Gay Patriot Header Image

Larry Craig Story–Fitting the Media Mantra on Social Conservatives

One of the things which has struck me about is how the media has become saturated with sensationalistic* stories of Senator Craig. When I e-mailed my Pajamas piece on the Senator’s lack of judgment to my Mom, she wrote back, praising my piece and noting how “sick” she was of “hearing about Larry Craig. . . it was all over NBC New followed by CNN.” While working out at my gym, it seemed every time I looked up at a television news channel, it was either reporting on the Senator’s indiscretions or running some report in the scroll at the bottom of the screen.

The story headlined the news on Yahoo! as well as AOL. I’m sure it made the front page of many papers.

I wonder if the saga of former New Jersey Governor Jim Greevey saturated the news media as this story has. Unlike the latest sensationalistic story of gay sex and politics, that story, as Scheie noted, also included a “financial scandal.” The Garden State Democrat used state money to pay off a lover (or as that alleged beloved contends, a man the Governor wished were his lover) (Via Instapundit).

Perhaps this story has generated more coverage because Craig has denied being gay while McGreevey came out as a “gay American.” Or because Craig is a Republican and McGreevey a Democrat.

I mean, it’s generated far less coverage than did the assault and battery charge against Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California.

Perhaps, if Filner were a Republican, the media might pay more attention to his airport antics. But, then, the media didn’t entirely ignore McGreevey despite being a member of the press’s preferred politcal party.

I think we have seen saturation coverage of the Craig affair for a variety of reasons, one of which it that it allows the MSM to downplay stories of success in Iraq. But, let’s face it, the real reason is that sex sells.** The media’s been ever eager to explore the private lives of politicians, particularly if they’re Republicans.

But, this story has an added wrinkle which makes today’s media increasingly interested. It’s a story they want to tell, exposing the supposed hypocrisy of social conservatives. At least since the publication of Elmer Gantry eighty years ago, the chattering classes seem to believe that those who preach traditional values use their faith as window dressing to cover their own sexual indiscretions. Members of the media (and cultural) elite seek to dismiss the social conservatives’ defense of such values as mere subterfuge, concealing a sinister agenda to subjugate the non-believers. Or some such nonsense.

As Dale Carpenter puts it (in an excellent piece on gays in the GOP), “Critics love to charge Republicans with hypocrisy – preaching traditional family values to the rest of us by day while trolling bathrooms and pressing sweaty palms to computer keyboards by night.

This scandal is thus ready made to fit into the media narrative. But, Larry Craig is just one of many social conservatives. Most do not struggle with the issues with which he has had to wrestle. Nor behave as irrresponsibly as he has behaved.

I believe that those who focus on the hypocrisy angle do so in order to promote their own agenda, rather than to see this story for what it is. As I said in my Pajamas piece, it’s not so much a story of “hypocrisy as it is absence of judgment.” It’s the tale of a man who thought that by pleading guilty to these charges, he could brush his indiscretion under the rug and not subject his private life to public scrutiny. Instead, he has been subject to what Scheie has called “media feeding frenzy.”

Knowing the way the world works today, Mr. Craig is, in very large measure, responsible for that frenzy.

There is a story here, but it’s only partially the one the media is telling.

*******

*Yes, even our blog has been saturated with stories on the Senator’s indiscretions.

**Hey, since we started blogging on this, our numbers have spiked, garnering us a record number of hits today.

Share

81 Comments

  1. Oh, I’m hardly anonymous; I simply choose not to make my name public here.

    Here, on your blog and on every other blog and forum you post on. However, I suppose that reasoning is similar to Larry Craig pointing out even though he was arrested for molesting a man in a public toilet, it’s ok because at least he is not gay.

    for having the temerity to disagree with Democrats,

    Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.

    his boss and coworkers were harassed, his friends were harassed, and even the person who had helped him with designing the blog — a Democrat operative, no less — was called up and harassed.

    If phone calls are such harassment, then why didn’t Republicans support “no call” lists?

    Realistically, Paul, it’s not other Republicans we fear;

    Pod people tend to flock together.

    it’s Democrats like you

    See, there you go again jumping to conclusions. What makes you think for one moment I’m a Democrat? Your need for victim status and to feel that your enemies are circling is so intense that you imagine enemies where none are present and accept dangerous people as allies because they believe the same things as you. Hell, you might as well fall in line with the Islamics since conservatives seem to hold the same ideals about women, gays and non-religious people.

    and Rogers who, as demonstrated, harass us, harass our friends, harass our coworkers, and whatnot, all because we don’t obey the Democrat Party like they want us to do.

    I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone. By putting me int he same group as Roger, you’re merely propagating the myth that the friend of your enemy is your enemy. I have to ask , how have I harassed you, or anyone here?

    Which you claim are awful and evil, I presume.

    A presumption is based on evidence. What you have done is made an assumtion, which is an all too common trait among the right no matter their sexuality.

    What you’ve missed is that this blog, among others, has called out people like Ann Coulter for making such hateful remarks. Why don’t you demonstrate that you can do the same against your fellow Democrats?

    When the opportunity presents itself, I will. Over on “Cap This!” I made a remark about Bill Clinton introducing DADTDP and Hillary’s refusal to visit that foolish bit of hatred and in-equality.

    You obviously don’t read many Matt Foreman speeches.

    And you’ve obviously never heard of the Pink Pistols, or QueersforLife.

    Or, put differently, who believe that women should take responsibility for controlling their bodies prior to having unprotected sex,

    A belief held by people who don’t want sex education taught in schools; who want Planned Parent Hood shut down believing they only discuss abortions; who don’t want drugs like RU-486 available in America; who facilitate druggists inane beliefs that they will not provide contraception; and people who support religions and those institutions who oppose adults making a conscious decision to use birth control.

    who don’t believe the First Amendment requires suppression of Christianity while schools are allowed to require students to learn Islamic prayers,

    Who also believe your forefathers fought for a free Christianity, rather than a free Nation and choose to forget a separation of church and state put in place by the father’s of your country to protect churches and government from each other’s interference.

    and who fail to see how private gun ownership prevents putting more police on the street.

    People who fail to realize that while police are investigating gun related deaths at a staggering rate, their lives at put at risk and the lives of innocent bystanders, by those wielding any one of the 500 million weapons available in America today.

    Nuh uh.

    Did I ask you to out them , or invite them to come out; especially those members of your party?

    Coming out is an intensely-personal decision and should remain solely the province of the individual.

    Agreed. And as people who are out we should facilitate the persons who are deciding to come out, rather than treat homosexuality–especially within th GOP and conservative ranks, as a secret to be talked about in whispers.

    I am an independent and self-reliant person; therefore, I do not have to co-opt another person’s sexual orientation to prove my worth.

    But you do run down, ridicule and denigrate those of similar sexuality, who happen to stand o the other side of the aisle in order to feel some semblance of superiority. In a nation of great similarities, too many look for any opportunity to stand out–but not too far out.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - August 31, 2007

  2. 1) I’m not connected with the GOP and don’t care what happens to it. (I.e., watch your assumptions.)

    Where did I state that you are in any way affiliated with the GOP?

    2) Your attempt to raise a distinction of anonymous vs. non-anonymous means nothing. Your claim to be “Paul Raposo” means nothing; that is, I have no evidence to verify it one way or the other – and no desire for any.

    I think it’s safe to believe that Paul Raposo is a legitimate name, more so than ILoveCapitalism. And since I’m sure you’ve already done a google search of me, I’ll leave the last part of that quote alone.

    Meanwhile, in today’s world filled with identity theft, I choose not to expose my identity; deal with it.

    Yeah, cuz GayPatriot is always the first place they check.

    Is he, or is he not, legally guilty as of this moment? Because of his plea?

    Yes.

    I heard something to the effect that he was going to change his plea. Has he actually done so? It matters because my comments are based on his legal state of guilt. When he goes back – or, if he has gone back – to a legal presumption of innocence, let me know and I’ll adjust.

    Yes, his attorneys, (damn those trial lawyers!) are trying to overturn his plea of guilty.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - August 31, 2007

  3. Yeah, cuz GayPatriot is always the first place they check.

    Well Paul, it’s apparently a place you check – as you attempt to play the “I know who you are” baloney game with some.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - August 31, 2007

  4. his attorneys, (damn those trial lawyers!) are trying to overturn his plea of guilty.

    Does “are trying”, mean, “have in fact entered a new plea as of date […]”?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - August 31, 2007

  5. as you attempt to play the “I know who you are” baloney game with some.

    No games here, ILC. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

    Does “are trying”, mean, “have in fact entered a new plea as of date […]

    As I understand it, his lawyers are in “talks.” To whom they are talking and about what, I haven’t the foggiest.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 8:42 pm - August 31, 2007

  6. Here, on your blog and on every other blog and forum you post on.

    Question, Paul; since you don’t know my real name, how do you know I’m not posting under it elsewhere?

    Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.

    Really? Do tell, what “harassment” might that be?

    If phone calls are such harassment, then why didn’t Republicans support “no call” lists?

    Aside from that being a non-sequitur, did you actually look at the content of Rogers’s call, as described in my link?
    I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - August 31, 2007

  7. Peter,
    You are right not only is it fishy but utterly slimmy. Of course Craig was set up. I have been around the block thousand of times – I know how the politician operate. What burns me is that the Republicans will not come to the aid of their own since everyone in the party is supposed to be so pure. The Democrats are just the opersite and now there will be another Democrat senator. God help America.

    Comment by John W — September 1, 2007 @ 1:48 am - September 1, 2007

  8. Question, Paul; since you don’t know my real name, how do you know I’m not posting under it elsewhere?

    Answer; I don’t care to know your real name. I pointed out that too many homocons and their supporters are silent within the party; you stated that they are vocal on this blog; I stated they are vocally closeted by hiding behind aliases.

    As far as posting somewhere else, I can believe that. I’ve lost count of the number of blogs and forums I’ve stumbled into where a North Dallas Thirty was posting. Are you sorta like the dread Pirate Roberts, wherein the mantle is passed down to others?

    Really? Do tell, what “harassment” might that be?

    In the case of this blog, any interpretation of that will be subjective depending on the reader’s views on the LGBTQ community. What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community. It really doesn’t matter what my interpretation of harassment is, since you will always disagree with that view, so it’s a moot point.

    Aside from that being a non-sequitur, did you actually look at the content of Rogers’s call, as described in my link? I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone.

    I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post. And where did I state you have harassed anyone?

    [GP Ed. Note – For the record, Paul’s screaming liberal vitriol is housed in Canada. For what its worth….]

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - September 1, 2007

  9. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - September 1, 2007

  10. I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post.

    Did not, or chose not to see it?

    I would be more likely to believe the latter, given this statement:

    What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.

    Given what gay liberals and Democrats consider acceptable, I find that hard to believe.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - September 1, 2007

  11. #[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    To think; we went looking for hypocrisy in the form of Larry Craig, when it was right here on Gay Patriot all along.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - September 1, 2007

  12. LOL……there’s the problem, GP. You erase these things, and it gives these folk like Paul Raposo an opening to avoid answering why they accuse you of “hypocrisy”, but support behaviors they allegedly oppose when liberal gays are demonstrated to be carrying them out.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - September 1, 2007

  13. Did not, or chose not to see it?

    Did not see it, because it was not there. Unfortunately, the Internet Archive only covers this blogs pages up until May 10, 2007, so I cannot present proof that it was added later.

    I would be more likely to believe the latter, given this statement:

    What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.

    I see the right is capable of the non sequitur themselves.

    Given what gay liberals and Democrats consider acceptable, I find that hard to believe.

    I genuinely find it hard to believe you find anything there offensive, considering just the other day on The Malcontent you wrote:

    “…and the few hundred thousand other out and promiscuous faggots who you claim to represent…”

    “…you don’t need to be polite about this or protective of promiscuous faggots.”

    “…given that there were faggots running around saying…”

    “…if the gay community would take sexual responsibility and purge faggots…”

    “… I think the behavior of faggots like Mike Signorile and JoeMyGod…”

    “…act exactly as other faggots want you to act.”

    And lastly, “That is such typical faggot behavior.”

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - September 1, 2007

  14. Wow. The formatting in my comment above looks like shite. is there a way to fix that?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - September 1, 2007

  15. Did not see it, because it was not there.

    I repeat your original statement, made above:

    I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post.

    Here is my original post.

    The hyperlink to the post demonstrating Mike Rogers’s harassing behavior is there.

    Which means you are wrong.

    But of course, you cannot admit that, so you make the claim that GP and I added it later.

    Unfortunately, the Internet Archive only covers this blogs pages up until May 10, 2007, so I cannot present proof that it was added later.

    So you cannot prove your accusation, but you make it anyway.

    That demonstrates your individual hypocrisy quite nicely.

    And finally, I’m glad you chose those examples; it just makes more obvious how hypocritical you are when you scream about the use of the word “faggot” by another gay person as a means of avoiding your support of gay liberals who openly and publicly wish death, violence, and pain upon others.

    And downright hilarious, given that your sockpuppet identity of “Charles Wilson” is currently over at the Malcontent and at BoiFromTroy calling people “Log Cabinettes” even as you mouth platitudes over here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - September 1, 2007

  16. NDT, you took the words right out of my mouth at #48. People like “Rapposo” (or whatever personality he/she chooses to adopt) can dish it out but damn if they can’t take it.

    More power to you, sister girl!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 1, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - September 1, 2007

  17. Paul, engaging them will not increase your understanding of them. 😉

    Comment by fnln — September 2, 2007 @ 6:10 am - September 2, 2007

  18. Here is my original post. The hyperlink to the post demonstrating Mike Rogers’s harassing behavior is there. Which means you are wrong.

    That link opens up this posts comment section, which is exactly like the one we are reading now, Dallas. That’s why being able to check the cache on the Internet Archive would have been useful because it would have shown that the link was added later, after the fact.

    Being a curious individual, I always clink on links, even once to my detriment: I downloaded a virus and it crashed my computer.

    When you provided the link in your response asking if I had clicked on the non-existent link in your previous response, I clicked it and read it. If the link had been present in your first response, I would have clicked it and read it. It was not there, so I could not open the it.

    But of course, you cannot admit that, so you make the claim that GP and I added it later.

    Perhaps. The more interesting question would be, at the behest of whom?

    So you cannot prove your accusation, but you make it anyway.

    Because I know what I saw and I did not see a link in your response.

    That demonstrates your individual hypocrisy quite nicely.

    How exactly does it demonstrate hypocrisy on my part, as it pertains to this post topic and the arguments I’ve made, or our correspondence?

    And finally, I’m glad you chose those examples; it just makes more obvious how hypocritical you are when you scream about the use of the word “faggot” by another gay person as a means of avoiding your support of gay liberals who openly and publicly wish death, violence, and pain upon others.

    I believe what those examples of YOUR comments presents, is your own burning hypocrisy in bleating about “liberal” gays saying what you consider nasty things about a lesbian, while you yourself use hate filled and childish name calling when discussing a group you loathe. Let’s face facts, Dallas, you seemed to relish the idea of gay liberals dying a painful death of AIDS. Clearly for conservatives, two wrongs do make a right and in this case, a rightwinger.

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    And downright hilarious, given that your sockpuppet identity of “Charles Wilson” is currently over at the Malcontent and at BoiFromTroy calling people “Log Cabinettes” even as you mouth platitudes over here.

    Wow. I’m saddened to see that Nixon’s dying legacy to the Republicans is paranoia.

    I’ve seen Mr. Wilson’s comments on The Malcontent and on Queerty and he and I are not one and the same. If that is the best defense you can come up with to defend your hateful use of anti-gay slurs, then no wonder the rank and file of the Republican party faithful is imploding.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:07 am - September 2, 2007

  19. More power to you, sister girl!

    Peter, Dallas doesn’t like it when men use the female in referring to other men. Just thought I’d let you know.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:10 am - September 2, 2007

  20. Paul, engaging them will not increase your understanding of them.

    Very true, but I does make great sport.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:13 am - September 2, 2007

  21. And we all know the above should read, “it does,” right? Geez, readers are going to think Bush wrote that for me.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:15 am - September 2, 2007

  22. LOL

    Comment by fnln — September 2, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - September 2, 2007

  23. #69 – “Peter, Dallas doesn’t like it when men use the female in referring to other men. Just thought I’d let you know.”

    Care to provide proof, Miss Thang?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 2, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - September 2, 2007

  24. That link opens up this posts comment section

    Of course it does. I am referring to the original post in which I put the hyperlink to the site outlining Rogers’s behavior.

    That’s why being able to check the cache on the Internet Archive would have been useful because it would have shown that the link was added later, after the fact.

    And yet you accuse other people of paranoia. LOL.

    Let’s face facts, Dallas, you seemed to relish the idea of gay liberals dying a painful death of AIDS.

    Ah yes, my “seemed to” — totally an interpretation on your part,of course — versus the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals that Samuel Cheney die of SIDS, which of course, you’re spinning and avoiding.

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    Oh really? Cite examples and we’ll compare. Your gay liberal leftists praying for the baby to die of SIDS, which again you’re spinning and avoiding, versus whatever you can come up with and link.

    I’ve seen Mr. Wilson’s comments on The Malcontent and on Queerty and he and I are not one and the same.

    Well, numerous sources disagree with you, including your own “cplsanchez” website, but what do they know?

    Furthermore, notice how you don’t condemn his remarks despite your supposed condemnation of namecalling of Log Cabin members; a lovely combination of both your inability to condemn your own sockpuppet and your hypocrisy when it comes to namecalling Log Cabin members.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2007 @ 1:21 pm - September 2, 2007

  25. Of course it does. I am referring to the original post in which I put the hyperlink to the site outlining Rogers’s behavior.

    Yes, Dallas, I know. I saw your original comment. What was not present was that hyperlink.

    And yet you accuse other people of paranoia. LOL.

    I’m not paranoid, just observant. And that is funny, considering I have never accused you of being anyone other than North Dallas Thirty. You on the other hand…

    Ah yes, my “seemed to” — totally an interpretation on your part,of course

    You wrote:

    “Bluntly put, JoeMyGod and Signorile are pissed because Merv Griffin died wealthy, respected, happy, and disease-free. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of how their ideology stated he would–and the exact opposite of how they know in their hearts the ideologically-pure like themselves will.”

    You seem pretty happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    versus the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals that Samuel Cheney die of SIDS, which of course, you’re spinning and avoiding

    Howabout you clarify the stance of the AFA and CWOA, Dallas? Hell, clarify your own words and language when describing LGBTQ’s who don’t share your world view.

    Oh really?

    Yes, really.

    Cite examples and we’ll compare.

    Oh, I don’t know. Yourself for example, on your blog writing that you believe opposite sex parents are superior to same sex parents and therefore deserve to be revered in society and children function better with a mother and father, rather than two moms, or two dads. Clearly by your own words, Ms. Cheney and Ms. Poe and inferior to straight parents.

    Your gay liberal leftists praying for the baby to die of SIDS, which again you’re spinning and avoiding, versus whatever you can come up with and link.

    Just how many people wrote that, Dallas? Should I believe that all homocons believe same sex parents are inferior and damaging to children based on the opinion of one blogger, namely yourself?

    Well, numerous sources disagree with you, including your own “cplsanchez” website, but what do they know?

    Numerous sources? Why don’t you ask Bruce where he sent his email and who responded? Why don’t you contact Andrew at Queerty and ask who emails corresponds with occasionally? I understand this is a meme you are trying to propagating, Dallas, but it’s a pretty crappy one that is absurd and yet, at the same time, amusing.

    Furthermore, notice how you don’t condemn his remarks despite your supposed condemnation of namecalling of Log Cabin members; a lovely combination of both your inability to condemn your own sockpuppet and your hypocrisy when it comes to namecalling Log Cabin members.

    Who are we talking about now and who, or what am I suppose to be condemning? You’re starting to go off the rails, Dallas. It’s not enough that I denounce name calling on either side, but I have to start crucifying people to boot?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm - September 2, 2007

  26. You seem pretty happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    Ah yes, again, the “you seem”.

    Versus the clearly-expressed desire of gay liberals about Sam Cheney:

    I’m praying for SIDS.

    Of course, when confronted with that, you spun:

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    Of course, when I challenged you to provide proof and citations of that, you flailed:

    Howabout you clarify the stance of the AFA and CWOA, Dallas?

    And then you proceeded to trash me based on another statement you claimed I made, again without citation or link.

    And then in your desperate attempt to cover up your sockpuppet identity, under which you are running around trashing people as “Log Cabinettes” and “fags”, you claim that because you use one name in email correspondence, you a) can never use the same name anywhere else and b) one person cannot have more than one email address.

    Finally, overall, this is just a pathetic coverup for your support of Mike Rogers’s actions, which includes calling up people, misrepresenting themselves as working for the police, and threatening said persons with arrest and penalties unless they subject themselves to interrogation by Rogers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - September 2, 2007

  27. Ah yes, again, the “you seem”.

    Oh! I’m sorry, Dallas. It’s apparent from your words, that you’re happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    Of course, when confronted with that, you spun:

    So, which one is it, Dallas, one person wrote that, or, as you claimed, “…the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals…”? Liberals, plural infers more than one “gay liberal” has prayed for SIDS. Is that the case, Dallas, or was it the comment of one poster?

    And then you proceeded to trash me based on another statement you claimed I made, again without citation or link.

    You wrote:

    “The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad. ”

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jeff144/823183141991977767/

    And then in your desperate attempt to cover up your sockpuppet identity, under which you are running around trashing people as “Log Cabinettes” and “fags”,

    I’m genuinely embarrassed for you, Dallas. You want so desperately for me to be Charles Wilson. Why don’t you go to his Matt Sanchez page, look at the forum you’ll see that Paul Raposo–me–has posted questions and comments there. Do you expect any right thinking–excuse the phrase–person to believe that Charles is posting as himself and as me, or vice versa?

    you claim that because you use one name in email correspondence, you a) can never use the same name anywhere else and b) one person cannot have more than one email address.

    Where did I claim that, Dallas?

    Do you know how Bruce Knew I was from Canada and assumed I was from TO? Because he obviously has a stats counter service, which gathers the location , email addy, computer ISP and even exact location of the readers to his blog. I know this, because I have the same thing on my blog.

    Now, if Charles and Paul are the same person, how does Charles get all the way to Toronto to use a computer and back to his location in the States? Easy–he does not, because he is he and I am me.

    Finally, overall, this is just a pathetic coverup for your support of Mike Rogers’s actions

    Again, please tell me where I wrote that I support Mike’s actions.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 9:57 pm - September 2, 2007

  28. LOL….and again, Paul spins.

    Of course I know about you posting under different identities to the same blog, Paul; where do you think I first discovered that you and your sockpuppet “Charles Wilson” identity were one and the same?

    Further confirming that is the synchronicity of your actions on both The Malcontent and on Boi from Troy with your actions here, in these cases showing up in a most timely fashion to hurl your insults of “fag” and “Log Cabinette” — as well as your extraordinarily-detailed knowledge of his blog and of his actions which you have just revealed here.

    Even more amusingly, the only quote you can find of mine that comes even close to what you are claiming you must truncate to make “prove” your point:

    But I also had uncles, older cousins, and teachers who did, if not the whole of that, significant parts of it.

    The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad. But I think gay couples in particular should obsess less about what the kid doesn’t have and more on allowing him (or her) access to people who can be that loving guide, authority, friend, and role model.

    And certain groups of people should keep in mind that the more attention they focus on other peoples’ kids, the less they’re putting on their own.

    Compare that to the clear call of gay liberals for Sam Cheney to die of SIDS and for his parents to be punished and devastated:

    I’m praying for SIDS.

    And where you wrote you support Mike’s actions?

    When you claimed Bruce’s postings justified them — as he cited on the main page of the blog.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2007 @ 1:07 am - September 3, 2007

  29. LOL….and again, Paul spins.

    And again, Dallas avoids answering questions put to him.

    Of course I know about you posting under different identities to the same blog, Paul; where do you think I first discovered that you and your sockpuppet “Charles Wilson” identity were one and the same?

    Your diseased mind perhaps?

    It’s apparent that you are the only person who believes that Charles Wilson and Paul Raposo are one and the same. However, it will not give you the opportunity–as you hoped–to avoid the sad fact that you glory in the idea that gay men who do not share your conservative bent should die of a slow, painful, wasting death.

    Since Bruce is overly accommodating to you, then present your evidence that Charles Wilson and Paul Raposo are the same person. prove it, Dallas. I’ve proven I am who I said I am. Prove me wrong, Dallas.

    Further confirming that is the synchronicity of your actions on both The Malcontent and on Boi from Troy with your actions here, in these cases showing up in a most timely fashion to hurl your insults of “fag” and “Log Cabinette” — as well as your extraordinarily-detailed knowledge of his blog and of his actions which you have just revealed here.

    What have I revealed here, Dallas? i read The Malcontent for the first time last week, I’ve never heard of Boi From Troy til you mentioned him and I discovered Charles Wilson’s Matt Sanchez page when he posted it on Queerty.

    Again, Dallas, the onus is on you to prove your charges. I’ve proven that you’ve used anti-gay slurs; hoped your enemies would die of AIDS; stated that you believe straight parents are superior to same-sex parents; and fortunately, you have proven your insanity, so that is something I don’t have to work on.

    Even more amusingly, the only quote you can find of mine that comes even close to what you are claiming you must truncate to make “prove” your point:

    I stated that you wrote on your blog that straight parents are superior to gay parents. I provided the quote and a link to your blog.

    Now watch everyone, as the hypocrite Dallas tries to spin himself out of his own hateful words.

    The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad.

    You can quote the entire page, Dallas, but that won’t change the fact that you wrote that you believe the ideal is straight parents, just as I stared you had written. You’re spinning like a Maytag, Dallas.

    Compare that to the clear call of gay liberals for Sam Cheney to die of SIDS and for his parents to be punished and devastated:

    Compare that to what Dallas has written about his political “enemies,”:

    “Bluntly put, JoeMyGod and Signorile are pissed because Merv Griffin died wealthy, respected, happy, and disease-free. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of how their ideology stated he would–and the exact opposite of how they know in their hearts the ideologically-pure like themselves will.”

    And where you wrote you support Mike’s actions? When you claimed Bruce’s postings justified them — as he cited on the main page of the blog.

    What I wrote was:

    “Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.”

    Now, Dallas, where in that comment do you see support for Roger’s actions?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 3, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - September 3, 2007

  30. Wow. The formatting in my comment above looks like shite. is there a way to fix that?

    Yeah Paul, but you won’t like it one bit: stop talking shit, LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - September 3, 2007

  31. (or should I call you “Charles”? Well, I don’t care, one way or the other.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - September 3, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.