Say Anything Blog

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.

Remember that the next time you hear about the “inclusive” and “tolerant” left.

Spinning and distorting again, I see Rob!

Michael Rogers is a friend of mine (full disclosure), and by calling the guys place of employment, he reacted inappropriately and hysterically, but it was not illegally.

But, it was not surprising a reaction actually, by someone who just got publicly threatened!

Yet, no matter how many times we go round on your party’s hypocrisy here, my evidence eventually goes unrefuted.

When you voluntarily do the bidding of the
massa in the big white house who keeps the group you are from down,
you have to expect to be called Tom.

When you voluntarily do the bidding of the massa in the big white house who keeps the group you are from down, you have to expect to be called Tom.

I know I’m being baited, but what the hell, I’ll bite…

WOOF, that was a fantastically ignorant thing to say. But hey, I guess it’s ok coming from a Democrat. Just par for the course, of course.

Thanks for proving the point of the post.

Rob says:

So much for the left being the “tolerant� side of the political spectrum.

I’m not sure that I have every really associated “tolerant” and “left-wing American” together.  Their big claim to fame is the 60’s civil rights legislation, whose passage required (ironically) strong Republican support to quench a Democrat-led filibuster.

Since my childhood, the liberals have always been the ones ready to throw gas on the fire at every chance they get.  See Woofie’s post as a fine exhibit.

thatcoloredfella dreams on, “Yet, no matter how many times we go round on your party’s hypocrisy here, my evidence eventually goes unrefuted.”

Evidence of what?  The only thing that you’ve ever really given evidence of is that you’re not grounded in reality.

Woof said:
When you voluntarily do the bidding of the
massa in the big white house who keeps the group you are from down,
you have to expect to be called Tom.

Seth said:
WOOF, that was a fantastically ignorant thing to say. But hey, I guess it’s ok coming from a Democrat. Just par for the course, of course.

No Seth, Woof is right! As the Republican, you’re statement is all the more ignorant!

Your party has nothing to show for the last quarter century, but Black voter suppression, the ‘Southern Strategy’ and the Confederate Flag. You have racist hate group members infiltrating your party in the South and you ran a segregationist for Congress in Tennessee, in November.

The Pentagon is in desperate need of Arab translators, because the Bush administration discharged 20 for being gay.

Each time I post these facts here, none of you (with any sense) have a f**king word in response. You can distance yourself from it, but this is the what your party is all about.

So, TCF, if someone finds themselves conservative and gay, they should just shut the hell up about it and not make an issue of it? Of if they’re conservative and black? Sounds an awful like the military’s “don’t ask - don’t tell” policy, but with two major exceptions: when you’re in the military, you ARE essentially their property, and you VOLUNTEER to join the military.

Like I said over at Wizbang, TCF, are you claiming “ownership” of those groups? Are you saying that those who act in ways you don’t approve of deserve to be punished for speaking out? Or are you saying that being gay, being black, etc. is something you CHOOSE, and having your own political opinions is something you forfeit in in exchange?

How pre-1865 of you.

J.

Additionally,

If you’re black and in the Democratic Party, you are considered and treated like a nigger.  A pawn.

If you’re black and in the Republican Party, you are considered and treated like an individual.  An adult.

thatcoloredfella seals his slave master status, “No Seth, Woof is right! As the Republican, you’re statement is all the more ignorant!”

Whip him good!  He got out of line!  Heh.  Teach him massa’s law thatcoloredfella!  Teach him not to mess with the massa or else he be gettin’ a whoopin. He in need of a good whippin’!  (See what your ignorant ass degenerates the conversation to thatcoloredfella?  Do you see?)

Your party has nothing to show for the last quarter century, but Black voter suppression, the ‘Southern Strategy’ and the Confederate Flag. You have racist hate group members infiltrating your party in the South and you ran a segregationist for Congress in Tennessee, in November.

Did you forget Civil Rights thatcoloredfella?  That one seap out of your little ignorant hate filled porous mind?  Let me guess: you think the Democrats did that one all by themselves, right?  I guess all of those key positions in the President’s cabinet count not a whit with you (and in all actuality, it counts not a whit with most of us on the right; we’re not pathetic race bean counters like yourself.  We just want the best person for the job).

Each time I post these facts here, none of you (with any sense) have a f**king word in response. You can distance yourself from it, but this is the what your party is all about.

Egh,.. whatever you race baiting poverty pimp.  Now run on back to Robert KKK Byrd’s party and talk shit on the Republicans.  You know Robert KKK Byrd, right?  The Democrats consider him the “conscious of the Senate” and he considers you a nigger.

The Confederate Flag has nothing to do with racism.  The Southern states feel a lot of pride in their country and if they feel the need to display that pride through their history, more power to them.

Dear TCF and WOOF, a ”f**king word” (your own expression, tcf) in response:

First of all, let’s us remember who freed the slaves to start with: Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. The southern states were overwhelmingly Democratic before, during, and after the Civil War.

Now, let’s flash forward to the civil rights era. In 1948, the Democratic National Convention was splintered by debate over controversial new civil rights planks. The civil rights planks were adopted, prompting thirty-five southern Democrats to walk out and form the States’ Rights party, which came to be popularly known as the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their candidate for president. In the November election, Thurmond carried four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. He received well over a million popular votes, and his thirty-nine electoral votes represented more than 7 percent of the total.

In 1956, 19 Senators and 77 Representatives signed the “Southern Manifesto” protesting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case that started the ball rolling on school desegregation. Every single signatory to the that document rejecting desegregation was a Democrat. The originator of that document was one Strom Thurmond, Democratic Senator from South Carolina.

If you check history, you find that civil rights would have been a no-go wihtout serious Republican support.

Nixon’s “southern strategy”? Take a stab at who crafted that for Nixon. That’s right: your old buddy Strom Thurmond. The southern strategy said less about Republicans as a whole, and more about Nixon’s personal thirst for power.

In regards to black voter suppression, you want to be more specific about that, or is that just a fun yet unsubstaniated barb to throw.

Lastly, about the Confederate Flag. I think that if you did a nationwide poll of Republicans, you’d find little pro-flag sentiment. By the way, any word on how many Southern Democrats are pro-flag? It’s a regional, states rights, issue. It is not a plank of the Republican party.

Aaron,

God knows I’m no liberal, but to say that the Confederate battle flag has nothing to do with racism is disingenuous at best.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the Cival War was all about state’s rights not slavery, ad nauseum, which I’m sure is the reason the KKK and other white-separatist organizations/movement used (and continue to use) it as a rallying symbol.

You may see it as disassociated from racism, as may a whole gaggle of good ol’ southern boys (including me).  But the reality is it does smack as such in the national psyche.

Regards…

He has struck again Rob. I reproduced the content GayPatriot put up calling for action against Rogers for his outing campaign, complete with a “peaceful discourse” disclaimer and a request to email him as the form of protest, along with a “Wanted” parody poster and he got my hosting provider to shut down my account.

I am currently working with them to restore it, content intact. If I am unable to restore it, I will go to a different provider.

In any case, Christian Grantham has the story @ http://outletradio.com/grantham.

Civil Rights came from the actions outside both parties. Congress of Racial Equality, Southern Christrian leadership Conference, SNCC, NAACP and the actions of many courageous people is what forced the US to confront its shameful segregation, poll tax, denial of service, seperate and unequal policies.
The struggle for the Civil Rights Acts of 64, 65 was largely regional, the segregationist South with Democrats in Power opposing. What you leave out in praise of Republicans is that the Southern Republicans were also adamantely opposed to Civil Rights.
The segregationist Dixiecrats bolted the Democratic party.
Concerted, courages protest actions and the overeaction of authorities, along with the recognition by Americans that what was patently wrong needed to be made right. The Republican Party never campaigned under that banner.

When you voluntarily do the bidding of the
massa in the big white house who keeps the group you are from down,
you have to expect to be called Tom.

Except this isn’t what’s happening. There’s clearly a double standard being applied. A gay republican gets outed despite voting against the FMA and voting against a bill that could allow groups to fire homosexuals en masse. A gay democrat who voted FOR those laws doesn’t get outed. Who here is “doing the will of ‘massa’?

TGF spits:

Your party has nothing to show for the last quarter century, but Black voter suppression, the ‘Southern Strategy’ and the Confederate Flag. You have racist hate group members infiltrating your party in the South and you ran a segregationist for Congress in Tennessee, in November.

Sorry dude, there are plenty of racists to go around.  Ever heard of Robert “KKK” Byrd?  I suppose it is easier if you just ignore that your current civil rights are owed to the Republican Party, starting with the end of slavery and including the passage of the ‘60s civil rights legislation.  (See Seth’s post for more detail.)

I also love how you conflate regional ethnic problems with Republican policy.  Republican=confederate flag?  It was the Democrat’s who supported the confederate cause, not the Republicans, so rightfully the flag is theirs.  Also, given how the Democrats respond anytime blacks “step out of line”, I really wonder if you haven’t just changed one master for another.

The only way that blacks as a community are going to advance is if they being to act in their own best interest, which implies more proactive behavior than just getting in the back of the line for what the DNC will hand out to you.  This means that you have to quit giving away for free what the two parties should have to pay you in political capital for your support.

"A gay democrat who voted FOR those laws doesn’t get outed”
If it is known he is gay , how do you out him?

If it is known he is gay , how do you out him?

A “closeted” gay person isn’t necessarily closeted to everyone. Obviously these republicans who were outed were known to be gay to some people but clearly not everyone.

http://northdallasthirty.blogspot.com/2005/03/dear-mikewhaddya-think.html

Woofie says

Concerted, courages protest actions and the overeaction of authorities, along with the recognition by Americans that what was patently wrong needed to be made right. The Republican Party never campaigned under that banner

I think this falls under the “actions speak louder than words” category.  It’s easy to get all flustered and angry.  Making a real change is much harder work, takes much more courage than just fanning flames.  Your comment ignores the fact that percentage wise Republican law-makers were more pro-civil rights than the Democrats.  Who does the talk and who walks the walk?

Example: In the House, the split was 153-91 (Democrats) and 135-35 (Republicans).  There were nearly as many Republican’s voting as Democrats, in spite of the Democrat majority.  Not all of those 91 Democrats were Southerners, but it may be that most of the Republicans were.  (I’d like to see a regional breakdown but I haven’t found one.)

The problems with you lefties is you mistake loud and boisterous with making a real difference. You also think because other people don’t do your secret handshake and aren’t equally loud and boisterous that they don’t care and are part of the problem.

LBJ proved that a reasoned, courageous approach gets you what you want accomplished, by forming a coalition that reach across the aisles.  He showed some real guts in pushing an agenda that he knew would fractionate his own party.

Unfortunately for our country, your modern day LBJs look a lot more like fanatic anger-mongers and witch hunters than politicians who know how to get anything done.  This especially applies to the High Priest of Anger, your DNC chairman.

Carrick Talmadge"The problems with you lefties is you mistake loud and boisterous with making a real difference. “

All those people who marched and rode and sat in and boycoted , who were beaten,bitten, hosed, jailed, murdered, they are the ones who made the civil rights movement effective.
You Carrick, think they should have shown more decorum if they wanted progress.

Once again you demonstrate that your ignorance of equal rights is as deep as your hatred of equal rights.

You only have one responce when someone tries to get through your reality-proof armor---attack, attack, attack. It’s sad and it’s all too common.

But watching you try to portray the party of torture and discrimination as protectors of dissent is the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve read all day (and I’ve been on NewsMax, so that’s saying a lot).

Finally, get your facts straight for once. NO ONE outed “gay journalist Jeff Gannon.” A) He was already out, and B) he wasn’t a journalist, he was a paid GOP shill.

Woofie says:

All those people who marched and rode and sat in and boycoted , who were beaten,bitten, hosed, jailed, murdered, they are the ones who made the civil rights movement effective.

This is a good point.  I have nothing but respect for people who stand up for principle and are willing to take the consequences for their actions.  This afterall, civil disobedience at its finest.  This hardly describes Howard Dean or Michael Rogers, however, or the sixties equivalents of them.

Without politicans such as LBJ and the Republican Party, nothing would have happenend.  Remember, Tienimen square?

You Carrick, think they should have shown more decorum if they wanted progress.

No that’s not what I was thinking… Good strawman though.

But watching you try to portray the party of torture and discrimination as protectors of dissent is the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve read all day (and I’ve been on NewsMax, so that’s saying a lot).

And yet, as the left resorts to using sexuality as a political weapon to persecute those they do not agree with, the response from the “tolerant” left-wingers is: “It helps us politically, so pretty much we’re ok with it” followed up by the tried-and-true chorus of “You guys were bigots first.”

I can’t even begin to imagine the type of screeching we’d hear from the Don Myers and TCF’s of the world were it Republican political operatives “outing” gay Democrats in an effort to take them out of power.

The duplicity here is amazing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Don Myers spits out ignorantly, “The GOP is the only party that enshrines discrimination in their party platform...”

“Enshrines discrimination”?  Huh?  I think you meant to say the Democrats.

...and conducts routine purges of GLBT Americans.

Man,.. you get more ridiculous with each comment.  The Democrats are the ones trying to purge GLBT Americans from the Republican party.  Aren’t you paying attention?  Well...obviously not.

I can’t even begin to imagine the type of screeching we’d hear from the Don Myers and TCF’s of the world were it Republican political operatives “outing� gay Democrats in an effort to take them out of power.

I can’t imagine it either---because it’ll never happen. The GOP is the only party that enshrines discrimination in their party platform and conducts routine purges of GLBT Americans.

Democrats don’t force gay Repubs to leave their party.
For discrimination check this out:

The Platform of the Republican Party of Texas 2004
The platform condemns homosexuality, supports criminalizing sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex and calls on Congress to “withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy

The platform opposes the adoption of children or foster parenting by gay men and lesbians. [10]
“We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

# “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.� [8]
# “Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State

The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/gop2004/index.php

I have no problem with discriminating against behavoirs in society.  When you apply for a job, you have to reveal wether or not you’re a convicted felon.  Anybody caught engaging in an activity that qualifies one for a felony is discriminated against because of that behavior.

Obviously, homosexuality is not on par with commiting a felonly.  The point is simply that we as a society have chosen that discriminating behaviors favorably or unfavorably is acceptable; whereas, racism is discriminating someone based on a physical charactaristic of that person.

You can’t confuse the two types of discrimination…

Woof and Don continue to try and spin this issue, but the simple truth is that many on the left are trying to use sexual orientation as a political weapon.

Will Woof or Don condemn that kind of activity or will they continue to resort to the “The Republicans are bigots, therefore its ok for us to persecute gays we don’t agree with?”

The point of all this is that whatever the realities of gay/lesbian bigotry on the right they still do not make the behavior described in the post acceptable.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF says, “Democrats don’t force gay Repubs to leave their party.”

..directs WOOF to the above post above the comments..

The Platform of the Republican Party of Texas 2004
The platform condemns homosexuality, supports criminalizing sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex and calls on Congress to “withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy

Sorry WOOF, but your supplied link doesn’t support this accusation.

“We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Good! What are you?  The thought police?  If someone speaks out against homosexuality, what are you going to do?  Slap them with a criminal or civil complaint?  Damn...the real fascists are on the left. They always have been.

# “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.� [8]

This is reality.  I don’t see how it’s “discrimination” as you proposed.

# “Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State

This is also reality.  There is no “seperation of church and state in the United States Constitution.  If there is, point it out.

The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

Good!  We shouldn’t have most of that act anyways.  Why would you include infectious diseases?  So you can make AIDS a “civil right”?  Why would you include learning disabilities?  Damn,..that would include a lot more people.  Reading impaired and dyslexia inflicted individuals would claim that they have a “civil right”.  “Behavior disorders”?  Rotten Johnny acting up in school isn’t going to get a “civil right” for acting out?  Oh boo-hoo!  Substance addiction?  You want to make smoking crack a “civil right”?  Are you nuts?  Did you even think this through before you copied and pasted it WOOF?  Can you make an argument to support why you copied and pasted this?

What are “civil rights” to begin with?  Why,..they are made up rights and they are whatever the people at government house say they are!  We’re always adding new “rights” that are to be gotten by taking away someone else’s freedom.  Huh.  Maybe that’s why Republicans are against this sort of thing.

That link described nothing that was “far-right” and “extremist” WOOF.  I’d also suggest that you make your own argument next time.

The best thing about the link that WOOF posted is if you read the “about” page you get these gems:

The Texas Freedom Network advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the radical right…

...Founded in 1995, the Texas Freedom Network is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 23,000 religious and community leaders.

Got that? They’re against the right, but only in the most non-partisan of ways. The incoherence of the left is astounding.

You may also be interested in this calling-out by Hugh Hewitt. Basically, Hugh challenges people to come up with a definition of the religious right that even makes sense.  I’m not going to butcher his prose by paraphrasing, so I encourage you to read it instead.

Will Woof or Don condemn that kind of activity or will they continue to resort to the “The Republicans are bigots, therefore its ok for us to persecute gays we don’t agree with?�

“Persecute gays?” What the hell are you blathering about? It is the GOP that is on a jihad to make GLBTs Americans second-class citizens!

Revealing that someone is an escort/GOP shill is NOT persecution, unless you believe that homosexuality is inherently shamefull. Denying someone equal access to Medicare, insurance, property rights etc based on who they fuck---now THAT’s persecution.

Please provide an example of the left-wing persecution of LGBT Americans.

Don Myers:

“Persecute gays?� What the hell are you blathering about? It is the GOP that is on a jihad to make GLBTs Americans second-class citizens!

The majority of American’s favor some form of civil unions for gays & lesbians, but just not marriage.  This is not the same thing as a “jihad”. 

Revealing that someone is an escort/GOP shill is NOT persecution, unless you believe that homosexuality is inherently shamefull.

Destroying somebody’s livelihood because you disagree with their political perspective is a form of persecution.  Going after somebody who is gay because you disagree with his politics is persecution.  You have to be pretty blind to not see this.

Of course your purge of gays in the Republican Party still is in its infancy.  Something like 1 out of 4 gays voted Republican in the last election.  Maybe you liberals can regain control of the country and send them all to reeducation camps.

Destroying somebody’s livelihood because you disagree with their political perspective is a form of persecution.

No one on the left has prevented anyone from making an HONEST living (that’s an important distinction) because of sexual orientation. It’s the right that’s trying to keep GLBT Americans out of the military, education, government, ect.

Mr. Gannon is free to make a living as a paid GOP operative, altho’ the DC police may want to speak to him about his escort business. That’s between Mr. Gannon and the DC police. I for one support the legalization of all prostitution, so I’m actually on Mr. Gannon’s side here.

Going after somebody who is gay because you disagree with his politics is persecution.

That doesn’t make any sense. Flip it around---you’re saying that no one can repudiate a GLBT person’s views, no matter what they are?

In your defense I don’t think that’s what you meant. You wanna try that one again?

lik, thank you for spelling our your views---anti-separation of Church and State, anti-egual rights, rabidly homophobic, rabidly xenophobic.

Now go back to Iran where you belong.

Don Myers: 

No one on the left has prevented anyone from making an HONEST living (that’s an important distinction) because of sexual orientation

Um, Don.  Are you saying that your party makes it a policy to hunt down and destroy gay prostitutes?  Otherwise, it is your argument wrt to Gannon that makes no sense.  I can’t believe that you are really that dense.

Obviously the outing of and the digging up dirt on Gannon was political.  Kos came out and said as much.  At least he is honest about his motivations…

I said:

Going after somebody who is gay because you disagree with his politics is persecution.

DM then says:

That doesn’t make any sense. Flip it around---you’re saying that no one can repudiate a GLBT person’s views, no matter what they are?

I think you need to remind yourself about the point of Rob’s post.  It was in response to Michael Roger’s most recent attempts to shut down the GayPatriot and LimeShurbet web sites and his contacting the employers of both individuals in what appears to be an attempt to get them terminated.

If you flip over to Roger’s website (http://www.blogactive.com/), it is quite obvious that he is targeting gay Republicans because they are gay and well, have the temerity to be Republican.

In my version of the English Language, this is persecution.  What do you call it in your DNC New Speak?

Robert:  Thank you for the clarification.  I didn’t mean to exaggerate the extent of Rogers’ actions.  What he has done is bad enough:

This if from Charles at LGF:

According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot’s place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot’s secretary and boss.

I read it late last night and conflated his actions wrt GP with his somewhat more moderated response towards you.

I wish you good luck.

Carrick - just a point of clarification. As far as I know, Rogers has not contacted my employer. He did contact my previous hosting provider and have my site shut-down. But he has taken no other action I am aware of. Of course, that could change depending on just how dense Rogers is.

Don Myers spits out, “lik, thank you for spelling our your views—anti-separation of Church and State, anti-egual rights, rabidly homophobic, rabidly xenophobic.

Now go back to Iran where you belong.”

Don: piss off with your ignorant comments. 

I ask where the “separation of church and state” is in the U.S. Constitution.  You didn’t answer.  You just complain, like a little kid, that I don’t agree with something that you don’t even explain! Explain that one to me.

I am not “anti-equal rights” like you propose.  I am for equal rights while you are for special rights.

I am not “rabidly homophobic” Don.  It’s obvious that you have no argument so you instead throw out ignorant ad hominem attacks.

I am not “rabidly xenophobic”.  Again, you are substituting a real argument with a mindless ad hominem attack.

You are showing us that you have no argument Don.

Denying someone equal access to Medicare, insurance, property rights etc based on who they fuck---now THAT’s persecution.

Please, no one is denying those things to homosexuals.  Your refference is obviously to reconstructing marriage in America to any two people (oh, of couse except first cousins cause that’s just evil!)

All of the before-mentioned things, each is easily obtainable to anyone no matter “who they fuck” as you so eloquently put it…

Constitutional lawyer alert.

“Equal protection” is not a legal right. Its a moral “right"--essentially a buzzword. There is no guarantee to equal protection under any law, as every law intentionally discriminates against a group. Murder laws discriminate against murderers, etc. Medicare is guaranteed to every American, property rights may be contracted into (you don’t need the government to guarantee those) and as for insurance? Not a single person in America has a protected “right” to insurance. Not a single one. Every person pays for insurance--and no company is required to provide it for anyone. To ask for special laws that require companies to extend health care benefits to employees is not asking for an equal right. Its asking for a special right.

Homosexuals have every right to every one of these things.

Actually, Aaron, YOU denying those things to your fellow Americans---and a lot more besides. In fact, the Government Accounting Office has discover 1,039 federal benefits, rights, and priviledges denied to GLBT Americans solely because of the bigotry you display so well.

Wanna see the list?

http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

Sigh, homosexuals are free and equal to marry under the exact same rules as heterosexuals—orientation is not even a factor—they don’t even ask it on the application. 

Gay activists are not seeking marriage equality—they already have that, but it is not good enough.  No, what they are demanding are SPECIAL rights based soley on their “orientation” as if “orientation” had anything at all to do with why men and women marry each other.

Give em an inch, my friend…

Carrick: “You may also be interested in this calling-out by Hugh Hewitt. Basically, Hugh challenges people to come up with a definition of the religious right that even makes sense. I’m not going to butcher his prose by paraphrasing, so I encourage you to read it instead.”

Thanks for directing us to this link.  Hugh is thinking the right way.  There is no clear-cut definition of “religious right"… it’s come to mean whatever the user wants it to mean, the same way the term “Evangelical” is used. 

For instance, in the 2004 election, much was made of the “Evangelical Christians” and the “religious right”, these terms being used interchangibly.  However, unlike “religious right”, there is an exact definition of “Evangelical Christian” which I think most of the country… even most of the world… are not aware of, given that it’s misused by so many people (especially in the news media!).

An Evangelical Christian is a Protestant from one of the churches that concentrates its teachings on the life of Christ as presented by the Four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Those churches are the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and the Grandaddy of them all, the Episcopalian/Anglican.  The list also includes a large number of smaller sects. 

In other words, Evangelicals are pretty much mainstream Protestants. 

I suspect that most of the members of these churches don’t know that they’re Evangelicals.  I didn’t know it until I got curious recently and did a Google search of religious sites looking for the definition of “Evangelical”, and I’ve been a Methodist all of my 56 years.

I think that because a lot of people seem to be unaware of that definition, they’re confusing Evangelicals with Charismatics and other “holy rollers” of ill repute.  Some of the members of the above churches DO know that their church is “Evangelical” and identify themselves that way, but these are few and far between.  Thus, the election stats showed that only 22% of the voters were “Evangelicals” even though the overwhelming majority of the people who listed themselves as “Protestant” are affiliated with one of the Evangelical churches. 

The “religious right” definately needs to be defined, once and for all, and people need to be educated about the Evangelicals.

I’ve got to confess, Marty, I don’t quite get what you’re driving at there. Maybe I agree, and maybe I don’t...I’m really that confused.

Signed, slower than the other kids.

Sorry for confusing you Seth, i just showed up late for a tired and well worn debate i guess.  My point was simply that all persons are equally subject to the same marriage restrictions—regardless of race, sex, religion, handicap, or even sexual orientation. 

SSM advocates are not advocating for “equality”, even though that is their buzzword of choice.  What they demand is special treatment because of their “orientation”.

To Seth and Carrick,

Why do you need to go almost 40+ years to find evidence in defense of the Republican Party? Fredrick Douglas was a Republican and a former slave. If he were alive today, do you think he’d be apart of a party that justifies the Confederate Flag?

Why can’t you defend the current actions of your party, that I spelled out?

Nixon’s “southern strategy�? Take a stab at who crafted that for Nixon. That’s right: your old buddy Strom Thurmond.

Wrong Seth!! The ‘Southern Strategy’ developed out of the 1968 Presidential election between Nixon, Goldwater and Wallace. It was perfected in Nixon’s re-election in 1972 by campaign director Lee Atwater, who is credited with its creation.

So, TCF, if someone finds themselves conservative and gay, they should just shut the hell up about it and not make an issue of it? Of if they’re conservative and black?

Here’s another point I keep having to repeat, because everyone of you on the Right never fail to sidestep it!

I do not have a problem with Blacks or Gays with Conservative views, because I happen to share some of those principles myself.

What we object to, is them belonging to a party that runs a segregationists for Congress, and supporting an administration that discharges Arab translators for being gay, in the midst of the War On Terror.

thatcoloredfella asked, “Why can’t you defend the current actions of your party, that I spelled out?”

Because you didn’t spell anything out.

What we object to, is them belonging to a party that runs a segregationists for Congress, and supporting an administration that discharges Arab translators for being gay, in the midst of the War On Terror.

And yet you have no problem with the segregationists in your own party.  You have no problem with a party that calls Robert KKK Byrd the “conscious of the Senate”.  But you can sit there and lump all Republicans together and say dumb things like “this is the what your party is all about”.

You’re hilarious.

Marty, yeah...gess my reading comprehension was a little weak this morning when I breezed through that; for a moment there it seemed to me like you were arguing both sides.

What you said sounds roughly true to life, you won’t hear me disagreeing…

TCF posts:

Why do you need to go almost 40+ years to find evidence in defense of the Republican Party?

Let’s see, maybe because you brought up the southern strategy first. So a better question would be why do you have to go back nearly 40 years to find something to damn Republicans with? Also maybe because the fact that Republicans have a long and relatively consistant history of acting for the betterment of African Americans is not an unimportant detail.

For a more contemporary example of Republicans policing their own party, consider the case of Trent Lott. He was forced to resign from his leadership role when he made comments nostalgic for segregation at (oh yes!) Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. It wasn’t only Democrats that were upset over that incident, you know. There was a fair deal of scorn from Republicans that made his continued tenure in a leadership role impossible.

Fredrick Douglas was a Republican and a former slave. If he were alive today, do you think he’d be apart of a party that justifies the Confederate Flag?

Show me where defence of the confederate flag is a part of the platform of the national Republican party. You can’t do it, because it isn’t, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

It’s interesting to note that Democratic Rep. Mike Snow of Georgia used the confederate flag to help win re-election in 2002. Also, in 2003, Howard Dean said that he wanted to appeal to “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks”. When he repeated the sentiment at a DNC meeting, were the Democrats appaled? To the contrary, the party elite stood and cheered.

It’s simple historical fact that the confederate states were reliably Democratic states from their founding up to the 1970s.

The ‘Southern Strategy’ developed out of the 1968 Presidential election between Nixon, Goldwater and Wallace.

Oh, wow! Imagine my embarassment when I discover that I was totally, absolutely...100% correct. Ask yourself a simple question TCF: who developed the southern strategy for Nixon in 1968? If you guessed Strom Thurmond, you’re right, because he did (in June of that year, in Atlanta, to be more exact).

But don’t take my word for it, follow this link and learn a little history you maybe ought to know.

[...] that cause me to worry quite a bit about free speech protections online.  First up is the silencing of GayPatriot by a gay activist convinced that [...]

Seth wrote:

So a better question would be why do you have to go back nearly 40 years to find something to damn Republicans with?

Show me where defence of the confederate flag is a part of the platform of the national Republican party. You can’t do it, because it isn’t, no matter how many times you say otherwise.

But don’t take my word for it, follow this link and learn a little history you maybe ought to know.

In this day and age Seth, you can find almost any Conservative distorting history, as you have discovered. From PBS’ News Hour:

In 1968, Richard Nixon used what became known as his “Southern Strategy"-- a plan to draw support from the traditionally Democratic South by promising not to promote sweeping social changes in race relations. Republicans have carried white voters in every Presidential election since 1968.

Strom Thurmond unwittingly laid the groundwork, but the term was not coined until the strategy was used intentionally.

As for the Confederate Flag, the comments of George and Laura Bush in South Carolina in 2000, is all the proof I need!

Also Seth, please refrain from distorting my words and making exaggerated demands for proof, neither of which I’ve asked of you.

Let’s see what George Bush said in South Carolina:

Q: At the South Carolina state capitol building, the Confederate flag flies with the state flag and the US flag. Does the flag offend you personally?

A: I believe the people of SC can figure out what to do with this flag issue. I don’t believe it’s the role of someone from outside SC to come into this state and tell the people of SC what to do [about] the flag.

Now, I’ll admit that wasn’t exactly a thundering condemnation of the flag, but to get from there to officail Republican support of the flag (or even Bush’s personal support, for that matter) is a HUGE mental leap. That kind of argument isn’t going to fly with most people, TCF. Really, it was a fairly states-rights position to take.

As for Laura, she said that she felt that the flag “wasn’t racist”. I’m sure you’re aware that some people feel it’s not a racist symbol, rather an expression of southern heritage and pride. Personally, I think that’s an amazingly stupid position to take, but then I’m one of those damn Yankees. To get from Laura Bush saying she feels the flag is not racist to racism on the part of the Republican party as a whole is really, really reaching, TCF.

Moving on...you said in regards to the southern strategy:

Strom Thurmond unwittingly laid the groundwork, but the term was not coined until the strategy was used intentionally.

Quite to the contrary, it was not unwitting at all. It was hammered out in June, l968 in Atlanta, Georga in a meeting with John Tower (R, TX) and other influential Republicans from the south. This was done in full consultation with Nixon. It doesn’t matter one whit if they actually called it the ‘Southern Strategy’, ‘Fear and Loathing in Atlanta’, ‘Tricky Dick’s Southern Fun-ride’, or whatever else. The fact remains that Thurmond quite deliberately hammered out that strategy for Nixon in 1968.

You further said:

Also Seth, please refrain from distorting my words and making exaggerated demands for proof, neither of which I’ve asked of you.

That I shall do!

One thing, though: How, exactly, have I distorted what you’ve said? And if by demands of proof, you mean me saying that you should back up your claims of official Republican party support of the Confederate flag, or your claim of Republican suppresion of black voters...well, you really should be prepared to back that up. Otherwise, people are going to stop taking you seriously. Is that what you really want?

Okay Seth, I see where you’re going with this! It’s something I am awfully familiar with, and a game I refuse to play.

You’re obviously becoming quite adept at playing The Logical Fallacies game. But, I’ve gone up against people who have mastered it, so I know when I see it.

I’ve already acknowledged that you’ve responded with some valid points, yet like most from the Right, you see admitting that as total capitulation. Owning up to something your party does wrong, means not having to defend or justify it.

Using distortions or manipulation to defend it, means you stand for nothing.

No, you’re playing the “oh, crap, they caught me with my pants down, I’d better change the subject game”.

What is the logical fallacy in my posting?

What have I distorted?

If I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit it.

But if you’re going to make such claims, back them up, surely you can do that if they have substance to them.

Do you dispute the accuracy of anything I have posted, if so, what?

The fact is, you’re wrong about Strom Thurmond. He DID craft the southern strategy. It’s not clear to me why you would want to debate that point with me, I don’t see how it helps your position even a little to do so.

It seems to me you’re the one having trouble owing up to what the Democrats have done wrong.

Why can’t you see that racism does, in fact, exist in the Democratic party. I’m Republican because of the hate I found in the Democratic party. I hate racism.