Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Andrew Sullivan admits he was pro-Iraq War because he was an asshole carrying grudges, in part b/c of the "Milky Loads" scandal

On one hand, I admire him as a person for admitting he was wrong and criticizing himself. On the other hand, it's clear he's someone who often tries to make the worse appear the better cause out of spite and resentment. I still can't take him seriously as a pundit since he's so petty (as he here admits).

Datalounge is not name-checked here, but of course the scandal about his personal life he alludes to in this piece first broke here.

by Anonymousreply 14904/01/2013

My friend and former colleague, Conor Friedersdorf, takes me to task for my demonization and dismissal of anti-war protesters a decade ago. He is right to, and I certainly don’t take it personally. I would have been disappointed if he had left me out – because it would not be consonant with Conor’s integrity as a writer.

I could quibble. But I simply do not have the standing to do so at this point. Still, here are a few salient issues that I think have been missed in this necessary reflection.

The first is the 2000 election. In some ways, 9/11 wiped that vivid, searing, deeply divisive event from the public consciousness. But it played a part, I think, in the polarized climate that made the post-9/11 debate so poisonous. In the summer of 2000, when I foolishly found myself wanting Al Gore to lose (Excelsior!), it was not a strong emotion. In the campaign, Gore was the advocate for a larger defense budget and Bush was all about being a “humble” nation. I figured there wasn’t much difference between them (and I still think Gore would have launched the Iraq War as well). But when the vote ended up a statistical tie in a key state, Florida, stances hardened.

I was a lonely Bush supporter in TNR offices back then, and I felt something I’d never felt before, even in the polarized, back-biting, ego-colliding of that era’s TNR. My colleagues felt that the election was being stolen in front of their eyes – and there was almost a cold civil war mood emerging. They also knew, as I did, that Bush would be a president without a majority of the national popular vote. Worse, Bush, instead of governing in a way that calmed the waters, and acknowledging his weak position, acted from the get-go as if he had won a landslide. America was in a constitutional crisis months before it was embroiled in a second Pearl Harbor. The very legitimacy of the entire democracy was in the air. It was in that profoundly polarized atmosphere that the catastrophe happened.

I succumbed to the polarization, and had become far more attached to the new president than I ever expected to a year before. Others also got carried away:

It may have seemed meaningless at the time, but now we know why 7,000 people [sic] sacrificed their lives — so that we’d all forget how Bush stole a presidential election.

My horror at 9/11, combined with crippling fear, compounded by personal polarization was a fatal combination. This is not an excuse. It’s an attempt at an explanation. And my loathing of the left had been intensified earlier that year by a traumatizing exposure of my own sex life by gay leftists determined to destroy my reputation and career because of my mere existence as a gay conservative. I had spent much of the 1990s at war with the gay left, and I think it had embittered me. That those battles were over my campaign for marriage equality and military service as the two biggest priorities of the gay rights movement makes for a strange irony today. Nonetheless, when you have been smeared, physically threatened, picketed and despised by the gay left, you dig in and begin to see nothing but bad in that political faction. And earlier that same year, I had been publicly humiliated by parts of the gay left for being HIV-positive, and trying to find other HIV-positive men online for sex and love. That made my embitterment deeper. When I really examine my emotional state that year, I can see better now why my anger at the left in general came out so forcefully in the wake of such a massacre. It was a foolish extrapolation from a handful of haters to an entire political tradition. Again, this is not an excuse. But if I am to understand my own personal anger at the anti-war left, it is part of the story.

(cont.)

by Anonymousreply 103/22/2013

Second, I was marinated in the knowledge of Saddam Hussein’s unique evil. At TNR in the 1990s, the consensus was that this dictator truly was another Hitler type (and in many ways, he was). My moral umbrage was exacerbated, I think, by this previous history. You can see it in the blog – as early as September 11, the day the mass murder occurred. Here’s the post:

Check out this 1995/1996 Public Interest essay on the first World Trade Center bombing. Some of it sends chills down your spine with its prescience. But its most important suggestion is that Iraq might have been behind the bombing. Ditto today. Saddam is not only capable but willing – especially against a nemesis like the son of the first George Bush. More evidence that Colin Powell’s tragic abandonment of the war against Saddam might well be one of the biggest blunders in recent history. If this coordinated massacre needed real state-sponsored support, which nation would you pick as the prime suspect?

This was an instinctual response, not a rational one. Notice I am not stating that Saddam had WMDs or had any connection to al Qaeda. I’m just raising the question. But by merely doing that on the day of the attacks, I’m revealing something important about the neoconservative mind. I had been prepped for something like this – prepped to see Iraq behind it. And so the pivot to Iraq for me was not a surprise. It felt like the obvious response. And it took me three more years to even thoroughly doubt the necessity for taking him out. That epistemic closure, that surrender of the mind to the gut, that replacement of analysis with anger: this was part of it.

This was the mother of all confirmation biases. It was also the very beginning of the blogosphere, and I had not yet learned the brutal lessons of writing instantly with reason-crushing emotion pulsing through my brain. The one silver lining was this blog – and the necessity to write every day in real time for the years that followed. That effectively denied me cover for my massive misjudgment and bias. You forced me to confront a reality I had never wanted to see, or had blinded myself to.

I cannot undo the damage and do not seek to put this behind me. Instead it is in front of me, a constant reminder that fixed convictions are dangerous, that premises should not be mistaken for conclusions, that confirmation bias is real … and can play a part in the murder of tens of thousands and even today, the birth of babies allegedly deformed horrifically by the depleted uranium we left behind. I cannot take responsibility for all of this; but I must take responsibility for some of it, for the pain and evil it fomented:

Trust your wound to a teacher’s surgery./ Flies collect on a wound. They cover it,/ those flies of your self-protecting feelings,/ your love for what you think is yours.

Let a teacher wave away the flies/ and put a plaster on the wound.

Don’t turn your head. Keep looking/ at the bandaged place.

That’s where the light enters you./ And don’t believe for a moment/ that you’re healing yourself.

— Rumi

by Anonymousreply 203/22/2013

David Ehrenstein loved posting that. Still wish him dead, DE?

by Anonymousreply 303/22/2013

It was the GAY LEFTISTS out to destroy him, not his own foolish behavior! None of those gay leftists ever had a platform like the National Review. He's such a fucking liar. He didn't HATE the left. He thought his job was to push conservatism and he didn't care that it was winning through criminality because that was okay with him as long as he was on the winning team. Remember, he could have been thrown out of the country at any time back then, and would have been if GAY LEFTISTS were the evil persecuting force he says we were.

by Anonymousreply 403/22/2013

i think it's pretty good

by Anonymousreply 503/22/2013

Unique evil? Saddam Hussein was never a unique evil. Many of us pointed out at the time that Qaddafi had a worse record on WMD and terrorism and attacks on his own people. But Bush treated Qaddafi like an ally.

by Anonymousreply 603/22/2013

Isn't this some lame plot to shill for his now pay news blog site?

by Anonymousreply 703/22/2013

It's a bunch of self-serving lies, which is what Sullivan always does when he talks about himself. Wasn't his whole "shtick" that he was a balanced reasonable intellectual not a raving drama queen? And here he is asserting the opposite for convenience. George W. Bush was the most corrupt individual ever to seek the presidency of the United States of America and that was true long before the contested election, but Sullivan didn't see it because he wasn't looking at George W. Bush. Chances are he could not have told you ANY biographical details of the man and had probably never even read Molly Ivins' book "Shrub." Sullivan was only looking at Al Gore, and trying to dig up dirt on Al Gore. He's lying about his polarization starting with the election controversy.

by Anonymousreply 803/22/2013

I think it's actually a pretty honest attempt at explaining what caused him to take such a position back then. I'm glad he has changed his mind since and that he's now acknowledging his mistakes. I see no reason to keep on holding grudges against him when he has the intellectual honesty to admit his own faults.

by Anonymousreply 903/22/2013

The truth it the gay left tolerated Andrew Sullivan throughout the 90s when it shouldn't have. Somebody should called the INS and got him deported. We never did, and it came back to bite us in the ass when he was more evil than we ever believed possible.

by Anonymousreply 1003/22/2013

He was gay, he had HIV, both deportable offenses at the time, and he should have been kicked out as all gays were who were not living in the liberal bubble of San Francisco or Manhattan. He got special treatment from living with these "enemies" he showers with contempt. What a dirtbag.

by Anonymousreply 1103/22/2013

R10 - well here is the "kill Andrew Sullivan" troll again. How many years do WE have to put up with him in here. GO AWAY before somebody drops a house on you, too.

by Anonymousreply 1203/22/2013

Bullshit R12. I'm all for forgiveness, but he needs to stop blaming the "gay left." The people who thought marriage and military service were not priorities were certainly not running any gay political organizations in the 1990s. Nor were they necessarily wrong. He continues to demonize within the community which he pretends to speak for.

by Anonymousreply 1303/22/2013

Can somebody recap the DL"Milky Loads" era?

by Anonymousreply 1403/22/2013

I don't understand why anyone would be interested in what he has to say at this point.

He is just a damaged narcissist and has no credibility any more.

by Anonymousreply 1503/22/2013

[quote]I don't understand why anyone would be interested in what he has to say at this point.

His site gets millions of unique views a month, so apparently someone is interested.

by Anonymousreply 1603/22/2013

George Bush was someone who was able to have his driving records removed and destroyed when he was Governor of Texas, something unquestionably illegal. His business record was one of fraud, not just insider trading, but a clear scheme to defraud investors and mirepresent his company's financial results, undertaken when he was on the audit committee. His military record was one of illegal conduct never punished. His management of the public ballpark authority was insider trading, eminent domain theft, and abuse of power. Sullivan should have known all of this.

by Anonymousreply 1703/22/2013

Classic non-apology apology. And he really believes Al Gore would have invaded Iraq too? That's incredible.

by Anonymousreply 1803/22/2013

The plain fact is that Sullivan never investigated the U.S. Republicans and conservatives to see what kind of people they were despite his hysterical certainty that the left were all evil crapheads. So he didn't start from the center and get polarized. He started from a place of hate, probably before he left England, and did not bother to try to understand the American right.

by Anonymousreply 1903/22/2013

What was the "milky loads" scandal. I know he was exposed for seeking bareback sex, but what is "milky loads"?

by Anonymousreply 2003/22/2013

Such a convoluted and deluded rant should be ignored.

by Anonymousreply 2103/22/2013

Yeah, Gore would not have done this.

by Anonymousreply 2203/22/2013

Even on its face it's silly because it implies he said things not because of the merits of the argument, but according to his personal grudges of the moment. So why would someone read this and think, "Oh okay." Nobody would. I don't understand his reason for doing this, since he is undermining his own credibility.

by Anonymousreply 2303/22/2013

yes, r21, the rants of the irrational Sullivan haters should be ignored.

by Anonymousreply 2403/22/2013

OP = Sullivan.

ENOUGH!!!

by Anonymousreply 2503/22/2013

For the newbies...

Back when Miss Sullivan was at the peak of her Bush-loving freeper frenzy, she was also in high dudgeon over all the filthy liberal gays who ran around spreading AIDS with their drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers. It was around that time (2003-2004?) that David Ehrenstein spotted an ad on one of the hookup sites from Andy herself, soliciting... wait for it... drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers. The ad text specified the best gay Catholic in the Northern Hemisphere loved to share his "milky loads" and bragged about his "power glutes." Can you [italic]even?[/italic]

Ehrenstein posted the link here, and it spread across the gay blog world from there. Good times.

by Anonymousreply 2603/22/2013

Thanks, R26.

by Anonymousreply 2703/22/2013

And he is pro-drone-dropping, Wall Street-lovin' Obama now because he has seen the error of his ways?

by Anonymousreply 2803/22/2013

Thanks, R26. I didn't realize he is fucking crazy.

by Anonymousreply 2903/22/2013

I don't believe he has millions of "unique visitors" to his site, and zero from any straights. I don't believe he has fans except for very few in the gay community who are throwing their money away at him.

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if he was friends with Mediapolis since he's using the same pay for content narrative they're using for this site.

by Anonymousreply 3003/22/2013

I hope never to see him again on [italic]Real Time with Bill Maher[/italic].

by Anonymousreply 3103/22/2013

Are the milky loads anything like lumpy risotto?

by Anonymousreply 3203/22/2013

[quote]Even on its face it's silly because it implies he said things not because of the merits of the argument, but according to his personal grudges of the moment. So why would someone read this and think, "Oh okay." Nobody would.

Meet r9, who is willing to trust him all over again. despite the fact he has admitted publicly distorted the case for violent war simply because he was sore at some leftist meanies and wanted to spite them.

by Anonymousreply 3303/22/2013

I wish I could write a blog that people would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to read.

Can you imagine David Ehrenstein or Michelangelo Signorile being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to write something? Oh, I make myself laugh sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 3403/22/2013

[quote]I wish I could write a blog that people would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to read.

So does Andrew Sullivan!

by Anonymousreply 3503/22/2013

R26 got it. However, the period was much earlier than '03/'04. Sullivangate occurred in late 2000. I know because that's when I discovered DL after reading about Sullivan and and this site on a gossip newsgroup. Those were good times!

by Anonymousreply 3603/22/2013

Now maybe he can do a piece explaining his global self-absorption.

by Anonymousreply 3703/22/2013

[quote]she was also in high dudgeon over all the filthy liberal gays who ran around spreading AIDS with their drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers.

Any link to back up that claim, R26? Or R36, since you seem to agree with him.

And R35, $644,000 is a lot of money.

by Anonymousreply 3803/22/2013

[quote]I don't understand why anyone would be interested in what he has to say at this point.

I don't understand why anyone would advertise their stupidity by posting a claim like this. The guy is getting richer every day from all the people clicking on his site. Happy to say he gets $0.00 from me.

No, it wasn't David Ehrenstein who "discovered" Sullivan's ad on that website. That's a DL "urban legend." The discovery was made by John McMullen who founded the GayBC Radio Network - an online "radio station" for gays. He hated Sullivan and pushed the milky loads on the broadcast and in online print. Urinestain picked up the story and Sully's ad URL from McMullen.

by Anonymousreply 3903/22/2013

[quote]Back when Miss Sullivan was at the peak of her Bush-loving freeper frenzy, she was also in high dudgeon over all the filthy liberal gays who ran around spreading AIDS with their drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers. It was around that time (2003-2004?) that David Ehrenstein spotted an ad on one of the hookup sites from Andy herself, soliciting... wait for it... drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers. The ad text specified the best gay Catholic in the Northern Hemisphere loved to share his "milky loads" and bragged about his "power glutes." Can you even? Ehrenstein posted the link here, and it spread across the gay blog world from there.

Since I know for certain that half of this is total baloney, I wonder if there is ANY truth to the rest, including the claim: "she was also in high dudgeon over all the filthy liberal gays who ran around spreading AIDS with their drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers." I'd like to see some verification that Sullivan made elaborate comments about that.

I didn't read Sullivan's stuff in those days, however I would see him now and then on The Chris Matthews Show. I don't read him now unless there's a link posted here to a something he's written. There's no doubt that McMullen and Urinestain were insanely jealous of Sullivan who at least was earning a living in those days. Urinestain didn't have any steady work and McMullen was involved in a money scandal with a former employer.

I saw Sullivan's ad before it was removed. I saw McMullen and Urinestain taking it to extremes. Urinestain contacted newspaper editors in New York, California, and DC (bragged about it here) to get them to stop printing any of Sullivan's work. Did Urinestain think they would hire him instead?

by Anonymousreply 4003/23/2013

Andrew is a witty and smart writer, but strident about his causes du jour and too eager to ridicule his enemies.

He has admitted he was wrong about Iraq and has adeptly pinpointed the many reasons the current republican party is chauve-souris guano.

by Anonymousreply 4103/23/2013

Lol at r40. Sullivan for years wrote about how gay men needed to be less sexually promiscuous and become more conformist. He went on a rant about Castro street and made fun of the bear groups there a few months before the milky loads scandal came out. Queer as Folk even based a character on his hypocritical stances in a episode. The scandal also exposed his lie about how contracted HIV.

by Anonymousreply 4203/23/2013

Sully creamed over McCain (!!!)and Bush the way he now creams for Obama.

He so wants Big Daddy to love him...

by Anonymousreply 4303/23/2013

He's the only person I can think of who got fatter with AIDS. Always the precious snowflake, that one...

by Anonymousreply 4403/23/2013

R16 and R39 fail reading comprehension.

I never said that there was no one interested in what he has to say, only that their interest is incomprehensible to me.

by Anonymousreply 4503/23/2013

[quote]the current republican party is chauve-souris guano.

Marie! Oh la la!

by Anonymousreply 4603/23/2013

[quote][R16] and [R39] fail reading comprehension.

Or you expressed yourself poorly.

by Anonymousreply 4703/23/2013

Who are these fools disputing the Milky Loads hypocrisy? I feel like I'm in a timewarp or a Bizarro world. This all happened exactly as R26 said, except that he got the years wrong--it was indeed 2000ish instead. There was for the longest time a mirrored version of the Milky Loads profile saved with Andy's power glutes on display, but it's been taken down unfortunately. Anyway, these aren't "allegations" or "claims"--this all happened.

by Anonymousreply 4803/23/2013

How much more clear can it be than the first three words, R47?

"I don't understand..."

I think even most ESL students can manage that much.

by Anonymousreply 4903/23/2013

Is this the same Andrew Sullivan who had to be talked down from the ledge following Obama's disastrous first debate with Mitt Romney?

He's prone to be being-over-the-top and is bedeviled by emotion over logic.

by Anonymousreply 5003/23/2013

He doesn't seem to have consistent political beliefs (besides being hypocritical about them). How do you go from creaming yourself over George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain to OTT support for Barack Obama in just a few years?

I can't take him seriously for this reason. He just seems like an opportunist, turning from right to left on a dime as the political mood shifts.

His explanation that his support for Republicans was rooted in resentment over "the gay left" (isn't that just "gay people"?) not buying his "raging assimilationist" schtick only proves it; he uses his political platform not so much to argue new ideas as he does to play petty games with anyone who opposes him. He wanted all the good little gays to line up and act nice for the straights, so that maybe then Daddy will throw us some scraps...he trashed promiscuity while at the same time trolling for bareback sex WHILE HIV positive. Hypocrite is not enough to describe him. He's a complete fraud.

by Anonymousreply 5103/23/2013

Because the war in Iraq is all about Andrew! What a grand narcissist.

by Anonymousreply 5203/23/2013

"And he really believes Al Gore would have invaded Iraq too? That's incredible."

Yeah, I pretty much stopped reading there realizing it was just another pile of steaming horsehit which is what Sullivan is all about.

by Anonymousreply 5303/23/2013

What. A. Toad.

Perez Hilton claims to be successful, too. I just don't care. He remains a non-entity to me and does not represent my idea of gay pride or visibility. The same goes for Andrew Sullivan.

One's over and over self proclaimed success is another one's 'so what, who cares?'.

Though I appreciate both Perez and Andrew, because thanks to them I know I don't want to be or end up like them. And they can act like they laugh all the way to the bank. These guys are still ugly on the inside and out. They can suck on Ken Mehlmann's saggy tits for all I care.

by Anonymousreply 5403/23/2013

He's a mess of contradictions, that one. Extolling the virtues of Catholicism while trolling for anonymous sex. Bashing libertarianism while waxing rhapsodic about pot and mushrooms. Fundamentally conservative in his mindset, but a huge drama queen.

I find it all fascinating.

by Anonymousreply 5503/23/2013

archived page of the salacious ad in question.

the pro-sullivan denialist(s) need to STFU right quick.

by Anonymousreply 5603/23/2013

Thank you, R56. The coup de grâce for the insect Sullivan and his excuse makers.

by Anonymousreply 5703/23/2013

R56, we know Sullivan has a sex life, that's really not in question. The specific charged leveled here is that he is a hypocrite. That he criticized gays for being promiscuous while he was promiscuous himself.

I find nothing hypocritical about the ad itself. It's a sex ad where one poz man is looking for sex partners with other poz men. What's the big deal? Are you real so sex negative that this bothers you?

by Anonymousreply 5803/23/2013

R58, after years of Sullivan's pushing conservatism and Catholicism, two streams of thought that condemn free love, the ad is the smoking gun of his hypocrisy. What about that do you not get?

by Anonymousreply 5903/23/2013

R58 released the 'sex-negative' kraken.

Get him, boys.

by Anonymousreply 6003/23/2013

OKAY - you are back - we know you hate Sullivan - he has a stalker - YOU. We have read your hate-filled posts for years and years and years. You want him to die, you want him deported, you want others to hate him, etc. Take your stalking elsewhere, a-hole. ENOUGH ALREADY.

I don't give a rat's ass for Sullivan. I have never met him or talked to him. I don't read his column, so don't go after me.

by Anonymousreply 6103/23/2013

If you've read Sullivan at all, R59, you'd know his brand of conservatism and Catholicism does not include sexual puritanism.

by Anonymousreply 6203/23/2013

How did McMullen know that the ad was AS? Unless he had been there.

by Anonymousreply 6303/23/2013

You do know she's posting on this thread,right? When he comes on Hard Ball, I just find something to do for a few minutes.

by Anonymousreply 6403/23/2013

Not being a Puritan = I take milky loads?

Sorry, R62, no sale.

by Anonymousreply 6503/23/2013

what do you mean r65? r62 is correct.

by Anonymousreply 6603/23/2013

[quote] Nonetheless, when you have been smeared,

He was never smeared. Only the truth was told about him.

by Anonymousreply 6703/23/2013

[quote]I find nothing hypocritical about the ad itself. It's a sex ad where one poz man is looking for sex partners with other poz men. What's the big deal? Are you real so sex negative that this bothers you?

To be gay and to be bourgeois no longer seems such an absurd proposition. Certainly since AIDS, to be gay and to be responsible has become a necessity. —Andrew Sullivan

by Anonymousreply 6803/23/2013

Wow, R61 must really be Sullivan.

by Anonymousreply 6903/23/2013

[quote]He was never smeared.

He's been smeared quite a bit in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 7003/23/2013

Are you implying that he was irresponsible, R68? His ad was on a website for positive men looking for other poz partners. That's called sero-sorting -- completely responsible behavior.

by Anonymousreply 7103/23/2013

This man is a fucking lunatic. Any gay man who carried GWB's water the way this freak did has some real damage. For this alone, he should be deported back to his home country.

by Anonymousreply 7203/23/2013

OK, R62 and R66, it's not impossible that I've misjudged Sullivan. Could you suggest a source that shows Sullivan's conservatism and Catholicism allow for bug-swapping promiscuity?

If it exists, I will thank you sincerely for your helpful correction.

by Anonymousreply 7303/23/2013

"Bug-swapping?" Evidence for that R73? The ad was on a website featuring ads from poz men looking for sex with other poz men.

by Anonymousreply 7403/23/2013

Let's see r72, you think someone should be deported from the US for supporting an American President? And you call someone ELSE a lunatic?

Try to wrap your head around the concept that you're essentially a nobody, and that disagreeing with your personal political views isn't grounds for deportation.

by Anonymousreply 7503/23/2013

R74, you don't seem to be acquainted with the existence of different strains of HIV or the concept of super-infection or reinfection. Read up and get back to me. I pray you are not HIV positive and swapping bugs.

Sullivan wanted bareback sex with other HIV+ men, a dangerous and stupid type of behavior. Possibly you are confusing swapping with chasing?

And how is harming yourself and other HIV+ people consistent with conservatism and Catholicism? Anyone?

by Anonymousreply 7603/23/2013

A lot of this thread is just fighting over what happened twelve, thirteen years ago--I think the Milky Loads scandal is over and done with. If you're still stuck on that, that seems pretty petty and insignificant. You're botching that thirteen years ago he was a tremendous hypocrite. Well, he was, but big deal.

What's more important is that he's telling us his resentments over the scandal bizarrely led to him becoming a warmonger. Unlike his hypocrisy toward barebacking, the saber-rattling had gigantic repercussions: his columns were among the things used to justify a war that should never have happened.

by Anonymousreply 7703/23/2013

I totally agree on the ideological bending angle, R78, but I would like to see whatever it is Sullivan's supporters count as documentation for his position.

by Anonymousreply 7903/23/2013

R58/62 seems to forget that Sullivan DID write about how gay men were sexually irresponsible including his ranting about pride celebrations. He also flat out lied about how he contracted HIV.

by Anonymousreply 8003/23/2013

So he supported a genocidal war that essentially destroyed a centuries-old civilization because he was subject to some pointless bitchery? How morally bankrupt do you have to be to even be capable of that?

by Anonymousreply 8103/23/2013

What should have happened was that those pushing for the war in Iraq -- like Andrew Sullivan -- should have been at the front of the battle lines physically fighting in the war in Iraq.

Of course no two people were more deserving of this position more than both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But there was room for them and plenty more, including Andrew Sullivan.

by Anonymousreply 8203/23/2013

Non story

by Anonymousreply 8303/23/2013

I think it was his hatefilled rant about Castro clones that first disgusted Datalounge with him...and is hugely fun because all those Castro clones as described by Sullivan looked better than Sullivan does now.

by Anonymousreply 8403/23/2013

[quote]Who are these fools disputing the Milky Loads hypocrisy? I feel like I'm in a timewarp or a Bizarro world. This all happened exactly as R26 said,

Bullcrap! There was nothing exact about that post. There's no disputing the Milky Loads ad, R48, however R26's claim about Urinestain being the one who made the discovery is totally wrong. Now, you've added that R26 also got the year wrong with your claim that it was "2000ish." It was actually in the Spring of 2001.

Since R26 is known to be wrong with that information, it's easy to figure that his claim "she(sic) was also in high dudgeon over all the filthy liberal gays who ran around spreading AIDS with their drug-fueled bareback sex romps with strangers," is also more TOTAL fiction - otherwise, link please.

Urinestain was going on all kinds of rants over this event and trying to find out further information. On 05/11/2001 @ 10:21PM, he posted a demand to Anonymous: [bold]NAME THE DAMN SOURCES!!!!![/bold]

Anonymous replied: [bold]The sources are confidential and will remain that way. You should find that easy to understand, David.[/bold]

Urinestain followed @ 10:36PM with a real classic: [bold]No, I don't find that easy to understand at all. And neither should anyone who's a serious journalist. Unnamed sources mean one thing only -- you're not a writer, you're a pencil.[/bold]

The topic of that infamous DL thread was: [bold]FLASH: Andrew Sullivan's BAREBACK profile and web site's!!![/bold]

by Anonymousreply 8503/23/2013

I am R61 - you know who I am Sullivan stalker. You posted many times, many times that you wished Sullivan would die a painful death from aids. My partner died of aids when he was 27 - I told you how offended I was at what you posted and you STILL WENT ON WITH THAT SHIT about how he should die from aids or somebody should kill him. I WILL NEVER STOP FIGHTING YOU IN HERE. I swore on the memory of my dead lover that I would stand up to your evil whenever you showed up here. I am not Sullivan, I don't care about him, I have never read anything he has written and I don't intend to. I fight you because I can see the dead body of my partner and that should never be wished upon anyone.

PLEASE STOP THIS!

by Anonymousreply 8603/23/2013

Who are you talking to, R86? Nearly everyone likes exposing Andrew Sullivan's wicked ways.

by Anonymousreply 8703/23/2013

See what a narcissist you are R87. You just can't stop yourself and you have to get the last word.

by Anonymousreply 8803/23/2013

Dude, I've lost lots of people to AIDS and that hasn't made me think more highly of Andrew Sullivan. In fact, the contrast between their virtue and his nastiness and corruption is morally offensive, with wounds heavily salted by his ridiculous histrionic rants. He didn't get deported or die because he wasn't living in Tennessee or Texas and never in his life had to deal with any conservatives. But he should have understood them, if he were as smart as he thinks he is.

by Anonymousreply 8903/23/2013

R89 - I will not let you get away with this. Every time you post I will post back challenging you.

by Anonymousreply 9003/23/2013

[quote] I swore on the memory of my dead lover that I would stand up to your evil whenever you showed up here.

Mary!

You're like Batman, only infinitely nellier!

by Anonymousreply 9103/23/2013

Fuck you R91

by Anonymousreply 9203/23/2013

Honey, I'm just telling it like it is.

by Anonymousreply 9303/23/2013

R90, you've got a little crazy on your face.

by Anonymousreply 9403/23/2013

Back off stalker, I told you I am not going away.

by Anonymousreply 9503/23/2013

Sorry for your loss, R86.

by Anonymousreply 9603/23/2013

He's a vile piece of shit, but it's good he's trying to make amends in his last days.

PS: It's revisionist history for him to claim he was seeking poz guys when he posted his milky loads ad...at least he's now confirming his husband is poz if that's the kind of guys he's into.

by Anonymousreply 9703/23/2013

At least Sullivan is man enough to admit his mistakes. That cannot be said for those in the Bush administration and their cheerleaders in the Democratic party and the media. Those same people haven't learned a thing from the Iraq debacle and are now pressing for further military adventures in the Middle East--aid to the Syrian rebels, an invasion of Iran.

by Anonymousreply 9803/23/2013

r97 is the stalker again

by Anonymousreply 9903/23/2013

Hate to backtrack, but how did DL figure out that those meaty chunky cheeks were pundit beef?

by Anonymousreply 10003/23/2013

r100, because someone answered said profile and it lead him to Sullivan? Like, duh.

Really, Andrew and his posse is milking this thread like one of his milky loads. I'm impressed. Though I am surprise how much time he and his friends spend on here when there's this super popular and influential pay site Andrew is running and making shit loads of money off it. Is he on one of his many breaks and spends it with us at Datalounge? Aw, I am honored.

by Anonymousreply 10103/23/2013

No, R101, I'm not Sullivan posse! Didn't realize anybody answered the ad. He's an asshole - what qualifies him to have an opinion I care about?

by Anonymousreply 10203/23/2013

Actually we all gasped in horror when it turned out Obama knew who he was.

by Anonymousreply 10303/23/2013

R61 etc... Does this to try and shut down threads critical of Sullivan. It still never addresses the fact that he lied about how he got HIV because it would have exposed him as a hypocrite.

by Anonymousreply 10403/23/2013

Why is this nasty cum dump allowed on TV?

by Anonymousreply 10503/23/2013

Sullivan is truly the worst of the worst. I don't wish ill health or anything else on him, but I do find him utterly despicable and would be very happy to never hear his name again. He deserves banishment from the public sphere for much of what he's written, but especially for his self-loathing, hypocritical writings on gay sexual behavior and above all his warmongering in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

by Anonymousreply 10603/23/2013

[quote] (and I still think Gore would have launched the Iraq War as well).

Just wanted to let everyone know where to stop reading!

by Anonymousreply 10703/23/2013

I lie. You cannot miss this gem!

[quote]And my loathing of the left had been intensified earlier that year by a traumatizing exposure of my own sex life by gay leftists determined to destroy my reputation and career

And by "gay leftists" he means "Anyone motivated to call out 'Bullshit' at deranged, self-loathing hypocrites", I guess!

by Anonymousreply 10803/23/2013

They were out to RUIN my REPUTATION!

by Anonymousreply 10903/23/2013

[quote]gay leftists determined to destroy my reputation and career

That's not 100% correct as they weren't after him for his beliefs; because that would have been something I could understand. Urinestain and McMullen didn't give a damn what or who Sullivan wrote about. All that mattered to those two untalented hacks is that they had something to use to bash this gay man who was making piles of money while they didn't have two nickels to rub together. They were two pathetic jealous queens who were determined to destroy his career simply because they wanted his fame and his earning power.

Sullivan was a total jackass for his support of Bush and the Bush-Cheney War but I'm agreeing that Urinestain and McMullen were total assholes as a major part of the whole scandal. And there's no doubt that there are a couple of jealous queens in this thread who can't deal with his popularity and earning power. I'd rather see him replaced with an intelligent gay American who matches his writing ability. Where is that person?

It would be nice if we could send Sullivan back to England, along with Piers Morgan, and then put up walls to keep them out as well as the Osbournes and Beckhams.

by Anonymousreply 11003/23/2013

Milky Loads sounds like a gay cowpoke. Got me thinking about similar names. A sly contributor here might be Wiley Post.

by Anonymousreply 11103/23/2013

[quote]this gay man who was making piles of money

Sully never, ever, ever made "piles of money." Not once, in his entire career.

All you have to do is see in his microscopic timeshare in Provincetown to understand that.

by Anonymousreply 11203/23/2013

Neither David E or John McMullen exposed him on DL, it was an anonymous post. Sullivan has had money problems and the place in P Town went into foreclosure. R110 I speak for a lot people who would rather have less money and their health then have to take a cocktail of drugs everyday that cause permanent weight gain crux belly and a buffalo hump.

by Anonymousreply 11303/23/2013

He'll be in dire straits again with this latest scheme. What kind of idiot moves to New York City to execute a business plans with more holes than a colander?

by Anonymousreply 11403/23/2013

R113, the foreclosure action goes back to 2004, and was because of a tax debt of less than $1660, mystifying town officials, according to the Provincetown Banner article that I just read. The Banner is notoriously unreliable, but it seemed accurate in this instance.

by Anonymousreply 11503/23/2013

And, R113, it's CRIX belly, short for Crixivan, the protease inhibitor first found to cause it.

by Anonymousreply 11603/23/2013

Milky Loads is a repulsive monster who has a LONG history of disgusting and vile views daring back well before Bush and into the early nineties. He should have been deported twenty years ago. The Sullivan defender is a pathetic little storm trooper robot who is to be completely ignored and is equally disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 11703/23/2013

This Dumb-Dora (who I am pretty sure is Mr.Sullivan), keeps saying things like...I've never read his writing,etc. if that WERE true,what the fuck are you doing in this conversation? I also think it's the same person (trying to act like a different poster) who keeps demanding links. Find your own links! WE are having a conversation YOU are acting like a child. Get the fuck off this thread,and research Mr. Sullivan yourself. If you are not informed about a topic,you have no business trying to stir the shit. Some of the fucking dumbells around here think they're entitled to an opinion About every thread. LINK PLEASE,LINK PLEASE,FUCK THE FUCK OFF! Oh,and sir I am truly sorry for the loss of your partner. It would serve you though,to remember that everyone here has MANY losses from AIDS.

by Anonymousreply 11803/23/2013

R118 is in that other thread supporting the NRA and the right of Americans to own assault weapons.

by Anonymousreply 11903/24/2013

For the idiots who'd rather angrily demand a link than do any research on their own:

[quote]It all began in April, when Sullivan published a mocking account of his recent visit to San Francisco. "The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos," he had snarked. "I saw one hirsute fellow dressed from head to toe in flamingo motifs." Wandering into a gay bar, he recoiled: "Rarely have I seen such a scary crowd. Gay life in the rest of the U.S. is increasingly suburban, mainstream, assimilable. Here in the belly of the beast, Village People look-alikes predominate, and sex is still central to the culture. . . . I'd go nuts if I had to live here full time."

[quote]This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the "libidinal pathology" of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to "a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation." He has hectored gay men for their obsession with "manic muscle factories," and written at length about the need for "responsibility" in the age of AIDS. But thanks to the outing squad, we now know that this gay moralist is guilty of the same sins he disses others for committing.

...

[quote]After word of Sullivan's online escapades lit up a gay chat room last month, David Ehrenstein, a chronicler of the Hollywood closet, passed the dish around. A judicious item appeared in Michael Musto's Village Voicecolumn, and the story soon spread to Page Six of the New York Post. But the main mover was Michelangelo Signorile, the self-proclaimed inventor of outing. (See sidebar, "Sexual Squealing.") In a lengthy exposé that ran in the local gay paper LGNY, he skewered Sullivan for engaging in "a classic 'do as I say, not as I do' argument." Signorile's timing couldn't have been better. Every June some gay shock-horror grips the tabloids in time for Pride Week. This year's scandal is Sullivan's sex life.

by Anonymousreply 12003/24/2013

[quote]It's revisionist history for him to claim he was seeking poz guys when he posted his milky loads ad.

How so? in the ad linked to this thread, he said he was a poz guy looking for other poz guys. Is there another ad?

There's nothing new in his decrying promiscuity while hanging out under the docks at Provincetown. Sexual hypocrisy is part of his legacy as a Republican. But it is bizarre that he bashed the bear culture when he know waxes rhapsodic about hair and beards and beer bellies, etc.

by Anonymousreply 12103/24/2013

[quote]"Saving lives was less important than saving a culture of 'promiscuity as a collective way of life,' when, of course, it was little more than a collective way of death. ... They constructed and defended and glorified the abbatoirs of the epidemic."

~Milky Loads

by Anonymousreply 12203/24/2013

R122's quote settles it, and Sullivan loses game, set, and match.

Even worse, the line before R122's quote begins is "The gay liberationists have plenty to answer for..." Jesus, the irony.

Sullivan is far worse than a hypocrite. He harmed the reputation of gay men at a time when we were fighting powerful right wing reactionaries and pushed a futile, dishonest war out of personal pique, which he admits.

He's a vile bag of shit.

by Anonymousreply 12303/24/2013

[quote]"The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos," he had snarked.

How utterly Jane Goodall blissful!

by Anonymousreply 12403/24/2013

His "I've Got Mine" attitude drives me nuts!

He was bitterly opposed to health care reform, because he "feared British NHS service" as a result - let others suffer so his Top Quality employer-sponsored policies wouldn't be affected.

He hangs in DC, NY and MA - three "marriage" states - and I believe he's said it's okay that marriage in the other states can wait (quite a while) ... as long as he gets federal recognition for his own status ASAP.

by Anonymousreply 12503/24/2013

I've been accused of wanting him dead but occasionally I agree with something he's said and I've told him so. No reason to hold grudges. He's the one with the grudge.

by Anonymousreply 12603/24/2013

Sullivan, meanwhile, pointed to the AIDS epidemic as having been pivotal within the LGBT community.

"This sounds awful, and I don't mean it to be awful, but it's true: The generation [of gay people] that would have most resisted {marriage] reform were dead. The people whose lives were defined by sexual liberation, that generation — understandably defined by sexual liberation, because I completely understand why that has to come first — but, by the tragedy of AIDS … we didn't have as much resistance within the gay community, for generational reasons, to this change."

Links to BuzzFeed:

by Anonymousreply 12703/25/2013

You know what's funny? When the history of gay civil rights is written in this country, Sullivan's name will be featured prominently and often. And all the rest of us will be forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 12803/25/2013

[quote]When the history of gay civil rights is written in this country, Sullivan's name will be featured prominently and often.

So will Anita Bryant's.

by Anonymousreply 12903/25/2013

Really R128, what did he ever do to promote gay rights? The state by state gay marriage initiative was undertaken first in Hawaii and then Vermont without his assistance. He wrote a book about it, but so did others.

His biggest claim to fame right now is that the president knows who he is and therefore Sulllivan may have had some influence. But unless Obama actually gives him credit for affecting his thinking, that won't be mentioned by any histories.

Anyway, who cares who gets credit for it as long as we get what we want? Historians often lionize the wrong people, and they always have an agenda. Most likely if historians do lionize Sullivan, it would be because Sullivan became a historian.

by Anonymousreply 13003/25/2013

Thank you for providing that information R120. Morons like R118 are unable to back up their hysterics so it's natural for people to ask for links to the claims they're screeching. When they are unable to take part in intelligent discourse, one tends to disbelieve their rants. Providing quotes from relevant sources along with links, helps people to understand the topic. It's no wonder Michelangelo Signorile skewered Sullivan at that time.

The Screaming Mimi who thinks Sullivan is posting in this thread needs to up her meds. She's sounding like Ehrenstein's reincarnation.

by Anonymousreply 13103/25/2013

Ehrenstein, Musto, and Signorile were at the forefront of calling Sully on his hypocrisy. And Sully was in such pain over it that he backed the war in Iraq? From one weapon of mass destruction to another...

by Anonymousreply 13203/25/2013

Sullivan stalker - stop it!!

by Anonymousreply 13303/25/2013

It doesn't do to hold everyone always to their every old word and old deed. I have no problem embracing strange bedfellows or those who covert from heresy to sensibility. Fundamentally, though, Sullivan has always been a contrarian. It's his stock-in-trade to shift from the gay foot to the conservative foot and back again, from the faithful Catholic to the Catholic busting out stained glass windows from inside the church -- whatever garners him the most attention, whatever lands him a pundit junket, defensibility and vague consistency or even evolution of view be damned.

If ambition were conviction, he would brim over with the latter. But ambition isn't conviction, except to self-advancement.

by Anonymousreply 13403/25/2013

[quote]Sullivan stalker - stop it!!

STOP BEATLES!!!

by Anonymousreply 13503/25/2013

Thanks Ehrenstein

by Anonymousreply 13603/25/2013

[quote]You know what's funny? When the history of gay civil rights is written in this country, Sullivan's name will be featured prominently and often. And all the rest of us will be forgotten.

You know what's even funnier? That you went around this thread demanding proof that Sullivan criticized gays for promiscuous behavior and when you finally got that proof, you ignored it utterly.

by Anonymousreply 13703/25/2013

[quote]Thank you for providing that information [R120]. Morons like [R118] are unable to back up their hysterics so it's natural for people to ask for links to the claims they're screeching. When they are unable to take part in intelligent discourse, one tends to disbelieve their rants. Providing quotes from relevant sources along with links, helps people to understand the topic

You know what else helps people understand a topic? Doing the research themselves instead of angrily demanding that people who are more well-read on the topic take time out to teach it to them. It took five minutes of googling to find those quotes.

by Anonymousreply 13803/25/2013

[quote]Michelangelo Signorile, the self-proclaimed inventor of outing.

What happened? Why did he stop outing? Why has he been silent in recent years about outing men like John Roberts, Anderson Cooper (prior to last July), Bill Hemmer, John Travolta, Shepard Smith, etc. Did he stop outing people?

by Anonymousreply 13903/25/2013

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE SHIT IN MY MOUTH!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 14003/25/2013

[quote]Sullivan stalker - stop it!!

Is someone here really this addled? To think that: 1) there is exactly one person on Datalounge speaking critically of Sullivan, and 2) stomping your feet and whining "stop it!!!" at another poster would have any affect on them at all.

by Anonymousreply 14103/25/2013

David Ehrenstein hates Andrew Sullivan. I am not sure why. Probably he was jealous of his success or was in love with him or something. Ehrenstein started wild attacks on Sullivan years ago, calling him "Milky Loads". Ehrenstein wanted Sullivan deported. he also posted that he wanted Sullivan to die a long and painful death from Aids. He also posted he hoped somebody would kill Sullivan. Ehrenstein has never been able to give this up and has been obsessed with Sullivan and still wishes violence on him. David posts in here constantly.

by Anonymousreply 14203/26/2013

Andrew Sullivan has done some truly awful things. He deserves all of this scrutiny, and more.

by Anonymousreply 14303/26/2013

Any what are those things again, David, and how should he be punished...

by Anonymousreply 14403/26/2013

I'VE EATEN SO MUCH SHITITS CLOGGING UP MY BRAIN AND I CAN'T READ !!! I

by Anonymousreply 14503/26/2013

Wow, r144 is a very special kind of crazy.

by Anonymousreply 14603/26/2013

AS was a big time hypocrite. courting the National Review crowd and bemoaning the kinks of promiscuous gay males. Meanwhile his kinks were just as bad as the people he criticized.The fact that he used the code name Milky Loads was so utterly fabulous.He'll never live that down to some.

David exposed AS but he is definitely obsessed with him. My advice is to give it up and let AS rant on Bill Maher and end up looking like a silly cunt just the same.It is sick to want another human being to be murdered or die of Aids.One must have an extremely sick mind to wish that upon someone.

by Anonymousreply 14703/27/2013

I used to dislike Sullivan intensely because he was a conservative Catholic and gay Republican. He was everything I loathed. Since he has come around, I've forgiven him a lot. But he still seems not to acknowledge his own hypocrisy. And I really can't forgive him the Iraq war. Any fool knew that was the wrong thing to do.

by Anonymousreply 14803/27/2013

I don't care about Milky Loads, what he does with others, whether he's poz or not - I will, however, never forgive him for lambasting anti-war activists as traitors. Never.

by Anonymousreply 14904/01/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.