Reactions to a Manifesto

The Week magazine has an article with some reactions to my post “Why I Parted Ways with the Right,” from both left-leaning and right-leaning sites: ‘Why I left the right’ - THE WEEK.

The righty blogs they picked are some of the saner ones; check out a Google Blog Search on my name to see how much hateful venom is being directed toward me by the right wing blogosphere — which, of course, completely validates the points in my article.

The Week quotes Jules Crittenden:

His explanation for his change of heart is thin, especially since he never says why he thinks liberals are the “sane, loving, rational” ones.

And that’s a very odd statement, since I’ve never written anything even remotely like that; this is why the term “straw man argument” was coined.

For the record, I still believe there are plenty of “sane, loving, rational” people who call themselves conservatives — but that doesn’t alter my opinion that the movement itself and the Republican Party has gone way, way off the rails. I’ve been documenting this dismaying derailment at LGF for the past year.

Jump to bottom

243 comments
1 [deleted]  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:39:41am
2 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:40:36am

People seem to keep trying to make this seem like by distancing oneself from the wacked out right, you are forced to side with the wacked out left. They fail to realize you can call both of them wacked out idiots and be against them both equally.

The enemy of my enemy can still be a complete asshole in his own right I always say.

3 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:43:05am

Charles sez>>'but that doesn’t alter my opinion that the movement itself and the Republican Party has gone way, way off the rails. I’ve been documenting this dismaying process at LGF for the past year.'

You are correct but the Republican party especially those serving in our Congress first went off the rails 8 years ago.
I pulled the lever for them so they could fulfill the promises of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Instead they partied hardy for eight years running us into debt and for the most part acting like those big bad Democrats they told us about.

4 Killgore Trout  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:43:56am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

People seem to keep trying to make this seem like by distancing oneself from the wacked out right, you are forced to side with the wacked out left. They fail to realize you can call both of them wacked out idiots and be against them both equally.

The enemy of my enemy can still be a complete asshole in his own right I always say.

Well said. It's frustrating that so many people think that if you criticize Glenn Beck you must love Olberman.

5 Sheila Broflovski  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:44:03am

Seetheapalooza!

6 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:45:08am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Well said. It's frustrating that so many people think that if you criticize Glenn Beck you must love Olberman.

"LGF is turning into Kos" is a common refrain.

7 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:45:18am

re: #3 Blueheron

There's plenty to criticize about the GOP over the past years, true. However, the really bizarre stuff started to pile up rapidly after our first black president was elected.

8 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:46:20am
His explanation for his change of heart is thin, especially since he never says why he thinks liberals are the “sane, loving, rational” ones.

Seems a number of people lack nuance, or perhaps assumed leaving "the right" meant joining the left. I think it will be interesting to watch their reactions in the future as they come to learn that Charles doesn't fit their assumptions about him any more than he fit the assumptions the right had of him.

9 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:46:42am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Well said. It's frustrating that so many people think that if you criticize Glenn Beck you must love Olberman.

Oh gawd nooo! lol

10 Ojoe  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:47:40am

Try the Modern Whig Party!

Yes I know I have posted this before...

Whig Video.

Thank you for your indulgence.

11 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:47:54am

So what's at the root of all this? Is it the bad economy? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to the Obama presidency? Is it a failure of leadership (or at least a shifting of leadership responsibility to media personalities)?

I'm sure all of the above are at least partly responsible, but I'd be interested in knowing what you all see as the main driving force behind the bad craziness.

12 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:48:35am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Reason doesn't supply a convenient narrative for people to digest. So they just make shit up.

13 Only The Lurker Knows  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:48:48am

I wonder if the Onion will ever do a parody of this mess? And if they do, will we really want to watch it?

14 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:49:09am

re: #6 wrenchwench

Only until you spend two full seconds at KOS.

re: #7 Charles

Lets couple that with the most threatening economic downturn in 70 years. In important ways worse than the great depression, as evidenced by the failure of businesses that survived the depression. Black President, scary economy equals a terrible resonance. I for one think that much of this would simply not be there in a good economy.

15 Ojoe  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:49:49am

re: #11 ignoranceisfatal

I think that one of the problems is that there are only two major parties, and the left and right extremes each claim one of them, and that there is no middle party.

16 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:50:13am

re: #8 Sharmuta

Seems a number of people lack nuance, or perhaps assumed leaving "the right" meant joining the left.

The (or at least one) major flaw of the two-party system, in a nutshell.

17 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:51:23am

re: #8 Sharmuta

Seems a number of people lack nuance, or perhaps assumed leaving "the right" meant joining the left. I think it will be interesting to watch their reactions in the future as they come to learn that Charles doesn't fit their assumptions about him any more than he fit the assumptions the right had of him.

Charles hasn't 'left the right' nor 'joined the left'. He is like many of us trying to find people with ideas who are worthy of our country.

Oh dear. Good luck to all of us :(

18 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:51:54am

And yes, I'm saying that I believe latent racism is behind a lot of the craziness. Sometimes not so latent ... and sometimes right out in the open, staring you in the face.

19 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:51:55am

Even Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal sees the conservatives going over the edge:

...And that's why the 10-point purity test will soon be rooting out the final remaining Republican moderates. If only these impostors can be exposed, the next period of GOP rule will bring with it no problems with deficits, earmarks, bailouts, or any of the rest of it.

Or maybe the party will simply head down the path to ever-more thorough bouts of inquisition and purging, resolutely depopulating its conservative pantheon. Consider the central article of the first point on the list—a commitment to "lower deficits." That would not only banish former President George W. Bush and many members of the late Republican Congress, since they infamously squandered the surplus and ballooned the deficit, but also former President Ronald Reagan, whom the authors of the 10-point program, in a long preamble to their test questions, hymn as the ne plus ultra of conservatism.

Indeed, the Reagan administration would flunk the test with flying colors. After item one comes item five, which insists that anyone who would call themselves Republican oppose "amnesty for illegal immigrants"; well, it was Reagan who signed into law the 1986 amnesty bill that is so hated by opponents of illegal immigration...

RTWT, although if you are not a subscriber, I think you have to jump through a hoop or two.

20 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:52:57am

re: #7 Charles

There's plenty to criticize about the GOP over the past years, true. However, the really bizarre stuff started to pile up rapidly after our first black president was elected.

I think it has been "piled up" for a long time. The election of a black President just emboldened the closet dwellers to start flinging it again.

21 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:54:14am

re: #15 Ojoe

I think that one of the problems is that there are only two major parties, and the left and right extremes each claim one of them, and that there is no middle party.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!
However please insert 'viable' party.

22 junodavid  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:54:28am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Well said. It's frustrating that so many people think that if you criticize Glenn Beck you must love Olberman.

This is the kind of thinking that drive me crazy. Perfectly pointed out Killgore. I don't ever remember Charles saying he was now a crazy liberal, just that the Rep. party is full of wack-jobs.

And what caused this? IMO they were always there. They were just contrite since we had a Republican President. Once the Dems took over everything it was like a crazy bomb was set off. (Which just reminded me of the nude bomb Get Smart movie for some reason.)

23 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:54:39am

re: #11 ignoranceisfatal

I'm sure all of the above are at least partly responsible, but I'd be interested in knowing what you all see as the main driving force behind the bad craziness.

I think it's a mainstreaming of radicalism on both ends of the equation. We had bad Bush Derangement Syndrome for 8 years, and now the other side is having their "turn"- which is sadly even more ugly and dangerous than what we saw for the 8 years before. I think it ties into poor civics education, which is why it affecting both sides of the political spectrum.

24 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:54:43am

Apparently there's soon going to be a Conservative Bible (done by amateur "translators" with ground axes) that will, among other things, excise the words "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) as being an interpolation from some "liberal" scribe a couple of millennia ago. (Of course then the King James Version is corrupt as well, for it also contains the "spurious" passage.)

One wonders what will become of Jesus' other admonitions to forgive. Will it be only "seven times" instead of "seventy times seven" (Matt. 18:22)? Or maybe we won't need to forgive at all now - especially not debts?

The "conservative movement" has now gone so far off the rails that soi-disant "Christians" are rewriting scripture. There used to be a name for this kind of thing. Two names, actually. Heresy and blasphemy.

25 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:55:10am

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

How much responsibility does the current GOP elected leadership bare for failing to confront and even sometimes agreeing with the some of the ridiculousness of their constituents?

26 Ojoe  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:56:05am

re: #21 Blueheron

Join it & help make it viable. No party will jump into existence with millions of members overnight.

Whig Registration Page

27 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:56:11am

re: #11 ignoranceisfatal

So what's at the root of all this? Is it the bad economy? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to the Obama presidency? Is it a failure of leadership (or at least a shifting of leadership responsibility to media personalities)?

I'm sure all of the above are at least partly responsible, but I'd be interested in knowing what you all see as the main driving force behind the bad craziness.


One contributor I've noted before is the easy access to information internet provides. On one hand it is a positive thing with multiple sources and fact checkers around every corner. On the other hand everyone has their 15 minutes of fame and an international range megaphone - including the neanderthols who used to limit their activitiey to keeping each other company in bunkers and basements.

28 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:56:24am

Remember the good ole days when saying you were a conservative meant you were for less government and spending and basically wanted to be left alone and not that you were a screaming idiot one step away from speaking in tongues and attending the weekly book burning?

29 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:56:44am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

30 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:57:20am

re: #28 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Heretic! Burn 'em! ///

31 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:57:53am

re: #18 Charles

And yes, I'm saying that I believe latent racism is behind a lot of the craziness. Sometimes not so latent ... and sometimes right out in the open, staring you in the face.

I hate that pic. Good grief. But I have seen worse unfortunately.

32 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:58:39am

re: #17 Blueheron

Charles hasn't 'left the right' nor 'joined the left'. He is like many of us trying to find people with ideas who are worthy of our country.

Oh dear. Good luck to all of us :(

In fact Charles has been very coy about his own predilictions (other than bikes, cameras and electronic readers) other than to say he's probably left-center in his own thinking. He has done a very good job of skewering idolitarians on both sides of the political center line and thus takes flak from a diverse audience of haters.

33 suchislife  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:59:25am

re: #7 Charles

Are you really sure about this? I know there was a lot of hysterics, but there were also some serious allegations against the Bush administration that many people dismissed out of hand as hippy hate.
I'm not trying to relive the past, I just sometimes wonder how you see so many things about the present political situation much like I (and many others) do, but you seem to have such a very different picture of that time. I mean, it is fairly probable that the people who would brazenly lie about science might also lie about other things, right? (Not saying that there aren't liars on every side of most political issue.)
So the Bush administration fought science to please a religious base who doesn't like science? what else don't these people like? why would an administration do their bidding in this, but not in other areas?

34 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 10:59:51am

re: #25 Jeff In Ohio

Plenty. Lots. Of course those may well have been the votes that got them in. so... little problem there. BTW, I'm a proud indy, not GOP. I left them quite some time ago. After a long review at opensecrets
I have just as much concern about the elected left. And their nuttier constituents. Like that screwball that interviewed Charles. At this pont I am a strong anti incumbent voter.

35 J.S.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:01:21am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

(Back in the eighties there was a "project" -- I believe it was called the "Jesus Project" and the goal was to find all those statements made by Jesus which could be "authenticated." Their methodology was hilarious, iirc. They kept weeding out statements, until they boiled it down to a dozen or so "authentic" utterances..Last I heard they wanted to do a similar "project" for the deeds of Jesus...boil that down..)

36 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:02:09am

re: #20 DaddyG

I think it has been "piled up" for a long time. The election of a black President just emboldened the closet dwellers to start flinging it again.

From the links:



In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.
37 cliffster  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:03:04am

OT - Lebron James is not a human.

38 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:03:14am

re: #26 Ojoe

Join it & help make it viable. No party will jump into existence with millions of members overnight.

Whig Registration Page

I backed Perot and look what I got...Bill Clinton. Come to think of it old Bill would look pretty good right now. It would be great if we could dial back time.

39 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:03:22am

I saw the Republican Party heading over the rails in the 80s with the take-over by the religious right. It was particularly apparent here in Houston where the head of the Republican party, Stephen Hotze, was even then advocating replacing the Constitution with biblical law. Freaked me out. I have rarely voted R since - though I often did before then - unless I knew for a fact that the candidate didn't subscribe to that notion.

At that point R didn't any longer stand for staying out of our lives. It freaking crawled right into my bedroom and womb. It has only gotten much worse since and I think it defines the crazy.

40 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:03:26am

Nobody reacted to my manifesto, so you should be psyched.

41 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:04:52am

re: #39 allegro

I think you meant (or he meant) Stephen Hotze's interpretation of biblical law.

(Exactly how he was going to arrange for the checking of leprous spots, cleansing from having touched dead bodies, etc, I have no idea.)

42 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:05:16am

re: #28 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Remember the good ole days when saying you were a conservative meant you were for less government and spending and basically wanted to be left alone and not that you were a screaming idiot one step away from speaking in tongues and attending the weekly book burning?

Yes I remember! :((

43 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:05:59am

re: #35 J.S.

(Back in the eighties there was a "project" -- I believe it was called the "Jesus Project" and the goal was to find all those statements made by Jesus which could be "authenticated." Their methodology was hilarious, iirc. They kept weeding out statements, until they boiled it down to a dozen or so "authentic" utterances..Last I heard they wanted to do a similar "project" for the deeds of Jesus...boil that down..)

I'm guessing they don't get along well with the historians and scholars who have been researching Middle Eastern mythology who have drawn paralells between Jesus's story and older stories from Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

44 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:06:45am

I wonder if James and Kirk will write a 50-pp. introduction to the "Conservobible" explaining how the liberal readings of the past led straight to Auschwitz.

45 cliffster  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:07:10am

re: #36 Ben Hur

That's a little surprising. I guess I just assumed that he would be pretty much constantly threatened.

46 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:07:29am

re: #34 Rightwingconspirator

Sorry, man, didn't mean to imply it was something you missed, just something I was adding to your list.

47 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:07:51am

Not only did that "Why I Parted Ways..." post serve as excellent flounce-bait, it is encouraging people all over the blogosphere to show themselves for what they are, which is often not good. And every blog post generates a bunch of comments that reveal even more. A. Althouse, who I never liked that much, is linked to in the Crittenden post, and in her comments, she gets some on her:

Blogger downtownlad said...

Never your scene? Yet you link to La Shawn Barber, who has said that if a gay person ever stepped on her property, she would shoot them.

And that Crittenden post was some of the worst English composition I've seen in a while.

48 darthstar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:08:34am

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

Only until you spend two full seconds at KOS.

As a long time dKos user, I can attest to the fact that LGF is not the same. Granted, we have our wackos over there, and yeah, a lot of people love Keith Olbermann...I'm a long-time fan myself, though I will admit his counter-balancing Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity has taken a toll on his objectivity. The saving grace of MSNBC right now is Rachel Maddow, who with one exception that I've witnessed has treated her guests with respect and always given them an opportunity to state their case without interruption--even if she disagrees with them. But I digress.

dKos has its benefits--it's a very supportive community, and when a member is in trouble, quickly rallies around that person and supports them however it can. I've seen people find housing, jobs, places for their pets when they were evicted, paypal accounts created for them when their house burned, etc.

That being said, we liberal lefties have our share of extremists...the reaction to President Obama's decision to give Gen. McCrystal 30k troops and 18 months to get his shit together has been pretty awful. And President Obama campaigned on this issue in part--so it's not like he isn't just fulfilling another campaign promise: to give the troops in Afghanistan the support they lacked the previous six years while we focused on Iraq. Whether it works or not is anyone's guess...I'm not all that hopeful myself.

Still, you need to take the good with the bad. When someone goes conspiracy-theorist (bush caused 911, for example), they are quickly banned...Markos and the other FPers there have zero tolerance for conspiracy theory, anti-semitism, and racism. And we hold our blue-dog democrats in as much contempt as you do your Bachmanns and Palins and Becks.

I suppose, to close this out, what Charles has done by openly rejecting the right-wing-nuttitude of the Becks and Palins will ultimately be good for the Republican party, unless his message is ignored and the GOP swings even further to the right. But running on a platform of 'Say no to anything the black man in the White House wants' isn't a recipe for survival. And yet, 'mavericks' like McCain are running scared to the far right corner (remember his campaign about working across the aisle if he were president?) to the point where he's not even brave enough to criticize his former VP running mate when she talks out her ass. She broke him more in four months than the Viet-cong did in 5 1/2 years.

Okay, I've rambled enough...thanks for reading.

49 baier  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:09:30am
His explanation for his change of heart is thin, especially since he never says why he thinks liberals are the “sane, loving, rational” ones.

It's the things we never said that matter most.
/

50 J.S.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:09:57am

re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

oops. I got the name wrong -- I was referring to the "Jesus Seminar" -- there's a wiki article about what went on...It was conducted by religious theologians, 150 scholars, etc.

51 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:09:59am

Do we have a running total of the number of post-manifesto flounces?

52 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:10:40am

Looks like the alleged threats against Obama have been exaggerated. Gee how can that be?!

"Sullivan said there was no threat to Obama, noting that "last week we took him to a basketball game, and there was 5,000 people sitting around the president."

In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors. "

53 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:11:04am

All this brouhaha is remarkable--Charles is far from the first major league blogger to leave the right-o-sphere. John Cole of Balloon Juice bailed years ago. I used to post there very occasionally, and was caught flat-footed when I went back after the sea change. And Stephen Sherman, the "Commissar" of The Politburo Diktat, who's now retired from political blogging, also recoiled from the more extreme manifestations of the conservative movement. I don't recall such an uproar about them, though.

54 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:11:39am

re: #35 J.S.

(Back in the eighties there was a "project" -- I believe it was called the "Jesus Project" and the goal was to find all those statements made by Jesus which could be "authenticated." Their methodology was hilarious, iirc. They kept weeding out statements, until they boiled it down to a dozen or so "authentic" utterances..Last I heard they wanted to do a similar "project" for the deeds of Jesus...boil that down..)

Leave it to a committe to discover that Jesus was a committee.

55 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:12:23am

re: #48 darthstar

Yeah, that was long. You should have stopped right before this:

She broke him more in four months than the Viet-cong did in 5 1/2 years.

That's pretty callous.

56 Caton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:12:58am

8 years of moonbattiness have put the Dems back in power. The GOP seems to be adopting the same strategy to get back on top. I expect the GOP is going to get crazier for a while.

57 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:14:30am

re: #36 Ben Hur

In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.

I'm guessing there are more racially related threats and insults- but that goes with the territory. Bush probably received more threats from conpspiracy nuts who thought his family was taking over as a US royal dynasty.

I think the racists have been more vocal and probably emboldened by several things. Reaction to the perception that Obama condoned Rev. Wrights racist tirades, plain old bigotry about his mixed race parentage, childish taunts from overzealous right wingers...

Charles has been as consistent as anyone who's opinions are aired publicly in this type of forum- I don't always agree with his assessments but many on the right and left have been much less consistent and more selective with the bad behavior they tolerate and I do not like the hypocracy.

58 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:15:12am

re: #56 Caton

8 years of moonbattiness Bush administration have put the Dems back in power.

FTFY

59 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:15:34am

re: #48 darthstar

She broke him more in four months than the Viet-cong did in 5 1/2 years.

Upding for that.

60 darthstar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:16:20am

re: #55 wrenchwench

John McCain circa 2000 was a different person than the McCain of today. I suppose my comment was a little callous, but just as Huckabee can't run away from his clemency history, McCain can't run away from his decision to hire Palin...unless it wasn't his decision, in which case he wasn't ready to serve as president himself. He doesn't have much of a poker face, and you can see that he regrets bringing Palin on his team, but he can't bring himself to say it.

61 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:16:25am

re: #38 Blueheron

I backed Perot and look what I got...

You are not alone. "Hi I'm DaddyG and I am a recovering Perotista."

62 mj  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:16:32am

From the JTA:


Pro-Israel blogger breaks with right wing

By Eric Fingerhut · December 2, 2009

Longtime pro-Israel blogger Charles Johnson of the popular Little Green Footballs site has "parted ways with the Right" and writes that he can be called an independent. In a post on his blog earlier this week, Johnson, a critic of radical Islam, wrote that among his reasons was "anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide." Other problems with the right, he said, was "support for anti-science bad craziness" and "hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)."

Johnson, who is not Jewish, doesn't seem to have changed his strong support for Israel, which he talked about back in 2004 in this interview with Arutz Sheva. His official break with the Right had been coming for a while -- as this April Washington Independent piece notes:

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jazz musician and Web designer Charles Johnson has devoted his blog, Little Green Footballs, to exposing Muslim extremism in and outside the United States. His targets have included the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filmmaker Michael Moore, Reuters, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Dan Rather, and the late pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie — who some LGF commenters (not Johnson) call “St. Pancake,” a tribute to the Israeli steamroller that killed her. LGF helped write the lexicon of the self-styled “anti-Jihadist” blogosphere — from “moonbat” (”an unthinking or insane leftist”) to “anti-idiotarian” (”anyone who grasps the significance of and does his or her best to combat the post-9/11 political alliance between the ‘Old Left’ and militant Islam”).

But in the early days of Barack Obama’s presidency, LGF has become better known for the various fights it picks with many on the right — including conservative bloggers, critics of Islamic extremism, and critics of Islam in general who used to be Johnson’s fellow travelers. ...

“I don’t think I’ve changed,” Johnson said. “I’ve always been pretty independent. This is something I’ve really tried to put out there on my blog. I don’t consider myself right-wing.”

[Link: blogs.jta.org...]

63 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:16:47am

re: #11 ignoranceisfatal

The reason is plain and simple: power. I've been watching this since the 80's. In spite of Ronald Reagan's landslide, tremendous incompetence from the Democrats and considerable coattails, the Republicans only managed to gain the Senate. I think that the Republicans hitched their wagons onto the former Dixiecrats to break through in the 90's. Problem was, by then the pragmatic, responsible leaders who inspired me to register R from the day I was allowed to vote were gone by then. I simply cannot reconcile that W is H's son. Finally, Karl Rove managed to leverage a solid 33% base into that putative durable majority. The radical right (I refuse to call these radicals "conservatives" because they not only aren't, but if you are trying to transform the society into something it never was, you can't possibly be conservative). Anyway, as the vortex of the right spun ever faster through the 00's, pieces finally started to fly off as that cyclone spun tighter and faster, and here we are today.

64 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:16:54am

re: #48 darthstar

dKos has its benefits--it's a very supportive community, and when a member is in trouble, quickly rallies around that person and supports them however it can.

The LGF community has done the same.

Still, you need to take the good with the bad. When someone goes conspiracy-theorist (bush caused 911, for example), they are quickly banned...Markos and the other FPers there have zero tolerance for conspiracy theory, anti-semitism, and racism. And we hold our blue-dog democrats in as much contempt as you do your Bachmanns and Palins and Becks.

One of the reasons for that is because Charles and LGF held markos' feet to the fire. Just sayin'.

65 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:17:33am

re: #54 The Sanity Inspector

Leave it to a committe to discover that Jesus was a committee.

Jesus wasn't a committee; he was a communist.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people." Acts 2:44-47.

66 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:17:36am

re: #61 DaddyG

You are not alone. "Hi I'm DaddyG and I am a recovering Perotista."

There's two of us here? Hello pleased to meet you :)

67 Caton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:18:17am

re: #58 allegro

FTFY

Do you think the Dems have been civil, sane and balanced since Nov. 4, 1999?

68 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:19:26am

re: #64 Sharmuta

One of the reasons for that is because Charles and LGF held markos' feet to the fire. Just sayin'.

And Killgore.

69 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:20:18am

re: #65 Cato the Elder

Reads like you need to put an anarcho- in front of that.

70 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:20:48am

re: #61 DaddyG

You are not alone. "Hi I'm DaddyG and I am a recovering Perotista."

Haha! Now I know who to sell this bridge to.

71 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:22:14am

re: #67 Caton

You're changing the subject. The rise of Democratic representation since 2006 was the direct result of the Bush administration and Republican majorities in both houses that took the country where the majority of voters didn't want to go.

72 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:23:18am

I do have a remedy, however. Convince EVERYBODY you know, Democrat, Independent, whatever, to join the Republican Party. I know there's a part of Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" that goes something like: could you imagine if everybody went down to the local draft board, sat down on the group w bench and sang a bar from ALice's Restaurant and walked back out? Could you imagine what the radical right would do if the were drowned out of their own party by all these undesireables?

73 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:24:32am

LGF: Daily Kos

74 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:25:24am

Just got confirmed, I got a 2K bonus coming next pay day.

75 J.S.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:26:51am

re: #65 Cato the Elder

Was that one of those "red" events? (as in, "inauthentic"? or just "pinko"?)
/

76 cliffster  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:27:03am

re: #71 allegro

You're changing the subject. The rise of Democratic representation since 2006 was the direct result of the Bush administration and Republican majorities in both houses that took the country where the majority of voters didn't want to go.

And since 2006, we've gone into a debilitating recession, federalized the banking industry, and increased our debt in chunks of trillions of dollars. Nice change of direction.

77 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:27:22am

re: #24 Cato the Elder

The "conservative movement" has now gone so far off the rails that soi-disant "Christians" are rewriting scripture. There used to be a name for this kind of thing. Two names, actually. Heresy and blasphemy.


So what else is new?

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:28:28am

re: #72 SteveMcG

I do have a remedy, however. Convince EVERYBODY you know, Democrat, Independent, whatever, to join the Republican Party. I know there's a part of Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" that goes something like: could you imagine if everybody went down to the local draft board, sat down on the group w bench and sang a bar from ALice's Restaurant and walked back out? Could you imagine what the radical right would do if the were drowned out of their own party by all these undesireables?

I never heard of a dump that was closed on Thanksgiving before...

79 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:28:34am

The trolls are coming out to play in the last thread.

80 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:28:36am

re: #48 darthstar
Kos is for wonks. :) Well it's wonky anyway.
Cool post, thanks. I registered over there before here. I login and read. I have posted very little, it's Kos house and I'm reluctant to just jump in to disagree. Obviously I have plenty to disagree with there, so rather than troll I just absorb what they have to say. I watched the Dems "just say no" to Bush 41 for a couple years. Not racist obiously-partisan.

How can we tell this moment is racist vs partisan? Well racist comments are self explanatory. The rest we have to decide. I hope we will not be assuming racism for every criticism of president Obama.

81 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:28:55am

re: #63 SteveMcG

...as the vortex of the right spun ever faster through the 00's, pieces finally started to fly off as that cyclone spun tighter and faster, and here we are today.

That is a good illustration. The religious right (I'm not enamoured with that term but it is what it is) went from asking for inclusion to demanding it be the definition of the GOP.

The last thing I want to replace the left nanny-statists with is the right nanny-state. Hopefully what comes of this cycle is a recongition that demands for political purity and orthodoxy are unhealthy for the American experiment in freedom and representative democracy.

82 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:29:06am

re: #76 cliffster

And since 2006, we've gone into a debilitating recession, federalized the banking industry, and increased our debt in chunks of trillions of dollars. Nice change of direction.

Which, of course, had nothing to do with two wars, billions in tax cuts for the rich, deregulated Wall Street schemes...

83 Caton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:29:13am

re: #71 allegro

You're changing the subject. The rise of Democratic representation since 2006 was the direct result of the Bush administration and Republican majorities in both houses that took the country where the majority of voters didn't want to go.

From Nov. 1999 to Nov. 2008 the Democratic party has been steadily moving to the left, giving more power to the crazier elements of the party. It worked.

The GOP is doing the same thing. Until the next Republican president, they'll get crazier and crazier.

Call that changing the subject -- it's still got nothing to do with Bush.

84 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:29:35am

re: #66 Blueheron

There's two of us here? Hello pleased to meet you :)


Glad to know you Blueheron with one R!

85 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:30:09am

re: #67 Caton

Do you think the Dems have been civil, sane and balanced since Nov. 4, 1999?

Well, they didn't attempt to impose the will of Congress on a sick, brain-dead woman in opposition to her wishes and those of her husband in a horrendous and terrifying abuse of power and an arrogant slap at non-intrusive, small-government Conservatism.

86 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:30:21am

re: #72 SteveMcG

I do have a remedy, however. Convince EVERYBODY you know, Democrat, Independent, whatever, to join the Republican Party. I know there's a part of Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant" that goes something like: could you imagine if everybody went down to the local draft board, sat down on the group w bench and sang a bar from ALice's Restaurant and walked back out? Could you imagine what the radical right would do if the were drowned out of their own party by all these undesireables?

Shut up, kid.

87 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:30:25am

re: #70 Cato the Elder

Haha! Now I know who to sell this bridge to.

Is it the bridge to nowhere or the bridge to tomorrow?

88 Spider Mensch  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:30:47am

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just got confirmed, I got a 2K bonus coming next pay day.

[Video]


watch they pull a Clark Griswold on you..."Jelly of the month club membership" instead of the Christmas bonus..."the gift that gives all thru the year, Clark!!"

89 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:31:10am

re: #65 Cato the Elder

Jesus wasn't a committee; he was a communist.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people." Acts 2:44-47.

A common misconception. Nowhere in the passage does it say "at gunpoint". With actual communism, the guns are never far away from the heads of its victims.

90 Caton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:31:32am

re: #85 SixDegrees

Well, they didn't attempt to impose the will of Congress on a sick, brain-dead woman in opposition to her wishes and those of her husband in a horrendous and terrifying abuse of power and an arrogant slap at non-intrusive, small-government Conservatism.

Hmm. Good point -- the GOP is getting crazier, not crazy.

91 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:31:59am

re: #88 Spider Mensch

watch they pull a Clark Griswold on you..."Jelly of the month club membership" instead of the Christmas bonus..."the gift that gives all thru the year, Clark!!"

Unpleasant things would occur if that unfortunate event were to come to pass.

92 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:32:17am

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just got confirmed, I got a 2K bonus coming next pay day.




Capitalist pig! Share your unearned bounty with the common lizards!

93 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:32:23am

Damn, now you've got me on a Guthrie spree:

And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay
$50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?"

And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.

94 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:32:28am

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

I never heard of a dump that was closed on Thanksgiving before...

I have 27 eight-by-10 color, glossy photographs to prove it.

95 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:33:50am

re: #86 MandyManners

Good comeback.

96 bosforus  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:33:50am

re: #65 Cato the Elder

Jesus wasn't a committee; he was a communist.

"And all that believed..." Acts 2:44-47.


Is the key. Like The Sanity Inspector said, there is no compulsion.

97 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:34:23am

Dirty filthy hippys throwing trash in the woods.

98 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:34:45am

re: #89 The Sanity Inspector

A common misconception. Nowhere in the passage does it say "at gunpoint". With actual communism, the guns are never far away from the heads of its victims.

There have been voluntary communist societies throughout history. A Benedictine monastery or a Shaker village might spring to mind.

99 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:34:56am

re: #92 DaddyG

Capitalist pig! Share your unearned bounty with the common lizards!

Hell no, I'm paying off my Christmas bills

100 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:35:13am

re: #95 SteveMcG

Good comeback.

Thank you. (I posted that link a lot this time last week.)

101 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:35:26am

re: #96 bosforus

Is the key. Like The Sanity Inspector said, there is no compulsion.

Straw man. I never said there was.

102 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:35:37am

re: #94 MandyManners

I have 27 eight-by-10 color, glossy photographs to prove it.

Please tell me you don't take pictures of dumps.

103 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:35:48am

re: #48 darthstar

Markos' "screw 'em" moment cost him my patronage, forever.

104 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:36:12am

re: #97 Jeff In Ohio

Dirty filthy hippys throwing trash in the woods.

How do you hide money from a hippy?
Put it under the soap.

105 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:36:24am

re: #87 DaddyG

Is it the bridge to nowhere or the bridge to tomorrow?

It's a bridge to nowhere in Baltimore city and it can be yours tomorrow if you'll just sign here...

106 sattv4u2  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:36:35am

re: #102 Ben Hur

Please tell me you don't take pictures of dumps.

better than taking dumps on pictures!

eeewww!!

//

107 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:36:39am

re: #96 bosforus

re: #100 MandyManners

What link?

108 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:36:57am

re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I keep mine in the deodorant cap.

109 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:37:54am

re: #104 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

How do you hide money from a hippy?
Put it under the soap.

How do you hide money from a creationist?

Put it in a science journal.

110 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:37:55am

re: #88 Spider Mensch

watch they pull a Clark Griswold on you..."Jelly of the month club membership" instead of the Christmas bonus..."the gift that gives all thru the year, Clark!!"

A fulll-blown, four-alarm holiday emergency?

111 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:37:57am

re: #98 Cato the Elder

There have been voluntary communist societies throughout history. A Benedictine monastery or a Shaker village might spring to mind.

I am all for consecration and communal sharing. Government mandated movements tend not to be voluntary. Thus my love of republics and represeentative democracy. Us little people can share whatever we want with whomever we think needs it. Of course I can still write it off my taxes if I prefer to choose who my surplus wealth goes to.

112 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:38:58am

re: #111 DaddyG

I am all for consecration and communal sharing. Government mandated movements tend not to be voluntary. Thus my love of republics and represeentative democracy. Us little people can share whatever we want with whomever we think needs it. Of course I can still write it off my taxes if I prefer to choose who my surplus wealth goes to.

Who said anything about government mandates? Not I.

113 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:39:09am

re: #102 Ben Hur

Please tell me you don't take pictures of dumps.

With my implements of destruction.

114 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:39:29am

re: #113 MandyManners

With my implements of destruction.

Shit. Instruments of destruction.

115 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:40:01am

represeentative. PIMF. Looks like Herve Villechiase wrote my last comment.

116 Spider Mensch  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:40:38am

re: #91 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Unpleasant things would occur if that unfortunate event were to come to pass.


Christmas bonus at my workplace consists of a crappy lunch, a dirty look in the hall from the CEO like "who the hell are you?"..and you're lucky enough to not be part of the end of year layoff..Wheee! Another Festivus Miracle!!!

117 bosforus  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:40:47am

re: #98 Cato the Elder

There have been voluntary communist societies throughout history. A Benedictine monastery or a Shaker village might spring to mind.

Good point.

118 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:41:02am

re: #114 MandyManners

Shit. Instruments of destruction.

I think either term would work.

119 Spider Mensch  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:41:20am

re: #110 MandyManners

A fulll-blown, four-alarm holiday emergency?

[Video]


Thats the one!

120 MandyManners  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:41:39am

re: #107 SteveMcG

re: #100 MandyManners

What link?


This one.

121 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:41:43am

re: #116 Spider Mensch

Christmas bonus at my workplace consists of a crappy lunch, a dirty look in the hall from the CEO like "who the hell are you?"..and you're lucky enough to not be part of the end of year layoff..Wheee! Another Festivus Miracle!!!

Is that before or after the airing of grievances?

122 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:41:51am

re: #112 Cato the Elder

Who said anything about government mandates? Not I.


Sorry I was confusing the contemporary usage of communism as a form government with the classical use of communism as a voluntery form of consecrated living. Excuse my presentism!

123 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:43:09am

re: #89 The Sanity Inspector

A common misconception. Nowhere in the passage does it say "at gunpoint". With actual communism, the guns are never far away from the heads of its victims.

At stonepoint?
/

124 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:43:26am

re: #96 bosforus

Is the key. Like The Sanity Inspector said, there is no compulsion.

Yeah. Jesus made it very clear that if you didn't believe, you were free to be a mean, selfish bastard. I guess he did, anyway. I have never found any of those bits in the Gospels, but I suppose they may be in there.

He did, however, suggest that such a lifestyle was not exactly the best one in the eyes of himself and his Father, but mysteriously, the same hypocritical sonsabitches who want to post the Ten Commandments in every courtroom the country appear to feel now that the parts about giving to the poor and making oneself part of the community are the optional bits, which you can get salvation without.

Of course there's compulsion! You really think that a guy who says 'no man comes to the Father but through me' is just gently hinting when he says the rest? There just isn't POLITICAL compulsion in the American system, but these hypocritical sonsabitches want to insist that religion belongs in the political sphere, and the only way they can do that, as they persistently try to drag the Ten Commandments into every courtroom in the country, is to insist that Jesus somehow did not put any actual requirements on his followers, and that if you don't want to take care of the widow and orphan, no one can make you.

As far as I can tell, this is the most heretical mauling of Christianity to occur since, well, this may in fact be THE most heretical mauling of Christianity to take place outside of a science fiction book. The Conservative Bible Project makes the Adamites look like Thomas Aquinas.

(Gasping.) OK, I'm done now.

125 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:43:45am

re: #123 ED 209

Eternal damnation can be quite a motivator.

126 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:44:10am

I tried to be a hippie once upon a time. First problem, when my hair grew, I looked like Ronald MacDonald, second, I kept getting into fights with them. You know, I'm probably the only person who believed Bill Clinton about not inhaling. I had never smoked, so all I did was cough. I didn't feel any different, so I figure I probably didn't inhale either.

127 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:44:23am

re: #113 MandyManners

With my implements of destruction.

Your rakes and shovels, and implements of destruction.

128 Spider Mensch  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:44:37am

re: #121 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Is that before or after the airing of grievances?


after, and right before the test of strength!

129 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:44:45am

re: #116 Spider Mensch

Christmas bonus at my workplace consists of a crappy lunch, a dirty look in the hall from the CEO like "who the hell are you?"..and you're lucky enough to not be part of the end of year layoff..Wheee! Another Festivus Miracle!!!


Maybe they'll throw in a Christmas "goose".

130 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:44:47am

re: #122 DaddyG

Sorry I was confusing the contemporary usage of communism as a form government with the classical use of communism as a voluntery form of consecrated living. Excuse my presentism!

LOL - presentism.

A form of vicious discrimination against the people of the future.

131 Big Steve  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:45:06am

Charles...if you hadn't noticed you got name-napped by someone in the comments at David Hone's site. (David Hone Shell Climate Advisor...see comment 6.) Shows that some people have lives of such despair that they get enjoyment out of impersonating someone else.

132 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:45:41am

re: #126 SteveMcG

I tried to be a hippie once upon a time. First problem, when my hair grew, I looked like Ronald MacDonald, second, I kept getting into fights with them. You know, I'm probably the only person who believed Bill Clinton about not inhaling. I had never smoked, so all I did was cough. I didn't feel any different, so I figure I probably didn't inhale either.

You are not alone. I believed Clinton too. Do none of these people ever remember the first time they took, or tried to take, a drag on a ciagarette?

133 Kragar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:46:04am

re: #122 DaddyG

Sorry I was confusing the contemporary usage of communism as a form government with the classical use of communism as a voluntery form of consecrated living. Excuse my presentism!

I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week

134 hellosnackbar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:46:12am

Some erudite sage on this blog wrote that when it came to faith or ridiculous ideology"dogma trumps common sense"!(I think it was Salamantis)
It would appear that the fragmented GOP has succumbed to this principle and is now "the nasty party"!
Charles Johnson is clearly not a subscriber to the current madness propagated by
such idiots as Genn Beck,Hannity,and various other proseltysers of the mindless,
moronic right.
Life,liberty, the pursuit of happiness and common sense evaluation are values that characterise this blog;and long may this continue to be so.

135 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:46:21am

re: #98 Cato the Elder

There have been voluntary communist societies throughout history. A Benedictine monastery or a Shaker village might spring to mind.

Koinonia Farm in SW Georgia springs to my mind. But those are probably about the upper limit, size-wise, on communities like that.

136 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:47:24am

re: #113 MandyManners

With my implements of destruction.

Implants of Destruction?

Great chick rock band name.

137 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:48:13am

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

Marry me.

138 Capitalist Tool  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:49:03am

re: #98 Cato the Elder

There have been voluntary communist societies throughout history. A Benedictine monastery or a Shaker village might spring to mind.


Stephen Gaskin and The Farm springs to mind, although a commune, may not be considered communist.

139 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:49:03am

re: #126 SteveMcG

No man, chicks dig the red fro. Just like your pot smoking, you gave up to soon. Work on your follow up.

140 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:49:12am

re: #123 ED 209

At stonepoint?
/

Lancepoint?

141 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:49:56am

re: #125 Jeff In Ohio

Eternal damnation can be quite a motivator.

But I have a note from my doctor! "ED is too sick for damnation at this time, please give him a pass." So I'm golden!

142 Only The Lurker Knows  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:51:23am

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

I puked. Should have gotten the clue then.

143 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:51:59am

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

Well then, nevermind what conservatives say, and just look at what they do.

144 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:53:45am

re: #143 The Sanity Inspector

Well then, nevermind what conservatives say, and just look at what they do.

Liberals give too. They just use the government as a handy collection and distribution service.

145 Spider Mensch  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:54:44am

re: #129 Capitalist Tool

Maybe they'll throw in a Christmas "goose".


last year the boss gave everyone a skinny chicken. I put it on my tax return.."1 skinny chicken" those are the type of things the IRS will come after you for!

/as long as I'm on this classic comedy jag, might as well get some Honeymooners in there :)

146 Killgore Trout  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:54:47am

Republicans Pay Tribute at ‘Tea Party’ Movie Premiere

Getting into Wednesday’s Washington, D.C., premiere of “Tea Party: The Documentary Film” meant walking through a steady rain into the Ronald Reagan building, a sprawling downtown trade and convention center where the economic conservative group FreedomWorks, which helped organize a number of Tea Party protests, had rented a foyer and a sizable auditorium. The stars of the film relaxed and talked with former House Majority Leader and FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) handed out business cards to a steady stream of well-wishers. All of the guests made their way into the auditorium on the FreedomWorks version of a red carpet — a strip of green astroturf.
...
Two more members of Congress, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), joined the proceedings to pay tribute to the activists who organized the 9/12 “taxpayer march on Washington,” which drew an estimated 60,000 people to the Capitol to protest the Democrats’ economic agenda.
...
Price, the sponsor of a resolution paying tribute to the 9/12 march, credited Tea Party activists with giving Republicans “the courage to do what we need to do.” After his short remarks, he asked more than a dozen activists to join him onstage to accept framed copies of the resolution, which has been sponsored by 148 members of the Republican conference but has not come up for a vote.


Confederate racist blogger RS McCain was also in attendance.

147 Gus  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:56:36am

Not once did Charles mention as Jules Crittenden relates "liberals are the sane, loving, rational ones." Although after reading Crittenden's sophomoric screed I can say with certainty that he is not sane, loving or rational.

Not that we would expect those characteristics from a member of the pseudo-right-wing-post apocalyptic blogging cult. The fool goes as far as to solicit the "insight" from the racist and Islamaphobic Gates of Vienna in which he received a paltry 4 comments one of which comes from one of the members of gossipy right-wing Tweeting coffee klatch.

Rejecting the right does not imply embracing the left. For many they are in the center and waver to either side depending on the issue. The country is best lead by a centrist and not left-wing or right-wing ideologues let alone extremists from either side.

148 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:56:43am

re: #144 DaddyG

Liberals give too. They just use the government as a handy collection and distribution service.

Yes, and it's ever so handy to have force of arms in your repertoire.

149 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:57:04am

re: #143 The Sanity Inspector

the liberal perspective

150 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:57:47am

re: #146 Killgore Trout

...9/12 “taxpayer march on Washington,” which drew an estimated 60,000 people to the Capitol to protest...

Wait... I thought there were over 2 million people. That's what all the right blogs said.//

151 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:58:34am

How do we avoid swinging back and forth between the loony left and the radical right? The middle ground is larger than each extreme. There are plenty of Blue Dogs to mitigate the liberal movement, but when that middle swings back to the right, it will just empower the radicals. When it swings back, the reverse.

152 bosforus  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 11:58:54am

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, let's clarify something first and I'll start by reiterating that there is no compulsion from Jesus. Even when He says, no man comes to the Father but through me, this is not compulsion. You are not required to believe those words. There is no punishment for not believing those words unless you believe the punishment also. Hence, no compulsion.
Now, what people do at the present time in our political system "in the name" of Jesus, religion, whatever, yes, there is compulsion there. You'll get no argument from me there.
But to say that Jesus' teachings compel people to do anything I don't believe to be true. If you believe in Jesus' teachings, then you're acting on a belief, not compulsion.

153 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:00:36pm

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

You are not alone. I believed Clinton too. Do none of these people ever remember the first time they took, or tried to take, a drag on a ciagarette?

Eh. I didn't misbelieve BC because i thought it was improbably to puff but not inhale. I didn't believe him because that's the smart play. I like the guy, would love to raise a Trappist ale with him sometime, but i don't believe him.

154 J.S.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:01:29pm

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

"...and that if you don't want to take care of the widow and orphan, no one can make you."

Well, don't you agree with that? The legal system (I believe in most of the civilized world) does not penalize Individual X for failure to do Y...(crimes are based on what you do, not on what you don't do). so if a homeless beggar comes to your door asking for a hand-out, and you slam the door in his face -- the beggar can't go and call the police and file a complaint. And, in most nations (of the Western world) you're not obligated to perform charitable works or give to a charity. You're free to be a stingy bastard if you wish to be.

155 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:01:55pm

re: #144 DaddyG

re: #148 ED 209

Were conservatives using a different method from ' 94 - '06?

156 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:02:23pm

re: #111 DaddyG

I am all for consecration and communal sharing. Government mandated movements tend not to be voluntary. Thus my love of republics and represeentative democracy. Us little people can share whatever we want with whomever we think needs it. Of course I can still write it off my taxes if I prefer to choose who my surplus wealth goes to.

If you get part of that boNus check you could share it with me...I want 60% :)

157 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:02:57pm

re: #153 Aceofwhat?

j'suis un paysan.

improbable

pimf...

158 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:03:28pm

re: #149 Jeff In Ohio

Thanks for that link. It's what I was thinking re: church tithing, etc. Great article.

159 darthstar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:04:25pm

re: #80 Rightwingconspirator

Kos is for wonks. :) Well it's wonky anyway.
Cool post, thanks. I registered over there before here. I login and read. I have posted very little, it's Kos house and I'm reluctant to just jump in to disagree. Obviously I have plenty to disagree with there, so rather than troll I just absorb what they have to say. I watched the Dems "just say no" to Bush 41 for a couple years. Not racist obiously-partisan.

How can we tell this moment is racist vs partisan? Well racist comments are self explanatory. The rest we have to decide. I hope we will not be assuming racism for every criticism of president Obama.

Opposing viewpoints are welcome over there for the most part, though you can be sure that some people will knee-jerk react to you as I expect some to react to me here.

I don't assume racism for every criticism of President Obama that comes from Republicans, but dog-whistle terms like 'boy' are hard to ignore, and as Charles has already pointed out, the monkey images, turbaned Obama, etc. aren't something he supports.

And while the Democrats did just say "No" to a lot of what bush wanted, they managed to vote with him more often than not...I attribute that to the Democrats cowardice--which is evident today. Had the GOP held 60 seats and wanted to push through a public option or even single payer to democratic objection, they would have done it in a matter of weeks. Hell, look at how well they did getting their policies through with only a 53 seat majority. I think the Republicans' biggest fears in the Senate is that the Democrats will get the backbone needed to steamroll policy change through...but I don't see that happening any time soon.

160 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:06:02pm

re: #149 Jeff In Ohio

the liberal perspective

From the article:
"Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?"

He lost me there... A little research on the authors part would show that the tithe is voluntary as are additional fast offerings that go directly to the poor. Anyone tithed or not can attend an LDS meeting, be baptised and take the sacrament.

The LDS Church pours tons of money into disaster relief and international aid, self-reliance based welfare programs and other social causes. Our missionaries do millions of hours of community service in addition to preaching the gospel. Tithes go to pay for chapels and Temples in North America as well as the rest of the world and we don't discriminate who gets good facilities based on the amount they are able to contribute.

One could as easily say an environmentalist giving to greenpeace isn't considered charity because they want to attend their meetings. Stupid argument.

161 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:06:25pm

re: #154 J.S.

I think we're merging the calls to action a faith may place on you and what those who claim they follow the faith actually 1) do and 2) tell people they do.

I can't speak for SFZ, but how I read his comment (and my issue with the Christian right) is those politicians who scream loudest about living a Biblically-informed, God-filled, and Christian life advocate the strongest against policies which would actually do these things (unless it involves sex or abortion).

162 Blueheron  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:06:27pm

re: #124 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah. Jesus made it very clear that if you didn't believe, you were free to be a mean, selfish bastard. I guess he did, anyway. I have never found any of those bits in the Gospels, but I suppose they may be in there.

He did, however, suggest that such a lifestyle was not exactly the best one in the eyes of himself and his Father, but mysteriously, the same hypocritical sonsabitches who want to post the Ten Commandments in every courtroom the country appear to feel now that the parts about giving to the poor and making oneself part of the community are the optional bits, which you can get salvation without.

Of course there's compulsion! You really think that a guy who says 'no man comes to the Father but through me' is just gently hinting when he says the rest? There just isn't POLITICAL compulsion in the American system, but these hypocritical sonsabitches want to insist that religion belongs in the political sphere, and the only way they can do that, as they persistently try to drag the Ten Commandments into every courtroom in the country, is to insist that Jesus somehow did not put any actual requirements on his followers, and that if you don't want to take care of the widow and orphan, no one can make you.

As far as I can tell, this is the most heretical mauling of Christianity to occur since, well, this may in fact be THE most heretical mauling of Christianity to take place outside of a science fiction book. The Conservative Bible Project makes the Adamites look like Thomas Aquinas.

(Gasping.) OK, I'm done now.

Good thing I was starting to worry about you :)

163 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:06:54pm

re: #155 torrentprime

re: #148 ED 209

Were conservatives using a different method from ' 94 - '06?

Yes - but don't confuse conservatives with Republicans. ;-)

164 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:07:28pm

Oh wow, I just got positive PROOF that there is no global warming, right here on my li'l Weatherbug alert. Predicting actual SNOW in Houston tomorrow.

I'm staying in. It will be a a nightmare on the roads tomorrow, bodies flying at every stop light.

165 badger1970  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:08:23pm

re: #26 Ojoe

Thanks.

166 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:11:02pm

re: #164 allegro

Oh wow, I just got positive PROOF that there is no global warming, right here on my li'l Weatherbug alert. Predicting actual SNOW in Houston tomorrow.

I'm staying in. It will be a a nightmare on the roads tomorrow, bodies flying at every stop light.

Leave work early today before all the milk and bread are gone from the store shelves!!! (If predictions of snow in Houston is anything like predictions of snow in Atlanta)

167 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:12:35pm

re: #166 DaddyG

Did my grocery shopping this morning. I work at home. It's all good.

168 anamika  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:12:52pm

I liked Ron Chusid's take at the Liberal Values blog the best:

Charles Johnson’s Reasons For Leaving the Right:

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been rejecting the excesses of the right wing movement for several months. Today he issued a list with the following reasons why he has parted ways with the right: [...]

The reasons are similar to those I have frequently written about here. There is some hyperbole here. For example, while I have had a few posts disagreeing with Robert Stacy McCain I have never thought of him as a fascist. McCain responds to Johnson here). Even in the case of Pat Buchanan, while he has certainly shown sympathy for the Nazis, I’m not certain that he outright supports fascism.

One irony here is that much of what he writes here could have applied to his own blog in the past, but he still deserves credit for rejecting that mind set.

To be fair, some of what he says could apply to some on the extreme left. I’ve noted some of the anti-scientific views of people such as Bill Maher on medicine and vaccines, but this is far less prevalent than the belief in creationism and denialism of climate change on the right. I’ve also criticized some on the left for conspiracy theories of their own, but again this is far less prevalent than on the right.

The significant difference between the right and the left with regards to extremism is the degree to which the extremists dominate on the right. The extremists on the right have driven out virtually everyone else. They dominate the major organs of the right from the right wing media to the Republican Party. The left has a handful who, in their own ways, are as nutty as the extremists of the right but they are marginalized rather than the dominant players.

169 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:13:34pm

re: #149 Jeff In Ohio

the liberal perspective

Thanks for that. From the link:

A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do." Indeed, religious congregations are far and away the largest recipients of charitable gifts: In 2006, they made up 32.8 percent of all giving. But is that charity, at least charity as Kristof and Brooks are defining it? For instance: Utah is among the most Republican states in the nation, largely because of its heavily conservative Mormon population. Mormons tithe 10 percent a week to their church. But is that charitable giving? Or is it a membership fee? How much of it goes to anti-poverty programming? How much to church administration?

The idea that church giving is just payment for listening to airy nothings implies a societal blind spot of enormous proportions. Put it this way: The next time I see the Bertrand Russell Society doing disaster relief, or the American Atheists helping refugees, will be the first time.

170 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:14:44pm

re: #160 DaddyG

There is a point in that article, though, although I agree that "just because you "attend" something, it's not a charity" is silly.

The LDS Church also is active in political fights far removed from "charity." Yes, Greenpeace and other orgs agitate for political gain all the time too, but it's related to their given advocacy target position: "this legislation helps the enviro/women/labor laws , but that one doesn't" kind of thing. When the LDS, through its churches, communications (including instructions on how to avoid triggering disclosure laws), and calls to action created a campaign organization that reached swing-state presidential campaign levels in an effort to remove access to a governmental license from members of the population that they had a religious issue with, you're just not in "charity" mode anymore.

Should we call them a PAC, perhaps? (half-sarcasm)

171 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:15:21pm

re: #151 SteveMcG

How do we avoid swinging back and forth between the loony left and the radical right? The middle ground is larger than each extreme. There are plenty of Blue Dogs to mitigate the liberal movement, but when that middle swings back to the right, it will just empower the radicals. When it swings back, the reverse.

We don't.

The loony left is not in power now. The radical right was not in power under Bush.

We are a profoundly centrist country. We just have to build better walls to keep the Bachmanns and the Palins out of power, even in positions that don't really matter.

Of course, in a land where Jesse Ventura can be governor of a state, there will always be slip-ups.

172 J.S.  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:15:57pm

re: #161 torrentprime

Well, whenever these sorts of debates takes place, I get confused...(I think part of the problem is that of differing prior assumptions...) and for me it begins to quickly disintegrate into outright contradictions.

173 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:17:44pm

re: #161 torrentprime

[...]I can't speak for SFZ, but how I read his comment[...]

Psst. SFZ is a fem-unit.

174 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:20:39pm

re: #168 anamika

I liked Ron Chusid's take at the Liberal Values blog the best:

Charles Johnson’s Reasons For Leaving the Right:

Ron Chusid's post is pretty good, but he could not possibly be more wrong about Robert Stacy McCain. I have no idea why people continue to defend McCain, after all of the documented information that's come out, proving beyond any doubt that he's a white supremacist and a vile racist creep.

175 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:21:58pm

re: #173 The Sanity Inspector

That correction deserves a thank-you. Thanks! Sorry, SFZ.

176 Decatur Deb  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:30:51pm

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

(snip) The next time I see the Bertrand Russell Society doing disaster relief, or the American Atheists helping refugees, will be the first time.

When I vote for a Dem, knowing my taxes will go up, I have paid my agnostic secularist tithe.

177 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:32:19pm

re: #171 Cato the Elder

We don't.

Of course, in a land where Jesse Ventura can be governor of a state, there will always be slip-ups.

Awww, but I like Jesse, even if he is a fruitcake.

178 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:32:27pm

re: #169 The Sanity Inspector

The idea that church giving is just payment for listening to airy nothings implies a societal blind spot of enormous proportions. Put it this way: The next time I see the Bertrand Russell Society doing disaster relief, or the American Atheists helping refugees, will be the first time.

That's a little muddled, in my opinion. I donate time and money to charity. I'm an atheist. I don't think there is any need for an explicitly atheist organization to be the one I donate my time or money to. If one existed, I probably wouldn't donate money to it, or time to it, because I don't feel there's any specific tie between atheism and any sort of moral mission. It's not a very strong binding force, atheism.

I do pick charities that aren't specifically affiliated with a religion, but I have no problem working with ecumenical charities.

179 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:34:32pm

re: #170 torrentprime The LDS Church has been notoriously neutral in the political arena ever since Brigham Young ordered people to join different parties in Utah based on their street address (in order to prevent the Saints from voting in blocs). Support of the defense of marriage act was a rare exception based on their prime mission of strengthening families. Despite what you agree or disagree with about their viewpoint on that legislation (and you might be surprised by my own opinion which I was freely allowed to have as an LDS member with no repercussions to my status) it took a miniscule amount of the time and resources the Church collects and uses to appeal to volunteer members in the Church.

No it would not be appropriate to call a Church a pac for asking members to support a measure they felt was central to their core principles.

180 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:36:23pm

PS sorry for the late response I am only sporadically viewing the threads...

181 derekm  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:39:30pm

I always wondered why people get so venomous over something so little as a differing opinion. The hate the right wing is directing at Charles is overwhelming.

I mean, if you disagree with something intellectually you could just hold an honest exchange of opinions and discuss the principles behind said ideas...

Oh wait, the Republicans and a majority of the right forgot those principles. They're in a childish tug-of-war for power, and resorting to intellectually bankrupt tactics of hate and fear and downright kookiness.

So much for an intellectual debate.

If it wasn't for sitting back and actually reading the information and links Charles posts about "the other McCain," I would never have heard about it from the Right-wing blogs I originally visited. I guess they want to be united even if they don't agree with eachother on everything...

Funny though, they will crucify you for global warming beliefs, but not racism... Go figure.

182 ED 209  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:39:42pm

re: #178 Obdicut

That's a little muddled, in my opinion. I donate time and money to charity. I'm an atheist. I don't think there is any need for an explicitly atheist organization to be the one I donate my time or money to. If one existed, I probably wouldn't donate money to it, or time to it, because I don't feel there's any specific tie between atheism and any sort of moral mission. It's not a very strong binding force, atheism.

I do pick charities that aren't specifically affiliated with a religion, but I have no problem working with ecumenical charities.

Amen brother. Another instance of the religious thinking that atheism is another religion.

183 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:41:52pm

re: #179 DaddyG

I didn't know about the Defense of Marriage act. I was talking about Prop 8 in California. Any other "rare exceptions" out there? Do they all have a rainbow theme?

And asking your people, "Go out and do XYZ on your own" is not the same as "We are using church money and resources and the same organizational channels and infrastructure we use to actually administer our religion in order to affect a purely secular institution."

I'm glad to hear they didn't kick people out for disagreeing (!); that also has nothing to do with comparing how they used in-church organization to affect how the government interacts with people they think are sinning. Not to mention how all that differs from a charity.

184 William of Orange  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:42:42pm

re: (from the article. ) Charles

For the record, I still believe there are plenty of “sane, loving, rational” people who call themselves conservatives — but that doesn’t alter my opinion that the movement itself and the Republican Party has gone way, way off the rails. I’ve been documenting this dismaying derailment at LGF for the past year.

I really was wondering when that volcano was going to burst. As some others alreay said, this statement was absolutely no surprise to me. Sure, Charles did have some extreme views (in the eyes of lefwing leading people) but the growing discomfort with the right was growing all the time. I saw things change during the last year I visited this site. The increased annoyance about Beck, the creationism debates that were more and more dominated by the extreme wing of the right etc. etc.

Didn't expect though that there would be such a backlash from the right on-bloc. I did expect to see a lot op understanding from the left, they have been fighting the right all the time, but I didn't expect the universal disaproval from rightwing bloggers.

Maybe I missed some but are the rightwing bloggers outhere who underscore the views of Charles?

185 anamika  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:43:49pm

re: #174 Charles

Ron Chusid's post is pretty good, but he could not possibly be more wrong about Robert Stacy McCain. I have no idea why people continue to defend McCain, after all of the documented information that's come out, proving beyond any doubt that he's a white supremacist and a vile racist creep.

I think Ron Chusid mayn't be aware of the RS McCain's documented information, which hasn't been reproduced much elsewhere in the "mainstream" blogoshere other than here at LGF. From what i can tell, Ron isn't a regular follower of LGF.

A commenter at Liberal Values blog wrote:

R.S. McCain comes a little closer to being a fascist. He has said a lot of things that come close to that line. I hadn’t necessarily seen him that way before, but it’s hard for me to come out with the same detailed explanation of why he is not a fascist than I can manage with Buchanan.

His response to the above comment defending(sorta) Pat Buchanan while steering clear of RS McCain is an indication that he isn't fully informed about the later who is less well-known unlike the former who is a popular figure on the extreme right.

186 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:45:50pm

re: #183 torrentprime

I didn't know about the Defense of Marriage act. I was talking about Prop 8 in California. Any other "rare exceptions" out there? Do they all have a rainbow theme?

And asking your people, "Go out and do XYZ on your own" is not the same as "We are using church money and resources and the same organizational channels and infrastructure we use to actually administer our religion in order to affect a purely secular institution."

I'm glad to hear they didn't kick people out for disagreeing (!); that also has nothing to do with comparing how they used in-church organization to affect how the government interacts with people they think are sinning. Not to mention how all that differs from a charity.

I used the wrong name. It was prop 8. We have heard general instruction to support family friendly legislation and candidates regardless of party. The problem anymore is what exactly does that mean? There are a large number of Mormons who are solidly Democrat and quite "liberal" compared to the stereotypes.

187 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:47:46pm

re: #183 torrentprime

I didn't know about the Defense of Marriage act. I was talking about Prop 8 in California. Any other "rare exceptions" out there? Do they all have a rainbow theme?

And asking your people, "Go out and do XYZ on your own" is not the same as "We are using church money and resources and the same organizational channels and infrastructure we use to actually administer our religion in order to affect a purely secular institution."

I'm glad to hear they didn't kick people out for disagreeing (!); that also has nothing to do with comparing how they used in-church organization to affect how the government interacts with people they think are sinning. Not to mention how all that differs from a charity.


Seeing as all positions in the LDS Church are voluntary and all administration are unpaid (with the exception of a few accoutants in Salt Lake City who are hired to keep the volunteers honest) the perception of the LDS Church as a professional group of political organizers or a traditional Church organization is hard to distinguish.

188 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:52:11pm

BTW- the organizational channels we use to administer the LDS Church are all voluntary. It is sometimes a miracle we can agree on when to hold services much less forge a monolithic political force. Don't read too much into our centralized leadership asking us to support legislation perceived as supportive of traditional families. (The debate over prop 8 and what it would and would not require church organizations to do is a separate one).

The bottom line is the money given to the LDS Church is charitable and the vast majority of it - freely given - is used for universally charitable purposes like caring for the poor, building chapels, providing disaster relief, etc.

189 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:53:01pm

Again sorry for the multiple responses and late comments... my attention is devided right now. I'm not trying to troll a dead thread despite the way it looks...

190 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:54:02pm

re: #189 DaddyG

Are you kidding? The discussion is great, and I was afraid someone would accuse newbie-me of the exact same thing. :)

191 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:55:49pm

re: #188 DaddyG

I sorry, DaddG, but the Mormons, as a group, lost an entire generation of Californians at any rate, with what they pulled over Prop 8. It is not going to be forgiven any time soon.

I have no problem with any individual Mormon, only with the Mormon Church involving itself in politics to the level it did with Prop 8.

192 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:57:24pm

re: #190 torrentprime

Are you kidding? The discussion is great, and I was afraid someone would accuse newbie-me of the exact same thing. :)

Thanks- I always worry my discussions about my church are venturing into LDS apologetics and that's not Charles thing. So I try not to drag it out.

I appreciate your candor and your polite way of discussing disagreements. You will fit in well here.

Back to work for me.

193 Decatur Deb  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:58:29pm

re: #190 torrentprime

Are you kidding? The discussion is great, and I was afraid someone would accuse newbie-me of the exact same thing. :)

Thread management is an art. I gave up trying to follow more than one hot thread in realtime. Masterspy really helps (but also can get in the way}.

194 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:58:37pm

re: #53 The Sanity Inspector

All this brouhaha is remarkable--Charles is far from the first major league blogger to leave the right-o-sphere. John Cole of Balloon Juice bailed years ago. I used to post there very occasionally, and was caught flat-footed when I went back after the sea change. And Stephen Sherman, the "Commissar" of The Politburo Diktat, who's now retired from political blogging, also recoiled from the more extreme manifestations of the conservative movement. I don't recall such an uproar about them, though.

Because Charles is the Blogfather, don'tcha know...

;-P

195 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:59:29pm

re: #191 Obdicut

I sorry, DaddG, but the Mormons, as a group, lost an entire generation of Californians at any rate, with what they pulled over Prop 8. It is not going to be forgiven any time soon.

I have no problem with any individual Mormon, only with the Mormon Church involving itself in politics to the level it did with Prop 8.


I was not conmfortable with the overt political stand for the record (I told you I'd probably surprise you). It was out of character for the Church as a whole and I hope we continue to follow a general policy of "teaching men correct principles and letting them govern themselves" as our founder Joseph Smith is oft quoted as saying.

196 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 12:59:55pm

re: #192 DaddyG

Back to work for me.

Damn - I lied.

197 Stuart Leviton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:03:31pm

re: #24 Cato the Elder

Apparently there's soon going to be a Conservative Bible (done by amateur "translators" with ground axes) that will, among other things, excise the words

Cato, that is so clever of you. I hope it's just a joke. One could do wonders with the bible. Take Leviticus Chapter 19 for example

Do not hate your brother in your heart.
You must love your neighbor as you love yourself
198 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:07:38pm

re: #91 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Unpleasant things would occur if that unfortunate event were to come to pass.

Would it involve you "inspiring" your brother-in-law to kidnap your boss?

///

199 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:08:27pm

Charles, you have left the "right", why were you there?

Any thinking person does not view themselves part of the right or left.
Clear analysis of issues requires not having an ideological starting point.

I admit because of life experiences and reading of history I am conservative and skeptical of much of current liberal thought.
However I would find it intellectually dishonest to put myself on the right or left.

This is why I am skeptical of the current LGF climate debate. Any questions or statements disputing the lefts climate change thesis are trashed as silly.

Please keep LGF independent thinking.
Invite debate and limit closed mindedness.

200 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:10:17pm

re: #106 sattv4u2

better than taking dumps on pictures!

eeewww!!

//

Believe it or not, some weirdos are into scat porn.

*retches*

201 Stuart Leviton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:11:32pm

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Just got confirmed, I got a 2K bonus coming next pay day.


[Video]

Time to get stoked

202 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:13:22pm

re: #109 Cato the Elder

How do you hide money from a creationist?

Put it in a science journal.

Sounds like you cribbed a Chris Rock joke from his "N***as vs. Black People" bit:

Q: How do you hide your money from n***as?

A: Hide it in your books...'cause n***as don't read!

///

203 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:18:20pm

Even LGF Watch is linking to the previous post. They're not getting a re-direct like they used to, though.

204 allegro  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:19:13pm

re: #199 dogg

Any questions or statements disputing the lefts climate change thesis are trashed as silly.

Claiming the thesis is from "the left" is what's silly.

205 Locker  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:21:27pm

re: #199 dogg

Charles, you have left the "right", why were you there?

Any thinking person does not view themselves part of the right or left.
Clear analysis of issues requires not having an ideological starting point.

I admit because of life experiences and reading of history I am conservative and skeptical of much of current liberal thought.
However I would find it intellectually dishonest to put myself on the right or left.

This is why I am skeptical of the current LGF climate debate. Any questions or statements disputing the lefts climate change thesis are trashed as silly.

Please keep LGF independent thinking.
Invite debate and limit closed mindedness.

I'm not quite sure how you can criticize Charles while in the exact same message showing how "intellectually dishonest" you with the snarky little comment about "the lefts climate change thesis". If you WERE intellectually honest you'd address the specific questions and/or statements which you think were/are valid and yet trashed.

I have always found Charles willing to listen, research and review just about anything. I have also found that he does not suffer fools lightly, especially ones who continue to rehash previously researched and rejected arguments. Which describes about 95pct of the current climate change denier babble.

If you want to get it on and debate then put your money on the table and get in the mix. Man up.

206 William of Orange  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:23:10pm

re: #196 DaddyG

Damn - I lied.

A lying mormon? :-)

I feel happy to disagree with the Mormon church and am happy to do so in a civilized discussion. Gee, as long as we're talking about problems instead of screaming to each other we're saving the world!

;-)

207 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:25:32pm

re: #206 William of Orange

A lying mormon? :-)

I feel happy to disagree with the Mormon church and am happy to do so in a civilized discussion. Gee, as long as we're talking about problems instead of screaming to each other we're saving the world!

;-)

Thanks -

you do know your going to hell for disagreeing with me don't you?

/

208 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:33:23pm

re: #205 Locker

Correct, locker it was snarky (?), and I like all others can not be with out some bias.

Please address the lack of true public debate on climate change and what Charles means by leaving the right.

I honestly value your opinion and can not judge the accuracy of any scientific data or conclusions on this subject.

209 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:36:45pm

re: #208 dogg


Please address the lack of true public debate on climate change and what Charles means by leaving the right.

Please prove that the scientific peer-review process hasn't been a public debate. Or are we just referring to the debate the day one group lost one version of one set of numbers?

210 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:45:05pm

Well, to be honest, I haven't seen a change of heart. I think this has always been an independent site, and has applied the same standards to both the left and the right. The fact that there is a left and there is a right automatically means that people who align themselves are going to be just a little dishonest--trying to win rather than trying to be truthful and accurate. When the left was out of power, they were astoundingly dishonest and thoroughly nuts, and now the right is out of power and acting the same way.

I do hope that there is a bottom to the depths of partisanship. At the moment, it does seem that if you fall in, you'll never stop falling.

Let's face it, if you want to start a Diogenes Club, you don't have to rent a lot of space.

211 Stuart Leviton  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:46:51pm

According to today's Clarence Page editorial William Ayers says Obama's a conservative war hawk. Oh the times they are a changin'.

212 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:52:31pm

re: #209 torrent prime

Thank you locker,

1st up on google is Wiki, which defines Peer Review.
The apparent weaknesses of Peer Review is group think and selection of referees.
From the leaked emails it would seem that great pressure has been brought to bear on climate change scientists with differing interpretations of data and this may have hindered the Peer Review objectivity.

Your thoughts

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:53:38pm

re: #143 The Sanity Inspector

Well then, nevermind what conservatives say, and just look at what they do.

I'm not talking about 'conservatives', I'm talking about the, uh, biblical redactors.

214 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:54:22pm

re: #148 ED 209

Yes, and it's ever so handy to have force of arms in your repertoire.

Wow.

215 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:55:04pm

re: #152 bosforus

Well, let's clarify something first and I'll start by reiterating that there is no compulsion from Jesus. Even when He says, no man comes to the Father but through me, this is not compulsion. You are not required to believe those words. There is no punishment for not believing those words unless you believe the punishment also. Hence, no compulsion.
Now, what people do at the present time in our political system "in the name" of Jesus, religion, whatever, yes, there is compulsion there. You'll get no argument from me there.
But to say that Jesus' teachings compel people to do anything I don't believe to be true. If you believe in Jesus' teachings, then you're acting on a belief, not compulsion.

That's reasonable, and point I glossed in my fury at the Conservative Bible-eers.

216 Locker  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:56:48pm

re: #212 dogg

Thank you locker,

1st up on google is Wiki, which defines Peer Review.
The apparent weaknesses of Peer Review is group think and selection of referees.
From the leaked emails it would seem that great pressure has been brought to bear on climate change scientists with differing interpretations of data and this may have hindered the Peer Review objectivity.

Your thoughts

Extensively discussed here: [Link:littlegreenfootballs.com... ]

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:57:09pm

re: #154 J.S.

"...and that if you don't want to take care of the widow and orphan, no one can make you."

Well, don't you agree with that? The legal system (I believe in most of the civilized world) does not penalize Individual X for failure to do Y...(crimes are based on what you do, not on what you don't do). so if a homeless beggar comes to your door asking for a hand-out, and you slam the door in his face -- the beggar can't go and call the police and file a complaint. And, in most nations (of the Western world) you're not obligated to perform charitable works or give to a charity. You're free to be a stingy bastard if you wish to be.

No, I don't agree with that, from a religious perspective. I believe that I am absolutely obligated to give, even if I often stray from that obligation.

I am not talking about the legal system, I am talking about people who would actually change their religious texts to reflect ideas that better suit their political wants.

218 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:58:36pm

re: #161 torrentprime

I think we're merging the calls to action a faith may place on you and what those who claim they follow the faith actually 1) do and 2) tell people they do.

I can't speak for SFZ, but how I read his comment (and my issue with the Christian right) is those politicians who scream loudest about living a Biblically-informed, God-filled, and Christian life advocate the strongest against policies which would actually do these things (unless it involves sex or abortion).

Let me be clear. I am only talking about the Conservative Bible crowd, which is, God willing, a small group. I am revolted by their apparent inability to distinguish between their religious beliefs and their political beliefs, and their apparent willingness to sacrifice one on the altar of the other.

219 Fenris  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:02:20pm

I enthusiastically look forward to the rationale from the above-mentioned blogs that not-right equals left.

220 ryannon  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:03:41pm

re: #28 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Remember the good ole days when saying you were a conservative meant you were for less government and spending and basically wanted to be left alone and not that you were a screaming idiot one step away from speaking in tongues and attending the weekly book burning?

Hey, that sounds like a lot of fun!

Where can I join?

221 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:04:00pm

re: #212 dogg

Thank you locker,

1st up on google is Wiki, which defines Peer Review.
The apparent weaknesses of Peer Review is group think and selection of referees.
From the leaked emails it would seem that great pressure has been brought to bear on climate change scientists with differing interpretations of data and this may have hindered the Peer Review objectivity.

Your thoughts

Again, you've shown nothing to indicate that tens of thousands of scientists across the world weren't both in the majority and scientifically justified in avoiding contact with groups which cherry-picked and misrepresented data (all proven).
Also, your post uses one of my favorite "smear the scientists" word out there: "seems." So it seems that
So it seems that the fact that no credible scientists or data existed to contradict the collective opinion of the majority of the world's climate scientists indicates group think? To use a Stewart quote in a different context: I think you're confusing "tyranny" with "losing."

222 ryannon  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:10:08pm

re: #97 Jeff In Ohio

Dirty filthy hippys throwing trash in the woods.

Not only that, but Arlo's dad was a dirty filthy Commie!

223 Wozza Matter?  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:15:40pm

re: #8 Sharmuta

The People on The Left know that Charles is not headed over to Kos or DU anytime soon.

General feeling is it's a welcome distancing of himself from the radicals and that the sane centre is stronger for it.

The Left knows - in this instance - that leaving the "Right" arrives you in the Centre first.

224 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:16:57pm

re: #221 torrentprime

"Seems" was a bad choice of words, nothing intended.

Just as to go against the 'Flat Earth " consensus meant a loss of position at one time, is there not currently a risk in going against the tide in receiving government funding or your peer recognition and thus job?

225 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:18:02pm

Sorry, I vented and then had to get to class. Let me do one last post here, to clear some confusion up:

1. I do not think conservatives are bad people, although I myself am not one. I certainly would never think they were not charitable, as a group.

2. I am not, in #124 above, referring to the average American Republican, or independent conservative. If you are not a hypocritical sonofabitch, you should not feel offended.

3. This is the point I was attempting to make in fury: I believe that this 'Conservative Bible' crap is a self-delusional attempt to edit the texts of Christianity so as to make them come in line with the political ideas of fiscal and social conservativism. It can't be done, and it shouldn't be done. It is one thing for a man or woman to say: "As a Christian, I believe I should be charitable. As a conservative, I believe the government should not mandate my charity." Practically speaking, I probably don't vote with them very often, but that's a sane stance.

What the Conservative Bible people are saying goes more like this: "I am a Christian. This is the founding religion of the United States, and we should routinely reference and credit the Judeo-Christian values of this fine nation--well, mostly Christian values, but you know what we mean. We should follow the Bible in our laws. However, to be sure we don't transgress against conservative values, we will rewrite the text, to be sure that Jesus is clearly against coerced charity, a free-market enthusiast, and well, wouldn't want us to do anything we felt uncomfortable doing. Most of all, we will deny Jesus ever would have agreed with liberal Americans about anything."

This is sacrilege against God, Thomas Jefferson, and the Hebrew and Greek languages. I am greatly in favor of all those things, so I take umbrage with the concept. Well, I don't know enough Greek to really be in informed favor of it, but I understand it gave us a lot of very good literature.

'At's all. Thank you for your time.

226 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:20:59pm

re: #220 ryannon

I still think that way, but they may not leave you alone.

I am refeering to the extremists on both ends.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

227 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:24:31pm

re: #224 dogg

"Seems" was a bad choice of words, nothing intended.

Just as to go against the 'Flat Earth " consensus meant a loss of position at one time, is there not currently a risk in going against the tide in receiving government funding or your peer recognition and thus job?

Flat Earth? As in the religiously-motivated efforts to deny science/reality? Which team does that apply to?
Anyway: You keep talking as if having a different opinion on science should be a protected state for one's job or social status. This is not a matter of a favorite sports team or even one's personal faith. To "go against the tide" in these scientific circles meant one was embracing bad/non-existent science and might no longer be able to fulfill one's job.
To go back to your example: you can join the Flat Earth society. It may interfere with your job as a geologist. And if you are unable to perform your scientific duties inline with currently accepted science, why should you keep your job? Should someone who advocates creationism be able to keep his job as the head of evolutionary science? Should it be bad that your peers at the Evo Science laugh at you?
Again, none of this is valid criticism of the science. Denialists jump from "algore" to "lack of peer review (because we have nothing in peer review journals to dispute climate change)" to "they're laughing at me and I want it to stop".

228 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:24:50pm

re: #216 Locker

Not much in that link, what is your point that all Peer Reviews are sacred and above subjectivity and self interest?

229 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:25:22pm

re: #218 SanFranciscoZionist

Let me be clear. I am only talking about the Conservative Bible crowd, which is, God willing, a small group. I am revolted by their apparent inability to distinguish between their religious beliefs and their political beliefs, and their apparent willingness to sacrifice one on the altar of the other.

They are small but they have God™ on their side. /

230 torrentprime  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:28:44pm

re: #228 dogg

Not much in that link, what is your point that all Peer Reviews are sacred and above subjectivity and self interest?

At least this naked attempt to smear the science and scientists with baseless "well, people suck, so I'm sure something I don't agree with is fraudulent" was more honest than most.

231 dogg  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:31:53pm

re: #230 torrentprime

You are way of base, I asked an honest question and I am accussed of ?

Hopefully we can develop trust in the future.

232 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:31:59pm

re: #225 SanFranciscoZionist

Completely agree. I'm not certain, but I think such rewriting of the Bible to bend it to one's own beliefs may be unprecedented. There have certainly been some strange things justified using Biblical passages, but the direction has always been from the untouched text to whatever is desired to justify to the ultimate production of the justification - never the other way 'round, where the text itself is changed. Throughout history, Biblical text has been revered as inviolable, and there has been an ongoing effort to push back through history to discover Biblical writings that are as close to their original form as possible.

233 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:42:05pm

re: #224 dogg

"Seems" was a bad choice of words, nothing intended.

Just as to go against the 'Flat Earth " consensus meant a loss of position at one time, is there not currently a risk in going against the tide in receiving government funding or your peer recognition and thus job?

There never seems to have been a "flat earth" consensus for anyone to go against. The only group I've run across who actually believed the earth was flat was a tiny, short-lived group of very early Christian zealots. The earth's spherical nature has been noted since at least the time of ancient Greece, and was completely understood in Columbus' time.

The "flat earth" myth seems to have arisen from a short story by Washington Irving about Columbus written in 1828, a work of pure fiction, as is the notion it attributes to Columbus' detractors.

Also, I'm not aware of any examples of ideological purging having been conducted within the scientific community, at least. Can you provide any examples? I'm aware of many, many counterexamples - the guy at the LHC who thinks the machine is being sabotaged from the future; a planetary scientist at NASA who thinks he discovered bacterial fossils in a rock from Mars, despite all manner of contrary evidence; older examples, like the theories of phlogiston, N-rays and a host of other off the wall theories that not only got published, but often got funding, despite their extreme minority status.

234 Wozza Matter?  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:47:02pm

re: #225 SanFranciscoZionist

ding ding.

i couldn't have put it any better.

235 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 2:51:51pm

re: #225 SanFranciscoZionist

I haven't read all the comments in question, and I'm going to go back and see what's been said, but first I want to say I never considered you one who had issues with rational conservatives. However, I have to say that the "conservative" Bible has nothing to do with fiscal-conservatism. This is 100% theocons.

Additionally- fiscal conservatives don't have a problem with government spending money on things like defense, education, infrastructure, and welfare. It's a matter of how and where money is spent- federal, state, local. A rational, fiscal conservative sees the need for government to be involved in these aspects of our society, but we argue on the finer points.

236 Øyvind Strømmen  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:35:27pm

re: #232 SixDegrees

Completely agree. I'm not certain, but I think such rewriting of the Bible to bend it to one's own beliefs may be unprecedented

I would say it is part of a long tradition. Even the selection of which texts are included in the New Testament is - in some ways - comparable.

Choosing a certain interpretation / translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts which useful for one's own beliefs is rather common. The Christian anti-gay-rights movements constantly make references to the story of Sodom, as if homosexuality is an important ingredient in it; it isn't (I can be disputed if it's mentioned at all). Ezekiel 16: 48-49 does however say:

"This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes."

Of course, Christians who support gay rights have a tendency to do just the same thing, just the other way around. There are - for instance - many who interpret the story of David and Jonathan as a story of two male lovers, with homoerotic elements; not necessarily a wrong interpretation, but likely an interpretation based on their own beliefs in the first place - I have at least never heard of a Conservative Christian suddenly drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is okay after reading this part of the Bible.

Others discuss what the Greek word "porneia" actually means: [Link: www.libertyandlove.org...]

I see the CB project in the same light. Some of the examples they mention on their website are also examples where the Greek and Hebrew texts may be translated in different ways: should it read "cast lots" or "gamble"? Should the Hebrew Gehenna be understood as Hell, or as the actual Valley of Hinnom, should יהוה be translated as "God", "The Lord", "Yahweh", "Yehowah"? Does the Bible really say "You shall not kill" or does it say "You shall not murder"?

The CB insistance on taking the adulteress (or is it prostitute?) story out of the Gospel of John is more interesting, from my point of view (as an agnostic with an academic background within the field of religious history). This is rather unique for modern-day adherents of mainstream Christian denominations - and they could be opening a Pandora's box on themselves.

237 Major Tom  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:36:01pm

Beautifully Stated. I completely agree. re: #48 darthstar

238 darthstar  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 3:36:50pm

re: #237 Major Tom

Thanks

239 [deleted]  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 4:14:44pm
240 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 4:40:05pm

re: #197 Stuart Leviton

It's not a joke, more's the pity.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

241 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 5:08:10pm

re: #235 Sharmuta

I haven't read all the comments in question, and I'm going to go back and see what's been said, but first I want to say I never considered you one who had issues with rational conservatives. However, I have to say that the "conservative" Bible has nothing to do with fiscal-conservatism. This is 100% theocons.

Additionally- fiscal conservatives don't have a problem with government spending money on things like defense, education, infrastructure, and welfare. It's a matter of how and where money is spent- federal, state, local. A rational, fiscal conservative sees the need for government to be involved in these aspects of our society, but we argue on the finer points.

I was just, er, touched, by their reference to the 'free-market message of the parables'.

242 bubbatech  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 11:14:03am

I have been following LGF for a couple of years, mostly from the perpective of a left-leaning centrist. The thing I have appreciated about this blog is a refreshing appeal to reason, which for me has been the principal thing that seems to be missing from GOP discourse. As scientist, any argument I hear, political or otherwise, has to have some relationship to verifiable facts or I just can't follow it. Hence I think the action by LGF to dissociate from what is now called the right wing was inevitable. While I don't always agree with LGF positions, at least they are internally consistent with reasonable assumptions that provide a foundation for debate. The actions from the right appear to be inconsistent with rationality and therefore, to me, are just plain scary.

243 S.D.  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:41:26pm

From the outside, this entire "issue" is amusing to me.

Some seem to see your post as becoming a "Lefty", but your post never mentions the Left at all and certainly was not a "conversion". Fact is: You are a conservative and objected, as you clearly stated, to certain things.

Oddly, People will read into things whatever they want to.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210418Electrics and hydraulics hum along now unattended and without any thought.No more mentions until we add a pump or a panel or... We lived with the partially screened in filter for a week.It didn't feel quite right and it looked ...
Dangerman
3 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 240 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210411The pumps are pumping along. Like they always should have.They go on when the sun comes out, they go off in the clouds and at night.We barely pay attention to their functioning and now can focus on the sight and ...
Dangerman
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 631 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 •
AFI - Dulcería (Official Music Video) "Dulcería" comes from AFI’s new album, Bodies, out June 11. Available for preorder everywhere now: riserecords.lnk.to ​ Directed by Adam Mason, produced by Elizabeth Mason LYRICSI saw sugar there, dancing in the sweet air. When my eyes began to ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 744 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 8 •
The Shaolin Afronauts - Winds Across Gayanamede (Live at Adelaide Festival Centre) Recorded 21 January 2012 at Adelaide Festival Centre, Adelaide, Australia. Winds Across Gayanamede is taken from the second album from The Shaolin Afronauts; Quest Under Capricorn. The album drops 16 July on vinyl, CD and digital download via Freestyle ...
Thanos
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 687 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210404Did you spend all week thinking about solar power and pumps? We didn't either.A week of flawless electrics and hydraulics.The first few days we went out to check on it like hourly.Now we don't even think about itThe proof of ...
Dangerman
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 971 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 7
Tweets: 0 •
Springsteen - “Prove It All Night” Live at Cleveland Agora, 1978This is so perfect.
Secret ANTIFA Operative
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,117 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 3 •
Foster the People - Lamb’s Wool (Official Music Video) Official animated music video for Foster The People's single 'Lamb's Wool' off of their most recent EP 'In The Darkest Of Nights, Let The Birds Sing'. Listen to 'Lamb's Wool' here: stem.ffm.to Listen to 'Lamb's Wool (with Poolside)' here: ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,114 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
Talk Talk - It’s My Life (Live at Montreux 1986) Live at Montreux 1986 is a concert video release by the British synth pop band Talk Talk of a concert at 1986 Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland. The show was part of a tour that started in April 1986 ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,124 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •