A Reply to Dennis Prager’s Open Letter

Opinion • Views: 11,002

In many ways I have an enormous amount of respect for Dennis Prager; unlike some of his fellow talk radio hosts, he gets deep into the issues, and for the most part refrains from demagoguery. And he and I have many things in common, particularly an understanding of the danger of militant Islam, and a support for the state of Israel.

But his article titled “An Open Letter to Charles Johnson” shows that Dennis and I also have some big differences.

He answered each of the 10 points in my apparently notorious post, so I’ll reply one by one. The points from my original post are in italics.

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, etc.).

Associating the American right with fascism is done only by leftist ideologues and propagandists, not by serious critics. It is akin to calling everyone on the left a Communist.

Dennis is familiar enough with the principles of logic and debate that I know he’ll understand when I say that this is the first of many straw men that he throws up to make light of what I wrote. This straw man argument — that I’ve accused everyone on the right of the things I wrote in that post — is completely false, and if you read carefully, it’s obvious that I deliberately wrote the entire post to avoid making such blanket accusations.

“Support for fascists” is not hard to find at many right wing sources, especially among the so-called “anti-jihad” bloggers. Some pretty well known right wing blogs are now openly promoting alliances with European far right neo-fascist organizations such as the British National Party and the Belgian Vlaams Belang. I suspect Prager is ignorant of the real history behind this, and therefore feels comfortable with brushing it all off as insignificant.

There’s a lot to read, but the LGF tag for Vlaams Belang has a lot of that history, and a search turns up a few more posts; Dennis, if you’re really interested in why I felt it necessary to distance myself from these people, I recommend reading through it. I had good reasons for everything I posted on this subject, and I stand by it all.

In any event, what do any of these groups have to do with mainstream American right institutions such the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute; or with mainstream conservative publications and websites such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, townhall.com or Commentary; or with mainstream American conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Thomas Sowell, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, as well as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

Another straw man, since I didn’t write that any of those pundits or organizations are “fascist.”

But since you asked, Dennis, in addition to your columns, townhall.com publishes the work of Pat Buchanan (introduced once by Sean Hannity as “the great Patrick J. Buchanan”). Which leads us to your next point:

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.).

I agree with the late William Buckley that some of Pat Buchanan’s views could be construed as anti-Jewish…

William F. Buckley concluded Buchanan was an antisemite 18 years ago; I recommend his book on the subject.

In addition to being anti-Jewish, though, Buchanan has a host of other questionable associations — for example, he’s appeared several times on the infamous “white nationalist” radio show Political Cesspool, whose other guests have included David Duke and other prominent racists and “racialists.” This LGF post has more, including a picture of Buchanan meeting with (guess who!) the leaders of the Belgian Vlaams Belang party.

In addition to regular appearances on MSNBC and Fox News, Buchanan’s columns continue to be published at nearly every major conservative news site, including the one that published Dennis Prager’s article. It would make me a little uncomfortable to share a publisher with someone like Buchanan, but I guess that’s just me.

… and to label Ann Coulter a white supremacist (or bigot) is slander.

Here are the facts: in her latest book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” Ann Coulter defends a white supremacist hate group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, saying they were unfairly branded as racists. The LGF posts are here, with exact quotes from the book:

Ann Coulter and the Council of Conservative Citizens
Ann Coulter and the Council of Conservative Citizens, Part Deux

And again, Dennis constructed a straw man; I didn’t accuse Ann Coulter of being a white supremacist. I wrote “support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism” in my post. It’s possible to support these things without actually believing in them yourself, and that’s exactly what Coulter did when she tried to claim “there is little on the CCC website suggesting” it was a racist group. Ann Coulter is all about selling her books and appearances, but in this case, while pandering to the persecution complex of the far right, she ended up defending a hate group that is absolutely indefensible.

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.).

“The entire religious right” wants to throw “women back into the dark ages?” As a religious (Jewish) conservative, perhaps I am a member of that group, and I find the charge absurd. The one example you give — anti-abortion — is invalid. To those who regard the unborn as worthy of life (except in the almost never occurring case of it being a threat to its mother’s life), opposition to abortion is no more anti-woman than opposition to rape is anti-man. The only people who wish to throw women into the dark ages are the people you, Charles, used to fight. That is why your change of heart has actually hurt the battle for women’s dignity and equality.

Dealing with the last point first, I’ve had no change of heart on this subject — I’ve always been pro-choice, and I’ve always been opposed to much of the agenda of the political religious right. For example, see this post from 2005 reacting to the disgraceful circus staged by the religious right around Terri Schiavo.

And again, Dennis’s response uses a straw man argument — because I didn’t write that “the entire religious right” wants to “throw women back into the Dark Ages.” But if you don’t want to believe there’s a very strong undercurrent of hatred behind some of the members of the “pro-life” movement, here’s just one LGF post (there are others) that quotes some of the reactions at blogs and news sites to the murder of Dr. George Tiller: Bad Craziness Watch: Right Wing Reaction to the Tiller Murder. The comments posted at many right wing sites after this killing were horrifying.

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.).

So, Charles, all those scientists who question or deny that human activity is causing a global warming that will render much of life on earth extinct are “anti-science?”

Straw man again. I didn’t say that “all scientists who question global warming” are anti-science. But the particular people I mentioned by name — yep, they’re anti-science, all right, and again there are numerous posts at LGF to back up that claim.

Has the possibility occurred to you that those who are skeptical of what they consider hysteria cherish science at least as much as you do? In fact, they suspect that — for political, social, financial, psychological and/or herd-following reasons — it is the “global warming” hysterics who are more likely to be anti-science.

Activist scientists, liberal media and leftist interest groups brought us the false alarm of an imminent heterosexual AIDS pandemic in America, the false alarm about silicon breast implants leading to disease and the nonsense about how dangerous nuclear power is. They were anti-science, not us skeptics who have been right every time I can think of.

It’s ridiculous to say that skeptics have never been wrong. I’ve posted numerous articles debunking the claims of the “skeptics,” in fact — they’re “wrong” much more often than they are right. And not just wrong, often deliberately misleading to boot.

The issue of climate change is one in which I absolutely have changed my mind, as I’ve written previously, and my posts on the subject have tried to focus on facts and evidence to back up my position that climate change is real, it’s caused by human beings, and the human race needs to wake up and do something to deal with it before it’s too late.

I’d hate to be in Dennis’s shoes in a decade or two if he turns out to be wrong, and the world faces disaster because of people who spread disinformation.

As for creationism, Dennis didn’t mention it, but again there are hundreds of LGF posts on the subject, especially focusing on the many top GOP politicians who promote creationism — a sad commentary on a conservative movement that’s shackled to an atavistic anti-scientific doctrine.

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.).

This charge is particularly ugly. It appears that you have decided to fight all the “hate” you allege to be on the right with your own hate. Why exactly is it “homophobic bigotry” to want to maintain the millennia-old definition of marriage as the union of men and women? The hubris of those who not only want to change the definition of the most important institution in society but believe everyone who ever advocated male-female marriage was a bigot — meaning everyone who ever lived before you, Charles — is as breathtaking as it is speech-suppressing.

This article is turning into the Attack of the 50-Foot Straw Men. My post doesn’t even mention same sex marriage; that’s only a small part of the homophobic bigotry that, again, is documented in many posts at LGF.

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.).

What you call “anti-government lunacy” most Americans regard as preserving the greatest protector of individual liberty — limited government.

I don’t think we need militias to preserve limited government, sorry. The rise of groups like the John Birch Society and the Oath Keepers, and the NWO ranting of Glenn Beck and other radio hosts definitely fall under the rubric of “anti-government lunacy.”

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.).

I am no fan of Alex Jones, who, coincidentally, has attacked me on his website as a “Jewish propagandist.” But please. The amount of hate speech in one Keith Olbermann commentary dwarfs any 12 months of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. In any event, the real irony here is that before your inexplicable change, it was you who devoted years to documenting the greatest amount of hate speech on earth today — that coming from within the Islamic world. If you still hated hate speech, you would still be doing that important work.

Well, actually I still am posting about hate speech from the Islamic world; for example, from last Friday: Mahathir: If the US Could Make ‘Avatar’ They Could Fake 9/11.

As for believing in conspiracy theories, your new team wins hands down…

I wasn’t aware that I’d chosen a new team; am I allowed to have independent views or does parting ways with the “right” inevitably mean I have to join the “left?” I choose to believe that I can remain independent of political affiliation, and in fact I’ve never seen the purpose of blogs to be simply promoting a party line. That’s why I don’t see this whole kerfuffle as a big sea-change; I see it as drawing some lines and setting some boundaries, and saying, “No, I’m not down with this.”

… from multiple assassins of JFK to the American government being behind 9-11 (it was even believed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration) to the war in Iraq waged on behalf of Halliburton.

Ironically, just today we learned that John McCain’s Republican primary challenger in Arizona is a Birther. Ahem.

To be continued…

UPDATE at 1/27/10 3:14:17 pm:

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.).

From what I have seen, your examples do not justify your charge. Moreover, for every right-wing “raging hate” speech website, there are probably three on the left. The major conservative sites are overwhelmingly rational and devoid of “raging hate.” Given my longtime respect for you, Charles, it pains me that it is your list of 10 reasons for abandoning the right that is a prime example of “raging hate.”

I’ve already mentioned the many thousands of commenters at right wing sites who applauded Scott Roeder for murdering Dr. George Tiller in his church, but here’s another way to back up my point #8: LGF search: “Hot Air comments”.

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.).

I saw Pamela Geller’s site (The New York Times Magazine article about you cited it — Atlas Shrugs — and mentioned nothing remotely approaching your charges against her or her site) and I’ve interviewed Robert Spencer. Your charges against them only cheapen the words “fascism,” violence” and “genocide.”

Again I think Dennis Prager is ignorant of the history behind some of these points; rehashing it once again is tedious, so I’ll just mention that LGF’s search engine will provide some of the context that Dennis Prager is missing, if you care to delve into the issues.

10. 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).

The charge is a lie. Period. Those who cannot argue with the right always accuse it of racism. It used to work, Charles. But it is increasingly obvious to all but fellow leftists that the charge is specious. Opposition to President Obama has nothing to do with his race. Indeed, he continues to be more popular than his policies.

I answered this in a previous post by pointing out that there are many comments right below Prager’s article at townhall.com that would fit my description of the right’s bad case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And more than a few attacking me, as well, suggesting I might be a child molester or that I’ve chosen a “sinful” lifestyle or that I’m being paid off by sekrit commies.

But the “Hot Air comments” link above contains many more examples of racist, race-baiting, extreme, hateful, even threatening comments about President Obama, just for the record. And of course, there’s this: Rush Limbaugh in His Own Words.

Jump to bottom

528 comments

1 _RememberTonyC  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:43:16pm

Dennis and Charles: You are both people I respect enormously. While you may have some differences, you are both good people and in more ways than not, you ARE on the same side.

2 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:46:29pm

Cool. The last part gets to what to me was the heart of it. Leaving the right is not by default joining the left. We can choose sides on an issue by issue basis. Sometimes after the process of choosing, one finds that a side represents them well...and sometimes after the process of choosing, one finds that neither side represents them terribly well.

3 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:50:34pm

Still reading - Charles - #5 and #6 - your points should be italicized, I think.

4 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:51:31pm

Too many pundits today are trying to embrace a "if you're not with us 100%, you're against us 100%" approach to politics. Its never worked and in the end, just marginalizes them to the point of irrelevancy.

5 Merryweather  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:52:30pm
The amount of hate speech in one Keith Olbermann commentary dwarfs any 12 months of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

It's telling that he can't come up with anything better to defend Beck, Limbaugh and friends than the tired old non-argument: "But the other side's much worse!"

6 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:53:18pm

Wow, what a spanking. I believe I heard a sonic boom. Cheers, Charles.

7 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:53:41pm

"

I’d hate to be in Dennis’s shoes in a decade or two if he turns out to be wrong."

I don't think any of us will be in good shape in a couple of decades if he turns out to be wrong. With the exception of people who own ocean front property in Nevada and Greenland sugar cane farmers.

8 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:53:46pm

I also have a great deal of respect for Dennis Prager in many ways; Charles, this response was well worth the time and effort put into it, and was the right way to do it.
Well done.

9 Virginia Plain  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:58:26pm

Now I'd like to see how he responds to this.

10 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:58:48pm

Excellent post. Cue music:

11 Interesting Times  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:59:03pm

re: #5 Merryweather

It's telling that he can't come up with anything better to defend Beck, Limbaugh and friends than the tired old non-argument: "But the other side's much worse!"

And to top it off, it's not even true:

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: "I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately"

When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

12 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:59:24pm
That’s why I don’t see this whole kerfuffle as a big sea-change; I see it as drawing some lines and setting some boundaries, and saying, “No, I’m not down with this.”

Nice. I'm down with that.

Be true to your school should end after senior year and not get into politics. Unfortunately campaigns seem perpetual now and the partisan shrieking is so loud I can hardly hear myself think.

13 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 2:59:29pm

I can't find my post from days of yore... (early last year) but I remember talking about JD Hayworth (along with a few local hosts), not by name though.

Ironically, just today we learned that John McCain’s Republican primary challenger in Arizona is a Birther. Ahem.

I was disappointed that someone who I thought "should know better" was talking about the Nirth Certifikit as though there was actually some validity to the whole thing. Looking back in retrospect, I find this view of mine to be quaint and child-like innocence...

Because just about every one on right leaning talk radio is a Nirther now. Kool aid is far stronger than "should know better".

14 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:00:42pm

re: #6 Slumbering Behemoth

This is one of the problems with politics. Your comment illustrates it perfectly. Instead of trying to minimize rhetorical flourishes and find common ground, it's about winning the argument, and "spanking" the opponent. I expect more from both Charles and Prager, and they deliver it regularly. I'm disappointed in many of the straw-man arguments that Prager used. He's normally very clear (radio gives him more time to elaborate.) This is why it's so important for the two of them to hash it out on the air, or through a series of online debate formats, posting back and forth. Like Charles said, Prager is someone worthy of respect. This back and forth is far to superficial for any good to come from it, and this is how the limitations of articles lends itself to bad writing and easy miscommunication and misunderstandings.

15 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:00:45pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

And to top it off, it's not even true:

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: "I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately"

When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

They apologise for Olbermann all the time. /

16 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:01:10pm

Mr. Prager may need a research assistant.

...From what I could gather from a cursory glance at the party's platform...

just doesn't cut it. At the least, he could use the tags on LGF posts, since he's responding to Charles's statements, which are based on information he has shared at LGF. In fact, this post almost constitutes "rebuttal by tag link."

17 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:01:20pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

No a fan of Olbermann, but you do have a point. Anytime Rush gets called on his BS, he does nothing be dishonestly deflect.

18 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:01:21pm

Dennis is more deserving of your attention than many who have written about you. You guys are both class. I sincerely hope you do his show, and I will again say I'd love to see him here with a chance to live blog with us, and vice versa.

19 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:02:09pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

There is no way, no nonzero probability in any scenario in this or any parallel universe that Olbermann would have backed down if it wasn't Jon Stewart himself who had called him out. What we have here is the power of The Daily Show much more than Olbermann engaging in genuine humility. Still, devil his due, he could have ignored the advice/criticism and kept ranting, imho

20 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:02:40pm

re: #13 ArchangelMichael

I think you're confusing hardcore nirthers with those who haven't done the research for themselves and are taking nirther's at face value (obviously a bad plan) but not on the same level of crazy as the true nirther's.

21 Merryweather  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:02:58pm
When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

When you don't think you're doing anything wrong, you're never going to apologize.

22 DaddyG  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:03:57pm

I wonder what gets better ratings for the pundits - continuing to double down on stupidity or apologizing?

23 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:04:23pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

This requires using the way-back machine, but in the early 90s, before the Internet in any meaningful way, William F. Buckley wrote a few well chosen words for Rush, whereupon he toned down the rhetoric a bit. When I say "toned down" these terms are relative.

24 Merryweather  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:04:50pm

re: #19 keloyd

There is no way, no nonzero probability in any scenario in this or any parallel universe that Olbermann would have backed down if it wasn't Jon Stewart himself who had called him out. What we have here is the power of The Daily Show much more than Olbermann engaging in genuine humility. Still, devil his due, he could have ignored the advice/criticism and kept ranting, imho

True. If Bill O'Reilly'd broken his iron-clad rule of not mentioning his name and called him out, Olbermann would have cranked up the volume and ripped off the knob.

25 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:05:13pm

re: #14 robdouth

My comment is my comment, and it reflects on no one but me. I am not your springboard to be used to criticize the topic of this post. Do that without me.

26 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:05:19pm

If it weren't for these semi-respectable lizards here vouching for Prager, I would think the response was a waste. If he will un-stuff his strawmen and do a bit of research before he answers this time, I will be impressed.

/"semi" was for fun.

27 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:05:44pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

And to top it off, it's not even true:

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: "I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately"

When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

"I have been a little over the top lately. Sorry."

That's the bulk of his apology, and he's apologizing to Stewart? You can give him credit if you want. If I called someone an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees, you can bet I'm going to either apologize to them in person or not at all. You don't tell a third person, "yeah, i'm a little out of hand, sorry."

28 Kragar  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:06:31pm

GOP leaders signal opposition to conservative litmus test

HONOLULU -- About two dozen Republican state chairmen on Wednesday opposed the idea of denying party support to GOP candidates who fail a controversial "purity" test, a vote that comes as party leaders debate whether to adhere strictly to conservative principles or open the GOP tent to include more moderate voices.

The unanimous vote, on the first day of the Republican National Committee's winter meeting here, was not binding, but it provided an indication of where some party leaders are on the issue ahead of a full vote Friday. "I think today's vote cast some serious concerns about that resolution," said Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams.

The GOP seized momentum following Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts last week, with party leaders saying they are confident their candidates could regain Democrat-held seats in Congress in November's midterms -- and perhaps reclaim congressional majorities. But the internal split that is coming into focus as the RNC considers the purity resolution is undermining that confidence.

The resolution, being introduced by some of the committee's more conservative members, would require that Republican candidates agree on at least eight of 10 listed conservative positions -- from taxes and immigration to same-sex marriage and gun control -- or lose party money and support.

29 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:06:39pm

re: #18 Rightwingconspirator

Here here, you both deserve you're due, and I think sometimes Dennis is loathe to change a position (be it AGW, or other things) just because of his personal past and history with other science based skepticism. I believe in this case it's wrong because some of those other "skeptical" times he talked about were before the invention of the internet, where things can be researched, vetted, and rebutted before the initial evidence is published. The shelf life of a hoax on the internet is about an hour if you're lucky, so if AGW were truly a hoax, it would be refuted and recanted by now. Given the money and policy at stake though, you can guess there will be a huge information/misinformation tet a tet for years to come.

30 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:07:32pm

re: #21 Merryweather

When you don't think you're doing anything wrong, you're never going to apologize.

This is America..We have the right to loony stupid ass pundants of the far left as we do on the far right....I just had no idea that after the Grown ups in charge lost power they would go all Thelma and Louise on up.

31 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:08:43pm
As for believing in conspiracy theories, your new team wins hands down…

I wasn’t aware that I’d chosen a new team; am I allowed to have independent views or does parting ways with the “right” inevitably mean I have to join the “left?” I choose to believe that I can remain independent of political affiliation, and in fact I’ve never seen the purpose of blogs to be simply promoting a party line. That’s why I don’t see this whole kerfuffle as a big sea-change; I see it as drawing some lines and setting some boundaries, and saying, “No, I’m not down with this.”

They all immediately jumped to the conclusion that "I'm leaving the right" must mean "I'm joining the left." Because they are all binary thinking people apparently. As a fiscally conservative independent, I cant stand being called a "librah!" for not passing their 'if you aren't with us 100% you are against us' litmus test on social issues.

… from multiple assassins of JFK to the American government being behind 9-11 (it was even believed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration) to the war in Iraq waged on behalf of Halliburton.

Nice try Dennis, but the left didn't start most of those. Nearly every conspiracy theory comes out of the paleo-libertarian kook fringe. Whether the "right" or "left" follows along with it depends on if they are in power at the time.

32 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:08:55pm

Bravo!

You speak for an awful lot of us, Charles.


5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.).


The documented history of GOP resistance to even nominal rights for GLBT people to actually work and live without fear of being fired, being assaulted or being killed is in black and white. The GOP has refused every bill that ever addressed hate crimes or employment rights. Guess who screamed the loudest when the SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence V Texas that gay people in their homes have a right to be left alone by morality police?

Guess.

That is a big reason why I left the Republican Party. Too much time spent trying to get their version of big government into my bedroom while spouting the usual platitudes that government should stay out of our lives. Lying sack of shit fundamentalist hypocrites.

(I guess Tom Delay meant he wanted the FBI out of his crooked dealings with Jack Abramoff, but he was fine with cops roughing up the queers in their living rooms.)

Rant over. Phew.

33 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:08:57pm

re: #25 Slumbering Behemoth

Fair enough, but it does add to the discourse, and there are others who view it as a zero sum game. Whether you do or not, the connotation of your post makes it seem that way. This is a unique site where there is less of that, but given the respect and class of both these individuals, it's not a battle of one-upsmanship. Your comment is yours, mine is mine, no biggie really.

34 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:09:54pm

re: #30 HoosierHoops

This is America..We have the right to loony stupid ass pundants Pundits of the far left as we do on the far right...I just had no idea that after the Grown ups in charge lost power they would go all Thelma and Louise on up.us

35 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:10:06pm

re: #32 celticdragon


Easy now. I quite dislike the notion of hate crimes. In no way does that make me a bigot.

36 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:10:09pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

And to top it off, it's not even true:

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: "I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately"

When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

He apologized to John Stewart, not Brown.

37 Unakite  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:10:34pm

re: #19 keloyd

There is no way, no nonzero probability in any scenario in this or any parallel universe that Olbermann would have backed down if it wasn't Jon Stewart himself who had called him out. What we have here is the power of The Daily Show much more than Olbermann engaging in genuine humility. Still, devil his due, he could have ignored the advice/criticism and kept ranting, imho

Give him a couple minutes, he will.

38 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:10:57pm

re: #34 HoosierHoops

dude, you're not supposed to start drinking before the SOTU. you'll never make it through the whole thing//

39 teleskiguy  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:11:18pm

Charles' independent streak is precisely why I read LGF everyday. He's not bound by a political party, he does whatever the fuck he wants (including ejecting your humble teleskiguy commenter and being nice enough to bring 'em on back, thank you for a second chance) and sticks by his guns. Charles parted ways with the right wing, but the fact that he sticks to principle and believes everything he posts deep down in his heart, that makes him more conservative than any of these tin-foil-hat right wingers he mentions in his (not-deservedly) infamous Why I Parted With The Right post. Keep on truckin' Charles, and watch out for those 50-foot Straw Men!

40 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:12:05pm

re: #29 robdouth

One measure of respect is how far apart the opinions/conclusions can be without breaking the respect. I'll predict that if Dennis gets through Charles citations he will withdraw the slander charge, and at the least give Charles a "pass" on AGW. By pass I mean an honest agree to disagree. We'll see I hope so.

41 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:12:35pm

Nice work Charles. I'm not sure if Prager is simply uneducated about how to make a valid argument or if he's dumbing it down because he thinks his readers are.

Its beyond strawman, Its all the way to hollow man.

42 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:13:38pm

re: #26 wrenchwench

If it weren't for these semi-respectable lizards here vouching for Prager, I would think the response was a waste. If he will un-stuff his strawmen and do a bit of research before he answers this time, I will be impressed.

/"semi" was for fun.


You're so cute when you're aggravated.

43 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:14:30pm

re: #33 robdouth

Cool. Have a LOLCat.

44 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:14:36pm

re: #38 Aceofwhat?

dude, you're not supposed to start drinking before the SOTU. you'll never make it through the whole thing//

LOL My problem is I'm sort of watching a Showtime movie Elegy...Sex scenes with Penelope Cruz as a student...I'm a tad distracted..
in my defense It is a 2008 movie rated 3 stars...*wink*

45 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:15:46pm

re: #32 celticdragon

Strawman arguments aren't just Prager's specialty today. As someone who has found themselves on the opposing side of Hate Crimes legislation, it's never because of the rights they want to give those of a homosexual orientation. I worry about what it will do to free speech rights of those who argue against gay marriage (even though i disagree) because then you hear that labeled as hate speech per se, and I don't want that turned into hate crime, even if I disagree with it.

I never understood hate crimes legislation for violent offenses because there are already crimes on the book for violent offenses. The problem many libertarian minded people such as myself have with hate crime legislation as an idea is that it doesn't actually protect against the crime, it just creates another layer of penalties for acts that are already illegal anyway.

If you are talking about other laws specifically I can't speak to that, and I will not argue that there are no people who hate homosexuals, because that would be a ludicrous argument to make. I'm just saying that the vast majority of opposition to hate crimes comes from a place of good faith IMHO. I know I don't have numbers to back that up, but I no a number of people who disagree with hate-crime legislation, and none of it is because of hateful reasons, so that's a broad brush to pain with.

46 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:18:49pm

re: #41 Mich-again

You obviously have no background of Prager's work. I believe he made a mistake in trying to address this issue in a townhall article because the venue is clunky at best. But the man is a brilliant speaker and generally a well-informed and reasoned debater. This article was beneath his ability, but it's unfair to claim he's dumbing down anything. If you knew him well, you'd take his arguments on good faith and allow him a do-over. Charles preface of respect for Prager should show how different he is from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.

47 cliffster  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:19:04pm

rock on charles

48 Gus  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:19:32pm

With regards to Dennis Prager's strawman (one of many) regarding silicone breast implants he is incorrect in stating that it was because of skeptics like him that it was a false alarm regarding complications of connective tissue diseases. It was not the result of history or anthropology majors with their own radio shows but the hard work of neutral thinking scientists and doctors after conducting numerous studies and research.

Prager's suggestion seems to imply that all that is needed is an anecdotal observation and that no research should have been conducted. If we apply this to all facets of human activities and thereby ignore potential warning signs and new complications as they arise this would lead to catastrophic results in many cases and ignoring a variety of environmental and systemic indicators.

That being said silicone breast implants have numerous potential complications including but not limited to:

* Asymmetry
* Breast pain
* Breast tissue atrophy
* Calcification/calcium deposits
* Capsular contracture
* Chest wall deformity
* Delayed wound healing
* Extrusion
* Galactorrhea
* Granuloma
* Hematoma
* Iatrogenic injury/damage
* Infection, including Toxic Shock Syndrome
* Inflammation/irritation
* Necrosis
* Palpability/visibility
* Ptosis
* Rupture/deflation
* Seroma

Research will continue and it will be conducted by scientists and medical doctors, not by radio talk show hosts and so called skeptics.

49 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:19:57pm

re: #32 celticdragon

The documented history of GOP resistance to even nominal rights for GLBT people to actually work and live without fear of being fired, being assaulted or being killed is in black and white.

In a roundabout way you are saying that the GOP turns a blind eye to assault and murder of GLBT people. I call BS right there.

50 Lidane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:20:01pm
That’s why I don’t see this whole kerfuffle as a big sea-change; I see it as drawing some lines and setting some boundaries, and saying, “No, I’m not down with this.”

It's so strange to me how so many people are refusing to see this. I thought it was obvious from the moment I read the original post.

I guess for some folks, it's all about ideological purity and about towing some specific party line. I think it's far more honest to say that you're not just going to accept and defend everything that "your side" (whatever that means) throws out blindly.

I like the independent streak of this blog. It's damned refreshing. I'd hate to be surrounded by people who agreed with me all the time. Echo chambers are boring.

51 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:20:38pm

re: #46 robdouth

If that were so, then why did Prager feel the need to construct so many strawmen instead of answering Charles's critiques?

52 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:21:59pm

re: #45 robdouth

have pithy on us please...

53 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:22:14pm

re: #46 robdouth

This article was beneath his ability, but it's unfair to claim he's dumbing down anything

Huh? If the article is below his ability but he didn't dumb it down on purpose, then whats the explanation? An evil twin?

54 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:22:48pm

The conclusion of my response is now posted above.

55 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:23:26pm

re: #48 Gus 802

No, I think you missed Prager's point. It wasn't that anecdotal evidence showed they were wrong. His point is that people came out and hysterically claimed silicone breast implants caused A, B, and C. He's claiming they jumped the shark, not that people like him proved them wrong. It's that later science proved them wrong, and I believe he's trying to draw the parallel that he feels later science will again prove AGW wrong, but unfortunately I believe for him this is the case of the boy who cried wolf one too many times, being right on this one and him not getting on board.

His problem is that he has seen some hysteria be disproved over time, but each incident has to be taken on it's merit. This isn't a trending thing where you can draw conclusions from other pseudo-scientific hysterias. By trying to follow previous formulas, he's ignoring the real science of this specific case. The other incidents he mentioned are non-sequitirs to the case of AGW.

56 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:23:48pm

re: #35 Aceofwhat?

There is a reason for them.

When a person is mugged and killed, it is bad enough...but that doesn't generally get taken as a political or social attack on a community. When you hang a person (like African American tended to have happen to them) on the night before election day, then you are in a whole different territory.

There is no doubt that you not only murdered a person, but you were sending a terroristic warning to other similar people that the same thing will happen to them if they get "uppity". Terrorism laws are similar in nature. We all know damned good and well that the 9/11 hijackers did not just commit 3,000 acts of murder. They attacked each and every one of us, so that is why terrorism charges connected with murder are even more serious than "just" murder.

When a gay person or transgendered woman is assaulted, raped or killed, the trend has been that the crimes are often unusually graphic (typically, victims are stabbed dozens of times and often decapitated and burned) and tend to be interpreted as a warning to other "fairies". Also, local law enforcement often ignores these types of crimes (especially in rural areas where GLBT people may be unpopular) or juries may refuse to convict on murder charges (this has happened more than once) because they have religious objections to GLBT people and may feel that "the faggot had it coming, and I would have killed him/her too."

Testimony in federal this week reveals that GLBT people are the minority most likely to be assaulted or otherwise victimized for reason of social hatred.

Until people are willing to leave people like me alone and law enforcement actually aggressively pursues crimes against us, I will carry a concealed weapon and I will support hate crimes laws.

57 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:24:31pm

re: #45 robdouth

I tried to address that above.

58 Unakite  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:24:37pm

re: #53 Mich-again

Huh? If the article is below his ability but he didn't dumb it down on purpose, then whats the explanation? An evil twin?

Non sequitur. The Vikings lost. They played below their ability, but did they lose on purpose?

59 SixDegrees  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:24:39pm

Meanwhile, Republicans unanimously reject a "Purity Resolution" in a move seen as a sharp rebuke to extremist elements.

Yay.

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:24:50pm

re: #11 publicityStunted

And to top it off, it's not even true:

Keith Olbermann Apologizes For Scott Brown Comment: "I Have Been A Little Over The Top Lately"

When have Beck or Limbaugh *ever* done such a thing?

As far as I know, Beck still stands by his assertion that Scott Brown may yet kill an intern. I'd heard he didn't like him, but I was sort of shocked that in the year of the nontroversy, accusing a newly elected Republican of FutureCrime is apparently not important enough to bother any of the right-wing pundits I check in on.

What gives?

61 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:26:00pm

re: #53 Mich-again

No, maybe it's dumbing down then because of the format or venue, but I've seen Prager speak on many occasions, and he's always been well thought out and very logical. You are right on this. I guess I'm just trying to argue for his reputation while admitting this was not his best or even good work. I on the other hand will continue on with my reputation of clunky responses and indiscernible prose. Carry on, you were right, I was wrong.

62 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:26:26pm

re: #56 celticdragon


That is a sensible point of view. I am asking you to acknowledge that there exists a sensible point of view in gentle disagreement with yours, and that disagreement in no way implies bigotry. Good people need to be able to disagree in principled fashion about these things in good faith. Attack the reasoning, not the motive.

63 Big Steve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:26:29pm

As someone with a philosophy degree and specialty in logic, reading Prager's article and Charles's response....which correctly points out the straw man issue....I am struck that Prager's arguments against Charles assume that Charles was arguing deductively. While when you read Charles's original post, it is clear he is arguing inductively. Deductive reasoning is when one argues that conclusions follow necessarily from premises. Inductive reasoning is a probabilistic argument indicating that the conclusion can be reached by reliable generalization. So when Prager says "not all people on the Right are Fascists....he is assuming that Charles's has implied "all" when Charles was really just saying that a high enough percentage are fascists to make me uncomfortable with the lot.

64 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:26:57pm

re: #26 wrenchwench

If it weren't for these semi-respectable lizards here vouching for Prager, I would think the response was a waste. If he will un-stuff his strawmen and do a bit of research before he answers this time, I will be impressed.

/"semi" was for fun.

Prager is stuffy and old-fashioned, and we disagree on almost everything, but my impression of him has largely been one of sanity.

65 Gus  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:27:30pm

re: #55 robdouth

OK Not really interested in debating my post. My point was that you don't counter false claims with rhetoric you have to prove them with hard work.

66 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:27:35pm

re: #60 SanFranciscoZionist

i hate it as much as i hate Olbermann's comments.

how's that!?

67 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:29:10pm

re: #58 Unakite

Non sequitur. The Vikings lost. They played below their ability, but did they lose on purpose?

I disagree. Athletes can have a crappy game but there's no good reason a writer should write crap and sign his name to it. Bad analogy.

68 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:29:28pm

re: #59 SixDegrees

Meanwhile, Republicans unanimously reject a "Purity Resolution" in a move seen as a sharp rebuke to extremist elements.

Yay.

Yay indeed, good news.

/that light I see at the end of the tunnel better not be a gawt-damned train...

69 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:30:06pm

re: #68 Slumbering Behemoth

Yay indeed, good news.

/that light I see at the end of the tunnel better not be a gawt-damned train...

;) Best not to be in the tunnel in the first place.

70 SixDegrees  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:30:15pm

re: #32 celticdragon

FWIW, when DADT was being debated in Congress - where it faced stiff opposition on both sides of the aisle - Barney Frank, who favored seeking a compromise between keeping the existing policy of complete intolerance of homosexuality in the military and a complete lifting of the policy, was joined in his efforts by Conservatism's dean, Barry Goldwater - who argued that a complete repeal of the ban was the proper course of action.

71 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:32:00pm

re: #69 Varek Raith

Too late for that.

72 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:33:31pm

re: #67 Mich-again

I disagree. Athletes can have a crappy game but there's no good reason a writer should write crap and sign his name to it. Bad analogy.

I agree Mich...The only way to make this a sports analogy is when the writers woke up and found out Baseball players were using PED's.. Something had corrupted the game and they called it out...
something has corrupted the GOP.. They are being called out..

73 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:33:41pm

re: #57 celticdragon

I cannot know how you feel, having not shared your experiences, but I believe that proper enforcement of the law doesn't change just because you enact more laws. If the enforcement isn't working, no amount of laws will change that. In fact, if you create a situation with an extreme hate crime bill (just as a stupid extreme example) where the punishment was far more drastic because it was against someone who was gay or lesbian, then you're creating a situation where the officer would be more likely to ignore enforcement if they didn't think the punishment fit the crime. I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly feel more legislation sure isn't going to fix the problem. I'd like to think the problem will fix itself as we continue to grow more small L liberal as a people. Also, can you site examples of police not pursuing assault or crimes because of sexual-orientation that is more recent then Harvey Milk or the 70's situation in Frisco? I'm not familiar with that niche of law.

74 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:33:57pm

I for one am really happy to see Charles pointing out those things he is not willing to be a part of. I'm just returning to LGF now because of it. In the last couple of years I've distanced myself from politics because I have become ashamed of my conservative leanings.

I became ashamed because I have learned that many of my conservative friends as well as prominent conservatives really are the racists and homo-phobes that the left said we all were! I just couldn't believe all of the ugliness that came out when Obama became a major political figure. I had close friends saying things I thought they would be embarrassed to catch themselves thinking, let alone speaking out-loud.

Thanks Charles for not letting yourself be associated with the nastiness that is out there now. I hope that people like you with an independent spirit can find some way to move the political discourse out of Right Vs. Left and into a more meaningful area.

75 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:34:17pm

re: #62 Aceofwhat?

That is a sensible point of view. I am asking you to acknowledge that there exists a sensible point of view in gentle disagreement with yours, and that disagreement in no way implies bigotry. Good people need to be able to disagree in principled fashion about these things in good faith. Attack the reasoning, not the motive.

Republicans in 2000 were not opposing hate crimes laws out of libertarian principle, especially since they were them same folks applauding intrusive and coercive state laws that specifically made being gay intrinsically illegal.

Taken together, I must conclude that the motive is animus and religious bigotry rather then Libertarian concern. (Note that Mike Huckabee is on the record saying that Libertarianism is the biggest threat to the Republican Party. He is also the same clown who said that civil laws on marriage should ber based specifically on his notions of Biblical teaching.)

76 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:35:31pm

re: #70 SixDegrees

FWIW, when DADT was being debated in Congress - where it faced stiff opposition on both sides of the aisle - Barney Frank, who favored seeking a compromise between keeping the existing policy of complete intolerance of homosexuality in the military and a complete lifting of the policy, was joined in his efforts by Conservatism's dean, Barry Goldwater - who argued that a complete repeal of the ban was the proper course of action.

Being something of a Goldwater fan, I note with sadness that the social conservatives pretty much killed off all of us Goldwater types.

77 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:35:56pm

re: #63 Big Steve

If this is the case, shouldn't we take Prager's argument of "all" as an inductive argument that means "most" because if you are arguing that the percentage is high enough for Charles to be uncomfortable, isn't it reasonable that Prager assume that means most or a high percentage?

I don't know if that's the case, but if we assume inductive on one side, what happens when you assume inductive on the other? Or is that thrown out the window because Prager argued as if Charles was being deductive?

79 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:36:58pm

re: #75 celticdragon

He is also the same clown who said that civil laws on marriage should ber based specifically on his notions of Biblical teaching.

He better have a talk with Betty Bowers, then.

80 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:37:06pm

re: #74 Hermie328

Welcome Home Hermie

81 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:37:16pm

re: #74 Hermie328

Does that make you a rehatchling? Hatched again?

82 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:37:40pm

re: #70 SixDegrees

On DADT, putting the good of humanity aside and putting on my gambler hat, here's what I'm predicting of Obama's address tonight viz DADT - he wants it gone, but his style is to prefer to do something over empty idealistic talk, so he will compromise. He will announce some kind of blue ribbon panel that will look into where homosexuality is/is not consistent with military service. If the military has a place for for women or men over 50 years of age, if we can segregate by sex or by officer/enlisted rank, then maybe keep the gay attorneys and dentists, but still not allow homosexual men to be cooped up on submarines with tiny crowded bunks. Seriously, I could not sleep properly or behave if my tiny bunk was 6 inches away from Jessica Alba on one side and Megan Fox on the other.

83 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:38:04pm

re: #76 celticdragon

Being something of a Goldwater fan, I note with sadness that the social conservatives pretty much killed off all of us Goldwater types.

They're certainly trying, but I won't go down without a fight!

84 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:38:07pm

re: #66 Aceofwhat?

i hate it as much as i hate Olbermann's comments.

how's that!?

Pretty good!

Seriously, it just creeped me out.

85 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:38:12pm

re: #65 Gus 802

No not hard work. Facts. I'm saying he made the correct claim that some hysterics were later proved false. He claimed at the time of these hysterias that later evidence would prove him right. They did, but I don't think he'll be right this time. He never claimed that he specifically proved the hysterics wrong. He just rightly claimed that the facts ended up validating his original position that they were hysterics and would eventually be proven wrong.

86 londonistan calling  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:38:19pm

I think I get Charles' argument now that he has made it more explicit.. He has decided to change the focus of his blog from Radical Islam to exposing the kook fringe on the right because he feels that the right is too comfortable with racists and reactionaries.. This is fine, I disagree, but this is certainly hos perogotive. CJ's response to DP's criticism is that DP was arguing a straw man and that CJ did not make the generalizations that DP claimed. I think when you title a post why you left "the right" it is fair to assume that CJ thinks "the right" shares these behaviors and characteristics.. the post was not called "why I left the extreme right kook fringe".. Thos exchange makes me wonder why charles joined the right.. there has always been a skepticism of big government (AGW) and has always had an anarchist crazy fringe that, I don't think this was news to Charles, so I suspect the reason to be more personal, which is none of our business, but I just don't see it in these justifications.


BTW, I deeply admire Rabbi Schmuley Boteach and so I read his article on HuffPost this morning and the first 2 comments on the piece were straight out of the Elders of Zion. One on forcible organ removal and the other about wor crimes of some sort.. I normally do not pay much attention to comments, but I read them as I was still thinking of the earlier response by CJ that a comment at TownHall had refered to the president as "The Kenyan". I ascribe this to sickness in society not on the left or right.

87 Unakite  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:38:20pm

re: #67 Mich-again

I disagree. Athletes can have a crappy game but there's no good reason a writer should write crap and sign his name to it. Bad analogy.

I dis-disagree (is that a word?). You're expecting perfection. Writers work for a living and have deadlines like most everyone else. Not trying to defend the article, just saying you're setting the bar too high. And it is a good analogy. It's like saying that a quarterback sucks because he didn't have a perfect game.

88 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:39:13pm

Wow, someone should have warned Prager and told him to bring his A game. Pretty weak Dennis. Well done, Charles.

/and here I thought the Cowboys had their asses handed to them...

89 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:40:03pm

re: #73 robdouth

I cannot know how you feel, having not shared your experiences, but I believe that proper enforcement of the law doesn't change just because you enact more laws. If the enforcement isn't working, no amount of laws will change that. In fact, if you create a situation with an extreme hate crime bill (just as a stupid extreme example) where the punishment was far more drastic because it was against someone who was gay or lesbian, then you're creating a situation where the officer would be more likely to ignore enforcement if they didn't think the punishment fit the crime. I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly feel more legislation sure isn't going to fix the problem. I'd like to think the problem will fix itself as we continue to grow more small L liberal as a people. Also, can you site examples of police not pursuing assault or crimes because of sexual-orientation that is more recent then Harvey Milk or the 70's situation in Frisco? I'm not familiar with that niche of law.

Your text to link...

90 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:40:17pm

re: #88 The Shadow Do

Wow, someone should have warned Prager and told him to bring his A game. Pretty weak Dennis. Well done, Charles.

/and here I thought the Cowboys had their asses handed to them...

A double zing, nicely done!
:)

91 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:40:18pm

re: #72 HoosierHoops

But to complete that analogy, even if a large enough percentage of players have used PEDs, do you throw out the entire game of baseball/football, etc. I think that's the argument some would make if you use that reasoning. At what percentage or point do you state: (insert sport here) is just a bunch of cheating PED users, I'm done with this game?

92 Gus  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:41:47pm

re: #85 robdouth

No not hard work. Facts. I'm saying he made the correct claim that some hysterics were later proved false. He claimed at the time of these hysterias that later evidence would prove him right. They did, but I don't think he'll be right this time. He never claimed that he specifically proved the hysterics wrong. He just rightly claimed that the facts ended up validating his original position that they were hysterics and would eventually be proven wrong.

Now I'm wrong about hard work? Do me a favor and please ignore my posts from now on.

93 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:42:20pm

re: #91 robdouth

When the JBS is at CPAC.

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:42:52pm

re: #93 Varek Raith

When the JBS is at CPAC.

I've got to rewrite that song.

95 SixDegrees  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:43:14pm

re: #76 celticdragon

Being something of a Goldwater fan, I note with sadness that the social conservatives pretty much killed off all of us Goldwater types.

We need Goldwater now. His was a powerful, consistent voice that shaped Conservatism and kept it on course as best he could while still alive. His dismay at the power wielded by the religious right was palpable.

And I wouldn't even grant the "social conservatives" the name "conservative" in the first place; there's nothing Conservative about wielding the power of the state to intrude on the private lives of citizens.

There, of course, lies the problem. When those vying for power within a movement consist of a group that believes the best government is the least government, while another believes that they are commanded by God to enact their theocracy, it's almost a given which will prevail, at least over short terms.

I wouldn't say that Goldwater Conservatives have been killed off, though. They've hunkered down, or become independents, or in a few groundbreaking cases have switched over to the Democratic side of the aisle where the discomfort may be as great as what they feel on the GOP side these days, but the potential for change may be better.

96 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:43:15pm

re: #89 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank you, I will review when I get home as the link is blocked at my work.

97 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:44:36pm

re: #91 robdouth

But to complete that analogy, even if a large enough percentage of players have used PEDs, do you throw out the entire game of baseball/football, etc. I think that's the argument some would make if you use that reasoning. At what percentage or point do you state: (insert sport here) is just a bunch of cheating PED users, I'm done with this game?

I never saw the big deal with professional atleates using PED's... I mean entertainers use cosmetic surgury.

98 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:44:45pm

re: #75 celticdragon

Republicans in 2000 were not opposing hate crimes laws out of libertarian principle, especially since they were them same folks applauding intrusive and coercive state laws that specifically made being gay intrinsically illegal.


I need help with that one before i continue. I want to make sure that i'm on the same page with you.

99 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:45:04pm

Hah, I guess I am re-hatched. I never commented much (maybe 5 times), but I read every post on LGF from 2002-2005 or so.

Why is everyone so surprised that Charles isn't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative? I remember him posting about his disdain of Pat Buchanan and his anti-semitism. I remember plenty of funny posts making jabs at creationism. And mostly I remember the Frank Zappa quote generator that used to grace the front page. What conservative enjoys Frank that much? (other than myself)

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:45:20pm

re: #96 robdouth

Thank you, I will review when I get home as the link is blocked at my work.

No trouble. It's just something that popped up on Google. Do a bit of Googling and there's quite a number of articles floating around.

101 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:45:57pm

re: #92 Gus 802

Don't take this personally, i was just defending a point. You said you defeat false rhetoric with hard work, and I was just saying you have to do it with facts, and it doesn't necessarily have to be hard work. Shit, I'd say the people who deny AGW have to work pretty hard every day to counter the mountains of evidence. If anything you have to work harder to defend the indefensible, while at the same time completely resisting cognitive dissonance.

102 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:46:38pm

re: #95 SixDegrees

And I wouldn't even grant the "social conservatives" the name "conservative" in the first place; there's nothing Conservative about wielding the power of the state to intrude on the private lives of citizens.

Word!

103 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:47:07pm

And more than a few attacking me, as well, suggesting [...] that I’ve chosen a “sinful” lifestyle

Wait...you haven't? Well, this just got mundane//

104 Lidane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:47:17pm

re: #74 Hermie328

In the last couple of years I've distanced myself from politics because I have become ashamed of my conservative leanings.

I became ashamed because I have learned that many of my conservative friends as well as prominent conservatives really are the racists and homo-phobes that the left said we all were!

Nah. You just learned that those particular friends and prominent conservatives were infected with the idiot virus. That's no reason to be ashamed of being a conservative. That's a reason to find new friends and prominent conservatives to listen to.

I'm saying this as a liberal, BTW. Trust me-- I had enough flame wars and arguments over many of the more outrageous things "my side" said about Bush while he was in office. It's not the beliefs you should shun, but the more idiotic people who share them.

I just couldn't believe all of the ugliness that came out when Obama became a major political figure. I had close friends saying things I thought they would be embarrassed to catch themselves thinking, let alone speaking out-loud.

I have always had a sense that the first African-American or female president would bring out an irrational reaction from some folks, but I never expected the sheer level of vitriol. It's been both depressing and revealing at the same time.

105 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:47:20pm

re: #73 robdouth

I cannot know how you feel, having not shared your experiences, but I believe that proper enforcement of the law doesn't change just because you enact more laws.

Go back and see just what happened in the civil rights movement in the 1960's when southern local law enforcement and the KKK were often identical. It took federal laws and federal intervention to deal with absolute local power corruption that was systematically disenfranchising African Americans as well as murdering them (some locals had less than 1% of the African American population registered to vote. Questions asked by registrars included "How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?". The question was, of course, impossible and any answer would then disqualify the person since they "failed" the exam)

The situation is different here with GLBT people, but concerns with law enforcement are similar in some ways, since police investigators are often unwilling to seriously pursue crimes against GLBT people. Also, as mentioned before, there are still situations where juries refuse to convict based simply upon religious or other social reasons.

If GLBT people cannot get constitutionally guaranteed equal protection from the local authorities, than we have little choice but to pursue it at a higher level. I am not willing to be treated as a lesser person, and I will not be quiet when crimes against other GLBT people are ignored. If that annoys Libertarians who dislike "hate crimes" laws, than they might be better served to make them obsolete and help us make law enforcement get off their jelly donut asses and do their goddamned jobs!

106 DodgerFan1988  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:47:37pm

Great Reply.

107 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:48:15pm

Ironic ain't it? Dennis's oft repeated mantra is that he "does not seek agreement but clarity".

And then he muddies the entire dialogue with dirty old straw men.

108 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:48:36pm

re: #103 Aceofwhat?

And more than a few attacking me, as well, suggesting [...] that I’ve chosen a “sinful” lifestyle

Wait...you haven't? Well, this just got mundane//

What sinful lifestyle are they worried about? I mean, I know he's a jazz musician, but is there something worse than that we should know about?

//

109 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:48:39pm

I'm out y'all. Catch you later.

110 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:49:24pm

re: #108 SanFranciscoZionist

What sinful lifestyle are they worried about? I mean, I know he's a jazz musician, but is there something worse than that we should know about?

//

And if so, why haven't we been participating the whole time?

//

111 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:50:14pm

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

And if so, why haven't we been participating the whole time?

//

// perhaps you just did ;)

112 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:50:27pm

re: #63 Big Steve

Inductive reasoning is a probabilistic argument indicating that the conclusion can be reached by reliable generalization.

It's cold outside. It was cold last week and last month. Therefore the earth is cooling.

113 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:50:36pm

Charles thank you for speaking for awful lot of us and even though I'm still registered as a republican I'm becoming increasingly disenfranchised by them as they become more and more fundamentalist in their views. I'm a conservative that believes that certain rights are fundamental and the republican party is leaning way to the right which has no tolerance for my beliefs. I'm about to jump parties, and I hope the GOP will realize that they're forcing a lot of their constituents to do the same.

As a side note: I have to wonder though if Mr. Prager does his own research or has one of his lackey's who have their own agenda do it. I have always had respect for Dennis, but his attack on you makes me question weather or not he really knows what he is doing and quite frankly I'm really getting tired of the ignorance that I'm seeing more and more coming out of the pundits mouths on a regular basis.

114 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:50:40pm

re: #91 robdouth

But to complete that analogy, even if a large enough percentage of players have used PEDs, do you throw out the entire game of baseball/football, etc. I think that's the argument some would make if you use that reasoning. At what percentage or point do you state: (insert sport here) is just a bunch of cheating PED users, I'm done with this game?

It's a complex issue in Sports...Baseball based on stats melted down during the Steroid era..After a hundred years of numbers nobody was buying the Bullshit after a while..Something wasn't right and reporters pick up on it..
Football? Sure 6' 5" DE weighting 285 lbs can run a 5.0/40..
No problem at all...Football has a bad rap for drugs and reckoning is coming..
Advanced drug testing came about from the Olympics...HGH blood tests are around the corner

115 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:51:11pm

re: #111 brookly red

// perhaps you just did ;)

Score!

Evil jazz.

(you'll hate me for clicking on it.)

116 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:51:20pm

re: #93 Varek Raith

Ok, I've always wondered then on the next logical conclusion. What do you do if you espouse the ideals of conservatism, but disagree with the mode that some are using (such as JBS, and other right wing kooks)? This is why I've taken issue with the phrasing of it as leaving the right like was mentioned before, and instead would call it leaving the fringe right. To act like the average person who espouses conservative viewpoints knows about JBS, or Velaams Belang, or Robert Stacy McCain doesn't illuminate the problem. Granted I'm all about the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck stuff because they paint themselves as mainstream, but even people I know who listen to them say things like: "I don't agree with X, Y and Z, but he makes a good point on A, B, or C."

One of the problems with tearing down sections of the right, or even people who are kooky is that it's hard to separate a good idea from a person with overwhelmingly bad ideas also. How do you argue for limited government without getting lumped in with Tea-partiers or the JBS? Especially when so many try to troll everywhere. I think it becomes harder to take some of us on Good Faith.

117 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:51:23pm

re: #78 Varek Raith

OT
Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

Seems we've heard that before......

118 SixDegrees  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:52:24pm

re: #82 keloyd

On DADT, putting the good of humanity aside and putting on my gambler hat, here's what I'm predicting of Obama's address tonight viz DADT - he wants it gone, but his style is to prefer to do something over empty idealistic talk, so he will compromise. He will announce some kind of blue ribbon panel that will look into where homosexuality is/is not consistent with military service. If the military has a place for for women or men over 50 years of age, if we can segregate by sex or by officer/enlisted rank, then maybe keep the gay attorneys and dentists, but still not allow homosexual men to be cooped up on submarines with tiny crowded bunks. Seriously, I could not sleep properly or behave if my tiny bunk was 6 inches away from Jessica Alba on one side and Megan Fox on the other.

I am in favor of completely lifting the ban. Most militaries, now and throughout history, simply haven't cared what went on in the tents, and only cared what happened on the battlefield.

But I doubt we'll see much change tonight. The Administration is thrashing around, looking for something to distract the public's attention from a string of dismal news, but the spirit to actually push for this change seems weak. The White House is referring to it as having been Congressionally mandated, ignoring the fact that DADT was instigated by Clinton and originally put in place through executive order, with Congress bringing up the rear after the fact with a bill containing trivial differences from the Clinton policy. And DADT is bad, bad policy - it keeps the ban in place, while shifting blame for discharge onto those discharged.

What will Obama propose it be replaced with? Another half-assed non-solution? Or will he suddenly grow a spine and ask for a complete repeal of the ban? Although I would hope for the latter, my gut is telling me that this is a man with no few convictions who is merely pandering for support wherever he thinks he may find some, who will be waffling and weak when the inevitable opposition arises.

119 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:53:00pm

re: #106 DodgerFan1988

Welcome, hatchling.

120 sandbox  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:53:13pm

re: #104 Lidane

You wrote:

I have always had a sense that the first African-American or female president would bring out an irrational reaction from some folks, but I never expected the sheer level of vitriol. It's been both depressing and revealing at the same time.

While it is possible some people who oppose Obama are racists, IMO the vast majority of those in opposition resent his hard left policies.

121 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:53:22pm

re: #116 robdouth

I don't honestly know. To me, the GOP is in serious trouble. It'll take them a long time to recover from their embracing of the fringe, and I don't think anything can stop it now.
Could be wrong, but...

122 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:53:46pm

re: #117 RogueOne

Seems we've heard that before...

when Obama says don't ask don't tell he talking about the stimulis...

123 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:54:23pm

re: #114 HoosierHoops

It's a complex issue in Sports...Baseball based on stats melted down during the Steroid era..After a hundred years of numbers nobody was buying the Bullshit after a while..Something wasn't right and reporters pick up on it..
Football? Sure 6' 5" DE weighting 285 lbs can run a 5.0/40..
No problem at all...Football has a bad rap for drugs and reckoning is coming..
Advanced drug testing came about from the Olympics...HGH blood tests are around the corner

I'm beginning to think that two record books in sports should be kept, those that are real and those (pick your date) that can be safely assumed to be chemically enhanced. BC and AC so to speak.

124 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:54:41pm

re: #114 HoosierHoops

Yeah but Steroids and PED's now, were amphetamines and greenies in the 70's, Cocaine in the 80's, and further back then that, it was segregated baseball. There really is no clean era of baseball, so to say Steroid era stats aren't valid when both pitchers and batters were using them. Then 70-80's era stats aren't valid because of the widespread amphetimine and coke use, and anything before the Jackie Robinson isn't valid because entire populations weren't taking part in the leagues.

125 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:54:54pm

re: #105 celticdragon

could you post a link to that (near) law practically making it illegal to be gay, dear dragon? i'm guessing it's something i need to be aware of.

thanks-

126 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:55:03pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Sodomy laws in Texas and other states were specifically aimed at prosecuting and jailing gay people. Although they supposedly made some acts by straight people illegal, straight people were never prosecuted for sodomy violations (in the military, anything but missionary position is "sodomy")

Gay men were targeted in bars by undercover cops who eavesdropped on conversations and listened for "hints (unbelievably, talking about art or "Opera" was used as evidence to arrest!)

When the SCOTUS threw all of that out in 2000, social conservatives went ballistic. None of it was concern for intrusive government that was screwing with private sexual matters. It was the same old TEH FAGZ ARE GONNA RAPE YER CHILDREN AND MAKE THEM FAGZ CUZ THAT IZ THE ONLY WE THEY REPRODOOOCE!


sigh

127 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:55:18pm

re: #104 Lidane

Good point. I didn't give up my beliefs, but I've certainly become much less likely to let anyone know what I think. In the past, I had no problem talking about my conservatism with gay friends, because I figured they knew there was no way I could be anti-gay. Well, now that I've seen much more of what people say behing closed doors, I can't blame a gay friend for assuming that I am secretly hatefull as soon as they find out that I vote for Republicans.

That is why I am sick of the religious part of my republican party, and I am really excited to see all of this dialog taking place at LGF.

128 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:55:43pm

Reine,
Getting an upding from you is an honor. Thank you! :-)

129 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:55:57pm

re: #122 brookly red

when Obama says don't ask don't tell he talking about the stimulis...

HA! I am totally stealing that.

130 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:56:01pm

re: #121 Varek Raith

You're right, but there are so few candidates that steak out the center. What am I supposed to do, take my ball and go home. Sometimes you have to go with the lesser of two evils, but it's a bitch to separate good ideology from bad ideology.

131 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:56:03pm

re: #120 sandbox

You wrote:

While it is possible some people who oppose Obama are racists, IMO the vast majority of those in opposition resent his hard left policies.

According to a lot of the progressives I have listened to, both on talk radio shows and on the internet, almost all opposition to Obama and his policies are due to racism. It's tragic, but that the facts according to them.

132 Lidane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:56:47pm

re: #120 sandbox

While it is possible some people who oppose Obama are racists, IMO the vast majority of those in opposition resent his hard left policies.

That's why the key phrase in what you quoted from me is "some folks". I didn't make a blanket indictment of anyone.

I'm not talking about people who oppose President Obama on policy. There were millions who voted against him, so clearly, not everyone agrees with him. I'm talking about the people who've gone 'round the bend since he took office-- the birther idiots, the racists, etc. They're a whole different breed from the people who just oppose him because they think his policies suck.

133 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:57:49pm

re: #123 The Shadow Do

But before there was chemical enhancement there was widespread cheating (especially in baseball) in the form of stealing signs, other chemicals to use (mentioned above) and pitchers throwing spitballs and other shenanigans going on in the field.

134 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:58:01pm

re: #130 robdouth

You're right, but there are so few candidates that steak out the center. What am I supposed to do, take my ball and go home. Sometimes you have to go with the lesser of two evils, but it's a bitch to separate good ideology from bad ideology.

Heh, I know, I'm done with the lesser of two evils approach. Call it foolish, but I'm quite content with taking my ball home, or playing in a non crazy, 3rd parties court.
:)

135 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:58:10pm

re: #132 Lidane

That's why the key phrase in what you quoted from me is "some folks". I didn't make a blanket indictment of anyone.

I'm not talking about people who oppose President Obama on policy. There were millions who voted against him, so clearly, not everyone agrees with him. I'm talking about the people who've gone 'round the bend since he took office-- the birther idiots, the racists, etc. They're a whole different breed from the people who just oppose him because they think his policies suck.

I've been told I'm racist just because I don't agree on most of his policies.

136 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:58:28pm

re: #121 Varek Raith

I don't honestly know. To me, the GOP is in serious trouble. It'll take them a long time to recover from their embracing of the fringe, and I don't think anything can stop it now.
Could be wrong, but...

The left made hay while dancing with their loons for lo these many years, yet in fact they now have absolute power now. Go figure.

None of it is predictable.

137 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:59:28pm

re: #136 The Shadow Do

The left made hay while dancing with their loons for lo these many years, yet in fact they now have absolute power now. Go figure.

None of it is predictable.

Politics is crazy and tends to never make any logical sense. :)

138 robdouth  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 3:59:49pm

re: #134 Varek Raith

Please let me know if you find any non-crazy candidates, because it seems every person who comes out has some crazy skeleton, and it seems making one nirther statement is enough to discount someone like JD Hayworth (who's a good guy from what I've seen of him and from the times I've met and talked with him).

139 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:00:47pm

re: #126 celticdragon

ok, thanks. can't believe i forgot about Lawrence v Texas.

what percentage of the GOP do you think supported either (a) the repeal of the Texas law or (b) an immediate legislative reversal of the law?

140 Lidane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:01:37pm

re: #135 Walter L. Newton

I've been told I'm racist just because I don't agree on most of his policies.

Bah. That's idiotic, IMO. It's been one of the more irritating memes I've seen, quite frankly.

Policy != Person. You can disagree with a person's politics without hating them personally. I draw a huge distinction between someone who has an honest disagreement over policy and someone who is being a racist douche.

141 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:02:02pm

re: #125 Aceofwhat?

could you post a link to that (near) law practically making it illegal to be gay, dear dragon? i'm guessing it's something i need to be aware of.

thanks-

Look up the SCOTUS decision. Lawrence V Texas threw out sodomy laws that were used exclusively to target GLBT people. Although the law did not specifically say that being gay was illegal and ostensibly could have been used against straight people as well, the real world effect was that being gay in Texas or any similar state could get you thrown in prison, and straight people were never charged with sodomy. As noted before, bar raids would target suspected gay people who were not engaged in sexual acts (just drinking and talking about fag stuff like Carmen, Swan Lake or an art exhibit!)

Also, there is a wealth of historical testimony in the direct testimony these past three weeks in the prop 8 trial(wrapping up testimony tommorrow) You can find the live transcripts at Firedoglake.

142 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:02:27pm

re: #136 The Shadow Do

The left made hay while dancing with their loons for lo these many years, yet in fact they now have absolute power now. Go figure.

None of it is predictable.

Had absolute power... it seems to be slipping away.

143 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:03:29pm

re: #140 Lidane

Bah. That's idiotic, IMO. It's been one of the more irritating memes I've seen, quite frankly.

Policy != Person. You can disagree with a person's politics without hating them personally. I draw a huge distinction between someone who has an honest disagreement over policy and someone who is being a racist douche.

You may, many don't, read the progressive forums and web sites... you can find as much of it as you like... just because you don't feel that way doesn't suddenly make it go away...

144 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:04:43pm

re: #141 celticdragon

yes, thank you. returning to our subject, though, i am not denying that bigotry exists. i am denying that principled opposition to some of your positions is not bigotry, and i'm denying that a majority of the GOP is bigoted rather than principled in their stance on these issues.

however, i understand that a loud minority can make you feel that the entire party hates you. i'm sorry for that, for what it's worth.

145 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:04:56pm

re: #133 robdouth

But before there was chemical enhancement there was widespread cheating (especially in baseball) in the form of stealing signs, other chemicals to use (mentioned above) and pitchers throwing spitballs and other shenanigans going on in the field.

Yo, cheating is ok dammit. In the traditional ways of course. Get away with a spitter or a corked bat if you can. As for speed/coke I think it may keep you stay awake in a game that you might otherwise nod off in after a night out doing the crazy young athlete thing - but it ain't HGH or steroids (body altering shit).

Just my worthless take on it all. I hate seeing a Marris buried in the books by a Magwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. Just ain't right.

146 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:05:19pm

re: #135 Walter L. Newton

Walter, specificaly we got onto this topic because of individuals that I know who did prove themselves to be racist once Obama came around. I would be having a business dinner, and people who I respected would say things like "I just can't believe that Americans would vote for a black". Or people who knew I was a conservative would come around to my cubicle with the latest n***** joke, and would assume I wouldn't be offended just because I was conservative.

Trust me, I am no Obama supporter, and there are tons of reasons to not support him, but his campaign did expose a lot of racism. At least for me it did.

147 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:05:27pm

Just in case Dennis thinks the Council of Conservative Citizens is somehow defensible, here's a simple search link on the term at Youtube.

WARNING: Many highly offensive and sickening videos. CoCC is the cesspit of the South.
[Link: www.youtube.com...]

148 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:05:54pm

re: #141 celticdragon

there were a lot of states who had already eliminated such laws from their books, and to my memory it didn't happen to the outrage of the entire GOP. does that help prove my point?

149 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:07:26pm

re: #144 Aceofwhat?

yes, thank you. returning to our subject, though, i am not denying that bigotry exists. i am denying that principled opposition to some of your positions is not bigotry, and i'm denying that a majority of the GOP is bigoted rather than principled in their stance on these issues.

however, i understand that a loud minority can make you feel that the entire party hates you. i'm sorry for that, for what it's worth.

I appreciate that, honestly. However, I have &*%$&%$!! chemistry homework to do, so I will BBL.

150 Civil Sam  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:07:41pm

In many ways I have an enormous amount of respect for Dennis Prager

How? He deals in the homophobia and racism via his talking points and relations on the right.

151 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:07:51pm

re: #149 celticdragon

organic, physical, or general?

152 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:08:24pm

re: #146 Hermie328

Walter, specificaly we got onto this topic because of individuals that I know who did prove themselves to be racist once Obama came around. I would be having a business dinner, and people who I respected would say things like "I just can't believe that Americans would vote for a black". Or people who knew I was a conservative would come around to my cubicle with the latest n***** joke, and would assume I wouldn't be offended just because I was conservative.

Trust me, I am no Obama supporter, and there are tons of reasons to not support him, but his campaign did expose a lot of racism. At least for me it did.

And what makes you think I don't understand what you are talking about? You are on another topic, the actual racist in the GOP.

I don't think I am addressing that, am I? I said I have been called racist for not agreeing with certain policies of Obama. I said you can find plenty of progressive chatter on the internet that calls people who don't agree with Obama's policies racist.

That's what I am talking about.

153 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:08:31pm

re: #124 robdouth

Yeah but Steroids and PED's now, were amphetamines and greenies in the 70's, Cocaine in the 80's, and further back then that, it was segregated baseball. There really is no clean era of baseball, so to say Steroid era stats aren't valid when both pitchers and batters were using them. Then 70-80's era stats aren't valid because of the widespread amphetimine and coke use, and anything before the Jackie Robinson isn't valid because entire populations weren't taking part in the leagues.

Many have printed that POV...And there are many good points there..
If a pitcher and a batter are juicing it's still relative..Right?
When a batter comes into camp with 40 new pounds of Muscle and fouls off a foul ball 600 it's all good?
Yes..Players used speed in the old days of bus travels.. Just to stay awake..
I don't think anybody would say that anybody had an advantage by being a Coke head or a speed freak playing baseball...( ok..I wrote that and Howell and the Doc come to mind)
Never mind

154 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:08:37pm

re: #150 Civil Sam

In many ways I have an enormous amount of respect for Dennis Prager

How? He deals in the homophobia and racism via his talking points and relations on the right.

GAZE

155 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:09:17pm

re: #150 Civil Sam

In many ways I have an enormous amount of respect for Dennis Prager

How? He deals in the homophobia and racism via his talking points and relations on the right.

Try using the quote function so we can better keep track of who you are replying to. Ok?

156 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:09:28pm

re: #150 Civil Sam

I don't know Prager, care to offer any evidence of your accusations?

157 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:10:01pm

re: #148 Aceofwhat?

There were certainly individuals who were unhappy about it. I remember listening to a pastor decry the Lawrence V Texas one day as just another example of "The country turning it's back on God". That was the first and only time I went near that church.

158 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:10:02pm

This bit:

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.).

“The entire religious right” wants to throw “women back into the dark ages?” As a religious (Jewish) conservative, perhaps I am a member of that group, and I find the charge absurd.[...]

And again, Dennis’s response uses a straw man argument — because I didn’t write that “the entire religious right” wants to “throw women back into the Dark Ages.”

It's rather close though, IMO. I see the distinction being made, I think--but there is such a thing as putting too fine a point on a position. Fine job overall, a welcome expansion of the original bill of indictments.

159 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:10:30pm

re: #155 Walter L. Newton

Try using the quote function so we can better keep track of who you are replying to. Ok?

It was something Charles said. Can i reword your post to tell him to "try using your frontal lobe function so that we can better suffer your reply"?

160 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:10:46pm

re: #155 Walter L. Newton

Try using the quote function so we can better keep track of who you are replying to. Ok?

It's the very first sentence at the top of the post. Give the hatchling a break.

161 Lidane  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:27pm

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

You may, many don't, read the progressive forums and web sites... you can find as much of it as you like... just because you don't feel that way doesn't suddenly make it go away...

The closest to a progressive anything that I read at all is Balloon Juice, and I'll occasionally scan Think Progress to see what they're talking about. All the rest of the big liberal blogs irritated and bored me by the time the 2008 election was over, so I haven't looked in that direction in ages.

I'm sure what you're seeing is out there. I don't deny it. I'm just saying *I* think it's idiotic to say that every critic of the President is automatically a racist. That's no different than the meme during the Bush years that every critic of Bush's policies was a terrorist sympathizer who hated America.

I don't like those kinds of blanket generalizations, no matter who does them. That kind of nonsense irks me.

162 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:31pm

If Dennis needs to find more on Vlaams Belang, the Anti-Jihad's connection to them, and Spencer and Geller's sickening defense of the group, here are a couple of articles.

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]


[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

I suspect Dennis isn't really interested in the facts behind this however.

163 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:33pm

re: #159 Aceofwhat?

re: #160 wrenchwench

I'm sorry.

164 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:39pm

re: #156 Varek Raith

I don't know Prager, care to offer any evidence of your accusations?


I used to listen to his show all the time (about 3 years ago now) and liked it. He was moderate in some ways. Seemed intellient. Some times I agreed with his points and sometimes not. But he seemed civil and reasonable then. Hope he hasn't slid off the rails lie so many other radio personalities.

165 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:56pm

re: #148 Aceofwhat?

there were a lot of states who had already eliminated such laws from their books, and to my memory it didn't happen to the outrage of the entire GOP. does that help prove my point?

Possibly not, but the fact that it (Lawrence, followed by gay marriage)has been successfully used as a diversionary wedge issue doesn't support that. Rank and file Republicans (and an awful lot of other folk, to be fair)are perfectly willing to believe that absolute worst about GLBT people. Can you think of any other group that has their marriages actually voted on?? Who else would frakking stand for it?!

Also, note the Pavlovian response anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way that the social conservatives don't like.

Black Robed Tyrants! Revolution! Wolverines!!!

166 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:11:58pm

re: #87 Unakite

I dis-disagree (is that a word?). You're expecting perfection. Writers work for a living and have deadlines like most everyone else. Not trying to defend the article, just saying you're setting the bar too high. And it is a good analogy. It's like saying that a quarterback sucks because he didn't have a perfect game.

The only way the athletes and writers analogy works is if we used the writers unedited first draft. Athletes don't get do-overs to correct mistakes. Writers have the backspace key all the time.

167 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:12:21pm

re: #157 Hermie328

There were certainly individuals who were unhappy about it. I remember listening to a pastor decry the Lawrence V Texas one day as just another example of "The country turning it's back on God". That was the first and only time I went near that church.

I would have left it too, after i had some sharp words with the pastor.

However, my point is that many in the GOP opposed items such as hate crimes in a principled, rather than bigoted, fashion.

That would be as opposed to "the GOP opposes hate crimes and is therefore bigoted."

168 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:12:23pm

re: #152 Walter L. Newton


Gotcha. I don't think anyone can disagree with you there, that certainly does happen. But I really can't blame anyone anymore for assuming that a conservative person harbors some hate. I used to think it was stupid of them, but now I realize they are just being pragmatic, and they are correct more often than you or I would like like to admit.

169 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:13:31pm

re: #157 Hermie328

There were certainly individuals who were unhappy about it. I remember listening to a pastor decry the Lawrence V Texas one day as just another example of "The country turning it's back on God". That was the first and only time I went near that church.

Here's Gov. Rick Perry's response to Lawrence V. Texas:

On DEC-3, Texas Governor Rick Perry commented, in broken English, that "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books."

170 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:13:56pm

re: #163 Walter L. Newton

re: #160 wrenchwench

I'm sorry.

No need. He needs to examine his frontal lobe function. Anyone who calls Prager a homophobe and racist is blithely ignorant at best and of the same ilk we're fleeing here at worst.

171 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:14:13pm

re: #168 Hermie328

Gotcha. But I really can't blame anyone anymore for assuming that a conservative person harbors some hate. I used to think it was stupid of them, but now I realize they are just being pragmatic... [snip]

That sounds like bigotry to me.

172 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:14:43pm

re: #170 Aceofwhat?

No need. He needs to examine his frontal lobe function. Anyone who calls Prager a homophobe and racist is blithely ignorant at best and of the same ilk we're fleeing here at worst.

Give the hatchling a break.

173 irish rose  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:15:05pm

An excellent rebuttal Charles, well-written and thorough.

174 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:15:47pm

re: #173 irish rose

An excellent rebuttal Charles, well-written and thorough.

Always nice seeing you..Hope today finds you well

175 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:17:38pm

re: #165 celticdragon

Possibly not, but the fact that it (Lawrence, followed by gay marriage)has been successfully used as a diversionary wedge issue doesn't support that. Rank and file Republicans (and an awful lot of other folk, to be fair)are perfectly willing to believe that absolute worst about GLBT people. Can you think of any other group that has their marriages actually voted on?? Who else would frakking stand for it?!
Also, note the Pavlovian response anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way that the social conservatives don't like.

Black Robed Tyrants! Revolution! Wolverines!!!

blacks
Amerian Indians
the mentally retarded
the handicapped
imigrants
interracial couples
Mormons
probably a bunch of others.
Somebody on this websight pointed out the problem is we have confouned the religious and social institution of marriage with the legal.

176 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:17:43pm

re: #169 Stanley Sea

Dear God. Every time i think i've had my fill of disappointment with the GOP, someone new goes and poops on the street. Really, Rick Perry? Jackass.

177 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:17:44pm

re: #155 Walter L. Newton

Try using the quote function so we can better keep track of who you are replying to. Ok?

He's talking to Charles, that's a quote from the main post.

178 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:19:18pm

re: #172 Walter L. Newton

Give the hatchling a break.

Make me

179 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:19:32pm

re: #177 Thanos

He's talking to Charles, that's a quote from the main post.

That was pointed out to me, about 15 comments ago. Thanks.

180 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:20:05pm

re: #178 Aceofwhat?

Make me

I know you are... but what am I?

181 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:20:07pm

gotta run, bbl friends

182 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:20:23pm

I was shocked today. My boss sent me an email that was distincly racist regarding Obama. Previously just the usual funny stuff from conservative jokesters.

It is clear I will not respond to this since having a job is a good thing. Tough to swallow. He has been a great guy to work for. Yes, I think the backlash runs deep and ugly.

Sent accross a company server too. He is one year from retirement, letting it all hang out I guess.

183 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:20:27pm

re: #179 Walter L. Newton

bah, thanks, still trying to catch up before the next call. My pardon Walter

184 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:20:55pm

re: #165 celticdragon

Also, note the Pavlovian response anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way that the social conservatives don't like.

Lord knows the Lefties never wail and gnash their teeth anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way they don't like.
/

185 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:21:48pm

re: #167 Aceofwhat?

I would have left it too, after i had some sharp words with the pastor.

However, my point is that many in the GOP opposed items such as hate crimes in a principled, rather than bigoted, fashion.

That would be as opposed to "the GOP opposes hate crimes and is therefore bigoted."

I can't disagree with the words you are saying. You are exactly right.

But I also think that any GOP politician is going to upset the portion of his base that really does hate gays anytime they do support this sort of legislation. And that fraction of their base is not negligible. Oposing it on free-speech grounds is a great way to not piss off the gay-haters, and also not piss off the reasonable people as much. In the end, I think it is calculated spinelessness on the part of the politician.

186 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:21:53pm

re: #176 Aceofwhat?

Dear God. Every time i think i've had my fill of disappointment with the GOP, someone new goes and poops on the street. Really, Rick Perry? Jackass.

From a Texan and a conservative. Rick Perry is a walking talking turd of a person.

187 irish rose  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:21:58pm

re: #174 HoosierHoops

Always nice seeing you..Hope today finds you well

As well as one can be when hip-dip in gastroenterology, thanks.

188 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:22:11pm

re: #175 Escaped Hillbilly

blacks
Amerian Indians
the mentally retarded
the handicapped
imigrants
interracial couples
Mormons
probably a bunch of others.
Somebody on this websight pointed out the problem is we have confouned the religious and social institution of marriage with the legal.

Are you sure about that? In the cases you mention, I am unaware of a popular vote concerning any of them. Laws against miscenegation (inter racial marriage) were thrown out by the SCOTUS in 1967 in Loving V Virginia. I think you have a similar situation regarding laws against "feeble minded" people etc (those were part of the eugenics craze back in the 20s and 30s.) Courts threw them out, but I am unaware of any of them having been emplaced by actual popular vote as has been the case recently.

189 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:23:15pm

Hrmmm -- Frank says is back!

No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince into their homes. -- PMRC Hearing 1985

190 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:23:32pm

re: #184 Mich-again

Lord knows the Lefties never wail and gnash their teeth anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way they don't like.
/

They sure do, but hatred of the SCOTUS has been a feature of the Right since the 70's. I was steeped in it growing up, so I think I can say that with some confidence.

191 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:23:52pm

re: #182 The Shadow Do

I was shocked today. My boss sent me an email that was distincly racist regarding Obama. Previously just the usual funny stuff from conservative jokesters.

It is clear I will not respond to this since having a job is a good thing. Tough to swallow. He has been a great guy to work for. Yes, I think the backlash runs deep and ugly.

Sent accross a company server too. He is one year from retirement, letting it all hang out I guess.

"Great guys" can always be great to some people and terrible to others. That's sort of the definition of the good 'ol boy network. As long as you're part of their tribe, they're friendly and helpful.

192 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:24:24pm

re: #170 Aceofwhat?

No need. He needs to examine his frontal lobe function. Anyone who calls Prager a homophobe and racist is blithely ignorant at best and of the same ilk we're fleeing here at worst.

I'm no Prager expert, but I see homophobia in his response to #5. I can't see any non-homophobic reason to oppose allowing gay people to marry. As Dick Cheney said, "Freedom is for everyone."

193 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:25:18pm

re: #184 Mich-again

Lord knows the Lefties never wail and gnash their teeth anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way they don't like.
/


The difference is the very principles of the supreme court (activist judges!) are often questioned by conservatives, under the guise of "strict constitutionalism. As if the constitution were some magic oracle book from Harry Potter that writes itself.

194 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:25:31pm

re: #182 The Shadow Do

I can't stand that kind of crap. Especially in a profesional environment. It makes me understand why liberals think we conservatives are racists....because quite a few of us are!

195 celticdragon  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:25:49pm

I really must go investigate the joys of specific heat problems in chemistry, so I will check in after the SOTU.

Best wishes to all Lizards, and have a great evening!

196 Macha  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:26:01pm

Charles,
I was very glad to read your response and am even more firmly in your corner. I'm a newbie who registered a couple of months ago, but am coming out of lurkdom for the moment. I left the Republican party a number of years ago when a candidate for an office in Orange Co. CA came to my house wanting to put a sign in my yard. When I said no, he began first on a homophobic rant, then segued into a a pro life rant with obvious bigotry. (This man was a police officer as well). When I told him I was pro-life and supported gay marriage etc. he left my house literally screaming at me all the way across the street. Any party that would support that kind of bigoted hate filled candidate is not representative of me. I registered independent forthwith. The Republican party has been on a slippery downhill slide since then.

197 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:26:38pm

re: #189 Thanos

Hrmmm -- Frank says is back!

I gotta reload, don't I.

198 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:26:51pm

re: #192 wrenchwench

I'm no Prager expert, but I see homophobia in his response to #5. I can't see any non-homophobic reason to oppose allowing gay people to marry. As Dick Cheney said, "Freedom is for everyone."


Prager wants to keep his stature, and these days, that means advocating for the continued second-class citizen status for gay people and providing cover for bigots. It's business!

199 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:27:03pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

The difference is the very principles of the supreme court (activist judges!) are often questioned by conservatives, under the guise of "strict constitutionalism. As if the constitution were some magic oracle book from Harry Potter that writes itself.

no it's the Constitution and it is what it is.

200 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:27:24pm

re: #188 celticdragon
Yes. Not on the national level however (I think) just on local level. But in the 1700s and 1800s there was a sort of hysterical rage resulting a plethora of ridiculous social laws.

201 Randall Gross  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:27:51pm

re: #197 wrenchwench

I gotta reload, don't I.

Frank says:

Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

202 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:28:13pm

re: #196 Macha

Charles,
I was very glad to read your response and am even more firmly in your corner. I'm a newbie who registered a couple of months ago, but am coming out of lurkdom for the moment. I left the Republican party a number of years ago when a candidate for an office in Orange Co. CA came to my house wanting to put a sign in my yard. When I said no, he began first on a homophobic rant, then segued into a a pro life rant with obvious bigotry. (This man was a police officer as well). When I told him I was pro-life and supported gay marriage etc. he left my house literally screaming at me all the way across the street. Any party that would support that kind of bigoted hate filled candidate is not representative of me. I registered independent forthwith. The Republican party has been on a slippery downhill slide since then.

I'd hate to be pulled over by that guy with a pink triangle on my car. There's a reason my car is free of all identifying political stickers, and my windows are tinted. :P

203 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:28:48pm

re: #199 brookly red

no it's the Constitution and it is what it is.

yes, brookly, I agree that it is not actually a Harry Potter prop. :)

204 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:29:17pm

re: #189 Thanos

Hrmmm -- Frank says is back!

I couldn't have picked a better time to come back to LGF!!!!

205 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:29:30pm

re: #192 wrenchwench

I'm no Prager expert, but I see homophobia in his response to #5. I can't see any non-homophobic reason to oppose allowing gay people to marry. As Dick Cheney said, "Freedom is for everyone."


He objects on a religious basis and has stated he has no opposition to civil unions and granting them the rights of gay people. At least, 3 years ago he said that. Anybody got anything newer? I'm curious now too.

206 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:30:32pm

re: #198 WindUpBird

Prager wants to keep his stature, and these days, that means advocating for the continued second-class citizen status for gay people and providing cover for bigots. It's business!

Arguing against gay marriage does not a bigot make, all attempts by proponents to tar otherwise.

I am for gay marriage by the way.

207 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:31:07pm

re: #203 WindUpBird

yes, brookly, I agree that it is not actually a Harry Potter prop. :)

You may not feel that you have all the freedoms that you want, but the freedoms that you (we) do have you have because of the Constitution. It is not to be taken lightly.

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:31:19pm

re: #175 Escaped Hillbilly

blacks
Amerian Indians
the mentally retarded
the handicapped
imigrants
interracial couples
Mormons
probably a bunch of others.
Somebody on this websight pointed out the problem is we have confouned the religious and social institution of marriage with the legal.


I think you're making shit up. Some links to the ballot propositions and direct democracy mechanisms by which there was a popular vote on miscengenation and the right of immigrants to marry.

You miiiight want to bone up on your Supreme count cases.

209 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:31:33pm

re: #202 WindUpBird

I'd hate to be pulled over by that guy with a pink triangle on my car. There's a reason my car is free of all identifying political stickers, and my windows are tinted. :P

paranoid much?

210 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:32:43pm

re: #196 Macha

Charles,
I was very glad to read your response and am even more firmly in your corner. I'm a newbie who registered a couple of months ago, but am coming out of lurkdom for the moment. I left the Republican party a number of years ago when a candidate for an office in Orange Co. CA came to my house wanting to put a sign in my yard. When I said no, he began first on a homophobic rant, then segued into a a pro life rant with obvious bigotry. (This man was a police officer as well). When I told him I was pro-life and supported gay marriage etc. he left my house literally screaming at me all the way across the street. Any party that would support that kind of bigoted hate filled candidate is not representative of me. I registered independent forthwith. The Republican party has been on a slippery downhill slide since then.

It is people like that why I am distancing myself from conservatism as well. It is amazing how many representatives on the local level are completely off of their rockers.

211 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:32:56pm

re: #202 WindUpBird

I'd hate to be pulled over by that guy with a pink triangle on my car. There's a reason my car is free of all identifying political stickers, and my windows are tinted. :P

Who put a pink triangle on your car?

212 Macha  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:33:04pm

As for the DADT bull, it is time for the military to grow up and start treating gay and lesbian persons as everyone else. Sexual orientation isn't the problem. The problem is hatred of gay and lesbian persons perpetrated by the organization itself. I have a cousin who served in Viet Nam. He is gay. He came home with a bronze star and a silver star. He also came home with PTSD which has impacted the rest of his life. His sexual orientation didn't have a damn thing to do with his being willing to give his life for his country.

213 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:33:12pm

re: #207 brookly red

You may not feel that you have all the freedoms that you want, but the freedoms that you (we) do have you have because of the Constitution. It is not to be taken lightly.


What are you talking about? Exactly where do you get the idea that I am taking the constitution lightly? By actually being okay with the Supreme Count as an entity that interprets the constitution, I'm 'taking it lightly"?

Seriously, you're confusing me, I don't really know what you're responding to.

214 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:34:10pm

re: #208 WindUpBird

I have no reason to make shit up. I never said anything about Supreme Court. There were such laws in nearly every state as found in actual books...the kind written on paper and published prior to the invention of the internet. If it pleases you I will try to find electronic proof of these very real laws. Local, not federal, as I already clarified.

215 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:34:35pm

re: #211 Walter L. Newton

Who put a pink triangle on your car?

*Waves*
Hi Walter! Hope you are well today

216 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:35:10pm

re: #214 Escaped Hillbilly

What he's saying is that the repeal of them wasn't voted on. Their existence in the first place, yes, but not the repeal.

217 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:35:23pm

Oh to be a conservative
to feel no guilt or shame
if the country's in a shambles
a liberal's to blame.

Oh to be a liberal
and claim the populist will
Give something out to everyone
let others pay the bill

I wish they all were adults
and this is how I'd tell
They'd admit to their own failures
and pay their bills as well.

218 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:35:24pm

re: #212 Macha

True. And he deserves to be recognized.

219 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:36:10pm

re: #202 WindUpBird

I'd hate to be pulled over by that guy with a pink triangle on my car. There's a reason my car is free of all identifying political stickers, and my windows are tinted. :P

I've taken the same aproach. I don't want any conservative stickers for when I'm driving in downtown Chicago, nor any non-conservative ones for when I'm in rural IL/MO. My Jeep is so plain now!

220 londonistan calling  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:36:12pm

re: #192 wrenchwench

There is nothing other than malevolence towards gays that would motivate a rejection of the redefinition of one of the oldest social contracts? Are you sure? Could it possibly be that there are people who would like for gay couples to have all the legal rights of married couples, but still hold marriage out as the ideal? Equating same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage is a calumny.. there is not one iota of difference between a black human being and a white human being, but a world of difference between a man and a woman. My daughters spend 2 weeks every summer at a cottage of a lesbian couple that I love greatly, but I can have love for individuals without thinking that society has to be reordered to sanctify their union.

221 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:36:42pm

re: #216 obdicut
No argument.

222 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:36:59pm

re: #209 The Shadow Do

paranoid much?

Speaking from experience living in a small town in Washington and being harassed because I had a dirtbag car.

Please don't call me paranoid again. You haven't had my experiences, you don't even know what I look like or where I live. I just don't want my car keyed (as my friend's Jeep was, because he had a gay marriage proposition sticker on it) or pulled over and harrassed by a cop (as I have been because cops in Kent are bored and a long-hair with a rainbow sticker on his ride is a good target) It's happened to me, it's happened to my friends.

And window tinting is also a great way to keep your valuables safe. BDark windows, black interior, nobody can see what's in the back seat of my GTI. It's called thinking.

223 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:37:46pm

re: #209 The Shadow Do

paranoid much?

re: #213 WindUpBird

What are you talking about? Exactly where do you get the idea that I am taking the constitution lightly? By actually being okay with the Supreme Count as an entity that interprets the constitution, I'm 'taking it lightly"?

Seriously, you're confusing me, I don't really know what you're responding to.

Maybe I heard you wrong but I was responding to "As if the constitution were some magic oracle book from Harry Potter that writes itself." Now if somehow I got that wrong I appolagize, but it is what you said.

224 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:37:46pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

The difference is the very principles of the supreme court (activist judges!) are often questioned by conservatives, under the guise of "strict constitutionalism. As if the constitution were some magic oracle book from Harry Potter that writes itself.

Well they aren't just supposed to make stuff up to fill in the blanks, thats what the popularly elected legislature is for. The Court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, but it can't legislate from the bench. Thats the knock against activist judges. They think its OK to bend or break the rules if the cause is just in their mind. Wrong.

225 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:37:47pm

re: #220 londonistan calling

There is nothing other than malevolence towards gays that would motivate a rejection of the redefinition of one of the oldest social contracts? Are you sure? Could it possibly be that there are people who would like for gay couples to have all the legal rights of married couples, but still hold marriage out as the ideal? Equating same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage is a calumny.. there is not one iota of difference between a black human being and a white human being, but a world of difference between a man and a woman. My daughters spend 2 weeks every summer at a cottage of a lesbian couple that I love greatly, but I can have love for individuals without thinking that society has to be reordered to sanctify their union.

Why does marriage have to be anything other than a religious construct? I'm personally in favor of civil unions for everyone and relegating marriage to the spiritual and personal realm where it belongs.

226 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:39:06pm

re: #219 Hermie328

I've taken the same aproach. I don't want any conservative stickers for when I'm driving in downtown Chicago, nor any non-conservative ones for when I'm in rural IL/MO. My Jeep is so plain now!

You are completely safe having Ron Paul Stickers and confederate flags on your car in this part of Indiana...

227 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:39:52pm

re: #214 Escaped Hillbilly

I have no reason to make shit up. I never said anything about Supreme Court. There were such laws in nearly every state as found in actual books...the kind written on paper and published prior to the invention of the internet. If it pleases you I will try to find electronic proof of these very real laws. Local, not federal, as I already clarified.


The reference was to a DIRECT. POPULAR. VOTE. A ballot initiative. Maybe you simply didn't understand what was meant, I don't know. I'm not talking about laws created by representitives of state congresses or the US congress. I'm talking about BALLOT MEASURES. Not just laws, laws enacted by initiative directly by ballot measure in a state. Like, oh every single one against gay marriage that has been passed by ballot initiative in all these different states?

Hopefully that is clear.

228 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:40:36pm

re: #226 HoosierHoops

You are completely safe having Ron Paul Stickers and confederate flags on your car in this part of Indiana...


Indiana is a shall issue state IIRC...

229 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:41:01pm

re: #95 SixDegrees


And I wouldn't even grant the "social conservatives" the name "conservative" in the first place; there's nothing Conservative about wielding the power of the state to intrude on the private lives of citizens.

Be careful, though if you define away all the crazy or offensive things about conservatives, you could wind up with a fair-to-middling liberal.

230 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:41:03pm

re: #225 PT Barnum

Why does marriage have to be anything other than a religious construct? I'm personally in favor of civil unions for everyone and relegating marriage to the spiritual and personal realm where it belongs.

When gay couples can "marry" they can claim married on their 1040.

231 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:41:25pm

re: #224 Mich-again

Well they aren't just supposed to make stuff up to fill in the blanks, thats what the popularly elected legislature is for. The Court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, but it can't legislate from the bench. Thats the knock against activist judges. They think its OK to bend or break the rules if the cause is just in their mind. Wrong.

These are GOP talking points. I don't argue with talking points! I argue with real humans. If you persist in using talking points, I'm going to stop speaking with you.

"Activist judge" is a right wing smear against the very role of SCOTUS. If you believe the role of SCOTUS should be changed or removed, please just say so.

232 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:42:14pm

re: #228 brookly red

Indiana is a shall issue state IIRC...

What does that mean? This is my last year here for work...Shall issue?

233 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:42:17pm

re: #220 londonistan calling

I disagree.

Could it possibly be that there are people who would like for gay couples to have all the legal rights of married couples, but still hold marriage out as the ideal?

Sure, those people exist. In my book, they are bigots. I am not for "civil unions" unless that's all anybody gets. If straight people get to marry, so should gay people. I don't think somebody else's "ideal" should be used to define who gets what. They may not feel they are being "malevolent", but they are.

234 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:42:24pm

re: #226 HoosierHoops

You are completely safe having Ron Paul Stickers and confederate flags on your car in this part of Indiana...

Lucky you! Did you know that a study was done, I forget where, that showed people that have bumper stickers all over their car have issues of territory and are more prone to be aggressive? I kinda snickered at that one!

235 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:43:16pm

re: #226 HoosierHoops

You are completely safe having Ron Paul Stickers and confederate flags on your car in this part of Indiana...


I actually saw some Ron paul stickers on cars in Portland back before it became apparent that Ron paul's base was Bircher wackos. Now I see none.

236 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:44:32pm

re: #232 HoosierHoops

What does that mean? This is my last year here for work...Shall issue?

just a comment on personal safety, If you don't get it it is just as well.

237 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:44:52pm

re: #224 Mich-again

re: #230 Stanley Sea

And why not give them that option? LIke I said, civil unions for everyone, if we want to encourage people to reproduce or adopt we give them tax breaks. What's the problem other than wanting to tell other people who they can love?

238 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:45:35pm

re: #235 WindUpBird

I actually saw some Ron paul stickers on cars in Portland back before it became apparent that Ron paul's base was Bircher wackos. Now I see none.

There is a beautiful home facing the beach in Carmel. Surrounded by other beautiful homes. Has a huge (5 x 10?) Paul banner in the front yard.

This was over the summer, wonder if it's still there....

239 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:46:26pm

re: #234 Dragon_Lady

Lucky you! Did you know that a study was done, I forget where, that showed people that have bumper stickers all over their car have issues of territory and are more prone to be aggressive? I kinda snickered at that one!

I am trying to figure out how that applies to the subway :)

240 londonistan calling  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:46:39pm

re: #225 PT Barnum

I used to share that view, and I have not moved very far from this, but I think that it is fine for society to proclaim an ideal (whether the society in general fosters strong marriages and families is of course another argument, made well by Schmuley Boteach). I used to think that all marriages should be simply civil contracts, and that a church could perform whatever sanctification it wanted to whomever it wanted. What has changed my mind partially is the experience of the boy scouts, I don't think a church could get away with declining to perform same sex sanctifications if the state did not differentiate without having to defend itself against hate prosecutions. So the state can actually provide a service to society by keeping the definition of marriage as is, but instituting a strong civil union compact, seems to me.

241 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:47:30pm

re: #239 brookly red

I am trying to figure out how that applies to the subway :)

Stickers only. No connection to the subway.

242 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:48:10pm

re: #237 PT Barnum

re: #230 Stanley Sea

And why not give them that option? LIke I said, civil unions for everyone, if we want to encourage people to reproduce or adopt we give them tax breaks. What's the problem other than wanting to tell other people who they can love?

I typed my comment terribly. I think it is wrong wrong wrong that gay couples cannot marry and have the same benefits (taxes, etc.) as hetero couples.

And that a majority vote could decide that right (in CA) was wrong, and hopefully will be overturned.

243 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:48:26pm

re: #220 londonistan calling

There is nothing other than malevolence towards gays that would motivate a rejection of the redefinition of one of the oldest social contracts? Are you sure? Could it possibly be that there are people who would like for gay couples to have all the legal rights of married couples, but still hold marriage out as the ideal? Equating same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage is a calumny.. there is not one iota of difference between a black human being and a white human being, but a world of difference between a man and a woman. My daughters spend 2 weeks every summer at a cottage of a lesbian couple that I love greatly, but I can have love for individuals without thinking that society has to be reordered to sanctify their union.


Malevolence towards gays can be with a smile. People who are casually against gay rights may actually simply not be informed as to what their political position really means. They may simply not be informed as to the rights that are denied to gay people.

Civil Unions are a step in the right direction, it's the politics of incrementalism. If we have state civil unions, we miss the mor eimportant federal rigths granted to straight couples. If we have FEDERAL civil unions, we are almost there, and at that point it will simply be a matter of time before gay marriage is federally legal, IMHO.

Society is not reordered by giving gay spouses the right to visit each other when they are dying in a hospital, superseding the wishes of homophobic parents and family members. These rights are only conferred to married couples. Anyone who thinks gay couples should be denied this right is soulless and should just put the Klan robe on and be done with it.

244 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:48:49pm

re: #240 londonistan calling

Churches would be exempt because of the 1st amendment, so I don't see that as an issue.

245 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:50:06pm

re: #244 PT Barnum

Churches would be exempt because of the 1st amendment, so I don't see that as an issue.


Zombie talking points, you kill them, they jump right out of their grave and shamble towards the farmhouse again.

246 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:50:24pm

re: #235 WindUpBird

I actually saw some Ron paul stickers on cars in Portland back before it became apparent that Ron paul's base was Bircher wackos. Now I see none.

I get a kick of how the Bircher's come up and they are discussed like their participation in the GOP is some current development.

247 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:50:26pm

re: #243 WindUpBird

Overstated a bit with the Klan reference (to me this is the equivalent of Godwin's law), but for the most part absolutely true.

248 RogueOne  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:50:38pm

re: #234 Dragon_Lady

Lucky you! Did you know that a study was done, I forget where, that showed people that have bumper stickers all over their car have issues of territory and are more prone to be aggressive? I kinda snickered at that one!

Why do you think Hoosiers have a reputation for being so nice? It's because everyone has a gun and they aren't afraid to use it. It pays to be polite./

249 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:51:09pm

re: #239 brookly red

I am trying to figure out how that applies to the subway :)

Sorry, I'm running fever and I digressed. Before I digress even more I'll log out and save everyone more confusion. Sorry! :-)

250 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:52:12pm

re: #234 Dragon_Lady

Lucky you! Did you know that a study was done, I forget where, that showed people that have bumper stickers all over their car have issues of territory and are more prone to be aggressive? I kinda snickered at that one!


Here's my question: are aggressive people more or less likely to be successful? Aggressive isn't necessarily a bad thing, I know a lot of self-made success stories who are very aggressive, very type-A, hustle-for-every-opportunity types. I'd rather be aggressive than passive, certainly.

And yep, they have bumper stickers on their cars. Mostly geek ones, but hey.

251 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:52:28pm

From 1962

252 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:52:30pm

re: #241 Dragon_Lady

Stickers only. No connection to the subway.

well it is interesting & now that you mention it people with political buttons & pins are actually more aggressive & obnoxious in the close quarters of public transit...

253 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:53:03pm

re: #244 PT Barnum

Churches would be exempt because of the 1st amendment, so I don't see that as an issue.

Might have a geographic misunderstanding there. In the US "hate" is not a crime, "hate speech" is not a crime, only actual crimes aggravated by a provable hate motive carry extra sanction.

254 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:53:17pm

re: #250 WindUpBird

Here's my question: are aggressive people more or less likely to be successful? Aggressive isn't necessarily a bad thing, I know a lot of self-made success stories who are very aggressive, very type-A, hustle-for-every-opportunity types. I'd rather be aggressive than passive, certainly.

And yep, they have bumper stickers on their cars. Mostly geek ones, but hey.

Thats what the study suggested...

255 spud  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:53:38pm

Charles,

Regarding reason #6, I noticed you mentioned the tea-parties in your original list, but not in your response to Dennis. Is your opinion changing in that area or do you still consider that anti-government lunacy?

256 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:53:49pm

re: #247 PT Barnum

Overstated a bit with the Klan reference (to me this is the equivalent of Godwin's law), but for the most part absolutely true.

I'm a bit of an overstater for effect, yes. 8-) At the very least, such a person who would heartlessly deny gay couples the right to domain over each others medical issues is someone I could not respect nor speak to in polite company. I would put them exactly on the level of someone who calls black people the N-word. That's just me! I'm very close to the issue, you see. :)

257 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:54:02pm

re: #236 brookly red

just a comment on personal safety, If you don't get it it is just as well.

Sorry..Last year I told the story here of joining a private club just to Golf cheap and meet some locals.. One Sunday a bunch of us were sitting around eating free food and beer when Tiger was on the TV.. The racist jokes that spread around a Club full of old white guys was appalling and disgusting..
I came home and really bitched here about Indiana..
There is a deep racial bias in Indiana and is buried with the old white guys..
I don't care who you think you are and what you know.. I have experienced it..It's frigging true..
On the brightside? All those old bigot white guys will be dead soon.. And the kids will take up after them and make it a better world..

258 Donna Ballard  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:54:07pm

BBL Lizards, after the fever breaks and I can think straight again. Till then keep laughing!

259 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:54:47pm

re: #254 Dragon_Lady

Thats what the study suggested...


I want a link tot he study, sounds interesting. it was brought up earlier with a far more negative spin, sounds like it's just that people who put their messages on their car (or their tshirts) are more assertive and opinionated.

260 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:56:15pm

re: #239 brookly red

I am trying to figure out how that applies to the subway :)


tshirts? Those little message buttons? I dunno.

261 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:57:01pm

re: #256 WindUpBird

I'm a bit of an overstater for effect, yes. 8-) At the very least, such a person who would heartlessly deny gay couples the right to domain over each others medical issues is someone I could not respect nor speak to in polite company. I would put them exactly on the level of someone who calls black people the N-word. That's just me! I'm very close to the issue, you see. :)

Fair enough...being member of the majority, I can't pretend to understand the feelings of those affected by this issue. I come to my understanding based on the fact that being gay isn't a choice, and we don't punish people for things they have no control over in this country, or at least we have been steadily moving in that direction for the last 50 or so years.

262 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:57:16pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops

Sorry..Last year I told the story here of joining a private club just to Golf cheap and meet some locals.. One Sunday a bunch of us were sitting around eating free food and beer when Tiger was on the TV.. The racist jokes that spread around a Club full of old white guys was appalling and disgusting..
I came home and really bitched here about Indiana..
There is a deep racial bias in Indiana and is buried with the old white guys..
I don't care who you think you are and what you know.. I have experienced it..It's frigging true..
On the brightside? All those old bigot white guys will be dead soon.. And the kids will take up after them and make it a better world..

cool I am gonna start now and corner the market on tied-died t-shirts...

263 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:57:43pm

re: #223 brookly red

Maybe I heard you wrong but I was responding to "As if the constitution were some magic oracle book from Harry Potter that writes itself." Now if somehow I got that wrong I appolagize, but it is what you said.


Basically, you're responding to my humor and my writing style. Don't mistake that for me taking the constitution (or anything) lightly. I joke and use colloquial language regarding everything. it's just what I do.

264 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:58:21pm

re: #255 spud

Charles,

Regarding reason #6, I noticed you mentioned the tea-parties in your original list, but not in your response to Dennis. Is your opinion changing in that area or do you still consider that anti-government lunacy?

In his response, Charles said,

I don’t think we need militias to preserve limited government, sorry. The rise of groups like the John Birch Society and the Oath Keepers, and the NWO ranting of Glenn Beck and other radio hosts definitely fall under the rubric of “anti-government lunacy.”

All the things I bolded are inextricably connected to the tea parties. Another mention would risk redundancy.

265 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:58:28pm

re: #261 PT Barnum

Fair enough...being member of the majority, I can't pretend to understand the feelings of those affected by this issue. I come to my understanding based on the fact that being gay isn't a choice, and we don't punish people for things they have no control over in this country, or at least we have been steadily moving in that direction for the last 50 or so years.

The "gay is a lifestyle" talking point refuses to die, though. :(

266 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:58:39pm

re: #227 WindUpBird
You like to fight for no reason. I have already agreed we have no disagreement. My response was to this:
re: #165 celticdragon

Possibly not, but the fact that it (Lawrence, followed by gay marriage)has been successfully used as a diversionary wedge issue doesn't support that. Rank and file Republicans (and an awful lot of other folk, to be fair)are perfectly willing to believe that absolute worst about GLBT people. Can you think of any other group that has their marriages actually voted on?? Who else would frakking stand for it?!

Also, note the Pavlovian response anytime the SCOTUS rules in a way that the social conservatives don't like.

Black Robed Tyrants! Revolution! Wolverines!!!

Note, Celtic Dragon did not specify about the Supreme Court or voting againt vs for. The last sentence seems to stand alone and is even set apart with "also". Can you see why I did not think that is what was meant? When CD responded with clarification, I responded in kind. I am not in disagreement with the senitment. Are you assuming otherwise? Now, if you want references, you are going to have to give me more than a minute at it takes forever on my computer/connection.

267 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:58:58pm

re: #263 WindUpBird

k

268 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:59:28pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops

Sorry..Last year I told the story here of joining a private club just to Golf cheap and meet some locals.. One Sunday a bunch of us were sitting around eating free food and beer when Tiger was on the TV.. The racist jokes that spread around a Club full of old white guys was appalling and disgusting..
I came home and really bitched here about Indiana..
There is a deep racial bias in Indiana and is buried with the old white guys..
I don't care who you think you are and what you know.. I have experienced it..It's frigging true..
On the brightside? All those old bigot white guys will be dead soon.. And the kids will take up after them and make it a better world..

Ouch! I hear ya Hoosier. But being an old white guy with Indiana roots myself, I'll be dead too...and I ain't no bigot! Honest!

PS, I've lived all over the country and abroad. This shit is everywhere. Nothing like the boys club to expose it though, whether Indianapolis or Tucson.

As for the younger generation, you are right, I am in Texas these days and the younger cats are really, really ashamed of the racist roots - unlike what I have lived in the North where it is often sniggered at.

269 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:59:30pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops

snip...

On the brightside? All those old bigot white guys will be dead soon.. And the kids will take up after them and make it a better world..

We can't rely on mortality to cure the infection. Still, updinged for sentiment.

270 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 4:59:37pm

re: #231 WindUpBird

"Activist judge" is a right wing smear against the very role of SCOTUS.

I don't think so. Sure there are blowhards who will bitch and whine every single time the SCOTUS doesn't see things their way, but to others, there is a distinction between interpreting the law (in a way you may or may not agree with) and outright legislating from the bench. One example if I may..

Missouri v. Jenkins in 1990, the U. S. Supreme Court appeared to add new taxing powers to the existing tools already available to the judiciary. By a 5–4 vote, the Court affirmed court-ordered taxation to fund an elaborate and expensive desegregation plan for the Kansas City, Missouri, School District.

Where did the Supreme Court get its authority to impose taxes? The Constitution makes it pretty clear which branch of the Government is charged with raising funds. But add layers and layers of opinions that slightly change the law one detail at a time and eventually, Voila! The Supreme Cort now has the power to impose taxes.

The problem with judicial activism is that if its OK for your side, then it will be OK for the other side when the pendulum swings back the other way.

So if its OK in your opinion for Liberal minded judges to mold and shape the Constitution instead of just interpreting it, then don't complain when non-Liberal minded judges do the same. I think we are better off if the judges stick to the rules and make the legislators do their job.

271 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:00:12pm

re: #261 PT Barnum

Fair enough...being member of the majority, I can't pretend to understand the feelings of those affected by this issue. I come to my understanding based on the fact that being gay isn't a choice, and we don't punish people for things they have no control over in this country, or at least we have been steadily moving in that direction for the last 50 or so years.

Who cares if gays are born that way, want to be that way, or whatever. Any two unrelated adult people who want to consider their relationship to be love between themselves should have the exactly same benefits, both civil, religious and legal, that any male/female couple have.

272 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:00:58pm

What other people do in the privacy of their homes with regards to love is none of my god damned business. And it's none of the States nor Feds business either. Gay marriage is not going to destroy the foundations of civilization.
Sheesh.

273 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:01:45pm

re: #266 Escaped Hillbilly

You like to fight for no reason. I have already agreed we have no disagreement. My response was to this:
re: #165 celticdragon

Note, Celtic Dragon did not specify about the Supreme Court or voting againt vs for. The last sentence seems to stand alone and is even set apart with "also". Can you see why I did not think that is what was meant? When CD responded with clarification, I responded in kind. I am not in disagreement with the senitment. Are you assuming otherwise? Now, if you want references, you are going to have to give me more than a minute at it takes forever on my computer/connection.


I believed you were comparing the plight of gay people, who are having their rigths limited by direct democracy, to other minority groups, whose rights were established by laws created by legislature, NOT direct democracy.

If you are not doing that, and you acknowledge that gay people are being singled out for drect democracy (remember, civil rights for blacks would NEVER have passed a direct popular vote, it had to be forced on the South by the fed. Complete with the nat'l guard protecting desegregation of schools.) then yes, we are in agreement, and I apologize for coming on strong.

274 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:01:52pm

re: #262 brookly red

What you'll need are tie-dyed John Deere hats.

275 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:02:39pm

re: #274 Jeff In Ohio

What you'll need are tie-dyed John Deere hats.

Those won't come until the feds legalize growing marijuana and it becomes just another cash crop..

276 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:03:08pm

re: #237 PT Barnum

What's the problem other than wanting to tell other people who they can love?

The "problem" as I see it is that the Constitution did not give the Federal government the power to define marriage and neither did it exclude the States from that power, so the power to define it resides with the States.

For the Courts to just step in and impose their own definition to be applied across all the States, whatever that definition might be, would be a pure power grab.

277 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:03:25pm

re: #274 Jeff In Ohio

What you'll need are tie-dyed John Deere hats.

you gotta a point... lemmie talk to my peeps in China & get back 2 ya...

278 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:03:48pm

re: #275 PT Barnum

Those won't come until the feds legalize growing marijuana and it becomes just another cash crop..

It already is another cash crop.

279 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:03:49pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops

Ah Hoops, my pop loves golf and has never liked Tiger Woods. Unfortunately I know why and it hurts.

280 spud  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:04:31pm

re: #264 wrenchwench

Yes, I read Charles' response. His response (and your bolded words) did not include tea-parties, which is why I asked. I don't think they're "inextricably connected."

281 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:05:24pm

re: #276 Mich-again

But by that measure the laws against misegenation would probably still be in place in some states...

282 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:05:27pm

re: #280 spud

Do a LGF search of the Tea Party movement and you'll see that they are very much connected.

283 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:05:59pm

re: #278 Jeff In Ohio

Legal cash crop..should have made that distinction...

284 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:07:00pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton
Yes! I support gay rights because I support my rights. And I don't want to be a hypocrite.

285 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:07:06pm

re: #278 Jeff In Ohio

It already is another cash crop.

/ oh yeah? then why ain't there a 40% tax on it for the Fed?
(and 22% for the State, and 8.25 for the local...)

286 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:07:25pm

re: #270 Mich-again

Where did the Supreme Court get its authority to impose taxes? The Constitution makes it pretty clear which branch of the Government is charged with raising funds. But add layers and layers of opinions that slightly change the law one detail at a time and eventually, Voila! The Supreme Cort now has the power to impose taxes.

The problem with judicial activism is that if its OK for your side, then it will be OK for the other side when the pendulum swings back the other way.

So if its OK in your opinion for Liberal minded judges to mold and shape the Constitution instead of just interpreting it, then don't complain when non-Liberal minded judges do the same. I think we are better off if the judges stick to the rules and make the legislators do their job.


I'm going to have to actually look that case up, no offense, I don't really trust anyone's cliffs notes version of a SCOTUS case. My father and I have had many beers over the various ways that SCOTUS cases have been misrepresented in politics. Over and over again they get simplified in argument. "Sticking to the rules" is exactly what SOCTUS tries to do, what you're speaking of is not codified in any rule. What you're complaining of is amorphous philosophy that is impossible to nail down.

There's a reason the SCOTUS exists, because there must be a judgement call on these cases. These decisions ar eoften extremely complex. Cases only make it to the supreme court when there is a constitutional question which cannot be rectified by a lower court. So there must have been a costitutional question. The supreme court makes those decisions, it doesn't impose taxes by fiat, it decides whether a case that has made its way there because of a constitutional dispute is valid.

And I am fine with SCOTUS as it is, we have a pretty even split between liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and a kook (Scalia) thrown in for good measure.

287 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:07:28pm

re: #284 Escaped Hillbilly

Very pithily said.

288 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:07:55pm

re: #268 The Shadow Do

Ouch! I hear ya Hoosier. But being an old white guy with Indiana roots myself, I'll be dead too...and I ain't no bigot! Honest!

PS, I've lived all over the country and abroad. This shit is everywhere. Nothing like the boys club to expose it though, whether Indianapolis or Tucson.

As for the younger generation, you are right, I am in Texas these days and the younger cats are really, really ashamed of the racist roots - unlike what I have lived in the North where it is often sniggered at.

Hey bro..I guess I mean for 20,000 years mankind has always grown with youth...Racism someday I pray will be a thing of the past...MLK spoke to our dreams...
A thousand years from now Mankind will be generations ahead of the current mind think....It's hard to believe it but someday we will be considered ancient history...and hardly worth a post in future Blogs

289 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:08:55pm

re: #273 WindUpBird

Good. I hate fighting. (ok, sometimes I like it.) Ok, gotta go for a sec so kiddo can get my printer driver working.

290 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:09:35pm

re: #281 PT Barnum

But by that measure the laws against misegenation would probably still be in place in some states...

I think the 14th amendment gave the courts all the ammunition they needed to strike those down.

291 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:09:54pm

re: #285 brookly red

/ oh yeah? then why ain't there a 40% tax on it for the Fed?
(and 22% for the State, and 8.25 for the local...)

I was just talking to my son about what we would do if we were allowed to just make rules..one of the things I said I would do is make pot legal and tax the living crap out of it, and fine un-regulated growers very harshly..no jail, just fines.

292 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:10:06pm

re: #285 brookly red

/ oh yeah? then why ain't there a 40% tax on it for the Fed?
(and 22% for the State, and 8.25 for the local...)

'cause it's a cash crop. :)

293 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:10:28pm

re: #286 WindUpBird

And I am fine with SCOTUS as it is, we have a pretty even split between liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and a kook (Scalia) thrown in for good measure.

I agree. I think its actually a pretty good mix right now.

294 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:11:01pm

re: #276 Mich-again

The "problem" as I see it is that the Constitution did not give the Federal government the power to define marriage and neither did it exclude the States from that power, so the power to define it resides with the States.

For the Courts to just step in and impose their own definition to be applied across all the States, whatever that definition might be, would be a pure power grab.

This is incorrect. The power to define marriage resides partially with the federal government, by virtue of the fact that there are federal rights conferred to marriage that supersede individual states.

Unless you believe that there should be no federal rights conferred to marriage, and your marriage certificate has to be resigned for every state you enter. Whch would be a real pain in the ass, and completely silly, but that;s how it goes. Gays are still second class citizens, the law is still used to punish them under this misanthropic cover of "states' rights." Funny how "state's rights" always seem to pop up when minorities are involved!

295 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:11:21pm

re: #291 PT Barnum

I was just talking to my son about what we would do if we were allowed to just make rules..one of the things I said I would do is make pot legal and tax the living crap out of it, and fine un-regulated growers very harshly..no jail, just fines.

dude, your killing free market jobs...

296 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:11:32pm

re: #288 HoosierHoops

Hey bro..I guess I mean for 20,000 years mankind has always grown with youth...Racism someday I pray will be a thing of the past...MLK spoke to our dreams...
A thousand years from now Mankind will be generations ahead of the current mind think...It's hard to believe it but someday we will be considered ancient history...and hardly worth a post in future Blogs

You have to be carefully taught:

Image: klan_child_139332s.jpg

297 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:12:03pm

re: #289 Escaped Hillbilly

Good. I hate fighting. (ok, sometimes I like it.) Ok, gotta go for a sec so kiddo can get my printer driver working.

I'm not fighting, I'm arguing my point! I was FIGHTING last night with that capeCoddah person who called my friends filth. :)

(and oh God printer drivers :( )

298 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:12:28pm

re: #292 Jeff In Ohio

'cause it's a cash crop. :)

/but what about the chillllldren?

299 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:12:40pm

re: #297 WindUpBird

I'm not fighting, I'm arguing my point! I was FIGHTING last night with that capeCoddah person who called my friends filth. :)

(and oh God printer drivers :( )

Especially if they are HP printer driver...:/

300 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:12:45pm

re: #295 brookly red

dude, your killing free market jobs...


haha I hope you're kidding :D

301 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:13:23pm

re: #299 Varek Raith

Especially if they are HP printer driver...:/

I stay with Epson. Sometimes not the best build quality but the drivers are solid!

302 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:13:31pm

re: #290 Mich-again

But that amendment makes no mention of any particular characteristic, so why should marriage be restricted to only one group of people (i.e. heterosexuals)

The text of that amendment:

303 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:14:19pm

re: #302 PT Barnum

You are fast!

304 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:14:25pm

re: #288 HoosierHoops

Hey bro..I guess I mean for 20,000 years mankind has always grown with youth...Racism someday I pray will be a thing of the past...MLK spoke to our dreams...
A thousand years from now Mankind will be generations ahead of the current mind think...It's hard to believe it but someday we will be considered ancient history...and hardly worth a post in future Blogs

My feelings, and hopes, exactly. I have seen the progress over my lifetime but will certainly not live long enough to know any kind of real resolution. Not even my grandkids probably.

But the distance we have come over the last 50 years is progress for sure - with a capital P. I have stories.

It is a wonderful country that torments itself over such a thing.

305 Hermie328  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:14:48pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops


There is a deep racial bias in Indiana and is buried with the old white guys..
I don't care who you think you are and what you know.. I have experienced it..It's frigging true..
On the brightside? All those old bigot white guys will be dead soon.. And the kids will take up after them and make it a better world..

It is certainly the same here in Southern Illinois. Although I am less optomistic than you are. I know plenty of serious racists that are younger than I am, and I'm only 28! Granted, a lot of the soft racism isn't being passed from the old farts to their kids, but the real hard racists certainly are passing the torch.

I think the only thing my generation is going to get right is to legalize it. I don't even smoke the stuff, but I'm going to throw a hell of a party on that day!

306 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:14:51pm

re: #298 brookly red

/but what about the chillldren?

Fuckin' libs, always with 'the chillldren'. The 'chillldren' are going to have to score theirs from some knock window on Ave A just like I did when I was 16.

307 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:15:03pm

re: #301 WindUpBird

I stay with Epson. Sometimes not the best build quality but the drivers are solid!

My dad's got HP printers, guess who gets a call when they don't work right? :(
I like Lexmark printers.

308 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:15:17pm

re: #295 brookly red

But then I'm a liberal don't you know...so I hate the free market..

/

309 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:15:32pm

re: #294 WindUpBird

Through the interstate commerce clause, the Feds have already grabbed all sorts of power already. I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been a push to commonize marriage requirements (and allow for Gay marriage) under that legal umbrella. Boom, done.

Because there will never be a Constitutional amendment approved by 38 States that goes along with it. Not in the foreseeable future anyway.

310 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:15:43pm

re: #306 Jeff In Ohio

Fuckin' libs, always with 'the chillldren'. The 'chillldren' are going to have to score theirs from some knock window on Ave A just like I did when I was 16.

The children need some lessons in hydroponics! :D

311 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:16:06pm

re: #300 WindUpBird

haha I hope you're kidding :D

no really... same as any other bissuness. If you tax it to the point of no returns why would anyone bother.

312 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:16:59pm

re: #309 Mich-again

Through the interstate commerce clause, the Feds have already grabbed all sorts of power already. I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been a push to commonize marriage requirements (and allow for Gay marriage) under that legal umbrella. Boom, done.

Because there will never be a Constitutional amendment approved by 38 States that goes along with it. Not in the foreseeable future anyway.


Without the interstate commerce clause, imagine what a mess our economy would be. 8-)

The path I see gay marriuage taking is through the SCOTUS, not an amendment.

313 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:17:41pm

re: #306 Jeff In Ohio

Fuckin' libs, always with 'the chillldren'. The 'chillldren' are going to have to score theirs from some knock window on Ave A just like I did when I was 16.


the only thing you can get from a knock window on Ave-A now is sushi...

314 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:18:42pm

re: #308 PT Barnum

re: #311 brookly red

I dunno...people still use tobacco, drink alcohol, and drive their cars...

315 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:19:05pm

re: #312 WindUpBird

Without the interstate commerce clause, imagine what a mess our economy would be. 8-)

The path I see gay marriuage taking is through the SCOTUS, not an amendment.

I hope so... but I don't think it's going to be Obama getting this accomplished...

316 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:19:22pm

re: #314 PT Barnum

re: #311 brookly red

I dunno...people still use tobacco, drink alcohol, and drive their cars...

Simultaneously.

317 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:07pm

re: #316 Decatur Deb

I'd give you two updings for that simultaneously if I could.

318 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:19pm

re: #313 brookly red

the only thing you can get from a knock window on Ave-A now is sushi...

Next I guess you'll tell me there are no more junkies in Thompskin Square....I miss NYC, BG.

319 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:41pm

re: #311 brookly red

no really... same as any other bissuness. If you tax it to the point of no returns why would anyone bother.

When we had prohibition, there were no taxes on beer, because it was contraband. and the beer was not of the quality it is now, and didn't have the variety. Now there are plenty of taxes on beer, and we have an almost cosmic variety of beer available for purchase in America. Thousands of varieties in Portland alone, perhaps over a thousand varieties of beer produced in Oregon alone. There's beer hopped with pine needles I can buy. Pine needles!

If weed is taxed and available, it will become stronger, more potent, higher quality, and easier to get, which will drive the economy and create free market jobs. And then my friends who are 420 every day wont have to wait for their skeezy hookup in Eugene to call them back, drive down there, and hope that what they get back isn't ditchweed with a whole bunch of stems in it. :D

320 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:49pm

re: #316 Decatur Deb

Simultaneously.

While texting, talking on a cell, eating and reading a book/map.
/Mad Max on I-95!

321 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:56pm

re: #314 PT Barnum

re: #311 brookly red

I dunno...people still use tobacco, drink alcohol, and drive their cars...

/and the death toll is freakin awful...

322 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:20:58pm

re: #315 Walter L. Newton

I hope so... but I don't think it's going to be Obama getting this accomplished...

I don't even think it's his responsibility.

323 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:21:24pm

re: #320 Varek Raith

and getting a blowjob. You know if you got the right gear for that.

324 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:21:25pm

re: #314 PT Barnum

re: #311 brookly red

I dunno...people still use tobacco, drink alcohol, and drive their cars...


it turns out I am willing to pay all the associated taxes and fees to be able to rocket down Burnside street in my turbo VW. :D

325 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:22:07pm

re: #323 Jeff In Ohio

and getting a blowjob. You know if you got the right gear for that.


You need a column shifter for that, manuals are no good.

/

326 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:22:32pm

okay, back to work, gotta stop chatting. Squawk!

327 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:22:55pm

re: #323 Jeff In Ohio

and getting a blowjob. You know if you got the right gear for that.

Jeff, just a suggestion, that comment is a bit over the top, considering the mixed nature of the audience here.

328 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:22:58pm

re: #318 Jeff In Ohio

Next I guess you'll tell me there are no more junkies in Thompskin Square...I miss NYC, BG.


Oh, Thompsink Sq.? you mean must the farmers market?

329 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:23:52pm

re: #315 Walter L. Newton

I hope so... but I don't think it's going to be Obama getting this accomplished...

Well, no surprise there, he's not a Supreme Court judge. He may or may not get the opportunity to appoint more judges to the Court, that is really his only influence he can have in his current job.

330 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:24:24pm

We'll have live embedded video of the State of the Union speech coming up at 6 pm Pacific, courtesy of Hulu.com.

331 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:25:05pm

re: #329 Mich-again

Well, no surprise there, he's not a Supreme Court judge. He may or may not get the opportunity to appoint more judges to the Court, that is really his only influence he can have in his current job.

I sort of meant I would like to see his 100 percent support behind this. I understand he can't just say "poof" and it's law.

332 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:25:26pm

re: #330 Charles

We'll have live embedded video of the State of the Union speech coming up at 6 pm Pacific, courtesy of Hulu.com.

Neat.

I must say, it feels...wrong not being able to uprate your comments.
:)

333 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:25:38pm

re: #328 brookly red

Oh, Thompsink Sq.? you mean must the farmers market?

Ugh, it's been a while since I've been in NYC.

334 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:26:10pm

re: #311 brookly red

no really... same as any other bissuness. If you tax it to the point of no returns why would anyone bother.

If you tax the bejeebers out of it, it just goes back underground where it came from.

335 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:26:22pm

re: #331 Walter L. Newton

I sort of meant I would like to see his 100 percent support behind this. I understand he can't just say "poof" and it's law.

neither can he...

336 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:26:38pm

re: #332 Varek Raith

Neat.

I must say, it feels...wrong not being able to uprate your comments.
:)

Just have to wait for someone to quote him, and upding that.

337 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:27:42pm

re: #333 Jeff In Ohio

Ugh, it's been a while since I've been in NYC.

parkside inn is still, so is stromolies pizza.

338 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:28:06pm

re: #336 wrenchwench

Just have to wait for someone to quote him, and upding that.

That's a tremendous idea... I know it will be a burden, but I will volunteer to do that for now on... see below...

re: #330 Charles

We'll have live embedded video of the State of the Union speech coming up at 6 pm Pacific, courtesy of Hulu.com.

339 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:28:32pm

re: #334 stevemcg

If you tax the bejeebers out of it, it just goes back underground where it came from.

But if you distribute all drugs on prescription, under universal health care, the market forces eat the producers and pushers. Leave severe distribution penalties in place.

340 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:28:58pm

re: #334 stevemcg

I think you tax it to the point that you tax other things of the same nature. Alcohol for one. (I'd add one for Hostess powdered donuts and churros, but that's my personal problem)

And you make it prohibitively expensive for those who try to grow outside the system.

341 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:29:19pm

re: #337 brookly red

parkside inn is still, so is stromolies pizza.

Stop that... you know that hurts...

342 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:29:25pm

re: #339 Decatur Deb

Like the way we crushed the oxycontin trade?

343 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:29:30pm

re: #338 Walter L. Newton

That's a tremendous idea... I know it will be a burden, but I will volunteer to do that for now on... see below...

Sorry, Varek Raith beat you!

344 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:29:43pm

re: #334 stevemcg

Believe it or not, we can control the level at which we tax things >>

345 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:08pm

re: #340 PT Barnum

I think you tax it to the point that you tax other things of the same nature. Alcohol for one. (I'd add one for Hostess powdered donuts and churros, but that's my personal problem)

And you make it prohibitively expensive for those who try to grow or distribute outside the system.

PIMF

346 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:12pm

re: #343 wrenchwench

Sorry, Varek Raith beat you!

Ahh, doesn't matter! Updings for everyone!
:)

347 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:30pm

re: #344 windsagio

I was just responding to the notion of taxing something out of existence.

348 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:31pm

re: #342 stevemcg

Oxy's still illegal really.

And its substantially less common than Pot.

Also more dangerous.

/I don't even smoke the stuff and I know this!

349 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:34pm

re: #334 stevemcg

If you tax the bejeebers out of it, it just goes back underground where it came from.


yeah they raised the price of cigarettes to 10 dollars a pack (can you believe that) and wonder why the revenue went down...

350 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:41pm

re: #342 stevemcg

Like the way we crushed the oxycontin trade?

Oxy is free? Why would anyone push it?

351 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:30:48pm

re: #343 wrenchwench

pff I said that yesterday you jerks :p

352 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:31:14pm

re: #351 windsagio

pff I said that yesterday you jerks :p

So did I. :P :P
:)

353 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:31:41pm

re: #341 Walter L. Newton

Stop that... you know that hurts...


katz's at 4:00 AM...

354 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:31:52pm

re: #352 Varek Raith

And Glen Beck is still a soulless panderer

355 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:31:56pm

re: #349 brookly red

cigarettes are a different thing, 'cuz they're (improperly imo) trying to use the tax as defacto prohibition.


Yer right tho that theres a lesson there. In places where the cig tax is truly out of hand, you start getting a huge market in black market cigs.

356 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:32:13pm

Pretty funny that some dopers would have the government take command of the maket while others argue for free range weed.

Only in America!

357 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:32:15pm

re: #349 brookly red

yeah they raised the price of cigarettes to 10 dollars a pack (can you believe that) and wonder why the revenue went down...

In Sept. 2009, when I was at Kennedy, it was 11.11 a pack.

358 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:03pm

re: #355 windsagio

I think sin taxes are a balancing act at best, but I think we want to make dope expensive enough that it isn't something people smoke on their breaks from work.

359 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:05pm

State Of The Union Drinking Game 2010

Obama says "let me be clear": Do one shot

Obama says "change isn't easy": Do one shot

Obama says "make no mistake": Do one shot

Obama says "Let me be clear, change isn't easy, make no mistake.": He's screwing with you to get you drunk, so five shots

Joe Wilson yells something: Do two shots

Obama yells back: Finish the bottle

Obama says "jobs": Do one shot, two if you're unemployed

Obama says "health care": Do not drink, you will not be given a replacement liver

Nancy Pelosi claps like a seal: Do one shot

Nancy Pelosi becomes a seal: STOP DRINKING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Obama mentions Bo: Put beer in your dog's water bowl

Michelle Obama wears a slinky dress: Go immediately to the HuffPost
Style page for close-ups

Joe Biden nods-off/laughs inappropriately/starts talking before the speech is over: Do three shots

Obama uses the term "Congressional leadership": Do two shots carefully as all that laughing will make it difficult to swallow

Obama says he's "fighting for you": Do one shot, two if you believe him

Obama mentions Haiti: Text “Haiti” to the number 90999 and donate $10 to the Red Cross

360 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:21pm

In a much-anticipated speech at Auschwitz-Birkenau marking International Holocaust Memorial Day Wednesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reasserted the right of the Jewish people to self-defense amid increasing concern over the Iranian threat and growing controversy abroad over the legitimacy of Israel and its military.

“From the cursed ground at Auschwitz, Birkenau and other camps rise the voices of our brothers and sisters, our people who choked to death and were burned and murdered,” said the prime minister, in English, wishing “decency, truth and hope ... for all mankind” before switching to Hebrew, “the language the Nazis sought to exterminate.”

“Remember what Amalek did to you,” cautioned Netanyahu, quoting a particularly ominous passage from Deuteronomy. “I have come here today from Jerusalem to tell you: We will never forget. We will not allow the Holocaust deniers or those who desecrate [Jewish] graves and signs to erase or distort [our] memory.”

The prime minister also warned that though the “Nazi Amalek” was almost entirely a ghost of the past, “a new Amalek is appearing and once again threatening to annihilate the Jews. We will not allow it ... We will never forget and always stand guard,” he said.

“Murderous hatred must be stopped in its tracks, stopped right from the beginning. All countries in the world must learn this lesson, just as we did after losing a third of our people in blood-soaked Europe. We learned that the only guarantee for the protection of our people is the State of Israel and its army, the IDF,” Netanyahu declared, warning that never again would the existence of Israel and the Jewish people be threatened.

SNIP

Well said, Mr. Prime Minister.

361 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:36pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

Let's also count words!11!11
...:)

362 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:39pm

re: #356 The Shadow Do

Pretty funny that some dopers would have the government take command of the maket while others argue for free range weed.

Only in America!

Move to Colorado... it seems that we are trying to beat out California in being the easiest place in the country to get "medical" pot.

363 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:42pm

re: #356 The Shadow Do

well, in fairness as of now you can legally grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer. The positions actually mesh pretty well...

Is distilling spirits privately still illegal ?

364 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:44pm

re: #354 PT Barnum

I see some are aware of my self created LGF tradition..:)

365 Jeff In Ohio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:33:57pm

re: #337 brookly red

parkside inn is still, so is stromolies pizza.

Shit man, banging at CB's and eating at Stromboli's. Crucial. I suppose they've run the Hell's Angels off of 1st Street by now...

366 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:34:19pm

re: #357 Walter L. Newton

I quit 8 years ago..best thing I ever did.

367 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:34:27pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

Do a shot every time Obama say's 'I' tonight..

368 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:34:28pm

Yes, I hear the wingnut blogs are all getting ready to count the "I" words in Obama's speech.

Oh well. Keeps 'em off the street.

369 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:35:07pm

What does it cost to roll your own cigarettes?

/nonsmoker who likes freedom even for the objectionable

370 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:35:08pm

re: #366 PT Barnum

I quit 8 years ago..best thing I ever did.

I quit two years ago, 3 packs a day, just put them down, same way as I stopped eating 4 years ago, went from 424 pounds to 181 right now.

371 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:35:10pm

re: #358 PT Barnum

Intoxication rules can cover that too. most people don't go out and get smashed on their lunch break, altho its technically legal. Your ass would get so fired.

372 baier  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:35:57pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

How many drinks for a straw-man?

"There are those that say..."

373 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:02pm

re: #370 Walter L. Newton

same way as I stopped eating 4 years ago, went from 424 pounds to 181 right now.

Thats freakin' willpower! Surprised you haven't lost even more weight tho >>

374 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:14pm

re: #370 Walter L. Newton

At some point you're going to have to restart eating.

375 baier  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:16pm

re: #363 windsagio

well, in fairness as of now you can legally grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer. The positions actually mesh pretty well...

Is distilling spirits privately still illegal ?

yes, it's too dangerous.

376 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:21pm

re: #331 Walter L. Newton

I understand he can't just say "poof" and it's law.

Contrary to the opinion of most the American electorate who are unclear on the concept of separation of powers.

377 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:28pm

re: #370 Walter L. Newton


Congratulations on that...I'm still working on the eating part. Much harder than quitting smoking though I'm doing better...no more than 3 oz of red meat a day and making sure I eat all my fruits and veggies...that seems to work pretty well.

378 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:33pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

You'll never guess where I found that. Ok, maybe someone will.

379 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:36:47pm

re: #357 Walter L. Newton

In Sept. 2009, when I was at Kennedy, it was 11.11 a pack.

raise taxes, lose revenue. it is that simple.

380 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:12pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

Dude, you are going to put people in the hospital with that game!

381 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:16pm

re: #376 Mich-again

Vice President Cheney used to be able to do that.

382 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:19pm

re: #379 brookly red

lol did you really say that?

Don't be silly taxation -> revenue is a bell curve, not a straight line.

383 baier  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:24pm

re: #368 Charles

Yes, I hear the wingnut blogs are all getting ready to count the "I" words in Obama's speech.

Oh well. Keeps 'em off the street.

Would they rather he used the royal we?

384 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:28pm

re: #378 Slumbering Behemoth

You'll never guess where I found that. Ok, maybe someone will.

kos?

385 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:37:50pm

re: #359 Slumbering Behemoth

State Of The Union Drinking Game 2010

Obama says "let me be clear": Do one shot

Obama says "change isn't easy": Do one shot

Obama says "make no mistake": Do one shot

Obama says "Let me be clear, change isn't easy, make no mistake.": He's screwing with you to get you drunk, so five shots

Joe Wilson yells something: Do two shots

Obama yells back: Finish the bottle

Obama says "jobs": Do one shot, two if you're unemployed

Obama says "health care": Do not drink, you will not be given a replacement liver

Nancy Pelosi claps like a seal: Do one shot

Nancy Pelosi becomes a seal: STOP DRINKING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Obama mentions Bo: Put beer in your dog's water bowl

Michelle Obama wears a slinky dress: Go immediately to the HuffPost
Style page for close-ups

Joe Biden nods-off/laughs inappropriately/starts talking before the speech is over: Do three shots

Obama uses the term "Congressional leadership": Do two shots carefully as all that laughing will make it difficult to swallow

Obama says he's "fighting for you": Do one shot, two if you believe him

Obama mentions Haiti: Text “Haiti” to the number 90999 and donate $10 to the Red Cross

What do we do if Nancy Pelosi blinks?

386 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:10pm

re: #368 Charles

It's kind of impossible to give a speech as the POTUS without using the "I" word. Don't know why so many get hung up on that.

387 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:13pm

re: #380 Mich-again

Dude, you are going to put people in the hospital with that game!

Hi everybody!
Liver transplants for everyone!
/Channeling Dr. Nick Riviera.

388 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:19pm

re: #368 Charles

Yes, I hear the wingnut blogs are all getting ready to count the "I" words in Obama's speech.

Oh well. Keeps 'em off the street.

So would not forgetting their meds.

389 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:29pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

shot of turpentine.

Sounds dangerous I know, but I doubt it'll happen ;)

390 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:41pm

Supper...

391 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:41pm

re: #384 Stanley Sea

kos?

Nope.

392 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:53pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

What do we do if Nancy Pelosi blinks?

pay more taxes.

393 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:38:58pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

What do we do if Nancy Pelosi blinks?

Trick question. She doesn't blink.

394 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:39:01pm

re: #386 Slumbering Behemoth

because they're searching blindly for something to criticize. Pretty straightforward, I think :)

395 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:39:36pm

re: #386 Slumbering Behemoth

Because they're trying to prove that Obama is egotistical..somewhat similar to trying to prove the date of the second coming by counting the occurances of the word the in the Book of Revelations. Absolutely meaningless metric, but it sounds like it means something.

396 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:39:39pm

I wonder how many times Obama will bring up "the previous administration" when trying to explain why we haven't been able to spend ourselves back to prosperity.

397 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:39:44pm

re: #391 Slumbering Behemoth

Nope.


what right wing blog has a sense of humor?

398 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:09pm

re: #363 windsagio

well, in fairness as of now you can legally grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer. The positions actually mesh pretty well...

Is distilling spirits privately still illegal ?

Only if you sell it.

I just find it amusing to see folks fighting over the best way to bring doobs to market.

I say rebrand Lucky Strikes. Let the corporations do what they do best.

Market, market, market!

When legalized, I see myself sitting on my patio, with my bong, waiting for my garden to sprout...which I forgot to plant...

399 baier  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:29pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

What do we do if Nancy Pelosi blinks?

As much as you can because the world is about to end. That is her signal to begin the invasion from the planet Communisto.

400 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:30pm

gotta make a booze, tobacco, coke, meth, smack run before the I Speech...

401 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:47pm

re: #395 PT Barnum

Because they're trying to prove that Obama is egotistical..somewhat similar to trying to prove the date of the second coming by counting the occurances of the word the in the Book of Revelations. Absolutely meaningless metric, but it sounds like it means something.

Counting the occurrences of what in Revelations?

402 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:57pm

re: #400 albusteve

dude, I'm with you!

403 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:40:58pm

re: #397 Stanley Sea

what right wing blog has a sense of humor?

My 2nd favorite site.. Failblog.com.

OK I'm not sure of the political slant, but you can't deny the sense of humor!

404 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:16pm

re: #393 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Trick question. She doesn't blink.

Good gawd!
She blinks like crazy!
blink-blink-blink-blink
drives me nuts.

405 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:21pm

re: #398 The Shadow Do

falsify studies, and intentionally addict people?


Sounds good!

406 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:23pm

re: #400 albusteve

gotta make a booze, tobacco, coke, meth, smack run before the I Speech...

Don't forget to pick me up that one-legged hooker.

407 stevemcg  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:24pm

re: #400 albusteve

Don't forget the munchies!

408 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:34pm

re: #367 HoosierHoops

Do a shot every time Obama say's 'I' tonight..

I believe "inherited" or its like will be the operative word. Each worth a double shot (that's two 'glugs' for those who don't pour).

409 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:39pm

re: #402 windsagio

dude, I'm with you!

just kidding about the tobacco....brb

410 keloyd  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:50pm

love the POTUSmobile! Obama just pulled away on CNN footage. If I could spell that Tim Allen animal bark noise from Tool Time I would insert it here.

411 baier  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:41:56pm

re: #386 Slumbering Behemoth

It's kind of impossible to give a speech as the POTUS without using the "I" word. Don't know why so many get hung up on that.

The person who is typing this agrees.

412 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:42:08pm

re: #403 Mich-again

My 2nd favorite site.. Failblog.com.

OK I'm not sure of the political slant, but you can't deny the sense of humor!

Also non political.
Engrish.com
:D

413 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:42:15pm

re: #409 albusteve

haha, I think I'm actually gonna l eave to get some food when the speech starts, listen to it in my car. Liveblogging makes me itch >

414 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:42:23pm

re: #396 Mich-again

I think he has to make it clear that lack of enforcement of financial regulations, borrowing money without any plan to pay it back to pay for two wars and so forth got us into this mess, and that it's not going to turn around over night. However, we do have a way out, but it's going to take shared sacrifice and shared will.

415 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:42:26pm

re: #407 stevemcg

Don't forget the munchies!

Like I said...

416 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:42:46pm

re: #401 Walter L. Newton

Pick any word you want, it would have just as much validity.

417 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:43:36pm

re: #404 reine.de.tout

Oh, yeah.... Who was I thinking of?

I'm still sick (your fault).

418 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:43:59pm

hey brook, never did try to defend your point about taxes being an 'inverse linear' (If I got that right) to profits.

Are you withdrawing the point then?

419 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:44:06pm

re: #417 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, yeah... Who was I thinking of?

I'm still sick (your fault).

Sorry.
I'm still sick too.
gonna call the doc tomorrow.

420 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:44:21pm

Family portrait.. FAIL. Ha.

421 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:44:31pm

re: #419 reine.de.tout

re: #417 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Get well soon!

:)

422 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:44:49pm

re: #421 Varek Raith

re: #417 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Get well soon!

:)

Ditto..

423 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:45:18pm

re: #391 Slumbering Behemoth

Nope.

Spill the beans!!!

424 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:45:22pm

re: #413 windsagio

haha, I think I'm actually gonna l eave to get some food when the speech starts, listen to it in my car. Liveblogging makes me itch >

I'm letting my kids stay up a bit late so they can see it, just for their civics education.

425 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:45:27pm

re: #377 PT Barnum

Congratulations on that...I'm still working on the eating part. Much harder than quitting smoking though I'm doing better...no more than 3 oz of red meat a day and making sure I eat all my fruits and veggies...that seems to work pretty well.

You know if you just forget the beef and do all things Chicken.. Chicken Salad, Lemon Chicken.. Smothered Chicken..Blacken chicken plus Veggies and fruits..
You will do great...It's fun eating healthy.. You can eat all the time..2PM and you are eating fruit? Who cares? You are getting Healthy...And getting to eat any damn time you feel like it..And if some days you eat a dozen eggs and a steak for breakfast nobody calls 911..

426 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:45:52pm

re: #405 windsagio

falsify studies, and intentionally addict people?


Sounds good!

Of course, no difference.

Or maybe we can restrict it to 'green' growers and buy only from farmer's markets?

427 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:46:56pm

re: #414 PT Barnum

I think he has to make it clear that lack of enforcement of financial regulations, borrowing money without any plan to pay it back to pay for two wars and so forth got us into this mess, and that it's not going to turn around over night. However, we do have a way out, but it's going to take shared sacrifice and shared will.

I just knew it! Bush did it!

428 brookly red  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:09pm

re: #418 windsagio

hey brook, never did try to defend your point about taxes being an 'inverse linear' (If I got that right) to profits.

Are you withdrawing the point then?

I don't feel the need to defend water is wet either.

429 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:19pm

re: #419 reine.de.tout

Take your Vitamin D, have some hot Tea with honey and lemon, and most importantly, get some sleep!

430 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:26pm

re: #420 Mich-again

Surprisingly? I like those parents.

431 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:29pm

re: #131 Walter L. Newton

According to a lot of the progressives I have listened to, both on talk radio shows and on the internet, almost all opposition to Obama and his policies are due to racism. It's tragic, but that the facts according to them.

I have to say that although I do not believe that, the intensity of the response he gets to, well, everything he does, seems...disproportionate. I don't buy 'simple racism', but I don't buy 'just opposing his policies' either.

432 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:51pm

re: #397 Stanley Sea

what right wing blog has a sense of humor?

I used to like IMAO.

433 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:47:56pm

re: #425 HoosierHoops

You know if you just forget the beef and do all things Chicken.. Chicken Salad, Lemon Chicken.. Smothered Chicken..Blacken chicken plus Veggies and fruits..
You will do great...It's fun eating healthy.. You can eat all the time..2PM and you are eating fruit? Who cares? You are getting Healthy...And getting to eat any damn time you feel like it..And if some days you eat a dozen eggs and a steak for breakfast nobody calls 911..

My mom was alergic to beef..gave her terrible migraines...so I don't think I can give that up entirely, but I am eating more chicken and fish.

434 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:48:05pm

re: #427 The Shadow Do

I just knew it! Bush did it!

Reggie?

435 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:49:12pm

re: #434 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Reggie?

No, it was Arnold I think...

436 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:49:16pm

re: #427 The Shadow Do

It's not about it being Bush's fault or anyone's fault, simply that the problems were there when Obama walked in the door. Now he has to take responsibility for solving them while setting realistic expectations for how fast they can be solved. There is no magic bullet.

437 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:49:18pm

re: #414 PT Barnum

I think he has to make it clear that lack of enforcement of financial regulations, borrowing money without any plan to pay it back to pay for two wars and so forth got us into this mess, and that it's not going to turn around over night. However, we do have a way out, but it's going to take shared sacrifice and shared will.

I don't think he has ever stopped campaigning. I hope this speech is more about unity and shared sacrifice and not about playing the blame game. Everyone in Washington has been complicit in the mess we're in. Its kind of like the movie, The Unforgiven. There are no good guys.

438 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:49:19pm

Got my flu shots today. Are my arms supposed to be sore. They were tiny, tiny shots and both of my arms hurt like 'ell!

439 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:50:04pm

re: #438 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Got my flu shots today. Are my arms supposed to be sore. They were tiny, tiny shots and both of my arms hurt like 'ell!

Yes, that can happen.

440 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:50:25pm

re: #436 PT Barnum

It's not about it being Bush's fault or anyone's fault, simply that the problems were there when Obama walked in the door. Now he has to take responsibility for solving them while setting realistic expectations for how fast they can be solved. There is no magic bullet.

That's just not true. We can spend a hell of a lot more, just ask him....

441 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:50:33pm

re: #423 Stanley Sea

Spill the beans!!!

Okay, fine. That comes from HuffPo. The local Fox News Radio talk guy tipped me off to it. Well, not me personally. I heard it on his show.

442 MandyManners  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:50:37pm

re: #404 reine.de.tout

Good gawd!
She blinks like crazy!
blink-blink-blink-blink
drives me nuts.

Are you sure it's not Morse code?

443 windsagio  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:50:56pm

re: #428 brookly red

mmhmm. Oh well, we're going on to the SOTU speech now, so you probably get a pass.


Your position (as I understand it

"higher taxes always decrease gov't revenue"

) patently insane.

If I'm misunderstanding you somehow, please let me know. I'd love to make a retraction :p

444 albusteve  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:51:11pm

re: #438 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Got my flu shots today. Are my arms supposed to be sore. They were tiny, tiny shots and both of my arms hurt like 'ell!

ahaha!...no comment

445 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:51:15pm

re: #433 PT Barnum

of course I want to try eating other lean meats like aligator and rattlesnake...(I know they taste like chicken)

I've always wanted to walk into a KFC, order a drumstick or two, then after taking a bite say loudly, "Yew Know? This tastes just lahk alligator!"

446 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:51:24pm

re: #442 MandyManners

Are you sure it's not Morse code?

It's not. :)
Still remembesr Morse code from Boy Scouts
:)

447 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:51:41pm

re: #437 Mich-again

There are no good guys.

There ain't no bad guys...

448 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:52:03pm

re: #437 Mich-again

Agreed

449 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:52:14pm

re: #4 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Too many pundits today are trying to embrace a "if you're not with us 100%, you're against us 100%" approach to politics. Its never worked and in the end, just marginalizes them to the point of irrelevancy.

What seems to me to be a common theme one hears is the equivalent of; "as long as I agree with you 20%, then I won't mention the despicable 80%".

450 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:52:18pm

re: #446 Varek Raith

It's not. :)
Still remembesr Morse code from Boy Scouts
:)

It's Soros code.

/Boo!

451 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:52:21pm

re: #192 wrenchwench

I'm no Prager expert, but I see homophobia in his response to #5. I can't see any non-homophobic reason to oppose allowing gay people to marry. As Dick Cheney said, "Freedom is for everyone."

One of the witnesses on behalf of Prop 8 told the court yesterday that if we allow same-sex marriage, marriage will cease to be a public, child-centered institution.

I wasn't aware that my marriage was a public, child-centered institution, and I don't think I care for the idea very much.

452 The Shadow Do  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:52:33pm

re: #437 Mich-again

I don't think he has ever stopped campaigning. I hope this speech is more about unity and shared sacrifice and not about playing the blame game. Everyone in Washington has been complicit in the mess we're in. Its kind of like the movie, The Unforgiven. There are no good guys.


What in the hell does the buzz phrase "shared sacrifice" mean. That's rhetorical by the way. It means you are not in a high tax bracket - yet. Alternatively, you indeed are and are expressing your bona fides in some weird manner.

453 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:53:09pm

re: #430 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Surprisingly? I like those parents.

Me too. But I think Axl Rose was the milkman or something.

454 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:53:11pm

re: #444 albusteve

ahaha!...no comment

My doc came at me with the shot and said "Hey don't worry it's only a little prick with a needle.

I said, "I know who you are, doc, just give me the damn shot!"

455 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:53:50pm

re: #207 brookly red

You may not feel that you have all the freedoms that you want, but the freedoms that you (we) do have you have because of the Constitution. It is not to be taken lightly.

I bet WUP didn't know that.

456 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:54:06pm
457 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:54:27pm

re: #451 SanFranciscoZionist

I wasn't aware that my marriage was a public, child-centered institution, and I don't think I care for the idea very much.

Then turn off your damn webcam, seriously!
/

458 What, me worry?  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:55:09pm

re: #433 PT Barnum

My mom was alergic to beef..gave her terrible migraines...so I don't think I can give that up entirely, but I am eating more chicken and fish.

Funny you say that. I was a veggie for about 5 years and one of the benefits I realized about 6 months in, was that my migraines had disappeared.

459 Varek Raith  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:55:18pm

re: #457 Slumbering Behemoth

Then turn off your damn webcam, seriously!
/

Trust in SB to go there!
/XD

460 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:55:19pm

re: #456 The Sanity Inspector

Better hope Cato doesn't see that.

461 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:57:37pm

re: #452 The Shadow Do

What in the hell does the buzz phrase "shared sacrifice" mean.

I think it depends who you ask. To the GOP it means welfare reform (except corporate welfare) and to the Dems it means Soak the Rich (which means everyone with a job)

462 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:58:21pm

re: #459 Varek Raith

When they come straight across the plate like that, I gotta swing for 'em.

463 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:58:22pm

re: #456 The Sanity Inspector

Friends of Irony

These are a hoot. A flooded home with "I don't believe in Global Warming" on the side of it.

Caption, every time you think that, Gore kills a baby seal.

464 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:58:26pm

re: #433 PT Barnum

My mom was alergic to beef..gave her terrible migraines...so I don't think I can give that up entirely, but I am eating more chicken and fish.

Sometime past I posted my fav Fish dish...It goes like this.. Heavy cream, White wine and a few spices..( I like Italian seasoning) I'm a Napa Valley Boy..Go heavy on the wine...Bring it up to heat on the skillet that cook briefly the fillets....Put away...Take 2 fillets with 3 or 4 cheeses between them and half the sauce split between all the packages wrapped in foil and baked in the oven at 325 for 15 minutes..
Take out the foil wrapped fish.remove. Put on a plates and pour the rest of the sauce on them and garnish..

465 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:58:35pm

re: #209 The Shadow Do

paranoid much?

No.

466 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:58:41pm

re: #461 Mich-again

It's Soshulism!

467 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:59:11pm

re: #396 Mich-again

I wonder how many times Obama will bring up "the previous administration" when trying to explain why we haven't been able to spend ourselves back to prosperity.

Are you suggesting the previous administration had nothing to do with where we were a year ago?

468 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 5:59:36pm

re: #464 HoosierHoops

Sounds wonderful, but at the mention of all that cream, my coronary artery went home to Mother.

469 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:00:26pm

re: #212 Macha

As for the DADT bull, it is time for the military to grow up and start treating gay and lesbian persons as everyone else. Sexual orientation isn't the problem. The problem is hatred of gay and lesbian persons perpetrated by the organization itself. I have a cousin who served in Viet Nam. He is gay. He came home with a bronze star and a silver star. He also came home with PTSD which has impacted the rest of his life. His sexual orientation didn't have a damn thing to do with his being willing to give his life for his country.

Two of my father's cousins came home from Vietnam and came out. We have been protected by gay soldiers since this country's beginnings. They deserve our respect and our protection of their rights.

470 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:00:30pm

re: #468 PT Barnum

I'm a plain broiled fish with a little salt and pepper kind of guy...

471 Digital Display  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:00:31pm

Upstairs Lizards!

472 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:00:33pm

re: #464 HoosierHoops

Or, hey! You could just drink the wine.

473 Escaped Hillbilly  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:01:13pm

re: #451 SanFranciscoZionist

One of the witnesses on behalf of Prop 8 told the court yesterday that if we allow same-sex marriage, marriage will cease to be a public, child-centered institution.

I wasn't aware that my marriage was a public, child-centered institution, and I don't think I care for the idea very much.

AND it doesn't follow anyway. (Some) Gays want children. Gays want to be free to be "out" in public. So why would it cease to be a public, child-centered institution?

474 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:01:29pm

re: #220 londonistan calling

There is nothing other than malevolence towards gays that would motivate a rejection of the redefinition of one of the oldest social contracts? Are you sure? Could it possibly be that there are people who would like for gay couples to have all the legal rights of married couples, but still hold marriage out as the ideal? Equating same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage is a calumny.. there is not one iota of difference between a black human being and a white human being, but a world of difference between a man and a woman. My daughters spend 2 weeks every summer at a cottage of a lesbian couple that I love greatly, but I can have love for individuals without thinking that society has to be reordered to sanctify their union.

I utterly disagree.

475 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:02:35pm

re: #467 Naso Tang

Are you suggesting the previous administration had nothing to do with where we were a year ago?

Nope, I am pointing out that there were 535 elected legislators who had some level of input in those budgets so to look back now and blame it all on any one person is to exonerate the rest. If the other 535 are so freaking helpless and powerless, they should just quit and go home and maybe someone who isn't afraid to do the job they get paid to do will replace them.

476 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:03:12pm

re: #226 HoosierHoops

You are completely safe having Ron Paul Stickers and confederate flags on your car in this part of Indiana...

In my neighborhood it's an Obama sticker and "My student is an honor student at", a college sticker or an Amry or Marines sticker. You, and the car, are invisible.

477 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:05:50pm

re: #244 PT Barnum

Churches would be exempt because of the 1st amendment, so I don't see that as an issue.

Any number of synagogues were not available to me for a wedding because I was marrying an Gentile. (Some of them would have been available had I been marrying a Jewish woman.)

A church's right to conduct only the marriages it chooses has never been an issue.

478 Mr. Crankypants  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:06:59pm

re: #477 SanFranciscoZionist

my point exactly.

479 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:08:36pm

re: #265 WindUpBird

The "gay is a lifestyle" talking point refuses to die, though. :(

To judge from my friends, it seems to involve a hell of a lot of home repairs.

480 kickstar1  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:09:17pm

Yes but will you take him up on his offer to go on his show?

481 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:14:24pm

I respectfully disagree with the principle of judging a blog by the comments left by the readers. As per the statement at the top of this page:

# Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
# Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.

Pretty much every blog that takes comments has a similar statement.

I guess I'm a bit of a simpleton. I judge a blogger on what he or she says. Not what their readers say, and not by whether or not they specifically repudiate what others say.

482 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:18:37pm

re: #481 BunnyThief

I guess I'm a bit of a simpleton.

I guess. Silence is consent, and any blog that allows garbage to stand unchallenged in the comments section is offering consent by silence.

483 MittDoesNotCompute  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:22:21pm

re: #388 PT Barnum

So would not forgetting their meds.

Every time the Bircher/Birthers/assorted right-wing kooks come up, I get the mental vision of that crazy cat lady from The Simpsons...

///

484 Mich-again  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:28:10pm

re: #481 BunnyThief

I guess I'm a bit of a simpleton. I judge a blogger on what he or she says. Not what their readers say, and not by whether or not they specifically repudiate what others say.

There is a point at which an offensive or hate-filled comment in a blog post should be deleted or the blogger who lets it stand is essentially endorsing it.

485 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:34:53pm

re: #482 Slumbering Behemoth

I guess. Silence is consent, and any blog that allows garbage to stand unchallenged in the comments section is offering consent by silence.

I'd like to think they'd have more important things to do than strictly policing the comments. Like coming up with new content.

"Silence is consent?" I don't like that. It smacks of "presumption of guilt." "You didn't specifically say you were against the sexual exploitation of trees, so you must be a tree-molester sympathizer!"

Speaking strictly for myself: I am responsible for what I say. I am NOT responsible for what others say, or for what I don't say.

486 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:40:47pm

re: #485 BunnyThief

More pretzel logic from you there. It's real simple. When you own a website, and allow garbage to stand in the comments, it is consent. As the owner of a website, you are responsible for the content, including the comments.

487 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:45:25pm

Slumbering, do you READ the stated policy at the top of every single comment page here?

# Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
# Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.

I disagree with you, the law disagrees with you, and Charles disagrees with you.

488 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:52:31pm

re: #487 BunnyThief

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. You think Charles disagrees with the "silence is consent" idea with regards to moderating comments on his blog? If you do, you're either very unfamiliar with this site, or a complete idiot.

489 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:53:58pm

Slumbering, I've quoted the policy. I've quoted it TWICE.

And I didn't typo it, because I cut and pasted.

Scroll up and read it for yourself, you gibbering moron.

490 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 6:58:49pm

re: #489 BunnyThief

I've read it. You're the gibbering moron if you think that means our host does not take moderating comments here very seriously, or that he doesn't believe that "silence is consent" when bloggers/moderators allow garbage to stand in the comments.

491 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:05:52pm

Tell you what, Dozing One. Why don't you rewrite the policies at the top to how you think they oughta read, and apply them at your own blog?

Or, perhaps, you can explain how I SHOULD be reading the stated rules here?

492 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:11:30pm

re: #491 BunnyThief

Why don't you try reading his own comments and posts on the subject.

493 arielle  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:15:13pm

Great rebuttal Charles. Like you I have great respect for Dennis and is one of the few radio personalities I still turn into (which is not that often to begin with) but this column was not one of his best. The whole time I was reading it I was like "Charles never said EVERYONE" and these are a bunch of straw man arguments. So I'm glad you pointed that out, again and again! And maybe he'll read your post and look up all the arguments you make against BNP and Geller and all of them. And once again I missed the comment bus. Dangit!

494 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:17:12pm

I happen to LIKE the stated rules, Slum. They make a lot of sense to me. I respect them, and the philosophy behind them.

Why don't you explain what's wrong with them? Why don't you say precisely why you think they're worthless?

495 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:25:12pm

re: #494 BunnyThief

Why don't you explain what's wrong with them? Why don't you say precisely why you think they're worthless?

Nice try at mouthstuffing, asshole. There is something wrong with you, a certain stink. You're either a plant, a sockpuppet, or a troll. Whatever you are, you are definitely a disingenuous tool.

496 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:31:34pm

Meh. You're the one who can't read. And you're the one who has to resort to name-calling.

I regret stooping to your level and calling you names back, and apologize.

497 BunnyThief  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:39:04pm

On that note, good night. I've gotta work tomorrow.

498 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 7:45:17pm

re: #496 BunnyThief

You can't seem to comprehend anything presented, and yet you tell me I can't read? Since you can't be bothered to do any looking of your own, I'll spoon feed you this:

Here’s our latest installment of a new recurring feature — the most disgusting comments recently posted at Hot Air, and not deleted or even disapproved of by the “moderators.” There’s an endless stream of this kind of hate speech at Hot Air, and I don’t expect we’ll run out of material very soon. (Thanks to the LGF readers who helped point out today’s batch of ugliness.)

As far as your stooping to my level, that is a laugh coming from someone employing pretzel logic and mouthstuffing tactics. And you can keep your apology, it means nothing coming from a disingenuous phony like you.

499 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 8:58:28pm

re: #45 robdouth

Strawman arguments aren't just Prager's specialty today. As someone who has found themselves on the opposing side of Hate Crimes legislation, it's never because of the rights they want to give those of a homosexual orientation. I worry about what it will do to free speech rights of those who argue against gay marriage (even though i disagree) because then you hear that labeled as hate speech per se, and I don't want that turned into hate crime, even if I disagree with it.

I never understood hate crimes legislation for violent offenses because there are already crimes on the book for violent offenses. The problem many libertarian minded people such as myself have with hate crime legislation as an idea is that it doesn't actually protect against the crime, it just creates another layer of penalties for acts that are already illegal anyway.

If you are talking about other laws specifically I can't speak to that, and I will not argue that there are no people who hate homosexuals, because that would be a ludicrous argument to make. I'm just saying that the vast majority of opposition to hate crimes comes from a place of good faith IMHO. I know I don't have numbers to back that up, but I no a number of people who disagree with hate-crime legislation, and none of it is because of hateful reasons, so that's a broad brush to pain with.

Probably too late for this to mater, but the idea of hate crimes is making it so that people who do things like that can be charged with more severe punishment then for just the violent act they committed. It is to my mind in the same vein of looking at the difference between homicide and manslaughter, if someone is beating some one up because of their sexual orientation they deserve to be punished more severely than they would if they were just flipping out and attacking someone at random.

500 Olsonist  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 9:08:34pm

re: #63 Big Steve

As someone with a philosophy degree and specialty in logic, reading Prager's article and Charles's response...which correctly points out the straw man issue...I am struck that Prager's arguments against Charles assume that Charles was arguing deductively. While when you read Charles's original post, it is clear he is arguing inductively. Deductive reasoning is when one argues that conclusions follow necessarily from premises. Inductive reasoning is a probabilistic argument indicating that the conclusion can be reached by reliable generalization. So when Prager says "not all people on the Right are Fascists...he is assuming that Charles's has implied "all" when Charles was really just saying that a high enough percentage are fascists to make me uncomfortable with the lot.

Kinda disagree. I recall that when Charles wrote his post he wrote it fast. The inductive arrangement reflects that he was convincing himself from the warrants and then coming to a conclusion. This is how a lot of people write first drafts. It's clear to them but then it reads badly. They can basically invert the argument to create a deductive argument in the second draft.

501 [deleted]  Wed, Jan 27, 2010 9:45:47pm
502 ElCapitanAmerica  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:40:37am

Hi Charles, while I share some of your disillusionment with the so called "conservative movement", I think a couple of the examples that you use to backup your statements are a bit specious.

For example, on the pro-life movement, if you are going to say a "very strong undercurrent of hatred" linking to random comments on the web, specially from places like hotair is extremely unfair.

I could do the same with almost any cause. Imagine that we started gauging movements that are considered more "progressive" by comments at democratic underground, or articles from indymedia.

I'm not saying some of the movements you mention don't have extremists (they do), but I think it would be better to use other examples (like the real threat of extremist anti abortion groups and the like) instead of using hotair.com anonymous comments as backup material.

I'm very pro nationalized health-care, and I sure as hell wouldn't want people to associate me with the knuckleheads at places like dailykos or democratic underground.

503 BunnyThief  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 2:17:11am

re: #498 Slumbering Behemoth

Meh. I woke up early for THAT?

I'm going back to sleep... being called pointless names by... well, "you" is about as disparaging term of contempt as I can think of at this time -- is NOT worth staying awake for.

504 stayfrosty  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 7:58:34am

Hmmmm... I'm no logician and hopefully I'm not risking my account here, Charles, but I read the whole post and honestly got the impression that your basic reply to every hole Prager attempted to poke in your 'Top 10' was that since you intentionally made every point in your list so vague that it could be applied uniformly to the right, yet if any specific conservative is mentioned that doesn't fit the bill, your defense can be "I didn't mention that person. Straw man." In other words, you require Prager to prove a negative.

505 stayfrosty  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:06:08am

*poke in your 'Top 10' was that since you intentionally made

(grammar + sleepiness = fail)

506 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:08:40am

re: #504 stayfrosty

I'm certain you aren't 'risking your account' by merely disagreeing with Charles-- indeed, I disagree with him often, most recently by saying that I don't think Prager's columns, as opposed to his radio show, reveal Prager as someone to be respected at all. But as to this:

you intentionally made every point in your list so vague that it could be applied uniformly to the right, yet if any specific conservative is mentioned that doesn't fit the bill, your defense can be "I didn't mention that person. Straw man." In other words, you require Prager to prove a negative.

You're flat-out wrong. That post made very clear that CJ was disagreeing with certain elements on the right (they happen to be the ones in charge of the GOP at the moment, much to the dismay of sane members of the GOP, who you will find amply represented here in comments).

Prager is the one constructing a strawman, and insisting that Charles engage with it and prove a negative: "Prove you don't hate the 'right', and prove you're not 'on the left' merely because you point out problems on the right!!!", etc.

507 stayfrosty  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:18:38am

re: #506 iceweasel

I don't see how Prager is constructing a straw man simply by naming a number of conservatives (often far more prominent than those listed) that don't fit Charle's blanket descriptions of "the Right". To be honest, I find it more a straw man to name four or five random people with which you then use to describe "the Right" as a whole. Doing that, it's impossible to prove the description inaccurate, even mentioning a plethora of conservatives that don't share the beliefs of the few you mentioned, because you can then say that's a straw man and you never mentioned those people.

508 stayfrosty  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:21:22am

Have to hit the sack, but will read more tomorrow. Thanks for the civil reply.

509 BunnyThief  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:22:43am

re: #506 iceweasel

I'm certain you aren't 'risking your account' by merely disagreeing with Charles-- indeed, I disagree with him often, most recently by saying that I don't think Prager's columns, as opposed to his radio show, reveal Prager as someone to be respected at all. But as to this:

You're flat-out wrong. That post made very clear that CJ was disagreeing with certain elements on the right (they happen to be the ones in charge of the GOP at the moment, much to the dismay of sane members of the GOP, who you will find amply represented here in comments).

Prager is the one constructing a strawman, and insisting that Charles engage with it and prove a negative: "Prove you don't hate the 'right', and prove you're not 'on the left' merely because you point out problems on the right!!!", etc.

Here's where you're "flat-out wrong," iceweasel. The elements you and Charles cite are not in charge of the GOP at the moment.

NOBODY'S in charge of the GOP at the moment. There are four people who could put claim to that, but none of them are running things:

Michael Steele, GOP Chairman: weak as hell. Nobody listens to him.

John McCain, last nominee for president: repudiated by large portions of the party.

George W. Bush, last president: Completely uninterested.

Dick Cheney, last vice president: Completely uninterested, content to give the Obama administration a few pokes every now and then.

The success of the Tea Party movement -- especially in NY-23 -- shows that a very large percentage of the conservative base simply doesn't feel like listening to the national alleged leadership. Same in the two governor's races and the MA Senate race -- the national party was pretty much irrelevant.

The GOP has no leadership right now and, quite frankly, doesn't need it. By depriving their opponents of leader figures, they disarm the Alinsky-style attack of personalizing and freezing the movement by going after the leaders.

That's why so many on the left are trying so hard to crown someone -- anyone -- as "the leader of the GOP." Rush Limbaugh. Glenn Beck. Sarah Palin. Sean Hannity. Michelle Bachman. Anyone they can rally their troops against.

Ain't working. But it's sure fun to watch.

510 ShaunP  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 8:57:24am

re: #509 BunnyThief

While I agree that no one is in control of the GOP, there are absolutely people that are driving the conversation (i.e. Rush, Beck, Palin, Hannity, etc.). Although they don't have the credentials, they are moved to the forefront by default. Until someone takes charge, they are the face of the GOP. And you are kidding yourself if you don't think that GOP politicians are taking their lead from them (to the disservice of the party)...

511 Sacred Plants  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:06:12am

Prager hits the very nucleus of denial:

... and the nonsense about how dangerous nuclear power is.

Go sell a full comprehensive insurance for nuclear facilities!

512 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:16:06am

re: #510 ShaunP

While I agree that no one is in control of the GOP, there are absolutely people that are driving the conversation (i.e. Rush, Beck, Palin, Hannity, etc.). Although they don't have the credentials, they are moved to the forefront by default. Until someone takes charge, they are the face of the GOP. And you are kidding yourself if you don't think that GOP politicians are taking their lead from them (to the disservice of the party)...

The GOPs problem is that they're rudderless, and currently the loudest, shriekiest voices are at the front.

The other problem is that they appear to have decided to run the old rulebook and the so-cons and theocrats (with whom reagan formed a winning coalition) are very, very angry that they turned out faithfully for every election and yet never got any substantial gains as a result.reagan? Nothing. Bush Sr? nothing. W-- someone they thought was one of their own? Still nothing-- no overturning of Roe v Wade, etc. Just 2 SCOTUS judges they liked, kinda, under W.

Now those Dobson-esque peeps are in control, because they're mad as hell (lol) and because the GOP has for some reason decided to double-down on appealing to their ever-dwindling religious right base-- the folks who gave them a few elections by turning out, who they never planned to give anything at all, and who are now the loudest voices.

513 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:23:55am

re: #507 stayfrosty

Definition of a "straw man argument:"

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This is a perfect description of what Prager does throughout his article. He claims that I said ALL Republicans exhibit the beliefs I mentioned, when it's very clear -- obvious, in fact -- that I said no such thing. It's a classic straw man argument.

And no -- I didn't write these things "vaguely." I wrote them to avoid making exactly the kinds of blanket accusations Prager accused me of. If I had meant to say that ALL Republicans believe these things, I would have written that.

It's not difficult to understand this. Saying that these attitudes and problems exist in the right wing is absolutely NOT the same as saying that these attitudes and problems are universal.

They are prevalent enough to be a big problem for me, but only an idiot would claim that every single person on the right is part of the problem.

514 The Left  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:35:09am

re: #509 BunnyThief

Here's where you're "flat-out wrong," iceweasel. The elements you and Charles cite are not in charge of the GOP at the moment.

You're in denial. I don't even know where to begin to refute this, because the evidence IS everywhere-- but you could start right here on LGF.
Check out the posts about CPAC and more. Find a few names of prominent GOP people and search the tags here for them.
The GOP has decided to pander to the wingnut fringe. In every way possible, right down to GOP congresspeople introducing legistlation about birth certificates, renaming the DemocratIC party, and more.
I don't even know what's going on with these people or the GOP, but whatever one's ideology might be, all Americans should be seriously freaked out that one of our two parties is going over the cliff.
A working democracy NEEDS two (at least) healthy parties. It brings me ZERO joy to see the GOP going off the rails.

Better opposition, and a healthy opposition, please.

515 el_raton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:48:16am

Mr. Johnson,

Your parting with "the Right," while understandable and respectable, is, itself, based on straw man arguments--you deliberately mischaracterize "the Right" with implied over-generalizations to justify your disenchantment. You could have just as easily parted company with any and all groups except for yourself (a group of one) with a similar list of transgressions by certain members of the group in question.

Please forgive me if I missed the post titled, "Why I Parted Ways with the Left"; I couldn't find it in the archives.

516 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:50:05am

re: #515 el_raton

On the contrary - if you actually read what I wrote above, you'll find lots of very specific examples. And I posted hundreds of even more specific examples throughout 2009.

517 Mike in Boulder  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 9:54:48am

I finally had a chance to sit down and read the response in full. Having debated friends on politics for years, there is significant frustration in having to restate one's position in response to straw man tactics. I equate this type of debate as faux civility which is ultimately akin to being passive aggressive.

Nicely done. I guess I would expect a response from Prager and hopefully it will be more thoughtful than the previous one.

518 el_raton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:24:37am

re: #516 Charles

Mr. Johnson,

Thank you for your response and for focusing on your method of argument. Just so you know, I did read your response in full.

Citing specific examples to paint an entire group, or, at the very least, to justify one's parting with a group, is close to a definition of generalizing.

Here are some definitions of "generalize":
1. To draw a general conclusion from particular instances.
2. To infer from many particulars.
3. To draw inferences or a general conclusion from.
4. To make generally or universally applicable.
5. To render general rather than specific.

In particular, you take "specific examples" of behavior from those who either self-identify with "the Right" or who are identified with "the Right" to draw general conclusions about "the Right."

To be clear, I am not defending "the Right," much less those against whom you level criticism, but rather I wonder why you choose to accuse Prager of using straw men when that is the basis for your own parting with "the Right."

519 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 10:52:20am

re: #518 el_raton

Uh ... so your point is that by being specific, I'm building a straw man argument? I don't think you understand the meaning of the term.

My post about "parting ways" with the right was about setting boundaries, and saying I don't support these things. It gave specific reasons for drawing these lines, and now in this lengthy response to Dennis Prager I've given even more specific reasons.

520 el_raton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 11:33:27am

re: #519 Charles

Mr. Johnson,

Again, I appreciate your response.

Contrary to your claim, I do understand and recognize a straw man argument. I dare say that you may be the one who fails to understand the term. The straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents a position, typically an opponent's position. In short, your application of the straw man fallacy arises from your misrepresentation of a group, "the Right,' through generalization derived from grievances specific to individuals.

Just to be clear: you claim (correctly, I think) that persons A, B, C, et al. committed certain offenses (X, Y, Z, et al.) with which you do not wish to be associated. However, you generalize this to a group (i.e., you misrepresent a group) as justification for parting with that group. Your employment of the straw man is not with respect to the individuals you cite, but rather it lies with the generalization (i.e., with respect to the group) that you derive, thus forming the justification for your parting with the group.

In order to demonstrate that you have not, in fact, misrepresented the group, you must demonstrate that the offenses are, in fact, generalizable to all members of that group. In other words, you must demonstrate that the characteristics of the subset that you indict apply to the entire set; if not, you have misrepresented the set.

Again, I do not take issue with your reluctance to be associated with "the Right." I just find it odd that your argument rests on the same fallacy which you accuse Prager of committing and for which you criticize him.

As you yourself wrote, your posts over 2009 have amply demonstrated your complaints of individual malfeasance. Even your post, "Why I Parted with the Right," could be forgiven for the application of a fallacy--it was merely your justification for your choice. However, accusing Prager of committing the straw man argument and criticizing him for it when this is the very basis for your choice is, at best, disingenuous (even if the straw man is Prager's sole device).

521 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:36:10pm

re: #520 el_raton

That's one of the most tortuous attempts to distort the meaning of a "straw man argument" that I've seen. Congrats on tying yourself into an elegant logical pretzel.

Not much point in continuing here.

522 gabn  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 12:54:46pm

I think Prager's main point is that there are plenty of "normal" people on the right, and the (inevitable) presence of a few wackos doesn't justify "parting ways".

523 wrenchwench  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 1:07:16pm

re: #522 gabn

I think Prager's main point is that there are plenty of "normal" people on the right, and the (inevitable) presence of a few wackos doesn't justify "parting ways".

I think Charles's main point is that the inevitable wackos should not be celebrated, promoted, nor elected.

524 el_raton  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 1:36:27pm

re: #521 Charles

Mr. Johnson,

I appreciate your efforts in exposing racists, xenophobes, bigots, creationists, those opposed to science, etc., but I'm somewhat taken aback by your insistence on criticizing Prager for methods that you, yourself, use, not to mention your failure to recognize it.

Should I assume that by, "Not much point in continuing here," you mean something like, "there's no point in defending the indefensible," and that you will fail to acknowledge that misrepresentation is part and parcel of a straw man argument (which further assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that you understand this)?

The only logical pretzel here is the one you've baked from your application of a fallacy and a criticism of its use by another.

525 lrsshadow  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 7:17:05pm

Charles,

After reading your original post, the letter from Dennis, your response, and the comments here, I can only think that this is only more confusing then ever.

What do you think about just having an hour on the air with Dennis, then I think it would all be come clear to everyone.

526 Bourdain's Breakfast  Thu, Jan 28, 2010 7:37:21pm

re: #519 Charles


My post about "parting ways" with the right was about setting boundaries, and saying I don't support these things.

Exactly.

Anyone who steps over a boundary should be criticized for it, then those still in the boundary must be warned or parted with if they don't condemn those that step over the boundary.

527 ulmsey123  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:34:02am

In a way, the labels of "right" and "left" and etc are rather meaningless. I feel that I am a conservative. But what sort of conservative?
One can be fiscally conservative and liberal in terms of smoking pot.
One can be religiously conservative, opposing gay marriage.
A "liberal" may feel that huge government is a good thing yet oppose restrictions on guns.
I could go on and on, but the point is made. We all have a brain and our own views based upon what we were taught and life experiences.
I think it's human nature to try to look at things and form categories to help us organize the world in our heads. But when it comes to politics, this system of logic can break down.
One says he has moved away from a specific ideology based upon those in that specific category. If a fool espouses a certain belief, does that negate that belief? Of course not.
The arguments of society must be issue based. I am a registered Republican. Why? Certainly I don't agree with a lot of the platform. Neither do I believe in much of the Democratic platform. But I am registered so that I can vote in the primary elections which help shape the party. If a viable third party comes along with better ideas and better candidates, I may indeed switch parties. I don't see that option right now.
Will a certain collection of kooks change my political philosophy? Of course not. Why should my views and politics be moved by a few elites? When I look in the mirror, I see myself (a frightening sight in the morning) NOT Pat Buchanan.
Arguments of ideology aught to be based upon the concepts of ideology. If some fool says a foolish thing, then let that be an issue of itself.
And there are plenty of fools out there.

Well...I'm rambling here and I doubt anyone gives a hoot anyway. back to work I go. HI HO HI HO

528 dogg  Mon, Feb 1, 2010 1:00:55pm

re: #527 ulmsey123

I could not have said it better myself.

I am a conservative in many social and most economic areas of discussion, but I would not describe myself as Left, Right, Republican or Democratic.

In fact I have been politically independent my entire voting life and view party politics as distasteful, self centered and not citizen focused.

As a conservative I have voted mostly Republican because they usually have the least amount of negatives vs. the Democrats on National issues important to me.

That is why, like Dennis Prager I am amazed at the change in Johnson and what LGF now highlights, because the issues are the same just his take on them has changed.


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 - 200628after the rototilling we tossed several bags of wild flower seeds. thousands and thousands. we'll see what happens with them. we also bought four trees for our anniversary.all natives, good for birds and butterflies. there's a slash pine, a beautyberry ...
Welcome to The Imbleachment (dangerman)
5 hours, 54 minutes ago
Views: 84 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Russian Bounties — Trump Threatens the American Experiment - PRESS RUN Not once has Trump angrily banged a lectern and promised to get to the bottom of the stunning and heartbreaking story that Russian intelligence was paying lucrative bounties for the lives of American troops murdered in Afghanistan. Not once ...
Thanos
10 hours, 15 minutes ago
Views: 120 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Jeff Lynne’s ELO - Telephone Line (Live at Wembley Stadium)Music video by Jeff Lynne's ELO performing Telephone Line (Live at Wembley Stadium). (C) 2017 Big Trilby Records, under exclusive license to Columbia Records, a Division of Sony Music Entertainment vevo.ly
Thanos
2 days ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
The Alan Parsons Symphonic Project ‘Time’ (Live in Colombia) THE ALAN PARSONS SYMPHONIC PROJECT “LIVE IN COLOMBIA” - AVAILABLE AS DVD, BLU-RAY, 2-CD DIGIPAK, 3 VINYL GATEFOLD AND DIGITAL On the evening of August 31st, 2013, a large crowd gathered at Parque Pies Descalzos in Medellín, Colombia. When ...
Thanos
2 days ago
Views: 272 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Portugal. The Man - People Say (Official Music Video)CREWDirector/DP Michael RagenProducer, Joy SaezCo Producer, Tristan SeniukProduction Design, Jack StrainHair/Make-up, Jennifer PopochockWardrobe Design, Rebecca Luke1st AC, Jerry Turner CASTLead Guard, Matt HastingsGuard, Orlando SubiaGuard, Steve GodfreyGuard, Simos KalivasGuard, Wesley Hubbard
Thanos
2 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 367 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 • Share to Facebook
Mixed up Everything covers COLLECTIVE SOUL - Shine — YoutubeBuy our T-Shirt here:mixedupeverything.com Subscribe for more videos: bit.ly Follow Mixed Up Everything: Website & Store: mixedupeverything.comInstagram: instagram.comFacebook: facebook.comTwitter: @mixdupevrythingSpotify: open.spotify.com Please support us:Apple Music - apple.coGoogle Play - bit.lyPaypal - paypal.me
Thanos
2 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 391 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
The Latest and the Past Wingnut Predicted New Ice Ages That Never Happened In which Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54 tracks the November 2018 claims back to sources, and shows how wrong they are in their interpretation of the data regarding the new Solar Grand Minimum. He also does a great job of ...
Thanos
3 days ago
Views: 406 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
2040 US Trailer - Launching in Virtual Theatres June 5th Award-winning director Damon Gameau (That Sugar Film) embarks on a journey to explore what the future could look like by the year 2040 if we simply embraced the best solutions already available to us to improve our planet and ...
Thanos
3 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 413 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200621In conjunction with the pond, we've been working on landscaping the adjoining field.It's a half acre of very dense, unmowed grass and wildflowers/weeds, about 2 feet high. We decided to map out a few small plots where we'd plant some ...
Welcome to The Imbleachment (dangerman)
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 740 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
problematic gay THE MICHAEL HENRY COMEDY SHOW Michael Henry @Michaelhenry915Kornbread @kornbreadthesnackKevin McDonald @yourfriendkevin_ Written by: Michael HenryDirected by: Paul McGovern JR and Michael HenryExecutive Produced by: Michael HenryProducer: Paul McGovern Jr @pmcg34 Edited by: Paul McGovern JrDP: Paul McGovern Jr. ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 1,055 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 4 • Share to Facebook