[Note - I'm am desperately going to try not to use the c-word. It's warranted. It's the precise word to use. But I'm going to try my best to stay away from it.]
Let me say upfront that I don’t hate conservatitves. When I argue with them, I do my best to be respectful and not pull a whole bunch of cheap rhetorical tricks. However, there’s a certain breed of conservatitive that has such a loose grip on the facts that consversation is completely impossible almost to the point where after two minutes they’re screaming that I’m a freedom hating faggot that wants to fuck their son and clone Stalin.
Think I’m kidding? I’m not. Take a look at this c…..er…conservative name Lynn Thomas who goes by the name of Cao (pronounce it however you want). Pick any post, it doesn’t really matter which. The latest, as of this writing, is titled “shouldn’t we be allowed to have an opinion?” Now, you’re thinking to yourself – what’s wrong with that? We live in America, a country based on the free exchange of ideas. It’s a right that many Americans lay down their lives for. Not just soldiers, but civil rights workers, protesters, clergy and everyday people. So the answer, obviously, is “yes, EVERYONE is allowed to an opinion.” Or are we? Cao continues -
And I think [thank?] God I still live in a country where we can agree to disagree and still remain friends.
That is – unless the people I’m disagreeing with – are marxist Obamanots. In that case, they’ll do their best to destroy people who disagree – because groupthink in their world, RULES, and you’re only allowed one opinion: theirs.
See what I mean? By disagreeing with Cao you are attempting to destroy her because…your opinon doesn’t count. Only hers does because it’s the correct opinon. Calls of “why can’t we all get along” from the right (and left, sometimes) never mean that. The paradox in the previous statement is stunning – “you are only allowed one opinion: theirs.” Soooo…how many opinons does she allow when to disagree with her makes you a “marxist Obamanot”? Answer – none.
These disingenuous pleas for “understanding” and “tolerance” fuel my hatred for extreme wingnuttery. They are not stable people. None of them. I’ve spoken with on the radio and 90% of their arguments whither in the face of very simple logic. Case in point (and forgive me for being sketchy on the details) – A couple of years ago in Georgia, a defendent grabbed the gun from a cop and shot his way out of a courtroom. Pretty embarassing, right? Of course – because the cop was a woman. If it had been a guy, the defendent would have been overpowered by the big, manly cop and order would have been quickly restored. I think it was Mike Gallagher that used that example to argue for a male-only police force. EXCEPT that a year or so later the exact thing happened with a male cop. I called him, got on the air and reminded him of his previous statement which he ignored and asked what size Birkenstock I wore. I’m serious. He wouldn’t even address the issue because he had no leg to stand on. If you’re going to call for the firing of all female cops due to a single incident then you should, in a morally pure world, call for the firing of all male cops for the same offense.
Wingnuts, though, don’t care about morality. They don’t care about anyone except the Wingnut Club. How does Rush Limbaugh condemn drug abusers only to turn around, admit he has a drug abuse problem and continue to be respected. He conciously bought drugs illegally. In a morally pure world, he should be crucified in the public square and held up to small children as a prime example of hypocrisy. Instead, he got a raise and higher ratings. Newt Gingrinch fucked around on his wife while condeming Bill Clinton for fucking around on his wife. Newt is held up, not as a pariah, but as a scion of the “Conservative Values”. Larry Craig? He’s a faggot so put him up againt the wall and pull the trigger. Wingnuts hate faggots because Jesus hates faggots.
BUT, if you’re a useful faggot and you behave yourself, then, you’re ok. Take David Brock, for example. Brock, before he started the liberal Media Matters, was a Republican attack dog. Remember Anita Hill and “a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty”? That was Brock. Pretty much everything in The Real Anita Hill was a lie, he later said.
I want to make sure that this is understood clearly – David Brock was paid to lie about Anita Hill so Clarence Thomas could get on the Supreme Court. The Republican Party knew about these lies. This, I add with a admirable understatement, was NOT a moral action.
Brock wasn’t an out-out gay man but everyone knew. Why, then, would the memebers of the party of family values, memebers of the party of God, the members of the party of “gay marriage will destroy America” pay David Brock$300,000/yr to write for the American Spectator? Aren’t gay people the enemy? Answer – they…don’t…care. The ends, as Stalin knew, justify the means.
Fun Fact – Ann Coulter fag hagged Brock! Isn’t that sweet?
Now, the wingnuts reading this will no doubt use the tried and true rhetorical flourish of “OH YEAH? BARNEY FRANK’S BOYFRIEND RAN A PROSTITUION RING OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT!!! HOW DARE YOU PREACH TO US ABOUT MORALS???” This has the effect of not answering the question. Rather, it’s hoped that by bringing up some Democratic scandal they somehow magically absolve themselves of their own. It doesn’t actually work that way but let me address it briefly
You can only hate something if you hate something
Most democrats don’t hate gay people nor do they find homosexuality immoral. Most democrats don’t hate drugs and don’t find drugs immoral. Most democrats don’t have that big of a problem with prostitution. So, the Barney Frank thing is no big deal…especially since he didn’t know it was going on AND reported it to the House Ethics committee when he found out. I know that wingnuts love oversimplification so let me help you out – democrats are, by wingnut standards, immoral and so explicitly embrace immorality, therefore to judge us by your strict moral codes is comapring apples to oranges.
But here’s the thing – we acknowledge your theoretical code of conduct where as you, in your best imitation of Christ, piss on ours. Lynn calls us, of all things, Marxist. Really? That’s odd, because in three out of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, there is the almost identical story of Jesus (yeah, THAT Jesus) telling some rich guy, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” And, for special bonus points, what do you call the redistribution of wealth?
But it’s even better than that.
The only version of the Bible that most evangelicals recognize as the one that God wrote is the King James Bible. There’s a great book (soon to be a VH1 Special) about the making of the King James Bible called In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. Turns out that at least a few pious folks murdered other pious folks to get this new version or the Word of God done. And, oh, yeah, there’s compelling evidence that King James was at least bi-sexual. Yes. That’s right. The book (or at least the most accepted version of the book) is the result of a sodomite. If you can deal with the Marxist Word of God (TM) being finance by a bi-sexual, what’s the big deal with a gay negro crackhead for President?
And so, wingnuts turn to self-deception to ferret away all these nasty questions that threaten the vicious and closed-minded world they fester in and stave off some truths they’d rather not face. If one-man/one-woman is so important, why isn’t their an eleventh commandment? Why did God let polygamy flourish without retribution? Isn’t interpreting “Thou Shalt Not Kill” as definitive proof of God’s stance on abortion akin to “activist judges interpreting the Constitution”? How do you justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent in the Middle East when the same commandment holds true?
They’re towelheads and will not rest until Allah reigns supreme over every surface of the world. After all, didn’t Allah say, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. “ Wait, that was the GOOD GOD insisting that he reign supreme over every surface of the world.
And, of course, when you gotta kill the women and children for the glory of Allah, you gotta kill the women and children for the glory of Allah
32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
See, you can’t bring these points up with wingnuts. They can’t talk about them. They refuse. Lynn and her Lynn-nots herself once tried to convince me that Jesus was actually very free-market economy. True! Jesus wasn’t into welfare, according to them and when, in the space of five minutes, I could get my search terms right to get the passages I quote above, they attacked me as ignorant about what Jesus actually said. The irony? If they actually knew, believed and followed the Bible they should have known those verses off the top of their heads. The four Gospels don’t tell the same stories so for three out of four to stress the rich casting off thier wealth to help the poor…that’s pretty significant.
Wingnuts cherry pick their morality and when to observe it. They don’t have a problem telling God to go screw when it suits their agenda to do so. “Pious Rich Christian”, according Jesus himself, is an oxymoron. John McCain had lobbyists working for dictatorships and the wingnuts shrugged. After all, you gotta make your money somehow, right? Obama goes to a party where there might have been drugs and it’s proof that he’s a drug addict. The bush family has close ties to Saudi Arabia where almost every terrorist involved in 9/11 came from and not one wingnut questions that relationship or demands to invade Saudi Arabia. Obama sits on a board with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, and Obama is consorting with terrorists.
Lynn, I know this mean nothing to you. You probably can’t even wrap you’re mind around your own contradictions. I’m not an Obama supporter. I did give him $25 just to piss off Hillary, but chances are good that I will vote, not as my party, or my friends or God wants me to. I will vote my conscience because I have a conscience. You don’t, so you’ll vote for who you’re told to. And against every single teaching of the Jesus you profess to love you will tirelessly work to tear down by any means necessary those who disagree with you.
Jesus might have saved you from stoning. I wouldn’t. I’m not Jesus. And neither are you.