Gay Patriot Header Image

On False Assumptions of Conservative Divas & Gay Conservatives

Every now and again, we got a comment which defines an attitude. But, it’s rare that that commenter will keep posting, continually proving how narrow-minded was his initial point about our blog, how wrong he was about our ideas and how ignorant he was about gay Republicans.

But, yesterday, not long after I announced that we were opening up nominations for our annual competition to determine the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, reader John Santos claimed that “all those women” (emphasis added) that we were considering “have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs.” Amused by the ignorance of his statement, I chimed in in his comment asking him to back up his point with actual links.

Something which should be easy given that he had claimed that every single one of these blogresses had posted at least one anti-gay piece.

To be sure, I haven’t read every single post of every single woman I listed. I try to read a few of them regularly. That list includes blogresses whose work I (or Bruce) had read (and admired) at one time or another as well as blogresses whom readers had recommended when we held this competition in past years.

Perhaps, one of them had said something anti-gay–and that post escaped my notice. But, I highly doubt that “all of the women” had posted an anti-gay piece. Several blogresses (on our list) have libertarian leanings. One (Tammy Bruce) is an open lesbian, another has not only become a friend (Bridget Johnson of GOP Vixen), but she also regularly socializes with gay men while several others who have, from time to time, been critical of social conservatives for their extreme stands on homosexuality. I have met at least three others on the list, having identified myself to each as GayPatriotWest. None reacted adversely to this information.

When I challenged Mr. Santos to back up his point with links, he came up with only one, but in that post, Kate (the blogress with the supposed anti-gay comment) only weighed in on the fury of a transgender activist scorned. That activist got upset at the publication of a book nominated for an award by the Lambda Literary Foundation, a foundation which defines itself as “the country’s leading organization for LGBT literature.” Doesn’t sound like an anti-gay group to me.

In eighteen (18) comments posted after my challenge, Santos refused to provide a single post where a single one of the blogresses mentioned in the post made (as he claimed they all did) anti-gay comments.

Upon reading the post, Santos made an assumption about the women we gay conservatives choose to honor. Assuming (as do all too many in our community) we are self-hating hypocrites, this man is certain that we admire anti-gay women.

This man’s not interested in engaging our ideas, but in proving to himself that we are as narrow as he imagines us to be. Only, I–and a number of our regular defenders–fought back, taking issue with his ludicrous claim. Not only that, his failure to provide any examples supporting his point shows that he did not base his assumption on the reality of the situation. He just threw out a statement. Were that statement even close to true, he could have (in a matter of moments) come up with several examples.

What is it about all too many of those who spend so much time on this site that they repeatedly misunderstand our ideas, our arguments, even our rationale for supporting a party which, alas, still promotes policies (on gay issues) that we oppose? I do try to make rational arguments and know that from some of the comments (as well as some of my e-mail) that some liberals do get my points and appreciate (even while not supporting) my commitment to the GOP.

It’s too bad that others don’t take the time these people do to understand the arguments of their ideological adversaries.

All that said, perhaps someone will track down an anti-gay post one of these blogresses has written of which I am (at present) not aware. Such a post would surely lower my regard my regard for the blogress who penned it.

Having read a number of them regularly and others occasionally, I doubt any reader will come up with anything so incriminating. For most of these women appear to be supportive of rather than antagonistic to gay people.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Share

138 Comments

  1. 2 things I found especially interesting (as in bad) about Mr. Santos’ comments and behavior yesterday:

    1) His idea of “anti-gay” was, again or as you point out, just a brief comment by Kate about a controversy other people were having about some book about transgender issues where different groups of people said… uh… blah blah blah, eyes glazing over… In other words, nothing.

    In other words: His ‘radar’ for what is supposedly “anti-gay” is, shall we say, tuned most exquisitely. Such a man must surely go through life thinking that any person connected in the slightest way with anything that doesn’t agree with him, is therefore “anti-gay”. Blech!

    2) All I (and you) did was ask him for an example post where one or two of the blogresses were REALLY being anti-gay… and he went *instantly* and *directly* into the whole martyr-with-violin posture, “You are so nasty, no amount of evidence could ever satisfy you.” Double blech!

    He never bothered to define terms – like, what would be “anti-gay”. While pretending to be both sincerely ‘inquisitive’ or interested in this blog, and sincerely protective of his own time, he never paused to ask the obvious question that such a person would ask, namely, “OK, tell me what evidence could satisfy you, or what your idea of ‘anti-gay’ is.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - December 5, 2007

  2. From what I’ve seen, he’s convinced that everybody hates him, thinly disguising it under the cover of all gays. Worse, he doesn’t seem to offer any reason for anybody to like him.

    He’s always negative, as libs are, and probably doesn’t understand that the way he carries himself is the reason.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 5, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - December 5, 2007

  3. Sounds like the guy has an inferiority complex to me…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 5, 2007 @ 10:58 pm - December 5, 2007

  4. Great ways to net it out, guys! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2007 @ 11:02 pm - December 5, 2007

  5. I’m Spartacus!

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 5, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - December 5, 2007

  6. Is blogresses a real word? I thought blogger was sort of a unisex term. Anyway, if she had a blog, Vera would totally win.

    Comment by Chase — December 6, 2007 @ 12:01 am - December 6, 2007

  7. #1: “OK, tell me what evidence could satisfy you, or what your idea of ‘anti-gay’ is.”

    You hit the nail on the head, ILoveCapitalism. I can’t stand the term “anti-gay” because it’s yet another example from the Liberal buzzword lexicon that has been effectively introduced into the political debate and conservatives have allowed it to “frame the issues” merely because it acts as a sort of “short-hand” allowing the discussion to move along expediently. But the fact is, it has absolutely no precise definition and Liberals want it that way because the more indiscriminately it is thrown around or used as a cavalier accusation, the more it fosters the divisiveness and victimhood that is the lifeblood of the Democratic party. Ask 100 different people for their best and most precise definition of the term and you’ll get 100 completely different answers. It’s another Liberal Venn diagram masquerading as accepted political discourse and its applications are as limitless as the spectrum of paranoid victimization infecting the gay left.

    For some, just being a Republican is sufficient for the term to apply. For others, simply adhering to religious beliefs that disapprove of homosexuality is enough. I’m sure there are plenty of commenters on this blog who would apply it without hesitation to OTHER GAY PEOPLE simply because they opposed one or more of the gay left’s pet causes (DADT, ENDA, etc.). So, basically, the expression is so vague and useless it could just as easily apply to an evangelical Christian as atheist homosexuals (…so…if “anti” means “against,” how can I be “against-gay” IF I AM GAY?!).

    Santos’ emaciated response to Dan’s challenge is no surprise–it leads us to the exact same place that the liberals’ beliefs always lead us after a drop of rational thought is injected into the discussion. Liberals believe they have an instinctive and reliable understanding of what “anti-gay” means because it is based upon the same thing that all of their political beliefs are based on: FEELINGS.

    Liberals are comfortable labeling anyone “anti-gay” as long as it just FEELS like that person is anti-gay. Objectivity and facts have no place in the liberal world of paranoid hunches, fearful intuition and baseless speculation. George W. Bush could wake up tomorrow and commit the remainder of his presidency to passing every single piece of legislation on the gay left’s wish list AND IT STILL WOULDN’T MATTER. Liberals don’t care about verifiable facts when their HEARTS have already made up their minds about whether people approve of and admire them.

    This fits right in with the gay left’s slavish devotion to the Clintons. Bill enacts DADT, but it JUST FEELS like he thinks gay people are really, really great. Hillary is on record opposing a federal gay marriage law and has said that the matter should be left to the states, but it JUST FEELS like she thinks gay people are fabulous.

    If Santos is still around, I would love Dan to add a second phase to his challenge–if he’s so comfortable slapping a long list of people with the label “anti-gay,” isn’t it completely reasonable for us to demand that he at least provide a precise definition of what “anti-gay” means to him?

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 1:25 am - December 6, 2007

  8. Sean A, intriguing as always.

    …so…if “anti” means “against,” how can I be “against-gay” IF I AM GAY?!)

    Well, you could slander our troops as some have done, and turn a blind eye to Islamo-fascism. ;-) You could pretend that the Christians, Republicans, and various other Americans who defend the West militarily (and thus gays) somehow are a greater threat than the Islamo-fascists who presently execute gays, bash gays in the streets of Amsterdam, etc.

    isn’t it completely reasonable for us to demand that [Santos] at least provide a precise definition of what “anti-gay” means to him?

    Umm… yeah.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 1:53 am - December 6, 2007

  9. #1, #7, “anti-gay”…?

    Earlier this year Pamela (Atlas Shurgs) affirmed her and Ann Coulter’s (and anyone’s) right to use “faggot” to expose a straight man’s character, not his sexuality, as dubious and contemptible.
    See the posts under her category, “CPAC 2007.”

    She insisted (as did I by using “faggots” (also “dyke”) in my “Ann of Arc” post) that most important is how language is used, as well affirming the right to use any language. Thus free and responsible speech are crucial, not whether certain speech conforms to a difficult and even impossible to define standard.

    Some will try to convince others that our use of “faggot” were “anti-gay.” To me they are tours de grace,de force, and of with which would make both Lenny Bruce and Oscar Wilde proud.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 6, 2007 @ 2:31 am - December 6, 2007

  10. … and of wit

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 6, 2007 @ 2:33 am - December 6, 2007

  11. Pam/Atlas Shrugs rocks. I been reading her blog for over a year and talked to her a few times.

    She’s a fearless defender of America and Israel and has all my respect.

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 2:47 am - December 6, 2007

  12. #1

    like, what would be “anti-gay”.

    As I’ve said many times before, I don’t let myself get offended. I firmly believe that people who get offended want to be offended.Therefore, I have a high tolerance for “anti-gay”.

    At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, there are total p*ssies like Santos who want to be offended and take every comment and/or every glance as offensive and “anti-gay”. Long story short, something that would make her wet her panties and assume a fetal position in the corner, I would probably barely notice.

    It is, therefore, my sense that instead of going apesh*t spicey gonzo at every little slight, I think folks would be better off saving their energy for things that really matter.

    In simple terms, folk like Santos tend to blow their wad way too early.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 6, 2007 @ 6:14 am - December 6, 2007

  13. Ya know, this Santos crap is like that story Rush mentioned where T. Boone Pickens offered Kerry $1M if he could disprove any of the Swiftboaters claims. To which Kerry replied “just send the check” without meeting any part of the deal.

    Kerry would probably make the same claim “you won’t believe any evidence I offer, so what’s the point?”. How p*ssified is that?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 6, 2007 @ 7:12 am - December 6, 2007

  14. Tammy Bruce is gay?
    Dang….

    “What is it about all too many of those who spend so much time on this site that they repeatedly misunderstand our ideas, our arguments, even our rationale…”

    People misunderstand what they want to misunderstand.

    Comment by iamnot — December 6, 2007 @ 8:35 am - December 6, 2007

  15. Dan, sounds like there’s a common thread running around the gay conservative blogosphere these days… over at Independent Gay Forum Stephen Miller asks a similar question: Why does the Left view conservative gays as inauthentic? As if, like the irrational Right tries to play out on their own litany of issues, the Left can claim that there’s only one true political ideology, one pure political allegiance and a single way to demonstrate the possession of those bona fides… by voting Democrat.

    “http://independentgayforum.com/blog/show/31408.html

    Miller takes the time to carefully dissect the latest “proof” for the farLeft on why conservative gays are inauthentic… but it requires dissecting a farLeft hatchet job from the PRE’s PublicEye. Surprise! The piece even takes on the issue of the LogCabin(R) and portrays the group as “fierce(ly) loyal” to the GOP. What a crack-up!

    PRE’s hatchet job is found here: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v22n2/gaycon.html
    For me, it confirms that the farLeft finds greatest utility in using the LogCabin(R)s as a tool to beat up on the GOP, gay conservatives, and impeach ANY gay who strays from the “natural” liberal or farLeft leanings of gay people.

    But this issue of “inauthentic gays” smacks of the olden days when the GayLeftBorgTypes would try to resend or invalidate a gay conservative’s GayCard for not being gay enuff, pure enuff, true enuff to the 1 Religion (or agenda).

    FYI

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 8:49 am - December 6, 2007

  16. I am anti-gay. I am anti-polygamy. I am anti-racism. I am anti-elitism.

    I work hard to understand those who wrap themselves in a special identity. Specifically, I enjoy the company and friendship of many who are gay, but I do not necessarily support or approve of their private lives. I stay clear of gay activists who want to compel me to “accept” more and more public view of their private lives.

    “Anti-gay” for a gay rage artist is anything that indicates disapproval.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 9:25 am - December 6, 2007

  17. Tammy Bruce is gay. Here’s a neat story

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B1F1163E-9FE7-4414-8E98-3EAEFBE7EEE2}

    The Doctor Is In
    By Tammy Bruce
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, July 17, 2002

    There are many defining moments in one’s life. Most of us consider those moments to be quite dramatic—a birth, a death, or a marriage. It is the more subtle events that also change us. For me, it was an unexpected phone call which introduced me to the world of integrity and principle. It was a call from Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who, by example, showed me how principle and integrity can be driving force in what one does. In all my years in the feminist movement, that was a lesson never taught.

    I became friends with Dr. Laura under very unusual circumstances. In 1995, I was president of Los Angeles NOW and doing a great deal of work on domestic violence during and in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. It was then Patricia Ireland and National NOW called me ‘racially insensitive’ because I wasn’t focusing enough on the supposed racial issues involved with the case. How ironic that the feminist organization I represented was upset that I was focusing on the feminist issue!

    The day NOW’s public assault began, the very first telephone call I received at home that morning was from Dr. Laura. I was shocked. What did Dr. Laura have to say to this lesbian feminist? She told me she was sorry NOW had attacked me. She encouraged me to continue my work. She said, despite our differences, she admired my work and my commitment to the issues. She told me to not let the public attacks affect my belief in myself or affect my principles. She asked for nothing. She did not gloat. Dr. Laura had called to encourage me and support me because she admired my principles.

    All too often, in order the further social change, we have to focus on what’s gone wrong. Last week’s column did just that. I detailed for you how hypocrisy has invaded not just the Academic Elite this country but how damaging it is to all of our lives. Now it’s time to shine a big bright light on something that’s right—the fact that there are some people who actually have principles and live by them. That’s Dr. Laura.

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 9:36 am - December 6, 2007

  18. Earlier this year Pamela (Atlas Shurgs) affirmed her and Ann Coulter’s (and anyone’s) right to use “faggot” to expose a straight man’s character, not his sexuality, as dubious and contemptible.

    Like South Park does.

    South Park use “fag” pejoratively, all the time. And that used to be anti-homosexual, but in the 21st century it isn’t anymore, so I’ve gotten over it. It was like, either get over it, or give up South Park. And I chose to get over it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 10:19 am - December 6, 2007

  19. The stuff I say about Silky Pony on my blog makes Ann Coulter look like Peggy Noonan.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:29 am - December 6, 2007

  20. Yeah but V, you really are anti-gay ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 10:33 am - December 6, 2007

  21. I should explain part of the joke. Another dimension of all this is that some gays will think you’re anti-gay if you disagree with any part of gay culture. I suspect a lot of us here do, at times. Like I said in the McHaney thread, he doesn’t strike me as “cute” but as shallow and creepy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 10:36 am - December 6, 2007

  22. Aw, come on ILC, I haven’t beaten up that many fags. And I think some of them enjoy it. I’m thinking of gil, specifically.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:40 am - December 6, 2007

  23. (Someone mentioned my name! I better respond to keep GP’s rageing paranoia flowing!)

    The surest sign you are trying to weasel out of a losing argument is when you start to demand definitions.

    Like the master himself:
    It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true”

    Comment by gil — December 6, 2007 @ 12:04 pm - December 6, 2007

  24. Only, I–and a number of our regular defenders–fought back

    And that is what is so amusing about that post and this one, Dan—the same handful of posters posting continually and frankly, saying nothing.

    It’s amazing you all can lift your arms up from your little circle jerk long enough to pat yourselves on the back.

    Just look at the comments here; the same group of loons over and over:

    ILoveCapitalism
    ThatGayConservative
    Peter H.
    Jeremayakovka
    Vince P
    V the K

    The same old peanut gallery, saying the same old things they did last year and will be repeating next year. Pathetic.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:07 pm - December 6, 2007

  25. Some will try to convince others that our use of faggot were anti-gay. To me they are tours de grace,de force, and of with which would make both Lenny Bruce and Oscar Wilde proud.

    Using an anti-gay slur is anti-gay no matter how you try to spin it. Your ridiculou argument that using faggot implies a straight man is less than others and not really anti-gay, clearly demonstrates that you are using it as an anti-gay slur–your are saying that a straight man isn’t like other straight men, therefore he is less and similar to the group of people that your anti-gay choice of word is thrown at.

    Why faggot? Why not a racial slur, or religious slur, or sexist slur? Because you know you can get away with it. It doesn’t take courage, nor intellect to throw around anti-gay slurs; it takes a pea-brain and a fear of people who are not only 5% of the population.

    Now, why don’t you tell us all about the book your co-authoring, (read ghost writing,) with Matt Sanchez called, “Gay Jihad: What the radical homosexual movement has in store for you and your family” and tell us how you are not anti-gay.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - December 6, 2007

  26. The same old peanut gallery, saying the same old things they did last year and will be repeating next year. Pathetic

    Bwhahahaha.. Typical braindead leftist….

    Dickhead.. go to Think Progress or DKOS or DU or myh new favorite newshounds.us and check out the comments there. You lefties type the same demented cliches over and over and over and over.

    You even mispell identically. You folks been bitching about Bush for like 20 years now and the script has barely changed.

    Check the giant support beam in your eye before pointing out the speck of dust in someone else’s.

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - December 6, 2007

  27. Aw, come on ILC, I haven’t beaten up that many fags. And I think some of them ennjoy it. I’m thinking of gil, specifically.

    This coming from the man who wrote, “Gay Men And The Women Who love Them.” Glad to see your conversion to Mormanism and your choice to pursue the ex-gay lifestyle has brought you to your new found hate. Oh! But you’re being funny and as we all can see, the gays here love anti-gay comments and chuckle along in hopes of fitting in.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:19 pm - December 6, 2007

  28. South Park use “fag” pejoratively, all the time. And that used to be anti-homosexual, but in the 21st century it isn’t anymore, so I’ve gotten over it. It was like, either get over it, or give up South Park. And I chose to get over it.

    And racial slurs have been taken back by African-Americans, yet I don’t see any non-black people using racial slurs. it’s amazing what American gays are willing to accept in order to be accepted–or assimilated.

    Words like fag are anti-gay, no matter how you try to spin it. I find it really pathetic that so many of us will tolerate anti-gay slurs to seem part of the group, yet rail against activist gays who fight for equality. I guess the discomfort of being the butt of a joke is less intense than the discomfort with the idea that you will not be viewed as part of the group.

    Conservative gays are a prime example of the nerdy kids who were never part of the in group, who grow up and will do anything to hang with the cool kids. Grow up.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - December 6, 2007

  29. Thank God we have John here to tell us what words to use… the context under which we should be offended if someone says them… who is allowed to say them… what the words mean when a person belonging to one of his stereotypical groups use them.

    John Santos, faggot… I’m not a slave to your sensiblities. If Ann Coulter uses the word “faggot” and it pisses you off, then it’s just more incentive for her to use it, and she should.

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - December 6, 2007

  30. At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, there are total p*ssies like Santos who want to be offended and take every comment and/or every glance as offensive and “anti-gay”.

    I appreciate that you enjoy being a doormat for politicians, religionists and those who are genuinely homophobic. It’s clear who the p*ssy is here. You are willing to accept whatever is thrown at you and would rather attack other gays, than be a man and fight back and stand up for your equality. If it wasn’t for pussies like me, you’d still be in the closet, married to a woman in a loveless marriage and trolling mens’ rooms looking for unprotected sex.

    You demonstrate your cowardice every time you vote for an anti-gay politician, accept anti-gay laws as normal and disparage any gays who dare speak out.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - December 6, 2007

  31. Why not a racial slur, or religious slur, or sexist slur?

    You mean like the regular use of “Christianist”, or “wingnut”, or “Jeebus” by gay activists like yourself?

    Poor little Santos. He can dish, but he can’t take.

    I find it really pathetic that so many of us will tolerate anti-gay slurs to seem part of the group, yet rail against activist gays who fight for equality.

    Santos, given that you and your fellow “activist gays who fight for equality” openly endorse and support FMA supporters and state constitutional amendment supporters as “pro-gay”, what becomes obvious very quickly is that “equality” is synonymous with “whoring for the Democrat Party”.

    Just because you excuse your actions with the belief that your homosexuality forces you to be a Democrat doesn’t mean that any of the rest of us must. And furthermore, your attempt to make yourself feel better by forcing the rest of us to conform to your narrow worldview of what gay means is nothing but the desperation of a man who clearly has nothing to offer the world other than his preference as to whom he likes to be f*cked by.

    Go get a job and find an identity outside of victimhood. The rest of us did.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - December 6, 2007

  32. I appreciate that you enjoy being a doormat for politicians, religionists and those who are genuinely homophobic.

    Ha.

    My personal favorite in that one is slavish Democrat Andy Tobias whining about how important it was to do what the Democrat massas told us and support the FMA-supporting massa.

    So let’s see Santos say that Hilary Rosen and Andy Tobias, as well as the rest of the gays in the DNC and in HRC, are doormats.

    Or let’s see Santos say that every gay who voted for or supported John Kerry is a “doormat”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - December 6, 2007

  33. Bwhahahaha.. Typical braindead leftist

    And there’s Vince P again.

    A fresh voice was such a novelty here, that Dan dedicated an entire post to me and all the lemmings jumped over the cliff in an show to prove who hates me more. Bruce did the same thing with Paul Raposo–before banning him. You’re like a bunch of rubes who go to the big city and gawk slack jawed at the skyscrapers.

    Oh! And I forgot Michigan_Matt, he of the “W” t-shirt affectation, to avoid having to resit the advances of strangers.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - December 6, 2007

  34. If it wasn’t for pussies like me, you’d still be in the closet, married to a woman in a loveless marriage and trolling mens’ rooms looking for unprotected sex.

    Well, Santos, as it turns out, pussies like you are still trollling mens’ rooms looking for unprotected sex.

    Not to mention your fellow gay activists like Mike McHaney, who is proud of the fact that he’s gay and willing to show it by setting up sex dates with every thirteen-year-old pubeless boy he can find.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - December 6, 2007

  35. John Santos writes: “Glad to see your (that would be VdaK’s) conversion to Mormanism (sic) and your choice to pursue the ex-gay lifestyle has brought you to your new found hate.”

    I gotta offer John that you couldn’t be farther from the truth about VdaK unless of course you were a HillaryClinton supporter… and those folks haven’t seen “truth” anywhere in a long, long time.

    I may not agree with VdaK on some issues but he’s far from entering a re-education camp for ex-gays.

    Besides, the GOP hasn’t even decided where we’re goining to put the concentration camps for gays… I’m pulling for Idaho given Sen Larry Craig needs some better dating opportunities closer to home… we won’t decide that issue until after the GOP wins the WH in 2008. (sarcasm… in case your gay myopics preclude the detection of humor these days)

    BTW, how confident are you feeling these days now that Zogby –the ultimate Democrat pollster– finds nearly ever major GOP candidate can beat Hillary in a run for the WH?

    http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=16145

    You gotta be feeling a tad less secure these days. That ol’ gay wagon of your’s is heading back to the Democrat Plantation and the mule pulling it is just as dumb and tired as when it left on the road of gay political hegemony.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - December 6, 2007

  36. Ah! NDT. I thought I smelled the familiar odor of santorum.

    You mean like the regular use of Christianist”, or “wingnut”, or “Jeebus” by gay activists like yourself?

    When have I used those words here, or on the other blog you and I debated on–before I was banned?

    given that you and your fellow “activist gays who fight for equality” openly endorse and support FMA supporters and state constitutional amendment

    Where have I shown support for those people? Where have I mentioned my political leanings? If you’d like to write that about other LGBTQ’s then go ahead, after all it is true. However, do not throw me in that mix without knowing me first. You cry babies are constantly bleating that liberal gays don’t know you, and make broad generalizations about you, yet you do the same to non-Con gays.

    Just because you excuse your actions with the belief that your homosexuality forces you to be a Democrat

    Again, where have I stated that I am a Dem?

    Go get a job and find an identity outside of victimhood. The rest of us did.

    Oh! I have a career, quite lucrative thank you. But it never stopped me from standing up for myself. I’ve lost business because I refused to deal with people who were religiously anti-gay; who were just plain phobic and who were so far left, or right that I did not want one penny from them.

    Now, if you’d like to live in a world where the majority dictate how you will carry yoruself through life, then have at it, it’s a free country.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - December 6, 2007

  37. BTW, spare us the “pity poor ol John he’s a gay activist” whine.

    Gay activists nearly killed EDNA, literally created the political enviroment that gave us DOMA and DADT, created a political division of passionate minorities in America who will thwart any effort to secure full civil rights for all gays… and all that while protecting the “right” to be abrasive to all and abusive of the public. Thank you gay activists.

    Right John, with gay “activists” like you, we really could use some leadership, some informed political thought and a touch of …oh, I don’t know… political success with our agenda. Here in Michigan, the gayLeft’s patent stupidity dealt us a reversal on domestic partnership benefits… and got us an FMA in Michigan’s Constitution.

    Yeah, you keep up that stellar record of gay activism speaking out to the man. Being a gay activist is more than just humming Helen Reddy’s “We are women, hear us roar”. And, no, that part wasn’t sarcasm.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - December 6, 2007

  38. I may not agree with VdaK on some issues but he’s far from entering a re-education camp for ex-gays.

    He stated on Philip and Kevin’s blog that he’s ex-gay and I’m just going by that. If he isn’t , my mistake, if he is? His mistake I guess.

    BTW, how confident are you feeling these days now that Zogby –the ultimate Democrat pollster– finds nearly ever major GOP candidate can beat Hillary in a run for the WH?

    My left nut could beat Hillary in an election. Especially with his pro flat tax scheme. Silly nut. Essentially what that poll showed us is that Hillary who is loathed by many, is a little more loathed than the dirtbags running on the right. Beating Hillary in a popularity poll is like beating a retarded baby–easy, but nothing you’d want to brag about at work on Monday.

    The mule will be pulling us all to the WH in ’08, but the question remains, will it be lead by someone who’s husband brought us DADT, DOMA and FMA, or will it be lead by some who actually finds those laws archaic and will work to rid this country of them?

    By the way, how you liking married life and fatherhood? Much better than that loveless straight marriage and getting a bit on the side in a men’s room that you’d be involved in today, or sitting in a psych ward if it weren’t for all those activist gays in the 60′s and 70′s fighting for equality.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - December 6, 2007

  39. Well, Santos, as it turns out, pussies like you are still trollling mens’ rooms looking for unprotected sex.

    Next time you’re at the Folsom Street Fair and you see someone there with their children, do something about it, rather than standing around flirting.

    Not to mention your fellow gay activists like Mike McHaney, who is proud of the fact that he’s gay and willing to show it by setting up sex dates with every thirteen-year-old pubeless boy he can find.

    45 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES:

    http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24160.php

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - December 6, 2007

  40. LOL….so your attempt at argument is “Republicans do it too”?

    Not good enough, Santos. I want to see you admit that one of your fellow “gay activists” — remember, we have pictures of him whooping it up for HRC at your protests — is a pedophile.

    Next time you’re at the Folsom Street Fair and you see someone there with their children, do something about it, rather than standing around flirting.

    LOL….well, Santos, according to activists like yourself, anyone who opposes having children at Folsom also opposes gays having children at all. It’s NECESSARY for gay liberation to take children to sex fairs dressed in fetish gear. That’s what all those gays like you fought for in the ’60s and ’70s, isn’t it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - December 6, 2007

  41. John Santos, I knew you’d be back. LOL :-)

    Don’t have much time today so I am going to ignore most of your comments, and only answer what little catches my eye.

    [V] stated on Philip and Kevin’s blog that he’s ex-gay…

    But in what sense did he mean it? We’d have to ask him. A number of homosexual men, while remaining self-accepting, have started calling themselves “ex-gay” to make clear their rejection of, let’s call it, the McHaney Creep-Twink culture.

    I find it really pathetic that so many of us will tolerate anti-gay slurs to seem part of the group, yet rail against activist gays who fight for equality.

    Again – Define “anti-gay”, “slurs”, “group” and “equality”.

    I’ve been fighting for gay equality since 1990. Have you? I came out to family, friends and co-workers back in a time when it could still cost you your career. Did you?

    Sidebar for MM: Nice to see you saying something nice about V.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 1:23 pm - December 6, 2007

  42. As for “48 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES”… Permit me to quote Heliotrope from the other thread – it’s faster, plus he said it better than I could:

    #

    Excuse me! John Santos #87: Did someone say there are no registered Republican pedophiles? Did someone say all pedophiles are Democrats?

    I went to your list. I guess that is why you posted it. Seems like a pretty lame lot to me. Would you like me to disown them? After all, Republicans are supposed to be intolerant. Shall I tell them to join the Democrats where they will be welcomed with opened arms?

    What is your point?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2007 @ 12:35 pm – December 6, 2007

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - December 6, 2007

  43. Meanwhile, in the pit of the Islamic beast:

    Regarding Iran:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/kamangir/feed/~3/196205359/

    Do you remember Makwan Moloudzadeh, who was to be executed for a homosexual act which he allegedly committed when he was 13 (see: Boy to be executed for Underage Homosexual Act, Take Ation!)? He was executed recently despite the controversy surrounding the witnesses against him (Reuters).

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - December 6, 2007

  44. LOL….so your attempt at argument is “Republicans do it too”?

    Merely pointing out that more Republicans are doing this than Dems.

    I want to see you admit that one of your fellow “gay activists” — remember, we have pictures of him whooping it up for HRC at your protests — is a pedophile.

    Where exactly is it shown that he is one of MY fellow activists? And what is there to admit? He was caught in a sting looking to molest a kid and was arrested. It’s not like you’ve exposed Watergate.

    LOL….well, Santos, according to activists like yourself, anyone who opposes having children at Folsom also opposes gays having children at all. It’s NECESSARY for gay liberation to take children to sex fairs dressed in fetish gear. That’s what all those gays like you fought for in the ’60s and ’70s, isn’t it?

    Since you were there in ’06 and no doubt saw many children there and you did nothing about it, then I suppose you must condone such actions.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - December 6, 2007

  45. Sidebar for ILC, it’s early and Vera hasn’t made a pitcher of anything except prune juice to go with breakfast.

    John writes: “By the way, how you liking married life and fatherhood? Much better than that loveless straight marriage and getting a bit on the side in a men’s room that you’d be involved in today, or sitting in a psych ward if it weren’t for all those activist gays in the 60’s and 70’s fighting for equality.”

    Wow! Aside from the clear inferiority complex manifest in other threads, you also have some serious anger management issues to attend to, John.

    I am happily married to a great guy. We’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 13+ yrs now. We have two sons and a third on his way, God willing. But then, we’ve both been non-conventional gays in that we’re emotionally stable, financially secure, church going, involved in our neighborhood and politically active in the GOP and civil rights. And we’re well liked, too… and we play sports. And I still shop at Brooks Brothers.

    The success we have acquired John is through our own hard work and enterprise. Not because of some buttless chap wearing muscle mary dancing on a float in a PrideParade… as you likely define “gay activism”.

    And for all those queerly closeted guys you think would be in the pysch ward if it weren’t for gay activism during the sexual revolution… they’d still be as mentally unhealthy and dysfunctional today. Gay activism didn’t make them whole or healthy. In fact, some portion of gay activism killed a whole lot of gay men practicing YOUR culture in the 1960s-1970s.

    So, get the anger under control, John. And while you’re at it… take a stab at getting reality under control, too. It’d help you convince others that your activism isn’t all about you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - December 6, 2007

  46. But in what sense did he mean it? We’d have to ask him.

    That’s a good idea. So why are you asking me about a further explanation. I’m merely repeating what i saw posted by him.

    A number of homosexual men, while remaining self-accepting, have started calling themselves “ex-gay” to make clear their rejection of, let’s call it, the McHaney Creep-Twink culture.

    Or the Larry Craig foot tapping culture; o the Bob Allen $20 and a blow culture; and…Never mind.

    Again – Define “anti-gay”, “slurs”, “group” and “equality”.

    Why? I know what those terms mean to me and I comment based on those–for lack of a better term–beliefs systems. Now, why don’t you explain to me what those terms mean to you, since it’s apparent no one here sees it the same way twice. I’ve stated my beliefs through my comments here and elsewhere. I’ve seen, I gather, your ideas of those terms meanings. Really, is an explanation all that useful, if clearly none of us will be able to agree on one definition?

    I’ve been fighting for gay equality since 1990. Have you? I came out to family, friends and co-workers back in a time when it could still cost you your career. Did you?

    Since I was 13 in 1990 and had just recently figured out my d!ck could more than just piss and was still believing that I was the only gay in the village, no I was not fighting for equality, nor out then. However, by the age of 17 I was doing these things.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - December 6, 2007

  47. I bet you guys wish you had an obsessed creepy internet stalker.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - December 6, 2007

  48. you also have some serious anger management issues to attend to, John.

    Where do you see anger in that?

    The success we have acquired John is through our own hard work and enterprise. Not because of some buttless chap wearing muscle mary dancing on a float in a PrideParade… as you likely define “gay activism”.

    Perhaps. But that freedom you and yours are enjoying today was brought about by the militant gays of the middle part of the last century, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. All those who came out before you, made it easier for you to come out and have the wonderful the life you enjoy today. And very few were conservative in anything more than attire–Brooks Bros included. It was the commies and Marxists ans such to protested for our freedoms. The Roy Cohn’s just sent people to jail and hired wart infested hustlers.

    And for all those queerly closeted guys you think would be in the pysch ward if it weren’t for gay activism

    It wasn’t the closeted people in the wads, it was the out people in the wards, Matt. They were people who were willing to go to risk going to jail, or risk being committed to stand up for liberation. The closet cases were the ones leaving their wives at home–alone and horny–while they trolled for tea room sex.

    In fact, some portion of gay activism killed a whole lot of gay men practicing YOUR culture in the 1960s-1970s.

    Your culture as well, Matt. After all, Roy Cohn did die of AIDS.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - December 6, 2007

  49. I bet you guys wish you had an obsessed creepy internet stalker.

    http://kurlander.blogspot.com/2007/12/night-of-cross-dressing-communists.html

    Pot, kettle, Kettle, pot.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - December 6, 2007

  50. Um, to people who don’t have mental health issues, there’s a difference between making sport of someone who’s acting like a douchebag and on the other hand researching a stranger’s personal history on the internet and then sending him emails describing what you’ve found and furthermore demanding even more personal information from him.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - December 6, 2007

  51. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    I just scanned the comments and saw many by John Santos, yet he has yet to offer a link to substantiate the point he made in my previous post, the very point which inspired this very post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - December 6, 2007

  52. Actually, what it seems John is upset about is the fact that there are those of us here who don’t consider ourselves victims and see no need to legitimize his brand of “activism”.

    Probably because his entire schtick is based on how repressed he is and how awful his life is. It’s the explanation for all of his problems, just as it was for his friend Paul Raposo.

    And the reason you get no respect is simple, John. We see you giving money to FMA supporters. We see you kissing Howard Dean’s ass as he tells the 700 Club audience how he shares their values. We see you and your fellow liberated gays leaving cum all over public restrooms. We see you trying to legitimize your having unprotected sex with fifteen-year-old boys. And we see you trying to argue that your riots and property destruction is what brought about “liberation”, rather than gays like those of us here who daily show others that being gay is not about being a hatemongering antireligious socialism-supporting Democrat political activist.

    And that’s why you hate us; we call it like it is, and we demonstrate that your inane behavior is solely due to your own choices and is not in the least legitimized by your sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - December 6, 2007

  53. and then sending him emails describing what you’ve found and furthermore demanding even more personal information from him.

    Isn’t it amazing how all these so-called “liberated” gays who show up to fling hate like monkeypoo everywhere are always the ones who don’t have email addresses they make public? Meanwhile, V, “closeted and self-loathing” gays like you, GP/GPW, and I not only make ours available, we openly publish them here AND on our blogs.

    Go figure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - December 6, 2007

  54. #51 GPW – And JS has even passed over some pretty low-hanging fruit.

    You, like Michelle Malkin and many conservative blogresses, dislike Ann Coulter’s work and objected when she called John Edwards a faggot. You omitted Coulter from your list of conservative blogress divas, on purpose I feel sure.

    But, you included Pamela of Atlas Shrugs. She defended Coulter’s remark. That could arguably – emphasize **barely, arguably** – be construed as anti-gay. (I would disagree, simply taking Coulter’s remark and thus Pamela’s defense of it in a “South Park” spirit – but I could at least understand someone making the argument.) Yet John Santos didn’t even bother to supply that link. Jeremayakovka did.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 2:43 pm - December 6, 2007

  55. his friend Paul Raposo

    Hmm… is that a hint?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 2:45 pm - December 6, 2007

  56. BTW it would be “perfect”, in some cosmic sense, if John Santos were Paul Raposo. They both made a weirdly giant point of, ahem, “using their real name”. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - December 6, 2007

  57. I love Atlas singing “My Sharia” (to the tune of My Sharona) with her daughters.

    I went looking for on YouTube but it was taken down .. thanks Lefties.

    These two clips are classic Michelle Malkin mocking the Hate-Blogger that worked for John Edwards for a week before they were forced to fire her.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNbv-7sNLw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2G2OIal2c

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - December 6, 2007

  58. John offers, alas not tongue in cheek: “Where do you see anger in that?”

    Gee, John… kind of the same anger that has you ranting spit over on other blogs about the inauthentic use of “faggot” by heterosexuals… as if how dare they take away from you and yours the singular right to say faggot in speech… ala blacks using nigger. Right, no anger you say. You stick with that part of the story; it’s equally UNrealistic to the other parts and claims.

    Nawh, John. You got lots of anger festering just below that appearnce of gay normalcy. It’s probably good you had “activism” to vent off some of that unhealthy anger, but on this subject now, you just look whiney. Sidestepping Dan’s queery… then whining about being a pathfinding trendsetter who stands on the shoulders of gay activists like the ActUp guys who helped spread AIDS into an epidemic. Now, there’s a claim to fame!

    BTW, as most here would quickly point out, John, I’m not a conservative. Roy Cohn don’t cut me no reference, dude. I’m a moderate, progressive GOPer. Unapolegetic, too. Do you have something evil to offer about Elliot Richardson, maybe?

    You’re a big part of the problem we have today in the gay community, John. Irrelevant, abrasive, demanding, politically impotent gays looking for validation from those they detest. Afterall, validation is what brings you here, right?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - December 6, 2007

  59. VdaK pines at 47 “I bet you guys wish you had an obsessed creepy internet stalker.”

    Nawh. John has about as much utility as a pet rock. For him it’s all “A Just Jack” moment.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 6, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - December 6, 2007

  60. #24 – “The same group of loons?” Since when?

    Besides, how could I be on that list? I just posted here a day ago after about a year off! Unless you’ve been reading my greatest hits collection (available for $5.99 including shipping & handling), you are seriously mistaken.

    The only loon on that posting is the one who signed it before hitting “Enter” to post it.

    Match, set, game. You lose. We have lovely parting gifts for you backstage.

    God, I love being back! Nothing like the smell of raking a few libtards over the coals in the morning…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 6, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - December 6, 2007

  61. Peter, we love having you back! Don’t go away again!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - December 6, 2007

  62. And actually, I think it’s time we see what Santos and his “gay liberation” has brought us.

    The numbers suggesting steady condom use among gay youth don’t harmonize with 23-year-old Kelvin Barlow’s experiences in Atlanta. “A lot of my partners are not thinking about condoms,” said Barlow, who was diagnosed with HIV at age 17. “I think I’m usually the first one to bring [condom use] up [in sexual situations]. Sometimes my partners know my status and sometimes they don’t — they just want to jump in the bed.”

    Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. “At that time I was the dumbest thing walking — I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,” said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. “I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms?”

    And that’s really what “gay activists” like Santos are all about — public acceptance of their bare-f*cking 15-year-old kids and giving them a lethal disease. Santos and his fellow faggots like Paul Raposo wanted public sex and no rules so badly; now we have a population in which no less than 1 in every 4 — TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF GAY MEN — has HIV. Furthermore, no less than 31% of those poz men are having bareback sex with partners whose serostatus they don’t know — and 23% of them are having bareback sex with people they know are negative!

    You must be so proud, Santos. Really. Does it make you and your fellow ACT-UP faggots proud to know you stood up for and defended your right to make others sick? Does it make you hard to know that, thanks to your public protests, you won’t be thrown in jail when you deliberately have dangerous sex with fifteen-year-olds?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - December 6, 2007

  63. researching a stranger’s personal history on the internet and then sending him emails describing what you’ve found and furthermore demanding even more personal information from him.

    Hmm…I read your blog–before it became, “Caption This!”. I read a comment you made on another person’s blog. That was the extent of my “research.” Now, when did I email you? When have I demanded, “more personal information,” from you? You’re the one who keeps going on and on abut me. God. Get a boyfriend already.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - December 6, 2007

  64. Actually, what it seems John is upset about is the fact that there are those of us here who don’t consider ourselves victims and see no need to legitimize his brand of “activism”.

    From this very post:

    What is it about all too many of those who spend so much time on this site that they repeatedly misunderstand our ideas, our arguments, even our rationale for supporting a party which, alas, still promotes policies (on gay issues) that we oppose?

    Naw. No victim mentality there.

    We see you giving money to FMA supporters. We see you kissing Howard Dean’s ass as he tells the 700 Club audience how he shares their values. We see you and your fellow liberated gays leaving cum all over public restrooms. We see you trying to legitimize your having unprotected sex with fifteen-year-old boys.

    What color is the sky in your world, NDT?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - December 6, 2007

  65. And as I said before, the only thing more pathetic than writing a blog devoted to fart jokes is trolling a blog devoted to fart jokes.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - December 6, 2007

  66. #23: “The surest sign you are trying to weasel out of a losing argument is when you start to demand definitions.”

    Actually, gil, that’s true only when the word at issue is incapable of ambiguity, e.g., “is.” But the fact that you scoff at the idea of Santos (or you) providing a definition only proves my point that the term “anti-gay” is wildly subjective and defined solely by reference to how outraged and victimized a particular individual FEELS. People like you and gil have a constant, humming level of bitterness, hatred and rage toward a huge group of enemies, real or imagined, and you confidently label all of them “anti-gay.” It makes perfect sense in your head–you FEEL unloved and victimized and THAT ALONE defines the parameters of who you believe are responsible for it–those are the people you think of as “anti-gay.” It’s as real to you as any other emotion you have, so to you, a request for a definition on what YOU BELIEVE is “anti-gay” is preposterous because you assume that we are all as outraged and bitter as you are. Accordingly, we must implicitly understand “anti-gay” to mean exactly what you think it means.

    Here’s the problem with that:

    I’m not outraged, angry or bitter about anything the government or society has or has not done for me. Nor am I concerned about anyone in the world who may not celebrate my existence simply because I’m gay. So my suspicion is that you and I probably have different ideas about what “anti-gay” means.

    Since you and Santos are so comfortable with the term and labeling bloggers “anti-gay” (some of whom I enjoy reading), surely it shouldn’t be difficult to hash out a reasonable definition from your perspective.

    gil, you’ve already implied that the term “anti-gay” is as clear and unambiguous to you as the word “is” is. So, let’s have it then. What is you definition of anti-gay?

    If neither of you step up and define the term that you like to throw around so much, then I’ll have to assume that your definition of “anti-gay” at least includes people like me who would dare to ask what it means. In other words, I’ll assume your definition of “anti-gay” is: anyone who doesn’t have enough rage and bitterness to know instinctively what “anti-gay” means.

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - December 6, 2007

  67. Hey Santos, want to see above where I pointed out one of your fellow liberated faggots having unprotected sex with fifteen-year-olds and giving them HIV?

    And did you not read where I showed HRC and your fellow Democrat gays giving money to FMA supporters, or where I showed you your candidate John Kerry supporting state constitutional amendments? Want to see the one where he brags about having the “same position” as Bush on gay issues?

    Furthermore, Santos, if you honestly oppose all of those things, then call the people who carried them out “doormats”. Show your courage and say that anyone who voted for John Kerry is a “doormat”. Say that anyone who supports Howard Dean and the Democrat Party is a “doormat”. Say that anyone who supports HRC and their habit of giving to FMA supporters is a “doormat”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - December 6, 2007

  68. #23: “The surest sign you are trying to weasel out of a losing argument is when you start to demand definitions.”

    No, that’s one of the surest signs of *winning*. Clear terms are essential to a good argument. And agreed-on terms are essential to a productive discussion. All good arguers / arguments are willing (at least) to define their terms.

    Here are the top signs you are “trying to weasel out of a losing argument”, gil:

    1) You threaten violence. (Ian a couple weeks ago with TGC)
    2) You resort to invective.
    3) You can’t provide evidence for your claims… all the while pretending you have done so.
    4) You flatly, simply, blithely deny the existence or reality of the other guy’s evidence. (gil, that’s you)
    5) Your first instinct in answering anything, is to try and change the subject, start a meta-argument, etc. (all GP lefties, that’s you)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 5:08 pm - December 6, 2007

  69. kind of the same anger that has you ranting spit over on other blogs about the inauthentic use of “faggot” by heterosexuals… as if how dare they take away from you and yours the singular right to say faggot in speech… ala blacks using nigger.

    “Other blogs”? Afraid to provide the link to that particular, “other blog”? Don’t worry, Matt, I don’t think you’ll get banned for mentioning that, “other blog”. You’re a house gay in good standing here. I think the overseer will let it pass.

    Now, as to your point; that is the same argument I’ve made on this very post. So I really don’t see where you’re going with that. I don’t like straight people using anti-gay language and as I stated on that, “other blog,” I don’t really like gay people using those words either. But better us, than them.

    You got lots of anger festering just below that appearnce of gay normalcy.

    Festering anger eventually boils over. If I had some deep seated anger, it would have manifested itself here and would have been directed at the posters here in general, but at the posters on Sondra’s blog in particular. Straws are for drinking, Matt.

    then whining about being a pathfinding trendsetter who stands on the shoulders of gay activists like the ActUp guys who helped spread AIDS into an epidemic. Now, there’s a claim to fame!

    I’m pretty sure the spread of AIDS was caused by having unprotected sex. Is ActUp giving AIDS to young blacks and Latinos today?

    BTW, as most here would quickly point out, John, I’m not a conservative. Roy Cohn don’t cut me no reference, dude. I’m a moderate, progressive GOPer. Unapolegetic, too. Do you have something evil to offer about Elliot Richardson, maybe?

    Same sh!t, different pile.

    You’re a big part of the problem we have today in the gay community, John. Irrelevant, abrasive, demanding, politically impotent gays looking for validation from those they detest. Afterall, validation is what brings you here, right?

    I’ll wait and see how many gay cons get DADT over turned; or get ENDA passed; or even show the LCR’s some semblance of respect. It’s amazing, you trash Patrick Guerriero for not genuflecting before Bush, yet praise Bush–the man who wants a Constitutional Amendment banning equal marriage.

    As far as validation; your continuing replies demonstrates aptly that you seek validation from your fellow posters. It’s a daisy chain of hatin’ here–who can hate John Santos more. Let’s face facts, I’m the big show here. You’re all tuning in to see me. You’re all clucking your tongues and giggling like school girls waiting on bated breath for what I’ll write next, so that you can be the first to pounce and show everyone how brilliant you are.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - December 6, 2007

  70. It’s amazing, you trash Patrick Guerriero for not genuflecting before Bush, yet praise Bush–the man who wants a Constitutional Amendment banning equal marriage.

    And as I’ve shown, Santos, you don’t give a rat’s ass about constitutional amendments when it’s Democrats supporting them — or call gays who support the Democrats like Kerry who push them and brag about their position being “the same” as Bush’s “doormats” or whine about them “genuflecting” before homophobes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - December 6, 2007

  71. And that’s really what “gay activists” like Santos are all about — public acceptance of their bare-f*cking 15-year-old kids and giving them a lethal disease. Santos and his fellow faggots like Paul Raposo wanted public sex and no rules so badly; now we have a population in which no less than 1 in every 4 — TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF GAY MEN — has HIV. Furthermore, no less than 31% of those poz men are having bareback sex with partners whose serostatus they don’t know — and 23% of them are having bareback sex with people they know are negative!

    And Andrew Sullivan is looking for BB parties to spread his “gift.” Married Larry Craig is loiting around men’s rooms and Bob Allen is offering to pay under cover cops $20 to oral. Gay cons are nauseating.

    You must be so proud, Santos. Really. Does it make you and your fellow ACT-UP faggots proud to know you stood up for and defended your right to make others sick? Does it make you hard to know that, thanks to your public protests, you won’t be thrown in jail when you deliberately have dangerous sex with fifteen-year-olds?

    I was never in ActUp. I’ve never had sex with a 15 yo, not even when I was a 15 yo.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - December 6, 2007

  72. Here’s where Bruce previously confronted Paul Raposo:
    http://gaypatriot.net/2007/09/02/confronting-a-troll-from-time-to-time

    Paul Raposo made a big thing of using his real name here:
    http://gaypatriot.net/2007/08/29/larry-craig-story-fitting-the-media-mantra-on-social-conservatives

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - December 6, 2007

  73. And, John Santos makes a thing of using his real name here:
    http://gaypatriot.net/2007/12/04/nominations-open-for-grande-conservative-blogress-diva-2008#comment-856550

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 5:35 pm - December 6, 2007

  74. And as I said before, the only thing more pathetic than writing a blog devoted to fart jokes is trolling a blog devoted to fart jokes.

    What’s sadder still, is telling a blogger, “I got your back girlfriend,” with a finger snap and a shimmy of the head and running off and posting a brutally unfunny post about someone. That’s what offended me the most, the complete and total lack of humor.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - December 6, 2007

  75. Spamfilter. There should be a Paul R comment, preceding my other one immediately above this.

    So, John Santos: Just curious, and this should be an easy question for you: What other names have you used for commenting on GayPatriot, if any?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - December 6, 2007

  76. Hey Santos, want to see above where I pointed out one of your fellow liberated faggots having unprotected sex with fifteen-year-olds and giving them HIV?

    I have a few people to respond to here, NDT, so if I don’t get to you quick enough, you’ll just have to wait.

    And did you not read where I showed HRC and your fellow Democrat gays giving money to FMA supporters, or where I showed you your candidate John Kerry supporting state constitutional amendments? Want to see the one where he brags about having the “same position” as Bush on gay issues?

    And did you not see where I pointed out that you were making generalizations about me, without knowing me? Where did I state I voted for Kerry?

    Furthermore, Santos, if you honestly oppose all of those things, then call the people who carried them out “doormats”. Show your courage and say that anyone who voted for John Kerry is a “doormat”. Say that anyone who supports Howard Dean and the Democrat Party is a “doormat”. Say that anyone who supports HRC and their habit of giving to FMA supporters is a “doormat”.

    I said from the beginning that Kerry was going to bomb. He wasn’t a street fighter, nor was he prepared to get into the gutter and battle the cons. He never came out swinging and instead, reacted and allowed the cons to brand him in the eyes of voters. He was and is a political wonk. He was weak.

    Dean made the mistake of being passionate. Voters want shlubs who speak in monotone voices and repeat what they just said, but to frame it in the form of an answer.

    HRC has had some missteps, but they also do good work. Your opinion of them means nothing to me.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 5:48 pm - December 6, 2007

  77. Sorry gang. In the thread where Paul R makes a big thing of using his real name, it’s comment #47. This is the direct link:
    http://gaypatriot.net/2007/08/29/larry-craig-story-fitting-the-media-mantra-on-social-conservatives#comment-720394

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 5:52 pm - December 6, 2007

  78. Here’s where Bruce previously confronted Paul Raposo:

    Paul Raposo made a big thing of using his real name here:

    And, John Santos makes a thing of using his real name here:

    Spamfilter. There should be a Paul R comment, preceding my other one immediately above this.

    So, John Santos: Just curious, and this should be an easy question for you: What other names have you used for commenting on GayPatriot, if any?

    My name: John Santos. I’m simply stating the truth. I post using my real name, rather than an alias. I can’t say the same for all of you.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 5:57 pm - December 6, 2007

  79. And that’s really what “gay activists” like Santos are all about — public acceptance of their bare-f*cking 15-year-old kids and giving them a lethal disease.

    Only following in the proud examples of Democrats Gerry Studds, who went his grave claiming there was nothing wrong with his tryst with an underage page, and who was rewarded by his Democrat constituents with consistent re-election. Also, of Mel Reynolds, whose fellow sex predator, Bill Clinton, pardoned him for his conviction on jailbait-related charges… and who was hired as a Youth Outreach Coordinator by Jesse Jackson following his release.

    Democrats have demonstrated a much higher tolerance for sexual abuse of minors than Republicans

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 5:59 pm - December 6, 2007

  80. My mistake, Mel Reynolds was actually rewarded for his misdeeds by being hired as a prison reform activist by Jesse Jackson, not youth outreach.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - December 6, 2007

  81. Judging on content / concerns and on style, the 2 guys seem alike to me.

    And purely for the record: Paul R was V the K’s ‘previous’ Internet stalker… who not only visited Caption This! just a couple months ago, but tried hard to make himself a presence there. As I recall, he went away when… umm… when V just stopped giving him any attention :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 6:03 pm - December 6, 2007

  82. Specifically, I enjoy the company and friendship of many who are gay, but I do not necessarily support or approve of their private lives.

    Yes. poeple like you always have MANY gay friends. Problem is, we never see you with your friends. If you don’t support them, you’re not really their friend.

    Fortunately, most gays do not seek approval from you, or anyone else. However, people like you always seem to believe your disapproval is necessary and to demonstrate this, enact laws against us, just to show your disapproval, which you’re incapable of keeping to yourself.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - December 6, 2007

  83. #74: “That’s what offended me the most, the complete and total lack of humor.”

    Wait a minute. Back up. The guy who is mortified and outraged by Ann Coulter’s use of the term “faggot” in reference to John Edwards and equates it to racist, religious and sexist slurs is OFFENDED by a “lack of humor?!”

    Now that IS funny. Santos, actually it is the complete ABSENCE of a sense of humor on the part of liberals that keeps them perpetually offended by 99% of words spoken by non-lefties either publicly or in private. The only reason 1% of the words spoken do not offend liberals is because they manage to fit within the politically correct lexicon of the liberal thought police (and by definition are humor-free). But apparently now you have decided that the last remaining 1% has to go as well since you are offended by the “lack of humor.” Let’s see….well, I guess that makes it 100%!

    On second thought, it is probably closer to 99.99999999% of spoken words that are off-limits since the one thing liberals will allow people to laugh at is Larry Craig.

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 6:11 pm - December 6, 2007

  84. John Santos, faggot… I’m not a slave to your sensiblities. If Ann Coulter uses the word “faggot” and it pisses you off, then it’s just more incentive for her to use it, and she should.

    And thus, Vince P demonstrates what is wrong with American political dialog.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - December 6, 2007

  85. He wasn’t a street fighter, nor was he prepared to get into the gutter and battle the cons

    Yeah I agree.. he didn’t tell enough lies, he wasn’t as big as a jerk as he was. He wasn’t totally classless and crude.

    I love when Democrats complain their side wasn’t hard enough or whatnot…

    They should listen to themselves.. the totally ruthless party complaining they’re too nice!

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - December 6, 2007

  86. And thus, Vince P demonstrates what is wrong with American political dialog.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:12 pm – December 6, 2007

    You lament the very thing you provoke? Hmmm.. if you go to a doctor and tell him your shoulder hurts when you move your arm.. the advise you’re going to get is to stop moving your arm like that.

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - December 6, 2007

  87. John, we’ve determined that you’re writing in from Canada as did the aforementioned Paul.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong about your Canadian IP address.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 6:15 pm - December 6, 2007

  88. #82

    Yes. poeple like you always have MANY gay friends. Problem is, we never see you with your friends. If you don’t support them, you’re not really their friend.

    Fortunately, most gays do not seek approval from you, or anyone else. However, people like you always seem to believe your disapproval is necessary and to demonstrate this, enact laws against us, just to show your disapproval, which you’re incapable of keeping to yourself.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm – December 6, 2007

    Man oh man are you insecure and brittle or what?

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 6:17 pm - December 6, 2007

  89. My name: John Santos. I’m simply stating the truth. I post using my real name, rather than an alias. I can’t say the same for all of you.

    Thank you for answering. I’m going to repay your taking the trouble to answer, by being very honest with you.

    Namely: I personally do not believe you. With the Canada connection on top of everything else, I now believe that:

    1) You and Paul R are the same person, and
    2) In claiming that either of those names is your real name, you have lied / are lying.

    I can’t prove it, so this is the only time I’ll assert it. Again, I can’t prove it, but I do have a preponderance of… you know… suggestive evidence.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 6:20 pm - December 6, 2007

  90. #82: “Fortunately, most gays do not seek approval from you, or anyone else.”

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Stop, Santos! You’re killin’ me! Can’t breathe…..can’t breathe….!

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 6:21 pm - December 6, 2007

  91. LMAO…..and notice how Santos, when shown Democrats who vote for politicians who support the FMA and state constitutional amendments, who endorse and support homophobic politicians who claim their position is “the same” as Bush, and who give tens of millions of dollars to homophobic politicians who fire gay people from the DNC for complaining about Democrat homophobia and who panders to Pat Robertson……and who insists he isn’t partisan, that anyone who supports homophobic politicians is a self-loathing “doormat”….SPINS AND REFUSES TO CALL THEM SELF-LOATHING “DOORMATS”.

    Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - December 6, 2007

  92. #82: “Yes. poeple like you always have MANY gay friends. Problem is, we never see you with your friends. If you don’t support them, you’re not really their friend.”

    I’m proud of you, Santos! This is the closest we have come to getting a definition of “anti-gay” from you. What I’m hearing is that “anti-gay” means something along the lines of not being a “supportive” friend to gay people if you haven’t been seen enough with them in public. Does that about cover it? Thank you for that.

    Of course, it’s laughably imprecise, obscenely subjective and totally useless, but at least it’s something. Well done.

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - December 6, 2007

  93. Gay activists nearly killed EDN

    A,

    Some would argue it was the trans activists who did that.

    literally created the political enviroment that gave us DOMA and DADT,

    That is to blame on the Republican controlled Senate and Congress.

    created a political division of passionate minorities in America who will thwart any effort to secure full civil rights for all gays…

    That would be the results of anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit, Matt.

    and all that while protecting the “right” to be abrasive to all and abusive of the public. Thank you gay activists.

    Ann Coulter says thanks, too.

    Right John, with gay “activists” like you, we really could use some leadership, some informed political thought and a touch of …oh, I don’t know… political success with our agenda. Here in Michigan, the gayLeft’s patent stupidity dealt us a reversal on domestic partnership benefits… and got us an FMA in Michigan’s Constitution.

    Your government gave you that with the help of voters.

    Yeah, you keep up that stellar record of gay activism speaking out to the man. Being a gay activist is more than just humming Helen Reddy’s “We are women, hear us roar”. And, no, that part wasn’t sarcasm.

    And rearranging library books advances us how? Oh wait, it does not. But it makes you feel better and reinforces your slavish mentality to a party ideology.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - December 6, 2007

  94. Besides, how could I be on that list? I just posted here a day ago after about a year off!

    Much like when I was choosing up teams in school, I’d always pick the runt of our group, so he could feel like one of the “big kids.” You’re welcome, Peter.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - December 6, 2007

  95. And as I’ve shown, Santos, you don’t give a rat’s ass about constitutional amendments when it’s Democrats supporting them — or call gays who support the Democrats like Kerry who push them and brag about their position being “the same” as Bush’s “doormats” or whine about them “genuflecting” before homophobes.

    The difference is, Dems didn’t have any power. Now that they have control of both houses and eventually the WH, we will see a renewed effort to give LGBTQ’s equal status in law.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - December 6, 2007

  96. Democrats have demonstrated a much higher tolerance for sexual abuse of minors than Republicans

    45 REPUBLICAN PEDOPHILES

    http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/24160.php

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:41 pm - December 6, 2007

  97. Judging on content / concerns and on style, the 2 guys seem alike to me.

    To you.

    And purely for the record: Paul R was V the K’s ‘previous’ Internet stalker… who not only visited Caption This! just a couple months ago, but tried hard to make himself a presence there. As I recall, he went away when… umm… when V just stopped giving him any attention

    Actually, when V The K removed one of Paul’s comments because he called another posters a douchebag, Paul asked why. V The k claimed he would not tolerate name calling. When Paul asked why V The K did not remove another poster’s comment, calling Paul a faggot, V The K banned him–and kept the faggot comment up.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:42 pm - December 6, 2007

  98. The guy who is mortified and outraged by Ann Coulter’s use of the term “faggot” in reference to John Edwards and equates it to racist, religious and sexist slurs is OFFENDED by a “lack of humor?!”

    Anti-gay slurs are funny?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - December 6, 2007

  99. John, we’ve determined that you’re writing in from Canada as did the aforementioned Paul.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong about your Canadian IP address.

    Did you assume that there was only one person in Canada?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - December 6, 2007

  100. Man oh man are you insecure and brittle or what?

    Neither. I just like pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming to be friends with people, whom one does not “approve” of. Clearly you’re only friends with them , for the opportunity to claim them as friends, while denouncing them.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - December 6, 2007

  101. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada. Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — December 6, 2007 @ 6:52 pm - December 6, 2007

  102. I can’t prove it, so this is the only time I’ll assert it. Again, I can’t prove it, but I do have a preponderance of… you know… suggestive evidence.

    But that will be enough for the people here. You want so desperately for he and I to be the same. If that’s your fantasy, then there is nothing I can do to change it.

    Paul and I and my BF have been friends for a couple of years, after meeting at TO Pride in ’05. He noticed a watch I was wearing and we began talking about this, that and the other. We’ve remained in email contact because we like each other. We’ve been to his place and he to ours. I introduced him to his current BF and they are currently in Portugal on holiday. We’re friends, like it or lump it.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - December 6, 2007

  103. Of course, it’s laughably imprecise, obscenely subjective and totally useless

    You’d think it had been written by a gay conservative.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - December 6, 2007

  104. Actually, when V The K removed one of Paul’s comments because he called another posters a douchebag, Paul asked why. V The k claimed he would not tolerate name calling. When Paul asked why V The K did not remove another poster’s comment, calling Paul a faggot, V The K banned him–and kept the faggot comment up.

    Add to the evidence: Knows way, way, WAY too much detail about V’s interactions 2 months ago with Paul R.

    We’re friends, like it or lump it.

    Who thus stalk and obsess about V the K ***together***???? That’s even worse!

    But hey – If Glenn Greenwald’s big defender during his “sockpuppet” scandal, who writes in Glenn’s own exact style and knows way too much about Glenn’s interactions with Internet people, can be Glenn’s Brazilian housemate – then I guess you, who writes in Paul R’s own exact style and knows way too much about Paul’s interactions with Internet people, can be Paul R’s “friend”. Thank you for at least admitting to that much. ROFL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  105. and John, you still have backed up the point you made about the candidates for blogress diva.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  106. That (DADT) is to blame on the Republican controlled Senate and Congress.

    Um, DADT was passed before the 1994 election.

    Who was in control of Congress between 1992 and 1994?

    THE DEMOCRATS.

    DADT was a law passed by a majority-Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

    DOMA was supported by the majority of Congressional Democrats and signed by a Democrat President, who then went on to tout the fact on radio advertisements as showing his commitment to “protecting values”.

    And then you whine that it’s OK for Democrats to support laws you claim are homophobic and for you to still support them because they have “no power”?

    Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.

    Party whore. Party whore. Party whore.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - December 6, 2007

  107. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada.

    This is semantics, but I never said I was FROM Canada, just IN Canada.

    Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    Oh, please do! And when you post the results, you will receive and email from a certain someone, with an IP addy in a certain country. Let’s see if you will be honest enough–that is, man enough–to post that info.

    By the way, you do know that there is more than one city and province in Canada, right? I mean you seemed a tad confused about their population, I thought I’d just clear that up.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:05 pm - December 6, 2007

  108. So, I’ll assume then that you’re from Canada. Will see if we can find Paul’s IP address so we can settle this matter.

    GPW, I wouldn’t worry about it any further.

    If you found they were using the same city, line and address: John Santos would just whip out, “Oh we’re housemates”. If you didn’t find they were using the same address, line or city: The underlying individual could have moved, could have DSL, could post from >1 location, etc. Either way, it won’t take you any closer to the truth.

    And we’ve established that, at a bare minimum, “Paul R” and “John S” obsess *together* over their little interactions with V the K (which is majorly weird and screwed up). Finally, really the ideas / issues are all that matter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - December 6, 2007

  109. GPW, I wouldn’t worry about it any further.

    And rob me of the opportunity to prove you a fool?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:18 pm - December 6, 2007

  110. Already proven.

    TTFN! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:22 pm - December 6, 2007

  111. (i.e., by my having spent time on you)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - December 6, 2007

  112. Who thus stalk and obsess about V the K ***together***???? That’s even worse!

    This coming from a man who has spent the better part of several hours hunting me online in a pathetic attempt to turn his delusions into reality?

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - December 6, 2007

  113. Or so says the man whose delusions include the belief that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency when DADT was passed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - December 6, 2007

  114. Or so says the man whose delusions include the belief that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency when DADT was passed.

    I never climed the Republicans controlled the Presidency. And I’m still looking for a break down of how each side voted. So far, I’ve only found a tally of the votes, but not a breakdown along party lines.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - December 6, 2007

  115. Aw, c’mon NDT. He has imaginary friends – and has been off in Canada. Can’t blame him for getting American political facts wrong. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - December 6, 2007

  116. And also, in regards to Santos’s list of pedophiles, I noticed something:

    Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was
    charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

    Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom
    Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

    Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor
    working as a congressional page.

    In other words, Democrats define a “pedophile” as ANYONE who has sex with someone under the age of 18, regardless of whether or not they’re over the age of consent.

    But Santos, hypocrite that he is, claims that Gerry Studds was not a pedophile, even though Studds clearly fits the Democrat definition of pedophile that they apply to others.

    And furthermore, watch as Santos twists himself into knots trying to “prove” that the Democrat Party didn’t control Congress and the Presidency during 1992 – 1994, when DOMA was passed. Hilarious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - December 6, 2007

  117. I’m outta here. Ugly Betty is up at 8 (with Christopher Gorham shirtless!); CSI at 9, (with dreamy Gary Dourdan battling a script drug problem,)–both fresh eppies and Mad Men, (with the yummy Bryan Batt,) at 10. It’s a repeat, but if it’s one I haven’t seen yet, I won’t be back. Feel free to trash me while I’m gone. After all, that’s what this post was all about.

    Comment by John Santos — December 6, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - December 6, 2007

  118. What a gay faggot sissy

    Comment by Vince P — December 6, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - December 6, 2007

  119. I am a conservative (Constitutionalist) heterosexual married woman, and I very much enjoy visiting your site and Tammy Bruce’s site. I also enjoy seeing Tammy’s appearances on Fox News Channel.

    Bruce, have you made appearances on TV to comment on politics or current events?

    Keep up the good work!

    And Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all who gather here.

    Comment by drillanwr — December 6, 2007 @ 8:17 pm - December 6, 2007

  120. #98: “Anti-gay slurs are funny?”

    Well, Santos, that would depend upon what you mean by “anti-gay.” Is there any particular definition you have in mind?

    Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - December 6, 2007

  121. I just scanned the comments and saw many by John Santos, yet he has yet to offer a link to substantiate the point he made in my previous post, the very point which inspired this very post.

    He’s much too busy transcribing all this for GLAAD to provide any silly links.

    Cankles could learn a thing or two on evasion and avoidance from this guy.

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 6, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - December 6, 2007

  122. For the record, Paul was never banned from my blog. My blog is not about people arguing, it’s a bunch of guys (and chicks) who swap crude jokes about funny pictures. Paul didn’t get this, and I eventually gave up on trying to explain to him why using the word “faggot” was funny in the context of a crude joke, but name-calling a regular a “douchebag” was not and ignored his emails. Especially when he started asking personal questions I don’t care to discuss with strangers… let alone someone who presented himself as antagonistic.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - December 6, 2007

  123. My name: John Santos. I’m simply stating the truth. I post using my real name, rather than an alias. I can’t say the same for all of you.

    John, that’s because there are many internet TWEAKERS out there LIKE YOU. Hello.

    Comment by SondraK — December 6, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - December 6, 2007

  124. A thread with over 100 comments, many of them from John Santos and he has yet to back up the point he made which inspired the post.

    If all those women listed had posted at least one anti-gay piece, he could easily find just one if he took the time it took to write half those comments to search those blogresses’s web=pages.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - December 6, 2007

  125. I only wish he’d give us his real address too.

    I’d like to send him a bottle of Glenfiddich to help kill the giant bug that currently residing in his colon.

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 6, 2007 @ 10:31 pm - December 6, 2007

  126. Isn’t Mad Men over yet??? Sheesh.

    Comment by SondraK — December 7, 2007 @ 1:12 am - December 7, 2007

  127. LOL…….

    Comment by The Ugly American — December 7, 2007 @ 2:10 am - December 7, 2007

  128. Conservative gays are a prime example of the nerdy kids who were never part of the in group, who grow up and will do anything to hang with the cool kids. Grow up.

    Pissy little faggot isn’t she?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2007 @ 2:16 am - December 7, 2007

  129. John Santos is a prime example of the nerdy kid who was never part of the in group, who never grew up and will do anything to hang with the cool kids.

    Comment by SondraK — December 7, 2007 @ 2:20 am - December 7, 2007

  130. JS also illustrates why people hate liberals. You can’t have an intelligent discussion with him because he just makes sh-t up. You can’t joke around with him because he wants to turn everything political and whines at you if he thinks yr inappropriate humor is offensive and his feelers get hurt. They’re like whiny, high-strung, over-emotive middle school girls. You half expect him to scream “I HATE YOU! YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING!” And go crying off to his room to TXT his friends about how horrible the adults are treating him.

    And the whole gushing over men on chick-oriented TV shows doesn’t help his “I’m not a 12 year old girl) case much.

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 5:28 am - December 7, 2007

  131. Just scrolled through the whole thread. How gratifying. Just might print this one.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — December 7, 2007 @ 7:28 am - December 7, 2007

  132. So, what we have is a thirty year old man who…

    - Gushes about shirtless actors on chick-TV shows
    - Obsesses over what the ‘cool kids’ think
    - Requires constant emotional affirmation and considers those who don’t give it to him as his enemies

    Does this behavior sound more like an adult man, or a teenage girl?

    Comment by V the K — December 7, 2007 @ 8:59 am - December 7, 2007

  133. John offers: “Feel free to trash me while I’m gone. After all, that’s what this post was all about.”

    Nawh John… it’s about people making fair observations about your silliness and then you glibly, blithey and ineffectively dismissing the merit of those fair observations. Impotent gay activism never had a better poster boi for the bar’s bathroom wall.

    Like I wrote earlier, for you it’s a “Just Jack” moment. Egocentric, self absorbed, subpar.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 7, 2007 @ 9:43 am - December 7, 2007

  134. I for one frankly wouldn’t spend more time discussing this a$$hat than would be absolutely necessary…unless one prefers doing something more enjoyable, like root canal surgery.

    Where’s Vera? I need a drink, like, yesterday.

    PS to all who wished me well: I really do appreciate it. My absence from the group was not due to anything serious – I just have a new job now that (a) required 8 wks of intensive training and (b) does not allow for a lot of chit-chat time. So I will post only when absolutely positively necessary.

    Which excludes pretty much anything further for this piece of human flotsam, whom I’m convinced is either a misanthrope or the same woman who drove a teenage girl to commit suicide over a fake “My Space” admirer.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 11:14 am - December 7, 2007

  135. Let’s see. “Paul R”… “John S”… who will be the next Canadian ‘friend’ in the sequence? “George T”?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - December 7, 2007

  136. #135 – How about Ringo U?

    Naw – it sounds like a college for drummers.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 7, 2007 @ 4:32 pm - December 7, 2007

  137. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 7, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - December 7, 2007

  138. Does this behavior sound more like an adult man, or a teenage girl?

    On the rag.

    Whatever happened to that deaf idiot who was bigoted against people that can hear? She was fun.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 12:28 am - December 8, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.