Yes, this is a Conservative/Libertarian forum. You’re more likely to see someone criticizing Jimmy Carter than George Bush or Ronald Reagan. But it’s equally true that many of us (myself included) have criticized Republican Presidents (like I have with Bush on his immigration policies) and so-called “conservative” positions (as I have repeatedly with the Paleos). And the criticism isn't always tepid.

The difference is, we criticize over policy matters, not what people do or don’t do in the bedroom. And in criticizing policy, we actually criticize policy, instead of making inane gratuitous comments/slurs like “It was Ronald Reagan's dementia-addled support for the Mujaheddin, which lead to the Taliban and 9/11,” and “don't forget those notable homos Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Their anti-commie legacy led directly to America's support for the Mujaheddin and the emergence of Osama bin Laden.”

What separates this forum from the Huffington Post and Daily Kos is that we tend to frown on idiots who make gratuitous slurs, and offer silly-assed statements with no supporting evidence other than their feelings about a subject.

Ruminator, as I’ve said in the past I think you’re a basically decent guy who will approach a debate honestly, which is why as a matter of course you don’t get ridiculed for your beliefs. Some of them may be a bit misguided at times :), but you’re definitely not in the same category as this clown from Canada.

But giving a gay bashing a**hole a forum to spew his garbage without driving home the point that he's a gay-bashing idiot is not my style.

Remember Point #25 from “Words to Live By” In a debate, the people you speak directly to will never change their minds, no matter what you say. Your real focus is the people listening to the conversation who have nothing invested in either position, and will decide which of you makes the better case.

*** Yeah! When someone actually knows something about a subject, disregard that (and the common sense fact that no “Ronnie-Stingers” that supposedly have been “fixed” have ever been fired at the US, even though they are part of the “current Taliban’s” arsenal), and just assume it might be possible to just strap on a few hurt rigged batteries to make them fully operational because you need to do this to support your original idiotic conclusion. Such is what passes for intelligent analysis. Or, an equally plausible explanation is that the joke still continues, and the fictitious character continues to spew his deliberate nonsense.

“And if you want to call somebody 'homophobic' …”

*** … you can start with the fool that enters a debate by calling people “homos” “Marys”, etc. Why is it that the people who make gratuitous slurs and engage in odious things like race-bating and gay bashing always excuse their behavior by pointing to the presumed private lives of other people and saying that it’s okay to call someone a “homo” because he read some place that he was? And again, exactly what does a person’s private sex life have to do with anything?

“The difference is, other than your unseemly references to homosexual lifestyle, you come off more as the gentleman, by declining to return insults.”

*** Ruminator, the difference between me and the “gentleman” is that I won’t tolerate bigots. I make no apologies for slamming someone who engages in gay bashing, any more than I have in the past for taking on right wing bigots who make racial slurs and speak about race-based “natural hierarchal social orders”. Fixating on whether your response to a bigot or homophobe is gentlemanly-enough misses the point of the exchange.

If I’ve made an idiotic statement, go ahead and label it as such. Is it idiotic to consult with someone who actually knows something about 1980s weapon technology before making a judgment, or is it idiotic to Google a 2009 article on the general subject of thermal batteries and make categorical pronouncements about “fixing them” the same way you fix a satellite phone that’s broken?

Is it ungentlemanly to point out that a gay bashing a**hole is a gay bashing a**hole who fixates on what people may or may not do in their private lives, which has absolutely nothing to do with a policy discussion? Seems to me this merits more than a comment about “unseemly references”. I don’t fault you for not wanting to be as direct as I am when confronted with an idiot and an a**hole like ACSial. That’s a difference in style, or perhaps a difference in our willingness to directly confront this kind of gross stupidity and cruel attacks on individuals because of their race or sexual preferences. Unlike ACSial, who simply mouths over-generalized platitudes and makes cruel, indiscriminate remarks about homosexuals and people with Alzheimer’s, my comments are not gratuitous slurs. They are direct responses to statements made and positions offered.

Therefore, I have no problem labeling a completely stupid idea as a completely stupid idea. If a person wants to offer pure conjecture and claim it’s a fact, or ignore reality to promote a fantasy because he needs that fantasy to support his original point, he’s an idiot. Like I’ve stated many times before, being labeled an idiot is a designation that has to be earned, not simply assigned gratuitously (like calling someone a “Mary” or “homo”).

As for your comment “I really shouldn't have been commenting probably because I know nothing about stinger missiles. Sorry,” you again miss the point. A lot of us (myself included) comment on things where we lack expertise. The difference is, we don’t make absolute, categorical statements about technical issues we don’t really understand, or insist that fantasy connections we’ve made up in our own minds are 100% true (Reagan gave Stingers to the Mujaheddin in the 1980s to fight the Soviets because Hoover was a gay anti-communist; not all of these Stingers were recovered; therefore they are still operational and part of the “current Taliban’s” arsenal because they can be fixed as easily as copying a pirated DVD; and we know this is true even though not a single 1980s Stinger has ever been fired at the US in Afghanistan — although some Iranian Stinger-type missiles are in circulation there — which means that the “demented” Reagan had full blown Alzheimer’s when he was in office and Hoover is a “Mary”. None of this is offered as a theory, by the way, but as a fact.)

Exactly what do you call this reasoning other than “stupid”, and the gay-bashing homophobe a**hole making gratuitous comments a gay-bashing homophobe a**hole?

The comments section of the articles published here are supposed to serve as a platform for discussion of the ideas presented in the article. The pitching choices that the Yankees made in game 6 of the world series might make a moderately interesting topic for discussion, it just doesn't really have anything to do with the ideas presented in this article. And no amount of repetition would make it any more relevant. That is the point that ACSial has come to, and yet he expects to be accommodated by having others who are actually interested in discussing the content and substance of the original article address his cliched moonbat conspiracy theorist talking points about supposed connections of particular politicians whom he doesn't like to the most sinister and implausible plots and schemes that could only be taken seriously in the context of a Roger Moore-era James Bond movie plot. The only intention of my comment was to explain to him why no one wishes to continue indulging him.

I have to plead ignorance: I couldn't possibly think like a liberal.