I’m sure this has been explained at some point on the SDMB, but what does “IOKIYAR” mean? I’m guessing it’s “It Only K---- If You’re A Republican” (or Democrat if it’s “IOKIYAD”). What the hell does the K stand for?
If Barbara and Jenna were caught giving blow jobs to Scott McClellan in exchange for crack money, the issue would not be their heterosexuality, nor would those who expressed disbelief at the media’s resulting silence be attacking Barbara and Jenna for their sexual orientation.
It’s OK If You Are A Republican/Democrat.
Regards,
Shodan
Did you perhaps notice that the only reference to prostitution was a quote from the OP? So your notion that I was conflating anything is wrong.
Let me know if you need the obvious pointed out to you again.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan – thanks!
My point precisely. The OP points out (months late, btw–what cave have you been hiding in?) that the social conservatives who back Bush apparently couldn’t care less about the White House’s use of a homosexual prostitute as a fake journalist, then you spend like half a dozen posts complaining about some scurrilous liberal attack on homosexuality.
But on second thought, maybe you’re not conflating homosexuality and prostitution at all. Maybe you’re just willfully ignoring the prostitution part because it’s hard to smear your opponents as too opposed to prostitution.
Ridiculous. I am puzzled that certain portions of the right, which I carefully delineated instead of making a blanket statement, haven’t got all hot and bothered over Gannon, given the marked bigotry they often display towards gays, but that’s different from wanting them to do something. And of course I mentioned his sexuality, it’s the question at issue here. The matter of his being a secret shill has already been taken care of, the real question, is how did he hook up with the White House on this?
No, the short answer is, it was all about the blowjob and nobody but tighty righties, and I mean EXTREME tighty righties, believes otherwise. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one, since there’s not a chance in hell you’ll change your mind, and even less that I’ll change mine. Whole threads have worked this topic over
Good point. I’ll concede that one.
[quote]
he is some guy at a press conference. [li]There is no evidence of involvement by Bush in anything relating to this.[/li][/quote]
Wrong. And I’m going to assume here that by “Bush” you mean the Bush administration and not the man himself. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, in the form of the many day passes issued to Gannon. Why did this nobody from an obscure conservative website get that kind of access? You think the Secret Service cleared him? If so, how did they miss his gay prostitute websites? Any kind of background check should have turned that up. It’s obvious somebody higher up on the chain of command (hint: Karl Rove) cleared Gannon. So Gannon, while himself a small fry, is Connected at the Bush White House, and that’s a fact worth noting. I just have to wonder why no one else is. I also wonder why the gay press seems to be lying down on the job here. They can’t be so desperate for recognition in the media that they’d let another Citizen Coen get a pass. Can they?
"Keep screaming … " Nice. BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
It isn’t working because that’s not what I’m doing? Just a guess, mind you …
OK, you’re different from most menbers of the religious right. Your viewpoint is at least consistent.
As for actions of a peripheral supporter, I don’t think Bush knew anything about this, I bet it was Rove all the way. I don’t think they bother Bush with the “details” of their operations. I doubt if he wants to be bothered. Still, the buck stops at Bush’s desk, like it or not.
**Evil Captor ** - I think you may be grasping for something that simply isn’t there. People whose mindsets and motivations you (and probably I) don’t understand completely have not reacted in a certain way to an event. Your OP somewhat disgenuously asks why. I say disingenuously because it appears to me that the sentiment underlying your question is that they haven’t reacted because they are hypocrites. They don’t condemn gays when doing so would interfere with their blind devotion to Bush. That may be so, I don’t know, and I don’t think we’re gonna find out here. And concerning your reply to Shodan saying that the Clinton scandal was all about the blowjob, I don’t know anyone who thinks that. The initial scandal was certainly about the blowjob, but what followed was all about power, politics and perjury. I’m a conservative who doesn’t like Clinton a bit, but to me that impeachment didn’t look like a puritan morality play, it looked like a raw political power play that justifiably failed.
IMO, this is a much bigger scandal than Clinton letting campaign donors sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, and yet that still gets brought up.
No, your point was that I was conflating prostitution and homosexuality, and it was wrong.
Evil Captor says, specifically, that Gannon’s sexuality is “the question at issue here”.
Nice little attempt at begging the question. No evidence has been produced of any wrongdoing by the Bush administration.
But, as you say, no one gives a shit if Gannon is gay or a prostitute. And, since no evidence of wrongdoing is available, that he is either is irrelevant.
And yet Evil Captor keeps harping on it.
But conservatives don’t care about it. And liberals, supposedly, don’t care about it either. But EC is making sure to mention it as if it is supposed to produce outrage.
He calls it being “disingenous”. I call it hypocritical at best (fortunately, he has already mentioned that consistency is not one of his concerns), and an unmentionable subject at worst.
Again you are wrong. I am not smearing anybody. Evil Captor is.
As are you, but fortunately it is obvious enough to discount.
I wish I could say this was more than usually dishonest, but…
Regards,
Shodan
Funny, I couldn’t tell that by the OP and its repeated description of Gannon as a “man-whore.”
Unless you count giving dozens (hundreds?) of daily press passes to a guy who didn’t qualify for a permanent press pass, and whose only qualification was tongue-washing (metaphorically, of course) Bush’s balls every time McClellan called on him to get out of a tough spot, as “wrongdoing,” then golly, you’re right, there’s no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of the Bush administration.
Monumentally bad judgment, on the other hand . . .
I say? Where? When? WTF? A gay (relevant insofar as it shows the utter hypocrisy of the Republican Taliban) prostitute (relevant insofar as prostitution is, like, a crime and all, and kinda gross to boot) receives ultra-special treatment by the White House due to his usefulness as an on-air sycophant, and I allegedly said no one gives a shit?
Cite, please?
Sure, but always within the context of the reaction of the social conservatives. Context is important, Shodan, you just can’t clip and paste on a message board where everybody can read all the text and expect to get away with it. Show me where I said I had a problem or I thought people in general or EVEN where I thought conservatives in general and Republicans in general might be expected to have a problem with Gannon’s man-whorishness. You cannot, because I did not. I was very careful to be specific.
Look, there’s a legitimate debate here, but you are as usual ignoring it in and trying to veer it off into some weird tangent. If you have any useful thoughts let’s have 'em.
Yes, among social conservatives. Do you have some reason for thinking they wouldn’t be outraged, of that it’s somehow unreasonable to expect them to be outraged, all things considered? If so, what might it be? Stop playing dumb word games and debate, dammit.
I do suspect them of hypocrisy, and it might be disngenuous to ask why when I already have an opinion, but there is a certain puzzlement on my part. While I think the social conservatives’ leaders, especially on the religious right, are fully capable reining in their outrage about Gannon so long as he proves useful, it puzzles me that we haven’t had more expressions of outrage from the rank and file.
I disagree about the blowjob scandal. I’ll grant you the ultimate motivations of the people behind the impeachment were all about power and politics, but the reason the political leaders thought they could use it as a basis for a legislative coup against Clinton was that they really thought the blowjob would work as a pretext with the voters. It didn’t, which is why the impeachment fizzled. But without the blowjob, there would have been nothing. No testimony hence no perjury. No political traction, hence no impeachment. It was all about Monica Lewinsky’s lips and Bill Clinton’s cock from the git-go.
I do suspect them of hypocrisy, and it might be disngenuous to ask why when I already have an opinion, but there is a certain puzzlement on my part. While I think the social conservatives’ leaders, especially on the religious right, are fully capable reining in their outrage about Gannon so long as he proves useful, it puzzles me that we haven’t had more expressions of outrage from the rank and file.
I disagree about the blowjob scandal. I’ll grant you the ultimate motivations of the people behind the impeachment were all about power and politics, but the reason the political leaders thought they could use it as a basis for a legislative coup against Clinton was that they really thought the blowjob would work as a pretext with the voters. It didn’t, which is why the impeachment fizzled. But without the blowjob, there would have been nothing. No testimony hence no perjury. No political traction, hence no impeachment. It was all about Monica Lewinsky’s lips and Bill Clinton’s cock from the git-go.
Already done.
You don’t have a clue as to what conservatives think. Therefore, you are not qualified to judge what we should think or how we should react. We do not sit around all day thinking how much we hate gay people, in the way that some folks sit around all day hating Bush. Therefore, we do not react in the kind of half-wittedly knee-jerk fashion that you would like us to. Boo hoo for you.
Not to disappoint you too badly, but just because you wave the red flag of “here’s a queer! Hate him for me!” does not mean we will charge as obligingly as you would like.
You haven’t given any reason to hate this person, besides what you see as the key issue, which is his sexuality. That, you keep harping on. There was a gay person at a Bush press conference, and he didn’t attack the President in the way that you would like. So what?
Look, I know it is a bitter pill to swallow, but if you want any gay-bashing, you will have to do it yourself. I know you would like every social conservative to be Fred Phelps, but that isn’t going to happen.
Live with it.
Regards,
Shodan
Anyone else reminded of that press conference before the war where Bush said that he just didn’t agree at all with those people who say that brown people aren’t capable of establishing democracy?
That’s pretty much the same tactic as accusing Evil Captor of gay-bashing, it seems to me.
Before plucking the mote from thine own eye, be sure to poke one into your neighbor’s, I guess.
**Evil Captor ** - I think Clinton’s impeachment was about a blowjob the way Nixon’s was about the break-in at the Watergate, which to me means: hardly at all. Of course the blowjob started it all, but without Clinton’s subsequent actions, nothing would have happened, and the people pushing the impeachment didn’t give a shit whether a blowjob, jaywalking or income tax evasion was the original event.
On the subject of expected outrage: I am a member of a fundamentalist church. My wife and I meet weekly with five other couples from this church to pray, study and talk. We talk about current events, among other things. I can tell you that among this small group, there is no outrage about the behavior of any individual. Believe it or not, most Christians of my acquaintance expect sin and evil in the world. Without entering into a debate of whether any particular behavior constitutes sin or evil, please understand that most devout Christians believe that human nature is predisposed to be sinful, and that Christian existence consists partly and importantly of the struggle to overcome that in ourselves. Not, primarily, in others. Christ had a bit to say about this, admonishing us to pay attention to our own sins, not those of our brothers. That said, I have seen lots of examples in the media of outrage on the part of all kinds of people, including Christians. I have not observed this, ever, among the Christians I know in response to individual acts.
This thread and my points were about the individuals and groups that make up the far right, not the GOP.
The Gannon case and the examples I gave demonstrate the blatant hypocrisy of the Religious Right. They consistently raise a stink over any gay rights or gay involvement with politicians they dislike. Yet when it’s one of their own, like Santorum’s aide or Arthur J. Finkelstein, they can’t seem to muster the outrage. Shodan, in typical fashion, disingenously suggests it’s because they’re not as bigoted as we think. Somehow he misses the pattern that it only matters when it’s the other guy’s fag not their own.
Another aspect involved, I suspect, is denial. If they get outraged over Guckert/Gannon, then they’ll have to wonder how he conveniently got passes and frequent White House visits that he wasn’t qualified to receive, having neither the professional credentials nor experience. The most likely explanation is a personal relationship with someone in the Administration. If that is so, then they’ve got to admit they’ve have another gay man in their midst. They’d just rather not know that.
It couldn’t be ol’ Scott McClellan, could it?
So, if we are not outraged, it’s because we’re bigoted, whereas, if we are outraged, it’s because we are bigoted.
:shrugs: Maybe you should go read Phelps’ website. I am sure you will find what you seem to be looking for there.
Regards,
Shodan