Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Dishonor Our Fallen Heroes

After watching President Bush imply that our brave soldiers, rather than his stunning incompetence, are responsible for our failure in Iraq, I figured it was only a matter of time before more Republicans and Bush-fans took a cue from their leader and piled on the troops.

Congress had to pass a law banning protests at military funerals in response to Republican's disrupting these solemn services with loud chants and taunts claiming that the deaths of our brave soldiers are the righteous result of God's anger against US tolerance of gays.

Waving banners that read, "Thank God for IEDs" and "Fag Soldier in Hell", these Republicans disrupt memorial services for our fallen heroes all over the country.

Now, to be fair, I know some Republicans who would never blame our soldiers for the President's obvious failings in Iraq, nor would some of them spit on the graves of our fallen soldiers just because they don't kill all the gays in America.

I hope I can convince a few Republicans here on WatchBlog to denounce their vile colleagues and prove to America that not all Republicans harbor this vicious hatred of our courageous troops.

Posted by American Pundit at May 25, 2006 11:29 AM
Comments
Comment #151200

good 2 see you put this back in the blue column where it belongs - nice try!

Posted by: bug at May 25, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #151202

Darn it!!!

I was about to ask how you did that!!!

Can you imagine my credibility authoring as a Red Column guy?

The damage I could do…

I WANT THE RED COLUMN!!!!!!

Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #151203

There you go again, making up crap.

Nowhere in the Fox News link you provided does it say that republicans are responsible for these protests. It does specifically state that a Kansas church group is responsible.

So are to assume you believe all churchs are filled with right wing fanatics. How shallow can you get.

Posted by: jwl at May 25, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #151207
good 2 see you put this back in the blue column

Yeah, that was weird. Operator error, I’m sure, but I fixed it.

So jwl, you’re not going to denounce it? You’re actually going to defend the vile actions of these troop-hating, gay-bashing conservative Kansas evangelicals whom we all know vote Republican?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #151208

AP:

I’d think from your past writings that you’d be wise enough to not equate the idiots who follow Fred Phelps with Republicans. I doubt it can be shown that they are in fact Republicans, but its incumbent on you to prove that. The real question, though, is whether they are representative of Republicans or Christians. Its entirely obvious to any thinking person that they are not.

What can be shown is that they are misguided zealots who believe they are speaking the truth about God. They most obviously are not, for their actions and words bely a spirit of hatred, rather than the spirit of love that pervades the Bible.

I, for one, have denounced Phelps’ group repeatedly right here in Watchblog. I said recently to someone that “were you to look through previous WB posts, you’d find my posts excoriating the hateful presence of Fred Phelps and his ilk. They are sick people full of hatred and venom.”

There’s even been a Watchblog thread specifically about Fred Phelps, the Topeka Baptist Church and the GodHatesFags.com website dated on May 11th.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003585.html

If the best you have to offer is to paint all Republicans as equal to Phelps, then you really have nothing to offer. I know you can do better—I’ve seen you do better. I’ve seen you write rationally and logically, but this thread doesn’t indicate it at all.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 25, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #151209

AP,

I have to agree that it’s not fair to equate Phelps and friends with all Republicans. Are you trying to pull an esimonson?

In fact, Phelps used to run for office in Kansas as a Democrat!

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #151210

Thank you, jbod. There’s one in the denounce column, and one in the defend column. I hope more Repulicans will come forth and prove they don’t hate the troops.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #151212

joebagodonuts:

Quacks like a duck… is a duck.

Remember Dobson, Peterson and the rest claim 9/11 was a punishment from God for America’s Gay people.

Do you deny that happened?

Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #151213

LawnBoy, are you denouncing or defending?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #151214

1988
Phelps provides rooms for Democrat Al Gore’s presidential campaign workers. Though the Phelps-Gore connection will grow increasingly distant, Phelps’ oldest son, Fred Jr., is invited to the first Clinton-Gore inauguration in 1993.

By 1998, Gore will be seen as such an enemy by WBC that its members picket the funeral of Gore’s father.


Posted by: JimmyRay at May 25, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #151215

JimmyRay, are you denouncing or defending?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #151216

So far, we have one person denouncing the vile actions of these troop-hating, gay-bashing conservative Kansas evangelicals whom we all know vote Republican, and three defending these crackpots.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #151217

I did not defend them.

I just amazes me how the facts just dont seem to matter to you. You’ll make up anything.

Your own source doesn’t say what you claim it said and then you try to put words in my mouth.

You’re a GREAT representative of the DEM party.

Posted by: jwl at May 25, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #151219

But you won’t denounce them, jwl?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #151221

I denounce all such people.

This Phelps guy speaks only for himself and his group. I am ashamed of him, just like you are ashamed the left wing clowns who frequent university debates.

And as for congress banning the protests, would that be the Republican congress where Democratic opinions mean nothing that you are always talking about?

Posted by: Jack at May 25, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #151222
LawnBoy, are you denouncing or defending?

Ummm… Why don’t you check out the WatchBlog article I wrote about Phelps for the Democratic column long ago.

AP, I’m usually on your side, remember. I will and have denounce Phelps and friends over and over. That does not mean that the premise of your article is valid.

Maybe it’s intentional for a point, but you’re playing a game here that we usually disparage the other side for playing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #151223

I will denounce them.

I will not call them republicans.
I will not call them democrats.
I will call them idiots.

I will denouce you and your disregard for facts.

Posted by: jwl at May 25, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #151227

I’ll be the first person to denounce the retardation of spirituality that is represented by such bigoted a*holes.

Of course, I’ll also denounce your accusation that these homophobic anti-Christs represent the beliefs of republicans at large. Get real, AP, there are crackpot liberals in this world too, but painting all democrats as similar crackpots because they support the same party is ridiculous. Yet, it follows from your logic—or lack thereof.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #151230

If I was president I’d call them on it. Issue an Exec order to immediately outlaw all homosexuality; contingent upon these protesters patrolling the streets in Iraq. As long as they all stay alive, their claims remain valid and the ban would stand.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 25, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #151231

You guys have got to be frickin’ kidding me!!!? You are arguing about whether or not this is a red or blue issue, whether or not to denouce these obviously whacked out morons and what is at stake is the 1st amendments santion of the freedom to peacably assemble. I don’t think that I can use the language I want to in order to properly discribe how messed up that is. Is this an arena that is used to talk about the important issues and to maybe brainstorm about an effective solution or is this merely a place for mental masterbation and the continuence of petty differences?????

Posted by: Jeremiah Wade at May 25, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #151234

Despite the tone, Jeremiah brings up a good point. While we all would love it for the Phelps clan and all its activities to disappear, is it proper for the government to ban these protests? Where does the line stand between freedom of speech and assembly on one side and patriotism and respect on the other?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #151235

These group of protestors have their own church (with their own interpretations on the bible). I read that the members of the church are mostly all part of the same family. As such, I would think that these protestors would be more aptly labeled as christian wackos instead of republican wackos.

Do I denounce them? Hell yes! In fact Sean Hannity had one of them on his show, and basically lost it on her. Alan Combs and S.H. took turns lambasting this P.O.S. and her views.

It is interesting to note that Sean Hannity was more or less upset with her as a Christian than a Republican, because her anti-gay rhetoric is drivin by her religion - not by politics.

Im not sure why you would lump republicans/conservatives/or even christians with them. That would be like saying all gay people are like jeffery dahmer. Be very careful how you construct your arguments A.P. There are some bright folks on here, but even people with moderate intelligence can see through your baiting…

Posted by: b0mbay at May 25, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #151237

Its hard for me to write through the noise of my heart ripping open. Forget Blue or Red That picture is a black and blue on America’s soul.

Posted by: jblym at May 25, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #151240

AP,

Even I have to say you’re way out on a limb here.

From Westboro Baptist’s own website, Phelps says this about the religious right:

“What do you think of the Religious Right?
In general, they are lukewarm cowards. Modern day Pharisees. People who have gone a whoring after strange gods. Self-righteous hypocrites. They spend more time harrassing people who are preaching the Gospel than anything else, just like the Pharisees did to Jesus. They are second in evil only to the modern day Saduccees (i.e., bleeding heart liberals).

All in all, if you’re claiming to be a Christian, but you deny what the Bible says about God and His hatred of all workers of iniquity, then you’re dealing with the scripture in a whorish manner.”
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Flag

Phelps is just pure human trash. I look forward to the day that he crosses the line just enough to be prosecuted for inciting violence or something. I personally won’t waste the time denouncing him and his ilk. He deserves no more thought or respect than the garbage I put out at the curb every Monday and Thursday.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at May 25, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #151241

AP

The sad part about your post is that some lefties(you?)probably believe what you wrote.

No…hyper-lefties.

Because only that type of mind could possible be “evolved” enough to make that quantum leap.

I gotta hand it to you AP…you musta learned from the attack dog Repubs the last couple of elections after they beat your party’s ass pretty good and “stole” the election,huh?

I bet you decided to do a pre-empive strike,right?

Well,this one’s a fizzle,I think.

Stick to the president…”target rich” as they say.

I think I’ll mosey on to the fridge and see what’s in the freezer…maybe if I’m lucky,I’ll find 90 grand from the Easter Bunny.

My luck though is that some cry baby will make me give it back.

By the way,ask your pal John T when Rove is gonna get indicted…last Friday that was the Watchblog scoop of the week….musta been in the same release that grabbed the House Speaker yesterday,huh?

Geez…and my battle armour is still getting re-conditioned…didn’t think I’d need it until Labor Day…. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #151242

Sorry AP,
I gotta go with Lawnboy here, this post is pretty darn Simonsonian in it’s broad-brush style. But maybe that was really the point?
As for Phelps, I suspect he and probably a lot of the people who join him are themselves self-hating homosexuals. IMO, nobody could mount such angry and over-the-top protest against gay people without it actually being a very personal thing.
Of course, I denounce these people and hope one day they will come to terms with their own natural desires. Failing that, it’d only be poetic justice if Phelps and his group end up get their clocks thoroughly cleaned by a bunch of buffed gay Marine veterans.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #151245

Aldous:

Until you stop your “hit and run” posting tactics, I’ll ignore you from now on. You’ve repeatedly said vastly incorrect things, and then disappeared when asked to clarify your positions. You seem to get very busy all of a sudden, when someone asks you to prove your statements.

AP:

You are running fast and loose in your conclusions. You seem to be operating on the standard that if someone does not specifically denounce Phelps in their post, that somehow counts as a defense. Incredibly bad logic. Lawnboy has you pegged perfectly.

Bombay:

I’d call Phelps and his ilk plain ole fanatics, rather than Republican or Christian fanatics. Their fanatacism is based on religion—that’s true. But I’d strongly suggest that they don’t represent anything more than the wildest fringe of anything remotely Christian.

That said, they are more harmless than scary. What they want is publicity—the way to deal with them is to ignore them, which is the biggest insult to them.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 25, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #151248

AP,
Although I disagree with almost everything you write I had come to expect better of you than this.
Your article is about the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. It is headed by Fred Phelps, a disbarred lawyer who believes himself to be a prophet. Nearly all the members of his church are members of his family. Two of his sons won’t have anything to do with him.
According to his biography on the SPLC’s website, (and others) he assisted the Gore campaign in 1988 and ran in the Democratic primary for governor of Kansas in 1990. THESE SICKOS ARE/WERE DEMOCRATS.

www.splc.org/fredphelps
www.godhatesfags.com
www.godhatesamerica.com

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #151254

AP

:) hehehe…if what traveller says is true….


hehehe…..no ,HAHAHAHA…..nice job on research,pal…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #151255

traveller…

LOL!!! Game, set…

Joe - point taken. Enjoy reading your posts. keep up the good work!

Posted by: b0mbay at May 25, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #151256

I also have to denounce these activities and denounce the broad stereotyping that is being portrayed here.. Yes eventually at one of these funerals something very bad is going to occur, wether it be a melee or both barrels of a shotgun.

On the freedom of speech issue though:

According to CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568

U.S. Supreme Court
CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

“Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [315 U.S. 568, 572] and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

“It was further said: ‘The word ‘offensive’ is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. … The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. … The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent and ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. … The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker-including ‘classical fighting words’, words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

Posted by: RHancheck at May 25, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #151258

SE,

We will ask “when Rove is gonna get indicted…” when you ask Dick Cheney if the insurgency is still in its “LAST THROWS!” Although after reading your “Snatching Victory From The Jaws Of Defeat” Post in the Red column, you probably don’t even believe there is an insurgency.


Face it, Republicans won the past elections with these idiots supporting them. So now you want to distance yourself once they show their true colors? Maybe next time your party should keep its political propoganda out of churches. Including registering voters. Although that would go against your party values right?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 25, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #151261

I hate Phelps, but I think its a stretch to try to use him as an example of the typical Republican. However, Repubs are always quick to point out the “supposed” Democratic groups such as PETA that use deplorable techniques to advance their cause. If we have to be ashamed of our idiots, you have to be ashamed of yours, too.

Posted by: David S at May 25, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #151263

IF God blesses America then would God dislike a man that was Selected and not Elected and the exact same Never-Elected man spits on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that make America America?!

Posted by: Peter at May 25, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #151264

What I wrote is true. I’ve researched these assholes in depth. I could have written a lot more about them but I wanted to keep it short.
I’m a member of the Patriot Guard Riders, www.patriotguard.org.
We are a group of veterans, mostly motorcyclists, who attend the funerals of GI’s, with the family’s permission, and act as an honor guard to honor the fallen soldier and his/her family.
The group was formed out of disgust for the desecration of funerals we were seeing. If “the idiots” show up we will form a shield between “the idiots” and the family without any confrontation, words or acknowlegement of any kind.
“The idiots” as we like to call them are truly disturbed individuals and should be pitied.
What they definitely are NOT is Republicans. Proof that they are/were Democrats is easily obtained without much effort.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #151267

Vincent Vega

Right now I am too busy laughing while I imagine ‘ol AP trying to bail himself out of travellers’ home run.

He’s probably googling ANOTHER Fred Phelps and I want to see hime slitther out of this.

It’s not too often ‘ol AP gets pinned to the mat,hehehe….

The point is that this side has recently been guilty of “embellishing” the facts a tad,and within the last week or so the cream,as they say,rises to the top.

Now,on my piece….first thanks for reading it…but out of respect to my friend AP (and believe me,despite the fact that I am tweaking his nose here,I really respect the guy)I won’t comment on it.HOWEVEr I promise that within a few days,I will do a piece on the vice-president..and then we can bat that one around

AP
Maybe I will leave my battle armour at the dry cleaners until Labor Day after all. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #151269

Vincent Vega,
No, the Reps didn’t win any elections with these assholes supporting them. Go to their website to see what they think of Reps.

Peter,
Check your facts. Start with the Constitution and then go to the Florida election law. (that’s where the 2000 election was contested) Look up Title IX. Sections 101, 102 and 104 are relevant to the dipute.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #151271

The only causes these people are advancing are hatred and stupidity, shameful indeed.

Vince, yes, thanks to Phelps’ family the Republicans rose to power. Very keen observation.

Posted by: Craig at May 25, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #151272

traveller:

Thank you for your willingness to stand in the breach against the likes of Phelps and his band of crazies. While its not proven to my knowledge that there is inbreeding going on with them, it sure wouldn’t surprise me.

Your support of the families in their time of sorrow is a wonderful example of the goodness in people. Quite a stark contrast with the example of meanness and hatred that Phelps provides.

Thanks also for showing AP’s post for what it is: pure drivel without even the benefit of any fact. I have a sneaky suspicion that AP presented this whole thing with an ulterior motive, as the content is well beneath AP’s normal writing. If there is no ulterior motive, then I can only say, “Wow, has his writing ability slipped!!”

Peter:
No idea where you were headed with your post, but I’ll enlighten you with a clarification. Your statement that Bush is a “Never-Elected man” simply doesn’t hold water. I’ll even allow you to claim his ‘selection’ in 2000—doesn’t change the fact that he was was definitively elected in 2004 by a majority of the electoral college and the popular vote.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 25, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #151273
Proof that they are/were Democrats is easily obtained without much effort.

While you’re right that he once considered himself a Democrat, I think I can speak for all other Democrats that we don’t want him, either. :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 25, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #151277

Sic Eagle:
“By the way,ask your pal John T when Rove is gonna get indicted…last Friday that was the Watchblog scoop of the week…”

But the silence from the prosecutors office is truly deafening isn’t it? It’s been almost a month since Rove testifiied for the fifth time, and yet, he still hasn’t been cleared. IMO, that doesn’t seem to bode well for your boy Karl.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #151278

“I have researched these assholes in depth”
—Traveller

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: darren159 at May 25, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #151279

AP,

There’s a lesson to be learned here. While Traveller’s post shows your argument to be flipped, no right-wingers are making the same asinine claims as you did in your post.

Traveller,

Thank you for what you do. It is a noble deed in a time when nobility is lacking.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 25, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #151282

Thanks to all for the compliments but I don’t feel that I’m anything special. I didn’t put up that information fishing for compliments, either, though I did have an ulterior motive. Maybe now that you’re aware of the PGR some of you will join or tell others about it. It’s free.
Thanks to AP for giving me the opportunity to publicize the PGR.

darren159,
Seeing your post made me realize I could have phrased that better.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #151285

Traveller,

I am sorry I should have kept that laugh to myself, but it was funny to me for many reasons and I am a laugher by nature. No disrepect intended.

Posted by: darren159 at May 25, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #151288

darren159,
No offense taken. In fact, after realizing what I had written I probably laughed harder than you did.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #151295

Item #1.) This is why I prefer to use “Conservatives” and “Liberals” rather than “Republicans” and “Democrats.”

There is absolutely NO confusion as to the FACT that Phelp’s group are staunch Conservatives.

Just like Zell Miller is.

Just like David Duke is and was - although he called himself a Democrat for quite a while…

By the way, Phelps and his sickos *also* call themselves “Christian,” does that make them Christian?

Of course not.

Item #2.) Here is something for the entire Blue Zone to enjoy (at least until David fanatically [and, I believe, uncontrollably] Deletes it, as he has been carefully doing with all of my posts, regardless of Content); Merry Fitzmas:

Karl Rove being Frog-Marched out of the White House in Hancuffs

Posted by: Betster at May 25, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #151296

SE,

I always enjoy your posts. Speaking of the post we are talking about, you claimed (very discreetly I might add) that one of the most important funtions of that new Government (3 Ministries) would be elected soon. “In a scant few days the remaining three ministry positions should be filled.” Has this happened yet? I know it has only been a “FEW” days, but I thought I would ask. Maybe you might want to hold your post about the VP until this happens.



Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 25, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #151300

Hey Betty you should at least credit the Dean blog that you’re ripping your material from.

Posted by: Craig at May 25, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #151301

Pundit:

This was tripe when you posted it on the 1st and it smells worse now. Phelps is a nut and he gets most of his press from the Left. So, like the Arabic proverb, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, you have given him more attention.

Disagreeing with Powell is not discrediting the military. Powell carried the Vietnam “we will lose” mentality into his job and America suffered for it.

Personally, I think that Iraq has made blazing speed in establishing an independent government. America took years to approach the status of the Iraqi government and hasn’t worked all the kinks out of our democracy yet.

In honor of Memorial Day, maybe you could view our tragic military losses as something other than a pawn in your quest to discredit Bush.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #151308

Betster,
Characterizing the WBC bunch as conservative ignores the fact that they advocate a radical restructuring of society. They would tear down the institutions we have now and put up something entirely different. They would institute a Taliban-like theocracy if they could.
Radicalism of that, or any other kind, is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #151310

Vincent

Thanks for the kind words.I hope that a “few” days turns out to be my defination of the word,and not an Iraqi defination,which could be defined as “many” or “not this calendar year” or…

I am confinant that we have turned the corner there,and as time rolls on,maybe …just maybe..some good will occur from all this tragedy.

Byn the way,I think BDOD and Goodkingned are assets to Watchblog.Bravo guys

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #151312

Judging by AP’s usual work, I can only guess that this is an attempt to see what will happen if a blue poster makes a Eric Simonson-type post.

Most of the usual liberals (Lawnboy, Darren, Adrienne, KansasDem)are defending the Republicans and not only denouncing the WBC, but the idea that they represent Republicans.

However, I have yet to see one Republican comment that whatever nutjob E. Simonson equates with all liberals (communists, wacko environmentalists, Hugo Chavez) doesn’t really represent Democrats. Instead, they usually join in the name-calling, logic torturing fun.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #151314

SE:

Thanks! The praise I recieve here is small enough to be stored in a peapod. But, I usually count on you, Jack and a few others to do the heavy lifting and only weigh in after you have softened up the opposing arguments.

You have a nice writing style, direct but not brash.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #151316

Bryan Poole:

Obviously, you do not read Paul’s frequent postings regarding the inherently scurilous nature of republicans and their practices. There is plenty of mud being slung from the left.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #151319

goodkingned,
I occasionally read Paul’s stuff. My point was not about slinging mud, but rather the response to the mud once it has been slung. I’ve never seen a Republican defend Democrats, like I’ve seen several Democrats defend Republicans on this thread.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 25, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #151324
This Phelps guy speaks only for himself and his group. I am ashamed of him, just like you are ashamed the left wing clowns who frequent university debates. Posted by: Jack at May 25, 2006 12:11 PM
There is no equivalence between godhatesfags.com and college students who turn their backs on people like Gonzales. You need to find a better analogy as many people I know agree with the students.


Betster,

Too bad that isn’t really Rove. KKKarl is much heavier, isn’t he?

Posted by: Dave at May 25, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #151325

Brian Poole

I think that there is a lunatic fringe on each side that embarrases both sides,frankly.

As a result pundits have a tendency to slam their opponents using that lunatic rhetoric as an example of the idealogy as a whole.

Pretty sad.

I think moderates are..well moderate.be it democratic OR republician,and when push comews to shove after each election that group moves on with life..until the next election.

However,there is a special breed of cat…a politicial cat so to speak,that lusts for the thrill of an election..similiar to a baseball fan or football fan waiting for next season so to speak.They discuss names,float theories,try to get an attack theme that gets traction…and the cycle starts all over.

However,AMERICANS died in NYC on 9/11.And that’s what we are in the final analysis.

And guys like AP are AMERICANS and while I love seeing him getting his butt kicked once in a while,I will leave my perch and fight for his right to write whatever zany idea he has.

And boy are they zany.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #151328

SE,

You said:

And guys like AP are AMERICANS and while I love seeing him getting his butt kicked once in a while,I will leave my perch and fight for his right to write whatever zany idea he has.

And boy are they zany.

I agree with you totally but I seriously doubt he would offer you the same courtesy.

Posted by: jwl at May 25, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #151332

Stephen,

Does this post pass your moderation test?

Posted by: Rob at May 25, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #151334

Forget Phelps. Neither the GOP or the Dems want to claim him as someone who represents their side — simply put, the guy and his followers are insane assh*les.

I would however, like to get the Neocon supporters to defend or denounce what Senator Ensign of Nevada has been saying about veterans who question the execution of the war in Iraq. Do you agree or disagree with his views? If you don’t know what I’m referring to here, read this first, and then give us all your take:

Jon Soltz, an Iraq War veteran and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (IAVA PAC) and other Iraq veterans today visited the office of Senator John Ensign of Nevada, demanding an apology in regards to recent comments he made at his state’s Republican Party Convention that those who question the execution of the war in Iraq “emboldened the enemy” and that they should “lie” by saying they do not.

Senator Ensign refused to meet with the veterans.

“Senator Ensign’s comments that those who question the execution of the war in Iraq ‘emboldened the enemy’ are offensive to those of us who risked our lives in service to our nation, but have come home to ask critical questions about the way this war has been executed,” said Soltz. “America’s 21st century patriots deserve better treatment. Frankly, if we are ever to properly provide for the troops and come up with a victory strategy for Iraq, we need more questions, not fewer.”

Soltz planned to ask Senator Ensign five questions that he and other veterans feel must be answered, and ask which of these questions embolden the enemy. The questions are:
1) Do our national guardsmen and reserves have all they need to do their job right? Did Senator Ensign ask them before he voted against $1 billion for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment? [Vote 116, 4/2/03]

2) Has the lack of reimbursement to guardsmen and reservists for loss in income due to activation, as well as their lack of health care hurt morale and recruiting? Did the Senator ask that question before voting against making up their gap in pay, in 2005 [Vote 91, 4/13/05], or when he voted against increasing spending on TRICARE to cover Guardsmen and Reservists in 2003? [Vote 81, 3/25/03]

3) Who in the Pentagon is responsible for our troops going to war with outdated body armor? Was this OK with the Senator, since he voted against spending an additional $322 million on protective gear, including body armor, in 2003? [Vote 376, 10/2/03]

4) Why were our troops allowed to go in the field with improperly armored Humvees? Why was this acceptable to Senator Ensign, considering he twice voted against sending properly armored Humvees to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005? [Vote 108, 4/21/05; Vote 248, 10/5/05]

5) What is our victory strategy for Iraq, as defined by metrics? How many Iraqi battalions must we train to declare Iraq secure? How many elections must be held before we can declare it a democracy? What does success look like? Has Senator Ensign asked the Secretary of Defense that question, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee?


“The Senator’s type of rhetoric has been bubbling up for a while now, and it must end immediately, because it only lowers the level of an important debate. I can promise that the next politician who uses the type of language Senator Ensign used will be held equally accountable for his or her words,” he added.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC is the only political action committee headed by an Iraq veteran, to benefit those campaigns of other Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans running for public office.

What do you think about the Senator refusing to meet with these vets?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #151337

Adrienne

I would like a stab at answering this but not on this thread.If you like,please re-post this on my next article if you’d like.

This one looks like fun!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 25, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #151339

No, Sic Eagle. I’d prefer if you replied here, if you don’t mind. This title of this thread is about Republicans disrespecting our veterans. Therefore, this is a good place to have this discussion.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #151340

I must say this is sick. Folks like Phelps should find the wrong end of a dark alley. that being said they have a constitutional right to say what ever wacko stuff they want so as to not incite physical damage to property or person.

Now that being said i am a bit suprised that AP was so loose with the facts. I am not surprised that he wants to blame this on the republicans that tends to be the way but I am okay with that if they were. I would say kick them out if they were but they are or were democrats so if i was a dem I would kick them out.

Traveller good job in your research. Thanks.

some of you who even after reading the research are still saying that they are conservative republicans should start to talk the truth instead of trying to prove a point with lies.

Dont feel embarrased AP we all make those mistakes from time to time :)

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 25, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #151341

Adrienne:

The good citizens of Nevada should vote with their votes if they feel they are not being properly represented. In regard to the questions, they are loaded and are really bear traps which cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the vets.

In an ideal world, the military would be appropriately armed, trained, compensated and respected. It is not an ideal world. The pentagon has been working to increase the preparedness and protection of the military since the inception of the war. As Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have …”

I personally favor increasing compensation for reservists in line with their increased responsibilities, but I cannot comment on the individual funding bills since I don’t know the particulars. Funding bills often contain alot of pork and maybe these do too.

Like I said, if the citizens of Nevada are dissatisfied, they can cast their vote for another candidate.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 25, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #151344

Is this what WatchBlog is coming to these days? Guess I haven’t missed much.

AP, I almost always disagree with your conclusions, but your articles are usually at least somewhat factual.
When I’m in agreement with Adrienne, Lawnboy and KansasDem, you know there’s a problem!

To the “new” Travller: good job bringing the facts into the light. I’m in the Air National Guard and I do a lot of Honor Guard work myself. Thanks for the help and your service.

Posted by: TheTraveler at May 25, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #151345

Adreinne:

I think this could be a good discussion but I would need to see what else was attached to those bills. That could account strongly why he voted them down or it may not. I have no problem, even though I am a conservative, saying that some republicans do not hold conservative values. He may end up being one of those.

Your point though is taken. There are some Republicans (by name) that vote against conservative issues.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 25, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #151347

“You’re actually going to defend the vile actions of these troop-hating, gay-bashing conservative Kansas evangelicals whom we all know vote Republican?”

WOAH!!! I am from Kansas! And a Democrat! And many of my best friends are gay! How many things on this page does that make wrong? And if I could vote I sure as hell wouldn’t vote Republican! I am sure not a conservative either! But I am only 13 so MY political opinions matter to no one!

Posted by: AngeredKansan at May 25, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #151352

AP,

Phelps is a freak, who hates most everyone in different degrees (see KansasDem’s post above). However, your post was Simonsonesque.

JBOD, Jack, SE,

I’ve not read everything ever written here, but I’ve read enough to be certain that the three of you rarely (if ever) reign in poor Mr. Eric’s flame baiting posts.

As members of the party of God, practice a little more of what you preach.

Posted by: CPAdams at May 25, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #151353

(AngeredKansan) Oh, and my dad is a soldier! A Sgt in the army for quite awhile, We used to live near McConnell in Wichita, and now closer to Topeaka in Fort Riley.

Posted by: PoliticalTeen at May 25, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #151361

JBOD, SE and Jack,

to verify my assertion, I’ve gone through all of Eric’s posts the last three months and all the responses from each of you are defenses of his positions(I’ll check the rest of the archives tonight).

Not one suggestion that he may have crossed the line.

So, either nothing he has written is offensive to any of you or you back him simply because he supports conservatives.

Regardless, on the issue of inflammatory posts, abandon any claims to the high road immediately-

there’s no evidence any of you have set foot on it.

Posted by: CPAdams at May 25, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #151375

None of you guys have so far answered my questions.
What do you think of Ensign saying that the troops “emboldened the enemy” by questioning the execution of this war? Do you agree with him that it’s a bad idea for our troops to ever question what their govt. is doing during wartime? And finally what do think about a Senator refusing to meet with these, or any other group of veterans?

Randall:
“I have no problem, even though I am a conservative, saying that some republicans do not hold conservative values. He may end up being one of those.”

Yes. The fact that Ensign has said those things, and that he refused to meet with these veterans immediately told me that he is not a conservative. Neither is he a liberal. Because in my considered opinion, both conservatives and liberals have a hell of a lot more respect for our troops, don’t blame them for things which are beyond their control, and always have enough balls to talk to these people in person.
Only Neocons say and do these kinds of disrespectful things, and avoid talking to all kinds of people (whether military or civilian) after making comments that try to push the blame onto others and are outrageously unfair.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #151394

Angeredkansan, 13????????

Posted by: Mb at May 25, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #151395

Birds of a feather……….

Posted by: BillS at May 25, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #151405

AP,

This was a BRILLIANT satire of Eric Simonson. And what made it even better was that some of the same people who attacked you are the ones who defend him.


Nice job in getting people to show their true (hypcritical) colors.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 25, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #151443

The Traveler,
Thanks. I’m a USAF vet myself. If I had known there was a “The Traveler” I would have chosen a different screen name. sorry!

Adrienne,
Ensign is a jerk. It doesn’t matter what anybody says, the people in the Middle East are going to receive the same propaganda. These are people who have been taught from a very young age that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a true historical document. They will believe anything their leaders tell them.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #151444

Well, AP has been quiet for an awfully long time. At first he was pretty vocal but then he disappeared. I’m curious to see how he pulls out of this one. Will he say it’s all a joke, a parody? Is ElliotBay giving him an out? I have to admit that this kind of obvious BS is out of character for him, but I am curious. Come on out to play, AP. It’s time to feed the bulldog.

Posted by: traveller at May 25, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #151463

AP
Again I’m glad that These nut cases were called Republicans and not Conservatives. Because they sure as hell ain’t Conservatives.

traveller
I’ve researched these assholes in depth.

Really?

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 26, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #151464

Ron Brown,
Yes, really. And they’re not Republicans.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #151493
This was a BRILLIANT satire of Eric Simonson.

Thank you, ElliottBay.

Most of the usual liberals (Lawnboy, Darren, Adrienne, KansasDem)are defending the Republicans and not only denouncing the WBC, but the idea that they represent Republicans.

Brian, you’re absolutely right and it’s killin me. We’re gonna get our asses handed to us again this fall when the bullshit really starts to fly.

Democrats are so fair that it’s no wonder Americans don’t think they can defend America — they can’t even defend a fellow Democrat. Ugh…

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 4:34 AM
Comment #151498

…I just can’t get over how lame my fellow blue columnists are. When Eric writes a smear piece, even otherwise rational red columnists like Jack will find a grain of truth and run with it. Over here, only Vincent kept on the attack:

Face it, Republicans won the past elections with these idiots supporting them. So now you want to distance yourself once they show their true colors? Maybe next time your party should keep its political propoganda out of churches. Including registering voters. Although that would go against your party values right?

I mean, was that so hard? The original article played fast and loose with the story, and Vincent took up the theme and hit Republicans with some irrefutable punches. The rest of you rolled over and became Republicans.

Nobody respects a political party that’s not willing to go to the mat for it’s beliefs. While I applaud all my fellow lefties’ sense of fairness, all it does is encourage more swiftboating from the right. The kind of fairness for fairness’ sake you guys displayed is a political weakness.

Politics isn’t fair, politics is about winning. Fairness only comes into play after you win. If you’re not willing to fight — even fight dirty — for the power to control the agenda, then you don’t deserve to control the agenda.

I swear, if Republicans weren’t crapping all over the middle class and destroying America’s economy, military, and stature in the world, I’d switch parties. Ugh…

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 5:35 AM
Comment #151509

AP

Ummmm….a swiftboat wasn’t necessary today….a small canoe sufficed.

Didn’t even need oars,either.

:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 26, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #151544

I have no idea what you’re talking about, SE.

I did learn the other day that “small canoe” en espanol is “chalupa”. You know espanol, right? It’s the language President Bush sings our national anthem in.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #151545

AP,
You wrote a hit piece and an obvious lie and were properly called on it by both right and left.
You praise Vincent for ignoring the truth and defending you with bigotry. The original article didn’t play fast and loose with the story. It was a scurrilous lie. There is nothing irrefutable in his post.
Nearly everyone who responded to your article put principle above all else. They showed that they know the difference between right and wrong and are willing to stand up for what’s right. It shows good character.
It’s one thing to go to the mat for your beliefs. It’s quite another to defend a lie.
Defending the truth is not a political weakness unless you have an unprincipled lust for power, which is exactly what you’re advocating.
Unprincipled powerlust kept Clinton and the Democrats in power for a while but look at the damage it did to the soul of America.

“Politics isn’t fair, politics is about winning. Fairness only comes into play after you win. If you’re not willing to fight — even fight dirty — for the power to control the agenda, then you don’t deserve to control the agenda”

You’re advocating the total abandonment of principle and decency for the singular purpose of obtaining power. “The end justifies the means”
How Machiavellian. Marx and the various tyrants of the 20th century operated on the same idea. People who do as you advocate will never incorporate fairness into their doctrine.
Naked powerlust by both parties put us in the deplorable state we’re in now and you advocate more of the same. Politics is about more than winning, it’s about what kind of country we will be. Will we be a tyrannical empire or will we be a benevolent force to uplift mankind. We’re seeing what you’re kind of politics produces.
In previous posts you have accused the right of the very thing you’re now advocating, and repeatedly condemned it. You have now shown yourself to be an unprincipled hypocrite. Will we now see the contrition necessary for redemption or will we see prideful arrogance?

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #151551
It was a scurrilous lie.

Which part is untrue? Prove it.

You’re advocating the total abandonment of principle and decency

No, I’m tired of Democrats playing dead while Republicans spew vile lies. As many noted, I used a common unprincipled Republican tactic. I’m glad it made you uncomfortable.

Will we now see the contrition necessary for redemption or will we see prideful arrogance?

Umm… Arrogance, I guess. I’m scrappy. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #151552

This is incredible. I can hardly believe what I just read.

AP, you said.

Nobody respects a political party that’s not willing to go to the mat for it’s beliefs. While I applaud all my fellow lefties’ sense of fairness, all it does is encourage more swiftboating from the right. The kind of fairness for fairness’ sake you guys displayed is a political weakness.

Politics isn’t fair, politics is about winning. Fairness only comes into play after you win. If you’re not willing to fight — even fight dirty — for the power to control the agenda, then you don’t deserve to control the agenda.

So let me get this right. What you are saying is that if your commrades don’t stand up you despite your lack of truthfulness, then they are traitors. The only thing that matters is power and control of the agenda and it doesn’t matter how you get it.

Just how is this rational going to gather support for your cause? Crazy rhetoric like yours, drives people away. Just as the rhetoric of Phelps is repulsive, so is yours when you abandon the truth in this way.

Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #151553

Seriously, you Democrats, go out and pick up a copy of Carville and Begala’s book, “Take It Back”. Their premise is that Democrats are getting theier asses kicked because they’re pussies. Apparently, that’s true.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #151554
Just how is this rational going to gather support for your cause?

It worked for you guys.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #151555
despite your lack of truthfulness

Oh, and to my knowledge, everything I wrote is true. To which part are you referring?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #151557

AP,

What happened to you this week? Are you feeling well? Did you have a run-in with the police or something?

I understand where you’re coming from; it’s frustrating to see the other guys claim all the power on the basis of what we see as unprincipled lies. We could respond by doing the same, putting loyalty above competence, putting power above truth, and putting the ends above the means.

That’s not how I chose to live my life. Does that make me weak or lame? Perhaps in your eyes. However, that’s a risk I’m willing to take not to be a hypocrite.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 26, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #151558

AP,
The low-down, dirty and unfair Neocon tactics (a la Karl Rove) have been destroying the political discourse in this country for a long time— and I think the majority of voters don’t approve of that. In my opinion, Dems need to stop caring so much about the lies that they sit around dreaming up, but confront those lies boldly and angrily. Meanwhile, we should continue to tell the truth by keeping to our own message. rather than take on the same ridiculous and disgraceful tactics they employ.
What’s more, we don’t need to make up lies about the Republican party — there is more than enough Awful Truth to hit them with! I think the press release that I put up about that veterans group being snubbed by Senator Ensign was FAR WORSE. First, because it displayed how a Neocon Senator thinks he can talk trash about our troops who are fighting and dying in their insane war, and then can’t even face them because he’s too damn cowardly, and second, because that guy is actually trying to keep his senatorial seat. It was a real example of an incumbent Republican dishonoring our troops, rather than a fake one.
Your article dealt with Fred Phelps — a guy who isn’t running for anything but Nutcase of the Year.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #151559

American Hypocrite,

“It was a scurrilous lie.
Which part is untrue? Prove it.”

I already proved it. But, you don’t care about truth, do you?

“No, I’m tired of Democrats playing dead while Republicans spew vile lies. As many noted, I used a common unprincipled Republican tactic. I’m glad it made you uncomfortable”

You used a tactic all too common from both parties. It didn’t make make me uncomfortable, it disgusted me.

“Umm… Arrogance, I guess. I’m scrappy. :)”

Your credibility is gone.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #151564

Pundit,

To call all Republicans the same as that fool Fred Phelps is just as insane as SOME conservatives blaiming all Liberals :Godless, tree huggers etc. My friend, your paint brush was way too wide.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at May 26, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #151566
Their premise is that Democrats are getting theier asses kicked because they’re pussies. Apparently, that’s true.

Obviously the Democrats are the REAL Christians…they are putting the Beatitudes into action…the MEEK shall inherit the earth!!

Posted by: Lynne at May 26, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #151568
Oh, and to my knowledge, everything I wrote is true.

The implication that Phelps and company are Republicans. The evidence I’ve seen shows that WBC are equal-opportunity assholes, and that the leader used to consider himself a Democrat before his “God Hates Fags” movement got going. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia’s article about him:

In the 1980s prior to Phelps protesting at funerals the Phelps family were supporters of then-senator Al Gore’s Presidential aspirations. The basement of Fred Phelps Jr.’s law office, supposedley acted as Gore’s Kansas campaign office, and the Phelps’ hosted a fundraiser. Numerous photos exist on the internet of Fred Phelps Jr. and his second wife, Betty Phelps-Schurle, posing with Al and Tipper Gore. Phelps Jr. also served as a Gore delegate on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta in 1988.

During Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, Fred Phelps Jr. and members of Westboro campaigned for Gore, though simultaneously attacking Hillary Clinton. In January 1993, Fred Phelps Jr. and Betty Phelps-Schurle were invited to the inaugural ball in Washington, D.C.

In the ensuing years leading up to Clinton’s second presidential campaign, Gore and Clinton took stances increasingly in favor of gay rights. Consequently, Westboro turned against Gore, who nevertheless invited Fred Phelps, Marge, Fred Jr., and Betty back for the 1997 inauguration; they responded by bringing the entire Westboro congregation to the White House and picketing on the front lawn during the ball, with signs proclaiming that Gore, Clinton, and both men’s families were going to Hell, not necessarily for their stances on homosexuality, but because they had “betrayed” Westboro.

In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore’s father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him “your dad’s in Hell.”

Phelps has failed in numerous Democratic primary elections for governor of the overwhelmingly Republican state of Kansas, in 1990, 1994, and the last time in 1998

So, the only evidence we have is that he used to consider himself a Democrat until he focused his hate away from his family to homosexuals and got mad that the Democratic Party didn’t follow him. Now, of course, the entire Democratic Party disassociates itself with him as much as possible.

Claiming that Phelps is a Republican or represents Republicans makes a bit of sense from our perspective in that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to be against gay rights, but it’s a stretch not supported by any other facts. The essential claim of your argument is wrong.

Am I a traitor to Democrats because I’m not supporting your misstatements? Perhaps in your eyes. However, I think the bigger problem is that you’re attacking your allies for not walking off a cliff with you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 26, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #151571
My friend, your paint brush was way too wide.

Duh. That was the point. This Phelps story is the perfect vehicle for a broad attack on the Republican Party. It’s a completely vile caricature of today’s Republican Party. The only person who took the ball and ran with it was Vincent,

“Face it, Republicans won the past elections with these idiots supporting them.”

Damned straight! And there should have been more about how Republicans hate gays and how the evangelical movement hijacked the Republican leadership and their foreign policy.

All I heard was, in a geeky ivory tower voice, “Well, technically, Phelps and his evangelicals were Democrats back in the 80s.” Who the fuck cares what they were 25 years ago. They’re Republicans now.

Lame. You guys deserve to be stepped on.

Lynne’s got it right. Democrats may inherit the kingdom of Heaven — but if they don’t grow a spine, they’ll never get alternative energy legislation and affordable health care.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #151573
The implication that Phelps and company are Republicans.

You didn’t present one single thing to refute that claim.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #151574

AP,

What game are you playing?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 26, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #151575

You called me a liar. Prove it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #151576

So, we’ve moved from making fun of esimonson to making fun of rahdigly.

Got it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 26, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #151581

I called you a liar and I did prove it.

“They’re Republicans now.”

Prove it. I’m calling you a liar again.

“You didn’t present one single thing to refute that claim”

You can’t prove a negative.
You’re the one making outrageous claims. It’s up to you to prove them. I’m calling you a liar again.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #151582

AP:
“Democrats may inherit the kingdom of Heaven — but if they don’t grow a spine, they’ll never get alternative energy legislation and affordable health care.”

You’re damn right that Democrats need to grow a spine about confronting the lies spewed by Karl and Company, and they can also grow one by not being afraid to be, and say, and act like what they are: Liberal. But get real — lying isn’t growing a spine. Lying only proves that people are too afraid to tell the truth to others, and sometimes, even to themselves.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #151587
lying isn’t growing a spine.

How did I lie? Do you think Phelps votes Republican?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #151588

Crap. I meant, “Do you think Phelps votes Democrat?”, obviously.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #151591

Traveller,

If I had known there was a “The Traveler” I would have chosen a different screen name. sorry!

Don’t worry about it. Long-time readers will know who’s who. I’m not on that much these days anyway.

Posted by: The Traveler at May 26, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #151592

AP,
I don’t know. I don’t care. He’s insane and filled with hate. (Just like Ann the Man Coulter.) He should be mocked by all. (And so should she.)

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #151594

And there’s no doubt in my mind that both are Republicans.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #151598

Its official…

AP has lost his mind, and credibility.

I salute those of you refusing to dive off the cliff with him. It gives hope to those of us in the middle that regular folks on both sides won’t blindly buy into the deceptions of radical fanatics.

Posted by: Jwl at May 26, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #151616

AP,
You’re making an assumption based on your own bigotry. Do you think Phelps even votes?
If you would bother to do a little basic fact checking you would see that Phelps doesn’t like the Reps any better than he likes the Dems. He hates everyone who doesn’t adhere to his narrow view.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #151619
Do you think Phelps even votes?

Yes. I think he votes for the only anti-gay ticket in town: The Republican Party.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #151623

AP,
You’ve lost it. Like I said, your credibility is gone.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #151631

Hey A P……by God, there are some balls out here……now the targets just need to be re-defined. Thanks for the interesting chronicle….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 26, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #151648

I have heard about this group especially when they threatened to come to Amarillo, TX to disrupt a fallen soldiers funeral. Which pisses the hell out of me, the family is dealing enough with the death of their son, they don’t need to have salt slammed into their wounds. I read some of the comments above. It is ridiculous that they are making this a Republican/Democrat issue. It is regardless to their political affiliation, it is an issue of their insensitivity and their cowardness of taunting the families that are suffering. If they ever show up at any funeral and I happen to be there, I guarantee you the gloves will come off. I work with the military and have a renewed sense of being loyal to those guys. Anyone that messes with them and their families is messing with me.

The military is our customer and it isn’t about money it is about these guys who have put their lives on the line for each of us. And to be treated with such disrespect, I will be the first to kick those protestors butts. In fact I will personally go sign their sorry butts up to serve in the war and lets see how long they survive there and lets see how their perspective changes after being over there for awhile. I guarantee you, they will see the world in a whole different way. I know I have…

S. Forbes (female)

Posted by: S. Forbes at May 26, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #151653

Damned straight, S. Forbes (female).

Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #151674

S. Forbes,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Seeing and hearing that scum makes you wish the laws against murder could be repealed for just five minutes. But, that’s the reaction they want. It just plays into their sick game. Ignoring them has proven to be the best way to neutralize them and shut them up.
It was AP that made this a Dem/Rep issue with his slanderous, bigoted pack of lies. It is true that when Phelps was politically active he was a Democrat. After studying him I find it absurd to even think he votes at all. He spews his venom at the Reps just as strongly as he does the Dems. He hates everyone who differs even slightly from his version of Calvinism.

AP,
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking in its scope.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #151679

Yo, traveller,

We got it.

We all know how you feel.

Enough already.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #151686

Why is this guy allowed to post such crap as an editor. I don’t want to censor him, but I think elevating this hate filled liar to the status of editor damages this site as a whole. He certainly doesn’t bring any rational debate of the issues. Do the managers of this site care at all is the items posted by “editors” have at least some basis in fact? Or is it “anything goes”?

Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #151688

Rocky,
I don’t think you do. I haven’t yet found my voice for the disgust I feel. Why am I the only one taking AP to task for his lies and his bigotry?
He has painted all conservatives and Christians, as well as Republicans, with this stench because most of you equate conservative, Christian and Republican.
AP is a liar and a bigot pandering to leftist prejudice. By your silence you’re condoning it.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #151693

traveller,

No, you’re the one that doesn’t get it.

What part of critique the message, not the messenger don’t you understand?

While AP and I don’t always agree, he is entitled to his opinion, just as you are.

And, considering all the name calling happening here I can only admire his restraint.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #151696

Rocky,
I understand it very well. I also practice it.
This is an extraordinary case. The messenger is the message. He has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t have a right to openly and obstinately lie. Since he’s a leftist it’s apparently ok. If someone on the right posted the bigoted smear that AP did you lefties would be calling for him to be banned from the site. That’s some double standard you have here.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #151697

traveller
“AP is a liar and a bigot”

Rocky is right. This is totally out of line and you’ve been here long enough to know it, traveller. Besides, it isn’t true. Aside from this post, which seems to have been a Karl Rove experiment of some kind, I can’t ever recall AP being either one of those things. I for one strongly resent your saying this about someone I’ve always considered one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people here in Watchblog.

jwl,
Eric Simonson posts in the red column. That should answer your questions.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #151700

traveller,

“If someone on the right posted the bigoted smear that AP did you lefties would be calling for him to be banned from the site. That’s some double standard you have here.”

Come on,

This happens all the time, there isn’t a slant here.
You’ve got right, left and independent here and and there are those that can be even worse.

I don’t agree with the KKK, or their message, yet I will defend their right to speak.

I have been here a while and AP has a damn good track record when it comes to intelligent posting.

I’m willing to forgive a miscue every now and then.

I’d suggest you do the same.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #151701

traveller:

In all fairness, I think most of the posters have joined you in taking AP to task for his misinformation. That he persists in it is simply silliness—he’s been proven wrong yet refuses to admit it. Even those who are normally on his side are scattering out of the way on this one. He lost credibility first by even posting the idiotic stuff, but even more so by defending the indefensible.

If he truly believes that Democrats are weak because they won’t lie to get ahead, then he’s just too wrong to set straight. I recognize that politics aint a business for the squeamish, and that ugly things go on from both sides. Republicans have been more successful of late, but bottom line is that both parties play dirty pool.

I’m really surprised by AP. As I said earlier, he’s often someone I disagree with, but not someone I associate with such wrongheaded thinking.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at May 26, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #151705

Well I guess the answer is…

ANYTHING GOES !!!

Its OK to lie outright.
Its OK to put words in the mouth of others.
Its OK to attack on the basis of religion.
Its OK to attack anyone that disagrees with you.

So lets have at it. The message has proven false and the messenger wants to be the story. Critique the message, not the messenger has become irrelevant. Bigotry, racism, facism are all OK so long as it is entertaining.

What a waste….

Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #151711

jwl,

Can we assume from the tone of your post that you feel the Constitution, especially the First Amendment is a fallacy, a cruel hoax perpetrated on the American public by the Founding Fathers?

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #151713

jwl,
You act like you’re just now getting acquainted with the Rovian playbook. The Neocons have been doing all of what you wrote to liberals for years. So, where have you been hiding yourself?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #151721

Rocky,

Absolutely not. AP has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right to call him a liar, and have in this thread and in others. He makes it a practice to fabricate BS and then tries to ram it down the throat of everyone on this site. And God help you if you disagree. Then you’re a traitor, or maybe even worse.

This guy has NO respect for anyone. He is arrogant beyond description and his statements are slanderous.

My beef is that Watchblog gives this idiot credibility by giving him the status of editor. I think traveller is correct in saying that AP and his crew would be calling for the banning of the same type of bigoted speech on the other side.

You say that you will defend the right of the KKK to speak, but will you elevate the grand wizard to editor. I would hope not. Until I am banned from the site, I will continue to call him out on the BS when he sends it through the fan.

Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #151725

Adrienne,

While it is true that I am new to blogs and this type of debate, I am well versed in the difference between truth and bullsh*t.

BTW. I haven’t been hiding, I’ve just returned from a world wide shrubbery sculpting contest with the Knights who say “Nee”.

Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #151726

jwl,

“I think traveller is correct in saying that AP and his crew would be calling for the banning of the same type of bigoted speech on the other side.”

Sounds like you’ve never read Eric Simomson.

He had a series of articles on how liberalism is closer to fascism than conservatism.
Again, he is entitled to his opinion.

AP doesn’t have a “crew” that I am aware of.

I’ve been posting here about two years and, for the most part, his threads are usually well researched, and mostly level headed.

He has, on occasion gone out of his way to “tweak” the pompous among us.

Have you actually taken the time to go to AP’s website?
I’ve been there a lot and have never seen anything remotely bigoted there.

None of us agree all the time, and I am not trying to defend what he has posted.
That said, I will, however, defend his right to post it for the reasons I stated above.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #151732

AP

I have not looked at this post since I left last night but man. You are surely rejecting the truth on this one. The evidence is in print there is no refute but you ignore it this is what gives democrats a bad name. I do feel bad for the democrats here who have to put up with this.

I realize that you fully believe what you are saying then prove it. Many conservatives have put up factual evidence that proves you wrong on this account. If there are other accounts bring them on lets look at it if it is true then I will stand up and condemn them the same way many many democrats condemned these nut cases.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 26, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #151734

Rocky,

I appreciate your response and position.

I will make it a priority to read what Simonson has written and will come down just as hard on him if it is the same kind of crap.

Although politics is mostly self serving rhetoric, I think most of the folks on this site are something other than politicians. This is why I fail to see the need or purpose for the type of posts like AP’s. Those of us that take the time to contribute to this site are concerned citizens of the US regardless of our party and I think it is more constructive to debate valid and meaningful issues.

AP’s post has generated a tremendous amount of response, and to what purpose? To piss people off? Well then he succeeded. Net gain zero. Everyone loses. Waste of time. If anything, he has influenced people to ignore anything he has to say.

I too would like the chance to become an editor here, but being new, I don’t have an archive of writings to submit. When ,and if, I do, I can assure you I will not use that priviledge as AP has. There are enough factual stories out there, that I can’t see any need to manufacture any false ones.


Posted by: jwl at May 26, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #151736

jwl:
“While it is true that I am new to blogs and this type of debate, I am well versed in the difference between truth and bullsh*t.”

You’re sure to have plenty of chances to exercise that muscle here then.

“BTW. I haven’t been hiding, I’ve just returned from a world wide shrubbery sculpting contest with the Knights who say “Nee”.”

Oh. Jolly-good show. But just wait till they make you cut down the mightiest tree in the forest… with a herring! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #151739

To the participants of Watchblog,
The conduct of the Phelps bunch desecrating funerals is a subject which touches me personally, and deeply, and evokes strong emotions. When American Pundit used it as a vehicle to launch a vicious smear, cavalierly dismissing objections in an arrogant manner with blatantly prejudiced statements those emotions rose to the surface. It also surprised me because as I said at first, I had come to expect better of him.
I violated the rules of civility which are necessary for a forum like this to function. I apologize.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #151746

traveller,

I personally don’t feel that you need to apologize. As far as I am concerned, it is perfectly OK to be passionate, just recognize where the line is. I have crossed that line only once and got booted. Ironically it was with Eric.

I, for one, appreciate your service against Phelps and his ilk.

We have to defend Phelps’ right to be an asshole. You just can’t legislate against that.

I personally can’t wait, however, for him to cross the line, and we can all be done with him.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #151793

Fred Phelps political timeline

1966 Democratic candidate for Kansas State House, 45th District

1988 Assists Gore campaign. Gore delegate to Democratic National Convention

1990 Democratic candidate for governor of Kansas

1993 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate for Kansas

1993 Invited to Clinton inaugural ball

1994 Democratic candidate for governor of Kansas

1997 Invited to Clinton inaugural ball

1998 Democratic candidate for governor of Kansas

AP, you should be more careful about casting aspersions.
If you have anything to say, I’m listening.

Posted by: traveller at May 26, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #151825

jwl,

Why is this guy allowed to post such crap as an editor. I don’t want to censor him, but I think elevating this hate filled liar to the status of editor damages this site as a whole. He certainly doesn’t bring any rational debate of the issues. Do the managers of this site care at all is the items posted by “editors” have at least some basis in fact? Or is it “anything goes”?
Thanks for agreeing with me about eric simonson.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 26, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #151862

AP—

Neither PETA, ELF nor ALF speak for the broader democratic party. These people do not speak for the broader republican party.

I have read many of your posts and they are usually quite good. However, resorting to trying to equate these people with republicans makes a reader think this is the worst thing you can find about republicans. Which most certainly is not true

Posted by: montanademocrat at May 27, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #151889

My father fought World War Two from the waist gun of a B-17 bomber. In the summer of 1944 his plane was shot down and he spent the rest of the war in a German prisoner of war camp.

My father was not only a Jew, but a first-generation American of German descent. When his Nazi guards discovered these facts, his stay in the POW camp was not pleasant.

To him, people like Phelps were vile, despicable and anti-American SOBs. But in spite of that, he went to his grave believing that his sacrifice and the sacrifice of millions of others in the cause of freedom was made to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, including Fred Phelps and his kind.

He would have vehemently fought Phelps’ tactics (disrupting funerals) but he would have just as adamently supported Phelps right to spew his filth.

Unfotunately, that’s where my father and I part company.

I don’t believe Phelps and his kind of hate-mongers have any rights. I know that there is a special place in Hell for him and his ilk and the sooner he gets there the better.

Posted by: vietnam_vet at May 27, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #151903

After reading all of the opinions and responses on this site today, I’m convinced, more than ever, that I am absolutely right about one thing. RELIGION AND POLITICS SHOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE BY LAW!!! Just look at what’s been going on in the Middle East for the last 5000 years. Do you want that here in the great USA? sk

Posted by: sk at May 27, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #151909

sk:

with all due respect, its impossible to separate one’s personal beliefs from politics, whether those personal beliefs are of a religious or secular nature. For those who passionately believe in “Mother Earth”, the political side of environmental is a heartfelt cause. For those who believe in life, abortion and the death penalty are heartfelt causes. Religion may or may not play a part in where you come down on the death penalty, environment or abortion, but it might.

The real key is to not institutionalize religion, or make the religion itself the policy of government. THAT is what the separation of church and state is about. Its not about stifling people’s opinions, even if they are of a religious nature. Its about not allowing government to either create a national religion or to prevent the free expression of religion.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 27, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #151970

joebagodonuts

Go to the head of the class! That is exactly what the First Amendment means when it says government will not establish religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

But people with agendas and vendettas have so distorted its meaning that many people actually believe Jefferson’s comment about separation of church and state comes from the Constitution.

The purpose of the First Amendment is not to take religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion.

That is a huge distinction.

sk

I wholeheartedly agree with your point that non-secular governments have caused nothing but grief for the world, especially in the Middle East.

But when you start passing laws to regulate religion in government, where do you stop? What do you ban next?

We don’t need laws. We need an educated and vigilant citizenry.

The Constitution, when interpreted as the Founders intended, will take care of the rest.

Posted by: vietnam_vet at May 27, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #152127

vietnam vet, I totally agree! Problem being, how do you get the Constitution to be interpreted “as the founders intended” when you have a court loaded with right-wing, facist thinking people? sk

Posted by: sk at May 28, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #152320

vietnam vet:
“But people with agendas and vendettas have so distorted its meaning that many people actually believe Jefferson’s comment about separation of church and state comes from the Constitution.”

No vendetta here, but I believe it’s more than clear that separation of church and state is implict to the meaning of the First Amendment. In part this is because that document was preceded by the Declaration, which had already informed us that “All men are created equal” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what all equally deserve in America.
How can these ideas be interpreted in any other way than that people of many and various religions AND those who are not at all religious, are EQUAL?
No. It can’t be interpreted any other way than that our government would stay out of religion, and that religion would stay out of government.
You might be religious, therefore your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness might involve daily immersing yourself to the eyeballs in all kinds of religious observances. I am not religious, so my ideas would be far different — but since we already know that we are created equal in the eyes of our government, I shouldn’t have to be subjected to those religious observances every time I enter a public space that my tax dollars paid for and are maintained by. But luckily, our government has no say about you practicing your religion, so you are more than free to make your many observances on your own land, and on those of your church — who just so happens to enjoy a tax-exempt status, which fully enables them to buy up all kinds of property wherein religion and religious rituals might be practiced.

You see? Very simple. Clear separation, emphatically implied.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 29, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #152403

Adrienne, AMEN! Well said. sk

Posted by: sk at May 29, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #152408
Many conservatives have put up factual evidence that proves you wrong on this account.

If that’s true, I haven’t seen it.

Hey traveller, in all seriousness, thanks from all of us for keeping Phelps and his dirtbags from disrupting those ceremonies. Next time, ask one of ‘em whether they voted for Bush or Kerry in the last election — before you kick his ass. I’m betting they voted for Bush.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 29, 2006 11:52 AM
Post a comment