14 Klansmen vs 3,000 Anti-Klan protesters. Has there been a Klan protest in the last twenty years where the amount of Klansmen in attendance came remotely close to the amount of anti-Klan protesters? I don’t think so. I think its safe to say that those liberals like Rosa Parks won.
I should also note that the Klan’s position on gay marriage is identical to the GOPs.
>> When you stand against gay marriage, you’re standing with the Klan
The Klan is rallying, no matter how limited the turnout, in favor of a Republican proposal on gay marriage. It’s not a cheap political shot when it’s true.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we bar all Klan officials from EVER holding public office? It’s not that different from what we did after the Civil War…
While we’re at it, let’s toss a few other associations: if you’re a vegetarian, you agree with Hitler. If you want socialized medicine, you’re in league with Stalin.
The Klan is dying all on its own, and is pulling dumbass stunts like trying to lactch on to the gay marriage issue (which I have publicly and repeatedly supported, before you get your panties in yet another knot) in the hopes of gaining some relevancy and attention. By giving them this kind of attention, you’re giving them exactly what they want, need, and crave.
The smart thing to do is to ignore them publicly, while watching them like a hawk, and coming down HARD on them when they go too far — which they surely will. Paying attention to them and giving them publicity is as good as endorsing them.
But why let that get in the way of a cheap political shot at those you don’t like? You just wouldn’t be you if you didn’t do that, Ollie.
J.
Hmmm…I see….the Kompassionate Konservative Kabal are the NEW KKK in suits and carrying bibles these days. That sounds about right.
Of course we all know how diligently Jay refrains from feeding raw meat to the loons who populate the commentary at his site.
Anyway, the Klan thinks they are helping the republican party by taking it’s side on this issue. Let them help. It’s their constitutional right.
The Klan is dying all on its own,
Perhaps JayIDTea can tell us why the GOP and conservative front groups (Family Research Council) have been willing to pay big bucks to David Duke for his mailing list?
Someone who is not JayIDTea responds:
If Jay were a Republican, he might be able to tell you.
But he s not.
Well, that might be an answer if the question was “Can a Republican tell us why the GOP and other conservative groups pay money to David Duke for his mailing list?”
Of course, that wasn’t the question.
“Perhaps JayIDTea can tell us why the GOP and conservative front groups (Family Research Council) have been willing to pay big bucks to David Duke for his mailing list?”
If Jay were a Republican, he might be able to tell you.
But he’s not.
“The Klan is rallying, no matter how limited the turnout, in favor of a Republican proposal on gay marriage. It s not a cheap political shot when it s true.”
So does this mean it’s not a cheap political shot when I point out that doucebag Fred Phelps of Godhatesfags.com fame is a Democrat?
I’m still trying to figure out why the NRC is paying for the legal defense of the guy caught jamming the Democrat’s phone banks on election day, 2002, here in New Hampshire — a story I’ve covered a couple times, but no one else wants to talk about. (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006741.php)
For the record: I’m a registered Independent. I unenrolled as a Democrat about a year ago, a status I held for four years prior. I don’t think I’ve been a Republican for more than five minutes at a time in well over a decade.
And I see my very first allusion kinda slipped past people, so I’ll spell it out: show me a single former Klan official with anywhere near as prominent a position as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), as a Republican, and I’ll stop thinking of the Democratic Party as the “Party Of The Klan.” After all, for decades the Democratic Party and the Klan were staunch allies (when not one and the same) in the South.
And lemme head off David Duke: never elected to a goddamned thing as I recall, and universally repudiated by the Republican Party.
But if you wanna hang the Klan around the GOP, I think that it’s only fair that the GOP get to saddle you with International ANSWER (the Communists), Code Pink, Democratic Underground, the anarchists, and the “We Support Our Troops When They Frag Their Officers” scumbags. Deal?
J.
Jade: I presumet “JayIDTea” is some sort of obscure insult that I simply don’t get. Entertain yourself all you like; childish name-calling is one of the standard things I’ve learned to accept from the Left. It usually makes up for a lack of actual content and thought.
J.
Jade, you’re asking me to answer WHY the Republicans did a certain thing. I have no idea. In fact, all I have to believe that it happened is your word, and you can’t even get my name right, so THAT credibility is pretty much shot.
I also said that Duke wasn’t elected, “as I recall.” I don’t know much about Duke. I try to ignore him as much as I can. He’s an utter nonentity to me, and the longer dipshits keep bringing him up, the longer his eventual decline into his richly-deserved oblivion will be postponed.
BTW, this is the last time I answer questions addressed to “JayIDTea.” Jade seems to have some kind of grudge with him/her/it, and I’m tired of answering on their behalf. Unless, of course, Jade would like to start answring to “JadeGladBag” or “JunkGold” or “JerkWad.”
Nah. Even by my standards, that’s pathetic.
J.
Let’s see how JayIDTea dodged the question.
1. He discusses his political affiliations;
2. Brings up Byrd’s affiliations from 50-60 years ago–affiliations which Byrd has renounced and apologized for. Yes, JayIDTea, the Dems–pre Civil Rights-era were on the wrong side but where did all the Segs wind up?;
3. Says Duke was never elected (not true) and universally repudiated by GOP (also not true).
Again, the question: why has the GOP, on at least 3 occasions, paid money to Duke for his mailing list?
Oh, and has anyone noticed David Duke’s publicly supporting Cindy Sheehan now? I don’t recall her renouncing him…
J.
Considering the GOP has repeatedly painted the Dems as in service of/part of those groups and other much worse ones, for years now makes your rhetoric sort of empty.
The Democratic party in the south was the party of racists, and then those folks were purged… and found a home in the Republican party.
Senator Byrd has renounced his past affiliation and had a voting record on civil rights that received a 100% rating from the NAACP in the ‘03-04 session.
Oh David Duke has been elected before…..as a Democrat.
The story about the ‘GOP’ paying for David Duke’s mailing list another in a long list of Jade ‘Tommy Flanagan’ Gold’s half-truths or flat out lies. I’m not going to bother with the details, but Flanagan knows he’s full of shit, so just ignore him.
Oh and Oliver, speaking of David Duke. He and you both have the same position on the war in Iraq.
“BTW, this is the last time I answer questions addressed to JayIDTea. Jade seems to have some kind of grudge with him/her/it, and I m tired of answering on their behalf.”
J, you are such a putz.
Almost right, frame — which for you is a new high.
I want gay marriage approved by legislative action and not by judicial fiat because I want to to STICK. Right now in Massachusetts there is a push to outlaw it entirely through a Constitutional amendment, and the backers are pissed off enough that they’re gonna keep coming back until they get it. At that point, it’s DEAD for the foreseeable future.
And I don’t recall “marriage” being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but it might be covered under the Full Faith And Credit clause. So it also raises the potential of a Constitutional Crisis, when people start taking their marriages across state lines.
I call myself a pragmatist, because I deal with reality when it comes to politics. Might I suggest you try it sometime?
J.
I wonder, parenthetically, how many of the “Klansmen” are undercover FBI agents keeping an eye on them and undercover journalists writing books and articles.
–|PW|–
Oh David Duke has been elected before& ..as a Democrat.
Bzzzt. Jay C. Wrong Again:
Running as a Republican, Duke won a Louisiana State Legislature seat in January 1989, despite scrutiny and opposition from national Republican leaders. While in office, he continued to sell neo-Nazi literature.
More from the factually-challenged Jay C:
The story about the GOP paying for David Duke s mailing list another in a long list of Jade Tommy Flanagan Gold s half-truths or flat out lies. I m not going to bother with the details,
No, Jay C won’t bother with the facts.
In 1995, Mike Foster–running as the GOP candidate for Governor of LA–paid Duke $150,000 for his mailing list. In 1997, Foster–the incumbent Gov of LA–paid again for Duke’s mailing list.
In 1996, Tony Perkins–head honcho of the pro-GOP Family Research Council–paid Duke $82,500 for the mailing list.
Why do you think that is Jay?
David Duke supports Cindy Sheehan and opposes the war in Iraq.
Uh oh.
Allow me to clarify …
You’re basic position on gay marriage is that while you support the right of gays to marry you would rather it was made legal through legislation rather so-called judicial fiat. The last time I checked basic human rights were not something one group doled out to another. My right to marry, just like my right to free speech, should not be dependent on whether or not the majority deems me worthy of having them. That is, I believe, fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was foundation. There are certain inalienable rights that should not be subject to the whims of the electorate and one of them is the right to happiness, or at least, the ability to pursue it. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that gays have to convince a majority of the electorate that they are human beings entitled to the full rights of human beings before they can marry. You may think the Klan is pulling a dumbass stunt by latching on to the gay marriage issue but your own line of thinking gives the Klan a valid say in whether or not two people in love can join together in marriage. What other rights would you like the Klan to decide for us? What if the Klan waged a successful campaign to get pro-segregation legislation passed in some backwards ass state? Would you support that? Of course you’d have to waffle around about how well, you support civil rights but the people did vote so blah, blah … Gimme a break.
So people should oppose EVERY political position supported by them, right?
When you stand against the Iraq War, you’re standing with the Klan.
When you stand against Israeli bulldozers, you’re standing with the Klan.
I could go on and on. Why don’t we cut out this crap?
Ya, Jay. You care so much about gay rights you’re happy to let gays sit in limbo for generations because you want to make sure when they get the right, they get it the way you think they ought to get it. Last time I checked, deciding on the constitutionality of a law was part of the job description of a judge. You can’t say that you support gay marriage and then spout off about “judicial acitivism” as if what the court in Massachusetts did was somehow extra legal or untoward. The court system is there to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans even in the face of the majority. You say you support gay marriage and want it to stick so you think the people ought to decide the issue. And yet you throw your support behind conservative politicians who oppose gay marriage who would appoint judges who would deny Americans the right of privacy under the consitution. I’ll take it for granted that you’re not a single issue voter but that’s a funny way to show your unqualified support for gay marriage. The bottom line is the bigotry of the KKK is the same kind of bigotry that opposes gay marriage. Glad you’re not a bigot, Jay, but you really do have a funny way of putting your belief on this issue into action. It isn’t a pragmatic stance, it’s no stance at all.
I think more and more conservatives will name- dodge that proud heritage and begin ‘independent’ identification, because it is less odious.
O.k., just perusing, and it appears as though every statement of ‘fact’ made by J.T. is, umm, a lie. Then, he/she/it falls back on the tried and true method of rightist ‘rhetoric’ of insults, dismissal, and deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of other posts. Nice to know that the boys in the basement are alive, well, and kicking. Nice tie-in with Duke and Oliver, too, just the kind of propogandistic crap you’d expect from a thinly veiled neo-con posing as an “independent.” Methinks the only “dipshit” I see here is the one with the potty mouth.
I think the argument of whether the clan is more like Republicans or more Democrat is pretty pointless. The Republican party is right-wing, the KKK is further right wing. The KKK tends to disagree with the government in principle, (the whole ZOG issue) so sometimes their positions superficially look like the left.
But they’re not doing so for the same reasons. The reasons they support things pretty much always is repulsive to the left. (I suppose if they took a favorable position on chocolate pudding, we could agree on principle).
That’s not the necessarily the case with the Republican party vs. the KKK position.
And yes, Cindy did specifically say she wants nothing to do with those StormFront and KKK jackholes that came out to “support” her. JayTea, you’re a big freaking liar or else you don’t know how to use Google.
Let’s cut through all the diversions, distractions, and digressions, and return to the core of the original piece:
When you stand with Cindy Sheehan, you stand with David Duke.
‘Nuff said?
J.
Leo: Don’t count on it. Conservatives aren’t fickle and faithless like liberals.
We’re playing this game, are we? If you insist…
I should also note that Al Qaida’s position on Iraq is identical to Oliver’s.
I would like to add that I’d bet that the KKK position on gay marriage hinges more on being anti – gay, than it does on being pro – marriage, which the Republican position does. But you knew that.
Bzzzt. Jay C. Wrong Again:
Wrong? Are you denying that Duke was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature as a Democrat?
As for the “mailing list”, Flanagan offers up no context. They did not buy access to a mailing list with the names and addresses of a bunch of KKK members as he implies. (Remember, it was JayT that said the Klan was dying and Jade responds with nonsense about buying Duke’s mailing list to make it appear as though they’re trying to keep the Klan alive and well). Of course, with Jade giving us the details, he rips his own asinine accusation to shreds as these lists were rented TEN and EIGHT years ago. Yeah Jade, they’ve done a bang up job since then! 14 losers in sheets showing up at the rally. The Klan is alive baby! Also, Flanagan is being dishonest when he says ‘The Family Research Council’ rented the list. Perkins was working on the Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins at the time, so it is dishonest (but that’s Jade’s MO) to say they purchased it when Perkins didn’t join the FRC until 2003.
Besides, the mailing lists in question were lists of close to EIGHTY THOUSAND conservative voters. Was it stupid? Of course. Connecting yourself in any way to a slug like Duke is just dumb. Of course, one would think that if the mailing list were made up of Klan members, they’d be able to send a few more than 14 members across the border into Texas to denounce gay marriage.
Oh Frank, always the sophisticated semantics with you. “Pro-marriage”? How exaclty is opposing the marriage of two people “pro-marriage”? The only reason the union of two people in civil matrimony is opposed by the right is because the two people happen to be gay. No one has every made a reasonable, rational argument for how or why gay marriage poses a threat to marriage itself. The argument against gay marriage is predicated on denying basic rights to a certain group of people. People like Jay Tea support that right but only think gays should get it if the majority says its okay which in and of itself undermines the inalienable sanctity of said rights. Frank belittles those same rights by arguing that in granting a basic right to his fellow citizens we are, in turn, diminishing those who already have the same rights as if civil liberties were a zero sum game. Both arguments are bullshit and utterly at odds with the basic principles of this country.
Frame, how is marriage a basic human right or even a constitutional right? If marriage is indeed a ‘basic human right’ does that mean I can marry my mother? A 14 year old?
Their are a bunch of restrictions on who can and cannot get married and to who they can get married to, all of which have withstood constitutional scrutiny. I think any judge or court that rules marriage is a protected constitutional right is going to open up Pandora’s box.
Wrong? Are you denying that Duke was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature as a Democrat?
Yup. So is the ADL link I posted.
As for the rest of your nonsense about mailing lists, I really can’t comment on what is a pretty asinine conclusion on your part. Are you really trying to suggest people on a David Duke mailing list disagree with his views?
No one has every made a reasonable, rational argument for how or why gay marriage poses a threat to marriage itself.
I realize that the use of the adjectives “reasonable” and “rational” is a convenient escape hatch that allows you to describe any argument any argument as ‘irrational’ and ‘unreasonable’.
But I direct you to to [a .pdf document] this argument.
This might interest all of you that have an interest in the gay marriage issue, and find polls compelling:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.2005opinionupdate.pdf
Sorry about the link mess above
Anti – gay marriage argument here
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
Same – sex marriage poll
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.2005opinionupdate.pdf
“Their are a bunch of restrictions on who can and cannot get married and to who they can get married to, all of which have withstood constitutional scrutiny.”
Two consenting adults in love should have the same right to the civic recognition of their union, whether the couple are two men or a man and a woman. The incest/polygamy/man-dog/NAMBLA marriage scenarios that anti-gay marriage advocates push around only reveal more of the inherent biogotry and fear that stokes the entire backlash. Many of these slipery slope arguments depend entirely on equating normal, natural loving relationships to relationaships that are indeed actually harmful, such as the gentic dangers of incest. Of course society has a responsibility to place limits and restrictions on marriage but those limits and restrictions cannot discriminate against based on the intrinsic qualities of a human being. If someone falls in love with a minor, the restriction on their union isn’t discriminatory in the same way that a ban on gay marriage is because age is not intrinsic to who a person is: We all get older. If someone only wants to marry 14 year-olds, well, that isn’t a lifetime commitment, which ideally marriage is and should be, so the state has no reason to recognize it as marriage. You see changing the definition of marriage from a lifetime union to a temporary union, would indeed, be changing the definition of marriage. Simply allowing two men to marry doesn’t change the fundamental that marriage is a lifelong loving committment. As to the polygamy issue, limiting the number of people who can enter into a legally recognized union is different from limiting the KINDS of people who can enter that relationship based solely on who they are intrinsically as human beings. It should be noted, that the same slippery slope arguments were mobilized against campaigns to overturn laws banning interracial marriage. Would anti-gay marriage supporters like to extend their slippery slope arguments in the opposite direction to suggest that legalizing interracial marriage has only led to gay marriage, and so should never have been allowed? Indeed, the same arguments might have been made against extending the vote to women and people of color: “Before you know it felons will be allowed to vote or pigs or non-citizens!”
Look, since the whole gay marriage issue came to the fore a few years ago, I’ve had the honor of attending six weddings, all hetero. The legalization of gay marriage will not, in the slightest, impact the desire and committment of heterosexuals to get married and have kids. But I’ve sat with gay couples at several of those weddings who had to look on knowing that they can’t experience the same joy simply because they are gay. It’s heartbreaking. I would suggest that rather than spending all your time comparing gay relationships to bestiality or incest, you try to get to know a few gay people yourselves. Then tell me you think gay marriage is evil.