And Bruce wins.

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.

I try not to make sweeping generalizations about a group, based on my experiences with a few people.

Yet in comment #5 he previously had said:

Odd that, considering conservatives have no sense of humour.

Paul, if you are still here, could you please tell me how you reconcile these two statements?

otpu

Unfortunately, the facts demonstrate that the link was there and that you didn’t read it — or are choosing not to acknowledge it.

Those two comments point out what I have maintained the entire time: The hyperlink was not present in your first comment, Dallas.

I would believe the latter, since you supported Mike Rogers’s behavior

Where did I write that I supported Roger’s behavior?

That demonstrates the hypocrisy and hate of fnln and Paul quite nicely.

Only in your imagination, Dallas.

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.

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.

[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.]

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.

[GP Ed. Note - Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct by this commenter.]

Again, the heavy of Bruce wipes away what he disagrees with, clearly belying his assertion that he, “…does not erase dissenting comments.”

For instance, Paul, rather than admit he was wrong and that I had provided a link to an example of Mike Rogers’s behavior,

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.

insisted that GP and I had added it later — an act that goes quite beyond self-protection and crosses the line into paranoia.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

What “stuns” fnln, in my opinion, is the presence of gay people whose homosexuality does not require them to belong to a specific ideology.

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?

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.

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.

Paul at #5-#6: Every single point you made was invalid

Based on the opinion of a rightwinger. Hardly unbiased.

not to mention bitter and putting you in a very bad light.

Any more so than Bruce putting up that email?

I could give you the blow-by-blow

I’m sure you would.

but I suspect it would be a complete waste (i.e., doing no good).

[GP Ed. Note - Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct by this commenter.]

Why… is… that… ??

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.

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.

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!

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.