Unspun Logo

Hypocrisy, Censorship & Conservatives

Posted by Rick · May 23rd, 2004 · 18 Comments

Bob, in response to one of our regular readers — well, okay, “regular” is quite kind, but I’m referring to Nat — notes,

CNN) ? Gay Republicans in North Carolina said state party officials told them their group isn?t welcome at a convention this weekend because ?homosexuality is not normal? and their agenda is ?counterproductive to the Republican agenda.?
Bill Peaslee, a spokesman for the state GOP, said its leaders rescinded their offer to grant the Log Cabin Republicans a table at the convention because ?in our opinion, they?re not really a Republican organization. Their political agenda is different than our political agenda.?

?While they call themselves loyal Republicans, they spend more time and more resources pointing out what?s wrong with the party than what?s right,? Peaslee added. ?They?re attacking Republicans. We?re in the business of electing Republicans. They?re not loyal.?


Bob then asks,

Oh no! What happened to the party of :

“On the other hand a Conservative says there should be almost no restrictions on speech other than such obvious exceptions as incitement, illegality and vulgarity.”

Obviously, this is just a series of typos compounded by a confusion with the term ?there should be almost no restrictions on speech?.

What? What?s that sound? It sounds like someone?s intergrity hitting the floor again.

But that would be ?counterproductive to the Republican agenda.?

Or would it?

Not, of course, that what the Republican officials said was meant seriously. When Republicans insult people, it’s merely a matter of style. Translation: “We’re just trying to inspire people to vote for us. After the election, we’ll do what’s necessary, including compromise, to get our agenda going.”

At least, that’s what Nat tells me.

Categories: Politics-In-General


18 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Nat // May 23, 2004 at 10:50 pm

    Feel free to actually make some sense when posting.

    Your log entry for 05-24-04 is, at best, confusing and, at worst, Clintonesque in its dissembling and misleading presentation. There are quotes within a quote here, (from different authors yet), and you completely fail to make a distinction between them.

    Your lead log entry for 05-24-04 is a quote from the ramblings of Bob in a prior log entry on 05-23-04. The way you present it here is careless and misleading in that it contains a mixture of “Bobisms” AND a quote from one of my prior posts.

    In essence you attempt to fuse my precise and efficient use of language with the rambling, all-over-the-place lead log entry of 05-23.

    The fact that no one found the 05-23 post, from which you quote, sufficiently interesting to merit their comment should have been revealing to you. To then take that 05-23 post and run a quote from it as your theme on 05-24, is extremely bizarre, to say the least.

  • 2 Rick // May 24, 2004 at 3:06 am

    Oh my goodness! A quote within a quote!? You mean as in “I was talking with Bob the other day and he said, ‘Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Nat always attacks substantive posts by some sort of rhetorical device aimed at distracting from the actual issue discussed?'”

    (For the record, Bob didn’t say this. It’s a demonstration of the legitimacy of using “quotes within quotes.”)

    I think the statement I made in the original post, that Bob was responding to another post — and explicitly stating that he’s referring to your post — makes it pretty clear what’s going on.

    However, lest you continue to be too distracted from the substantive elements of the post, I broke it up into two blocks for you. I also added a title. Perhaps that will help clarify it for you.

    In fact, let’s go a step farther, because I wouldn’t want you to be so distracted by the “quotes within quotes” nature of the post.

    First, Bob was quoting from a CNN story that reports North Carolina Republican Party officials have told Gay Republicans they are not welcome at a Republican convention this weekend.

    The grounds for this refusal to allow them to attend were stated as being,

  • “Homosexuality is not normal.” Since statistically significant numbers of hominoid populations, including humans, are homosexual, this statement is readily translated to “homosexuality is not acceptable to us.”
  • The things homosexuals want to accomplish (equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for gay, as well as straight, people) are not the things Republicans want (to pound gays into the sand, or at least drive them underground).
  • Although these particular gays are Republicans, they say things the Republican Party officials don’t want to hear.
  • The Republican Party officials decided to make sure they can’t say those things at the Republican convention where Republicans would normally contribute to the development of a platform by engaging in intra-party dialog.
  • Second, Bob juxtaposed this with your false statement that “Conservatives,” which you appear to use as a term equivalent to “Republicans” most of the time, advocate free speech. Specifically, he quotes you saying “almost no restrictions on speech.” You also had said, “other than such obvious exceptions,” and stated those exceptions were “incitement, illegality and vulgarity.”

    (Perhaps you would salvage this by saying that being a homosexual is either an incitement, illegal, or vulgar. It is, of course, often an incitement for Republicans; many go bonkers when they learn gays still exist and no one has stopped them from doing so. Unfortunately, being gay isn’t illegal. But, again, maybe you merely think that it’s vulgar. Of course, it’s just possible what you really might want to say is that your original list of “obvious exceptions” was not exclusive.)

    The point of my post seems pretty clear to me — and I think it will be to other people who read English, too.

    But to make it even simpler than I tried to in this response: I was trumpeting Bob’s observation that your comment was, shall we say, “wrong.”

    Incidentally, I think you’re using a Natorian calendar; I’m using a Gregorian calendar.

    Not that this constitutes carelessness that could lead to any confusion as people try to figure out what posts you were, with your precise and efficient use of language, referencing.

    To coin a phrase, “feel free” to stop the “pot calling the kettle black” and other such distractions, to address the substantive issue in the original post.

  • 3 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 6:01 am

    Fine, I accept the apology inherent in the fact that you reorganized your post after I pointed out how you were carelessly appearing to quote Nat but, instead, were in fact quoting from Bob. It’s too bad you couldn’t make a direct apology but your actions speak loudly and therefore your apology “in lieu” is accepted.

    Hopefully, this is the last time you confuse Nat with Bob in the minds of your readers.

    Obviously, the original intent of your post was to bait me into a condemnation of gays and thus, as true Liberals, be able to pat yourselves on the back and say “look what wonderful people we are …. sooooo much more compassionate than those evil Republicans”. So you quote some obscure “Republican official” in a Southern State and attempt to validate your notions of superiority by giving extensive quotes from this redneck boob.

    Well, sorry, but I’m not not taking the bait. The Gay issue has been played out. We all know all sides of the issue and who stands where. There is nothing new and nothing to be accomplished by such endless rehashes of rights and wrongs on both sides.

    Obviously you people are proud of the fact that Barney Frank ran a male prostiution ring out of his apartment. You’re sooooo compassionate that you overlook his illegal and transparently immoral behavior just so you can be sooooo wonderfully compassionate. No ethic or moral standard is uncorruptible for you Liberals because … why you “care” soooo much.

    The fact remains that you people have forced the Democrat Party to nominate someone YOU HAVE NO ENTHUSIASM FOR WHATSOEVER. All this Christian and Republican bashing on your part is designed to obscure the fact that your nominee is personality-challenged, that he is dull and pompous and an enormous hypocrite.

    It’s obvious that this year you have no product to sell and so your strategy is simply to bash the other side with whatever concocted nonsense you can come up with in your hate-filled minds.

    I don’t think hate ever won an election.

  • 4 Rick // May 24, 2004 at 6:42 am

    No apology was intended. To be clearer, no apology was either impliedly or expressly offered.

    The “reorganization” of which you speak consisted of separating one brown box into two brown boxes; equivalent to adding a paragraph marker. And I added a title to highlight your hypocrisy. I believe the message was clear before that; I noted that I did this to make it clearer for someone who desired to pretend he couldn’t spot the difference between his own comment and one labeled, “CNN)”. Before that “reorgnization,” the post simply said, “Bob…referring to Nat — notes,” and then presented everything which is now in two brown boxes in one brown box.

    I find you to be a dishonest debater, uninterested in a real conversation. The intent of the post was not to bait you, but to highlight that fact for others.

    And if it’s not self-evident enough already why I find this, your last post provides still more justification for this finding. The CNN story which Bob quoted was quoted not for any attempt to push some gay agenda, but to directly contradict your comment that “a Conservative says there should be almost no restrictions on speech.” This is why my response to you above included any commentary on gays themselves in parentheses.

    I’ve more than once noted that shifting the topic to people with whom most of us are uninvolved — particularly me, since (I’ll say it again) I’m not a Democrat. Barney Frank is irrelevant in that regard not only because I don’t know the man; never voted for the man; couldn’t vote for the man — but also because he’s not responsible for the acts of the Bush Administration which, as I said before, are the sole reasons for believing the Bush Administration does not belong in the White House.

    Every single Democrat could be pure evil and it wouldn’t matter to me as relates to Bush.

    Why? Because I’m not a Democrat.

    Haven’t been for eons. The last time I belonged to one of the “regular” parties, I was a Republican. I left that party because I found it was inimical to the interests of ordinary Americans.

    I have not quoted any “obscure ‘Republican official’ in a southern state.” Any “Christian” bashing I’ve done was of “Christians” like yourself. I specifically indicated that if Christianity, as written, were followed, things would be better in our world. (Although I agree they’d be better still if most of those who currently claim to be Christians just followed the Noahide laws.)

    As far as my “hate-filled mind,” the best I can muster is an extreme dislike for you and your dishonest ways.

  • 5 Rick // May 24, 2004 at 6:56 am

    I do offer one apology: I expressly apologize to all those people to whom I’ve written suggesting that one should attack Nat’s ideas, and not Nat. It would appear that the things you said were right and I was wrong. It would appear that Nat is not interested in an honest dialog. It would appear that he is incapable of staying on topic or engaging the actual substantive issues placed before him. Unlike the time when I agreed with him about Kennedy’s Chappaquidick episode, because it was, in my mind, an undeniable wrong. And Kennedy wasn’t even someone I support because, again, I’m not a Democrat and haven’t been since I don’t even remember when. Nat has always taken a dodge when something is pointed out respecting wrongs done by people he actually supports and then rather than respond to substantive issues I raise, he turns the story to someone else with whom I have nothing to do.

    The rest of you were right. I was wrong. Say what you wish about Nat, how you wish.

    I’m just grateful that throughout it all I managed not to allow my ambivalence to tip on the side of censoring posts, as I felt like doing many times. Unless circumstances in the future encourage me to change things, I’ve decided not to write a “terms of posting” document. I’ll simply be ignoring people like Nat.

  • 6 Bob // May 24, 2004 at 7:54 am

    All this Christian and Republican bashing on your part is designed to obscure the fact that your nominee is personality-challenged, that he is dull and pompous and an enormous hypocrite.

    This has never been my intention. All my Christian and Republican bashing was aimed at Nat because of his postings.

    I find Nat to be “personality-challenged, that he is dull and pompous and an enormous hypocrite.” That pretty much sums it up for me.

    It’s obvious that this year you have no product to sell and so your strategy is simply to bash the other side with whatever concocted nonsense you can come up with in your hate-filled minds.

    Yup, that’s Nat. His strategy has been demonstrated to be “simply to bash the other side with whatever concocted nonsense you can come up with in your hate-filled minds.” A perfect description, really.

    I don’t think hate ever won an election.

    It certainly doesn’t gain you any respect on this blog.

    I think we have to go back to No Answer Today. If we don’t feed this insect, it will move on.

    I look forward to excellent discussion on this blog with others. It’s a great way to start the mornings!

  • 7 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 8:57 am

    “You’ll get no argument from me that Americans have “issues” relating to the human body. I *deserve* my “card-carrying liberal” label for my attitudes on that.”

    Rick – “Half time for half wits” 02-19-04


    Liberals just love to have a boogeyman to bash. If it isn’t “the rich” it’s “evil Republicans”, and if it isn’t Republicans it’s a “vast Right Wing Conspiracy” and if it isn’t the rightwing why, then it’s “the Christians” blah dee blah dee blah.

    Liberals always, always have to have a boogeyman to bash and now, for this blog, the boogeyman is Nat Dawson.

    So be it.

    Nat is going to continue to out Liberals who claim to be former Repubicans, to twit bad writing and to speak out when Liberals post a litany of lies and about President Bush.

    Nat does not seek popularity because Nat knows that most people are uncomfortable with the actual truth. Nat knows this because he has studied the lives of John The Baptist, Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela. They all spoke the truth and, initially, were vilified for it.

    Nat will continue to point out that what the Liberal hype and lies are really all about this year are the fact that they have woken up from their 8 month Bush-bashing binge and realized the person in the bed with them is an arrogant, pompous, characterless imitation of the The Liar, Clinton.

    You can dissemble all you want about President Bush but, at some point in time, you will have to listen to a Kerry speech (blech) and face the fact that you have screwed up and this insufferable BORE is your party’s standard bearer.

    Oh listen! Kerry is making a speech right now on Liberal News Network…err…CNN. Let’s listen in …

    Myyyyyyy fellllowww Amerrrricans I am …


  • 8 Mark // May 24, 2004 at 9:07 am

    I will concur with Rick’s observation that when confronted with facts that apparently make him uncomfortable, Nat tends to either attack the messenger, interject nonsensical issues that have nothing to do with the message he was so uncomfortable with, or both. This could be because it is impossible to refute cold, hard facts. It also could be because Nat has nothing to say other than the talking points he apparently gets daily from Fox “We Exhort, You Comply” News. (Fox News — is that a contradiction in terms or what?)

    I must admit that I feel sorry for anyone who plays the role of apologist for the neo-con junta currently reigning in Washington. If polls are to be believed, even Republicans are flocking away from this bunch in droves. A recent survey revealed that 19% of those who identify themselves as conservatives say they will vote for Kerry in November. Many others who identify themselves as conservatives or Republicans simply plan to stay home and not vote at all.

    Will the last Republican leaving turn out the lights? Will that be you, Nat?

  • 9 Rick // May 24, 2004 at 9:20 am

    Ah…I get it now. Since I said that with respect to issues involving the human body, I’m liberal, that makes me a “Liberal” and, ipso facto, a Democrat.

    I guess I missed that part when I was registering to vote.

    One more example of why labels don’t work. You can’t shove someone into your preconceived box on the basis of one or two characteristics about them.

    That’s why it took me so long to agree with the labels everyone else was bandying about with respect to you, Nat. I waited and waited because I thought there would be some way you would show you didn’t deserve to be labeled “ignorant shill.”

    But I was wrong.

    Except where I find a substantive issue in your comments, I won’t be responding any further to your posts. I’m only interested in an honest dialog. I didn’t start the blog to score debating points; it was and is intended as a place for the free exchange of ideas, seeded by my posts because I was (and am) looking for people interested in discussing issues that interest me.

    Until you showed up, I posted about a lot of other things besides just political issues. The article I’ve written that (even now, in spite of all you’ve done to change things) gets the most hits here is my Historical Linguistics article. (I think that’s because quite a few universities and linguists link to it.) Oddly enough, the next-ranked article after that is found by people googling why onions are good for you. (It can’t be the stink, though, or there’d be even more hits on articles rife with your comments.)

    If you decide to change tactics and engage in a meaningful dialog, without constantly shifting issues, I’ll gladly engage you in a discussion. My advice — but by no means a requirement! — would be that others do the same. If that happens, I figure you’ll eventually tire of talking to yourself.

    Until then, have fun.

  • 10 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 2:04 pm


    The Liberals demand that everyone must have
    “diversity training” and we all have to be
    sensitive to the views of people who come
    from “other cultures”.

    But let a CONSERVATIVE promulgate an opinion
    that is contrary to the Liberal Party Line and
    they go absolutely bonkers!!

    Where is the “diversity” they demand of us when
    it comes to opinions they don’t like?

    Why then you are branded an “idiot” and
    described (totally falsely) as “uncomfortable
    with confronted with facts”. Yes, “uncomfortable”
    for sure when those facts are bogus Liberal
    machinations and inventions. Facts that meet
    NO standard of independence and objectivity.

    The truth is Liberals always want to be exempt
    the rules they write for “other” people. Yes
    indeedy. Look at the conceited poodle Kerry now
    try to TWIST the campaign rules to his advantage
    by breaking a 150 year old American tradition
    that the nominee accepts the nomination at the
    nominating convention.

    Folks and fans, this is Liberal hypocrisy in
    action. Let the world see these people for what
    they are! They demand “diversity” but only for
    what suits them. They demand campaign finance
    reform and then, when the rules would apply to
    them in a restrictive way, why they just look
    for sleazy ways to evade them.

    And the title of this thread is “Conservative

    Please – give me a break. The Liberals have
    cornered the market on hypocrisy.

  • 11 Rick // May 24, 2004 at 2:25 pm

    Just remember to let us know if you decide to respond to any of the substantive issues with a substantive argument. Given your normal posts, I’ve started only skimming, so I might miss them otherwise. You could try putting all caps near the top stating, “ATYPICAL POST – CONTAINS SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL.” Quoting us doesn’t count, since it’s our substantive material in that case; you need to write something original. And, of course, if you abuse this by putting such a title on normal rants or raves, I’ll start ignoring even posts with that label.

    Meanwhile, my hypocrisy is shown by the fact that I continue to approve your posts here. (Post don’t show up immediately on this blog because I have to manually approve before they can be posted.) I only do this because, unlike the Republicans, I don’t try to silence the gay voice — or any others — just because I don’t like them. Thus, you are permitted to exist here.

    I allow you to post garbage because — although I do not have to do so because I am not a government or a government official or agent — I believe adherence to the First Amendment principles is a good thing, despite whatever the Bush (“There Ought To Be Limits To Freedom”) Administration says.

    Your posts, which never do more than distract, insult, or demonstrate your dishonest approach to my posts and those of many others here, exist on this blog only because each is given my permission to do so. (And partly that’s because every time you post, it not only makes nearly everyone else here look better, but the very fact that you posted it boosts my position on Google search engines, which thus attracts more people to Unspun™.)

    This freedom is something you may lose, if I ever sell this blog to a Bush-League Republican. Then, you will likely be silenced, since they like your vote, but not the message you send out which pushes people away from the Republican Party.

  • 12 Mark // May 24, 2004 at 2:31 pm

    Yes, Nat, Facts.

    How many of the facts I have mentioned in my posts have you been able to refute? Not one.

    The fairy tales you post? Refuting them is like shooting fish in a barrel. I offered you a payment of $5,000 if you could back up one particular lie you told about John Kerry. You haven’t attempted to claim your money. That’s as good as an admission that you gleefully spread lies. Obviously, you don’t believe in karma.

    Here’s hoping that Rick will go back to posting some articles that don’t deal with politics so that we can see if:

    1) Nat will try to twist ANYTHING into a piss-and-vinegar diatribe against anyone who doesn’t adhere to the stepford-like submission demanded by the neo-con reich; or

    2) If Nat can talk about anything he doesn’t hear about on Fox News.

    I’d be willing to bet money that number one is true and number two won’t happen.

    Nat, reading your posts almost (that’s almost) makes Ann Coulter seem reasonable by comparison. And that’s scary.

  • 13 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 3:04 pm


    OK – I’ll give you facts. But like Jack Nichsolson said in the movie “Truth? You can’t handle the truth.”

    Fact: The US has not built ONE oil refinery since the 1980s because the Enviro-Taliban has blocked all permits for oil refineries and US companies have been forced to go offshore. We have plenty of oil in this country we just can’t get it out of the ground because Liberal Environ-Taliban groups like the Sierra Club backed by their trial-attorney pals.

    Fact: As an assistant Clinton AG (the other one went to jail – remember), Jaime Gorelick created the wall between the FBI and the CIA and now she was put on the 9/11 Commission by the Democrats and will sit in judgement on the results of her own bungling. This is one of the clearest CONFLICTS OF INTEREST of all times.

    Fact: Robert Byrd, Liberal idol, was a Grand Wizard in the KKK and he attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Bill.

    Fact: Ted Kennedy drove a car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island. Had he reported the accident immediately, Mary Joe Kopechne who was trapped in the car would be alive today. But, instead of doing what is required of regular people, Kennedy called his political handlers to talk about his “career” and had 17 phone conversations while poor Mary Joe fought for her life.

    And on and on and on and on.

    Fact: Liberals are THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES and have no business accusing Conservatives of hypocrisy.

  • 14 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 3:11 pm

    “if I ever sell this blog to a Bush-League Republican”

    If you can find a Republican to buy this
    blog, I’ll kick back 20% of all the money
    I’m going to make off him after you give
    me his name.

    Sure, a Republican is out there looking
    for a blog infested by Liberals and with
    only one Conservative!!?!?

    Yeah – when pigs fly out of my butt!

  • 15 Mark // May 24, 2004 at 4:55 pm

    MORE LIES from Nat! Byrd was a member of the KKK for a brief time in the early ’40s. He was NEVER a “Grand Wizard.”

    Nat, your repeated mendacity and your inability to refute the facts I bring forth is leading me fast to the conclusion that I should be like Rick — I should simply ignore you and in the future maintain dialogue only with those who have original, serious thoughts and who are capable of telling the truth.

  • 16 Mark // May 24, 2004 at 5:12 pm

    One more nugget for Nat:

    The man who became the National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1974, noneother than David Duke, ran for governor of Louisiana in 1991 (and finished a strong second) as a…(drumroll please)….REPUBLICAN!!!

    There you go! Using NAT LOGIC — that means ALL Republicans are virulent racists.

    “Nat Logic”? Isn’t that like “Republican Morals?” “Religious Right?” “Fox News?” All incredible contradictions in terms.

    Not only is dealing with your crap not much of a challenge, Nat. It is fast becoming a waste of my time.

  • 17 Nat // May 24, 2004 at 9:27 pm

    Oh, and Joe Biden never PLAGIARIZED an entire campaign speech from a British Socialist politician?

    And your Liberal idol, Byrd, DID try to filibuster the Civil Rights Bill. Even if he wasn’t a Grand Wizard during the time he was a Klansman. The same bill, incidentally, that AlphaBore’s father voted against.

    Liberals. Hypocrites all.

    “Not only is dealing with your crap not much of a challenge, Nat. It is fast becoming a waste of my time.”

    That would be just great. Not only do your “rebuttals” ring hollow but please don’t feel any obligation to stick around on my account. I can continue to report the truth, with or without your extraneous commentary.


  • 18 Mark // May 24, 2004 at 11:39 pm

    Truth? From someone who admits, numerous times, that he is lying?

    THROW UP!!

  • Leave a Comment