From the Washington Post: Same-sex marriage gains GOP support.
Some of this is wishful thinking. Yet there is undeniably a shift occurring on the right as more limited-government (or at least anti-gargantuan government) conservatives come out and make the big-tent case that social issues are divisive. If they (we) become dominant, it will be the worst of all nightmares for the power-seekers of the command-economy redistributionist left.
The more we can change the perspective that gay equality is part and parcel of the broader and increasingly unpopular “progressive” agenda, the better placed we’ll be to wage the fight for legal equality after the Tea Party empowered GOP regains one or both houses of Congress this November, and then the presidency in 2012.
More. Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff takes aim at the LGBT anti-corporate activists who have targeted Target Corp. stores. He writes:
Locally, you’d be hard-pressed to find a prominent Maryland or Virginia Democrat who supports marriage equality. But that doesn’t stop our lobbyists from working hard to elect them. And re-elect them.
Why are we so quick to jump on a corporate boycott —even one targeting a high-profile gay-friendly business—yet when it comes to politicians, our advocates are just as quick to turn the other cheek?
Could it be that for many activists, it’s the progressive agenda (and its party) first?
Furthermore. From the New York Times:
[Paul] Singer a self-described Barry Goldwater conservative…has become one of the biggest bankrollers of Republican causes…. He is not new to fund-raising–he raised money for George W. Bush, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and, surprisingly, gay rights initiatives. …
Singer plans to hold a fund-raiser next month at his Manhattan apartment in support of the California lawsuit opposing Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. Ken Mehlman, a former top Republican official who said this week that he was gay, will be one of the co-hosts.
Which is why things like Mehlman coming out are important; it’s part of the trend of more conservative money and support for gay legal equality. But instead of celebrating, LGBT progressives are fuming.
Still more. How big is the GOP tent? An online debate over at the New York Times.
40 Comments for “Embrace the Change”
posted by BobN on
Well, except for the fact that the moderate Republicans — the only ones who have ever backed gay rights — are being driven from office.
But, hey, if you think you can finally lend a hand, go for it…
posted by Debrah on
It’s so lovely to see BobN in a nice mood.
Who knows?
He might even accept an invitation to one of Mehlman’s soirées in Chelsea!
posted by Jorge on
Yet there is undeniably a shift occurring on the right as more limited-government (or at least anti-gargantuan government) conservatives come out and make the big-tent case that social issues are divisive.
I can’t top BobN’s response, even though I’m really more unhappy about the whole attempt to try to solve progressive issues–all the issues–the conservative way being thrown out.
posted by Debrah on
Here’s one on Mehlman in the NY Times.
It’s comprised of reactions from various bloggers, and of course, two of the most obnoxious—Joe.My.God. and Pam’s House Blend—want Mehlman raked over the coals.
Obviously, such people who make their sexual orientation the reason for their existence and their sole identity feed off such a story like a maggot on a piece of greasy fried chicken.
This will be a prime food source for years to come.
I found the paragraph below, which is an excerpt from Mehlman’s Atlantic interview, very compelling.
Could someone please explain in full the part which I have in bold?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush “was no homophobe.” He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now” …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s interesting to me that most of the gay conservatives live in California or on the East Coast. There have been pro-gay Republicans in those parts of the country. But what are the chances of someone not anti-gay getting a nomination (or winning a presidential primary) in the south, or in Utah?
posted by Hunter on
Debrah —
I don’t know if I can explain that passage, but I can answer the implicit question: it’s because the Republican opponents of Islamic jihad are, for the most part, also among “the greatest anti-gay force in the world.” After all, we don’t really have to worry about Islamic jihadists stripping us of our rights at home. That’s one of the most disingenuous statements I’ve read in a long time, capping off a transparently self-serving paragraph.
I can’t tell you how heartwarming it is to know that Ken Mehlman agrees with the president that our relationships should have second-class status. He’s going to have to do a little better to establish his bona-fides. He seems to be making a good start, now that his paycheck no longer depends on courting the anti-gay right. We’ll see how it holds up.
posted by Jorge on
He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now”…
If a former top official of the Republican Party cannot figure it out, there isn’t much hope.
I believe there is a tendency among progressives (and most activist gays are progressives) to oppose tyrannical governments such as those in Afghanistan in the 1990s and Iran today only through underground activist channels. They are not comfortable with the United States acting unilaterally against them, out of pity for the populace. This prevents them, perhaps unconsciously, from performing any action that would be effective at enacting social or governmental change, as too much success would invite actual media attention, which would then cause the United States to take action.
So that, when the Bush administration publicized the Taliban’s abuses against women, it was met with silence on that front. Had the Bush administration been perceived as being more successful in the battle against Islamic extremism–in particular, if Iraq had become stable during his presidency–this would have cause a favorable ideological shift. As things stand now, the left remains distrustful of the only methods of intervention that could be effective at protecting the world from the spread of human rights abuses against gays.
The amount of sheer hatred being directed toward Ken Mehlman is perplexing. At the end of the day, the haters are unimportant except insofar as they threaten to keep the gay community under a glass ceiling of its own construction. But it is far too late for that to happen. Gay Republicans and conservatives have learned how to push the Republican party and win a firm position among its factions. They haven’t yet put a Justice on the Supreme Court, but hey, you can’t have everything.
posted by Jorge on
Another thought occurs to me.
While it’s way down on their list and they don’t say it often, at least 25% of Republicans I’ve heard who think the spread of Islamic extremism is a serious threat have brought up human rights abuses against gays. Certainly Karl Rove comes to mind off the top of my head. More often than not, they’re the ones to bring it up.
For a long time I thought that was because they took progressive issues seriously and compared their own views on gay rights with the practices in Muslim countries. Despite the current partisan gridlock, I think most experienced politicians believe in bipartisanship. There’s no question the most educated Republicans pay attention to the left’s priorities, and gay rights has become a more high profile item.
But it seems to me now that we also have gay intellectuals who have the ear of the Republican leadership and spell out the matter quite clearly to them. Mr. Mehlman sees the connection, and supposedly, he has advocated on behalf of the gay community from the inside. I read a blog post by John Leo a couple of years ago that said the list of distinguished, highly respected gay conservatives (or was it Republicans?)–closeted, out, and out but don’t want to talk about it–is quite long. Ken Mehlman wonders why “gay voters” will not find common cause with Republicans in opposing radical Islam. He should ask himself and the 23% of the gay community who voted for Bush in 2004 that question.
posted by BobN on
Could someone please explain in full the part which I have in bold?
Silly me, I thought we were all, as a nation, indeed as a civilized world, in common cause against Islamic Jihad, Democrats and Republicans alike.
I love how “conservatives” suggest gay people need to join the GOP to fight fundamentalist Islam when it is one party and one party only who is so closely allied with the Saudi royal family, the financial fountain for Wahhabism, and it is one party and one party only which has championed the resurgence of religion in politics. Sadly, on that latter issue, the Dems seem quite willing to hop on board more than they should.
posted by BobN on
So that, when the Bush administration publicized the Taliban’s abuses against women, it was met with silence on that front. Had the Bush administration been perceived as being more successful in the battle against Islamic extremism–in particular, if Iraq had become stable during his presidency–this would have cause a favorable ideological shift. As things stand now, the left remains distrustful of the only methods of intervention that could be effective at protecting the world from the spread of human rights abuses against gays.
Oh, puhleaze.
And what short memories people have. Go and Google “Bush and Taliban” and restrict your search to before 9/11. The Bush administration was engaging with the Taliban government of Afghanistan in order to cooperate on oil (of course) and “the war on drugs”. Bush didn’t become so concerned about the human rights abuses against women until he needed support for bombing the country.
And let’s not how and why the Taliban even came into existence. And don’t get me started on the record “conservatives” have on women’s rights overseas.
posted by Jorge on
And what short memories people have. Go and Google “Bush and Taliban” and restrict your search to before 9/11. The Bush administration was engaging with the Taliban government of Afghanistan in order to cooperate on oil (of course) and “the war on drugs”. Bush didn’t become so concerned about the human rights abuses against women until he needed support for bombing the country.
Was there a point to that besides a silly pre-9/11-era attempt at one-upsmanship against Republican (i.e., the satanic triumvirate of pro-life, pro-military, and pro-religious family values) President, or are you really trying to offer your deranged hatred toward Republicans as a valid explanation? You are strangely resistant to answering Debrah’s question. It’s a very good question.
posted by Debrah on
“…After all, we don’t really have to worry about Islamic jihadists stripping us of our rights at home.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see that you and BobN will find it impossible to be objective about this issue.
While I don’t think Mehlman was right to have hidden his sexuality while he might have been an effective advocate, that still doesn’t eclipse the global reality of how Islam views gays.
We’re not talking about “disagreeing”.
We’re talking about Daniel Pearl-esque beheading of gays……just for being gay.
Perhaps the grandest irony:
You and BobN wish to excoriate Mehlman for ignoring his fellow gays……yet you ignore fellow gays around the world by minimizing the tyrannical, life-threatening forces they must live under daily!
As Leftist gays point fingers at Mehlman, they support and vote alongside the ultra-Left, Muslim-snuggling Democrats who do not place the lives of fellow gays above their ideology and private agendas.
Oops!
I thought that was Mehlman’s schtick.
posted by Jorge on
By your standards, it is not necessary for gays to find common cause with Republicans, only to take action against the human rights abuses of gays in Muslim countries. You appear to believe that voting the Republican party into power will have positive effect on gays in Muslim countries.
Are you suggesting that Hunter and BobN have not done anything to show common cause with gays in Muslim countries?
posted by BobN on
Jorge,
U.S. policy towards the Taliban and Afghanistan has been a mess for near on 30 years. We created the Taliban to annoy Russia. It worked. Then we abandoned the country to its own devices. BIG mistake. And it has come round to bite us in the ass.
This policy continued under BOTH parties, though most of it fell under the GOP watch, because the Dems only had two administrations in all that time, under Clinton. Bush was largely unconcerned about the treatment of women in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, just as he was largely unconcerned about the same issue in Saudi Arabia and other “orthodox” Arab countries. Clinton tried many of the same pro-market, olive-branch tactics, but Albright ended much of it precisely because of the treatment of women. With Bush, the footsy-footsy started up again. (This wasn’t a TERRIBLE thing, as there’s a school of thought that engagement leads to greater freedom over the long run. In this case, I think the priorities were messed up but, again, not terrible ones.)
After 9/11, though, Bush became quite vocal about the rights issue in order to gain support for war. His new focus was met with a lot of support — not the silence you claimed. BUT there was quite a bit of grumbling about his late arrival to the issue and the blatant manipulation (to my mind, perfectly acceptable when you’re trying to rally the people to just war, which Afghanistan was).
posted by BobN on
Perhaps the grandest irony
Debrah, I reject the idea that the GOP is opposed to Islamic Jihad and that the Dems are not. I’ll never buy that piece of crap from the right, no matter what.
Mehlman talks about joining in common cause against radical Islam:
He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called “the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now” …
Well, what about the years of Bush voting with Saudi Arabia and other deeply anti-gay countries at the U.N. whenever gay rights came up?
posted by Jorge on
Like I said, a silly pre-9/11 attempt at one-upsmanship to attack President Bush. It is a complete red herring to Debrah’s question of why gay voters do not find common cause with Republicans in opposing Islamic jihadism. None of the points you are trying to make are relevant, although the Bush didn’t care about the women’s rights abuses bit shows a serious gap in your education.
In fact, by claiming that both parties have a history of suspect foreign policy, you are only adding more evidence to my explanation that liberals don’t want to do anything to fight abuses against gays that might lead to US intervention.
So if you don’t agree with me, could you please explain why you think, as Ken Mehlman claims, most gay voters will not find common cause with Republicans in opposing Islamic jihadism, given the fact that its spread would a serious threat to the safety of gays around the world?
posted by Jorge on
Debrah, I reject the idea that the GOP is opposed to Islamic Jihad and that the Dems are not. I’ll never buy that piece of crap from the right, no matter what.
Never mind.
I think he’s got you there, Debrah.
posted by Debrah on
Jorge and BobN–
Just a drive-by. I’m on my way out…..so cannot debate this full-throttle.
I’m not saying that Liberal Democrats are NOT opposed—(although, I think that some really are not—if it doesn’t affect them, personally)—to Islamic Jihad, if that was the implication by those references.
Just that they are so lukewarm and milquetoast about anything that might insinuate criticism of Muslims.
Just read the commentary from Leftists regarding the Ground Zero mosque.
They bring out the First Amendment schtick when there are already 2000 mosques in the United States!
Many just can’t bring themselves to be objective regarding true motive.
Consequently, they ignore many aspects of gay hatred that is such a feature of Islam.
Because it isn’t happening here.
They’d much rather go after easy targets inside the safe confines of this country where being gay is “trendy”.
Keep in mind that I am a registered Democrat and receive incessant e-mails from the Barack Obama/White House website and staff, Emily’s list, etc……etc…..
So I know their obfuscating bullsh!t very well.
posted by BobN on
So if you don’t agree with me, could you please explain why you think, as Ken Mehlman claims, most gay voters will not find common cause with Republicans in opposing Islamic jihadism, given the fact that its spread would a serious threat to the safety of gays around the world?
OK, one last try. I really don’t understand why I’m not getting this across.
1) AMERICA is in common cause fighting Islamic Jihad.
2) I don’t need to “join” Republicans because we’re already joined, fighting the same fight.
3) Mehlman’s suggestion that gay people are somehow not already engaged in that fight is deeply, deeply insulting. And dishonest. And ahistorical.
4) What he is suggesting is that only by becoming Republicans and engaging in the (mostly) GOP anti-Muslim sentiment currently around can we fight Islamic Jihad (stupid term).
5) AND, if he’s going to open the can of worms that is the differences between American political movements and their relationship with Islam and the Middle East, I’ll just have to point out that prior to 9/11, there wasn’t much of a sense of “common cause” coming from his side of the aisle in the fight for women’s rights, gay rights, democracy, development, foreign aid, etc., etc., etc.
6) But I don’t even need to go back before 9/11 to find the Bush administration joining in “common cause” with the Saudis and others AGAINST us. All the anti-gay crap produced and directed while Mehlman had influence extended into our foreign policy.
7) And if he means NOW we should fight in “common cause”, let him use his influence to get his GOP friends to back anti-discrimination laws HERE instead of trumpeting the importance of religion in the public square. Secular government HERE. Equal rights HERE. Religious tolerance HERE.
posted by BobN on
Just read the commentary from Leftists regarding the Ground Zero mosque.
There’s one aspect of that manufactured controversy that puzzles me. How is it that so many can ignore what it says about America that this community center will be open to all? Open to all. I can’t think of anything that should warm the cockles of the anti-radical-Muslims more than the idea of an Islamic Community Center subject to the anti-discrimination ordinances of New York City.
posted by Bobby on
“How is it that so many can ignore what it says about America that this community center will be open to all?”
—That’s a lie, the community center is not going to be open to gays and you know it. If anything, that so-called “community center” is a recruiting tool for Islam, it will be just like the Scientologist where you have one room open to the general public and other rooms where God knows what is going on.
Islam hates gays, women, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and everyone who is not a Muslim. We should protest them just like we would protest the KKK, the neo-nazis and other hate groups.
Furthermore, it’s time for Muslims to learn that in America sensitivity goes both ways. I’m sick of Muslims choosing to wear the veil and then crying discrimination if they apply to a job where you can’t wear the veil. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to force other people to accept your vile practices. What’s next? Smokers start the Church of Tobacco and demand that they’d be allowed to smoke everywhere? We’ll see if Adolph Hitler Bloomberg supports that one, I don’t think so.
posted by Jorge on
OK, one last try. I really don’t understand why I’m not getting this across.
You weren’t saying it and you weren’t answering the question.
3) Mehlman’s suggestion that gay people are somehow not already engaged in that fight is deeply, deeply insulting. And dishonest. And ahistorical.
Hmm…
You’ll forgive me for pointing out that whenever I notice a group of politically-minded gay people not called the Log Cabin Republicans taking any stand on radical jihadism, it is almost always to side against the most tolerant and pro-gay country in the Middle East, i.e. Israel. Please don’t tell me serving in the military is the only way gays have taken part in the fight.
4) What he is suggesting is that only by becoming Republicans and engaging in the (mostly) GOP anti-Muslim sentiment currently around can we fight Islamic Jihad (stupid term).
Islamic Jihad is a terrorist organization–and well worth fighting, by the way, we should write a blank check to Israel and let them blow those suckers into such small pieces they can sodomize all 72 of their virgins at the same time, but let’s not start hostilities during a time of peace. The term being used is Islamic Jihadism. I’d rather keep the term. I think it captures something “radical Islam” and “Islamic terrorism” does not: it’s a broad term that also, by my reading, includes the theologians who are trying to spread a rigid theocracy to other countries.
Anyway, if that’s the meaning you take, I’ll respect that. I happen to agree with Mr. Mehlman. What a shock, huh? I think it is important to communicate to all people in the right way that we have an ideological enemy that is both violent and non-violent. And I think gay people are in a unique position to recognize the danger and the need to be steadfast to our values of liberty and tolerance for all, by all, under the law. I think too many people see this as a partisan Republican issue when really it is a warning of an impending danger to all of us that our right flank sees first.
That’s all.
How is it that so many can ignore what it says about America that this community center will be open to all?…
In the face of the controversy of the mosque’s location and especially the shocking past statements of the imam behind the project, the positive aspects of the mosque have downgraded to underwhelming. You don’t ignore it, but it doesn’t carry the day.
Religious organizations are given a lot of latitude in anti-discrimination laws, depending on the situation. This is a community center that will house a mosque.
posted by Jorge on
Islam hates gays, women, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and everyone who is not a Muslim. We should protest them just like we would protest the KKK, the neo-nazis and other hate groups.
How do you know that the moderate wing of Islam is an organization of hate?
posted by Jorge on
But instead of celebrating, LGBT progressives are fuming.
Is Mike Rogers really representative of GLBT progressives?
posted by Debrah on
Oh, well…….
This is an issue with many layers and none of them will be accepted or viewed through the same side of the prism by everyone.
But one thing’s for sure: A mosque will be built there. The rest is embroidery for public consumption.
This is a power play.
Imam Rauf and his janissaries chose the Ground Zero site precisely to invite protest against it.
Ho-hum.
posted by BobN on
—That’s a lie, the community center is not going to be open to gays and you know it.
Something you should have no trouble documenting, right? You’re so certain, you must have evidence.
posted by BobN on
Imam Rauf and his janissaries chose the Ground Zero site precisely to invite protest against it.
It was awfully crafty of him to lay out his plans, get everyone on board over a year ago with almost no opposition at all, then secretly pay off those anti-Muslim activists to get all upset and draw the attention of the pandering class — Fox News and the GOP — and get this shit storm going. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a back channel directly to Fox News to boost their ratings, to raise more advertising dollars, to distribute more profit to FNC shareholders, to raise the budget for the community center.
Sneaky people, those Muslims…
posted by Debrah on
Ha!
Here’s a nice little side bar for your enjoyment.
Heavy Drinkers Live Longer Than Non-Drinkers, Study Says
¡ Salud !
Cheers!
posted by BobN on
Jorge, Islamic Jihad (both words capitalized) is the name of a terrorist organization (several national ones, too). Mehlman’s use of the term (jihad not capitalized) seems to me to be a generic term for radical Islamism. There are two reasons I think that’s a stupid term to use for the generic. One, it’s confusing because an actual organization has that name. Two, it’s a marketing disaster because “jihad” has positive meaning in Islam. From the terrorists’ POV, they use that term to draw support. We shouldn’t go along with their marketing plan.
You’ll forgive me for pointing out that whenever I notice a group of politically-minded gay people not called the Log Cabin Republicans taking any stand on radical jihadism, it is almost always to side against the most tolerant and pro-gay country in the Middle East, i.e. Israel.
Maybe you just weren’t noticing the years of work people have put into trying to get this country to give a damn about the rights of gay people in Muslim and particularly Arab countries, both allied and hostile countries. That would explain why you missed the fact that the Bush administration and the GOP was, in many cases, either disinterested in or opposed to those efforts.
I repeat, I do not need to join the GOP in order to fight in common cause against fundamentalist Islam (notice the term, I’m talking about a much broader threat than terrorism). And I can’t look back and seem much common cause from their side in this country, let alone overseas.
posted by Bobby on
“How do you know that the moderate wing of Islam is an organization of hate?”
—Your moderate Imam has said a wide variety of things, in marketing we call it targeting, in the real world it’s called lying.
http://jta.org/news/article/2010/08/24/2740598/will-the-real-imam-rauf-please-stand-up
Or how about this lovely clip?
“”We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims,” Feisal Abdul Rauf said at a 2005 lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia.
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2010/08/imam-raufs-opinion-of-america.html
This guy is no moderate, don’t buy into the lie. Real moderate Muslims would never dare to build a 15 story middle finger two blocks away from ground zero.
posted by Jorge on
Oh. Never mind. I thought he really said “jihadism”. My goodness. He should be more clear.
Two, it’s a marketing disaster because “jihad” has positive meaning in Islam. From the terrorists’ POV, they use that term to draw support. We shouldn’t go along with their marketing plan.
Next you’ll be telling me the n-word means friend. I don’t agree with you. It’s not our job to police or promote the “correct” use of the word jihad. Everyone knows what the word means: it means ideological and unrelenting struggle against the West and/or Israel, frequently through the use of violence as a first resort. If some people do not like that that is the standard and universally accepted definition of the word “jihad”, I do not care and they cannot make me care.
Maybe you just weren’t noticing the years of work people have put into trying to get this country to give a damn about the rights of gay people in Muslim and particularly Arab countries, both allied and hostile countries.
Like I told Debrah the first time, liberals don’t like doing anything in the pursuit of global justice that is actually effective or noticable. If you want me to notice such a thing, you could start by telling me where it happened.
Still, I am aware enough of the occasional blurb of completely insignificant trivia that sometimes gets remembered. You are referring either to the annual report by the United Nations or a report by a group such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. If I’m right, I think the point is so obvious it speaks for itself. If I’m way off, then please tell me something the gay community in the US has done to fight for the rights of gay people abroad, and explain why it has completely failed to have any meaningful impact. Then maybe you can start making excuses for why you are not a Republican.
posted by Amicus on
command-economy redistributionist
——–
Good grief.
You may want to update your 1950’s epithets, no? Have the USA ever been close to a command economy? Even a little bit? Even the USA left?
Put another way, these name-calling hot-buttons are, in 2010, like plaid, no?
posted by Debrah on
GOP Senators Helping Gay Republicans from The Atlantic
posted by Bobby on
This is what Islam does:
Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1
Muslim Woman Sues Disneyland Over Hijab
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Muslim-Woman-Sues-Disneyland-Over-Hijab-101068354.html
Muslim woman sues Somerset Medical Center for religious discrimination
“After hearing she would need an electrocardiogram, she asked for a female to conduct the test.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/muslim_woman_sues_somerset_hos.html
Muslim sues O.C. over right to wear head scarf
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/05/local/me-hijab5
Woman sues Florida over driver’s license dispute
(she wants to be photographed with the hijab)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/05/29/license.veil/
Now who’s the bigot? Who’s demanding special rights? Who’s trying to convert America into a Muslim state?
Read this article about how Muslims who convert to Christianity in Europe live in fear.
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/06/netherlands-muslim-converts-to.html
Is it Islamophobia to ask Muslims to accept western values in the west? Seriously, Muslims think they’re so special “oh, I’m a Muslim, the rules don’t apply to me.”
posted by BobN on
Next you’ll be telling me the n-word means friend.
Go look up the word “jihad”, Jorge, and get back to me. It’s older than 9/11, older than Osama bin-Laden, older than the United States of America.
It’s basic military strategy not to use the propaganda terminology of your enemy.
Like I told Debrah the first time, liberals don’t like doing anything in the pursuit of global justice that is actually effective or noticable.
I concede. Let’s just bomb the crap out of everything. But hold off a few days, I have to move my retirement funds into “defense” funds.
If I’m way off, then please tell me something the gay community in the US has done to fight for the rights of gay people abroad, and explain why it has completely failed to have any meaningful impact.
You may not have noticed but life for gay people has improved markedly around the world in the last half century. Much of that progress is the result of work by folks you would call “lefties” in the U.S. and Europe.
If you think we do better by bombing folks, please feel free to list those places we’ve bombed and how the bombing has liberated gay people.
posted by Jorge on
You may not have noticed but life for gay people has improved markedly around the world in the last half century. Much of that progress is the result of work by folks you would call “lefties” in the U.S. and Europe.
That’s nice. You didn’t answer my question. Go back to school and learn some reading comprehension. It is a three part question. 1) Are you citing Amnesty International, the UN, Human Rights Watch, or something similar in your statement that people have put “years of work” “into trying to get this country to give a damn about the rights of gay people in Muslim and particularly Arab countries”? Yes or No. If yes, stop; I will tell you frankly we are at a deadlock. If No, then 2) What have gays in the US actually done to fight for gays abroad? This is a very simple question that you must answer in order to prove support your statement that people have put “years of work” “into trying to get this country to give a damn about the rights of gay people in Muslim and particularly Arab countries.” If you cannot give a specific example, stop; you lose. 3) Why has (2) completely failed to have any meaningful impact? This one’s very easy, but you automatically disqualify yourself if you try to answer it without telling me in #2 what people actually did.
Now come on. Call my bluff and blow me out of the water with your superior knowledge about progressive activism. Your and your allies’ failure to articulate and present an alternative makes you an accomplice to the deaths of the thousands (if not hundreds) of innocents killed every year in US bombing attacks.
posted by Throbert McGee on
@Debrah:
And according to the sages from Sweden:
♪♫ Sit down and listen, ’cause I’ve got good news for you
♪♫ It was in the papers today
♪♫ Some physician had made a discovery
♪♫ This is what she had to say:
♪♫ (Oooh you know that)
♪♫ She said that every result she had backed her
♪♫ Claiming that love’s a longevity factor
♪♫ So lovers live a little longer, baby
♪♫ You and me, we got a chance to live twice,
♪♫ Lovers live a little longer, ain’t that nice…
posted by BobN on
Deadlock it is, then, Jorge.
posted by Jorge on
You mean I was right?
This is… discouraging.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert, your eighth notes are simply orgasmic!
You took a long journey into the YouTube archives for that one.
LOL!