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]

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.

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.

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:

At about 1h 5m into this CSPAN interview with Tammy Bruce

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193300-1&highlight=bruce

a caller calls her and says basically “How come you only criticize the Left, when it’s the right who are against everything that you are and hate you”

She replies to him “Its been the left that has been the most aggressive to damage me. The theory goes the right is out to harm, yet it’s only from the left where people aggressive attempt to damage me. People on the right might disagree wth me but they dont try to harm me”

This of course conforms with what we on this blog have been saying too.

When will you Leftists out there get it ? Does any of this ever get you to examine yourselves and your princples?

Is it just a coincidence that we all have similiar stories?

Liberals don’t like people that disagree with thier view points just as much as conservatives

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?

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.

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.

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.

I guess that’s why I bridled at your apparent attempt to draw a moral equivalence between George Washington’s politics and Newt’s.

#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.

do you really want to engage in old-style mudslinging….

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?

Finally, there has to be a moral dimension to politics (aren’t conservatives supposed to have adopted Stoic values?).

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.

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…”

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.

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.

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!

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:

I have nothing against conservatives (other than my objections to their policies and their politics)

Do you suppose aimai has something cogent to say here?

[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

Yet, the mainstream media doesn’t seem much interested in the mean-spirited anti-Republican intolerance of all too many gays.

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.

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.

I am curious to know how the left plans to bring about the Utopia which allows “wingnut” gays to live in peace and equality.

and you replied:

It’s called the political and legal system, perhaps you’ve heard of it? If not I suggest you do a bit of research.

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.