• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

In my day, never was longer.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

The lights are all blinking red.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

“But what about the lurkers?”

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

It’s a new day. Light all those Biden polls of young people on fire and throw away the ashes.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

This country desperately needs a functioning Fourth Estate.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Dead end MAGA boomers crying about Talyor Swift being a Dem is my kind of music. Turn it up.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / Co-Blogging

Co-Blogging

by Michael D.|  November 2, 20077:31 am| 102 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

Assuming John is still whining about being tired and having to “get things done,” this seems to be a good time for me to step in and introduce myself. Apparently, my one-liner about bathrooms on Hewitt’s cruise was enough to get me an invitation to blog here. That’s sad, but I graciously accepted.

Anyway, about me:

  • I’m an adult learning specialist at a large phone company.
  • I’m a non-heterosexual.
  • I promise to never write posts about “bear culture.” (for more on that, go here.)
  • If you want my opinions on gay issues, this is where I blog about that.
  • I can take a joke about being gay.
  • I think “homophobia” is a stupid word.
  • I’m 37.
  • I ‘m Canadian.
  • I’ve lived in Atlanta for over 8 years.
  • I have a Labrador retriever who could totally whip Tunch in a fight.
  • I am a conservative. In fact, I consider myself to be a Republican. If you think that’s strange (and I don’t blame you) read this.

Finally, this is a question I submitted and I honestly hope gets asked during the CNN Republican YouTube debate!

**Update: Oh, and I have enough of a sense of humor that I can really laugh when I see a Chinese woman on CNN talking about how Hillary has a “chink in her pantsuit.”

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Karma
Next Post: Dog the Negro Hunter »

Reader Interactions

102Comments

  1. 1.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 7:47 am

    Excellent, Excellent question Michael for McCain. Welcome aboard.

  2. 2.

    ding7777

    November 2, 2007 at 7:51 am

    You sound more Libertarian than Republican:

    Libertarian: advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

  3. 3.

    Ned R.

    November 2, 2007 at 7:51 am

    Welcome indeed! The OC Balloon Juice readership salutes you.

  4. 4.

    Joshua

    November 2, 2007 at 7:54 am

    I think it’s safe to say that finding gay Republicans no longer surprises me. If anything is unusual, it’s the fact that you’re actually out. ;)

  5. 5.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 7:57 am

    I’m a Canadian, so I’m actually “oooot”

  6. 6.

    cd6

    November 2, 2007 at 8:05 am

    Are you being added because we need a token republican??

    Is this a devious plot by Tim to get back into the “Conservative Blog” category?

  7. 7.

    RSA

    November 2, 2007 at 8:05 am

    Welcome, Michael D.!

    Assuming John is still whining about being tired and having to “get things done,” this seems to be a good time for me to step in and introduce myself.

    Oh, I think you’ll fit in quite well. . .

  8. 8.

    Bombadil

    November 2, 2007 at 8:05 am

    It remains to be seen if your “Riverdance” comment has the same legs (so to speak) as John’s “Jane Hamshers of the Left” comment, but you got yourself off to a ripping start.

    Welcome aboard. I’m hoping that you’ll take enough pressure off John and Tim that we can see the return of cat blogging and beer blogging.

  9. 9.

    Face

    November 2, 2007 at 8:06 am

    I ‘m Canadian

    Suddenly no cred whatsoever. I can’t take a man seriously when an “Ice Road” made his nation famous. See me when yer Canucks win Lord Stanley’s bowl.

  10. 10.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 8:07 am

    If you want beer blogging, go here.

    http://gayorbit.net/index.php?cat=62

    I don’t drink anymore. :-(

  11. 11.

    Bombadil

    November 2, 2007 at 8:08 am

    I don’t drink anymore.

    I don’t drink any less.

  12. 12.

    cleek

    November 2, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Bombadil wins the day

  13. 13.

    jenniebee

    November 2, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Ah. I get it. You’re a Republican because you want the Republicans to actually be what the Democrats already are instead of being now every kind of corrupt profligates they’ve spent the last three decades accusing the Democrats of being. And you move them in that direction by supporting them in their current state, but only reluctantly.

    I look forward to your post about how you really don’t like it that so many Republican politicians indulge in nativistic rants and outright race-baiting, but you’re still a Republican because you believe they really could rise above it, just, you know, for some reason, they don’t. Adding visuals of Truman, Bobby Kennedy and LBJ would be a nice touch.

    Also, welcome :)

  14. 14.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 8:16 am

    jenniebee: I see your point, and I actually agree with everything you said, as frustrating for me as it is.

  15. 15.

    Tim F.

    November 2, 2007 at 8:16 am

    Is this a devious plot by Tim to get back into the “Conservative Blog” category?

    Shush, you.

  16. 16.

    maxbaer (not the original)

    November 2, 2007 at 8:17 am

    Welcome Michael. Glad to see a better face for Canadian Repubs than David Frum and that crazy woman on CNN the other night.

  17. 17.

    Mary

    November 2, 2007 at 8:23 am

    Hey, Michael. Nice to see you here.

    Let me see: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. You’re from the Red Tory wing of the Republican party, right?

  18. 18.

    Fwiffo

    November 2, 2007 at 8:29 am

    **Update: Oh, and I have enough of a sense of humor that I can really laugh when I see a Chinese woman on CNN talking about how Hillary has a “chink in her pantsuit.”

    That doesn’t take much, considering that’s the second funniest thing ever on at least 6 different levels, and “very funny, but not in the running all-time” on another 4.

  19. 19.

    guyermo

    November 2, 2007 at 8:35 am

    a canadian, eh? Canucks, Flames, Canadiens, or Oilers?

    or have you turned traitor and are now supporting the Thrashers

  20. 20.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Toronto Leafs!! I rooted for the Soviets when they played les Canadiens!

  21. 21.

    akaoni

    November 2, 2007 at 8:49 am

    What I have the most trouble understanding is how someone can identify with a party which uses anti-gay bigotry as a central wedge issue to drive voter turn out. Sure Bush and co. occasionally issue plattitudes about tolerance, but at the same time they actively fan the flames of homophobia. This isn’t a hypothetical, it’s a central strategy of the Republican culture wars.

  22. 22.

    akaoni

    November 2, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Also, welcome!

  23. 23.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 8:57 am

    akaoni: You are right in what you say; however, I am a Republican insomuch as I want the party to get back to the fundamentals. As I explain, I don’t agree with what the party has become. I think most Republicans (who are public figures) are repugnant.

    So take my “I am a Republican” argument at face value. It’s about what I think a Republican SHOULD be.

  24. 24.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 8:58 am

    akaoni,

    Also, it’s a pretty cynical, by-the-numbers play–see here for some of those numbers. Fortunately, they never seem to know when to quit, and thus, inevitably over-reach…

  25. 25.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 8:59 am

    So take my “I am a Republican” argument at face value. It’s about what I think a Republican SHOULD be.

    By that reasoning, I could claim membership in any party. After all, it’s not about what that party actually is, it’s about what I think they should be… heh, no wonder I’m an Independent.

  26. 26.

    Garrigus Carraig

    November 2, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Also, the Republicans haven’t been fiscally conservative in many, many years. They just prefer to dole money out to big business & the wealthy, rather than to the middle class as the Democrats do. It’s like there’s this Republican Party of the mind.

    Also? Welcome!

  27. 27.

    Tim F.

    November 2, 2007 at 9:01 am

    Well, to be fair the Democratic party is pretty far from where I would ideally have it. They just sit closer to the goal than Republicans do.

  28. 28.

    Mr. M'Choakumchild

    November 2, 2007 at 9:03 am

    I think “homophobia” is a stupid word.

    If ‘homophobia’ is stupid, would ‘homodeimia’ (homo-panic) work better? I am trying to promote the term ‘Hillarydeimia’ and ‘Hillarydeimatos’ inserted into the political lexicon, but it just is not catchy enough. Surely the phenomenon ought to have a name.

    And hi!

  29. 29.

    Mr. M'Choakumchild

    November 2, 2007 at 9:09 am

    Oh, and I liked your manifesto. I think I need to draft the obverse, as in why as a straight, father of five, upper-middle- class professional WASP whose ancestors settled in Virginia in the 1670s, I am naturally a Social Democrat.

    No hot boys on my page, however – maybe an adulatory Soviet-style picture of Billy Bragg. He is not hot.

  30. 30.

    Faux News

    November 2, 2007 at 9:11 am

    I for one welcome our new Gay Canadian Overlord Michael D. who will NEVER post a link to a Bearforce 1 video!

    Warning to my fellow GLBT posters…do NOT google that. Trust me!

  31. 31.

    janefinch

    November 2, 2007 at 9:15 am

    Woohoo! Michael, nice to see you back in the arms of political blogging…and Lord knows they need a conservative around here.

  32. 32.

    janefinch

    November 2, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Not to mention a Canuckian…Canadian World Domination marches on.

  33. 33.

    Poopyman

    November 2, 2007 at 9:19 am

    Congratulations on making it to the “big time”. I was going to make a comment asking how you could be both a conservative and a Republican, but I see that’s been covered above. So I’ll just observe that I don’t see how your Lab would whip Tunch in a fight. I’ve never seen a Lab who really wanted to fight.

    This, in my mind, is not a character flaw.

  34. 34.

    jenniebee

    November 2, 2007 at 9:26 am

    Was the Republican party ever really like what people dream it was? The whole thing started by taking over the Whig position which was basically where Democrats are today: advocating building infrastructure, public education, etc. Basically, the idea that America is something that it pays dividends for Americans to invest in. The Civil War destroyed Democrats as a viable national party right up to the New Deal, so the big business interests that had backed Democrats before the war and fought against the Whigs switched sides to the winning horse and turned Republicans into the party of, well, basically, business interests and the rich, who were more interested in preserving their relative wealth than they were in promoting the absolute wealth of all Americans (and forget about civil rights – those people got us to the Palmer raids). Teddy Roosevelt stood up to them and raised a ruckus about how corrupt and destructive they were, but he only lasted eight years and then came Coolidge. The R’s ran the country straight into the ground, which is where FDR came in and put it pretty plainly that venal self-interest makes for destructive public policy, and then started making government work. Taft and the Republicans flail around – a lot – Ike says pretty bluntly that attempts to roll back the New Deal are “stupid,” and until Democrats open the door to Republicans by alienating a whole bunch of unreconstructed racists who were still voting against Lincoln 100 years too late, the likes of Norquist don’t stand a chance. Between Ike and Nixon, you have a point about Republicans being for pretty much what you identify them as being, if by “Republicans” you mean “Nelson Rockefeller.” After that, it’s just more race-baiting and pimping that destructive venal self-interest again.

    But I’ll give it to you – the myth of all that freedom Republicans stand for – it really sells.

  35. 35.

    PK

    November 2, 2007 at 9:33 am

    So you are a republican!
    They despise you. They would ammend the constitution to prevent you from marrying another man(if you ever wanted to). They would prevent you from adopting children. They would like to boycott companies which would recognize gay partnerships. Their most ardent supporters ie their BASE would probably prefer the biblical punishment for homosexuality. Their current leadership and followers consist of vicious, immoral, corrupt lunatics who do not hesitate to smear 12 yr old brain damaged kids and MS sufferers. Heck! they would push a little old lady under the bus if they thought it would help Bush.
    Is fiscial reponsibility and small govt(in theory only) really worth it?

  36. 36.

    Billy K

    November 2, 2007 at 9:44 am

    No hot boys on my page, however – maybe an adulatory Soviet-style picture of Billy Bragg. He is not hot.

    Well, maybe not now that he’s 800 years old, but come on….back in the day!?

    http://www.braggtopia.com/jpg/billy-tubestation.jpg

    Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been gay. Just a huge Billy Bragg fan. I would have sex with a man to save Billy Bragg’s life from a terrorist attack.

  37. 37.

    Abe Froman

    November 2, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Three bloggers!!!!! Three Bloggers!!!!! Man my work productivity is really going to take hit, and i already do next to nothing. I just got married, Have the 1st baby on the way (well actually the wife is doing most of the work at this time. I am in charge of distractions, emotional support, and telling the wife she’s still beautiful, as needed.) Now you guys are trying to get me fired with three bloggers. Thanks!!

    P.S. My Great Dane is super tuff and she could take your lab and tunch at the same time…. that is if she ever got off the couch. damn lazy dogs..

  38. 38.

    Billy K

    November 2, 2007 at 9:46 am

    …and Lord knows they need a conservative around here.

    There are lots of conservatives around here. Just few Republicans. Republican =/= Conservative.

    P.S. Don’t think you can fool me with those ellipses.

  39. 39.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 9:56 am

    My response to PK:

    They despise you.

    Michael: Yes they do.

    They would ammend the constitution to prevent you from marrying another man(if you ever wanted to).

    Michael: Yes, they would.

    They would prevent you from adopting children.

    Michael: True

    They would like to boycott companies which would recognize gay partnerships.

    Michael: Absolutely.

    Their most ardent supporters ie their BASE would probably prefer the biblical punishment for homosexuality.

    Michael: I’m not sure “The Base” is as important as republicans think it is.

    Is fiscial reponsibility and small govt(in theory only) really worth it?

    Michael: I think it is, although I would never, NEVER, vote for a Republican who believed the stuff you talk about.

    I want the Republican party to change. I may fail, but I am going to try. I believe John and Tim would agree. I’m not defending what this administration stands for. God no!!

  40. 40.

    Jimmmmm

    November 2, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Republicans as you describe them simply do not exist. There are people who fit the description (fiscally responsible, ardent civil libertarians, etc), but the GOP and those people sundered in the mid 1980s.

    Most persons I know who fit your description of a Republican — my parents included — are now Democrats.

  41. 41.

    Decided FenceSitter

    November 2, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Since this seems to be a harass Michael about choosing to identify with the Republicans –

    1. Are they actively doing anything that you approve of?

    2. What are the Democrats doing that you actively disapprove of?

  42. 42.

    Jimmmmm

    November 2, 2007 at 10:14 am

    ps: Go, Leafs, Go. Bill Barilko!

  43. 43.

    ET

    November 2, 2007 at 10:17 am

    I am not sure how well John’s going to take the comment about your dog being able to take Tunch in a fight. Thems fightin’ words.

  44. 44.

    jenniebee

    November 2, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Good questions, Fencesitter!

  45. 45.

    akaoni

    November 2, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Michael: I think it is, although I would never, NEVER, vote for a Republican who believed the stuff you talk about.

    That’s all very well and good since you can’t vote in the US. I’m not trying to pile on here, but it does seem rather convinient…
    /shrug

  46. 46.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 10:21 am

    oh can we add to the list that Their congress critters are increasing the amount of funding going to religious organizations that would convert you?

    Not trying to pile on eh but this is pretty damn annoying (the article) and there’s no open thread.

  47. 47.

    AkaDad

    November 2, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Welcome to the party, eh.

  48. 48.

    guyermo

    November 2, 2007 at 10:29 am

    the leafs, i knew i forgot one. But i thought it was only liberals and hobbits who were all about the leaf?

    Go Wild!

  49. 49.

    Chris Johnson

    November 2, 2007 at 10:37 am

    Sorry- I’m not impressed with your contempt for public works. Sneering at Canada’s health system sounds like wingnuttery when you consider what a train wreck ours is. All that libertarian ferociousness is largely hypothetical- I don’t believe it’s at all practical, it’s largely wallpaper over a social-darwinist outlook.

    I have a friend- in fact, once a lover, I’m about as not-narrow as you can get and still like girls- who made a journal entry once expressing his outrage at the death of an old man in Japan who’d starved. The deal was, the guy was a drunk, he couldn’t work, he starved wishing for a rice ball and too ashamed to ask anybody for help. What little welfare organizations there are in Japan shamed him further and were well pissed off at him for being a loser.

    He WAS a loser, apparently.

    The argument against social darwinism isn’t about arguing that all the loser are actually oppressed winners needing a chance, or that you’re going to turn losers into winners.

    The argument against social darwinism is, “OLD MEN DON’T STARVE IN MY COUNTRY”.

    It’s not about believing you’re going to make everybody happy, healthy and above average. It’s about where you draw the line. Consider the idea of a worthless bum. I’ve known guys, usually drunks, who are like that, sometimes hopelessly so. Do I want such guys to be given government McMansions? Nah. Do I want them given jobs? Yikes, dunno. On the other hand do I want them to starve? Not in my country. Think of it like a Marine thing- we don’t leave our men behind- we don’t leave our worthless bums to die. While there’s life there’s hope and some chance of redemption.

    Same with medicine. Do I want the worthless bums to get liposuction and nose jobs? Nah. Open-heart surgery? Gee, I dunno- people do die of natural causes. On the other hand if the guy breaks his leg do I want him dragging himself along the street? NO. Not in my country. There’s a point beyond which you’re pouring the virtuosity of Western medicine into a guy to keep him alive- but up to that point, I say in my country you patch the guy up and we all split the difference. Why should the American Dream go poof just because you get a serious injury or illness?

    I’m taking the time to write this because I believe you about the Log Cabin thing. I’m sure you’re sincere. I just think that apart from redeeming factors such as liking dick, you’re BEING a dick about the ‘worthless bums’ of life. Ditch the social-darwinist thing. A rising tide floats all boats, not just the one that rides highest. All of society benefits from striking a reasonable balance between libertarian dogma and communist dogma.

  50. 50.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 10:51 am

    Why do you associate with Republicans?

    Shorter Michael: I am completely, ridiculously irrational.

  51. 51.

    Krista

    November 2, 2007 at 10:52 am

    I’m a Canadian, so I’m actually “oooot”

    I was going to give you a hard time about that. :) But you’re already being given a hard enough time as it is by everybody else here.

    Guys, lay off the new guy. He’s got his reasons for being a Republican, he’s outlined them, and busting his balls isn’t going to be a very effective form of persuasion, is it?

    Soooo…Michael. Out of curiousity, from what part of Canada are you?

  52. 52.

    sparky

    November 2, 2007 at 10:54 am

    jenniebee–
    Nice post above, but quibble I must(!)

    TR was a solid GOP guy; if anyone fits the model of what some people here think being a Republican is about it would be him, I think, EXCEPT that he was also a fan of enhanced government (but by the elite so it was ok).

    Nelson Rockefeller was more in the Bush mode: spend a ton of future money that the state is STILL paying back, but look tough on crime (idiotic Rockefeller drug laws still on the books).

    Wilson appointed Palmer.

  53. 53.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 10:55 am

    Finally, this is a question I submitted and I honestly hope gets asked during the CNN Republican YouTube debate!

    Let’s see here. Apparently this issue is important enough for you to make a video about.

    We have basically two choices with respect to this issue: vote for Republicans, who won’t allow gays in the military, or vote for Democrats, who probably will allow gays in the military.

    I guess there is option three: waste one’s time and effort trying to convince the candidates of the party of homophobia that they should love gay people.

  54. 54.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 10:58 am

    Krista Says:

    Guys, lay off the new guy. He’s got his reasons for being a Republican, he’s outlined them, and busting his balls isn’t going to be a very effective form of persuasion, is it?

    Oh c’mon he’s got to be hazed, this is nothing different than what you might see in a college fraternity.

    On a side note Michael seems able to handle himself and I can see why he remains in the R column. John was the same way until he used the nuclear option and I know plenty of other people who feel the same way. At this point it’s not about party affiliation so much as how one votes. But hey that’s just me.

  55. 55.

    canuckistani

    November 2, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Toronto Leafs!! I rooted for the Soviets when they played les Canadiens!

    Yes! A Canadian who understands where the centre of the universe is!
    Welcome, and we will have some good fun arguing about health care.

  56. 56.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Soooo…Michael. Out of curiousity, from what part of Canada are you?

    Newfoundland originally. New Brunswick in the later part of my adolescence.

  57. 57.

    Michael D.

    November 2, 2007 at 11:05 am

    It’s really funny to see the people here who stopped reading, and probably didn’t read my post, bitching at me for even mentioning the word Republican.

    My guess is that John AND Tim would be in my corner if the Republicans believed the stuff I believed in! :-)

    We’re all on the same page, folks. And it is NOT convenient that I am a Canadian who cannot vote anyway. I would vote against almost EVERY Republican now in office because I think they’ve destroyed the party.

  58. 58.

    Krista

    November 2, 2007 at 11:05 am

    Really? What part of New Brunswick?

    (And side note: you guys are all in for a treat. Newfoundlanders are the finest damn people on the planet, IMO.)

  59. 59.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 11:10 am

    It’s really funny to see the people here who stopped reading, and probably didn’t read my post, bitching at me for even mentioning the word Republican.

    Well that right there is a top notch response. Look at the unwashed massed who don’t bother reading!

    My guess is that John AND Tim would be in my corner if the Republicans believed the stuff I believed in! :-)

    Everyone would be in your corner if the Republicans believed the stuff you believed in. But they don’t so it’s a fucking ridiculous fantasy.

  60. 60.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 11:10 am

    Guys, lay off the new guy. He’s got his reasons for being a Republican, he’s outlined them, and busting his balls isn’t going to be a very effective form of persuasion, is it?

    He’s got his reasons, both Sysiphean and irrational, and he’s entitled to them, of course. And when he mentions them again, I’ll be sure to ridicule them appropriately, although at some point it probably won’t be much beyond “heh, indeed” or “there he goes again”. In the meantime, though… welcome aboard!

  61. 61.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 11:15 am

    Everyone would be in your corner if the Republicans believed the stuff you believed in. But they don’t so it’s a fucking ridiculous fantasy.

    Fear not Andrew, I’m sure Michael D. will have them back to their 1856 party platform in no time. And I think the Republican party is still against openly allowing Polygamy and Slavery, at least within the 50 states… so he’s practically halfway there! Some other bits, not so much:

    Resolved, That the highwayman’s plea, that “might makes right,” embodied in the Ostend Circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any Government or people that gave it their sanction.

    The Republican Party was obviously infested with Saddam lovers back in 1856…

  62. 62.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 11:17 am

    Michael D. Says:

    It’s really funny to see the people here who stopped reading, and probably didn’t read my post, bitching at me for even mentioning the word Republican.

    My guess is that John AND Tim would be in my corner if the Republicans believed the stuff I believed in!

    We’re all on the same page, folks. And it is NOT convenient that I am a Canadian who cannot vote anyway. I would vote against almost EVERY Republican now in office because I think they’ve destroyed the party.

    unless I am mistaken I think most people are just giving you chit. Obviously you’re here because you agree with the hosts and obviously we’re here (for the most part) for the same reason.

  63. 63.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Dreggas,

    I was never here because I agreed with John Cole, although I often have, lately. I’m here because I’m interested in what he has to say, and what the rest of the commenters think of it.

  64. 64.

    ImJohnGalt

    November 2, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Oh, if only the Nazis believed in non-Jew Extermination, I could really get behind them.

    Seriously, WTF?

  65. 65.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Today, I’ve decided that I’m going to be an Islamist.

    Let’s run down the check list:
    1) Islamists hate me.
    2) Islamism never existed in the form that I pretend it did.
    3) The reasons I claim to like Islamism are all really arguments for being a Sufi or maybe a “third party” religion like Zoroastrianism.
    4) I am completely delusional about being able to change the course of Islamism.

    And that’s why I’m an Islamist. Now I’m off to submit a video blog to bin Laden asking if he will accept Israelis into al qaeda.

  66. 66.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 11:34 am

    Enough of the political stuff…what do you think of John Barrowman?

    There used to be a wingnut lady here who drove me up the wall, except she had excellent taste in men and TV. I wish she’d show up just ot talk about “Torchwood”…

    Return to politics.

  67. 67.

    Tsulagi

    November 2, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Just great, now a yes-gay gay Republican blogger here. Now I’m going to have to clean up my snark about not-gay gay Pubs and their proclivities/activities. Go all Canadian polite and PC like. Jeez, the place is going all frenchy in a gay handbasket. Just kidding.

    So let me get this straight. You’re a proud yes-gay gay Canadian who additionally embraces fiscally responsible small government who thinks the current Republican party is the way to go on that? I’m thinking if you organized a Gay Republican Pride parade for like-minded souls in Atlanta you wouldn’t have parking problems. Are you a masochist? Because that’s about the only explanation that makes sense.

    Okay, loved the Riverdance comment and the g,eh was quality stuff too. But don’t think that gives you blanket cover. You’re on a short leash. But being Republican, maybe you like that.

    Sorry, Republicans and snark just go together. Advance apologies if I offend.

  68. 68.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Welcome to your new blogging gig, now lets see some Hot Air (don’t leave out the ill-informed banter either!). I administer an online game and forum, and I hired on one of my administrators a couple of years ago. My wife and I were suspicious that he was gay (not g,eh, he is American!), but that was his business, not ours.

    There was a blow up in our community when some polyamorous people (you go look it up!) were causing problems with in-game orgies (literally, and scaring other people away from the game). I came down on it, letting them know that I could care less what they did, but that they were not going to be doing it on my servers.

    Well, my admin informed me that he was gay at that time. He wanted to see what I thought/would do. I said, ‘So?’, and that I could care less what his sexual orientation is. Then he tells me that he is a Christian, a Log Cabin Conservative and he is HIV positive. I told him that he is living one triple whammy of a life…lol!

    Needless to say, he is one of my best admins, and my wife and him organize and run our comedy nights. Heck, my only bad experiences with a gay person was a couple of lesbians who lived in the lower half of a duplex I was in. I worked late, and they sometimes gave their six year old son a bowling ball to play with, at 7 AM. Which he would pick up and drop, on a hardwood floor. Repeatedly.

    “BOOM-BOOM-boom-boom”, over and over. They worked early, and after a month of this crap (and me politely asking them to stop it repeatedly), I waited until they were in bed, then I cranked up my two stereos. They went outside and turned off my power. So I went outside and turned it on, turned theirs off and put padlocks on both boxes. They called the cops.

    “What lock Officer? Nope, not mine. Was my power off tonight? Nope, why should it be?”

    He finally cut the lock off, and peace reigned until they moved out the next month.

    See, I can get along with almost anyone! ;)

  69. 69.

    Jody

    November 2, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Oh, look. ANOTHER self-hating, gay republican. The only difference is that this one’s out.

    Hide behind the “core principles” of the GOP all you like. They haven’t stood for those issues since before Reagan, and they’re not about to go back to them any time soon.

    “Gay, Republican, and proud”. Gah.

  70. 70.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Geez, Jody, you obviously didn’t read all about the really awesome reasons he has for being Republican. (I mean, besides that fact that those reasons mean he is almost exactly a Clinton Democrat, by that’s totally irrelevant.)

  71. 71.

    Pb

    November 2, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Well, my admin informed me that he was gay at that time. He wanted to see what I thought/would do. I said, ‘So?’, and that I could care less what his sexual orientation is. Then he tells me that he is a Christian, a Log Cabin Conservative and he is HIV positive.

    Your admin is Andrew Sullivan?!

  72. 72.

    ImJohnGalt

    November 2, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Needless to say, he is one of my best admins

    Why is that needless to say? Are teh gays particularly good sysadmins? Guess I’ll have to start trolling ManDate for employees.

  73. 73.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Nope, my admin prefers to keep his orientation to himself. Andrew is ‘out there’, loud and proud…

    I would not even want to venture a guess as to what games Andrew likes…lol

    ;)

  74. 74.

    Bombadil

    November 2, 2007 at 11:51 am

    Coincidently…

  75. 75.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Start trolling ManDate ImJohnGalt, you ought to find a great admin (depending on what you want him to administer!) for yourself.

    :)

  76. 76.

    ImJohnGalt

    November 2, 2007 at 11:57 am

    What part of “SYSadmin” didn’t you understand? I was just curious about why it was “needless to say” that he was your best sysadmin. Your whole post read like a “some of my best friends are gay” post, and I was just interested to know what prompted it.

  77. 77.

    M.Croche

    November 2, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    “**Update: Oh, and I have enough of a sense of humor that I can really laugh when I see a Chinese woman on CNN talking about how Hillary has a “chink in her pantsuit.”

    Yeah, there’s nothing funnier than humor based on ethnic slurs.

    Yuck, yuck. I sure hope John knows what he’s doing.

  78. 78.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    M.Croche….I think you missed the point. It was the irony and the unintentional mistep of the Chinese woman saying it.

    Sorry I would have laughed, too. Not “with” the lady but at her.

  79. 79.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    Well ImJohnGalt, the game is not one of those shoot’em up types (no testosterone involved…lol!), and while my other male admins are ok at their job (when the come online, that is), this admin excels at it and he is there almost every single day. He works well with just about everyone in the community, is a great problem solver and has come up with some brilliant ideas to improve our systems/environment.

    Maybe the needless was superfluous, sometimes I am wordier than I need to be.

    Put it this way, compared to my other admins, he rocks. Is that good enough?

    ;)

  80. 80.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    I need to add that I am pretty sick of the “pantsuit” meme or whatver it is. I know it’s not “sexist”, but it annoys the fuck out of me to hear it used so much on TV and in blogs. Maybe it isn’t a loaded term, but it feels close to it.

  81. 81.

    ImJohnGalt

    November 2, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Put it this way, compared to my other admins, he rocks. Is that good enough?

    Yep, good enough for me. Words *mean* something, and the “needless to say” really does change one’s interpretation of the sentence. It generally implies that something you said prior to the “needless” makes it obvious to the reader that he was an amazing sysadmin. I just didn’t see how being Christian, a Log Cabin Republican and HIV positive implied excellence at running cron jobs.

  82. 82.

    Dreggas

    November 2, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    capelza Says:

    M.Croche….I think you missed the point. It was the irony and the unintentional mistep of the Chinese woman saying it.

    Sorry I would have laughed, too. Not “with” the lady but at her.

    Same here, sorry but I haven’t been completely assimilated yet.

  83. 83.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Ahh, I see what you are saying ImJohnGalt. Nope, I did not intend for it to come across that way. I was writing that up and our daughter interrupted me for a ride to work, so I ran her there and when I came back and finished, my train of thought had been destroyed in a head on collision.

    Thanks for helping me clean up the train wreck and pulling out the survivors…

    :)

  84. 84.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    I need to add that I am pretty sick of the “pantsuit” meme or whatver it is.

    Well, we need something to contrast with the “two wet suit, dildo in ass” segment.

  85. 85.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    True..Andrew.

    Hillary is in a tight spot I realise. She is the first woman to actually have a real shot at being President. And she did say “boys club”..so she’s not above using gender.

    I think it was the faux news about her “cleavage” that really set me off. Chris, a nearly 60 year old woman can’t wear something besides a turtleneck on a hot summer day without some ass making a crack about cleavage…and I had to really look for it anyway..it wasn’t like she had a push up bra fronting it like Pamela Anderson.

    At least they aren’t making comments about pantyhose…that’s so 70’s and 80’s.

  86. 86.

    Jody

    November 2, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    Andrew: Touche. Maybe he’s GOP because he can get more tail over there. I dunno.

    …Insofar as Hillary and playing the gender card is concerned: WHO CARES. So she said “boys club”. You know what? She’s right. In a country where 54% of the voters are women, and there is exactly one woman running for president out of 17 major candidates, and given the number of women presidents this country has seen, well, you can see her point.

    I agree that isn’t a reason to vote for her. But it IS a valid topic of discussion. We pride ourselves on being a nation of equal opportunity for all, and yet we still have some incredibly backwards views in regards to race, gender, and orientation. It won’t go away unless we draw some light upon it.

  87. 87.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    Btw, Michael. great question for McCain.

  88. 88.

    Andrew

    November 2, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Btw, Michael. great question for McCain.

    Like the answer isn’t obvious? There’s no practical reason to ban open gays versus closeted gays except for purposes of pandering to the homophobic elements of the right.

    Ironically, calling out McCain on this issue either forces McCain to pander to the homophobes (probable) or stand up to the intolerant wingers, making it less likely he will get the nomination, thus hurting the candidate who seems like he might be closest to Michael’s views. Well played, Michael. You’ve done your best to make the Republican party even less gay friendly than it is now.

    I’m beginning to think that you’re a spoof gay Republican, earnestly committed to bring down the GOP.

  89. 89.

    capelza

    November 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Jesus, Andrew…if that question gets aired, wouldn’t it put ALL the other candidates on the spot as well?

    As for making the party less gay friendly, how is that possible? Unless they move to recriminalise homosexuality. Then you would run into unpleasant Iran comparisons…oohhh, the squirming on that on. “We’re still not as bad as Iran!”.

    Like McCain is going to get the nomination anyway…

  90. 90.

    jenniebee

    November 2, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    Awww… come on sparky! TR was everything short of publicly insulting to the Robber Barons, and he took on one of the biggest public works engineering projects in world history. Granted, it was in another country, but foreign-adventurism is politically all over the map in US History. Besides, Roosevelt split off and went Bull Moose as much because of the domination of business interests over moral populism in the Republicans as he did for anything else.

    Saying that Nelson Rockefeller was a Bush-mode Republican is just… wha? To get there you’ve got to throw out Bush’s social agenda and his efforts to roll back the New Deal. Rockefeller wasn’t trying to do that. I’ll grant you he was free with the purse strings, but he was doing what he was doing for the sake of building public infrastructure and not as a sop to distract people from plans to dismantle Social Security.

    You’ve got me on Wilson and Palmer, but the thing is that until FDR, the few Democrats who got anywhere nationally were practically indistinguishable from Republicans. Single party domination had moved the center so far towards the idea that it would just ruin everything if anybody tried to use government to promote the public good and that it was impossible anyway yada yada, with nobody saying anything about civil rights, that drawing a distinction and saying that the Palmer Raids weren’t fine and dandy with Republicans and didn’t fit right in with their ethos is, well it’s just partisan nitpicking.

    Not that I think Democrats were any treat then (or now) but I think it’s clear that single party domination is a death-knell for progressivism or any other social movement that isn’t laissez-faire inequality-building government of the people by the powerful, even if the dominant party starts out as a progressive party with a strong commitment to civil-rights, as was the case with Republicans. As soon as one party ever forms a lock on national office, that’s where money will start to flow, and before long it will do what Republicans have been doing basically since Lincoln’s assasination: talk to its base and act for its bankroll.

  91. 91.

    THeDRiFTeR

    November 2, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Why is it that every time a Canadian crosses the border, he’s like automatically republican. What a fucking joke that is. The vast majority of Canadians are, by american standards, flaming fucking pinkos. I just don’t get it. And a gay man to boot.

    Are you into leather? Just wondering, as it may explain alot.

  92. 92.

    THeDRiFTeR

    November 2, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Sorry, but I felt, after re reading my comment that perhaps I should come back and capitalize the A in American. My post should have read “by American standards”.

    You see, I’m canadian also, and what with the new rabid post 911 environment of everyone tripping over each other to be the most patriotic, I was afraid I’d have my comment privilege suspended, and I just couldn’t have that…

  93. 93.

    D-Chance.

    November 2, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Well, I see this turned into a wonderful honeymoon here at B-J… /grins

  94. 94.

    nightjar

    November 2, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    I’ve never been able to get my feeble brain around being gay and republican, especially out in open gay. I’m sure your aware Michael, that a rather large portion of the American Wingnut population consists of card carrying Jesus warriors, and if they had their way you’d be dunked in the Holy Water till you repented or….well. Anyway, you must be a brave person, welcome to the BJ parade.

  95. 95.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 2, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    Yup, Michael made it 91 posts. I thought he might even hit a hundred, but it was not to be. Well, welcome back to reality.

    This Canadian is probably upset because all of the pinkos up there, and a damn republican had to go and leave…lol!

    Yeah, thats the ticket!

    ;)

  96. 96.

    mrmobi

    November 2, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    The argument against social darwinism is, “OLD MEN DON’T STARVE IN MY COUNTRY”.

    It’s not about believing you’re going to make everybody happy, healthy and above average. It’s about where you draw the line.

    Well said, Mr. Johnson. You are a breath of fresh air here. I’ve heard people at BJ argue against being concerned about the victims of mountaintop removal mining because, “these idiots voted for Mitch McConnell, so fuck them.”

    I myself prefer the term “dog-eat-dog” instead of “social darwinism.” It’s simpler, even libertarians can understand it.

    Michael D.
    Your “mission statement” “We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty,” sounds more like a wish list than something which relates in any meaningful way to the modern “party of torture.” What the fuck is a gay man doing in that sad, discredited excuse for a political party?

    One thing I’d like to call immediate bullshit on is the phrase “personal responsibility.” In the context of modern conservatism, that phrase simply means, “if you’ve had some very bad breaks and fallen on hard times, FUCK. YOU. (and your children, since they’ve been stupid enough to be born to you.)”

    That said, welcome, Michael. Your views may veer towards the sociopathic, but you seem to have a brain, and those are in short supply these days. I (and others, I’m sure) look forward to using your arguments to illustrate why modern conservatism (specifically Neo-conservatism) is a complete, total, and abject failure, and anathema to democracy.

    Together, we can see to it that conservatism (at least, as defined by the neo-cons) does not make it to the 22nd century.

  97. 97.

    metalgrid

    November 2, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    Heh, you’re a Republican and I’m Jesus Christ.

    Oh wait, I forgot Republicans make their own reality and the current reality isn’t relevant.

    And fyi: bearlol.com is one of my favorite sites.

  98. 98.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    November 3, 2007 at 7:21 am

    Umm, Jusus? I don’t mean to bother you, but there are a whole bunch of wingnuts who have been waiting for you. I think you better go find them and let them know you have arrived. If they find out that you are posting over here and not ending the world and picking up the 144,000 male virgins to transport to heaven, they are going to get unruly.

    Thanks! And good luck with those 144,000 dudes! ;)

  99. 99.

    capelza

    November 3, 2007 at 9:33 am

    100!

    Just for CL…

  100. 100.

    Temple

    November 4, 2007 at 1:42 am

    I’ll be surfing to Balloon-Juice less now. I’ve read him in the past. Michael D is a slow learner, inconsistent and convenient in his views and formerly if not currently part of the sad, pathetic obtuse Dean Esmay web site.

    A finger in the wind. A pretty useless commentator overall. Bad choice.

    I’ll save my strong feelings about the addition for another time. …

  101. 101.

    Kynn

    February 24, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    I don’t drink anymore.

    Bullshit.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice adds to its roster « Ned Raggett Ponders It All says:
    November 2, 2007 at 10:15 am

    […] Balloon Juice adds to its roster November 2nd, 2007 — Ned Raggett As I’ve linked and talked about plenty of times before, the passionate and wonderfully crabby site Balloon Juice is easily one of my favorite blogs around. Started by John Cole, it became a co-blog with Tim F. a while back, while a third member has just joined the ranks. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • waspuppet on Humpty Trumpty (Open Thread) (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:55pm)
  • TBone on Humpty Trumpty (Open Thread) (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:54pm)
  • Prometheus Shrugged on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:54pm)
  • TBone on Humpty Trumpty (Open Thread) (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:53pm)
  • waspuppet on Humpty Trumpty (Open Thread) (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:52pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!