In my post yesterday, I expressed my reluctance at taking a stand I know to be controversial in the gay community. We gay conservatives are all too familiar with the hostility we experience when we come out to our supposedly tolerant fellows.
I was once introduced to a guy who, after hearing me express my passion for mythology and my love for movies, was proposing to me before we even met. And while he acknowledged finding me attractive when we did meet in person, he e-mailed me to say he couldn’t “get past” my politics, describing the current administration as evil and refusing to understand how “anyone with any intelligence or compassion” could support even an iota of support for “its ideology.”
He, like so many others, dismissed my ideas offhand. Even as he acknowledged my intelligence, he refused even to listen to my arguments. Based entirely on our political differences, he closed off any possibility of friendship, much less romance. After receiving the e-mail I excerpted above, I never heard from him again.
And while many of us gay conservatives have developed strong friendships, even romantic relationships, with our ideological adversaries, nearly every gay conservative I have met (or with whom I have corresponded) has experienced a situation similar to the one I described above, where someone who has initially expressed interest in us, won’t let themselves “get past” our politics.
It’s not just in relationships we experience this. When we go out into the gay world and come out as conservatives, we face insults, ridicule, derision and rejection.
Yet, the mainstream media doesn’t seem much interested in the mean-spirited anti-Republican intolerance of all too many gays. It doesn’t fit their narrative of the way the world works. Instead, they want to show how intolerant many Southerners are of gays. And while such intolerance may well exist, it might be more interesting if some news network actually looked at both “red-state” attitudes toward gays and gay attitudes toward conservatives and religious Christians. Such a program might allow people to compare the attitudes and see that social conservatives do not have a monopoly on intolerance.
Michelle Malkin reported earlier this week, ABC News is staging an “experiment” in Alabama hiring actors to portray same-sex couples publicly displaying affection. She says this experiment has earned the network’s news division a new motto: “All the news that’s fit to stage.”
Perhaps, the network should hire a few actors to wear pro-Republican T-shirts and walk through central West Hollywood to see the reaction they might earn. Heck, I’d be willing to do that and I wouldn’t even need to act.
Or maybe I could just conduct that experiment myself. Let’s see how much it would cost to get a Republican T-shirt and buy a videocamera. . . . That could actually be a learning experience for me in more way than one — as I could finally figure out how to post video on the web.
Maybe you should coordinate with MM and HotAir to make that happen. I think it would be great.
As a straight guy, I’ve had this happen to me many times. As an Angeleno I’m surrounded by supposedly tolerant Liberals who shun me once we start talking politics.
I’ve never received so much hatred from other people than I have from gays.
Once it’s found out you would never vote for a Democrat.. oh man watch out. People will gossip you, there will be lies told about you. People you dont even know will feel they are pefectly entitled to say the most vile things about you.
Your opinions are not considered, your thought process is not respected. A slew of cliches and pychoanalysis will be spewed at you.
So I’ve come to discover over the years that in general, gay people are the most intolerant people when it comes those they disagree with that I know of. That I never had a straight person direct even 1% of the negativity that I have received from other gay people.
And I noticed that the gays peopel who are the loudest in demanding the entire world notice and approve of what they do are the most intolerant when it comes to those they disagree with.
So knowing what I know now, I always make sure to give my opinion , especially when someone blurts out some rude comment without even having considered that not everyone would have agreed with him.
The groupthink is so rigid and entrenched.
That’s why I really appreicate when some Lefty comes on here and accuses me of being ‘intolerant’…
Yeah right.
Thanks for including me in the suggestion, VdaK, but as you might recall, I’ve already done that very thing in 2005 and 2002 summer vacations in P-town & Ogunquit. MM partner and I wore a lot of Bush, GOP shirts and b’ball caps (gained from attending far too many natl and state GOP conventions)… wore ’em down mainstreet, at the 4th of July Parade, at parties, playing pick-up basketball at public courts, on whale-watching boat trips and later all throughout Boston… not exactly a GOP-friendly town. The black tshirts with a neon white “W” on the front and back were the most controversial.
The jeers were sharp and there were some “in-ur-face” moments with obnoxious gays -but we both thought the worst abuse came from women who, I’m guessing, were gay or rabid Democrats or both. The funniest experience was getting abuse from a bunch of musclemarys heading into a dance bar and then, after sweating up a storm and ditching the shirts, we got hit on by three of those marys. We kept dancing and held up our tshirts to remind them… the look on their faces was priceless.
I wouldn’t recommend staging anything, Dan. Just do it. You can unequivocally count on the GayLeft to be vocally opposed to those sentiments worn on your t-shirt or b’ball cap. But understand, the emotions from the other side can be heated and turn physical, too. I’ve had lots of fingers jabbed into my chest… but I can usually dissuade them from doing that move twice.
We both think it’s kind of fun. Sort of CodePinking the CodePinkers.
The one thing I’ve wanted to get for years here in A2 is a “Cheney for President” bumber sticker… but I fear the Hummers would get trashed. It’s not a rational hatred I’ve confronted or you’ll likely confront.
You know though, the strongest scorn by far has been from GayLeft guys who think that by building a family and placing our energies into other activities like soccer weekends, we’ve turned our back on gays. For all those guys who express anger at GOP opposition to SSM, many of those anti-GOP guys hate it when they learn there is a family, success and stability behind MM partner and me. That really toasts their bread.
Go ahead and do it, Dan. Just have someone else manage the camera for you and do it in a target rich GayLeft enviroment like a Pride Parade or P-town.
I am not doubting people’s experience, but isn’t there some irony here when anyone who is evenly marginally on the left and posts a comment is routinely insulted. Even quite serious comments are often met with “libtard”, “get off the democratice plantation”., the list goes on and on.
Try being a Conservative dyke!! OY VAY!!! Talk about being treated like a leper. But I see where it’s coming from, and pity them.
Let’s see…you have brains and a wide-range of interests, some that I know we have in common, good looks and from what I know from others-who-shall-remain-nameless, a top-notch character. To top it all off, even the few times we disagree you make an intelligent case for your viewpoint without being spiteful. Sounds like it’s that guy’s loss. Heck, Dan, I’d propose to you myself but that would be just a little weird I suppose… 😉
The guy sounded like a jerk, so you’re better off without him.
[One of the benefits of “coming out conservative” is that it gives you a chance to see the real character of some people. We learn how they react to someone of a different political persuasion. –Dan]
And I never understood why if you’re gay, you can’t be anything other than a liberal. Ugh.
[Nor can I, but it seems the worldview of many. ]
And you might want to run spell check “We gay conservative” sounds kinda bad – like there’s just one of you. lol
[Thanks, since fixed.]
Brendan says
Intellegent, reasoned, and non-insulting comments are not treated like that. It’s so very rare that any are like that however.
What Vince P said (to Brendan)
#9 – #10 – Yeah, what Vince and Vince P said. I’ve had many civil conversations on this blog with leftists… who showed civility.
Brendan, I can’t remember your being among them. I don’t know if you are the “Brendan F” I remember coming on here awhile back. I do remember that that individual was extremely incivil, deserving whatever he got.
#3 MM:
I assumed he meant “Michelle Malkin”, whom GPW referred to in the original post, and who founded the HotAir network.
What a bunch of crybabies! The guy probaly did not want to go out with you cause you would not shut your cake hole about politics. Not a good conversation to have on a first date. As for being a Gay Conservative-more power to you, I just don’t like the fact that you are a water carrier for the Republican Party. All Dems are bad and all Republicans are good and virtuous. Come on man you know the world is more complicated than that!
[Crybaby? Hardly. See my addenda to comment #8. As to you ludicrous claim, our conversation was more about movies & the entertainment industry than anything else. Yeah, I did bring up politics, but it accounted for no more than a few minutes of a meeting that lasted well over an hour. And where have we ever said that all Dems are bad and all Republicans are good and virtuous? Seems you, like many of our critics, base your comments less on what we say than what you wish we said. Right down to your conention about the content of our conversation mentioned in the post. –Dan]
Here’s one for you Brendan:
Bwahahaha.. riiight.. coming from someone who is ooozing “All Republicans are evil, All Dems good”
Thank GOODNESS someone is finally addressing this issue; this is HUGE. In my own lily-white neighborhood, my partner and I have had more trouble being accepted by liberals than by our conservative neighbors who couldn’t give a rat’s behind. Matter of fact, they are SO uneducated on the subject of the more practical issues—no transference of property, not being able to adopt without one of us moving out, not being able to inherit social security upon death–that once we enlightened them, they got it, as pure issues of civil rights rather than political persuasion.
It’s funny: the left can understand anything – except the people who don’t understand them.
As for weird dates:
I’ve been on so many blind dates, I should get a free dog…
Cheers…
Yeah, I was meaning Michelle Malkin. Sorry.
Anyway, if we asked a typical leftie why he thought conservatives opposed gay marriage, he’d say because they hate gay people. If you asked a lefty why conservatives opposed socialist health care, they’d say because conservatives hate poor people and want them to get sick and die. And you could explain to them 1,000 times about preservation of family structure, or the inefficiencies of statist bureaucracies and few, if any of them, will ever move off the dime that it’s because of hate.
It just seems so futile to even try to shove facts or perspectives into minds that are so closed off.
Hi Vera.. Did you mean to write something like this:
left can understand anything – except the people who think differently than them.
Ann Coulter’s quote from this week’s article is so spot-on
[Reluctant as I am to praise Ann Coulter, you’re right, this is so spot-on. All too many liberals don’t want to argue with us, they just want to demonize us. –Dan]
V at #16 – Those left-libs who accuse their opponents of “hate” are generally motivated by it themselves. They don’t care to admit it – aka projection, deflection, displacement, etc. But it’s an emotion they understand intimately.
I’ve been on so many blind dates, I should get a free dog…
Vera, thank you, I’m so stealing this next time my mom tries to set me up on one.
‘K, so I’m not gay – but I am conservative. On the topic of the post, I really have to wonder if it’s true the intolerance is more pronounced in gays. I can agree there seems to be a group think, if gay be lib attitude, but I seem to see plenty of it in any liberally minded person. They seem to be stuck in an adolescent, emotion drives everything mind set. Think Churchill and his (to paraphrase) “Young conservatives have no heart and old liberals have no intellect.”
Anyhow, kindof off topic: Posts 14 and 16 baffle me. I absolutely see a major inequity on a basic legal standing point of view (14), but V the K (16) seems to be siding with “preservation of family structure” as an overarching principle. Doesn’t the whole extra tax burden, shared financial accounts, legally binding obligations including the difficulty, cost and financial risk involved with divorce kind of force married individuals in the direction being more deliberate in their lives? Doesn’t extending that right to gays actually encourage a broader range of our society to embrace the historical, steady family structure? Am I missing something here on a conservative level? (Other than the traditionalist Christian objections, which seem most easily handled as a matter of semantics. Allow churches to sanction marriages as they see fit, allow the state to sanction marriage licenses according to state requirements.)
What a pack of queens
“He doesn’t like me because I am conSERVaTIVE!”
“That’s OK honey, cons are better than liberals anyway”
geez
Better not break your arm patting yourselves on the back.
I love the whinging I’m hearing here. “Oh, poor me…I’m a victim because people are intolerant of my intolerant beliefs! Woe is me!”
Any gay man that would support a political movement that makes its bread and butter by demonizing gays has more issues than could ever reasonably be dealt with. But given the number of closeted homosexuals in the GOP at least they have plenty of company.
Maybe you care to define demonizing , Jody.
I know one gay Congressional guy who was demonized… Mark Foley.
Was it not Democrats who stated that ONLY FOR the reason that he was gay, the Republicans should have been monitoring his communications with male youths?
And why it is that Leftists are still outing Gays who are conservatives.. who else in public life has such an intrustive thing done to them?
Vince, please tell me how Mark Foley was victimized.
This should be good question following that remark is a laughable rewrite of recent history.
“…the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of Gentile civilization.” –Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998
Vince, Not too recent, but I think it pretty well describes what Jody meant by ‘demonizing’. If you need more examples, let me know. I found lots.
Better not break your arm patting yourselves on the back.
Keep hoping Beauchamp will let you blow him.
All I know is, our straight marriage wouldn’t have survived the last seven years if we hadn’t had the same political beliefs. That’s how polarized the U.S. has become.
Amen Sister. *grin*
I teach at a college, and if they only knew…..
Back in my college days, I discovered a wicked form of racism among liberals. Just because I am a man of color (Chicano), somehow special favors had to be set aside for my benefit because I was incapable of academic achievement on my own merits. I’m sure Clearance Thomas knows what I’m talking about. The most insulting thing was when people made assumptions about my principles and values and I didn’t fit ethnic stereotypes. Also white liberals would talk in idealistic and noble terms but when it came to wanting to make friends, they didn’t want to associate and look down upon you.
The conservative students at the time were just as dogmatic as their liberal counter parts. Any disagreement and they get bent out of shape. At the same time they wouldn’t go beyond their own racism as well. I’ve been hurt by both factions and now don’t bother getting involved politically other than voting. It’s not all that bad; I have five very dear and wonderful friends who are gay/bi and conservative. However the reasons why we’re friends is because we made a spiritual connection. My commonality with my close friends is our love for Christ. We met on line at http://www.gaychristian.net The problem is four of them live very far away and only get to see them and hang out once a year, if I’m lucky.
It’s not easy being man of principle and my parents and family provided my with an emotional refuge from the cruel world. Now a days most of my going out involves attending gay Christian events and musicals with my close friends. If I have the time, still have a business to run!
(Warning: shameless self-promotion ahead:)
Maybe you should contact OutliciousTV about conducting your experiment 😀
#31
Why didn’t I think of that? See there, Dan? You could meet fellow WeHo-ian Brian P. and get the project underway quicker. For more impact, you could take Dinah Diva along. Plus Dick & Mickey are really cute.
Brian, consider yourself contacted. E-mail me; Let’s talk.
Indeed.
Poor, poor Mark Foley, the victim of mean ol’ Dems…if they didn’t want to investigate his incessant hitting on of underage pages, while CHAIRING THE HOUSE CAUCUS OF MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN, he might be a free man today. Or some such.
And the NERVE of said Dems, outing gay conservatives just because these innocent men dare stand on their bully pulpits and shriek about how ebil ebil EBIL teh gays all are, and how they will burn in teh fires of HELL and worse.
…right before they go tap dancing in airport men’s rooms, of course.
Which brings me to my point, which Congressman Frank stated so well: right to privacy DOES NOT MEAN RIGHT TO HYPOCRISY.
Only the Right regards being a homosexual as something to be hated. Outing a left winger is of little concern to his peers. If he does lose status, it is due to other related misdeeds he may have committed, such as taking a wife and children while having a homosexual affair and possibly governing the state of New Jersey.
The sad irony being that if these sad people had simply accepted who they were in the first place, the Left would not have cared. Not at all.
But to a rightie, just being gay is career and social suicide.
So they fight it. Repress it. Crow about how evil it is.
But it’s never enough. They can’t truly deny who they are. So they explore other, less healthy options to release their pent up sexual energy.
But no matter how many scuba diving suits you put on, you can’t suffocate who you are. Metaphorically speaking.
This post is almost a parody, and is deeply offensive.
You equate “intolerance” of political views with intolerance of being gay?
So you are claiming that being gay is a rational choice like a set of poltical views?
As an occasional visitor here, who happens to be liberal, I can tell you – almost ALL of the posters and commenters here are as “intolerant”, as well as insulting, close-minded, and obnoxious to liberals as your date was to you. Actually far more so. I have never had anyone respond to my comments here by being nice to me, and just sadly admitting they cant get beyond my liberalism. No. You guys are rabid insulting ranters.
And because you meet people who can’t get beyond the fact that you align yourself politically with the reactionary, antigay forces in our society, you think they are the ones who are intolerant?
Yeah, I thought this really was a parody piece, but I see from reading the comments that you guys are actually thinking this way. Sick and twisted,
Regarding Mark Foley
The Democrats had evidence of the logs/phones for about a year before the scandal was made public
Therefore, what was the motivation of the Democrats?
– To protect the pages? No.. If that was the motivation, then the Dems wouldn’t have waited a year
– To damage Foley? Yes, but he was not the main target
– To damage the Republican Party before the election? Yes, that is why the story was held for a year until a month before the election
The Democrats used a gay sex borderline minor scandal in order to alienate voters from Republicans.
That’s not attacking gay people? Nothing is if that isn’t.
The GOP leadership only knew limited information… the Democrats charged that the GOP should have investigated Foley thoroughly and publically. The Democrats alledged that the GOP lack of investigation was because the GOP was corrupt and covering up.
So the Democrats are telling us that because the GOP knew Foley was gay, and that a complaint was received that there were phone calls, that the GOP should have basically performed electronic surveillence on all Foley’s conversations with men.. because foley is gay and talking/writing to men is too much temptation.
That is why the Democrats used Foley in a nasty anti-gay attack.
The Democrats calculated they would destroy a gay Congressman in order to get a majority.
And you folks defend that ? There’s somethign wrong with you.
Tano: There’s a simple test…
Is it easier to be a gay person around Christians than it is to be a conservative around gay person.
in my experience, theres no contest. I have never experienced any anti-gay anything from a straight person.
Are you saying i’m a liar?
Wow, my post was taken down pretty quick, and I think I made valid points without being nasty. I guess my arguments were too good.
Bottom line, the GOP wants to deny gays their basic human and constitutional rights and partly drove their rise to power on that platform and you don’t see why someone would find that repulsive?
[Really, does it? Where? How? Have you even studied the rise of the right? In the years that the Repubilcan Party has been most successful, it didn’t even address gay issues, see e.g., the elections of 1980 and 1994. –Dan]
Also, I made the point that the GOP run Pentagon is so repulsed by gays that they would discharge vital intel personnel, such as Arabic translators, for being gay, thus placing homophobia over national security.
I could see a conservative homosexual embracing libertarian views if not Democratic, but certainly not the GOP.
Ahhhhh yes, Michelle Malkin, now there’s the postergirl for “tolerence”. I guess the saying is true…you reap what you sew
I have a very high tollerance for people who do not agree with me.
I have a very low tollerance for people who do not think.
I recognize that being a member of the first group does not automatically make you a member of the second group
A fanatic is unable to make that distinction.
Among the gays I know, a great many cannot make that distinction. I’m friends with the others.
Although I personally would not have a problem dating a conservative, I understand why some gay people may have a hard time with it (to some extent). For example, my mother broke her finger and did not go to a doctor for 5 months because she didn’t have healthcare and could not afford a doctor. She has now had it “fixed,” but it is still extremely painful for her to grip anything and doctors say it will probably never completely heal… because she waited so long. To learn that my boyfriend believes my mom should not have access to the healthcare system (universal healthcare) would upset me. I don’t know that it would be a deal breaker, but it would be hard. I’m sure some conservatives have similar issues that are very personal for them. Just my two cents…
Vince P — Don’t forget, no one ever produced evidence, or even credibly alleged, that Mark Foley actually had sex with an underage page. Whereas Democrat Gerry Studds admitted to it, and went on to have a long and celebrated career in the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation.
Inappropriate e-mails and text messages ended one congressional career. Molesting a page had no effect on another. Which is the party that tolerates sexual abuse of minors?
Funny, isn’t it, how many house lefties write off everyone on the right as “reactionary,” “anti-gay,” and people who all hate gays reflexively? And then they go and accuse conservatives of being “close-minded” and “insulting.” I guess stereotypes and unexamined bigotry of the left are not intolerant, as long as they fit the template of the left.
So, joan is blaming conservatives because her mother injured herself and made a choice not to seek medical attention?
VK: Damn. how did Joan find out our secret agenda?
Vince P — Why isn’t Joan looking out for her own mother, instead of waiting for government to rob other people in order to pay for her health care? When my mother got a lump in her shoulder and was concerned about the cost of treatment, my sister and I got her help and helped with the bills. We looked after our own, we didn’t go whining to the government.
I ran across this , this morning.. I pretty much agree with it
http://neoneocon.com/2007/10/31/beware-of-conservative-speakers-on-campus-they-might-actually-change-a-mind-or-two/
…
Prager writes:
….ad hominem labels are the left’s primary rhetorical weapons. So when leftist students are actually confronted with even one articulate conservative, many enter a world of cognitive dissonance. That is one reason why universities rarely invite conservatives to speak: they might change some students’ minds.
This coincides with my own experience, not in the university, but in my personal encounters with liberals and those on the Left. Their misconceptions about the Right are rife, and include the very bunch of attributes Prager lists as visions the Left has of virtually everyone on the Right: “mean-spirited, war-loving, greedy, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant and oblivious to human suffering.”
The fact that I don’t seem to demonstrate these characteristics and yet I’m on the other side of many arguments tends to throw my listeners into a sort of turmoil that leads them to yell a bit and then close the conversation down, perhaps because it is just too threatening (some of them have actually said as much). The sort of cognitive dissonance that Prager describes is a very unpleasant sensation, one that most people will avoid like the plague.
And I, likewise, have come to shy away from such conversations these days, not because of cognitive dissonance or the idea that my mind will be changed—the arguments I encounter on the Left are hardly new to me—but because I’ve learned that these exchanges almost never lead to anything constructive. Perhaps this is because those with whom I tend to engage are usually quite a bit older than the average college student, whose ideas are still in flux—in fact, they are usually more or less my contemporaries. By that age, the vast majority of people have political beliefs that are set in stone.
And the only cognitive dissonance I experience when talking to them is one I’ve finally adjusted to, although it shocked me at the outset: the fact that liberals/Leftists, for all their vaunted open-mindedness and tolerance of different attitudes and opinions, are every bit as closed-minded as they presume the Right to be, if not more.
It’s a sad commentary on university life that what Prager calls “articulate conservatives” are so rare on the university lecture circuit. This fact, if true, would indicate that the Left can’t feel so very confident that it would win the argument in a free and open marketplace of ideas.
vk: because in this Utopia that Conservatives are against (we’re so evil, aren’t we), Joan doesnt have to be responsbile for anyone… not even Joan. not even her mother.
Joan loves this model so much, she has already implemented it for herself before the rest of the country had a chance to catch up. So instead of offering to help her mother get to the doctor, Joan gets to self-satisifiedly harbor resentments against Conservatives.
Why Joan isn’t advocating a State or Local level socialized medical scheme is a mystery to me. Why is a Federal plan the only acceptable one?
Why should Joan feel negativeily toward conservatives for our view that any Federal plan is unconstitution and not appropiate for the Federal govt.. doesn’t she care about the constitution?
Tying your last two posts together, Vince P, it isn’t that conservatives feel indifferent to suffering. To the contrary, we feel a personal responsibility to relieve human suffering, whether it be by taking responsibility for looking after our own families, or giving to churches and charities who will take care of those whose families can’t take care of them.
In contrast, the left defines their compassion in terms of creating a state bureaucracy staffed by other people and paid for with money confiscated from other people, and furthermore, ineffective by design. And they actually feel good about themselves for advocating it.
I’d really like to see a politician propose a National Health Care Plan and tell everybody exactly how much their taxes will increase to pay for it. And I’d like to see the burden of supporting that monstrosity shared equally across income levels. Wisconsin proposed something like that. The cost of the plan would exceed the total state budget for all other government functions and would run the average Badger taxpayer $450 per month in new taxes. All of a sudden, socialized compassion didn’t look so good any more.
People either find you attractive or they don’t. Your politics are a turn-off to some people. Just like how you look or act or dress might be a turn off to some people.
Someone should start a dating service for you guys. Gay Republicans and their admirers. Maybe I’ll do it myself. I wouldn’t date you but I’d be happy to take your money. 😉
I normally don’t leave comments on sites such as this, but this time I feel I have to throw in my two cents. “The Guy” was probably repulsed by your self hatred. Anyone who supports an ideology or a political party that condems and abuses them, or compares their relationships to beastiality, obviously has issues. That’s not appealing. Not in a friend, not in a lover.
I can imagine that many blacks who supported politicians who opposed federal anti-lynching laws and supported Jim Crow based on their philosophical attachment to states’ rights felt the same way about their lack of dating prospects. Man, that must have sucked for them.
[For you to compare us to blacks who support such politicans show that you have not one iota of understanding of our politics. Amazing the assumptions some of our critics make –Dan]
Personally, I’m choosey about my friends and romantic relationships. And, yeah, political beliefs, as well as religious and other philosophical beliefs play into it. Now, yes, if you have some sort of political/religious/philosophical beliefs that are different even though everything else seems great, I could get into a relationship, enjoy myself, and have things play out in such a way that over the course of a year or two, discover that the differences are too much and decide that things aren’t going to work out, or I could just decide not to waste my time. Seriously, what are you guys, 20 years old? The days where you jump into a long term relationship with someone you share a bunch of superficial interests with, spend 2 years with them, and deicde they’re not long-term material because of other, more significant cultural/philosophical differences are long over for most of us.
[If I were as choosy as you, I’d spend most of my time alone. I delight in my friends with whom I disagree politically. And most of the time we talk about things other than politics. And when we do, it’s good to see that our friendships are strong enough to sustain our political differnces. And to know we can have a civil discussion with someone with whom we disagree. –Dan]
If you want to take heart about anything, you can console yourself with the high probability that this state of affairs is merely temporary. Your problem is that the party you supported based almost their entire campaign on opposition to gay marriage and demagoguing of the gay threat to America. It is possible that in a decade or two from now, this will no longer be the case, and your political party affiliation will not reflect so poorly on you. For now though, you decided to lie down with dogs and — big surprise — no one wants to be in proximity to the fleas you picked up.
[Obviously your knowledge of the GOP has little to do with following its actual campaigns. It has hardly based its “entire campaign” on opposition to gays. Amazing how many people see the GOP not as it is, but as fits their narrow stereotypes. . . . Hmm. . . kind of like how certain social conservatives see gays. Seems you’re defining the GOP by its most extreme elements as those social conservatives define the gay community. –Dan]
Gotta love the whole echo-chamber shout-down between Vince P and V the K in this thread.
Anyway, Vince P, how about even one link supporting any of your accusations of Democratic culpability for the Mark Foley scandal?
I think this post reflects a basic streak of insecurity I’ve seen in a lot (but not all) of social conservatives in general.
[Where’s the insecurity? Are you assuming we’re social conservatives because we don’t consider ourselves as such? –Dan]
Plus, Politics Matter. How can a guy who has a blog dedicated to political issues be shocked and hurt that a potential mate would reject him for holding opposite political views? Politics is not a matter of taste or uncommon background, which can be overcome as a difference easily enough if other elements balance out. Personal Politics are a living breathing thing that we carry with us every day.
[Sorry to see you’re so narrow-minded that you let politics define your life. I know so many people who date and/or are married to (or have life partnerships with) people of opposing political views. They understand that there are values deeper than one’s political beliefs and sometimes it’s those very values which undergird their politics. –Dan]
I can’t completely rule it out, but I really can’t imagine ever dating a social conservative. To overstate to make a point, it’s like a christian dating a satanist – how could I ever respect someone who I feel is sooooo wrong about the things that really matter, like human dignity, compassion, tolerance and self-responsibility.
[Maybe part of your problem is that you’re so busy labeling people for being what they’re not that you can’t see them for what they are. –Dan]
This business about Joan has been interesting. If she’s real (and I wouldn’t put it past some lefties to invent her), I don’t want to be harsh to her…. but I have to say, the two V’s seem right. In the particulars that she herself supplied, she seems to be blaming the world for pains brought on by her and her mother’s lack of planning and common sense. And to want a boyfriend who will go along with her sense of victimhood.
That’s pretty lame. I have friends who are gay and Republican. Of course, because they’re my friends and I like to keep it that way, we do not talk about politics whatsoever. LOL
Real or not, here is the deep skinny on Joan and her mother. Apparently, between them the mother and daughter are too destitute to afford rudimentary health care. Or, between the two of them, they place much higher priority on other things than rudimentary health care. Either way, they did not try very hard to get things fixed.
No emergency room can turn Joan’s mom away for lack of funds. However, emergency room health care is a crazy way to spend your money if you can afford to pay the bill. In fact, the hospital will lay claim to your wide-screen TV if you stiff them for emergency room services after it is determined you can afford to pay. (For more on this, review the rules of bankruptcy.)
If Joan and her mother had gone to a doctor listed in the Yellow Pages, nearly every one would work out a payment schedule. If Joan and her mother wept and moaned in a convincing manner, the doctor might well have charity-cased them through the thing.
I have no idea what Joan’s mother’s finger problem is, but draining an abscess, taking a stitch or three, dusting with antibiotic, splinting and taping is something every paramedic can do. Tylenol works as well as anything on arthritis and pain. A torn nail looks bad, but it is a minor fix. Broken bones need to be set soon after the injury, but lots of people get no more than a tongue depressor and adhesive tape.
Nearly every corner of the country has a local health clinic of some sort. Every place has a fire department. There are skilled nurses and paramedics running all over the landscape.
I am sorry Joan’s mother has a permanently damaged finger and that it causes her pain. I can not bring myself to believe that she is a victim of a cruel and heartless society.
Next time this happens, Joan’s mother should drop by the Salvation Army or the Soup Kitchen or call the pastor of a large church. They will all do her thinking for her and get her quality care.
Chase, you astound me! I would have bet that you could not refrain from arguing politics. You must be quite adept to keep conservatives from guessing your stand on things.
I am impressed. Now, if you will bring your comments down to a level of common sense discussion, perhaps you will be more respected here generally.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/09/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
A good way to sum up my feelings.
What *is* cruel and heartless, is confiscating other people’s money to pay for one’s own shortcomings. Which is what so-called “universal health care” is.
(So-called, because it’s really “health care for those lucky enough not to DIE while waiting in the government’s line”.)
Well, ILC, you do have a finely-tuned sock puppet detector. 😉
Anyway, there is this lefty gambit I see from time to time in forums, where someone puts up a sad story like this. The strategy is, if you don’t argue it, then you lack the courage of your convictions. If you do, then they get to whine and play the victim card. (Remember what happened with the Frost family?) Since I don’t lack the courage of my convictions, I’m not afraid to say, “Taking care of your family is your responsibility, not the government’s.” And, yes, I have lost friends over this principled stand.
It seems there’s no greater sin in our society than to suggest that people are the cause of, and the solution to, most of their own problems.
In case the reason isn’t obvious to you, it’s because gay conservatives are seen as sympathizing with people who demonize gays on a regular basis.
[Do we? Is that what the GOP does all day? Yeah, alas, some Republicans do do that. But, most Republicans focus on other issues. As do we. –Dan]
Yet, the mainstream media doesn’t seem much interested in the mean-spirited anti-Republican intolerance of all too many gays. It doesn’t fit their narrative of the way the world works.
You’re approaching this animosity as though it were a chicken-and-egg problem, as though baffled as to how this strange state of events came to pass. It’s false equivalence to claim that gays’ treatment of conservatives is unjustified and unprovoked.
[Hardly approaching it as a chicken-and-egg problem. It’s one thing to treat anti-gay conservatives with derision, it’s quite another to treat gay conservatives like that. But, my experience has shown that the anti-gay social conservatives have been more civil to me on learning that I’m gay than have been certain gay people on learning I’m conservative. –Dan]
There is, in fact, a long history of anti-gay hostility in the political and religious right, and gay people have been bombarded with hate speech, discrimination, and violence for many, many years. That being the case, it’s no wonder that a lot of gay people hate and deeply mistrust those who self-identify as conservatives.
[There has been, alas, too much anti-gay hostility on the right, but that doesn’t justify similar hate speech from the gay left. That said, it would be interesting to do the experiment I mentioned in the post and compare the reaction of citizens of Alabama to same-sex PDA and citizens of West Hollywood to a public display of Republicanism. –Dan]
Conservatives are reaping what they have sown, in terms of public opinion, and in particular the opinions of those whom they have targeted. That some conservatives actually might *care* what gay people think about them is a definite news flash.
[If it’s a news flash to you, then your new sources must be quite limited. Well, then of course, the MSM hasn’t done a good enough job of showing those conservatives reaching out to/showing understanding of gay issues. –Dan]
While attending a boy scout camp in southern Florida the camp policy was to warn all scouts not to wear anything that referred to the boy scouts when visiting Key West. Apparently there had been some incidents in the past.
The sad thing is that I have several gay relatives that treat me rather distantly, I believe because my sons are in boy scouts and I tend to be more politically conservative. If they spoke more to me they would realize that I’m not at all anti-gay, I just think the scouts do a great job with boys.
I think the left overplays the hate speech violence and discrimination card in rationalizing their own bigotry.
Is it automatically hate speech to oppose same-sex marriage? Is it automatically violence to oppose hate-crimes laws? Is it automatically discrimination to oppose federal employment regulations based on sexual orientation?
I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose all three that have nothing to do with hating gay people. I don’t think any time a gay person is subject to an act of violence from a non-gay person, it is automatically a hate-crime, much less an indication of any kind of mind-set of the right. (If anything, violent criminals are much more likely to lean left, which is why Democrats are so eager to enfranchise them.) I don’t see any prominent person of the right advocating the abuse or mistreatment of gay people.
Therefore, I think the whining about violence and hate is largely made-up.
To 52 Jlo:
I have no intention of doing this. You can review the news stories if you like if you have forgotten something.
I wonder what it’s like to go through life evaluating the orthodoxy of everyone you meet… searching for things to get upset about. And even worse, not being able to tolerate other people’s ideas that don’t agree with yours. There’s something unbalanced about that.
Does things don’t matter to you becuase you don’t respect my humanity dignity because I have a different tax policy than you.
Nor any compassion since obviously you wont be helping me if I needed it.
Nor do you show tolerance to things that you disagree with… who cares if you tolerate that which you alreaedy sanction?
And self-responsiblity… who says I dont have that? How would you know.
You should have saved your two cents. We already had enough change.. didn’t you even read the original comment and my comment? Your little diatribe is what we were talking about..
Thanks for demonstrating it for us though.
Whaaaa! Whaaaa! Ah poor poor baby your crazy political and cultural views aren’t getting you any love.
Think maybe there might be a hint there?
but don’t worry, one day you’ll meet a nice fellow wingnut and you two can hopefully settle down and live your lives in peace and equality thanks to the efforts of the people you disparage daily with your dribble.
[I love reading comments like this one. It got caught in the spam filter, but I just had to approve it. It shows (once again) the narrow world view of some of of our critics, the assumptions they make and the very mean-spiritedness of their attitude. And the left so often accuses conservatives of hate. Wonder if he sports a “Hatred is not a family value” bumper sticker on his car. I wonder if this guy even read the post or just read the synposis on another blog and chimed it with his bile. He assumes bitterness in my post when there is none. Gosh, some of these angry comments have just been making my day. Makes me glad to be alive –Dan]
Translation: Jlo can not refute the points raised.
GPW: You wouldn’t want to “guarantee” or bias the outcome of your experiment, would you? Because, if you do – wink wink – Take it to the Castro in SF.
I occasionally wear an anti-Che T-shirt there, or a pro-capitalist one. I get a few overjoyed compliments – and a lot of harsh looks. When I wear the same T-shirt in Weho, no one cares either way. I chalk it up to dizzy, apolitical queens. (Joke) – I believe your story 100% about nasty lefties in Weho, but my gut instinct says, go to the Castro.
Whenever I see someone in a Che shirt, I say, “Oh, I guess your Hitler shirt must be in the laundry today.”
I’ve had mixed experience here when I come out as a righty to other gay men.
A very very few are intrigued and then decided that because I’m otherwise attractive to them, they’ll chalk it up to a thought disorder and we just avoid the topic. Some have launched into vituperative vulgarity on the spot. I had a date with a gay civil rights lawyer and practicing Buddhist (very spiritual, doncha know) who, when I mentioned that I favored the originalist school of constitutional interpretation, reached across the table and made strangling gestures at me. (And then wanted a second date!!!).
I do have to say that I have become more sympathetic to these guys, however. I wonder if I could truly trust and rely on and respect a man in an intimate relationship, who basically worshipped and supported people I thought were scuttling my country and my civilization…namely, Democrats.
Isn’t it amazing how in the name of a compassionate , tolerant ideology salvage spews hate and contempt?
Why is it that those who claim to adhere to tolerance and compassion never seem to show it?
Essem, your comment #69 suggests that another post is in order.
I have been delighted to discover that when I do come out to certain left-of-center gays, my politics actually serves to strengthen the relationship as they, curious as to why someone whom they respect could hold political views they abhor. Not only do they come to understand me better, but also conservative ideas, when they see their philosophical underpinnings.
There is nothing tolerant or compassionate about left-liberalism.
I think an ugly kind of impatience (avoiding other words like ‘hate’, this time) underlies it.
Left-libs say they want certain problems solved, due to their great tolerance and compassion (that others allegedly lack, etc.). But they always reach for the dumbest, most un-intolerant and compassionate solution: government force. Use government force to grab the funding, whip the people into shape, etc.
That suggests, at a minimum, a certain inability to delay gratification… and a certain willingness to sacrifice other people’s rights and financial plans, to achieve the left-lib’s own gratification.
Typo… please read “…most intolerant and un-compassionate solution…”
But they always reach for the dumbest, most un-intolerant and compassionate solution: government force.
There’s a war in Iraq you may have heard about.
GPW #71 raises a question for me. Does politics really come up that often for you guys in meatspace? For me, not so much. Probably the reason I waste so much time on blogs is the people I know don’t talk politics so much, and when it does come up, people usually agree with me that both parties are corrupt and clueless and most politicians are vile, sociopathic b-st-rds.
You’re going to have to show me where I make those claims, furthermore how exactly am I being intolerant and what compassion should I show for Whiney McSobstory whose all huffy because CNN won’t talk about how he can’t get a date?
I am curious to know how the left plans to bring about the Utopia which allows “wingnut” gays to live in peace and equality.
Am I to believe that when the left gets everything in place that they will stop sniping at those who are not in lockstep with them?
Does this promise of peace and equality extend to Christian fundamentalists as well? Or will they all have been burned at the stake before Utopia arrives?
Maybe I’m just lucky to live in a quirky, new-age town. But, I’ve not experienced the sort of abuse for being conservative that so many conservative gays describe. The gay community here is tight, mostly liberal, and includes some fairly prominent Democrats. They know that I am a Republican, and I’m still invited to all the parties and treated kindly. Granted, I don’t wag my finger at my hosts or “look” for opportunities to be oppressed … but so far, so good. I suspect that some of the problem conservative gays have is that many of us come across as … well, arrogant, or at least slightly self-righteous, which then allows us to fall into the same trap that we despise in our liberal brothers: playing victim. I’m just saying that before we blame politics, it may be worth checking our personalities. Just saying. 😉
I’d say this post indicates the problems with arguing by analogy. It’s a pity you had one person who decided he didn’t want to date you because of your different political opinions, but frankly lots of people could probably tell you the same story in reverse. For some people, political agreement is essential to a successful relationship, romantic or otherwise. For others, not. Perhaps you need to find a gay James Carville…
[Fair point. Sometimes I wish I hadn’t used that example because it may well obscure the main point of the nasty reactions we gay conservatives have experienced when we come out to our gay peers. Most of the critical comments — and the only left-wing link we earned focused on the anecdote. –Dan]
But since we’re arguing by personal analogy, I would have to say that I find the opposite true. I have been on the receiving end of a lot of spite from conservatives merely because I am gay, but have generally witnessed my “liberal” friends act less intemperately when faced with opposing political viewpoints. [This is the oppposite of what I have experienced. I have received more spite from gays because of my conservatism than from conservatives because of my sexuality. ] Furthermore, when arguing the morality of homosexuality, a great number of conservatives or Republicans (obviously not coextensive) simply cite to the Bible and that’s the end of it. They may be calm and friendly in expressing their views, but the fact that am I gay makes me fundamentally immoral in their eyes “because the Bible says so.” You can argue all day about what the Bible actually says, and whether they also are willing to condemn or condone other things condemned or condoned by the Bible, etc., but they just stick to what they learned from their preachers, or parents, or whomever, and you will never change their mind. I find that because liberals don’t hold to a single text that must, for their own cognitive health, remain inerrant in their minds, and because they less frequently claim that their moral views derive from an omnipotent and omniscient G-d, they are more tolerant of disagreement.
[My experience with contemporary liberals is that they are less tolerant of disagreement. ]
But that’s just my personal experience. Running a blog, yours is different because blogging (and commenting) generally attracts those who are most impassioned, those who are looking to persuade rather than to be persuaded. So maybe you will find your gay James Carville, but probably not by blogging.
[Don’t know that I want to find a James Carville, just someone who shares my passion for myth, movies and ancient history and is not put off (and perhaps intrigued) by my politics. –Dan]
[Where’s the insecurity? Are you assuming we’re social conservatives because we don’t consider ourselves as such? –Dan]
Why would I assume you’re socially conservative? Are you the liberal public policy/gay conservative?
As far as the insecurity, I just can’t believe that because some one you’re attracted to rejected you because of your personal politics you go and create a grand societal conspiracy against people who share your sexual orientation and political beliefs.
[You miss my point. I don’t see some grand societal conspiracy, just just this as an illustration of the intolerance we all experience. Something you might realize had you read the entire post –Dan]
Geez, people reject other people every second of every day for lot more petty reasons than personal politics.
[Fair point, but it does show a certain narrowness. I would say the same thing for a conservative who dismissed someone offhand because of his (or her) left-wing politics –Dan]
[Sorry to see you’re so narrow-minded that you let politics define your life. I know so many people who date and/or are married to (or have life partnerships with) people of opposing political views. They understand that there are values deeper than one’s political beliefs and sometimes it’s those very values which undergird their politics. –Dan]
Politics define life whether you want to or not. That’s how philosophies work – they are a guide for all the choices you make, not the choice in and of themselves, to be adhered to and ignored according to whimsy. Otherwise its not a philosophy but more like an idiosyncracy or a predilection that can be suppressed whenever an attractive person strolls along that I share little to no personal beliefs with, but I really want to have sex with them anyways.
All I said is that personal politics matter to me (as they apparently do to the guy who rejected you) in what I look for in an intimate partner. It’s not narrow-minded exercise my right to choose who I want in my personal life.
[Seems you define life in far more political terms than do I. -Dan]
People reject people every second of every day for far more petty shit than politics. What’s next a thousand word screed on how the media’s ignoring the plight of dateless slobs or jerks?
[Maybe part of your problem is that you’re so busy labeling people for being what they’re not that you can’t see them for what they are. –Dan]
Jeepers, thanks so much for the fatherly condescension mixed with a healthy dose of self-serving pablum. I hope you don’t mind that I returned the favor in my responses above.
[Call it condescension if you will, but you reached conclusions about me that have little to do with anything I said–and which indeed are at odds when many things I believe. No, I don’t mind at all you’re returning the favor as you put it. It’s why I approved the comment even as it got caught in our spam filter. I delight in these kinds of exchanges — even if they distract me from other stuff which should be more pressing today. -Dan
To Vince P
————————————————————–
To 52 Jlo:
Anyway, Vince P, how about even one link supporting any of your accusations of Democratic culpability for the Mark Foley scandal?
I have no intention of doing this. You can review the news stories if you like if you have forgotten something.
—————————————————————
Okay, so you present a thesis without any supporting evidence and then refuse to provide supporting evidence when requested to, but I’m the lazy one?
—————————————————————
I can’t completely rule it out, but I really can’t imagine ever dating a social conservative
I wonder what it’s like to go through life evaluating the orthodoxy of everyone you meet… searching for things to get upset about. And even worse, not being able to tolerate other people’s ideas that don’t agree with yours. There’s something unbalanced about that.
————————————————————–
Yea, I wonder what that’s like too. What I really wonder about though is how you read that into what I wrote.
It’s “unbalanced” to admit to what my values are and only desire to date people who somewhat share those values?
Wow, I declare myself a member of the new Unbalanced Majority!
Why is the second part worse than the first exactly? Or are you just utilizing a transitional statement there with no acutal meaning?
———————————————————–
I feel is sooooo wrong about the things that really matter, like human dignity, compassion, tolerance and self-responsibility.
Does things don’t matter to you becuase you don’t respect my humanity dignity because I have a different tax policy than you.
Nor any compassion since obviously you wont be helping me if I needed it.
Nor do you show tolerance to things that you disagree with… who cares if you tolerate that which you alreaedy sanction?
And self-responsiblity… who says I dont have that? How would you know.
———————————————————-
Okay, I don’t how to respond to whatever you were trying to articulate in that first sentence.
As to the second, well, actually I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean either, but I suspect it has something to do with the first, which, again, was incomprehensible.
As to the remaining, I don’t understand why you assumed I was attacking you personally. Maybe I’m confused Vince P, but did you pen the post from which this thread stream commences?
I was speaking generally about the unlikelihood of me being attracted to someone else that doesn’t share my same values with regard to tolerance, compassion, self-resonsibilty, etc., etc.
It really hadn’t a thing to do with you personally Vince P.
Nevertheless, I’m real sorry that you apparently took what I wrote so personally that you weren’t even able to type a coherent sentence through the emotional trauma experienced as a result of reading my tossed-off observations.
Here’s a flashback for you:
ingrich’s philosophy of media came in a GOPAC memo entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” Distributed to GOP candidates across the country, the memo’s list of words for Democrats and words for Republicans was endorsed by Gingrich in a cover letter: “The words in that paper are tested language from a recent series of focus groups where we actually tested ideas and language.” Next time you hear Gingrich complain about media focusing on the negative, refer back to these lists.
Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…
endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…
stagnation… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage
Optimistic Positive Governing Words
Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!
share… change… opportunity… legacy… challenge… control… truth… moral… courage… reform… prosperity… crusade… movement… children… family… debate… compete… active(ly)… we/us/our… candid(ly)… humane… pristine… provide…
liberty… commitment… principle(d)… unique… duty… precious… premise… care(ing)… tough… listen… learn… help… lead… vision… success… empower(ment)… citizen… activist… mobilize… conflict… light… dream… freedom…
peace… rights… pioneer… proud/pride… building… preserve… pro-(issue): flag, children, environment… reform… workfare… eliminate good-time in prison… strength… choice/choose… fair… protect… confident… incentive… hard work… initiative… common sense… passionate
Those liberals and their ad hominen attacks! Disgusting!
Puh-lease!
Tim O, nice try!
I am not familiar with the particular list you have posted, but this is politics 101 and goes so far back that George Washington probably sent out something like it.
You can not begin to imagine that the Democrats do not have similar talking points list.
Politics is about gaining and holding power. Here is small list of other techniques you might watch out for:
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man); Affirming The Consequent; Amazing Familiarity; Ambiguous Assertion;Appeal To Anonymous Authority; Appeal To Authority; Appeal To Coincidence; Appeal To Complexity; Appeal To False Authority; Appeal To Force; Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument); Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice); Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People); Argument By Fast Talking; Argument By Generalization; Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement); Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence); Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion); Argument By Personal Charm; Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness); Argument By Poetic Language; Argument By Prestigious Jargon; Argument By Question; Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad
Nauseam); Argument by Rhetorical Question; Argument By Scenario; Argument By Selective Observation; Argument By Selective Reading; Argument By Slogan; Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics); Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients); Argument From Authority; Argument From False Authority; Argument From Small Numbers; Argument From Spurious Similarity; Argument Of The Beard; Argument To The Future; Bad Analogy Begging The
Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology); Burden Of Proof; Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause); Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis); ETC.
Heliotrope, your response is based on assumptions, not facts. The fact is that Gingrich did pioneer this particular form of language-based campaigning. You “can not begin to imagine” that the Ds don’t have the same sort of thing, but that doesn’t prove they do the way that citing the Gingrich memo does for the Rs. Furthermore, I can not begin to imagine that the Ds are organized enough to have one.
In the second part of your post you just list a series of forms of argument. That’s not nearly the same as a list of derogatory words to be used to demonize your opponents.
Finally, if you think George Washington engaged in that kind of politics, I suggest you read some more biographies and histories. But maybe that is how you convince yourself that it’s ok for you and your party to engage in that kind of behavior.
Reginald,
I may be presumptive here, but I suspect I was a professor of semantics and logic before you were born.
My library shelves contain campaign manuals (the super secret type) for both parties going back to 1960. I was employed by his publishers to help Theodore White in the research for his ground-breaking “Making or the President: 1960.”
If you think that Gingrich created this list or was the first kid on the block to give such advice, then I have a box of Heuy Long buttons to sell you.
The University of Virginia Alderman Library contains my extensive collection of campaign directives which cover the 1948 to 1988 period. I believe you can access them online. Nonetheless, the “Gingrich” memo you cite is far from anything new.
I listed the first inch of a “mile” long listing of fallacies of argument because I thought you might not be clued in on how political demogoguery works. Addison and Steele employed the psychology of your “Gingrich” emotive words list for political purposes in the 1760’s. You can not begin to understand the “debating” societies of the French revolution without visiting such lists. Woodrow Wilson “Kept Us Out of War” using such tactics. (And then, unilaterally, got us into war.)
If you harbor any idea that Gingrich was an original, it is because you never encountered Boss Hague, Joseph Pulitzer, or Machiavelli.
Your Gingrich memo is interesting, and I will research it.
You might want to look into the “usage” directives of Reuters, the AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, et. al. before you go too far slam off on Gingrich alone.
My reference to Washington is academic license. There are tablets from Sumeria that direct the language of politics. Egyptian tombs have names of some pharoahs scratched out while others have blanks where convenient names can be added.
Politics and the attendant language is an ancient art. It hardly began with Gingrich.
I like Gingrich’s post-congressional career a lot.
He’s one of the few people out there that truly understands just how challenging our new world is and how inadequete our govt is in meeting that challenge.
Here is a vid clip , he is talking about conflict with Muslims:
http://newt.org/tabid/217/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2880/Our-Own-Phoney-War.aspx
All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old,
But there’s no England now.
All the wars that were won and lost
Somehow don’t seem to matter very much anymore.
All the lies we were told,
All the lies of the people running round,
They’re castles have burned.
Now I see change,
But inside we’re the same as we ever were.
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Living this way, each day is a dream.
What am I, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Now another century nearly gone,
What are we gonna leave for the young?
What we couldn’t do, what we wouldn’t do,
It’s a crime, but does it matter?
Does it matter much, does it matter much to you?
Does it ever really matter?
Yes, it really, really matters.
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Now another leader says
Break their hearts and break some heads.
Is there nothing we can say or do?
Blame the future on the past,
Always lost in blood and guts.
And when they’re gone, it’s me and you.
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line.
FILTERED
You know, there are more important things than politics… like enjoying oneself and having fun! When it comes to that, I have no political prerequisites.
One time I went on a date with a guy that even had paintings of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in his living room, LOL. I’ll admit, I did think that was a little odd. And yes, he was a bit older than me. But I knew he was a Republican before I asked him out because he was reading the Washington Times when I approached him, LOL. My intuition of course was correct cause there was a W’04 sticker on his fridge. But that wasn’t the problem. I just wasn’t that into him. He’s one of those guys that looked way better in a suit than in more casual clothes. o:-) That was the problem. I thought the physical attraction was there, but it wasn’t. Oh well.
That of course is not the only time I’ve dated a Repblican. It is however the only time I’ve gone on a date with someone that had paintings of Confederate war generals in their living room, which makes for a more interesting story. 😛
Anyway, Vince P, how about even one link supporting any of your accusations of Democratic culpability for the Mark Foley scandal?
Well, to save Vince the effort, here’s one.
Seems like the Dems claiming not to have known about any of this was just a flat-out lie.
Here’s what I can’t figure out. It’s obvious, from the blog, that you’re committed to neoconservative politics so why would you want to date someone who is diametrically opposed to that ideology. I’m straight and I’d never date a Republican “Patriot” because we’d have nothing whatsoever in common.
[Because most of us don’t define everything in political terms. Shows how narrow you are to assume you would have nothing whatsoever in common with a Republican “Patriot” merely because of your political differences. I delight in my friendships with those who have different politics than myself and very often we have many, many things in common, qualities to which I would be blind if I, as you, defined my friends by their partisan affiliation. –Dan]
I can’t stand neoconservatives. I agree with liberals that Bush is an unconscionable moron who has done irrevocable damage. What’s more, he’s courted the favours of the Christian right which doesn’t support gays, doesn’t support feminism. I’m scratching my head here figuring out how you reconcile this fact with your sexual preference which Republicans do not support.
You baffle me.
[You need not be baffled. Since our posts are archived, all you have to do to is read through them to see where we stand on any number of issues. But, I guess that would involve exposing yourself to conservative ideas and it seems you only want them filtered through the media or the blogs you read. Note how you’re the one making sweeping claims. Perhaps before calling the president a moron, you might read some of his speeches to better understand where he’s coming from. He’s made all too many mistakes, but to call him a moron shows that you’d rather label him than understand him. –Dan]
I go away for a few hours and this thing took off. Thought I’d address some gems I found:
Frankly, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to stick with you and your obcvious dishonesty. If you have that little interest in what your boyfriend really believes, then what’s his motivation for sticking around with you? I would have ZERO interest in anyone whose oppinion of me was forged by the DailyKooks.
That’s called brainwashing, dear, and it’s not attractive at all.
Imagine that. A liberal anxious to take your money. I know I’M shocked. They truly “Have what it takes to take what you’ve got”.
I pray you, what’s “odd” about that?
#88
Wait, was the art by Künstler, Gallon, Strain etc? That might make a differnce.
Don’t diss Künstler.
Read: Jews
Thanks for looking it up. I had no intention on doing it.. if these people are so interested in this issue you think they would do the bare minimum to look up the facts.But the facts dont matter.. sticking to their narrative is the most important. thing.
I dont know why a lot of thse people think they’re so unique. I’ve argued about this stuff before and learned a long time.. facts dont matter. So i’m not wasting my time to dig up what was widely reported .. it’s not like it was a secret the Democrats knew about Foley for a long time. Why dont these people know that? Is their ignorance my fault?
A neoconservative is a former Leftist converted to conservativism.
I dont believe anyone here has stated their history of political changes, so how would you even know?
Oh yeah.. that gay Leftist habit of using stereotypes and bigotry while in service in being against stereotypes and bigotry. You folks are so lacking integrity and dont even know it.
I realize this is only slightly on-topic (because the post is about the media), but wouldn’t it be easier to just date a right winger from here? Or find a right winger on gay.com or outpersonals.com?
It’s called the political and legal system, perhaps you’ve heard of it? If not I suggest you do a bit of research.
While you’re doing that you should check out what Canada has done, all the citizens there are equal before the law in rights, even the wingnut gay ones.
Of course even up there GP would probably still be given fake phone numbers.
#97 Salvage: Thanks for the insight. I asked of you:
and you replied:
You obviously believe that the power of politics can lead to laws and enforcement that will subdue discrimination, create equality (whatever that is) and bring sweet peace across the land.
This dictatorship of the proletariate will be bloodless? We will not splinter into becoming Jacobins, Girondists, Blosheviks, Menshiviks, Benthamites, Luddites, Sons of Che, or followers of Timothy Leary in the process? How interesting. Perhaps you have some anti-individualism drug up your sleeve?
Why would your liberal revolution be any different in erasing things you abhor than any past liberal revolution? (Note: In large part, the liberal US revolution worked because a huge number of loyalists to the British rule left the country.)
You do not have to do much research to understand liberal revolution. A few lazy moments with Wikipedia will give you the flavor. Let a million flowers bloom! All hail those who know! Down with the Neocons (Jooos), the Christian fundamentalists and morons in general on the right. We will do it with our courts. A new day dawns. Lobotomies and sterilization anyone? This is the dawning of the age of eugenics. The master race is forming. The bantam rooster has crowed. There will be peace in our time.
You folks can not stand representative democracy and the idea of a republic. You insist on the unchecked power of judicial activism to form your brand of a “benign” dictatorship. Well, Salvage, let’s amend the Constitution and make federal judges term limited and popularly elected. I bet you hate that idea.
Vince P,
I like Gingrich, too.
Gringrich is a great consumer of knowledge and a fine wordsmith. He is a valuable member for a candidate’s team.
He is so loathed by the left that they lay in wait for him. Unfortunately, his personal life provides them with an endless stream of opportunities to break his kneecaps.
I wish it were different, but he is a star crossed player on the political stage and doomed to play from the wings.
What’s hilarious is that being Republican is a choice, and being gay isn’t, and yet that’s precisely the opposite of what Republicans believe.
This is the funniest post of all time–and I say that as a straight woman. You know, if I dressed beautifully, did my hair, wore high heels, and looked glamorous and told a guy I was interested in that I thought he should be locked up for being interested in having sex with me, that I supported a political party that wanted to see his desire to marry me outlawed, and that under no circumstances could I support the idea that he wanted to have children with me and raise them in a loving household–I’d kinda figure that his first spontaneous attraction to me would *naturally die away.* How on earth could it be sustained in anything but the shallowest and most tawdry sense?
[Comments like this are more fun than fun. 🙂 Amazing the amount of misunderstandings she has about the GOP and this blogger’s own ideas. Thanks for brightening my day with your narrow-mindedness.]
I have nothing against conservatives (other than my objections to their policies and their politics) and certainly nothing against gays but your problem doesn’t stem either from being conservative or from being gay. Your problem dating stems from the fact that you think other people’s politics should be as feeble and as value free as yours. No good short term relationship, and certainly no long term relationship, can be sustained when the partners don’t agree on the central fundamental moral values of our day–which are political or religious (if you swing that way) but which in any event need to be shared.
[Amazing the assumptions you make about my politics. Assuming they’re feeble and value-free. Shows how little you understand either my ideas or those of my party. And to assumed that two people who belong to different parties can’t agree on certain “central fundamental values.]
Your original post really boils down to “people think I’m sexy, but when they find out what a jerk I am they no longer want to f*ck me! the meanies.” Well, if they are really so mean, maybe you ought to try to find people you actually like and respect to “date.” Or if you think the people you are attracted to are fundamentally pretty good, you might want to rethink your public allegiance to hating them.
[Actually, if you even read the original post, you would realize that your comment has nothing to do with the anecdote provided or the broader point I was making. And your assumption about my hating people. For while your comment may not betray the same hatred of other conservatives, it does show a certain misunderstanding of our ideas and represents a fundamental misreading of my post. –Dan]
aimai
With this free analysis, aimai, sums up her view of life. aimai can readily discern a “jerk” and aimai naturally has standards. aimai does not f*uck jerks. Or am I projecting? Perhaps aimai is in it for the game and is chastising anyone who would pass up an orgasm because self esteem has gotten in the way.
This conumdrum leads me to wonder what this means:
Do you suppose aimai has something cogent to say here?
Spoken like a true liberal – their religion (if they swing that way) is politics. Which is very sad. There is a world of difference between true religious beliefs and political ones. Politics is about government, Religion is about the fundamentals of life – about who and what we are as human beings.
There are many honorable people who’s values and contributions to society have noting to do with religion. But it certainly wasn’t politics that made them that way.
Is it harder to love and live with someone who disagrees with you politically, yes, but it happens all the time
On the other hand it is impossible to be with someone who doesn’t share your core beliefs and values, even if you happen to vote for the exact same candidates every time.
Heliotrope – You are very smart.
Heliotrope, of course political invective is nothing new. And while I don’t feel the need to throw my qualifications around, a hobby is collecting Roman history books. No one throws it around like Suetonius or Procopius. But given that background and knowledge, I still think there is something qualitatively different about what Gingrich did. (He might even agree, and might claim his marriage of political calumny to modern methods of mass communication and psychology is unique — you seem to be a fan, so you probably know if he’s ever made such a claim). Furthermore if, like Gingrich, you’re claiming to be a third-wave revolutionary, who is going to break the mold of politics, do you really want to engage in old-style mudslinging, as you would have it? Finally, there has to be a moral dimension to politics (aren’t conservatives supposed to have adopted Stoic values?). I remain suspicious of someone who engages in that level of vitriol with such evident zest. It’s one thing to believe that the end must justify the means; it’s another to make the means the end itself. I guess that’s why I bridled at your apparent attempt to draw a moral equivalence between George Washington’s politics and Newt’s.
Hey Dan,
I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but I believe there is a problem with the “experiment” you are planning that you haven’t considered. Instead of getting a bunch of juicy evidence of gay liberals expressing vicious intolerance toward you on the street, you are more likely to end up with many useless hours of video footage showing perplexed West Hollywood residents baffled by the fact that you are wearing a t-shirt at all, regardless of what it says.
I can just hear those WeHo queers now–“Lance, who is that man and what is that bizarre fabric contraption wrapped around his torso? That’s so wierd! I’ve never seen anything like it…”
#107 Reginald Perrin, I am not sure how my statements could be construed as drawing a moral equivalence between George Washington’s politics and Newt’s. I assure you that I would not undertake such a fool’s errand.
I was merely making the point that Gingrich did not invent the use of emotive words in political discourse and I suggested that George Washington was not unfamiliar with the power of choosing words for their effect. I stand by that and can cite “chapter and verse” to support the point. “Moral equivalence” is a neologism which serves to cloud the debate rather than to clarify it. I have no concept of how to go about equating Washington’s moral code with Gingrich’s moral code. From an academic perspective, I would suggest the exercise is moot and best undertaken by sophists who are engaged in talking above their own intellect while drinking in excess.
I might add that “third-wave revolution” is also a neologism and it has yet to find a common, accepted definition. It has gained a footing in quantum physics, but its meaning in rhetoric and semantics is still vague and evolving.
Is there any reasonable hope that political discord can be tamed? Spin doctors are masters at using language to direct the postive attention on their client while casting a negative light on the opponent.
I was merely pointing out that Gingrich’s list of emotive words is nothing close to new in politics. Harry Hopkins did notable work in that department for FDR. What Gingrich noted came as second nature to Abe Lincoln.
I do not want to engage in mudslinging. I try to rise above it by dint of wit. I prefer irony and the well turned phrase. But do I entertain the idea that McCain and Feingold can create a system to banish it? Well, do you?
For many years I taught ethics in varying venues from the medical school to the law school to the business school. One of the great circular argument starters our there is to ask individuals to identify the base of their ethos. Moral relativists have a whole set of escape clauses that people with a religious belief system do not have.
Many people place their politics and personal condition above a religious belief system. That almost forces them to be moral relativists who see things only through the prism of what benefits them. (In the world of semantics this places them closer to “amoral” than “moral.”)
If you reject the firmness of a religious belief system, then you are free to base your morality (ethic) on what works best for you and your community of fellows. This is essentially a license to do what you like within a group that approves.
I am not being cynical when I say that a “moral dimension to politics” is an oxymoron. Politics is about gaining and holding power. As the Bard would say: (Morality) is “made of sterner stuff.”
As to the Stoics and conservatism: The Stoics were a much fabled group of Greeks. They were impassive and indifferent to pain or joy. Not much of a fun crowd.
You are the first person I have encountered who has suggested that present day conservatives in the US have raised an altar to the Stoics!
Perhaps you would be better advised to review Washington and the Society of Cincinnatus. (As in Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who predated Zeno of Elea by a century or so.)
Thank you for you interest in my comments. I enjoy reading the Romans scamps. Juvenal and Ovid are among my favorites. Satirists expose the human ass with delicious facility and the Roman world produced a stable of subjects.
Speaking of “all the news that’s fit to stage:” Hillary pulls a Jeff Gannon… again!. Twice in two days, Hilldog plants a sock-puppet in the audience to ask a softball question. It’s a lucky thing she’s not a Republican. She’d never get away with this.
Gay conservatives have the internet as a forum to gripe about intolerance of left, the left (gay. straight and otherwise) have everywhere else: the MSM, CNN, MSNBC, most newspapers and newsmagazine, most of the entertainment industry and most of the academic world.
One of the reasons I am not supporting Clinton for President is that she has many of the same qualities (avoidance of hard questions, secrecy, cutting off reporters who dare ask real questions, etc) that characterized the Bush campaign and presidency. I want a change just not a kinder and gentler version of the same.
Something everyone across the political spectrum should remember: whatever you defend in your own party will eventually happen on the other side of the aisle and once you have defended it, you’re left in the moral quicksand. And yes, this is a lesson I learned the hard way after defending Clinton for lying and then having nowhere to stand when Republicans get caught in bald faced lies themselves. We really should have a uniform standard and force those who can’t meet that standard to resign in disgrace.
Amen!
I would add, that when you have demagogued an issue and you are shown to be wrong, you have very little time or room to change your course. I’m thinking of the lost, quagmire of the civil war in Iraq, man caused global warming, stem cells are the miracle bullet, stopping the expansion of domestic energy resouce production, etc.
Yes, it is sad, but most of my fellow gay people, who pride themselves on being “progressive” (which at this point really means reactionary, only they don’t know it yet) and tolerant, are constantly carping on Republicans – how evil they are, etc. – and throwing around names of famous “conservatives” like Bill O’Reilly as being “far right” (even though he is not). It is very clear that these gays are not doing their own thinking. They do turn their backs on other gayus who are Republicnas – though God knows those are few and far between. The gay community is blindly supporting Hillary ’08 (for what good reason, I have no idea – don’t ask, don’t tell, I suppose) in some completely uninformed fantasy that somebody liek that will actually want to “help” them – because, dont forget, we live in a racist, homophobic country. Many of thgese gays live in luxurious Palm Springs homes, surrounded by other rich gay people, they go to parties and sex fests – but they’re oppressed. ACtually, they are oppressing themselves. It’s really sad they have to cling to the perception of negative things in our society rather than looking at how far gay Americans have actually come – and how far we can still go.
I am an Conservative leaning Atheist and get grief from liberals in the Atheist community when I bring up my politics and I have heard from Pagan republicans who have had the same problem. I continue to bring up my politics to liberal Atheists because they are going to have to get used to the fact that not all Atheists are liberal.
I think its funny how the conservatives are blaming the liberals even though they are doing the same thing they claim the liberals do. Demonizing the other side. Liberals don’t like people that disagree with thier view points just as much as conservatives. I like to call myself a moderate Independent its called thinking for yourself. As liberals ruined politics in the 60’s and 70’s. Conservatives have ruined politics in the 80’s, 90’s and even today. With thier neoliberal economic policies I can see why are country is in shambles today. As for my gay liberal friends when I discuss conservative view points I never get shunned. Maybe you should stop doing the name calling and listen to what they have to say, I am pretty sure you are walking away just as quickly as they are.
Jessie:
Conservatives do not demonize liberals and We don’t seek to silence them.
We don’t come up with a whole vocabulary designed to delegitmize their ideas (ie: racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobe… these are all words designed to shut down thought).
Its the Leftists in Universitiies who institute speech codes. It’s the Leftists who introduce laws against “offending” people.
Have you considered perhaps listening to us? Did it cross it your mind that our expereinces are true?
It’s pretty funny that you’re going to tell us to “listen”, when we are relating our personal histories and experiences…. experiences which are similiar even though most of us live in totally diferent enviroments.
I happened to have watched a interview with Tammy Bruce and I made this comment about it last night:
Is it just a coincidence that we all have similiar stories?
This gives the game away. As a conservative it would never occur to me that I have to dislike someone because they have a different view.
But to you it’s a given.
And you say Conservative ruin politics today.
Did you go to college?
And my comment about my comment being deleted was deleted. If this is in fact you, Mr. Gay Patriot, deleting my posts, you have just illustrated my point. If not, and this is some automated screening system, I apologize.
You can generalize and slander us liberals, but if you get upset at being generalized as a conservative or gay, you won’t find me shedding any tears for you. People who are blind to their own self-contradictions tend to make others feel uncomfortable being around, like walking on eggshells all the time. That’s why it’s so much easier for gay conservatives to hang out with their own kind, they can put up with each others bullshit.
[Please explain this self-contradiction. Do you even know why were are conservatives? Do you even understand the basic ideas of American conservatives, as articulated by such great political leaders as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? And do you even read this blog to famliarize yourself not only with our ideas, but our lives? I have noted on numerous occasions that I have numerous friends who are liberal (including one of my closest friends), much more tolerant than the man described in the post. But, I guess you’re so broad-minded you don’t need read our writings to know what we stand for. You know better about our ideas and our lives than we do ourselves. –Dan]