Please Stop Emailing Me

And telling me it is wrong to out people. I am aware of that. I think it is wrong too- I just think that it is rich that the party that has spent decades demonizing gays, using people’s private sexual affairs for political gain, and insisting privacy is over-rated, is now all up in arms about ‘sexual McCarthyism.’

Is it wrong- sure. But you guys brought it on yourselves.

It wasn’t me who was using gay-bashing as an electoral strategy for 30 years- I have consistently pointed out the GOP was wrong, so listening to all this faux outrage (particularly from off key and unbalanced back-up singers in the wingnut chorus) is a little amusing. Apparently a lot of people, myself included, just didn’t realize the GOP had such a nuanced view, which I will summarize:

“Homosexuality is wrong and the root of all evil and homosexual marriage will be the downfall of Western Society so we must amend the Constitution to ban it and we will use homosexuals as campaign props every two years, but oh, by the way, we hate the sin and not the sinner, and even then the sin doesn’t bother us that much as long as you stay in the closet and do whatever you want as long as we don’ know about it and we are fine with that but recognize we will still call you out in public as evil and scream about gay adoptions so we can get elected but if any of us are gay we should be allowed to keep that private and oh, by the way, you are not normal because the bible says so.”

Confused? Yeah, me too. When you look at all the bullshit coming from the right wing on this issue (*), you might just conclude that they are full of shit, and that what really concerns them is not gay rights or rights to privacy or ‘sexual McCarthyism,’ but what really has their knickers in a twist is losing the election and how the revelations about Larry Craig’s *alleged* sexuality might impact that election.

But let’s assume that the GOP has a much more enlightened view about homosexuality than I previously thought, in which case I will make a deal. I will get all hysterical about ‘sexual McCarthyism’ when you disassociate yourselves from all of the bigots in the party who gay-bash from the pulpit, when you stop opposing gays entering civil unions/marriage, when you stop screaming about he ‘homosexual agenda,’ when you stop putting up amendments designed to single a certain segment of the population out as ‘unworthy’ of deserving all the benefits of society, and so on.

In short, you stop using gays an election year prop, stop using the same rhetoric against gays that you used against blacks, and I will be right here with you when someone outs a Republican who otherwise was closeted. Until then, I am gonna keep the same stance- outing people is wrong, but I hardly think it is surprising given the behavior of the Republican party the last few decades.

*** Update ***

– * Patterico feels he was unfairly lumped in with Glenn’s list of those who have no right to be outraged about Craig’s outing. I think he is right.

223 replies
  1. 1
    Steve says:

    But John, even though Republicans have been using gay-bashing as an electoral strategy for 30 years, haven’t you heard that the Democrats are just as bad because John Kerry opposed gay marriage? Typical of you unhinged gay liberals to single out the Republicans like that.

  2. 2
    Robbie says:

    “Outing people is wrong, but some people pretty much have it coming.”

    Thanks. As a gay man, I can say you’re really doing us a solid.

    In that enabling, “I’m getting so much political glee out of this, who really gives a damn about principle” sort of way. If you really thought it was a bad thing, you’d not be so willing to use the fruits of the behavior so voluminously.

  3. 3
    Punchy says:

    This is like the KKK suddenly supporting affirmative action. After years of trying to kill/scare/discredit/humilate them and rile up the racist voting bloc.

    The hypocrisy is so blinding that to ignore it is pure, wishfull bullshit. Another blistering, fabulous post, Mr. Cole. A thing of beauty, actually.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    Robbie- I am nto doing anything. What do you want me to do? Write four or five Malkinesque screeds stating JUST HOW WRONG THIS IS AND THAT THIS IS CLEAR PROOF THAT DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL?

    I could do that, if you think it would help your case. Or, I could do exactly what I amdoing- stating it is wrong, because it is, and engaging in a little schadenfreude. The GOP earned this kind of shit- not the victims who are being outted, but the GOP.

  5. 5
    Robbie says:

    As you enjoy that schadenfreude, do keep in mind that you can have as much fun as you please at the Republicans’ misfortune, while us gay folk are the ones who are going to get splashed with all the collateral bs.

    This is about using homophobia as a weapon for political gain. It’s wrong no matter who does it. You’re pretty much celebrating it at this point.

    I’m glad you’re having fun, John.

    I’m not. But then, you’re not the one who has to deal with with the fallout, so I guess I see why you don’t care. But thanks for the marriage support ::slow clap:: I’m sure that makes up for it.

  6. 6
    John Cole says:

    So, Robbie, what possible impact could I have on the situation? How could I make things better for you and the other people who will have to deal with the fall-out?

    The answer- there is nothing I can do. I am not enabling anyone, I am not aiding their cause, I am merely pointing out that my party is full of liars and hypocrites. Is it a shame it has come to this- yes.

    But I place the blame where it belongs- on the party that has worked to make gays an outcast and a villain. Not on some scumbag radical blogger who outed Larry Craig. He is wrong for outing Craig- the GOP is wrong for making being out a problem.

  7. 7
    cd6 says:

    Hey Robbie, what collateral BS are you worried about? Has anyone used Craig’s sexuality as an attack on all gays? Not that I heard. It’s been used to say “republicans are hypocritical” but that’s not really anti-gay fallout.

    Meanwhile, after Foley, there were leaders on the Religious Right proclaiming that homosexuality leads to pedophilia. Basically, any bad press against homosexuals is just coming from the same old folks who think “the homosexual agenda” is the biggest threat to the US today.

    When gays hit the paper front pages, it just gives these people another reason to stand in front of a podium.

  8. 8
    Mike says:

    Makes you proud to be a Republican, right? Or is that Rethuglickhim?

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Robbie-

    it is the GOP’s homophobia being used to harm the GOP.

    And Democrat and fallen-GOPers are doing nothing to cause, exacerbate or emphasize this — for the most part they are getting out of the way. Unless you think it is fair to blame all non-republicans for the actions of the one blogger who released Larry Craig’s name.

    All the Democrats in Washington knew about this for decades, and none of them did anything about it. How about some credit for that? Or is that negated by our willingness to gloat a bit now that the damage is done?

  11. 11

    I want to add another bit of interesting history.

    Here in Minnesota last year, a Gay Republican state senator came out of the closet. His name was Paul Koering. This story also involves Mike Rogers from BlogActive.

    Rogers got wind of Koering being gay, and so he called him and asked him. Koering hemmed and hawed and finally admitted that he was, and they talked for a while.

    Rogers didn’t out him, because Koering didn’t bash gays in public. In fact he’d stood up to members of his own party when they were trying to eliminate homosexuality from a protected against discrimination class. Rogers mentioned it on his blog, but didn’t say who or what state or any identifying information, simply that there were some honest republicans.

    But on Apr 7, Michele Bachmann(kook running for Congress this year) tried to get a vote on the Gay bashing amendment to the state constitution. Koering voted no, along with all of the Democrats.

    Guess who wanted to out Koering at that point? Regardless, Koering came out publicly saying he was gay. Guess who wanted him gone?

    There’s some good news here, though. Koering had a primary opponent this year, because he was gay.

    Kevin won. Kevin won, but it was close, 3956 to 3270.

    One more thing. Koering thinks what Rogers is doing is the right thing.

    So you make of this what you will.

  12. 12
    Steve says:

    I’d feel more sympathy for Robbie’s position if the people doing the outing were not gay themselves. I can tell you my personal reaction to outing – but am I in a position to decide whether outing is good or bad for the gay community, when the gay community itself is deeply divided on the issue?

    We have a Republican Party that reaps electoral benefits all over the place by demonizing gays. We also have a small minority of activists like Mike Rogers who, arguably, harm gays as well by employing similar tactics. If you’re looking to parcel out blame for the state of the gay community, I’d sure think people like John Cole – who belongs to neither group – would rank way, way down the list.

  13. 13
    sockpuppet in training says:

    John, there is a word you are forgetting on these Larry Craig posts. The word is “alleged”. Libel. It’s not just for breakfast anymore.

  14. 14
    Tsulagi says:

    There are few things as certain as Bush stupidity, but among them are tighty righties getting their collective asses puckered over gay marriage and abortion.

  15. 15
    Punchy says:

    This:

    This is about using homophobia as a weapon for political gain. It’s wrong no matter who does it. You’re pretty much celebrating it at this point.

    is surely a “unfuckingbelievable” comment. A quinessential example of one. Robbie, the Republicans have been using it as a weapon for YEARS. Unbeknownst to many of us until recently, it appears that the party of anti-gays is not just homophobic, but unacceptably hypocritical, as they now attempt to become the party of gay acceptance. Surely you see this.

    Progressives, and whatever the hell JC calls himself nowadays, aren’t utilizing homophobia as a weapon. We’re exposing the rapant hypocrisy. We’re waiting to see if the GOP will bowdlerize their gay members, or suddenly find a heart and accept them.

    Shorter–it’s a put up or shut up moment for the GOP w/ respect to gay rights. All we’re doing is shining a light on the problem, forcing the Republicans to take a side.

  16. 16
    Perry Como says:

    I heard Mike Rogers is going to replace Howard Dean as the DNC chair.

  17. 17
    capelza says:

    Libel. It’s not just for breakfast anymore.

    Saddest thing of all in this post is that you consider being gay something so wrong it is libelous to call someone that.

  18. 18

    If anyone has any doubt as to how the vast majority of religious conservatives view homosexulaity, look no further that Secretary of State Rice’s swearing in of Mark Dybal, a gay man, as U.S. Golbal AIDS Coordinator…at which Dybal’s partner held the Bible for the ceremony.

    It’s important to note just what evangelicals are actually opposing. The actions by Secretary of State Rice were not an endorsement of gay marriage and she was merely conducting the duties of her position…yet the event was roundly criticized. Further, Dybal was being appointed to a position with clear relevance to the gay community yet it still angered a number of evangelicals. We hear over and over again that evangelicals aren’t opposed to gays having equal rights so long as they aren’t allowed to marry…but if one looks at the reaction to this incident, it is clear that this evangelical rhetoric is meant to disguise their actual agenda…the full rejection of the gay lifestyle through the imposition of legislation that is punitive towards gays. If having a gay man’s partner hold the Bible during a swearing in session is unacceptable, just what rights do evangelical believe gays deserve? If this is indicative of compassionate conservatism, I would hate to witness the absence of compassion.

    Read more here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  19. 19
    Waxmaker says:

    It’s the usual headspinning Republican rhetoric, with each “argument” based entirely on gut-level emotional impact, flexibly customized for every occasion. Because people are too stupid to notice logical inconsistencies, right?

    As far as race goes, down here in Texas they’re running a series of radio ads with, no lie, the exact following argument (with a baby crying in the background):

    1) The majority of people that have abortions are poor black people, and
    2) Democrats are in favor of allowing those black people to get abortions, so
    3) Democrats don’t want black people to have babies, proving
    4) Democrats hate black people.

    Vote Republican!

  20. 20
    fwiffo says:

    same rhetoric against gays that you used against blacks,

    Used?

  21. 21
    Robbie says:

    A couple of points.

    – Using homophobia as a tool is wrong, period. The outing campaign is contingent on the hope and assumption that the politicians will be subjected to anti-gay advances. Some may say “Oh, sweet poetic justice!” But if you are against homophobia, you cannot in good conscience use it against anyone. The real hypocrisy rests with those who say they are against homophobia, but then use it when politically convenient. That’s worse than hypocrisy – it’s a lack of any principle whatsoever. It says you are for political power, period. No matter how you get it. So “Using the GOP’s homophobia against them!” as if it’s some kind of plus is repugnant. Homophobia should not be used. If that needs further explaining, I don’t know what to tell you.

    – Democrats have been just as eager to hop on that gay = pedophile train as the religious right, I’m depressed to note. If you haven’t seen “Foley was gay, they shouldn’t have let him around young men” stuff coming from all over the Left, you’ve been paying no attention. Again, it’s all about political power, and if gay people have to sit there and take it, so be it. It’s long been a method of the Right. With Foley, the Left is eagerly taking up anti-gay arms. Can you sense my joy in knowing we’re now getting it from both ends? And if you think the Democrats are super principled on the gay question, you’d better check out the kinds of things Howard Dean has been doing this year. Let me summarize: we saw a bus, there was a blur, and now there are a lot of flattened gay Democrats all over the road.

    – And finally. John, if you write “Outing is wrong” in size four font, and then “The Republicans deserve this. Them being outed is so much fun!” in twenty-four, which message do you think people are going to come away with? That you had to clarify should’ve been a hint. Though your clarification was more of “Outing is wrong, but here’s another five paragraphs and how great this is.”

    It’s disappointing. I’m pissed at the Republcans, too. I have no intention of voting for them this election. But reveling in what is little more than anti-gay activity because it harms your political opponents is trashy. You should be above that. I thought you were.

    And I don’t care how many partisan gays applaud this stuff. It’s wrong, and people should be ashamed.

  22. 22
    sockpuppet in training says:

    well capeza, Craig denied it. The allegations are second hand from anyomous sources. If Mr. Cole had one ounce of honesty, he could admit these were allegations, not fact. Why should he stop when he is on a roll?
    BTW, it is not up to you to decide when Craig was libeled. I bet you wouldn’t mind being labeled all sorts of things.

  23. 23
    sockpuppet in training says:

    anonymous*

  24. 24
    capelza says:

    Robbie, I have honestly NOT seen the argument that “Foley was gay,keep him from the kids” from “all over: the left. The argument has been that the GOP leadership of the house had knowlegdge and warning that someone who was a sexual predator was in their midst and that THAT should have been kept away from the kids. There is a difference. A huge difference, in fact.

  25. 25
    Perry Como says:

    Can you sense my joy in knowing we’re now getting it from both ends?

    /me walks away slowly and drops the ten foot poll

  26. 26
    ThymeZone says:

    Wow. What a weird thread.

    Robbie, what exactly is your beef with John? Can you explain it in one or two short sentences?

    Also, on the gay marriage thing … I support it strongly. However, as a political reality, I think that agitating for it instead of civil unions will go down in history as one of the dumbest political moves ever. If gays hadn’t asked for marriage, but instead had asked for civil unions, they might have them by now. The marriage thing is about words and churches and superstition and all kinds of crap that have nothing to do with the legal standing of people who want to form unconventional families. It’s the whole of family law that should be the center of the fight, not “gay marriage.” Gays co-opted this fight for their own selfish reasons AFAIC. And again I am saying this to you as a full supporter of gay marriage. I just think it was stupid to give the rabid right an issue like this. Beyond stupid.

  27. 27
    ThymeZone says:

    me walks away slowly and drops the ten foot poll pole

    Fixed.

    And, me too.

  28. 28
    Face says:

    4) Democrats hate black people.

    Vote Republican!

    This makes no sense. The Republicans hate black people, especially in TX. If anything, to rile up the base, you’d think they’d end with “Democrats LOVE n******s!”

    Followed by many a cheer from the trailer parks.

  29. 29
    Bombadil says:

    If you haven’t seen “Foley was gay, they shouldn’t have let him around young men” stuff coming from all over the Left, you’ve been paying no attention.

    That’s not what I’ve been seeing on the left. What I’ve been seeing from the left is “Foley was a predator and the Republican leadership was willing to overlook it to keep its majority”. The fact that Foley was/is gay had very little to do with it, at least from the Left’s perspective. The blatant partisanship and the rampant hypocrisy from the Right is the issue, not Foley’s sexual orientation.

  30. 30
    Robbie says:

    Capelza – One example, among many out there:

    http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1968

    Like I said, if people haven’t seen it, they’ve not been paying attention. Maybe because I’m gay I’m hypersensitive to the rhetoric and more likely to take note of it. It’s probable.

  31. 31
    Davebo says:

    Lets keep in mind that nobody outed anyone as gay.

    Someone pointed out that a Republican congressman had had sex with 3 different males.

    The congressman may not have wanted that information out, but obviously at least one of the partners did.

  32. 32
    Bombadil says:

    Damn, capelza, you’re quick!

  33. 33

    We hear over and over again that evangelicals aren’t opposed to gays having equal rights so long as they aren’t allowed to marry…but if one looks at the reaction to this incident, it is clear that this evangelical rhetoric is meant to disguise their actual agenda…the full rejection of the gay lifestyle through the imposition of legislation that is punitive towards gays.

    I think that’s been obvious from the start. They don’t talk about marriage… they talk about “Teh Gay Agenda”.

    I’m actually surprised by all of this, because they’ve been quite open about it. Why are they suddenly trying to change the tone?

    I think the entire conservative agenda is falling apart, and they recognize that. The Terri Schiavo thing killed them.

  34. 34
    Perry Como says:

    Fixed.

    And, me too.

    Thanks. Although a ten foot poll would interesting to see. Maybe if John Kerry writes the new census form…

  35. 35
    Tulkinghorn says:

    – Democrats have been just as eager to hop on that gay = pedophile train as the religious right, I’m depressed to note. If you haven’t seen “Foley was gay, they shouldn’t have let him around young men” stuff coming from all over the Left, you’ve been paying no attention. Again, it’s all about political power, and if gay people have to sit there and take it, so be it. It’s long been a method of the Right. With Foley, the Left is eagerly taking up anti-gay arms. Can you sense my joy in knowing we’re now getting it from both ends? And if you think the Democrats are super principled on the gay question, you’d better check out the kinds of things Howard Dean has been doing this year. Let me summarize: we saw a bus, there was a blur, and now there are a lot of flattened gay Democrats all over the road.

    I know it is beyond tedious for me to demand some links to back this up, but I really am ignorant of what you are talking about here.

    –Who exactly is taking up anti-gay arms? Care to name a Senator, Congresscritter or Governor, and what thay are doing to constitute taking up arms?

    –Who on the left is conflating homosexuality with pedophilia or even ephebophilia?

    –What did Howard Dean do?

  36. 36
    Steve says:

    With Foley, the Left is eagerly taking up anti-gay arms. Can you sense my joy in knowing we’re now getting it from both ends?

    Setting aside the double entendre, you are completely missing the point when you equate a calculated electoral strategy of the Republican Party on the one hand, and the statements of a few individual liberals on the other. I don’t see the Democratic Party racing to see if they can demonize gays worse than the other guys.

    If your point is that the Democratic Party is no friend of gays, well, you’re probably right. If anything, though, it’s “the Left” which is trying to push the Democrats in that direction. For my part, all I can say is that it’s nice to live in New York, a place where you actually lose points for gay-bashing.

  37. 37
    Jill says:

    Live by the sex scandal…die by the sex scandal.

  38. 38
    capelza says:

    BTW, it is not up to you to decide when Craig was libeled. I bet you wouldn’t mind being labeled all sorts of things.

    Well if Craig sees being called gay libelous, then as I said, it’s a sad thing…being called a baby eater or a criminal is another matter. Simply that someone alleges he is gay being libelous says more about him, or you, than it does the accuser. Defamation…because you know, being gay is such a bad, bad thing..like murder and theft. No. Except to very small minded people.

    I get labeled all kinds of things, I have been called a traitor and a cowrd because I don’t support Bush and his reckless foreign policy. I think that is so much more disparaging than if someone said I was a lesbian. Big whoop! But then I’m not a GOP Senator in a very Red State.

  39. 39
    Davebo says:

    No matter how you get it. So “Using the GOP’s homophobia against them!” as if it’s some kind of plus is repugnant. Homophobia should not be used. If that needs further explaining, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Does the same go for racism? For instance, would it be just as horrible if someone pointed out that their opponent was once a member of the Klu Klux Klan?

    Seems I’ve heard that one somewhere.

  40. 40
    Perry Como says:

    Lets keep in mind that nobody outed anyone as gay.

    Someone pointed out that a Republican congressman had had sex with 3 different males.

    Exactly. Senator Craig is not gay, but his boyfriends are.

  41. 41
    Robbie says:

    One more link I think people who are defending this should read:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feat.....rs_outing/

    The most relevant part is John Aravosis’ reaction. Aravosis worked in tandem with Mike Rogers as one of the main architects of the modern outing campaign against gay Republicans. Read his thoughts on what is happening.

    The fact that he feels that way should say something to people.

  42. 42

    Like I said, if people haven’t seen it, they’ve not been paying attention. Maybe because I’m gay I’m hypersensitive to the rhetoric and more likely to take note of it. It’s probable.

    The fact that Fox News said it was bipartisan, does not make it so.

  43. 43
    RSA says:

    The outing campaign is contingent on the hope and assumption that the politicians will be subjected to anti-gay advances. Some may say “Oh, sweet poetic justice!” But if you are against homophobia, you cannot in good conscience use it against anyone.

    I think it’s a complex issue. An analogous example given in an earlier thread was “outing” a KKK leader who, say, had had a relationship with a black partner. The KKK leader would be rejected by his followers due to their racism, and yes, we’d all feel a bit of Schadenfreude, even if we’re against such racism. Is it unjustified? I think it’s reasonable. My Schadenfreude is not based on any anti-gay sentiment, but rather that someone who does hold such stupid ideas now must face a bit of soul-searching.

  44. 44
    RSA says:

    Damn, Davebo, you type (and probably think) much faster than me.

  45. 45
    srv says:

    Robbie, just do what Sullivan does. Vote Republican. Then you won’t have to worry about all us liberal hypocrites.

    Sheesh. And I mean that in a big way.

  46. 46
    Bombadil says:

    Capelza – One example, among many out there:

    http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1968

    Like I said, if people haven’t seen it, they’ve not been paying attention. Maybe because I’m gay I’m hypersensitive to the rhetoric and more likely to take note of it. It’s probable.

    I followed your link — to one of your own posts. I followed the link to Ace of Base’s site, where he (mis)states Beckel’s position and then Ace says:

    Now the reality is that I would tend to be suspicious of any gay man interested in being “friends” with a sixteen year old boy.

    He follows that little gem up with this:

    So, true enough– we ought to suspect any man interested in hanging out with kids. Men ought to be bored by children, even their own. If they seek children out as social companions, something is wrong.

    But I doubt the Democratic Party will embrace that common-sense premise any time soon.

    So you’re getting your impression that the Democrats have a problem from the rantings of this homophobe? Are you deranged?

  47. 47
    Vladi G says:

    If you haven’t seen “Foley was gay, they shouldn’t have let him around young men” stuff coming from all over the Left, you’ve been paying no attention.

    Care to back that assertion up? I’ve seen a lot of people on the right wing throw that straw man out and accuse the left of making this claim, but I have yet to see one actual person on the left making that argument. So prove it. Shouldn’t be hard if it’s all over the place. Until then, I’m just going to assume you’re lying.

  48. 48
    capelza says:

    Robbie, I checked your link..and I have to say..first..it’s Fox News and the self proclaimed “Democratic stratagist” is someone I have never heard of till I googled him. Bob Beckel.
    And not to throw any unneccessary weirdness into it, he is also now a born-again Christian (not unheard of in Democrats, btw)..so I tend to NOT take this example as “all over the left”.

    Bombadil..just timing, but you type better than me!

  49. 49
    Davebo says:

    I’m curious. Do you think the fact that Bob Beckel became a born again Christian in 2000 might have something to do with his comments?

  50. 50

    Ok, apparently because Darrell things all gay boy scout troop leaders are pedophiles, we are supposed to accept Robbie’s side of this argument.

    Even though nobody else here agrees with Darrell.

    (except scs, well depending on what day of the week it is)

  51. 51
    Face says:

    Can someone explain the Log Cabin Republicans to me?

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how a group of the most reviled, beaten-up, mocked, ridiculed, and tortured gays could find themselves backing the very party that does all of the above. At risk of going all Goodwin, I don’t remember the Jews having a group dedicated to the Nazi party…

  52. 52
    Davebo says:

    And it should be noted that Beckel hasn’t been a “democrat strategist” since Bobby Kennedy was around.

  53. 53
    Davebo says:

    I don’t know who I hate more… Those folks outing gay Republicans or the scum that thinks orange juice is just for breakfast.

  54. 54
    Punchy says:

    For my part, all I can say is that it’s nice to live in New York, a place where you actually lose points for gay-bashing.

    And have car stolen, purse snatched, wallet lifted, apartment meeting an airplane….

  55. 55
    Robbie says:

    I’m sure eventually the non-sequiturs will cease, and someone will actually make an argument related to what I’m discussing.

    Maybe.

    Eventually.

    For more examples of problems on the left, try the GLBT forum at Democratic Underground. There you’ll find many of the gay posters expressing dismay at the anti-gay rhetoric of fellow progressives when the Foley scandal broke.

  56. 56
    Davebo says:

    I’m sure eventually the non-sequiturs will cease, and someone will actually make an argument related to what I’m discussing.

    Why bother? You’ve ignored every good one made so far.

  57. 57
    Andrew says:

    Can someone explain the Log Cabin Republicans to me?

    They miss the angst and torment of being in the closet, so they turn to the other thing that is full of conflicted gays: The GOP.

  58. 58
    Jill says:

    You are quoting Bob Beckel? Cut me a break that guy is not representative of the left. And, his born-again status might have alot to do with his view.

  59. 59
    capelza says:

    I’m not sure what you want from us Robbie? The Dems didn’t do this, one guy did. John’s oint and I think most of ours, is that it is hard to muster sympathy for Craig (wrong though it is to have “outed” him) when he and his party have been using Gays as their electioneering whipping boys (and girls) for decades.

    That is John’s point, I think.

    You made a statement about “all over the left” and your example was looked out and the “left” on Fox News was pointed out as something less than proving your point.

  60. 60
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Only slightly off topic, but

    Can anyone give an estimate of the percentage of Republican congressional staffers that are gay? How does that contrast with the percentage of Democratic staffers being gay?

    Those of us outside the beltway have no clue (speaking for myself, at least)…

  61. 61
    Steve says:

    For more examples of problems on the left, try the GLBT forum at Democratic Underground. There you’ll find many of the gay posters expressing dismay at the anti-gay rhetoric of fellow progressives when the Foley scandal broke.

    Is it news to ANYONE that there are liberals who are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.?

    No more than it would be news that there are conservatives who are not homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

    The salient point is that there is only one political party which has exploited hatred of gays for electoral gain for the last several decades. If that’s irrelevant to you because some followers of the other party have issues with gays too, there’s nothing I can do about that. I feel your frustration, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t pointing fingers at the wrong people.

  62. 62
    Perry Como says:

    And have car stolen, purse snatched, wallet lifted, apartment meeting an airplane….

    Wait. Are you talking about NYC or a college Republican party?

  63. 63
    Robbie says:

    Note the treatment of Andrew Sullivan, get “Yeah, but Sullivan’s a hypocrite!” in return. Note a Democratic strategist repeated the “Gays can’t be trusted around teens” canard, and “Well, it’s Fox . . . he’s not a real Democrat . . .” plus something about Ace.

    That’s not an argument or an answer. I’m not arguing Republicans don’t engage in gay-bashing. I’m not saying anything they’ve done on the subject is ok. Why do people think I am? Strawman much?

    Can’t people stop being partisan monkeys for ten seconds and actually address the subject of, you know, homophobia?

    Apparently not. Which is my entire point.

    The one argument that makes a bit of sense is the KKK comparison. However, I don’t think the cases are equivalent. The KKK has nowhere near the kind of traction the Religious Right does. When you play on the RR’s field, using their rules, you lend them strength. You’re saying, “Hey, wait a minute, there is something bad about being gay! Look, a gay guy! Get him, fundies!” And if you don’t think that is exactly what Rogers is up to, you’re just not familiar with him. I’ve been paying very, very close attention to what he’s been doing long before he pinged onto heterosexuals’ radar.

    He wants to use hatred to advance a political agenda. And do you know how it’s transparent? He doesn’t spend an eighth as much time going after closeted Democrats who have either voted for DOMA and other legislation, or the people who work for them.

    Like I said, people only think this is principled if they don’t know what’s going on. I don’t think many here do. It’s all very inside gay baseball. Google is your friend.

    But, I have a feeling how this will go, so I’ll just leave with this summary.

    Me: Homophobia is always bad. Many people engage in it, no matter what their political or religious affiliation. Especially when there is political power to be gained. It is never a good thing for gay people when this goes on.

    Replies: But Republicans are evil and stuff!

    Rinse and repeat as necessary.

  64. 64
    Mike says:

    Can anyone give an estimate of the percentage of Republican congressional staffers that are gay? How does that contrast with the percentage of Democratic staffers being gay?

    The fact that there is a potential civil war brewing within the Rethuglican ranks suggests to me that there is not an inconsiderable number of gay staffers and that some people at the top there realize that the “cure” of the Pink Purge threatened by the Religious Right (Wrong!!!) might be worse than the disease.

  65. 65
    Pb says:

    Robbie,

    I’d be the first to tell you that the Democratic party isn’t uniformly or even largely pro-gay, because it isn’t; only the progressive wing of it is. The Republican party is largely anti-gay, however. But citing a self-proclaimed ‘Democratic strategist’ on Hannity and Colmes as your example of what the Left has been saying? That’s just idiocy. You might as well cite an Armstrong Williams column as an example of what African Americans have been saying.

  66. 66
    Steve says:

    Right, you feel it makes no difference whether homophobia is practiced by a few individuals, or whether it’s an express agenda item for an entire political party. We get it already. We don’t agree.

  67. 67
    Perry Como says:

    Like I said, people only think this is principled if they don’t know what’s going on.

    Can you list the people that have said outing people is principled?

  68. 68
    capelza says:

    Robbie…which part of self-proclaimed “stratagist” did you miss? Maybe nearly 40 years ago he was, but at this point he is in the Fox News stable of “Democrats” they whip out when they need somone to nod agreement.

    Do you spend this much time on GOP blogs chastising them for the blatant scapegoating they have been doing to the gay community for decades…or is it somehow so much worse when people (not just Democrats here at BJ) snicker at the same GOP getting hoisted on it’s own petard?

    I, too, am concerned about the backlash against good, decent Gays getting caught in this, but you are trying too hard to convince people that are NOT your enemies..like I said, your example is weak at best. Are you posting on Ace’s blog?

  69. 69
    Davebo says:

    Wait.. Now I get it Robbie.

    The Democrats cannot or will not recognize the great threat of our age. They ironically flirt with the most reactionary forces in the nation, consider 9/11 conspirators their base, and align themselves with radicalized anti-American, anti-Enlightenment ideologies simply because they share their disdain of George W. Bush.

    That clears it all up.

  70. 70
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Replies: But Republicans are evil and stuff!

    It may sound simplistic, but it is true.

    Maybe I feel this so strongly because as a resident of Massachusetts I am finding the whole state smeared with homophobic invective, including from our own governor.

  71. 71
    Filthy McNasty says:

    Put this in your pipe and smoke it. There’s nothing about gays in it, and it’s all Americans need to know and think about on Nov. 7. Foley is an issue because Democrats are making it an issue. But serious people understand that we have enemies from without (AQ), and from within (Democrats). They are smart enough to know that Democrats are more than happy, while trying to impeach Bush, to release detainees, supply legal counsel to combatants at taxpayer expense, and dismantle our national defense. If they’re not as smart as I give them credit for, my fellow Americans will know after two years of watching Dem’s in action.

    Nobody gives a shit about Foley except homophobic Democrats, and turncoats like John Cole.

  72. 72
    chopper says:

    i’m with cole here. outing a gay dude is wrong. but it’s hard for me to have too much pity for people that do everything they can to hinder the rights of gay people who end up revealed as gay themselves.

    it’s like that bit in the twilight zone movie where the bigoted anti-semite gets magically transported to nazi germany. deep down inside you don’t want anything bad to happen to him, but part of you is all “well, now you know how it must have felt.”

  73. 73
    Perry Como says:

    Right, you feel it makes no difference whether homophobia is practiced by a few individuals, or whether it’s an express agenda item for an entire political party.

    It just shows that both sides do it, therefore both sides are equally culpable. But once again, I seem to be a bit confused. Is Mike Rogers going to be the new DNC chair or is that honor going to Bob Beckel?

  74. 74
    Robbie says:

    Dave – Nice of you to quote the Democratic part, but not my Republican criticisms from that very same post. So nice editing there. I approve. Plus there’s a giant post there now talking about how awful the Republican party is, and how much I hope they lose the election.

    Right-winger that I am.

    “Do you spend this much time on GOP blogs chastising them for the blatant scapegoating they have been doing to the gay community for decades”

    Yes. And I do it on my own blog as well. Again, that’s not an answer or an argument. When someone criticizes the actions of people, and the reply is always, “But the other guy . . .” Well, you just don’t have an argument, do you?

  75. 75
    capelza says:

    Davebo…are you saying Robbie is a “concern troll”?

  76. 76
    Punchy says:

    Can’t people stop being partisan monkeys for ten seconds and actually address the subject of, you know, homophobia?

    I’ll discuss it thusly. Damn near everyone I know under the age of 30 (and on a college campus, that’s a lot) has no qualms about…in fact, outright supports, gay marriage. It’s only an issue–IMO–with the elderly and the ignorant. Please remember, before you link me to some 28 year-old PhD Democrat’s blog who hates gays, that I’m speaking generally.

    Homophobia could be swiftly eradicated…or at least significantly lowered…if we had a gov’t whose party accepted them. A party that respected academics, their experiences, and their views (read: gay acceptance). A party who didn’t DEMAND gay-bashing to bring their bigots to the ballot box.

  77. 77
    Tulkinghorn says:

    Filthy McNasty Says:

    Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

    You proud of that illogical shit? This is your A-game?

    pshaw.

  78. 78
    metalgrid says:

    He doesn’t spend an eighth as much time going after closeted Democrats who have either voted for DOMA and other legislation, or the people who work for them.

    Maybe that’s because those Dems don’t have a faction that will run them out of town with pitchforks for being gay or hiring a gay person? I’m just guessing here since I don’t personally know every single closeted Democrat that voted for DOMA.

  79. 79
    Davebo says:

    Robbie,

    I didn’t post that to claim that you are a right winger.

    No, I posted it as an example which supports a rather simple conclusion.

    You’re bat shit crazy!

  80. 80
    Pooh says:

    Best. Jackalope. Ever.

    Well done Robbie, a stunning BJ debut…

  81. 81
    capelza says:

    Robbie…I don’t have an argument, you do. As has been said too many times to count on this thread and others..it was wrong to out Craig, but the irony is thick in his and other righties reactions. It’s not the outing that is gleeful, but the reactions by the GOP, party of the anti-gay legislation and demonization.

    Still can’t figure out what you want from us. Should we gang up on Rogers and beat him bloddy or something?

  82. 82
    chopper says:

    For more examples of problems on the left, try the GLBT forum at Democratic Underground. There you’ll find many of the gay posters expressing dismay at the anti-gay rhetoric of fellow progressives when the Foley scandal broke.

    that’s like asserting that the right is anti-christian and as evidence pointing to the most hardcore christians at freerepublic bitching about how the GOP isn’t respective enough of their beliefs (“the republican party isn’t willing to amend the constitution to make atheism illegal! they hate christians!”)

    it means very little.

  83. 83
    Perry Como says:

    Well done Robbie, a stunning BJ debut…

  84. 84
    Steve says:

    Put this in your pipe and smoke it. There’s nothing about gays in it, and it’s all Americans need to know and think about on Nov. 7. Foley is an issue because Democrats are making it an issue. But serious people understand that we have enemies from without (AQ), and from within (Democrats).

    Classic stuff. I’m glad the GOP is looking to educate the 3 or 4 Americans who don’t already understand that al-Qaeda would like to kill us…

    “With God’s permission we call on everyone who believes in God…to comply with His will to kill the Americans.”

    -Osama Bin Laden (The World Islamic Front, Fatwa, 2/23/98)

    …but I don’t understand why the GOP ad doesn’t include this other quote from al-Qaeda:

    The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

    Oh, right. It’s important for Americans to understand the words of al-Qaeda, but only if they help advance Republican political interests. Got it.

    By the way… where’s Osama?

  85. 85
    Caleb says:

    Steve has had some great comments that I would like to reinforce (with a little emphasis of my own.)

    The salient point is that there is only one political party which has exploited hatred of gays for electoral gain for the last several decades.

    Right, you feel it makes no difference whether homophobia is practiced by a few individuals, or whether it’s an express agenda item for an entire political party. We get it already. We don’t agree.

    Steve is seeing the forest.

    Robbie is staring at trees.

  86. 86
    Davebo says:

    Frankly Robbie, I think you must be torn.

    You blog about “pro abortion folks”, some odd fantasy of knocking over Helen Thomas and breaking her leg, described Ned Lamont as a “peacenik wackjob” and the ever popular ” Kerry-Hussein in ‘08″.

    Yepper, very moderate indeed.

  87. 87
    capelza says:

    Davebo…so it’s true! Democrats and people with brains snickering at the GOP and it’s hypocrisy are much, much worse than the GOP’s horrible and continuing anti-Gay agenda.

    I’m sure that Robbie places his welfare in the hands of people like Brownback. Now THAT is plain crazy. But I can understand, after all, the “left” is snickering!

  88. 88
    Davebo says:

    On the lighter side..

    I hired a gay interior decorator to remodel my house.

    Ended up with a house full of walk out closets.

  89. 89
    Matt says:

    We should also not forget that Republicans have no shame, the new campaign.
    Democrats are in bed with NAMBLA
    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/.....opponents/

  90. 90
    Matt says:

    Tell me that’s defensible, robbie.

  91. 91
    jaime says:

    Democratic strategist repeated the “Gays can’t be trusted around teens” canard

    Here’s a little hint. Don’t use quotation marks when the person you’re ‘quoting’ didn’t actually say that. Using quotes in that wat means you’re a liar. Not using quotes means you’re creating a strawman.

  92. 92
    Pb says:

    Jon Stewart had a great NAMBLA reference not too long ago… “The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or, Congress…

  93. 93
    Darrell says:

    We have a Republican Party that reaps electoral benefits all over the place by demonizing gays

    If the Republicans as a party ever did “demonize” or “bash” gays as Steve and virtually all of the lib commenters + John Cole claim, Repubs would have their electoral ass handed to them.

  94. 94
    les says:

    Shorter Robbie: IT’S NOT NICE! AND YOU’RE MEAN! I, for one, will cop to both statements. Go away, now.

  95. 95
    capelza says:

    Matt, I saw this starting a week or so ago. At another site I go to, our resident wingnut extradorinaire posted a topic that tried to say Pelosi marched with NAMBLA…because she marched in a Gay Pride parade in S.F. (shocking I know) and Harry Hay, who though not in NAMBLA himself…well you get the idea.

    When it was pointed out that Rudi Giuliani also marched in a parade in which NAMBLA was a participant, the poor looper was beside himself. Though it did not deter him from his mission. He’s on the “street team” for the GOP (rock band refernce) and a true believer.

  96. 96
    les says:

    How’s the weather on planet Xenon, Darrell?

  97. 97

    I’m sure eventually the non-sequiturs will cease, and someone will actually make an argument related to what I’m discussing.

    Ok, that’s the second thread you’ve queered.

    If you want to engage in verbal masturbation, that’s fine with me. I don’t really care. You’ve got your own blog to go talk to yourself on.

    But if you want to engage in a debate, then you must be willing to acknowledge points made, or at least respond to them. You don’t get to call them non-sequitors just because they don’t support your argument.

  98. 98
    Pooh says:

    Ooh Scoutmaster D is here, this should get real fun, real fast…

    Shorter Darrell: “It’s a good thing the GOP isn’t like me”

  99. 99
    Darrell says:

    But let’s assume that the GOP has a much more enlightened view about homosexuality than I previously thought, in which case I will make a deal. I will get all hysterical about ‘sexual McCarthyism’ when you disassociate yourselves from all of the bigots in the party who gay-bash from the pulpit, when you stop opposing gays entering civil unions/marriage

    Ya know John, if John Kerry and the Dem party machine hadn’t also made anti-gay marriage their campaign position, you might have a point. But you don’t. Given that the most prominent Dems have also come out against legalizing gay marriage, don’t you think it’s wee bit dishonest to lay this gay marriage thing all at the Republicans’ feet?

    Because the truth is, Dems didn’t want to lose their religious base vote, so they made the decision as a party to come out against gay marriage.

  100. 100

    Put this in your pipe and smoke it. There’s nothing about gays in it, and it’s all Americans need to know and think about on Nov. 7.

    Interesting… What about this?

    North Carolina Republican Party Platform

    4. We believe homosexuality is not normal and should not be established as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle either in public education or in public policy. We do not believe public schools should be used to teach children that homosexuality is normal, and we do not believe that taxpayers should fund benefit plans for unmarried partners. We oppose special treatment by law based on nothing other than homosexual behavior or identity. We oppose actions, such as “marriage” or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, which attempt to legitimize and normalize homosexual relationships. We support the Defense of Marriage Act and will support a constitutional amendment to ensure that marriage is limited to the union of one man and one woman. We commend private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which defend moral decency and freedom according to their own well-established traditions and beliefs.

    Although the rest of your stakes are seriously humourous. The Republicans can’t be trusted on security, economy, healthcare, education, well just about everything. Except maybe propaganda.

  101. 101
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Can someone explain the Log Cabin Republicans to me?

    For a while, I could. As has been pointed out before, sexual orientation has no bearing on your feelings on tax cuts for the rich and things of that nature. But seeing what the Republican party has turned into, how it has abandoned political and financial conservatism in favor of rehashing the Southern Strategy using gays instead of Blacks…I’m at a loss to explain Log Cabin Republicans. I think a this point, they’re basically Log Cabin Libertarians.

  102. 102

    Ya know John, if John Kerry and the Dem party machine hadn’t also made anti-gay marriage their campaign position, you might have a point.

    Really?

    John Kerry supported the gay bashing amendment?

    That’s news to me, as well as the millions of Republicans who refused to vote for Kerry because he didn’t bash gays.

  103. 103
    jaime says:

    If the Republicans as a party ever did “demonize” or “bash” gays

    The Party of ‘Gays getting married will ruin the bedrock of society’ doesn’t demonize gays? The party who looks to Jerry ‘fags caused 9/11’ Falwell and Pat ‘fags caused Katrina’ Robertson for spiritual advice.

    Darrell. STFU. Go away. To Iraq. Please.

  104. 104
    Randy says:

    What do Republican tactics have to do with you trashing people’s privacy? Nothing it seems to me. Clearly, Dave Riehl is over reacting here but don’t pretend you’re innocent in the whole matter. You are twice the blogger he is, speaking as a long time lurker, but indignation is not your strong suit.

  105. 105
    tBone says:

    If the Republicans as a party ever did “demonize” or “bash” gays as Steve and virtually all of the lib commenters + John Cole claim, Repubs would have their electoral ass handed to them.

    Hmm. That doesn’t seem to square with your assertion that “most people” think gays can’t be trusted around Boy Scouts.

    Anyway, we already have Robbie here to johncole the thread, so you can go away now.

  106. 106
    jaime says:

    Dems didn’t want to lose their religious base vote, so they made the decision as a party to come out against gay marriage.

    You’re a liar. Liars burn in hell. With gay scoutmasters.

  107. 107
    Robbie says:

    Actually, Dave, that sounds more like my blog-partner’s writing.

    I do like how you cherry pick the very worst you can find, while ignoring dozens of criticisms of Republicans, unabashed hostility towards the religious right, that whole “I hope Republicans lose” bit at the top.

    Why, it’s almost as if you’re trying to misrepresent me . . . lying even. But I’d never call you a liar. That’d be gauche.

  108. 108

    Hmm. That doesn’t seem to square with your assertion that “most people” think gays can’t be trusted around Boy Scouts.

    No, but it does square with the realization that bashing gays doesn’t gain you politically any more.

    Darrell is simply flip flopping, the only thing he knows how to do well.

  109. 109
    Darrell says:

    The party who looks to Jerry ‘fags caused 9/11’ Falwell and Pat ‘fags caused Katrina’ Robertson for spiritual advice.

    Yeah, because “as a party”, that’s who Repubs look to, which is why they had prominent speaking slots at the RNC…

    Darrell. STFU. Go away

    Translation: “Darrell makes me feel so stupid”

  110. 110

    I do like how you cherry pick the very worst you can find, while ignoring dozens of criticisms of Republicans, unabashed hostility towards the religious right, that whole “I hope Republicans lose” bit at the top.

    Interesting coming from a guy who cherry picks quotes from Fox News to try to make his point.

    Or wasn’t I supposed to out you as a hypocrite cause it’s mean?

  111. 111

    Translation: “Darrell makes me feel so stupid”

    We all bow before the superior intellect.

  112. 112
    chopper says:

    “Scoutmaster D”, that’s awesome.

    i can’t wait for his first record, “dishonest whackjob”.

  113. 113
    tBone says:

    Translation: “Darrell makes me feel so stupid”

    Ouch! That must sting. How about some ice for that spanking

  114. 114
    chopper says:

    darrell makes me feel so stupid for believing that people on the right aren’t beyond hope.

  115. 115
    Robbie says:

    Matt – I’m not a Republican. I’ve tended to support Republicans nationally, mainly on small government and terrorism grounds since 9/11, but I’ve always split my ticket up according to candidate. This election, I have no plans to vote for them for a variety of issues, already outlined by people like John and Instapundit in their “pre-mortems”.

    So I do not have to answer for every Republican sin ever committed. And that’s what I mean about the partisan non-sequiturs. I’m debating one thing, and look at all these comments about completely off-topic things, as if that has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the outing issue, and whether or not people should use outing as a political hay even if you claim it isn’t right.

    I’m sort of remembering why I only read the posts here and rarely delve into the comments. It gets very Kossian after awhile.

  116. 116
    SunBeltJerry says:

    Way to go, Robbie!

    It’s wrong to out someone when they’ve chosen to keep their sexuality private. Period. It should be condemned without anything resembling “Yes, but …”

    You’ve heard that before haven’t you John? You make a suggestion to someone and they say, “Yes, but …” That means they’re not listening, John. That means they are in denial and your words have gone right over their head. They aren’t considering your points, they’re blindly defending their own position. They are defending their position based on emotion, not on reason, because they aren’t even considering the argument.

    That’s precisely what you are doing. “It’s wrong but …”

    I think that if you disagree you are, unfortunately, only interested in power (winning) and are willing to sell out your most basic principals for a quick victory. (It’s wrong. yes, but we might win!”)

    John Cole’s argument seems to amount to, it’s wrong, but it’s okay (because they’ve been gay bashing for years). Frankly, that’s moronic.

    No one here is addressing some rather inmportant details. Foley was a friend to the gay community.

    northdallasthirty.blogspot.com, Monday, March 07, 2005:

    “Foley actually has a superb record, according to HRC’s 2004 scorecard — a rating of 88, which is better than five, equal to one, and worse than only one of Florida’s 7 Democratic House Representatives. Foley voted against both the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Marriage Protection Act and supported ENDA and hate crimes legislation.”

    Does that even matter to any readers here? Rogers has outed a Republican who was more friendly to the gay agenda than 5 of Florida’s dem congressmen. That means gay people end up losing. That means that Rogers hurts our cause. Can’t you see that?

    Doesn’t Rogers hypocrisy bother you even a little?

    ibid “Neither Aravosis or Rogers have any trouble with protecting closeted gay staffers of Democrats and Democrats themselves who vote FOR the FMA and MPA, or other antigay laws, nor did they bother to “out” a single person on the Kerry campaign, which agitated for state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and whose candidate wouldn’t actually VOTE against the FMA out of fear for how that vote would appear.”

    Doesn’t that bother any of you liberals here? What are y’all smoking?

    “The anti-Foley diatribe underscores the obvious — the outing campaign has nothing to do with gay rights.”

    I’m gay and this shit is scary. If you’re not gay here’s a suggestion – have a little empathy for someone who might be in the closet.

    First Rogers wanted to out only Senators and congressmen, now he’s outing staffers. Staffers! People who are just trying to earn a living, like you and me. They might disagree with their boss, or they might not. That’s their goddam right. I thought we also had a right to our privacy. What’s next? Picketing your neighbor because he woprks for Anheuser Busch and drinking kills? Are you willing to sacrifice your neighbor’s privacy to achieve some progressive, liberal agenda? Who do you work for? Do they donate money to repub candidates? If I find out should I burn a cross on your front yard or mark your forehead with a red letter R?

    How many Dems voted for the Defense of Marriage Act? All but 12 in the Senate. How many of them have gay staffers? How many of these staffers has Rogers gone after? Oh … none?

    Amazing that John still thinks he can have it both ways (bi-much?) “It’s wrong to do this, but they deserve it. So I won’t make a big stink because, basically, it will help my cause.” Some high standards you set for yourself there, John. You don’t have an ounce of integrity.

  117. 117
    Davebo says:

    Why, it’s almost as if you’re trying to misrepresent me . . . lying even. But I’d never call you a liar. That’d be gauche.

    As I’ve already pointed out, those quotes were not meant to paint you as a Republican.

    Just, as I said before, bat shit crazy.

    You may indeed believe that democrats consider 9/11 conspirators their base, and align themselves with radicalized anti-American, anti-Enlightenment ideologies and that’s fine.

    You can believe anything that helps you to sleep at night. But don’t whine when someone reads it and says “wow, that’s one bat shit crazy gay dude”.

  118. 118
    jaime says:

    Yeah, because “as a party”, that’s who Repubs look to, which is why they had prominent speaking slots at the RNC

    No. They just have regular meetings with the President, were given a whole brand new money gobbling Faith Based Initiatives Department, and practically have a Veto on all SCOTUS nominees.

    Translation: “Darrell makes me feel so stupid”

    Really. Is that what you took from my post. My intention was for you to shut the fuck up and go to Iraq and not come back for a long time.

  119. 119
    capelza says:

    Robbie…why are you beating the dead horse? John, from his initial post here as said the outing was wrong…I’ve asked before, but what do you want here?

    That and your argument about Dems is weaker than shit…hence your reception less than you expect.

    Really, what do you want?

  120. 120
    Darrell says:

    No. They just have regular meetings with the President

    Oh my, “regular” meetings with President Bush. When was the last time Dobson or Robertson got an audience with Bush? That’s right, you really are an idiot..

  121. 121
    Darrell says:

    Robbie…why are you beating the dead horse? John, from his initial post here as said the outing was wrong

    John has repeatedly stated that although it was wrong, Republicans are worse(tm), so it’s not that wrong when Dems do such things to Republicans.

  122. 122
    capelza says:

    Darrell..do YOU know when the last meeting or phone call was?

  123. 123
    jaime says:

    That’s right, you really are an idiot..

    And you’re too hefty to see you’re own penis. We all have our crosses to bear.

  124. 124
    Davebo says:

    When was the last time Dobson or Robertson got an audience with Bush?

    At 12:15 on Wednesday an exclusive group of five conservatives chatted in the White House before meeting with Bush. Besides Dr. Michael Farris, the other four were Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, Don Hodel, CEO and President of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, and Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship.

  125. 125
    Darrell says:

    Darrell..do YOU know when the last meeting or phone call was?

    I’m sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for the halfwit that made this definitive claim

    They just have regular meetings with the President

  126. 126
    Darrell says:

    At 12:15 on Wednesday an exclusive group of five conservatives chatted in the White House before meeting with Bush

    When is that quote dated, 2002?

  127. 127
    John Cole says:

    John Cole’s argument seems to amount to, it’s wrong, but it’s okay (because they’ve been gay bashing for years). Frankly, that’s moronic.

    More like my argument is a combination of:

    Outing people is wrong, but since the Republicans have been engaging in this sort of behavior for a long time, it is not surprising radical liberals might do it.

    -and-

    Outing people is wrong, but it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

    -and-

    Outing people is wrong, but it is hard to take people that have outed people for their own uses seriously when they wail about ‘sexual McCarthyism.’

    Those aren’t the same thing, no matter how many times you try to lie and say they are.

  128. 128
    capelza says:

    Pssstt…Darrell look above your post.

    You called him an idiot, and yet you have no clue yourself. Don’t be silly.

  129. 129
    Davebo says:

    When was the last time Dobson or Robertson got an audience with Bush?

    Well, we should find out soon enough.

    i Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent out a FOIA request today to the Secret Service, asking for records of all visits that nine listed individuals made to the White House and the Vice President’s residence from January 1, 2001, to the present. The nine individuals are all prominent conservative Christian leaders and include: James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Wendy Wright, Louis Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty, Paul Weyrich, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell.

    The request was made this month.

  130. 130
    John Cole says:

    John has repeatedly stated that although it was wrong, Republicans are worse™, so it’s not that wrong when Dems do such things to Republicans.

    Do you just make this shit up?

    It is wrong, period, to out people. I just can’t get as worked up as Hindraker and Malkin and Dan Riehl when the GOP gets a dose of their own medicine. Sorry.

  131. 131
    jaime says:

    Do you just make this shit up?

    Yes. Yes he does.

  132. 132
    Steve says:

    These guys love to trot out the talking point that Michael Moore was given a good seat at the Democratic Convention… but they persist in claiming Jerry Falwell is a non-entity even though he gets consulted by the White House on Supreme Court nominations. Truly unbelievable.

  133. 133
    jaime says:

    These guys love to trot out the talking point that Michael Moore was given a good seat at the Democratic Convention…

    He was also given a good seat at the Republican convention.

  134. 134
    John Cole says:

    More liberal persecution of gays and attempting to use homosexuality to bash candidates.

    My bad. It is the GOP. Again.

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    Do you just make this shit up?

    You tell me.. You’re the one claiming that you can’t get too worked over this, since Republicans are worse, regularly “demonizing” gays. Are you now suggesting that is not your position?

  136. 136
    Robbie says:

    What do I want? Less schadenfreude over outing, and more care about these things in the future. I was really addressing John. I can’t help that people leapt on with all sorts crap and engaged me. Stupid debate. Always creeping up at an inopportune moment.

    Furthermore, you’ll note the senator who was outed is actually only accused by three anonymous “people” who shall never ever be revealed.

    Way to peddle in topics with zero evidence from a known serial liar of the gay Left (Mike Rogers was on a panel discussing secret Republican plans for gay concentration camps. True story).

    Al Gore molests donkeys. My sources on this are strictly confidential. Surely you understand. There, now go blog about it.

    One more thing:

    John Kerry supported the state-level gay marriage amendment in Massachusettes. It’s not a big secret. Howard Dean went on the 700 Club to tell evangelicals that his party isn’t for gay marriage in any way. There was a big fight over it. You must’ve missed that. The Democrats aren’t pro-gay. They gay bash when politically useful. They’re simply nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.

    And finally, John says “It is wrong, period, to out people. I just can’t get as worked up as Hindraker and Malkin and Dan Riehl when the GOP gets a dose of their own medicine. Sorry.” It’s one thing not to get worked up about it. It’s something else entirely to “have fun” with it. “Taking heroin is wrong! But damn if it don’t feel good. Can I get an amen?”

    Lord.

  137. 137
    Darrell says:

    Less schadenfreude over outing, and more care about these things in the future

    I blockquoted a number of BJ quotes the other day that were in reaction to Craig’s outing. A decided majority of liberal posters reacted that Craig ‘had it coming’ for associating with the GOP. Not some lib posters. MOST reacted that way. How tolerant of them

  138. 138
    John Cole says:

    You tell me.. You’re the one claiming that you can’t get too worked over this, since Republicans are worse, regularly “demonizing” gays. Are you now suggesting that is not your position?

    Nope, that is precisely my opinion. Which is altogether a different thing that what ytou previously attributed to me, which is “John has repeatedly stated that although it was wrong, Republicans are worse™, so it’s not that wrong when Dems do such things to Republicans.”

    Wrong is wrong. I just can’t get as worked up about it as the hypocrites and cheerleaders. That doesn’t make it less wrong, it means I am less worked up about it.

  139. 139
    jaime says:

    Republicans are worse, regularly “demonizing” gays

    Here’s an exercise. Go to Free Republic and type in “gay”

    or better yet, watch this ad for REPUBLICAN Congressional candidate Vernon Robinson.

    or better yet read State Republican Party Platforms.

    No matter how much you lie no one is going to believe the Republican party doesn’t demonize gays. It’s too late. Just like its too late to tell blacks that you are the Party of Lincoln when their still looking for dead Katrina Victims.

  140. 140
    capelza says:

    Robbie…is the DNC actively pursuing an agenda of anti-Gay initiatives? Are they?

    As for the schadenfreude, well yeah, sorry, but as one who has had to fight with these yahoos for nearly 20 years in Oregon (ever hear of the OCA?) I will admit to a whole lot of snickering.

    I guess you are not going to get what you want here…sack cloth and ashes? Nope.

    Are you on Blackwell’s blog or his e-mail about his campaign’s trying to “out” his opponent..as John posted a few posts up? Really, I think that’s a better place for your rage right now.

  141. 141
    Steve says:

    Furthermore, you’ll note the senator who was outed is actually only accused by three anonymous “people” who shall never ever be revealed.

    From what I’ve heard, it’s always been an open secret in Idaho, and people don’t really care.

    I’m not entirely surprised, cause a lot of folks out West are the “live and let live” type. On the other hand, I never thought Mormons were particularly progressive when it comes to gays. Maybe I’m wrong.

  142. 142

    Oh my, “regular” meetings with President Bush. When was the last time Dobson or Robertson got an audience with Bush? That’s right, you really are an idiot..

    Focus on the Family frequently mentions that they’ve met with various administration members. Karl Rove, John Bolton even.

    Why are you trying to claim they don’t? Are you calling James Dobson a liar?

  143. 143
    jaime says:

    How tolerant of them

    I guarantee you, not a single one of those people you blockquoted actually gave a fuck that he was gay.

  144. 144
    Punchy says:

    SBJ-

    I’m gay and this shit is scary. If you’re not gay here’s a suggestion – have a little empathy for someone who might be in the closet.

    I fully agree. It aint fun to have sexual orientation being used as a hate-weapon….a “stigma” that brands you a lesser person in the eyes of many GOP. And yes, it’s regretable that some Democratic blogger has taken upon himself to force very personal lifestyle issues upon the whole nation.

    However, I’m not sure that’s what El Capitan Cole is advocating here. I think he’s saying “It’s unfortunate and disturbing, but I’m not surprised”. IOW, he’s not trying to justify it with the “but”, but rather attempt to explain why none of us are really standing in awe….we’re just so SICK of the hypocrisy the GOP has lived with for 6 years.

  145. 145
    jaime says:

    Focus on the Family frequently mentions that they’ve met with various administration members. Karl Rove, John Bolton even.

    David Kuo, author of Tempting Faith in his books states the administration had:

    One way, regular conference calls with groups led by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and radio hosts like Michael Reagan.

  146. 146

    John Kerry supported the state-level gay marriage amendment in Massachusettes. It’s not a big secret. Howard Dean went on the 700 Club to tell evangelicals that his party isn’t for gay marriage in any way. There was a big fight over it. You must’ve missed that. The Democrats aren’t pro-gay. They gay bash when politically useful. They’re simply nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.

    Right, because Howard Dean being the Governor who approved the Civil Union bill in Vermont hates Gays!

    The Democrats say they don’t support Gay Marriage, but they do support Civil Unions.

    The Republicans don’t want you to have either and actively work to amend state and national constitutions to guarantee you never will.

    Robbies response: They’re both bash gays.

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t take you seriously on this issue. You seem to be working hard to defend the Republican party, and I don’t give a shit. If it makes you feel better to think the Republicans love you, fine, be my guest.

  147. 147
    Darrell says:

    Focus on the Family frequently mentions that they’ve met with various administration members. Karl Rove, John Bolton even.

    Why are you trying to claim they don’t? Are you calling James Dobson a liar?

    The point wasn’t whether Dobson and Robertson have had some meetings with some administration members. The point, that you so dishonestly mischaracterize, is that jaime claimed Dobson and Robertson have regular meetings with the President himself.

  148. 148
    Steve says:

    I’m going to remember this thread the next time Darrell accuses me of splitting hairs. yawn…

  149. 149
    capelza says:

    Steve Says:

    Furthermore, you’ll note the senator who was outed is actually only accused by three anonymous “people” who shall never ever be revealed.

    From what I’ve heard, it’s always been an open secret in Idaho, and people don’t really care.

    I’m not entirely surprised, cause a lot of folks out West are the “live and let live” type. On the other hand, I never thought Mormons were particularly progressive when it comes to gays. Maybe I’m wrong.

    Steve, the further you get away from SLC, you’ll find a lot of Mormons have a live and let live attitude ( I count quite a few as friends..they are actually pretty open-minded as long as there is mutual respect.) Ya know..I didn’t want to say anything, but I’ve heard whispers about Craig before, too. And it shouldn’t matter a jot..that’s the thing. But it does, obviously. Idaho is a very weird state. A Black friend was a Park Ranger up there in the panhandle..he said he felt safer there than when he moved to Portland, OR. More of that mind your own business stuff.

  150. 150
    Face says:

    Are you on Blackwell’s blog or his e-mail about his campaign’s trying to “out” his opponent..as John posted a few posts up? Really, I think that’s a better place for your rage right now.

    Nah, stick around. He’s making good points. Wouldn’t call it rage as much as frustration.

  151. 151
    John Cole says:

    However, I’m not sure that’s what El Capitan Cole is advocating here. I think he’s saying “It’s unfortunate and disturbing, but I’m not surprised”. IOW, he’s not trying to justify it with the “but”, but rather attempt to explain why none of us are really standing in awe….we’re just so SICK of the hypocrisy the GOP has lived with for 6 years.

    We have a winner.

  152. 152
    Darrell says:

    I guarantee you, not a single one of those people you blockquoted actually gave a fuck that he was gay.

    They applauded his outing. Thy may not have given a fuck if he was a gay before, but when saw they could use his homosexuality to score cheap political points against the GOP, they cheered it.

  153. 153
    Robbie says:

    “Robbie…is the DNC actively pursuing an agenda of anti-Gay initiatives? Are they?”

    You tell me. Although I’m not sure how else you could define Dean’s pandering to Robertson. But I’m getting awfully fuzzy on what is and is not anti-gay these days. If we’re going by the Rogers definition: If you do not support hate crimes law, all anti-discrimination statutes, gay marriage, revised educational materials in schools, etc, it’s because you’re a raging bigot.

    At least, that’s how it’s applied against Republicans.

    When Democrats are against some of those items, well . . . ::shrug:: There is a reason people were shocked when Empire State Pride withdrew support from Hillary Clinton. The gay media almost couldn’t believe it. A gay activist group standing up for its principles in the face of a Democratic politician? Holy hell. It was headline news.

    That’s telling.

  154. 154
    Pb says:

    SunBeltJerry,

    FYI: Rogers didn’t out Foley, unless you know something we don’t…

  155. 155
    Darrell says:

    I’m going to remember this thread the next time Darrell accuses me of splitting hairs. yawn…

    I’m not splitting hairs. It’s a grand canyon of difference between Dobson and Robertson having occassional chats with administration officials versus “regular” meetings with the President himself, which is what was claimed.

  156. 156
    Steve says:

    Right, because Howard Dean being the Governor who approved the Civil Union bill in Vermont hates Gays!

    The issue, I think, was that Dean said the Democratic platform defined marriage as between a man and a woman, when it actually didn’t. Or maybe it was the other way around.

    Anyway, I’d hope everyone understands that the Democratic Party is not always a great friend to gay people everywhere, but it’s abundantly clear that if gays are going to get any gay rights legislation passed, it’s going to be through the auspices of a Democratic majority and by no other route.

  157. 157
    capelza says:

    I quit… obviously Robbie, you want to believe the Dems are just as bad as the Republicans. Go for it, and when we have a proposed Constitutional amendment in our party platform I’ll be the first to say, “Hey, that Robbie was right! We are just as bad!”

    Whatever it takes for you to self justify your voting R, huh?

  158. 158
    Robbie says:

    “Right, because Howard Dean being the Governor who approved the Civil Union bill in Vermont hates Gays!

    He was actually dragged kicking and screaming into that one. Ask any gay journalist reporting on it at the time. Dean as gay hero is a very, very revisionist reading of what went down in that state.

    Robbies response: They’re both bash gays.

    You’ll forgive me if I don’t take you seriously on this issue. You seem to be working hard to defend the Republican party, and I don’t give a shit. If it makes you feel better to think the Republicans love you, fine, be my guest.

    Because you’re selectively reading. How many times do I have to say “I object to outing and homophobia no matter what the purpose. Republicans are worse than Democrats on gay issues. I’m not voting for Republicans.” before it sinks in that I’m (at least attempting) to stand on principle with these matters, regardless of political affiliation?

    Damn. I comment on conservative areas and I’m “not really a conservative.” I get into it with liberals and “You’re defending the Republicans.”

    ::sigh:: I hate partisans. Hate.

  159. 159
    jaime says:

    They applauded his outing. Thy may not have given a fuck if he was a gay before, but when saw they could use his homosexuality to score cheap political points against the GOP, they cheered it.

    These points ain’t cheap. The people who do care if he’s gay, who do look down on it, are the same people he tries to appease with his actively anti gay agenda.

    I’m sorry the gay guy has lost the Gay Hate vote. The Right will just have to find all new 100% straight gay bashers to vote for.

  160. 160
    Steve says:

    Steve, the further you get away from SLC, you’ll find a lot of Mormons have a live and let live attitude ( I count quite a few as friends..they are actually pretty open-minded as long as there is mutual respect.)

    Well, I guess my comment sounded pretty bigoted, now that I think about it. I know plenty of Mormons and I’m not sure exactly what point I was trying to make there.

    I guess I was saying that collectively, I wouldn’t expect them to exactly be libertarian on social issues… certainly on an individual level, they’re not the raging fundies that some people assume them to be.

  161. 161
    Robbie says:

    I quit… obviously Robbie, you want to believe the Dems are just as bad as the Republicans.

    Yeah, I quit, too. I’m not sure what part of “Republicans are worse than Democrats on gay issues” in my comments are being resisted by some sort of partisan mind shield. Or maybe I’m hallucinating that I’m writing that over and over and over again.

    Could do. Been a long day.

    Straight people may now resume knowing more about gay issues and politics than the gay man commenting. Sorry to have interfered with the storyline. I withdraw my pen from the collective revision. Have a spiffy Thursday.

  162. 162
    SunBeltJerry says:

    John:

    Thanks for replying. Why did you ignore my “Yes, but … ” point:

    “It should be condemned without anything resembling “Yes, but …”

    Your actions are symptomatic of a neurosis: “This phrase of Adler’s [Yes, but …] was his shorthand for neurotic operations. The neurotic recognizes the requirements of living (“Yes, I see what is required of me…”). However, he or she seeks an exemption through excuses, alibis, hesitation, or other maneuvers (“but, I can’t do it because…”). Here the person puts forth his or her reasons; there are as many reasons as there are avoiding and hesitating human beings. The Yes, but… is linked to the sense of discouragement which these individuals feel in the face of the challenges of life, and is an expression of the hesitating attitude.”

    Look at how you replied to me:

    “Outing people is wrong, but since the Republicans …. ”

    “Outing people is wrong, but it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys …”

    “Outing people is wrong, but it is hard to take people that have outed people for their own uses seriously ….”

    Why is it so difficult to bring yourself to unequivocally condemn something that is so clearly wrong, without interjecting a neurotic “Yes, but …”?

  163. 163
    Chump says:

    When Democrats are against some of those items, well . . . ::shrug::

    Channeling Mick…you cant always get…what you want…but if ya try sometimes, ya get what ya need.

    Dems will get you unions, maybe marriage. Repubs want you in counseling, if not jail.

  164. 164
    Pooh says:

    No one could have predicted that once Scoutmaster D showed up, this thread would go to hell in a hand basket.

    (I hear you saying, “but Condi, people did predict just that.” Of course those predictions were timed perfectly so that they be proven right just in time for the 3rd election down the road, and thus can not be trusted.)

  165. 165
    capelza says:

    Steve, I didn’t think you sounded bigoted. The stuff that comes out of the Prophet’s (and the heirarchies) mouth is certainly not “libertarian”. But like the Pope and Catholics…they may love the guy, name their kids after him and all that, they still know the world is not that black and white.

    As a bloc, Mormons are very conservative…isn’t Utah (Idaho, too maybe) the only state where Bush has (had?) a positive rating?

  166. 166
    jaime says:

    ::sigh:: I hate partisans. Hate.

    Fine. I hope you’re comfortable with the bed you made. Tax cuts and “security” in exchange for being getting shit on every two year and called the bringers of the fall of western civilization. Seems like a fair trade.

  167. 167
    srv says:

    Best. Jackalope. Ever.

    Well done Robbie, a stunning BJ debut…

    I for one am outraged at the non-stop outing of jackalopes and trolls. When is the bigotry going to stop?

  168. 168
    Chump says:

    He was actually dragged kicking and screaming into that one. Ask any gay journalist reporting on it at the time. Dean as gay hero is a very, very revisionist reading of what went down in that state.

    If you’re a starving black man, I’m pretty sure you’re not gunna care if a Klansman hands you a Big Mac.

    You got the damn civil union–the first (only?) in the U.S. and YOU’RE BITCHING THAT DEAN WASN’T SKIPPING ROPE OVER IT? Ungrateful jerk.

  169. 169
    Pb says:

    It’s a grand canyon of difference between Dobson and Robertson having occassional chats with administration officials versus “regular” meetings with the President himself, which is what was claimed.

    Well, that is how he got into office in the first place, but it’s not like they’d tell us, anyhow. After all, we just found out recently that Kissinger has regular meetings with the President himself, to tell him to stay the course, (aka re-fight Vietnam) which is also a pretty scary situation.

  170. 170
    jaime says:

    Straight people may now resume knowing more about gay issues and politics than the gay man commenting

    Well, seeing as the people leading this outing charge are gay, I’d say “opinions differ”.

  171. 171
    Pooh says:

    I for one am outraged at the non-stop outing of jackalopes and trolls. When is the bigotry going to stop?

    Well, what next, troll-on-jackalope marriage? Think of the children, Little Ricky, the children.

  172. 172
    capelza says:

    Can someone explain to me what point Robbie was actually trying to make?

  173. 173
    Pooh says:

    Can someone explain to me what point Robbie was actually trying to make?

    It’s all Clinton’s fault?

  174. 174
    Pb says:

    capelza Says:

    Can someone explain to me what point Robbie was actually trying to make?

    Um… as far as I can tell, he’s a gay conservative who doesn’t like outings, the far Right, or the far Left, but yet still buys into the far Right stereotypes of the Left. Trying to figure out where he’s coming from is like trying to figure out where Andrew Sullivan is coming from. But really, I stopped taking him seriously at around the time when he admitted that he took ‘Ace’ and Fox News seriously.

  175. 175
    John Cole says:

    Because, Jerry, the world is not made of binary constructs. Outing people is wrong. Period. I just can’t get as worked up about it as I would had the Republican party not behaved the way it had for the past few decades.

    Murder is wrong. I think we would both agree with that statement. However, it is hard to get as worked up about a murder when a gangster is killed while committing a drive-by. Was he murdered? yes. Is murder wrong? Yes. But is it hard to get worked up about it? Another yes.

  176. 176
    les says:

    Or, can someone translate sunbeltjerry into English?

  177. 177
    Pooh says:

    John, either your communications skills have improved, or you speak more clearly and make more sense when I agree with you.

    Funny that…

  178. 178
    Punchy says:

    Maybe I woulda understood Robbie better if his fucking link would actually link to his blog. Firefox is not a friend of mine.

  179. 179
    les says:

    Because, Jerry, the world is not made of binary constructs. Outing people is wrong. Period. I just can’t get as worked up about it as I would had the Republican party not behaved the way it had for the past few decades.

    Murder is wrong. I think we would both agree with that statement. However, it is hard to get as worked up about a murder when a gangster is killed while committing a drive-by. Was he murdered? yes. Is murder wrong? Yes. But is it hard to get worked up about it? Another yes.

    Another perfectly good dose of logic, wasted. Sigh.

  180. 180
    Filthy McNasty says:

    You proud of that illogical shit? This is your A-game?

    Nothing illogical in the slightest. Democrats have a greater desire in kow-towing to the demands of our enemies than they do to the very Americans they want to vote for them. Why is it illogical to show, through quotations that have been replicated to a lesser extent by Democratic politicians, what the OBL/AQ and their allies wish to do to us? This is not political theater, pal. This is real shit. It’s not an “A game”, or “B game”, or any kind of game. The fact that you think it’s a game highlights your shallowness and lack of suitability as a citizen of this country.

  181. 181
    Pb says:

    Punchy,

    I doubt it, but… try this link instead.

  182. 182
    Pooh says:

    Nothing illogical in the slightest.

    You could be right. How about alogical or non-logical?

    I think illogic presumes the intent for coherence, whereas your approach is simply to toss 6-month old talking points into a wood chipper, and then glue the pieces that get spit out up on the chalk board and say “suck it moonbats”. The Jackson Pollock School of Political Analysis, you might say…

  183. 183
    jaime says:

    Democrats have a greater desire in kow-towing to the demands of our enemies

    Dear FMcN

    Please list specifically what those demands are.

    Signed,

    Your enemy,
    50 Million Democrats

  184. 184
    Tulkinghorn says:

    This is not political theater, pal. This is real shit. It’s not an “A game”, or “B game”, or any kind of game. The fact that you think it’s a game highlights your shallowness and lack of suitability as a citizen of this country.

    Like I said.

    pshaw.

    with a big helping of ‘wtf?’

  185. 185
    JWeidner says:

    The fact that you think it’s a game highlights your shallowness and lack of suitability as a citizen of this country.

    Thank god you’re not in charge of who gets citizenship and who doesn’t.

  186. 186
    jg says:

    They can spend years using the demonizing of gays as election strategy and be outraged that anyone would use teh gay as an election strategy. Doublethink.

    The listen intently and believe without a seconds doubt when their leaders tell them its the other guys who are doign the gay bashing. Black/white.

    Any shred of a thought that forms in their heads which is in any way critical of the leaders or the party dies a quick death. Crime stop.

    Someone should write a book and title it 2060.

  187. 187
    Adam says:

    What’s wrong with feeling some schadenfreude here? If you feel (as I do) that the general atomosphere of homophobia that the GOP has actively fostered over the past thirty years is more importantly wrong than outing people, there’s really no moral conflict.

  188. 188
    scarshapedstar says:

    blah blah wrong hypocritical blah blah Democrats need to fight with both hands tied behind their backs blah blah vote Republican

    Whatever. If you spend all your time saying that gays are evil and so is everyone who consorts with gays, and it turns out that you’re consorting with gays, do the fucking math. It’s especially rich to engage in such “evil” when you’re the arbiter of moral morality.

  189. 189
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent out a FOIA request today to the Secret Service, asking for records of all visits that nine listed individuals made to the White House and the Vice President’s residence from January 1, 2001, to the present. The nine individuals are all prominent conservative Christian leaders and include: James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Wendy Wright, Louis Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty, Paul Weyrich, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell.

    And that FOI request, by the way, is nothing more than anti-Christian McCarthyism. Uh-huh.

  190. 190
    Bas-O-Matic says:

    I think illogic presumes the intent for coherence, whereas your approach is simply to toss 6-month old talking points into a wood chipper, and then glue the pieces that get spit out up on the chalk board and say “suck it moonbats”. The Jackson Pollock School of Political Analysis, you might say…

    Six month old talking points? Hell, it’s is straight up blogosphere circa 2003.

  191. 191

    ::sigh:: I hate partisans. Hate.

    Then why are you being so partisan?

    Don’t be such a hater, dude. Like chill and let the love float around you.

  192. 192

    I’m not splitting hairs. It’s a grand canyon of difference between Dobson and Robertson having occassional chats with administration officials versus “regular” meetings with the President himself, which is what was claimed.

    How big is the canyon between Dobson and Robertson having regular chats with the administration, and myself getting invited to regular chats?

    If what you claim is the grand canyon, the difference for me must be like the distance between Earth and Klingon

  193. 193
    Steve says:

    Here’s the GOP ad.

    Here’s the Dem response.

    Do the Dems have better admakers… or just better facts to work with?

  194. 194
    Andrew says:

    Why is Robbie so fucking tedious to read?

  195. 195
    tBone says:

    Can someone explain to me what point Robbie was actually trying to make?

    Republicans are bad, but so are Democrats, and therefore fake centrism is the only logical position. Or something like that. I got bored about 4 posts in.

  196. 196
    JOE says:

    You know, while you guys are arguing about the ethics of outing gays and whether the Democrats are unreasonably mirthful about the Foley affair, 73 young Americans have died in Iraq on the altar of a failed policy that has done more to damage the United States than anything bin Laden could ever have imagined. Meanwhile, the morons in charge of our government are edging us closer and closer to war in Korea. If that war happens over one million people are likely to die in the first month. But go on with your argument — I’m sure it must be more important.

  197. 197
    Pooh says:

    Republicans are bad, but so are Democrats, and therefore fake centrism is the only logical position. Or something like that. I got bored about 4 posts in.

    To be fair, High Broderism is an excellent sleep aid…

  198. 198
    Steve says:

    You know, while you guys are arguing about the ethics of outing gays and whether the Democrats are unreasonably mirthful about the Foley affair, 73 young Americans have died in Iraq on the altar of a failed policy that has done more to damage the United States than anything bin Laden could ever have imagined. Meanwhile, the morons in charge of our government are edging us closer and closer to war in Korea. If that war happens over one million people are likely to die in the first month. But go on with your argument—I’m sure it must be more important.

    And what did you do to stop the war today? Oh, you tried to lay a guilt trip on some blog commentors. Your grandkids will be proud.

  199. 199
    jg says:

    Well JOE, if you stop to think about it for a second the commenters here are arguing that the republicans shouldn’t be re-elected. If they’re not re-elected then there is less chance of us going to war with Korea. This thread is a sequel to the previous ‘dems are worse’ thread in that way.

  200. 200
    ThymeZone says:

    But go on with your argument—I’m sure it must be more important.

    Surely the oddest post here in a long time.

  201. 201
    Perry Como says:

    Meanwhile, the morons in charge of our government are edging us closer and closer to war in Korea. If that war happens over one million people are likely to die in the first month. But go on with your argument—I’m sure it must be more important.

    That won’t happen since Bush already bombed the nuclear weapon factories in North Korea. Unlike Clinton, Bush does more than just talk tough.

  202. 202
    Pb says:

    Patterico feels he was unfairly lumped in with Glenn’s list of those who have no right to be outraged about Craig’s outing.

    I think Glenn correctly characterized his post there, I don’t know that he then said that Patterico had no right to be outraged, but I’d be interested to see Patterico’s attacks on the right for engaging in such behavior. I generally don’t read his site, which is a good thing, because he sounds delusional–who the hell is Rick Ellensburg, for example? If Patterico isn’t even clear on who he’s responding to, period, then I don’t think he has much standing to reasonably discuss this in the first place.

  203. 203
    Concerned Dilettante Vacillator says:

    Surely the oddest post here in a long time.

    I think it coincides well with Tim’s post the other day. Lefties who refused to go to jail before the war by sabotaging military operations or otherwise destroying their lives for the sake of a pointless gesture of defiance of a Bush Administration that couldn’t care less are just as culpable for the Iraq war as those who labeled them “objectively pro-Saddam” or otherwise besmirched their patriotism.

    Just as isolated loons on DU are equally culpable for homophobia as the massive organizations on the Right, so those who fail to emulate Thoreau vis-a-vis the political cause celebre du jour are “milquetoast” cowards morally equivalent to the chest-thumping jingoists who deceived us into the Baghdad Bosnia on the say-so of Ahmed Chalabi, Laurie Mylroie, and Iran.

    Go on, Billmon and JOE, you sanctimonious louts. Continue to bloviate and lecture your fellow leftists on our moral failure to die in the pre-war political struggle so that our names could be gloriously etched into the walls of the “Focus Group Bush Ignored” memorial. Continue to excoriate us on blogs for our willingness to blog while our countrymen die (presumably, we could watch Jerry Springer and Jessica Simpson movies instead, as millions of our fellow Americans do, an obviously morally laudable endeavour). If doing so enables you to reach into the past and link up with ineffectual American leftist pomposity of yore as embodied by Thoreau, more power to you.

    Next time a war is started based on lies, we can all burn ourselves alive outside the Pentagon, thereby putting even Thoreau himself to shame in our pointless self-sacrificialism.

    And Robbie? Congratulations on personally fulfilling the overquoted Ben Franklin line about those trading freedom for security deserve neither. By squandering your votes on the Republicans, you have received neither human rights, nor the economic and military satisfaction you sought. I hope this pleases you. But at least you’re not a milquetoast non-martyr like your leftist opponents apparently are.

  204. 204

    The problem in Iraq is that we have not been violent enough. Where is the glory in nation-building, in coalitions of the willing, in sending forth long ships filled with soldiers to seize flowers from cheering Iraqis rather than treasures of gold, incense, and comely virgins?

    In finer ages, men of valor cared not for coalitions. Proud warriors fought for honor and blood-lust, slaughtering their foes and razing their villages to the ground. Cowards did not shirk glittering suits of mail and weapons wrought of iron and walrus-tusk. Fathers would cast their children to the sea-beasts rather than see them cast aside the ways of combat for the mewlings of peaceful decadence.

    Would that our great chieftain, Bush, could but order that the citizenry of Baghdad send forth their mightiest champions to face the spearmen in manly feats of gallant dismemberment. Should the Iraqis prove too craven to confront us at sword-point, we should slaughter them to a man and erect a monument of their skulls.

    Alas, our people are weakened by strife and dissent. Weaklings and Democrats seek surrender rather than victory. If Bush wishes to prove himself a lord worthy of loyalty, a brave liege to whom the stout-hearted swear mighty oaths of fealty in the mead-hall, he must crush the yapping snivelers who lap at his heels. Only then will we prove ourselves worthy of the spoils of Iraq. Only then will the legends of our deeds live on forever in the tales and poems of our descendents.

    I thank you for your time.

  205. 205

    The problem in Iraq is that we have not been violent enough. Where is the glory in nation-building, in coalitions of the willing, in sending forth long ships filled with soldiers to seize flowers from cheering Iraqis rather than treasures of gold, incense, and comely virgins?

    In finer ages, men of valor cared not for coalitions. Proud warriors fought for honor and blood-lust, slaughtering their foes and razing their villages to the ground. Cowards did not shirk glittering suits of mail and weapons wrought of iron and walrus-tusk. Fathers would cast their children to the sea-beasts rather than see them cast aside the ways of combat for the mewlings of peaceful decadence.

    Would that our great chieftain, Bush, could but order that the citizenry of Baghdad send forth their mightiest champions to face the spearmen in manly feats of gallant dismemberment. Should the Iraqis prove too craven to confront us at sword-point, we should slaughter them to a man and erect a monument of their skulls.

    Alas, our people are weakened by strife and dissent. Weaklings and Democrats seek surrender rather than victory. If Bush wishes to prove himself a lord worthy of loyalty, a brave liege to whom the stout-hearted swear mighty oaths of fealty in the mead-hall, he must crush the yapping snivelers who lap at his heels. Only then will we prove ourselves worthy of the spoils of Iraq. Only then will the legends of our deeds live on forever in the tales and poems of our descendents.

    I thank you for your time.

  206. 206

    That comment posted twice through no action of mine. Clearly, the will of the gods is involved. Would that I might prove myself worthy of Valhalla, to perish alongside Wotan and countless noble thanes in the world-shattering carnage of Ragnarok! May my sword and shield shatter many a giant’s skull ere my soul perish beneath the crushing power of Surtur the Fire-Giant!

    Such is my destiny, and thine, if thou art noble.

  207. 207
    Bombadil says:

    Who was that masked man?

  208. 208

    Who was that masked man?

    “I am Hygelac’s kinsman and warrior.
    I have undertaken many
    glorious deeds. I learned
    of Grendel in my native land.
    Seafarers say this place,
    the best of halls,
    stands idle and useless
    after sundown. Hrothgar,
    the wise men among my people
    advised that I seek you
    because they know my strength–
    they saw me come from battles
    stained in the blood of my enemies,
    when I destroyed a family of giants,
    when I endured pain all night,
    killing water monsters,
    grinding them to bits,
    to avenge for the Geats
    those who asked for misery.
    And now I shall, alone,
    fight Grendel. I ask you,
    lord of the Danes,
    protector of this people,
    for only one favor:
    that you refuse me not,
    fair friend of the people,
    do not refuse those who
    have come so far the chance
    to cleanse Herot.
    I have heard that the monster
    in his recklessness uses no weapons.
    I, therefore, to amuse Hygelac my lord,
    scorn to carry sword or shield,
    but I shall seize my enemy
    in my hand grip and fight,
    enemy against enemy,
    and let God decide
    who shall be taken by death.
    I expect, if he wins, that
    he will eat fearlessly of
    the Geat people in this hall
    as he often has of yours.
    Nor will you need,
    if death takes me,
    worry about a burial–
    that solitary one
    will carry my corpse,
    dripping with blood,
    to a ruthless feast.
    If battle takes me,
    send this best of war garments,
    this shirt of mail,
    to Hygelac–it is
    an inheritance from Hrethel
    and the work of Weland.
    Fate always goes as it will!”

  209. 209
    Steve says:

    Ok, this commentor brings something new to the mix.

  210. 210

    Ok, this commentor brings something new to the mix.

    Often have I lurked in silence, listening with anger in my heart to the brayings of cowards and fools. But at last, I have decided I could bear no more of this counseling of folly. Since one can achieve little with sword or spear-thrust in the unmanly realm of the Interring of Nets, rather have I chosen to disembowel my foes with an acid tongue and barbs of wit tipped with the poison of truth. For there can be no greater truth in America, than that Democrats are cowards. Would that this people yet cherished the valiant fulfillment of boasts not lightly uttered in mead-halls to the lords who gave rings and other trifles to command the respect of their retinues! Would that our nation’s shallow affection for the dull chantings of Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson were replaced with a love of tales of dragons and the decapitation of the vanquished! Such is a nation worthy of empire. But if the Democrats shall lead us, this people has proven only that they merit enslavement at the hands of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, and other men of courage. For lo, the world doth ever bring forth brave men who scorn death and scoff at peace, men called forth to serve the gods of mayhem and slaughter as a lyrist doth call forth tales of glory upon his harp!

    Such heroes shall ever be born, until the weakness of cowards enables the giants and other fell beasts to overrun the world and drown the gods and stars themselves in oceans of blood. Alas for the weakness of fools!

  211. 211
    John D. says:

    Pfft. Real men quote the Old English version of Beowulf.

    Chapter 2 below.

    Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
    hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
    æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
    Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
    swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,

    wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
    grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
    reoc ond reþe, ond on ræste genam
    þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat
    huðe hremig to ham faran,

    mid þære wælfylle wica neosan.
    ða wæs on uhtan mid ærdæge
    Grendles guðcræft gumum undyrne;
    þa wæs æfter wiste wop up ahafen,
    micel morgensweg. Mære þeoden,

    æþeling ærgod, unbliðe sæt,
    þolode ðryðswyð, þegnsorge dreah,
    syðþan hie þæs laðan last sceawedon,
    wergan gastes; wæs þæt gewin to strang,
    lað ond longsum. Næs hit lengra fyrst,

    ac ymb ane niht eft gefremede
    morðbeala mare ond no mearn fore,
    fæhðe ond fyrene; wæs to fæst on þam.
    þa wæs eaðfynde þe him elles hwær
    gerumlicor ræste sohte,

    bed æfter burum, ða him gebeacnod wæs,
    gesægd soðlice sweotolan tacne
    healðegnes hete; heold hyne syðþan
    fyr ond fæstor se þæm feonde ætwand.
    Swa rixode ond wið rihte wan,

    ana wið eallum, oðþæt idel stod
    husa selest. Wæs seo hwil micel;
    XII wintra tid torn geþolode
    wine Scyldinga, weana gehwelcne,
    sidra sorga. Forðam secgum wearð,

    ylda bearnum, undyrne cuð,
    gyddum geomore, þætte Grendel wan
    hwile wið Hroþgar, heteniðas wæg,
    fyrene ond fæhðe fela missera,
    singale sæce, sibbe ne wolde

    wið manna hwone mægenes Deniga,
    feorhbealo feorran, fea þingian,
    ne þær nænig witena wenan þorfte
    beorhtre bote to banan folmum,
    ac se æglæca ehtende wæs,

    deorc deaþscua, duguþe ond geogoþe,
    seomade ond syrede, sinnihte heold
    mistige moras; men ne cunnon
    hwyder helrunan hwyrftum scriþað.
    Swa fela fyrena feond mancynnes,

    atol angengea, oft gefremede,
    heardra hynða. Heorot eardode,
    sincfage sel sweartum nihtum;
    no he þone gifstol gretan moste,
    maþðum for metode, ne his myne wisse.

    þæt wæs wræc micel wine Scyldinga,
    modes brecða. Monig oft gesæt
    rice to rune; ræd eahtedon
    hwæt swiðferhðum selest wære
    wið færgryrum to gefremmanne.

    Hwilum hie geheton æt hærgtrafum
    wigweorþunga, wordum bædon
    þæt him gastbona geoce gefremede
    wið þeodþreaum. Swylc wæs þeaw hyra,
    hæþenra hyht; helle gemundon

    in modsefan, metod hie ne cuþon,
    dæda demend, ne wiston hie drihten god,
    ne hie huru heofena helm herian ne cuþon,
    wuldres waldend. Wa bið þæm ðe sceal
    þurh sliðne nið sawle bescufan

    in fyres fæþm, frofre ne wenan,
    wihte gewendan; wel bið þæm þe mot
    æfter deaðdæge drihten secean
    ond to fæder fæþmum freoðo wilnian.

  212. 212

    Pfft. Real men quote the Old English version of Beowulf.

    I speak the tongue of the modern cowards haltingly, knave, lest my meaning become clear only through feat of arms. Would that I could trounce the Democrats through deeds of bloodshed alone, but this cowardly Net enmeshes my arms and prohibits me from glorious murders.

    Nevertheless, I thank you for your efforts to write in my tongue. Would that I could read aught but Oghma and rune-script, the insatiable hunger of mine eyes for conflict and death might cause them to devour it with interest.

  213. 213
    m.croche says:

    Yes, Patterico is far above capitalizing on the Monica Lewinsky mess:

    “It’s the same damn thing Clinton did when confronted about Monica Lewinsky by a BBC interviewer:

    [Clinton]: One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask people like me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do, they indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they�re not famous, who cares that their lives were trampled. Who cares if their children were humiliated?

    [Patterico}: I watched that entire BBC interview recently when I flew to England, and I came to the conclusion that Clinton is a pathological narcissist, to the point of having a martyr complex. It’s all about him: he is the saint who has been put upon for his entire life, as he simply tries to make life better for others. The clips I have heard of the Jennings interview merely confirm this opinion.”

    So according to Patterico, Bill Clinton shouldn’t have felt put upon to comment further on Monica Lewinsky. Further down in his post, Patterico’s perfectly happy to dwell on Lewinsky’s blue dress:

    “Yeah. I’m welling up myself right now just thinking about it, Bill. I always thought it was especially touching the way you worried about the reputation of Monica Lewinsky — before the blue dress emerged.

    I think I should have titled this post: Utterly Ruthless Asshole Still Thinks He’s Victim.”

    Patterico’s post fits in nicely with the other prurient posts listed by Glenn Greenwald. Patterico has no cause for complaint that he is being unfairly tarnished. He gives no indication that he thinks Clinton’s personal life was unfairly invaded. Rather, he takes advantage of it to heap scorn upon Clinton.

    http://patterico.com/2004/11/1.....r-complex/

  214. 214
    Luke says:

    OMG my head hurts…

    Being a 52 year old gay male I do believe I might just shut my closet door a little tighter.

    It is a scary time for all gays, in the closet or out. I speak only for myself (not even my partner of 19 years) when I say, my only wish is to live out my life in peace and to be free of the fear, the guilt and the shame that our society has forced upon me and others like me.

    Agree John, “it is wrong to out people”.

    Time for my Xanax….

  215. 215
    Filthy McNasty says:

    It is a scary time for all gays, in the closet or out. I speak only for myself (not even my partner of 19 years) when I say, my only wish is to live out my life in peace and to be free of the fear, the guilt and the shame that our society has forced upon me and others like me.

    You are so fucking full of shit. It’s one thing to be a gay man. It’s another to be a male sissy, and you are one serious fucking sissy. Gays are fine in this country. What discrimination, hatred, bigotry, homophobia do you encounter every day just because you’re gay? I dare guess that you encounter it zip. Nobody gives a shining shit that you are gay, except you to justify your own inadequacies as a man by projecting phony bigotries onto society.

    If you want to, go into your closet and stay there. We have no use for you as a person. Loser.

  216. 216

    If you want to, go into your closet and stay there. We have no use for you as a person. Loser.

    Agreed. Only the strong of arm and stout of heart deserve to live. All others must perish beneath a hail of stones and axe-blows. Women and children shall not be spared. Cowards, farmers, and divers other serfs are fodder for wolves and carrion.

  217. 217
    Filthy McNasty says:

    Only the strong of arm and stout of heart deserve to live.

    Indeed. There is a dearth of individuals capable of standing firm to withstand the aggressions of the enslaved. We fight for liberty because we are already free, and our enemies use slaves to fight us in order to enslave more. The enslaved are found within our borders cringing from imagined boogeymen, and in the deserts of the far side of the globe with bombs attached to their belts.

  218. 218
    Luke says:

    Ok, Boys –

    Filthy McNasty:

    Dude who pissed in your Wheaties today? Here have a Xanax, or perhaps a lobotomy may calm the savage beast that creeps around in your merciless soul.

    Echtheow the Geat:

    WTF – return to your silence dude.

    Love & Kisses
    Sissy Boy Luke

  219. 219
    tBone says:

    The enslaved are found within our borders cringing from imagined boogeymen

    Well, you got that part right, anyway. Now go change your sheets.

  220. 220

    WTF – return to your silence dude.

    Coward. I shall assemble a retinue of warriors, and sack your home. None shall be spared.

  221. 221
    Pooh says:

    Coward. I shall assemble a retinue of warriors, and sack your home. None shall be spared.

    Your ideas intrigue me. How may I subscribe to your newsletter? Additionally, what is your THAC0?

  222. 222
    Raincitygirl says:

    Um, I think Mr McNasty needs his meds adjusted. BTW, may this dyke venture an opinion on the whole outing issue? Given that Robbie & Co. are acting like they have the One True Answer because they’re queer, it seems fair for me to speak up on the same grounds.

    Look, I am sick and fucking tired of fellow queers who put their own self-loathing and their own ambition ahead of their self-respect. And what’s worse, they’re not content with trying to undermine their own self-respect, they have to undermine the civil rights of other queers, too. Is it hard to be out? You bet your ass it is. I didn’t come out until I was 27 years old, so I’m not exactly in a position to throw stones on that score.

    HOWEVER, these politicians and staffers are already out. They socialise with gay people, they go to gay bars, all their friends know they’re gay. But they’re taking a paycheque from homophobic bigots, so they keep quiet about it in front of the voters back home, because they know damn well their own party will only accept them and continue to hand out the cheques if they are ‘discreet’. Discreet doesn’t mean closeted, it means hypocritical. It means enjoying the advantages that were won for queer people by those who actually worked to give us civil rights, while actively working against those civil rights.

    How do the queer staffers who work for politicians who stormed about Lawrence v. Texas justify continuing to work for these people? Maybe they figure that if consensual homosexuality is recriminalised, only queers without connections will go to jail. I mean, come on, it’s not like anybody’s going to charge Mary Cheney for shacking up with another woman. And if her partner’s in hospital, nobody’s going to stop her from visiting. She can just get Daddy to make a phone call, or give a fat donation to the hospital. She doesn’t need legal rights, because she has connections. And the rest of queer humanity aren’t her problem. We should’ve been smart enough to get ourselves born into rich, powerful families.

    Well I, for one, have absolutely no problem with exposing the hypocrites who take the thirty pieces of silver from bigots and then whine that their privacy isn’t being respected. Because they’re working to actively undermine the privacy of every other queer person. They really want to do that, fine. But they’re so panicked about being outed BECAUSE they know the base are homophobic bigots who hate them simply because they’re gay. The rest of us only hate them because they’re self-absorbed hypocrites who stick to the closet because it would be unprofitable for them to be honest. This isn’t about sexual privacy, it’s about bank balances. Well, fuck ’em.

    You know the thing that spurred me to finally quit hiding in the closet? The openly gay organist at my church was gay-bashed. He was off work for months because he was beaten up so badly. The Rick Santorums of this world don’t dirty their own knuckles, but they create an atmosphere in which queers are ‘acceptable’ targets. And they get help from Judas Iscariot queers who figure it could never happen to them. Because some middle-aged musician walking home from the damn bus stop in a gay neighbourhood doesn’t matter to them. He’s not part of their elite group, so what does it matter if his civil rights are violated?

  223. 223

    Your ideas intrigue me. How may I subscribe to your newsletter? Additionally, what is your THAC0?

    I speak words of truth which echo in the hearts of all men who live and die by sword and axe and spear, who pillage the weak and survive by remorseless honor.

    I know not of this “THACO” of which you speak- if you query me of my lineage, know that I am Echtheow, kinsman of Hygelac and sire of Beowulf. At heraldings of my approach, hide your children and your gilded artworks, then gird yourself for manly combat. Lo, the ignominous flight of the coward will not save you from the doom to which all are fated!

Comments are closed.