Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservative Bloggers Uniting to Oppose Outing Witchhunt By Liberals

So far, The AnchoressThe American ThinkerMacsMindGatewayPundit …. Roger L. Simon…. Mary Katharine Ham…. and now Liz at GOP Progress have joined GayPatriot in condeming the “outing” campaign by Liberal activists targeting gay GOP Congressional staffers.  (There are actually many, many more who have stated their opposition!)

I haven’t seen ANY liberal bloggers opposing this outing campaign.  Not one.  In fact, they are behind the attempts to rout out these staffers with their Sexual McCarthyism.  Can you just imagine the howls from the Left if “The List” was compiled by James Dobson and being used against gay Democrats?

Hypocrisy, thy face is of an American Liberal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

129 Comments

  1. Common sense, common values and common decency – that’s what we all need to keep our focus on, not on somebody’s sexual orientation. Keep up the good work! I approve this message and I am on the outer fringe of the Right wing. There! I’ve outed myself! I didn’t even know what a homo was until I was well into my 20s. I grew up in an isolated rural area. Yeah sure, there was old Ted who would grab the crotch of teen boys but we all thought it was hilarious and avoided him. He was, after all, a good neighbor. Then there was Pete and Ben, a couple of guys that weren’t related and lived togather and went everywhere togather. For Christ sake! All we knew and cared about was they were good neighbors that you could count on and they were darn good farmers. That’s all that mattered. Where in the hell is my cross I need to hold in front of me now in realizing they were in all probability gay? Then there was Beatrice and Alice, non related and they lived togather for probably a hundred years like Pete and Ben. Who would have thought that we were supposed to have lynched these good women, or at least burned them out, for being homos! God! I wished I hadn’t visited them and appreciated their genuine interest in me as a human being. I wish I hadn’t gone to their house on Halloween and gotten wonderful, homemade treats! Pete and Ben would hand out store-bought candy. I was so damn culturally deprived – I need therapy!

    Comment by goesh — October 11, 2006 @ 9:32 am - October 11, 2006

  2. When things are too hot, blame the liberals!

    How predictable. Not as though you don’t pull dirty tricks yourself. (Protest Warrior comes to mind…)

    Comment by ljp — October 11, 2006 @ 11:01 am - October 11, 2006

  3. When you actively work against other gay people and you’re gay yourself, you deserve to be outed.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 11:01 am - October 11, 2006

  4. “howls from the Left if “The List” was compiled by James Dobson and being used against gay Democrats?”

    There probably aren’t too many closeted Dem gay staffers for them to try and out.

    Comment by Ian — October 11, 2006 @ 11:06 am - October 11, 2006

  5. Dan, I don’t think you’re going to find that many liberal or GayLeftBorg bloggers will oppose outing gay GOP staffers… for most of them, morality and ethics in politics (if they think there is any ethics in politics) is relative. It outing helps serve the agenda of thwarting opposition to their political goals, then they’ll press the outing button and not think twice because they’ve already vilified the hypothetical gay GOP staffer as sub-gay, sub-human.

    I’ve heard many of them use the parallel that it’s like exposing the hypocrisy of an illicit drug-using public icon if that icon is favor of punishing drug abusers, sellers or criminals. (recall the RLimbaugh HillBillyCoke swiftboating by the Democrats and liberals in 2004)

    I think for most in politics, the ends DO justify the means. It’s why Democrats like NY Senator Schumer can allow staff to violate personal security and go fishing in credit reports to discredit opponents… it’s why Natl Democrat staff can sift through video rental files and out the viewing habits of potential SCOTUS nominees… it’s why liberal reporters can “investigate” whether or not now-Justice Roberts had special handling in the adoption of his kids… and on and on. And it happens less frequently on the flipside of the coin with conservatives, too.

    What liberals are disinclined to do is call it immoral behavior. Conservatives, however, have no problem making those moral judgments and rightly so. We can and should make those judgments… just like now, we should –as a gay community—be talking about how Mark Foley is the posterboi for a large subculture in our community… eg, sexual predation of young males by older, greying, overweight, lecherous gay men. Like barebacking… like anonymous sexual partners… like bathhouses… like PrideParadeFloats that injure our PR with mainstream America… we should stand firm and say those things are wrong, immoral and debase the humanity of our cause. Even if “gayCardinal” AndieSullivan is looking for bareback partners in anonymous sex on chatlines. It’s wrong and immoral.

    For anyone who doubts the immorality of older men predating on vulnerable gay youth… they are probably liberal or moral relativists as best. What happens in the bedrooms of America does matter to society. It’s why we enact laws to curb certain excesses and urges.

    But on the immorality of gay outing for partisan gain, no one proves it better than here:

    http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/are-these-the-players-behind-the-mark-foley-outing

    And I think that’s why you won’t see liberal bloggers or very few from the GayLeftBorg condemn outing… because for them, right now, the Ends DO justify the Means.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 11:27 am - October 11, 2006

  6. DanielFtL and ljp… thanks for proving the point:

    “If outing helps serve the agenda of thwarting opposition to their political goals, then they’ll press the outing button and not think twice because they’ve already vilified the hypothetical gay GOP staffer as sub-gay, sub-human.”

    You guys represent an equal part of what’s wrong with our gay community being sold down-river to the Democrat Plantation masters.

    Thanks a lot. I hope hanging with the likes of MikeRogers makes you proud of being a gay. To me, it makes you pathetic and disloyal to our cause of gay civil rights.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 11:33 am - October 11, 2006

  7. Matt, you’re welcome. Oh, you don’t like me, us, the left, Democrats…I’m shocked. What makes you think we sought your approval anyway?

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 11:47 am - October 11, 2006

  8. Exactly what Gay Patriot does for gay rights, I wouldn’t know.

    Comment by ljp — October 11, 2006 @ 11:49 am - October 11, 2006

  9. Love this site and love Gay Patriot! But you’re not going to convince me to be kind and empathetic towards closeted GOP gays who support a party that has been waging war on gays. I don’t care if their feelings are hurt. All their policies do is attempt to marginalize homosexuality and create an atmosphere of shame and disgust on which their closetedness feeds. Enough. Out them all.

    Comment by Dan — October 11, 2006 @ 11:53 am - October 11, 2006

  10. Dirty tricks, Protest Warrior?

    That’s almost funny, or would be, if it weren’t so sad.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am - October 11, 2006

  11. I certainly DO NOT love Gay Patriot and anything to do with this shit-disturbing so-called ‘neo-con’ movement which isn’t even ‘conservative’ at all. Bring back Patrick Buchanan!

    Comment by ljp — October 11, 2006 @ 11:57 am - October 11, 2006

  12. Rightwingprof,

    Well lets just say I’m glad I connected that way.

    Comment by ljp — October 11, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - October 11, 2006

  13. Besides, isn’t it your crowd that runs around telling everyone that it shouldn’t be a problem for the government to snoop for the war on terror if Americans aren’t terrorists? Yes, it is in fact! Privacy is not a right as you like to often remind us all.

    If you don’t want to be outed, then don’t hide in the closet and simultaneously work against that which you are!

    If you don’t want to be outed, then don’t head fundraising for the party that lectures the public on family values and morals while at the same time seeking bareback sex outside of your relationship on gay.com.

    You don’t like my opinion on the subject, or perhaps you don’t even like me? I’ll try to pick up the pieces of my life and move on.

    I’ll support outing when “you” continue to work to make being gay something shameful and dirty. Idiots.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 12:05 pm - October 11, 2006

  14. Unfortunately, DanielFTL, we know what you consider to be “pro-gay”, “gay-supportive”, and “working for gay rights”.

    What you have demonstrated, puppet, is that your sole determinant of what is and isn’t good for gays is party affiliation.

    What you’re doing now is nothing more than the temper tantrums of spoiled, petulant, jealous children who like to make themselves feel powerful by tearing others down.

    But what you continually demonstrate is that gays like you have nothing positive or uplifting to offer, only anti-religious, anti-Republican, and anti-everything hate and bigotry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  15. DannieBoi, contrary to what you think… I don’t “not like you”… it’s just that your brand of gay political activism has put our efforts to constructively engage mainstream America in support of gay civil rights so far behind… it’ll take a generation for us to dig ourselves out of the blackhole you’ve created for us and the cause. Now, there is something I don’t like.

    Luckily, with a blog like Bruce’s and Dan’s and others, the days of unquestioned “leadership” of the gay voice by guys like you and MikeRogers are numbered and ending. The public’s image of the voice of gays is changing, becoming more conservative and that’s good.

    I don’t “not like you”. I’m not nuts about your brand of political activism from the Democrat Plantation –like your participation in the stunt to wage war on the NSA in order to hamstring the NSA’s efforts to uncover and monitor terrorist communications.

    I never thought you were after approval –for that, you’d need to sense shame and frankly I doubt that is in your character anymore than are loyalty or patriotism.

    You’re exactly the kind of partisan political operative who believes the End justifies any Means. I see that as immoral. Simple enuff.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - October 11, 2006

  16. Oh NDT, you see, you don’t know me at all. I would vote for your guys if they addressed me, but they don’t. See, you can play religion and pray to your non-existent God, I don’t care. You can raise or lower taxes, I don’t care. You can play war or play peace, I don’t care about that either. What I do care about is that your guys stay out of my bedroom, my life, and stop villifying my humble existence. Democrats may do it too, and they certainly do, but your guys do it much more. Big tent indeed!

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - October 11, 2006

  17. Well ,
    Michael Rogers has started outing White House Staff. See his blog.
    http://www.blogactive.com/

    Time to get our Pink Triangles OUT of the CLOSET and start wearing them.

    Comment by Brit — October 11, 2006 @ 12:46 pm - October 11, 2006

  18. Geez, did I step into a kindergarten here, or what? Is this what passes for enlightened political debate between gays of either major party?

    Everyone take a chill pill and relax.

    As far as the ORIGINAL question posed by Bruce, here is my answer:

    A while back, pundit PJ O’Rourke posited the same question: since the Left was so consumed with all-out-hate of Bush ’41 (this was before the Gulf War) and trying to circulate “a list” of “GOP enemies,” why not do as the Nixon White House did and create a new “Democrat Enemy List?”

    Fine by me. Unfortunately, not all of the left agreed. Oh, hell, NONE of those on the libtard left agreed when the shoe was on the other foot.

    Incidentally, the list was pretty inclusive, from Al Sharpton to the entire cast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

    So I would say – yes, the loony left would go bonkers if we circulated our version of “The List” and the MSM would decry us as witch-hunters. ‘Nuff said.

    Plus, all you lower-case-losers above, you’d better realize that this “List” story not only has no traction, it’s not even registering a blip on the national consciousness. So once again, the libtards have opened the door on their noses.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 11, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - October 11, 2006

  19. Matt, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, what you and your colleagues, particularly NDT and ThatGayConservative, do here on GP is paint everyone who doesn’t agree with you with the same stroke and that is a mistake. Indeed your side does exactly the same thing that you declare that the “lefty” boards do to you and yours. So GP is not a role model blog at all, as it clearly wants to be.

    If someone doesn’t agree with you or yours on GP, that person must be a terrorist-loving, lefty who worships dictators and sucks the blood of your Christian children…or whatever that person is guilty of today. This I don’t understand because I doubt you think these things are really true.

    I personally do not agree with your points of view, but that’s okay because we don’t have to agree on things and I can respect you and those differences, for example, by using your name properly. Can you say the same?

    Indeed, as of today, I am now a sock puppet. I first saw this when I came to GP and I still haven’t figured out what a sock puppet is. What the hell is a sock puppet (in this context) anyway?

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 11, 2006

  20. What I do care about is that your guys stay out of my bedroom, my life, and stop villifying my humble existence.

    Or so says the outing supporter. 🙂

    Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - October 11, 2006

  21. DannieBoi, it’s not the issue –is it? The point here is that you and ljp and your brand of Democrat GayLeftBorg activism is as bad –maybe even worse– than the conduct you allege exists in gayGOP staffers working for politicians who oppose the GayLeftBorg’s agenda as issued from the DNC. Outing is immoral; it why people like MikeRogers and DavidCorn and AndieSullivan think it’s ok… and you too.

    You’re canabalizing your own in order to advance partisan interests which have repeatedly sold us down the river… and for what? A place at the table when DOMA was signed? When DADTDHDP was authorized? When gay activist groups left state issues hanging in the lurch while state after bloody state passed amendments outlawing any chance for civil unions and advancing gay civil rights?

    NDXXX has it pegged exactly right. And you don’t like it. Right, you guys need more time in power within our gay community. Heck, at this rate, you’ll help move us onto the Democrat concentration camps for gays that they are building one law at a time. Thanks a lot DannieBoi.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 11, 2006

  22. DanielFtL, “DannieBoi” is a term of endearment… kind of like what a younger brother might use with an older brother (wink). In our Irish Catholic family, humor was used to include –not exclude– someone.

    My apologies if it gives you offense. None was intended.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 1:00 pm - October 11, 2006

  23. Both of you are so dramatic. I thought I was dramatic, but you two are definitely as dramatic as me.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:01 pm - October 11, 2006

  24. I agree.

    What we have here is a case where bigot gays like DanielFTL are turning their own immature anger and hate at being so pathetic and incapable on people who ARE successful and have managed to get along in the real world.

    Note Mike Rogers’s latest “outing”, as Brit cited — a staff secretary in the White House who is already and completely out.

    This person does not affect policy.

    This person has never given any signs of being antigay.

    This person is hardly hiding their sexual orientation.

    But bigot gays like DanielFTL want them purged.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - October 11, 2006

  25. Oh I didn’t really mind, I was being dramatic. =) You can call me Daniel or Dannie or Danny, I don’t care, just don’t call me Dan because that I really do hate.

    See, we can get along afterall…and we’re not even agreeing on political issues.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - October 11, 2006

  26. Listen, there is nothing more pathetic than a gay-hating gay conservative. They must lie to the people closest to them and within their movement because they know that if others knew the truth about them they would not accept them. Pathetic….Sad….

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - October 11, 2006

  27. I am a gay liberal and let me say categorically….

    What do gay liberals and gay conservatives have in common???

    NOTHING!

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - October 11, 2006

  28. Did I say that I wanted him outed? Uh, no, I didn’t. Mike Rogers has not made a convincing case here, but the one who outed him is responsible for that, not I. Not my blog, not my business.

    Don’t attribute to me that which I did not say or assume that you know what I want.

    Thank you.

    Daniel

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - October 11, 2006

  29. Okay, I didn’t mind at all, I was being very dramatic! I am sorry.

    😉

    Daniel

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - October 11, 2006

  30. James, you’re wrong. We’re gay, that’s something in common.

    Daniel

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - October 11, 2006

  31. Really, DanielFTL? Then what do you call your comments #3 and #14?

    I think you’ve made it abundantly clear that you demanded people be outed and harassed.

    Stand up for what you believe for once, you spineless coward. You turned Rogers loose, you encouraged him, you demanded he out people; the fact that what he’s doing is not publicly palatable and humiliating towards you does not change any of those facts.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - October 11, 2006

  32. I assume you mean this statement:

    “When you actively work against other gay people and you’re gay yourself, you deserve to be outed.”

    It is the ONLY time that I am NOT opposed to outing.

    I don’t know if today’s outings qualify. I doubt it.

    Is that standing up enough?

    Daniel

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - October 11, 2006

  33. NDXXX, I’m not sure it’s the “homophobic-bigoted gay” impulse that wants them purged… I think it’s the Democrat GayLeftBorg activists who want them purged, outed, humiliated… as one Borggie noted on MikeRogers site: “To hell with them; let’s make sure we know who the gay repuglicans are when we see them in public. Spit on them; they deserve every drop of hate.”

    Lovely people. Lovely. They make the allegedly hate-filled Religious Right look compassionate and embracing.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  34. I certainly have nothing against gay people being politically conservative…after all there is nothing about being gay that means that one must oppose the flat tax or whatever…but the fact that so many gay conservatives must hide their sexual orientation to be accepted by their fellow conservatives is sick and makes them ripe for ridicule

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - October 11, 2006

  35. Well, let me show you what the qualifications are:

    To the Senior staff of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct:

    Because it is of the utmost importance for your committee to review the actions of anti-gay men who themselves are closeted in the government, I am bringing forward the names of two staff member (sic) of teh (sic) government to you today.

    THOMAS BOWMAN IS A STAFF SECRETARY AT THE WHITE HOUSE and a closeted gay man. Is Mr. Bowman connected to this matter? Is this closeted gay man part of the huge cover up that put 16 year olds in danger? Clearly, Mr. Bowman has a vested interest in helping the Administration protect men like Mark Foley so the majority party may maintain power.

    Of course, as the comments to that post point out, his Friendster profile uses his full name, has his location, and makes it obvious that he’s gay.

    Rogers gave you every bit of proof you wanted, hypocrite; why are you suddenly getting cold feet, after so loudly proclaiming how important it is to “out” and punish people like Bowman?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - October 11, 2006

  36. Well…we (gay liberals and gay conservatives) might both technically be ‘gay’ I would scarcely say that we have no more in common than the coincidence of two total strangers meeting on the street.

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - October 11, 2006

  37. yeah, DannieBoi, like NDXXX, I thought your comments were pretty clear in support of outing –and it looks like, not just gayGOP staffers but anyone who you think actively works against gays and gay interests can be outed.

    By that standard, we also ought to be able to harass people who don’t help advance the long term interests of gays. Like for instance, I think you’re support of gay groups in Ft Lauderdale is hurting the image of gays with mainstream America and the gay community won’t be able to secure meaningful civil rights until we have better image and support for our proposals we bring to the ballot box. Therefore, you are now deemed an enemy of gay interests.

    Can I bring a group of friends to your house and protest your support of efforts that harm our image in mainstream America? Can I grab your photo from the web and share it with those same friends in FtL bars and elsewhere and maybe boycott your business activities?

    Where does proper harassment of people who hurt our gay agenda really stop? I think you and MikeRogers and others are hurting our cause by supporting outing… canabalizing our own.

    Hmmm, you say you’re out; so we can’t out you. I wonder if contacting your clients to inform them of your subversive activities to undermine the NSA is appropriate harassment? Afterall, I’ve decided you are hurting the gay agenda by supporting harassment… I guess the Ends justify any Means, no?

    Believe it or not, that’s exactly the tactic that MikeRogers used once against Bruce to silence GayPatriot. It was immoral and despicable then. It is now. But we are now living in a world where the Ends justify any Means… so I guess by your standards it’s ok.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - October 11, 2006

  38. I certainly have nothing against gay people being politically conservative…after all there is nothing about being gay that means that one must oppose the flat tax or whatever…but the fact that so many gay conservatives must hide their sexual orientation to be accepted by their fellow conservatives is sick and makes them ripe for ridicule.

    Ridicule by the same people who called, as I outlined above, pandering to evangelicals, supporting the FMA, and supporting antigay state constitutional amendments to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Why? Because, as we’ve seen in the DNC purge, Dems only like gays when they do as they’re told and when they keep the money coming.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - October 11, 2006

  39. James writes: “Well…we (gay liberals and gay conservatives) might both technically be ‘gay’ I would scarcely say that we have no more in common than the coincidence of two total strangers meeting on the street.”

    I thought the GayLeftBorg standard that underpins the outing of gayGOP staffers is that we are brothers in gay arms first… that trumps all cards, all suits, all the time.

    Are you now divorcing yourself from one of the Great Principles of the GayLeftBorg… being gay is not a choice, being gay trumps everything, being gay unites us so those who don’t support the Democrat GayLeftBorg agenda are the enemy?

    Come on James; you can try to have it both ways but that doesn’t work.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - October 11, 2006

  40. James also writes: “Listen, there is nothing more pathetic than a gay-hating gay conservative.”

    Well, beofre this year I’d have agreed. But what IS worse are GayLeftBorg liberals like you, James, who support the outing of fellow gays in order to satisfy the partisan needs of the Democrats.

    Given my points above, that makes YOU a whole lot worse than even if a gay President signed the DOMA or DADT or FMA. A whole lot worse.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - October 11, 2006

  41. I have to think about what you said Matt. I used to be never in favor of any kind of outing ever. Now, I am in favor of outing for one very narrowly-crafted reason, as stated, but you do make points that are worth considering. The question in my mind is, if one’s “activities” are out there, then shouldn’t the person be out there as well?

    For example, it is pretty clear that I support the ACLU. I cannot hide it, nor would I. It is certainly possible that I would lose clients because of it, but then I wouldn’t want that client anyway to be honest. My participation in the ACLU is out there, so wouldn’t I have to stand up and say it?

    ON A DIFFERENT, BUT RELATED TOPIC, I have read of the outing of the owner of this blog and I myself was shocked by it and it did seem rather vindictive and mean. I still don’t really understand the purpose of it. It really went beyond outing in that instance didn’t it?

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - October 11, 2006

  42. The Democrats are just as irritating as the Republicans. Don’t you think NDT, that we hold our noses and vote too. Surely, you’ve been in that position before.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - October 11, 2006

  43. I am a gay liberal(who actually opposes outing gay conservatives), I just think we on the left should have nothing to do with them…we are not like them….they are not like us…so let us be strangers not friends.

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - October 11, 2006

  44. The Democrats are just as irritating as the Republicans. Don’t you think NDT, that we hold our noses and vote too. Surely, you’ve been in that position before.

    Of course.

    But when gay Dems do that, it’s called “being pragmatic”, and when gay conservatives and Republicans do it, it’s called “self-loathing”.

    Meanwhile, my suggestion is that you return to the morally- and philosophically-defensible position of “no outing”, instead of trying to create a relativistic structure that does nothing but provide exploitable loopholes for people like Mike Rogers to harass and intimidate other gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - October 11, 2006

  45. There should be no debate about this. Outing is always bad. If a person wants to stay in, let him/her stay in. Not anyone’s business.
    However:
    As usual you rightists are either missing/twisting the story:

    The story is not some that some partisans want to out GOP gays.
    The real story is that once they are outed, the Dobson wing of the GOP will demand their removal and the GOP will capitulate.
    How can you guys support a party that will react in such a fashion?

    Comment by keogh — October 11, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - October 11, 2006

  46. I do so laugh.

    You realize, Keogh, that if you were really serious about the former (“outing is always bad”), the latter (“the Dobson wing demanding outed people be removed”) wouldn’t be a problem.

    It’s a bit like the man who killed his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 2:17 pm - October 11, 2006

  47. DannieBoi, fair enough then. If I determine that your activities are hurting the interests of gays –as I determine them– then we can begin protesting outside you condo… we can alert the key contacts of your clients in order to ask them to harass you for your conduct as well… and we can alert the authorities in Florida and Maine that you and your partner engage in anti-American subversive activities… maybe contact the FAA and request you be placed on the Terrorist Watch List.

    Afterall, if we can out closeted gays because they might be indirectly harming our gay agenda by their choice of employment or partisan affiliation, we surely can harass people like you. We can’t out you; but outing is just a form of a harassment and intimidation to secure a political gain.

    Thanks for clearing all that up and for your advance approval?

    Of course, all of that is highly immoral in my book. But we’re now playing by YOUR book’s rules, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 2:17 pm - October 11, 2006

  48. keogh, sorry but it’s YOU who is missing the story… GayLeftBorg Democrats canabalizing their own gay brothers in order to advance petty partisan gain.

    That’s the story, keogh. Dobson isn’t even “in” the story unless you want to point out how guys from the GayLeftBorg targeted social Christian groups to try to create some storm of outrage that didn’t happen.

    I liked VdaK’s comment a little while ago: “I’ve never been called a faggot by a conservative”.

    I can add to that: In 20 years of GOP activism and being out, I’ve never been dismissed, marginalized or treated in an uncivil manner except by the GayLeft and Democrats.

    keogh, if you haven’t figured it out yet… the monopoly on intolerance is a card held by your friends on the Democrat Left.

    That’s the REAl story and this thread proves it –along with MikeRogers and his band of commenters over at BlogActive.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - October 11, 2006

  49. I certainly would not like it. I am not sure what I could do about it though.

    However, one thing. The belief that someone’s activities are subversive is not the same thing as actually being subversive.
    Subversiveness is not really the issue here, at least not in my mind.

    Would you not agree for example, that a person supporting the ACLU believes in civil liberties (even if you don’t like the ACLU) and is closed-mouth about it, is less harmful than some gay guy working for a politician that actively seeks to discriminate against that gay guy (by proferring legislation or voting for it) is considerably more tangible and less abstract.

    On the other hand, it also makes sense that the closeted gay guy really should resign from a position like that and work for someone else.

    I do see your point that it seems that any means justify the end. When I think on it, I don’t like that either.

    I will have to consider this more carefully.

    I hope I am making my point clearly because we’re very busy and I have half a foot here and half a foot in something else.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - October 11, 2006

  50. Now that I think about this, I may have a problem outing a staffer, but I really don’t have a problem outing closeted politicians who write discrimination into legislation or actively work against gay interests. That makes me very angry and I am sure it does a lot of others as well.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - October 11, 2006

  51. Wrong guys.
    Being gay will be a career ender for most of those guys because they are republicans.
    And you know it.
    It seems today it you find the victim-card convenient while you find the intolerance of the influential Dobson wing too inconvenient to address.
    Typical

    Comment by keogh — October 11, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 11, 2006

  52. Back in the real world this cartoon says it all: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/WireTap28.php
    The author tags Democrats, the donkey as the new antigay fascists.

    Comment by anon — October 11, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - October 11, 2006

  53. […] If you want to see just how nasty leftists are, check out the comments over on Gay Patriot’s article about the “outing” scandal. […]

    Pingback by Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Not Pretty. Not At All. — October 11, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - October 11, 2006

  54. #52 It’s obvious that liberals believe that being gay will be a career ender for gay republicans.

    It’s obvious that Kerry and Edwards thought that it would benefit them to point out the fact that Mary Cheney is lesbian.

    It didn’t.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - October 11, 2006

  55. Hmmm. Where’s my pingback?

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 11, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - October 11, 2006

  56. It is not fascist nor is McCarthyesque to out someone. It is wrong but it is neither of those things.

    What is fascist and McCarthyesque is to fire or demand resignations of folks ONLY because they are gay.
    This is what the Family research council is already calling for and we can bet that Dobson will soon call for dismissal of all gay republican staff members.
    Thus it will be the GOP that shall show it fascist tendencies.

    Comment by keogh — October 11, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - October 11, 2006

  57. What is fascist and McCarthyesque is to fire or demand resignations of folks ONLY because they are gay.

    Exactly like Mike Rogers is doing.

    Didn’t you read the post above?

    Because it is of the utmost importance for your committee to review the actions of anti-gay men who themselves are closeted in the government, I am bringing forward the names of two staff member (sic) of teh (sic) government to you today.

    THOMAS BOWMAN IS A STAFF SECRETARY AT THE WHITE HOUSE and a closeted gay man. Is Mr. Bowman connected to this matter? Is this closeted gay man part of the huge cover up that put 16 year olds in danger? Clearly, Mr. Bowman has a vested interest in helping the Administration protect men like Mark Foley so the majority party may maintain power.

    He is demanding that this person be investigated and assumed guilty of pedophilia because this person is gay.

    So, puppet Keogh, you have no problem whatsoever with gays automatically being investigated and assumed to be pedophiles.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - October 11, 2006

  58. Of course, FRC and the like will only be satisfied when all gay people are removed from their presence. As you know, they view homosexuality as a disease.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - October 11, 2006

  59. #56 – 401k, I would love to know which talking points you are parroting in your cut-and-paste job above.

    Because as we all know on this board, your spelling/grammar/punctuation skills are (shall we say) borderline remedial. Therefore, it is obvious that you are quoting a source.

    Please let us in on your source, so we can make a more objective analysis of THAT PERSON’S argument.

    Incidentally, you are engaging in plagiarism. But hey, that never stopped Joe Biden now, did it?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 11, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - October 11, 2006

  60. Now that I think about this, I may have a problem outing a staffer, but I really don’t have a problem outing closeted politicians who write discrimination into legislation or actively work against gay interests. That makes me very angry and I am sure it does a lot of others as well.

    Not really.

    You see, DanielFTL, we have this thing called an “electorate”, and if one does a good enough job of educating them as to why it’s unnecessary to be antigay, their politicians invariably stop trying to appeal to that.

    But the simple fact is that those of you who favor outing, like Rogers, are simply incompetent to appeal to voters. You’re ignorant, you’re foul-mouthed, and you make lunatic claims like this:

    Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to “internment camps” that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. “I know what happened to gay Jews who didn’t get out fast enough last time,” Rogers said.

    Since you can’t appeal to voters by any other way, you try to appeal to their homophobia, under the delusion that you’re actually “doing something”.

    However, what invariably happens is that, as in the case of Rogers’s smear campaign against Ed Schrock, the electorate turns around and chooses someone even MORE antigay to represent them.

    Why not? After all, your whole point in outing was to demonstrate that gays are liars and cheaters who misrepresent themselves to others for personal gain. The FRC and its ilk couldn’t ask for a better example of why being gay is bad.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  61. Yawn. You’re still at it, huh? Mike Rogers outs some gay staffers and suddenly there’s a witchhunt by all gay liberals.

    That is just stupid to conclude, honestly. But it distracts attention from the fact that this all originated with the Republican leadership’s failure to take responsibility when a Republican Congressman sexually harasssed some teenagers. Is it a big shock that a gay man who likes teenage boys puts all gay Republican operatives at risk? It was his behavior, and the leadership’s response — not Mike Rogers — that caused this tempest in a closet.

    If you make a decision to work as a closeted Republican operative — to play the political game — you’d have to be a full idiot not to realize that you were at risk of discrediting a party that actively placates the homophobia of its far right constituency. Hello? You’re just realizing that the far right loonies in your party conflate pedophilia and homosexuality?

    Sooprise, sooprise, sooprise.

    It’s all…all….Nancy Pelosi’s fault!!!!

    Comment by JonathanG — October 11, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - October 11, 2006

  62. Peter, wasn’t the last time we caught a lower-case-clansman doing the cut & paste thing (which, frankly, I don’t mind as long as it is attributed to the authoring source or creative voice) without saying it was a cut & paste job ala JoeyCheatinBiden, they quickly said “Well, everyone knew it was from another source even though it wasn’t noted”. I don’t have the time to look it up but it sure as hell sounds like a repeat.

    keogh, hate to burst your bubble but I was gay and GOP staffer for almost 10 years and it didn’t hurt my career in the least; and I knew more than a few closeted GOPers… didn’t hurt their careers, either. Like other conservatives here, I never heard directly nor heard rumors about colleagues or peers defaming me for my sexual orientation. In fact, in five instances, being gay and GOP helped me because of assignments that were given to me to reach out and find compromise with radical Democrats who couldn’t be approached via regular methods resulted in progress and legislative break throughs… gheez, go figure, eh?

    So, again, keogh hate to burst that bubble of intolerance you are so keen on defending… but your perspective on what conservatives might or might not do is about as worthy as listening to GayLeftBorg liberals try to pick winners in the ’08 GOP primary… silly, cause once again, they don’t know jack about squat. The issue isn’t Dobson –it’s guys like Rogers who eat-up our own people for partisan gain and then apologists like you who help those slimebags get cover. Outing is immoral, keogh. Simple and plain.

    Time to head to the back of the line, pal. But before you do… answer me this: Why is it that the GayLeftBorg & MikeRogers think that being gay is a negative in the GOP? Could it be some serious self-loathing on their part about being gay and an appreciation for the dysfunctionality that makes them Democrats, radicals, brick throwers? I thought you’d say Yes.

    But then, I won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 5:35 pm - October 11, 2006

  63. the perv-of-the-lower-case-clan writes: “your board has become a laughing stock”

    Care to prove that point without referencing wild eyed, bloodied raving rants from the GayLeftBorg?

    Right, didn’t think you could.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - October 11, 2006

  64. Well NDT, I didn’t out anyone, so your writings should be directed at the outer.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - October 11, 2006

  65. JonathanG, long story short:

    1) “Working against gay people”, to Dems like you, does NOT include pandering to the religious right, stripping gays of rights, or claiming that gays are all pedophiles.

    How do we know? Because you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Dems do it.

    2) Rogers’s target, as I demonstrated above, is already out.

    That “boom” you heard was the sound of your theory that all Republicans hate gays and would never hire them self-destructing.

    And, since the Republicans by that behavior are destroying that fundamental portion of your dogma that keeps you subservient to homophobic Democrats, you are desperately trying to pick a fight by working hand-in-hand with the religious right you affect to hate.

    Worse, it’s not working.

    Even puppet John Aravosis is backing away from Rogers this time.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - October 11, 2006

  66. NDT By closing your eyes you conveniently miss the fact that the FRC and Dobson are THE influence in the republican party and the reason they are in power.
    Gay Repubs on the hill do not fear the comments of a few wankers on the left outing gays…they fear the reaction by the FRC and Dobson to
    being outed.

    Comment by keogh — October 11, 2006 @ 5:47 pm - October 11, 2006

  67. Well NDT, I didn’t out anyone, so your writings should be directed at the outer.

    The theory here obviously being that someone who encourages and defends the hit man is somehow not responsible at all for the murder.

    I still don’t understand why you refuse to take credit for encouraging and promoting outing when you claim it’s such a good thing and so justifiable, DanielFTL.

    Well, actually I do — you’re too afraid of looking as stupid as you are for endorsing someone like Rogers without checking the kind of things that he does.

    But frankly, it’s not my problem that your knee-jerk hatred of Republicans and gay conservatives is so great that you immediately applauded anyone who was out to hurt them without taking a look at their methods.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - October 11, 2006

  68. I think that the radicals have taken over both parties. They look the same in many ways, but they’re not. The Republican party has been taken over by religious zealots and the Democrats have been taken over by some very radical folks as well. This is unfortunate because it seems where the two used to disagree about policy and the method to solve problems, the differences have become very personal now..and unfortunately, less about policy. I don’t think anyone benefits from things as they are now. I don’t know what to do about it though either.

    We’re definitely not getting anywhere at the moment and I’ll be honest, I’ll be voting Democrat because I am tired of the status quo and the drain on the treasury, but the Democrats haven’t proposed anything that is really palatable either.

    I’ll also say that I opposed the war in Iraq, and do oppose it, but I also understand that we either have to put more troops in or get the hell out. We have to finish what we started. I wonder if the American people have a political will one way or the other…and will be able to live with the consequences of that will.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - October 11, 2006

  69. NDT, you’re wrong again. I never defended Rogers.

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 11, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - October 11, 2006

  70. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - October 11, 2006

  71. NDT By closing your eyes you conveniently miss the fact that the FRC and Dobson are THE influence in the republican party and the reason they are in power.

    Unfortunately, puppet Keogh, that is clearly demonstrated to be a lie by Rogers’s latest “outing” — of a gay man who is already out and open.

    If the FRC and Dobson were the real powers, one would think they would have vetoed this person’s hiring in the first place.

    Or, most likely, they don’t care, or the Republicans who hired this person don’t care.

    And in case you missed it, both Condi Rice and Laura Bush made it clear how they respect gay relationships today.

    But let’s remember, everyone…..the reason why puppets like Keogh must believe Republicans are all antigay is because it’s their main rationalization for why they support homophobes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - October 11, 2006

  72. NDT, you’re wrong again. I never defended Rogers.

    Comments 3 and 14.

    You’ll have to do better than that for denial.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - October 11, 2006

  73. Hypocrisy, thy face is of an American Liberal.
    -Bruce (GayPatriot)
    #71 Do you guys really believe the republican leadership isn’t corrupt?
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I00.html
    Well now. Word is breaking of Sen Reid’s sweetheart real estate deal.
    More than a $1, 000,000 profit. Hum wonder if he’s got any of it in his freezer. When asked of the sleezy deal, Sen Reid hung up on the free press trying to get to the bottom of the mess.
    When will the liberal hypocrisy and culture of corruption end? Senator Reid, minority leader of the Democrats needs to resign. End the embarassment of the good and clean Democrats who remain. Will Ms Pelosi comment on the latest charges? America is waiting.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 11, 2006 @ 6:36 pm - October 11, 2006

  74. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - October 11, 2006

  75. Where the house “niggas” were disdained by the folks in the field, while being lauded by their “mastas”. I repeat, you place your liberties and freedom below your politics.

    And I repeat….looks like the “folks in the field” have no problem with whippings, beatings, or further enslavement, as long as it’s the Democratic massas doing it.

    Leftist gays like yourself, Michael, would get farther logically if you quit funding homophobes like these, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually, or stopped calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving them your unqualified endorsements.

    But as I also have repeatedly said, what leftists call “gay rights” is simply party affiliation, nothing more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - October 11, 2006

  76. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 11, 2006

  77. ummm, michael? Welcome to the clan of lower casers, here. I’m not sure why the metaphor of the Old South and the slave plantation rolls so easily from your lips… but I’m guessing that it is because you and lots of your buds from inside the GayLeftBorg are content to sell our gay agenda, progress on gay civil rights and rehabilitating our image in mainstream America for the short term partisan gain ascribed to the Democrats.

    The problem isn’t with conservative gays, michael. The problem isn’t with gay GOP staffers. The problem is with your side of the equation and the willingness to intimidate, harass, scorn, out and humiliate fellow gays in order to appease your GayLeftBorg and Democrat taskmasters.

    That’s the problem, guy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - October 11, 2006

  78. I posted against the outing over at my place — and even brought back a little blast from the past as an illustration!

    http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/200330.php
    http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/images/rogers.png

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 11, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - October 11, 2006

  79. And michael, you have just shown why you and folks like Mike Rogers are nothing but “homo-fascists”, much like the folks from al-Qaeda are Islamo-fascists.

    You take it upon yourself to dictate what others may say and believe, and insist that they be ruled by your own orthodoxy which shall not be challenged or spoken of in other than a reverential manner.

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 11, 2006 @ 7:59 pm - October 11, 2006

  80. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - October 11, 2006

  81. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 8:12 pm - October 11, 2006

  82. Rhymes, you nailed it for michael but I doubt he cares. Welcome to a growing club of gays who don’t need to listen to the Democrat Plantation Masters about what we can believe, whether or not we can worship in our own fashion, and what role family values will have in our lives, our community, and in our family.

    michael, the whole point is that I have placed my liberties and freedom and civil rights above party politics… I walked off the Democrat Plantation you are so keen on protecting… I’ve said “No” to the GayLeftBorg and turned in my VictimHoodCard with my PityStones. I know lots of gays who have done that exact thing… about 23% of all gays who vote, in fact. Your monopoly on the majority GroupThink is coming to an end.

    You, on the other hand, have sold our agenda down the river to the Democrats and the GayLeft. In doing so, we’re now stuck with DOMA, with DADT, with at least 13 states having adopted pro-marriage and anti-gay civil union statutes or constitutional amendments in the last 4 years… you have seriously harmed our image with mainstream America –the very group we need to convince we’re stable and an important part of society in order to advance gay civil rights.

    No, michael, you are the one –and one of many million within the GayLeftBorg– who have placed partisan interests of the Democrats above our community’s long term interests. You did it in the past; you do it today; you’ll no doubt do it tomorrow too.

    HowieScreaminDean can cut gay outreach at the DNC, he can fire DNC staff whose partners voice an opinion contrary to KingDean, he can gut the DNC seats for gays so that they are reduced to being a fundraising vehicle rather than a meaningful mechanism for advancing gay civil rights… all of that and DOMA and DADT and all the state anti-gay marriage backlash initiatives against throngs of buttless chap wearing muscle marys on PrideParadeFloats… right, you can actually write that gay conservatives or gay GOPers place party above the community?

    What lunacy. Up is now down; Left is the new Right. You allow MikeRogers to canabalize fellow gays! And you encourage it!

    How frickin sick is that? Evidently it’s just a beginning for you guys.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 11, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  83. #83 – michael, your dumb, DUMB posit is so easily refuted that I can’t resist popping out of “my GP retirement” here to do the honors.

    First off, I should confess that I’m actually an Independent (not one of the partisan Republicans here), after being a Democrat and out gay activist for 15+ years. Now, why did I leave the Democrat plantation? Because, michael, I place my liberties and freedom well above my partisan politics.

    Chief among my most important freedoms and liberties as a GAY, GAY, GAY man, would be:

    (1) My freedom to not have my ass blown off in an Islamo-fascist attack.

    (2) My freedom to have gay relationships, i.e., to NOT be executed when the Islamo-fascists come to declare Islamic Sharia in Washington, DC.

    (3) My freedom to be part of a vibrant, relatively free economy, culture and country called America. (Look into it sometime.)

    (4) My freedom to NOT be completely raped of my hard-earned pennies, and thus stripped of both my past (work) and my future (dreams), by John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi at tax time.

    (5) My freedom to NOT have to be stigmatized by the gay=pedophile equations the Democrats have been distinctly (and hypocritically) pushing in the Foley matter.

    Now, would I like to add (6) gay marriage to the list? I sure as hell would. I’ve been working toward that since the 1990s, i.e., probably long before you ever gave a hoot about it. And Bush is wrong on the FMA and I never hesitate to say so.

    Having said “Bush is wrong on the FMA”, yet again: On 1 of 6 crucial freedoms of major importance to me as a gay man, the Democrats have been right; while on 4 of 6 (or possibly 5 of 6), the Republicans have been right.

    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Comment by Calarato — October 11, 2006 @ 8:56 pm - October 11, 2006

  84. P.S. Excuse me – Correction – On ZERO of 6, the Democrats have been right.

    Because, as Kerry never stopped reminding us in 2004 – and Howard Dean again this year – the Democrats (still) oppose gay marriage.

    Comment by Calarato — October 11, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - October 11, 2006

  85. lets stop this loony talk about commonality between gay conservatives and gay liberals and lets just all go our own way…let gay conservatives spend time with gay conservatives and gay liberals work with gay liberals…I can say bluntly as a gay liberal that we should not out gay conservatives…in fact we shouldn’t do anything with them….live and let live…

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  86. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 11, 2006

  87. #88 Thanks James, awfully white of ya man.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 11, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - October 11, 2006

  88. This has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with beliefs, it is bizarre to imagine that gay liberals should waste their time with gay conservatives? and vice versa why? because we are both technically gay? Let gay liberals go about advancing the rights of gay people and let gay conservatives go about doing whatever the hell it is they do. We are not alike…let us coexist but not waste time arguing with each other or demonizing each other when it would be best to go our separate ways

    Comment by James — October 11, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - October 11, 2006

  89. When republican homosexuals tolerate the anti-gay rhetoric that is espoused by conservatives within their own party, they are condoning self-hatred to ‎the detriment of us all. Every one of us has a little secret about ourselves that we hate and may want to hide. ‎But sexuality, intrinsically determined is an instinctive manifestation that establishes the ‎very essence of who we are.

    Our sexuality is impossible to dismiss as irrelevant. Imagine a world where homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuals were required to engage in same sex relationships. Perhaps then we could relate to their plight — ‎or at least empathize with homophobic revulsion… ‎

    If one prefers to keep their homosexuality a secret, they are entitled to anonymity. But if ‎that homosexual is in a position of power and espousing gay intolerance, their ‎pusillanimous self-hating hypocrisy will affect the lives of other people — especially ‎women. Indeed, self-hatred is the catalyst that sows the seeds of malevolence until racism, ‎homophobia, and misogyny rules. Let’s face it; a republican homosexual is an oxymoron ‎that needs to be exposed.‎

    Comment by Leslie Pool — October 11, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - October 11, 2006

  90. I thought liberals wanted to be friends with everyone. If we could all just get along and sing songs and humm together things will be fine. Let’s talk about it.What James describes is awfully islamofascist. Sounds like sunni vs shiite.
    BTW what gay conservatives are about ….is freedom for oppressed peoples, economic freedom for our poor, and beatin hell outta terrorists.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 11, 2006 @ 10:33 pm - October 11, 2006

  91. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by michael — October 11, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  92. Unfortunately, Leslie Pool, your rhetoric is set against the backdrop of you and your fellow Dems proclaiming certain actions to be “pro-gay”, “gay-supportive”, and “working for gay rights”.

    When you and yours stop protecting, funding, and enthusiastically supporting behavior that you scream is “intolerance” in others, then you will have room to talk.

    But until then, you and your fellow Dems stand accused and convicted by facts of the very thing you accuse others of doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  93. And, to further emphasize my point above:

    Let gay liberals go about advancing the rights of gay people and let gay conservatives go about doing whatever the hell it is they do.

    Gay liberals endorse and give tens of millions of dollars to people who, if they weren’t Democrats, they would call homophobic bigots.

    I guess gay liberals think state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights are an “advancement” if Democrats push and support them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - October 11, 2006

  94. Actually, for the record, Matt, I am a very happily maried straight mguy who simply is offended by the hypocrisy of folks on the Left.

    I take my position expressed over on my site and in the comments above because I have too many folks who I love who are gay or lesbian to see their freedom restricted in the way the homo-fascists seek. Whether we are talking about my cousin and her partner whose position on political issues are completely contrary to mine, or my colleague and closest friend at work who would fit here as “GayPatriotTexas” if he were into blogging. I long to see them free to fully participate in the political life of our country without being coerced by a moral midget who has set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner of those who dare to disagree with him on issues related to sexual orientation.

    And yes, I hold a certain contempt for Rogers because of his handling of an incident two years ago involving a childhood neighbor, family friend, and colleague of my father, former Congressman Ed Schrock. That he still is casting aspersions and seeking persecution of him two years after the fact is sign of the depths of Rogers’ personal depravity.

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 11, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - October 11, 2006

  95. (NDT quoted somebody from some post) Let gay liberals go about advancing the rights of gay people and let gay conservatives go about doing whatever the hell it is they do.

    Ummm… Posturing, preening, casting ignorant and dumb insults / sneers / smears (as we’ve seen here in this thread), screeching for animalistic “rights” to dangerous unlimited sex, supporting Democratic Party anti-gay outing and witch hunts, filing lawsuits that persuade no one and only cause backlash against judicial tyranny, etc., etc., etc., is not “advancing gay rights”.

    And by watching this blog, I’ve learned that “what gay conservatives do” is: Raise kids, hold productive jobs, work for charities, perform America’s military service that makes gay rights possible to begin with… in short, advance human freedom.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 12:36 am - October 12, 2006

  96. P.S. I do think that low-key “coming out”, making PERSUASIVE cases for gay unions / marriage, persuasive case for gays in the military, etc., etc., etc., is advancing gay rights.

    Which is why I spent the 1990s doing those things – before growing to become interested in human freedom in general, in this century.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 12:48 am - October 12, 2006

  97. If the “effort fell flat,” then why all the fuss?

    Comment by jimmy — October 12, 2006 @ 12:49 am - October 12, 2006

  98. This blog is great: two for the price of one. First, one gets the two “patriots” on the main page. Then, one gets the Dallas guy’s impersonation of a talkative resident of a nursing home who sort of repeats himself ad nauseum. Amen, Dallas, fight the good fight. You WILL overcome…

    Comment by jimmy — October 12, 2006 @ 12:54 am - October 12, 2006

  99. Like I says somewheres else:

    The reason loony liberal “leftists,” moonbats and Democrats don’t oppose outing closeted, gay Republicans is because we really don’t care very much who’s gay and who isn’t, so why should you, right?. It’s all you cursed-by-God gay Republican self-abusers and closeted gay “patriots,” gay, pedophile Republlican Christians and Republican child-molesters that are afraid of being exposed for the vile and loathsome creatures that you are. Do you know why you are so afraid of being exposed as perverts? Because your parents will find out what you’ve been doing and they’ll chain you to the old rusty boiler down in the basement where you belong, you dirty, nasty, naughty boys!

    It’d be entertaining to see how many of you will be “scared straight.” You can blame the Democrats for forcing you to become heterosexuals, haw haw haw.

    Comment by blutscheiss — October 12, 2006 @ 3:04 am - October 12, 2006

  100. When things are too hot, blame the liberals!

    When people start talking about real issues before a campaign, make damn sure you distract them and avoid the possibility they might demand your honesty.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 5:15 am - October 12, 2006

  101. As I said before if you’re; ‎
    ‎1) A GAY MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SERVING AMERICA AS A ‎GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (the only party that I’m aware of advocating intolerance ‎for homosexual rights and judgmentally espousing anti-gay agendas)‎
    ‎2) WHO IS IN A POSITION OF POWER, (legislating laws that adversely affect the lives and ‎liberty of homosexuals,‎
    ‎3) THEN YOUR FREEDOM TO REMAIN CLOSETED SHOULD BE JUDGED ‎WITHOUT TOLERANCE or sympathy, as your intolerance would have others judged. ‎

    The funny thing about liberals is that we never TOLERATE but always JUDGE the judgmentally intolerant — malicious people who casually ‎display self-righteous intolerance and judgmental cruelty, under the assumption they are ‎the center of the universe. ‎

    Comment by Leslie Pool — October 12, 2006 @ 5:46 am - October 12, 2006

  102. So, then, Leslie, would you agree that it would be perfectly appropriate for conservatives to “out” closetted homosexuals who are legislating in a manner which imposes the “homosexual agenda” upon an unwilling American public because of their intolerance of the views of those who view homosexuality as wrong and who do not believe in gay marriage, domestic partnership benefits, etc?

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 12, 2006 @ 6:11 am - October 12, 2006

  103. In response to comment #5 (Michigan-Matt), there is no doubt in my mind that Foley’s actions were immoral. On another board, I got into a strange argument where I expressed the opinion that James McGreevey’s lies and manipulations were far worse, though, because his victims were harmed to a greater degree and his purposes were even more pernicious. However, I agree with you that it would be difficult to accept an argument that Foley’s actions were ethical.

    There’s a huge “but” in order, though. Every single member of Congress (including Foley) is guilty of far, far greater crimes. They are entrusted with protecting the rights and freedom of the individual — that is their sole legitimate purpose, if they have any at all — but they care nothing about it. Occasionally they pay lip service to the value of individual freedom, but usually they don’t even bother to do that much. I hope it’s obvious that these crimes of which I find them guilty are not limited to members of either establishment political party.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 12, 2006 @ 10:28 am - October 12, 2006

  104. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Michael — October 12, 2006 @ 11:48 am - October 12, 2006

  105. The reason loony liberal “leftists,” moonbats and Democrats don’t oppose outing closeted, gay Republicans is because we really don’t care very much who’s gay and who isn’t, so why should you, right?

    You DO realize that that statement is totally contradictory, right?

    If you don’t care who’s gay and who isn’t, then you would have no need to out.

    However, since you out, you make it obvious that you DO care who’s gay and who isn’t.

    Ironically, in the process, you make a persuasive argument for workplace discrimination — that gays are somehow incapable of doing their jobs or making decisions because they’re gay.

    And as for Leslie Pool, based on the examples I provided, you obviously do NOT consider advocating state and Federal constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights, rewriting party platforms to suit antigay individuals like Pat Robertson, and claiming that gays should not be allowed to be around children to be either “intolerant” or “antigay”.

    And, to Rhymes with Right’s point, since gays want to make other peoples’ sexuality an issue, their own sexuality should be considered fair play for campaign advertisements and activities. The most blatant hypocrisy is when gays demand other people not use their sexuality as an issue — but then practice it themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 11:50 am - October 12, 2006

  106. #102 “The reason loony liberal “leftists,” moonbats and Democrats don’t oppose outing closeted, gay Republicans is because we really don’t care very much who’s gay and who isn’t, so why should you, right?.”

    Do you oppose outing *anyone*? If you think that outing is always good and always right and advocate it always for anyone… it wouldn’t be because you didn’t care who was gay and who was not, it would still be because you care who is and who isn’t gay.

    If you’re only advocating the outing of gay Republicans it’s because you care *deeply* about who is gay and who is not. It *offends* you that there are gay Republicans. This is the opposite of not caring.

    #104 “The funny thing about liberals is that we never TOLERATE but always JUDGE the judgmentally intolerant.”

    The funny thing is… this isn’t news. It’s a little unusual to have a liberal admit it, but it’s not any secret that liberals don’t tolerate anything at all that isn’t something they agree with already. They tolerate the agreeable. Wow… how hard is that? And the definition of what is agreeable is what they think is agreeable. This “tolerance” thing is a breeze, eh?

    Comment by Synova — October 12, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - October 12, 2006

  107. I’m much more accepted as a gay amongst Republicans than I am as a Republican amongst gays.

    Which group shows *me* more tolerance? It isn’t my fellow homosexuals….

    Comment by Just a teacher — October 12, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - October 12, 2006

  108. Democrats tend to treat gay Republicans and conservatives the same way they treat black Republicans and conservatives……as objects of scorn and ridicule, dangerous to others, and to be maligned at all costs, especially by gay and black Democrats, because “they know” that Republicans are all racists and that “real blacks” only vote Democrat.

    The mentality and reasoning is the same as that of slaveholders who saw freedmen as a threat to their existence; they didn’t want their reliable and cheap workforce vanishing, so they did their best to ensure that free blacks were kept away.

    Face facts, gays are a cash cow for the Democratic Party — affluent, easy to manipulate, and so committed that they will even give money and defend as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” people like Kerry, Clinton, and Dean who openly pander to the religious right, support stripping gays of legal rights, and purge from their ranks gays that question them.

    It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that they pull out all the stops to attack anyone who might question that, or — heresy — actually choose to support Republicans instead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 3:11 pm - October 12, 2006

  109. The Republicans and the Democrats are after the same voters, when all is said and done. The Democrats have done a fairly good job of claiming to represent group constituencies.

    It’s impressive really. Probably a majority of black people are religious and conservative. The driving force behind keeping black people *out* of the workforce were big labor unions. The working class, white, factory worker, Catholic labor union member is as likely to rabidly homophobic as any evangelical. The intelectual elites despise red-neck trailer trash even though the “working poor” are supposed to be the Democratic cause.

    And *somehow* the Democrats can convince blacks and gays and labor and academia and… that they represent their contrary interests.

    No, the Republicans don’t court the gay community. The Democrats do.

    But as NDT frequently points out, other than courting, the Democrats do pretty much exactly the same stuff as the Repubicans.

    Why automatically support the Democrats?

    Comment by Synova — October 12, 2006 @ 3:47 pm - October 12, 2006

  110. #89 – Just stumbled across it – What a LAME comeback! I plainly won that exchange. ROTFLMAO! 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - October 12, 2006

  111. keep drinking that kool-aid and pray you don’t get thrown under the bus. lol

    Comment by Michael — October 12, 2006 @ 7:22 pm - October 12, 2006

  112. This whole thing is getting pretty funny, actually. The Washington Post with its description of Mr. Van Der Meid’s job: “He handles legal matters but has been known to intervene angrily on a shade of carpet or which paintings to hang on the Capitol’s walls.”

    “Oh Mylanta, you simply CanNOT hang that portrait of Taft on anything but Cobalt Teal. It brings out his eyes so.”

    If everyone mentioned in that article is, you know, it’s a wonder the Speaker is straight.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 12, 2006 @ 8:52 pm - October 12, 2006

  113. Mr. can’t-write-a-comment-that-isn’t-banned-michael,

    I know that lefties like yourself intend to throw me under the bus… and have, in fact, done so on many occasions… but because I exercise my free speech, 2nd Amendment, voting and other rights, you won’t be able to 100% of the time.

    Bye now.

    Comment by Calarato — October 12, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - October 12, 2006

  114. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Michael — October 12, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - October 12, 2006

  115. #110

    Good question. I’ve been asking that for years now. Add to it the question: why should I throw away what I beleive in just so I can “fit in”?

    Further, gay marriage is NOT one of my top issues.

    Comment by TGC — October 13, 2006 @ 2:15 am - October 13, 2006

  116. You’ll appreciate this.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 13, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 13, 2006

  117. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 13, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - October 13, 2006

  118. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]

    Comment by Ann C — October 13, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - October 13, 2006

  119. LOL, Ann C; trust us, that’s no different than being told that we’re “not really gay” because we don’t vote Democrat.

    Sometimes I think gay leftists and radical rightists should form an alliance against their common enemy — gay conservatives — and see how far they get.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2006 @ 3:11 pm - October 13, 2006

  120. They have, NDT. They have.

    The Islamo-Nazi fascists are, in effect, anti-gay “radical rightists”.

    Comment by Calarato — October 13, 2006 @ 7:10 pm - October 13, 2006

  121. well who knew this blog existed – thought i was the only ‘one of those’

    i stay away from blogactive – but did see mike rogers on the o’reilly show last week – sent him an e/mail – probably something in it to cheese everyone off – thought i’d share it here

    I watched with interest your interview with Mike Rogers. He has decided that it is his right to out gay men. He is wrong.

    Reluctantly, I will tell you that I am a gay man. Unlike most gay men, gay does not define me. I would use Christian and conservative to describe myself before gay. Gay is not a choice and why people are gay is beyond the subject here.

    I agree with you that sexual orientation is never a subject for the workplace. That introduces secrecy. People can choose their friends and (to a degree) their workplace. People do not choose their family. Sexual orientation is not usually a topic openly discussed in some families either. This secret can be used as a powerful weapon.

    It was used on me. Had my car tires slashed, the car was painted pink and finally burned. I could accept that, but when the gay man decided to out me, I was borderline suicidal. My “Dear John” letter was sent to everyone. He sent it to my employer and coworkers. He stole my business cards and sent it to all my business contacts. He even went to my birthplace (a 7 hour drive) to be sure everyone got a copy. One (and only one) friend showed me the letter. I was torn between killing myself and killing both him and myself. Something was done to stop the harassment. I do not know what that was. I do know that after 15 years, my life has not been the same.

    As a gay man, I can tell you that your impression of gay men is incorrect. Mark Foley is closer to the average gay man (aside from the Republican thing) than I care to admit. If you want an insight into gay men, have someone enter a gay chat room and show you the transcript. The center of life for a gay man is themselves first. Sex is second (centered around humiliation). Escapism is third (booze and drugs, both prescribed and otherwise). Gay men are angry and unhappy. Most do not understand why nor do they care.

    Any departure from the “gay agenda” is not tolerated. Rosie O’Donnell’s rants are mild. Christianity is the current vogue target. Nothing is too vile to say about Christ or a Christian. Republicans are probably the second favorite object of bashing (and President Bush and Barbara Bush). There is no debate. People that disagree are attacked personally. And nothing is too extreme. (I am again being targeted by some gay men in a chat room. Veiled threats accompanied by spyware installation on my PC. If they only knew the most powerful bullet they have (outing) has already been fired at me.) The nature of gay men is unknown to heterosexuals. It is a secret that gay men protect at all costs.

    So I was surprised at the candor of Mark Rogers. He has decided that his anointed vision of the world is correct. Truth and facts be damned. Appointed as judge and jury by himself and backed by the vast majority of gay men, he has decided that the gay men who disagree with him politically must be destroyed. And outing them will achieve his goal. It will (and he knows it) take away the family, friends and careers of those that are the target of his hatred. It will also take away their dignity. Right or wrong, living in the “closet” is their decision. But he has decided that he has the right to “bust down the door”. His plan might bring him more problems than he can foresee. It could be that his next victim might not make the decision I made. His next victim may be as vengeful as he is. His next victim may not choose to live in despair as I have.

    An examination of the language used by Mark Rogers reveals both his nature and motives.

    “Gay men and closeted gay men who make unhealthy psychological decisions”. Setting up this false premise was clever. But accepted as fact by him (in his therapeutic world of psychobabble). I am guessing that since he knows for a fact that a closeted gay man has made an “unhealthy psychological decision”, he is justified in his actions. (Destroying the man is just an added bonus to him.)

    “Stand up and be honest about who they are”. Mr. Rogers has decided that any man that is attracted to another man must declare it to the world. While he has every right to make that decision for himself, I do not believe that gay men who choose to remain silent about their sexual orientation are dishonest.

    “Proud gay American”. The newest phrase in the gay talking points popularized by the latest gay hero Jim McGreevy. This feted “hero” has also exposed gay men to (in my opinion) more justified scorn. His actions (casual sex) potentially exposed his wife to a variety of STDs. The HPV rate among gay men is astronomical (sometimes cited as high as 90%). Condoms do not protect against HPV and HPV is now the first virus identified as causing cancer. Cervical cancer. It could be argued that Jim McGreevy has every right to risk his health. Jim McGreevy does not have to right to risk his wife’s health. Gay men have sold the idea that sex is a necessity for life. The mantra is “McGreevy had no choice but to act on his attraction and the evil society he lives in forced him to marry”. He has decided that he will write a book and make a victory tour of the talk show circuit. His wife and children are expected to celebrate his “freedom from oppression”. The truth is Jim McGreevy is a failed man that other failed men are selling as a “proud gay American” hero.

    “Gay men have nothing to do with pedophilia”. If he qualified the statement with the word “most”, he might sell that argument. But I will expose another gay secret. Gay men might avoid underage males, but it is fear of the law that concerns them. Not the morality. Old men trying to have sex with “barely legal” males is common and accepted. As is paying for sex with them. NAMBLA is condemned with a wink. As I understand it, the age of consent in Washington DC is 16. Gay men object to Mark Foley’s political affiliation. It is a lie that they care about the age of the page.

    “Some really interesting information”. Such virtue in this threat. Mike Rogers has decided that the destruction of gay men that disagree with him politically is an acceptable price for his political victory.

    “Why wouldn’t you”. Not a question. A declaration. He cannot consider another possibility. Like the possibility that he is incorrect. He looks at his ratio decidendi as self-evident. Obviously, destruction of those that disagree is justified.

    “But they are antigay”. As I said earlier, I frequent a gay chat room. For the most part I do not argue with the gay men there. But I have let it be known that I generally vote Republican. It makes for a lively discussion. If you consider moral outrage discussion. The one comment I recall is “That’s like a Jew voting for Hitler”. Questioning the reason for their belief is heresy. Gay men fear and condemn the judgment of others while passing judgment freely on others. The message is “question at your peril”.

    “And their hypocrisy”. Righteous indignation from the morally bankrupt. The favored word “hypocrisy” is used almost as much as “racist” or “bigot” by gay men. Gay men demand tolerance while refusing to have tolerance for others. The irony is lost on them. Like the students at Columbia “shouting down” the Minutemen, gay men believe volume and numbers makes right. “Gay rights” cannot be questioned without consequence. Reminds me of adolescents crying “its not fair”.

    Mike Rogers, unfortunately, is not an aberration among gay men. He knows that outing a gay man can (and most likely will) destroy him. He has no feeling about doing that. He hates Republicans and Christians because he fears what he perceives as their judgment. He embraces Democrats because they (superficially) give him permission to be gay in exchange for his vote. If Mr. Rogers can explain any other reason for his political beliefs, he is the one in a hundred gay man that can. Should he carry out his threats (and I can promise you he will), he better hope his victims turn their despair inward. He is playing a dangerous game to garner political power for his party. The price will be the destruction of gay men that have chosen to keep their sexual preference to themselves. It may be that his actions will cost him what he values most. The acceptance of all gay men by heterosexuals.

    I know the subject of gay men is uncomfortable to heterosexual men. Especially if gay men are shown in an unfavorable light. Political correctness and acceptance of all “cultures” has been a boon for gay men. Gay men have laid claim to both minority and victim status. Questioning the “gay lifestyle” is taboo. The actions Mike Rogers has planned will begin to chip away the acceptance that has been extended to gay men by heterosexuals.

    My opinions may have been shaped by my outing experience. But the information I tried to share with you is not sour grapes. I consider myself to be an objective man that happens to be gay. I am not a self-loathing gay man. But while every man cannot choose what he is attracted to, he can and does choose his actions. The answer to your question “Does this harm the image of gay men?” is yes. Nevertheless, the harm is self-imposed. And unfortunately, deserved.

    Sorry that pithy was sacrificed to passion.

    Comment by sloop — October 14, 2006 @ 1:07 am - October 14, 2006

  122. Censoring and name calling–that seems to be the substance of this blog.

    Comment by George — October 14, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - October 14, 2006

  123. #123 – That, right there, is a form of name-calling and shows your lack of substance.

    Comment by Calarato — October 14, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - October 14, 2006

  124. Sloop, each of us is different. I have never made any bones about my sexuality from an early age. Those that didn’t like it, they were history. Those to whom it made no difference, they may have become a friend. I have more friends than i deserve. Deceit had brought many an otherwise good man down.

    Comment by George — October 14, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - October 14, 2006

  125. Is it pathological?? I’ll report , you decide. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rich_Outing_Gay_Old_Party_1014.html

    Comment by George — October 14, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - October 14, 2006

  126. Here is one liberal blogger who is disgusted by the outing campaign led by people (in my opinion) of both parties. I understand the thought process of those who hope to out closeted gay GOP staffers… it is hypocritical and appalling that gay men and women would support congressman who use their lives as a political weapon. I have no problem with closeted politicians or staffers… just the ones who work for people that actively oppose their community’s civil rights.

    However, it is not in the best interest of the LGBT movement to out closeted GOP staffers. It could lead to a quiet purge within the GOP, which only hurts our chances of changing the Republican Party. Closeted staffers should live openly and honestly, but it is their decision.

    Although I usually disagree with the views of GayPatriot, I appreciate your effort in opposing the outing campaign. These closeted staffers should have the dignity to stand up for themselves, but in the end, it is their life.

    Comment by E.I. — October 15, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - October 15, 2006

  127. I’ve Had My Share of the Outing Game…

    First there are snitches.
    Then there are lies.
    And, then before you know where you are, you’re being outed by a gay gangster who claims he knows people who caught you with your Senatorial pants down in the men’s room at Union Station with……

    Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — October 18, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - October 18, 2006

  128. I Know All I Want To Know About the Outing Game…

    First there are snitches.
    Then there are lies.
    And, then before you know where you are, you’re being outed by a gay gangster who claims he knows people who caught you with your Senatorial pants down in the men’s room at Union Station with……

    Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — October 18, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - October 18, 2006

  129. Gay Republicans are love

    Comment by Reality Hammer — October 19, 2006 @ 2:44 am - October 19, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.