Of Narrow-Minded Critics & Broad-Minded Friends
For the past week or and haven’t had as much time to focus on the blog as I would like. My greatest contact with the blog has been via the “Moderation Queue” where our server holds e-mails which it “thinks” may be spam.
When I read some of the flagged comments, what strikes me (yet again) is the narrow-minded vitriol, the hate, of some of our critics. How they take time to read the blog of people who they have decided are self-hating hypocrites (or worse) and level insults against us or otherwise spew mean-spirited venom. Rarely do they seem to recognize our arguments, even those put forward in the post to which they attach their comments. (I know I’ve said this before.)
Incredulous that gays could be conservatives or Republicans, they just continue to define us as they want to see us and act as if this blog serves as a vehicle for them to spout their narrow nonsense. As if the opinions expressed by the blog owners, those who write here, matter little, except as things to deride. You’d think that if they spend so much time here, they’d at least make an effort to familiarize themselves with our ideas, to try to understand why we are conservative, why we generally support the GOP even when disagreeing from time to time (particularly on social issues) with our party’s platform and leadership. And why we take the time to write.
It’s just the same with their attitude toward the President. When they take issue with his policies, they all but ignore the justification he has offered for them. Instead, they deride him as a liar (more on that anon). And barely mentioning the words he has spoken (unless to use snippets, frequently taken out of context (à la Michael Moore)), they assume he has diabolical or dastardly motives. Instead of doing the noble thing and saying why they think he’s wrong, they resort to attacking his motives (that is, his motives as they (his critics) determine them to be).
Now, I’m sure there are haters on the right. Those who would rather malign the left than engage them. And I certainly decry such attacks. But, I write as a gay conservative, a blogger on this blog and address its critics (and others who attack conservatives as do they). So it won’t do for our critics to justify their behavior by saying conservatives do it too. It’s wrong when either side does it. (I’ve said this before as well.)
But, today it’s becoming increasingly difficult to engage the left because instead of putting forward ideas, many on the left merely oppose the President’s policies because the president is George W. Bush. In their mind, his policies must necessarily be wrong because they’re his. Because he’s George W. Bush and he’s horrible, no good and very bad.
Just as many on the left assume that the president’s motivations are deception, greed or big oil, many of our critics assume ours are self-hatred (or something similar). It’s too bad that for all the time they spend here, they show such little respect for our ideas. Or for the time we take to put together our posts.
I wonder if they would have a better opinion of us, of me at least, if they learned that one of my best friends is a Democrat who has never voted Republican in his life. Indeed, many of my close friends are Democrats.
Being a gay Republican, while challenging at times, gives me a better chance to determine a man’s worth. Since so many gay people are of the left, we can see if they are as intolerant of conservatives as they contend Republicans are intolerant of gays. If they dismiss us merely because of our politics, then we know what kind of people they are — and realize, early on, that they wouldn’t make good friends. But, if they accept us as they are even when they disagree with our politics, we see that they are good and decent people who look beyond an individual’s political affiliation to see his truth worth.
It’s unfortunate that too many of our critics are of the former category. And I’m more than grateful that I have recently met many Democrats of the latter. For their friendship has greatly enriched my personal life. And made me see yet again that a man’s political views are only one aspect of his identity. And frequently of little consequence when building a real relationship.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
UPDATE: Over at Hugh Hewitt Dean Barnett notes this phenomenon in the debate on torture, where people would rather insult than to engage in a thoughtful discussion of ideas:
For some prominent blogosphere residents, name-calling is practically a cottage industry. It’s certainly easier to personally insult someone as, say, a Christianist, than to thoughtfully respond to their ideas. In deriding their chosen art form, I was peeing in their virtual garden. Sorry about that, fellas.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!
105 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
GPW, their attitude are exactly why I realized my conservative leanings many, many years ago. They are literally the (lalala left). They cover ears to the truth and make out the right to pure evil and diabolical. It is truely amazing and unexplainable to me. However, there is a guy that explains it really well on http://www.patdollard.com. I know your time is prescious these busy days but give him a listen, you’d enjoy his explanations. It is called:
Refresher Course: Evan Sayet, a former comedy writer for Bill Maher, takes you on a guided tour of hell. Which is to say, the liberal mind.
Comment by Good vs. Evil — May 2, 2007 @ 8:48 pm - May 2, 2007
Y’know how it is said that the biggest most outspoken homophobes (think Fred Phelps) are actually externalizing their own jealousy and self-hatred? Maybe there’s some of that going on with some of the more detached critics of your blog.
Think of what the right-wing really represents… normalcy, success, family. If you are a lefty gay living a dysfunctional life, surrounded by dysfunctional people, and you are furthermore estranged from your family… a certain kind is going to hate people who seem to be able to live normal, healthy lives. It happens with the more extreme straight left-haters, too, I would dare say. Which is one of the reason why traditional social values are so mocked on the left.
I’m not saying that explains everyone who attacks you guys, but it probably covers more than a few.
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - May 2, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Of Narrow-Minded Critics & Broad-Minded Friends — May 2, 2007 @ 10:02 pm - May 2, 2007
I certainly know where you’re coming from. Two years ago, I was in a relationship with a guy who was, to put it simply, a left-wing activist. We agreed to disagree about things, and in the first months of our relationship, at least, we also had a number of friendly debates about various issues. But I couldn’t abide the venomous left-wing extremism of his friends. Although I would generally sit there quietly rather than be the one person in the crowd to disagree, I reached a point where I couldn’t stand it anymore, and so I started strategically challenging some of the things they said, which I’m sure they didn’t like at all. It never turned ugly, but I’m sure he didn’t like me speaking up, either. When he broke up with me, he didn’t have the courage or the honesty to tell me why (he just insisted that he wouldn’t tell me), but I’m convinced that it was because my views represented too much of a challenge to him, and if I wouldn’t repress them, he couldn’t be with me. The sad truth is that I find it increasingly difficult to imagine being in as close a relationship with someone whose views are as different from mine anymore. My experience with people on the left up until that relationship had been that far too many of them were closed-minded and doctrinaire, and unwilling to really be friends with people whose views were different from theirs. I entered that relationship going out of my way to give the benefit of the doubt and to assume good motives, but I left it feeling that I may have been wiser to heed the knowledge gained from my previous experience.
Comment by Kurt — May 2, 2007 @ 10:52 pm - May 2, 2007
A hearty “Hear, Hear!” (or is it Here, Here?) from this lefty in agreement with the theme of your post, Dan.
Comment by Mike — May 2, 2007 @ 11:07 pm - May 2, 2007
By the very crudest of statistical definitions, being gay is not “normal,” now is it?
(Obligatory ad hominem attack deflector: I’m gainfully employed and have been for the past 20 years; I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 11 years; and I’m on great terms with my biological family.)
Comment by vaara — May 2, 2007 @ 11:09 pm - May 2, 2007
This is an interesting perspective. I’m with you, not sure what would exclude a gay man from being a conservative. I’m sure you have some problems with your party, but I’m sure you believe in the general direction
Of course, I’m the only person on the internet that thinks I’m a conservative, so what do I really know?
Comment by The-G-Blog — May 2, 2007 @ 11:54 pm - May 2, 2007
GPW, great post.You expressed my frustrations lately, while trying to “convince” some on the left of our nobel intentions. Say what you will about W, but he is doing what he believes is right for the nation. It is sad to see the attacks on the President assuming he is or will be profiting from his decisions. If Cheney and Bush friends in the oil business are making money PRODUCING a commodity for the people. What exactly has former President Clinton been producing to accumulate his millions the past 6 years? On the subject of Iraq, if there was a Democrat President tomorrow would they want us out of Iraq immediately? The result would be the mid east blows up and we get $150 barrel oil and $6 gallon of gas, a world wide depression would result. It’s easy to carp, but I think they’d have to be adults if given the power. This weeks symbolism aside. Right now they are play acting, playing politics with the troops.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 3, 2007 @ 12:11 am - May 3, 2007
I’ve never understood the “self-hating” label. Frankly, I love myself, am loved, and am very happy.
It seems though that libs are angry, miserable hate-filled people. We haven’t heard anything positive from their leaders in years (if ever). We hear Bush sucks, America sucks, the economy sucks, Cheney sucks, the military sucks, Rumsfeld sucks, nobody likes us, everybody hates us, we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket and there’s a shortage of handbaskets. What’s inspiring about that?
You have to wonder why on Earth anybody would vote for someone who only inspires anger, doom & gloom. Why would you want to hang around somebody like that? When have the libs talked about how great this country is and how great it’s people are? Can they do so without trashing anybody or anything? I doubt it. It’s not in their makeup.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 3, 2007 @ 12:43 am - May 3, 2007
TGC, interesing you should note the doom and gloom, as optimisim was one of Reagan’s most loved characteristics.
But, back on topic, I’ve know my share of (non-gay) liberals who don’t really get me and my associations, so I know what you mean on a personal, albeit less severe, level. They weren’t offensive about it, just kind of…dumb (and I mean that in the nicest way possible), but some of them didn’t know until recently, and maybe given time and/or political discussion they’ll get it all straight.
Comment by PSUdain — May 3, 2007 @ 2:41 am - May 3, 2007
#9 – TGC, my sentiments exactly. Thank you for illustrating them so well.
Dan my friend, very good post as always.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 10:20 am - May 3, 2007
TGC, when you mentioned the “everybody hates us” comment, I immediately thought of Larry Kramer. He recently said as such (all straights hate us). I’m more of a catch-more-flies-with-honey-than-with-vinegar guy. Also once stated by someone (I forget who): it’s easier to come out as gay in the Republican Party than to come out as a Republican in the gay community.
Comment by Jimbo — May 3, 2007 @ 11:18 am - May 3, 2007
Jimbo, that was yours truly.
I’m also on the record as saying that Republicans like you for WHO you are. Dhimmicrats like you for WHAT you are.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 11:25 am - May 3, 2007
I tend to lean to the right because I invest greater political stock in and place greater responsibility upon the individual. This includes the (theoretical) tendency for those on the right to question each other, to demand higher standards of one another, to point out hypocrisy when and where it exists and to always question whether government should be present in any and all aspects of our lives.
Our introspection is our greatest strength because 1) it means we strive to be guided by a constancy that transcends trends, political shifts, and triumphs/disasters, 2) we tend to resist government rather than promote it and do not consider political solutions as those of first resort and 3) we police ourselves and purge those who betray our principles because we are our principles. A more interesting question concerns whether our political philosophy (such as it is) is one sui generis and what constitutes a catalyst for conversion. Is the leftist artist who is avant garde in the extreme an individualist or, as I suspect, merely using a social standard as a means to his dubious artistic ends, thus more dependent upon the standard itself than any alleged dependency and conformity of the Babbitts against which he rails? In other words (and very true): “You non-conformists are all alike.”
Our introspection is also our Achilles heel. We eat our own and our opponents know this. Those in the media highlight schisms and disputes within our ranks and, after all, a party of individualists is something of an oxymoron. (I believe I’m paraphrasing Goldwater. Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Our dedication to our principles sometimes means we are out-of-touch with the public. We have difficulty communicating our principles because they are intellectual rather than emotional in nature. We are eagerly abandoned by those who cannot see the political forest through the philosophical trees (their end result being the least philosophical of all). Scandals among our own affect us as seemingly mortal wounds because our aspirations and the high-flown rhetoric they necessitate are used against us and they are a betrayal of our existence, our principles being our metaphysics. In other words, the philosopher falls harder because he is.
What converts someone to ‘conservatism’ or ‘rightist thinking’? Are we merely following what our parents believed without questioning its validity or are we immigrants who have in a very real sense earned our stripes in the recognition of error? There is more than a grain of truth in the slogan “A liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged.” (I’ve always liked the school essay assignment “What Being American Means to Me” and perhaps a good thread on this blog might be one dedicated to stories of conversion or what our libertarianism/conservatism means to each of us.)
I should add that my comments are obvious generalizations. There is much about ‘the right’ I dislike, particularly its religiosity (as opposed to those who are truly religious/of faith). In my view, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with ‘rightism’ and homosexuality and the alleged difficulty to reconcile the two stems from the rhetoric from religious conservatives coupled with the willingness to voice even the slightest disagreement with the constituency-agitprop of the (gay) left.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 3, 2007 @ 11:31 am - May 3, 2007
Dan, interesting post; each time I’ve read it –I see a different aspect of my relationship with lifelong Democrats or liberals or even apolitical GayLefters brought into focus. Good job –as well as the comments here.
I think one thing that puzzles me about those narrow minded critics you speak of is their speedy dispatch of the rubric “hypocrite”… although it gets tossed around here by many parties, often. But for the narrow minded GayLeft it’s a real problem… because for them, to question authority, to take on leaders or the conventional wisdom, to rail against the elite stewards of the status quo IS a virtue to them… maybe THE virtue. So, to savage a gay conservative who questions the GayLeftBorgType mentality ought to be morally wrong to them because, for their world order, speaking truth to power is a VIRTUE. But of course, it isn’t about virtue… it’s about politics and ideology… as you know.
It’s most analogous to when the GayLeft tries to spear a Christian leader speaking intolerance of the GayLeft lifestyle by using the worn-out “trump” card of “You aren’t being a good Christian because Christ taught you to love (and accept) everyone, even the sinners and the least among you”. Or the GayLeft uses the ChickenHawk slur as a way to bait pro-troop WOT-Iraq advocates from the Right.
For the GayLeft and gay conservatives, I’m finding it’s better to recall that famous line spoken by the smug journalist character in “To Inherit the Wind”… “I may be rancid butter but I’m on your side of the bread.” Narrow minded GayLefters aren’t interested in building community, finding common ground or tolerance with gay conservatives or gay GOPers. It’s why MikeyRogers et al could out gay GOP staffers with glee last summer.
I don’t doubt the intolerance of the GayLeft nor their narrow mindedness nor their own certainty that being conservative or a GOPer is hypocrisy to my inner, true gay self… but they miss that in my questioning of the GayLeftBorg, I’m tossing back the very bricks they threw earlier in the day at the military, the Bush Administration, the WOT, BigBiz, Religion, et al. Same bricks; same act.
At the end of the day, we’re still rancid butter on the same side of the toast… or something like that?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 3, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - May 3, 2007
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 05/03/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Comment by David M — May 3, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - May 3, 2007
Oregon’s legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that will now be signed into law by Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D).
The bill passed the Oregon house 34-26. All 31 House Democrats voted in support of the bill. 26 of 29 House Republicans voted against the bill. 3 House Republicans sided with the Democrats.
Domestic Partnership legislation is pretty basic protection, yet the overwhelming majority of Oregon Republicans still oppose it.
Why?
GPW – The answer to that question is why those on the left will continue to make fun of you so.
Comment by Chase — May 3, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - May 3, 2007
And Republicans should support domestic partnership legislation why? Will it convince any gays to vote for them? Most all of the ‘gay rights’ orgs are just fundraising operations for the Democrats. So, there is no reward in it for Republicans. However, there is a segment of the Republican base that may abandon them if they support such legislation. As politicians, they care first and foremost about their own power.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 1:35 pm - May 3, 2007
Take any issue claimed by the loonie Left and there’ll be ignorance and hatred … Just as true for the rabid Right though. You didn’t mention a great example of anger-induced blindness: Global Warming. Seems every group of replies to a post on the topic must include one or more claiming anyone not on board is analogous to Holocaust denial.
Comment by DoorHold — May 3, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - May 3, 2007
#17 – Two words, Chaser: lockbox votes. That is all you and all other GayLeftLibs are to the Dhimmicrat party. Try stepping off the plantation once in a while.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - May 3, 2007
Unfortunately, Chase, you and your fellow leftists have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no problem with supporting stances you previously called “antigay”; indeed, you’ve called politicians who do so “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
And the reason the Oregon law was opposed is simple; they feel it violates both the spirit and the letter of the state constitutional amendment Oregon voters passed specifically banning gay marriage. Of course, given that Democrats don’t care about voters, and indeed support stripping voters of the right to amend their own constitutions, as was shown in Massachusetts, it should be no surprise that they would support something that does so.
And that shows quite nicely what hypocrites Chase and his fellow Democrats are; they namecall and mock gay conservatives, but they themselves support, promote, and give millions of dollars to homophobes — as well as demanding that they be given special powers to overrule voters and change laws whenever they please.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - May 3, 2007
Nailed it, V the K.
Since Democrat gays like Chase and the leaders of their organizations like HRC will give money and endorsements to FMA supporters, repeatedly, yet bash Republicans like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger that oppose the FMA as antigay, homophobic, and evil, it is obvious that whether or not something is “gay supportive” has nothing to do with actions and everything to do with party affiliation.
Hence, for Republicans, it’s a waste of effort. Furthermore, it’s totally unnecessary; as those two examples showed, Democrat gays support whatever Democrats tell them to support, even if it’s taking away what they claim their “rights” are.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 2:20 pm - May 3, 2007
VdaK, you hit the nail on the head and Chase, the good little GayLeftBorgType, is merely delivering the standard message from the Democrats: we are the true holders of the GayVote… come to us and be validated.
GOP leaders have little to incentive to listen to gay rights advocates even within their Party because the singular, earsplitting screams from the gay community in the last 30 years have been from radical Democrat activists who can afford to sneer because they have the gay vote in a Democrat lockbox… just like with trial lawyers, blacks, innercity corrupt mayors, felons, the teachers’ unions, atheists, BigLabor and those whacked out global warming Little Chickenists… and, more recently, even alQaeda and Hammas terrorists. A lockbox on those votes.
30 years of beating on the GOP and now, incredulously it seems, Chase asks “Why aren’t there more GOP supporters of this bill in Oregon?”
Simple, Chase: You guys drove them away with your radical, divisive politics.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 3, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - May 3, 2007
we hate bushco because of what he’s done to this country. plain and simple.
oh, and you gonna defend bushco for his threat to veto the hate crimes bill? you know, the religious right is protected by hate crimes, but not gays?
pathetic repugnant party of yours.
Comment by rightiswrong — May 3, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - May 3, 2007
Oh you mean like .. defending it?
I know you guys hate this country, hate our military, hate when it used for our purposes and not some pointless UN banalty.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 2:59 pm - May 3, 2007
According to our resident moonbat, “the religious right is protected by hate crimes.”
Really? Name one man or woman who was successfully prosecuted because the victim was a right-wing zealot.
State and local laws are already applied in the instances of so-called “hate crimes.” The bill just passed by the House basically would make it applicable at the federal level. And just FYI – federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
And as far as “bushco” goes in hinting that the White House may veto this legislation, it is probably because of the fact that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.
But this is just par for the course; look at the most famous “hate crime” of all — Matthew Shepard. The evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” (a lie still widely propagated by the GayLeft lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), but rather, was a bungled robbery attempt.
Nonetheless, the two thugs who committed the crime received life in prison for killing Shepard without the “benefit” of any “hate crimes” law in place. That’s right – the State of Wyoming prosecuted these killers to the fullest extent without a hate-crimes statute.
But despite all this, Ted Kennedy and his ilk in the Senate have introduced their own “hate crimes” legislation (S. 1105), shamelessly calling it the “Matthew Shepard Act.”
This type of exploitation is typical Dhimmicrat par for the course.
It’s a fraud on its face, and America is beginning to catch on and speak out against it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm - May 3, 2007
Hm. I wonder if wrongisright has ever been to any inner city that’s ‘enjoyed’ multi-generational rule by far left Democrats, and does he hate the Democrats for what they’ve done to, say, Detroit, or Newark, or Philadelphia or DC? Or whole states like Michigan, New Jersey, and Arkansas?
Or, maybe wrongisright just hates growth and prosperity and thinks everyone should live in a project in a city under Democrat rule. Those of us who aren’t unemployed will have most of our paychecks confiscated by taxation, we’ll be disarmed and the police will be too busy taking ‘sensitivity classes’ to do anything about rampant crime, schools will suck and the unionized bureaucrats who run them will make sure there’s no escape, eminent domain will evict us from our homes at will… but, by golly, somewhere there will be a piece of paper outlawing hate.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 3:17 pm - May 3, 2007
rightiswrong in #27 merely proves my point. He hurls insults without addressing with arguments any specific policies of the Administration. There are many, including yours truly, who oppose Hate Crimes legislation as, we believe, it punishes thought.
I do believe in enhanced penalties based on the degree of violence of the crime.
It’s unfortunate that this critic refuses to understand that someone may have valid objections to legislation he favors.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 3, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - May 3, 2007
I think the main reason for the Democrat comeback is that center-right rule has worked too well and people don’t remember how horrible liberal democrats are at governing. Clinton coasted by on the strength of Reagan’s economy and military, which he could afford to gut, and his liberalism was checked by a Republican congress. People don’t remember Jimmy Carter, constant international humiliation, malaise, 13% inflation, 20% interest rates, rampant crime …
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - May 3, 2007
#29 – V, I lived through the late 1970s and I hope I never have to do that again!
And Dan is right – Dhimmicrats pushed through a bill that enforces unequal justice for victims of our most serious crimes, without taking into consideration the degree of violence used in the perpetuation of that crime.
That is the problem with this hate crimes bill. It criminalizes non-violent speech that merely makes someone in a protected group “uncomfortable.”
It also destroys all concept of “equality before the law” by designating crimes against certain protected groups as more heinous than against any ordinary citizen.
No wonder the Islamists are so eager to kill us. They know that they are going to be protected under our own laws. Unless they call Barney Frank a “faggot,” but I guess we shouldn’t get our hopes up.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm - May 3, 2007
The two guys who killed Matthew Shepard each got two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, sentences they agreed to in order to avoid the death penalty.
Explain to me why we need Federal Hate Crimes legislation to tell the states how to punish people more severely?
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - May 3, 2007
I mean, should they have each gotten three life sentences without possibility of parole?
This is more symbolic legislation from the left that makes the dips feel good about themselves while doing nothing of practical value.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 3:43 pm - May 3, 2007
#12 – ***…it’s easier to come out as gay in the Republican Party than to come out as a Republican in the gay community.***
Jimbo, you couldn’t be more correct if you tried!! Hell, imagine the looks I get from militant lesbians, who know where I now stand! I get more tolerance from my Christian friends for being gay, than my gay “friends” for being conservatve. Speaks volumes about the ridiculous image the homosexuals have about the Christian Right/Republicans. I find many homosexuals to be some of the most intolerant creatures on the planet (& beyond). I mean, the proof is in some of the vitriol we see posted here.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 3, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - May 3, 2007
And actually setting a lovely precedent, V the K, which is that the justice system, from investigation to punishment, should be more strict and better funded depending on who the victim is.
What I love about hate-crimes laws is that leftist gays have been bleating for years about how increased punishment is no deterrence to crime and why courts should be more lenient — only to insist that increased punishment and less leniency will deter crimes in this case.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - May 3, 2007
#15 MM, I agree that there is a reflexive, knee-jerk response to all things ‘conservative’ (or all things un-liberal, to be more exact — we need a new lexicon) and that a nihilism that attacks power for the sake of the attack alone is considered a virtue, but only as the pot attacking the kettle. (What is an attack if not power?) There is anti-authoritarianism on both sides of the aisle, but I believe that for the left, this is often a childish vanity of false ideals (such as the superstition that a corporation is inherently evil) and for the right, it is an assertion of government’s proper place. (Perhaps we completely agree, but I thought I’d flesh out your paragraph.)
Where I perhaps disagree with you is in your implication that hypocrisy is a scurrilous charge or is used too often. There is certainly enough on both sides, but for us, the hypocrisy is often much more pointed because as I explained above in a prior post (or tried to), we have much more to lose when we betray ourselves. Liberals, on the other hand, have a much more fluid definition of truth and have never doubted political power as an end, whatever the hypocrisy of the means. (How can we expect less from those who view the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document that must change and grow with the times?) In the context of the gay left, it is simply a mixture of nihilism and identity politics, i.e. that being homosexual is in itself an identity replete with a predigested worldview and to betray the self-appointed spokesmen is to betray it.
The Foley scandal is a good example of hypocrisy. I doubt liberals were dismayed with the details (though their own hypocrisy would have us believe otherwise), but made much of the political opportunity of a failed congressman and even more of the machinery that kept him in place as long as possible. Like the Catholic hierarchy’s protection of errant priests, Dennis Hastert knew of Foley’s problems and the GOP should have removed him (Hastert) from his position as Speaker. It turns out that the Democrats did that for us as well they should have. Lesson? We should never fail to make sure we’re practicing what we’re preaching.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 3, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - May 3, 2007
Ahem.
Or whole states like Michigan, New Jersey, and Arkansas?
As a native New Jerseyian, I take exception to this, thank you very much. I happen to like living in NJ, and returned here on purpose. It’s quite a nice place to live. (Property taxes aside – those do hurt.) The politics are dirty and corrupt, but the state itself is quite lovely.
(Please ignore the smokestacks of North Jersey as you drive through on the turnpike. Focus on the preserved open space and beaches, please.)
Comment by Mike — May 3, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - May 3, 2007
As for wrongisright’s claim that Christians are already protected by hate crimes laws, tell that to the 75 students in California suspended for wearing clothing with Bible verses on them.
Ironically, this sort of persecution is exactly the sort of thing the ‘hate crimes’ law wants to institutionalize under the color of Federal law.
Comment by V the K — May 3, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - May 3, 2007
narrow-mindedness is implicit in the word conservative. christians believe in god cus their mommas told them a lie. you can believe the world is 6000 years old, but it doen’t change the fact. you can hate gays and placate those that do but it doesn’t make you any less a nigga.
[thank you for making my point --Dan]
Comment by godiam — May 3, 2007 @ 5:44 pm - May 3, 2007
This self-loathing argument always gets me. What is self-loathing about wanting security for my family and friends, financial stability in the economy and the ability to think and do for myself? The gay leadership (again, when WAS that election???) and the Democrats want us (gays and lesbians) to feel like everyone thinks we are second-class citizens except for them. If, we as a group, begin to think for ourselves we may realize that people do respect and accept us, then what will they do? The HRC, ACT-Up will lose MILLIONS in donations and the Democrats will lose a LARGE voting block. The saying du jour for the Left is the ‘politics of fear.’ What is more fearful than implying everyone is out to get us as a people except the mighty Democratic party?
I like to think that, as a voter, I am more apt to vote for someone who can stick to their convictions and tell me so, rather than vote for someone who will say one thing to get voted and then do the EXACT opposite? On a national scale, what anti-gay republican resolution has been passed by Congress and signed into law? ZERO. What anti-gay democratic resolution has been passed by congress and signed into law? DADT, DOMA.
Before rocks are thrown from the glass house on the left, I suggest that they take a good, long look.
Comment by jon — May 3, 2007 @ 7:02 pm - May 3, 2007
38: Nigga , puhlease.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm - May 3, 2007
i have seen your resume dan. nice upbringing.
Comment by godiam — May 3, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - May 3, 2007
I kind of hope, GPW and GP, that if you can stand to leave godiam’s posts up, you will.
People should know what the gay leftists and the Democrat Party truly believe and espouse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - May 3, 2007
like the tony snow denial of any linking saddam to 9-11 this date. think there will be a retraction or an apology for posting a lie?? naw, no chance.
Comment by godiam — May 3, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - May 3, 2007
And what do you think the American public will think about you and your fellow Democrats and leftist gays, godiam, when your posts making it clear that the Democrat Party and leftist gays think parents who tell their children about Christianity are telling them lies are shown to them?
Like I said, you’re the best argument. Make it clear that leftist gays and Democrats are antireligious and think Christianity and other religions are all a bunch of lies and that Christians are all lying to their children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 8:17 pm - May 3, 2007
To be an atheist requires that you believe Christianity and other religions to be a pack of lies and that yes, religious parents are teaching those lies to their children. The issue is whether the atheist considers this a form of child abuse and if that is the case, then it must be argued that the only philosophy that would be acceptable to teach one’s children is none, which I consider a shirk of parental responsibility and, thus, child abuse.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 3, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - May 3, 2007
godiam… filthy liar.. you’ll have to do better than repeating cliches to counter info like this:
http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22994/
From The Weekly Standard‘s Thomas Joscelyn, “More Than Enough Evidence”:
George Tenet’s just released book, At the Center of the Storm, has created quite a stir. Over the past few days, a myriad of news accounts have referenced various snippets of the former director of Central Intelligence’s self-serving collection of remembrances. But here is something you probably have not heard or read about Tenet’s book: it confirms that there was a relationship between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda. And, according to Tenet, “there was more than enough evidence to give us real concern” about it too.
[...] it is worth noting what he does not claim: that the Bush administration cooked up the connection between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda in its entirety. In fact, Tenet concedes that there was evidence of a worrisome relationship. For example, Tenet explains that in late 2002 and early 2003:
There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa’ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials “AI” in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi’s associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.
On Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, and Kurmal, Tenet elaborates further:
The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa’ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi’s arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a “senior associate and collaborator” of al-Qa’ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa’ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi’s reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi’s men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.
According to Tenet, al Qaeda’s presence was not limited to northern Iraq:
What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa’ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi’s operations in northeastern Iraq.
Other high-level al Qaeda terrorists set up shop in Baghdad as well [...]:
More al-Qa’ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa’ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad’s best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi’s camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?
It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam’s tacit approval. Tenet says that the CIA did not think Saddam had “operational direction and control” over the two Egyptians, Zarqawi, or AI. But he explains, “from an intelligence point of view it would have been difficult to conclude that the Iraqi intelligence service was not aware of their activities.” “Certainly,” Tenet adds, “we believe that at least one senior AI operative maintained some sort of liaison relationship with the Iraqis.”
There was more. Tenet says that his analysts found evidence of a relationship spanning more than a decade. He explains:
In the laborious exercise undertaken by analysts to understand the history of a potential Iraq-al Qa’ida relationship, they went back and documented the basis of a variety of sources–some good, some secondhand, some hearsay, many from other intelligence services. There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression.
As has been discussed in THE WEEKLY STANDARD on a number of occasions, the CIA also uncovered evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on chemical weapons projects in the Sudan. The Clinton administration cited the CIA’s intelligence to justify the August 20, 1998, strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. That strike was launched in retaliation for al Qaeda’s August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The al-Shifa plant operated under an Iraqi oil-for-food contract and Tenet’s CIA suspected it of being one of several front companies at which Iraq was transferring chemical weapons technology (including VX nerve gas) to al Qaeda.
Tenet explains the long history of collaboration between Iraq, Sudan, and al Qaeda:
During the mid-1990s, Sudanese Islamic Front Leader Hasan al-Turabi reportedly served as a conduit for Bin Ladin between Iraq and Iran. Turabi in this period was trying to become the centerpiece of the Sunni extremist world. He was hosting conferences and facilitating the travel of North Africans to Hezbollah training camps in the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon. There was concern that common interests may have existed in this period between Iraq, Bin Ladin, and the Sudanese, particularly with regard to the production of chemical weapons. The reports we evaluated told us of high-level Iraqi intelligence service contacts with Bin Ladin himself, though we never knew the outcome of these contacts. [Emphasis added]
Tenet also offers his thoughts on the detention of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, “a senior military trainer for al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan.” When al-Libi was first detained he “offered up information that a militant known as Abu Abudullah had told him that at least three times between 1997 and 2000, the now-deceased al-Qa’ida leader Mohammed Atef had sent Abu Abdullah to Iraq to seek training in poisons and mustard gas.” Later, al-Libi recanted his testimony. Controversy then ensued. Critics of the Iraq war have seized on al-Libi’s reversal and claim that his admissions were made under duress, and are therefore dubious.
But Tenet says “there was sharp division on his recantation” inside the CIA. Al-Libi “clearly lied,” Tenet says, but we don’t know when. Either his initial confession or his later denial could be accurate. Tenet concludes: “The fact is, we don’t know which story is true, and since we don’t know, we can assume nothing.”
But Tenet adds an additional detail that he says lent credence to al-Libi’s initial confession: “Another senior al-Qa’ida detainee told us that Mohammed Atef was interested in expanding al-Qa’ida’s ties to Iraq, which, in our eyes, added credibility to [al-Libi’s initial] reporting.”
Some will no doubt highlight Tenet’s claims about the Bush administration hyping Saddam’s ties to 9/11. In reality, he provides little verifiable evidence to back up this claim. As Tenet’s chapter title suggests, he also believes that Saddam’s Iraq lacked “authority, direction, or control” over al Qaeda. Few would argue with this assessment. But that does not make the threads of evidence connecting Saddam’s regime to al Qaeda any less troublesome.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - May 3, 2007
i forgot to state… the connections between iraq and aq are clear.. that doesnt mean iraq was involved in 9/11. but then again. no ever cept the left ever suggested they did.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 9:28 pm - May 3, 2007
i’m reading a blog that is focused on Europe’s struggle with dhimification and i wonder how people lik egodiam are going to cope in the future… do you think an idiot like him has any intellectual capacity to process this discussion:
In Fjordman’s opinion, Sweden is more of a basket case than any other European country. Caught in a self-destructive spiral of immigration, high taxation, welfare spending, and denial, it faces a looming catastrophe.
“Paul Weston wrote on your blog that Europe will face a civil war by the year 2025,” he said, “but I think he underestimates how soon it will be. Within five to ten years at the most Swedish society will collapse. It can’t be avoided; the Swedish welfare state is simply unsustainable.
“But the civil war won’t start in Sweden. Sweden is too far gone. I think the civil war will appear first in Britain, which has the second-worst conditions. But the British still have a spirit of resistance.”
Gaia agreed vehemently. “People in Britain will eventually reach the breaking point,” she said. “Just beneath the surface people are really, really angry, and it will take just a little spark to set it off. The hostage situation in Iran only made it worse.”
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 9:41 pm - May 3, 2007
For something completely unrelated:
Two European elections are getting interesting.
Sarkozy still leads in France after a much-touted televised debate. An interesting article reveals some possible explanations and a good, quick overview of Europe’s current economic state (although the second-tier economies and Eastern Europe are ignored).
In Britain, the Scottish elections are testing the fate of the SNP (Scottish National Party) whose long-term goal is Scottish independence. Sean Connery is its most vocal and visible supporter. This election is not a referendum on independence, but one which might establish the SNP as the ruling party, thus setting the stage for such a referendum (as happens in Quebec every so often). This might prove to be quite the headache for Gordon Brown, current Chancellor of the Exchequer, Tony Blair’s chosen replacement, and a Scotsman.
“There’ll always be an England”, but there may not always be a United Kingdom.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 3, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - May 3, 2007
oh,..How do the fact-dodging America Haters squirm out of this one? Apparently there were operational relations between Saddam’s military and al-Qaeda before and after September 11, 2001.”
Comment by godiam — May 3, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - May 3, 2007
godiam.. you’ll have to explain the question you’re asking yourself… please remember when you post here, other people see what you typed.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 10:24 pm - May 3, 2007
HH: there’s serious talk in the UK of allowing each component nation England, Scotland, Wales get its own parliament.
Is the dissolution of Great Britian unfolding before our eyes?
Amazing how fast history is moving.. and whenever we must engage with the Leftborg we’re forced to deny lies they insist on telling about things that happened years ago. they are totally backwards looking.
Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - May 3, 2007
This post was excellent. I wish I had something to add, but you expressed my frustrations so well. The intolerance we see from those who would generally share (more so, if not completely) our politics is obvious; but few are willing to point out not only the reality, but also the hypocrisy of the intolerance we suffer from those who share our sexual orientation
Comment by Pink Elephant — May 3, 2007 @ 11:18 pm - May 3, 2007
The President is threatening a veto on the hate crimes bill. Religion is already protected, but the hell with the gays. And you are admonishing your critics? He is one of your critics.
Comment by sean — May 4, 2007 @ 12:42 am - May 4, 2007
“America haters” in #50: is this part of that civil discourse you champion? LOL!! Every time I read this same post, in its various versions, I laugh…mostly because it is preceded or followed by a post from the other coast which flies right in the face of everything you have to say.
Comment by sean — May 4, 2007 @ 12:44 am - May 4, 2007
Religion is already protected, but the hell with the gays.
Actually, the current law does NOT allow for punishment or prosecution of violence against religion unless it takes place while the religious person is trying to exercise a Federally-protected right, i.e. voting or attending public school.
Furthermore, given that freedom of religion is a constitutional right, the grounds for that being included in any sort of law are far greater than the victimization fantasies of gay leftists like sean.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2007 @ 1:39 am - May 4, 2007
A rather minor nit to pick. You should have used the word “whetted” instead of “whet” as you used it in a past tense situation. Correctly your sentence should read, “Now that I’ve whetted your appetite, read the whole thing.”
On your main point, those who resort to name calling do so because they know they are incapable of presenting a coherent argument. That is also the reason some resort to profanity. After all, when you know you can’t win with your ideas, what is left? Name calling is simply a milder form of terrorism and people who use it can’t see that they are much like those who hijack planes and attack the country. The only difference is the degree of violence such people are willing to use.
Comment by Fritz — May 4, 2007 @ 1:49 am - May 4, 2007
“Think of what the right-wing really represents… normalcy, success, family. If you are a lefty gay living a dysfunctional life, surrounded by dysfunctional people, and you are furthermore estranged from your family… ”
So where exactly do you place someone like Newt Gingrich? He was having an extramarital affair while going after Clinton for the same thing. Is that normalcy and family? Isn’t he on his third wife now? He was cheating with #2 on #1 (served #1 with divorce papers while she was in hospital being treated for cancer) and then was cheating with #3 while still married to #2. Meanwhile, the Clintons have been married for nearly 32 years.
It just goes to show there is a lot of false logic out there, somehow ascribing the failings of human nature to someone’s political leanings. Actually,
Comment by Kevin — May 4, 2007 @ 4:30 am - May 4, 2007
37: Once again you use false logic (and false statements) to support your illogical position. Perhaps you should read a few other sources on the story; not just links that support your statements.
The students you mention were not suspended for wearing christian slogans; they were suspended for having slogans on their shirts that were demeaning to / attacking gays. Things such as “Homosexuality is shameful”. What if someone wore a shirt that said “Being black is shameful” or “Judaism is shameful”? An article on christianpost.com on the issue admitted that the schools only had problems with the statements that attacked gays, not biblical references. One article also pointed out that a student was suspended for wearing a shirt with an anti-christian message; so the implication that Christians are under attack by a liberal establishment is baseless.
Comment by Kevin — May 4, 2007 @ 4:51 am - May 4, 2007
I guess “religion is already protected” must be the Kostard/Americablog talking point of the day, although as my link in #37 shows, it’s clearly BS. Nevertheless, the usual robots are repeating it.
Religious expression is protected? Not as long as there’s an ACLU it isn’t.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 5:43 am - May 4, 2007
***The President is threatening a veto on the hate crimes bill. Religion is already protected, but the hell with the gays. And you are admonishing your critics? He is one of your critics.***
sean(#54), just wondering – exactly how many “hate crimes” were reported committed against gays in the last few years? I believe all “crime” is committed with some kind of “hate” involved by the perpetrator, no matter what the “crime” may be. Special treatment for groups, that really don’t need it, is stupid and only perpetuates the self-imposed victim status. But that’s “the left” again, standing on it’s head, telling the rest of us we’re upside down!! “The left” has become a caricature of itself. Funny, yet sad.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 7:45 am - May 4, 2007
Religious expression is protected? Not as long as there’s an ACLU it isn’t.
VtheK, I must respectfully disagree. I realize most conservative folks who read this blog probably have nothing but contempt for the ACLU, but they do, in fact, protect religious expression. It was the ACLU that represented the estate of a deceased veteran of the Iraq war to allow a Wiccan symbol on his VA provided headstone. And it is was the ACLU that represented NY Corrections Officers to protect their right to wear headcoverings required by their religion. They submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting a student’s right to sing the song “Awesome God” at a school talent show, and this in liberal NJ no less.
Yes, the ACLU takes it a bit far many times. Even as generally an ACLU supporter, I shake my head in bewilderment sometimes at the absurdity. But I think it boils down to how people interpret the concept of the separation of church and state, because that determines whether you think they are protecting religious expression. It’s not an easy line to draw.
Comment by Mike — May 4, 2007 @ 9:30 am - May 4, 2007
No, the ACLU occasionally picks and chooses a case so they can give apologists like you something to hang onto… the legal equivalent of the TSA searching a 90 year old granny at the airport. If you look into the ACLU’s history, it’s real goal from the start was made obvious by the words of its founder, Roger Baldwin.
Jimmy Carter gave that man the Medal of Freedom in 1981.
What’s worse is that the ACLU has so successfully put the fear of lawsuits into public officials, especially educrats, that they go far overboard in stifling religious expression of any kind. Talk about a chilling effect.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 9:59 am - May 4, 2007
But if you want to support an organization that sues to remove crosses from public view, but defends the right of NAMBLA to distribute instructions on how to rape and murder children, that’s your choice.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 10:01 am - May 4, 2007
Mike, look at your own examples, plus some other famous ones – the ACLU is interested in protecting it if it’s Wicca, Islam, Nazism and so forth.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the ACLU was founded explicitly to promote left-wing politics including Soviet Russia: http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html
Is there a contradiction between left-wing politics and claiming to be a Civil Liberties organization? You betcha. Because, as we more clearly today, so much of left-wing politics is about imposing government control on people, limiting what people can do in the public square (and elsewhere), taking away their hard-earned money, etc.
I was a $-contributing member for many years. My eyes were forced open – I was forced to get off the train, so to speak – when the ACLU took the wrong side in the Michigan affirmative action case a couple years ago. The ACLU was founded to fight racism, or so Baldwin claimed – and there they were, in the Michigan case, actively upholding and fighting *for* racism. (Racial quotas.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 4, 2007 @ 10:05 am - May 4, 2007
(to be precise: in the Michigan case, the ACLU soood for biasing the admission standards of a publicly-owned university in such a way that certain racial groups would be privileged… Not quotas in name… Just the same effect)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 4, 2007 @ 10:09 am - May 4, 2007
Let’s re-examine the ACLU’s positions on free speech, why not?
NAMBLA using ‘free speech’ to distribute instructions on raping and murdering children — GOOD
Nazis using ‘free speech’ to march through Jewish neighborhoods — GOOD
Pro-Lifers using free speech to protest outside abortion mills — BAD
So much for the myth that the ACLU only cares about defending everyone’s constitutional rights.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 10:28 am - May 4, 2007
You people are such tools!
I’ll (happily) eat a shoe if Bush doesn’t veto the hate crimes bill and ENDA. In fact, I would have a newfound admiration for our President, should he sign those bills. I’d give him his credit. And I’ll say right here, for all to see: “I LOVE PRESIDENT BUSH!”
But since he likely will veto the bills…
What gay rights legislation does the Republican Party support? They don’t support federal intervention in hate crimes, employment non-discrimination, domestic partnerships, civil unions, gay marriage, gays in the military or gay adoption.
Is there any piece of gay rights legislation the Republican party could support?
A better question is this: When was the last time a Republican legislature passed a gay rights bill? Since you fondly point to pro-gay executive leaders like Schwarzeneger and Jodi Rell, when did such a bill ever originate out of a Republican legislature? You guys seem to (conveniently) overlook the fact that each of the bills Schwarzeneger and Rell signed came out of solidly democratic legislatures. The same goes for Giuliani and the NY City Council.
So, maybe it’s happened and I just am uninformed. When has a Republican legislative body passed a gay rights bill?
Could someone find me an example?
Comment by Chase — May 4, 2007 @ 10:47 am - May 4, 2007
…so they can give apologists like you something to hang onto…
The only thing I’m apologizing for is attempting to have a respectful debate with you, since you seem to be only interested in name-calling.
Are you really interested in having a discussion with anyone who disagrees with you, or is it simply easier to throw out “NAMBLA” and (especially) “partial birth abortion” all the time? Because that seems to be a recurring theme on here – accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being supporters of the extreme. (Unfortunate in a thread regarding Dan’s post on thoughtful debate, is it not?)
I’m not denying the ACLU was founded by a socialist. So what? That doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do. Hell, I don’t agree with much of what the democrats do, either, or the republicans for that matter. And ironically I agree with you on the chilling effect, and I think that’ a result of what I noted above – the ACLU often goes too far.
Comment by Mike — May 4, 2007 @ 10:48 am - May 4, 2007
If the ACLU devotes full-throated support to “extremists” like NAMBLA, it is completely appropriate to cite that support in a discussion about the ACLU. It is you, Mike, who is pointing at the outliers and saying “See, the ACLU isn’t *all* bad.” And it’s ILC and I who are pointing out where the vast majority of the ACLU’s time and effort goes.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 10:53 am - May 4, 2007
Point taken, VtheK. I just think the outliers are also important, because (to me) they represent the more reasoned middle ground most of us probably agree on.
Comment by Mike — May 4, 2007 @ 11:07 am - May 4, 2007
***When has a Republican legislative body passed a gay rights bill?***
Where is it written that they are obliged to? Yaaawn!!
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 11:17 am - May 4, 2007
I hope Bush does veto the so-called “Hate Crimes” bill. It’s Orwellian thought-control. Trying to say that some acts of murder, etc., are to be considered worse than others by nature of the perpetrator’s political and social views. What’s next – Thought Police?
Sidebar – Chase, a word to the wise: Only tools call people tools. And Chase, only a *complete* tool opens with it – then demands that people give him thoughtful consideration and answers to his questions.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 4, 2007 @ 11:26 am - May 4, 2007
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-05-04T133212Z_01_L03669420_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE-ELECTION.xml
Off-topic a little – but still in the same spirit of global leftist lunacy we see here. I do hope the French have had enough, and will vote against this bird. She is one hot mess. Plus, she is using fear and threats of violence if she doesn’t get her way – so typical of a leftist (aka spoiled child).
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 11:33 am - May 4, 2007
I hope Bush vetoes the Hate Crimes bill as well. People are always whining about how “divisive” our culture has become. What could be more “divisive” than saying some classes of people deserve more legal protection than others? (Far too much of this goes on already, we should be reversing it.)
And there is room for common ground on civil rights, but the ACLU is not standing on it. The real organizations that defend freedom are groups like the Institute for Justice and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education (FIRE).
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 11:54 am - May 4, 2007
Chase, as I pointed out above, you and your fellow leftist gays, including the leadership of HRC and DNC staffers who are gay, consider the FMA, state constitutional amendments, and pandering to Pat Robertson to be “gay rights acts” and to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats support them.
Simply put, Republicans will never do anything “pro-gay” in your eyes — or Democrats anything anti-gay — because whether or not something is pro- or anti-gay is based solely on party affiliation.
Example: last year’s pension act made it possible, for the first time in history, for gays to will their retirement funds to any beneficiary they chose without the beneficiary having to cash it out and take a huge tax hit.
Pro-gay, right?
Democrats generally opposed it, especially leftists like Harry Reid; Republicans overwhelmingly supported it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - May 4, 2007
And what’s sick about this; the so-called “hate crimes” law that leftist gays like Chase whine and cry they need will do exactly squat in cases like this.
Walking onto a bus and stabbing a specific person twenty times would qualify as hate, one would think — but leftist gays like Chase and the leftist Democrat Party don’t think so.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - May 4, 2007
What names was Pelosi called for meeting with Syrians? Does the name-calling stop when Condi meets with them? How about those traitors talking with Iranians now?
And if Christianist is such a problem, why is Islamist okay? If you are going to deal in ideas and arguments, at least be consistent.
Comment by sean — May 4, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - May 4, 2007
#77. Oh, and the use of leftist or Leftist or GayLeftBorg? How does that square with all this victim talk?
Comment by sean — May 4, 2007 @ 12:29 pm - May 4, 2007
Ah, the bottomless silliness of the lower case clan:
1. Many on the right are criticizing Condi Rice. We don’t have a double-standard, unlike lefties who, for example, decry “war profiteering” except when Diane Feinstein does it.
2. The difference between “Christianist” and Islamists is that Christians aren’t going around suicide bombing and beheading people for not being Christian.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - May 4, 2007
Also, people who embrace socialism and its manifestations in group rights, political confiscation of wealth, and advancing the power of the state at the expense of free markets are justifiably called ‘Leftists.’ It is not an epithet, it is a precise description of their ideology.
And GayLeftBorg is a similarly apt description because of the absolute ideological conformity demanded by the gay left that tolerates no individuality, which is manifested by people who can not argue reasonably but merely shout whatever slogans are in vogue on the left. e.g. “Iraq was never a threat” “Bush lied about WMD” and the slogan of the week, “the religious right is protected by hate crimes.”
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - May 4, 2007
#80…***Ah, the bottomless silliness of the lower case clan:
1. Many on the right are criticizing Condi Rice. We don’t have a double-standard, unlike lefties who, for example, decry “war profiteering” except when Diane Feinstein does it.
2. The difference between “Christianist” and Islamists is that Christians aren’t going around suicide bombing and beheading people for not being Christian.***
Damn you, V the K, making sense again
!! Has it been completely forgotten (by leftists) that the liberal media had cartoons depicting Rice as an Aunt Jemima not so long ago, and was never taken to task for it??? Bottom line – liberals are hypocrites, plain and simple. But try to bring it to their attention, their heads explode and they change the subject! Love it!!
Also, I can’t remember any Christians proclaiming death to gays by execution, and then actually going through with it. Islam is a cult of hatred, which will be coming after liberals first. How ironic.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - May 4, 2007
And actually, LNC, you notice that the countries in which they are a major, major problem — aka Europe — are countries where the equivalent of Democrats have ruled for decades.
Of course, these are also countries that have higher employment, lower GDP, more economic malaise, armies that are so incapable of fighting that they won’t let them leave the country without insisting they not be sent into combat…..
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 4, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - May 4, 2007
Let me throw in my support of the vetoing of this “hate” crimes bill. All crime is hate. There is no equal protection of the law when some politically favored groups get special treatment than others.
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm - May 4, 2007
LesbianNeoCon: Leftists are simply unable to turn coat on thier allies, the Islamic Fundamentalists.
Like Ann Coulter has said:
We’ve finally given liberals a war against [Islamic] fundamentalism, and they don’t want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.”
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 1:21 pm - May 4, 2007
Making sense is what separates us from the Left, LNC.
And don’t forget, NDT, there is a statistically validated correlation between economic freedom and personal happiness. The French, for example, are not only the most socialized people in the EU, they are the most miserable people in the EU. And it’s quite obvious from the commenters here that socialists tend to be bitter, angry, unhappy people in this country as well.
Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - May 4, 2007
Socialists in EU and in the US are not ever goin to be happy until everyone is equally poor (cept for the L33T who get to rule)
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - May 4, 2007
The difference between “Christianist” and Islamists is that Christians aren’t going around suicide bombing and beheading people for not being Christian.
I don’t see Christians planning stuff like this either, in case anyone needed a reminder of what we are dealing with.
(I know, I know…a lefty who supports the GWOT…will the insanity never cease?
)
Comment by Mike — May 4, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - May 4, 2007
#88 ***(I know, I know…a lefty who supports the GWOT…will the insanity never cease? )***
Mike, You’re more than a welcomed breath of fresh “lefty” air!! You may even like this blog: http://bloodthirstyliberal.com/
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 1:45 pm - May 4, 2007
off topic.
i saw this quote by ann coulter when i was looking for the quote i quoted above and I think it’s hysterical:
“If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in Vietnam — oh wait, he does.”
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - May 4, 2007
Vince P, #85 – good stuff, my friend. Coulter, even as acerbic as she can be sometimes (and she can), is usually 100% correct in her commentary.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - May 4, 2007
Food for those who can still think:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP117006
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA8802
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 4, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - May 4, 2007
there’s so many good ann coulter jokes… here’s another one
One [cartoon] showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying “Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!” — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims’ predilection for violence … Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - May 4, 2007
lesbian: i love Ann’s stridency. i wish more conservatives were.
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - May 4, 2007
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building. ”
New York Observer article; August 26, 2002
“Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.’ ”
rightwingnews.com; June 26, 2003
Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 6:24 pm - May 4, 2007
Which one is Sec. of State again?
‘gloid.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 1:29 am - May 5, 2007
Speaking of Thoughtcrime, the libs have got it covered.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 5, 2007 @ 6:20 am - May 5, 2007
Huh?
“your god sure is a nice fella to do what he did to greensburg. must be he is po’d.”
I’m sorry, I don’t speak Libtardese. Can someone translate the above?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 5, 2007 @ 11:54 am - May 5, 2007
Only a lower-case-libtroll would read that.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 5, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - May 5, 2007
Greensburg, Kansas, was almost completely destroyed by a tornado last night.
On the flip side, only seven people out of hundreds were killed.
Notice how liberals who want so desperately to disprove God point only to the damage — and not to how many people escaped harm.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - May 5, 2007
Beyond that, NDT, liberals act as if death is not the inevitable end of life. Whether by tornado, car accident, or succumbing peacefully in one’s sleep, we all eventually die.
The point of God is not to prevent death, it”s to make life meaningful.
Comment by V the K — May 5, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - May 5, 2007
Beauty is delusion to the blind man. Music is delusion to the deaf.
Comment by V the K — May 5, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - May 5, 2007
Daniel, at the risk of sounding too “some of my best friends are”, I’m sorry you folks have to put up with so much of this abuse. It’s not right. Let’s hear it for non-self-hating, functional people with jobs and genuinely independent minds. Keep the faith.
Comment by C. Siegel — May 6, 2007 @ 7:00 am - May 6, 2007
Suggesting that gay americans cant be conservative is in itself homophobic. I didnt know people should vote based on who supports gay marriage or gay adoption, even if their incompetent. Ofcourse I believe every law abiding, morally sound human being should be a parent. And there are conservative politicans that agree that gays should be parents as well. I myself am independent and support republican and democrats. So Im suprised that people label all conservatives as “homophobic.” I havent heard any Democratic candidates push for gay marriage, their all about “civil unions.” And polling proves that most Americans, conservative and liberal alike aren’t homophobic. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against discrimination in the work place and are for gays openly serving in the military.
Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 4:01 am - May 11, 2007
Great find and this is a topic that deserves a lot more attention, Saddam and terrorism. Regardless of whether or not the war was necessary or fought right the public deserves to know about Saddam’s terror ties, I try to document them at http://www.regimeofterror.com
Comment by Mark — May 25, 2007 @ 10:28 pm - May 25, 2007