I'm puzzled by certain arguments put forward by some members of the limited number of readers of this forum that mild criticism of a certain lifestyle like homosexuality, equates to 'hate' or 'intolerance'. If that were the case and I actually am a closeted bigot, then why do I link (and always have since this blog began, BTW) to the archive of one, Mr. Deroy Murdock? In addition to being black, Murdock also happens to be gay. None of this detracts form Murdock's writing ability as Mr. Murdock is a prolific writer and one of the best columnists in the English speaking world IMHO. Today's article from him regarding the liberal proclivity to tax, tax, tax without thinking of possible, undesirable outcomes only serves to bolster any critical acclaim that Murdock so richly deserves.
Consider the first Twin Towers attack, which killed six and injured 1,040. As Patrick Fleenor recalled in a Cato Institute study, "Counterfeit cigarette-tax stamps were found in an apartment used by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad cell that carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center."
Smugglers buy cigarettes in low-tax states, disguise them with bogus tax stamps, sell them in high-tax locales and pocket the difference. A $2.70 spread separates Virginia's 30-cent-per-pack cigarette tax and Connecticut's at $3.00. Driving 1,500 cartons from Arlington to Hartford yields $40,500 a trip.
Terrorists move cigarettes because they are light, portable, otherwise legal and produce cash. "Law-enforcement officials in New York state estimate that well-organized cigarette smuggling networks generate between $200,000 and $300,000 per week," a 2008 House Homeland Security Committee staff report concluded. "A large percentage of the money is believed to be sent back to the Middle East, where it directly or indirectly finances groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda."
I believe that the law of unintended consequences applies here and although I'm sure that state and local governments do not intend to support Hamas or Al-Qaeda, that is the unfortunate, end result. Greater vigilance by the authorities concerning coupon clipping scams is also needed...
"Currently, U.S. authorities are investigating a number of small retailers for "coupon-clipping" scams. The fraudsters clip literally thousands of coupons from every source available to them. These in turn are provided to a retailer-accomplice who forwards them to the issuer and gets reimbursed, when no products were ever purchased by a consumer."
Think about that the next time you pass by the small local Halal food store that you wondered how they stay open for business when so few people are actually seen shopping there.
17 comments:
Well, yes, I am indeed perplexed at the bigotry you have displayed.
Homophobic men such as yourself are verily springing from cans of worms as witnessed by members of the republican party and the religious right, the last one being Dr George Rekers.
I have a myriad of questions about this, but reat assured, that you will not be the one that I will ask about them.
I would ask you, since you bring it up so often, what threat you fear from gays.
Lets just answer that one simple question first.
How have you been harmed by gays and how have they diminished the value of your marriage?
I am indeed perplexed at the bigotry you have displayed
What bigotry?
Homophobic men such as yourself
Please substantiate your claim that I am "homophobic".
How have you been harmed by gays and how have they diminished the value of your marriage?
A couple of juvenile errors here.
I've never claimed that I've "been harmed by gays". If you can construct an argument utilizing any entry from the archive of this blog or any other that I've commented on showing that this is the case, please do so at this time.
Additionally, I've never stated/inferred/alluded to gays diminishing "the value of my marraige". Again, if you can construct an argument utilizing any entry from the archive of this blog or any other that I've commented on showing that this is the case, please do so at this time.
I would only add that I would never support any government intervention against the gay lifestyle choice. I'm a small-government conservative and I'm against having the government involved in our lives unless absolutely necessary.
Now Frogster, you can either...
A. Substantiate your 2 claims listed above.
B. State that you were wrong, incorrect, or mistaken. Or..
C. Go away.
The choice is yours.
Well, for starters, you write stuff like this:
"It would appear that the Pink Hand has more sway over the minds of our nation's young people than previously imagined..."
What is this "Pink Hand?"
You constantly ininuate that gays have some type of agenda other than merely recieving equal rights.
Perhaps you don't even realize what you are doing because it is often very subtle, yet recognizable.
Do you also refer to African Americans who work for equality the "Black Hand?"
Yes, you talk in bigoted tones, a lot.
Since PFOX was denied a place at the PTA, why would you say they have "Sway" over the nations young?
I really should be asleep but...
JD: "I'll endeavor to keep a "firm grip on the soap" when around you Frogster."
Oh ha ha! What does that mean? You fear Froggie will homosexually rape you because he must be gay if he dislikes discrimination and homosexuals can help but rape?
I think you often display a slightly bigoted tone. Maybe you think you are less bigoted than you are.
Imagine if someone wrote something like:
"we'll never know because the Jew controls all the newspapers"
You'd think the person was displaying a bigoted attitude, right?
Now, you've said a "Pink Hand" controls the what goes on the front page of the newspaper and are fond of this quote: “three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.”
Or how about the tone of JD's response to a man being fired after giving a woman a lecture because she said her partner was a "she"
"I couldnt care less what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults. It's really none of my business."
But "If she had kept her private life to herself than I doubt that any of this would have happened. "
That's got the whole "I'm okay with queers as long as I never see one" vibe to it.
What about the time there was that Christian guy who supported Hitler? All of a sudden you were quoting an anti homosexual campaigner who thought the Nazi party were mostly homosexual and their supposed homosexuality was the very reason for the Nazi party's crimes.
Don't kid yourself. Everyone could see why you decided to go in that direction at that time.
I don't want to spend more than five minutes writing this comment so I won't even mention the things you've said about Obama that seem dangerously close to racism. Witch doctor, etc...
"Now Frogster, you can either...
A. Substantiate your 2 claims listed above.
B. State that you were wrong, incorrect, or mistaken. Or..
C. Go away.
The choice is yours."
There can be no doubt that my claoms have been completely substantiated by ATVLC and me.
Like I said before, I don't think you think you are bigoted but reading your comments I think they display a bigoted tone.
"...and I asked what open support of such a lifestyle would indicate."
You asked what open support of such a lifestyle would indicate?
By saying "I'll endeavor to keep a "firm grip on the soap" when around you Frogster."
You implied you were afraid Froggie would homosexually rape you. Yeah we know it was a "joke" but it the same kind of joke as cobwebs on a Jew's wallet, a negative stereotype.
Did I state that ATVLC or did openly gay New York Times reporter Richard Berke make that statement about 10 years ago to the Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association and I merely quoted him?
If you read closer I said you "are fond of this quote".
It's like a blogger who posted Martin Luther's quote about slaying Jews that won't convert and burning their temples to the ground. Later he said he never said he meant that he was merely providing a quote.
"Again, how is this bigotry?"
If you can't see why so many people think you're a bigot, you've a little beyond help in that regard.
By the way Ginx, you shouldn't be saying things like "You aren't a closet bigot, you're a closet fag". We know you're annoyed but still.
The Christian was M_arcus W_ellington.
(He has a Google Alerts style program that alerts him to discussion about him, so I've censored his name with underscores.)
You implied you were afraid Froggie would homosexually rape you<
No. Froggie speculated that criticism of the gay lifestyle = latent homosexuality. If that was the best he could do then I merely turned it back on him and wondered aloud would vehement, repetitive approval would then indicate in a metaphorical sort of way.
Yeah we know it was a "joke" but it the same kind of joke as cobwebs on a Jew's wallet, a negative stereotype
This "cobwebs on a Jew's wallet" is a new one on me. It must be something shared amongst your Australian friends.
If you read closer I said you "are fond of this quote"
No. Actually I never said that " a "Pink Hand" controls the what goes on the front page of the newspaper" however you said that. I didnt.
Actually, I said "It would appear that the Pink Hand has more sway over the minds of our nation's young people than previously imagined" which doesnt mention the media. The post pertained to the PTA.
Berke stated "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.” I merely quoted him.
I don't believe anyone has ever asked me if I think that this quote from Berke is true or not. I think he's over-exagerrating but I wouldnt be suprised at all to find their numbers to be statistically over represented in the media. I'm really not sure though.
Why don't you ask Berke?
If Martin Luther said those things, then he was wrong.
MW hasnt been around here in quite some time. He seemed quite peeved that I described his motley hodgepodge of racial theory and verse-twisting as being incorrect. He especially took exception when I described his personal belief system as being "extra-Biblical".
I don't think that he ever mounted anything in the way of a serious counter-argument and he just sort of went away.
One thing that Mr. W can say is that he never misrepresented my point as Ginx clearly has.
If I went on to Ginx's blog and started spouting off that that he was a racist, I might be expected to back that up. Ginx hasnt offered up anything to support his position. At all.
I give you credit for one thing though ATVLC. At least you located the SEARCH field on this blog and utilizing certain key words tried to construct a coherent argument.
Juxtapose this to the award winning argumentative technique of Ginx/Froggie which pretty much amounts to "you disgree with me = you're a bigot".
I give you credit for one thing though ATVLC. At least you located the SEARCH field on this blog and utilizing certain key words tried to construct a coherent argument.
Actually I didn't.
I remembered some of these things and used phrases like
"front page" site:http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/
in google.
Let me quote Lee Atwater, Republican party strategist and an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
In this context, I believe you are often use bigoted abstracts. Maybe you don't realise it, I don't know.
This "cobwebs on a Jew's wallet" is a new one on me. It must be something shared amongst your Australian friends.
In a discussion about changing attitudes, my father said that his great aunt had used this phrase once.
If Martin Luther said those things, then he was wrong
He published these views in this pamphlet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies.
JD,
"Berke stated "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.” I merely quoted him.
I don't believe anyone has ever asked me if I think that this quote from Berke is true or not."
Total cop out. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to think you are not in support of the quotes/people you quote. It would be absurd to believe otherwise.
If I were to start quoting Govenor George Wallace you would hav no option than to belive I was a bigot like him.
I believe you are often use bigoted abstracts. Maybe you don't realise it, I don't know.
I think that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery, however adulterers are not organizing to have their point of view taught at the elementary school level as being "natural", "acceptable" and A-OK. Link
If we're going to be open and honest about the subject, why is discussion of higher incidences of mental health disorders along with dramatically shortened life expectancies streng verboten when it come to this particular subject?
"Berke stated "three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals.” I merely quoted him.
I don't believe anyone has ever asked me if I think that this quote from Berke is true or not."
Total cop out. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to think you are not in support of the quotes/people you quote. It would be absurd to believe otherwise.
But I didnt quote George Wallace (who BTW, "In the late 1970s Wallace became a born-again Christian, renouncing his segregationist policies and apologizing for his past. After his change, he became popular within the African American community, a position of closeness that he would retain until his death." Link. Sure you were getting around to mentioning that Frog).
I actually quoted a openly gay journalist who writes for one of the largest news organizations in the US.
Again, I generally agree with Berke. That homosexuals are quite possibly statistically overrepresented on editorial boards. I doubt that it's as high as 75%, however if you would like to show that it is that high, feel free to make your case here.
Post a Comment