Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Banned From The Liberal Avenger


Or, should I say, "Escape From The Planet Of The Apes"?

Republicus has trolled he means visited the blog of The Liberal Avenger ( http://www.liberalavenger.com/ ), and, indeed, felt like an astronaut visiting an alien planet...

...or more like Colonel George Taylor on the Planet of the Apes (there is actually one character there who is part of the troop that runs the blog who goes by the handle of-- fittingly enough-- "Apeman").

Of course, by the film's end, Taylor realizes that the Planet of the Apes is actually the future planet Earth.

God save us all if Liberalism should happen to inherit the earth (the Statue of Liberty is there, of course, but in ruins and buried chest-deep in the ground).

Although the group blog is technologically cutting edge, prolific in production, quick to grab breaking stories, and well-organized among the cooperative, communal troop, Republicus felt like he was on a safari hacking his way through a jungle with a machete and then stumbling upon a clearing filled with a troop of armpit and crotch-scratching, hooting, hopping, hollering, and screaming monkeys and apes who started throwing their feces at him.

It's a noisy place. Gibbons and spider-monkeys--the useful idiots in the choir-- are constantly swinging from branch to branch across the leafy canopy and dropping an assortment of obligatory nuts and monkey feces like "Bush LIED!" and "No WMD!" and "Abu Ghraib!" and "Valerie Plame!" and "Imperialism!" and "Neocon!" and whatnot on your head.

There's a Dr. Zaius-like orangutan (he knows who he is) who frowns suspiciously at the appearance of Homo sapiens (i.e. conservatives) and is shocked that they know how to speak and formulate arguments (like Dana from Common Sense Political Thought, http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/), because it flies in the face of his orthodoxy (which is that the liberal is the higher, enlightened primate and the conservative a grunting troglodyte).

His first impulse is to shout down and try to intimidate the intelligent conservative--or "wingnut"-- and accuse him of being a dangerous interloper from the Forbidden Zone (i.e. "Red State" America--a.k.a. "Jesusland"), but will grudgingly--and tentatively, on a trial basis-- tolerate the infidel as long as he minds his inferior place.

In other words, the "wingnut" is consigned to a status of Islamic dhimmitude, and watched very carefully.

There's also a General Ursus-like gorilla or two (they know who they are) who serve as sergeant-of-arms of sorts and angrily patrol the clearing and Whack! uppity "wingnuts" upside their heads with their rifle-butts to maintain order.

Then there's the Cornelius-like higher-order chimps (they know who they are) who seem good-natured enough, inquisitive, intelligent, and lovers of science and show some affection--and even respect--for the brutalized "wingnuts," but, born and bred on the Ape Planet, are careful not to overly-fraternize with them and so invite recriminations from Dr. Zaius and the Ursuses and being tagged as "Wingnut-Lovers" (or some such stigmatization).

The religion of the apes is bereft of a Supreme, Transcendant Deity (that would be too primitive a notion for such stunted "progressives" to entertain), but while vehemently attacking any conservative, biblically-based "Manichaean" notions of "Good" and "Evil" and condemning the morality engendered by those value systems and crying foul against the subsequest sanctioning--if not necessitating-- of judgment calls (because "It's all relative...There are too many shades of gray...Too much nuance," etc.), they spend a considerable amount of time projecting just those very things, but inversely as they draw the line that separates "Good" and "Evil" between (1) President Bush, the "Neocons," Republicans, conservatives, and Christians, "wingnuts" all (i.e. "Evil") and (2) the rest of the world (i.e. presumably liberal and "Good"), while judging the "wingnuts" as being judgmental and themselves as non-judgmental in the process.

They don't seem to be aware of the endemic illogic and outrageous contradictions which manifests themselves in such liberal gems as "We hate your hatefulness!" and "We will not tolerate your intolerance!" and, of course, "We judge you to be judgmental!"

Hence, the liberal ape is silent or dismissive--if not approving-- of former President Bill Clinton's bombardment of Iraq on explicitly-stated grounds of Iraqi WMD capabilities but explodes in furious indignancy when military action against Saddam Hussein is continued to finality by the hated President George W. Bush on the same grounds (among sundry others).

He is silent, dismissive, or approving of Clinton's use of the availed NSA surveillance tools when he utilized them to track down domestic terrorist Tim Mcveigh and his ring (American citizens all), but explodes in fury when Bush uses the same tool in the pursuit of foreign, Al Qaeda operatives when a domestic link is reasonably suspected.

He is silent or dismissive of liberal Senator Ted Kennedy's drunken delay in reporting the Chappaquidick incident to the proper authorities (because he needed to sober up before reporting that he drove his car off a dock and drowned the lady passenger in the process), but explodes in fury when the despised Vice President Richard Cheney delays in reporting the recent hunting accident to the White House Press Corp...

...and snidely sneers that the vice president was drunk and needed to sober up!

He rages against the message-controlling endeavors of the administration and its historical prerogative to pick and choose, shelve, or dispose of information that is helpful or harmful to their agenda, but then resorts to, in his very blog, outright censoring of, not only relevant points that would bolster the "wingnut's" arguments, but their reasoning rebuttals to unwarranted attacks as well.

And on and on.

Such a twisted tangle of illogic which naturally produces sundry hypocrisies and contradictions spewing out of the orating ape appears to be the result of absorbing the insidious, nonsensical propaganda of their own sacred Scriptures, the canon of which includes the gospels of such secular saints as Noam Chomsky, the epistles of Al Franken, and the fevered, apocalyptic Revelations of such visionaries as Michael Moore.

Chomsky, for one, is granted the infallibility of a pope, and any challenge to his authority on all matters of Heaven and Earth is tantamount to blasphemy.

For the religious Bush-Hating liberal, President Bush and his administration are, of course, the center and cause of Evil in the world today, but the demonization inspires frenzied frissons of anger and despair one sees not in Sabbatical or Sunday Judeo-Christian congregations, but in a cult, and not just any cult, but a satanic one.

The word "satan" comes from the Hebrew word for "adversary," referring to the adversarial status the entity of Evil has towards humans. Because it was believed that faith in a nurturing God and trust in His Word (as believed by the faithful to be intrinsic in Scripture) was essential to the survival of the species in a fallen world presided over by that very satan, it was incumbent upon the malicious entity to sever the spiritually-umbilical relationship humans have with the benevolent, life-sustaining Creator (as bridged by Sacred Writ), before he can have the species fully in his malignant clutches.

And that endeavor is best accomplished by demeaning The Word (i.e. The Bible) and attacking outright the Western Deity and biblical champions with venomous insults and sneering sophistries alike, behavior which is clearly displayed in the coven of The Liberal Avenger.

In the process, they--as usual-- contradict themselves.

For example:

"Jesus probably never even existed, no one can know for sure because The Bible is myth and not history."

Later:

"Christians worship a man who definitely died and stayed dead 2,000 years ago."

Then:

King David (who lived 1,000 years before Jesus Christ and is a greater candidate to be determined a myth) was nevertheless "definitely (i.e. historically in Time and Space) a flaming queer."

So Jesus probably never existed, but if he did, he's definitely dead.

Similarly, if King David actually existed, he was definitely "a flaming queer."

Those are the syllogisms of simpletons, as they arbitrarily premise the dubiousness or outright denial of Christ's or King David's historical existence on the assumed "mythological" nature of The Bible, but the "historically unreliable"--if not worthless-- material is then parsed and subjectively interpreted to arrive at "definite" conclusions that, supposedly, the material implicitly suggests (e.g. that Jesus was dead as a doornail and therefore the "Resurrection" was but a graverobbing, or that David and Jonathan were more than "just friends"), despite what is explicitly stated (e.g. a corporeal resurrection for the former and an aggressive heterosexuality for the latter that compelled the "flaming queer" to arrange the death of the husband of the woman--i.e. Bathsheba--who was the object of his "flaming, homosexual" lust).

With all that in mind, what makes "satanic" an appropriate adjective to use when describing some of the apes in there is not any claim of theirs to "enlightened" equal opportunity atheism (i.e. a rejection of the supernatural and all forms of theism on grounds of rational skepticism), but their focused attacks against Western Judeo-Christianity in particular, and more specifically against conservative Christianity itself.

Indeed, the same visceral bile is not vented on other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

You could argue--in defense of the double-standard-- that they are not the same thing, i.e. Judeo-Christianity versus Buddhism and Hinduism, the former following the Western tradition of divine, spiritual transcendance while the latter two being Eastern pantheistic or polytheistic religions of divine material immanence, and that they--the apes-- are merely expressing their preference for the latter by insensistively, ignorantly, intolerantly, and disrespectfully lambasting the former (which is, incidentally, a very un-Buddhist thing to do).

Alright, that is certainly their prerogative, but consistency of principle is not the earmark of the liberal, and what calumny should be doubly-dumped on the head of Islamic Jihadism--the third major Western religion of divine, spiritual transcendance and an outcropping of Judaism and Christianity to boot--is not only tongue-bitten, but replaced with apologies and justifications for the maniacal, religious extremists, defenses that they cannot muster for faithful Christians (who themselves are considered to be the maniacal, religious extremists par excellence).

Here are a few examples which illustrate that:

Republicus once countered the sneering and over-the-top term of "Christo-fascist" with "Islamo-fascist" (because we are at war, and the Christian-hating liberal must constantly be reminded who the real enemy of the state is).

One of the apes in there jumped on that and disqualified the compound word on the basis of the definition of "fascism," and how it was inapropos to conjoin such a politically-loaded term with the "apolitical" Muslim.

But that ignores the fact that by the very nature of compound words, the "fascist" in "Islamo-fascist" conditions the other word (i.e. "Islamo"), and/or vice versa, so it was a worthless, gratuitous criticism.

It's like critiquing the compound word "trundle-bed" because a trundling does not mean bed.

Furthermore, given the preferred system of theocratic government, the nationalism, racism, and militancy (hallmarks of fascism) inherent in the tirades of Jihadists everywhere, Republicus--along with others-- believes the compounding of "Islamo" with "fascist" works well, with the "dictatorship" inherent in "fascism" easily interchanged with "theocracy," both being autocracies of sorts and sharing other qualities (if not synonyms).

Meanwhile, however, no apologies for starting the exchange with "Christo-fascism"!

Another example of satanic, single-minded malice towards Christianity was in posts about the Danish cartoon controversy.

The posted grievances at Ape Land were not against the maniacal mobs of Jihadist extremists for their taking of violent offense against cartoons that more or less came right out and illustrated that Islam begets violence, but were gripes against--you guessed it-- "American Christians" for criticizing the violence, calling them--the Christians-- "ignorant" and "disrespectful" of other religions before apologizing for the Jihadists (e.g. they were the victims of insensitive and disrespecftul blasphemy from the Christian West which they felt compelled to riot against, as well they should!).

By the way, of the Christian Westerners who were present--including Republicus--all said that the cartoonists could have exercised--under the circumstancs-- more tact, so the blanket premise by the apes was a false one to begin with.

Anyway, the shamelessness of that Blame-America-First knee-jerk reaction and proof of the satanic double-standard against Christianity is the fact that, a few posts before that, a resident cartoonist there--Sick, or "Sirk"-- was snidely revelling in providing links to his X-mas cartoon which featured a liberal Asian teeny-bopper--the strip's heroine-- telling a WASPish conservative blonde dressed in Santa Claus tighties that God must have a tiny penis in order to penetrate the Virgin Mary and still preserve her virginity (shocking the sensibilities of the Christmas blonde, which must've been-- Republicus presumes-- the hilarious beauty of the punch-line, i.e. "Mock and Shock the Christian Conservative!").

But the apes were astonishingly oblivious to their own stark double-standard when juxtaposed with their later, inverted positions on a nearly identical subject!

In another post, Sick was gleefully discussing and providing links to some other cartoon which had Pat Robertson (or somesuch televangelist) sodomizing the corpse of the crucified Christ.

Granted, Robertson appears to Republicus as a manipulator who swindles his gullible, check-writing flock for his own cupidity and pursuit of wordly power, but Republicus commented that if he--Sick--really wanted to make a career out of cartooning, he had better mainstream his material, because that stuff wasn't going to fly in Peoria.

For that, Republicus was attacked by a liberal monkey there (swinging in from the jungle), accusing him of being an "Uptight Roman Catholic" (Rebublicus is neither) and nearly quagmiring him in dyslexic gibberish.

So yes, the apes at Ape Land clearly demonstrate an exceptional malice for conservative, American Christianity that overrides any gripes they should have for Islamic sects that are--demonstrably-- the fascistic threat they accuse the former of being, and which just so happen to be the stated enemy we are at war with.

It's satanic inversion. It's backwards.

Not only that, but the sheer malice evidently overrides their reasoning abilities as well, if their utter blindness to the double-standard is any indication.

Perhaps it is partly because the enemy of their enemy is a friend, and the Jihadist's are the enemy of their enemy, the despised and Evangelical George W. Bush.

Finally, the two "wingnut" trolls who were, eventually, banned--i.e. Republicus and a gentleman named Corrie-- were the ones who were the most easily identified as--not merely Bush-supporting, "pro-war" Republicans (who themselves get their fair-share of abuse)--but "Christo-fascists," and so earned a special contempt for themselves.

Mind you, Republicus never sermonized, but merely discussed the theological matter--which they raised-- in reasonable terms.

For his part, Corrie explores and didacts The New Testament in his blog ( http://sddc.blogspot.com/) on a scholarly level.

Ape Land is indeed militantly anti-Christian, and those "wingnuts"--like Republicus--who identify themselves with the beleagured Faith and spring to its defense when it is routinely maligned and gratuitously attacked and point out the double-standard and request an explanation for it invite the special contempt and are singled-out for the fast track of abuse, censorship, and then banishment (followed by long-winded, mentally-masturbating posts which--self-conscious of the censorship-- attempt to rationalize and explain why the censorship was not censorship and why the vindictiveness was not vindictiveness, similar to, interesting enough, their idolized hero's--i.e. former-President Bill Clinton's-- assertions that fellatio did not constitute "sex").

Until the final eviction, any toleration of a "wingnut" is evidently considered by the more ideological and militant apes of the troop (e.g. the orangutans and gorillas) not as something done in the spirit of Free Speech, but as magnanimity, that they are merely doing the wingnut--or "troll"-- a favor, warning him that if he didn't follow the sharia-like rules of the liberal community (e.g. submission--if not adherence-- to party-line and ideology), he was in danger of having his speech abilities impaired, and they cryptically mention devilish devices fashioned for just that very purpose, causing nearby gorillas to get excited and purse out their lips and hoot and shake their heads about and hit the ground with a stick in a spasm of delight at the prospect of the foregone execution (the Cornelius-like chimps, presumably, must recognize the Nazi and/or Jihadist-like anti-American barbarity of such measures, but, as in the movie, it would seem, feel pretty much helpless when trying to reason with the religious and militant bullying wing of the troop, and so say nothing).

Republicus, of course, saw an opportunity to see just how "inclusive" and "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" and "pro-diversity" (all things they accuse "wingnuts" of not being) the liberal ape truly is when push came to shove, so he saw fit to push the envelope (which simply means "speak his mind").

Sure enough, with a few well-reasoned rebuttals which irrefutably pointed out the inherent, illogical contradictions, hypocrisies, double-standards, sheer partisanship, judgmentalism, intolerance, hatefulness, and outright pettiness of the apes' arguments, leaving them stymied but trembling in fury, they decided the time had come to perform the lobotomy and silence the talking abomination once and for all by rolling out such Mediaeval instruments as "The Disemvoweler" and "The Scratcher," contraptions utilized for operations of censorship, performed with vindictively-smug satisfaction and sadistic, heckling glee.

Visions of Mediaeval Inquisitors pulling out blaspheming tongues with pliers flashed through the mind of Republicus, as well as images of Zarqawi cutting off the heads of civilians.

The apes once said that the only reason why conservative American Christians don't behave like Jihadist terrorists is because they don't have the power to, but if gained they would decapitate evolutionists, abortion providers, and homosexuals alike, as well as engage in aggressive censorship (always referring to the anomalous abortion clinic bombings by the unhinged Pro-Life militant as proof).

But that is a projection:

As the hosts of Ape Land, with certain powers at their command, the apes choose not to argue with their conservative guests on a point-by-point basis, as is expected in a political blog, or even just ignore the warranted rebuttals, but instead--after initially responding by firing warning salvos of insults like "a*****e"-- sadistically indulge themselves with the devilish instruments at their disposal-- e.g. the dreaded "Disemvoweler" and the sinister "Scratcher"-- to silence the reasoning opposition.

One does not need to wonder how they would deal with political opposition--from Republicans to Conservatives to Pro-Intervensionists to Creationists to Pro-Lifers to those opposed to Same-Sex Marriage-- were they given real political power, because they demonstrate their Mediaeval inclinations--right before your eyes-- in Ape Land.

As for how they would deal with the despised, milk-&-cookies, notoriously-law abiding and tax-paying American Fundamentalist Christians, one thinks of how the Roman Emperor Nero dealt with the hated faith.

Sick took the censorship one step further:

While the Disemvowler and the Scratcher make plain that the actual quote has been tampered with, Sick deleted an entire comment by Republicus and typed in new words where the comment was under the handle of Republicus, quite literally putting words in Republicus' mouth that were not said.

These are the belligerent, fascist primates posing as "liberal" Champions of "Free Speech" and "Diversity" and "Tolerance" and "Anti-War" and "Intellectualism" who deem themselves fit to dictate on the World Wide Web how fascistic, anti-Free Speech, anti-Diversity, anti-intellectual, and intolerant the war-mongering Bush Administration-- and conservative "wingnuts" everywhere-- allegedly are.

And here they are, "Hey-Hey For The Monkees":

The main host, LA, seems to be your typical liberal against all the things liberals are typically against, most especially Bush-And-All-Things-Bush, but he seems to be a good-natured and even a fair-minded fellow, nonetheless, who enjoys a lively discussion with good give-and-take.

Republicus once wrongfully accused him of deleting a comment (after already being disemvoweled and scratched out on several occassions). He was mistaken, however, and apologized (the comment was posted in another thread).

Before that discovery, however, LA thought that the comment may have been inadvertantly swallowed by the blog itself, and he had the hospitality and class to apologize (even though it wouldn't have personally been his fault).

There's also Ryan, and Gordo, who likewise tow the party-lines and subscribe to the ideologies but seem to be of pleasant character, with no hard feelings, and revert to normalcy (i.e. common decency and All-American bonhommie) when disengaged from politics.

They struck Republicus as the higher-order chimps of the analogy.

Then there's Upyernoz, Joe, Jimmy, and Dobby, who appeared to Republicus as the Gibbons and Spider-Monkeys who swung across the canopy and threw stuff down on the "wingnuts," like monkey feces and coconuts.

Then there's SGO, who's like a high-school hall-monitor of sorts, carrying a clip-board and always red-flagging the "wingnuts" and warning them to stop running down the hall.

If a "wingnut" becomes too impassioned with the subject and begins to argue forcibly, SGO will appear and SLAP down a ruler on the desk and remind him of the three-strikes rule (or somesuch suppressive measure) and the preference for O'Reillyesque "pithiness" before finally exploding in fury and lopping off "wingnut" heads with a THUNK (what is censorship, after all, if not virtual decapitation?).

He likes to mock Christians by blessing them with an invocation of pagan deities before signing off with a flourishing and smug signatory: ~

He is a self-important orangutan with limited patience.

Further down the food-chain is "Apeman," who has a condescending, dismissive, faux-elitist, but grunting attitude towards what he perceives to be the lower-order bacterium (i.e. Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, etc.).

Twice he gratuitously-- off-topic-- sniffed that the blog of Republicus was "horrible"-- which, of course, could only be a compliment.

He is...well, he's an ape.

At the very bottom of the food chain is Sick, or Sirk (whatever), a cartoonist who wastes his talents scribbling and quipping in the cartooning style and with the subject-matter one would find in Hustler magazine.

Sick is the crankiest of the troop, the Grumpy of the Seven Dwarves, and while he seems to be spitefully championing his own rights to Free Speech with his insults and anti-Christian (if not antisocial-- or even sociopathic) in-your-face cartoons, he constantly begrudges and soon enough denies the same right to others (even after attacking them and warranting a rebuttal).

When Republicus complained, Sick's response was: "This is my thread and here you're my bitch."

As a representative of Liberalism, Sick is not doing the cause any favors, to be sure.

Sick, it should be added, with his chronic complaints about America and her elected President, is not even an American citizen, but a Canadian one (go figure).

Republicus suspects that the recent election of conservative Stephen Harper to the Prime Ministership of Canada may be a contributive factor to his now chronic grumpiness and spiteful scribblings, but really now, that's really no excuse for going ballistic when his inconsistencies in principle and outrageous double-standards that always favored the opposition to Bush/Republicans/Conservatives/ Christians get pointed out (which is when the s**t really begins to fly, ad hominem attacks get spewed aplenty, and the temptation to censor becomes irresistable).

Sick is a howler monkey...

...if not an angry gorilla who can't find his banana because he stuck it up you-know-where one naughty afternoon and then forgot where he put it.

Welcome to the land of liberals, "a grotto of guano-drinking moonbats," as one resident conservative zoologist--Bedrock Truth, the Moonbat Abattoir, and the real star of the show (http://moonbatabattoir.blogspot.com/ )-- aptly puts it.

Welcome to the Planet of the Apes.

51 Comments:

Blogger Kelly said...

so, in a word or two...

Their double standard has come full circle to bite them in the [word deleted].


I read your blog and thought...ah the good ole' days ---"wink".

11:59 PM  
Blogger John said...

They recently had a field day heckling Mormonism because of some recent study made on Choctaw Indian genetics that could not identify semitic origins.

12:59 AM  
Blogger John said...

"The good ole' days?" lol Right. Those guys are Lee Harvey multipled by nine.

5:03 AM  
Blogger Corrie said...

Even if I hadn't gotten banned, I would have left about now anyway. I'm all up for a rousing debate on the issues - iron sharpens iron - but the mindless hate and invective of Snark and his ilk were just too much.

That wasn't fruit they were hurling.

5:42 AM  
Blogger John said...

You're right. I'm going to change that...

6:05 AM  
Anonymous Dana said...

Our esteemed host wrote:

and accuse him of being a dangerous interloper from the Forbidden Zone (i.e. "Red State" America), but will grudgingly--and tentatively, on a trial basis-- tolerate the infidel as long as he minds his inferior place.

I'm sorry, John, but you forgot that "Red State America is officially known as Jesusland.

Please make a note of it.

While I like some of BRT's posts on LA, he hasn't updated his blog in months and months.

6:09 AM  
Anonymous Dana said...

Make that a year since BRT updated http://moonbatabattoir.blogspot.com/

His last posting there was on February 8, of 2005.

6:11 AM  
Blogger John said...

Thank you for visiting, Dana!

Yes, I noticed that about BRT's blog...

Perhaps he has gotten too comfortable at LA's house and has neglected his own.

6:16 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John said: They recently had a field day heckling Mormonism because of some recent study made on Choctaw Indian genetics that could not identify semitic origins.

Not all Native Americans have semitic origins...genetically...some have asiatic origins.

Kudos to Corrie...my hat goes off to you.

6:32 AM  
Blogger John said...

Try explaining that to them, Kelly.

9:41 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

There is no explaining anything to "them"...You know that and I know that.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey guys, your arm bands are on inside out..

Wow, glad theres only 2 really sad excuses of humanity in here.

12:05 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

So, "Anonymous", you must be referring to yourself and hmmmm...yourself.

I guess "Anonymous" is too afraid to show their face around here.

1:02 PM  
Blogger John said...

Anonymous said...

"Hey guys, your arm bands are on inside out..

Wow, glad theres only 2 really sad excuses of humanity in here."

Two? Did you bring someone with you?

(ba-doop-CHA)

But this:

"Hey guys, your arm bands are on inside out."

I don't get it. "Armbands" refers to...brownshirt swastikas? Okay (Ooo!).

But "inside out?" Why would they be "inside out?"

Oh, I get it: because Republicus is not only a "brownshirt," but an exceptionally stupid one, too.

That...

Well, okay, that's actually pretty funny. I'm serious. Never heard THAT one.

4:50 PM  
Anonymous Red said...

That is... long and convoluted.

Did you go back and read what you'd written or just carry on all the way through?

A man who speaks in anger makes his anger heard, but his words forgotten.

It's a quote I picked up years ago, but it's true. It's very difficult to get past your anger and make any sense of what you say.

10:24 AM  
Blogger John said...

Hey Red.

Are you suggesting that my reasoning faculties have been compromised by emotion (i.e. anger)?

That I came off as stark, raving mad?

Well, I...heh.

Seriously, getting personally insulted, disemvoweled, scratched out, having words put in my mouth, and then banned--out of anger on their end-- was annoying but amusing at the same time, particularly since it was usually on the heels of posts and comments that accused--implicitly or explicitly-- the "wingnuts" of being intolerant, closed-minded, vindictive, uptight, prone to censorship, and, yes, angry (along with being "stupid").

I regret that the length and convolutions of my case against The Liberal Avengers was hard for you to follow, but I did go back and read it (before and after I posted it) and was satisfied not only with the thoroughness, but with the sensibility and consistency running throughout it.

Granted, I could have saved myself the time of writing it--and you of reading it--by going Alexander the Great on the insensible Gordian Knot of the Bush-hating liberal mind with but a few swift sword chops, thusly:

"My field trip to the blog of The Liberal Avenger confirmed that the ranting and raving Bush-hating, liberal mind is demonstrably rife with contradictions, hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, judgmentalism, and a special contempt for conservative America, Judeo-Christianity, and Christians. And they reminded me of the Planet of the Apes."

And that would have been it.

And that essentially is it (if you read between the proofs), but such
a scandalous assessment necessarily demands the proofs, and the longest sections of the post were comprised of just those (a plethora of them, to be sure), particularly in regards to the "satanic" characterization, which certainly needed elaboration to clarify exactly what is meant by that.

So I couldn't go Alexander the Great on it with one fell swoop but had to unravel and examine each coil to get to the heart of it.

But I'm sorry if I lose any readers in the process.

Perhaps you can point out a statement(s) or section(s) you had difficulty making sense of?

3:45 PM  
Anonymous Midou said...

"apes choose not to argue with their conservative guests on a point-by-point basis, as is expected in a political blog"

O RLY? What is

THIS http://www.liberalavenger.com/2006/01/06/required-reading/#comment-7246

Oh Point by point basis argument. GASP! you LOSE.

"Republicus suspects that the recent election of conservative Paul Martin to the Prime Ministership of Canada"

Try Stephen harper under a slim minority!

"Christians get pointed out (which is when the s**t really begins to fly, ad hominem attacks get spewed aplenty, and the temptation to censor becomes irresistable)."

Ad Hominem attacks?! Like when John decided to attack my spelling instead of my Opinion!


BOOM HEADSHOT!

3:51 PM  
Blogger John said...

Well look who swung in from the jungle! MIDOU! LOL!

Republicus posted:

"Republicus commented that if he--Sick--really wanted to make a career out of cartooning, he had better mainstream his material, because that stuff wasn't going to fly in Peoria.

For that, Republicus was attacked by a liberal monkey there (swinging in from the jungle), accusing him of being an 'Uptight Roman Catholic' (Rebublicus is neither) and nearly quagmiring him in dyslexic gibberish."

That was Midou!

What are you doing here, Midou? This is no place for you.

Yes, it was Stephen Harper--not his predecessor, Paul Martin--who won the Prime Ministership of Canada.

The exchange Midou provided a link for to "bust" Republicus was along these lines:

Point 1: As mentioned in the post, I had recommended to the vulgar and irreverent cartoonist Sirk that he mainstream his material if he wanted to really make it big in cartooning.

"Midou" here then attacked Republicus with the "uptight Roman Catholic" characterization, thusly:

"Your eyes would burst upon seeing anything near naked and you would need to say the hail mary 3 million times while fingering a rosary."

Or, in other words, Republicus is a prudish, Roman Catholic (though Republicus can't think of many Roman Catholics who are prudish).

Point 2: Republicus dismissed that unwarranted--and ad hominem-- presumption with a sarcastic, antithetical grumble:

"Yeah, that’s me. I’m not a fornicating, butt-banging pervert.
Go ahead and ask the girlfriends who I didn’t even marry."

In other words, Republicus is far from the rosary-beading Roman Catholic celibate whose "eyes would burst" at the beholding of nudity.

Such a characterization implied that the objective assessment of the specific cartoon that Sick smugly provided a link to was conditioned by some sort of sexually-suppressed subjectiveness, which was an ad hominem non sequiter to the fact that the cartoon was most certainly not fit for the mainstream.

And from thence Midou began a downward spiral of non sequiters:

"Im not a butt banging pervert, im 18, still a virgin, and proud of that. fission mailed (sic). Please try again."

That's nonsensical. What "mission?" And what does Midou's private affairs have to do with Republicus' assessment that Sick's cartoon was not mainstream fare, and then his assurance that he--Republicus-- was not a Roman Catholic prude in response to the presumptive accusation that he was?

Republicus had simply dismissed Midou's ad hominem presumption about Republicus' own private affairs, which itself did nothing to counter the fact that Sick's cartoon was not mainstream material.

And yet:

"Im not a butt banging pervert, im 18, still a virgin, and proud of that. fission mailed (sic). Please try again."

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Point 3: Anyway, keep in mind that the subject of the cartoon was the cynical--and gratuitously irreverent--mockery of the Virgin Mary, so, with Midou's uninvited announcement about his sexual status, Republicus, annoyed, mockingly shot back:

"What are you, some kind of Jesus-freak, or just fugly?"

But Republicus was then jumped on for that by the Champions of Chastity there (including Sick!) for "mocking" Midou's virginity when Republicus was simply mirroring their own mocking of the Virgin Mary!

That is the quagmire of gibberish and misrepresentation that liberals habitually resort to to "score points" and "win" arguments and then cheer "OO! Head-shot!" when the rational conservative becomes bewildered and/or speechless by the nonsense.

There's more presumptive misrepresentation:

Midou said:

"Ad Hominem attacks?! Like when John decided to attack my spelling instead of my Opinion!

BOOM HEADSHOT!"

M-hm. Okay. You asked for it.

Point 1: A choirmember there once sneered that Republicus should mind his punctuation.

Conveniently, that comment itself was mispunctuated, something Republicus, of course, saw fit to point out (i.e. the chronic liberal habit of the pot calling the kettle back).

Point 2: Later, while waving his arms about to fend off the pestering, insanely-nitpicking gnat that is Midou, Republicus saw fit to tell him to learn how to punctuate (once again having them taste their own words--although it wasn't Midou who critiqued Republicus' slips in punctuation).

But that must have bugged the bug Midou...

Soon thereafter, he made his ridiculous "fission mailed" (i.e. mission failed) presumption.

Point 3: That did not did not strike Republicus as a mere misspelling, but a manifestation of dyslexia.

He mentioned the supposition and did not point out the occassional recurrences.

Nevertheless, the admittedly-vindictive tit-for-tat snipe at Midou's poor punctuation, along with the ONE-TIME comment about his spelling abilities obviously bothered the poor boy and so, two months later, out of the blue--oblivious to the fact that he was the one who introduced himself to Republicus with an ad hominem attack Republicus' presumed Roman Catholic Rosary-beading-- he flies into the blog of Republicus and decides to go on defense for the liberal avengers by:

"Ad Hominem attacks?! Like when John decided to attack my spelling instead of my Opinion!"

Both are juvenile. Now go away, son, before you rouse the wrath of Republicus (and it's not a pretty sight).

The final point--as is relevant to the post-- is that not too long after that very exchange the liberal avengers--including Sick-- chided the Dutch cartoonists for being "insensitive" to religious sensibilities!

This is what I'm talking about. The double-standard. The hypocrisies. The nonsense. The quagmiring of reasonable argument in a swamp of ego-driven gibberish...

P.S. The link Midou provided also has a frazzled Republicus leaving the blog on his own (with insults hurled after him), back in January.

Republicus returned for the final field trip to Ape Land last month, to confirm certain intuitions and notions he had acquired from the first trip and complete his research.

It was towards the end of that second foray that he was disemvoweled, scratched, had words put in his mouth, and then banned.

5:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush supporters are not members of the reality-based community.

They, like all cult members, rely upon faith alone to attempt to understand their world. Facts that do not conform to what their faith tells them to believe are either the work of Satan or liberal media bias.

34% and dropping
29% likeability factor and dropping

Keep the faith comrade- Heil Bush

5:35 AM  
Blogger John said...

Oh my gawd. He's back! It's the poll-pushing, Bush-hating, anti-Christian liberal par excellence LEE HARVEY!

Thank you for my next post, mwa-ha!

6:07 AM  
Blogger John said...

Hm. It turns out that Midou, like Sick, is also a Canadian citizen.

Go figure.

8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My field trip to the blog of The Liberal Avenger confirmed that the ranting and raving Bush-hating, liberal mind is demonstrably rife with contradictions, hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, judgmentalism, and a special contempt for conservative America, Judeo-Christianity, and Christians. And they reminded me of the Planet of the Apes."


Oh, you mean the same "contradictions, hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, judgmentalism", that your fellow americans have seen from your beloved conseratives that had demonstrataed in regards to arab-americans and homosexual americans, after 9-11 right?

10:03 AM  
Blogger John said...

Anonymous asked:

"Oh, you mean the same "contradictions, hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, judgmentalism", that your fellow americans have seen from your beloved conseratives that had demonstrataed in regards to arab-americans and homosexual americans, after 9-11 right?"

Wrong. I mean contradictions and hypocrisies like these:

You just hatefully, intolerantly, and judgmentally maligned an *entire group* of tens of millions of fellow Americans--young, old, of both genders, from every state, all races, ethnicities (including Arab Americans), creeds, socio-economic status, and educational background, i.e. the "beloved conservatives"-- by accusing *them* of being hateful, intolerant, and judgmental against entire groups of fellow American individuals-- young, old, of both genders, from every state, all education levels, and up and down the socio-economic ladder, i.e. Arab-Americans and homosexuals (the latter group including all races, ethnicities --including Arab Americans--and creeds).

Hello?

Now, two wrongs--(1) the "beloved conservative's" alleged "hateful, intolerant, and judgmental" monolithic prejudicing against entire populations of Arab-American and homosexual individuals, and (2) YOUR VERY OWN prejudicing against entire populations of conservative individuals-- certainly don't make a right, but what is--as irrefutably demonstrated--right is my saying that it is YOU who's prejudicing against entire groups of individuals (yes, you, the same person who accused me and every conservative of being prejudiced against entire groups of individuals)!

And what is WRONG is your offensive presumption that a conservative like Republicus would associate--or "belove" for that matter-- any group, before or after 9/11, that promotes an exclusionary--or elitist--group identity that considers humans outside the group subhuman.

I'll leave that to the liberals, thank you very much.

Oh, but "A-ha!" you point, I just did the same thing with "liberals," did I not?

Yes, very good, as a matter of fact I did. But that's because liberalism, you see, allows--*ipso facto*-- the herding because of the very herd mentality it programs into the mind of the individual.

You liberal folk all think the same. And you're all intolerant, hateful, and judgmental (well, not "all," but most of you, absolutely).

You're monolithic. Same sacred cows, same pet peeves, same mantras, same anti-corporate, anti-military, and anti-Christian conspiracy theories, and same seething hate for Bush and all things Bush.

NO liberal abandoned Bill Clinton in his times of trouble, not ONE.

Meanwhile, keeping Bush's conservative base fat and happy on the reservation is like trying to keep ten cats in the same room.

And BTW, what's this:

"...in regards to arab-americans and homosexual americans, after 9-11."

What the hell are you talking about?

The conservative vice president--"Darth Vader"-- has a well-adjusted and loved homosexual daughter.

The only ones who tried to make an issue out of that--a not-so-subtle stigmatization--were the liberal candidates for president and vice president John Kerry and Edwards.

AFTER 9/11.

Oh, you must be talking about the conservative position on same-sex marriage! Of course!

Oo, yes, that's just being so hateful and discriminatory against homosexuals because the homophobic conservatives won't indulge the pretense that male/male or female/female "marriage" is the moral equivalent of male/female husband and wife!

HOW DARE THEY?!?

How dare you? Take your civil union certificate and your tax-break and get a friggin' room.

"OH! But we want recogition! We want equal rights! We want respect!"

Yeah. Me too.

Why can't I be the Queen of England, huh? Tell me, why? It's not fair!

What's that? Because I'm a male, and an American citizen, and not of royal lineage?

Well, I can't help that! I WAS BORN THAT WAY!

WHY CAN'T I BE THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND, TOO?

Can't you just, like, pass a law and, you know, just pretend by calling me "Your Majesty," and change the centuries-old dictionary definition, just to make me feel better? You know, for my self-esteem which has been victimized by a regiphobic society that won't let me be who I want to be, namely, the Queen of England?

I think I'm entitled to the same tax-paid subsdies that the royals get.

I'm just as good as they are, aren't I?

Aren't we all equal?

Come on! No big deal! "Queen" is just a word!

And what's this about Arab-Americans? The Bush Justice Department makes sure little old Jewish ladies from Fresno get the same rubber glove treatment at airport security check-points that a diaper-headed Ahmed I mean camel-jockey I mean Arab-American does ESPECIALLY after 9/11 (so the ACLU doesn't sue for discrimination or some shit. Yes, ONLY in America).

Oh, are you talking about that incident right after 9/11 when a jingoistic knucklehead (or two, three, what?) mistook a Hindi Indian gas-station or convenience store owner for an Arab Muslim and killed him?

Is that your idea of a "conservative?"

Is that the kind of "conservative" Republicus is supposed to "belove?"

To be sympatico with?

Well, that's precisely what you suggested, is it not?

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I came here looking for an intelligent look at certain problems at hand, and instead,I get a rabid, self-rightious right-wing "conservative" hippie chimp whose only gradification is making long-winded speeches, siteing ironic facts (albeit interesting... Cheney has a lesbian daughter, huh....then he should have spoken against the whole ban on gay marriages if he really did love her for who she is.....)and mind numbing insults (comparing a blogsite to a charley heston flick is like saying the Tim Burton movie "Corpse bride" is about necrophilia.........) they may be liberals, but at least hear the other side of the argument,you would be surprised at how many intellegent 'nonconsevatives' you may find (instead of trying to find individuals that "prove your point" to you or your "friends"

and just so we are clear, since apparently you probibly on the assumtion that its either foreigner,
WASP or otherwise you seem so used to be dealing with.....



I am an american, an Irish/Blackfoot-Iroquois/italian/german mutt, a third generation soldier(6+yrs),(now a Veteran)and now going to college, and am married with a kid on the way,


now you know whom you are facing



and truth be told, normally, I could care less about your petty problems, however since you insist on taking what i say and twist it to further YOUR purposes it seems you need a time out not before I straighten things

"You just hatefully, intolerantly, and judgmentally maligned an *entire group* of tens of millions of fellow Americans--young, old, of both genders, from every state, all races, ethnicities (including Arab Americans), creeds, socio-economic status, and educational background, i.e. the "beloved conservatives"-- by accusing *them* of being hateful, intolerant, and judgmental against entire groups of fellow American individuals-- young, old, of both genders, from every state, all education levels, and up and down the socio-economic ladder,"

actually, no I didn't, try reading beween and behind the lines once in a while. or instead of puffing up like a frilled lizard, and going into a 4000 word rant, try at least asking what they meant...
it only takes a couple sentences. Also stop talking in the third person, even when asking a question, or proving a point. do you know how RETARDED that looks on a serious blog??
as for the conservatives I was referring to, I speak only of the upper crust who seem to have way more pull than they should on Capital Hill, not everyone else..

now shall we continue, carrying on an intelligent conversation, like adults?

1:48 PM  
Blogger John said...

Anonymous said...

"I came here looking for an intelligent look at certain problems at hand, and instead,I get a rabid, self-rightious right-wing "conservative" hippie chimp whose only gradification is making long-winded speeches, siteing ironic facts."

M-hm. Go on:

"(albeit interesting... Cheney has a lesbian daughter, huh....then he should have spoken against the whole ban on gay marriages if he really did love her for who she is.....)."

Republicus addressed that. Being against the institutionalizing of "Gay Marriage"--i.e. putting it on par with heterosexual matrimony-- has nothing to do with denying anyone their civil rights.

"Civil Unions" recognize--and validate--those very rights.

Rather, any intellectual stand against "Gay Marriage" is a stand for impersonal stuff like the integrity of engendered language and of the Western Tradition, which sanctified marriage not because of amorousness--however monogamous-- but because of its social responsibility to the biological Prime Directive: "Be fruitful, and multiply."

It's about procreation, and conforming to *Nature's--not man's--design.

Western Founding Fathers like Socrates and Plato were involved (it appears) in homosexual activity (at a time when women weren't even considered "citizens," interestingly enough), but they would've surely frowned upon the idea of the sacred, man-woman institution of Marriage expanded to include a man-man (or man-boy, as it were) ceremony.

But no one stopped them from pursuing their secondary--if not actually primary-- orientations
at the gymnasium.

"...and mind numbing insults."

Yeah, like these: "I get a rabid, self-rightious right-wing "conservative" hippie chimp whose only gradification is making long-winded speeches, siteing ironic facts."

Anyway, please, continue:

"(comparing a blogsite to a charley heston flick is like saying the Tim Burton movie "Corpse bride" is about necrophilia.........)"

No it's not. That's a bad analogy.

And Republicus established the subjectivity of that opinion in the second paragraph (*italics* added):

"Republicus has trolled he means visited the blog of The Liberal Avenger and, indeed, *felt* like an astronaut visiting an alien planet...

...or more like Colonel George Taylor on the Planet of the Apes."

What can Republicus say? That's how he felt, and he provided many examples and parallels which justified the sensation.

"they may be liberals, but at least hear the other side of the argument..."

Republicus has. Then, when *he* presented another side--or a rebuttal to an attack--he was insulted, ridiculed, disemvoweled, scratched out, had words he did not use put in his mouth, and then banned.

I was a participating guest there.

"you would be surprised at how many intellegent 'nonconsevatives' you may find (instead of trying to find individuals that "prove your point" to you or your "friends..."

I wouldn't be surprised. We're all, self-evidently, intelligent.

Republicus counts on that.

"and just so we are clear, since apparently you probibly on the assumtion that its either foreigner, WASP or otherwise you seem so used to be dealing with.....I am an american, an Irish/Blackfoot-Iroquois/italian/german mutt, a third generation soldier(6+yrs),(now a Veteran)and now going to college, and am married with a kid on the way."

I assumed no such thing. And good for you. You have the unconditional respect of Republicus for your generational service, his approval for your educational pursuits, and he congratulates you for the pending arrival of Anonymous Jr.

And your melting pot, ethnic heritage is something to be proud of and proof of the success of the American Way in bringing the world together--right here.

But none of that entitles anyone to the infallibility of their opinion.

"now you know whom you are facing"

Yes. "Anonymous."

"and truth be told, normally, I could care less about your petty problems..."

What "petty problems?" Republicus doesn't burden his readers with his "petty problems."

That's what family, friends, and girlfriends are for.

"however since you insist on taking what i say and twist it to further YOUR purposes it seems you need a time out not before I straighten things"

Republicus "twists" nothing. He un-twists.

Anonymous quoted Republicus:

"You just hatefully, intolerantly, and judgmentally maligned an *entire group* of tens of millions of fellow Americans--young, old, of both genders, from every state, all races, ethnicities (including Arab Americans), creeds, socio-economic status, and educational background, i.e. the "beloved conservatives"-- by accusing *them* of being hateful, intolerant, and judgmental against entire groups of fellow American individuals-- young, old, of both genders, from every state, all education levels, and up and down the socio-economic ladder..."

Anomymous then "corrected":

"actually, no I didn't, try reading beween and behind the lines once in a while."

Well here's what you said:

"Oh, you mean the same "contradictions, hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, judgmentalism", that your fellow americans have seen from your beloved conseratives that had demonstrataed in regards to arab-americans and homosexual americans, after 9-11 right?"

Since you directed me to read "between and behind the lines" (although this isn't a forum for the analysis of 17th Century metaphysical poetry) I'll see what I can do:

Okay, you didn't say "conservatives" (i.e. an *entire group* of tens of millions of fellow Americans--young, old, of both genders, from every state, all races, ethnicities--including Arab Americans--creeds, socio-economic status, and educational background), but specified "*your beloved* conservatives," which implies a special, subset of the categorical conservative that had "demonstrataed 'contradictions,hypocrisies, intolerance, hatefulness, (and) judgmentalism' in regards to arab-americans and homosexual americans, after 9-11."

To which Republicus responded:

"Is that the kind of 'conservative' Republicus is supposed to 'belove?'

To be sympatico with?

Well, that's precisely what you suggested, is it not?"

Yes. It is.

"or instead of puffing up like a frilled lizard, and going into a 4000 word rant, try at least asking what they meant..."

He did, here:

"Is that the kind of 'conservative' Republicus is supposed to 'belove?'

To be sympatico with?

Well, that's precisely what you suggested, is it not?"

Anonymous then chided:

"it only takes a couple sentences."

How would you know?

It took you eight paragraphs to insult your host.

"Also stop talking in the third person, even when asking a question, or proving a point. do you know how RETARDED that looks on a serious blog??"

Well, perhaps Republicus read one *Incredible Hulk* comic too many.

"as for the conservatives I was referring to, I speak only of the upper crust who seem to have way more pull than they should on Capital Hill, not everyone else.."

They're the democratically-elected majority party.

That's how it works.

"now shall we continue, carrying on an intelligent conversation, like adults?"

Sure. Why not.

8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

okay, straight talk,

your postition the religion issue?

(i.e. freedom of and such....)

and on a side note I am having a daughter, thank you for the congrats none the less....
and since we are on a handle to handle basis, my mine is simply Anubis....

12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

metinks the page has bugs.... its not letting me move along....

12:08 PM  
Blogger John said...

Anubis. Cool.

Freedom of Religion is what it is: You're free to believe in whatever you want.

Or not believe in anything at all.

At the same time your beliefs--or non-beliefs--should not be coerced upon anyone else.

Everyone's having daughters. My mom told me an old Greek saying, that when the birth of daughters become abundant, it's a good sign for future Peace.

4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

on that note we are on agreement (the former point, the latter however I have never herd put so well...) Religion is something that should be held sacred by all and at least understood by those that have none to speak of..... that probibly had to have been one of the more open minded and intelligent responses I have heard....

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

but yeah, forceful cohersion, bad, complete understanding, depending on the person, and bearing in mind basic human rights, good

simply put....

on another note...

bearing in mind about the fathers of western culture(i.e greece)footnote you had mentioned

erm... this one


"Western Founding Fathers like Socrates and Plato were involved (it appears) in homosexual activity (at a time when women weren't even considered "citizens," interestingly enough), but they would've surely frowned upon the idea of the sacred, man-woman institution of Marriage expanded to include a man-man (or man-boy, as it were) ceremony.

But no one stopped them from pursuing their secondary--if not actually primary-- orientations
at the gymnasium."


now it was to my understanding...
that at the time (the hellenistic period at least) marriage to those of the same sex wasn't frowned apon at the time, in fact it was (now albeit to a lesser extent... I could be wrong) held in the same regard as a heterosexual pairing....

now we can agree to disagree on this, and we probibly do....but the one thing that no god, no matter how detailed the planning is their planning can still get tripped up on.....free will

now yes I can understand the drive to "be fruitful, and multiply" (being a daddy soon tends to broaden ones perception on this one.....) however, love in all its forms regardless for some people, is a wonderful very strange thing...
now about the cheney thing

"Republicus addressed that. Being against the institutionalizing of "Gay Marriage"--i.e. putting it on par with heterosexual matrimony-- has nothing to do with denying anyone their civil rights."

we'll agree to disagree on this for I am a supporter of Gay Rights
and marriage is (for some people) an affirmation of the bonds of love that bring them together
my only question on the matter is who's wearing the dress, and wearing the suit? but seriously though, I do see that it has nothing to do with civil rights (thank you for pointing that out BTW) but, I believe marriage should be defined by love, not realy by gender....but, thats my thoughts on the matter....

8:28 PM  
Anonymous Republican Men Are All Pussies said...

Are all Republican men pussies?
So you behaved like an ass and got banned from a truth telling blog. Sweet Jesus grow a dick. Or is it against the rules to be Republican and have a dick?

6:36 PM  
Blogger John said...

Anubis said...

"...now it was to my understanding... that at the time (the hellenistic period at least) marriage to those of the same sex wasn't frowned apon at the time, in fact it was (now albeit to a lesser extent... I could be wrong) held in the same regard as a heterosexual pairing...."

Not to my knowledge. Generally--not specifically, like in a locality-- if it occured it was considered decadent, scandalous, and/or unnatural--if not downright sinful (we're talking marriage ceremonies here, not sexual activity).

"now we can agree to disagree on this, and we probibly do....but the one thing that no god, no matter how detailed the planning is their planning can still get tripped up on.....free will."

You're talking about the profound metaphysical paradox of Divine Determinism vs. Free Will, and that's a can of worms best left sealed here, but if you're suggesting that Divine Will is trumped by human free will, that's theologically backwards.

It can't be done. God--ipso facto-- gets His way.

That's premising theism, of course (of the Western variety).

If your premise is that "God's Will"--as Written-- is "really" the creation of an all-too-human priestly class for the sake of social engineering, then yes, their plans will go awry, one way or another, sooner or later.

We were born to break the rules (which, I would think, is part of God's Plan).

"now yes I can understand the drive to "be fruitful, and multiply" (being a daddy soon tends to broaden ones perception on this one.....) however, love in all its forms regardless for some people, is a wonderful very strange thing..."

Yes.

"now about the cheney thing...
we'll agree to disagree on this for I am a supporter of Gay Rights
and marriage is (for some people) an affirmation of the bonds of love that bring them together
my only question on the matter is who's wearing the dress, and wearing the suit? but seriously though, I do see that it has nothing to do with civil rights (thank you for pointing that out BTW) but, I believe marriage should be defined by love, not realy by gender....but, thats my thoughts on the matter."

Thank you for sharing them.

8:43 PM  
Blogger John said...

Republican Men Are All Pussies said...

"Are all Republican men pussies?
So you behaved like an ass and got banned from a truth telling blog. Sweet Jesus grow a dick. Or is it against the rules to be Republican and have a dick?"

*Au contraire* (as usual), it was they--some of the hosts there-- who behaved like asses towards their guests and were outed for that on *this* blog (which wouldn't be so liberally presumptuous as claiming to be fount of "Truth," but is certainly honest and conscientious in its pursuit of it).

Granted, Republicus did monkey around from time to time ("when in Rome..."), but he was just trying to loosen up the bunched-up panties of the angry liberal.

Also, he needed to bait and gauge reactions for his research and the final report:

"Republicus, of course, saw an opportunity to see just how 'inclusive' and 'tolerant' and 'non-judgmental' and 'pro-diversity' (all things they accuse 'wingnuts' of not being) the liberal ape truly is when push came to shove, so he saw fit to push the envelope."

And Republicus analyzed the accumulated data well.

He opened his post with this characterization:

"Republicus felt like he was on a safari hacking his way through a jungle with a machete and then stumbling upon a clearing filled with a troop of armpit and crotch-scratching, hooting, hopping, hollering, and screaming monkeys and apes who started throwing their feces at him."

Keeping that image in mind, this post was also a warranted rebuttal to the personal attacks and allegations that Republicus was imperiously prevented from answering while in Ape Land:

"As the hosts of Ape Land, with certain powers at their command, the apes choose not to argue with their conservative guests on a point-by-point basis, as is expected in a political blog, or even just ignore the warranted rebuttals, but instead--after initially responding by firing warning salvos of insults like "a*****e" (i.e. hooting monkey-feces)..."

Is that a mischaracterization?

Not at all. You yourself--an ape, presumably--opened your own commentary in precisely that hooting, monkey-feces throwing manner:

"Sweet Jesus, grow a dick. Or is it against the rules to be Republican and have a dick?"

[Of course, if "dicklessnes" is equated with cowardice, this speaks volumes about the "enlightened" liberal's own sexism (i.e. Dicklessness=cowardice, women are dickless, ergo all women are cowardly)]

Finally, how posting the observations and conclusions (now confirmed by you) from my field trips to Ape Land makes me a dickless coward (i.e. "pussy") escapes me, particularly since you pussilanimously came in here and threw monkey-feces at me as "anonymous."

But again, I also cover the ape's tendency to psychologically project
themselves, as well.

9:38 AM  
Blogger John said...

Hey Anubis, here's what the Wikipedia has to say about same-sex marriage in ancient Greece and Rome:

"In Hellenic Greece, the common pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects.

The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.

This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had a sexual component."

"Like" marriage, but NOT the same thing. It was not called a "marriage."

In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions."

He got away with that (for the time being) because he was the emperor (and an exceptional one, even among a series of debauched and corrupt predeccessors and successors).

His flambouyancies were not approved by the conservative establishment of Roman virtue and virility.

The Emperor--who fancied himself a serious Thespian--once stomped the boards in the roll of a female slave--SHOCKING the establishment.

"Increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes, combined with the Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance, as well as a means to conquer a male enemy through rape, have been linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome."

Note the streamlining and institutionalizing to strict heterosexual pairing as influenced by Christianity.

Today, it is Christian society that is the main political obstacle--aside from semantic rationales--to validation of same-sex "marriage."

Hence the streamlining--and practically institutionalizing!-- of liberal contempt to Christians with that issue and others of a similarly anti-Christian bent (e.g. abortion).

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

meh, I wasn't arguing your point and I did say I could be wrong on the matter.....

11:19 AM  
Blogger John said...

I wasn't arguing. Just wanted to clarify.

11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so John says:
"Hence, the liberal ape is silent or dismissive--if not approving-- of former President Bill Clinton's bombardment of Iraq on explicitly-stated grounds of Iraqi WMD capabilities but explodes in furious indignancy when military action against Saddam Hussein is continued to finality by the hated President George W. Bush on the same grounds (among sundry others)."

But I guess you aren't going to use the actual facts? Are facts allowed on this blog?

The attack ordered by Bill Clinton was because Iraq ordered out UNSCOM investigators. First, Clinton ordered the attack and once the planes were launched, Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors back in. Clinton actually called off the attack with the planes in mid flight. Once the inspector's said that Iraq had lied and had not been cooperative, Clinton ordered the bombing. The bombing was in order to allow investigators to continue their work and avoid a stupid war. But those are just the facts.

9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John says:
"He is silent, dismissive, or approving of Clinton's use of the availed NSA surveillance tools when he utilized them to track down domestic terrorist Tim Mcveigh and his ring (American citizens all), but explodes in fury when Bush uses the same tool in the pursuit of foreign, Al Qaeda operatives when a domestic link is reasonably suspected."

This is simply a lie. The argument here is about things called warrants. (plus the NSA did not eavesdrop on American citizens or people in country in the Timothy McViegh case, but I suppose those black helicopters flying around might spook you a bit)

If you aren't going to use facts, I think you are doing a disservice to the humans in your meanignless comparison.

9:26 AM  
Blogger John said...

Anonymous said...

"The attack (i.e. on Oraq, 'Operation Deserg Fox')ordered by Bill Clinton was because Iraq ordered out UNSCOM investigators."

Let's let former President Clinton elaborate on that (as Republicus reviewed in the December 11, 2005
post "Former-President Clinton LIED...And People DIED!"):

OPERATION DESERT FOX COMMENCES

Wednesday, December 16, 1998


President Clinton: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.

They are joined by British forces.

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

[...]

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM.

They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries.

[...]

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly:

Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran.

And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

[...]

On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region.

The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, "a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors."

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments.

And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.

[...]

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger (note by Republicus: i.e. imminent threat) to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.

The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community --led by the United States -- has simply lost its will.

He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license.

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed.

We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

[...]

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike.

I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions.

Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government-- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free.

Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life.

And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities.

At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.

Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction.

He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue:

Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope.

Now, in the new century (note by Republicus: The new century, incidentally, began in 2001, not "now"), we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families.

And may God bless America."

Yes, Anonymous. "Nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal." "Imminent threat." "Make no mistake, he will use them." "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government." "Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort."

And, of course, "God Bless America."

Gosh, he sounds like shill for the PNAC "Neocon" thinktank, don't he?

If not President Bush.

The rationales are the same. So is the desire for regime change and a new Iraq:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government-- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."


And so Republicus repeats:

"Hence, the liberal ape is silent or dismissive--if not approving-- of former President Bill Clinton's bombardment of Iraq on explicitly-stated grounds of Iraqi WMD capabilities but explodes in furious indignancy when military action against Saddam Hussein is continued to finality by the hated President George W. Bush on the same grounds (among sundry others)."

And by the way, AFTER Operation Desert Fox, Saddam--again--expelled the weapon's inspectors, with impunity.

Republicus heard that it was actually Clinton himself who pulled them out.

(they went back in when Bush became president).

Irregardless of who caused the removal, if in fact that was Clinton's sole reason for bombing Iraq, why did he do nothing, then, the second time around?

Anonymous also took issue with:

Republicus said...

"He is silent, dismissive, or approving of Clinton's use of the availed NSA surveillance tools when he utilized them to track down domestic terrorist Tim Mcveigh and his ring (American citizens all), but explodes in fury when Bush uses the same tool in the pursuit of foreign, Al Qaeda operatives when a domestic link is reasonably suspected."

Anonynmous responded:

"This is simply a lie. The argument here is about things called warrants."

To quote the icomparable BRT:

"Oo! He didn't get a WAR-rant!"

The point there being that the Bush-hater's arguments did not begin but ended up nitpicking on procedural particulars to differentiate between Clinton's peacetime use of the tools against domestic terrorists on the run (when he had the luxury of time and the anomality of group and event) and Bush's use of it in the thick of a war against a widespread network of operatives mingling with the civilian population who had--it was/is presumed-- an ongoing ambition--and perhaps ability-- to strike here and there abruptly and continuously.

But that wasn't the original charge which sparked the controversy, which had evolved over several steps before it stumbled by its own strategic clumsiness and died down:

Step 1: A bandwagoning banner was unfurled by the aggressive, anti-Bush forces to alarm America about their civil liberties being undermined. It did not announce a legalistic gripe against the failure to follow the procedural particular (i.e. getting a warrant before or after the fact, which, although worthy of academic tsk-tsking, did not justify the attempted fomentation of national uproar), but an over-the-top demand for Impeachment because of--ipso facto-- the use of the surveillance tool itself.

"BUSH IS EAVESDROPPING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS!"

That was the initial, politicized point.

Step 2: It came out that Clinton availed himself of the same tool (so no big deal--you know, just a blowjob), but--unwilling or unable to slow the momentum of the overly-aggressive political charge-- the legal niceties of the NSA Surveillance Act was quickly parsed, the respective uses were differentiated for exceptionalism, and the focus was then on...

Warrants (i.e. something not applicable to Clinton--because Clinton was just so conscientious about following the letter of the law, you see-- though he is also included in the same sin of Constitution-bending principle when creatively tracking down enemies of the state, a principle henceforth dismissed as unactionable).

Step 3: However, the aggressive momentum of the initial political charge on principle, by itsown inertia, carried over to that particular with equal umbrage (i.e. the Consitutional alarm in Step 1 carried over with equal vociferousness to the greatly-diminished Constitutonal calamity of Step 2)is absurd, as the American people realized.

Indeed, it became clear to the American people that the procedural oversteps in pursuit of Al Qaeda operatives did not justify the inciting of alarm over the strongly-suggested tyrannical attack on Constitutionally-protected privacy rights, and that one--rightfully--got away.

And recall that the beans on that were spilled (perhaps criminally, as it turns out) the day after the succesful Iraqi elections, which leads one to quite reasonably suspect that it was, indeed, all about politics, and not principle.

Now Anonymous is still stuck in Step 2 ("Oo! He didn't get a WAR-rant!"), but when Republicus said:

"He is silent, dismissive, or approving of Clinton's use of the availed NSA surveillance tools when he utilized them to track down domestic terrorist Tim Mcveigh and his ring... but explodes in fury when Bush uses the same tool in the pursuit of foreign, Al Qaeda operatives when a domestic link is reasonably suspected."

--he was talking about the dismissive attitude "he" had to have to go from Step 1 to Step 2 (and he's still there, not realizing that Step 3 had already been taken).

He does, in fact, now approve of Clinton's use of the tool AFTER the differentiation of particulars compelled the dismissal of the outrage in principle of Step 1 (with no apologies).

Anonymous further differentiated:

"plus the NSA did not eavesdrop on American citizens or people in country in the Timothy McViegh case."

Is he certain of that? Republicus believes they did (i.e. eavesdrop on American citizens while going after McVeigh), and that it was the Bush Administration who--although apparently eavesdropping on American citizens with suspected terrorist ties--eavesdropped on calls placed out of country.

But if anonymous is privy to contrary knowledge, please, correct Republicus (although Republicus suspects that characteristic inversion is afoot).

Nevertheless, the question is whether one is to believe that the Bush administration is availing themselves of thir CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE to wage war as they see best fit, or if they exploit that prerogative to prosecute peripheral concerns.

If the latter, then by all means, America, write your Congressman post-haste.

Before you know it, the administration might get so arrogant and unconscionable in its weilding of power that it will start siccing the IRS on politically-problematic American citizens to punitatively audit them and encourage them to shut up.

Wait, that was Clinton.

Anonymous also quipped:

"(but I suppose those black helicopters flying around might spook you a bit)"

That's ironic he said that. The right-wing paranoiacs during the Clinton era made a cottage industry of all sorts of conspiracy theories involving the "New World Order" UN using black stealth helicopters to engage in some sort of clandestine, sinister operations on American soil in its attempts to gobble up the world with the blessing of UN-buttboy Clinton (who just wants the whole world to like hinm), shredding the U.S Constitution and undermining the sovereignty of the United States in the process (making it a National Security issue and how Clinton was likewise undermining that).

Hence, the linkage with that and Republicus' pointing out that Clinton also availed himself of NSA tool (though nowhere did Republicus attack him for doing that).

The irony is that while the Clinton-lovers laughed at those paranoid, Vince-Foster-Was-Murdered-And-So-Was-Ron-Brown Clinton-haters (and still are laughing at, as proven by anonymous' reference to that now-ancient notion of black helicopters and the right-wing phobia of an all-powerful UN as enabled by liberals like Clinton), it is the Clinton-loving Bush-hater who is now paranoid and entertaining a slew of similar conspiracy theories (but vast right-sing ones) as the Bush Empire attempts to gobble up the world (whatever).

Anonymous finally chided:

"If you aren't going to use facts, I think you are doing a disservice to the humans in your meanignless comparison."

Republicus wasn't making "meaningless" comparisons.

Anonymous was making meaningless and irrelevant contrasts (i.e. "Clinton bombed Saddam for the sake of the weapon's inspectors!" and "It's about the WAR-rants!").

8:43 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff said...

"The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way."

-- Josh Billings

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

-- George W. Bush, 2001

Paul Krugman and a whole lot of others have noted the spectacular idiocy of the new wave of conservative critics coming, quiveringly, out of the woodwork to say that, well, regardless of the actual realities of planet earth, they are still as preeningly brilliant as they said they were, those years before any of this ever happened. And if the rest of us would kindly shut up, they'd like to get back to advocating the exact same "studies" and "strategies" and "policies" again, thank you very much, and just you wait and see -- they've still got it.

Yeah. I don't see any particular reason we should have to listen to such drivel.

Let's be clear on a few things, whether we're talking about economics, foreign policy, or basic governance any of the things which, looking back now, conservatives are declaring were nothing more than Bart Simpson moments in an otherwise impeccable philosophy.

If George W. Bush is an idiot now, then he was an idiot then, too. He didn't change, and neither did his stream of uber-conservative advisors, and neither did any of his conscience-scratching new critics. To only see it now doesn't restore their lost credibility. It only shows how thorougly in the tank they were, and how eager they are to extricate themselves now. It shows that the so-called tenets of conservatism are, in truth, a mere millimeter deep. Or maybe it just shows that incompetence and conservatism go so hand-in-hand as to be indistinguishable from each other.

For every saddened, blustering new critic of utterly failed conservative policies -- and make no mistake, these have been conservative policies all along, to their very core -- there has been a critic who was right in the first place.

And that is an essential point, in this upcoming mudfight that comes with the realization of just how remarkable the failures have been, the corruption has been, and the incompetence has been. The critics of those failures, those corruptions, and that incompetence were right.

They were right. The liberal critics of the Iraq War? Right. The media figures who challenged conservative-spun "facts", and were roundly punished? Right. The deficit hawks? Right. And they were right from the start -- they didn't need years of resultant unending bungled mess to drill it into their skulls.

And so, the conservative walkback begins anew. Again. And we're seeing it take the usual forms. Denying the "conservative" label to all the conservative ideas that, once tried, failed, and attacking their critics as being the mean, cruel, partisan ones. Especially ironic, given the blistering attacks these jackasses have given any critic of administration policies, no matter how patently obvious the failures were. Criticism was treason, we were told. Absolute, America-hating,Bush Hating, Unhinged, Constitution-punching treason. What unbelievable hacks. What sorry, simpering little fucks.

Being right was partisan griping --but being universally, spectacularly and muleheadedly wrong, we're expected to believe, was the more noble and clever path? What utter pomposity. These blowhards should be tarred and feathered, not redeemed yet again for another science-bashing, expert-bashing, reality-bashing clusterfuck of so-called "conservative" strategery.

But conservatives live in a world -- in their business lives, in their academic lives, and apparently in their personal lives -- where even the most abysmal of failures are simply ignorable. You can run a company into the ground, and still get your bonus. You can flatly make up statistics -- even make up a fake admirer -- and keep your "think tank" job. You can sexually harass coworkers, pop pills, blow a wad in Vegas, or get caught with your hand in an indicted crook's pocket, and it won't affect your career opportunities in the slightest. Morality is for chumps, and consequences are for the little people.

And that's especially true of pundits. Lord, how it is true, for pundits. Fox News alone has become a towering monument to failure. Its archival shows represent every stage of attack, delusion, bitterness and self-consolation. What a sorry, sloppy mess this will be, in the coming year.


The thing of it is, we saw this after Reagan, too, and after HW Bush. The economic blunders on their watch were a result of them being "not conservative enough." If they had lowered taxes more, the economic listlessness, wealthy re-entrenchment, and budget-busting deficits under their administrations wouldn't have been so dismal. To reuse Trent Lott's memorable phrasing; if they had only been truer to conservatism, maybe we wouldn't have had all these problems.

We're getting it again with the current corruption scandals snaking their way through the Republican halls of power. Abramoff? Not associated with conservativism, oh no, not really. Ralph Reed? Don't be silly. Grover Norquist? Nonsense. Tom DeLay? Hush!

These people may be the money, the power, and the ideas of the conservative movement, but they're not actually conservative, not if they actually get caught. Because true conservatism is ephemeral, like "trickle-down economics" -- or a unicorn's fart. Every time conservatism is tried, it fails, and every time it fails, it is because it has been let down by simple mortal error. There has yet to be, we are expected to believe, any modern conservative leader capable of actually implementing conservatism in a way as to make it work -- but don't worry, they'll get it right next time.

Because, like robed and scruffy cult leaders swearing up and down that the apocalypse they predicted last year will, after further review, most certainly happen next year, if their followers only keep giving them cash, the only way conservatives can actually believe in their own movement is if they flatly deny the obvious effects of their philosophies as implemented.

We could choose to believe that they've just been terribly unlucky in electing leaders too dimwitted or corrupt to really implement conservatism, of course. We could choose to keep believing in the power of unimpeded unicorn farts. Or we could judge conservatism, quite reasonably, on the actions of those that say they are conservatives, and hold them to be the true conservative intent:

* Tax cuts for the rich, and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class.

* Cash giveaways of historic proportions to selected industries.

* A stifling and public condemnation of science.

* Record deficits.

* Rampant nepotism and cronyism.

* Decreased civil liberties.

* Pork by the barrelful.

What's conservatism? That is. There's no question about it, and hand-waving speeches don't enter into it. Conservatives have the entirety of legislative and executive power, in the Presidency, in the Senate, and in the House. They could choose to implement whatever they want. They have chosen to implement precisely what they want. We're living it.


What's fascinating about conservatism is that it really is, at this point, more corporatist and faux-socialist religion than political movement. The same limousine-hopping cult leaders keep singing the same songs, and if you believe enough, and for the love of God keep sending in those checks, then by golly maybe it'll work this time. Maybe the manufacturing jobs America has lost will magically reappear. Maybe ignoring the economic and scientific experts will work the next time, though it hasn't worked any of the other times. Maybe cutting taxes, which has predictably reduced revenue every single time it has been done, will suddenly make the deficit disappear. It's illogical, it's contrary to experience, it's contrary to the laws of mathematics, economics, sociology and simple reality -- but what the hell. The heads of Enron and ExxonMobil say it might just work next time. And if it doesn't, then look out for the homosexuals in those other states over there, or the immigrants, or the uppity blacks, or the uppity women.

So what are we to make of the Scarboroughs, the Bartletts, the Kristols,the Sullivans, the Sandra Day O'Connor's, even the Fukuyamas, who now have grave reservations about the fruits of conservatism?

Simple. They've been proven to be frauds, yet again. Intellectual charlatans. Or, if you want to be very, very polite about it, you can simply say that they based a whole lot of rhetoric, a whole lot of attacks, and a whole lot of personal credibility on notions that have been, through actual implementation, utterly discredited.

They're terribly eager to let us know their very important ideas, but when it comes to actual expertise, they're proven fakes. And, like any good fake, they're trying now to do the walkback, to tell us what they really meant, to tell us why they really were clever, to tell us why their preachings were solid, if only everyone around them hadn't been incompetent buffoons in the actual implementation of their genius.

Everybody in the entire conservative movement is pulling their own special Michael Brown move. It wasn't us that fell down on the job, it was everyone else. It wasn't our department that failed, it was those other bozos.

Yeah. Unfortunately for them, we've watched them getting measured for the suits and going to the dinners while things were roundly and very predictably going to hell. No dice. But nice suits, fellas.


So what of the people who weren't wrong, in predicting the outcomes? What of the people who predicted the economic consequences of Bush fiscal policies? What of the people who not only challenged the clearly ridiculous assertions of the administration in the run-up to the Iraq War, but predicted precisely what would happen next?

They were right. And no amount of petulant bitching is going to change that, but you can damn well believe the conservative snake-oil salesmen who preached for these fiascos and demonized those that opposed them are going to do their best to restore their own tattered self-declared brilliance -- all actual real-world evidence notwithstanding.

No. Conservatism is entirely described by the actions of the men who preach it. There is no such thing as a trickle-down unicorn. There is no such thing as an honorable war fraudulently started. There is no magical conservative City on the Hill.

There never has been.

10:05 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish."

Euripides

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Friedrich von Schiller

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."

Unknown

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Unknown, Hanlon's Razor

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff said...

All aptly apply to your administration and its remaining followers very well.

4:40 PM  
Blogger John said...

Or:

"Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice."

Republicus

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff said...

OR, back to basics of this administration-

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

-- George W. Bush, 2001

4:46 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Paul Krugman and a whole lot of others" vs. "your administration and its remaining followers."

That's why he slithered back in here and BLATHERED out another plagiarized manifesto, because Bush's poll-drop psychologically restored the phantom gang of "The People" behind him and thus encouraged him to come back in.

5:49 PM  
Blogger John said...

Lee Harvey countered:

"All aptly apply to your administration and its remaining followers very well."

In other words: "I know you are, but what am I?"

6:43 PM  
Blogger John said...

Republicus responded to Anonymous thusly:

"And by the way, AFTER Operation Desert Fox, Saddam--again--expelled the weapon's inspectors, with impunity.

Republicus heard that it was actually Clinton himself who pulled them out.

(they went back in when Bush became president).

Irregardless of who caused the removal, if in fact that was Clinton's sole reason for bombing Iraq, why did he do nothing, then, the second time around?"

Republicus is uncertain of the timeline.

11:52 PM  
Blogger John said...

Timeline:

28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

1 March 2000: Hans Blix assumes the post of Unmovic executive chairman.

3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome in Baghdad for "technical talks".

12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply with UN resolutions on disarmament.

16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

24 September 2002: Britain publishes a report on Iraq's weapons programmes.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a new presidential term for him.

25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to the UN Security Council.

4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military action.

8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on Iraq's disarmament, warning of "serious consequences" for material breaches.

12 November 2002: Iraq's parliament rejects the UN resolution.

13 November 2002 Iraq's Government accepts the UN resolution.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start their mission.

Okay. When Republicus said this:

"And by the way, AFTER Operation Desert Fox, Saddam--again--expelled the weapon's inspectors, with impunity.

Republicus heard that it was actually Clinton himself who pulled them out.

(they went back in when Bush became president)."

It wasn't an accurate review.

However, this point:

"Irregardless of who caused the removal, if in fact that was Clinton's sole reason for bombing Iraq, why did he do nothing, then, the second time around?"

...is accurate in the sense that the bombing from Operation Desert Fox was spectacular but cosmetic and afterward Saddam returned to his characteristic pussyfooting and uncooperation (with impunity), and therefore created the identical conditions when President Bush ordered military action as when former President Clinton did, with this difference:

Operation Desert Fox was 100% Shock & Awe, while Operation Iraqi Freedom meant business beyond theatrics.

6:37 PM  
Blogger Anubis-X said...

yeah am I glad that I got a blogger ID before there was any confusion being anonymous....

10:07 AM  
Blogger John said...

Cool, Anubis. I'll return a visit presently.

12:30 PM  
Blogger Anubis-X said...

log me in you contakerous puter!

10:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home