Gay Patriot Header Image

What Left-wing Moonbats and Gay-baiters Have in Common

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:32 pm - December 24, 2005.
Filed under: Blogging

It’s been a while since I have gotten hate e-mails. When I first started blogging, I used to receive two or three a week, usually from people who just discovered the blog and were really angry that a gay man could express a perspective different from their own — and that of the gay media/culture mainstream. It seems that when certain angry individuals hear about our blog from some left-of-center blog, they feel compelled to write in to lambaste it and attack us.

Well, shortly after such a blogger picked up our conservative blogress diva contest, I received my first piece of hate-mail in some time. So delicious was this missive that I thought I’d share the whole thing (minus the sender’s name) with you:

What the hell is wrong with you? How can you support Bush? Not only is he the worst President in the history of the US (with the possible exception of James Buchanan) who has made this country not only much less safe than it was when he took over the Presidency, nearly bankrupted our treasury and made us the pariah of global politics, but he is a man who actively works to strip you of your rights. Does the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage ring any bells with you? How can you collaborate with your enemy – someone who you know full well hates you & everything you are about? You have no business insulting anyone else. I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror, and figure out what is wrong with yourself (and there appears to be PLENTY) before you continue impugning the patriotism of people who disagree with you. It is people like you who are literally ripping this country apart at it’s seems, and the rest of us are really getting tired of it. Clearly, America is just not that important to you. You are happy to watch our country swirl down the drain, if it means that thugs & liars like yourself and the President you so admire can redistribute tax dollars to the super-rich, rape the environment, curtail civil liberties and wage endless war. What is good for the country is of no concern to you & your ilk at all. It’s only what you, or your deranged political leaders, want. It’s all about YOU. That literally disgusts me, and you should be completely ashamed of yourself, not that you have any notion of what shame might be, judging from your reprehensible blog. In closing, if you can’t be a positive force in the Gay & Lesbian community, and help people LIKE YOURSELF to have the same rights and access to Government that straight people enjoy, then SHUT UP.

I have already taken issue with this writer in a series of e-mails. But, it’s striking how insult- and anger-filled his missive is. And such angry leftists are the ones accusing us of hatred!

Not only that. He misrepresents our views as well as conservative ideas in general. Indeed, his hate-filled screed seems little different from the anti-gay diatribes of the most extreme social conservatives. The only difference is that they’re projecting their own demons onto different targets.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

63 Comments

  1. Like a liberal would have a clue what shame is.

    I’ve been waiting for years for ANY liberal to show me exactly which rights or civil liberties they have lost.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 24, 2005 @ 10:46 pm - December 24, 2005

  2. Further, nowadays one wouldn’ even need to ask why liberals have an ass for their symbol.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 24, 2005 @ 10:47 pm - December 24, 2005

  3. I like how he thinks passing tax cuts to let people keep more of their own money is “redistribut[ing] tax dollars to the super-rich.”

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 25, 2005 @ 2:13 am - December 25, 2005

  4. I always love when they use the redistrubute tax dollers to the rich. Where do they think the majority of the tax dollers come from? Liberals in general seem to have no concept that the Federal Government has NO money of it’s own, only that that they siphon off from the hard work of the American people. My tax reform fantasy has always been no payroll deductions. Make everyone in the country write a check to the government monthly for their tax amount and you would be suprised how quickly real tax reform took place and needless and wasteful spending cut.

    Comment by ptownmatt — December 25, 2005 @ 6:16 am - December 25, 2005

  5. What a nice man. Diatribes such as his–while amusing–really merit no response. There is literally no argument that I am aware of that can sway such a loon. He is clearly a very angry, frustrated wretch of a human being and does project the ills that so enrage him upon his political enemies.

    Did I miss something, or are we at war with an ideological/religious enemy that will fight us for decades? It is an enemy with aspirations of global domination and the patience, fervor and cunning to do us umimaginable harm. Furthermore, the foot soldiers of this enemy are completely unafraid of losing life or limb in their cause. What the hell is wrong with people who think that George Bush merely created or enabled such enemies in order to acrete and hold dictatorial power? What are such people going to do when, in January 2009, they no longer have a President they can so vilify? (The truth of the matter is they will vilify whoever is elected if that person is not in complete lockstep with their own self-absorbed, twisted worldview.)

    The best possible remedy for someone such as this crone would be to actually have to live as a citizen of Cuba, Venezuela, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, N. Korean, etc. for just a short time. If he thinks he lives in a thuggocracy in America today, he aint seen nothing yet. I seriously doubt the fatuous jerk could make it a month in such an environment, but, should he indeed survive, maybe he would understand how unhinged his views sound to reasonable people, gay or straight.

    Comment by Scott — December 25, 2005 @ 7:52 am - December 25, 2005

  6. I had one of these waiting in my inbox this morning. I just replied with Merry Christmas!

    Comment by rightwingprof — December 25, 2005 @ 9:16 am - December 25, 2005

  7. One should probably ignore such lame nonsense from the card-carrying, brain-dead witless coprophagiacs of the world.

    Comment by Terry — December 25, 2005 @ 9:33 am - December 25, 2005

  8. You make an excellent point, GPW. Such hate mail is unjustified and counterproductive. However, as you know, such diatribes aren’t only the product of “moonbats” and “extreme” social conservatives. I have seen posts with opinions that differ from you and GPW attacked almost as harshly from some posters here. Further, I’ve also seen snide posts attacking those calling for civility.

    Comment by Pat — December 25, 2005 @ 10:56 am - December 25, 2005

  9. Kinda funny that he picks James Buchanan as the worst president. Must be internalized homophobia or something.

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 25, 2005 @ 11:15 am - December 25, 2005

  10. You’re right Pat. Almost anything I say draws their wrath.

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 12:16 pm - December 25, 2005

  11. It is people like you who are literally ripping this country apart at it’s seems,

    Its reasoning is as sound as its grammar and spelling.

    It’s still not as bad as the guy who threatened to beat up my children during the Schaivo controversy.

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - December 25, 2005

  12. As for “civility” there are more than a few people who whine about “name-calling” and being attacked when all someone has done is ripped their talking points apart using reason and facts. In the same way, people who whine about dividing the country, as GPW’s e-mailer did, are really saying they want conservatives to just STFU so liberals can enact their agenda without opposition.

    I, for one, enjoy a raucous debate. It’s really up to the individual blogmasters to decide where they want the tone and quality of argument on their blog to be on the continuum between biker bar and “Survivors-of-Disappointment Support Group Hug-In.”

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2005 @ 1:06 pm - December 25, 2005

  13. …”immediately followed by the author (lamely) insulting another commenter’s (sic) spelling and grammar”.
    V the K
    December 21

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 1:09 pm - December 25, 2005

  14. from someone who gets hate email all the time I applaud you for speaking your thoughts here are some of mine

    OH WHERE, OH WHERE CAN MY GAY DOLLARS GO?

    While I wish it was not necessary to preface this discussion with the phrase “As a gay man…..,” I am a realist and know that for some it is and will be important to know I am not only a supporter of the LGBT community, but I am part of the LBGT community and proud to be gay.

    While my sexual orientation is an important piece of who I am, it does not define me. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to share my thoughts and concerns regarding my gay philanthropic experience as I trust I am not the only one asking the question… “Oh where, oh where should my gay dollars go?”

    For some, this may appear to be a silly question with so many suffering in the LGBT community from a host of challenges. While we are often perceived in a flurry of sweeping generalizations as ALL being affluent, successful and simply a prime target for Philanthropic America, that is simply not the case as many of our brothers and sisters are in need of our support and assistance.

    FACT: We have long encouraged the non LGBT community, especially corporate America, to give back to us as we are a market segment and economic force that deserves to be addressed.

    My dilemma and my frustration as a gay man (there’s that phrase again) professional and author is although I have had been blessed with the ability to offer financial security for my immediate family as well as a strong philanthropic desire to work to encourage self-sufficiency and a sense of independence for those in need, I can’t seem to spend my charitable dollars in OUR community.

    The solution would appear to be simple – write a check to a LGBT organization. Not so simple. As an author and personality of sorts, I am outspoken, controversial and don’t play the “game” of some of the sub cultures or “cliques” within our community. The result…NO ROOM AT THE INN!

    I cannot tell you how shocked and frustrated I was recently when my “GAY DOLLARS” were turned away from several LGBT organizations simply because a chosen few do not always like the fact that I “call it as I see it” in my life, in my work and in my books.

    So, as many attack the “straight community” for not doing enough to help “us” and as we rant and rave and wave our rainbow flags in the name of advocacy and equality, we also ignore each other, we gossip, snipe, stab each other in the back. As a result, my “gay dollars” sit dormant as people continue to suffer.

    In the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy told her trusted Toto “there’s is no place like home.” Well ladies and gentleman, my home – the members of our LGBT Community, need to take a good hard look at who we really are and stop feeding on ourselves like parasites.

    We talk about being a family and as a Licensed Psychotherapist I see many families who struggle to communicate and support each other. But my LGBT family has left me deeply disappointed as we are truly not a family at all. It is high time we admitted we simply are an express train to ultimate turmoil with the final stop being “Dysfunction Junction.”

    They do not call me the Anti Expert, Anti Dr. Phil and Anti Christ for nothing so bring on those fiery darts, opinions and thoughts, but before you do, call your local LGBT charity and ask them how many cents on the dollar go to the people they claim to serve, what checks and balances are in place to make sure things are being run correctly and if the Board of Directors meets, how many of them are actually awake at during their meetings.

    Until this challenge is resolved, I will give of my time to the LGBT community, but not of “GAY DOLLARS.” In fact, I have created a special account in which my “GAY DOLLARS” will remain until I find a LGBT organization that is willing to approach me and be completely transparent.

    About Joshua M. Estrin

    Joshua M. Estrin, holds a dual Masters Degree from Columbia University and is President and CEO of a nationally recognized marketing and business development firm, which focuses on the growth and development of companies in both the profit and non profit sectors. His latest book Shut Up! and Listen to Yourself is a national bestseller and he has been Executive Director for several high profile charitable organizations both in the LGBT and non LGBT community

    Comment by Joshua Estrin — December 25, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - December 25, 2005

  15. I would like to know what the “GAY COMMUNITY”, or for that matter the “STRAIGHT COMMUNITY” are?
    Also, what’s this “GAY AGENDA” I keep hearing about? I must have been away when my copy came in the mail.

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 1:47 pm - December 25, 2005

  16. Well, if Josh Estrin would want to kick some bucks V the K’s foster home, we wouldn’t say no. 😉

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2005 @ 2:56 pm - December 25, 2005

  17. Dan’s e-mailer obviously feels a lot of fear and concern about the future of America, and/or his or her place in it. Not to get Yoda-ish, but I think that leads to the anger.

    I’m intrigued by the question of where such emotions come from.

    Emotions are tied to beliefs – if you think the truck is about to hit you then you feel afraid, and if not then not.

    So, logically, Dan’s e-mailer would have to have a belief system in which, somehow: conservatives are out to put gays in death camps; the prosperous steal (not produce or earn) their wealth; America causes terrorism; and patriotism violates some kind of preferable globalist moral consensus in which all countries are morally equal, even the most vicious dictatorships and pathetic backwaters.

    The next intriguing question (for me) is: Why would anyone adopt such unreal beliefs? Why cling to them, in the face of so much contrary evidence? What need or purpose do those particular unreal beliefs serve, for the person?

    That’s where I lose the trail. I’d need to know more about the person.

    I could try to fill in some blanks from my own experience, because 16-18 years ago, I had that belief system!

    At that time in my life, I was very insecure, and jealous / resentful of anyone who seemed “normal”, that is, anyone who seemed confident, capable, successful, or secure. I was also very pre-occupied with the disadvantages of being gay in America. Those unreal beliefs were a way I could put down all those whom I secretly feared were better than me (and who probably were better than the person I was at that point).

    Maybe that’s part of where Dan’s e-mailer is coming from.

    On the other hand: I did eventually grow out of my unreal, resentful beliefs to a large extent. And America today is much friendlier to gay people than it was in the era I had those beliefs. And finally, I am really only talking about my own experience here.

    So for all those reasons, I still have not answered the question of why someone today would cling to the unreal “warped Left” belief system, over time and in the face contrary evidence. It remains an open question for me.

    #12 – As for “civility” there are more than a few people who whine about “name-calling” and being attacked when all someone has done is ripped their talking points apart using reason and facts.

    I don’t want to name names, but I must say, I have found the above comment extremely true in my time here.

    Real name-calling is “You a**hole”, “You f***tard”, etc. I rarely see it here. I have seen TGC do it, and get rebuked for it. I have also seen defensive liberals claim, quite falsely, that it was somehow being done to them. Their whining can be most unimpressive.

    #13 – Hank I have no idea where you are trying to go with this one. Appearing to try to answer #12, you quote from a comment of V’s in which he described your own comments or behavior accurately – Not name-calling on you, by any meaningful definition of the phrase (‘namec-calling’) I know.

    Comment by Calarato — December 25, 2005 @ 4:00 pm - December 25, 2005

  18. No, you miss my point. It wasn’t about name calling. He ridicules Pats grammar and spelling, but condemned me for having done the same thing to you (and mine was clearly a joke).
    But if you want to see real name calling, check out the last comments under the photo montage.
    BYW Not to beat a dead horse, but both V and I have errors in our last posts. Mine should be “is” not “are”.
    And I think V is missing a word in his. I think it’s “to” or “way’.
    This stuff happens.

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 4:16 pm - December 25, 2005

  19. It is people like you who are literally ripping this country apart at it’s seems

    I don’t begrudge people the occasionaly typo, but to make four errors in one brief sentence is quite an achievement.

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2005 @ 4:31 pm - December 25, 2005

  20. Yes, that one deserves death. Although all is not as it seams hear.

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 4:44 pm - December 25, 2005

  21. As for the agenda question, I think that is something else GPW’s emailer doesn’t get. It’s not a matter of having a different agenda, it’s a matter of having a different philosophy, and/or a different tactical perspective.

    I don’t personally support same-sex marriage, but if I did, philosophically I would have to question whether achieving that policy goal was worth aligning myself — as many gay groups have — with the extremist “BushIsHitler” left. Also, would I want same-sex marriage at the cost of a more controlling government, higher taxes, limits on free speech, limits to personal freedom, and the rest of the radical left’s agenda? Do I value my personal and economic freedom more than I value a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy blessing my relationship?

    Tactically, one could also make an assessment that the radical left is unlikely to have the power to enact their agenda in the United States any time soon. One would then conclude that a better tactic would be to work within the center and moderate right to try to gain increased acceptance of the desired policy. One could argue that this is unlikely, but one could also argue that getting a majority of red state America to embrace San Francisco-style leftism is even less likely.

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2005 @ 6:46 pm - December 25, 2005

  22. My partner and I have been together for 12 years, and if we could get married, I don’t think we would. However, the horror stories I’ve heard about end of life hospital visits, contested inheritance, pensions etc. scares me. What is the alternative? An air tight will?
    Also, what do they mean…”gay agenda”?

    And what kind of “limits to free speach and personal freedoms”?
    I don’t really see that on either side, except in what I’ve heard is in the Patriot Act, about which I confess, I know almost nothing.

    Comment by hank — December 25, 2005 @ 11:04 pm - December 25, 2005

  23. You stand in front of a raging bull waving a red flag…

    When the bull acts like he’s ready to charge…

    You scream like little girl…

    And you censor any opposition so readers aren’t aware of it…

    You are no patriot… you are a nagger!

    Comment by ura nagger — December 25, 2005 @ 11:33 pm - December 25, 2005

  24. My thing is that you read crap like that, but we’re supposed to believe that Republicans are full of hate and working hard to divide the country.

    I have YET to see any liberals try to unite the country.

    #17
    Yeah. THAT’s gonna make us vote for a liberal any time soon.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 26, 2005 @ 12:56 am - December 26, 2005

  25. Re-reading the supposedly “hate-filled” e-mail that the bloggette complains about, I don’t any hate in it at all. There’s a lot of disbelief (that Gay Patriot could actually support his oppressors) and pity (that Gay Patriot could actually support his oppressors), but no hate. And that e-mailer pretty much captured the way I’ve always felt about Gay Patriot and the five to six Gay Patricias in his chorus — jaw-dropping disbelief, followed by mournful pity.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — December 26, 2005 @ 8:35 am - December 26, 2005

  26. #19 That statement wasn’t from me, but from the author of the hate mail that GPW is talking about.

    #12 I haven’t seen any instance where someone whined or complained about name calling when there was no name calling, but it’s possible I missed some cases where it happened. Speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with any point I make, whether it’s perceived talking points or whatever, being countered, even when it doesn’t use reason or facts. But I did call out the person with the name calling. No, it wasn’t f&&ktard or something like that, and I didn’t need a hug afterwards when it happened. Regardless, I thought that juvenile garbage was inappropriate, and frankly, I thought the blogmasters here also thought the same way, especially when the poster continuously does it. But perhaps I’m wrong.

    Comment by Pat — December 26, 2005 @ 8:48 am - December 26, 2005

  27. #23 — Just to give a couple of examples of lefties against free speech, look at how the radical gay left organized to keep Dr. Laura Schlessinger off the air in the 90’s. Look at how Rush Limbaugh got fired from ESPN for suggesting that the media were hyping Donovan McNabb because he was African-American. Look at Larry Summers at Harvard. Lefties sought to have him run out of town for merely suggesting a topic of discussion that went against feminist orthodoxy and gave one feminist professor the vapors. Look at the assaults against conservative speakers like Ann Coulter and Paul Wolfowitz.

    In contrast, look at how the most outrageous criticis of the Bush administration are treated. Michael Moore — millions of dollars and a seat of honor at the DNC convention. Cindy Sheehan — celebrity and a book deal. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather — adulation from their peers and a book deal. And so on…

    Comment by V the K — December 26, 2005 @ 10:10 am - December 26, 2005

  28. And I would put it this way:

    Does the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage ring any bells with you? How can you collaborate with your enemy – someone who you know full well hates you & everything you are about?

    But the state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”; even the FMA is the same when Democrats back it, according to the “gay community”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 26, 2005 @ 11:47 am - December 26, 2005

  29. God, what a tired and tedious argument. Comparing a screed directed at your politics of CHOICE to bashing someone because of their GIVEN sexual nature is soooooo sophomoric.

    In any case, his “attack” is mild.

    And, Josh, exactly who declared your book a “national best seller”?

    Comment by DrDClaw — December 26, 2005 @ 12:42 pm - December 26, 2005

  30. Actually, DrDClaw, what seems to be stated by the writer is that, because GPW is gay, he does not have the choice to support who he wishes politically and must support Democrats.

    Moreover, DrDClaw, how do you feel about the hypothesis that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments hates gays and everything that gays are about? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 26, 2005 @ 1:34 pm - December 26, 2005

  31. I don’t recall that the pressure brought against Dr. Laura was any worse than what The American Family has done. Sucsessfully pressuring Matel to drop The American Girl Doll, because the group behind it is gay/lesbian friendly (ignoring their other charitable work for inner city poor girls).
    I don’t remember the Dr Laura fracas very well, but I do remember that she was spewing alot of lies. Yes, she can do that because she has “free speach”.
    I think the two groups used the same tecnique. The wallet.
    One however, was against a self-appointed “expert”, who didn’t have her facts straight.
    The other, against a doll, and an ideology.

    One of the early ex-gay movements was sponsered by A “Presbyterian” Church (they aren’t Presbyterian) in Ft. Lauderdale , which aired a a TV commercial claiming that “gays eat a spoonful of feces every day”. Free speach. Not true but , “free speach”.

    And then there is “Rev.Phelps.” of Kansas, who goes to the funerals of AIDS victims (hate that word) with signs that say FAGS DIE.
    Recently an ordinance was passed in Missourri, which will keep him (and his minions) away for an hour before, and an hour after a funeral. Passed only after the good Rev. started picketing the funerals of our men in Iraq, because the US is a “FAG NATION”.

    He’s done this for years because he has “free speach”.
    Sadly I’m stumped for a solution. I don’t support the idea of “hate speach”, or “hate crimes”, because they should already be covered by the law. Still, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or “incite” to riot.
    I don’t about everybody else, but this stuff “incites me”. If
    it were my family member, God knows what I might do.

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 4:44 pm - December 26, 2005

  32. sorry bout that “speach”
    used a macro/ and can’t proof

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 4:47 pm - December 26, 2005

  33. OOPS ‘I don’t KNOW about…”

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 4:49 pm - December 26, 2005

  34. Both the Fred Phelps and “Presbyterian” examples illustrate the value of free and open speech. Letting psychos and nincompoops express their ideas opens them to the kind of ridicule they deserve, and let’s everyone else know exactly where they stand.

    Comment by V the K — December 26, 2005 @ 6:40 pm - December 26, 2005

  35. Fred Phelps, yes. I’d give an hour of prime Time TV,

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 6:45 pm - December 26, 2005

  36. and he’d be gone the next day.
    But when people have money to take commercial time on TV to promote complete falsehoods, how does one rebut it?

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 6:49 pm - December 26, 2005

  37. You raise money, buy TV time, and rebut their falsehoods. Or, you rebut their falsehoods through alternative media.

    What I think you don’t do is put someone in charge of deciding who’s right and who’s wrong, who gets to speak and who doesn’t. That, I think, is very dangerous, and far worse than allowing bigots to speak, regardless of how foul and dishonest the message is.

    Comment by V the K — December 26, 2005 @ 8:05 pm - December 26, 2005

  38. I agree with you.

    I have seen on these posts, the suggestion that it is proper to sue a theater company which produces a play with an offensive theme.

    To me that’s like burning books.
    Are we in the same territory here?

    Comment by hank — December 26, 2005 @ 9:13 pm - December 26, 2005

  39. Actually, DrDClaw, what seems to be stated by the writer is that, because GPW is gay, he does not have the choice to support who he wishes politically and must support Democrats.

    Uh, nice try, Dallas. He says that he makes a stupid choice, not that he is unable to make another choice. Otherwise he wouldn’t be bothing to rant, would he? Jesus.

    Moreover, DrDClaw, how do you feel about the hypothesis that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments hates gays and everything that gays are about? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    Yawn. Dallas, aren’t you old enough to stop arguing by nitpicking? You’re the kind of person who observes a mutation or a statistical deviation and thinks its existence invalidates the mean. In GENERAL, Dems are more supportive than Republicans of gay rights.

    Comment by DrDClaw — December 26, 2005 @ 10:46 pm - December 26, 2005

  40. #32 – Please note as general background (not sure how it fits into any agenda) that Fred Phelps & co. are much more connected to Democrats, and in particular Al Gore, than they are to conservatives or Republicans.

    It may shock you to learn that. Someone can probably Google some references.

    Comment by Calarato — December 26, 2005 @ 11:36 pm - December 26, 2005

  41. Thanks for pointing that out, Calarato.

    This Wikipedia article is a good starting point.

    Comment by John — December 27, 2005 @ 12:27 am - December 27, 2005

  42. Thanks for the link. What a stomach churner.

    Comment by hank — December 27, 2005 @ 7:56 am - December 27, 2005

  43. DrDClaw, your statements need to be dealt with in reverse.

    Yawn. Dallas, aren’t you old enough to stop arguing by nitpicking? You’re the kind of person who observes a mutation or a statistical deviation and thinks its existence invalidates the mean. In GENERAL, Dems are more supportive than Republicans of gay rights.

    I still can’t figure out the DNC spin tactic of arguing that the party’s Presidential candidate, the person who is chosen by consensus of the party leadership and party voters as most representative of the party, is a “mutation” or “statistical deviation” because they support stripping gays of rights — and especially since it’s happened the last three times. Are you saying that the Democratic Presidential candidate does NOT represent the Democratic Party?

    Besides, DrDClaw, you still didn’t answer my questions: how do you feel about the hypothesis that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments hates gays and everything that gays are about? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    Now, since we’ve found you waffling on those, let’s look at this:

    Uh, nice try, Dallas. He says that he makes a stupid choice, not that he is unable to make another choice. Otherwise he wouldn’t be bothing to rant, would he? Jesus.

    And, as I pointed out, this is likely coming from someone who also voted for a person who supported constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights — but did not criticize their candidate for doing so.

    Since you and yours obviously believe that voting for constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights is not only NOT antigay, but “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and should be rewarded with millions of dollars in gay money, time, and support, what’s your point? The gay left has made it clear that amendments to strip gays of rights are not antigay. Have you suddenly changed your mind?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2005 @ 10:27 am - December 27, 2005

  44. #42 – #43 – Interesting what one can learn from the article, though.

    I didn’t know Finland had a law against flag-burning, under which they would prosecute Phelps if he ever went there!

    Comment by Calarato — December 27, 2005 @ 10:30 am - December 27, 2005

  45. France has a law against it too.

    Comment by hank — December 27, 2005 @ 11:35 am - December 27, 2005

  46. A French citizen can burn a French flag here in front of the French Embassy, as long as a spark doesn’t fly over the fence and land on “French soil”. In which case, he can be deported to France to stand trial. That is unless he’s arrested here first for an open flame in public or something.

    Comment by hank — December 27, 2005 @ 11:40 am - December 27, 2005

  47. Dallas: Read it again. I’m not bothering to repeat MYSELF simply because you reply to me by repeating YOURSELF. You’ve made this tedious, inane argument all over the web. When it conveniences you, you make political arguments. When politics inconvenience you, you make ethical arguments. You are (OBVIOUSLY) a rhetorical tsunami — I’ll give you credit for that — but your logic has the staying power of a loose screw.

    Comment by DrDClaw — December 27, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - December 27, 2005

  48. LOL….oh please, DrDClaw. I’ve never been inconvenienced by either politics or ethics in making my argument, which is simply this…..be honest with what you support.

    Now, you see, if you could do the same, you’d have to admit that you put political advancement of Democrats ahead of gay rights, even giving money to avowed homophobes. You’d have to admit that your rhetoric about anyone who supports constitutional amendments “hating (gays) and everything (gays) stand for” is more than a bit overheated, and definitely not something you apply to “anyone”. You’d even have to admit that you don’t care about the fact that Democrats lie to your face about supporting gay rights when they and you know full well they won’t say the same to voters.

    In other words, you’d be doing everything that you accuse gay conservatives and Republicans of doing, claiming it makes them “self-loathing” and “stupid”.

    That’s why you won’t answer my questions, and why you attack my argument as “tired” and “inane”.

    Too bad.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 27, 2005 @ 7:35 pm - December 27, 2005

  49. LOL….oh please, DrDClaw. I’ve never been inconvenienced by either politics or ethics in making my argument, which is simply this…..be honest with what you support

    “Oh please” back at you, Dallas. YOu are even attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. Please review threads before your little fingers rush to pound out your inevitable variation on the same argument — even when the argument doesn’t really address the point that’s been made. You even conflate your critics in your inability to discern the actual SENSE of a criticism. And that is the best evidence of my original point…the one you didn’t get. Boo hoo.

    Comment by DrDClaw — December 28, 2005 @ 12:17 am - December 28, 2005

  50. While the tone and language of the original letter was unfortunate, I think he did raise at least one good point I hope you would answer.

    but he is a man who actively works to strip you of your rights. Does the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage ring any bells with you? How can you collaborate with your enemy – someone who you know full well hates you & everything you are about?

    u

    Comment by Ian — December 28, 2005 @ 7:21 am - December 28, 2005

  51. Republican candidates endorsed by The Human Rights Campaign

    Senator Lincoln Chafee , Rhode Island
    Running for US Senate in Rhode Island
    Republican

    Whenever the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community has needed a strong Republican voice in the Senate to speak up for our rights and stand in the way of discrimination, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has answered the call. Time and time again, Senator Chafee has proven his commitment to equality for GLBT Americans by voting his conscience and lending his voice to fight discrimination, not just in Rhode Island, but wherever it affects our community.

    Now Senator Chafee needs our community’s support more than ever, and it’s our turn to stand by a man who has stood by us since being elected to the Senate. Already locked in a tough race for reelection, Senator Chafee is now facing a primary challenge from the right in the form of Cranston, RI Mayor Steve Laffey, who recently announced his bid to unseat the moderate Republican Chafee. A staunch conservative, Laffey was quoted in the Providence Journal saying he agreed with President Bush’s opposition to marriage for same-sex couples. We need to do our part to ensure that Senator Chafee has the support he needs to withstand a right-wing challenge and retain his seat in the Senate where he can continue to serve our community.

    Chafee is an original cosponsor of several key pieces of legislation supported by the Human Rights Campaign. He was one of the first Senators to support the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act, a bill that would rescind the unfair tax on domestic partner health benefits offered to employees by many fair-minded American companies. He is currently the only Republican cosponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would guarantee the right of permanent partners of U.S. citizens to stay with their partners without threat of deportation. Last year, when the Senate tried to enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by adding an amendment prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples, Senator Chafee was one of only a handful of Republicans to cast his vote on the right side of history. Fighting on behalf of equality for all GLBT Americans, Chafee is also a current supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, and he has cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect our community from job discrimination.

    https://www.hrc.org/candidateFundraising/index.cfm?fuseaction=candidateProfile&electionCycleID=55&fullList=0&cfid=9419413&cftoken=31197010

    Christopher Shays , Connecticut
    Running for US House in Connecticut
    Republican

    A strong ally: Republican Chris Shays is serving his ninth term in Congress and during that time he has distinguished himself as one of the strongest bi-partisan leaders in the fight for equality. Shays stands on the front lines, advocating for our community where few others can, in the Republican Caucus. Shays is a key ally in HRC’s work to advance fair-minded legislation.

    Shays’ solid support for our community is clear-cut. As the Republican lead co-sponsor of ENDA in the House, he is a leader in our fight for employment protections. He is also a cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, which is a strong hate crimes measure.

    As a co-sponsor for the Tax Equity for Health Care Plan Beneficiaries Act, Shays is also working with HRC to strengthen our families. Currently, domestic partners pay federal income taxes on health insurance provided by a partner’s employer. Responsible employers who offer domestic partnership benefits are also forced to pay higher taxes. Thus, the employer, as well as the employee, is penalized for making a sound business decision that contributes to stability in the workforce. This smart piece of legislation would remedy this inequity for GLBT families and fair-minded employers.

    Shays also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and any similar effort to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. As a Republican, Shays is uniquely positioned to outreach to moderate Republican members in the House, and we will need their support in order to defeat this discriminatory amendment if it comes up for a vote.

    https://www.hrc.org/candidateFundraising/index.cfm?fuseaction=candidateProfile&electionCycleID=54&fullList=0&cfid=9419413&cftoken=31197010

    Comment by Ian — December 28, 2005 @ 9:28 am - December 28, 2005

  52. LOL….and that, Ian, shows how completely out of touch HRC is with reality. Chafee and Shays are indeed worthy folks to support, but HRC is only deluding itself if it thinks they can put out “supportive” press releases to curry “moderate support” and then go bashing all Republicans at public events. In a metro area like Dallas – Fort Worth that is majority Republican, highly religious, and has several gay City Council members, a lesbian county sheriff, nearly a transgendered Council member, and two of the most progressive nondiscrimination ordinances in the country, Solomonese and his proxies standing up there bashing Republicans and religious people as all being ignorant homophobes is the height of stupidity and arrogance.

    Meanwhile, let’s deal with this question here:

    but he is a man who actively works to strip you of your rights. Does the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage ring any bells with you? How can you collaborate with your enemy – someone who you know full well hates you & everything you are about?

    I shall answer to that in the same way I did to DrDClaw; Ian, how do you feel about the hypothesis expressed there that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments “hates (gays) and everything that (gays) are about”? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    You see, Ian, I for one am tired of being berated as “antigay” by people like Joe Solmonese and the Elizabeth Birch cabal who defend giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who support the FMA. I am sick of being told I’m “disgusting” by people who spent less fighting antigay initiatives than they did praising and promoting candidates who supported them.

    GPW, GP, myself, and everyone here has made it damn clear that we did not support the FMA or MPA OR the state constitutional amendments. Meanwhile, sniping trolls like this and Solmonese who wasted MILLIONS of gay dollars and time on hate campaigns that only succeeded in channeling money to those who supported state constitutional amendments and the FMA and calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” have the gall to tell us to “shut up”.

    This is more than an “unfortunate tone”. This is a full-scale hate attack by an irrational bigot and puppet who’s desperately looking for a reason to rationalize his support of homophobes and blaming it on others. And unfortunately, he’s not unique in the gay community; indeed, he predominates.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 11:39 am - December 28, 2005

  53. “Oh please” back at you, Dallas. YOu are even attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. Please review threads before your little fingers rush to pound out your inevitable variation on the same argument — even when the argument doesn’t really address the point that’s been made. You even conflate your critics in your inability to discern the actual SENSE of a criticism. And that is the best evidence of my original point…the one you didn’t get. Boo hoo.

    LOL…if I “conflate my critics”, DrDClaw, it’s because they all act astonishingly the same. Make attack, spin when confronted with hypocrisy, start whining about how “they didn’t say that”.

    Here’s your chance. Answer the questions, make your public stance obvious. If you don’t believe what I accused you of believing, you should have no problem stating the fact.

    However, that would require you to criticize Democrats or admit you have a double standard…..and, as I hypothesized, it ain’t happening.

    Now, for the third time: how do you feel about the hypothesis expressed there that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments “hates (gays) and everything that (gays) are about”? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 28, 2005 @ 11:43 am - December 28, 2005

  54. Dr Claw- While my post is not up for a Pulitzer the only comment you had was “who said my book was a bestseller? You are exactly the audience I am speaking to. I want to put my success to good use and you want to play a word game so for the sake of sounding like a legend in my own mind.

    Amazon
    Barnes and Noble
    Barnes and Noble.com
    Borders
    Walden Books
    Books A Million
    Cokesberry (U.K.)
    Amazon U.K.
    Amazon Canada
    The Midwest Book Review
    INC Magazine
    Newsweek
    SELF magazine
    MORE magazine
    OUT Magazine
    Newsday
    Miami Herald
    Church Street Press
    Out and About

    Now I sound almost as self-centered as you. As you are debating the market value and sales of my book. People with AIDS are dying, LGBT youth will go homeless tonight and be on the streets and not sure whether you are gay or not, but if you are please feel free to turn in your membership card because people like you make it very difficult, but not impossible for people like me and the thousands of others like me that simply want to do something that will make difference in the LGBT community, the community at large an perhaps the !@# universe.

    You missed the point of my post and I do hope whatever you choose to say or do someday you simply decide to make a difference in the world. Until then keep on posting and spewing.

    As for any grammatical errors who cares I’m human

    A for some of the other wonderful posts. You make me proud to be say I was here and I had me say along with what seem to be some extraordinary human beings

    Comment by Joshua Estrin — December 28, 2005 @ 9:21 pm - December 28, 2005

  55. wow I was more pissed off then I thought Sorry folks

    Comment by Joshua Estrin — December 28, 2005 @ 9:23 pm - December 28, 2005

  56. wow so much for spelling and grammar-I think you get my drift?

    Comment by Joshua Estrin — December 28, 2005 @ 9:24 pm - December 28, 2005

  57. Hate mail? I thought it perspicuous and accurate. Many conservatives, libertarians, and republicans — not to mention GLBT — have difficulty in understanding your apologia for GWB. I still suspect you are “straight rednecks” parading as “gay” for the satirically oriented. That’s why you are sometimes good for a few laughs. That’s the only way this site makes any sense. No queer conservative, libertarian, or republican could possibly “defend” the indefensible GWB. That’s too ridiculous and absurd.

    Comment by Stephen — December 29, 2005 @ 1:50 am - December 29, 2005

  58. I still suspect you are “straight rednecks” parading as “gay” for the satirically oriented.

    Obviously, because there’s nothing straight rednecks like to do better than post on weblogs pretending to be gay.

    Seriously, how many drugs do you have to take for this to become a plausible worldview?

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2005 @ 11:38 am - December 29, 2005

  59. LOL…You guys are a riot.

    Dallas, I make my stand twice weekly in the media. I’m not wasting my time with someone who repeatedly points to the exception to the rule to try to make a general argument and then turns around and admits and excuses his own conflation of his every critic. The mind reels.

    Your question is just dumb because of its presuppositions. So, I don’t answer it for that reason and you get to claim it’s because I don’t have an effective reply and you win the day. YAWN.

    Josh, I simply asked who declared your book a best seller. It is not a best seller. I was simply amused by the lie — the usual conservative tactic of repeating something untrue because you know that some people will accept it as true.

    And while you are here listing the places people can buy your book, gay kids are committing suicide.

    Comment by dr. d\'claw — December 30, 2005 @ 4:45 pm - December 30, 2005

  60. Dallas, I make my stand twice weekly in the media.

    Really? What media? What stand? After all, since you challenged Josh Estrin to provide HIS proof, why not your own?

    I’m not wasting my time with someone who repeatedly points to the exception to the rule to try to make a general argument and then turns around and admits and excuses his own conflation of his every critic.

    Unfortunately, the “exceptions” you mentioned were chosen BY the “general” as “representative” of their views. While it makes for a good DNC soundbite, which again makes me wonder what “media” and what “stand” you take, stating the fact that Democrats “generally” chose antigay bigots like John Kerry and Bill Clinton, both of whom support legislation and constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights is an “exception” is hardly a valid argument.

    Your question is just dumb because of its presuppositions.

    Funny, you didn’t have any problem with validating THESE presuppositions in the original email in question:

    Clearly, America is just not that important to you. You are happy to watch our country swirl down the drain, if it means that thugs & liars like yourself and the President you so admire can redistribute tax dollars to the super-rich, rape the environment, curtail civil liberties and wage endless war. What is good for the country is of no concern to you & your ilk at all.

    Meanwhile, my questions to you:

    How do you feel about the hypothesis expressed there that anyone who supports antigay constitutional amendments “hates (gays) and everything that (gays) are about”? Are you willing to say categorically that that applies to ANYONE, or will you claim that Democrats who support the same are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, like the “gay community” this writer rails about does?

    Let’s see….I asked you how you felt, and I gave you an either-or question. What exactly WAS the presupposition there?

    And while you are here listing the places people can buy your book, gay kids are committing suicide.

    And yet….you’re here listing all the reasons his book isn’t a “best seller”.

    What was that about glass houses again?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2005 @ 5:34 pm - December 30, 2005

  61. I have been called faggot, queer, maricon and all kinds of other names…But a Conservative? Claw FYI read my original post. I was donating the proceeds to a gay charity that helped keep gay kids off the street and because like you I have strong opinions they decided to no longer accept my money from that best seller that isn’t really a best seller.

    Hate to say it we have more in common than we have differences

    Comment by Joshua Estrin — December 30, 2005 @ 10:10 pm - December 30, 2005

  62. Oh, OK, Dallas, because I’m unwilling to involve my employer in my tete-a-tete with you, I must be lying. More of your flawless logic. Perhaps GP should begin requiring social security numbers and birth certificates from prospective posters. The veil of relative anonymity is inherent in the internet and appreciated by those of us who do not wish, at the public level, to become a rag in the mouths of pomeranians like you. You haven’t been banned from this site, as you have from others.

    As for your QUESTION, I have answered it twice. You just don’t get the answer because it’s neither yes nor no. I know, dear. It’s hard for you to live in a world that doesn’t provide yes or no answers to questions that rise out of your own moral ambivalence.

    The crap about “best sellers” is just that. Fine. Josh’s book is a best seller — somewhere at some time among some buyers.

    Comment by dr. d\\\'claw — December 31, 2005 @ 11:15 pm - December 31, 2005

  63. The interesting thing about that, Dr. D’Claw, is that this site was founded in response to people who would not respect the privacy of others. Indeed, GayPatriot himself had his employer dragged into the argumentby John Aravosis and Mike Rogers, the proprietors of both the blogs from which you point out I am banned, and both of whom are paid “consultants” for the Democratic Party.

    Your refusal to identify your employer does not by any means indicate that you are lying; I completely understand your logic because, if you hang around with the Aravosis/Rogers set, you’ve seen what those folks do with that kind of information and you don’t want it happening to you. Frankly, if you were to post it even here, it probably would get taken up in the same fashion, although not by me or the GayPatriots, and I (and they) would strongly condemn the behavior of anyone who would go after your employer out of disagreement with you. But I will point out the irony of your mentioning my being banned from blogs where such tactics are indulged in and supported, precisely because my banning was due to protesting this type of activity.

    As for your QUESTION, I have answered it twice. You just don’t get the answer because it’s neither yes nor no. I know, dear. It’s hard for you to live in a world that doesn’t provide yes or no answers to questions that rise out of your own moral ambivalence.

    LOL….you’re right, “attack the questioner” is not a yes or no answer. Nor is it relevant to the question at hand.

    Instead of reflecting MY “moral ambivalence”, I think your immediate reaction to my question was more indicative of yours:

    Yawn. Dallas, aren’t you old enough to stop arguing by nitpicking? You’re the kind of person who observes a mutation or a statistical deviation and thinks its existence invalidates the mean. In GENERAL, Dems are more supportive than Republicans of gay rights.

    And yet, the gay left said those “mutations” and “statistical deviations” wer “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”; not only that, they literally gave them millions of dollars while penny-pinching the opposition campaigns to the things that these “mutations” and “statistical deviations” supported.

    Now, Dr. D’Claw, let’s get down to brass tacks. Your reluctance to answer this question is because your criticism of GPW is based on the arbitrary distinction that, because Bush supports antigay constitutional amendments, he is antigay; however, you will not admit that John Kerry’s and Bill Clinton’s support of antigay constitutional amendments makes THEM antigay by the same token — because you and the rest of the gay left would have to admit you supported homophobes with time, media exposure, and millions of dollars.

    That’s why you try to minimize what you did by pretending the Presidential candidates of the Democratic Party were “mutations” and then by arguing that Democrats “generally” support gay rights, even though a majority of Democrats chose these “mutations”.

    GP and GPW get bashed by people like you because they, like I, am willing to say that, despite the fact that Bush is an antigay bigot, he represents the best choice for this country. In order for you to say the same about John Kerry, though, you end up running smack into your criticisms of Bush, i.e. he spends too much, because Kerry’s plan was to spend even more. Thus, the only way you can make your support of Democrats relevant is to try to bash Bush on the antigay thing, even though John Kerry himself said that he and Bush had the “exact same position”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2006 @ 10:36 am - January 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.