California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) leader Ryan Sorba was booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he said CPAC shouldn't have allowed the gay group GOProud [a coalition of gay Republicans] to be there. Here's the YouTube:
Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty provoked Sorba's comments by saying in his own short speech:
"In the name of freedom, I would like to thank the American Conservative Union for welcoming GOProud as a co-sponsor of this event, not for any political reason but for the message it sendsâ¦.Students today recognize that freedom does not come in pieces. Freedom is a single thing that applies to the social as well as the economic realms and should be defended at all times."
McCobin also drew some boos, but they were drowned out by applause. CPAC is the largest annual gathering of the hard-right wing of the Republican party. This represents progress.
After the GOP makes expected big congressional gains this coming November, lobbying within the libertarian wing of the Republican party will be vitally important. But don't count on the big-name "progressive" LGBT groups to bother with anything remotely like constructive engagement.
85 Comments for “Even at CPAC…”
posted by Debrah on
Speaker Booed Off Stage
posted by libhomo on
He wasn’t booed for being anti gay. He was booed for criticizing CPAC. GOShame hates gay people as much as the rest of the CPAC people do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The entertaining thing for me has been watching the gay and lesbian community have its meltdowns over the presence of GOProud at CPAC.
Really, the similarity between them and Ryan Sorba is striking. Clearly, these groups and people do not want anything that challenges their belief system in regards to gay people and conservativism taking place. I wonder why?
posted by Anthony on
Alexander McCobin said something that makes most of the people who post here shudder – he dared to suggest that freedom is social as well as economic. I like that. Are you listening, NDF and Lori? And the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.
posted by Debrah on
TO “libhomo”–
“He wasn’t booed for being anti gay. He was booed for criticizing CPAC. GOShame hates gay people as much as the rest of the CPAC people do.”
***************************************************
Hyperbolic assumption on your part.
Anyone who would devise such a post as this one might need to rethink a strategy or two……or three.
If you support Barack Obama and desire that he be more than a one-term president, you really need to help him with his disastrous–so far—foreign policy strategies.
Talk about open hatred.
This avenue is a legacy killer.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anthony, you are such an ignoramus. If you want to promote “progressivism” the most constructive thing you, personally, could do would be to STFU.
First you come onto this blog with a whole raft of half-assed assumptions about gay conservatives and libertarians — pulled, evidently, right out of your butt — in which you proceeded to indulge without ever having bothered to check on any of those about whom you were speaking.
Do you not understand how to Google? Or do you truly believe that every liberal is born knowing everything?
Easy to imagine you racing to your computer to look up CPAC and find out — oh, please! — if ANYBODY there might have been mean to the gays. As if that proves your point that “ALL” right-wingers hate gays.
Again, if you want to show progressivism in a good light, maybe you, and jackasses like you, would be better off merely shutting up.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’ll call your bluff, Anthony. Find where I am recorded — ANYWHERE — as having stated that freedom is strictly an economic matter.
Go ahead, I dare you.
Another of your ignoramus assumptions. Please take up my challenge, so I can kick your ass all over this thread.
posted by Anthony on
Lori, you first referred to yourself as a frequently published LGBT Christian writer . . . wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor. Of course, Jesus was a man . . . go figure.
posted by Debrah on
“….wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor.”
***********************************
I just squirted a mouthful of good Merlot all over my iMac from that one.
LOL!!!
Get with the program, Anthony.
Religion’s not what it used to be.
ROTFLM-T’s-O !!!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Lori, you first referred to yourself as a frequently published LGBT Christian writer . . . wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor.
She certainly has.
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
John 2:13-16
Granted, Anthony, it’s pretty obvious that your sexual orientation has neatly served as a substitute for you having to actually learn anything about the topics on which you pontificate, but really, coming here like that is a bit like coming to a knife fight with a popgun.
posted by Lori Heine on
How unexpected, Anthony, really. I could have set my watch by it.
LGBT Christians always get that sort of thing from “progressive” haters. If we don’t let them trample all over us, then we are chided about our less-than-adequately Christian demeanor.
They claim it’s the Right-Wingers who see us as doormats, but in general I’ve gotten much more respectful treatment from most of them than from the trolls — gay and straight — who come to sites like this to dump on (or squirt beverages out of their mouths at) those uppity gays who refuse to stay on the plantation and insist upon thinking for themselves.
If we want to do that, we’re supposed to check with them first. Didn’t we get the memo?
NDT has it right; Jesus was no wimp. I don’t think the Christian faith would have survived two thousand years if we had allowed the Anthonys of this world to kick us around every time they wanted to.
Thanks for playing, Anthony. Please try again.
posted by Bobby on
It’s amazing how progressives spin everything to their advantage, in the 1980s Pat Buchanan gave a speech against homosexuality and he certainly wasn’t jeered, quite the opposite. Either way, today most conservatives would rather attack opinions than engage in mean spirited things like what Sorba did. Why? Because even people who oppose same-sex marriage don’t necessarily have a problem with gays. Of course, progressives are so radicals that they see racism and homophobia everywhere they go.
Anthony, libertarians and conservative gays have nothing to gain from the progressive movement because they have nothing to offer us but higher taxes, more government, hate speech laws, more political correctness, and more pressure to conform. Anyway, here’s how progressives look at people:
“”Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the «failure» of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”
Source: Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), The Pivot of Civilization (1922), Chapter Five”
“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface.
USE OF GAS CHAMBERS
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment â¦
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.
”
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portugese…. the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead.”
Ernesto “Che” Guevara
Here’s another gem from Guevara…
“In a famous speech in 1961, Che Guevara denounced the very “spirit of rebellion” as “reprehensible.”
“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates” commanded Guevara. “Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work, and military service.” And woe to those youths “who stayed up late at might and thus reported to work [government forced-labor] tardily.”
“Youth,” wrote Guevara, “should learn to think and act as a mass.” “Those who chose their own path” [as in growing long hair and listening to Yankee-imperialist Rock & Roll] were denounced as worthless “lumpen” and “delinquents.” In his famous speech Che Guevara even vowed, “to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/4/141010.shtml
The quotes may be old but the feelings are just the same. Progressives have no tolerance for anyone but themselves, gays have no business with those evil people.
posted by Jimmy on
“Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
-Theodore Roosevelt in the speech, “The Progressive Covenant With The People.”
posted by another steve on
Anthony: “the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.”
In fact, anyone who has been watching the CPAC coverage on CSPAN knows that there is a huge split at the conference between libertarians (who appear to be a majority of the younger attendees) and social conservatives. The debate between them is a running theme through the speeches and questions. But Anthony, expressing his willful ignorance, can’t get beyond his Daily Koz talking points.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[T]here IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.”
Oh, that must be why Ron Paul just won the CPAC poll as top pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
…Stand back, now, as Anthony’s head offically explodes.
posted by Bobby on
Theodore Roosevelt wasn’t a real republican, he was a progressive.
Look at this quote:
“âWe grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.â”
See? Who the hell is anyone to say: “We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.” That’s not what America is all about, we’re a nation of individuals, not a collectivist state where everything must benefit everyone. Roosevelt even invented the “…freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.”
This is not what our founding fathers wanted. We have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. Life isn’t like those politically correct competitions where everyone gets a trophy for participating. You have the right to try, and yes, you have the right to fail.
Read about the depression of 1920, it only lasted 18 months because the government cut spending by 50% and cut taxes as well. We don’t need to experiment with progressive economic policies, we know what works.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/
The history of the progressive movement.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/
posted by Jorge on
And the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.
I believe Anthony has–entirely accidentally–given us a line of great wisdom.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Movement, and their nutty libertariactric followers aren’t a GOP wing. They are an independent/populist force.
Anthony, please take a rest and come back another time. You have no hope of persuading anyone here, for this is only one of many topics in a world most of us are quite settled about. The only thing you can do is teach people new things. You will do that better if you wait for some of the other left-of-center or mushy middle people to post.
posted by Jorge on
The quotes may be old but the feelings are just the same. Progressives have no tolerance for anyone but themselves, gays have no business with those evil people.
I really think this is just the rebirth of an old trend.
Oh, and the rebirth, just to spell it out, is about abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning/experimentation, population control, and these strange trends toward trying to censor certain types of American heritage.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby-
Is that why the Freepers thought Palin was the second coming of TR when McCain named her as his running mate?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2071195/posts
posted by Trevor on
I don’t know Anthony or Bobby or Lori or anyone else here but I get the feeling you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay. I haven’t seen this much internal denial since I spent an unfortunate weekend at a friend’s house and had to stare at an autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh on his wall. Dogmatic attitudes are the domain of left and right. You guys are no different than the liberals and that’s what is so odd because you actually think you are authentic and genuine. I don’t buy it.
posted by Anthony on
I decided to take a glance at the blogs of certain posters here, namely Lori, NDF, Deb and Bobby, just to see what they were discussing.
My hope was that I’d find some enlightened opinions, a few shreds of entertaining commentary and perhaps a sign that they aren’t actually the haters’ apologists after all.
Oh, how disappointed I was. But, I looked at the number of comments made on each blog and realized that NO ONE had said anything, ANYTHING about their statements and all the energy they put into making them. How sad. And yet it explains why they closed ranks so very quickly and behaved precisely like the lefties they so despise and hate. Funny. I am comforted, though, in knowing that while they share their “insights” and intellect, uh hum, with one another on this site it is clear that virtually no else cares. Funny.
Finally, a note to Trevor. I read your comments and laughed. You’ll soon find that these folks will spurn you and shun you and make certain that they protect their self-denying, self-loathing, self-important approach to all things political (I shudder to think of how they handle the rest of their lives. Oh wait, I can read their blogs. Better than taking a sleep aide). Just keep your opinions to yourself, unless you think Glenn Beck is smart and actually believes the crap he’s peddling and making a lot of money off of. Or, if you view being gay is simply irrelevant to ANYTHING in your life. Just some advice. Now, wait for the onslaught of inflection from the mount of self-appointed opinion-makers whose opinions appear to fall silently into the abyss of Internet chatter.
posted by Debrah on
“Now, wait for the onslaught of inflection from the mount of self-appointed opinion-makers whose opinions appear to fall silently into the abyss of Internet chatter.”
*****************************************
Anthony, you are the locus classicus of cyber heaven.
Keep up the good work!
posted by Bobby on
“Is that why the Freepers thought Palin was the second coming of TR when McCain named her as his running mate?”
—Interesting link, although one commenter wrote “No, she’s our Tatcher.”
Trevor, you accuse people of being dogmatic yet you described seeing a picture of Rush Limbaugh as an unfortunate event.
“you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay. ”
—That’s very insulting, who are you to judge who’s really gay and who isn’t? As for time on our hands, so what? Maybe some of us would rather debate politics online than cruise for sex in a darkroom.
posted by Jorge on
I haven’t seen this much internal denial since I spent an unfortunate weekend at a friend’s house and had to stare at an autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh on his wall.
For shame. Did you even ask your friend about it? What kind of ignorant bigot thinks someone isn’t gay or is in some kind of denial just because they don’t agree with their political opinions?
Are you even aware that based on CNN exit polling 25% of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (had to look up the exact wording) voted for George W. Bush in 2000,–and in 2004 his support among them only dropped by 2-points? 23% of us voting for someone who put the winds into the Federal Marriage Amendment, it’s like we barely even noticed! Do you dare dismiss that so flippantly?
I can understand not wanting to enter an ongoing barroom brawl, but I think someone you claim is a friend deserves at least that much respect.
posted by Jorge on
Just keep your opinions to yourself, unless you think Glenn Beck is smart and actually believes the crap he’s peddling and making a lot of money off of.
My problem with you and probably Trevor as well is that you are doing just that, keeping your opinions to yourself, focusing most of your time saying that the posters on this site and certain ideologies are stupid and nutty, and not enough time proving why they are stupid and nutty.
Let me rephrase that. You spend too much time attacking people and not enough time discussing ideology and policy, too little time pointing out the ways they are bad ideas and your ideas are better. I’m sure the quartet you’ve mentioned think you’re funny but I would like to see you actually stand up for what you believe in.
The fundamental question is what is the best thing for the gay community (although we get into many debates about what is the gay community)? What is your vision for a better present and a brighter future?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I suppose I could link to a photo of myself with a cock in my mouth while holding a copy of today’s Washington Post, but (a) Trevor would just claim it was PhotoShopped, and (b) in these troubled times of limited disposable income, why would want to I spend perfectly good whiskey money buying the WaPo?
(When I need absorbent newsprint to line the bottom of my pet’s cage, there are plenty of free suburban ad papers at the entrance of every supermarket.)
posted by Lori Heine on
“I don’t know Anthony or Bobby or Lori or anyone else here but I get the feeling you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay.”
Oh, a new clown has shown up to entertain us — and his name is Trevor!
The spin from “progressives” is absolutely priceless. These people are showing exactly how ignorant and intellectually lazy they really are.
Always were, really.
Any gays or lesbians who think independently of the Leftist Hive can’t really be gay.
Anyone with alternative ideas must be evil, or a fraud, or a plant.
This is what people sound like when they’re little bullsh*t regime is being taken down. This is how the toadies sound as they bleat out the lines their masters have scripted.
I used to watch the Keith-and-Rachel Gang at MSNBC almost every night. It got to the point that their lies were so obvious even I could spot them — and at the time, I wanted to believe them.
I thought all the Right-Wingers were gay-hating bigots, that libertarianism (my guilty, closet desire) would never stand a chance, and that the Bush Borg would rule the Republican Party forever.
Help us, President Obi. You’re our only hope!
The events at CPAC show us that something else is going on. Something new — something different.
Travis and Anthony, of course, are still true believers in the Gospel of Keith and Rachel. I think they’ve got way too much time on their hands.
I’ll bet they’re not even gay.
posted by Debrah on
Some might wish to analyze this.
Is Friedman spinning, or does he make his case?
“President Obamaâs bad luck was that he showed up just as we moved from the fat years to the lean years. His calling is to lead The Regeneration. He clearly understands that in his head, but he has yet to give full voice to it. Actually, the thing that most baffles me about Mr. Obama is how a politician who speaks so well, and is trying to do so many worthy things, canât come up with a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics â when it is so obvious.”
posted by Anthony on
Yawn. Sigh, Rolling of the eyes. Maybe even a quick nap. It all describes how I see the vast majority of people – all five of you – who post here. Gee, it’s kinda like your blogs. Funny.
I will have to make this my final post, as I need to do more important things – like drain my sinuses. And that, folks, is how I see your bizarre game of touting yourselves as somehow different, all the while proving that you’re anything but authentic or original. Reminds me of those cookie cutter houses you see in the suburbs. Hum drum, dull, boring, not in the least bit stimulating. And, it made me wonder why I spent any time in here at all. Guess sometimes you need a little dose of reality to get back to what counts. I have a full and happy life overall and this is just too petty and pointless to give anymore of my valued time and attention.
So, by all means, get back to bashing Elton John, to appointing yourselves the truth police, worshiping the likes of Beck and Limbaugh while they mock you (which, incidentally, I’d be all for now that I’ve had a taste of the “intellectual” prowess here), voting for candidates who will make sure you never have the right to marry the partners that likely will never exist in your lives, etc. Have fun, or more appropriately here, continue your game of hide and never seek who you are. It’s working. Just ask your loyal blog readers.
posted by Bobby on
Who’s bashing Elton John? Anthony provided a perfect example of how progressives see the world, if you disagree with them you are bashing them. Frankly, I vote for candidates that support freedom, but I guess to Anthony same-sex marriage is the only freedom that matters. As for partners that don’t exist, how would you know who of us is dating, who has a boyfriend, who is happy being single? You don’t know as much about us as you know about Beck and Limbaugh, which is very little. Beck and Limbaugh could care less if same-sex marriage was legalized, they may be against it but it’s not like they’re actively fighting to save traditional marriage. In fact, not once during Beck’s CPAC address did he mention traditional marriage or gays. Whatever Anthony, go back to Huffington Post where you can “debate” with your own kind.
posted by Lori Heine on
I find it interesting just how many ignorant and totally off-base assumptions our “progressive” trolls make. All they would have to do is Google some of us to find out how little they knew before they shot off on their childish rants.
A basic principle, of which even St. Keith, St. Rachel, St. Randi and St. Kos might advise them, is that they should DO THEIR HOMEWORK before showing up on a commentary thread, at a blog they have not bothered to read, and exposing their ignorance.
Uh…if you show right upfront that you don’t know what you’re talking about, why should you expect people to listen to you?
Sigh…roll of the eyes. LOL…ROFL…and whatever other inanely juvenile form of expression might actually make sense to them. But of course, nothing makes sense to them. That’s why they come here and vent. Their little world is coming apart at the seams, and here they thought it would last a thousand years!
In 2008, voters deposed the social-conservative Right. Of course the MSM didn’t tell us that; when do they ever tell the truth about anything? Keith and Rachel tried to tell us this meant that the Republican Party, and conservatism, were collapsing.
It meant nothing of the kind. What it meant was that the very libertarian wing of the Right that people like Anthony tell us doesn’t exist was actually asserting itself.
I believe that this is what this year’s CPAC convention means. Whether I’m right or wrong, only time will tell.
People as pig-ignorant as Anthony and Trevor can’t tell us anything.
posted by Debrah on
“I suppose I could link to a photo of myself with a cock in my mouth while holding a copy of today’s Washington Post, but (a) Trevor would just claim it was PhotoShopped, and (b) in these troubled times of limited disposable income, why would want to I spend perfectly good whiskey money buying the WaPo?”
*************************************
Good thing you held off on that, Throbert.
Trevor and Anthony might go simply crazy just thinking about it!
Only so much stud-essence can be revealed on a Sunday.
posted by Jimmy on
“In 2008, voters deposed the social-conservative Right.”
In my neck of the woods, Indianapolis and the greater midwest, voters were not so motivated in 2006 and 2008 by any animus toward social conservatism. What voters were, and still are hostile to is the very base, objectivist ideology that is responsible for the fleecing of America. They see a political system that is so corrupted by a mendacious corporate culture that has pumped unimaginable sums of cash into it that actual governing can not occur. The recent Citizens United ruling has, in effect, opened the flood gates to foreign influence (cash) in our national elections. Welfare and entitlements? Shall we talk about a defense budget that, in reality, is a $trillion. No corporate welfare or entitlements there, surely not.
I retch each time I hear the empty rhetoric from conservatives about national security and sovereignty when they seemingly delight in garbage of this sort. We would like to have our government back, but there really is no place to go to make that happen.
posted by Lori Heine on
Jimmy, you see those two things as mutually exclusive, and I do not. Social conservatism is big-government conservatism. It is what George W. Bush and his minions brought us. It is both corrupt big government AND the sort of social conservatism that tried to run our lives as completely and tyrannically as the Left ever did. In a different way, perhaps, but nonetheless with as much of an authoritarian, “we-know-better-than-you-do” strain.
Social conservatives will not go gently into that good night; they will go on making a lot of noise for quite a while. The fact that they don’t all magically evaporate in short order will be pointed to, not only by themselves but by the Left-wing Statists they must play against (and upon whose continued existence they actually depend to prop themselves up) as “proof” that they still run things.
But the times, they are a-changing. THIS is what all those independents (whom polls showed still leaned Republican) thought they were voting for in 2008, and will vote for much more intelligently and coherently in 2010 and 2012.
posted by Jorge on
Some might wish to analyze this.
Is Friedman spinning, or does he make his case?
It’s a fairly new analysis to me, but I think it’s reasonable. I definitely agree with the concept that Obama could be and probably needs to be a leader of a new unified vision for America’s future that includes the progressive platform. However, the analysis is outdated. The Tea Party Movement–the direction from which the country is turning against the Democrats–is absent in this piece, only the Republicans are mentioned. See, the energy Obama needs is already being picked up.
I think the author downplays the Obama presidency’s failures and flaws but what he said he got right. What he failed to mention is Obama appears more indecisive on foreign policy than one would have expected from his inaugural speech, and that he was really expected to pass the health care reform bill.
posted by Bobby on
“Social conservatism is big-government conservatism. It is what George W. Bush and his minions brought us. It is both corrupt big government AND the sort of social conservatism that tried to run our lives as completely and tyrannically as the Left ever did. In a different way, perhaps, but nonetheless with as much of an authoritarian, “we-know-better-than-you-do” strain.”
—It wasn’t that bad. During 6 years of the Bush administration the economy did great and after 9/11 we kept the country safe and didn’t experiment with crazy ideas like trying terrorists in civilian courts. Besides, Bush never attacked MSNBC or Michael Moore, unlike Obama, he never told the American people to stop listening to the pundits, he even met with hateful critics like Cindy Sheehan twice. Bush did suffer a market correction in 2008, but the policies that lead to the economic collapse had more to do with banks and experiments like derivatives that had nothing to do with Bush or his administration.
The left is much more tyrannical and intolerant of dissent. Look at Obama chastising the Supreme Court during his state of the union address, that was completely disrespectful, the judges should have walked out.
Anyway, the longer Obama stays in office the more he makes me miss Bush.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby, that was not even a mediocre attempt at revisionism.
posted by Jorge on
Maybe that’s because it was true?
The last time I checked, the conventional wisdom was that the Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 08 were the moderate to conservative red-staters, the “Blue Dog” Democrats. Those were bad elections for gay marriage. But many of those same Democrats will be kicked out this year.
posted by BobN on
After the GOP makes expected big congressional gains this coming November, lobbying within the libertarian wing of the Republican party will be vitally important. But don’t count on the big-name “progressive” LGBT groups to bother with anything remotely like constructive engagement.
Uh… that’s what LCR and GOProud are supposed to do, as they speak the language.
For what it’s worth, I’ll be stunned if any libertarian Republicans get elected this November, but let me know which ones do, by all means.
posted by BobN on
Bush did suffer a market correction in 2008, but the policies that lead to the economic collapse had more to do with banks and experiments like derivatives that had nothing to do with Bush or his administration.
You should catch on of the recent Frontline documentaries making the rounds on PBS. There are a couple on the economic crisis. Interesting stuff.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[T]he conventional wisdom was that the Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 08 were the moderate to conservative red-staters, the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats.”
This is exactly why it’s so idiotic for liberals to claim any sort of “liberal mandate” out of those elections. Voters understood themselves to be mandating nothing of the kind.
When every election is basically a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it’s sometimes hard to figure out exactly what people thought they were voting for. We’ve had to hold our noses and pick the lesser of two evils for years. It’s really too early to tell how it’s all going to shake out, but I stand by my prediction that the libertarians are going to take over the GOP. They’ve got the hearts and minds of the youth, and they are the future.
This should mean better things for gays. And certainly it will give us more choices at the ballot box.
posted by Jorge on
First of all, as someone who doesn’t want that to happen, I’m motivated to imagine a scenario where you’re wrong.
This is where I say again that it’s impossible to think of the future of conservatives and Republicans without looking at the country as a whole.
Have you ever seen what happens to young Republicans once they leave school and enter the workforce, or have children? I haven’t. Supposedly young Democrats start to worry about taxes and cheats and stuff like that and start moving toward the right. Remember, most young people are liberal, but the country as a whole is not. I can definitely see how that can happen.
Intellectually I think young Republicans will remain, but in numbers, as a base, that remains to be seen. I think it’s far more likely we’ll see another neoconservative takeover.
posted by Debrah on
Bill Bennett takes issue with Beck’s performance.
Huge disagreement in GOP Land.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, that was not even a mediocre attempt at revisionism.”
—I do not need to revise the history I lived myself. Some people only seem to remember the bad of the Bush administration, I remember the good. I remember how Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11 and how your recession ended up quickly. I remember the stock market booming because dividend taxes were cut to 15% so it made sense to invest. I remember poor people getting rich by flipping and remodeling houses, unemployment at 5%, and plenty of opportunity all around. The question isn’t why I remember all of that but why don’t you? America was a good place during the Bush years, our president didn’t apologize to foreign countries or literally bow down like a geisha in front of foreign leaders, we were not afraid to waterboard terrorists, we lowered taxes instead of developing stimulus packages that only stimulate corruption from well-connected individuals. Now we’re living in a Brave New World, I just hope Obama and his minions don’t destroy the country before the GOP gets to save it.
“You should catch on of the recent Frontline documentaries making the rounds on PBS. There are a couple on the economic crisis. Interesting stuff.”
—I’ll try, I do not trust those shows however. PBS is dominated by liberals who are not accountable to anyone. I saw the Frontline special on free healthcare around the world and the host was clearly biased in favor of this.
Tell me, do you think PBS will explore the connection between Barney Frank and others pressuring the banks give mortgages to people who can’t afford it just because they wanted more “diversity” in lending? It’s progressives like Frank that think every American is entitled to have a home.
Now Obama wants to spend $1.5 BILLION to help a few states fight foreclosures. So let me get this straight, people buy houses they can’t afford, they sign papers without reading them, they stop making payments and the American people are supposed to bail them out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/20/nation/la-na-obama-vegas20-2010feb20
posted by Lori Heine on
Jorge, I’m not sure to whom you are replying in your last post.
Are you actually — seriously — under the misconception that (A) all libertarians are young, or that (B) libertarianism is somehow “liberal?”
How very bizarre. No wonder libertarians are critical of the public school system.
Libertarianism is real conservatism. It is nothing less than the philosophy upon which this country was founded. If libertarians are liberal, they’re liberal the way Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were liberal.
“Have you ever seen what happens to young Republicans once they leave school and enter the workforce, or have children?”
I know what happened to this Reagan Democrat after she left school, entered the workforce, worked for over thirty years with the government confiscating a portion of her earnings from every paycheck — at gunpoint — with the promise that one day they’d give it back to her at retirement, only to find out, now, that there will be no retirement and that her money has simply been stolen.
I know what happens to an old Reagan Democrat (not too different, really, from one of your “young Republicans” gone grizzled) who is downsized out of five jobs in eight years, and now sees — still in her forties — that her livelihood is probably just gone forever.
I don’t need any lectures about the supposed starry-eyed impracticality of the notion that returning this country to the principles upon which it was founded — a country owned by us, instead of one that thinks it owns us — being some sort of feckless, youthful notion.
You seem to be equating neoconservative with grownup. They are, actually, the intellectual descendants of embittered Trotskyism. Most of their forebears started out as communists in the Fifties, and when they soured on the New Deal they underwent a convenient little transformation and became Republicans.
No one familiar with the history of the conservative movement would actually confuse neocons with real conservatives.
That you think so only shows how successful their snow-job has been on the American people.
posted by Lori Heine on
Actually they started out as communists in the THIRTIES. It was the Fifties when they completed their great conversion to “conservatism.”
Read. Read widely. Please do not assume that when we graduate from one of those centers of statist indoctrination — the public school system — our education is complete.
You may protest that you always went to private school. But if you’ve been exposed to the mainstream media for any length of time, much of whatever you were able to learn in school has been layered over with years — perhaps decades — of propaganda.
Again, please study history before assuming that libertarians are nothing but the pack of youthful savages you seem to think they are. They have a long and proud tradition, and it is well deserving not only of study, but of emulation.
posted by BobN on
This is exactly why it’s so idiotic for liberals to claim any sort of “liberal mandate” out of those elections.
Lori is entirely correct, of course. You see, when a Republican gains the White House — even by they teeniest, tiniest, Supreme-Court-enabled majority — THEN you’re dealing with a mandate…
And, Bobby, what you describe as “good times” is exactly what we’re paying for today. You can simulate this in your own private life. Go out, max out your credit cards, kite a few dozen checks, borrow money from friends and neighbors, go to Vegas and live the high life. See how that works out for you.
posted by Bobby on
“And, Bobby, what you describe as “good times” is exactly what we’re paying for today. You can simulate this in your own private life. Go out, max out your credit cards, kite a few dozen checks, borrow money from friends and neighbors, go to Vegas and live the high life. See how that works out for you.”
—Look, I just saw a report on CNN that Texas is handling the recession really well, that housing prices are actually climbing up. Why? Because in Texas they spend very little money helping people, instead the state has no income tax and low property taxes which attracts lots of people to the state. Sure, the liberals are always bitching about education, health care, and how little we do for the homeless. But you know what? By doing little for the homeless they end up going to other states instead of costing the Texan taxpayer a fortune. Think about it, Texas does very little for the people yet the people are thriving there.
Besides, how can you accuse Bush of spending too much money when Obama has raised the national debt by 3 trillion dollars? Get it? Obama has spent more in one year than Bush did in eight years. It’s funny Obama tells people not to blow their money in Vegas, what he is doing is the equivalent of losing $1,000 in cash and then applying for Casino credit in the hopes of winning it all again.
Seriously, why trust government? 60 Minutes had a special report on the place where The World Trade Center used to stand. Well, thanks to the bureaucracy of the port authority and the government of New York, $7 billion has been spent yet NOTHING has been built. Instead, all they do is fight about the memorial, how many towers to build, what design to use, whether or not they can afford a $2 billion subway station. See? It’s worst than Animal Farm, at least the pigs eventually built the windmills!
I trust the free market, it’s like my car insurance, I complained to Progressive that my payments were too high and another carrier was offering me less, and guess what? They lowered my premiums! But when the government takes over to whom are you gonna complain and why would they listen?
posted by BobN on
Yes, yes, Bobby, Obama is the anti-Christ. Whatever you say.
Just go watch the Frontline episode about derivatives. (And don’t ASSUME what it’s all about.)
posted by Debrah on
I fear that “BobN” is exhibiting undue negative external factors.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I’m not sure to whom you are replying in your last post.
That was addressed to you.
Are you actually — seriously — under the misconception that (A) all libertarians are young, or that (B) libertarianism is somehow “liberal?”
No on both counts. However, you are suggesting that young Republicans are libertarian-learning, and I’m agreeable to that. Perhaps I am adding my impression that young Republicans are more liberal than older Republicans.
However, if the current Republican party has a strong and large wing of ex-liberals and neoconservatives–that used to actually control the party–it seems to me that it is likely that the people who are young Republicans today will be pushed out of power years from now by people who are young liberals today.
I don’t need any lectures about the supposed starry-eyed impracticality of the notion that returning this country to the principles upon which it was founded — a country owned by us, instead of one that thinks it owns us — being some sort of feckless, youthful notion.
That’s your opinion.
No one familiar with the history of the conservative movement would actually confuse neocons with real conservatives.
I am neither identifying neocons as the same as conservatives nor am I making any confused statements. However you seem to be confusing Republicans with conservatives, which is shameful indeed. It is obvious that I struck a nerve, which suggests that I must be onto something.
Of course, I knew that already.
posted by Jorge on
Actually they started out as communists in the THIRTIES. It was the Fifties when they completed their great conversion to “conservatism.”
Read. Read widely. Please do not assume that when we graduate from one of those centers of statist indoctrination — the public school system — our education is complete.
You may protest that you always went to private school. But if you’ve been exposed to the mainstream media for any length of time, much of whatever you were able to learn in school has been layered over with years — perhaps decades — of propaganda.
Again, please study history before assuming that libertarians are nothing but the pack of youthful savages you seem to think they are. They have a long and proud tradition, and it is well deserving not only of study, but of emulation.
I must say, I object to being talked down to by someone who is exibiting symptoms of typing under the influence of hallucinigenic substances.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes of course, Jorge. Anyone whose experience differs from your own must be “under the influence of hallucinogenic substances.”
“[Y]ou seem to be confusing Republicans with conservatives…”
Not all of them, only the neocons you seem to think have a deathgrip on the party. The fact that so many self-identified independents lean Republican (and surely not all of them are young) should tell you something about how many people felt themselves to have been exiled from the GOP while the neocons dominated. These people seem ready, now, to take their party back. If they are successful, you will find that the neocon influence is greatly reduced from that time on.
What sort of “something” are you on to? Probably that I, like many gays and lesbians, would like a political option that reflects the real convictions of all of us who are not content to be slaves on the “progressive” plantation. Sorry that isn’t dark and cryptic enough for you, but there it is. Some of us feel quite strongly about the fact that we, too, believe we have been exiled from a movement in which we rightfully belong.
Not scandalously Freudian enough to suit you? Sorry.
You seem to be suggesting that because those in the GOP, and on the Right in general, who don’t want gays there still hold a powerful influence, all those more inclined to work with us must be young whippersnappers who will grow up someday when they experience real life and hate us as much as Grandpa did. If so, you have an honored place in the Amen corner occupied by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes and the others who will no doubt spin our encouraging reception at CPAC in a way that says, “don’t believe your lying eyes and ears…they still hate you! They really, really hate you!”
Many people, including me, are getting tired of that sort of crap.
posted by Jorge on
I suggest that you take a chill pill, relax, and take your own advice about not making silly assumptions about people who are trying to have an intellectual conversation with you. You’re usually good at saying that, but it seems when someone says something you don’t like, you’re not too good at doing it.
Well I can be plenty arrogant when I want to be, too. I really am that good.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Well I can be plenty arrogant when I want to be, too. I really am that good.”
I’m terrified. Really just quaking in my butch-issue Army boots.
I did not mean to imply there’s anything criminal about thinking that young Republicans are more liberal than older ones. Socially, it’s true.
I am just wary, in general, of making too much out of that claim. When they’re polled, the younger ones generally show themselves to be not left-liberal, but libertarian.
The reason for this is that they are not as callow as youngsters in most other generations have been. The government started fleecing them back when they were in their cradles, and they know that. This accounts, I think, for why they’re much savvier about economics than the Baby Boomers were at their age.
On an individual basis, older Repubs are less reactionary than they’re usually seen as being.
After I came out, every “progressive” I knew told me I didn’t dare to tell my parents — because they were evil Republicans, don’t you know, who would leave me for roadkill.
I wasn’t sure how they’d react, because they were pretty conservative. I took my friends’ advice for a few years, then decided I needed to give my folks the benefit of a doubt.
My dad — the one my friends were sure was too evil to accept me (being both a Republican AND a man) — was fine with it, and quite supportive until he died a couple of years later. My mom, who probably always would have been fine with it, had Alzheimer’s, by that time, and didn’t even remember my name.
I tend not to listen, any longer, when people offer me cut-and-dried dismissals of older people for any reason: because they’re Republicans, because they’re men, or for whatever other reason. I’m also adamant that a new generation of kids not buy into that sort of propaganda. It surrounds us like the very air we breathe, but it has the potential to do tremendous damage — and to be tremendously wrong.
I no longer believe we should underestimate anybody on the basis of group tendencies. There’s something to be said about individualism — the libertarian concept of treating each person like an individual. Whether they are young or old.
posted by Bobby on
I can sympathize with your story, Lori. My parents are liberals with issues such as abortion, gun control, health care and being accepted by them as gay is still a struggle for them. Of course, progressives are so self-righteous, they think “we are compassionate, we are tolerant, but everyone else is not.”
Progressives also suffer from paranoia, when Dick Chenney decided to support repealing DADT I saw liberals saying “republicans will do anything for a vote.” And when a poll showed that even people who don’t agree with homosexuality support repealing DADT, a progressive wrote “We are good enough to possibly DIE (thereby perhaps saving the life of a heterosexual service member) – but we are NOT good enough to have the same equal rights as thsoe heterosexual service members when we are not in harms way.”
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/23/Poll_Antigay_But_For_DADT_Repeal/
posted by Debrah on
Are Independents Really Republicans?
posted by Debrah on
Bobby, I must totally concur that the Far Left has a special brand of hatred for their “enemies” that you will not find anywhere to compare.
One has only to read this quote from Jonathan Chait which Andrew Sullivan has referenced here:
****************************************
“I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it … He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school–the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing– a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.”
****************************************
You just don’t see this kind of puerile sludge from alleged professionals very often.
One has to admit, looking back, there was no deeper hatred than from the Left for GWB.
You’re moved to laughter when hearing complaints about those who criticize Obama now.
posted by jimmy on
So we hate you?! BFD. And your momma dresses you funny too. So what? We know you hate us right back. We know you hold our values in contempt; well, right back at ya’. Beyond that melodrama, I’d rather talk about what is right and what is decent and what is expected in and of an exceptional nation to afford its people.
posted by Bobby on
“You’re moved to laughter when hearing complaints about those who criticize Obama now.”
—Yeah, with Obama we hate his policies, his arrogance, the progressives he likes appointing and his history. We also hair the way the mainstream media treats him, how they make excuses for him, how comedians like John Stewart and Bill Maher are still ridiculing Bush and conservatives when instead they should be ridiculing Obama.
Honestly, why can’t Comedy Central fine the libertarian/conservative version of John Stewart? Because Colbert is certainly not it. Well, thank God for Rush Limbaugh and his funny songs.
This is one of my favorites:
We Hate the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04BgdeMQZNg
posted by Aubrey on
After reading sites that span the spectrum (IGF, Gay Patriot, Bilerico Report, towleroad, etc., and ‘non-gay’ sites: National Review, NYT, Alternet, etc…) – I would have to disagree with Debrah.
One thing both ‘sides’ share is their contempt for the other. It is difficult to find any conversations where ideas aren’t poisoned with emotion, where too often facts take a back seat to some idealogical deathmatch.
And I haven’t found any real distinction between conservatives/neocons/libertarians vs progressives/liberals/’socialists’.
Oftentimes the banter is amusing, there are moments when valid points are made.
Opinions are valid, necessary, to be desired. And strong belief systems (pollitical, religious, whatever) have value to me as well.
But reading most any comment section of most online sites is like walking into a carnival’s mirror funhouse. Nothing is ‘objective’, everything is slightly skewed, distorted to some great and gross effect. Amusing, even revealing, but no view is more real than another.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
I didn’t get a hit with the link you left.
This one I did see, however.
It’s so funny because San Francisco is always depicted that way.
And, of course much of this type of grotesquerie is there; however, every time I visit I have a much more eclectic experience.
The last time I was in San Francisco I ran into Jerry Brown at a coffee shop on the corner of California St. and Divisadero.
He had a cashmere sweater tied around his shoulders—preppy style—and was chatting with an assistant. And, of course, I had to begin chatting with him as well.
He’s more charming than he comes off on cable.
I had been shopping and galavanting.
And I always try to visit every corner of the city when I’m there.
That day after shopping and snacking and (drinking vino!) at Union Square, I took a taxi to Castro and had some clams on the half shell.
Walking back to Nob Hill most of the way, I stopped at that coffee shop at the corner of Divisadero.
The Castro District is, most definitely, full of people who are in a kind of retro fog and seem not to have evolved from those days of Harvey Milk; however, I always find it welcoming and fun.
I didn’t see any NAMBLA parades while there, thank heavens. LOL!
I always stay on Nob Hill which a much different atmosphere.
In addition, I want you to answer a question for me…..since I know you spend a lot of time reading and checking out the strangeness of life. Ha!
While I was having a lunch in Castro, this most amazingly beautiful man was standing nearby chatting with friends. He had my coloring, with long dark hair as well—(similar to the former locks of Omar Wasow, but he was much more handsome).
Everything about him was almost perfect. A great toned and lean body……but……his hands were claws.
Perhaps this condition.
It was surreal….simply because he was so great looking and the fact that his hands were like lobster claws made him seem all the more “unworldly”.
Anyway, I suppose many like that guy flock to a place like San Francisco because so many people there are on the edge.
In any case, I’ve always found it to be a beautiful city…..even with all its obvious problems which it shares with Seattle.
posted by Debrah on
“One thing both ‘sides’ share is their contempt for the other.”
*************************************
That is no doubt true, Aubrey; however, the real issue here is how those views and that “contempt” are covered and how they are highlighted or played down by the media and those who make important decisions for other people in this country.
As you might have gleaned, I express my opinions openly and rarely hold back, even when they are controversial and unpopular.
And…..I’ve always been a registered Democrat and used to be much more liberal—until I began paying closer attention to the issues—than I am now.
Every time, without fail, when I would express strong disagreement with conservatives, NOT ONE ever tried to censor those opinions or rabidly attack me.
However, I can cite many occasions when Liberals have done exactly that.
Although it’s true that there are rabid ideologues on both sides, no other group is more dictatorial and can entertain opposing views the least than the Far Left.
That’s been my experience to this very day.
Do you think some of those Lefty and goofy gay blogs could take someone as strong as ND30 and allow him his facts?
posted by Aubrey on
Debrah,
My experience has been not as one-sided as yours. I have found several sites where opposing views are freely expressed, and responded to.
But unfortunately, most of those views (on either side) are expressed in a loud voice, with no room for any truth but their own.
So, yes, the ‘goofy gay blogs’ you describe have given space to people like NDT (though I know he had a problem with towleroad, I think it was…).
As a counter example – have you spent much time reading ‘National Review’? While I find opinions and perspectives I wouldn’t find anywhere else, to think that NR is welcoming would be a stretch.
Converseley, some of the far out lefty sites do have their regulars who work to incite the crowd. And make very valid points in doing so.
I just don’t find the qualitive difference in ‘political’ discourse you seem to find. It seems to me too much of our dialogue is hampered and/or handicapped by stridently partisan language. I can’t honestly give the Left or the Right any pass on this one.
And I think people tend to see what they want to see when it comes to the ‘national media’.
I don’t find widespread bias as much as I find bland, boring, insipid regurgitation of gossip. But maybe that’s what I want to see.
BTW, you mention NDT. This probably isn’t the place to go into this (since I’ve just referenced boring gossipmongers), but what the hey.
I have read NDT’s angry and venomous comments and critiques in IGF for quite a while (I don’t say this as a criticism, but as a description.) And I would always skip the links. One day I decided to follow all the links in a comment – and there were several.
I was ‘cringe-ready’ – expecting to find horrible examples of the whole gay community doing the most abhorrent things.
But a funny thing happened on the way to my cringing… The links didn’t support NDT’s claims.
So, I then decided to do a little research into NDT and his own blog.
I was genuinely surprised at what I found.
In his blog’s archives was a man who describes himself as a “bear”, or perhaps ‘bear-loving’. NDT referred to the man he loves in his life as his “husband” (whether legal or not, I don’t know).
Pictures of NDT ‘modeling’ – ‘tastefully erotic’ to use your phrase, Debrah. Southern exposure, if you know what I mean.
Dialogue and banter with regular visitors to his blog that can only be described as civil, even when some of these regulars disagreed with him.
Now there was a wealth of the NDT postings we have all come to know, no doubt about it.
But I’m taking too much time to say that the impression I got from his own blog – and I perused years worth of history on his site – was totally different from what I find portrayed in his visits to IGF, to Gay Patriot, etc…
To apply my standards to myself, I don’t know if this difference is in my eyes.
Or if there isn’t some rhetorical device involved in NDT’s postings as a visitor/commentator.
But I was intrigued.
And now to try and tie this back to my original point.
Both left and right are equally vocal, and equally vicious (in my eye) towards those that don’t tow the line, wherever it is drawn (and the line is always in flux, it seems.)
But this rabid quality tends to restrict ideas, rather than give them free reign.
I found myself much more open to hearing NDT’s ideas when I found him to be a person, rather than an idealogical battering ram.
The rapid fire use of links that maybe do/don’t support his anger and frustrations are not anywhere as effective a rhetorical tool as the voice I found in his own blog – a slightly more measured one, acting as a ‘moderator’ of sorts on his own site.
Not to get sidetracked on NDT.
And to answer your final question – I have not found a site where a comment from someone of the ‘opposing’ side is not met with scorn and disdain. You can sit back and wait for the name-calling to begin (on both sides). Personal attacks, gross generalizations, anger, until finally one side in the thread just quits.
Resolution is to be achieved not by debating an idea until there is an agreement of some sort (even to agree to disagree), but by somehow browbeating the opposing comment into silence.
I have seen it on this site – and it happens frequently. And I have seen it on others.
And a further response to your final question would be that my impression is NDT doesn’t want to be “allowed” his facts, he wants to win. And the same is true for any ‘Left’ visitor to the ‘Right’ sites.
posted by Jimmy on
Looks like the GOP has another “maverick” on its hands in the guise of Sen. Scott Brown. Right wingers are apoplectic over his apostasy.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/02/24/scott-brown-not-the-man-they-thought-hed-be
posted by Debrah on
Aubrey–
I must confess that I don’t usually read the comment sections of most websites, including NRO. Perhaps I should, but there’s only so much time in a day!
I go there for a particular report or a column by such masters of current events as Charles Krauthammer. And I go to Slate and Vanity Fair for commentary by Christopher Hitchens…….among so many others.
You make very good points regarding the culture of the commentariat on any given website or blog. As with human nature, in general, we all come to life’s pages carrying our own individual experiences.
With regard to IGF, I find it impossible to believe that if I were Far Left and viciously opposed everything that ND30 writes that he would behave toward me the way one or two commenters (who appeared to be very Liberal) have on a few occasions here. FYI, one even tried to leave a home address as an attempt of harassment, but it wound up being the home address and information of a woman who has the same last name, by marriage.
Do you see how utterly dirty something like that is? How cowardly and trashy? I contacted the woman and warned her and I also contacted my attorney in case that same person tries something like that again and actually posts home addresses that might be accurate.
The consequences are staggering.
I would advise anyone else to be on guard and do the same thing when you run into people like that. Your attorney can contact their ISP and get their identities and they will have many legal problems as a result.
And no, Aubrey. I have only witnessed this type of cowardly “debate” from a Liberal.
Not people like ND30.
But if I checked out some of those comment sections as you have, I’m sure there would be such cases.
The whole issue is one of decent debate. One should be able to express themselves as they wish, but when someone crosses legal lines, I’d say it’s time for an adjustment.
By the way, you have intrigued me with the information about ND30’s blog. LOL!
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Scott Brown is very wise to refrain from partisanship for partisanship’s sake.
He does want to get re-elected in 2012, after all.
posted by Debrah on
“…..though I know he had a problem with towleroad, I think it was…”
*******************************************
Really? The “toll road” that seems to stay in bartender gossip mode couldn’t handle him?
ND30 is too much “man” and will, no doubt, totally intimidate someone like that and the commentariat on his site.
From ND30’s blog, I see that he mentions Pam’s House Blend as another one who can’t take his presence. Who is surprised by that?
A loudmouth with the most tendentious way of looking at every issue and who also seems to reside in permanent gossip mode. Quite a vapid destination.
Someone like ND30 must simply perplex them as well as scare the heck out of them.
If his info is accurate, he’d be a woman killer if he were a straight man.
Most gay men—(you excluded, Aubrey, because I find you not only thoughtful and intelligent, but someone who should be the model of “gay” when they try to push SSM)—can’t take someone as strong and as honest, as well as relentless, as ND30.
Lastly, I didn’t do an archival journey, so was not able to find the “erotica” you mention. LIS!!!
posted by Bobby on
Interesting video you posted, Debrah, I only watched part of it, it’s true depressing to watch progressives without the Glenn Beck filter, otherwise is like doing 99% pure heroin when you’re used to 40% pure (I learned that from “The Stand” by Stephen King).
Aubrey, I don’t think both sides are the same. The left wants to turn this country into a Marxist utopia while the right wants to go back to the constitutionalist views of the founders. That doesn’t mean the right is going to bring back slavery or put gays in concentration camps, what it means is that we’re going to do our best to stop the changes Obama wants.
Socialism doesn’t work, have you read about what’s happening in Greece? The government has huge debts, the euro has made them less competitive and now the young people don’t want the austerity measures the government is proposing.
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/greece-finance-us.2v4
If the San Francisco Marxists got their way, education, healthcare, housing, and pretty much everything else would be “free” and paid for by higher income, sales taxes, consumption taxes, alcohol taxes, death taxes and every tax scheme you can imagine.
I believe in capitalism. For example, Las Vegas has had a lot of foreclosures yet the low prices have brought in so many people into the market that now the deals are going away.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269004575073260976528540.html
That’s the nature of capitalism, we have up and downs. So why bail out companies? All the airlines that got bailed out ended up declaring bankruptcy. Have you looked at the Toyota hearings? How dare does the US Congress which owns Chrysler and GM complain about a financially sound company with a few problems, problems they’re dealing with WITHOUT government help. Progressives think we’re stupid, that we have short memories, but the reality is we don’t. Toyota did not become #1 by making crappy products, and if we’re going to look at recalls we should look at the hundreds of thousands of recalls the big three have had.
All conservatives and libertarians want is for the government to get out of the way, stop regulating everything, and let the free market correct itself no matter who gets hurt. This is America, you have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. You want socialism? Get it from your parents, let them pay for your college if they want. Don’t have a place to stay? Go to a church-based homeless shelter. What America isn’t supposed to be is a welfare state where people get taken care of. This is the land of the free, not the freeloader.
posted by Aubrey on
Bobby,
I am not trying to say the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ are politically similar.
What I find, though, is that both sides engage in a demonization of any opposing viewpoints, particularly at partisan online sites. (Though even print media is not immune to this vilification of the other.)
Debrah finds the left to be less accommodating of opposing views. I haven’t found that distinction.
The right shout “socialists”; the left cry out “fascists”.
In my limited experience, intolerance is the rule, not the exception.
For every ‘side’.
And, not to be melodramatic, but the country is the victim. How do we succeed as a people when each group sees the other as mere caricature?
That is basically all I was trying to say.
And Debrah – re: San Francisco.
I lived in SF for a few years in my younger days. Whatever one’s politics, SF is one of the most beautiful cities in this country, if not the world.
And you are certainly correct in noting the eclectic quality of the city.
You have a good eye. And I love the Brown anecdote.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t think the distinction is so much between Left and Right as it is between libertarianism and statism. There are statists on both Left and Right, but only a few libertarians, it seems, on the Left.
I have always been center-Left: voted for Reagan in the first two elections I was old enough to participate in, but have been a Democrat since the age of 18. I started to turn in the libertarian direction during the George W. Bush years, but was still skeptical of them because all my friends told me they were so craaaaazy. They’d reel off these Apocalyptic, Mad Max nightmare-fantasies about all the terrible things that would happen if libertarians ever got their way.
Now I know that’s nothing but hysteria. A vital and growing third party wouldn’t believe all the strange things I was told. That would be ten guys in somebody’s basement. If the libertarian vision ever comes to pass, it could only happen gradually — and it would have to work every step of the way. Ron Paul can’t wave a wand, or wiggle his nose like Samantha on Bewitched, and automatically make it all happen at once.
I only wish he could.
Liberals talked a good libertarian game when Bush was in charge, but as it turns out, they’re full of el crapola. They didn’t mean a thing they said about states’ rights or limited government — and as soon as somebody with a “D” in front of his name got into the White House, they showed that. They love unlimited and arrogant government power — as long as they’re in charge of it.
I have come to believe that it is better for gays, for women, for African Americans — for everybody — if we return to the vision our founders had of this country. I don’t see it as “anti-gay” to believe in limited and responsible government, or in the same rules applying equally to everybody. We have nothing to fear there.
The problem is that nobody wants to trust an idea to debate anymore. The first time we see one coming is when it’s already wrapped up in proposed legislation — and all too often, it’s crammed down our throats without much debate at all. No one in the nation has been ambushed by that practice more than gays.
How some of the liberal trolls who come to this site can imagine my views are “anti-gay,” or question whether I’m even gay at all, because I hold them is beyond me.
No other group in the country is subjected to more frequent lecturing about what we “must” believe, or how we “must” vote. Some freedom for gays!
posted by Lori Heine on
I should say that I WAS a Democrat from age 18 until this year. I’m now the proud owner of one of those little cards designating me as a newly-minted Libertarian.
posted by Jimmy on
We did have a debate, over two cycles of national elections, and the American people came down on one side of it disproportionately. They saw that that every interest but theirs was being served in Washington DC, at their expense, and they responded to it.
We have witnessed a rapacious corporate culture turn this nation into a plutocracy (perhaps it always was), exporting our manufacturing sector, decimating the middle class which has seen its wages stagnate for the last 30 years. All the while, wealth has coalesced at an ever narrowing percentile with the top 25% owning upwards of 85% of the wealth, paying far less in taxes than at any time in modern history. Whatever ideological tick one might have, anyone can see what has been going on in this country.
posted by Bobby on
“What I find, though, is that both sides engage in a demonization of any opposing viewpoints, particularly at partisan online sites.”
—Well that’s true, although I think the right demonizes with the truth while the left makes up lies. Take Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, everything the right said about them was based on their own statements, so when Glenn Beck calls Van Jones a communist is not because he’s being mean but because Jones was seen on camera admitting to being a communist.
“All the while, wealth has coalesced at an ever narrowing percentile with the top 25% owning upwards of 85% of the wealth, paying far less in taxes than at any time in modern history.”
—Jimmy, that’s not exactly true.
” The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perÂcent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percentâthose below the median income levelânow earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and donât include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946831/posts
So what if the top-25% own 85% of the wealth? I would rather have Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the founders of Google manage their own self-made fortunes than to have the government break them into pieces. It doesn’t matter who owns the wealth because wealth has a tendency to move around, or have you not heard of venture capitalists that invest in projects that show promise? Where do you think they get their money? From the rich, of course! Bill Gates doesn’t want to put everything in the stock market, he’s willing to take a chance and unlike government, he will pay a price if he makes a bad choice. But you think Obama will ever pay for his mistakes? Not in a million years, he can expect to finish his term with a presidential pension regardless of his job performance.
Trust the government? Look at Amtrak, in the 19th and early 20th centuries there were dozens of private rail road companies, sometimes they got low-interests government building bonds, but they certainly didn’t get any subsidies. Now you have one Amtrak that bleeds millions a year, provides substandard service compared to Europe, and needs to be subsidized to the tune of $32 per ticket according to The Pew Research Center.
posted by Debrah on
“I lived in SF for a few years in my younger days. Whatever one’s politics, SF is one of the most beautiful cities in this country, if not the world.”
**********************************************
You must have some great memories from that time in your life.
It’s probably the only city on the West Coast where I might want to live……..but I’m more East Coast than anything else.
“And I love the Brown anecdote.”
**********************************************
Thanks. I can’t believe he’s thinking about running for governor—again!
That’s a mistake, IMO. That state needs some new blood.
posted by Debrah on
“……..the right demonizes with the truth while the left makes up lies. Take Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, everything the right said about them was based on their own statements……”
***************************************
This is quite true about 99% of the time.
You have no idea what it took for me to look over the open and unapologetic anti-Semite and bigot Jeremiah Wright in order to support Obama in 2008.
That’s why I’m holding him to his words from the campaign. He promised to govern from the center and he hasn’t.
Van Jones is a nut case. How on earth was such a person given a White House position?
Does anyone really wish to put forth the idea (with a straight face) that any other politician could have gotten elected with such a man as Jeremiah Wright being a close friend and “preacher” for two decades?
Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.
Pure and simple.
posted by Jimmy on
“Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.”
Has anyone bothered to go listen to the nutty dominionist preachers that so many congressmen associate with? They’re the ones that call for all out theocracy and world domination. Yet somehow, those a-hole reps still get elected. Please.
It’s always remarkable how anyone who dares speak up for the Palestinians, who are also semitic, gets labeled an anti-semite. This dynamic has had a suffocating aspect on American foreign policy. Van Jones is a Jew-hater because of these words?:
“I came over here very concerned about Israeli children living in fear.. nobody is winning here.. WHAT IâVE SEEN HERE GOES FAR BEYOND WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SAFETY.. ABSOLUTE HOUSE ARREST FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN A CITY.. 24/7 FOR WEEKS AT A TIME.. NONE OF THIS COULD RATIONALLY BE CONCEIVED OF AS DEFENSE.. I HAVE BEEN A LIFELONG OPPONENT OF ANTI-SEMITISM.. NOW NOT TO SPEAK OUT HERE IS ANTI-SEMITIC. WE OWE IT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.. AND PALESTINE.. TO PUT AN END TO THESE KIND OF ABUSES.. THERE IS NO DIVISION BETWEEN US POLICY TOWARD IRAQ AND TOWARD ISRAEL-PALESTINE.. THE US GOVERNMENT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF SANITY..”
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
I would invite you to do some further reading on the subject of this former—mercifully!—member of the Obama administration.
posted by Jimmy on
I see someone asking questions. That’s his right. At least 25% of the GOP members of Congress are “birthers”. Are you calling for them to resign?
posted by Debrah on
Further…..(and don’t forget to check the vid as you scroll)…..
“If this is actually how it happened then Jones may be the most naive person to walk the planet, and the White House vetters need to acquaint themselves with ye olde Google alert.”
Hmmmm…….
posted by Bobby on
“That’s why I’m holding him to his words from the campaign. He promised to govern from the center and he hasn’t.”
—That happened to a lot of Americans. This is why the right was comparing Obama to Hitler, what we were referring to was the excitement of the crowds, the youtube videos pledging allegiance to Obama, the popularization of the Hope poster. Have you ever seen a film called “The Wave?” It basically explains how you can get people to support totalitarian leaders. I’m just glad that Obama’s spell is going away.
“Van Jones is a nut case. How on earth was such a person given a White House position?”
—That’s the thing, Obama is nuts, he may pretend to be sane but this guy grew up and was mentored by the most left-wing people you can find. To Obama, Marxism probably makes sense, but he knows that’s not the way to sell it.
“Any other politician would have been forced to take him/herself out of the race.”
—That’s why Obama’s so dangerous, he’s almost like John Gotti, nothing seems to stick to him, well, at least that was the case in the past. I just hope republicans get smart, listen to the tea party, and stop being afraid about being labeled “the party of no.” Sometimes saying “no” is a good thing, specially to bad ideas.
posted by Lori Heine on
“At least 25% of the GOP members of Congress are “birthers”. Are you calling for them to resign?”
I think that figure might be a bit high. I wouldn’t call on them to resign, but I would call on those in the GOP who don’t believe that sort of stuff to vote for saner candidates in the future. There are certainly plenty of people in that party who are not birthers.
I’d say the same thing about candidates’ positions on gay issues. Instead of always falling for the Democratic option, those of us who do not agree with the Dems on other issues should vote for GOP candidates who support us.
The more we do that, the more likely, as time goes by, they will be to support us. As a pro-gay position becomes more politically viable within the GOP, more candidates will take that position.
posted by Bobby on
The birthers are a bit embarrassing, but then again, there were leftwingers saying that McCain wasn’t an American because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that Bush master-planned 9/11.
posted by arturo fernandez on
ND30 is too much “man” and will, no doubt, totally intimidate someone like that and the commentariat on his site”
I’ve had a few encounters with ND30 (at gay patriot). Manly? Who cares. Intimidating. No. His ideas are just repulsive.
posted by Craig2 on
Down here, the governing National Party treats sock cons with barely disguised contempt, probably because they’re shrill, strident and obsessed with their own sectarian obsessions at the cost of greater centre-right unity. They’re ghettoised into tiny fundamentalist microparties and seem to prefer binding referenda to much else.
They’re too extreme. If indulged, they end up poisoning the electoral chances of moderate centre-rightists, which has happened down here over and over again. Britain seems to have learnt the same lesson in the case of its Conservative Party.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ