Just Askin': What is it About Right Wing Views on Gay People?

When perusing the swamp of troglodytic ideas in the "Homosexual Agenda"* area of FreeRepublic.com--something I don't suggest on a full stomach--I am consistently vexed by a contradictory mindset. This in itself isn't so surprising. Cognitive dissonance seems to be a way of life in right-wing world. But when it comes to the gay, the two opposite positions held simultaneously just hurts my head.

On one hand, they'll maintain that gay people choose to be so. On the other, they'll poke (sub-junior high school-level) fun at stereotypically effeminate gays or mannish lesbians. Without getting too wordy here, the one position maintains that gay people are just ordinary heteros who woke up one day and "decided" to be gay. The other one has no problem envisioning (and belittling) that subgroup in the gay population who could never pass as straight people. So which is it, FReepers? Were those gays and lesbians born "swishy" or "bull dyke" or did they choose to be born into particular bodies as well? Just askin'.

Just Askin' is a new feature at Greenlee Gazette I intend to present any time I stumble upon something weird in our daily discourse. These are rhetorical questions, but I wouldn't mind some feedback (from either side of the issue) in the comments section.

*"Homosexual Agenda" is a misnamed section on an already harshly opinionated web site. The term in question is applied by right-wingers to all gay people, as though they are homogeneous and in lockstep on some secret master plan to take over America or perhaps the world! It isn't even remotely true. I don't care if they find some master list of gay bullet points at some pro-gay rights organization. Such organizations don't even agree on issues between each other, and none are supported by all--or even most--gay people. The term is bullshit, but that isn't the worst of it.

Under this banner heading at FreeRepublic, you'll find topics that apply to gay rights issues, and a plethora of other tangentially related or even completely unrelated issues like pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality. . .anything with other-than-missionary-position heterosexual sex involved, no matter how vanilla or outrageous. When reading it, one gets the impression that a) FReepers will believe anything negative about gay people presented, b) FReepers will discount anything positive about gay people, and c) FReepers act as though there are no gay people in their lives at all, and that they are free to say the most demeaning and disgusting things about them with impunity. Which hurts my head almost as much as the question that is the subject of this post!

Michelle Bachmann-Led Rally Out-Tea Bags the Tea Baggers

Disturbing image from source, Daily Kos

If there was even any proof needed that the Republican Party has gone completely around the bend, to the furthest, scariest depths of the right, today's rally was it. You've got your buses, chartered by a faux-grass roots group. You've got your nutty signs. You've got your simultaneously vague and pervasive anger at everything, and this time, you've got actual mainstream elected Congressmen and women in attendance. More than that, the whole anti-government, revolution-inciting event was slapped together by Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-Batshit Insane).

On one hand, all of this insanity is heartening to a Democrat like me, leading me to believe that the GOP can't possibly win this way. On the other hand, I'm terrified that somehow they will. The lunatics are truly running the GOP asylum, and I can't imagine what would happen if they ran the USA. And here I thought Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy, Rove and the rest were the end game. They look positively normal by comparison. Nazi imagery? Dead bodies? Dachau? Really?!?

[Excerpt]

While Democrats were touting AARP's endorsement...

. . .If Republicans wonder why most Americans view them as part of the fringe extreme, they need not look beyond this event. While Democrats were touting the endorsement of AARP, Michele Bachmann and the House leadership were rallying amidst signs like this, shoulder to shoulder with 2,000 teabaggers. . .

Read more at: Daily Kos

Obama, Hitler and Guns, Oh My!

OK, this is just getting out of hand. . .

[Excerpt]

Right-Wing Conference Tells Activists To Get Their Guns Ready For ‘Bloody Battle’ With Obama The Nazi



. . .If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Right Wing Extremism America's Biggest Threat?

Image from source, RawStory

Ever since I was a little kid, whenever I heard anybody mention the concept of a black president, somebody would bring up the spectre of assassination. During the 2008 primaries, it was a topic that was only discussed in hushed tones for the most part. But I thought it. Didn't you?

Especially in the waning days of the John McCain/Sarah Palin campaign, when the "true believers" were being worked into a lather. Palin was one of the biggest stokers of the vague outrage. And who can forget the wild-haired woman who called Barack Obama an "Arab," as though that was the worst thing she could think of?

Since the election and inauguration, there have been surprisingly few outright racist outbursts in the news. There was the "edgy" New Yorker cover. There was the monkey cartoon. In both cases, there was at least a flimsy excuse to explain why they weren't racist. But if you want to see a combined rage/racism focusing on Obama (and oddly, his wife), you need go no further than FreeRepublic.com. Over there, the veil on the racism is particularly sheer, and riddled with moth holes.

It is the FReepers that best typify the group that Palin was speaking to. In fact, she is practically deified there. They are also the ones most concerned with the gravest Constitutional threat our nation has ever faced: the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. This issue--crazy as it is--in combination with other issues real and imagined, makes the excerpted story below very easy to believe. I think we might get a bit of a preview with all the "tea party" tea bagging tomorrow.

[Excerpt]

Conservatives outraged at DHS assessment warning of violent 'rightwing extremism'

An April 7 report by the Department of Homeland Security is causing waves of indignation among conservatives for labeling "rightwing extremism" the "most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. . ."

Read more at: RawStory

Wonder Woman Lynda Carter: Right Wing "Spreading Hate"

They are, of course. Tune in--even for a moment--to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage--and you're likely to hear it for yourself. But you don't have to put yourself through that. Take my word for it, and Lynda Carter's too. She's got super powers, after all.

[Excerpt]

‘Wonder Woman’ Lynda Carter Says ‘Right Wing’ Is ‘Spreading Hate’



Actress Lynda Carter, best known for her role as Wonder Woman on television, said that while there always is a loyal opposition to the party in power, the political “right wing” in America is “spreading hate.” Carter, who spoke with CNSNews.com at an event to raise awareness about mental illness, also said “it’s pathetic that we don’t do more” for the homeless in America. . .

Read more at: CNSNews

Obama Derangement Syndrome Not Just for PUMAS Anymore

PhotoShopped hilarity from source, FreeRepublic

From time to time, I like to keep tabs on the obsessive/crazy folks over at the right-winger site, FreeRepublic. If there's something that makes liberals happy going on, you can count on FReepers to have a spaz about how horrible and anti-American it is! If something big happens in the world, you can count on FReepers to find a way to blame it on "the Democrat Party," liberals/commies/Marxists/socialists or the cherry on the top himself, President Barack Obama.

When FReepers aren't alleging that we liberals consider the President to be "The One," or "The Messiah,"--something I've never heard a liberal say--they are going absolutely off the deep end about their distaste for Obama. They say he's an empty suit. They say he can't speak extemporaneously without a teleprompter (hilarious, after 8 years of their guy). They've got all sorts of wacky nicknames already, in addition to the ones just mentioned, and they're working hard to solidify a negative image of him, even though they don't have a lot to work with yet.

Keep in mind that President Obama has been in office just two months. Also keep in mind that during that time, he's been working daily to untangle a huge giant mess. There are bound to be missteps along the way, and it would be impossible to make everybody on either or both sides happy. This brief time-span hasn't stopped FReepers from launching into full-blown "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

Think back to previous Presidencies. I'll just stick to ones I remember. Richard Nixon was dealing with an unpopular war (Viet Nam) as well as his part in the Watergate scandal, and was thus deeply unpopular. You could characterize his detractors as "haters," but they did have their reasons. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, and a lot of people hated that. But I don't remember remember people hating on him much.

Jimmy Carter was a generally genial guy, but not a very good President by most people's measure (great ex-President though). Still, he had some deep hatred running against him from before the time he got elected. It's a hatred that is still held against him to this day. Liberals feared Ronald Reagan. I remember people saying he'd start a nuclear war. And while there may have been a simmering hatred for him, I don't remember it really rising to that level.

George H.W. Bush also had his detractors, but again, I don't remembering a groundswell of hate. Mostly, we had Dana Carvey making fun of the guy, turning him into an out-of-touch wimp. But hate? I'm not so sure. Then, there was Bill Clinton. Like Carter, he had a red-faced mob hating him from (before) the start. Clinton was hounded by a group of conservatives determined to bring him down, and they were eventually successful, sort of. Hillary Clinton was right, there was a "right wing conspiracy," vast or not. And they despised her too. "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" may not have been so-named, but it was more fervent, and seemingly unwarranted--by a select group of the populace--than any other President in this list has had to deal with.

George W. Bush started his Presidency with the strangest election in over a century, with more than half of the country not having voted for him. With essentially an appointment to the Presidency by the Supreme Court, many people were understandably verklempt. But it wasn't full-on hate yet. Mostly, he was an embarrassing but affable goober. Until September 11, 2001, and its aftermath. Most of us were grudgingly behind him for a while after that. Even in the run up to war, Bush had most of us--still grudgingly--in his corner. But things began to unspool after that. The reality-stretching, the story changing, the embarrassing gaffes, the shifting reasoning for the disastrous war, Karl Rove and a cast of rogues gallery characters. . .there was a lot to hate. And a the Internet let a lot more of us find out what was going on.

So, I will freely acknowledge being a full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferer. But I come by it honestly, and did not become infected until repeated exposure to the virus from the actions of the man himself. And from my memory, it seems to me that while Republican Presidents are often given some room and time before their loyal opposition begins "the hate," Democratic Presidents face the hate (excuse the rhyme) right out of the gate.

You want a little proof? Here are a few quotes from FreeRepublic about a rather innocuous topic: President Obama's appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. . .

"Thanks but no thanks. My stomach isn’t that strong."

"I can’t watch Obama without being in the bag. I better get started and straight to the Scotch."

"Sorry I will miss it because I plan to be throwing up and hoping for change."

"I like that new name "Pres_ent Obama"....because he is pres-ent wherever there is a TV camera and an teleprompter."

"thanks for watching for me, I cannot look at his face. His voice gags me too. I’ll read about it."

"This guy is a lying idiot"

"DISGRACE TO THE OFFICE ....he looks like a Hollywood whore plugging another movie ..."

"He is the most narcissistic self deluded idiot I have EVER seen in mylife"

"He is gruesome."

"Nope. Thats the upshot of what President douchebag said"

"He's not only gruesome, he's evil."

And keep in mind, this is after the moderator apparently cleaned up the posts. Last night there were posts with racist overtones, talking about minstrel shows, and "shuck and jive." I kid you not. And it takes a lot to get your post pulled over there, unless you're sympathizing with a liberal.

Source: FreeRepublic

More Daily Show: Michelle Obama

I had to post this for one simple reason. I listen for a few minutes to local right-wing talk radio on my commute to and from work, to see what the "other side" is up to. And there, regardless of the show, Michelle Obama is regularly demonized. The right-wing seems to absolutely hate her. No insult is too nasty, no slime is left unthrown.

I simply don't get it. I didn't understand the hatred for Teresa Heinz Kerry either, but Michelle Obama seems perfectly lovely and nice to me. Why does partisanship so nasty?