tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post116250912694195164..comments2024-03-18T22:38:30.952-05:00Comments on Althouse: Kerry's comments aren't a scandal, let alone a three-day scandal... But the startling deterioration of the NYT is a scandal... "Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162770429426939462006-11-05T17:47:00.000-06:002006-11-05T17:47:00.000-06:00seven,i gave you a site whose mission is basically...seven,<BR/><BR/>i gave you a site whose mission is basically to document what i am talking about. if you can't be bothered to check it out, then so be it. <BR/><BR/>i imagine you didn't read the rolling stone piece either? or maybe that was the "far left" site you are talking about. <BR/><BR/>cheers.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162756150660342502006-11-05T13:49:00.000-06:002006-11-05T13:49:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162743291156236072006-11-05T10:14:00.000-06:002006-11-05T10:14:00.000-06:00If I were you, I’d go the doctor and have my blood...<I>If I were you, I’d go the doctor and have my blood pressure checked.</I><BR/><BR/>I was there last week. As usual, it was 97/68. Thank you for your concern.<BR/><BR/><I>Given that your heart bleeds so profusely for the wives of married gay men</I><BR/><BR/>If my only choices are to bleed profusely for victimized women or thoughtlessly promote and defend their victimizers, I'll continue to bleed profusely.<BR/><BR/><I>I’d like to know what concrete proposals you have for reducing the number of marriages like the ones Jim McGreevey entered into.</I><BR/><BR/>Don't do it.<BR/><BR/><I>Or do you just like getting angry and indignant for the sake of it?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I'm just responding to your posts, even though I was really trying not to (even before I said I would try not to).<BR/><BR/><I>Or perhaps to make yourself appear saintly to other people?</I><BR/><BR/>I believe that I have never written anything here that remotely supports that allegation. I have certainly never claimed I was a saint, saintly, or a role model for anyone. I have attempted to live my life without spending much time wondering "What will the neighbors think?" It is easier that way. YMMVRandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162739758523594742006-11-05T09:15:00.000-06:002006-11-05T09:15:00.000-06:00"Any intelligent, sincere person examining the iss..."Any intelligent, sincere person examining the issue of closeted gay men marrying women must admit that it is morally complex."<BR/><BR/>Morally complex the first time, maybe. The second time it's fraud.<BR/><BR/>"Issuing condemnations left and right doesn’t do anyone any good."<BR/><BR/>Review your comments on Haggard and say that wasn't what you were doing.tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162737421979533902006-11-05T08:37:00.000-06:002006-11-05T08:37:00.000-06:00"Or do you just like getting angry and indignant f..."Or do you just like getting angry and indignant for the sake of it?"<BR/><BR/>Reading comprehension skills seem to be a little impaired this morning. Review Ronin's responses to your attempts to manufacture excuses for McGreevey. Ronin is rightly annoyed at what Seven called "the political impressionism of the Left," perfectly displayed in your McGreevey posts.tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162703225016627912006-11-04T23:07:00.000-06:002006-11-04T23:07:00.000-06:00Bravo, RoninBravo, Ronintjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162702190242748062006-11-04T22:49:00.000-06:002006-11-04T22:49:00.000-06:00It is true, Daryl, that, based on what we know now...It is true, Daryl, that, based on what we know now, there really is no need to test beyond the window period, but I do know a couple of women who still get tested every year "because you never know." It may not be what others consider rational behavior, but it is a consequence of their traumatic experiences.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162698219812730472006-11-04T21:43:00.000-06:002006-11-04T21:43:00.000-06:00And, Edward, I was born in 1955. I have intimate k...And, Edward, I was born in 1955. I have intimate knowledge of the supposed horrors of growing up gay 30 years ago. It was The Age of Harvey Milk, Edward, not the Dark Ages, as McGreevey would like you to believe.<BR/><BR/>I haven't a clue, however, what you mean by my "puny" moral indignation or its need for "exercise." It is quite healthy, thank you, and, as a rule, reserved for liars, thieves, and their apologists, whether they be straight or gay; young or old; black, white, brown, yellow or red; Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, or Declines to State; fat, skinny or otherwise.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162696090550150972006-11-04T21:08:00.000-06:002006-11-04T21:08:00.000-06:00Edward --- READ THIS VERY SLOWLY SO IT FINALLY SIN...Edward --- READ THIS VERY SLOWLY SO IT FINALLY SINKS IN: As I have said MANY TIMES BEFORE, I am gay, Edward. What part of that statement do you not understand?<BR/><BR/>I ridiculed the contention, first advanced BY YOU AND YOU ALONE, that that McGreevey's religious beliefs may have caused him to get married. WELL, Edward, they sure as Hell didn't dictate HIS SECOND marriage, now did they???<BR/><BR/>I have a heart, Edward, but not much of one for lying bastards that cruelly use women to advance their selfish interests, and not for people who prey on MINORS for sex, never apologize for their actions and die 40 years later defiant to the end, and not for people who abuse their PUBLIC TRUST.<BR/><BR/>How many ex-wives of closeted gay men do you know Edward? I've known too many. (And I've known a few who died of AIDS because they found out too late.) Have you ever witnessed the wholesale destruction of a family caused when these men finally admitted the truth, which they knew all along?<BR/><BR/>It is not true that I assume the worst, Edward. Most gay people, living in and out of the closet, don't behave like McGreevey, Foley, Studds, or Haggard, Edward. And you know that as well I do.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162694725103759482006-11-04T20:45:00.000-06:002006-11-04T20:45:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162692335606998082006-11-04T20:05:00.000-06:002006-11-04T20:05:00.000-06:00Good point, Paul. I think Sullivan continues to de...Good point, Paul. I think Sullivan continues to defend "barebacking," although not by name, by his repeated public comments that unprotected sex between two HIV+ men poses no risk of developing more virulent forms of HIV. (One assumes that Sullivan checked all of his potential partners to determine that the strains of HIV carried by them were identical to the strains of HIV carried by him, and that none of them had developed any mutations caused by use of the HIV drug cocktail.)Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162691509684679442006-11-04T19:51:00.000-06:002006-11-04T19:51:00.000-06:00And no one has yet taken a moment to consider the ...And no one has yet taken a moment to consider the positions of McGreevey's two ex-wives (and Haggard's no doubt soon-to-be-ex-wife): a lifetime of HIV tests. <BR/><BR/>Always wondering. <BR/><BR/>Always wondering.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162691184048927372006-11-04T19:46:00.000-06:002006-11-04T19:46:00.000-06:00TJL: No doubt that same religious faith requires a...TJL: No doubt that same religious faith requires all adherents to be in a state of perpetual wedded bliss. So McGreevey was only adhering to his faith after his first divorce when he entered into that second fraudulent marriage. It had absolutely nothing to do with private ambition.<BR/><BR/>Of course, God only knows how many people he paid off with private and public money over the years to keep his dirty little secret.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162690646463842192006-11-04T19:37:00.000-06:002006-11-04T19:37:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162688452947906572006-11-04T19:00:00.000-06:002006-11-04T19:00:00.000-06:00You can find a bit more information on the invasio...You can find a bit more information on the invasion of Sullivan's private life <A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010618/kim20010605" REL="nofollow">here</A>. It came to mind largely because it was driven by the same motive that makes you applaud the invasion of Haggard's private life: ideological spite trying to pass itself off as something else.Paul Zrimsekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293836472390971115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162683843501114102006-11-04T17:44:00.000-06:002006-11-04T17:44:00.000-06:00My basic point is that all these dysfunctional/pat...<I>My basic point is that all these dysfunctional/pathological relationships are the direct result of the closet.</I><BR/><BR/>And Andrew Sullivan's barebacking sessions with strangers who'd answered his Internet ads-- a direct result of the closet too?Paul Zrimsekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13293836472390971115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162682135825683482006-11-04T17:15:00.000-06:002006-11-04T17:15:00.000-06:00"McGreevey may have chosen to remain in the closet..."McGreevey may have chosen to remain in the closet and to get married, because he thought his religious faith required him to do so."<BR/><BR/>And I suppose his religious faith also led him to run an administration that was corrupt even by NJ standards. McGreevey was so notoriously on the take that even the NYT, usually a friend to Democrats everywhere, ran a series of articles on him -- and this was before the Golan Cipel affair surfaced.<BR/><BR/>McGreevey was seriously morally compromised in many more ways than in his sexuality.tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162679579466650622006-11-04T16:32:00.000-06:002006-11-04T16:32:00.000-06:00There are plenty of gay men of McGreevy’s age who ...<I>There are plenty of gay men of McGreevy’s age who began living honestly much earlier in their lives than he did.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm the same age as McGreevey. You bet your sweet ass they did. There was absolutely no excuse for entering into a fraudulent marriage not once but twice in order to satisfy his personal political ambitions.<BR/><BR/><I>They probably sacrificed certain career opportunities by choosing to live out of the closet early on, and that is entirely to their credit.</I><BR/><BR/>People sacrifice career opportunities for a host of reasons every day, and always will. The vast majority deserve neither credit nor discredit for that decision. That's life and they are free to choose.<BR/><BR/><I>McGreevey, on the other hand, chose to lie about who he was so that he could have a successful political career.</I><BR/><BR/>Yep. Selfish bastard that he was, and remains.<BR/><BR/><I>Morally speaking, that kind of compromise is extremely problematic</I><BR/><BR/>Problematic? <B>Problematic???</B> Oh, Edward.<BR/><BR/><I>But he’s not a monster, and now that’s he’s out of the closet, he has an important voice to contribute to the cause of gay equality.</I><BR/><BR/>No, he is not a monster. He is, however, a proven fraud, a serial abuser of both private and public trust. He is not the role model you and other apologists for his long life of intentional lies and deceptions appear to believe he has become now that he is out of the closet. <BR/><BR/>Naturally, I disagree with you: His book is a cynical attempt to manipulate people like you into feeling sorry for him and he has succeeded in your case. His tome is an invaluable contribution to the opponents of gay rights everywhere.<BR/><BR/>In the future, Edward, I promise to make every effort to avoid remarking on your comments.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162676908245716742006-11-04T15:48:00.001-06:002006-11-04T15:48:00.001-06:00It seems very strange to me to witness your dredge...It seems very strange to me to witness your dredge up the same events from the distant past you damned others for bringing up when they disagreed with you.<BR/><BR/>Edward, James McGreevey is a scum. His self-publicizing actions since coming out of the closet continue to be reprehensible. Just because he's out of the closet now does not change that fact any more than the fact that Mark Foley is out of the closet now changes the fact that he is a pederast.<BR/><BR/>I am quite aware of how difficult it can be for those who live "in the closet," but, unlike you, I am unprepared to grant instant sainthood to anyone who comes out of the closet.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162676899491260322006-11-04T15:48:00.000-06:002006-11-04T15:48:00.000-06:00Edward, irony is an accessory that no gay person s...Edward, irony is an accessory that no gay person should ever be without. Too much earnestness makes you look insincere.<BR/><BR/>My point was that your posts appeared to place all the blame on the occupants of the closet, and revel in their downfall, without taking into account how the closeted life warps and distorts and eventually destroys. But you were far more sympathetic to McGreevey than the others -- does the "D" after his name make a difference to you? If so, I consider my point proven.tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162674882194675582006-11-04T15:14:00.000-06:002006-11-04T15:14:00.000-06:00There is no doubt that McGreevey has permanently g...<I>There is no doubt that McGreevey has permanently given up his secret life of anonymous sex with random men.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I doubt it. Leopards like McGreevey don't change their spots.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162672751057558602006-11-04T14:39:00.000-06:002006-11-04T14:39:00.000-06:00Seven,It's always a comfort to know there's a fres...Seven,<BR/><BR/>It's always a comfort to know there's a fresh field open to your talents.<BR/><BR/>Edward asks,<BR/> <BR/>"can we at least agree that the Ted Haggard story demonstrates that real gay men are not interested in teenage boys?"<BR/><BR/>I agree in theory. But here you are including Haggard with the "real gay men." Doesn't this clash with all your posts of yesterday? You thought it made political hay to vilify closeted gays like Haggard as evil hypocrites who, unlike virtuously out gay people, deserve to be humiliated and destroyed. Does this mean you have retreated from your earlier maximalist position, i.e., that gay people are deserving of respect and acceptance only as long as they are publicly out, and espouse progressive politics?tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162669740865158392006-11-04T13:49:00.000-06:002006-11-04T13:49:00.000-06:00http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the...http://www.rollingstone.com/<BR/>news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_goreThe Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162669664324486572006-11-04T13:47:00.000-06:002006-11-04T13:47:00.000-06:00read this for a fairly thorough examination of the...read this for a fairly thorough examination of the press's war on gore:<BR/><BR/>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore<BR/><BR/>if you find inconsistencies or items you disagree with, i'd be interested to hear them.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1162669164866477742006-11-04T13:39:00.000-06:002006-11-04T13:39:00.000-06:00Seven Machos said... Exalted -- Your assignment:1....<I>Seven Machos said... <BR/>Exalted -- Your assignment:<BR/><BR/>1. Provide two instances when the Times skewered Gore at all, let alone without mercy.<BR/><BR/>2. Demonstrate that the Times has ever supported any candidacy of George W. Bush at any point in the history of time.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to the results! <BR/><BR/>6:52 PM, November 03, 2006 <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Gore: The Times, along with every other media outlet in the country, joyfully painted Gore as some sort of insane habitual liar, buying hook line and sinker into the GOP pushed meme. After the debates, the NYT, again, along with every other outlet, skewered him for having a so-called problem with the truth for insignificant inconsistencies (like forgetting who he travelled to the flood zones with, the cabinet secretary or the deputy cabinet secretary) while his opponent, George W., was able to get away with murder, misstating his positions and record with impunity. If you really want an exhaustive list, check Bob Somerby's Daily Howler, where he has recorded probably 100+ examples. <BR/><BR/>Bush: Have you heard of Judith Miller? Do you forget that they ran her ridiculous fact free pro-war pieces (often straight from the WH) on the front page? Do you remember that the NYT sat on the wiretapping article for a <I>year</I> because it bizarrely "didn't want to influence an election?"<BR/><BR/>Clinton: Attacked from the left by the NYT? That's just bizarre and untrue. They ran piece after piece of bs that was fed to them from GOP operatives because Howell Raines hated the Clintons. Ever step back to think that nothing ever came of all those bs "gates" from the Clinton era? Travelgate, White Water, the "clintons trashed the WH during the transition," etc? All of those stories had nothing to them, they were nonsense pushed by GOP operatives. This is pretty well documented.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.com