GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Gay In-Tolerance Exposed Again

July 21, 2006 by GayPatriot

Dan (GayPatriotWest) and I have a shared experience in that we are treated great and also accepted among Republican and conservative crowds.  Hell, I was at a dude ranch in Western Canada (read: “Red Province”) for vacation and John and I were the only gays there.  And we were just part of the family for the week.

But go into a crowd of left-leaning gays and they will say the most rabid, personal nasty and evil things when they find out you differ with them on political issues.

Devoted GP reader VtheK has noticed the same thing…

You know what I’ve noticed? Gay peeps who hang out on conservative blogs can talk about being attracted to guys and are perfectly accepted. Frank IBC and Throbert McGee (occasional commenters on GP) have even started threads at a conservative blog specifically about being attracted to guys and no one bats an eye. Little Green Footballs has gay commenters like Baldy, Kevin Shook, and Scott in East Bay, and no one ever gives them grief.

But let a guy make conservative statements on a gay blog, and, whoa… the flying monkeys are unleashed.

It sure puts the truth to the lie that the gay community is tolerant and accepts diversity.  I think Dateline NBC would have seen more anger and possibly violence at a GayPride event where folks wore Bush-Cheney shirts than at a NASCAR event with folks looking “Middle Eastern.”

Finally, John and I have been widely and openly embraced in Charlotte (even and especially in our small development) since our move from the supposedly tolerant Washington DC metro area.  It has been a marked improvement in tolerance toward us since moving into the deepest Red of America.

I’m not surprised.

**UPDATE** – More evidence of Gay Intolerance from our friend Chandler In Trollywood.  Imagine “Polish”, “black”, “retard” or “Jew” being used instead of “gay Republican.”  How diverse-accepting, how tolerant!

Chandler in Hollywood said… The other night I was introduced to a guy who first off told me he was a gay Republican. Because I am sensitive to all PC issues, I immediately spoke a little louder and a little slower out of my inability to determine if he was just slow or actually brain damaged. I call that Compassionate Liberalism.

I’d also point out that the big-time conservative blogs (too numerous to name) have no problem linking to GayPatriot, but we were blacklisted from the Gay BlogAds group in our pre-Pajamas Media days.  Things that make you go…hmmm.

Is the Gay Left actually afraid of diverse opinions?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: Conservative Discrimination, Gay America, Gay PC Silliness, Liberals, Living In Red State America

Comments

  1. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    July 21, 2006 at 6:42 pm - July 21, 2006

    Your experiencing the strange dichotomy of “Red America”; while there’s that lingering abstract of evil homosexuals “out there somewhere”, there’s a disconnect for “the Gays” down the block, or the “single” guy at church that helps with the choir. Up-close they see “gay” people as “people” and befriend them as neighbors, but still have unease for the amorphous abstraction.

  2. Kenny says

    July 21, 2006 at 7:12 pm - July 21, 2006

    “Is the gay left actually afraid of diverse opinions?”

    Why yes, yes they are. Surviving a forum in a major newspaper that has been overtaken by the gay left fundamentalist wing I can attest first hand that the moment any gay person meanders slightly off in opinion, like a screaming bunch of hyenas on a wounded antelope, that person is attacked.

    Why the fear? I think it makes the leftists have to take responsiblity. Instead of just whining and demanding it questions them as to how they are going to achieve something.

    But it is almost impossible. It was so bad on this forum that those of us with diverse opinions ended up calling the leftists the Borg.

    You had to think like them because resistance was fuitile. And they would attack and attack and attack to try and assimilate you. And if they couldn’t they would get so personal and degrading that you just left.

    The oddest part was these left-wing fundamentalist activists against discrimination posted more discriminatory remarks against any Christian and I wouldn’t dare post the racist comments that they posted against Clarence Thomas.

    This is all in a major US daily from NY and the moderators, publisher allow at least the racist slurs to continue.

    Ultimately, the adventure over there should you dare to ask, will confirm your suspiscion that just like homophobia, the left-wing fundamentlists gays have an irrational fear of divers opionions equal to or greater than their right-wing counterparts.

    In essence they have conservativephobia.

  3. Calarato says

    July 21, 2006 at 7:20 pm - July 21, 2006

    Wow!!!!!!!

    GCB and Chandler actually have a blog, founded purely on their dumb hatred of GP, where they jack each other off in front of their moms? Who knew??

    ROTFLMAO 🙂

  4. Henry Agüeros says

    July 21, 2006 at 8:13 pm - July 21, 2006

    I belong to a Religious Gay Community where it seem that all the members are left and far left. IF I should ask a question on why they feel how they do———al hell breaks out cause “Its obviuos how BADDDDDDDDDD the republicans are” Because I am Hispanic and gay others feel that I have to be a democrat or left winger. Of course, nothing wrong with that……but how insulting the assumption that I HAVE to be this OR that because my ethnicity or Racial background.

  5. Ian says

    July 21, 2006 at 8:28 pm - July 21, 2006

    Good grief! Hasn’t there been enough whining on this topic? You guys are never satisfied. You keep insisting that being gay is only a minor part of who you are. So when gay liberal Dems take you at your word and ignore that minor gay facet and focus instead on the major facet which is that you are conservative Republicans defending the indefensible Bushco and attack you for that, you get your panties in a frist and play the gay sympathy card. Sorry, you don’t get to suck up to the homophobic right by playing down your being gay and then turn around and play up your gayness to avoid a harsh response to your Republican politics from gay liberal Dems.

  6. Dave says

    July 21, 2006 at 8:33 pm - July 21, 2006

    “I’d also point out that the big-time conservative blogs (too numerous to name) have no problem linking to GayPatriot”

    Is that true? I checked all the blogs linked to http://www.michellemalkin.com, I couldn’t find yours.

  7. V the K says

    July 21, 2006 at 8:50 pm - July 21, 2006

    Is the Gay Left actually afraid of diverse opinions?

    Ian’s #5 answers this with a shrieking, hysterical, and emphatic “Yes!”

  8. GayPatriot says

    July 21, 2006 at 8:59 pm - July 21, 2006

    #6 – Dave, you didn’t look very far. Michelle has linked to us a number of times in the past year alone.

    NEXT!

  9. Dave says

    July 21, 2006 at 9:04 pm - July 21, 2006

    #7 Why are you not on her blogroll, you are making this up, aren’t you?

  10. Dale in L.A. says

    July 21, 2006 at 9:16 pm - July 21, 2006

    Chandler in Hollywood said… The other night I was introduced to a guy who first off told me he was a gay Republican. Because I am sensitive to all PC issues, I immediately spoke a little louder and a little slower out of my inability to determine if he was just slow or actually brain damaged. I call that Compassionate Liberalism.

    Chandler can be quite the dork, but I give him kudos for being funny for a change.

  11. GayPatriot says

    July 21, 2006 at 10:36 pm - July 21, 2006

    Dave (#9) – There’s a new tool on the internet called “Google”. Check it out sometime….

    Boycott San Francisco

    *gasp* Well lookie there, Dave… she also linked to Gryphie, the Leftie Monster!!

    Now go away Dave!! (*smacks the ignorant troll with GP Flyswatter*)

  12. credo says

    July 21, 2006 at 10:46 pm - July 21, 2006

    The gay left is comprised mostly of gay socialists and neo-liberals aka “progressives;” therefore, diversity of opinon would be akin to free market competition, and we all know how much the left hates competition.

  13. just me says

    July 21, 2006 at 10:47 pm - July 21, 2006

    #6 I discovered this blog from links at other non gay conservative blogs.

    I also think that Ted in #1 has an interesting point. There is a bit of a disconnect at times between the gay people you know and see regularly living a life relatively similar to your own, and the gays that are the basis of “gay agenda” scare or the gays you see in the media even. I can honestly say that while I don’t know tons of gay people, the ones I do know don’t really fit the stereotype presented in the media, gay groups, or anti-gay groups.

  14. Ovid\'s Lovechild says

    July 21, 2006 at 10:55 pm - July 21, 2006

    GCB and Chandler actually have a blog, founded purely on their dumb hatred of GP, where they jack each other off in front of their moms? Who knew?

    Well somebody has to take up the slack from those who devote their blogs to sliming Andrew Sullivan and the leaders of LCR.

    Really keen critique there, Calarato. The usual ad hominem. Love the dirty joke. *insert Beavis and Butthead laff*

  15. Ovid's Lovechild says

    July 21, 2006 at 10:59 pm - July 21, 2006

    “and we all know how much the left hates competition.”

    Truer werds wud never spoken!

  16. Ovid\'s Lovechild says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:04 pm - July 21, 2006

    “#

    Is the Gay Left actually afraid of diverse opinions?

    Ian’s #5 answers this with a shrieking, hysterical, and emphatic “Yes!”

    Oh please elaborate, V the K. Is depicting yourself as a victim day after day an expression of diversity? I guess you could argue that the self-contradiciton Ian cites is an expresion of — what? — internalized diversity?

    But please do explain.

  17. Calarato says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:06 pm - July 21, 2006

    And, yet another defensive sockpuppet troll tips his hand.

    But I’ll give you a hint on comprehending my comment: IT WASN’T A CRITIQUE.

    If I ever find your blog worthy of one, you’ll know.

    For the moment, I merely expressed my amazement that you could have bothered to create it – given its foundation of parasitism on GP.

    And my quite genuine skepticism that anyone would want to read it, save as a freak show.

    Neither of which is, or pretends to be, a critique. So – Do keep working on that reading comprehension thing 😉

  18. V the K says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:23 pm - July 21, 2006

    …focus instead on the major facet which is that you are conservative Republicans defending the indefensible Bushco and attack you for that…

    Sounds like rank intolerance toward diverse opinions to me.

  19. Ovid\\\'s Lovechild says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:29 pm - July 21, 2006

    “But I’ll give you a hint on comprehending my comment: IT WASN’T A CRITIQUE.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHA.

    Since I’m a sockepuppet troll, I’m sure you won’t begrudge me calling you just plain stupid for this remark. Glad to hear jerking off in front of one’s mother is not subject to critique in your world. Whatta doofus.

  20. V the K says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:33 pm - July 21, 2006

    Look at the way Ian constructs his “argument.” To him, it is perfectly acceptable, indeed, obligatory, for lefties to “attack” people personally for having a conservative opinion or for defending some Bush administration policies. It’s not enough to merely offer alternative arguments, but people who express politically incorrect views must be “attacked.” And Ian makes it clear that it is the people who are to be attacked, not their arguments.

    In contrast, Bruce and Dan tolerate diversity of opinion. They allow numerous rude left-wing commenters (and their sock-puppets) to comment here, and have only banned a few severely abusive individuals. Also, even though my view of same-sex marriage differs from theirs, they have never attacked me for it, but we have merely discussed our differences of opinion.

  21. Ian says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:45 pm - July 21, 2006

    #18: “Sounds like rank intolerance toward diverse opinions to me.”

    More whining from the ranks of those whose “diverse opinions” include labelling as traitor anyone who opposes Bushco’s war. Since your homosexuality is such a small part of who you are and you and your ilk have so much else in common with the Dobsons of this world, just go spend your time sucking up to them as they tolerate your “diverse opinions.”

  22. Gaylord McGay says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:50 pm - July 21, 2006

    Another Example of Tolerance and Free Discussion In The Gay Left

    The eye candy is nice, though. But NSFW.

  23. Frank IBC says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:54 pm - July 21, 2006

    Thanks for proving our point in a most spectacular way, Ian, you hysterical twit.

  24. Michigan-Matt says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:55 pm - July 21, 2006

    Good post, Bruce! Thanks.

    Like I’ve written before about our experience here in one of the most progressive, far Left, liberal, uberGreenParty, intellectual communities in the Midwest –Ann Arbor– we continually run into intolerant, vocal idiots who make Chandler, raj baby, Gramps and Ian look “moderate” by comparison. Say you’re a conservative or GOPer and you’re dead meat.

    No one has to tell us that some of the most intolerant people in the world are Islamofascists and the GayLeft. We see it everyday.

    I challenge any apologist for the intolerant bigots gathered and known as the GayLeft to head over to OutSports (aka GayLeft New Jesrsey) and post in the political thread something positive about GWBush, the GOP or even God. You’ll be treated very fast to the intolerance of the GayLeft and a serious tongue lashing… and some chickenhawk baiting, too.

    Good post, Bruce.

  25. Calarato says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:56 pm - July 21, 2006

    V – And more. The whole comment #5 is a study in freakish unrealities.

    — Who “sucks up to gay Republicans by playing down their being gay”? Bruce’s whole point is: he and Dan sure don’t play down anything.

    — For that matter, are we even all “conservative Republicans” here, or all Republicans of any kind? I know you’re not one, V. I know I’m not one.

    — And who “defends the indefensible Bushco” here? Whenever Bush does something indefensible, he gets roundly criticized here, even by the resident Republicans.

    So you’re right. raj/Ian’s basic line in #5 is that Left gays are entitled to viciously trash anyone whom they may perceive or mis-perceive as a conservative Republican… because of WHO THE TARGET IS (perceived to be). And that, as all gays certainly ought to know, is the very soul and essence of rank bigotry.

  26. Ian says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:57 pm - July 21, 2006

    #20: Oh spare me. As if you and all the other cons commenting on this blog don’t routinely attack me and others personally. You think your being gay should give you some kind of immunity from crticism from the rest of the gay community. Well, I don’t think so! If you can’t stand the heat, then just run back to your soulmates in Focus on the Family since they are so much more accepting of you.

  27. Frank IBC says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:57 pm - July 21, 2006

    Ovid’s Lovechild –

    Poor Sullivan – he decided to kiss Glen Greenwad’s ass in a most spectacular fashion, two days before the latter imploded.

  28. Frank IBC says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:58 pm - July 21, 2006

    Bitter much, Ian?

  29. Calarato says

    July 21, 2006 at 11:59 pm - July 21, 2006

    LOL 🙂

  30. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:00 am - July 22, 2006

    BTW, we don’t attack you for your opinions, but the hysterical manner in which you state them.

  31. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:03 am - July 22, 2006

    Frank, Ovid’s Lovechild also happens to be one of the very few commentors who have been banned from GP for truly extreme abuses – we question his comments for that as well.

  32. inLA says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:08 am - July 22, 2006

    When the ‘intolerant’ gay lefties begin passing constitutional amendments that attack our gay families then perhaps I’ll concede you have a point.

  33. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:10 am - July 22, 2006

    Well inLA, they certainly pass plenty of *laws, programs and policies* that attack our gay families.

    But, you wanted constitutional amendments…

  34. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:13 am - July 22, 2006

    So where were Kerry, Edwards, and Dean, when anti-gay marriage initiatives passed in states that they WON?

    Oh, I forgot… they were too busy reminding everyone that Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian.

  35. Ian says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:13 am - July 22, 2006

    #25 “Who “sucks up to gay Republicans by playing down their being gay”? ”

    Good gawd, you can’t even get a quote right. Try using cut and paste. I find it a real hoot listening to what I’m sure are lily-white upper middle class males bleating about bigotry just because someone calls them on their support of a Dear Leader who calls to his poodle, “Yo, Blair” around the same time as he creepily subjects a female head of state to an uninvited neck massage.

  36. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:15 am - July 22, 2006

    Yes – I made a typo. It’s true.

  37. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:18 am - July 22, 2006

    So here is the revision:

    Who “sucks up to the homophobic right by playing down their being gay” around here?

    Respond to that.

  38. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:20 am - July 22, 2006

    Hahah, Ian…

    It’s so funny hearing spoiled rich white suburban liberal gays pretend that their orientation somehow makes them poor and un-white.

  39. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:25 am - July 22, 2006

    And another thing – isn’t it funny how the Left is expending enormous amounts of energy trying to prove that the presidential election was “stolen”, but they couldn’t be bothered with trying to prove that the vote for a ban on gay marriage, same state, same election, same voters, was similarly “stolen”?

  40. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:28 am - July 22, 2006

    Sorry, I meant to include “in the state of Ohio” for the last one.

  41. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 2:41 am - July 22, 2006

    Chandler, I’ve met compassion before and you don’t resemble it.

    And GCB “gone”?? Another ROTFLMAO!!!!!! 🙂

  42. ThatGayConservative says

    July 22, 2006 at 3:05 am - July 22, 2006

    Ian’s #5 answers this with a shrieking, hysterical, and emphatic “Yes!”

    You mean Yessssssssss!

  43. ThatGayConservative says

    July 22, 2006 at 3:10 am - July 22, 2006

    #23
    Ian, you hysterical twit.

    You mean twat

  44. Vera Charles says

    July 22, 2006 at 11:43 am - July 22, 2006

    That bastion of tolerance and diversity (P Town, Mass) isn’t too tolerant of dissent, initiative petitions or Catholics for that matter….

    Wonder what they think of gay conservatives…

    http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Pf&article_code=2313&article_page=1&PHPSESSID=42bd2a363215776ba0d74dfe08770f3b

    From the article:
    ‘Over the past few weeks gay rights supporters have confronted several people who signed the anti-gay petition, with one incident resulting in possible criminal charges. And in addition, several heterosexual tourists complained gay men taunted them by calling them “breeders” as they walked down Commercial Street. ‘
    “I’ve heard it myself,” said Provincetown Police Chief Ted Meyer. “One couple told me it happened to them four times in one day over the Fourth of July.”

    snip

    “The first act of hate was the circulation by the Catholic Church of that petition,” said Tait.
    There have never been any petitions in town around other things the Catholic Church opposes – like abortion, birth control, pre-marital sex – said Tait.
    “One can only assume then that this was brought on by homophobia,” said Tait. “That is at the root of a lot of the anger.”

    Snip

    ‘as a Roman Catholic he felt discriminated against in town. He mentioned that the T-shirts in the window of “Don’t Panic,” a Commercial Street shop, were offensive. Some of the T-shirts he mentioned say “Recovering Catholic,” “Catholic School Survivor” and “Jesus is Coming: Hide the Porn.” He continued that if these T-shirts were anti-gay, they would never be allowed, saying that that is a double standard.’

    Too much Fisking for Vera to do.

  45. Patrick (Gryph) says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:22 pm - July 22, 2006

    Be honest GP, and GPW, how often do you actually spend time with members of the GOP who are anti-gay? They do exist, they are not a myth conjured up by the Left.

    If your gay friends at Little Green Footballs had gotten trashed and blocked, would they still be hanging around? No.

    If you hang out most of the time in an online gay-conservative-ghetto it doesn’t mean that objectively conservatives are more tolerant, it just means that you hang out most of the time in an online gay-conservative-ghetto.

    Anecdotal evidence based solely on personal experience is not “real” evidence.

    Why don’t you try hanging out at sites like the ones below and comment from time to time. And go find the many others that are out there like them.

    Be warned however, if you continually show up at online places where your opinions and presence are not wanted, you run the risk of being labled……. A Troll.

    http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/

    http://www.firstthings.com/

    http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/27819558

  46. V the K says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:37 pm - July 22, 2006

    If your gay friends at Little Green Footballs had gotten trashed and blocked, would they still be hanging around? No.

    Um, the point is, they weren’t trashed and banned.

    If you hang out most of the time in an online gay-conservative-ghetto it doesn’t mean that objectively conservatives are more tolerant, it just means that you hang out most of the time in an online gay-conservative-ghetto.

    Um, the point is that those sites are not gay conservative weblogs, but center-right weblogs where most of the participants are hetero, many are conservatives and some are religious, but they do not treat gay participants as badly as conservatives are treated by the gay-left, or, indeed, even badly at all.

  47. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 12:50 pm - July 22, 2006

    No Gryph – you’re jumping to conclusions.

    You see, GP and GPW would present their opinions respectfully and with effective arguments. Hence, they would not be taken as trolls. At least not unless their hosts are very intolerant indeed.

    Now if instead, GP and GPW were to emulate your typical
    behavior – e.g., continually and pointedly spitting on the very concept of their hosts’ existence – OK, that would be different. You’d have a point then.

  48. Kenny says

    July 22, 2006 at 1:11 pm - July 22, 2006

    The problem with the left-wing fundamentalists is they don’t want to even condider an idea or concept outside the narrow scope.

    Lincoln was a Republican. If he were here today, they woulnd’t listen to a word he say – simply because he is a Republican.

    It’s a never ending contradiction. Kerry – no marriage, but civil unions would be supported. Suddenly the liberal sockpuppets are his lapdogs.

    Republican says the same exact thing and suddenly the concept of civil union becomes negatable.

    Then to complain when those amendments don’t allow for civil union either. It is the Republicans fault. Well you just said that you don’t want them at all. Take some responsibility.

    But it seems to be a standard defense. The lefties love to use words like bigot, homophobe, racist, unfair etc. But not do much to try and change things by working within the system itself.

  49. Len says

    July 22, 2006 at 3:05 pm - July 22, 2006

    God made you gay. You made yourself Republican. Quit whining.

  50. ThatGayConservative says

    July 22, 2006 at 5:26 pm - July 22, 2006

    #49

    It’s not so much “whining” as it is pointing out liberal hypocrisy, but then I wouldn’t expect your honesty here.

  51. Ovid\'s Lovechild says

    July 22, 2006 at 6:15 pm - July 22, 2006

    Frank, Ovid’s Lovechild also happens to be one of the very few commentors who have been banned from GP for truly extreme abuses – we question his comments for that as well.

    I was banned? Ummmmmmmm. IP check! IP check!

    Brilliant again, goofy. If someone confronts you in like fashion they must not ‘posed to be here. What are ya, 15 years old?

  52. Frank IBC says

    July 22, 2006 at 7:10 pm - July 22, 2006

    Liberals have nothing to offer except irrelevant tu quoque babblings.

  53. Dan (AKA GPW) says

    July 22, 2006 at 7:27 pm - July 22, 2006

    Love it how some people keep repeating the same old bromides — and how this blog keeps labelling as traitor anyone who opposes Bushco’s war. They’re so intolerant they can’t even see conservatives for what they are, but need to define them as narrow-minded to hate them more!

  54. Ian says

    July 22, 2006 at 7:33 pm - July 22, 2006

    #50: “It’s not so much “whining” …”

    After a half dozen posts or so repeating the same thing, it IS whining.

  55. Calarato says

    July 22, 2006 at 11:09 pm - July 22, 2006

    #52 – And, the guy only continues digging the hole. Still good for a laugh! 🙂

    And – great discussion, libs! How you’ve impressed us all. Great job taking no responsibility for your bizarro nutty claims in #5 that people rightly questioned, rajIan. Later!

  56. V the K says

    July 22, 2006 at 11:29 pm - July 22, 2006

    It could just be that rightish people are just more decent, civilized, respectful, and secure in their beliefs than gay leftists. This is why a gay person can be quite open on a rightish, predominantly straight weblog without being subjected to name-calling or personal attacks based on their orientation.

    Of course, when a gay leftie like Deb Frisch goes to a rightish blog and makes threats against the blogger’s child… well… people are entitled to respond to that.

  57. Ian says

    July 23, 2006 at 12:24 am - July 23, 2006

    You whiny cons just don’t get it. It’s your regressive Republican lapdog views that get you into trouble with progressive gays. Your being gay is irrelevant but you seem to think that it means your wacko wingnut opinions have to be politely accepted as truth by the rest of the gay community. The proof of this is the fact that there are things we can agree on such as the idea that full civil marriage should be available to gay couples – at least I assume most of you believe that. The differences we have are generally political and non-gay related so why should the fact you’re gay be relevant?

  58. Frank IBC says

    July 23, 2006 at 1:17 am - July 23, 2006

    And of course Fred Phelps is a loyal member of the Democratic Party who opposes the war in Iraq.

  59. Frank IBC says

    July 23, 2006 at 2:14 am - July 23, 2006

    So get back to your own blog already, you pathetic attention whore.

  60. Ian says

    July 23, 2006 at 2:22 am - July 23, 2006

    #61 “So get back to your own blog already, you pathetic attention whore.”

    Why? To paraphrase Bruce: “Is the Gay Right actually afraid of diverse opinions?” LOL!

  61. Frank IBC says

    July 23, 2006 at 3:12 am - July 23, 2006

    Ian –

    When Chandler actually offers an “opinion”, I will comment on it.

  62. Attmay says

    July 23, 2006 at 5:07 am - July 23, 2006

    Don’t expect Lamb Chop…whoops, I mean Inserted Anal Nozzle to offer an opinion that’s not put there by Shari Lewis…whoops, I mean Really Annoying Jerk.

  63. ThatGayConservative says

    July 23, 2006 at 5:50 am - July 23, 2006

    #55

    After a half dozen posts or so repeating the same thing, it IS whining.

    And 6 years of “Bush lied”, “Bush stole the election”, “The Supreme Court crowned Bush”, “Bush is Hitler” etc. etc. etc. IS chronic Bizarre Dilusional Disorder.

  64. ThatGayConservative says

    July 23, 2006 at 5:52 am - July 23, 2006

    #60

    I found it odd that you linked to Bob’s blog and my blog profile as if they were part of the same effort.

    No matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.

  65. Kevin says

    July 23, 2006 at 7:42 am - July 23, 2006

    I checked out that link..only 2 people are posting responses and one of them was the writer of the original item. Not exactly the “more evidence of gay tolerance” you advertise.

    When will you admit that some things that are said about gay republicans are true. It’s pretty clear to me from reading that the people on this board are more than happy to remain second class citizens as long as you have the money to be a good republican. I personally loved the comment someone made a while back here. In effect, it said, why do you need marriage when you can have a lawyer draw up all the legal documents you need. That’s great if you have the bucks to spend, while male/female Americans can pay only $30 to get a little piece of paper that gives them all the legal rights they want. I’m also curious how many non-white males post regularly here too….

  66. raj says

    July 23, 2006 at 10:18 am - July 23, 2006

    #58 Ian — July 23, 2006 @ 12:24 am – July 23, 2006

    Pretty much agree, but not exactly.

    I do find it amusing the amount of whining that goes on here among the Republican proprietors of the site. And some of the commenters

    They’re (well GPW is) upset because he’s been dissed by someone in LA that he claims was sexually attracted to him because of his (GPW’s) politics. Whatever–it’s his claim, and I know better than to rely on a one-sided report in a “he-said/she-said” situation. Aside from the fact that I suspect that it was really the other way around (GPW found him sexually attractive, not necessarily the other guy in reverse), one wonders–do normal people really discuss politics on their first meeting? If my partner and I had done so in Aug-Sept 1978, we would never have gotten together. Maybe GPW needs a refresher in dating protocol.

    They’re (well, primarily GPW, since GP has been long gone) upset in regards his bitching and moaning about the supposed “intolerance” of what he so nicely refers to as the “gay community.” Sorry, dear(s), but the fact that you apparently wish to ignore is that there is no “gay community.” There are gay people who agree with them, and there are other gay people who don’t agree with them, in regards their Republican-near politics, or any other topic, for that matter. Apparently GPW and GP are unwilling to understand the fact that those with whom they would like to claim community don’t agree with them. Is it really necessary to beat them over the head–like the proverbial mule who is drawn to water but refuses to drink–to make them understand that fact?

    Yeah, they’re a bunch of whiners.

  67. Frank IBC says

    July 23, 2006 at 11:50 am - July 23, 2006

    Kevin –

    You’re white, so what’s your point?

  68. North Dallas Thirty says

    July 23, 2006 at 4:16 pm - July 23, 2006

    That’s great if you have the bucks to spend, while male/female Americans can pay only $30 to get a little piece of paper that gives them all the legal rights they want. I’m also curious how many non-white males post regularly here too….

    Given that gay leftists have blown millions of dollars in legal fees trying to overturn laws and failing, as well as pumping millions of dollars into the campaigns of homophobes like John Kerry and Howard Dean, the “gays don’t have enough money” excuse isn’t working.

    Gays have enough money to fund legal services for other gays to set up these kind of arrangements. But they’d rather waste it on futile lawsuits and in playing cash-fetching lapdogs for homophobic Democrats.

  69. DarkEyedResolve says

    July 23, 2006 at 5:27 pm - July 23, 2006

    I don’t think it is a good idea for either gay democrats or gay republicans to point figures at each other’s parties and point out the flaws. We are used and exploited by both groups and we just let them get away with it, I’m just not such which is more sinster tatic or if they are equal.

    Democrats use and abuse gays for support, they like to promise things that they will not deliver on. They won’t fight for us because they have decided it is more important to be bland and try to pick off some more religious elements. It’s a cheap tatic not to support the group that has always been loyal and sell out for a group of voters who are still not going to vote democrat.

    Republicians allow parts of their party to use gays are bait and tools, even though I don’t believe most care. They are just being loyal to a group of voters who have supported them and will continue to come out and vote. So I don’t know if I can fault them for that, atleast they aren’t being turn coats.

    I just resent the comments about liberals being all of these radical things..but then again I’m young so maybe I’m not as knowledgable on it in the end.

  70. VinceTN says

    July 23, 2006 at 5:36 pm - July 23, 2006

    Well said DarkEye. Many of us are not ignorant of the hate and evil on the Right. We have had to make a devil’s deal to lower our outrage towards their evil in order to concentrate on the more immediate evil of terrorism and world socialism. These two forces are aimed at far more than our status in a society. They aim to destroy our societies and take away all the good and some bad of what we have and deliver us to something with no good and all bad.

  71. Synova says

    July 23, 2006 at 9:51 pm - July 23, 2006

    #59 Ian is right. Granted, by all accounts it’s *worse* for gays or blacks who are republican than for white heterosexuals, but it really is all about politics and the fact that the democrats have gone off the deep end.

    I was home for a couple of weeks and off-line, doing things the old fashioned way and listening to the radio with my Dad… liberal talk, Ed Coen? I honestly don’t remember but I got to hear him rant a bit. Seems he mentioned that he agreed with Bush one one *particular little thing* about the Israel/Hezbolla confrontration and made the mistake of saying so on the air. He was getting hate mail, e-mail, phone calls, because of it. He seemed… surprised.

    What passes for blind worship of the Bush administration in the minds of a good number of people, oh, not *all* democrats certainly, but enough of them, is nothing more than a *failure* to hate Bush adequately.

    Rather than find the things we have in common, the causes where there is agreement, a failure to hate Bush adequately makes any discussion impossible. It’s not enough to agree with some things and disagree with others… you’ve got to HATE the guy.

    #38 “It’s so funny hearing spoiled rich white suburban liberal gays pretend that their orientation somehow makes them poor and un-white.”

    Omgosh, I’m related to people like that. Oh, not rich and not gay but definately believing that their “orientation” somehow makes them un-white.

  72. Ian says

    July 23, 2006 at 11:45 pm - July 23, 2006

    #73: “We have had to make a devil’s deal to lower our outrage towards their evil in order to concentrate on the more immediate evil of terrorism and world socialism.”

    Bullshit. You and your ilk supported the homohating right long before 9/11 and long after “world socialism” went the way of the dodo bird. And why you continue to support Bush who is no conservative and has botched the “War on Terror”, well, apparently John Dean has figured it out http://tinyurl.com/pjq78 .

  73. Frank IBC says

    July 23, 2006 at 11:53 pm - July 23, 2006

    I always crack up when liberal idiots say “bush is no conservative”, Raj.

    I thought all “homohaters” were conservative? Or maybe you saw the light when Kerry and Edwards outed Mary Cheney, Raj?

  74. jimmy says

    July 24, 2006 at 1:17 am - July 24, 2006

    Just get a gun already and mow down “the gays”.

  75. raj says

    July 24, 2006 at 3:54 am - July 24, 2006

    Further on my #69…

    I just remembered that GPW was whining a few weeks ago about how gay Republicans were portrayed in–of all things–a movie version of Eric Horner’s Ethan Greene comic strip. A movie that I had never heard of and that, I suppose, he and maybe three other people have seen.

    Jeez, give me a break.

  76. raj says

    July 24, 2006 at 4:07 am - July 24, 2006

    #73 VinceTN — July 23, 2006 @ 5:36 pm – July 23, 2006

    We have had to make a devil’s deal to lower our outrage towards their evil in order to concentrate on the more immediate evil of terrorism and world socialism.

    Some of us who aren’t terminally stupid know that the main purpose of Bush’s “homeland security” is to provide federal pork-barrel money to the hinterlands. Otherwise, why would there be half-again as many potential terrorist sites in Indiana, of all places, than New York and twice as many as in California.

    Originally from the NYTimes:

    It reads like a tally of terrorist targets that a child might have written: Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn factory, the Mule Day Parade, the Sweetwater Flea Market and an unspecified “Beach at End of a Street.”

    But the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, in a report released Tuesday, found that the list was not child’s play: all these “unusual or out-of-place” sites “whose criticality is not readily apparent” are inexplicably included in the federal antiterrorism database.

    The National Asset Database, as it is known, is so flawed, the inspector general found, that as of January, Indiana, with 8,591 potential terrorist targets, had 50 percent more listed sites than New York (5,687) and more than twice as many as California (3,212), ranking the state the most target-rich place in the nation.

    The database is used by the Homeland Security Department to help divvy up the hundreds of millions of dollars in antiterrorism grants each year, including the program announced in May that cut money to New York City and Washington by 40 percent, while significantly increasing spending for cities including Louisville, Ky., and Omaha.

    Come One, Come All, Join the Terror Target List

    World socialism? Sorry, she is alive and well, and in the Bush malAdministration. Terrorism? Oh, my, what Muslim terrorist would want to make a statement by attacking the Sweetwater Flea Market in Tennessee?

  77. ThatGayConservative says

    July 24, 2006 at 7:52 am - July 24, 2006

    #68
    It’s pretty clear to me from reading that the people on this board are more than happy to remain second class citizens as long as you have the money to be a good republican.

    You’re confusing normal folks with your fellow pussies who wish to remain victims so they have something to bitch about.

  78. VinceTN says

    July 24, 2006 at 8:24 am - July 24, 2006

    Little raj, your raving. Soon you’ll be TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND TELLING US THAT YOU HATE OUR GUTS AND WILL SLIT OUR THROATS IF WE EVER SAY ANYTHING YOU DON’T LIKE!!!!!

    Then you’ll have to be taken away just like eric and stephen.

    I just wish you had as much contempt for terrorism as you do for Tennesseans. That is really been my only problem with the Left. Your choice of enemies and your choice of allies. Your ideas don’t bother me because they don’t work and nobody wants them. Its just the help you give to those who would destroy us that’s unsettling.

  79. raj says

    July 24, 2006 at 8:45 am - July 24, 2006

    #80 VinceTN — July 24, 2006 @ 8:24 am – July 24, 2006

    I just love the substantive responses that one gets around here. They’re so !informative and !to_the_point.

    When and if your boi Bush shows any interest in Heimat Sicherheit–that’s homeland security, as I’m sure that your bud Matty would let you know–I might sit up and listen. The fact is that your boi Bush isn’t interested in Heimat Sicherheit. He’s interested in dispensing money that he doesn’t have in the hinterlands–borrowing it from your children and grandchildren, and not increasing Homeland Security one bit. That should be evident event to a Hinterwaeldler such as yourself.

    One can only surmise that you have a strange affection for the Sweetwater Flea Market in Tennessee.

  80. Frank IBC says

    July 24, 2006 at 9:20 am - July 24, 2006

    Heimat Sicherheit

    I thought you thought anything that came out of Europe was GOOD, Ian?

  81. Frank IBC says

    July 24, 2006 at 9:22 am - July 24, 2006

    Given that there have been NO deadly attacks on American soil in almost five years, while there have been numerous attacks in Europe and other parts of the world, doesn’t that indicate that “Heimat Sicherheit” is working, Ian?

  82. Michigan-Matt says

    July 24, 2006 at 1:52 pm - July 24, 2006

    raj/ian isn’t interested in discussion, Frank. He’s just here to goad, incite, inflame, and spark… for him, it’s better than ambulance chasing.

  83. raj says

    July 25, 2006 at 8:18 am - July 25, 2006

    #82 Frank IBC — July 24, 2006 @ 9:20 am – July 24, 2006

    I thought you thought anything that came out of Europe was GOOD, Ian?

    Since, despite your dementia causing you to suppose that I am Ian, this was obviously directed to me, I will only ask you these questions:

    (i) Why do you assume that Europe is a unitary entity? Because it shows up as a splotch on your globe?

    (ii) When was the last terrorist act in Germany or Italy, and who were the perpetrators? and

    (iii) What country, the US, on the one side, and Germany/Italy on the other, has actually eradicated home-grown terrorists in, oh, say, the last 30 years, and has effectively kept foreign terrorism out of the country? (I know little about the terrorist situation in France, so I’m not bringing them up).

    Citations, please, for your answers. I’ll post the correct answers after you’ve had a chance to flail a bit.

    Just to remind you, the US and/or its interests suffered terrorist attacks in 1986 (the Berlin night-club bombing, the night-club was a favorite hang-out for American servicemen; the bombings were attributed to some Libyans, but the Stasi (East German Staatssicherheit) were involved), the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 American embassy bombings in Africa, the 2000 Cole bombing, and the 2001 WTC bombing. As far as I can tell, all of them, except for the 1986 Berlin night-club bombing, were after the most recent terrorist activities in Germany or Italy.

  84. Michigan-Matt says

    July 25, 2006 at 10:22 am - July 25, 2006

    raj writes: “Since, despite your dementia causing you to suppose that I am Ian”

    No raj/ian, Frank and others here can sense a troll when the troll surfaces from under the bridge. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

  85. North Dallas Thirty says

    July 25, 2006 at 2:36 pm - July 25, 2006

    LOL….the funny part is that Germany’s laws on wiretapping and other searches, as well as holding terrorist suspects without trial, banning groups from speaking publicly, and others are far more draconian than the United States.

    This is again an example of leftist Raj’s hypocrisy; he tries to cite Germany’s record as being “better”, but rails against the United States for putting in place security measures similar, and in several respects less stringent, than Germany’s.

    Perhaps if leftist Raj weren’t under so much stress in trying to maintain his multiple identities (it seems he’s now posting as “rudy” elsewhere), he might not be making such howling errors.

  86. raj says

    July 26, 2006 at 10:20 am - July 26, 2006

    #88 North Dallas Thirty — July 25, 2006 @ 2:36 pm – July 25, 2006

    Another “change the subject” post by NDXXX.

  87. North Dallas Thirty says

    July 26, 2006 at 12:55 pm - July 26, 2006

    Another, “I can’t answer so I’m going to whine” post from Raj.

    Of course you can’t; you know full well that Germany’s antiterror laws are far more draconian than US laws in terms of abrogation of personal liberties and privacy. But you can’t admit that, because it shows how much of a hypocrite you are; you rail against the United States for being “repressive”, but then praise Germany for allegedly having “fewer terrorist attacks”, while failing to note it is BECAUSE they are more repressive.

  88. raj says

    July 28, 2006 at 9:24 am - July 28, 2006

    #90 North Dallas Thirty — July 26, 2006 @ 12:55 pm – July 26, 2006

    Of course you can’t; you know full well that Germany’s antiterror laws are far more draconian than US laws in terms of abrogation of personal liberties and privacy.

    Actually, dear, I don’t know that, because you have again failed to cite to what you are supposedly alluding to.

    One thing that I will tell you is that a few years ago Der Spiegel–the German weekly news magazine that puts the American Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report, put together, to shame–ran a cover article entitled “Lauschangriff” (wiretapping) that exposed the German government’s wiretapping program–part of which was at the behest of the US government. (The US government, up until 1991, required the German government to engage in wiretapping that would have been considered in the US.) The German government program disclosed in the Spiegel article was not that dissimilar to the Bushies’ NSA wiretapping. The Spiegel article caused something of a firestorm in Germany. But unlike the disclosure by the NYTimes in the US–in which a bunch of nutty nattering nabobs contended that the NYTimes disclosure was treasonous–the firestorm in Germany was against the German government program of using illegal wiretaps.

    Maybe their memory of the StaatsSicherheit during the Nazizeit is still too fresh in their heads, and not fresh enough in yours’.

Categories

Archives