There's alot of flucuation over there. Sometimes there's some interesting things that invite debate, then other times it just takes a nightmarish turn into KOS territory.

What can you expect from the likes of their threadmakers.

When it's out of nowhere, it's projection. Sorry 'bout that.
================================

I don't know...5 draft deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. (he could have gotten an admin job; perfectly honourable, but nooo...) Not so much sexual repression as microscopic sexual organ that none shall ever see. Probably faked leprosy to not suit up for gym.

I took a look a 'Blue' when it first opened. The top two pieces at the time were both kook conspiracy theories. One had something to do with the very real danger that KKKarl Rove was using the wrong mail server for his PDA! The other was similarly kooky and even less remarkable.

Wizbang Blue demands high standards for the journalism including links to credible information. The comments section is not subject to the same standards and open to everyone. I suggest for everyone to take a good look at Wizbng Blue and see that it is a very high quality website with very high standards and great writers with high skill levels.

If you do not agree with the opinions on Wizbang Blue is one thing. But to brand the site as one of "crazies" simply is unfair and not factual.

Paul Hamilton was trying to come up with a possible explanation for Dick Cheney's psychopathology. Anyone who loves war, violence and death as much as Dick Cheney does has got serious problems. It seems to me that sexual repression is as valid as any other explanation.

The other explanation that Paul H offered was that Cheney was trying to trigger Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations. I think that's probably the more likely explanation.

And since we're on the topic, wouldn't it be great if, at the next Republican debate, they asked each candidate whether he believes in the "end of days" as prophesied in the Bible? I've always wanted to know what Bush and Cheney would answer to this question but our gutless media doesn't have the courage to ask.

We're actually glad, Larkin, that you and Paul consider nuking a neighbor preferable to raping her, since what you got ain't 'Da Bomb'.
====================================

>Wizbang Blue demands high standards for the journalism including links to credible information.

Hooson you owe me a keyboard....

Ok Ok I'll play along... Can you give me the link to credible information that Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran because he is sexually repressed.

Don't be a tool.

>If you do not agree with the opinions on Wizbang Blue is one thing. But to brand the site as one of "crazies" simply is unfair and not factual.

OK and saying Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran because he's sexually repressed is factual?

You moron.

Is there anything to you for which 'sexual repression' is not as good an explanation as any? Really, where did you guys come up with that one?

Is it Wizbang Blueballs, or what?
=====================

When you're not in a hole, keep stroking.
=========================

"I don't know...5 draft deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. (he could have gotten an admin job; perfectly honourable, but nooo...) Not so much sexual repression as microscopic sexual organ that none shall ever see. Probably faked leprosy to not suit up for gym." -BryanD

Umm. Is not wanting to be shot at a bad thing?

My brother who has been a Marine since 1991, having served in Somalia, the Balkins, Iraq and Afghanistan and has the distinction of being shot at on at least four continents. He just finished school to become a recruiter. When asked why he wanted to be a recruiter by our mother, he responded "I am tired of people shooting at me."

"It seems to me that sexual repression is as valid as any other explanation."

sure it is ....

And that, my friend, is high quality journalism based on links to what credible information?

Paul Hamilton was trying to come up with a possible explanation for Dick Cheney's psychopathology. Anyone who loves war, violence and death as much as Dick Cheney does has got serious problems. It seems to me that sexual repression is as valid as any other explanation.

The other explanation that Paul H offered was that Cheney was trying to trigger Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations. I think that's probably the more likely explanation.
-------------------------------------------------
If this were true, then it is really despicable since Paul claimed to be a christian and Catholic. He is trying to smear Cheney under the guise of offering "theories" and trying to make him out to be the anti-Christ maybe?

Using Paul 's standard wrt Cheney, can we look into why Paul was in love with killing unborn babies since he was trying to justify abortion with nuances in one of the previous threads.

Larkin, the point at which the error is made is claiming that someone loves war, violence and death so much. Prove that first.

Explaining a fantasy results in a fantasy.

Saying Cheney "loves war" is an admission that either someone doesn't want to bother understanding opposing points of view or they are intellectually incapable of understanding other points of view.

This, in effect, is what gets us the "Bush is evil" thing. There can be no disagreement. There can be no varied opinions about how the world works. There is only truth and evil. Anyone smart or honest *must* agree with left-wing ideas and politics. Anyone else is dishonest, evil, or "loves violence and war."

At least we do you all the favor of assuming you are just stupid rather than evil. But we're learning to point out the hatefulness of the left because the left are good teachers that way. And we've learned to point out the racism because the left are good teachers that way. And the hypocrisy because the left, which is all about tolerance and acceptance and understanding the "other" instead of marginalizing the "other" are good teachers that way.

"...(he could have gotten an admin job; perfectly honourable, but nooo...)"

Right. As if that would have been acceptable to his detractors. We would have heard just as much sniping about how chicken he was not to be on the front lines and how he managed to get preferential treatment to keep him safely behind a desk.

I don't have any opinion as yet on the Cheney piece, Paul. I'd have to read the entire feature before passing judgement on that particular feature. So don't say I agree with it, as i have not read the entire feature, only your brief excerpt you listed here.

This is why I can't read Blue anymore.

I can feel the brain cells dying faster than from a good slug of Bacardi 151.

I think it was a good try, and I occasionally see some good posts there that at least make you think. But most of it is like the stereotypical nutroots drivel that I just cannot stand.

I'd ask to see Bomb Squad back, but I had the same problems with them as I did with Blue. If I feel dirty after reading what's on there, I don't want to go back, and that's pretty much what I feel about Blue.

>I don't have any opinion as yet on the Cheney piece, Paul. I'd have to read the entire feature before passing judgement on that particular feature.

Frankly, I was wondering.... It is indefensible.

read it and let me know your thoughts.

I doubt you'll post what you did above.

Paul Hooson:

If you do not agree with the opinions on Wizbang Blue is one thing. But to brand the site as one of "crazies" simply is unfair and not factual.

Larkin (author at 'Blue'):

Anyone who loves war, violence and death as much as Dick Cheney does has got serious problems. It seems to me that sexual repression is as valid as any other explanation.


The other explanation that Paul H offered was that Cheney was trying to trigger Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations. I think that's probably the more likely explanation.

Paul Hooson, your fellow author didn't help you out with that claim. This is the stuff kook conspiracy theories are made of, FYI...

Wow! Now the lefties are sure of motives and possible actions Cheney may make. The lefties are all knowing and all seeing. Demonize is the word of choice for the lefties. Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl. When they disagree with them, they start the name branding. So childish. I tried Wizbang Blue when they first started. Found it tedious and boring. No original thoughts, just talking points of the left fringe. ww

Larkin says: "Anyone who loves war, violence and death as much as Dick Cheney does has got serious problems"

Larkin: if that were the case, Bush/Cheney would have simply nuked Iraq into a sheet of glass. Instead, they are a taking a big gamble in trying to win a war and save innocents at the same time. Obviously tough to do. Previous models for winning war were to destroy & kill until the enemy caves in. (Have you heard of the previous two world wars, for example?)

How you guys are able to interpret a noble cause: saving the US and the world from Islamo-terrosts (remember them?) into a sexual situation is absolutely astounding. gc

JamesT, you've got your finger right on it. I hope that your brother enjoys recruiting and please thank him for his service for me.

People always bring up charges that someone got deferments as if it should matter a great deal. Frankly, it reminds me of another Cheney charge... that Mary is a lesbian. As if it should matter. And those charges are made by those who are supposedly anti-war or pro-gay. So the argument is about what they think the other side believes.

Which they obviously are wrong about and don't care to be accurate about.

Here's a couple clues. No one cares much at all that Mary is a lesbian. And the military and those in it strongly oppose conscription.

It's on the left that it matters that Mary works for the enemy and it's the left that keeps trying to bring back the draft.

Kim:

Is there anything to you for which 'sexual repression' is not as good an explanation as any?

Of course. If you succeed in taking the lives of infidels with your own, what's your reward? 72 Virgins.

Somehow, some way, this all relates back to Janet Jackson's boob. I just know it.

Paul, the team over at Wizbang Blue are great guys, I stand by them as good guys. The feature questioned why Cheney looks to war as an answer to solve problems such as our growing apetite for gasoline and only pondered some possible answers into the personality of Cheney. That's all.

Excellent, Synova. How the left can live with the sophistry astounds me. Not all are stupid, not all are corrupt; how do their memes persist among honest people?
========================

Expounding on the point...the claims that Larkin and Hamilton made have no factual basis. Making such patently absurd statements makes them, the site, and by association you, look comically foolish.

Intelligent, reasonable people don't invent supervillian stories to explain the actions of others... doing so revels more about the mental state of the author than it does the details of the subject.

It is too simple, and probably not an adequate explanation, to blame it all on the degenerating effect of the money of people like Soros. There is truly a mass delusion going on. What will jar it loose? I'm afraid to think.
======================

OK Hooson... can you point me to the "credible links to factual information" that Cheney loves war because he's sexually repressed?

Don't be a tool.

It's really very simple: There are good guys and there are bad guys. The people on the left are the good guys, and the people on the right are bad guys. The bad guys are bad because they love war and money, and they hate sex and having a good time.

The good guys know that everything would be okay if we would all just chill, and you know, mellow out a little. But the bad guys don't wanna do that. The bad guys wanna blow up brown people, because they actually believe all that Jesus stuff. And because they hate sex, which makes them mean.

Dick Cheney is old and mean, and he hates sex, so obviously he wants to blow up brown people.

It's so simple, and you'd obviously all get it if you yourselves weren't sex-hating bad guys who want to blow up brown people.

Hooson... I wonder why you would stand behind that post...

Perhaps you're unsure of your sexuality and you're afraid if you don't stand behind your guys they will think you're transexual.

Or maybe you have sexual fantasies about your mother be she never never loved you so you where left feeling bitter and scorned.

Farmer Joe, I was reading that and all of a sudden it went 3-D, man. For a second it totally freaked me out.

Whoa.

There's a difference between stating an opinion and claiming a fact. Paul H said:

Maybe it's just the worst case of sexual repression in history...

Well, that's his opinion and he doesn't need the psychological exams to prove it. He's entitled to have an opinion.

My opinion is that Cheney is driven by his sincere belief in the end of days as prophesied in the Bible. Again, I can't prove it, but I'm entitled to that opinion too.

We're talking about a man who doesn't even know what branch of the government he belongs to. The guy clearly has serious problems.

And note that I have never called Bush crazy nor have I called him stupid. Cheney is really in a class all by himself.

Oh, I forgot to add that the bad guys also like blowing up brown people because they can make money at it, which they like. Then they can use the money to buy corrupt bad guy politicians and get them to keep people from having sex. Which they hate.

There's a difference between stating an opinion and claiming a fact.

True, but opinions are usually more credible if they're based on something a little more solid than "I don't like that guy."

No one cares much at all that Mary is a lesbian....It's on the left that it matters that Mary works for the enemy

Not so fast. Two Mommies Is One Too Many - James C. Dobson, Time Magazine 12/12/06

You're familiar with James Dobson, right? His program airs on 7,000 radio stations worldwide and 60 TV stations in the US. His organizations spend millions of dollars each year on political campaigns and candidates. He has been an invited guest at the White House on many occasions during this and previous administrations, has served on many advisory panels for various administrations and congressmen.

He's just a nobody, though. Right?

Farmer Joe rulez

Larkin:

My opinion is that Cheney is driven by his sincere belief in the end of days as prophesied in the Bible. Again, I can't prove it, but I'm entitled to that opinion too.

Is there a defensible basis for you forming this opinion ? If someone states that, in their opinion, that the lunar landing was a hoax but admits that they can't prove it, does that make them any less of a kook ?

There's the other possibility and that is that Paul H was making a sarcastic joke. In fact, that's what I first thought when I read it.

For myself, I've always been suspicious of having people in high places who fervently believe in the biblical prophecies of the end of the world. I think that's legitimate and it could easily be settled if the media would just ask the question.

I don't too much care whatever else they believe in terms of religion but that one worries me.

Yup, they're crazy as bed bugs. Post after post of innuendo and wacky conclusions as carefully vetted as a typical Globe article. Why punish yourself so?

Kevin, Jay and Paul: what the hell did you expect? "Wizbang for liberals" to be a place of sanity and intelligence? I've probably viewed it all of two times (the second time being today). I knew since the announcement that it was open that it wouldn't be any different from the havens for slack-jawed, drooling idiots like DK and DU. If it's there for anything other than giving us something to laugh at, then the reason for creating it is faulty.

Larkin:

There's the other possibility and that is that Paul H was making a sarcastic joke. In fact, that's what I first thought when I read it.

But then you decided otherwise and defended the statement, agreed, and offered an opinion as to which was more probable ?

Larkin:

Anyone who loves war, violence and death as much as Dick Cheney does has got serious problems. It seems to me that sexual repression is as valid as any other explanation.

The other explanation that Paul H offered was that Cheney was trying to trigger Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations. I think that's probably the more likely explanation.

and again...

Larkin:

My opinion is that Cheney is driven by his sincere belief in the end of days as prophesied in the Bible. Again, I can't prove it, but I'm entitled to that opinion too.

What's it say when it's difficult to differentiate when someone's jokes from their arguments ?

Personally, I think Cheney is an alien planted here to help with their conquest of Earth from beneath the planet's surface at Sunset of the 09/09/09 (it was originally 06/06/06 but scheduling delays caused it to be postponed). Now, I can't prove it but I'm entitled to my opinion. [/kook]

Somehow, you took a snarky parenthetical comment and mistook it for the point. Now, maybe his snarky comment about Cheney and sexual repression wasn't as funny as, say...Ann Coulter's call for assassination of John Edwards.

In any case, the blog post was about why attacking Iran would be a bad idea. You must read it sometime.

From Mantis 's own source. This is what the anti-christian progressive bigots trying to smear and silence when they get the political power. These right-wing folks cannot make their voice known without the fundamentalist progessives smearing or silencing them.
-------------------------------------------------
In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

This is a lesson we should have learned from no-fault divorce. Because adults wanted to dissolve difficult marriages with fewer strings attached, reformers made it easier in the late 1960s to dissolve nuclear families. Though there are exceptions, the legacy of no-fault divorce is countless shattered lives within three generations, adversely affecting children's behavior, academic performance and mental and physical health. No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster

These right-wing folks cannot make their voice known without the fundamentalist progessives smearing or silencing them.

Yes, they have been silenced by being published in Time Magazine (and many other print outlets) and going on every TV and radio station there is. The silence, as they say, is deafening.

Mantis, what you linked begins...

"A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter, is pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her lesbian partner. Implicit in this issue is an effort to get us to criticize the Bush Administration or the Cheney family."

So. Dobson was asked by those hoping to get him to criticize the Bush Administration or Cheney family...

Again, it's the supposed pro-gay people saying "What about Mary Cheney?" Which is what I said.

It's not that no one cares about homosexuality or sexual morality as it relates to our culture. It's that no one other than freaks like Fred Phelps wishes anything bad on someone who is homosexual. But Dobson feels strongly that the best home for a child is an intact home with a father and a mother. He's going to tell the truth as he sees it. So someone like you can link him and his "criticism" of the Cheney family... which was the point all along of demanding to know what he thinks about the situation.

The proof that no one really cares about Mary being a lesbian... not that they accept it but just that they don't really care... is that when Kerry and Edwards dropped that old "L" Bomb last election it fizzled.

It fizzled because rather than understanding the opposition to "two mommies" or to gay marriage, it's been painted with this huge, and inaccurate, "hate" brush.

And that's also why all the hoo-hah about Bush's guard service or Cheney getting deferrals also fizzles. Because the people dropping those bombs, don't understand. The target they are shooting at isn't where they think it is. So they miss.

Yes, they have been silenced by being published in Time Magazine (and many other print outlets) and going on every TV and radio station there is. The silence, as they say, is deafening.
-------------------------------------------------
First the smearing. Now the fundamentalist progressives are trying to silence them in SF. They are trying to use the power of gov now to shut down right-wing talk radio. You can't deny that they are trying to shut down these right wing talk radios since the progressive/liberal talk radio cannot compete in the market place.

No one cares much at all that Mary is a lesbian....It's on the left that it matters that Mary works for the enemy

Not so fast. Two Mommies Is One Too Many - James C. Dobson, Time Magazine 12/12/06
------------------------------------------------
Yup, it was the left that brought up the issue of Mary to try to ruin her and Cheney. Even Edwards brought it up in the debate. The left is the one who has a problem with her sexual identity. But somehow, you have to bring in James Dobson while what they said was quite respectful.

"...Umm. Is not wanting to be shot at a bad thing?.."
Posted by: JamesT

No. Never said it was. So why's Cheney waving a gun around like spastic?
Because Cheney is a physical coward who paradoxically worships at the feet of Mars. He's an student of geopolitical brinksmanship in which getting people shot or vaporized is part of the conversation (instead of the Next conversation, once Diplomacy has failed. Brinksmanship means rattleing the sabre instead of talking, as the Bush foreign policy team has demonstrated. JFK, too.)

So if he was a draft-dodging peacenik, it's one thing, but puffing himself up in old age to impress other leather-asses that he's tough, when in his youth he had "other priorities" (like all neocons) shows that he's trying to transferr away his own self-loathing at the expense of others' lives (for no good reason).

And a coward is always a coward. Holing up in the ranch house for 2 days after shooting his friend with buckshot, not allowing even a "friendly" policeman to make a report. Either the pantload was drunk or he's a coward. I say both, but especially the second.

And semper fidelis to your brother. The wizcrew will not enjoy learning that marines and soldiers are not war mongers. Warmongering is the purview of angry old men with male penis envy issues.

YUp, the fundamentalist progressives are reduced to what they used to: using the power of the gov to silence their opponents.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzEyMGFlMGYwMTMyYzdmOGE4N2YwNDBmMmFhNTcyNWM=

So only those on the left care except for those on the right who care but in caring they don't really care? Right...

Make that birdshot. Cheney would have holed up until given safe passage to Davos had it been buckshot.

It's about differentiating between attitudes toward individuals and attitudes toward behavior.

To answer seriously.

Mantis,
Just look at your own post. They made their position clear and respectfully. James Dobson didn't attack Cheney and his family. The left attacked Cheney and his daughter Mary. To the left, there is no limit to their attack. That was despicable and you should know it.

Make that birdshot.
-------------------------
That 's a better description of Ron Paul I think. He is such a brave guy!

But then you decided otherwise and defended the statement, agreed, and offered an opinion as to which was more probable ?

Just stirring the pot over here. Look how much fun you guys are having with this...

Just stirring the pot over here. Look how much fun you guys are having with this...
-----------------------------------------------
Yup, now we realize how much sew*ge you guys are willing to put up with at the Blue.

Well, bD, you've loosed the shotgun, but what have you hit? 'Transferring away self-loathing' is as projective an explanation for Cheney's behaviour as sexual repression is. Is selling art that bad? Do you have to lie a lot? Why do I ask?
===============================

It's about differentiating between attitudes toward individuals and attitudes toward behavior.

So the individual, Cheney in this case, is merely a prop for their attack on the behavior of millions. Got it.

Mantis is trying to spin now since he is caught defending the left 's despicable attack on Mary simply because she is Cheney 's daughter.
Note that Mary Cheney didn't try to impose her sexual preference on James Dobson and his followers. She didn't try to change traditional marriage to suit her own preference.

Larkin, you are as bad as that cow Ward. You said sexual repression is a valid an explanation as anything, and now you claim you were just stirring the pot? Why don't you grab hold of stick to do that?
========================

Kerry's dig on Mary, Edward's dig on Mary, CREW's associating homosexuality and pedophilia in the Foley case; the Democrats are happy to exploit homophobia. They know they have a subservient victim class, there.
=======================

bryanD:

1) Big words do not make your arguements more valid.
2) So, an R who could have, but did not serve in Viet Nam is a coward, but a D is a principled stalwart for the same acts. I think pretty much anyone who could apply for a college deferment in the 60's, did. I suspect that not all of them were cowards. I also suspect many had other priorities as well.
3) I see no "puffing up" but rather real politick.
4) People change. I never joined the military as I was, well, an asshat in my 20's with other priorities. And now that I am older and wiser, I realize I should have joined and served my country, but are now too old to do so. Does that make me a coward for not joining up when there wasn't a war on?
5) I really do not see how hunting equates to "waving a gun around like spastic."
6) In either case, what does his hunting accident have to do with his sexual repression?
7) Errr. Most Marines aren't warmongers, and I would even go far as to say that the majority of Wizbangers already know that. Jus because he is tired of people trying to kill him does not alter that, he just would like a break from it .

the Democrats are happy to exploit homophobia.

Too true. I'm certainly not defending anyone here, except maybe Mary Cheney.

At Wizbang it's mostly opinions (it may have some hard news, but it's not a hard news site per se, more opinions regarding politics and some hard news). To say that anyone can have "opinions" is irresponsible. There are civil disagreements on threads and name calling and childishness -- Paul is pointing out the irresponsible types of "opinions" that there are at Blue. PaulH says they're just opinions.

You know, I've wondered about some of these guys that seem to at least give things a reasonable amount of thought (even if they're wrong -- like LeeW and PaulH) -- After this thread, I conclude that PaulH is nothing but a member of the moonbat left. If a violent communist leader started killing people for having "wrong" opinions (i.e. being a capitalist), PaulH would condone it saying it is an opinion.

What some don't, or won't see, is the distintion between hating the sin while loving the sinner.
Because someone denounces homosexual acts does not mean they must denounce Mary Cheney or Barney Frank as individuals.

Wow, that is a terrible, terrible site. Wozbang is being dragged through the mud having them attached.
-=Mike

Because someone denounces homosexual acts does not mean they must denounce Mary Cheney or Barney Frank as individuals.

What about when those individuals are specifically singled out as examples to denounce the actions they take? Seriously, listen to yourselves.

Mantis, again, who was it that was singling out Cheney? Who kept making it an issue?

Take the gay out of it for a moment, and apply it to anything else that is behaivor related. I can denounce my friend's behaivor on alcohol, but that does not mean I must denounce him as a person entirely. In fact, since I love him as my brother, I must be there for him despite his alcoholism and how he acts while drinking. I don't need to accept that behaivor, but to close my heart to him is truly the worst thing I could do. And before the sophists trot out a list of worse thing I could do, like a beat down or murder, none of them would be possible if I hadn't shut him out of my heart.

That is at the core of Christian love, and it is somehthing that many just don't seem to get.

who was it that was singling out Cheney? Who kept making it an issue?

Both sides. And while I dislike Kerry and Edwards for trying to use her to bludgeon her father (amongst other reasons), I do think his refusal to back her up was very weird. She's politically active, worked on his campaign, has done gay advocacy in the past. Why couldn't he acknowledge it? Oh wait, I know why.

I can denounce my friend's behaivor on alcohol, but that does not mean I must denounce him as a person entirely.

Interesting that you equate homosexuality with abuse and/or addiction to alcohol.

That is at the core of Christian love, and it is somehthing that many just don't seem to get.

The Christian love of constantly denouncing others as evil, of equating others' sexual orientation with mental disorders, substance abuse, crime, etc. Yeah, I don't get it.

Listen to you.

Do you believe that... oh, James Dobson, hates gay people?

Do you understand that Kerry and Edwards and whomever thought it necessary to get Dobson's opinion on Mary's baby, are trying to play to what they perceive is hatred toward homosexuals?

And they miss?

I'm not claiming people think homosexuality is just dandy because they really don't, but misunderstanding that range of opinions and where they come from and what *most* people who disapprove of homosexuality actually think about it and about homosexuals means coming to wrong conclusions about how they will react. And that is objective, not subjective, and can be shown that people *objectively* did not react as expected.

The same is true about military service and the draft and managing to avoid it. The misunderstanding is why so many were reduced to claiming that all hostility from Vietnam vets toward Kerry was partisan in nature. This disconnect from reality is why it was so impossible for so many people to understand why anyone would be unhappy about their "war hero" even after being told repeatedly such things as "Ghengis Khan" "Winter Soldier" "Paris" and "He threw away someone elses medals at a war protest."

None of it matters because of the fundamental misunderstanding about military service and what it means and what it *doesn't* mean.

It's about what one group thinks that the other group thinks.

And they are wrong.

Try to explain and you find out that they just aren't interested and don't believe you anyway because they've got this picture in their head they aren't willing to give up.

Well mantis, since you seem to be adept at what is and is not to be equated, would you tell me what distinguishes homosexual activity as something that is normal and "genetical" vs. things like desire to sleep with more than one woman (and acting out), desire to sleep with children, with animals, with dead people, etc.?

Although some are legal and some are illegal, God says that all sexual activity that is not within the marriage of a man and a woman is being sexually perverse. It is not what I say, it is what He says.

Mantis is simply trying to wiggle out of his demagogue attack on James Dobson. Just look at the treatment of Gerry Studd and Foley to see the full hypocrisy of the left. They don't care about gay people (as people). The left used gay people as a fodder for their propaganda. The left is not shy to equate homosexuality and pedophilia when it suits their purpose. The left only cares about women until Clinton is their guy. The same for the poor and the Jews.

Now here are some people who claim to be ex-homosexuals and are willing to help any gay people. That 's the expression of their love for the gay people
http://www.exodus.to/content/view/563/37/

BryanD went to the edge and jumped off. He used to be a raving lunatic. Now he is just raving. Muttering incoherently. ww

BryanD implies that Dick Cheney is poorly endowed.

Apparently BryanD missed this photo.

I think BryanD might be indulging in a little projection himself...

J.

"The Christian love of constantly denouncing others as evil, of equating others' sexual orientation with mental disorders, substance abuse, crime, etc. Yeah, I don't get it."

The Christian love of pointing out that everyone is going to hell?

Is it really so impossible to get your mind in someone elses mindset for a moment and in a way that doesn't require "they hate everyone?"

It's actually getting better. Was a time it was impossible to say the words "it's better for children to be raised by a mother and father in an intact home." Try it and sobbing single mothers would demand you stop accusing them of child abuse.

mantis and those like him demonstrate that caring for individuals is last on the agenda. Permitting immoral behavior under principles of liberty and freedom to do as one pleases - as long as one does not harm others - is not nearly enough. Individuals must be coerced to approve of and celebrate immoral behavior as well. Naysayers will be silenced, and your child forced to read Heather has Two Mommies. A more reasonable individual might conclude that the same freedom that enables one person to bugger their neighbor gives others license to call the behavior imoral whether one likes it or or not.

Given the 'kook' theories written and published by the authors at 'WizbangBlue', I hereby suggest that the site ('Blue') be renamed... WizBongBlog!: We're Smokin', to more accurately reflect its contents.

Woo, strawmen, distortions, and demagoguery abound! Where to start?

Synova,

Do you believe that... oh, James Dobson, hates gay people?

Probably not. I never used the word "hate."

Do you understand that Kerry and Edwards and whomever thought it necessary to get Dobson's opinion on Mary's baby, are trying to play to what they perceive is hatred toward homosexuals?

Well, I do understand that's what they were doing when talking about Mary Cheney during the 2004 election, but I think you have your timelines screwed up. There was no baby at the time. The fact that Dobson and others were asked their opinion about the baby has nothing to do with Kerry or Edwards. The decision to write and speak about the issue was Dobson's own. Trying to pawn their actions off onto others is cowardly.

And that is objective, not subjective, and can be shown that people *objectively* did not react as expected.

I honestly don't know what you're saying with the rest of this. It seems like your saying that people bring up certain topics in elections in order to provoke a reaction from the opposition, and sometimes it doesn't work. Ok. So what?

Is it really so impossible to get your mind in someone elses mindset for a moment and in a way that doesn't require "they hate everyone?"

I never said they hate everyone. People like Dobson are political creatures, and they do what they do to influence politics and elections.

It's actually getting better. Was a time it was impossible to say the words "it's better for children to be raised by a mother and father in an intact home." Try it and sobbing single mothers would demand you stop accusing them of child abuse.

There was never a time when that was impossible to say.

Now on to the crazy.
====================

Jeff Blogworthy,

mantis and those like him demonstrate that caring for individuals is last on the agenda.

How so?

Permitting immoral behavior under principles of liberty and freedom to do as one pleases - as long as one does not harm others - is not nearly enough.

I don't consider homosexuality immoral, natch. And by the way, such "immoral behavior" was illegal until recently in most states. What were you saying about freedom?

Individuals must be coerced to approve of and celebrate immoral behavior as well.

Really? How am I coercing anyone? I state my opinion. If that's coercion maybe we should forget this whole democracy thing.

Naysayers will be silenced, and your child forced to read Heather has Two Mommies.

Who's being silenced? I pointed to Dobson's op-ed in Time Magazine, as well as his extensive media reach. You're just full of shit.

A more reasonable individual might conclude that the same freedom that enables one person to bugger their neighbor gives others license to call the behavior imoral whether one likes it or or not.

When did I say others didn't have the freedom to say what they want? Please point it out. I'll wait while you fetch some more straw.

=========================

LAI and nehemiah's posts aren't worth responding to. They only support my point.

LAI and nehemiah's posts aren't worth responding to.
------------------------------------------------
Because you cannot. You are caught attempting a demagogue attack on James Dobson. You don't even seem to read your source. I show you the fact why the left doesn't care about gay people.
Thanks for admiting the obvious.

It's funny how liberals are assumed to be more "liberal" when it comes to sex, since they're the ones coming up with more rules and pandering to groups that seem to negate anything sexual.

I tried to give the Wizbang Blues site a chance. I even commented and attempted some back and forth with a couple of them. Not worth the aggravation.

I was arguing with leeward on his warped stance on illegal immigration, where he accused those opposed to illegal immigration amnesty of being racists. I asked and asked and asked who these racists were. He deflected, deferred and dissembled. He continued to ask me questions about my position on the subject - I suspect in an effort to draw me into saying something he could mis-construe as being racist. Almost two weeks later, leeward still has not identified the racists in this debate.

I've stopped commenting over there. It only lends credibility to their effort. When you subsidize something (by commenting) you get more of it than you need or want.

My major observation is that leeward is a supercilious pr*ck.

It is entertaining to look at a post with a few comments and see that they are all comments from Wizbang Blues contributors agreeing with each other and telling each other how smart and insightful they all are.

Miss the beam, mantis, spy the motes.
========================

mantis did say....

>Woo, strawmen, distortions, and demagoguery abound!

Yes, but we let you post here anyway.

Such wit.

Didn't we shut up for the entire 1980's and 1990's? At this rate, Iran should be fundamentalist free by 2150.

Firstly, Kerry, Edwards and Dobson asked about the baby aren't connected, just related to each other by motivation.

"I honestly don't know what you're saying with the rest of this. It seems like your saying that people bring up certain topics in elections in order to provoke a reaction from the opposition, and sometimes it doesn't work. Ok. So what?"

I'm sorry I brought up Mary Cheney at all, but the "so what" is the whole reason that I did. It was just one more example where the failed attempt to provoke proves a misunderstanding of the other side's point of view.

BryanD going off the deep end about Cheney's getting deferments isn't that unique. We've been hearing about that or about Bush's guard service rather a lot as though presumably pro-military or pro-war sorts are supposed to be really upset about either.

But if people can't get that right... it demonstrates in an objective way that they do not understand how those who might be seen as "pro-war" actually feel or think about the use of military force. Thus, the charge that Dick Cheney loves war and violence can't be seen to have any sort of reasonable connection to reality.

Love war and violence? Who does?

But the charge makes it possible to entirely discount any opinion that favors the use of the military... as if there are no valid opinions to that end but just money, religious fanaticism or feelings of sexual inadequacy.

It's a world of no honest dissenting opinions.

Not true, of course. But how can good decisions be made when all alternate ways of viewing the issue, of understanding military use, are blown off as sexual inadequacy?

My examples of BryanD's rant about military service which we've all heard before which "pro-military" sorts are "supposed" to care so much about and Mary's sexual orientation which Republicans were supposed to care so much about are just examples of a larger problem.

The left doesn't know what the right really thinks about any of it, and they really don't care.

Don't get me wrong, Synova; everything is all about sex. Couldn't be any other way.
================================

Heh. ;-)

Wish I could have been on this thread earlier.

WizBlue is not only a window into their poorly considered arguments but also a glimpse, albeit somewhat veiled, into their real mindset.
Paul Hamilton spilled some of that here last night and John in CA and WildWillie called him on it immediately.

He did it again today. The sexual reference aside (Jay's photo shows which side BTW), Paul.....Cheney became wealthy from Halliburton before the war began....but you wouldn't know that because you don't read public disclosures by Halliburton.

Such wit.

Well, after your twisting my words, you have little room to complain.

Denounce as is to announce as something evil or calamitous. And drinking yourself to death, while spending your pay on booze when your kids are wearing shoes a size too small and clothes from donation bins, that fits both definitions.
Rather than ignore my friend's problem, I chose to tell him that his actions and choices are hurting him and others, and then support him finding another path. This you consider a bad thing.
Rather than sponsor his detox and support him in church and the community, what would you do Mantis?
Walk away and cut him out, or pretend nothing is wrong?

I read through all the comments, and nobody seemed to address a glaring error made by those who accuse Cheney of wanting to start Armageddon, as many on the left have accused Bush of the same thing. Cheney is not very religious! If you haven't noticed, evangelical Christians have a way of finding other evangelicals and supporting them. Bush got that support, but Cheney never has. I'm not being critical of him for it, just defending him from those who thinks he has any interest in bringing about the events found prophesied in Revelation. The short attention span on the left never ceases to amaze me.

And speaking of sexual repression, isn't it the Iranians who talk about blowing Israel off the map? Can we find any more sexually repressed people than the mad mullahs running that country. They recently arrested a former leader for shaking a woman's hand in public. How scandalous!

...such "immoral behavior" was illegal until recently in most states.

Yeah. They were called social norms - determined by the will of communities - which have been replaced by judicial edict thanks to leftists. Such laws were 99% unenforced, by the way, and were more a statement about acceptable community behavior than a real threat of jail time.

Until recently one could put up a cross or mention God without being sued; cities were not forced to pay for sex-change operations; we did not have a surgeon general who thought it would be a great idea to have school masturbation programs; we did not have leftist perverts "educating" children in sexual doctrines and making them put condoms on bananas; and we had far more families with united mommies and daddies. Which reality is better? Let the reader decide.

I love the way homosexuality is a carnal blessing to a leftist, until it becomes time to attack a political opponent, at which time it becomes a convenient smear weapon. There is the evidence of "caring."

Good point JFNK. Remember the one who believed that sexual repression was as valid a reason as any? Wasn't it the same one who thought Cheney's motivation was more likely religious. Short attention span ain't the problem. It's projected looniness.
======================================

Before you get snarky, I know it was Larky.
==========================

"Maybe it's just the worst case of sexual repression in history."

Sounds like something out of Mad Magazine.

Que blammo?
=========

Told you bryanD was insane.

Well, maybe so; but in a good kinda way.
========================

Well, after your twisting my words, you have little room to complain.

Not necessary to twist your words.

Denounce as is to announce as something evil or calamitous. And drinking yourself to death, while spending your pay on booze when your kids are wearing shoes a size too small and clothes from donation bins, that fits both definitions.

And being gay does not. Homosexuality is neither evil nor calamitous. It is present all throughout human history and the animal kingdom. So far things have been ok.

Rather than ignore my friend's problem, I chose to tell him that his actions and choices are hurting him and others, and then support him finding another path.

Does this mean if you had a gay friend, you would consider it a problem you should try to "help" him/her out of? If so, I'll bet any gay friends you have had you didn't keep.

This you consider a bad thing.

I don't consider helping a friend with an addiction a bad thing. I think your defining homosexuality as a problem and equating it with substance abuse a bad thing.

Rather than sponsor his detox and support him in church and the community, what would you do Mantis?

Oh, I'd do all that, though I don't go to church anymore, but if he did I'd go. I've helped friends with addiction in the past. The difference is that homosexuality is not an addiction gays need to detox from.

Walk away and cut him out, or pretend nothing is wrong?

Nope. If he was gay and an alcoholic, I'd try to help him with his alcoholism. Is that what you're looking for?

It is not evil or calamitous; it is exuberant and luxurious.
==================================

C'mon, c'mon, c'mon; isn't 'exuberant and luxurious' enticing?
=====================================