18 thoughts on “Paging Bob Jones”

1. No, he’s not a homophobic conservative.

   Next question?

   Seriously Mitch, is this the best you have to offer? I wonder why, for example, gays vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers, and why, for example, they’ll doubtless vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers? McCain’s no homophobe (which differentiates him from neo-cons) – but the kinds of activist anti-intent jurists he’d appoint certainly are.

   Is it that you think all (or most) homosexuals are stupid or easily duped?

   Do you think they don’t SEE all of the anti-gay hype that the right so frequently trowels out – like claiming that God was punishing America for ‘allowing’ gay’s rights (Pat Robertson)?

   Get real… this is just so much added obfuscation, and to those of your readership who don’t like the length of my comments, I would offer this rejoinder.. issues are complex, but rarely do I (or any other non-neo-con) offer one post after another intentially scripted to schill, to blur the arguement into fictionalization like “Obama hates gays.” You suffer, put up with hundreds and thousands words, and dozens of posts just like this, meaningless and unhelpful dishonesty about the issues.

2. Flash will be upset that you are now taking your orders from the Clinton campaign.
   This is no big deal. I think Wright’s views are not terribly uncommon on the Black Left. It tells us — meaning us conservatives – nothing about Obama that we did not already know, or at least suspected. It’s a Hillaryesque cheap trick to make Obama somehow responsible for speech of his Minister and yes, this is what many on the right are doing when they demand that Obama account for the content of Wright’s sermons.

3. McCain’s no homophobe (which differentiates him from neo-cons)

   And the collapse of the word into a giant black hole of meaning continues.

   [old geezer voice]Back when I was a kid, time was leftys used the word ta mean warmongers.[/old geezer voice]

   Time to rewrite the dictionaries.

   Someone who wants to hold the line on Medicare spending – Neocon!

   Someone who would like to import cheaper Brazilian ethanol – Neocon!

   Someone who wants to see a solid cost-benefit analysis of light rail – Neocon!

   Someone who chases after Britney Spears with a camera – Neocon!

   Someone who sticks their gum under chairs in the bus station – Neocon!

   Someone who enjoys Mitch Albom books – Neocon!

4. Amen, Jeff.

   You’d think, this being 2008 and all, some of the neo-cons would at LEAST become adolesce-cons, or maybe pubert-o-cons.

5. “It’s a Hillaryesque cheap trick to make Obama somehow responsible for speech of his Minister and yes, this is what many on the right are doing when they demand that Obama account for the content of Wright’s sermons.”

   Bullshit. When you attend his church for twenty years, when you are baptised by him, married by him, when you bring your kids to hear his sermons and when you financially support his church, then yeah. You got some ‘splaning to do.

   Neocons are essentially former liberals who believe in a muscular foreign policy and are all for spreading democracy. They also like big government and are socially liberal. So Peev believes liberals are homophobes? Interesting.

   “Is it that you think all (or most) homosexuals are stupid or easily duped?”

   If they are voting for the democrats because of Pat Robertson, then yeah. I guess they are. Like most identity groups that vote democrat party, they are pandered to during the election season then ignored the rest of the time. Which brings us back to stupid and easily duped. But I wouldn’t say its exclusive to homosexuals. They are not the only ones voting for that party.

6. Jeff,

   Thsoe are your definitions. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that neo-cons ALSO engage in rampant anti-gay hysteria. On these very pages, commenter after commenter laments teh descent into oblivion of our ‘morality’, and often do they cite homosexuality as evidence of it.

   That said, this was about the sheer stupidity and venalness of saying something so cheap and base as that Obama hates gays. It’s utterly unconstructive, and utterly useless, and points out how totally dedicated to spurring hate and contempt people like Mitch (and yes, the rest of you neo-cons) appear to be.

   Let’s throw one more definition out there, your ‘muscular’ foriegn policy that Buzz thinks you support (nice euphamism btw), really means – you have one and only one solution to every problem – attack militarily. You don’t get how much larger the problem is that one country, or one movement – that your actions have impacts in the larger world that will resonate for 50 years or more, and mostly, whether you think so or not, our military power CANNOT possibly handle those problems – and that further, they make the problems FAR worse, because they become ’cause d’ celeb’ for future violence against us (as our own NIE said in 2006).

   So, yes, your paternalistic view (Buzz) of homosexuals – claiming they are too stupid to see through some supposed tap dance by Democrats – is, just like one position after another of neo-cons where you paternalistically claim we’re all just so much more stupid than you, and gosh if we’d only see the light and see how you’ve been protecting us (cowards) all along – is yet another example of neo-con self-elevating, hypocritical BS. You blast Democrats for paternalism, yet engage in it SOOO Vastly more often it becomes laughable.

   But THE POINT, in case you missed it, is that this whole line of crap, is just that. BTW Buzz, the Dems take it in the neck year after year for their support of gay rights. The numbers of votes they MIGHT gain is infinitely smaller than the number they lose to gay-bashing assholes. I’ve argued with them for years to abandon their position on Gay Rights PRECISELY because they are net losers (kinda how you all quietly know you’ll get the KKK (and no KKK is not =Gays) – yet they persist, knowing full well it’s a loser stance, because they simply think it’s right. I wonder how many positions neo-cons go after even though they KNOW the stance loses them votes (and no, I don’t count Iraq, you did that FOR votes, and think it SHOULD get you votes). So Buzz, actually, the Gays and the Dems are fully aware of why they support each other, and it has the opposite to do with votes. I get you don’t understand that, because you can’t undestand supporting anything that wouldn’t get you votes, but there it is anyway.

7. ample evidence

   Meaning “no evidence at all”.

   saying something so cheap and base as that Obama hates gays.

   Which I said, in as many words, that he doesn’t.

   But it’s worth a look, since urban Afro-American churches are among the most anti-gay organizations in the country – which causes all sorts of problems in the Tic party.

   You’d need to know that, of course.

8. “You’d need to know that, of course. ”

   No, “ample evidence” shows that peeve is immune to reality, much less information.

9. No evidence at all….???!!!

   that is perhaps the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, anytime, anyplace, anywhere, Mitch.

   Let’s see, your party started initiative after initiative to ban Gay Marraige, a pure political partisan move to drum up votes in 2006 (and before) when you thought your other stances were flagging.

   Your party has, in the past, defined homosexuality as ‘deviant’. It’s still mumbled and rumbles through your platform in the guise of ‘family values’ claptrap that your “god speaks to me” President parrots from time to time to pander to the social right.

   And stating comments like “Does Obama hate gays” is the same as saying “Obama hates gays”, it’s the BS line of ask the question you want to create the impression of, and then give lipservice to saying YOU don’t really think that, but… (well, we’ll let you our readers decide). It’s Fox News yellow journalism smear. It’s beneath you, and damned unethical.

   And Nerd, which party is backing banning Gay Marriage, exactly? Oh, yeah, don’t let the facts stop you or anything.

   Let’s go further about facts. Ken Melmann and Ron Ebensteiner are gay. When Bill Maher threatened to out them, because of their hypocrisy (GET IT?) – they both rather rapidly were moving on to other jobs.. gosh, I wonder why? Even if it were already planned, the conotation is very clear, they were hypocrites and bigots, heading the major party that routinely bashes gays.

   And yeah Mitch, the Dems have their bigots tooo, does that make all Dems bigots? Yet the party in no way embraces such idiocy, whilst yours does.

10. Let’s see peeve, how many states have banned gay marriage? Even Oregon, that conservative bastion, did it, and Massachusetts would have done it if not for some pretty deft political maneuvers by the Democrats in the legislature there. Not a popular stand, guy, even in deep blue states. But you’re free to run on it if you choose. Personally, I’m a choice kind of guy. We can make a Buggery Bulletin to register Civil Unions any time you like. But “gay marriage” isn’t marriage and never has been, whatever your perverted delusions tell you.

11. Let’s see Nerd, HOW MANY HAVE YOU NEOCONS TRIED TO GET IT BANNED IN? The point wsan’t the places it was banned, it was the fact that it was tried.. get it?

    And Nerd, stop projecting your view of what everyone ‘thinks’. I personally support Civil Unions, I think marraige is a religious service, and each church should be left COMPLETELY alone by the state to do whatever it wants.

    However, since you convenientely brought up Civil Unions, maybe you caught this Nerd, but it has been the CONSERVATIVES who are now out there trying to ban civil unions too. The neo-con, right-wng, anti-gay bigots, once the idea of Civil Unions was suggested, reacted to try to ban that as well.

    By the way, since the claim by Buzz was that Gays were too stupid to see that Dems only helped them to get their votes, don’t you find it pretty amazing that Democrats did something to help Gay rights despite the fact that it wasn’t popular in blue states? I mean, given that they are just paying lip-service and all.I wonder why they took a politically unpopular stance in non-election years? Somehow your line and Buzz’s just don’t jibe, which may be because most non-neo-cons actually DO research things, vote with knowledge, and aren’t just the simps you paternalistically like to think of them in order to self-rationalize why everyone thinks you guys are nuts.

    So the point Nerd, wasn’t where it has passed, but who tried to do so, and where it was tried – as evidence of your bigotry.. get it? And if you for a moment care to argue that it wasn’t neo-cons who pushed this, well, I hope you understand you’ll get deservedly laughed out of the room.

    So, Mitch, that’s the point.. you claim there isn’t any evidence of neo-con bigotry or bias against gays, which is utter BS, probably the most outlandish piece of BS you’ve EVER stated. You claimed I didn’t have such evidence – which, I think even you have to admit, I actually do have a fair amount of facts behind me. For example, when you WRONGLY claimed your YAF friend needed an advanced degree to serve as a combat pilot, and therefore was justified in delaying his entrance into the service – and I said, “No, actually, he doesn’t need an advanced degree start serving as a combat pilot in Iraq”. You had your buddy “fingers” make an utterly specious point that eventually the guy would MAYBE need an advanced degree to be promoted, which, was never my point, and I was fully aware of and NEVER ONCE FOR A MOMENT refuted the fact that your YAF bobo – the guy you were holding up as evidence of chicken hawks behing willing to serve, was, in fact, delaying (at best) if not ducking combat service by pursuing a degree during a time of war (a war he supported) – So, again, Mitch, don’t let facts bite you in the arse or anything.

    Or maybe it was when you claimed Bush didn’t violate FISA, based on your VAST legal knowledge (read Mitch quoted a bunch of right-wing blogs and the paragon of truth known as the Washington Times) – yeah, that’s why they amended the law afterward to give Bush cover, and are now trying to shield telecoms against suit. If they didn’t do anything illegal, they wouldn’t need shielding Mitch, nor would they have changed the law, and the courts ruled pretty damned conclusively that actually, YES, they DID violate FISA. So again, Mitch, don’t let evidence bite you in the arse or anything.

    So, Pardon me for thinking your knowledge of fact, as well as your personal level of honesty is woefully lacking. You take triviality and try to twist and spin it into something it isn’t. This is a classic case in point. It’s so widely known how rabidly anti-gay you conservatives are that you are a running joke as a result of it. Pretending that evidence isn’t there goes far past whistling past the grave, it points to someone in complete denial who has no better reply than to simply shout that the evidence isn’t evidence, in hopes that the volume drowns out the reality.

    In this case, what you did was make an increadible claim – Obama hates Gays, deny that the opposite was true (that Neo-Cons do – or if not hate – actively work against them ) and then you denied there was any such evidence.

    And THEN you made the statement that some Black Churches are pretty rabidly anti-gay, and that it causes, and I quote,

    “all kinds of problems for the Tic party”.. Which beyond being utter hyperbole, is pretty untrue – oh, there’s bigotry, but iit causes pretty small problems. What evidence do you have that it causes ‘all kinds of problems’? Oh, yeah, just your words.. I get it.. so in short, you accuse me of not having evidence you KNOW full well exists, and then make a baseless statement. Or would you care to spout off the massive riots and in-fighting that has torn the Democratic Party in twain (or threatens too)? Or maybe your use of the term “all kinds of problems” is really just meant to mean a few low level barbs, no more important than differences between Evangelicals and Catholics? No, No, Mitch, please bloviate and exagerate that problem as cover for your party’s own bigotry more, it certainly is convincing.

    (BTW, I thought you said you were going to stop using ‘tic’, or maybe that was some other equally ugly slur, but I guess not, huh?)

    In the end, this is yet another case for you of”Do as I say, not as I do one-thousand fold.”

12. Hey Mitch, since you seem all about being incensed by comments you CLAIM don’t have evidence behind them, let’s try one of your unproven mem’s on for size for a moment.

    Please define what you mean by:

    “Reagan won the Cold War” – What was his contribution? What did HE do, that no one else did?

    Let me try to give you some context. The Soviets fielded ONE MBT after 1972 that was essentially just a T-72 variant with, in one case (the T80 airc) laser designators and then the T82 with a gas-turnbine.

    They fielded the Mig-29, in the very early 80s, that had been in the works for more than a decade, they fielded the Su-27, ditto on timing and works. They fielded the Backfire and Frogfoot in the late 70’s.. The Udaloy and Sovremeney classes were ships laid down in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

    The pont, Mitch, is that the Soviets didn’t ever really develop the Havoc, nor was the Leonid Brezshnev (sic) ever launched, nor were a whole HOST of programs the Soviets were supposedly developing ever completed.. They were bankrupt in 1980, and stopped with any new major military platform development by 1983. There is little (if any) evidence, they ‘ramped’ up expenditures to compete with Reagan’s expenditures, and more importantly, they were felled by John Paul II, the opening of Czechoslovakia and Poland to western goods, and the religious opening of Eastern Europe in general that followed..

    Reagan mostly just gave a speech where he admonished Gobachev, a man already working to remake the Soviet Union into something completely NOT the Soviet Union – to tear down a wall that was far more symbol than substance.

    Since you want to get into making bogus, empty-headed, shallow claims – or rather, want to feign offense at a claim that was both well founded, and ample evidence exists for, perhaps you wouldn’t then mind detailing how Reagan, and NOT a succession of Presidents and policies, which he benefited from in the ‘fight’ against communism, but REAGAN won the Cold War – seemingly based on the way you say it, all by his lil’ ole’ lonesome. I mean, it’s the seminal accomplishment you like to point to abot him for why he wasn’t in fact an abject failure, who bankrupted, or sought to bankrupt the country, who presided over enormous corruption and graft, who illegally attacked Nicaraugua by making arms deals with terrorists, who started the Taliban off and helped them set the example that the big giants of the world could be successfully opposed. It probably is only THAT one thing, Afghanistan, for which he deserves credit (kinda), but as we all know, that actually belongs to oh, a Democrat named Charlie Wilson.

13. Seriously, Mitch.

    Ban the longwinded Eeyore.

14. And Nerd, which party is backing banning Gay Marriage, exactly? Oh, yeah, don’t let the facts stop you or anything.

    You’re the only one letting facts get in the way.

    The banning of gay marriage had nothing to do with discriminating against gays and everything to do with thwarting judicial activism. But, once again, that doesn’t fit the Peev template here.

15. Yossarian,

    I could. And actually have, twice.

    But I let him post, because I make my kids read ’em, to help educate ’em on how to respond to common tropes their classmates’ll toss at ’em.

    OK, Peevish:

    Let’s see Nerd, HOW MANY HAVE YOU NEOCONS TRIED TO GET IT BANNED IN?

    Peev, you seem to have fallen for the old stumbling-block of substituting a term you’ve come to use interchangeably for everything you disagree with – “neo-con” – and use it for everthing. Jeff Kouba quite ably satirized this last week, actually.

    “Social Conservatives” aren’t necessarily “Neo-conservatives”. The two intersect in some places and with some people, not with others. Any term that is used to simultaneously cover Gary Bauer and Andrew Sullivan is essentially meaningless.

    The point wsan’t the places it was banned, it was the fact that it was tried.. get it?

    Actually, Peev, “the point” is that evangelical black churches – like Wright’s – are both very Democrat-leaning and quite stridently anti-gay, especially gay marriage. Actually, that wasn’t even “the point” – which was that Jeremiah Wright is a corrosive racist.

    So before you condescendingly ask “get it?” remember – when you point a someone and say “get it?” there are seven fingers and two thumbs pointing back at you.

    And Nerd, stop projecting your view of what everyone ‘thinks’.

    Which is kinda funny, coming from you, given the number of times you’ve jammed words, thoughts, and (invariably) noxious motivations into my, and other commenters’, and all of conservatism’s mouths.

    I personally support Civil Unions, I think marraige is a religious service, and each church should be left COMPLETELY alone by the state to do whatever it wants.

    As do I, in every particular. But freedom from government interference doesn’t mean immunity from criticism.

    However, since you convenientely brought up Civil Unions, maybe you caught this Nerd, but it has been the CONSERVATIVES who are now out there trying to ban civil unions too. The neo-con, right-wng, anti-gay

    And again with Kouba’s bit. “Neo-con” has relatively little to do with this; it’s mostly a social conservative thing.

    By the way, since the claim by Buzz was that Gays were too stupid to see that Dems only helped them to get their votes, don’t you find it pretty amazing that Democrats did something to help Gay rights despite the fact that it wasn’t popular in blue states?

    Actually – as I keep noting to my various gay friends – the “something” the Dems “did” was pretty much meaningless window-dressing, and almost exclusively campaign fodder. Paul Wellstone, after actively courting (and getting) gay support. voted for the Defense of Marriage Act! The Democrat “support” for gays is mostly ephemera like “hate crimes” legislation (mostly useless), and much carefully-aimed strum and drang over gay marriage, which they know will never pass.

    I mean, given that they are just paying lip-service and all.I wonder why they took a politically unpopular stance in non-election years?

    Because it’s better than doing it during an election year.

    So, Mitch, that’s the point.. you claim there isn’t any evidence of neo-con bigotry or bias against gays,

    That’s not what I said. There’s all sorts of bigotry against gays among many social conservatives.

    I was responding to your statement that there’s “ample evidence that neocons” hate gays. Neo-cons are all over the place on the issue, since “neoconservatism” has very little to do with social issues. On this, I’m absolutely correct, and you are, at best, misspeaking.

    So, Pardon me for thinking your knowledge of fact, as well as your personal level of honesty is woefully lacking.

    You are pardoned, although you’re wrong. As usual.

    You take triviality and try to twist and spin it into something it isn’t.

    No, Peev, YOU did. I noted the TRUE FACT that black, Democrat evagelicals are famously anti-gay. The rest of it – the misappopriation of “neo-con”, the harangueing about their sins – was you.

    (BTW, I thought you said you were going to stop using ‘tic’, or maybe that was some other equally ugly slur, but I guess not, huh?)

    No, I don’t believe I did. And I dont’ believe it’s an “ugly slur”, so much as it is a “wry quip”.

    “Reagan won the Cold War” – What was his contribution? What did HE do, that no one else did?

    Wow. That’s just a little off-topic, isn’t it?

    And I”ve “defined” what I meant by that statement, over and over, over the past six years, and linked to commentary by scads of other people who’ve “defiined” it even better. It’s all out there.

    Let me try to give you some context.

    Well, you did “try”, atlhough it wasn’t so much “ciontext” as it was “peripheral ephemera”.

    The Soviets fielded ONE MBT after 1972 that was essentially just a T-72 variant with, in one case (the T80 airc) laser designators and then the T82 with a gas-turnbine.

    That, and the other info about Soviet equipment, is as interesting as it was 20 years ago – and as irrelevant now as it was at the time.

    Reagan mostly just gave a speech where he admonished Gobachev, a man already working to remake the Soviet Union into something completely NOT the Soviet Union

    First of all – rubbish. This is nothing but a revisionist talking point. The Politburo brought in Gorbachev to save the USSR, not bury it.

    As to “just” giving a speech – do yourself a favor. Look up the memoirs of Anatolii Dobrynin, the foreign minister for Brezhnev, Amdropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev. His testimony relates how some of Reagan’s actions that the left has spent the last 25 years deriding – the speeches, Grenada, Rejkjavik, Helsinki, El Salvador – were actually received in Moscow – as a mortal challenge, one the system was ultimately unable to meet.

    – to tear down a wall that was far more symbol than substance.

    It was plenty of both. Perhaps you need to know more Eastern Europeans – as I do. As a Pole or a Georgian or a former East German or a Hungarian how “symbolic” that wall was.

    You’re repeating the party line. Which is fine, but let’s do call it what it is.

16. Everything else aside… I think there is a lot more to this stroy. Look closely at the photo. See the resemblances? (They look like father and son to me. 😉

    Kat.

17. Oh, as to Charlie Wilson – glad to see you’re parroting Hollywood’s line, but that was inaccurate as well. Charlie Wilson was one of five key players in Washington, including Reagan.

18. I can barely keep up with reading the few blogs I read, let alone comment, let alone post novel length comments like peev. Good to see he’s keeping busy at work.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.