unique visitors since July 27, 2005

« Josh Asks: | Main | Always Low Intelligence. Always. »

January 26, 2006



...bowing gracefully....


Personally I found Jews for Hitler somewhat more amusing. It at least had a glint of interest because it's so infused with fanatical crazy. Gay Republicans are ugly is dull, dull, dull. Writers as interesting as Joe should be barred from tossing out gay lefty banalities.

I do enjoy the comments after his post, though. "I'd never date a Republican!" The inherent intolerance involved in a strictly required adherence to one belief system is filled with so much unintentional irony and hypocrisy, I just kinda enjoy watching them wallow in it without a hint of self-awareness. Stupid people are fun. We'll call it the American Idol quotient.

BTW, early warning system. Gay leftbots incoming in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .


A) Your comeback is a reference to the Canadian elections. A little bit non sequitur, but at least we aren't being reminded of how beautiful your husband is or how big your schlong is.

B) The Canadian election had nothing to do with ideas. It had more to do with a scandal-plagued incumbent party and an opposition party that suddenly decided it was OK to copy all the left-leaning ideas that got them defeated in the last election.


Dan: And "Republican equals physically unattractive" is a "sequitur"? Hie thee to a dictionary.


Right next to the entry for 'Gay Republican': See Sense of Humor, lack thereof.


You might be a lot of things, Dan, but "funny" isn't one of them. ;-)


Did Dan arrive on time or what?


Ouch, that stings. Convoluted politically-oriented comebacks are soooo much more funny.



I'm kinda let down by the fact that in just one week the comments here have gone from intelligent discussion to back-and-forth mudslinging.

And we wonder why we can't accomplish any mutual goals.


It's because I haven't really been around this week *pats self on back* (Hey, I'm all about granting myself delusional levels of self-importance).

Actually, I've been reading when I've been able, and it seems like there's been an infusion of really, really left-wing commenters out of nowhere. If I were commenting as much as I wanted to, I can't say I'd be very good with them. My patience levels hit lows when someone puts forth one of those terrorists = freedom fighters memes in earnest.


I'm always ashamed (thankfully) the few times that I let my arguments and ideas slip into the realm of personal attack, but I don't really feel bad about responding to those who make a habit of it.

It seems like when we have tried lately to engage people in discussing ideas, there is always someone who sees it as entree for ad hominem invective.

All I seem to be hearing from the gay blogosphere these days is that gay men who don't agree with the bulk of the "progressive" agenda are ugly, traitorous or stupid. (Although there is nothing new about those tired, lame trite-isms.) How is one supposed to respond?

As an addendum, I don't see what is such a nonsequitur about my headline. You and Joe share in common with Paul Martin a platform that has at its core a pure, raw hatred of President Bush. It hasn't been winning elections on either side of the border, so rather than thoughtfully engage those with whom you disagree, you call them "ugly." It is sure to further endear you to the hearts of the public.


How is one supposed to respond?

"My dad can kick your dad's butt!" Or maybe the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I?" How 'bout we bust out the "Your gay liberal ass is SOOOO fat..."

It worked in elementary school didn't it?


"Rubber and glue," maybe? Because that would work so well in the case of some of the folks making these original observations. (I enjoy how some people just can't see irony when it is staring out at them from these blogs.)


Mal - I'm not sure that I would agree that Martin had a "pure hatred of George Bush". Anti-Americanism in Canada has a long tradition and all parties subscribe to it even the Conservatives. In order to win elections you stand up to the Americans on some level or people won't vote for you. To class Martin in with the left-wing NDP or even former PM Chretien does a disservice to the delicate line he was walking. In Canada the softwood lumber dispute has been headline news for a decade. Do many (or any) Americans even know about this dispute? Or care when they find out about it? But you must talk tough and pick fights with whoever was in the white house from George I to Clinton to George II.

And I agree that the Conservatives won - I may be left wing but I'm not delusional - but like the previous gov't they are a minority which is a qualified success. It's a demand for change while leashing the gov't to the other more left wing parties. People in Canada don't want a Republican country, we don't go to church, we don't feel citizens should be armed, we don't like the death penalty. We are Belgium stuck on top of the US. And unless Harper moves away from socially conservative positions on mo marriage and abortion he may never have a breakthrough in the urban areas, Ontario, Quebec and MAritimes that will allow him to have the kind of majority the last Conservative gov't enjoyed.


I still think it's a rather interesting phenomena that Bush's allies in the War on Terror almost always win re-election (exception being post 3-11 Spain, which was down to government incompetence in blaming Basque separatists), and yet the most vociferous opponents are going down in flames to conservatives. Canada, Germany, France (Chirac and Villipen are done), etc.

What to make of this trend? How is it Bush, Blair, and Howard survive, and the most out-spoken political figures against the man are all out of power or on their way?

It has to be demoralizing for people who believe Bush is unmitigated evil to watch foreign governments folding and replaced by more Bush friendly administrations. When Venezuela's Chavez becomes the shining foreign anti-Bush figure of your movement because everyone else was thrown out of power, something has gone terribly wrong.


I'm always ashamed (thankfully) the few times that I let my arguments and ideas slip into the realm of personal attack, but I don't really feel bad about responding to those who make a habit of it.

Mal, that wasn't directed at you so much as the extreme left AND right commenters I've noticed lately. The articles have been mostly up to par. But without naming names, I could get the "You're nothing but a rabid liberal" and "You can't tell a conservative anything" commentary on FoxNews and MSNBC--and I'd rather cut myself than watch that tripe. I just think we need to use some common sense.


Robbie: Do you suppose it is any coincidence that these same countries that Bush has supposedly "alienated" were also discovered to have been bought off by billions of dollars' worth of Saddam's oil-for-food bribes?



I think it's a little America-centric to relate elections all around the world to President Bush. Though the Canadian results by urban/rural breakdown do seem to mirror our last election, there was also a corruption scandal to consider, and the liberals in Canada were really due to lose power for a while, historically speaking. And brand me "liberal" for saying this if you like, but I'm sure that the legalization of same-sex marriage took its toll on the liberal party as well.

I agree that there does seem to be a worldwide trend going on, and I can't help but wonder if the common denominator is a religion-based sense of morality, not "Bush" per se.


But I don't think the Canadian election had anything to do with the War on Terror, the Iraq war or foreign policy in general. The Conservatives had to promise to stay out of Iraq - they wouldn't have had a chance if they had put the idea out there of supporting that war.

I think that most mational elections are decided for local reasons - Spain being the exception because of the devastating attack just days before the vote. In Canada the corruption scandal of the Liberals rated much higher than the war on terror as a voter concern.

I don't know enough about politics in Oz to comment on Howard but I follow Britain pretty closely and I would say that wing-nut leaders of the Tories taking the party down a disastrous path for 10 years has done a lot more for Blair than his going into Iraq. Thatcher always said she was blessed by the opponents she was given - looney labour leadership and gen Galtieri in Argentina. I think Blair has - until this recent election of Cameron - been enjoying the same advantage.

For the others - Chirac and the german dude - they were also in a long time and that as much as anything leads to changes in gov't.


Jamie - I don't think what Robbie pointed out is "America-centric". He wasn't saying that by voting for their new, more conservative governments that these countries are necessarily validating Bush and the job he's doing with the WOT.

It's just an interesting trend that countries who the left claimed Bush alientated are now choosing leadership that's more on par with what he's trying to do.

Queer Conservative

I liked Mark Steyn's take on the Canadian elections. From talking to friends in Windsor and Toronto (who voted New Democrat) he's spot on.

Well, no. In a very Canadian kind of revolution, we rose up yesterday and threw the bums out but gave them a soft, fluffy landing, nevertheless installing in office a minority government that somehow managed to get itself elected despite having the word "Conservative" in its name.

For Tories, it was a good night, if not a great night. But, given that the party was reduced to two seats in the 1993 debacle, after 12 years in the wilderness most Canadian conservatives will take a strong minority government as a spectacular landslide. We'd be dipping our voting fingers in maple syrup and triumphantly waving them at the UN observers if they hadn't all fallen asleep 20 minutes into the thrilling election-night coverage.



I think the viewpoint Robbie spoke from really is America-centric. And I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with it either. I'm American, and I tend to think of things from an American perspective. But that doesn't mean that I necessarily equate a newly elected conservative government elsewhere with "Bush friendly." I know of many republicans here who are no longer "Bush friendly." Hell, my Dad, a lifelong Republican (big R) voted for Bush twice, and now he wants him impeached because he isn't actively pursuing Osama.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are other, more pressing issues going on around the world, and to try and directly relate these elections to Bush himself is a bit of a stretch.


Mal - Oh, I'm sure it's a total coincidence. Just ask George Galloway.

Jaime - I'm not saying these countries elected more conservative governments because of Bush. I'm just saying, it's kind of an interesting little thing, and it must be infuriating to the far left to watch their erstwhile anti-Bush allies being shoved out of office. The far left is utterly powerless domestically, and now the foreign leaders they loved are disappearing one by one. It has to be so frustrating for them to be so marginalized on a global level.

I'm not talking about how Canadians or Germans or whomever views their candidates. I'm talking about how people in our own country are viewing the world. Which yes, is Amero-centric, but not in the way you took it. I'm just pondering what must be the American leftist's mindset while watching all of this.

And, in every conservative victory in a foreign nation, the press has always noted that it means better ties with Washington. Perhaps it won't work out that way, but that's the conventional wisdom out there at the moment.

For the record - I think the foreign trend towards conservatism (which is not the same brand as American conservatism) that is happening in a lot of countries is a result of domestic politics - specifically how socialistic welfare systems are really a bit of a mess, and reform is needed in order to avoid economic hardship and collapse in the future.


Jamie, I must've read Robbie's comment wrong 'cause I don't see anywhere where he directly links elections around the world to Bush himself. All he did is point out that people in countries orignally seen as "anti-Bush" seem to be voting in more "Bush-friendly" governments.

Semantics I guess. I would imagine it's all Rove's doing anyway.


I don't claim to be a political expert, but this is the first I've heard of Republicans in Canada. I looked at the original source of the Venn diagram, and it doesn't say anything about Canada; it says that Republicans are not hotties, and it is not exactly news that Joe feels that way.

Your sentence about the Canadian elections can only have been intended as provocation, and it is hardly surprising that people have responded. But it allows you to poke fun at those crazy liberals, so I suppose you've accomplished what you set out to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.