teaching them to be good Wolverines. Allegiance to a greater good and sacrifice of self for others is a noble venture –and it gives patriotism a true ring.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 12, 2006 @ 9:30 am - October 12, 2006

  19. I see so much hate filled spew on GP.net that its comical to see you complain that the culture of hate that you thrive upon, occasionally comes back to bite you.
    The question could be posed another way:
    Why does Sullivan get called “barebacker”?
    Why do you call liberals “libtards”
    Why are democrats called “rats”?
    Why do you accuse liberals of “destroying America”?
    Why do you say liberals are aligned with Osama?

    Before you started your sanctimonious whining, you should think about how folks on the right has contributed and egged on this hate.
    But I guess according to you rightists, hatred is relative:
    #1 writes:
    “You can also fairly say that Ann Coulter goes over-the-top sometimes, but compared with what regularly comes from the left, she’s Pollyanna. “

    Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 9:47 am - October 12, 2006

  20. Vaguely in response to comment #1… I have always been unequivocal in my support of the right of citizens to bear arms. But the Bush administration, even more than the Clinton administration, has made it clear to me that the primary value and purpose of the Second Amendment is not a remote abstraction. I am absolutely not planning or advocating anything whatsoever; it’s just that it’s very easy for me to envision a situation, in the relatively near future, where direct action would be required.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 12, 2006 @ 10:11 am - October 12, 2006

  21. “I am not ashamed to say that overtly patriotic displays make me uncomfortable.”

    Chase: You should be. (ashamed to say it)

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 10:19 am - October 12, 2006

  22. Why does Sullivan get called “barebacker”?

    Because he advertised for bb on a website under the nick ‘Power Glutes.’ I prefer to criticize Sully’s deranged politics and histrionic emotionalism, but the label is accurate.

    Why do you call liberals “libtards”

    The ones who spew idiocies like ‘Bush was behind 9-11’ and ‘Republicans are plotting to exterminate us’ and ‘democrats will make peece with muzlims’ have earned the label. Not to mention, more than half of them are incapable of basic spelling, punctuation, or capitalization.

    Why are democrats called “rats”?

    Because they threw a Category 5 hissy-fit over a 2000 campaign ad in which the word “democrats” was truncated to “rats” for about 1/24th of a second as it bounced around the screen. It’s a joke, something leftards are incapable of appreciating (see RajIan’s response to the Zawahiri ’08 post).

    Why do you accuse liberals of “destroying America”?

    Because they always side with America’s enemies. They want to extend consititutional protections to foreign terrorists, they don’t want us to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists, they want us to surrender in Iraq to the terrorists, they want the US to be subservient to the filthy and corrupt United Nations, they want to destroy the US economy through the Kyoto Treaty and emulate the failed Euro-socialist model, they want to destroy the American health care system by replacing it with DMV-style government health care, they want to replace democratic rule of law with a judicial oligarchy (and have made much progress on that front), they abhor patriotism, they have devastated the public schools which they control absolutely, they make heroes out of open America-haters like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill.

    Why do you say liberals are aligned with Osama?

    Because if you put Osama’s talking points next to the DNC’s, you can’t tell them apart.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 10:22 am - October 12, 2006

  23. “I see so much hate filled spew on GP.net”

    …coming from keogh. (i.e., you)

    As for your specific questions:

    – I haven’t seen Sullivan called ‘barebacker’, but I’ll take your word for it that he has. You appear to not know that it’s an accurate description. Google ‘Andrew Sullivan bareback’ and read some of the articles.

    – people called ‘libtards’ and ‘rats’ – Well, I can’t speak to that, since it’s not my thing and not anything the main people on the blog (Dan and Bruce) do either. Take it up with people who you see doing it.

    – liberals ‘destroying America’ and ‘aligned with Osama’ – Ummm, because they are. Again, it falls in the category of mere description. The video Osama released just before the 2004 election had many points taken almost word-for-word from Democratic Party and MoveOn.org press releases.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 10:26 am - October 12, 2006

  24. According to you Its OK to throw out Hate if you agree with it.
    Agian, that is the point of my post. GPW whines about hate while you guys post it all the time.
    And then you justify it by saying “Our hatred is based on facts.”

    So your post proves my point.
    Thanks

    Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 10:29 am - October 12, 2006

  25. P.S. I know how you gay lefties love The Nation, so this article from the Google search I recommended should carry especial weight for you: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010618/kim20010605

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 10:32 am - October 12, 2006

  26. Who has said “Our hatred is based on facts”? Not what I said at all!

    What I’ve said is: You, keogh, are MISTAKING certain things for hate, when the person was speaking in a neutral intention or tone.

    Example: Andrew Sullivan is a barebacker, and given his earlier stands, somewhat of a hypocrite. That’s not hate speech. It’s a set of facts endorsed by “no less an authority” than The Nation. I don’t hate Andrew Sullivan. But you, keogh, may CHOOSE to read into it a hatred or a level of emotion I do not intend.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 10:36 am - October 12, 2006

  27. And then you justify it by saying “Our hatred is based on facts.”

    Thus proving my point that liberals label any fact or idea they don’t agree with as ‘hate.’

    Once again, keogh is a very, very silly person.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 10:37 am - October 12, 2006

  28. Correct, V.

    In my own long experience with lefties: Any fact or idea that expresses disagreement with them or raises the possibility that they might not be perfect and superior makes them very uncomfortable… at which point, they leap to accuse the person who voiced it of “hate”.

    It’s like a kid throwing a temper tantrum – A disruption tactic, that works for them at least part of the time, or with some people.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 10:43 am - October 12, 2006

  29. Web Reconnaissance for 10/12/2006…

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — October 12, 2006 @ 10:53 am - October 12, 2006

  30. I submit:

    You Repubs hate us Libs for our freedoms. 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — October 12, 2006 @ 11:32 am - October 12, 2006

  31. ThatGayConservative–

    “Just like I don’t have to meet you or talk to you (gracias a Dios) to conclude that you’re a miserable, ignorant wretch.”

    Why do you hate? I know I am just the object of your animosity, not its justification or explanation. I hope you will take the time to look within and wonder what it is that makes you hate so.

    Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 11:45 am - October 12, 2006

  32. Unfortantly rightists can’t distinguish between fact and the spinning of the facts.
    That is OK its a very human reaction and by itself not dangerous.
    The problem becomes that you rightists use this spin to justify your hate.
    For example I can’t tell you how many times I have read posts alludeing to how they want N. Korea or Osama to blow up San Fran.
    This and count less ofther examples only exemplify my point that GPW should not be whinning as this blog (and the Right wing) seems to thrive upon a culture of spewing hate.
    So don’t be suprised when it bites you.

    Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 11:46 am - October 12, 2006

  33. “a situation, in the relatively near future, where direct action would be required”

    Yeah, kdogg… we call that “treason”.

    You really think that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable people to commit a crime… they ONLY crime that is enshrined in the Constitution itself? Why did the Framers go to all the trouble of making treason a crime, if they WANTED people to do it?

    Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 11:49 am - October 12, 2006

  34. I cannot think of a more relevant place for this quote:
    Hypocrisy thy name is conservatism

    Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 11:49 am - October 12, 2006

  35. So don’t be suprised when it bites you.

    Actually, despite all their attempts at insult and nastiness, I’ve never felt bitten or stung by any of the silly lefty attacks on this forum. It’s kind of like when a four-year-old calls you a ‘poopy-head.’ You just kind of laugh, move on, and hope they grow up some day.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - October 12, 2006

  36. You really think that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable people to commit a crime… they ONLY crime that is enshrined in the Constitution itself? Why did the Framers go to all the trouble of making treason a crime, if they WANTED people to do it?

    Because the Founders themselves had just undergone the trouble of committing treason on a grand scale themselves — and had just put down an attempt (Shay’s Rebellion) as well.

    They knew full well the danger of a few people trying to overthrow the government. But, having gone through the Revolution themselves, they also knew that there are some times when it could be necessary.

    It is thoroughly consistent that the one group of individuals that the Constitution fully protects the right of bearing arms to is what ultimately underpins its power — the electorate.

    In short, the Second Amendment is there in case all else fails.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 12:21 pm - October 12, 2006

  37. For example I can’t tell you how many times I have read posts alludeing to how they want N. Korea or Osama to blow up San Fran.

    Damn straight.

    You see, Keogh, San Francisco is the classic example of what happens when liberals like yourself are put in charge of government.

    They ban guns and ammunition sales in the city — and homicides rise.

    They pump cash into homelessness — and get more homeless.

    They punish businesses — and end up wondering why they can’t attract new ones, or why so many are leaving the City.

    They hamstring the police — and can’t believe that crime is so rampant.

    They try to artificially manipulate the cost of housing — and can’t explain why it skyrockets.

    They put ideology front and center in the public school system — and wonder why parents opt out.

    To be quite honest, the only thing that will get through the thick heads of pandering liberals like yourself that these people like Kim Jong Il and Osama are out to kill us is if they strike the one city in the United States that justifies their actions over and over and over again.

    The annoying part is that it puts ME in danger.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - October 12, 2006

  38. #22 – Great riposte. I doubt anyone could have done it better.

    #33 – You are wrong again. Treason is the ONLY crime that is explicitly mentioned and defined in the Constitution. Look up Article III, Section 3 if you have access to it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 12, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - October 12, 2006

  39. “It’s not treason if you win.”

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 12, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - October 12, 2006

  40. Not to play goody two-shoes, but this has to be said for the record: I don’t want Osama or N. Korea to blow up anyplace!

    Any time a person finds themselves fantasizing about a disaster befalling any city or (non-terrorist) individual or group, they should take it as a warning sign that they are starting to get off track, spiritually and politically.

    Part of what makes left-liberals such hateful, nasty people whose politics we rightly rebuke, is that THEIR politics ultimately rests on fantasies of American defeat in Iraq, assassination of George Bush, economic collapse, global warming, or various other hypothetical future events that (whether likely or not) they think would ‘prove’ their worldview or make people ‘turn’ to them. Sickening.

    And it’s not impossible for conservatives, libertarians, etc. to fall victim to the same disease. Any time your politics rests on / indulges some hope of injury or disaster to “make people see” – that’s a sign you are losing your positive, optimistic politics and persuasive ability.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 12, 2006

  41. LOL…..an excellent point, Cal.

    To my remarks, just because it’s the only thing that WOULD work doesn’t mean it’s what SHOULD be done.

    Most of the sane folk in San Francisco, as you well know, have pretty much come to the conclusion that we can’t depend on the government to protect us OR do anything for us.

    As I mentioned, that’s why parents, despite the cost, send their children to private, rather than public, schools — they know that the school district is corrupt, hideously mismanaged, and more preoccupied with indoctrination of children than it is education, as the plummeting test scores in the district have shown.

    Relative to crime, it’s called hypersensitive neighborhood watch associations, individual alarms, and what can euphemistically be called “other safeguards” — because we know that the response time for police in this area is measured in hours, not minutes.

    And, relative to earthquakes or other natural disasters, it’s called having a rehearsed survival plan and supplies necessary to last weeks — because we know that the city is run by people who make Ray Nagin look competent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - October 12, 2006

  42. #41: So, in other words, the people who inhabit SFO have to provide for themselves the basic services that their incredibly inflated taxes are supposed to pay for but their elected leftist government can not provide.

    Tell me again how liberals aren’t stupid?

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - October 12, 2006

  43. I am just so thoroughly discouraged with the tone of debate in this country today. There is no such thing as “civil discourse” or “agreeing to disagree”… I have been spending less and less time watching any news or reading any blogs.

    Let me just say that even though I am not reading as regularly, I do love to read your thoughts and I appreciate your efforts with your blog.

    I just wish there was a solution to the general tone in this country. No, actually it is an international problem. Civility is dead.

    Comment by Terri — October 12, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - October 12, 2006

  44. #33: NorthDallasThirty gave a pretty good response.

    The Framers would never have thought that it would impossible, even with their carefully constructed Constitution, for the government to go horribly awry. They would not have considered it treason for citizens to stop them if that happened. I dare say that they thought they were founding a nation first, and a government second, and that if the government started to betray the ideals of the nation (see the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence), it would no longer be the legitimate government of the United States.

    I’m in no way suggesting that anyone start planning a rebellion; that would be utterly pointless and foolish at this point in history. I’m just saying that the possibility doesn’t seem as remote and abstract to me as it once did.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 12, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - October 12, 2006

  45. I am just so thoroughly discouraged with the tone of debate in this country today. There is no such thing as “civil discourse” or “agreeing to disagree”… I have been spending less and less time watching any news or reading any blogs.

    Probably not a bad idea, Terri. 🙂

    But civil discourse isn’t dead. It’s still found over backyard fences, in the workplace, in parties with friends, at the gym, and every other place where people who regularly interact get together.

    In short, you tend to be nicer to people you know and have positive experience with than people you don’t.

    This country would be in a lot better shape if we all just opened our windows.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - October 12, 2006

  46. Who cares that they hate us? I don’t. I have two pieces of advice for the United States:

    1) Don’t become that which you despise.
    2) Don’t meddle in the politics of countries that live in the 7th century. Doing so never seems to turn out well.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 12, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 12, 2006

  47. This country would be in a lot better shape if we all just opened our windows.

    I have two teenaged sons who practice heavy metal in my house with their friends. This advice might not work for me.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - October 12, 2006

  48. Faithheads and ideologues make civll discourse impossible.

    Comment by julie — October 12, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - October 12, 2006

  49. People who use words like ‘faithheads’ make civil discourse impossible.

    Amazing how oblivious people can be to their own rectal-cranial inversion.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 12, 2006

  50. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by julie — October 12, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - October 12, 2006

  51. #49 I agree with you V the K
    But it goes both ways. Words like faithheads libtards, Rats and other slander shouldn’t be use.

    Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - October 12, 2006

  52. It’s not ‘playing the victim’ to acknowledge the facts of life. Playing the victim is what people who blame all their misery and failure on someone else do. But, I notice lefties really can’t stand it when someone points out their ugliness to them, and so they chant the phrase “playing the victim” because they are too dim to realize it doesn’t apply, and just makes them sound ignorant.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - October 12, 2006

  53. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Ann C — October 12, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 12, 2006

  54. Good lord. Somebody hurry and print this message thread and mail it to the Mark Foley Institute for the Study of Reaction Formation.

    You literally depict yourself as a martyr to “hate” by the left and when your own hateful language is pointed out to you, you simply deny that it’s hateful because you consider it deserved or true. Thus a contrary “truth” can take the form of a hateful expression…but ony if it’s true in your own estimation.

    I’ve been reading news groups, discussion sites and blogs for many years and this one’s members are among the most vicious and hateful writers I’ve ever encountered — gay Freepers. At some level it’s entertaining, but it’s also totally predictable.

    Dan attacks the left and when someone argues his point, instead of taking up the substance of the argument, he invariably resorts to a rhetorical defense. “I didn’t say ALL Democrats are that way. I said many or most….If you bothered to read what I worte…” Pure Andrew Sullivanism, speaking of a game of likely projection. Cull the sentences for some qualifying phrases that allow me to wriggle out of a generalization. And then when somebody (like me) observes the process, it provokes the same demand, “Show me! Show me where I have restorted to hateful language.” You show him. Then the cycle repeats itself: “If you really understood what I wrote….”

    Well, forget all that. You’re just a poor oppressed minority, downtrodden, hammered by the mafia of angry leftist homos, spewing hate, whereas you are a fountain of wisdom uncontaminated by political bias or angry personal speech.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 12, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - October 12, 2006

  55. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Michael — October 12, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - October 12, 2006

  56. And don’t forget the whining about how gay men don’t want to date him…

    Seems like Mark Foley had found a way around that problem!

    Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - October 12, 2006

  57. LOL….and 55-57 merely demonstrate GPW’s point about the hateful attitudes of the left.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2006 @ 12:16 am - October 13, 2006

  58. If anyone really wants to read hate speech, go to DailyKaos or Demonic Underwear. Just mention that you are conservative and the knives are out.

    Here, with only a few exceptions, people are free to say what they feel, regardless of how stupid, infantile or just brain-dead their comments are. I’ve only seen about 3-4 posters banned from this site, and only because they’ve been repeatedly warned about the content of their comments.

    And as I’ve always said, if this blog offends you, no need for you to stay. Hasta la vista, baby.

    Damn, I’m channeling Arnold again…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 13, 2006 @ 12:24 am - October 13, 2006

  59. Why do you hate? I know I am just the object of your animosity, not its justification or explanation. I hope you will take the time to look within and wonder what it is that makes you hate so.

    The real question is “why do you care?”. Why do you get your panties in a wad over nothing? Why do you grant others the power to offend you if it’s not true? Are you that insecure and/or immature?

    The fact is that I don’t hate anybody. Nor do I require personal introspection. I’m happy with who I am and, by my heel, I care not a damn about what you think of me.

    Further, I don’t see Dan’s post as whining. It’s more of an examination of a topic. While I don’t know Dan very well, I feel fairly certain that he doesn’t lose any sleep over anything in his post.

    Comment by TGC — October 13, 2006 @ 2:06 am - October 13, 2006

  60. 26: “Who has said “Our hatred is based on facts”? Not what I said at all!”

    Sorry, but supporters of this site say that constantly. In your arrogance, you believe that your stance on political issues gives you the right to attempt to demean your opponents by name-calling and harranguing. It used to be that opposing sides in this country could hammer out compromises, but now we’ve been living with a such a sore winner attitude from the Republicans in the federal government, it’s no wonder that people fear America is drifting into a fascist state. It’s not enough to simply disagree with someone’s opposing view (and follow the course you choose in the case of the ruling political party); the opposing view and the people who believe it must be degraded to the point where it becomes unacceptable (even evil, unpatriotic, etc) for them to even have that viewpoint. This is exactly what happened under leaders like Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler and look where it got them.

    Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2006 @ 5:02 am - October 13, 2006

  61. #21

    BOO-HOO!!! Everybody hates me, but it’s all their fault.

    Talk about arrogance. It couldn’t possibly because you’re an uneducated, lying douchebag. Of course not. It’s all our fault.

    Speaking of uneducated:

    This is exactly what happened under leaders like Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler and look where it got them.

    The left’s heroes? I rest my case.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 13, 2006 @ 5:38 am - October 13, 2006

  62. #21 should have been #61.

    Furthermore, can you please explain what’s so patriotic about gunning for the defeat of America?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 13, 2006 @ 5:41 am - October 13, 2006

  63. #54 Ann C: I have said twice that I’m not advocating any direct action whatsoever, either now or for the knowable future. I am only saying that I can envision situations where that could change.

    But, to answer the meat of your question: the best reason for people to have guns is to have them ready to defend their liberties from aggressors, including government aggressors if that is necessary. I am not calling for such action, or planning it myself, because it is absolutely not necessary or prudent. I just think it would be naive to rule out the possibility that it could ever happen.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 13, 2006 @ 7:55 am - October 13, 2006

  64. Dan asks: “Why do they hate us?” Jihadists v Free World? LeftGays v conservatives? LeftGays v GOPer gays? Let’s do the latter…

    Because hate is the fastest reaction for those unwilling or unable to think? The GayLeftBorg has invested heavily in the Politics of Rage… they learned it from the Democrats. Now, farLeft Democrats have lost control of their party to the likes of CindyZeroSheehan, BabsStreisand and MikeyMoore –the Politics of Rage will consume the GayLeftBorg and GayPatriot has been here to document the self-destruction.

    Out of all that will rise a stronger, more moderate, less sociopathic gay community willing to embrace mainstream America in a meaningful dialogue on civil rights.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 13, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - October 13, 2006

  65. Hey A-nonie1, I oly need one hand to “do the math” as you instruct.

    I see three clear facts in VdaK’s 53 post… and three sentences.

    Do you need a braille translation ’cause those GayLeftBorg blinders are keeping you from the truth.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 13, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - October 13, 2006

  66. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Ann C — October 13, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - October 13, 2006

  67. A-nonie1, more relativism from the Left I see. Talk about lazy mental exercises –I think you wrote the book on intellectual dishonesty and backbenching ‘pining.

    The math is right, your opinion is uninformed, and further reflection by you will be for naught. VdaK had it right in #53.

    I think not only are the GayLeftBorg blinders keeping you from seeing the truth, that pedestal you’ve built for yourself keeps your head in the clouds. The simplest truth is one that you’ve run fastest and fartherest away from today… the intolerance practiced by you and your GayLeftBorg brothers-n-crime –literally canabalizing our fellow gays in order to score partisan points with your Masters on the Democrat Plantation– far exceeds anything posited on this log in a long, long time.

    Like others here have advised: you need to take a short walk on the DailyKos or BlogActive or MyDD and you’ll come face2face with vile hatred of the most base, irrational kind. Disloyal, unpatriotic puppets.

    Like Dan points out: the GayLeftBorg keeps its harshest, strongest, most caustic bile to throw upon fellow gays who differ with the Borg’s mindset.

    Run from the truth A-nonie1. It suits you fine so far in your life.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 13, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - October 13, 2006

  68. #64 Just wanted to say you’re right. Americans do need to be prepared to resist our own government. It’s more a mindset to have, though, rather than the idea that there is any real threat.

    I find it… interesting… this rhetoric of the impending take-over, be it the impending theocracy of the Handmaid’s Tale, which so many people found profound and frightening, or some notion that Bush will somehow retain power past 2008. Just in general terms, you know. I don’t think that very many people really believe that, it’s more like a fun fantasy like enjoying Mad Max or something.

    The real battles are small ones. Like freedom of thought. Freedom to raise your children according to your own ideology, even if strange. The threat is in making it so people can be forced to conform to what is right, because the idea of what is right may change in the future.

    Comment by Synova — October 13, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - October 13, 2006

  69. Contrary to what Anon1 implied, I spelled victim properly in my post. (I don’t expect people who lack the guts to leave a name to engage in substantive argument anyway.)

    Comment by V the K — October 13, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - October 13, 2006

  70. Ann C, I really fail to see what your point is in attacking kdogg.

    I myself am a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and a gun owner — and, if I felt that necessity justified it, would be willing to use them against government agents.

    But the chance of that situation happening is somewhere to the left of my becoming pregnant — not impossible, but outside the realm of current probability.

    Kdogg’s not saying anything different — and frankly, you seem to be going after him out of pure contrariness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - October 13, 2006

  71. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Ann C — October 13, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - October 13, 2006

  72. What’s interesting, Ann C, is that the military views gays in roughly the same way they do women; that is, it’s not that you can’t necessarily perform the duties of a soldier effectively, it’s that it’s a logistical and training nightmare to house and organize you in the way that the military has found most effective.

    Simply put, men and women are not usually housed together in the armed forces, except under extreme conditions, because of the strong potential for sexual tension and the varying views of the individuals involved, all of which diminish a unit’s cohesion and efficiency. The military is not an office or a typical workspace, where people are together for eight hours a day and then can go do as they wish in privacy; you live, sleep, and train with your fellow soldiers 24/7, and that is taken into account when the military does personnel management.

    On a lot of levels, I have no problem with DADT. It’s annoying, but it’s a realistic and pragmatic policy. In the future, I anticipate that it will become an obsolete one, just as keeping women out of the armed forces did, but we’re still not there yet.

    To the rest of your statement, I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I’m simply not comfortable saying, “Yes, I’d shoot a cop” without throwing in when and why. It is a major thing to shoot anyone, period, and especially someone who is in a position of authority.

    If you read some of the letters of the Revolutionary period, you will find that very few people took up arms against the British without the same type of trepidation that you find here. It’s not natural or normal to rebel against the established order, and anyone who doesn’t do so reluctantly, in my opinion, is very dangerous.

    But don’t ever assume that because I have a limp wrist, I can’t shoot straight — or pull the trigger.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - October 13, 2006

  73. You don’t want to mess with us Texas boys because we were ALL brought up to use firearms properly and appropriately. At least, those of us who are native to the Lone Star State.

    I’ve even seen drag queens packing heat here in Houston. One memorable Halloween, one gal went to a club on Pacific Street, opened his purse and promptly handed over his Smith & Wesson to the bouncer in compliance with Texas law requiring no handguns in any establishment serving alcohol.

    Want to eliminate hate crimes? LEARN TO SHOOT A GUN.

    Gotta luv it!!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 13, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - October 13, 2006

  74. I had the idea that kdogg36 was a liberal or democrat or something. I *do* get confused though, but I thought it was “the neo-cons are scary so I can see the point of the 2nd Amendment these days.”

    DADT was Clinton’s baby, of course. The “Republican gospel” for gays in the military is more to the tune of “privacy is an issue in billeting” and a belief that the presence of homosexuals is an unnecessary hassle and distraction and potential threat to unit cohesion. Not a single bit of that has anything to do with how suited to armed resistance are gays.

    Comment by Synova — October 13, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - October 13, 2006

  75. #75 What NDT said, so much better and in the same time it took me to write a short, inadequate paragraph.

    Comment by Synova — October 13, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - October 13, 2006

  76. Pugnacious…

    Like Michael, I was blown away at the connect the dots in Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Rich shows, how politics, most specifically the desire to secure a lock by one party on the government, mixed with incuriosity,……

    Trackback by JodyWheeler.Com / Naked Writing — October 13, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - October 13, 2006

  77. NDT and Synova: thanks for taking up for me. I never imagined I’d get attacked on a conservative blog for supporting the Second Amendment. 🙂

    Synova: I’m not a liberal or a Democrat by any means; I describe myself as an “anti-statist” but I think it would be fair to characterize me as a particularly rabid libertarian. 🙂

    “the neo-cons are scary so I can see the point of the 2nd Amendment these days.”

    Truth is, this isn’t far off the mark. I have always been unequivocally in favor of private citizens owning guns. But I do mean what I said, which is that the possibility of us actually exercising our 2nd Amendment rights seems less remote to me than it did in the past… still pretty remote, to be sure.

    It would be absurd to blame creeping statism on Bush or any one person or party — they’re all in it together. But I do think that certain lines have been crossed during the Bush administrations in the increase of state power… they’ve mostly been crossed before in the history of the US, and the government later retreated back across those lines. Hopefully that will happen again.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 13, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - October 13, 2006

  78. if the question is why do Muslims hate us – the answer is simple – they read the Quran – you should read it too (here’s a spoiler for you – they like gays almost as much as Jews)

    if the question is why does the left hate – you might find the article in Friday’s opinionjournal by peggy noonan interesting

    The Sounds of Silencing
    Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent?

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009078

    her mastery of the language and insight into human nature combine to make some inspiring and uplifting writing – and she never uses the word libtard (that is new to me – and sloop is groovin on it), but makes some good points backed up with contempory examples

    Comment by sloop — October 14, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - October 14, 2006

  79. Let me add one more thing that some here will think is anti-Republican, but isn’t at all, because I’d think the same thing if the previous Criminal-in-Chief, Bill Clinton, were in office.

    The government agents described in this article are thugs, pure and simple: http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/teen-questioned-over-bush-threats-on/20061014060009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 14, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - October 14, 2006

  80. oh – and thomas sowell’s “the vision of the annointed”

    Comment by sloop — October 15, 2006 @ 12:57 am - October 15, 2006

  81. Oh, kdogg, puh-LEASE.

    “She posted a picture of the president, scrawled “Kill Bush” across the top and drew a dagger stabbing his outstretched hand… such threats are a federal offense… [so] she was questioned for about 15 minutes.”

    kdogg, do GET REAL. It’s called “Agents doing their job.”

    Comment by Calarato — October 15, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - October 15, 2006

  82. Cus you as a party are corrupt, Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney pleads guilty and will time in prison and David Safavian, formerly a top administrator with the Office of Management and Budget will be sentenced 2 1/2 years in prison. I wanted to mention other evildoers that still under investigation, indicted, sentenced, or currently doing time in prison. Here are the unmentioned evildoers inducted in Biloxi’s Hall of Scum:

    Jack Abramoff – Pled Guilty – Sentenced to Minimum of 5 Years, 10 Months

    He is now scheduled to report to prison on November 15th, 2006.

    Claude Allen- Arrested for Theft – Pled Guilty

    Allen was arrested March 9th, 2006 for a scam in which he ‘returned’ items he had never originally paid for. He is said to have refunded a total of $5,000 worth of merchandise (such as a home stereo system and a photo printer) over 25 visits in stores such as Target and Hecht’s.

    Allen pled guilty on August 4th to one count of misdemeanor theft. He was ordered to pay $850 and given one month of probation.

    Richard A. Berglund – Pled Guilty – Sentencing Scheduled for January 18

    In March of 2005, Berglund received $7,000 from Mitchell Wade, the MZM CEO and briber of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA).

    Berglund has agreed to cooperate with the expanding probe that began with investigation into Cunningham. He will be sentenced on January 18, 2007, and may receive up to a year in prison.

    Gus Boulis Murder Trio – Indicted – Hearing Scheduled for September 14

    Gus Boulis, the man who sold SunCruz to Adam Kidan and Jack Abramoff, was gunned down on February 6th, 2001. Three men were subsequently indicted September 23rd, 2005 for the murder: James ‘Pudgy’ Fiorillo, Anthony ‘Little Tony’ Ferrari and Anthony ‘Big Tony’ Moscatiello. They were charged with Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Murder in the First Degree, and Soliticing Murder in the First Degree (Fiorillo doesn’t face the soliticing charge).

    All three defendants are seeking to be released on bond before trial. There was a Bond Hearing on March 24th. That same day Broward Circuit Judge Michael Kaplan granted a defense request to subpoena Abramoff and Kidan to give sworn statements in the case. An in camera hearing has been scheduled for September 14th.Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for all three.

    Ed Buckham – Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator

    Ed Buckham, one-time chief of staff to Tom DeLay and later Chairman of the lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group, appeared in Tony Rudy’s guilty plea as “Lobbyist B.”

    John Colyandro – Indicted – Trial Pending Appeals Decision

    John Colyandro was Executive Director of Tom DeLay’s PAC Texans for a Republican Majority. He, along with Jim Ellis, was indicted for Money Laundering in 2004 alleging an illegal money swap with the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the Republican National Committee.

    Colyandro faces a possible sentence of up to 99 years in prison for money laundering (a first-degree felony). The unlawful contribution charge (a third-degree felony) has 13 counts, each carrying between 2 and 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

    Duke Cunningham – Pled Guilty – Sentenced to 8 years, 4 months incarceration

    Tom DeLay – Indicted – Trial Pending Appeals Decision

    Brian J. Doyle – Pleads No Contest – Sentencing Set for November 17

    Brian Doyle, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. He will be sentenced on November 17 and faces up to five years in prison.

    Jim Ellis – Indicted – Trial Pending Appeals Decision

    Jim Ellis was Executive Director of DeLay’s PAC Americans for a Republican Majority. He, along with John Colyandro, was indicted for Money Laundering in 2004 alleging an illegal money swap with the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the Republican National Committee.

    Ellis faces a possible sentence of up to 99 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 for money laundering (a first degree felony).

    Vernon Jackson – Pled Guilty – Sentenced to Seven Years, Three Months in Prison

    Vernon Jackson, the chief executive of iGate Inc., pleaded guilty on May 3rd, 2006 to bribing an unnamed congressman, whom documents identify as Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana.

    On September 8th, a Judge sentenced Jackson to seven years and three months in a federal prison, though his continuing cooperation with the federal investigators may lead to a shorter term.

    William Jefferson – Under Investigation

    Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) is being investigated for bribery, wire fraud, bribery of a foreign official and conspiracy to bribe foreign officials, according to a May 21, 2006 FBI affidavit.

    Adam Kidan – Pled Guilty – Sentenced to 5 Years, 10 Months

    Adam Kidan was Jack Abramoff’s partner in the SunCruz deal. Kidan has been ordered to report to prison on October 2nd, 2006.

    Brent M. Pfeffer – Pled Guilty – Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison

    Brett Pfeffer, a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), pled guilty January 10th, 2006 to two counts: Conspiracy to Commit Bribery of a Public Official and Aiding and Abetting the Bribery of a Public Official. Rep. Jefferson is the public official.

    Warren RoBold – Indicted – Trial Pending Appeals Decision

    Warren RoBold was a fundraiser for Tom DeLay’s PACs (TRMPAC and ARMPAC) and was indicted in 2004 for taking illegal corporate money for TRMPAC – nine counts of Unlawful Acceptance of a Political Contribution from a Corporation.RoBold is charged with nine separate third-degree felonies, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    Tony Rudy – Pled Guilty – Status Conference Scheduled for October 2

    Tony Rudy pled guilty March 31st, 2006 to one count of Conspiracy. He was a former aide to Tom DeLay, a colleague of Jack Abramoff’s and then a lobbyist at Alexander Strategy Group. He was named (“Staffer A”) as a coconspirator in Abramoff’s plea

    Rudy’s status conference was initially set for July 11th, 2006, but has been postponed until October 2nd so he can cooperate further with federal prosecutors.

    Michael Scanlon – Pled Guilty – Status Conference Scheduled for December 8

    On November 21st, 2005, Michael Scanlon, Jack Abramoff’s partner in the Indian fraud and bribery schemes, pled guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.A status conference is scheduled for December 8th, 2006.Scanlon faces five years in prison, $250,000 in fines, and the restitution of $19.7 million in tribal funds.

    Roger Stillwell – Pled Guilty – Sentencing Set for December 18

    Roger Stillwell, a desk officer for the Mariana Islands at the Department of the Interior with links to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pled guilty on August 11th to filing a financial disclosure form that falsely stated that “he did not receive reportable gifts from a prohibited source” according to the court document.

    He is due to be sentenced December 18th before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay and faces up to a year in prison.

    Neil Volz – Pled Guilty – Status Conference Scheduled for November 2

    Neil Volz, a former aide to Bob Ney and member of Team Abramoff, was named (“Staffer B”) as a coconspirator in Abramoff’s plea.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

    Comment by the real patriot — October 16, 2006 @ 12:03 am - October 16, 2006

  83. #84: Just because they’re “doing they’re job” doesn’t mean they’re not thugs. There’s lots of thugs carrying guns for The State who are just doing their job by enforcing the “War on Drugs” and other assorted nonsense. I guess I really just don’t have any sympathy at all for the leaders of this government or those whose job it is to defend them; this is not about one party or another, because it was just as true with Clinton as it is with Bush; it’s a disdain for the institution itself. (Not disdain for the nation, but for The State. If someone wants to call me unpatriotic for not supporting a government, that’s fine, but in would disagree with that.)

    Unlike our exchange on the other thread, I do understand that this probably was a poor choice of topic for discussion on my part. 🙂

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 16, 2006 @ 8:04 am - October 16, 2006

  84. Will you guys PLEASE GROW UP?!

    The world hates us for LOTS of reasons…the LEAST of which is Bush!

    And in some ways…they have a RIGHT to hate us:

    We are the biggest producers of porn. This is one reason why Muslim extremists have no problem calling our secular ways an “evil influence upon our way of life”.

    We are the biggest polluters in the world. Some countries are so poor, their citizens don’t even have electricity…and we need Hoover Dam JUST to keep the flashing neon lights going in Vegas.

    We are the most violent country outside of the Middle East. Just take a look at all of our school shootings: from Colombine to that Amish school in Pennsylvania.

    We are the FATTEST country in the world. While some nations have poverty so high, that their peoples are in constant starvation…our children are getting type-2 diabetes from eating Big Macs at every meal and from playing Xbox all day long!

    We are the most hypocritical nation in the world. We claim to be supporters of equal rights and fairness for everyone…and we gays are being denied even the right to marry our spouses.

    There are LOTS of reasons to hate us…but do you want to know something?

    There are LOTS MORE people in the world that LOVE us and our freedoms.

    Why do you think that they keep coming to our country for new opportunities of a better life, day after day?

    Comment by Jeffrey Williams — October 16, 2006 @ 11:41 am - October 16, 2006

  85. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15772927.htm

    Comment by a — October 16, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - October 16, 2006

  86. Jeffrey, many of those who hate us in the world hate us because America is perceived as a land tolerant of gays and anti-religious bigots. People keep coming to America not because of our unique dedication to liberty… they come for the promise of wealth, freedom of personal choice and the opportunity to live safe from political oppression.

    If you didn’t understand those two points, you need to head off to civics class.

    But you’re right… they don’t hate us because of Bush or Clinton. They don’t hate us because we’re the King on the Hill at the moment. They hate us because of what our culture threatens to do to their insular world.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 10:59 am - October 18, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.