Andrew Sullivan's jihad (Embarrassed by Sullivan, Salon Editor Talbot Throws a HUGE Tantrum!)

Salon ^ | October 20, 2001 | David Talbot

[Vinomori]

Meaning is the difference that it makes. If it makes no difference, it has no meaning. Sullivan is making a difference. Talbot is not. Talbot gets that on an intuitive level, but not intellectually. So he lashes out at the difference-maker.

[JCG]

Is David Talbot any relation to Strobe Talbot?

Strobe is a double-t Talbott.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch JIHAD! In America -- here

[JCG]

what's the purple triangle stand for?

In Nazi concentrations camps Jehovah's Witnesses wore them; the pink triangles were for homosexuals.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch JIHAD! In America -- here

[MamaLucci]

Oh, look...a new troll. Buzz off.

[BillF]

So he lashes out at the difference-maker.

Well put.

I should have added that he gratuitously attacks Sullivan for being a Brit, a xenophobic attack. As if being a Brit disqualifies Sullivan from criticizing others.

Many of the most patriotic Americans are immigrants. They know from living elsewhere how great the U.S. is.

[BCrago66]

HYSTERICAL LYING LEFTIST ALERT:

Evidence?

1 - Worrals registered: October 20th, 2001

2 - He hates Sullivan.

3 - He calls people "hypocritical" - which is code for: I'm basically an immoral lefty zero, and thus I attempt to bring down those who are morally superior to me, because they remind me of what a worthless loser I am.

[headsonpikes]

I remember those Sullivan threads; they were well over half on Andrew's side.

I'll take Sullivan, warts and all, over any flannel-mouthed Establishment pseud.

FReepers are a very tolerant bunch, I think. There's no more than the socially normal proportion of closet authoritarians.;^)

[conservativesoutherner]

It's refreshing to read the words of a man who comes from a specific group normally associated with liberals, that refuses to be cowed into 'group thinking'. He speaks to his his own beliefs, not others. And, from everything i've read, he's a real patriot and true American- even though he was born in Britain. He's a good conservative as well, broadly speaking. Not only does he hue to the wisdom of lower taxes and smaller government, he also embraces most aspects of social conservatism and traditional values. In fact, the thing that I like most about him is his defense of religion in the face of the church's opposition to sodomy and gay marriage. He still holds firm on his faith in god and family. I'd venture to say that most conservatives, as myself, don't find as much opposition to homosexuals as has often been insinuated by liberals. Most of us believe that marriage should remain an institution for traditional marriage, uniting a man and a woman. And, we also tend to believe that children should be adopted out to traditional married couples. These positions comes from our religious and moral views. But, other than that, most of the positions we're accused of expressing hate with, have nothing to do with our feelings about homosexuality. An issue like hate crimes is a perfact example. We don't oppose hate crimes because of homosexuals, but because of our opposition to big, intrusive government; as well as the inequality before law that would result as a consequence of differing standards of justice. We also oppose non-discrimination acts because we don't believe the government should be allowed to tell the private sector how to run it's buisness. And, our opposition to quotas doesn't need an explanation. I see no problem with someone having a private life that's different than mine, so long as we're talking about consenting adults here. Who know's for certain whether homosexuality is an abominable sin. It's certainly abnormal, unusual and generally uncomfortable. But, it doesn,t seem the equivalent of say, murder. So, we conservatives, have almost always made an honest attempt to simultaneous air on the side of tradition, as well as to show tolerance. And, ultimately, it's God's judgement to make. So, Andrew Sullivan is a great guy and a good American (as well as a good conservative)! David Talbot, however, hasn't got the intillectual capability to think for himself. He simply recites old arguments and lame excuses. He practices group think and condemnation of anyone who dares to dissent. It is he who practices the real philosophical jihad. So much for the theory that the Taliban exists only in Afghanistan- it would appear that some of it's members are taking up residence right here in our own backyard!

[xkaydet65]

Andrew Sullivan knows that victory in this war will require more than technology and courage. It will require of our nation to reach into its very soul. Our enemies are fortified with evil and it will require a people with a common soul to defeat them. Despite our affluence and excess we still possess such qualities. Maybe Tony Blair can recall in his people the similar qualities that led to the Finest Hour. But perhaps the one people who possess the character and soul to join our crusade, and yes it is a crusade, are the Russians. 70 years of Communism could not extinguish their faith. Western Europe has abandonded the old values for the marketplace. We cannot depend on them, but Russia? We are, I think, a similar people. We who have known the road to freedom all of our existence and they who have barely started the journey. We both know that freedom is purchased not with gold, but with steel. I think Andrew Sullivan knows this about us, and only fears our being led astray by those who have sold their liberty for comfort.

[VMI70]

Thanks

[sourcery]

Sorry about all the dead links in the cut-and-pasted article. They all worked on the preview page!

The preview page is constructed on your computer, and so all relative URLs are interpreted with your computer as the base prefix. Any relative URLs that refer to documents accessible locally on your computer (e.g., in your http cache) will therefore work just fine on the preview page. But they won't work when the article is posted, because that changes which computer is taken as the base for relative URLs.

[Lancey Howard]

"It wasn't FreeRepublic.com that rallied around Sullivan; those conservative "enclaves" are too busy tossing kindling on the pyres to burn the sodomites. Their latest cause is blasting the Bush administration for apologizing on behalf of the Navy crewmen who painted "hijack this, fags" on missiles headed toward Afghanistan."

One paragraph, so many lies and distortions. This liberal mouse has no familiarity whatsoever with Free Republic if he thinks we are monolithic in our thoughts and opinions on any subject. What a maroon....

[section9]

The important thing to remember is that Sullivan must be brought down by the left for two reasons:

1. He is a turncoat gay.

2. He edits the New Republic, a bastion of liberalism.

Talbot, otoh, cannot abide Sullivan's success and notoriety (which contrasts nicely, btw, with the absolute steaming t*rd that Salon.com has become).

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Lancey Howard]

"Since the horrors of Sept. 11, however, Sullivan's voice has become a shriek, hitting an ear-piercing decibel that, whether intended or not, drives out the possibility of rational discussion."

This sentence, by the way, was the tipoff about Talbot's problem. See it?
"....drives out the possibility of rational discussion."
See!! There can be no "rational discussion", ie., debate, when it comes to the truth - - that is, the truth is not debatable. This has always been a major frustration for liberals. Liberals always cry "foul" this way when they are confronted with the unblemished truth because the truth is their greatest enemy. They simply have no answer except to whine, wring their hands, and then....lie.

[Havisham]

I also remember some people NOT sticking up for him... FR does have its share of people with anti-gay attitudes, as well.

Well we're sure as h*ll not pro-gay here. Right now, young men's hearts and health are being shredded by homosexuals who, although they are 1-3% percent of the male population, are over-represented in sexual abuse cases by a factor of 10.

[ikanakattara]

People may not be pro-gay here, but I for one think Andrew Sullivan has been completely right-on in his essays about the war. I'm not going to reject his war essays, and the truth in them, because Sullivan is gay. I know who MY enemy is - the Islamofascists that want to beat, rape, cut, and kill women and any men, gay or straight, who disagree with them. Not gay men like Sullivan, or Mark Bingham, or any other gay patriots.

[beckett]

It is simply false to charge that Free Republic is "busy tossing kindling on the pyres to burn the sodomites." Jim Robinson has discouraged "gay issue" threads for years.

Does Salon have 70,000 regular contributors that it must answer for? Of course not, but David Talbot expects Jim Robinson to answer for all 70,000 of his.

[brat]

GO ANDREW!!! You obviously hit some sore spots!

[IVote2]

"I remember defending Sullivan on FR, and I remember a lot of other people standing up for him here, too.
That's exactly what I recall, too."

I was going to post the same thing. I know I thought the article from his perspective made sense.

I hate generalizations and we certainly don't all think the same here on FR. Thanks for both of you making the point that I was going to make.

Regards, Jen

[WOSG]

Message to Talbot: Salon will be dead and buried but freerepublic.com will live on!!!

As for his nutty "Taliban-style argument" claims ... takes one to know one. He is a lefty taliban. Wants to put Sullivan under a blanket, just like Taliban do to women. Apparently we have a free country only for leftie American critics. wrong - Sullivan is calling a spade a spade and anti-Americanism is being called anti-Americanism. Cant stand the heat? get out of the kitchen!