Doesn’t look like an olive branch to me. Writing in today’s (Tuesday's) Wall Street Journal, novelist and sometime Republican activist Mark Helprin (not to be confused with Time magazine’s Mark Halperin) takes a series of insulting personal shots at the radio talk show hosts who’ve criticized John McCain for his numerous anti-conservative positions.
Helprin, whose last big political job was working as an advisor to Bob Dole in 1996, calls hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity “hairdressers [who] can talk all day long to one client as they snip...the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like,” even as Ann Coulter is “relentlessly crocodilian.” For what it's worth, Helprin’s Wikipedia entry calls him a “conservative commentator.”
Helprin blames the “hissy fit” these conservative hosts are having on greedy self-interest, saying if Democrats take the White House, only “a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a President easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us."
If the goal is to eventually get conservatives and the McCain campaign to join forces for November, such small-minded and petty attacks seem designed only to further deepen the divisions that currently exist.
Here’s a further excerpt of Helprin’s piece from today’s (Tuesday's) Wall Street Journal:
What a kerfuffle! Half a dozen talk-radio hosts whose major talent is that, like hairdressers, they can talk all day long to one client after another as they snip, have decided that the presumptive Republican nominee does not hew sufficiently close to their gospel.As anyone who has listened to them knows, the depth of their thought is truly Oprah-like. And if a great institution of the left can weigh-in as it does in the choice of a nominee, why not its fraternal twins on the right? It doesn't matter that Mitt Romney, suddenly their Reagan, became a conservative in a flash of light sometime last year, or that their other champion, a populist theocrat, is in many ways as conservative as Vladimir Lenin. The task is to stop the devil McCain.
As a mere print person whose words are not electrified and shot through walls, automobiles, pine trees, and brains, I realize that what I write in the bloody ink of a dying industry may be irrelevant. But from my antiquated perspective, something is very wrong....
If those who are in a hissy fit about Sen. McCain would rather have Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, they will get Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton -- how delightful to go to jail for building your house on land once visited by an exotic moth -- and they will wake up to a great regret, as if in their drunkenness they had taken Shrek to bed.
But, guess what? Even if, as the country veers left, living conservatives gnash their teeth and dead ones spin in their graves, a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a president easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us.
So, rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party ostensibly for its impurity but equally for the sake of their self-indulgent pique, each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man. And that would apply equally as well to the gorgeous Laura Ingraham and the relentlessly crocodilian Ann Coulter.
Comments Policy
Rich....
February 12, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Tom BlumerHelprin is, as far as I can tell, a real-deal conservative, who, among other things, contends that our military has never been rebuilt to nearly the level it needs to be after the Clinton-Era hollowing out.
I don't have a problem with the talkers' criticisms of McCain, as much as I do with their ignorant fawning over Romney. Limbaugh and Hannity, in particular, have spent the last 15-16 years railing against socialized medicine, and then blindly supported the guy who made it a reality in MA. Further, they have ignored the stories about how it is blowing up with out-of-control costs, overutilization, and the usual, oh-so-predictable problems. Laura Ingraham called Mitt "the conservatives' conservative" at CPAC. That's just ridiculous.
Listeners expect better than that from the kings and queens of talk, and simply didn't get it this time around.
Helprin is, as far as I can tell,
February 12, 2008 - 12:55 ET by IamTinmana would be fascist who doesn't believe that people should be allowed to express their own opinions if they happen to differ from his. Where is the law that says Rush, Hannity etal have to fawn over the presumptive front runner if they feel he's a flawed candidate? Or, happen to prefer someone else who, on the issues that they, and most likely their listeners, hold important.
If they and their audience don't make it clear to McCain that he can't take them for granted, do you think he will pay any attention to them after he's elected? His track record isn't so good on that and I haven't seen any change yet in his campaign rhetoric. His little song and dance at cPAC needs a lot more work.
Anyway, Get over it Mark. You live in a free country.
Helprin, Editors, Unfamiliar With Rush's WSJ Roots
February 12, 2008 - 14:19 ET by zeestephenSo, Mark Helprin, writing on the editorial page of the WSJ, claims Rush Limbaugh has the "intellectual depth of Oprah Winfrey."
In the early 1990's, Rush became successful by delivering the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal each day to millions of Main Street radio listeners!
That was back in day before WSJ centrists like David Brooks and Paul Gigot took charge of the editorial page and surgically removed its Conservative heart.
Limbaugh and Hannity, in
February 12, 2008 - 13:50 ET by JasonCLimbaugh and Hannity, in particular, have spent the last 15-16 years railing against socialized medicine, and then blindly supported the guy who made it a reality in MA.
Exactly! Thank you. I have been saying this for weeks. I live in MA and Romney has royally screwed up our tax code and right to choice with his dystopic, fascism-in-a-smiley-faced-veneer-of-altruism healthcare program. How conservatives who loathe the very idea of socialized medicine, much less a system of socialized medicine with punitive taxation measures for the working poor, can still support Romney, I truly do not understand.
I think this op/ed is fabulous. Well-written, and an astute look at the fact that, whether left or right, the professional ideologues have no real reason to care who is elected. Michael Moore and Coulter and Hannity are set for life. The election of the opposition only gives them more fodder with which to convince their listeners that they are being victimized by the left/right and wring more dollars out of the victimization. During Bush's first term, the left was great at doing this. Now the right, including a couple of particularly bombastic NB contributors, are showing they can play that game too.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
To which the response is "So What?"
February 12, 2008 - 14:23 ET by IamTinmanCommentators like Hannity, Rush, etal make their living broadcasting their own opinions, not being the paid mouthpiece for a political party. They are under no obligation to do anything other than what they are currently doing. As listeners, if we disagree with them, we always have the option of changing the channel.
McCain if he really wants to win in November has got to know that while he may win the delegate count and the nomination, so far 2 out of every 3 gop votes went to someone other than him. He should also know that if he looks at a red/blue map which is what counts in Nov, by and large, he has won the blue states where he will lose in the general election and been trashed in the red states by Romney, Huckabee, and the rest of the more conservative field. He needs the conservative support more than they need him.
There is an arguement to be made that in 4 years conservatives will not be somehow more liberal, but that after 4 years of a Clinton/Obama presidency, a lot of moderates who are always the swing votes will have changed their minds.
So what?
February 12, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Tom BlumerYou mean, "So what if Rush and Hannity supported a guy who put socialized medicine into place in MA, and then either called him a genuine conservative, or treated him as if he is a genuine conservative, after 15-16 years of railing against it as the end of the republic?"
Of should I add, "So what if the guy they liked raised taxes and fees by hundreds of millions of dollars? Or extra-constitutionally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts when he had no constitutional or judicial mandate to do so (to keep a campaign promise)? Or claimed to be a lifelong hunter with the endorsement of the NRA, when neither was the case? Or claimed that Ronald Reagan was "adamantly pro-abortion," when the historical record going back to Reagan's gubernatorial terms shows exactly the opposite? Or presided over a state economy that did just as poorly, if not worse, than Bob Taft's in Ohio?"
Even given all that, I don't object to the complaints about McCain, which are largely valid. But the talkers and pundits like Coulter put on rose-colored glasses for Romney and mentioned NOTHING about the above, for no valid reason other than that Romney isn't McCain.
That's exactly the kind of malpractice we beat up on Old Media about day after day. When our guys do it, we need to call it out.
Given that, Helprin still could have and should have done it without the childish name-calling.
Isn't the usual refrain...
February 12, 2008 - 15:28 ET by mvfreemanto those excellent points about Romney that "he's changed!!"?
Other pols pander but Romney has "seen the light." Riiiiiiiight.
One of the most liberal states in the country elected a "conservative's conservative" for governor? I guess that makes Ah-nuld a "real" conservative too.
Tom
February 12, 2008 - 15:31 ET by MassConservTom, This statement, "Or extra-constitutionally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts when he had no constitutional or judicial mandate to do so (to keep a campaign promise)?" is not true.
Same-sex marriage was in fact imposed on Massachusetts by a judical mandate. And was illegally upheld by our liberal congress when they refused a court order to vote on allowing the issue to be brought before the voters in a ballot question.
Romney, in fact, was quite vocal about trying to get the original court ruling overturned and enforced an "outdated" 1913 law to keep out-of-staters from coming here to get "married."
Sorry, on that, you're
February 12, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Tom BlumerSorry, on that, you're totally wrong. Read up.
No Tom.
February 13, 2008 - 11:18 ET by MassConservYou're WRONG. I lived through that sorry period of Massachusetts history. Posting a link to a website who hates Romney isn't going to change the facts. Try doing some research and reading actual news accounts from that time.
I'm not arguing other points, I'm just telling you you're source is wrong on this one.
If I thought Romney was
February 13, 2008 - 12:47 ET by JasonCIf I thought Romney was personally responsible for gay marriage here in MA, I'd consider voting for him. Too late now, of course, but you know what I mean. I'm proud to live in the one state that doesn't water it down to "Civil Union" or just outlaw it altogether.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Yeah, this is one of those
February 13, 2008 - 15:46 ET by fitzfongYeah, this is one of those arguments I occasionally have with my parents. They seem fine with the concept of a "Civil Union" with benefits and survivorship. But the attachment to the word "marriage" really bothers them. I'm married, too, but my wife and I would have no problem with the concept of a gay civil union being legally recognized as a marriage. However, I believe that such a recognition must be attained using the proper legal channels (none of this "legislating from the bench" that the Courts seem so eager to do).
fitz, they already have
February 13, 2008 - 15:58 ET by dscottfitz, they already have those rights now, it's called a Last Will & Testament, the Power of Attorney and Medical POA. Between these three documents the legal authorities must abide by the wishes of the person signing said documents. As I understand it, many gays don't want it either, who would want to be drug through the family law court at the break up of a relationship???? Most gay relationships are transitory, they don't last a lifetime much less 10 years. The whole gay marriage thing is a canard. The real issue is to force normal people to accept the life style choices of gays. That's why Ted Kennedy tried to elevate opposition to sexual orientation to the level of the hate crimes statute.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
I understand that gays have
February 13, 2008 - 17:03 ET by fitzfongI understand that gays have many of the "trappings" (advantageous and disadvantageous) of marriage without actually having the desired designation. I also understand that much of the resistance to gay marriage is based on the belief that marriage is sacred (of a sacrament) and that gay relationships (like unmarried live-in heterosexual partnerships) are not morally equivalent to marriage. I'm of the belief that if two consenting adults love each other and are committed to living together and sharing that love for a lifetime...with the understanding that they will be accepting the same specific responsibilities that are unique to traditional marriage...the law should permit them to marry. It becomes a semantics exercise when you afford people all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage without designating it to be so. And, by the way, I believe the assignment of extra punishment for a crime based on specific motivation (i.e. hate crimes legislation) is akin to "thought crime", and should not exist.
Most gay relationships are
February 13, 2008 - 17:07 ET by JasonCMost gay relationships are transitory, they don't last a lifetime much less 10 years
Source, please.
And besides which, doesn't the fact that gay people ARE taking advantage of the ability to marry signal that it is not all about forcing homosexuality into the mainstream (although it may perhaps have that effect, which I have no problem with anyhow) but that many gay couples are rejecting the stereotype of the homosexual as promiscuous?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So Jason - you think it's fair to kids to be denied a mother
February 13, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Dee Bunkand father? You don't see any value in a child being raised by two different sexes? I see a large value in that and don't think that Gay couples should be treated equally when it comes to children. Marriage is all about children.
Yes people can marry and not have kids, but the institution of marriage is meant to encourage raising kids. Yes Gay people can be good parents and they can be just as good parents with a civil union instead of a marriage. Gay marriage says that there is nothing beneficial about the mother/father family structure.
It's not fair to children.
I didn't realize that the
February 13, 2008 - 17:29 ET by balboaI didn't realize that the goal here was fairness for all children, which is impossible.
Dee, I'm afraid your post
February 13, 2008 - 17:38 ET by JasonCDee, I'm afraid your post is totally convoluted. So you're saying gay couples CAN be good parents, so long as we don't use the word 'marriage' to describe their relationship? How is it unfair to the children? What about the thousands upon thousands of abusive, neglectful, or otherwise moronic parents out there who happen to be heterosexual? The majority of children that end up with gay couples will end up with them through adoption; which generally indicates the failure of their (ostensibly straight) parents in the first place.
My premise is not to say that the mother/father dynamic is unbeneficial, but that it's not inherently superior (inherently being very key). What is it that straight parents have to offer that two men or women can't equally offer, other than a model of heterosexuality? If the worry is that kids will see their two dads and thus decide to be as gay as well, that ostentatiously ignores the fact that plenty of gay people had straight parents, so obviously parental models are not a huge factor in sexuality.
Finally, if you're going to trot out the "marriage is about children" line, I don't see any way around a corollary obligation to insist that all married couples begin reproducing within a proscribed time period.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I would add to that by
February 13, 2008 - 18:08 ET by fitzfongI would add to that by saying that the most important factor for a child who's adopted is that he or she is wanted. A gay couple who wants to adopt a child is not typically looking to adopt simply to exhibit a neat new accessory. Raising a child is a huge commitment and carries great responsibility, one that some natural parents aren't up to honoring. The scrutiny that any parental candidate (homosexual or heterosexual) for adoption must go through is significant. I would suggest that "the children" politicians often pander to voting adults over would be far better off in loving adoptive homes (gay or straight) than they would be in orphanages, some foster homes or the homes of unfit, disinterested natural parents.
Jason, balboa and Fitz - you don't get it and you ignored what
February 13, 2008 - 18:26 ET by Dee BunkI said.
Of course people abuse children - Gay people abuse children also - abuse neglect everything else is assumed equal. Gay people certainly are not better parents are they? Are you advocating that only Gay people can have kids? I doubt it but that would be just as ridiculous of an interpretation of what you said as your interpretation of what I said.
The whole point of marriage is to provide for a family structure for a family that includes children. AGAIN just because some people marry and don't have children that doesn't change that.
Marriage for Gay people would condone it as just as desirable for the family structure and that isn't right.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T BE GOOD PARENTS OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE PARENTS! IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE PREFERABLE FAMILY IS A MOTHER AND A FATHER.
People who are not married and are not Gay decide to have children and never intend to marry. THAT ISN'T THE IDEAL SITUATION FOR KIDS - IT'S ALLOWED - SINGLE PEOPLE CAN STILL BE GOOD PARENTS.
Gay couples can get everything they need from a civil unions and there is no good reason to have gay marriage.
AND Jason - I did not say one word about sexuality being a
February 13, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Dee Bunkproblem. I didn't even hint or make the slightest implication that Gay parents would raise Gay children so I don't know where you came up with that.
It has nothing to do with sex. MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT no matter how much liberals want to tell you they aren't. Children learn different things from males and females and ideally they need both to learn the most. AGAIN IDEALLY. I especially think it's unfair of a boy to have two mothers or a girl to have two fathers. YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE IDEAL, NOT DISCOURAGE IT JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT.
Again, I'm not saying that
February 13, 2008 - 23:54 ET by JasonCAgain, I'm not saying that either gay or straight parents are inherently better. That's my whole point.
Marriage for Gay people would condone it as just as desirable for the family structure and that isn't right.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T BE GOOD PARENTS OR SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO
BE PARENTS! IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE PREFERABLE FAMILY IS A MOTHER AND A
FATHER.
I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning...you're not against gay couples having children, but you don't want them to have a title that would ultimately legitimate their relationship in the social order? Why? What difference does that make?
And how is it unfair to children? I didn't mean to suggest that you thought gay parents would have an abberant influence on their children's sexuality. But I don't see what else there is to suggest that is unfair about it.
If we're going to allow gay couples to have children, but not let those children's parents assume the status of "married", that actually seems far worse to me. Doesn't that impart to the child the sense that his parents are different, inferior, and so forth?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
'm against Gay people having children for selfish reasons
February 14, 2008 - 10:23 ET by Dee Bunkjust like I'm against single people purposely planning to get pregnant and have a child out of wedlock. This is a free country - you can't and
shouldn't outlaw it, but that doesn't mean you should encourage it.
Things happen and single people get pregnant and it's honorable to have the child rather than kill it. Gay people have children in heterosexual relationships while trying to deny their sexuality and that is different also. It's not fair to a child to purposely plan to get pregnant knowing there will be no father .
In adoptions, Gay people should be equal with single people. Preference should always be given to Mother and Father households and same race households. If none are available then you go to different race then you go to single/Gay households. That is the most fair thing TO THE CHILDREN.
Were you raised without a Father Jason? Is that why you feel fathers
have no value? If you did have a father are you saying that he had no value and that another mother could have been just as good? I lost my mom when I was 19. I was technically an adult and I can tell you that as an adult woman it sucked in a thousand ways not to have a mom. Especially when I got pregnant. A second dad wouldn't have made it any easier. I can't imagine what it would have been like to never have had a mother. My dad was a wonderful person and very supportive and accepting of me no matter what I did, but he wasn't a mom. Shit happens, people lose one or both of their parents all the time but you wouldn't want to encourage it. You shouldn't encourage divorce as a society just because some people are better at being single parents than some others who are bad married parents.
What is the point of marriage in your scenario? If anything, you should argue for abolishing marriage all together because there would be no point to it. Any of the arguments you make can be made for polygamy or
single parent households so what is the point of marriage? In fact, polygamy is probably preferable to Gay or single households. Three mothers and a Father are better than no father at all. If the only point of marriage is just to force people to stay together it's pretty pointless.
Great Post Dee!!
February 15, 2008 - 21:16 ET by exLibI've recently come to a conclusion that liberalism seeks the exceptions in society and then builds a policy around it.
Conservativism finds what works and encourages it and builds incentive to achieve the ideal.
Sometimes life is strange
February 14, 2008 - 16:30 ET by fitzfongSometimes life is strange and the ideal is not always possible. We talk about an ideal family including a mother and father together raising the children while living under the same roof. But every once in a while, a well-intentioned, well-meaning ideal parent is taken away from his or her child. How many young children have lost one or both parents due to a car accident, a heart attack or even cancer? Those children don't grow up with two parents...but they still must be raised (whether it be by the remaining parent, other family or whatever) and they are still expected to grow up and become productive whether they had an ideal childhood or not. The term ideal suggests the most satisfactory situation, but when the ideal is not possible, it's best to have as many suitable alternatives as possible. You may not believe that a boy being raised by two mothers or a girl being raised by two fathers is ideal, but absent better alternatives, isn't it preferable that such children be raised by someone who is committed to loving them, raising them and caring for them...whatever their sexual orientation? It's fine to cling to an ideal as far as it goes...but it only goes so far. I'd much sooner see a child raised by a gay couple than by the state, for example.
fitzfong - obviously - I already said that - ABSENT A BETTER
February 14, 2008 - 23:49 ET by Dee BunkALTERNATIVE IT'S FINE! Why is this so hard for you people to comprehend? The first choice is to give kids a mother AND a father. Marriage is about the IDEAL for how children should be raised in our society. There is no other meaningful reason for it. Just because people lose a parent doesn't mean you encourage others to start out missing a mother or father. That is absolutely nuts!
You conveniently don't address what I said and pretend like I said something different.
Why don't you address the point that you may as well get rid of marriage all together so single people don't feel inadequate as parents and people who want to have multiple wives don't feel left out? Polygamists and single people can be very good parents also. It's completely absurd to argue for special treatment for one type of alternative life style. You need to lobby against marriage all together - it would make more sense then lobbing for Gay Marriage.
Right, the good old
February 15, 2008 - 00:34 ET by fitzfongRight, the good old "slippery slope" cliche. What's next? Are you going to ask me if I'd draw the line at a man marrying his goat? I don't have an agenda here. I just don't understand where the inherent resistance to gay marriage is coming from. If you have two consenting adults who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other...and have accepted the legal responsibilities along with the benefits of a marriage, why shouldn't the state sanction it if they go through the proper legal channels (i.e. not having an activist court decide for everyone)?
MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN NOT GAY'S AND HETEROS
February 15, 2008 - 00:58 ET by Dee BunkTHAT'S WHY. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. Why would I ask about a man marrying his goat? That's crazy who would want to do that? You people who assume that others don't like gay people just because they don't want gay marriage assume all kind of wacko things.
I compared legitimate alternative life styles and you come back with marriage between men and goats???? Come on! Wake up past your prejudice and try to understand what I'm saying. I didn't say anything about a slippery slope. I said it's not fair to give one alternative life style (legitimate ones not one's with animals) preference over other alternative life styles. Period.
Two consenting adults are free to love one another and should be free to enter into some sort of civil union for the purposes of financial benefits and stated commitment.
CHILDREN DESERVE A MOTHER AND A FATHER. THAT IS WHAT MARRIAGE SHOULD ENCOURAGE.
So marriage is about
February 15, 2008 - 01:44 ET by fitzfongSo marriage is about children? That's funny. I'm married. I don't have children. I may never have children. Does that make me any less married?
When you use a euphemism like "alternative lifestyle" to describe a gay relationship...especially when subsequently equivocating said relationship to polygamy (and in the same thread where it was asserted that most gay relationships are "transient"), you are essentially establishing a slippery slope. Then it becomes an exercise in "where do you draw the line". Pedophiles? Beastiality?
Frankly, I believe people use "the children" as justification to push just about any agenda on the rest of us without having to argue the merits of the position taken...an opposition to gay marriage being one of them.
Super post, Fitz. What I'm
February 15, 2008 - 09:37 ET by JasonCSuper post, Fitz. What I'm really not understanding about Dee's position is that she has said she supports gay people having legal unions and even adopting kids; I don't understand what the actual legal status of "marriage" changes as far as the welfare of the children. I would think it would be better, actually, for a kid to know his parents had made a legally-sanctioned commitment, even if they are of the same sex.
And yes, ideally, a mother and father, both loving and attentive and nurturing would perhaps be ideal. But we have seen the utter ineptitude of thousands upon thousands of heterosexual parental units (if you've ever worked for social services or even in a public school then you've seen this to a depressing degree) and the plain fact remains that sexuality simply does not make a compelling indicator of parental responsibility.
And I agree with Fitz entirely about this "marriage is about children" stuff. Sorry Dee, but that is BS of the rankest vintage. I too am married w/o children and consider myself no less married because of it. I think Fitz is entirely right about the use of the totemic figure of The Child in our cultural discussions. Remember the minister's wife on The Simpsons? Whenever something even mildly immoral was happening she would shriek "Think of the children?!" It is laughable when liberals try to cajole people into accepting universal healthcare or "end" war by invoking the innocent child, and it is no less repugnant with respect to gay rights.
D ee, I commend you for being more open than most conservatives regarding gay unions and adoption, but I do not understand this attachment to preventing that union from being designated marriage, ie allowing gay couples the same social designation as straight ones. I don't see how it bears on "the children".
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason - It's quite obvious that you & Fitz don't have children
February 15, 2008 - 10:27 ET by Dee Bunkthe two of you are completely oblivious to the needs they have and refuse to give them the slightest consideration. You treat them as inconsequential and as if they are problems to be dealt with after the fact, rather than planned for. You object to encouraging parents to give them the best possible life. I take extreme offense at you and Fitz implying that I'm just talking about children for an excuse. It's so unbelievably ignorant of you and a typical liberal mind set that liberals have that anyone who doesn't agree with them is faking or racist or sexist or a homophobic - SCREW YOU! I'm none of those things and I would bet money that I'm more tolerant of all those groups han either of you.
You are probably just like Syrius when it comes to Christians and ASSUME through your ignorance that no matter what they say - they are all equal to abortion bombers. You people are so stuck in your liberal brainwashed way that you can't even argue with someone based on what they say. You have to assume all sorts of things that the media tells you to believe.
You keep bringing up problem parents as some sort of excuse as if Gay people can't also be problem parents when it comes to abuse, divorce etc... It's a stupid argument. It's not part of the equation. Gay people and straight people are equally fallible as parents. That doesn't change the fact that children deserve a mother and father if possible.
Civil unions would be a legally sanctioned agreement that Gay people and others ( like a Mother and a Grandmother or two sisters or two brothers or two friends or many other combinations of people who want to raise children who are not married) can enter into. You refuse to address why any of these other people should be left out.
It's so extremely frustrating how the both of you continue to ignore any of my points and restate them in some homophobic way. I'm really fed up with both of you and the two of you need to pal up with Syrius and talk and laugh amongst yourselves how all conservatives and Christians are terrorists because of a couple wack job abortion bombers. You have no ability to address arguments beyond the framing of the MSM.
Dee, You're forgetting
February 15, 2008 - 10:41 ET by LeonDee,
You're forgetting the most simple fact about raising children.
It's been shown time and time again through innumerable studies that the most important factor behind normative child development is the QUALITY of the care, not the actual caregiver.
All couples regardless of sexual orientation have the exact same opportunity to provide high quality care. Who they love has no impact on their ability to raise a child, provide a nurturing environment, provide adequate resources, or provide adequate support.
Your argument that the best environment for a child is a home with a husband and wife doesn't hold water. How many examples do we have where this set-up has been a miserable failure? 50%? 60%? Christ, the divorce rate is 50%.
If this is such a great family unit, why do they fail so regularly? B/c the composition of the family doesn't matter. All that matters is the quality of care provided by that family.
Say what you will, but unfortunately, your viewpoint, when boiled down is based on nothing more than an ignorance of child development and a dislike of the gay lifestyle.
PS The purpose of marriage is not simply to have children. But way to insult all of those married couples that don't have children.
Leon - when you have your fingers in your ears
February 15, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Dee Bunkand you are yelling "na na na I can't hear you" then you will never get my points. I'm done responding to you people who can't even respond to what I've said. I said probably ten times in this thread that being Hetero or Gay does not affect the quality of the individual parent. You have ignored my arguments just like Jason and Fitz and I'm done with you people.
Some day when you get your fingers out of your ears then we can discuss it.
Screw Me? Maybe when you
February 15, 2008 - 10:49 ET by JasonCScrew Me? Maybe when you get over the histrionics we can have a proper debate.
You are projecting things onto myself and Fitz that are not there and for which you have no basis. I don't mind being referred to as liberal, but I can bet you Fitz will take serious issue with it.
On what imaginary pretext could you possible be basing your assumption that your more tolerant of gay people than me?
What issues are you raising that I'm avoiding? How have you still not squared all of your so-called arguments about children "deserving" a mother and father with the fact that you nonetheless don't have a problem with gay people adopting? How does a minor change in the status of the union between the parents affect this?
And then you accuse me of believing Christians are terrorists? Where did that come from? First of all, I had a solid UCC upbringing (as was my wife, if that makes any difference) and I'm quite certain my family and friends were not terrorists. Second, that accusation has zero to do with the topic at hand.
Where did I accuse you of homophobia? Where did I dodge your questions? Calm down a little already, you were one of the rational ones around here before this thread.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I thought you were rational Jason and You are not
February 15, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Dee BunkSome day when you get your fingers out of your ears -read through this thread and actually try and address what I've said.
No matter how many times I've said that Gay people can be good parents you come back with crap that assumes I think they can't. You also have the nerve to say that I use children as an excuse to descriminate against Gay people. It's offensive. Especially since I know you have read posts of mine supporting Gay people.
You have avoided, as has Fitz and balboa and Leon, my main points which are:
1. Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles
2. What is the point of marriage in society?
3. What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different? Why?
No matter how many times
February 15, 2008 - 11:25 ET by JasonCNo matter how many times I've said that Gay people can be good parents you come back with crap that assumes I think they can't.
Totally untrue. I have repeatedly acknowledged that you've said they can be gay parents. What I don't understand is why you think the institution of marriage bears on this.
Why should Gay people get special treatment over other alternative lifestyles
First of all, the "alternative lifestyles" label has a pejorative feel to it, which is why, I think, Fitz assumed your next rhetorical move would be the "What about bestiality, incest, etc" argument. We're both glad you didn't go there. I think any two consenting adults should be allowd to be married. Gender, or even blood relations, does not enter into it for me.
What is the point of marriage in society?
For two people to enter into a socially-recognized contract whereby monogamy is enforced and legal/financial benefits are regulated. Also, for the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment before their friends and family.
What is the best situation for a Female child to be raised in? What is
the best situation for a Male child to be raised in? What would be your
preference for your childhood? Are you unhappy with the family
structure you were raised in (I'm not talking about problems with a
parent- the structure only)? Do you wish it would have been different?
Why?
My personal childhood is irrelevant and should have no bearing on how I feel about this issue. I think the presence of two parents is optimal for many reasons, most of them just plain pragmatic. I do not think that the gender of those parents matters. Leon laid it out very coherently above. If a child feels deprived having same-gender parents, I believe it would be the fault of a culture that tells him or her that his situation is abnormal; not an innate apprehension of such.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Finally! you addressed my points without insulting me
February 15, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Dee BunkUnfortunately I'm out of time and the thread is too thin. I'll either respond in a PM or preferably figure a way to transfer this to a Forum later.
When did I insult you? Who
February 15, 2008 - 11:42 ET by JasonCWhen did I insult you? Who are you confusing me with?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Geeze fitzfong - how thick in the head are you?
February 15, 2008 - 09:48 ET by Dee BunkYou keep arguing with me as if I'm someone else. You aren't listening. I have no problems - zero problems with Gay people being gay - get that through your head before you read anything else. I have friends who are Gay, I have relatives who are Gay. I love them, I don't want them to have unfair treatment.
I'm not talking about a slippery slope -YOU ARE! I'm not equating Gay love to the love of an animal YOU ARE! I'm talking about- legitimate life styles that are happening NOW. Your argument for Gay marriage should be applied the same to those LEGITIMATE life styles. People are purposefully single their whole life AND people in other cultures believe that one man with multiple wives is a better way to raise children (and they are right in some cases).
We here in the U.S. have marriage between one man and one woman only because we believe that it is the best family structure for children with the way our society operates. If it wasn't the reason then there would be no legitimate reason for disallowing polygamy and really no point to marriage at all. Single people can be good parents just like Gay people can. AND I ALREADY SAID just because you get married doesn't mean you will always have children or should be forced to have children but that doesn't change the fact that it's the point of marriage. People who are married are less likely to abort a child or give it up for adoption then those who are just sleeping around having casual sex. SEX PRODUCES CHILDREN whether people like it or not.
No one shuns people for not having children when they are married, no one should shun a single person who has a child, no one should shun a Gay person who has a child, no one should shun people in other cultures who a have more than one wife.
You are extremely ignorant to say that I'm using children as an excuse. What is the point of marriage in your myopic mind? You seem to have bought into the liberal philosophy that children are just property and exist for the convenience of adults. Is the whole point of marriage in your mind to stop someone from breaking someone else's heart? Give me an F'ing break. If you think that then there is nothing I can say to you. If you don't think that - then tell me what your good reason is for society to encourage marriage.
People don't continue their marital benefits when they get divorced because IT'S NOT GOOD FOR CHILDREN. We don't want to encourage divorce. If people don't have children and get divorced who cares? It doesn't affect innocent children. Why should the government or society care whether two people who don't like each other stay married when they don't have kids?
Civil unions can give ALL People with LEGITIMATE alternative life styles all the rights they need. Gay people should not be given preferential treatment over everyone else especially over CHILDREN.
T
Dee --you just don;t get it---
February 15, 2008 - 02:20 ET by misterbillDee --I hope you know the heading was sarcastic--
Ever since the birth of America-- (I reserve the time frame for us here in America), people who were homosexuals have suffered at the hands of homophobes. It was not very nice for them. So, now, most Americans have become tolerant and understanding. The result??? Tolerance and understanding has turned into demands for "equal" treatment, Here are some of the results of "equal" treatment recently--Fed Judge Wolf in MA has ruled that parents have no say in what a school district decides to teach children about sex, including alternate lifestyles, in elemantary school. Just what we always wanted. The Montgomery County MD school board has decided that elementary school children need to know about anal and oral intercourse. Of course they do, how could anyone grow up not knowing such important information.
Honestly, I have felt that the issue about gay marriage has been the semantic , traditional use of the word "marriage". I have read some statistics on the incidence of promiscuity in homosexual relations, the short term "common law" unions and the like. I am heterosexual and find homosexuality to be an aberration. I have also found many other kinds of human relations to be aberrations. This, usually, does not turn me away from the rights of others. In social conversations, I have asked and wondered why the word "union" was not acceptable to either side. I never got a satisfactory answer.
All that said, if anyone comes and tries to recruit my grandchild to an "alternate lifestyle", I will strike and swiftly. I do not spend my days attempting to convince my grandchildren. or my children , for that matter, that heterosexuality is the only path to follow in life. (Although I think it is the best path.) The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences, the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is thrust upon our youth.
Let our children alone. Let them grow up in peace. You of the gay lifestyle, practice what you wish in private. I will not peek in your bedroom if you do not peek in mine. Dee Bunk is correct. God created two sexes, not one. I would change one thing Dee said and it does not disagree with her premise. Procreation is, for some of us, not the only reason for marriage. But , it certainly is on an even par with love and companionship. It certainly is , for most of us, the cement for a lasting relationship and for people like Dee and me and most folks it is an essential ingredient of our marriages.
I show the gay life understanding, the gays tell me how my children should live. I show I undestand the desire for an official status and the gay community insists it has to be exactly like a heterosexual marriage, I suggest you talk to God about that. I did not create the earth and all its people. If you do not believe in God, that's OK too, it's not my position to judge that. My Dad was right. "No matter what you give some people, they will always ask for more."
From Dee:"Gay couples can get everything they need from a civil unions and there is no good reason to have gay marriage."
I believe that to be correct and that it is the feelings of most Americans. So, suck it up, get on with your life and if you meet me, know that I respect you, I just disagree with what you want.
With all due respect,
February 15, 2008 - 02:50 ET by fitzfongWith all due respect, there's a huge difference between most gay people and the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" activist set. The gay people I know don't try to influence others, some have enough difficulty seeking acceptance of themselves to bother attempting to "convert" others. If gay people are having rights conferred upon them that you find objectionable, blame the courts, not the people who seek relief in them.
fitzfong, you're being disingenuous
February 15, 2008 - 11:03 ET by RJIn the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you pretend that there has been no aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists.
Even your suggestion to "blame the courts" is disingenuous. The activists only believe in the courts when they agree with their goals. When they don't get the desired legal rulings, they use other means. The courts said the Boy Scouts have the absolute Constitutional right to determine their own rules, but that was unacceptable to the gay community and their supporters, who then embarked on a nationwide campaign to destroy the BSA.
THAT'S your "benign", "just leave us alone" gay community in action.
Yay RJ - another reasoned voice
February 15, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dee BunkI'm done with these people - good luck trying to reason with them. Anyone who comes here regularly knows that neither you are I are fundamentalists yet they can only argue with us as if we are.
I don't mean to disparage fundamentalists either - they have the right to their opinions but liberals like to think that just because some fundamentalist one time said that Gay love is like the love for a goat they can only argue from that frame of reference and ignore any legitimate arguments.
Their minds are as closed as the religious extremists and it's pointless to try and reason with them.
Really? Now, who's being
February 15, 2008 - 14:53 ET by fitzfongReally? Now, who's being disingenuous here? I pretended no such thing. So the "unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists" represents all gay people? So then Al Sharpton represents all African-Americans? James Dobson represents all Evangelical Christians? Hillary Clinton represents all women? Eric Rudolph represents the entirety of the anti-abortion movement? I think you attach far too much authority to the activists and far too little credit for individual thought on the community these activists purport to represent.
"Who's being disingenuous here?"
February 15, 2008 - 15:50 ET by RJUm, deliberately or not, it appears YOU are, fitz. I responded to your post that took Mrbill's post sideways.
He said: "The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences, the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is thrust upon our youth."
Your response pretended that was an accusation that "most gay people" are activists, pushing an agenda. You then said if you don't like the changes "blame the courts", a partly true, one-dimensional, irresponsible viewpoint that I refuted.
Further, I didn't claim the "unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists" represents all gay people." I said (and I meant) that the dishonest gay activists are at the forefront, and that they are the ones trying to force their agenda on the rest of us. That is also what Mrbill referred to.
I don't know where you got
February 16, 2008 - 02:51 ET by fitzfongI don't know where you got the idea that you "refuted" anything, but suffice it to say you're the only one patting yourself on the back right now. I made a simple, very narrow statement: I believe that in a free society two consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual) should be permitted to marry...especially if they have already assumed all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage without benefit of the legal designation. I believe that to have been a very clear, very specific statement, that, if not entirely reasonable, certainly wasn't earth-shattering. But a couple of people on this thread went off on reactionary tangeants as if the mere suggestion that two consenting adults getting married meant further advancing a vast gay agenda to poison the minds of impressionable children. Sorry, that's just ludicrous. And the way I see it, people who feel the need to inject children into every argument...especially one involving an issue like gay marriage that has almost nothing to do with children...will simply grasp at any straw to maintain a shaky position and to avoid addressing the substance of an issue.
By the way, where do you, RJ, draw the line between "most gay people" and "dishonest gay activists"? Does being gay and wishing to marry necessarily make someone a "dishonest gay activist"...or can a gay couple pursue marriage without being labelled "dishonest activists"?
Nice deflection, fitz
February 16, 2008 - 11:46 ET by RJBut of course (just as you did repeatedly with Dee) you dodged what I said in favor of rambling on and on about position statements that have nothing to do with my post. Try again, fitz, and see if this time can respond directly and specifically to my post.
And, yes, I refuted your shallow contention that it's primarily the courts who have been forcing an agenda on the rest of us. Do you really think that by "just saying no" without presenting an argument, you make it so? Clearly, you do.
Sorry to butt in, but I am
February 16, 2008 - 13:26 ET by JasonCSorry to butt in, but I am very interested in Fitz' main point of contention, which returns us to a much earlier point in the thread: How do we distinguish from gay people who are living quiet, private lives and those of the "We're here, we're queer" set. Does any gay person who asserts his or her rights in any sort of public forum qualify as the type who's "shoving it in our faces" (um, so to speak)? Must a gay person live in such a way that no one would ever be able to tell he or she is gay (aka 'passing') in order to avoid this categorization?
Damn, I promised myself I wasn't gonna post today. I brought a lot of work home with me this weekend. So I'm gonna log off and y'all respond when you please...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, repeating the "main point" is non-responsive
February 16, 2008 - 13:42 ET by RJYes, Jason, I got it. But I was responding to something specific fitz said, and his (and now, your) determined repetition of earlier statements is nothing less than avoidance and deflection.
Your characterization of
February 16, 2008 - 14:32 ET by JasonCYour characterization of this discussion is complicated by statements from Mrbill such as:
The problem here is the self-appointed guardians of our consciences,
the Politically Correct, very obnoxious, blindly compassionate fools
who ask the rest of us to sit quietly by while a program of education
and indoctrination in a lifestyle which most of us do not practice is
thrust upon our youth.
Or your statement:
The courts said the Boy Scouts have the absolute Constitutional right
to determine their own rules, but that was unacceptable to the gay
community and their supporters, who then embarked on a nationwide
campaign to destroy the BSA.
This seems to be a conflation of the legal system with everyday gay activism. That is, the persistent idea that there is a homosexual faction that wants to recruit America's children, a notion which not only ignores the very basic psychology of sexual preference, but also continues the inane and irresponsible practice of invoking the Figure of the Innocent Child in order to influence policy and opinion that have little if anything to do with the socio-political concerns of the average homosexuals individual. That is what fitz and I have been arguing from the very beginning, and what has yet to be answered in a fashion any more sophisticated or critical than simply questioning our own regard for traditional family.
Most gay people, for instance, could not care less what the BSA does. That issue blew up because of a concerted effort on the part of a small activist faction and the fact that the consistently-invoked trope of an effete scoutleader going camping with boys was enough to create outrage and anxiety among mainstream heterosexual families. For the gay activists, it was an ideal opportunity to highlight a traditional organization which was taking a stand construed as "anti-gay". For those on the other side of the fight, it was an ideal opportunity to present themselves as defenders of the child against the perceived narcissism and anti-futurity of homosexuality.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, you throw in quotes without context
February 16, 2008 - 17:12 ET by RJIt was Fitz' response to Mrbill's post (the one you quoted out of context) that I responded to. In that post fitz went sideways with the points made by Mrbill. I attempted to put it back on track, but have obviously been stymied by a refusal to even attempt a logical, contexual response. Instead, I get outrage at sticking my nose in.
And it was fitz who attempted to use the legal system as a scapegoat for the aggressive behavior that rightfully belongs to the dishonest gay activitst groups. He said we should "blame the courts" for ramming social changes down our throats, when, first, it's the gay activists who are driving the involvement of the legal system, and, second, when the gay activists don't get the results they desire from the courts, they attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with their agenda...like the BSA. (By the way, I won't go into details on this hard-to-read thread because it's beside the point, but your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the attacks on the BSA is extremely shallow.)
Anyway, Jason, I suggest you make an effort to carefully read three posts in context: Mrbill's, fitz', and mine. Perhaps you'll get a better perspective.
First of all, RJ, your
February 16, 2008 - 17:50 ET by JasonCFirst of all, RJ, your accusation that I am quoting out of context doesn't hold water. If I were trying to make the case that misterbill was being homophobic or flat-out hated gay people, then sure, you could say I had deliberately taken one paragraph that sounded bad when he had said elsewhere that he respected homosexuals. But that has not been my or fitz' project in this thread. One of the pleasant things about this thread, in fact, has been the general level of civility toward the subject matter (if not one another).
But this thread has been, almost from the get-go, about the element of children in the realm of gay politics and the chicken-and-the-egg element of the courts and gay activism. I find it odd, first of all, that you're so hostile toward my characterization of the BSA incident, in which I come down much with much more harshness against the opportunism of the gay rights activist side; my point about the heterosexual/familial/conservative side was simply that that image of the mincing scoutmaster taking boys on camping trips was (not necessarily unreasonably so) a powerfully influential idea. No one's blaming parents for wanting to protect their own kids.
But as far as misterbill's assertion, which you have endorsed by saying "In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you pretend that
there has been no aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated
by dishonest gay activists", I think the very obvious and demanding questions are:
1. What overwhelming evidence?
2. If this is the case, is it indicative of homosexuality in general?
3. Do parents have the right to insist that their children never even come into contact with, or acquire knowledge of, anything that the parent considerts other, alien, insidious, harmful, immoral, &c.
This thread is getting out of hand and difficult to read. If people have an interest in continuing, I propose one of start a woodshed forum. Participants at this point in the discussion should be Fitz, Dee, RJ, Misterbill, and myself.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
More deflecting, Jason
February 16, 2008 - 18:25 ET by RJHow many times can i say it? I don't care what your "project" is. Obviously, you're eager to devolve my specific points into your larger argument about homosexual marriage...but I have no interest in doing so. I addressed something specific said by fitz and my interest begins and ends there.
No matter how often you deny it, fitz misrepresented what Mrbill said, and I showed just how he did so.
Are you REALLY naive enough to claim there has been no "aggressive and unrelenting attack machine operated by dishonest gay activists?"
Regarding my reference to the BSA and the courts, you AGAIN try to bring in your larger "project".
Yes, I derisively dismissed your shallow understanding of what has been going on in the "war" against the BSA and why. The ACLU, the activist gay community, and a wide range of leftists are actively and aggressively committed to their destruction. No offense intended, but your characterization of BSA supporters who fear "mincing" Scoutmasters shows how appallingly ignorant you are on the subject.
Hey, RJ, before you come
February 16, 2008 - 15:56 ET by fitzfongHey, RJ, before you come late into this discussion (and half-cocked, as well), you need to get your facts straight. I made a very narrow, very specific statement in response to an observation Jason made. The statement didn't involve you. Dee Bunk challenged my statement with irrelevant tangeants about the effects on children. I responded, and several others who were involved in the thread (Jason, Dee Bunk, balboa and others) continued discussing the issues. Once again, the discussion didn't involve you. Then Mrbill put his two cents in, supporting Dee Bunk who, at this point, seemed to end her involvement. It was at this point that you butted into the conversation, congratulating Mrbill and Dee Bunk for whatever bit of brilliance you thought they added to the discussion. And you accuse me of dodging what you "said in favor of rambling on and on about position statements that have nothing to do with my post"? It's obvious that you haven't been following this discussion from the very beginning, you cut into a thread late and you failed to arm yourself with the proper context. In other words, this discussion isn't about your post. The "position statements" you've ignorantly dismissed are the basis for the thread that you hijacked, and therefore have everything to do with "your" post. Rather than claim that I owe you an explanation for some incoherent "point" you've made (and what was it, again?), you might want to consider learning what this conversation was about to begin with...and come to the realization that if anyone owes anyone an explanation, it is you who owes me.
lol, fitz
February 16, 2008 - 16:54 ET by RJI'm fully aware of the context of the argument. I responded to something you said that was false.
But what a pathetic cop-out you posted. Unable to provide an intelligent answer to my points, you're reduced to yelling "butt out 'cause this ain't your argument, dude." hahaha! Sorry, bud. If you want a "private" conversation, go to the forums or PMs.
BTW, you could at least try to be honest. For the second time, you accuse me of saying something I didn't say. Please show me where I "congratulated" Mrbill or Dee.
With regard to your
February 16, 2008 - 18:31 ET by fitzfongWith regard to your assertion that I accused you of saying something you didn't say, allow me to ammend my statement. Mrbill congratulated Dee Bunk, you merely served as Mrbill's apologist by accusing me of taking his argument "sideways" and by failing to elaborate what about my post did that. Is that more accurate?
You claim to be "fully aware of the context of the argument". Really? What was it, then?
By the way, I never said anything like "butt out 'cause this ain't your argument, dude"...I suggested that if you were going cut into a forum for which you obviously lack the comprehension to make a worthwhile contribution, your "points" and "arguments" are going to appear uneducated and half-baked. Which they are.
And, to reiterate, you've refuted NOTHING.
"amend?" lol, fitz. Is that your non-apology apology
February 16, 2008 - 19:01 ET by RJfor making stuff up? I didn't "assert" anything. You lied and I caught you.....TWICE.
What was the context? haha. In addition to being dishonest, are you reading deficient, too? How many times do I have to say I have no interest in getting involved in your obsession with gay marriage?
You'll have to pardon me, fitz, for thinking that things like "Once again, the discussion didn't involve you" meant I should butt out. Gee, how could I have misunderstood that?
And, fitz, each time you claim my points aren't valid without being able to refute them, you look even more foolish. :^)
No, genius. I made
February 16, 2008 - 19:23 ET by fitzfongNo, genius. I made nothing up. I indulged your need to split hairs over a trivial issue. If your threshold for self-congratulations is that low, I hereby pity you.
Umm, if you have no interest in the topic at hand, why exactly did you cut into the conversation?
How could you have misunderstood? I don't know, perhaps you were socially promoted through school.
And, RJ, the fact that someone so devoid of intelligence as you would condescend to calling me foolish is actually quite amusing.
Unbelievable, fitz. You make stuff up and then claim
February 16, 2008 - 19:35 ET by RJit was me splitting hairs because I caught you in your lies? lololol! Hey, whatever it takes to get you through the night, fitz.
Let me indulge your reading comprehension problems: I responded to a specific thing you said, not to the topic at large. I know that's a tough concept for you to grasp, but give it a try. Maybe you'll surprise yourself. :^)
RJ, you caught no one,
February 16, 2008 - 21:34 ET by fitzfongRJ, you caught no one, least of all me, in any lies. I, too, used to seize on mirages to claim empty victories. Then I turned four. But as we've already established your low standard for a definition of achievement, give yourself a happy face, partner.
So, please RJ, tell me what specific thing I said that got your back up in the first place. That could go a long way towards determining what this is all about.
Mrbill - it was so nice to see your post here after having
February 15, 2008 - 10:35 ET by Dee Bunkto deal with fitzfong and Jason being extremely rude and ignorant towards me. I hope you keep coming back!
These two are just like all the other liberals out there and want to impose all of their beliefs on everyone else. They have no respect for children who have not yet formed opinions and no respect for those of us who have formed our opinions on legitimate reasoning. It's their way or the highway -just because. Everyone else is stupid and shouldn't be listened to especially if they bring up an argument that they can't come up with an answer to. They just stand there with their fingers in their ears chanting "na na na na I can't hear you".
Gee I guess you forgot to
February 15, 2008 - 11:11 ET by JasonCGee I guess you forgot to PM y