August 9, 2012

"Social issues are far down the priorities list, and I think that’s the trend."

"That’s where it needs to go if the Republican Party is going to be successful."

So say the young party members.

I'm old, and I'm not a member of any political party, but I agree.

205 comments:

1 – 200 of 205   Newer›   Newest»
Fen said...

The problem with such logic is that entitlements bleed into social issues. And entitlements will have to be reformed if we don't want to take Greece's path.

$78.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Andy R. said...

Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.

Matthew Sablan said...

Entitlement reform cannot be framed as a "social issue." It isn't. It is a math issue.

For the most part though, most people seem to be accepting that social issues are tabled until finances get sorted out.

Robert Cook said...

If this trend takes hold, they'll be able to advertise themselves as:

The HIPublican Party...not your Grandfather's G.O.P.!!

Andy R. said...

Also, that New York Times article is especially fascinating in light of this week's campaign events.

"When 'values,' not the economy, takes center stage"
But the first thing I noticed after watching this ridiculous attack ad is what it didn't mention: jobs and the economy. What we're seeing this week appears to be a rather deliberate shift -- for a year, Romney proudly boasted he was focused exclusively on economic issues, and wouldn't allow himself to be thrown off-message by various "distractions." Other candidates and politicians could chase the political story of the day, but all Mitt Romney cared about, he said, was getting people back to work and strengthening the recovery.

But he's not saying that anymore. Now Romney wants to know which candidate shares your values. As job growth improves the recovery slowly gets stronger, the Republican suddenly believes trips to Israel, welfare, and contraception access are what really deserve attention.

TWM said...

"Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost."

And it's such a cutting-edge comment, too.

Robert Cook said...

"...entitlements will have to be reformed...."

Yes, indeed...corporations and the individual rich should no longer assume they're entitled to pay less than their fair share of taxes.

Fen said...

But they haven't won Andy. In fact, tactics like yours (along with your bigotry) have taught me to hate gay activists.

I used to not care about gay marriage, now I want it killed.

You lost legions of people like me because of your hateful attack on a fricken fast food chain.

Nice job!

wef said...

So what is that 30-something parasitic, birth-control hysteric Fluke yabbering about, then?

What's all this about chick-fillets and gay marriages?

Is 16-ounce softdrink cups a social issue?

Matthew Sablan said...

Well, when Romney was saying he wanted to stay on the economy, he hadn't been slandered as a felon and murderer. When you get hit below the belt, you stop thinking of fighting fair.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.


Hysterical.

The utter delusion you live under is kind of pathetic.

PS: 30 states have voted down gay marriage.

PPS: Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...

Yes, indeed...corporations and the individual rich should no longer assume they're entitled to pay less than their fair share of taxes.


Hilarious.

Yes, "fair share" is always more in your world.

Robert Cook said...

"I used to not care about gay marriage, now I want it killed.

"You lost legions of people like me because of your hateful attack on a fricken fast food chain."


Bullshit. Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with.

TWM said...

"But he's not saying that anymore. Now Romney wants to know which candidate shares your values. As job growth improves the recovery slowly gets stronger, the Republican suddenly believes trips to Israel, welfare, and contraception access are what really deserve attention."


Romney is keeping the economy at center stage. What with 100 million Americans on welfare I would say that is straight on point. As is the government paying for contraception and other economy-killing provisions of Obamacare. As to Israel, well that's national security which is certainly tied into the economy as well.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.


Of course when one has such a simpleton viewpoint, one believes people never change their views on issues.

Of course for Andy, simpleton gets him through the day.

harrogate said...

GOP House since 2010 has spent an awful lot of time on abortion.

Fen said...

Entitlement reform cannot be framed as a "social issue."

Sure it can - values. Is Sandra Fluke adult enough be responsible for her own reproductive choices? Or should the rest of us pay for her birth control?

Do black families need Fathers? Or is the federal government adequately filling that role?



Cook: the individual rich should no longer assume they're entitled to pay less than their fair share of taxes.

"fair" equals 75% as per France? I would love to see your income taxed at 75%. Allofasudden you would drop the socialistic bullshit.

The rich already pay more than their fair share, several times over.

Bob Ellison said...

Reagan's political formula tied social issues to fiscal and policy issues. That formula won big in the 1980s.

The electorate is constantly re-inventing itself, just by dying and being born.

The "that's where it needs to go" argument is borne of the unproven, biased assumption that people are evolving toward the policy preferences you like. The New Soviet Man and all that.

Matthew Sablan said...

"GOP House since 2010 has spent an awful lot of time on abortion."

-- The Senate is where things are dying. The House has been productive on a number of issues (even when I have not liked that productivity).

TWM said...

Whatever Romney is talking about it must be working. 47% to 43% in the tracking poll.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

grackle said...

I think the GOP needs to get back to emphasizing the winning issues of limited government, a free market economy and a strong military.

And being for these issues should be the only test for inclusion or credibility within the GOP.

Fen said...

Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with.

Nope. Agnositc to Nay in one month.

The gay activist attacks on freedom of speech confirmed all the concerns I had dropped.

wyo sis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

harrogate said...
GOP House since 2010 has spent an awful lot of time on abortion.


Really? What new laws have been enacted?

wyo sis said...

This reminds me of the commercial about cereal "keep them full and focused."
Keep them full of bullshit and focused on anything but the real issues.

AJ Lynch said...

Did you ever consider that almost every Dem priority is actually a social issue?

Abortion on demand
Free contraception
Social justice
Affirmative action
Equal pay for women
Sex education in grade schools
No document mortgages backed by Uncle Sam
College loans & grants for every major no matter how worthless it may be [journalism, womyn's studies, LGBT etc, environmental politics, poli sci]
Free cell phones
Trade re-adjustment Act benefits
Rent subsidies

Paul Zrimsek said...

While Republicans don't get much direct benefit from talking about social issues, it's a huge win for them any time they can goad Democrats into talking about them: so many seem unable to do so without sounding like Andy.

edutcher said...

With the economy so bad - it's looks like triple (or is it quadruple) dips on the Depression, people prioritize.

Food and shelter come first.

Andy R. said...

Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.

No, it means people are more concerned with the economic mess made by the First Lesbian President.

It also means that, contrary to Hatman's delusions, people's first waking thought is not, "How can I advance same sex marriage?" .

Balfegor said...

Re: Cook

Bullshit. Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with.

First, did you read what he wrote?

I used to not care about gay marriage, now I want it killed.

He didn't have a positon, but the revolting behaviour of the activists swayed him against them. Second, it's not a trivial reason at all. I'm mildly in favour of gay marriage myself. Not because I think it's a good idea or because it's required for justice or equality or anything like that -- I certainly do not -- but because I don't think it will be particularly harmful or costly and a lot of my fellow citizens seem to want it a lot. But it's a constant struggle to maintain that position in face of the loathsome behaviour and rhetoric of gay marriage supporters. Emotionally I want to see them disappointed because they seem like such awful people.

TosaGuy said...

"Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with."

Didn't know that first amendment rights threatened by elected officials of major cities were a trivial thing. Interesting.

Bill said...

Talking with my own college-age son and just general observation would seem to support the idea that young people are becoming more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Republicans would to well to at least realize this, although if they neglect or abandon social issues just because it seems to be the politically expedient thing to do, it will come back to bite them.

However, Republicans making a show of leaning more libertarian on some social issues strikes me as a winner.

TWM said...

"it's a huge win for them any time they can goad Democrats into talking about them: so many seem unable to do so without sounding like Andy."

Very good point. The vast majority of the GOP and conservatives know this eleciton is about the economy. As well as most Dems. Libs who can't help themselves, like Andy here, more often than not make fools of themselves and end up turning off independents and firing up conservatives. They just can't help themselves though.

Carol said...

The "that's where it needs to go" argument is borne of the unproven, biased assumption that people are evolving toward the policy preferences you like. The New Soviet Man and all that.

Very good...and it comes complete with the "false consciousness" notion that le peuple are too concerned about the "wrong" things.

I dunno, I'm out here in flyover, my own governor telling others that we're a bunch of redneck haters, yet all I ever hear about is jobs, money, house prices..the economy and stuff.

grackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grackle said...

Reagan's political formula tied social issues to fiscal and policy issues.

Actually, no. While Reagan made no secret of his support for social conservative issues he never allowed them to overshadow the three golden issues I mentioned above. Also, Reagan was a 'big tent' conservative who welcomed all who adhered to those three basic issues.

The gay activist attacks on freedom of speech confirmed all the concerns I had dropped.

I think there are plenty of gay folks who would vote GOP if they were not vilified by some folks in the GOP. Gay activists should not be considered as representative of the gay community.

harrogate said...

Marshal,

Revisit your Schoolhouse Rock archives. Bills and laws are not the same.

While you can quibble with some of the numbers on this chart (some, for example, want to argue that the tax bills are jobs bills, and so on), the number 44 certainly does leap out at one, given the ostensible focus on the "Tea Party" in 2010. Same with all the religion/marriage/etc. bills.

Here, interestingly, PolitiFact debunks the chart's charge that the GOP has not tried to address jobs-related issues, but it remains eerily quiet about the abortion-related bills. Wonder why?

Colonel Angus said...

. Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with.

People were swayed by liberal Democrats assault on the Constitutional rights of someone expressing an opinion.

Marshal said...

AJ Lynch said...
Did you ever consider that almost every Dem priority is actually a social issue?

Abortion on demand
Free contraception
Social justice
Affirmative action
Equal pay for women
Sex education in grade schools
No document mortgages backed by Uncle Sam
College loans & grants for every major no matter how worthless it may be [journalism, womyn's studies, LGBT etc, environmental politics, poli sci]
Free cell phones
Trade re-adjustment Act benefits
Rent subsidies


Is this list intended to be ironic? Everything on this is fiscal except those related to sex. Sex without consequence is the treat offered in exchange for government control of resources.

TWM said...

"Talking with my own college-age son and just general observation would seem to support the idea that young people are becoming more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Republicans would to well to at least realize this, although if they neglect or abandon social issues just because it seems to be the politically expedient thing to do, it will come back to bite them."

Both of my voting age sons are voicing libertarian viewpoints. My youngest at 23 is liberal on social issues but having just graduated from college and not having a lot of luck at finding a job he's solidly in the Romney camp. My oldest, an Obama voter and very active social issues liberal has told me he just can't make himself vote for Romney, but what is telling has not switched his voting registration to his new residence, which means he didn't think it was worth doing to vote for Obama again and he's decided to sit this one out.

I think that's going to be the rule rather than the exception this time around.

TosaGuy said...

The Dems are becoming the shrill voice on social issues.

You have to support such and such or you are a HATER! RACIST! BIGOT or whatever else.

People don't like to be called those things.

People also think they work hard and should keep what they earn and that people and gov't should generally live within their means. Most people will help others in need, but loathe propping up those who refuse to help themselves.

That doesn't mean that they want all of government dismantled. They want to see some responsibiliy, efficiency and accountablity.

Dems, by all means keep putting up the Sandra Flukes and Julias for people to see and telling people they didn't earn what they have built. Also, make sure you tell people who don't jump up and clap in support of every aspect of your social platform every name in the book because being that shrill will surely convince them to vote for you.

Colonel Angus said...

the individual rich should no longer assume they're entitled to pay less than their fair share of taxes.

It is a well established fact that the top 20% of income earners pay 60% of the Federal income tax burden. If 'fair share' to you is to increase that to 75% or higher then you're displaying nothing more than the parasitic attitude that someone else do all the heavy lifting.

The logical and mathematical solution to the entitlement problem is to lower rates and broaden the tax base. Everyone should have skin in the game.

Marshal said...

harrogate said...
Revisit your Schoolhouse Rock archives.


Is it really so tough not to start with the declaration that you're an asshole?

Bills and laws are not the same.

Funny, this is my point. The primary difference is that laws matter and bill don't. If Democrats promised to write only bills with no chance of becoming law I'd vote for them in a second. Well, the promise would have to be enforceable first, but I think the point is clear.

Nathan Alexander said...

If conservatives stop talking about social issues, they are surrendering on social issues.

That's why dishonest and untrustworthy people keep insisting conservatives stop talking about social issues and focus on economic issues.

I say "dishonest and untrustworthy" because liberals will never give up on entitlements. They take the free victories on social issues to maintain political support to continue entitlement spending. It is a huge part of their political existence.

If you have an injured person who is bleeding from a gaping wound, and some idiot is continuing to stab them, you sound like an idiot if you tell people to ignore the stabbing person to focus on the gaping wound.

Yes, the gaping wound will kill quicker than the current minor stab wounds.

But the priority is always to stop future damage, then stabilize the current wounds, then move to the minor wounds.

Someone who doesn't stop stabbing a patient will kill quicker than the gaping wound. And is an asshole on top of it.

If you don't recognize liberal social policy as additional stab wounds on the life of the Republic, you are insufficiently perceptive.

Quayle said...

Which means that we'll all keep chopping at the branches of social problems because we'll never have enough money to fix the problems caused by crappy marriages, parents, and homes.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harrogate said...

Marshal,

Bills are not laws but they do matter in the sense that one assumes this is taking up time and energy and argument and meetings and writing and redrafting etc.

Which does, it seems, dovetail with the core point of the post to which we are responding. Look at all the resources the GOP has put into the abortion issue since 2010!

That's my point.

Also, do you think they would not have used all those resources to draft all those bills if they had the ability to actually turn them into laws? If that's the case, that seems problematical as well, doesn't it?

Pastafarian said...

I've never been morally opposed to homosexuality, or drug use. But I've argued against extending marriage tax breaks to homosexuals, and against legalizing pot-marijuana, mainly for one reason:

Because so many goddamned dirty hippies want these things so badly.

Why concede something to them without getting anything in return?

And here's what we might get in return: A 50 or 60 year conservative majority. If we can get a sizable majority of people between 18 and 30 to sign onto conservative principles of small government and free markets, merely by throwing them a bone on these two trivial issues, then they can have all the butt-sex and mary-jane they can handle and we might just be able to undo the damage of the last 3 years.

Hell, if we win enough presidential elections, we might eventually get Kelo reversed, and we'll all get to actually own our houses again instead of living in them til the government kicks us out.

AJ Lynch said...

Marshal- no it is not meant to be ironic. i am pointing out that almost every DEM issue is a social issue yet that is OK but Repubs must stay away from social issues.

You may view my list as fiscal but IMHO the DEM support of subsidizing rents, mortgages, contraception etc are first & foremost social issues that have significant fiscal price tags.

Matthew Sablan said...

44 bills on abortion.

Bills related to jobs:

Economic development: 64 bills
Economic performance and conditions: 55 bills
Employee hiring: 24 bills
Employment and training programs: 172 bills
Labor and employment: 151 bills
Unemployment: 107 bills
Wages and earnings: 143 bills

Yeah. There's certainly undue weight being spent on abortion bills. Also: "We checked each topic area to make sure that Democrats had offered bills on those topics, and in each case, they did." -- So, how many of those 44 were Republican abortion bills?

The simple fact is that Congress can do more than one thing at a time.

harrogate said...

Matthew,

Far from running from them, I purposefully highlighed the numbers to which you are pointing.

But 44 abortion bills seems like a lot to me, in 2 years, considering that *ostensibly*, the 2010 election had nothing to do with that. Also, the religion/family related bills. It's just an awful lot of social issues bills, regardless of how much "job creation" bills-drafting is or is not being done over a 2 year span.

Colonel Angus said...

I've never been morally opposed to homosexuality,..

Neither have I. I just find the idea of two people of the same gender engaging in sex repugnant.

Matthew Sablan said...

Abortion bills include any bill that touches on abortion, even obliquely. For example, bills dealing with contraception and healthcare.

44 seems like a reasonable number when you look at it like that. It is not 44 bills about overturning Roe v. Wade.

Marshal said...

harrogate said...
Bills are not laws but they do matter in the sense that one assumes this is taking up time and energy and argument and meetings and writing and redrafting etc.


So they're spending time on political theater when they could be busy handing out trillions of dollars to their supporters? Where can I sign to show my support?

TosaGuy said...

I think it is true that most young people would not want to associate with racist people like these.

Pastafarian said...

Colonel Angus, there are a few heterosexual pairings I'd find pretty repugnant too. I'd prefer that people just keep this sort of information (what they like to do with their wiener, and to whom) to themselves.

Instead, every day in the Althouse comment thread is a big Gay Pride Parade with AndyR prancing out in front in assless chaps, braying like a ninny.

But I hope he keeps it up -- I think he's driving people, hetero and homosexual, to the conservative side in droves.

Marshal said...

AJ Lynch said...
You may view my list as fiscal but IMHO the DEM support of subsidizing rents, mortgages, contraception etc are first & foremost social issues that have significant fiscal price tags.


I see what you're saying but I think you have the terminology wrong. Democrats' core value proposition is "You keep us in power and in return we'll use that government power to drive more resources to you." Every item in your list not related to sex fits that description. The veneer of social justice or whatever specific rationale they use is a practical public relations effort unrelated to the core value proposition.

Marshal said...

Pastafarian said...
Colonel Angus, there are a few heterosexual pairings I'd find pretty repugnant too. I'd prefer that people just keep this sort of information (what they like to do with their wiener, and to whom) to themselves.

Instead, every day in the Althouse comment thread is a big Gay Pride Parade with AndyR prancing out in front in assless chaps, braying like a ninny.


Not to put you in the same class as Andy, but this is an odd statement from a guy with your icon.

Robert Cook said...

Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot.

Anyone who votes for Romney is an imbecile.

grackle said...

If you don't recognize liberal social policy as additional stab wounds on the life of the Republic, you are insufficiently perceptive.

I think the "life of the Republic" would remain safe and secure even for instance if same sex marriage were to become widespread in the USA, assuming a strong economy and a strong military.

Doesn't the viability of the Republic really depend on the military and the economy? In my opinion security/"life of the Republic" has little to do with the various social conservative issues pushed by some conservatives.

Rabel said...

My ability to analyze the mathmatics of Quantum Physics and the Times' ability to analyze conservative thought are roughly equivalent.

Maybe I'm selling myself short.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.


Only if you are a self-delusional malcontent and that's basically what you are. The fact that you believe this nonsense makes whatever credibility you thought you had appear to be even less than what it was. You're deep in the negatives, butt-boy.

Rusty said...

Doesn't the viability of the Republic really depend on the military and the economy? In my opinion security/"life of the Republic" has little to do with the various social conservative issues pushed by some conservatives.



You're not seeing the contradiction?

Robert Cook said...

The founders of our nation considered a "strong military" (i.e., standing armies) to be a grave threat to the liberty of the republic.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The founders of our nation considered a "strong military" (i.e., standing armies) to be a grave threat to the liberty of the republic."

-- Then the English burned down the White House. I'm OK with admitting when they get things wrong.

ricpic said...

The Republican Establishment - including these young turks who want to join it - has never been and will never be conservative. It wants socialism that respects liberty. An impossibility. But never having thought through the connection between traditional American values - that are completely incompatible with socialism - and liberty, the Republicans are stunned, stunned at each new libertine socialist assault on liberty. Ergo the stupid party label.

Robert Cook said...

Oh, they didn't that wrong. They were quite right.

Aside from their threat to our liberty, a standing army is an unnecessary and ruinous drain of public monies.

Palladian said...

I just find the idea of two people of the same gender engaging in sex repugnant.

I just find the idea of a simpering gun-grabber like you engaging in voting repugnant.

Matthew Sablan said...

I just find the idea of people imagining other people having sex to be odd. I have better things to do than imagining any combination of other people doing that.

grackle said...

You're not seeing the contradiction?

Nope. But the commentor should feel free to inform me specifically what my "contradiction" is.

bagoh20 said...

Would you choose a surgeon like this?

You would pick the one with your social values, even though one has a long history of success and the other only failure in the activity you are paying him to do?

How dumb do you have to be?

gerry said...

PS: 30 states have voted down gay marriage.

I think it's 36 states that voted it down in one way or another.

Marshal said...

Robert Cook said...
Aside from their threat to our liberty, a standing army is an unnecessary


Radicals have an extreme inability to understand the full scope of consequence. The US military is the greatest force for world stability this planet has ever had. Without it we'd see disasters like Somalia and Kosovo far more regularly. Countries like China would be constant aggressors to their neighbors. Examples like Venezuela who went from relatively peaceful to absurdly belligerent in the blink of an eye would be far more numerous with far more deadly effects. World trade would be severly hampered by pirates.

The world doesn't work like we wish it would.

Justin said...

every day in the Althouse comment thread is a big Gay Pride Parade...

Really? I'm not sure what blog you're reading, but the comment threads over here are far from being a gay pride parade.

bagoh20 said...

Andy, maybe you don't care, but you should know you reinforce nearly every negative stereotype that people have of gays. People like you are the very reason that things like the Chick-fil-a boycott and gay marriage referendums fail so so much. People just want you to fail, not because of what you are, but how you are.

I guess what I'm saying is: Thanks.

harrogate said...

bagoh20,

Yeah, what he ought to do is be real deferential to those he address, who after all have such a wonderful track record in terms of how they treat, speak to, and speak about homosexuals. maybe if he asks nicely they will be so gracious as to... to what, exactly?

You seem awfully forgiving of or oblivious to an entire set of rhetorics that demonize homosexuals at every turn and on myriad levels, but real sensitive to the propriety of someone like Andy. Good on you.

Chip Ahoy said...

AJ Lynch, wide open southern border and wide open voting booth.

Lyssa said...

harrogate said: Yeah, what he ought to do is be real deferential to those he address, who after all have such a wonderful track record in terms of how they treat, speak to, and speak about homosexuals. maybe if he asks nicely they will be so gracious as to... to what, exactly?

Most everyone here is nice to Pallidian, and to Broccoli Scott, and I've never seen a negative word towards Coketown. I'm sure there are others who I'm not thinking of right now, too (and sorry, fellows, for using you to make my point).

Christopher in MA said...

Maybe if he acts nicely they will be so gracious as to. . .to what, exactly?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps. . .advance his cause? If Hat thinks that my being Christian automatically makes me a bigot, then I see no need to listen to him.

And frankly, how the hell would you know what people's "track record" is on gay issues around here? I might not like gay people, I might support gay marriage, I might support civil unions. You don't know. Neither does Hat. But his constant whine of "bigot!" is like the race card; it's been pulled one too many times.

harrogate said...

Also this clause:

"you reinforce nearly every negative stereotype that people have of gays"

This suffers from a great lack of self-awareness. Do you understand that a great many people (more and more with every passing generation) are free of affliction from these "negative stereotypes"? It's not a view that "People have of gays," it is a bigotry. Just to clarify for you.

Paul Zrimsek said...

maybe if he asks nicely they will be so gracious as to... to what, exactly?

That question would be better addressed to Andy, who evidently wants something from those "anti-gay Christian bigots", and could use some help figuring out that calling them anti-gay Christian bigots might not be the very best way of talking them into it.

Cedarford said...

grackle said...
I think the GOP needs to get back to emphasizing the winning issues of limited government, a free market economy and a strong military.

And being for these issues should be the only test for inclusion or credibility within the GOP.

=================
Even there there needs to be discussion.

1. Limited government must be weighed against only government being able to do really big things. like a Federal Interstate Highway System. Landing people on the moon. The public rightly desires certain things only the government can do.

2. Free markets....provided those free markets are not run by a Cabal of bankers and financiers that churned out poison paper equities and set the taxpayers back 3 trillion dollars. Or a free market of, by, and for the Owner Elites that want 20 years of short term profits going into their pockets by gutting the American industrial base and destroying the Middle Class for illegal labor and China offshoring.
Owners and their bankers and investors that don't care if what they do diminishes America in the long haul as long as they can get rich off it's destruction in the short haul in the Free Market system.
Trickledown is a lie.

3. A strong military - but not one whose strength is defined as the willingness to be the world's free 9/11 service anywhere at any time, endless new Neocon wars of adventure and nation-building. Not one whose "duty" it is to serve other nations vital interests by giving them free defense, free secure shipping lanes.

Chef Mojo said...

Andy, maybe you don't care, but you should know you reinforce nearly every negative stereotype that people have of gays. People like you are the very reason that things like the Chick-fil-a boycott and gay marriage referendums fail so so much. People just want you to fail, not because of what you are, but how you are.

Bahoh20: I gotta say that's some major league stupid right there.

Let's see. Pride happens once a year, and they all get their freak on. Scary, huh? Boogabooga! Assless chaps are very frightening, aren't they, Bagho20?

Ever been to Mardis Gras? Or Carnival? Or how about the typical fraternity/sorority block party? I've seen things at Central Virginia field parties that would put the behavior at Pride to shame.

Maybe it's the Folsom Street Fair you're thinking? Those guys and guys really know how to party!

Wow, Bagoh20! Humans - straight, gay and everything in between! - behaving badly! Who knew?

If you're gonna go around judging cultures by their bacchanalias, you're gonna be a long time trying to find one that meets your standards.

They're called "stereotypes" for a reason, dumbass. Look up the word. How can you reinforce the notion of something that has come to you as a received idea and cliché in the first place? People like you who go on about the "reinforcement of stereotypes" rarely have a clue as to what they're talking about.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harrogate said...

Paul,

I won't speak for Andy but for myself, though there is likely strong crossover between that we would like to see on this front.

I'd like to see an end to anti-gay bigotry, just as I'd like to see an end to racism. That of course is never fully realizable. But more and more, it is becoming less acceptable in polite company to derogate homosexuals, so progress in some ways, exists.


Indeed, it was not so long ago at all (only 9 years ago!) that it was perfectly legal for a state to criminally prosecute someone for having homosexual sex. And now gay marriage is gaining traction. That is a stunning blow for human rights in the United States.

And of course, a great many Christians are not anti-gay bigots. Just as a great many nonreligious people are afflicted with great hate for homosexuality.

This bigotry does all too often tend, however, to be articulated in religious terms in our discourse. I'm sure it bothers non-bigoted Christians, in fact.

bagoh20 said...

Wow, you guys have some weird ideas about gays.

By negative stereotypes, I meant: arrogant, self-righteous, accept-me-and everything-I-want or be called and punished as a bigot.

Now maybe you guys have seen Andy in ass-less chaps, but I guess I missed that party.

I apologize for thinking in a little more modern terms. Back to your knuckle dragging.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Mojo,

Do you really think people support Chick-Fil-A because they fear gay pride parades?

You're like a fossil of an obscure inaccurate stereotype of a character I saw on a sit-com in the 70's.

Cedarford said...

Marshal - "The US military is the greatest force for world stability this planet has ever had. Without it we'd see disasters like Somalia and Kosovo far more regularly. Countries like China would be constant aggressors to their neighbors."

Actually, the Romans and the Royal Navy functioned much longer than the post WWII USA did as a "greatest force for stabilty" did.
What happened to the Romans? - Decline and Fall as they focused on overseas Empire and Hero soldiers while rotting from within.
What happened to Britain?
It got overextended, lost its power in two ruinous wars it could have avoided but for its "Global Force For Good and For Free Markets."

If anything, trying to continue the post WWII American role would be even harder than what the Brits and Romans did over many centuries...because law and lawyers favor the Carthaginians and barbarians and the "precious rights" of 3rd World hellholes not to have every ship they own sunk in a week by the US Navy when the Royal Navy sometimes brought nations and Muhammedeans to heel just by sending a squadron threatening to do so.

Brit colonial troops held nations with minimal numbers, minimal casualties and a colonial system that more than paid for the military and administrative costs until the natives got modern communications and became a better organized opposition. America's "high tech Heroes with boots on the ground" in modern times are easy prey for Iraqis and Vietnamese and Afghans armed with fertilizer and a long-bred love of
killing outsiders.

If the West abandons its post WWII "duty" to save 3rd Worlders from themselves and "duty" to take in millions of Haitian and Somali and Arab refugees if they "fail their duty" to nation-build hellholes...
What harm is there in letting Somalia or Syria become Detroit or Newark or Compton...just as long as we are as willing to bar the door as we would be if a pack of inner city scum from DC showed up at our own house and demanded to be settled in our unused guest bedroom?

harrogate said...

"By negative stereotypes, I meant: arrogant, self-righteous, accept-me-and everything-I-want or be called and punished as a bigot."

Um, do you not see the problem with associating those terms with homosexuals specifically? If you hold those stereotypes in your mind towards gay people, you are engaged in bigotry. However "modern" you think you are being, however much you might want to legitimize it either by saying "People" harbor that negative stereotype towards gay people, or by suggesting that one individual gay person "reinforces" those stereotypes.

Hint: It's not political correctness, it is common sense and decency.

SteveOrr said...

“Anyone who can be swayed so easily and for such a trivial reason from a position they claim they previously held never really meant it to begin with.”

And yet, the pro-SSM crowd has boasted that opposition to SSM was a mile wide but an inch deep.

Fair enough.

But polling suggests many of the shallow SSM opponents changed sides & became pro-SSM. We’re supposed to believe that they were deep thinkers?

No sale.

The small minority of religiously motivated traditionalists & the small minority of LGBT activists are both serious about their views. Most voters are still up for grabs, including young people.

ken in sc said...

Hey Pastafarian, was that Andy in New Orleans, on the flat bed in front of Lafitte’s Retreat? Yellow hard hat, leather vest, chaps, and that's all—I should have recognized him.

bagoh20 said...

When I call them sterotypes, that kind of might hint that I don't think they describe the group comprehensively, but I use the English translation. You see, if you read and think for a moment, you find that I am the one supporting gays and their diversity, while Andy comes on here determined to identify himself as the stereotype I suggested, and I think he's doing damage to their cause. Many of the gays I hang with would not appreciate his type. Got that, now? Now go find a real fight.

Marshal said...

"If the West abandons its post WWII "duty" to save 3rd Worlders from themselves and "duty" to take in millions of Haitian and Somali and Arab refugees if they "fail their duty" to nation-build hellholes..."

We don't undertake these actions from a sense of duty, we undertake them because they provide us a net benefit. Wars have a habit of sucking you in even when you prefer they not. Wars ruin markets both as sources and destinations. Pirates hamper trade.


Actually, the Romans and the Royal Navy functioned much longer

Longer, but less effectively.

harrogate said...

It's not a "fight," but it's a damned real argument alright. Even if some of your best friends are gay, and those friends wouldn't like the way Andy stands up for gay rights against bigots.

As a side note, it is interesting that however much you might "support" gay rights you say "thank you" to andy for what you (quite bizarrely) deem his contribution to negative stereotypes that "People" have of gays.

It is very good that you harbor none of those stereotypes yourself.

But it still matters to understand that those who do, are bigots, and they certainly cannot with any legitimacy turn to activists for gay rights as a cover/excuse for their reptilian views.

Cedarford said...

Always amazing how Andy R manages to dominate a thread and make it all about Andy and homosexuality at Althouse.

Last I looked, the social issues America has extended far past what social construct homos could best shove their cocks in each others asses.

Right now, social issues seem as misplaced as a major discussion item as talking about the plight of the sea turtle in the months after 9/11 as a major priority.

We do have to be wary of the Left using the argument that since jobs and the economy are so important...it is on conservatives to give the Left what they want to avoid "distracting the country from the Real Issues" (A patented progressive jewish ploy Axelrod trots out in Obama's speeches and which the Bolsheviks used to great effect when concerns about state terror were dismissed as a "distraction" from the main focus on bettering the lives if the average Soviet worker).

In the Axelrod iteration...America's problems are so great we cannot afford the distraction of fighting against gay marriage, Sandra Fluke's free contraception, the Dream Act, Amnesty, new taxes...
And conservatives need to end the "distraction" and nod their heads in assent on each social issue they are supposed to cave on like the Soviet masses did so "We can focus on the Real Issues once gay marriage, the Dream Act, Amnesty, free Obamacare, etc. are all in place."

On the other hand, Rick Santorum is a relic from past times, along with the Neocons with fantasies of endless US treasure funding their endless wars of stabilization, freedom-giving!!, and nation-building.

Reagan was no neocon, and Santorum and his loathsome ilk forget that we are in tough times and in no mood for a theocrat putting religious right issues at the top of the Priority List and talking about how Saint Reagan of 30 years back would love Santorum...

grackle said...

… like a Federal Interstate Highway System … The public rightly desires certain things only the government can do.

I agree but only if "rightly" refers to constitutionally allowed activities. The majority(the "public") cannot do certain things no matter how much they may "desire" it.

Free markets....provided those free markets are not run by a Cabal of bankers and financiers that churned out poison paper equities and set the taxpayers back 3 trillion dollars.

Specifics, please. Just who were in the "Cabals?"

A strong military - but not one whose strength is defined as the willingness to be the world's free 9/11 service anywhere at any time, endless new Neocon wars of adventure and nation-building. Not one whose "duty" it is to serve other nations vital interests by giving them free defense, free secure shipping lanes.

A strong military is essential no matter who might be President or what foreign policy philosophy might be ascendant at the time. A disagreement with foreign policy has a political solution: elections. But don't weaken the military just because the military has to carry out the decisions of politicians. I can understand your anger but I still want the protection of a strong military.

Robert Cook said...

"The US military is the greatest force for world stability this planet has ever had. Without it we'd see disasters like Somalia and Kosovo far more regularly. Countries like China would be constant aggressors to their neighbors. Examples like Venezuela who went from relatively peaceful to absurdly belligerent in the blink of an eye would be far more numerous with far more deadly effects. World trade would be severly hampered by pirates."

A standard rationale offered by those who support the American Empire, and probably typical of similar arguments made by apologists for previous (now fallen) empires.

Cedarford has already drawn attention to this, so I won't belabor the point. Our founders feared standing armies for two primary reasons: their threat to our own liberty and the risk they posed to our fiscal viability.

Dangers of Standing Armies

harrogate said...

Cedarford,

Issues such as immigration and taxes that you mention in your posts, certainly should not be written off as "distractions" or "red meat social issues," but rather need to be deliberated reasonably.

I agree in large part with the response to this question that you have rendered. But there are important riders to the tale.

The abortion is of course very much a "red meat social issue," and probably is never ever going to go away. This is saddening, but indisputable, or so it seems to me anyway. The fact that the "Tea Party" elected GOP majority has spent so much powder on the issue in Congress is very telling.

Further, the debate over gay rights is FAR from settled in this country (though lots of progress has been won in a relatively short period of time), and the debate matters to who we are as a nation because it is a human rights issue with all the global ramifications that such issues necessarily entail.

And if the gay rights issue is ever to be even diminished from the prominence it now occupies in our national discourse, it is only capable of being diminished by one side of the argument. This is what the history of rights struggle in the United States tells us.

Robert Cook said...

From the article I linked to in my last post, these words of James Madison state forcefully the reasons we should fear standing armies:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

And:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Given the militarization of our muncipal police departments, every major (and many less major) American city is already occupied by their own miniature standing armies, to whose authority the citizens must submit on threat of beatings, torture or summary death. The American police state is essentially a fait accompli.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"As a side note, it is interesting that however much you might "support" gay rights you say "thank you" to andy for what you (quite bizarrely) deem his contribution to negative stereotypes that "People" have of gays."

Yes, the "Thanks" was for helping motivate people to fight back against the bigotry of those gays and others who think that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is a hateful bigot who should be damaged anyway possible, financial, social, even being fired or bankrupted.

Of all people, gays should be one of the groups most sensitive to such tactics. When you are less than 5% of the population, picking fights and name calling instead of trying to convince and educuate is foolishly counter-productive.

I hope it continues to fail miserably, because regardless of the cause it's a bad way for us to pursue social change on sensitive issues.

You may think Andy is standing up for the cause, but I think he's more Tokyo Rose than MLK.

Andy R. said...

I do not know a single gay activist that isn't pleasantly surprised at the progress gay people have made in such a short time in America. We're happy with how things are going. It's not over yet, but any conceivable metric is heading in the right direction.

When gays asked to get married, the Catholic Church mustered all its power to fight us. And every year more and more states let gay people get married. And every single projection I have seen says that is going to continue with more and more states getting on board. The gays took on the Catholics and the Baptists and the Mormons and evangelicals and we're winning, slowly but surely. We took on Christendom and we're winning. It boggles the mind.

I have little doubt that outspoken, in-your-face activism is what is allowing us to succeed. And when a bunch of bigots tell me that, for my own good, I should stop doing what I'm doing, it doesn't make me thing they have my best interest in mind.

There are hundreds of companies that are explicitly pro-gay. Many of them are explicitly supporting gay marriage as well. Every year, more and more companies put out advertising that contains an implicit or explicit message in support of gay marriage. Protests from One Million Moms and other hate groups are completely ineffectual, and often counter-productive.

I don't think any companies will risk doing what Chick-fil-A did any time soon. Who wants to be targeted next? It's too scary. The bigots should hunker down in fear until they have lost. Chick-fil-A has already been blocked from expanding on multiple college campuses. When the fall semester starts, they are going to start getting booted off of college campuses.

Colonel Angus said...

I just find the idea of a simpering gun-grabber like you engaging in voting repugnant.

Opinions vary.

Colonel Angus said...

Cedarford has already drawn attention to this, so I won't belabor the point. Our founders feared standing armies for two primary reasons: their threat to our own liberty and the risk they posed to our fiscal viability.

Indeed the same can be said for the unsustainable entitlement system that the Democrat Party wishes to expand. Such a system violates my liberty by taking more of my earnings to give to others as well as the obvious risk to our financial viability which we are experiencing now.

Fears of some military takeover is nothing more than paranoia. Maybe that's why we have a 2nd Amendment.

harrogate said...

bagoh20:

Come on, now. I have for the most part refrained from the whole Chic Fil A kerfuffle but the violin playing for Cathy and what he has had to endure, either in real time, or hypothetically, is staggering.

If only gay people in the United States, historically and on through this moment of typing, had to spend a day in the shoes of an oppressed, disempowered, free speech martyr like Cathy, for one day, boy, it would sure open their eyes.

I wonder if you even know the whole story of Catthy and the Chic Fil A / gay rights issue? Maybe you think it all just started and is as simple as a CEO saying publicly he is opposed to gay marriage?

Anyway, gay people in the United States might only represent something like 5% of the population, but two things about that:

1)In terms of rights, So what? Minority status mitigates the reptilianness of a majority discriminating against them, not a bit.

2)A very great many heterosexuals are outspoken advocates for gay rights, throughout the United States. Indeed these numbers grow greatly. And it may be that such advocates, along with the gay Americans who are fighting for their rights, have tried and continue to try to "educate and convince" those who stand against gay rights.

Bob Ellison said...

bagoh20, I agree with you that the stereotypical gay activist type hurts their cause. "We're here, we're queer" is a stupid slogan. The rest of us don't care where or what you are.

But you are displaying a bigoted attitude. You extrapolate traits from the behaviors of the few activists in a group that is still somewhat on the outside of the broader culture. That's how bigotry happens.

Some of my best friends are gay people! Truly. And they are not all wackjobs.

Bob Ellison said...

harrogate, your latest comment implies that there is much more to this story. Is there a back story to Dan Cathy being anti-gay?

I try to follow pop culture and current news, but I don't know about this.

Joe Schmoe said...

1. Limited government must be weighed against only government being able to do really big things. like a Federal Interstate Highway System. Landing people on the moon. The public rightly desires certain things only the government can do.

Hey Rumplestiltskin, it's time to wake up from your Eisenhower-era nap. It's not 1960 anymore. We've got to get past this fictional notion that there are things only the government can do. It's demonstrably false now and it's done more harm to this country than good.

You would seriously hold up the highway system as something only the government could do? A system that has created more graft and corruption than just about any other government endeavor? And one that the feds now use, by way of tolls, as a permanent supply of revenue, even after these highways are bought and paid for many times over?

Synova said...

"So what is that 30-something parasitic, birth-control hysteric Fluke yabbering about, then?

What's all this about chick-fillets and gay marriages?

Is 16-ounce softdrink cups a social issue?
"

Quite right. It's all about OUR social issues, not YOUR social issues, isn't it?

It's mind boggling, really, to pretend that the conservatives are about social issues and the liberals are not.

Take the social implications of fiscal policy. It doesn't matter whatsoever that a strong economy makes life better for everyone so we rationally favor sound fiscal policy. What matters is first principles.

If one doesn't have *social issues* as their first principle, then they're the bad guy, even if their ideas about economics will make life better for everyone.

Ayn Rand may have been a horrible person, but that was one of the things she saw and was *right* about when she wrote that society behaved in self-destructive ways by favoring and defining altruism as only that which gave NO benefit to the altruistic person.

If your motivation was self-less. Your heart was in the right place and bleeding.

And it all works, somehow, because God blesses the righteous.

Only it doesn't work, just like the silly carbon trading.

And no one cares.

Robert Cook said...

"Such a system violates my liberty by taking more of my earnings to give to others as well as the obvious risk to our financial viability which we are experiencing now."

Such a narrow and therefore inaccurate view: the taxes collected by government are allocated to a variety of purposes, which, ideally, serve for the benefit of all citizens. This is directly realized in the expenditures that funds the building of public infrastructure, (roads, bridges, highways, reservoirs, dams, etc.), in the funding of schools, fire departments, police services, and so on. But the monies allocated to so-called "entitlement" programs--welfare, food stamps, housing allowances, as well as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare--are also for the benefit of all of us. It is not your money being taken away and given to someone else; it is our collective money being made available to anyone in need. You or loved ones might need to avail yourselves of some of these services at some time. If the programs are cut, it's not just the others--the purported "leeches" of public myth--who are effected, but everyone who may now or in future need help.

Fears of some military takeover is nothing more than paranoia. Maybe that's why we have a 2nd Amendment."

It's hardly paranoia, and is a historical reality to which we are not in the least immune, and to which we are perilously close. We're already under constant surveillance in public and in our electronic communications, and the President has established (and has acted on) the right to unilaterally imprison or execute anyone in the world, including American citizens.

Synova said...

"I wonder if you even know the whole story of Catthy and the Chic Fil A / gay rights issue? Maybe you think it all just started and is as simple as a CEO saying publicly he is opposed to gay marriage?"

Do you know the whole story?

My best guess is the fellow gave his own money to a number of causes that he chose to support and likely never said anything "publicly" at all.

And someone else searched the donor lists of the organizations they hate, and found his name.

And asked him about it.

At which point he failed to lie.

Close?

Synova said...

"I don't think any companies will risk doing what Chick-fil-A did any time soon. Who wants to be targeted next? It's too scary."

Yes, intimidation works wonders.

At least you're honest about the jack booted thugs.

Do you have brown shirts and armbands, too?

Robert Cook said...

Of course, in reality--as opposed to the ideal--our tax dollars are transferred from the working citizens to the wealthy elites, and so the "other guys" to whom our money is being given are the rich, far more than to the poor, whom you scorn.

Robert Cook said...

The Dispossessed Majority

Pragmatist said...

I am not a member of a political party either. I do not like the Dems a bit but the Reps have gotten so nuts as to be almost unrecognizable from the party of Ford, Reagan and Bush the daddy. I just cannot shove my head up the arse of the Reps while claiming to be unaffliated. And while I do not like some of the stuff Obama has done or left undone I cannot listen to people telling lies about him to try and make their own mistakes go away. All in all, given what he was handed in 2008, O has not done that bad a job. We ARE better off then we were in Nov 2008 and no amount of lying is going to make that not the case.

bagoh20 said...

"But you are displaying a bigoted attitude. You extrapolate traits from the behaviors of the few activists in a group that is still somewhat on the outside of the broader culture.
That's how bigotry happens."


If I am a bigot, then this approach just cements it in place. If I NOT not a bigot, I don't want to help anyway when you are calling me names. Where is the progress?

If you have people behaving like this in the name of your cause, they are slowing you down, and turning your progress into nothing more than a political facade that will prolong the underlying non-acceptance. It's like a conservative group having the KKK show up to support you.

The hatred and unwillingness to listen or share the political landscape is not helping in the long run. Gays will likely get their way regardless, but what they will have when they get there, and how long true acceptance takes will depend on what road they choose. The people you like to call bigots today will still be around, and voting tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't think you hate them when you need their support?

Marshal said...

Ayn Rand may have been a horrible person,

And in fact she was. She believed the economic truths she observed not only could but should be replicated in social contexts. She was insightful and correct on many points, but she was a shitty human being.

AJ Lynch said...

Chip- those are two excellent additions to the list.

Marshal said...

(roads, bridges, highways, reservoirs, dams, etc.), in the funding of schools, fire departments, police

Whenever the left wants money they always cry about teachers, police and firemen. But somehow the money always finds it's way to the lawyers and politicians.

Marshal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

Robert Cook said...
Of course, in reality--as opposed to the ideal--our tax dollars are transferred from the working citizens to the wealthy elites,


Certainly true in the context of Obamacare and TARP. Are you against both those policies?

Synova said...

"Of course, in reality--as opposed to the ideal--our tax dollars are transferred from the working citizens to the wealthy elites, and so the "other guys" to whom our money is being given are the rich, far more than to the poor, whom you scorn."

We've given government the power to do that.

So that's what the government does.

Marshal said...

harrogate said...
I wonder if you even know the whole story of Catthy and the Chic Fil A / gay rights issue? Maybe you think it all just started and is as simple as a CEO saying publicly he is opposed to gay marriage?


There's something quite amusing about someone asking others if they know the whole story while referencing a fabrication.

bagoh20 said...

"Some of my best friends are gay people! Truly. And they are not all wackjobs.

Same here, except none of mine are. In fact, I don't know any gays with this insane need to call people names. Those I know are just fine with people not agreeing with gay marriage, but the gays I know are grown ups. They know everybody doesn't have to agree with them. If it wasn't for the reasonable ones I know, I'd probably be hitting the rest over the head with the Bible I never read. It really irks me that the insane ones get all the press. The gays I know are the most normal reasonable people in my circle, but they get painted with this crap too.

Bob Ellison said...

The people you like to call bigots today will still be around, and voting tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't think you hate them when you need their support?

I don't like to call them bigots. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. I don't need their votes, since I'm not a politician.

I guess you're saying that it is wise to be careful in politics, because a stated position (like pro-same-sex-marriage) can be harmful among one's primary political base.

I would, in fact, have no problem with people hating me if I stood up for what I believed right. You seem to advocate repressing morality in favor of politics. That is abhorrent.

phx said...

Don't they know Obama's declared a war on religion?

Pastafarian said...

Robert Cook: "It is not your money being taken away and given to someone else; it is our collective money being made available to anyone in need."

So let me get this straight:

I get up in the morning and go to work; rather than spending my limited time on earth with my children, I trade that precious finite time for money.

But it's not mine.

So why should I get up and go to work, Bob?

Can I call you Bob? Or would you prefer Fuckface? How about dipshit?

Why don't you come over here, fuck face, and try to liberate some of "our" money from my pocket, and see what happens next, you thieving son of a bitch?

See, now you've got me all worked up. Let me take a quick swig from this bottle of...medication that I keep in this drawer.

That's better.

How many times, Bob, do we have to try "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" before we realize that it causes people to starve to death? One more time? Three more?

If it makes you feel any better, Bob, I used to believe in that Marxist stuff too. Then I graduated from 8th grade.

phx said...

Yes, intimidation works wonders.

At least you're honest about the jack booted thugs.

Do you have brown shirts and armbands, too?


Whoa, wait a minute. I don't know what anyone else is doing, but if I choose to personally boycott X company because of their political outspokenness, and even sign a petition and suggest that to my friends, does that make me an armbanded, brownshirted, jackbooted thug? Man, that's harsh.

Marshal said...

How many times, Bob, do we have to try "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" before we realize that it causes people to starve to death? One more time? Three more?

There are only two motivators (beyond self): carrots and sticks. The left believes carrots are unacceptable. First those that don't have self-motivation quit. Then those whose motivation is weak see the effect and quit. This repeats and eventually only the extraordinary continue. The system can't survive. But your entire system is predicated on the fact that carrots are evil, so you can't turn to them.

What do you do?

Andy R. said...

Do you have brown shirts and armbands, too?

American Christians like to imagine they are a persecuted minority, even though their are neither persecuted nor a minority.

Synova said...

"Whoa, wait a minute. I don't know what anyone else is doing, but if I choose to personally boycott X company because of their political outspokenness, and even sign a petition and suggest that to my friends, does that make me an armbanded, brownshirted, jackbooted thug? Man, that's harsh."

Did I not quote enough?

"I don't think any companies will risk doing what Chick-fil-A did any time soon. Who wants to be targeted next? It's too scary. The bigots should hunker down in fear..."

Clearly the tactic is one of intimidation, it's a *risk*, who wants to be *targeted*, it's *scary*, people who disagree should *fear*.

Watch out! If you have the wrong opinions you'll get targeted, you should fear and you should shut up. Your business will be destroyed.

That's not "I'm not going to buy chicken there."

Andy wants to send a message of fear.

HIS words, not mine.

Fear.

Robert Cook said...

Pastafarian,

Apparently you unfamiliar with the historical reality and necessity for organized societies to fund themselves through taxation. If you were, you wouldn't ask inane rhetorical questions.

You don't like the portion of your income that you pay in taxes to help feed and clothe and house those in need; I don't like the portion of my income that I pay in taxes to pay for standing armies and for aggressive wars of mass murder and terror abroad, (which simultaneously further enrich parasitic swine on Wall Street and in the munitions industries who are already more than rich enough).

So, we're both unhappy with our government!

Paul Zrimsek said...

the Reps have gotten so nuts as to be almost unrecognizable from the party of Ford, Reagan and Bush the daddy.

I wonder if it's a coincidence that the time it takes a Republican president to become acceptable is almost exactly equal to the time it takes a Communist dictator to become unacceptable.

Synova said...

If we can't have unpopular opinions or give our money to unpopular causes without being made the focus of attacks and efforts to destroy us...

We're not free.

What is hard to understand about this?

The franchise, Andy promises us, is going to be hounded from college campuses this fall. It's not that people won't buy enough chicken to keep them in business, they're going to be thrown out.

What about that doesn't convey the picture of jack booted thugs, brown shirts and armbands?

We could have a list for businesses. Who they can't give money to. Private citizens, too. Have a black-list. If you're on it you won't be able to get work. Won't be able to have a business.

And then we can have another list of approved causes that someone has to give money to so that they get hired or can open a business without the mob forcing them out.

It'll be *fun*.

yashu said...

It's all about OUR social issues, not YOUR social issues, isn't it?

It's mind boggling, really, to pretend that the conservatives are about social issues and the liberals are not.


Absolutely, Synova. From the "NYT article" Andy quotes upthread:

As job growth improves the recovery slowly gets stronger, the Republican suddenly believes trips to Israel, welfare, and contraception access are what really deserve attention.

The Republican is obsessed with "contraception access"! (I guess Fluke must be a Republican then.)

How very Orwel... how very Lakoffian.

And NB it's not a Republican who's just substantially changed a welfare law instituted by a past Democratic administration. That's why "welfare" is now an issue.

Which is something that goes to both the gay marriage debate and the Fluke contraception issue. I may fairly be described as a small-l-libertarian, but that's different from being a social liberal. I'm not a "social conservative," and I'm sympathetic to many so-called "gay rights" issues (for example, I'm all for civil unions-- don't have any strong feelings one way or the other whether this should count as or be called "marriage").

But I'm sympathetic to some social conservatives' concerns, and in particular to the (apparently paradoxical) pragmatic/skeptical basis of conservatism-- skepticism in the Montaignean sense, a skepticism that is "conservative" insofar as it distrusts the utopian claims of dramatic social transformation, especially through well-intentioned "progressive" legislation.

It's what Althouse (in reference to Obamacare) has called "first do no harm." Sometimes doing nothing is preferable to an idealistic "reform" with dire empirical consequences, which are often foreseeable (cf. climate change legislation discussed in a recent post). In a relatively well-functioning polity, the greater burden of proof lies upon those who advocate dramatic change-- in particular when that change involves less individual liberty and more top-down governmental power.

"Contraception access" only came up when a liberal Democratic administration purported to infringe on religious liberty and freedom of conscience (dictating to Catholic institutions), and when a liberal Democratic administration purported to expand what government (i.e. taxpayers) are supposed to pay for. It's not conservatives trying to take something away from citizens ("access"); it's liberals doing so. The burden of proof is not on conservatives, but the progressives actively imposing a change.

"Contraception access" is not a conservative social issue, it's a deceptively Lakoffian euphemism for a progressive social issue.

Chick-fil-A became a "conservative" issue when powerful Democratic city mayors threatened to prevent that business from operating in their city, merely because of its owners' socio-political views. As a libertarian, I'm always more concerned with the abuse of governmental power than with private citizens' holding views that I may find unsympathetic.

yashu said...

PS As a libertarian, I will always defend the rights and celebrate the ability of private citizens in the USA to hold all sorts of views that I may find unsympathetic.

yashu said...

PPS (sorry for bogarting the thread) I will say I am very glad and very relieved that Santorum is not the GOP nominee.

Synova said...

As a test, apply your fear tactics to someone else, Andy.

Wrong behavior isn't wrong only because of who is being attacked or "persecuted." Apply your fear tactics to someone else and see if you still think it's not brown-shirt territory.

If someone wants to boycott, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'm so put off by a couple of different actors that I'm not likely to ever see one of their movies. Pepsi and Taco Bell were off the menu for a while as well, until I got bored.

But you don't HAVE the numbers, do you.

So you need fear.

Give money to the wrong cause, vote for the wrong proposition, maybe even vote for the wrong political party or candidate... and lose your job or get harassed until your business closes down.

Because that's the new thing, isn't it? Out your enemies.

It's not about persuading anyone, because that's difficult. It's about making it a risk to do business, making others fear that what happened to that other guy might happen to you.

That's fascism, Andy.

No matter who it's directed toward.

Rabel said...

bagoh20,

Don't let them beat you down. You just stated the obvious, that Andy R. is an unattractive representative of homosexual interests and his jackassery is damaging to those interests. The responses back that up.

B said...

Idon't think any companies will risk doing what Chick-fil-A did any time soon. Who wants to be targeted next? It's too scary.

Why? Have you been under a rock for the last week or two? Chick-fil-A experienced a huge demonstration of support by citizens who believe free speech should not be suppressed and that across the entire geographic areas where they do business. There was what can be charitably called only a token demonstration of anti-Christian gay bigots a few days later.

At least one poll showed 61% approval and support of Chick-fil-A. Other businesses aren't stupid, Andy. They don't make decisions based on the wishful thinking of anti-Christian gay bigot activists. They don't use Mother Jones as a source. They use hard evidence, and that says that support for traditional marriage trumped SSM support by a huge margin. Losing the business of the anti-Christian gay bigots is trivial. Go eat elsewhere.


The bigots should hunker down in fear until they have lost.

You should, because you and the rest of the anti-Christian gay bigot have. Your 'conceivable metrics' are being generated using data that does not represent nearly a 2/3s majority of the country. You can continue to wish for the force of government fiat to come done on your side, but in a majority of states that put SSM up for referendum - 36 I believe the number is - you lost. Politicians use hard data just like businessmen do. Neither uses Mother Jones as a source.

Chick-fil-A has already been blocked from expanding on multiple college campuses. When the fall semester starts, they are going to start getting booted off of college campuses.

Which means what? That in a closed environment that enforces liberalism by fiat - again those words, force and fiat - you can reliably predict that that students will have to step off campus for a Chick-fil-A sandwich. Step off into the real world so to speak.

In closing, I wonder whether you have enough self-awareness to understand that all your predictions are based on your willingness to encourage the government to force the agenda of a minority onto an unwilling majority by fiat. People recognize that thinking. It goes by a few names historically depending on the flavor of the day - fascism being one, totalitarianism another, statism at best. Doesn't get much traction in the USA.

Rabel said...

"It is not your money being taken away and given to someone else; it is our collective money being made available to anyone in need."

Sweet bleeding Jesus. I feel like my brain needs a bath after reading that.

Rusty said...

Pastafarian said...
Robert Cook: "It is not your money being taken away and given to someone else; it is our collective money being made available to anyone in need."

So let me get this straight:

I get up in the morning and go to work; rather than spending my limited time on earth with my children, I trade that precious finite time for money.

But it's not mine.

So why should I get up and go to work, Bob?

Can I call you Bob? Or would you prefer Fuckface? How about dipshit?

Why don't you come over here, fuck face, and try to liberate some of "our" money from my pocket, and see what happens next, you thieving son of a bitch?

See, now you've got me all worked up. Let me take a quick swig from this bottle of...medication that I keep in this drawer.

That's better.

How many times, Bob, do we have to try "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" before we realize that it causes people to starve to death? One more time? Three more?

If it makes you feel any better, Bob, I used to believe in that Marxist stuff too. Then I graduated from 8th grade.


You're wasting your time.
Bob is absolutely convinced that if you have more you stole it from someone else. In that he has a lot in common with medieval peasants.

Synova said...

"American Christians like to imagine they are a persecuted minority, even though their are neither persecuted nor a minority."

This, Andy, is wrong in the same way that any claim that a white person can't experience racism against them, based on lack of minority status, is wrong.

It really doesn't matter at all if, for example, I hate someone who is oppressed or if I hate someone who is privileged. The hate is the same inside of me and has the same nature.

If I try to hound someone out of business it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if the person being hounded is an oppressed minority or someone who can't claim that status. My behavior is equally vile because it is what it is.

I understand that you don't *get* when people accuse you of being a bigot, that they aren't just making it up. You are. But you don't think you are because the focus of your bigotry isn't an oppressed minority.

Freedom of speech and freedom of association aren't dependent, either, on the status of oppressed minority.

Defining it all, as you do, over a number of areas, as having to do with oppressed minority status, is self serving. You get to hate with a clear conscience, be a bigot in comfort, and promote tactics very much in the realm of those jack-booted thugs and never ever feel poorly about yourself.

Your hate and bigotry isn't likely to hurt anyone but yourself and your fear-plans for any business that doesn't take the correct lesson from the destruction of Chick-fil-A is likely to hurt nothing but your cause.

But it IS what it IS.

Bob Ellison said...

Hey, not everyone is "Bob". Robert Cook doesn't call himself that. Be careful! The Professor doesn't call herself "Anne" or "Annie".

rubymudpuppy said...

Bob Ellison, fuck off. He is just insulting parasite. Go hump your daddy's leg for more "free stuffs" instead, you inbred OWS neo-nazis-like parasite!

Cedarford said...

Getting off Andy R's "all homo all the time" social agenda....

far bigger social issues surround illegal immigration, entitlements, abortion, collapse of the inner city black culture, the looming inaffordability of medical care unless costs are brought under control.

It's how they rate with voters. I think homo agenda items are right down there with their fellow noisy squawkers on Global Warming Doom.
The support isn't there...hence the loud mouths and fascist tactics.

WV - 1 doofUs

phx said...

I just don't see how wanting to shut a business down through boycotts because you don't agree with their political views is vile.

If you do ancillary stuff like scrawl graffiti on its property or harass employees, I agree that's vile.

But simply supporting and promoting a boycott of some company you don't like doesn't seem vile to me. It seems very much in the spirit of capitalism. If you find it vile maybe your problem is with capitalism.

Bob Ellison said...

phx, I agree. The funny thing about boycotts is that they never work. Ha ha ha! They never work.

Andy R. said...

You people realize that the number of states with gay marriage has been steadily increasing, right? Year over year, more victories for my side.

I would happily put money down that gay equality wins a state election in the next two years. I'm feeling bullish about November. We'll see soon enough.

I have heard nothing from the bigots about how they think they are going to stop this process. The Republicans Party has stood down from the debate over marriage equality. If you think some rabid anti-gay christian bigots stand a chance here, you are deluded.

The question is just how much more damage is done to the Christian brand before the anti-gay bigots fold. And I think most of you know this. And it probably upsets you. Too bad. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of bigots.

rubymudpuppy said...

Do you know what is funny thing?

Parasites blaming all their problems on unnamed evil rich white people but politicians.

That is fucking bigotry right there, you hypocrites!

rubymudpuppy said...

Say you bigoted OWS hypocrite who think there is no problem with Middle East's Culture and blame all your problems on unnamed evil rich people.

phx said...

Bob Ellison I don't know if they work or not. I really don't actually join them, at least I can't think of any I'm boycotting for exclusively political reasons. And I'm the type who's going to keep it to myself anyway.

But a group boycott seems very ...capitalistic.

Although for sure someone's REASONS for boycotting can be vile. But it doesn't seem to me the reasons for boycotting Chik filet are vile, and I think of myself as a pretty good judge of vile.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

There will be no health care reform, let alone fiscal reform, until the so-called "social" issues are addressed. They are the basis for emotional appeals and serve to obfuscate issues and defend the status quo. For example, there is a reason why a selective rule of law (i.e. corruption) permits the entry of one million illegal aliens annually.

In any case, "social" issues will always be prominent, and not, as long as dreams (i.e. physical, material, ego) of instant gratification without perceived consequences are promised and promoted. As people take a progressively short-term perspective of reality (e.g. elective abortion of voluntarily conceived human life, redistributive and retributive change, a majority reproducing in the minority), the effort to normalize dysfunctional behaviors will proceed unabated, and the associated issues of fiscal mismanagement and corruption will be commensurate to their progression.

rubymudpuppy said...

"I think of myself as a pretty good judge of vile."

You are a shitty hypocritical judge. See OWS and batshit Democrats/liberals accusing Mitt Romney of racism and being evil rich person, for examples.

Synova said...

"If you do ancillary stuff like scrawl graffiti on its property or harass employees, I agree that's vile."

Well, yes. And we've seen that happening and everyone seems proud of the harassment.

I wonder if our campus Chick-fil-A will simply lack business from a boycott, (unlikely), or if access will be blocked by jackasses.

I'm guessing "blocked by jackasses" either directly or by denying access by pressuring the administration.

Demanding an ideological test before being allowed to participate in the economy and make your living, such as on state-run college campuses or even in some cities, if certain mayors had their way, isn't a boycott, it's *wrong*.

It might be illegal.

Synova said...

So maybe it won't happen anyway.

phx said...

everyone seems proud of the harassment.

I know you take opinions seriously. I think they'll have more merit if you cut back on the generalizations.

Demanding an ideological test before being allowed to participate in the economy and make your living, such as on state-run college campuses or even in some cities, if certain mayors had their way, isn't a boycott, it's *wrong*.

Sorry, I might have missed something but I thought we were talking about Chik-fil-a. And that fast food company isn't being disallowed participation in the economy because they failed an ideological test. They are being boycotted by some because the CEO willfully, knowingly, made a very public political declaration that is very unpopular with some people.

Not really a helpless victim in this that I can see.

Fen said...

Andy is going to look cute in a burka. Just before they throw him under a brick wall.

You want to impress? Speak truth to Islam.

Fen said...

And that fast food company isn't being disallowed participation in the economy because they failed an ideological test.

5 Blue City mayors tried to.


the CEO willfully, knowingly, made a very public political declaration that is very unpopular with some people.

"I believe in traditional marriage and family values" ??

Synova said...

"They are being boycotted by some because the CEO willfully, knowingly, made a very public political declaration that is very unpopular with some people."

Did he?

I want to know. He was very public, apparently about being a Christian and running his company that way (Hobby Lobby does that, too) to whatever extent he was a "public" person, and he gave money to some organizations, but was he really the one who "very publicly" brought it up?

Someone *asked* him, and he didn't lie.

That's not at all the same thing as being "very public" about the issue. That's being "normal" about the issue. Are we all required to lie and hide our opinions or other people will be justified in going after our economic well-being because we were "public?"

We see advocates out there all the time about this cause and that cause and they are "very public". Corporations promote their social causes left and right: fair trade coffee or whatever is "green" today. Maybe there were anti-gay marriage quotes on the soda cups in the store? Was he on a speech circuit promoting himself and traditional marriage?

Did anyone know who this guy was or care until someone dug it up?

Perhaps I simply missed how obnoxiously public he was being prior to his being asked and not lying about it.

yashu said...

But a group boycott seems very ...capitalistic.

In a way, yes. Individuals choosing voluntarily not to buy a product for whatever reason-- that's what a free market is all about.

But there are boycotts and there are boycotts. Between government officials abusing their power to punish businesses for their owners' political views (city mayors threatening chick-fil-a), which is unacceptable, and private individuals exercising free speech and voluntarily banding together to boycott a business (nothing wrong with that), there are all sorts of in-between situations which I find troubling or despicable.

Boycotts that aren't governmental per se, but institutional in ways that that are coercive to individuals.

College campuses are a good example-- academia in general is rife with this kind of thing. A university administration, pressured by an activist group of faculty or students, imposes a boycott on a business... or a country (like Israel). In this case, a "boycott" is coercively imposed on every member of that university or academic institution, whether or not they agree to it.

I'm a member of the MLA. The MLA has passed political resolutions condemning this that or the other-- resolutions I don't just disagree with, but have found positively offensive-- and as a member, I find that oppressive.

Sure, I guess I'm not "forced" to be a member of the MLA. But if you want to have any kind of career in academia and the humanities-- you have to be a member of the MLA. Given those circumstances, for the MLA to presume to speak for me, to adopt as part of its official platform something I find deeply offensive (e.g. re Israel)-- I find that coercive.

Cf. Prestigious scientific institutions passing resolutions about CAGW-- and individual member scientists justifiably outraged that the institution would presume to speak for all of them, presume to impose and enforce "consensus" in matters (ostensibly) of science, of theory-- but that are, of course, political to the core.

As a libertarian, I find such things troubling, something distinctly different from the exercise of "free speech," and not what I would call "capitalistic." Unless you're referring to the diseased monopolism of crony/ cartel capitalism... i.e. crony/ cartel socialism, i.e fascism.

Penny said...

"Social issues fall far down the priorities list.."

The DISTINCT advantage to living alone, and on your very own planet!

phx said...

Perhaps I simply missed how obnoxiously public he was being prior to his being asked and not lying about it.

So are you against boycotts, or this particular boycott?

What difference does it make under capitalism whether you agree or not with his political (and they are political) statements or positions? Others don't, they vote with their feet. Unless you think boycotting for political reasons in principle is vile, I don't know what your beef is, except that you agree with him and you're mad at those who don't. You're dressing that up as some sort of self-righteous reaction against liberals' tyranny. Well, bullshit.

yashu said...

PS I made a distinction between "institutional" and "governmental," but of course as Synova points out above, a state-run campus, a public university, is governmental.

Penny said...

You can bound out of bed every morning and scream...

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL... Ohhhhh!

Ohhhhh? woah woah woah

phx said...

...private individuals exercising free speech and voluntarily banding together to boycott a business (nothing wrong with that)

Everything I'm defending here falls under that heading. I'm not saying anything about university or government inspired boycotts, or a particular situation with the MLA.

Paul Zrimsek said...

They are being boycotted by some because the CEO willfully, knowingly, made a very public political declaration that is very unpopular with some people.

This sort of thing gets called corporate social responsibility when it's done by the right people.

Synova said...

I might be wrong, it's happened often enough.

But in a political environment where digging through donor lists and attacking private citizens seems to be the new norm, this is what I expect.

I expect that the owner of Chick-fil-A wasn't "very public" about anything but his faith.

We've had better "vetting" of obscure Republican donors than we ever got for the current president. We find out about a sexist joke told 40 years ago and how a guy who owns a casino in Las Vegas doesn't disapprove of prostitution. It's mind boggling.

And the purpose is to warn anyone who doesn't comply that their pasts are going to be gone through with a fine toothed comb and they will not DARE to take the risk.

So was it the choice and decision of the owner of Chick-fil-A to become "very public" or did someone else make that choice and he chose not to lie?

Andy R. said...

If Chick-Fil-A is giving money to hate groups like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family, I don't give a fuck if they are doing it in public or private.

Either way it's disgusting, and people who aren't bigots should stop giving money to a company that is fighting for bigotry and discrimination.

Palladian said...

Andy R. is an asshole. That he is (or purports to be) gay is beside the point. His bad qualities have everything to do with him being an asshole and nothing to do with his sexual orientation. I know it's easy to confuse correlation with causation, but it's still wrong.

Anyway, his trolling (again, motivated by his identity as an asshole rather than his identity as a gay person) works, as somehow every comment thread in which he appears seems to turn into a colloquy on his stupid, repetitive and assholish utterances. Why do you people feel the need to engage his tiresome "arguments" over and over again? It's the same trollish assholery, intended to inflame rather than engage. And the responses to it are equally tiresome at this point.

Synova said...

"I don't know what your beef is, except that you agree with him and you're mad at those who don't."

I actually don't agree with him.

I'm simply disturbed by what seems to have been an "outing" and then demonizing of a private citizen. This isn't something we ought to be comfortable promoting.

I boycott, more or less, a number of actors that have been so obnoxious that I can't separate them from the character they play in a movie. No one *outed* them. I don't go searching and looking for someone to punish by withholding my purchasing dollar. I want to enjoy movies.

If someone wants to go the "corporate social responsibility" route and support social causes through their purchases, fine, too, if the company is actually advertising it.

Do a substitution test. Is digging up "dirt" on someone who has a right to their opinion and free speech really something we want to normalize? If it's normal for society it's normal for all points of view. So switch around the points of view and imagine the new normal as if what is a minority viewpoint now, somehow becomes the majority viewpoint later.

Should people who are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage search out and make a list and boycott companies of anyone who disagrees?

Now, mostly, we think that people should be able to participate equally in the economy even if we don't like their world-view, or their religion, or the bad behavior of other people who look like they do. It's not JUST the government who we feel ought not discriminate. We think it's a pretty important social norm.

If it becomes a social norm to research and test for ideologies then it becomes a social norm over all.

This isn't healthy to society.

rubymudpuppy said...

"Why do you people feel the need to engage his tiresome "arguments" over and over again? It's the same trollish assholery, intended to inflame rather than engage. And the responses to it are equally tiresome at this point."

I know. I'm sorry. I can't help it. I am sick of seeing asswipe and other hypocrites using this word "bigots" to make themselves feel like they are so clever.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"The founders of our nation considered a "strong military" (i.e., standing armies) to be a grave threat to the liberty of the republic."

And they were/are right. The FEDERAL military should only be strong enough to suit the moments that we are living in. When there is little or small threat to the Country, the ranks of military (i.e., standing army) can and should be smaller. The States are responsible for protecting their own borders and citizens and likewise don't always require a large standing Guard.

The obligation and responsibility of the citizens is to be able to stand ready (and armed) to contribute to and join a strong militia in times of National or State disaster, and to step forward and join the military.

A large standing army with nothing to do can become the tool and plaything of corrupt politicians and become a danger to the citizenry. A large standing army with nothing much to to and who perhaps strongly disagree with the political leanings of their so called masters, can become a danger to the politicians and may decide that THEY should be in charge.

There is NO reason for a large standing army (of personnel) in these days either since most warfare is highly mechanized.

Synova said...

As Free Speech goes:

It's only unpopular speech that is at issue. ONLY unpopular speech needs free speech. The rest is approved speech.

No one needs Free Speech for speech that is approved.

We protect unpopular speech from government censorship *and* from extreme social suppression (answering with more speech, not "shut up" as part of our common culture and base principle) even when we disagree strongly and in every particular *because it is important* to affirm, for our society, the value of free speech *itself* over what is said and what opinions are held.

Making people afraid to have unpopular opinions or to give money to unpopular causes because it may impact their jobs and livelihood is jack booted thugery.

It's happening with political donations to regular people and it *shouldn't*, not on any side of the issue. And this Chick-fil-A thing seems to be of one piece with the whole.

I really don't want this behavior to become *normal*.

phx said...

I'm simply disturbed by what seems to have been an "outing" and then demonizing of a private citizen. This isn't something we ought to be comfortable promoting.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? Nobody's asking you to promote it, are they? Accept the responsibility for yourself; you aren't responsible for my choices.

I don't go searching and looking for someone to punish by withholding my purchasing dollar. I want to enjoy movies.

Good, that's your choice. I applaud you, is that what you want from everyone else? Fine, have it your way, you are better than people who support the boycott.

Is digging up "dirt" on someone who has a right to their opinion and free speech really something we want to normalize?

Want to normalize? Are you serious, Synova? Where have you been for the history of American politics, for the history of the world?

Should people who are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage search out and make a list and boycott companies of anyone who disagrees?

Just as I've been saying, why not? Isn't that capitalism? Isn't capitalism what you want?

Remember when you take that substitution test yourself, you're someone who also seems like you'd be happier restricting the rights of some others in the marketplace over their ideology.

phx said...

As Free Speech goes:

It's only unpopular speech that is at issue. ONLY unpopular speech needs free speech. The rest is approved speech.

No one needs Free Speech for speech that is approved.


Please don't give me that crap that ONLY unPOPular speech needs free speech, POPULAR speech doesn't.

Because all speech, popular or not, needs protection. And if you are making distinctions, it's probably because you're setting up to say your speech is unpopular and so needs protections. And my speech is popular so it doesn't need them.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric said...

Since I paid for wifi on the plane, I guess I should make a gloating comment about how the gays have won and the anti-gay Christian bigots have lost.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The gays lost in bluer than blue California. If you can't win in California it's going to be another generation before you win unless the courts just change the laws.

The reason the Republicans are focusing on fiscal issues is because that's where the Choomster can't defend his record.

B said...

You people realize that the number of states with gay marriage has been steadily increasing, right? Year over year, more victories for my side.

You idiot. Not every state has even had a referendum on the question of gay marriage and 36 states have passed some form of state DOMA. And you ask if 'you people' realize that the SSM position is steadily increasing. You're claiming in effect that while your army only won 1 of 4 battles last year, this year they won 2 of 15 so your enemy should immediately surrender because of the increase in the number of your victories.

You're a fraud, Andy. If you had any strength of conviction you'd talk about the anti-gay Islamic bigots and do it from a soapbox in the middle of the campus.

You're a coward because if you did you'd learn by personal experience, and do so very quickly, exactly what the face of hate filled religion based bigotry against gays actually looks like. And you know it.

You're a bigot because you can paint a whole class of people as dismissible and hate filled based on the actions of a few. You're incapable of even considering that the majority of your opponents are taking a principled stand in DEFENSE of an institution and not offensively against gays. You're incapable of considering it because it's all about you - your safety, your appetites, your insistence that the majority must not just tolerate but MUST APPROVE. It will always be about you.

And lastly, you're an utter fool. You mistake positions for principles and in doing so advocate against your best interests. If you had a brain in your head, given your conviction that homosexuality is not a choice, you'd be rabidly anti-abortion. Because if your conviction is correct, it's inevitable that the markers will eventually be recognized in-utero, and aborting a child because of sexual orientation will be no more problematic than doing so for gender. And since homosexuality is a biological dead end that depends on hetero-sexual reproduction to replenish numbers, it will be the end of any significant homosexual presence in this country.

But hey, it's the liberal position. Always in the minority interest. Right?

Penny said...

Blogger Palladian said...

"Andy R. is an asshole. That he is (or purports to be) gay is beside the point. His bad qualities have everything to do with him being an asshole and nothing to do with his sexual orientation. I know it's easy to confuse correlation with causation, but it's still wrong."

HEADLINE: "Althouse's Big Gay Bear, Palladian, Goes All Anal on Hatman Andy"

phx said...

If the strategy is to focus on fiscal issues, why are so many Republicans and conservatives off-topic so often?

I think the social agenda is so strong in the Republican and conservative base that it's going to be right there in the Republican campaign. Romney himself won't be able to lay off it.

Penny said...

Libertarians declared it a "domestic issue".

Synova said...

"Because all speech, popular or not, needs protection."

From whom?

No one says that someone should be kicked out of college for saying something nice that everyone likes.

No one recalls and destroys all copies of a fiction magazine because everyone likes and approves of the stories in it.

A government doesn't shut down an opposition newspaper that never opposes anything... because then it wouldn't be an opposition newspaper.

I generally have a pretty good imagination but perhaps you could help me by suggesting a scenario where approved-of speech conveying popular opinions needs protection.

By definition no one is trying to stop it. It's a tautology.

Which may be annoying, but doesn't make the statement at all false.

Penny said...

WTF Palladian?

As if Althousians don't understand differences in people?

Lighten up.

We're all good people here.

Course I suppose some honeypots are sweeter than others....

If you ask the bear.

Synova said...

"And if you are making distinctions, it's probably because you're setting up to say your speech is unpopular and so needs protections. And my speech is popular so it doesn't need them."

No.

I'm saying nothing at all other than that what is popular and accepted *today* may be unpopular and open to retaliation tomorrow.

Everyone, not just me, but everyone, should examine what they believe is acceptable retaliation toward ideological opponents and pick who they defend with the idea in their head that one day, if not today, they may well be the minority that people want to shut up, and if they don't protect what they abhor before that happens, they're going to be screwed.

Eric said...

I think the social agenda is so strong in the Republican and conservative base that it's going to be right there in the Republican campaign. Romney himself won't be able to lay off it.

Only in the most socially conservative states. In the US we don't have one big presidential election, after all. We have 50 little ones.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Synova said...

Sometimes people use the terms "wrong side of History" to delude themselves that there is never ever a risk to their own freedom, because they're always going to be on the "right side" of History.

If you want to remain free, imagine yourself on the wrong side of History and behave in a way that will create social structures and expectations that will ensure your liberty when that day arrives.

Do you think that libertarians are the freedom and liberty fetishists they are because they *like* everyone else? The ultimate social liberals?

It's nothing more than believing that what goes around, comes around, and when it does you want it to be "live and let live" that falls on your neck instead of forced conformity.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

If Chick-Fil-A is giving money to hate groups like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family, I don't give a fuck if they are doing it in public or private.

Either way it's disgusting, and people who aren't bigots should stop giving money to a company that is fighting for bigotry and discrimination.

Andy you are such a douche that I'd gladly give money to any group you're against, solely because you're against it. Because you're a douche.
I'd never even heard of chic fila prior to this, but now I'm thinking of buying stock in the company. Because you are the enemy Andy. Not because of your gayness. But because of your fascistic tendencies and douchery. And that stupid hat.

reformed trucker said...

"Republican leaders also hope to tap into what they see as a growing libertarian streak among young conservatives - the same energy that Representative Ron Paul of Texas rode with a strong emphasis on minimalist government and individual freedom."

Good trajectory.

"When it comes to what you do in your bedroom, or where you go to church, or where you want to put a tattoo, we just couldn't care less,"

Catching up with society might advance their poll numbers.

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
Andy R. is an asshole. That he is (or purports to be) gay is beside the point. His bad qualities have everything to do with him being an asshole and nothing to do with his sexual orientation. I know it's easy to confuse correlation with causation, but it's still wrong.

not exactly true. His gayness is linked to his assholish ness since his focus is on being gay, and he is an asshole. Hence his douchery is filtered through his identity and it comes across as him being an asshole because hes gay. Though, even if he were straight hed still be a douche. I think, more than his gayness it's his leftism that is most offensive. He has the smug, superiority in the guise of pretend tolerance that many lefties have perfected over the past few decades. So, if he were anti meat, or pro environment and not gay at all, that smugness would still shine through.

reformed trucker said...

"I'm old" - Ann

I can't believe you said that.

Apparently Mead hasn't been stroking your ego properly...

AllieOop said...

I ADORE Penny.

reformed trucker said...

Palladian @ 7:35 p.m.

This.

Well said, sir!

jr565 said...

Should people who are for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage search out and make a list and boycott companies of anyone who disagrees?

maybe that's the solution.states with marriage on the the books defined as between a man and a woman should have it as a litmus test that anyone opening a business in their town must toe the line, or face the consequences.

Would that please Andy?

Because Andy seems extremely intolerant of marriage as it has always stood in this country. Hateful even. To the point where he'd make the enemy of people of good will who have no problem giving gay people rights, but still value marriage as it has been definitionally for their entire lives. Within that framework there is a solution hat would satisfy pretty much everyone, only Andyis all about shaming the bigots, not recognizing that he is similarly a hateful bigot in his own right.

XRay said...

Good grief. The empty hat scored again, almost, as in getting it to be all about him. But Synova and yashu, with others, kicked ass with good logical, rational thought. Bravo.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 205   Newer› Newest»