Let's welcome Andrew Sullivan to DU

[jumptheshadow]

He's quoting DU again in his blog:

THE LEFT DEBATES: On the Democratic Underground site, various far- lefties debate whether it's legitimate for Baathists to kill and attack American soldiers. Many think it is. My favorite comment from the centrists:
regardless of right or wrong.
we dont want to be associated with supporting the killing of our own troops.
that would be political suicide... we dont want to be associated with "supporting" Iraqi resistance.
something like that would make us (dems, libs, progs, whoever) look terrible and just give the opposition fuel.
Good to see their consciences at work.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

Will Mr. Sullivan still support the Republican party and George Bush if they demonize gays and gay marriage in the presidential campaign?

It would be good to see his conscience at work, wouldn't it?

[UTUSN]

1. What Would Make '04 Different for Him at All?

[trotsky]

2. Unbelievable

Hey Andy, how about you skip over to FreeRepublic and post some of their hateful, racist, anti-American bile? What goes on in nearly every thread over there makes DU absolutely pale in comparison.

[Bombtrack]

14. worse than the support for killing our soldiers?

Please post a link to that.

I don't have a supply-sider or pro-NRA or religious bone in my body, but what he said about the anti-war/pro-violence posting is absolutely right.

Pointing out the retards at freerepublic doesn't justify the extremists here. And the negligence of the moderators toward the acceptance of "pro-resistance" action.

[trotsky]

17. It's terrible to advocate killing ANYONE

Yet freepers do it all the time: against "libruls," gays, commies, etc.

Hey, I'm not excusing anyone here, in fact what was posted makes me want to puke. But it's just frustrating when all these columnists only pull out the worst of the worst on DU and never show what passes for average at the nasty right-wing forums like FR, Lucianne, etc.

[Plaid Adder]

19. The thing is, nobody has the right to kill anyone.

This is what pisses me off. Do Iraqis have the right to kill our soldiers? No. Do our soldiers have the right to kill Iraqis? No. But we're doing it anyway, and so are they. There is not a single goddamn thing about the situation in Iraq that is 'right.' And we are the ones who created that situation.

Nobody has the right to take human life. Period. No, George, NOT EVEN US. This is a principle that our government has not grasped, and now here we are, stuck in the middle of this mess.

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

[trotsky]

21. Great point, PA.

n/t

[penny foolish]

56. "Our" troops?

They aren't "our" troops. They may be "your" troops, but they aren't mine. Iraq was invaded by people who want to change the government and the way of life. The people living there have every right to defend themselves and kick out the invading force. There are people willing to die over their so they can have their country back. The people are so desperate that they are willing to strap a bomb to themselves, knowing they will die, just to kick the invading force out. It's a shame that the rest of the world and the US cannot see this.

[Brian Sweat]

72. How about the post the other day where the guy said that should

kill 1000 Iraqis for every U.S. soldier killed.

I don't support the Iraqi resistance, but this is clearly worse than those who do. This guy was calling for reprisal killings right out of Nazi Germany.

[JNelson6563]

3. Hi Andy!!

WElcome to the happy-go-lucky world of reality!! Enjoy your stay and please, keep you hands inside the moving vehicle at all times. :-)

Julie

[wyethwire]

32. Reminds me

of the time he bravely stared down a hated statist in the Harvard Cafeteria

[CWebster]

4. Next time he stops in

Someone ask him if he has been hanging out on gay pick-up sites again.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0125/goldstein.php

[La_Serpiente]

5. OH my goodness

that's hillarious.

[piece sine]

33. that's irrelevant

Debasing Sullivan's social-outlet websites as you do matters-not in a political context, unless from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, you believe there is something wrong with gay guys like myself communciating to one another.

[CWebster]

34. Read the article in its entirity.

[jonnyblitz]

40. I have links to his bareback ads mirrored on another site

this person copied his ads before he had a chance to delete them. Its hard to take him seriously as a conservative after seeing them. They are a hoot.

[piece sine]

41. I'm sure gay activity is laughable to the Fundies

when I see it here at DU, it just blows my mind. With all we have to deride Sullivan with, the weapon of choice HERE, i nthis thread , is his homosexuality. And the same DU biggots when thwe site is quoted outside the side, which happens every day, BTW.

[piece sine]

42. and BTW, the your parents barebacked...

or you wouldn't be here!

[jonnyblitz]

43. my parents arent HIV positive and writing columns of outrage

and moral superiority against the immoral Democrats. Having unprotected sex while being hiv positive and writing right wing columns on morality is kind of a bit off. But you go ahead and pick up for that crap. Really really really bad analogy. GEEZ

[piece sine]

48. how superior of them not be be HIV positive!

when you're in a hole, first rule is to quit digging! Sullivan has never hidden his HIV status and sought other poz guys to have sex with. That said, his exuality is irrelevant to a leftist critic...he's fighting for gay marriage; he does not hold contradictory positions to "party-line" DU stances on gay rights.

The callous straight men and women here are on notice their gratuitous slurs on homosexuals will get torched on-demand by militants like myself who fight ti everywhere it appears, not just in Falwell or Robertson Land, but right here in our own backyard.

[jonnyblitz]

50. WOW

nothing like twisting words. You are the one that brought my parents up to begin with. That right wing asshole must be a friend of yours otherwise you wouldnt be so completely hysterical. sorry.... :crazy: :crazy:

[piece sine]

57. everybody knows everybody in Washington

yeah, we've met on several occasions, usually in one of DC's many gay bars, but we're not 'friends' at all. In fact, I got into an argument with Sullivan at a mutual friend's B-Day party over the Catholic Church, of which I am an outspoken EX-member.

Still..the fact that posters on this thread find fault with his homosexual behavior (in and off itself) speaks volumes about the hypocricy here. BTW, I'm also a social friend of Michelangelo Signorile . I know the drill. This is about left-wingers flaming gay guys for being gay, NOT a bonafide policy disagreement.

[Plaid Adder]

58. Well look at you, rubbing elbows with the high and mighty!

Since you know so much, I find it strange that you're misreading this discussion so persistently, especially as many of the people you're attacking for gay-bashing are also gay DUers.

If this were a "Rush is gay" thread, I'd be right behind you with the flamethrower, but it's not, and you're on your own, pal.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[jonnyblitz]

63. thanks for the coherent and to the point response

that I am not capable of composing right since I am so flabbergasted.

[piece sine]

67. to quote Jeremy Irons as Klaus von Bulow....

"You have nooooo idea."

[bearfartinthewoods]

95. bullshit

the only comments on sullivan so far, in this thread, all relate to his sexual preference. why?

[RapidCreek]

90. You're a homosexual?

Jeez that must be rough for a guy like yourself. Are you chewing oxycontin? If you are, be careful, while it might kill the pain of anal cysts, I hear it makes you go deaf.

Nah...his homosexuality is central to anything he says....because being a homosexual and a neocon is what us party-line DU'ers call hypocrisy. And that is what we got a problem with...the hypocrisy. It's kinda like being a Jewish Nazi. It doesn't add up. Can you comprehend that?....If not, I'll try and put it into simpler terms.

'Right here in our own backyard'? Who is "our"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Only person your fooling is you.....and maybe that mouse.




RC

[Plaid Adder]

46. You're missing the context.

I am the first to say that there is a lot of borderline gay bashing that goes on here at DU, but this particular topic is not an example of it.

For a full explanation of why the revelation of Sullivan's 'barebacking' triggered condemnation from the gay community, follow the link to the Signorile article in Paschal's reply (#16 in this thread). The main point is that Sullivan, after making a career out of attacking gay male culture for being too hedonistic, pleasure-lovin', promiscuous, and generally morally bankrupt, then turns around and spreads his hedonistic, pleasure-lovin', promiscuous self all over the web. Not that having unprotected anal sex is in itself inherently all those things--but recruiting anonymous strangers for it online is exactly the kind of behavior he was always condemning in his gay brethren.

The 'barebacking' thing is just the most obvious example of the hypocrisy that characterizes Sullivan's public persona. Signorile's article puts this much better than I can, because he, poor man, has clearly spent a lot of time reading Sullivan's work, whereas my ears start to bleed after about 5 minutes of perusing it. You might want to check it out. Signorile, incidentally, is also a gay man, so it is unlikely that his critique of Sullivan is inspired by homophobia, unless, you know, it's the kind of internalized homophobia that also inspires Sullivan.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[DS1]

55. bingo

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

[piece sine]

60. It comes down to this....

gays are not supposed to be republican, period. Signorile (who's worldview is far closer to my than Sullivan's) denounces all GOP gay "collaborators" but he doesn't denounce gays who bareback -- except Sullivan. Andrew, BTW, is an political independent who's in bed with Bushco. I've flamed him OFTEN for that. But I'll be damned if I'll stand-by while the local yokels spit on him for barebacking.

[jonnyblitz]

65. not all barebacking gays are

writing columns in support of their own oppressors. It is the whole right wing thing of waxing moral superiority for everyone else in public life and doing otherwise in private life. For me its about hypocricy not barebacking. And if having no use for right wingers no matter what their sexual orientation makes me a bigot than i am a bigot.

[piece sine]

69. tolerance, dear sir...

used to be a benchmark of liberalism even as our adversaries spread bigotry and ate. I embrace my own kind even when I firecely disagree with their political postures. "I am a bigot" has no place in any true liberal's vocabulary. But suit yourself.

[jonnyblitz]

74. my own kind is not a right winger.

and again you twist my words. you are the one inferring i am a bigot, I was just pointing that out. They are many evil gay guys I would NEVER consider embracing just because they too, like me, are gay.

[piece sine]

76. but our nature is not evil...

only the acts by which we oppress others...like, well, being homophobic!

[jonnyblitz]

77. umm...ok :)

no further comment. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[piece sine]

78. OK....your honor...the defense rests.

you're gay; you're at DU; we're probably far more kindred spirits than is apparent here. My apologies to both you (and your parents) if I've driven you crazy.

[RapidCreek]

91. Liberals are NOT tolerant of hypocrasy

If you think so.....you better take off your chaps, hang up your spurs and go back to the drawing board, cowboy.

RC

[ibegurpard]

99. Excuse me

But as a gay man I DEEPLY resent your defense of willfully unsafe sexual practices. No, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with "barebacking" but it is an irresponsible action that helps contribute to the spread of a deadly disease. Are you really naive enough to think that everyone who "barebacks" is being careful and responsible to be up-front with their partners? Being tolerant does NOT mean that we should not condemn irresponsible and unsafe behavior that puts many people at risk.

[CWebster]

45. Straight sex is laughable to the fundies too

In the sense that they claim to be so moral and puritanical but when they are outed for soliciting 13 year prostitutes it almost comes as no surprise. It is almost a stereotype.


The sex has nothing to do with it--it is the hypocrisy.

[jonnyblitz]

47. oh yeah i am gay btw so how i can be bigoted towards gays.

that is a good one. But you go ahead and pick up for those right wing self hating homos.

[piece sine]

70. allow me to quote post #65

"And if having no use for right wingers no matter what their sexual orientation makes me a bigot than i am a bigot."

Whatever. A fellow can meet all kinds of folks in here, can't he?!

[Cat Atomic]

87. Oh, please- you're the same guy who called me a

homophobe a few weeks ago because I used the term "cocksucker". You said you had many gay friends and resent anti-gay thinking, though you're not gay yourself. I replied that I myself am gay, and you sort of sputtered to stop and quit posting.

Frankly, your hypersensitive crusade against the slightest perception of wrong-doing looks incredibly lame.

[demnan]

6. If he read this

why doesn't he provide a link? I'll tell you why, it's not true.

Lies, and the lying liars who tell them strike again.

[Paschall]

12. I think he quoted that...

...from one of the several very inflammatory threads on ANSWER expressing outrage over ANSWER's politics after the Oct. 25 demo.

At least one of those threads was led by--what seemed to me and a few others here--a trolling misrepresentation of leftists' support of ANSWER's actions against the war.

Ya plant a troll, ya generate the kind of statement Sullivan quotes, then you get to slam leftists. It's so simple, no?

[Melinda]

52. My thoughts precisely.

Spot on.

Prolific infiltrators too -- they manage to go from a few to a thousand posts in no time at all.

[bearfartinthewoods]

97. ahhh yes...the favored refrain when caught with one's hand in the cookies

say no ill of any on the left lest ye be deemed a freeper

from the rules:

Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

[Melinda]

101. Don't care for my point of view? Alert on me.

Hall monitor doesn't become you, bearfart.
Pot, meet kettle. :eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. and the second refrain

damn anyone who points to the rules....

anything to sidetrack the debate.

is it really so hard to pick the meat from sully's arguement?

if you are proud of the things he points to, defend them, if not, condemn them.

the debate is worthy.

signed bear who is watching hobbits and elves and ents and is feeling heroic

[Melinda]

104. But it's what you do, bear

And I'm the recipient of your "DU rules de jour of the day".

The world is not black/white, there are issue and sub-issues, text and sub-text... but you know this.

Again, if you have an issue with what you feel to be a violation of the rules on my part, then alert on me. But you are not a moderator here, bearfart, no matter how hard you try to appear to be one... and you shall not personally stifle my opinion(s) --whatever it/they may be-- despite your attempts to do so.

What irony, heh.

[bearfartinthewoods]

105. i have no desire to moderate

i haven't nor will i ever ever apply. i am not nearly moderate enough for the job. and why alert on the posts...it's much better to leave them there. if they were to disappear, my posting of the rule would seem foolish.

but again, you turn away from the debate. any strawman in the storm ehh?

[Melinda]

106. Check your pm, please.

[bicentennial_baby]

28. He did

There's an embedded link in his little blurb...I think it's the word "defend". Click there and it'll take you to the DU thread

[mhr]

7. If the US Was Attacked and We Resisted, We Would be Freedom Fighters

We attacked Iraq and some of them are resisting; they are called terrorists.

As Ricky would say, "Lucy we got a problem here."

We can't have it both ways.

We would either be terrorists or freedom fighters.

They have to be either terrorists or freedom fighters.

The definition must hold in both countries.

Just because an unelected pResident wants to claim two definitions does not make it so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Religiously Avoid Those Threads

I am prolly in agreement with 75% , 80% 0f the views on this board.....

but the other 20%.....

[gulliver]

9. Sullivan's in it for the money anyway.

Bush backed Santorum. Sullivan stuck with Bush.

Sullivan's treatment of DU is typical of his intellectual dishonesty. He knows that DU has a wide range of discussion, but he picks the lame arguments to tar us with. It's a cheap shot.

Sullivan is just punching the clock as the gay Republican provocateur. I don't consider him a thinker or a writer of any merit. If he were liberal, he would be Andrew Who? Watching his veneer of intellectual ethics shear off over time is a pretty sorry spectacle.

[Plaid Adder]

10. The thing is, Andrew Sullivan DOES support the killing of our troops.

Remember his column on the "flypaper strategy?" I do:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder/25543.html

Andrew Sullivan got out there on the web and argued that it was a GOOD IDEA--no, not just good, a "beauty" of an idea--to send our soldiers to Iraq in order to become bait for Islamic terrorists. He thought that was a fabulous plan cooked up by a genius. What a wonderful thing, he said, to provide 'the terrorists' with a target that "was not Israel"?

I do not for a moment believe that there ever was a "flypaper strategy," but let's say that he's right abotu that--what is the "flypaper strategy" doing but encouraging terrorists to kill American soldiers--so they won't kill Israelis or American civilians?

But I must remember that we should have charity for the insane, especially those who have quite clearly gone insane out of a refusal to accept their own identities.

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

[AP]

11. I have a new image in my mind when I think of "journalists" like Andrew S.

In the movie, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" there's a scene in which blood flows from a man’s head like a faucet has been turned on because pro-Carmona snipers shoot at Chavez supporters in the street. That night the private, pro-oligarch media splice together the news a report that Chavez supporters caused these deaths. The media plays over an over again a scene of Chavez supporters shooting handguns on an overpass, claiming that they're shooting DOWN into the crowd.

The filmmakers show another angle of the same shot that shows that the street below is empty, and it shows that the same people are actually trying to shoot at the snipers who were shooting pro-Chavez supporters in the head.

Also, there's a scene where the Chavez-supporters re-take Millaflores. Carmona has robbed the safe at the palace and has escaped. While Chavez's cabinet is REFORMING in the palace, and while MILLIONS of people are in the street around the palace, Carmona goes on CNN and CNN reports as the truth that Carmona is still in the palace, that the city is calm, and that the coup leaders are in power.

I shall think of those scenes now when I think of Andrew Sullivan. Blood flowing from innocent people's heads because oligarchs wanted a little money they couldn't get by working honestly for it, and the media doing everything it can to help those people.

Welcome to the gates of hell, Andrew Sullivan.

[RetroLounge]

13. Hey Andrew 'Bareback' Sullivan

FUCK YOU.

Print that you whore...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Was The "Bareback" Reference Really Needed

especailly before lunchtime?

[terrya]

35. Sullivan is good on gay marriage.

And he seems quite anguished over the hateful homophobia from the Catholic Church.

But otherwise, Sullivan is just a shill for the White House. Vehemently rabid about Clinton when he was President.

[RetroLounge]

36. You're correct I should have waited...

but these Repug Whores make me wanna puke ANY time of the day...

[piece sine]

38. homophobic belching

FU, too.....

[RetroLounge]

79. Nothing Homophobic about what i said.

Sorry if it offended you.

But if he's Gay and Republican, then he's either not paying attention, or is a paid whore.

So again, Fuck Him.

(and the bareback comment was in reference to AS's personal ad that was published here months back...)

[Paschall]

16. Hey, Andy!

Michelango hangs around here, too!

Say hi!

[Vogon_Glory]

18. Does A Sullivan Sit Comfortably While Christian Reconstructionists

Would Mr. Sullivan sit comfortably in his chair at the Republican National Convention while Christian Reconstructionist delegates (and there are such in the Republican Party) not call for the recriminalization of homosexuality, but also for the death penalty for "unrepentant homosexuals"?

When I read about homosexuals supporting the GOP, I can't help but wonder about the mindset of Texas Afro-American Republicans after the Texas Republicans betrayed them with such measures as the "Lilly White" primaries back in the early 1900s. Does Mr. Sullivan really trust his little Republican friends equally as much?

[Plaid Adder]

30. $20.00 says he will.

I'm serious. I woudl bet any amount of money that there is NOTHING that could happen at the 2004 convention, or indeed ever, anywhere, that would cause Andrew Sullivan to break with the Republican Party.

Why some people rush to lick the boots of the oppressor is an interesting question to which I have no answer, but I think it probably has to do with a desire to identify with power. By fawning all over the boot that kicks you, you can keep believing that someday, you might wear that boot. If, on the other hand, you find that kind of power disgusting, then you have a very different response to being kicked.

It's a sad spectacle, but nothing can be done about it, so you just have to pray for the poor bastard and move on.

Alas,

The Plaid Adder

[CWebster]

37. Identification with the aggressor.

vicarious power trip.

[Tommy_Douglas]

31. As David Brock said...

When he was slinging mud for the right nobody cared about his sexuality as he served their agenda. When he got a conscience they turned on them.

Perhaps (hopefully not) should the extreme right win the America they want and the Andrew Sullivans of the world no longer serve a purpose will he take kindly to being "liquidated"?

[mmonk]

20. Mr. Sullivan

You should check out the extremism on conservative sights.

[DS1]

22. The problem is, the people saying these things aren't leftists

They're people that need to draw attention to themselves by making the most outrageous mind-blowingly ignorant statements possible.

It's easy to pick and choose Andy, btw, which is higher in your favorites list? DU or bareback.com? Hypocrit.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Interesting--the quotation at the top

Is NOT from one of the "far-lefties"--it's from one of those helpful folks who drop in from time to time urging caution. They didn't want us to look bad but, unwittingly (?) supplied just the phrase for Bareback Andy to "cherry-pick"....

[HFishbine]

24. His Favorite

That may have been his favorite quote, but in typical reight-wing fashion, it's a gross distortion of the majority opinion. By far a majority of people here expressed disdain at the notion of supporting the killing of American troops on grounds that Sullivan would find much more agreeable, and much less inflamatory to his readers.

[Nlighten1]

25. F**K you Andy :)

How about them apples?

[HFishbine]

26. And he calls that a blog?

No self-respecting blogger would fail to allow for comments.

[Skittles]

27. HEY ANDY

STOP DEMONIZING THE DU WITH ONE OR TWO POSTS. Oh, I forgot - that's the way you do it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

[dbt]

29. Welcome, Mr. Sullivan!

My name is dbt and I am a Bush Hater.

I am proud to be a Bush Hater. It slowly dawned on me over the past decade that it is Patriotic and Right to hate the President, that it is a Good Thing to stand firm in this Hatred regardless of the facts.

Sadly, I did not learn this True Lesson until Clinton was out of office, but you can bet I will be making up for lost time by Hating Bush the way my TV told me I should have Hated Clinton.

God bless you and your righteous work!

:loveya:
dbt

[ShaneGR]

39. He is right

My favorite comment from the centrists:
regardless of right or wrong.
we dont want to be associated with supporting the killing of our own troops.
that would be political suicide... we dont want to be associated with "supporting" Iraqi resistance.
something like that would make us (dems, libs, progs, whoever) look terrible and just give the opposition fuel.
Good to see their consciences at work.

I don't know who Andrew Sullivan is, but he's right about that.

[mumon]

53. Well...

Not necesarily (OH NO I MUST BE A TERRORIST!!!)...the genuine moral position must be the one that minimizes the taking of life...now, at the moment, that's a pretty tough call, IMO, especially in the middle east...

Of course, I don't expect Sullivan or the Repukes to actually endorse such a position in the ME- it would gore the Saudi Ox, the Israeli Ox, the Haliburton Ox, the Al Qaeda Ox (they need the enemy US- Bush and bin Laden are symbiotic in the same way that Arafat and Sharon are)...

[ShaneGR]

61. He's pointing out a fact

Any American political party expressing support for a foreign army or group to kill American soldiers may as well disband, because they're getting killed in the next election.

It's not about whether you agreed with Iraq or not. For example, I didn't agree with invading Iraq. I thought it was the dumbest move in 50 years. But I also personally KNOW several people in Iraq right now. How do you think it makes me feel when some people support their deaths?

[qwertyMike]

64. Nobody SUPPORTED killing of US troops

The thread asked if it was OK for Iraqi's to defend themselves.

OF COURSE IT IS

[ShaneGR]

68. No, some of the stuff on DU goes farther than that

It's a disagreement over what 'defense' is.

For example, if an American soldier is driving down a road, he's carrying water and food. He's a reservist, called up perhaps six months ago with no end in sight. All he does is drive from point A to point B. He drives over a landmine and dies. Do you find that to be defensive? If so, that is basically saying you support the Iraqi resistance.

That is what Sullivan is pointing out. You can choose to ignore that, but he's right.

[qwertyMike]

71. OK

I only saw the thread I referred ro.

But I'm sure the French Resistance would have blown up everyone in a German uniform, bringing water or not.

[Melinda]

54. None are so blind as they who choose not to see...

or those spreading smoke.

[soupkitchen]

44. Well, the thing about Andrew is that in some ways he's Forrest Gump slow

Like, Wow, he just figured out in the last year that the Catholic Church is institutionally hostile to gays (except those that happen to be priests, of course)
One of these days he'll figure out that the rest of the institutions he's always trying to defend are inherently corrupt too. And an almost childish inability to acknowledge the corruption existing in the institutions they are so eager to defend seems to me the bedrock most conservatives have built their houses on. The only problem, of course, is that this bedrock is situated on a fault, fated to be swallowed up by erruptions of truth amidst the shifting plates of history.

[mumon]

49. Andrew, Andrew, Andrew,....

What's on your conscience?

I mean, how does a guy like you live???

Are you really so divorced from reality that you've got to waste time thinking about what we harmless little fuzzballs think?

I mean, there's your "condition" you should be worrying about- and whether or not your potential partners are safe.

There's your "church," which thinks that you're responsible for all the nasty hanky-panky with altar boys...

There's your Party, which looks too much like the Nazi party for most people's tastes.

Heck, then there's the economy (yeah, lotsa folks don't have jobs!), the oxymoronic "war" on "terror," and, last but not least, the plague of priggish pseudo-intellectual conservatives that infest our media.

[qwertyMike]

51. "Bring 'em on"

Who said that?

Is that 'encouraging' Baathists to kill US troops?

[gasperc]

59. "where's John wilkes Booth when you need him "buttons sold at GOP

conventions during the Clinton years, so Andy go fuck yourself

[qwertyMike]

62. STOP BEING SO DEFENSIVE PEOPLE

The thread in question asked simply: Do people of ANY country which has been invaded have the right to defend themselves, and kill the invaders?

It's a no-brainer.

OF COURSE THEY DO!!!!!!!!!

duh

[msmcghee]

66. I just sent this to Andy.

Probably won't post it but FWIW:

************************************************

OK - As a long time DU member I've occasionally come across your name there - in both good and bad contexts. But I never really visited your blogsite until this morning when someone at DU provided a link. He/she had started a thread re: your mention of the callous souls at DU debating the ethics of support for the US army in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=623016

Out of curiosity, I have now re-read your comments and visited the referenced debate thread at DU thoroughly. Trying to be as objective as possible I can't help but conclude that since you can't find a single Dem poltician or party spokesman that has ever come close to justifying Iraqi attacks on the US military - that you decided to present a quote pulled from a long, complex thread at DU dealing with issues of morality, ethics, law, nationalism, patriotism and duty to country - in a simple-minded effort to smear all liberals as unpatriotic haters of the US and our military.

What a shame. Your website seems so well designed and coherent. But, objectively examining the DU thread in question and your comments - your's is obviously just another well funded right wing attack-the-left site. From your writing, you're apparently smarter than your purported leader, GW Bush. Yet, in your zeal to smear the left you disengenuously pretend not to be able to comprehend the real discussion of morality and values taking place in that thread any better than he would. Shame.

M. McGhee

[grasswire]

73. Sully's probably quoting FR trolls

That's a good trick of the right. Infiltrate message boards, kick up some fuss with outrageous talk, and then quote the faux "Dims" to suit the purposes of the right.

[Solly Mack]

75. Yawn...

Sullivan is a whiner. Always has been. Always will be.

[Selwynn]

80. We deserve it - those threads were shameful beyond shame

[cosmicdot]

81. he profits on being controversial

it's part of his M.O.

so many in history have sold out their own

[jumptheshadow]

82. Several things bother me about this

This isn't the first time Sullivan has quoted from DU.

The man cherrypicks outrageous quotes and posts them on his blog without context.

He is dishonest in the extreme while preaching morality for everybody else.

For example, how many threads have there been about the large group of DUers who are sending care packages to soldiers in Iraq? How many DUers have written to decry the shoddy treatment that the Bush administration has given to the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq, and who have served our country in other wars?

Why isn't Sullivan quoting from these threads?

How many DUers worked so hard against the launch of this war -- a war that has caused such grievous suffering to American, British and Iraqi families? A war that has plunged us into a canyon of debt? A war that was launched against the wrong enemy, that has overburdened our military and devastated its morale, that has left us more exposed then ever to terrorism on our own shores?

DUers have been consistently courageous -- and correct about how wrong the war in Iraq is -- in the face of a barrage of right-wing attacks. I'm willing to bet there are many soldiers in Iraq and many military families here who wish the anti-war activists had prevailed when Sullivan and his colleagues were writing their jingoistic columns.

How can Sullivan allude to his discomfort about the "outing" of a CIA operative (and to his credit, he has) while still supporting the administration that was responsible for this treasonous act? An act, by the way, that may have unraveled years worth of work against terrorism?

Oh, I get it, it's the same twisted logic, and moral vacuousness, that allows him to be Bush's shill even after Bush supported Santorum after Santorum's outrageous statements about homosexuals.

[Scott Lee]

83. Cram this in your blog, AndyPoo

Is your "conscience" working, as you hide from acknowledging the human right of Iraqis to resist their invaders?

I'll bet washing your hair is a bitch, with your head in the sand all the time.

[West Coast Democrat]

84. For All We Know, Andrew Could Be Posting Here at DU

and posting the most idiotic things in the world. He might post things here every day. Something to think about.

[jumptheshadow]

85. That's part of the charm of anonymous bulletin boards

I, personally, know at least one card-carrying member of the Conservative Party (and Andrew Sullivan admirer) who very occasionally posts on DU.

He does it for the same reason, I guess, that some of our compatriots visit Freeperville. Just obsessed with politics, I guess.

[Bridget Burke]

89. Maybe he's "joinup"

Pretending to be a het single father.....

[Jack Rabbit]

86. Sullivan is a rank propagandist

Note how Mr. Sullivan phrases his critique of Democratic Underground: On the Democratic Underground site, various far- lefties debate whether it's legitimate for Baathists to kill and attack American soldiers.

Sullivan is full of steer manure. No one on that thread is defending "Baathists". The term Baathist is simply Sullivan's smear -- and indeed the Bushies' smear -- for Iraqi freedom fighters. True, some probably are Baathists who long to see Saddam retake control. However, many are not. Many just want Iraq to be an independent, sovereign nation out from under US colonial rule.

The case that Sullivan present is really no case at all. It is a cheap progagandist's trick. Sullivan is simply framing the argument in a black-and-white fallacy and then using that to attack Democratic Underground with guilt by association. Sullivan would have us believe that the only choice is between US colonialism and a return to Saddam's brutality. The truth is that there are many other choices, as most DUers know and as Sullivan certainly should. From there, Sullivan jumps from the fallacy that since some opposition to US colonialism in Iraq comes from Baathists (true) to all opposition to US colonialism in Iraq comes from Baathists (false) and therefore, all dissent from US occupation of Iraq is sympathy for Baathists (false).

Most of the posters on that thread were asserting that the Iraqi people have the right to resist foreign occupation. I did not post on that thread, but if I had, I would have added my voice in support of that right. That means that they have the right to kill agents of that occupation, which is to say American troops and colonial personnel (that's right, Andy, I just said Wolfowitz is a legitimate target for Iraqi freedom fighters). That grieves me. I am an American and I do not wish to see Americans die because the man occupying the White House and his aides are criminals who start colonial wars without proper justification and base the war on a pack of lies that servile villains like Mr. Sullivan are all too happy to repeat.

The solution is multifold: first, we remove the war criminals from power. Next, we begin to deal with legitimate in Iraq who are neither associated with Saddam or with Bush and his aides. We allow them to call a constitutional convention and hold free elections, the results of which we respect even if we do not like them. Finally, we remove our troops from harm's way and let the Iraqis govern themselves, as all people have a natural right to do.

[jumptheshadow]

92. Yes, he is a rank propagandist

And he tries to claim the higher moral ground so frequently while defending the indefensible.

* He's an erstwhile fiscal conservative who criticizes the administration's spending but still supports the Republicans in their destructive stewardship of this nation.

* He's an erstwhile defender of personal freedom who supports the party that is run by ideologues and cynics who bow to the fundamentalists.

* He continues to support the shameful, unethical and wasteful war in Iraq with increasingly pathetic and contorted arguments.

* He continues to support an administration that has brazenly showered entitlements on the well-to-do and well-connected while arguing against federally funded programs.

* He continues to support an administration that is crippling our military and defense against terrorism.

How can this man live with himself? One must come to the conclusion that he is totally cynical and has adopted his stances because they are currently profitable.

In other words, he is totally devoid of moral scruples.

[jumptheshadow]

94. And another thing about Sullivan

I loved how he gave his friend Peggy Noonan a pass for her swipe at the Enron trough while skewering his political opponents.

[NNN0LHI]

88. Has Andy ever been in the service or is he a Chickenhawk? Anyone know?

[Jack Rabbit]

93. Andy is British

The question is a non-sequitor.

Bio from AndrewSullivan.com.

[trumad]

96. Can we get back to the barebacking part of this thread

it was getting deep..LOL

BTW: I'm pretty certain my parents conceived me through a hole in the sheet. ;-)

[Jack Rabbit]

100. I'd rather not

Mr. Sullivan's private life and personal habits are a red herring. His use of black-and-white fallacies and guilt by assoiciation are at issue here.

[ibegurpard]

98. Let's not

Fuck off Sully.

[MoonRiver]

102. I notice he's not demonizing faux pres * - who put them in harm's way!

:mad: