Is Barney Frank Bad for Gays?
As a Jew, I shudder every time I see Bernie Madoff on the news. Even though most of the people whom he bilked were also Jewish, I fear some people may attribute his misdeeds to his faith, even though his professional actions violated so many tenets of Jewish ethics. He is not only a bad man, but also a bad Jew.
Similarly, as a gay man, I cringe when I see such people as Barney Frank take the public stage. There is no doubt that Mr. Frank is a very, very bright man who perhaps comes up with more clever quips than any of his congressional colleagues, yet he is also a vicious partisan with a very fixed vision of the world. He rarely admits his mistakes.
Watching him join what Michelle Malkin has called The Kabuki Theater of AIG Outrage, grandstanding over executive bonuses at the troubled company while silent on worse outrages at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I wonder how the American people see his hypocrisy. And if they do take note of it, will their unfavorable opinion of him translate into a negative opinion of gay people, given that he is the most prominent openly gay politician in America.
Having read some of my posts on the Massachusetts Congressman, Blogger Bill Jacobson asked me to consider whether “Barney Frank is bad for gays.” In offering his thoughts on the matter, Jacobson notes how Frank’s political prescriptions are reminiscent of “political witch hunts” which cheapen public discourse.
In sum, I think he is. While most gay activists focus on the prominence of this openly gay man as the chair of an important House committee, I see instead a man ever eager to engage in partisan warfare and always ready to blame his ideological adversaries for whatever problems face the nation. If people identify gay people with Frank, they will see us a group who fails to take responsibility for our actions and instead continually blames others.
It would be nice if he showed some class and admitted his own mistakes, particularly taking responsibility for his repeated assertions that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the picture of financial health and so didn’t need further regulation. It would be nice if a gay man could show that gay people, just like all Americans, often admit –and frequently learn from — their mistakes.
Instead, Frank plays the old politics that Barack Obama so successfully ran against in last fall’s campaign, a notion he repeated last night (on Jay Leno) of “trying to break . . a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.“
Always looking for some conservative or Republican to blame, Frank plays to the inaccurate stereotype of the irresponsible gay man unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions.  And that is why, I believe, he’s bad for gays. Yes, there are irresponsible gay men, but a good number of us, probably a considerable majority, do take responsibility for our actions.
Would it that Barney Frank were one of them.
UPDATE: It seems that even gay liberals agree with me. Last night at synagogue, was talking with a stylish young man to learn that he was a political junkie. When I mentioned my blog, we discovered a difference of poltical opinion, with him falling to the left. One thing we do agree on in Barney Frank (well, and on the fashion sense (or lack thereof) of Dianne Feinstein, Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton).
This left-leaning gay man say that the Massachusetts Congressman “bugs” him. He’s pompous and needs to “tone down” his ego.
62 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
you’re right. it just goes to show that no one should hang their hat on someone’s color, creed, gender, sexual orientation or sphere of influence. rather, people should choose leaders based ONLY on ability and ethics.
Comment by ShyAsrai — March 20, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - March 20, 2009
A better question than Is Barney Frank Bad for Gays? is Should Barney Frank Be Considered Bad for Gays?
Feeling a sense of shame because Madoff is Jewish is a confession of your own collectivist thought; your suspicion of others’ inability to recognize your individuality having nothing to do with the corruption of others who happen to share your religious affiliation isn’t too encouraging.
Don’t be ashamed of others and don’t take pride in the accomplishments of others — especially if the only source is a tenuous connection that in a very real sense doesn’t exist. Give your fellow Americans some credit.
Comment by Ignatius — March 20, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - March 20, 2009
Not too far off the topic, one of Barney’s fellow socialist Congressman is a Hypocritical Tax Cheat. Did I mention he’s also an atheist?
Comment by V the K — March 20, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - March 20, 2009
Of course not. He proves that gays are so ordinary, so much a part of the fabric of humanity, that they can even be corrupt, brazen, economy-destroying Democratic Congresspersons.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - March 20, 2009
I think we have a bigger hurdle to cross first: getting the average American to *know and care* about Frank’s crimes.
Because God knows the media won’t report on him. If the occasional satire of him slips through the SNL’s writers’ self-censorship, it’s caught by the network censors. Once we have climbed to the mountaintop of merely getting people to *know* what Frank has done to America, then we can worry whether it affects their view of gays.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 20, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - March 20, 2009
Ugh, I think Barney Frank is an disgrace to humanity in general, not just gays.
He’s unethical, dishonest, and corrupt. He’s an equal-opportunity embarrassment.
Comment by jana — March 20, 2009 @ 7:36 pm - March 20, 2009
Why do I feel the same way about you everytime you post something new?
Comment by geroge — March 20, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - March 20, 2009
That’s why I find it hard to fault Ellen Degeneres.
Even though the bugs the bejesus out of me, I think she is a good role model for gays and lesbians.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 20, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - March 20, 2009
I despise Barney.
Comment by Mark — March 20, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - March 20, 2009
Is Barney Frank Bad for Gays?
Yes, because Barnet Frank is just plain BAD.
The damage he is responsible for is not gender biased, sexual orientation biased or racially biased.
Ergo- Barney Frank is bad for gays as they are included in “everybody.”
I don’t think people think all gays are like him. I hope not anyhow. I know I don’t, and those I know don’t. . . . they hate his lying a$$ for his damage, and don’t think it is his gayness that is the cause, though I’m sure some will think his gayness is a sign of his lack of morals that lead him to act like he does.
Comment by JP — March 20, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - March 20, 2009
Yes, I’ve long thought Barney was an embarrassment to us Gays. Basically, he’s just the stereotypical queer. The man was messing with young House pages, but he only got censured for it. Yet he didn’t speak up for Mark Fowler (Florida) when the Democrats drove him of the House for a lesser offense. Where’s “supporting Gays” in that stance?
Remember Barney was also ‘involved’ with some person in the hierarchy at Freddie/Fannie during the buildup to the problems there. Of course all that led to rich campaign contributions for Barney from that financial mess in the making.
Long past is that sordid episode with a male prostitute operating out of Barney’s DC townhouse. Barney swore he hadn’t seen anything like that at his house. Entirely understandable response. Some positions do limit a person’s ability to see. But the whole tale proved true later.
Yes, I’m gay, and Barney is definitely an embarrassment. I mean, it’s like Barney’s not Gay at all. He’s just one of those truly awful politicians of any political party from whichever state who always has a money or sex scandal swirling about them. They operate out of “safe†districts so they can do whatever they want. Barney’s a Gay icon. Of the wrong type, unfortunately.
As Gays, we deserve better than Barney. We can do better. We should do better. Yes, Barney does occasionally get off the great comment. That’s the only thing about him that seems really Gay.
Comment by Mart Martin — March 20, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - March 20, 2009
Barney Frank is bad for everyone.
Comment by fashioncritic — March 20, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - March 20, 2009
What about Tony What’s His Name, the Mayor of Los Angeles??? His calendar demonstrated that he only spends 10% if his time actually working on city business. Humm, I was led to believe that because he was Mexican, he would do a better job than his predecessor. What a let down!!! And yet, the unwashed masses reelected him!!! When my Tribal Chairman embezzeled $90,000 of federal and tribal monies, I was very embarrassed!!! If you promote your group as being intrinsically better, you best live up to your jive.
Comment by Duffy T. — March 21, 2009 @ 12:31 am - March 21, 2009
No. Wrong. Barney Frank’s shenanigans and duplicity WRT the whole finanical mess are separate from his gayhood. They’re unrelated, as much as Ted “Lion of the Senate” Kennedy’s heterocity is unrelated to his political positions, and for that matter, his driving skills.
You’ve got to have good guys and villains among every demographic subset, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that the subset is just like everyone else. Otherwise you set yourselves up for great disappointment and, worse, crass dissembling and obvious special pleading by defenders, not specifically of the person involved but of the group represented. Sharpton comes to mind.
It’s Urkel the Nerd phenomenon: he’s a dorky black comedy character. Not every young black man is a swaggering, hip-hopping, basketball-playing buff street tough–as all the sports drink ads show–or a natty GQ junior executive, with a MLK photo on the mantel.
So, is Bailout Barney bad for gays? No. (But Barney the Bordello Border landlord IS!)
Comment by CO2Maker — March 21, 2009 @ 7:17 am - March 21, 2009
I think being gay is so mainstream now, that Barney’s “gayness” isn’t that big of a deal. I think the bigger problem is Barney’s liberalness. I think his liberal/socialist tendencies will do more to turn off Mainstream America. It surprises me that the Republican Party hasn’t made 50 You Tube commercials starring Barney Frank: The Voice of the Democrat Party!
If there’s still a country in 2 years, the Democrats are going to regret letting Barney be the ‘face’ of the Democrat party.
Comment by fiestamom — March 21, 2009 @ 7:56 am - March 21, 2009
As a gay man I think Barney gives all of us a bad name. He is why most of America hate us. I would suggest jail for him but after seeing “Oz” I am having second thoughts. That would be too good for him. He is nothing but a prancing queen. I keep waiting for him to show up in drag.
Comment by david brimeyer — March 21, 2009 @ 9:47 am - March 21, 2009
Well I’ve always been associated with the gays in the annual Pride Parades, even though 95% of their antics don’t reflect my values. Most straight people don’t have enough contact with more moderate or even conservative gay people to inform their attitudes towards us. So yeah, we suffer when the majority see Barney Frank as a “gay leader”. It’s horrific.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 21, 2009 @ 11:38 am - March 21, 2009
When I see Barney Frank, I see Elmer Fudd with the personality of Sylvester the Cat. The fact that he is gay is meaningless. If he can find love and affection away from his mirror, I am amazed no matter what his label is.
Comment by heliotrope — March 21, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - March 21, 2009
Barney Frank is to gays as Al Sharpton is to blacks.
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 1:41 pm - March 21, 2009
I don’t really see Mr. Frank (he has besmirched the honorific “Rep.” too much to deserve it) as representative of, and therefore bad for, gays. I think he’s much more representative of the hard-core liberal congressional district that continues to re-elect him, despite his myriad disgraces over the years. They’re the ones who should be ashamed, not gays in general.
Comment by Jackson Laurence — March 21, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 21, 2009
Barney Frank is net minus for gay opportunity.
We work hard, try to save for our future like everyone, and the man only makes it harder.
Comment by Geena the Transgirl — March 21, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - March 21, 2009
#20: Well-said, but unfortunately they think he’s doing a good job. They share his antipathy to capitalism, ethical behavior, and intellectual honesty.
The sad irony is that in too many gay friendly places, that and pot-smoking are the only civil liberties they respect. Gay people need to start trading in the Karl Marx for some Adam Smith and Ayn Rand.
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - March 21, 2009
Dan, your question is a good one and one that I posed in an earlier thread on Barney Frank being a drag on the public’s perception of gays.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9560#comment-387592
Of course, that thread was taken astray by the diversion/echo-team of ILC and Helio in one of their new, mutually beneficial spite festivals.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9560#comment-388626
Yep, Barney is a drag on gays and I think he will soon come to represent the worst in Congressional Democrats –like TipONeil did during RR’s time in office. Let’s hope the Congressional GOPers can use him in underscoring what’s wrong with the Democrat majority without baiting the farRight homophobes with all the usual slams about immoral gays.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - March 21, 2009
i recommend all your readers to read this article written by barney:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/is-there-an-antidote-to-t_b_176538.html
it’s not about being gay, but is instead about the financial crisis.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 21, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - March 21, 2009
Hmm, doesn’t mention sleeping with Fannie Mae, or the money they gave him or the legislation he blocked, or claiming chance of failure was not there.
Looks like Barney and bob need some memory meds themselves
Comment by The_Livewire — March 21, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - March 21, 2009
MM, in answer to a question raised in the spite-fest to which you linked, I’ll back you anytime. No worries.
Comment by Ignatius — March 21, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - March 21, 2009
#23: Let’s hope the Congressional GOPers can use him in underscoring what’s wrong with the Democrat majority without baiting the farRight homophobes with all the usual slams about immoral gays.
If they could, do you think they’d be one senate seat away from losing the filibuster?
Comment by Attmay — March 21, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - March 21, 2009
Ahhhhhh. I have finally witnessed the perfect match!
Iggy, enjoy MM’s company and, by the way, don’t ever presume to lecture anybody about name-calling again, after such an announcement.
Just to correct the record a little bit about the other Barney Frank thread, MM, I had a question for you there:
Still waiting, MM.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - March 21, 2009
All liberals are bad for gays. There’s not a damn thing any of them have done.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 21, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - March 21, 2009
MM and Iggy, before I skedaddle for my evening out, here’s a little something Google found for your mutual contemplation:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - March 21, 2009
To be done (I hope) with the Iggy-MM topic, introduced by Iggy at #26… a little something Google finds for you two to contemplate:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - March 21, 2009
The only reason Barney Frank is still in office is because he plays the victim-class card anytime any of his many corruptions come to light. The man is as crooked as they come.
Comment by American Elephant — March 21, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - March 21, 2009
In response to (#30), I quote ILC:
Changing your mind is allowed by the rules of logic and fair argument.
MM has earned my respect and I expect to agree with him often and disagree with him sometimes. That’s reasonable and rational and frequently occurs between two people. (ILC’s jealousy is, frankly, none too flattering.)
Two can play the Google game. From the very same thread I quoted above, here is some of the play-by-play:
(All quoted statements below were made by ILC.)
(#47) “As I said, Henry: It’s cute when you stamp your tiny little foot” and “The parts that you apparently either can’t read, or at the very least, aren’t intelligent enough to understand and draw implications from.”
(#52) “It is SOOO cute to watch you keep stamping and stamping your little foot! Just like you imagine the grownups would do!”
(#53) “And I don’t mind giving you this attention. I guess you need it.”
(#59) “…romantically attracted to six-year-olds. Or to people, like Henry, who choose to display the behavior and mentality of same.”
[Ed. note: Then why the fixation? Continued below.]
(#61) “Cute little foot-stamping six year olds always think comments are about them.”
(#65) “I know. Henry argues like a six-year-old. I’m responding accordingly.”
(#67) “I’ll try to spell this out in words of two syllables max, Henry, so that even you might get it. (I know it’ll be hard for you. Stay with me” and “See? Words no more than 2 syllables…”
(#69) “(I don’t believe in over-stimulating six year olds; they get cranky.)”
(#71) “Awwwwwwwwwww! How cute, with the foot-stamping again!” and “Awwww. I suspected I might be over-taxing or over-stimulating the 6 year old. Sorry.”
(#79) “Aww, the 6 year old is stamping his foot again…I mean, it’s worked well so far… well, not in getting him respect, but in getting the poor thing attention…”
(#83) “With more of your obfuscation and side attacks. Whoopee. Score!” and “…all the rest has been a six-year-old’s notion of obfuscation and deception…”
(#88) “Talking like a grownup, while remaining a six year old in tactics and thought process, is what I think has led to people’s disinterest in Henry’s alleged content.”
(#90) “Henry, how obtuse and immature can you be? ROFLMAO”
(#93) “Like an obstinate six year old, you intentionally miss the point. LOL”
(#96) “(Can you read?)”
* * * * * *
And on and on; this is just a single thread whose contents may reasonably be inferred throughout the site. The entire thread (269 comments) may be viewed here.
The thread is full of revealing comments from ILC and others. Here are two I found interesting (but not by the author’s intention, I assure you):
(#110) “OK, it’s been fun whacking the troll but I have to sign off.”
A rare moment of honesty.
But more revealing is a comment way up at (#3):
“Case in point: a mini-first-date I had with someone last night. It did come up suddenly or rather unexpectedly. Kept it down to 90 minutes over a beer. Good conversation. Smart guy. Lots of mutual interests uncovered. Mutually acceptable politics and philosophies. Ended with *him* offering to hang out more; even giving info I hadn’t requested about his living situation. This morning I sent a short follow-up e-mail (OK, let’s figure out our next get together). The new day’s attitude? “I really enjoyed meeting you too. However, let’s leave it at that.†(ILC’s forehead thunks keyboard)”
I don’t know about you, but I wonder if he’s ever considered there may be a connection between his behavior and lack of romantic success. Perhaps the childish bile and fixations he displays are unintentionally revealed in the casual conversation he had with his date — a guy smart enough to recognize the warning signs.
The title of the thread? Gay Men’s Neuroses, A Reader’s View
How appropriate.
Comment by Ignatius — March 22, 2009 @ 12:17 pm - March 22, 2009
Translation: I was accurate. Iggy is deeply offended at having his posturing exposed.
You’re projecting again, Iggy.
Yes, Henry was an immature and demanding troll, whose shenanigans I exposed. Since you, Iggy, practice some similar shenanigans, I guess that would have to be another thing which offends and threatens you.
You’re offended and threatened by me in particular, Iggy, and are prone to posturing, personal attacks and obfuscation in general. Thank you kindly for the beautiful illustration of all that
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - March 22, 2009
Oh, and P.S., Iggy:
- Thank you for posting the link to the thread. Usually, you quote me out of context (or one-sidedly) and omit the link, so a person couldn’t find out what was going on. It was nice of you to include the link.
- Thank you for the hard work you obviously put into your attack. Someday, you’ll understand that you just paid me a compliment. (Back-handed and not one I want, but a compliment nonetheless.)
Now back to Barney Frank!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - March 22, 2009
Oh BUT P.P.S., one LAST thought, and then I really have to go:
You’re trying to construct a narrative, Iggy, where your fantasy version of me lacks a social life, romance, etc. In other words: no friends. MM has been trying to construct a different narrative: his fantasy version of me has ’sycophants’ on this blog such as heliotrope, V the K, etc. In other words: Too many friends. The two narratives might conflict a little. You might want to coordinate narratives with MM, either here or by e-mail, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2009 @ 1:16 pm - March 22, 2009
Making a pitstop – one more point for you to chew on, Iggy:
Each of us must make our own moral choices in life. There is no question that Michigan-Matt has lied about good people on this blog – good fellow commentors. I’ve seen him do it on dozens of occasions, if not hundreds. Around the 10th time or so, back in early 2007, he lost my respect. If he *really* (not phonily or half-assedly) apologized to those people for his lies, MM would re-gain the respect I had once held for him, long ago. Never mind any lies he tells about me; let’s exempt me from the apology I propose, and just let it be about the other people. MM knows what people I am talking about – or would need an unusually poor memory to not know, as he re-told certain lies recently.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - March 22, 2009
I am a straight person. I came here from Legal Insurrection. This thread was good until the personal attacks began.
I see many great comments on this site. In the past I have worked with some homosexual oriented people. The one (and only one) I disliked was a male public servant who really gave me the creeps for a variety of reasons. The one I liked the most was the one where we had a close working relationship. We got on well because we came from the same part of Australia. His sexual orientation did not bother me, but it bothered others in the workplace.
The question about Barney Frank is a fair one, but perhaps you need to hear a straight person give some perspective on the matter.
Since I am not a US citizen, I did not know the finer detail until it was exposed on these blogs. To be honest his sexual orientation has little to do with his corruption, yet it is a part of his corruption. Please hear me out without dissing me for this opinion.
Here is what I think about the subject: first of all, I also speak as a Christian, and one who respects those with underlying moral values. From what I have been reading about Barney Frank, it is those underlying moral values that are missing. He uses his sexual orientation to “play the victim card”. From what I read here, this is one of the things that make respectable people cringe. I could easily go off into a rant about the effects of sin, but I wonder if you would listen, you see at the heart of the behavious of both Frank and Madoff is their sin – they have not followed the Ten Commandments, especially: thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not covet, and thou shalt not bear false witness. There is a lot more than can be added about sin, and I think that in summary it also aligns with the thoughts that I have read here about the “Gay Parades”. Those parades are quite yuk and offensive. They give homosexuals a bad name within the broader community.
However, without knowing the sexual orientation of Barney Frank, I would have to say that NO, he does not reflect upon the homosexual community.
Comment by straight-laced — March 23, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - March 23, 2009
ILC, for YOU –of anyONE here on GP– to lecture someone else about being an echo-chamber, me-too kind of simpleton parrot is like Obama taking exception to someone using a prompter.
It takes alot of clueless balls for you to keep playing your rebutt to the rebuttal to the endless restatement game… when exactly does a dog learn some new tricks anyway? Your spots and tricks never seem to change, boy.
ILC you are all about yourself and feeding that petty, spiteful world you embrace in your Mom’s basement. Like someone else here noted recenlty: I urge you ILC come into the light, get out of the pj’s & confines of Mom’s basement, find a life better than the one you habit-trail now. It’ll improve your lot and outlook on life.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - March 23, 2009
More trademark MM personal attacks, fantasies and insults. Keep bringing them on!
Up next: MM lectures us all on the importance of staying on topic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - March 23, 2009
(Perhaps it will be like Iggy’s recent lecture on the importance of kindness and adult discussion… made only days after he rebuked MM by calling him the name “Bubba Cherry Pickens”.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - March 23, 2009
My actual words:
“…whether Bubba Cherry-Pickens or Michigan-Matt…”
I didn’t call MM Bubba, I likened him to a guy who is cherry-picking his argument. Once again, our friendless Randite is trying to sew rancor among the rest of us. For someone who complains he is so frequently misquoted, he might try practicing what he preaches.
Comment by Ignatius — March 23, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - March 23, 2009
Oh, that takes care of it then. Totally and completely.
But Iggy, you still need to co-ordinate your story with MM about whether “my” problem is friendlessness or having friends who are too loyal, i.e., sycophants. I look forward to the result.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - March 23, 2009
And Iggy, if I only implied the following point earlier, then let me state it explicitly now: Your lame excuse for having earlier name-called as “Bubba Cherry Pickens”, namely:
…is curious indeed. Let’s skip over the question of which of MM’s aggressive, dehumanizing and dishonest tactics would have caught your eye and put a twinkle in it; it’s not important. What is important, is this: your argument structure implies that, if MM had *not* “earned” your “respect”, then your having name-called him as “Bubba Cherry Pickens” would be somehow… OK.
In other words, your argument structure implies the following: If someone doesn’t have your respect, then it is OK for you to call them names. Are you sure you should have put yourself on that road? Especially, Iggy, if you are going to be the blog’s resident expert on… you know… kindness, adult discussion, and never ever *ever* trying to obfuscate issues with side attacks on someone’s personal qualities or (alleged, invented) personal situation.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - March 23, 2009
As for the “Randite” business, I’m only going to say this once more, because it only needs to be said once more: I know what I am… and you don’t. You don’t have a clue about my real, inner beliefs. (Except the one thing I’ve chosen to tell everyone: that I love capitalism.) Just like you’re wholly in the dark on other things. Man, you make me laugh!
Now keep calling me “Randite”, Iggy, if that’s what you need to get to sleep at night. And I’ll keep laughing at you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - March 23, 2009
(Oh – In fairness, I have also revealed that the specific fragments of Rand’s philosophy that I like are her meta-ethics, epistemology and defense of capitalism… and that, although she was an amateur, she was still vastly superior to the professionals, whose work from Kant onward is bullcrap that only impresses the deluded. You may quote me on that Iggy… as you try *and fail* to puzzle out its actual meaning, or the rest of my belief system.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 23, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - March 23, 2009
Sigh, maybe when ILC gets off his 2 inch soapbox and his imaginary adoring fans evaporate into the wispy dark recesses of his fantasy land, we can get back to discussing substance and not his petty, snide, mean-spirited tirades?
Same old dawg; same old spots; same old tricks from ILC. Time for ILC to rebutt the rebuttals of the restatements and then claim no-foul when held to account? In 1…2…3… go, ILC, it is your schtick afterall.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 10:19 am - March 24, 2009
Very good, MM, though you know my feedback by now: it could always use more. Just put even more snark, name-calling and lies into it. And where is that lecture from you, about how your comments are on the thread topic? People are counting on you.
Give it the ol’ college try.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 10:27 am - March 24, 2009
I am genuinely curious about one thing. When Iggy says:
(full sentence given for proper context; emphasis added for clarity) And then tries to explain it away with this bit of artless brilliance:
1) Do you *feel* respected by that?
2) Do you truly not comprehend, MM, that even the people on this blog who would now claim to like you, nonetheless feel the need at times to disclaim you as “a guy who is cherry-picking his argument”?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 10:41 am - March 24, 2009
For those of you following this pathetic thread, here is the exact quote which ILC is misquoting and misconstruing for his own ends:
Listeners will hear anything they wish to hear despite what is actually being said, whether Bubba Cherry-Pickens or Michigan-Matt — folk who apparently have quite a bit in common.
MM was criticizing Rush Limbaugh as appealing to the very audience his comments were emulating. Notice that I’m not calling MM “Bubba”, I’m likening him to someone (a fictional name I devised) who hears in Rush’s commentary what he wants to hear. ILC insists I’m calling MM “Bubba”, something I clearly haven’t done.
When moments like these arise, one ILC quote says it all:
As a philosopher, I don’t find that Rand has any equals.
*snicker*
Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 11:09 am - March 24, 2009
Igantius dares to confront the naked emperor: “For those of you following this pathetic thread, here is the exact quote which ILC is misquoting and misconstruing for his own ends”…
Oh, boy, NOW you’ve done it. You’ve dared to contradict the supreme rebutter of all rebutted restatements. You Ignatius, you. Week before last it was American Elephant. Last week or so it was me. Now you again. We’re all to suffer now.
I warned all who cross this threshhold that he’s an old dawg, same old spots, same old tricks, same old bark… I shudder to think what’s coming our way now.
Sigh -well maybe not shudder exactly.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 11:19 am - March 24, 2009
I’m cowering — in between snickering.
)
Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 11:25 am - March 24, 2009
BTW, I still think Barney Frank is “… a drag on the public’s perception of gays.”
That was the thread’s topic before ILC took, yet another thread, astray in the endless rebutting of the rebuttal to the restatement of the rebutted point made in a thread 15-25 threads ago.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 11:28 am - March 24, 2009
Yes, there are bigots who link the behavior of one “representative” of a group to what they allege is the behavior of the entire group. (Frank may in fact accurately represent a sizable percentage of gay thought/political position, but this doesn’t make such a bigotry any more ethical particularly concerning the crimes and indiscretions most of us know/suspect he has committed.)
Worse than Barney Frank is the idea that homosexuals cannot withstand the criticism of a homosexual, i.e. the idea that we as gay men must affirm the bigot’s tokenism by taking upon ourselves the shame that morally and ethically should be borne by Frank alone.
So MM, I agree in a sense that among certain individuals Frank is a drag on gay men, but the drag is validated and exacerbated if we allow it. In addition, those individuals are those who usually don’t matter.
Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 11:51 am - March 24, 2009
Btw, did you choose the term drag intentionally?
Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 11:52 am - March 24, 2009
Translation: Iggy called MM “Bubba Cherry Pickens” and now wants to weasel out, with the artless legalisms of a six-year-old.
Look, Iggy, I’ll try to make this so clear that even you can understand. Suppose I said this:
Obviously I don’t think Bush is Hitler. But if I said the above, would it not be obvious that I just called Bush Hitler?
Hint: It IS obvious… except in Iggy-land. You want to posture, OK, you do that. But it is disgraceful, and you shouldn’t expect me to go along.
Big boy words, Iggy. Use your big boy words.
And maybe a bit of that kindness, adult discussion, blah blah blah, that you preach… and never practice, if anyone disagrees with you significantly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 3:11 pm - March 24, 2009
There it is! The MM lecture on keeping threads on-topic. But… where did this thread first go off-topic? Oh, yeah. It was MM’s gratuitous and irrelevant personal attack on me, up at #23.
ROTFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 3:11 pm - March 24, 2009
As for this:
Let’s correct the record once more, Iggy, with the real quote:
Knowing the joy you take in dishonestly quoting out-of-context, Iggy, I condensed / pre-summarized the above for you already, at #43. Here is that again:
It’s called *context*, Iggy. *Quoting people in context*.
Thank you for yet another demonstration of the fact that… well… you dont.
That’s obvious
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 24, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - March 24, 2009
The full context:
I’m cowering — in between snickering.
)
Giggity.
Comment by Ignatius — March 24, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - March 24, 2009
He’s as bad for Gays as he is for anyone else in this country. The man is an incompetent, corrupt, demagogue jackass.
Comment by John C. Randolph — March 24, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - March 24, 2009
ILC at 56 quips “ROTFL”
With all appropriate respect, you aren’t rolling on a floor with laughter, ILC… in your case it should be ROTSL…. rolling on the sewer lid laughing ’cause that’s what occupies your special little piece of the gutter, no?
Back to your spitefestival with American Elephant… no, Attmay… no, Ignatius… no, oh well, whoever the unlucky chap is this week.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - March 24, 2009
[...] Now, do you have a better idea why I think he’s bad for gay people? [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » If you disagree with Barney Frank, you’re a bigot! — March 24, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - March 24, 2009