Thursday, December 02, 2004

Thursday, December 2

Blue-state liberals proclaim their tolerance for gays and other deviants, but in fact they are the worst gay-baiters of all; we red-state conservatives believe it is every man's and woman's right to love and marry a member of the opposite sex or keep quiet about not wanting to

Mark Coffey at Decision '08, noting that opposition to gay marriage is not homophobic, rightly takes blue-state liberals to task for their secret homophobia:

John Kerry "won" all three debates this year, according to opinion polls (I only gave him the first one myself, but hey, I'm biased), but he still managed to lose, because he made the only debate gaffe that people remembered. I'm talking, of course, of his inexplicable and unwarranted gay-baiting comment about Dick Cheney's daughter.

See? It doesn't matter that Mary Cheney has been an out lesbian for years. It doesn't matter that she has been an activist and spokeswoman for lesbians, at Procter & Gamble and in the Republican Party. It doesn't matter that her father mentioned her lesbianism just a few weeks before, by way of respectfully disagreeing with President Bush's principled red-state refusal to accept gay marriage. It also doesn't matter that Kerry was defending Mary Cheney's right to be exactly who she is. None of this matters to us red-state conservatives! If you say someone's gay, that's gay-baiting. Pure and simple. Why? Because being gay is such a horrible thing that even gay people must hate to be accused of it--even nicely! If you walk up to Queer Eye's Carson and say "You know, I really admire the positive image you give gay men," that's gay-baiting. If you say to Richard Simmons, "Richard, you are the sweetest gay man I've ever met," that's gay-baiting.

With one exception, though: Dick Cheney should be able to use his daughter Mary's sexual orientation for political purposes without being accused of gay-baiting. After all, he's her father. And we red-state conservatives love our families! (It's just more liberal gay-baiting to suggest, however, that "Sisters," Lynne Cheney's torrid unpublished novel, celebrates lesbian love!)

Mark goes on:

The intolerance of the Radical Left comes into even sharper focus with their smear campaign against new RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman. You see, because, as Hindrocket at Power Line points out, Mehlman is 38, single, and likes to keep his personal life to himself, he must in fact be gay. This is part and parcel of the Left's parlor game of outing gay (or just rumoured to be gay) Republicans. Really, this is no different from the Democratic plantation view of black Americans. The identity politics of today's Democratic party mean that there is a "correct" viewpoint for blacks, for gays, for labor, for women - and if you don't hold that viewpoint, then you're a sellout and less than human. So I ask you - who's intolerant?

It really is shocking that Democrats should be pressing to know whether Ken Mehlman is gay. After all, a 38-year-old single man who adamantly refuses to identify himself as either straight or gay, who's never had a girlfriend, and who has faced down numerous rumors of clandestine affairs with male costaffers, has a right to his privacy! The fact that as RNC chairman he'll be presiding over the campaign to pass the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is utterly irrelevant to the salacious gay-baiting quest to know his sexual orientation! It's not hypocrisy to want to keep your private life private; it's just good common decency! Not everyone wants to parade their sexuality to the whole world, like Carson on Queer Eye or Richard Simmons. Maybe Mehlman is just shy around girls! Maybe he's asexual, like a spore! You don't know! Let the man live his own life, for God's sakes! And stop dragging politics into everything! What have we become as a country if even appointments to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee have to be dragged through the mud of party politics?

* * * * *

Robert Brightwell at Drunken Samurai takes a different tack toward liberal gay-baiting, citing The Independent's take on Oliver Stone's turkey Alexander, starring Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie:

Now, I have read some pretty amazing America hating stuff lately but this might be the most insulting of the bunch. This guy has the nerve to say that the reason Alexander the Great is doing so poorly in US theaters is because dumb Americans are homophobes. It is interesting that Americans are homophobes but where is the condemnation of the Greeks who won’t even admit Alexander was gay? Please…the movie just plain sucks. We will see how quickly our tolerant and worldly European brothers flock to this turd.

I must admit I'm confused on this one. I went to the Independent site that Robert linked to. The title of the piece was "Alexander the (not so) Great fails to conquer America's homophobes." That didn't sound to me like the authors, John Hiscock in Los Angeles and James Burleigh, were saying that the movie is flopping because dumb Americans are homophobes. But maybe the authors said that outright in the piece? Well, I searched and searched, and maybe I'm just sleepy and missed it, but the only passage I could find that came anywhere close to saying what Robert claims the article said was this:

The three-hour, big budget epic, starring Colin Farrell, Colin Farrell's shockingly bad blond hair-do and Angelina Jolie has dared to suggest what most historians have long taken for granted - that Alexander was bisexual. And that gets rather different responses in different parts of the US.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says the $150m (£79m) film breaks new ground for a big budget epic because it shows boyhood friend Hephaestion "as the true love of Alexander's life". A line from the film says: "Alexander was defeated only once - by Hephaestion's thighs."

But conservative Christians have loudly denounced Alexander as "pro-gay" propaganda from Tinseltown, insisting that Alexander was a firmly hetero hero. To add to the film's problems, the public has stayed away from what was to be the big movie of the Thanksgiving weekend.

Doesn't this say only that (1) gays and lesbians have applauded the movie's recognition that Alexander was bisexual, (2) the Christian Right has denounced it as pro-gay propaganda, and (3) in addition moviegoers have stayed away? If somebody can read that article and point out to me exactly where the authors say that the movie flopped because Americans are dumb homophobes, I'd greatly appreciate it! I just must be a bad reader.

But of course I should add that Robert is probably right about liberal gay-baiters. Oliver Stone is a known blue-state liberal who slathers his radical liberal propaganda all over every one of his movies--and smearing the great heterosexual hero Alexander the Great by calling him a fag is clearly gay-baiting of the worst kind. Why do liberals feel it is their duty to drag every great hero down into the mud of their own pathetic dirty little minds?

* * * * *

Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, has for a long time been a strong non-homophobic opponent of gay marriage. But now, understandably distressed at rampant liberal gay-baiting, he is pushing his cause further. He wants the Alabama state legislature to pass a non-homophobic bill that would remove all novels with gay characters, or that make homosexuality seem natural or acceptable, from the shelves of public libraries. Textbooks that made reference to homosexuality as natural or genetic could not be used in Alabama schools. The plays of gay playwrights like Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, and Tony Kushner could no longer be performed on Alabama stages receiving state funding, such as state university theaters. When asked what Alabama would do with the banned books, Rep. Allen suggested that a big hole be dug and the books buried.

But as Ryan Thibodaux notes at The Higher Pie, Rep. Allen's bill is nowhere near inclusive enough in its non-homophobic censorship of disgusting gay art:

They should also ban children from looking at paintings by Da Vinci and Michelangelo, listening to Queen's "We Will Rock You" at sporting events, or watching any more Lord of the Rings because Sir Ian "The Heathen" McKellen is Gandalf. It's no secret that Gandalf subliminally promotes "The Homosexual Agenda" throughout the entire LOTR trilogy.

Hear hear! And there's more, much more. Who among our readers can suggest other gay art to ban?

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Wednesday, December 1

Blue-state liberals hate religion and have been imposing their anti-religion bias on America, especially via unelected activist judges, through a "separationist" interpretation of the First Amendment, according to which state-affiliated religious practices (including school prayer) that might lead to a monopoly over belief will not be tolerated; we red-state conservatives love God and divine worship and recognize that the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually favor an "accommodationist" interpretation, according to which the only thing that is forbidden is the creation of a state religion

Charles at Sheep in Wolfs Clothing argues the red-state conservative accommodationist view of the First Amendment (or, as he spells it, in good red-state fashion, "ammendment"):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
~Bill of Rights, First Ammendment.

It simply strikes me dumbfounded how judges who are appointed to interprit the constitution (IE: not letters to Baptist's), and interprit laws can find anywhere where it says "Seperation of Church and State" will be maintained. [...]

This is right in line with the language of the first ammendment of the Bill of Rights (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Now Jefferson DID just say Church and State were seperate. Could it be that the whole "wall" he meant was in saying that Congress will not set a national religion? This language doesn't seem to agree with making public prayer illegal, it doesn't seem to agree with public display of nativity scenes being illegal.

People don't get's not a freedom FROM's freedom OF religion.

It means it is ok if Wiccans have a gathering o­n public property (IE: State owned parks, schools, whatnot). It means it is ok if Menorahs, and Nativity scenes are displayed. It means it is ok for Muslims to pray at school over intercoms as well as any other relgion. I would actually ENCOURAGE other religions to do so, do you know how neat Arabic Muslim prayer sounds?. Congress opens with prayer...what is so wrong with schools doing so? Answer: It's not wrong.

I have to admit, though, to a certain degree of skepticism about this suggestion. Instead of a five-minute morning Christian prayer at the beginning of the school day, public schools all over this country would open the day with an hour-long prayerfest, Baptist prayers in English, Roman Catholic prayers in Latin, Jewish prayers in Hebrew, Muslim prayers in Arabic and Turkish, Zoroastrian prayers in Farsi, Confucian prayers in Chinese, Shinto prayers in Japanese, Hindu prayers in Gujarati, Buddhist prayers in Tibetan, Mormon prayers in ancient Egyptian, and so on? Is that what Charles is suggesting? Drowning out the sounds of good red-state Christian prayers with all these prayers in other languages from around the world? Isn't that just liberal multiculturalism, Charles? How is the good Baptist child ever to know what's right if his Baptist prayer is only one of many he hears every morning at school? Doesn't this in essence prohibit the free expression of Baptist religion, that Baptists are forced to listen to all manner of heathen prayers alongside their own true godlike prayers? Surely this can only lead to more liberal heathenism and falling away from religion.

Charles goes on to say that parents should be free to opt their children out of morning prayers, and send them, for example, to special English classes, where they would learn to spell properly--another blue-state liberal idea, to replace words of devotion to the One True God with godless spelling lessons. If Charles himself had been subjected to this kind of freethinking education, surely he would not be the devout bad speller that he is today! He'd be able to spell amendment, interpret, and separation like a blue-state liberal, and would have hated religion just as much as those blue-state liberals do, too!

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Tuesday, November 30

Blue-state liberals are always invoking laws, agreements, and logic that nobody really cares about; we red-state conservatives know that the only law and the only logic that matters is God's will

A follow-up to yesterday's post: in comments to Jen's post about how it's okay for us to kill innocent Iraqis because they killed innocent Americans first and God's on our side, several crazed liberals started throwing all sorts of irrelevant nonsense at her, like the Geneva Conventions, which, as we pointed out yesterday, are just a thinly veiled piece of liberal propaganda anyway.

And anyway, as Jen noted in response, we have honored the Geneva Conventions in the past:

The Geneva Convention -- I believe we have honored that piece of paper. Why? You never saw any photos of WWII POW's (Japanese and German) getting their heads chopped off while here in the States. In Canada, the Nazi soldiers worked on farms which led to their release.

See? We've been honoring the Geneva Convention for a long time. We've got a track record. Surely that should count for something? Surely it's okay if the Bush administration, well, interprets the agreement not to bomb civilians and torture POWs a little loosely for a change?

But this is actually sort of a weak argument. The stronger red-state conservative argument, that the Geneva Conventions are actually irrelevant to God's Chosen Instrument on earth, George W. Bush, is made by Kevin from Strategy Revolutions, in an impatient rant against the "libs" on Jen's comment page:

I'm with you Jen,

I can't believe that this is the liberal arguement. They have pointed at the Geneva Convention, which I doubt many people have read. Well the Geneva Convention only applies to those that have signed it.

Second, I'm sure that these same people would have gladly gone over to the workers paradise that was Iraq and given up their cushy lives in the West. Heck the average Iraqi would have traded with them.

The liberal postiton is that only the Western White countries can have freedom, liberty and democracy. That fit sin with their racist attitude that only government can cure the pains of minorities.

Sorry for the rant, but the libs deserve it!

This is clearly a much more powerful argument than the one Jen herself originally came up with: the Geneva Conventions don't even apply to us, because probably nobody has even read them, so America almost certainly hasn't even signed them! So it doesn't really matter what so-called "atrocities" we perpetrate in God's name--because God is bigger than the stupid Geneva Conventions! The Geneva Conventions are not really civilized countries' collective attempt to protect their citizens and soldiers against the brutality of other nations in war; they're a mere irritating roadblock to our acting as God's fist in the Middle East.

Besides, it's our government's duty to do whatever it takes to bring freedom, liberty, and democracy to Iraq--even if that means killing tens or even hundreds of thousands of them and bombing their social and technical infrastructure into the Stone Age. Blue-state liberals are wrong about it being the government's responsibility to cure the pains of minorities in this country; it's really only the government's responsibility to cure the pains of minorities in other countries, by armed force if necessary--that is, if they resist! And because our standard of living is so much better than Iraqis', we're actually doing them a huge favor by occupying their country, bombing their cities to rubble, and killing tens of thousands of civilians--and liberals who claim to hate the destructions of war are in actuality just using fake pacifism to conceal their true racist belief that only Western whites get to live good lives.

As Jen remarks in her response to Kevin, this is good solid red-state conservative logic: "It's fine Kevin ... at least you presented some logical arguments unlike these two liberal yahoos." Needless to say, Kevin's isn't the kind of logic you might study at blue-state liberal colleges like Harvard, Yale, or Berkeley! No, it's a much stronger, more masculine, more red-state logic, the logic typical of, say, Bob Jones University. In a word, it's a more godlike logic, the logic that God Himself used on the Canaanites, when the ancient Hebrews were conquering back the land that He had given to Abraham--the logic of "kill them all, let Me sort them out." It's the logic that blue-state liberals used to ridicule back during the Vietnam War: "killing for peace is like screwing for virginity." But see, if tens of thousands of evil godless terrorists stand between these people and peace, we have to kill them to make peace a reality! We have to wreak the vengeance of the Lord upon them, until every last one of them is dead--then the Middle East will have peace, and freedom, and democracy, and McDonald's, and Coca-Cola, and Enron, and Halliburton!

And who knows? Maybe in the end screwing will bring virginity. After all, everything is possible in the Lord!

Monday, November 29, 2004

Monday, November 29

When there are terrorists to be killed, blue-state liberals wimp out and piss and moan about the Geneva Conventions; we red-state conservatives know that God wants us to do what has to be done to rid the world of these unbelievers once and for all

Jen at Para-Bellum has taken some kind of survey that shows she is a "religious Republican" who helps "make up the conservative, Christian, dedicated core of the Republican Party," believes "it's important for religious people to stand up for their beliefs in politics," and counts among her "pet causes ... the sanctity of life, school vouchers, and prayer in school." And like most red-state conservatives, she doesn't extend the sanctity of life to Muslims:

Hoo-ah. See I knew George and I had something in common other than the fact we both like to see every terrorist get their asses kicked. I'm not ashamed about the idea of having deep Conservative beliefs and I don't pray to God asking Him to forgive sinners (ie - murders) but to deal with them in his own way when they are delivered to the gates of Heaven.

I know that those who are Islamist killers, ala extremists or radicals will not be accepted into Heaven because they killed dozens or thousands of innocent civilians who did nothing wrong but exist.

I believe justice should be carried out swiftly and if we have to play "their" game then they should know that we will be coming to restore democracy to their lands with the same amount of force and more than what they took away.

See? She wants God to "deal with" terrorists in His own way in the afterlife; but in her heart of hearts she knows that He won't let them into heaven, won't forgive them, because they killed innocent people.

And if stopping them means that we have to become just like them--play "their" game--and kill thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people too, well, so be it. That's a true red-state conservative attitude, right there! We have God on our side, so we can play "their" game and kill innocent civilians and still be welcomed into heaven with open arms! So when blue-state liberals whine that Osama bin Laden only killed 4000 innocent Americans and we've killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis in retaliation, they're missing the point, which Jen spells out clearly: our killing is justified because we're "coming to restore democracy to their lands with the same amount of force and more." Same thing when liberals complain that we're violating the Geneva Convention by torturing POWs and deliberately bombing and dropping napalm on civilian targets: it's all justified, because we're restoring democracy to Iraq, and that's what God wants us to do. (Besides, it isn't really napalm; it's Mark 77, a much improved form of jellied gasoline that is much harder to put out than napalm ever was.) And what are the Geneva Conventions, anyway? Aren't they just some namby-pamby liberal gobbledy-gook that says you have to be nice to terrorists?

Blue-state liberals can't make up their minds about things, are always quibbling about complexities and circumstances; we red-state conservatives see things as either black or white

Jeff Blanco at Louisiana Conservative has posted a poll, asking his readers to choose whether he should repost a collection of his own favorite blog posts from the last nine months in January, "as a '2004 year in review,'" or in March, when his blog turns one year old:

Do the "Best of"
for your blog birthday in March
as a "2004 year in review"
I don't see black or white, only shades of gray.


Free polls from

And he comments:

You may have noticed that I put a special answer just for liberals. They don't see things in black or white so they need a "special answer". I thought about trying this in a poll question "Is Bush the Greatest President ever?" with a "Yes" answer and "I only see shades of grey" answer.

Excellent red-state conservative thinking, Jeff! There really is no gray area between "Bush is the greatest president ever" and "Bush is the worst president ever." It is absolutely impossible that he could be only pretty good. In fact, his father George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, too, are either the greatest presidents ever or the worst. There CAN BE no middle ground! Because here in the red states, life just IS that simple!

Tellingly, I showed Jeff's poll to a liberal colleague, and he DIDN'T GET IT. Liberals are so determined to see complexity everywhere that they don't get the simplest things! "How exactly," this colleague complained, "are January and March 'black' and 'white'? And why should anyone give a shit?" What this poor liberal doesn't realize, of course, is that in the red states EVERYTHING comes down to a simple yes-or-no question, black or white, one or zero. There really are only two possible answers to any question you can possibly ask.

For example, if you ask "Should I loan money to friends?", there can only be one answer: yes or no. If you start quibbling, saying it depends on the circumstances, or the amount, then you're opening the door to moral relativism and rampant liberalism. There has to be a single rule that you apply rigidly in all situations, regardless of the complexity of the case. If you've decided that it's a bad policy to loan money to friends, then you MUST NOT loan a friend 35 cents to make a phone call, or $500 to move to another state to start a new job after two years of unemployment. And if you've decided that it's a good policy to loan money to friends, then it doesn't matter how many times your alcoholic best bud wants to borrow $20 to go get wasted on, without ever paying you back once, you have to loan it to him every time.

Seriously, folks: life is simpler here in the red states!

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Sunday, November 28

Blue-state liberals hate the family and want to destroy it with equality for women and gay marriage; we red-state conservatives love our families

Jonas Luster of recently went out of his way to stomp all over a good red-state conservative blog that we commented favorably on in a previous post, by Michelle Potter. Here's Jonas's comment:

After another evening of weblog surfing, I do have to ask - what is it that makes some of those weblogging conservatives such opinionated, unilaterally dismissive, zealots? I’ve run across the weblog of some girl, must be 24 by now, christian mother of two, who basically married the guy she cheated on her fiancé with, while he was living separated from his wife and his two children. Who has issues with “homoseksuals” and gay marriage, which is a sin and an erosion of that holy institution called marriage.

I hate to break it to you, kiddo, but you and your husband have done more damage to marriage as an institution than any faithful gay couple could do. And, guess what, every single one of my gay friends is more in tune with being faithful and respecting partnerships than you do.

Typical blue-state liberal point-missing! To spell it out for you, Jonas, the point you're missing is that Michelle writes about cheating on her fiance before she found Jesus. This is something that liberals never get: that all the stuff you do before you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior is wiped away and no longer counts, except of course as evidence of how much you've changed since you were saved.

Here is what Michelle writes:

let's start in november 2000. i was 19, and not unlike most other people i knew. a college drop-out, atheistic, liberal, poor morals, suffering from depression. i lived with my then-fiance and spent my free time at the rocky horror picture show. and cheated on my fiance. a lot, with pretty much anyone. i really had no clue why, either.

in december i met mark. he didn't seem too different from most of the people i knew. a little strange, with pink hair and random piercings. he was older, seperated from his wife, and had two kids who lived with his parents. to tell you something about me, i was mostly attracted to the fact that he tied to me a chair with twine. he, however, apparently fell in love with me.

at first i resisted. not that he was putting pressure on me at all, but i both really wanted him and really wanted to not cheat on my fiance again. but it wasn't long before we started a month-long affair that ended with me moving out of my fiance's house to "live on my own." and i really meant to do that, it's just that i didn't want mark to go home, yet. he never did go home...

by august i was pregnant. in december we got a bigger apartment and aryanna and aoghdan moved in with us. in april seamus was born. by may i was a basket case. (ok, maybe i was a basket case long before that.) going from a carefree life with my cool boyfriend in the "artsy" part of town to suddenly being a mother of three was a lot to handle. and then we decided to homeschool! my long-term, ongoing depression started to get really bad.

mark was a christian (kind of lapsed, obviously), and he had these christian parenting books. i read them, but i totally missed the point. i kept saying that they were really good, "except for all the god stuff."

when we got married the following september, we went to pre-marital counseling at a church pastored by one of mark's friends. not long after we got married we started attending that church. meanwhile i kept searching for a way to cope with my new life. eventually i ran smack into god.

i finally realized that i couldn't do this on my own. i needed god. and once i accepted that, it really helped. it wasn't a magic pill or anything, but as mark and i started becoming deeply involved in our faith, and changing our lives to fit a biblical model, things just clicked.

The important thing here, Jonas, is the sequence:

1. first she's depressed and sleeps around, cheating on her fiance and watching wicked movies, a liberal atheist with poor morals (BAD)
2. then then she meets Mark, with his pink hair and random piercings, and he ties her to the chair for purposes of extramarital sex, but she is (obviously!) still depressed (BAD)
3. then she moves in with Mark and gets pregnant (BAD), and even though she homeschools Mark's kids (GOOD) she's still depressed and living in sin (BAD)
4. then she and Mark get married and start going to church and find Jesus, and all is forgiven (VERY GOOD!)
5. and then she hates gay people and thinks that two men or two women living faithfully in holy matrimony will destroy the sacred institution of marriage (EXCELLENT!)

That's the difference, right there: once she's found Jesus and been transformed into a Daughter of Light, there's no contradiction between her earlier heterosexual promiscuity and her current conservative Christian homophobia. Do you see now, Jonas?

Of course, Rome wasn't built in a day:

i still suffer from depression, and i have to take medication for it, but god has been faithful. he's carried me through even when i thought he'd abandoned me.

God's been faithful, and so has Michelle--but unfortunately, all that fidelity is still no match for her depression. However, her ongoing depression through all five stages does not mean, as cynical blue-state liberals would no doubt want to make it mean, that her life in Christ is just as big a shambles as her life in sin. Every good red-state conservative knows that main thing isn't actually being happy in Jesus; it's believing you're happy, or at least believing that you'll be happy after you die and live with God in heaven!

Blue-state liberals care about original ideas and critical thinking; we red-state conservatives care about getting right with God

Art Green at Conservative Eyes believes strongly that "Democrats Hate People With Strong Beliefs." He explains:

When I say people with strong beliefs or convictions, that usually translates into people of faith. Usually, that is someone that is a Christian conservative. Well, why is it that way? What is it about Christians that make Democrats hate us?

How dare they believe in a Creator! How dare they believe that there is an after-life where we will meet God in Heaven! We should secede and disassociate ourselves from these 'bigots.'

Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group, called the red states "welfare" states and urged the blue states to secede from the red states. Geraldine Ferraro, a former Vice Presidential Candidate said on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes that if the blue states seceded from the union, the red states would have no colleges or universities and that all the creativity would be in the blue states.

Well, first off, both of them are off their rockers. Secondly, when did Democrats care if people were on welfare? Aren't they the champions of the poor, exploited and underprivileged? Thirdly, where would these "creative" people get their food from? Lastly, there is plently of creativity that comes from the red states. They just now happen to live on the left coast or in New York City.

These are three very good points, and we here at Red State Rah Rah wanted to see how your typical people-with-strong-opinions-hating Democrats would respond to them, so we conducted some telephone interviews with people on the "left coast" and New York. Here are some of the answers we got (and we must apologize in advance for the strong language; blue-state liberals often use profane and vulgar terms quite freely):

"We don't hate Christians. I'm a Christian myself. We hate fucking idiots like this clown who give Christians a bad name." (Bob Wanthrax, Yonkers, New York)

"Wait, read that first part again. People with strong beliefs 'usually translate into conservative Christians'? What the fuck does that mean? Is that some kinda weird morphing shit, or something? Whoosh, people with strong beliefs, whoosh, Christians, whoosh, conservative Christians, whoosh, here comes the blue-state hate?" (Thor Jespersen, San Fransisco, California)

"Oh, poor boy. He wants so desperately to sound intelligent, doesn't he? But it just isn't working. It's kind of adorable, don't you think, how earnest he is? Write him a comment from me, could you do that? Say something encouraging, like 'Keep working on your debating skills, and one day you'll really come up with some good strong arguments!'" (Sandra Baber, Seattle, Washington)

"Hey, Art, I got a strong belief for you: you're a retard! Jesus Christ, where do these people come from?" (Pat Elster, Eugene, Oregon)

"Ha! So the big argument in favor of the red states is that they produce our food? Goddamn, that's wonderful. I love it. Seriously. All the smart creative people born there move to the coasts, and leave behind the poor mouth-breathing farmers who vote for Bush despite everything his administration has done to crush family farming: that's his attempt to make the red states look good? I mean, sheesh: what's he trying to do here, prove that red-state Bush-supporters are dumb as a sack of hammers?" (Jamal Hook, Hollywood)

"Here's the way it works, Art: Democrats are people with strong beliefs. We believe that America is a democracy where everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--even Arabs, atheists, and gay people. We believe that the Christian Right's zeal to legislate morality is a direct assault on core American democratic values. We believe that our strong beliefs in democratic freedoms and equal human rights are more life-affirming than the Christian Right's strong beliefs in theocratic leaders, puritanical censorship, and strict punishment for moral infractions. Democrats don't hate people with strong beliefs. Democrats hate people who want to force others to live according to one extremist group's narrow strong beliefs." (Patricia Manley, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

See how these things go, folks? No substantive argument from any of these arrogant elitist blue-state liberals. Just ad hominem attacks. They can't find anything solid to attack in Art's post, so they pick at his language, his argumentation, his intelligence--all incidentals. Because really, what difference does it make what anybody says or how intelligent anybody is? What matters is that you love Jesus and support George W. Bush. Everything else is just blue-state liberal elitism.