From the department of bad analogies: Unhinged looney tunes Lou Engle of the New Apostolic Reformation told the crowd at Pat Robertson’s “Week of Prayer” that Virginians should fight against the gay agenda just like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson fought against “Washington” during the Civil War.
May 09 2012
Lou Engle: Fight The Gay Like Confederate Generals
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
36 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
dingojack
May 9, 2012 at 9:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By circling to the north, getting distracted by shoes and finally ending with a lame-brained charge uphill toward an entrenched enemy who can see eactly what your planning.
Yes Lou, you do that.
Dingo
Gregory in Seattle
May 9, 2012 at 9:08 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You are quite wrong in describing Lou Engle as “loony tunes”: unlike Engle, the series of Warner Brother cartoons were funny.
brucecoppola
May 9, 2012 at 9:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What’s this “principalities and powers” trope we keep hearing from fundies?
gvlgeologist
May 9, 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Refresh my memory. Didn’t the confederacy lose?
imrryr
May 9, 2012 at 9:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@gvlgeologist – Nah, that’s just what the lamestream media wants you to think. Wake up, sheeple!
Chiroptera
May 9, 2012 at 9:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heh. They’re daring the pro-equality side to embark on a scorched earth “March to the Sea”? I can dig that.
gvlgeologist
May 9, 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On the other hand, at least they’re consistent. Both groups fighting to keep a particular group from having civil rights.
holytape
May 9, 2012 at 9:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Didn’t those two gentlemen lose? So he’s saying that that anti-gay crusaders should a) be shot by their own troops in a case of mistaken identity or b) make a suicidal charge across an open field? Or is he saying, to General Lee’s credit, when the war appears to be unwinnable, it is time to surrender and accept defeat, instead of taking to the hills and adopting a burnt earth approach?
holytape
May 9, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ gvlgeologist
They didn’t lose. They are just waiting. They’ll rise again and invaded the north. The union will never know what hit them.
jennyxyzzy
May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not only did the Confederacy lose, but there was not a single point in the whole conflict where they could claim that they were winning. They lost territory every single year of the war until it all collapsed in on itself a bit over 4 years after having started.
Lee himself was constantly frustrated by the fact that although he could win tactical victories, he knew he was getting his butt kicked strategically, and he could not find a single way to change that fact.
So sure guys, fight against teh Gay like a Confederate General. It’s practically an admission that they know they’re going to lose.
shouldbeworking
May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Will the TSA be screening people on the new underground railroad?
dingojack
May 9, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mebbe after Lou’s little effort on Washington, the ‘Gay Boudoir’* should skip Virginia and go straight to the ‘March to the Sea’.
Dingo
—–
* a whole lot more happin’ than the lobby!
DaveL
May 9, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Translation: anyone wishing to “surrender” to Teh Ghey should meet at the McLean house in Appomatox after nightfall.
d cwilson
May 9, 2012 at 9:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Comparing your losing battle to keep a certain group of people from having full rights as citizens to a lost battle to deny a certain group of people from having full rights as citizens?
Sounds like a perfectly apt analogy to me.
d cwilson
May 9, 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Do they have a public men’s room?
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
May 9, 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From the New Testament epistles (Romans 8:38; Ephesians 3:10, 6:12; Colossians 1:16, 2:15; Titus 3:1. See Christian angelic hierarchy at Wikipedia.
raven
May 9, 2012 at 9:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The gay agenda is hardly worth getting upset over.
When the gays take over everyone will have fabulous drapes and owning a pair of stylish shoes will be a human right.
It won’t destroy civilization.
dingojack
May 9, 2012 at 9:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raven – “It won’t destroy civilization”.
Are you kidding?!? Do you how expensive a pair of cherry-red size 13.5 EE Jimmy Choo’s are?
Dingo
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 9:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re dingojack @ #1
This is a prime example of Lee’s failure to learn from previous mistakes by himself and others. He did the same thing the previous year, attacking a strong position on Malvern Hill during the 7 days Peninsula campaign where his forces suffered some 5 thousand casualties in an hour, compared to about a thousand for the opponent. Later the previous year, he observed Burnside attacking a strong position on Marye’s Heights near Fredericksburg with high casualties and a defeat.
dingojack
May 9, 2012 at 10:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
SLC – Shit. 5000 in a hour? Why would anyone want to emulate that?
Dingo
Reginald Selkirk
May 9, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
By committing treason.
anandine
May 9, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
gvlgeologist said: Didn’t the confederacy lose
What makes you think the war is over?
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re anandine @ #22
Save your Confederate money folks, the South shall rise again. End snark.
fifthdentist
May 9, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A shiny new Internets to DaveL!
D. C. Sessions
May 9, 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And they had wit. As distinct from being witless.
D. C. Sessions
May 9, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He was ahead of his time in rightsizing his headcount. There’s a reason the modern Republican Party admires him.
wscott
May 9, 2012 at 4:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Winning most of the battles but doomed to inevitably lose the war? Actually it’s a pretty good analogy, just not the one he intended.
twincats
May 9, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think we can all agree that knockoffs (fashionable ones) have to be allowed.
Think of how many jobs will be lost if all the Payless Shoe Source stores have to be closed! Not to mention Ross and TJ Maxx…
slc1
May 9, 2012 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rew Dingojack @ #20
As bad as that seems, the British Army took 58,000 casualties on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916.
WMDKitty
May 9, 2012 at 7:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*snicker* Because Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were, like, totally successful, right?
Rip Steakface
May 9, 2012 at 9:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The only fair point I can see here is that the South had a good general in the form of Robert E. Lee… who surrendered at Appomattox. The biggest reason the North won wasn’t its generals (who were even more incompetent than Southern generals!), but because it had industrial capacity out the ass in comparison to the agricultural South. A more recent analogy would be like pitting 1950s Detroit vs. 1950s Kansas – Detroit can manufacture tanks, while Kansas has crazy rednecks with rifles under their bed. Who wins?
dingojack
May 9, 2012 at 11:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also one should consider the population differences;
North c11M vs. South c4M (whites)*. This would have also made winning for the south difficult. [Sort of New York vs Alabama].
But the south had shorter, internal supply lines and a simpler objective, so it wasn’t all against the Southerners.
Dingo
—–
* I haven’t checked these numbers, I could be wildly wrong, but I believe the ratio would be something of that order.
slc1
May 10, 2012 at 9:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Dingojack @ #32
The raw numbers were Union: 22 million, Confederacy: 9 million of which 3 million were black slaves.
dingojack
May 10, 2012 at 10:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
OK – 22M to 6M. Sort of New York vs Minnesota (proportionally).
Dingo
wscott
May 10, 2012 at 10:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The difference in population in itself might not have been a deal-breaker. (History is full of smaller countries beating larger, better-armed countries.) But the tactics the South used caused them to take more casualties than they inflicted on the North. The North could absorb those losses; the South couldn’t.
slc1
May 10, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Dingojack @ #34
Almost Australia vs New Zealand. He, he.