Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot Family Expands

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:52 am - January 11, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,General

We are having some growing pains here at GayPatriot. Dan and I are introducing the concept of “revolving bloggers” here at our happy home. There are a couple of reasons — it is nice to have as much new content all the time as possible, and we would both like to see some other viewpoints highlighted at GayPatriot.

So it is my pleasure to introduce our first “Revolving BlogPatriot” — Nick (aka ColoradoPatriot). Nick lives in Colorado, the Denver area to be more specific. He is a long-time Republican but identifies as a “small ‘l’ libertarian”. He believes in small government, strong defense, and expanded liberty.

More importantly, he brings to this blog a unique perspective: After having served about a decade active duty, he is currently a Reservist in the US Armed Forces. For reasons that should be understandable, we’re not going to give you too much detail about his work neither as a civilian nor with the Reserves, and hope the reader with excuse some level of secrecy and respect his privacy. Regardless, I believe he will shed light not only on the life of a gay military member, but also provide insight into a way of life that is foreign to many who read this blog. Look for his comments on DADT, gay marriage, and what he calls “the Left’s hijacking of the ‘gay agenda’”. Please feel free to challenge him as you do Dan and me, and Nick also invites you to contact him at ColoradoPatriot@hotmail.com (this email is also listed below mine and Dan’s in our right sidebar) with your comments or criticisms. Show him no mercy as he’s been briefed on what to expect. I’ll leave to him to share more with the readers of GayPatriot if and when he feels it’s appropriate or necessary, and to the degree he feels comfortable.

For now, please welcome, Nick – ColoradoPatriot!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

27 Comments

  1. He’s also a pretty darned good captioner.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 8:10 am - January 11, 2006

  2. And a violator of “Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell” Under its construct, if he has revealed to anyone – including Bruce – that he is gay, he is in violation. According to V The K, he deserves to be kicked out of the military.

    (and please take that with a bit of tongue and cheek – and thank him for his service)

    Comment by Jeremy — January 11, 2006 @ 9:52 am - January 11, 2006

  3. Don’t you mean a bitE of tongue and cheek?

    Sorry …

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 11, 2006 @ 10:09 am - January 11, 2006

  4. Welcome Colorado Patriot, and thank you for your service.

    I’ll introduce myself as one of the regular trolls that live under the bridge here at GP’s site.

    Muh-hahahhahah…

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 11, 2006 @ 10:23 am - January 11, 2006

  5. (and please take that with a bit of tongue and cheek – and thank him for his service)

    Or, you could take it as a complete fabrication of an opinion I’ve never expressed. Either way.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 11:00 am - January 11, 2006

  6. I’ll introduce myself as one of the regular trolls that live under the bridge here at GP’s site.

    But a rather cute, cuddly, and pleasant troll nontheless. 🙂

    Welcome CP; I’m North Dallas Thirty, or as V the K puts it, the Enforcer of Good and Polite Conduct. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 11:37 am - January 11, 2006

  7. If only we had trolls who could think/write most of the time without committing a series of logical fallacies.

    Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2006 @ 11:48 am - January 11, 2006

  8. #7 — Again, if you can think and write rationally, you can’t be a troll.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 11:49 am - January 11, 2006

  9. #9 — The left in a nutshell: Unable to distinguish between Nazism and patriotism.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - January 11, 2006

  10. What do you expect? Intelligent, heartfelt patriotism merely puts the far Left’s incessant, unadmitted Nazism into stark relief.

    Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - January 11, 2006

  11. My questions are, and I guess these are just general questions to anyone:

    – is it unpatriotic to criticize Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    – is it unpatriotic or a sign of a liberal agenda to be concerned if soldiers are assaulted or killed because they are gay or other soldiers think they are gay

    Comment by Carl — January 11, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - January 11, 2006

  12. 1) Of course not.

    If you wish to offer criticism based on clearly-reasoned facts and logic and are willing to demonstrate that you’ve either thought through or realize that there are alternate ways of managing the situation, absolutely, it is not unpatriotic to criticize.

    Most “criticism” of DADT, though, especially from leftists, is anti-military sentiment cloaked in the guise of “gay rights”.

    2) Of course not.

    However, I find it amusing that the same liberals who are all too willing to blame any assault or killing of gay individuals on “the homophobia pervasive throughout the US military” are the first to scream and whine, when individuals like Chris Crain are assaulted or young men are hung in Iran and it’s blamed on “the homophobia pervasive throughout Islam”, about how that’s an “overgeneralization” and how it “unfairly condemns Muslim practice and policy”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - January 11, 2006

  13. V the K. You’re pathetic figure.

    More pathetic than a pissant who brags that he can stay anonymous because he doesn’t even have the guts to blog, then attacks on people who actually do have the courage not only to blog their opinions but also to identify themselves openly?

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - January 11, 2006

  14. #9 — The left in a nutshell: Unable to distinguish between Nazism and patriotism.

    – V the K

    Now who is comparing everybody to Nazis? Really V the K, you have certain…..obsessions.

    A more interesting question is usually what is the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. And what is the difference between political Party loyalty and Patriotism? The GOP portrays itself as Patriotic. Is this always true? What happens when party loyalty conflicts with Patriotism? Do you become a Democrat?

    Bush is now portraying criticism of the way the Iraq War has been conducted as Un-American and as harmful to troop morale. He is correct about the latter, but is he right about the former?

    And is Bush using the Iraq war in this way for crass self-serving political purposes?

    Yup.

    Is Bush trying to silence perfectly valid criticisms by using the “troop morale” card at every opportunity?

    Yup.

    Is he also sincere in his beliefs?

    Yup.

    Politicians never do things for just one reason. Thats why *HISS!* they are Snakes.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 11, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - January 11, 2006

  15. LOL…..but you said anyone who posts criticisms of other people should identify themselves, NAR, as I’ve already pointed out. Then when you were exposed as a coward, since you post criticisms without identifying yourself, you tried to change the subject.

    We’ll let everyone apply the obvious. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - January 11, 2006

  16. Bush is now portraying criticism of the way the Iraq War has been conducted as Un-American and as harmful to troop morale. He is correct about the latter, but is he right about the former?

    That depends. Is it “American” to do something which you know harms the morale of our troops?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 7:23 pm - January 11, 2006

  17. Moreover, Gryph, I would make a very clear distinction:

    — Criticisms that are actually about how the war has been fought and handled are not ones which affect the morale of the troops.

    — Criticisms that are made for publicity-stunt purposes or to garner political support do.

    That is why I tend to worry very little about Bush playing the “troop morale” card; the main “criticisms” that that silences are grandstanding Democrats and moonbats like Cindy Sheehan, both of whom have demonstrated time and again that they will slander, spit upon, and do whatever they have to to our men and women in uniform to garner political advantage or media time. John Kerry, for instance, has proven that he will deliberately lie to Congress, as he did in the Vietnam era, and even sell out his fellow soldiers as murderers and baby-killers if it will garner him political power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - January 11, 2006

  18. -However, I find it amusing that the same liberals who are all too willing to blame any assault or killing of gay individuals on “the homophobia pervasive throughout the US military” are the first to scream and whine, when individuals like Chris Crain are assaulted or young men are hung in Iran and it’s blamed on “the homophobia pervasive throughout Islam”, about how that’s an “overgeneralization” and how it “unfairly condemns Muslim practice and policy”. –

    If I may ask, who are the liberals here who have done this? I don’t keep track of all the comments but I haven’t seen anyone here criticize the military for a homophobic culture and then complain about people who say Islam is homophobic. If you mean people outside of this site, then I can’t speak for what they say.

    I think it’s really tempting to paint any criticism of the military, or of the GOP, or of President Bush as some grand liberal scheme. I’m not saying you do that, but I’ve seen this happen, and I think we should be concerned about dismissing any arguments based solely on the presumption that liberal hypocrisy must be involved.

    Comment by Carl — January 11, 2006 @ 8:33 pm - January 11, 2006

  19. #12 – Carl, just to make myself clear to you as well: No and No.

    I totally criticize DADT, just as I support the fight for gay marriage equality (and I did the latter long before it became fashionable – back in the 1990s).

    What’s unpatriotic, is destructive criticism as opposed to constructive.

    Destructive criticism leaves you nowhere to go. It’s the type of criticism where America can do no right, no matter what. (Think Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan.)

    Constructive criticism is positive; it says “Here is how we can have fewer deaths as we win in Iraq” or “Here is how America can be made even better”.

    DADT is a joke because it seems like the majority of the people discharged under it are: (1) non-gay slackers who formally declare themselves gay just to escape the commitments they signed up for, (2) desparately needed Arab linguists who happen to be gay and should NOT be discharged. America would be better if we halted those discharges.

    Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - January 11, 2006

  20. P.S. And as others have pointed out –

    DADT was created by DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS (Sam Nunn) and a Democratic President. It is part of Congress’ homophobic culture, and the Democrats’ homophobic culture; not the military’s.

    In 2006, most military people couldn’t care less if they’re serving next to someone gay.

    Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - January 11, 2006

  21. LOL….how was Clinton “forced” to do anything when Democrats controlled Congress?

    Why don’t you explain, NeverARepublican, why DADT was passed and signed by a DEMOCRATIC Congress and a DEMOCRATIC President? The Democrats were the majority party — had they wanted DADT stopped, they could have done so. But they not only PROPOSED it, they PASSED it and SIGNED it.

    Go ahead and spin, NeverARepublican. You and your fellow “gay activists” do nothing but protect your homophobic fellow Democrats. You and yours were the ones cheering for Clinton and calling him “pro-gay” when he advertised his support of DOMA and DADT on Christian radio stations as “(fighting) for our values”. Just like you cheered when John Kerry demanded that gays in Massachusetts be stripped of their rights via state constitutional amendment and, when it happened in Missouri, saying it was praising it, saying he would have voted for it, and calling it “do(ing) what’s right”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2006 @ 12:19 am - January 12, 2006

  22. Calarato isn’t lying. Colin Powell and Republicans had a hand, but Sam Nunn was a HUGE part of DADT, and Clinton was too weak-kneed to fight the plan.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 1:06 am - January 12, 2006

  23. I hate to agree, NorthDallasThirty, he’s got you on “don’task, don’t tell”. Yes, Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress BUT Sam Nunn was, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, more sensitive to military feelings than he was any loyalty to Clinton or his party.

    Clinton’s campaign promises about gays in the military had the military command structure up in arms, putting heavy pressure on pro-military Democrats in Congress. Powerful organizations like the Air Force Association, the Navy League, etc., which wield great clout on Capitol Hill, were ready to take Clinton and Democrats to the mat over the issue. Nunn did what the Joint Chiefs wanted. Clinton, not wanting to be cut off at the knees so early in his term, fell in line.

    Hopefully, America will mature some day and do as Britain has: welcome into the military anyone qualified to serve who wants to serve.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 12, 2006 @ 2:20 am - January 12, 2006

  24. Fact: the year of DADT was 1993….a DEMOCRATIC President caved into homophobia, under legislation written by a MAJORITY DEMOCRATIC Congress… no amount of your spin will change that.

    So, yeah, you two are full of it. There, I said it. Grow up now.

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - January 12, 2006

  25. Yes, Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress BUT Sam Nunn was, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, more sensitive to military feelings than he was any loyalty to Clinton or his party.

    Oh, I get it….when confronted with the bad behavior of Democrats, deny that they’re really Democrats. When confronted with the reality of them controlling Congress, deny that they really controlled it. Then, when confronted with the reality that Clinton was President and could have done what he wanted to had he not been a lying homophobe, deny reality and paint him as the powerless victim — who later would proudly advertise his support of DADT as “fighting for American values”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - January 12, 2006

  26. NorthDallasThirty, #31, I’ve never been an apologist for Democrats. I just staed the facts. It doesn’t really make any difference which party controls Congress when it comes to the military. In a face off between a newly-inaugurated Democratic president, elected by a minority of the popular vote, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff — especially one chaired by someone as widely popular as Colin Powell — Republicans and pro-military Democrats, especially those from states or districts with large bases and concentrations of military retirees, were going to do what the JCS wanted.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 13, 2006 @ 1:15 am - January 13, 2006

  27. Clinton had no trouble defying the popular will when it came to, for example, vetoing limits on Partial Birth Abortion.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2006 @ 5:31 am - January 13, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.