From Andrews post: "Small factoid: Phelps is a Democrat. But his loyalties are to the fringes of the religious right."
Did you read my post on your previous thread? It was comment # 51.
I'll try a link to the referenced article.

As I personally lump in the lefty nasties with the left generally, it would be inconsistent of me to argue too strenuously he's not somewhere on the right.

Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position. I would also say conservative, fundamentalist Christians tend to be righty, but from where I sit Phelps is not a Christian.

He's so out there it's like Lyndon LaRoche as far as a political classification.

Pretty much every non pacifist-type if they listened to him for 15 minutes would want to beat the shit out of him.

I understand what you mean, but I, for example, do consider LaRouchies on the left. Though I'm sure liberals might argue about *that.*

How do you characterize extremist folks like this?

How about MAJOR LEAGUE ASSHOLE?

I think I like INTERNET's approach to the classification issue; instead of left or right, etc. it's asshats and everybody else. I have a personal reason for this. It seems like everytime we have a story about asshats who pretend to be Christians the cedarfords of the world can't resist making the linkage.

Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position.

Excuse me, but that's leftist BS. The Right is NOT anti-gay any more than they're anti-clean air and water. Yes, there are religious people who are required by their doctirne to condemn homosexuality, but that's a completely separate issue from polticizing the gay rights movement.

If you think that the Right's stance against any given gay right's issue stems from being anti-gay, then you're believing propaganda.

Fred Phelps is neither a Christian nor a member of the Right, but liberals would love to falsely categorize him and give to him us because THEY don't want him. If you're familiar with his positions, he's obviously more of an anarchist or a theocrat than anything...and that doesn't fit into the Right or the Left category very well. But, he IS a Democrat, and that is the label he should have stamped on his forehead by anyone who bothers to acknowledge him in the first place.

Hence, it's not a matter of whether or not the Right "should" recognize him since we hold the Left accountable for their nuts. We don't have to recognize him at all because he's NOT one of us -- except where the left-loving, propagandizing, lying mainstream media is concerned.

Later,
bbeck

I don't know Ace. On the one hand, I hear ya...on the other, I wonder why we often have to accept people as being "one of us" just because some liberals throw him in with us. This is similar to the classification of nazism as a right-wing movement, even though right-wingers find nazism just as objectionable as the left does, and maybe in some ways more so.

Fred Phelps is a nutbag. Plain and simple. Is it really necessary to place him (or accept him for that matter) as part of a particular camp?

I think, in general, we on the right have been much better at ridding our village of the crazies than the left has, but do we have to accept all crazies in, in the first place, just because another village says we have to?

Just send his home address to the 3rd SF Group (Abn) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Given it was one of their soldiers' funeral the most recent protest occured at, they might have an interest.

Excuse me, but that's leftist BS. The Right is NOT anti-gay any more than they're anti-clean air and water.

You're flip-flopping the syllogism. I did not say "righties are anti-gay." I said "those who are anti-gay tend to be righties." (That is, Phelps is anti-gay, those who are anti-gay tend to be righties, hence it's a legitimate reason to think Phelps ought to be classified as a right-winger.)

Do you believe a greater number of anti-gay folks are lefties?

If you think that the Right's stance against any given gay right's issue stems from being anti-gay, then you're believing propaganda.

If you believe you can make a sweeping statement about why the "Right," some monolith movement that thinks in goosestep, has some monolithic stance for monolithic reasons about any issue, you're missing the point of this discussion.

"Anti-gay" is shorthand to describe a general concept without going into the particulars of what it means for individual people taking individual stances on individual gay issues.

Lileks did a piece a while back on the Left's caricature of social conservatives, who they regard as people who would replace the Constitution with Leviticus. Phelps actually fits that description; lefties love people like that because they confirm their worst prejudices. Fair enough--that's pretty much how I feel about people like Ward Churchill. But I honestly can't see anything that's distinctly conservative about Phelps' swill.

On the Nazi question, I've always taken the National Socialist German Workers Party at their word regarding their place on the ideological spectrum. The notion that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite sides in anything but a military sense is pure BS.

I understand the reluctance to have Fred F'n' Phelps polluting the waters on our side of things, but I guess I'd say the liberals are pro-gay, which makes Phelps not liberal.

Not liberal does not equate to "conservative," but it's hard to put him on the left. Harder than to put him on the left than on the right, at least.

Either way, I think liberals have a duty to patrol lefties for their vicious and anti-American attitudes, even if they don't consider lefties technically part of the liberal movement. So I think righties have a similar responsibility with loathesome toads like Phelps.

Tom,

Sorry, I missed your comment. Tuesdays are hectic with the show and also trying to get up *some* blogging.

Now the Defense of Marriage act was passed under the administration of which party?

Trying to paint one party as the bigots and the other as the saints on any issue regarding human rights is pure BS, and is most likely hurting the actual cause.

Regarding Phelps and his political affiliation, if the left doesn't want him and the right doesn't want him, why are we trying to force one side to take ownership. I say let the bastard rot in his own little party of hate.

You're flip-flopping the syllogism. I did not say "righties are anti-gay." I said "those who are anti-gay tend to be righties."

Nicholas that is NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

YOUR QUOTE:

Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position.

You called being anti-gay a position of the right. You did not call anti-gays a subset of the right. So, you need to correct yourself, not me.

Do you believe a greater number of anti-gay folks are lefties?

Straw man. Once again, you're arguing a point you did not make.

If you believe you can make a sweeping statement about why the "Right," some monolith movement that thinks in goosestep, has some monolithic stance for monolithic reasons about any issue, you're missing the point of this discussion.

Wow, kind of like saying, "Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position." Uh-huh. The Right does have specific stances on certain issues, and far as I know, there's yet to be a platform or a candidate who has said, "I oppose this legislation because I am anti-gay"...and not catch crap for it. Quite the contrary; the Right has always had non-anti-gay REASONS for their positions. That's not goosestepping, it's logic.

"Anti-gay" is shorthand to describe a general concept without going into the particulars of what it means for individual people taking individual stances on individual gay issues.

Actually, "anti-gay" means "in opposition to gays." But if you've decided to make it mean something else, then thanks for the clarification.

Later,
bbeck

I understand the reluctance to have Fred F'n' Phelps polluting the waters on our side of things, but I guess I'd say the liberals are pro-gay, which makes Phelps not liberal.

So, Ace, even though this guy's a Democrat who hates the religious right and many of the Right's positions, he's automatically a Rightie because he hates fags?

Hmm, I'm an atheist, and since the Right is pro-religion, does that mean I'm not conservative?

A person's political affiliation is not based upon just one or two issues. Hating fags may be Phelps' most VOCAL issue, but that doesn't define his entire political philosophy. If you look at ALL of him, he is NOT on the Right side. But you know the MSM isn't going to tell you the whole story, and they're going to hang this guy around the Right's neck despite the fact he doesn't belong there.

Later,
bbeck

Not liberal does not equate to "conservative,"

Often though, it does. And what bothers me about that is that it allows the other side to define us rather than us defining ourselves. I am a member of the right-wing. I'm not, however, a nazi, a fascist, a racist, a homophobe, etc. And I am certainly not whatever it is that Fred Phelps is.

You can always find some loathesome jackass who agrees with you on some policy or another. The merit of a particular position shouldn't depend on whether or not some jackass somewhere takes the same position.

And allowing others to define us shifts the bar on what we determine to be jackassery. Anti-American leftist jackasses like Ward Churchill are treated as more mainstream than they deserve to be. No one I know on the right wants to be associated with Fred Phelps or has come to his defense in any way, but more than a few on the left have supported Ward Churchill, or at the very least his right to say what he thinks. I don't see anyone on the right saying "Fred Phelps is an idiot, but he has the right to say what he wants." Most just stop after the "Fred Phelps is an idiot" part.

because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position.

Where would you put Castro?

On the spectrum, I mean. personally, I'd put him under the jail. ... but politically, I think he's pretty lefty. and gays really don't fare to well in Cuba.

You called being anti-gay a position of the right.

In the context of discussing Phelps, I thought the syllogism--which I've now spelled out--was evident, especially if you include the portion of what Ace wrote to which I was responding:

[Ace] As I personally lump in the lefty nasties with the left generally, it would be inconsistent of me to argue too strenuously he's not somewhere on the right.

[Me] Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position.

That is, since generally that position comes from (those on) the right, then it makes sense to lump those espousing it with the right--if that's their most dominant political issue, as with Phelps.

You did not call anti-gays a subset of the right.

I made a statement about where the anti-gay position tends to be. It's like saying "blacks are generally Democratic voters," or "being pro capital punishment is generally a right wing position." You would apparently interpret those statements to mean (respectively) "all Democratic voters are black" and "all right wingers favor capital punishment." Even my syllogism was initially unclear, there is no basis for your claim that I wasn't referring to a subset, given my use of "generally." Moreover, after my clarifying post, we should be debating what I meant, not what you initially thought I meant.

But if you've decided to make [anti-gay] mean something else, then thanks for the clarification.

So when you read "pro-conservative" you think the prhase means "supports conservative people," rather than "supports conservative issues"?

I read it to mean the latter.

Or take "anti-gay marriage." Does that actually mean "against gay people getting married," or "against marriage between gay people"? Should a person using the phrase explicitly spell out which of those meanings he intends?

Where would you put Castro?

The Islamists are anti-gay, too, but Phelps is American. If we're classifying Phelps, it's unlikely--not being Supreme Court Justices--we need to go abroad for precedents to justify our rulings.

By the way, it eems to me I'm being the proxy for Ace here for those who disagree with him, because I don't believe Phelps should be lumped with the right. I'm saying only that at a first-impression glance one might assume Phelps is a right-winger, given the major drum Phelps beats.

As a Christian conservative, I don't want to be associated with him either and deny that he is a Christian or a conservative. Nevertheless, in honesty I have to acknowledge why someone might mistake him for both.

In the context of discussing Phelps, I thought the syllogism--which I've now spelled out--

Fine. Spell it out, Nicholas. But don't do it in terms of fixing MY error when it was yours.

Even my syllogism was initially unclear, there is no basis for your claim that I wasn't referring to a subset, given my use of "generally."

Actually, qualifying a statement in "general" terms encompasses it, it doesn't break it into a subset. Any positions that lie outside the generality then becomes an exception to the rule, and that's simply not the case on this subject.

I made a statement about where the anti-gay position tends to be. It's like saying "blacks are generally Democratic voters," or "being pro capital punishment is generally a right wing position."

Being pro-capital punishment IS a right position. Being anti-gay is NOT. So, your comparison is flawed.

So when you read "pro-conservative" you think the prhase means "supports conservative people," rather than "supports conservative issues"?

Straw man. "Conservative" refers to a group's political and/or social affiliation, but "gay" covers far more than that, including sexual orientation, so to say someone is "anti-gay" implies they have a problem with someone's sexual orientation. Once again, your comparison is flawed.

Or take "anti-gay marriage." Does that actually mean "against gay people getting married," or "against marriage between gay people"? Should a person using the phrase explicitly spell out which of those meanings he intends?

No, but when he's called on incorrect word usage, he shouldn't quibble over it when he's wrong.

Now, what you SAID obviously wasn't what you MEANT, but you've since clarified and I'm fine with it. But please, I'm not the only one who took exception to the "Well, yeah, because being anti-gay is generally a right-wing position" line here, and it's really a liberal thing to say...which means it is just not true.

Later,
bbeck

Back in the 1950s, William F. Buckley read the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement. Arguably, that was one of the most important events in 20th Century American politics. It kept the Republican Party from becoming like today's Democratic Party, unable to keep the Michael Moores and MoveOn.orgs off the stage at national conventions.

And it set the precedent that just because someone is somewhere on your side of the aisle, he doesn't have to be "one of us." I think we can all agree that Phelps is not one of us pro-military, pro-war people.
He won't be invited to speak at the 2008 Republican National Convention.