I haven’t done this in a while…. but this one is particularly funny. Our blog has a new liberal troll who has come to lecture us about American politics and the eeeeeevil of having more than one train of thought if you are gay. The irony is this Gay Borg actually lives in Toronto, Canada. (*sings* Blame Canada! Blame Canada!)
I thought my email exchange from him was particularly illuminating given how liberals always accuse conservatives of “twisting the truth” and “revisionist history.” Ladies and gentlemen…. let me introduce you to the Kettle:
Paul’s recent comment: “What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.”
That made me scratch my head. What on earth could this guy be referring to? I decided to embark on a mission to find out. My search for facts from Paul the Canadian was kind of like being a UN weapons’ inspector looking for WMD in Saddam’s Iraq….
My email to Paul, our Canadian commenter:
Please clarify your comment or I will have to delete it because you are making potentially slanderous and libelous comments about me and about my reputation….
You commented: “What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.”
I would appreciate the specific dates and postings you are referring to. Or I would like a public apology on my blog.
Seems pretty reasonable to ask for specifics. Hell, he might be right. After all, I may need to apologize for some long-forgotten rant that obviously has him furious and awake at night in Toronto.
Paul didn’t agree with me:
If you want to delete the comment, then do so. I will not have my opinion subjugated by a blogmaster.
I think this might have more to do with my pointing out that [North] Dallas [Thirty] did not have the hyper-link in his original comment, than anything I wrote about you.
I will not give you a public apology. However, if you feel hurt by what I wrote, I will give you a private apology.
“Hurt”?!? I found that particularly funny. My response to Paul was the following:
It has nothing to do with your exchange with NDT. It has everything to do with your accusing me of a very serious charge.
I’d like you to back it up with the so-called “earlier postings” that you refer to. This wasn’t an opinion, this was you stating a fact.
So, prove your point with FACTS. Or apologize and retract. Pretty simple.
His response with the facts behind his wild-eyed accusations: *crickets chirping*
Anyway, since I haven’t heard back from him… I wanted to take this opportunity to post this exchange. I figure that since he was willing to give me a private apology, I’ll accept it in this manner.
Case closed, Paul. Thanks for playing. And I accept your apology.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I could be wrong, but I think he’s referring to the blogmaster’s (and the longtime members’) general dislike of out gay people who are not conservative Republicans.
[GP Ed. Note – Please provide evidence to back up this accusation. You most likely can’t since it involves a lot of conjecture and a serious amount of mind-reading.]
Additionally, one might get this impression about the blogmaster and his followers for opponents and dissenters being called any one or more of the following such as “traitors”,”gay borg leftists”,”those of the lower case clan” (which I find particularly funny), “environmentalists”, “god- and religion- hating secularists.” Oh yes, and Peter’s favourites, “Dhimmicrats” and “DemocRATS.”
gaypatriot.org is the only homosexual right-wing blog that I’ve seen where there is so much vitriol towards Democrats and the left. I can only think of a few other right-wing homosexual blogs, but as far as I can tell, they’re no match for this one in their general dislike of the left and of Democrats and their particular dislike of out homosexuals who are not conservative Republicans.
However, it is your blog, so that’s what goes because you own it and if opposition and dissent do come here, they do so at their own peril.
I think most opposition and dissent come to this blog out of curiosity, as they have found the site by accident or by reference to it on another website, with only a minority coming here to “troll” and are stunned by the vitriol found here.
Of course, everything I have to say is based on my own perceptions and my own observations. It will be up to Paul to say what he wants to say.
Pointing out lies, witchhunts and anti-American behavior does not equate to “dislike.”
Just because I choose to fight back against the Gay Leftists/ one-mind thought attempts, doesn’t make me “hate” them.
I just disagree. That’s something the Democrats and liberals in America lost perspective of about the time of Bill Clinton perfecting the “politics of personal destruction.”
Please note that this blog, unlike nearly all of the liberal blogs, does not erase dissenting comments. We just challenge them to provide facts.
Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I’m not the one going around harassing people at their workplace because of their political views, or digging through people’s trash to find out more about their personal life. That’s full blown liberal Bush-hatred territory.
Which explains why you’re so bad at it. I’m sure that must translate into your private life as well.
Where did I identify as liberal?
Hmm…I believe I was here to discuss Larry Craig. However, since so many American’s feel it necessary to discuss Canadian politics, I think it only fitting that we should reciprocate.
Actually, this gay Canadian’s computer lives in my office located in TO. Now, I assume that your belief that I live outside your country and have no right to debate your country’s politics, also means you have no right to debate the politics taking place in states you don’t live in. Right?
Glad to see one of us thought so.
Yeah, because conservatives never do that. I mean it’s not like President Bush claimed that the US saved the Vietnamese from the Khmer Rouge, when it was actually the Vietnamese army who handled that bit of messy work.
Before or after scratching your ass?
You mean you were pulled out when you announced that there were no weapons and your report was twisted around to give the illusion of the “potential” presence of WMD?
Accusing me of slander and libel is “reasonable”? I’ve always found that the scoundrel is the quickest to call for defense.
No. What has me awake at night is how conservative bloggers seem to have all day to blog, almost as if they don’t have jobs, or any reasonable purpose to exists as a productive member of society.
Odd that, considering conservatives have no sense of humour.
Why would you hear back from? I made clear my beliefs and intentions clear in my email response to you.
God, you’re such a drama queen.
I’m glad. Now take this experience and learn from it, since most rightwingers couldn’t say sorry if their life depended on it. That’ because you have no souls.
Bruce, you erased one of my comments in the Larry Craig post.
[GP Ed. Note – Paul’s comment was not deleted because it expressed a dissenting opinion — standard operating procedure for lefty blogs. No, it was deleted because it contained personal and ad hominem attacks — which is a violation of our community terms of conduct. I suggest Paul refer to those terms before showing up and posting comments here like it is the Daily Kos.]
Point 3 are some examples for point 2. It is not a stretch to come to Paul’s conclusion based on the name-calling alone. You asked for examples, don’t discount the ones provided.
Let this be a warning to any of you who converse with the owners of this blog via e-mail. What you think is a private conversation may be made public.
So what is wrong with …Canada providing the instances he was referring to in Bruce’s earlier remarks?
Oh, it’s reasonable… it’s rational… there aren’t any to point out. Got it, a typical liberal thought pattern, unreasonable, irrational & fabrications.
#3 – “Oh yes, and Peter’s favourites, “Dhimmicrats” and “DemocRATS.” ”
First off, fnln (or Ian or whomever you choose to be nowadays), thank you for singling me out of other – and in my opinion – better commentators such as NDT, TGC, Leah, Julie, Jwagge, HHobbitt, V da K and a few others whose handles escape me for the moment. I am sure they appreciate it too.
Secondly: I call ’em like I see ’em. So you don’t like my little pet names for trolls or mind-numbed robots who constantly sip the GayLeftBorg Kool-Aid? Tough. Get over it. Moveon.org.
One of the nice things about having a First Amendment (until Reid and Pelosi try to institute a so-called “Fairness Doctrine”) is that it protects political speech. This blog is one of the few that actually lets all points of view be aired. Don’t believe me? Try being a conservative poster at Daily Kaka or Demonic Underwear. You’ll be flushed out quicker than Sen. Craig in a men’s room stall.
I’ve always said that you were judged by the company you keep. So when the DNC starts siding with anti-American combatants (hello, Jack Murtha) and you choose to side with them, you have made your choice. Therefore, if the Democrats act like Dhimmicrats, and you do not question their decision, you are just as guilty.
Match, set, game. You lose. Thank you for playing. We have lovely parting gifts for you backstage.
Regards,
Peter H.
#8 – HardHobbit, that’s true of anyone. If you keep your private words / character consistent with your public, you will have nothing to worry about. And if (note IF) you do not: what would that make you? (hint: it was a topic you held forth about, the other day 😉 )
Paul at #5-#6: Every single point you made was invalid, not to mention bitter and putting you in a very bad light. I could give you the blow-by-blow, but I suspect it would be a complete waste (i.e., doing no good).
(clarification to #11: I meant “POTENTIALLY true of anyone, in an age of written and now electronic communications)
It doesn’t matter, ILC.
For instance, Paul, rather than admit he was wrong and that I had provided a link to an example of Mike Rogers’s behavior, insisted that GP and I had added it later — an act that goes quite beyond self-protection and crosses the line into paranoia.
Furthermore, I am amused by “fnln” insisting that he/she/it is “stunned” by the vitriol he/she/it finds here. You wonder if they ever read their own leftist blogs, in which gay liberals openly talk about gay conservatives as being “Jewish Nazis”, “Log Cabinettes”, “self-loathing faggots” and “traitors”, and where they openly hope that the newborn baby of a lesbian Republican dies of SIDS. It’s been amusing to watch Paul scream that my use of the word “faggot” constitutes hate speech, when he in his various sockpuppet identities uses “fag” constantly in a derogatory fashion.
What “stuns” fnln, in my opinion, is the presence of gay people whose homosexuality does not require them to belong to a specific ideology. He/She/It has oriented their entire life around this fact, and a blog like GayPatriot challenges a basis of their identity. As a result, he/she/it looks for reasons, no matter how irrelevant or hypocritical, to attack this blog.
I applaud the effort by both the left & right points in this thread but declare that the left jumped out to a 10-0 lead in the first quarter, but GvE’s missed field goal attempt left the score as such.
The other leftists kinda looked at each other as they had won this match but in comes Mr. Hughes & ILC to connect for 6 TD passes to end the score 42-10!
Kinda like what the Redskins & Doug Williams did to the Elway & the Broncos a few Super Bowls ago!
I know, NDT. We’re just conjecturing here, but it does seem likely that fnln has been drinking the Gay Left’s everyday vitriol for so long that s/he can no longer recognize it.
fnln, a couple quick corrections for you:
– Re: “environmentalists” – I think the term you’re really thinking of, used on GP to express contempt for enviro-wackos, may be such as “enviro-wackos” and/or “Global Warmists”. I hold the term “environmentalist” in honor (and I know others do also), provided it is used to denote real environmentalists: that is, those who deal in real facts and sensible solutions aimed at preserving the environment for humankind’s benefit. Tragically, al-Goretoo and those further left cannot be counted among them.
– Re: “god- and religion- hating secularists” – That is a term I have NEVER seen used in my time at GP, except by trolls. I believe secularists to be welcome at GP, since I happen to be one by-and-large or in political matters, and I have always felt welcome here.
What stuns me, NDT, is how readily my occasional comments are read and replied to respectfully even though I’m not in the ‘Target Dempgraphic’ 😉
Thus defines Paul by Paul.
Pity, isn’t it.
Peter, you came to mind first, so you got called on it. That’s not game, set, match. That’s simply stating a fact. However, I am sorry that I singled you out.
NDT, deflecting to the vitriol on other blogs does not make it less existent here. Nice try though.
I am not stunned by a homosexual’s lack of liberal ideology, but I am often surprised that some homosexuals will embrace those people, ideas, and beliefs that find homosexuals and homosexuality (insert negative term here). That crosses all party lines and religions.
Finally, ILC, I suggest you google search and review the comments of this website for the names for people who have no use for religion. I can think of the handles of some of the posters, but will not single out a particular poster as I errantly did on my second post in this thread.
#19 – fnln ???? I can think of several commentors on GP who “have no use for religion” as you put it – and, some who do have uses for it. Mostly, we all get along (although some are more aggressive in detecting and putting down traces of religion than others, occasionally inviting a bit of conflict). Bottom line: I can’t tell what what you were trying to say.
4: I think hate does apply when you (and your supporters) use name-calling in posts and responses against people. Don’t give people lectures about the tone of the conversation (as was done several months back) and then allow your supporters to continuously use phrases as #3 noted. Look at post #10 – just nonsensical ranting.
Funny…. after all the red-faced blustering here, neither “Paul” from Canada nor “fnln” have YET provided specifics of their accusations.
Why… is… that… ??
Based on the opinion of a rightwinger. Hardly unbiased.
Any more so than Bruce putting up that email?
I’m sure you would.
[GP Ed. Note – Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct by this commenter.]
It’s amazing, Dallas, but every topic, every post aways seems to come back to you and your drama. We haven’t finished having it out on the Larry Craig issue and your dragging that debate over here. It’s sad.
Again, I know what I saw and what I saw was a sentence that ended without a hyperlink. It’s as simple as that. Further, I never stated who I thought might have added the link after the fact. It’s amusing that this is the second time that you would put yourself and Bruce into a conspiratorial position using my comments as the catalyst.
As far as paranoia, that’s rich coming from the man who accused me of being Charles Wilson.
Again how is that worse than you using anti-gay slurs several times throughout a comment on The Malcontent as well as your own blog, or what anti-gay conservatives have written and said about the new mothers and their child? Or the fact that you yourself have stated that you feel opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples and as the ideal relationship, should be treasured and revered in society?
God, I thought Bruce was all about the drama. You’re like Joan Crawford and Betty Davis all rolled up into one red hot mess.
First off, where did I “scream” in any of my comments? Secondly, where did I accuse you of “hate speech”? I accused you of using hateful language, which you have done and have admitted to, but where have I accused you of a hate crime? Thirdly, there is your paranoia creeping back in, accusing me of being who i am not.
If this is the case, why do you consistently harass LGBTQ liberals and progressives? If everyone can have their own political beliefs, why do you feel it necessary to call out the politics of those you disagree with?
Speaking for myself, this blog is an inanimate object. It has no life, conscious, or soul. I personally go after the actions and words of individuals. I try not to make sweeping generalizations about a group, based on my experiences with a few people. The same cannot be said about too many on the right that I have met here.
Again, the heavy of Bruce wipes away what he disagrees with, clearly belying his assertion that he, “…does not erase dissenting comments.”
Oh! I’m sorry, Bruce, I didn’t realize it was against blog rules to post the location of people. I mean, it’s not like you have ever done that. I mean, you’ve never informed your readers that you thought I lived in Toronto, Canada. I’m glad that people can’t post here all willy-nilly telling people where readers are from.
Also, thank you for proving my point–several times–that these comments can be altered. I mean, if there is ever a time I’d like to remove–or add–something, I’m sure you’d be happy to add a word, or a thought–or a link that wasn’t present before.
#21 – “Look at post #10 – just nonsensical ranting.”
Coming from a low-watt-bulb such as yourself, Kev, that’s rich. Need I remind you how many times you have been continually discredited on this board?
Frankly, anyone with your type of argument (“nonsensical”) just shows how you can’t defend your POV in an environment where facts and not emotions rule.
Regards,
Peter H.
We haven’t finished having it out on the Larry Craig issue and your dragging that debate over here.
Um……that would be your problem, Paul.
I think this might have more to do with my pointing out that [North] Dallas [Thirty] did not have the hyper-link in his original comment, than anything I wrote about you.
Next:
Again, I know what I saw and what I saw was a sentence that ended without a hyperlink. It’s as simple as that. Further, I never stated who I thought might have added the link after the fact.
Unfortunately, the facts demonstrate that the link was there and that you didn’t read it — or are choosing not to acknowledge it.
I would believe the latter, since you supported Mike Rogers’s behavior in calling up GayPatriot’s friends, family, and coworkers, misrepresenting himself as working for the police, and then making threats and harassment against these people if they did not fire or do immediately what Rogers demanded. Christian Grantham outlines it quite nicely.
That demonstrates the hypocrisy and hate of fnln and Paul quite nicely.
Those two comments point out what I have maintained the entire time: The hyperlink was not present in your first comment, Dallas.
Where did I write that I supported Roger’s behavior?
Only in your imagination, Dallas.
In his comment #24 Paul said:
Yet in comment #5 he previously had said:
Paul, if you are still here, could you please tell me how you reconcile these two statements?
otpu
The same way he does everything else, Otpu; he claims that “someone else” changed the post to say that. 🙂
We should be asking his supporter fnln about it as well, but I think fnln can be removed by an example of what fnln and other “tolerant” gay liberals say about the children of gay conservatives:
I’m praying for SIDS.
Understand exactly what that means; gay liberals are publicly proclaiming and praying their desire that the children of gay conservatives and Republicans die of crib death.
Now watch the spinning leftist fnln try to explain why that’s right.
Or choke on the vitriol and hypocrisy of fnln’s fellow gay leftists.
While I am not a member of the gay community I am a Canadian so I would like to say in defense of the Canadian gay community that Paul’s being from Toronto means that he is representative of Torontonians first and any other affiliation second. I know that it is wrong to judge people by where they are from but Toronto is an exception. There are some good people in and from Toronto but they are like five-leaf clovers.
And Bruce wins.
What are you babbling about NDT? What does it have to do with me? What does it have to do with the topic of this post?