Gay Patriot Header Image

Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years

In their blind hatred of the GOP, many gay activists have missed one of the biggest stories impacting gay and lesbian Americans in this election.

While the Republican vice presidential nominee did indicate her support of a federal marriage amendment, on at least four occasions in this campaign, she has said we should treat gay and lesbian citizens fairly, not judging us by our difference.

At the same time, we’ve learned that when John McCain learns “a friend is gay, he says it doesn’t make any difference.”  The Republican nominee conducted an interview with the Washington Blade, “the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.”

And as I recounted in an essay for that paper, not only was I, an openly gay man, credentialed as press at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, but the GOP also made Log Cabin welcome there as well, even dispatching top campaign aides to their various events in the Twin Cities.

Despite this clear evidence of progress, Dale Carpenter wrote last month, “Time and again gay conservatives have been called self-hating, treasonous, and selfish. It’s the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I’ve seen in fifteen years in this movement.“  (Emphasis added.)  As with anything by Dale, just read the whole thing?

What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming increasingly open toward gay people?

I see it constantly in the comments to our blog, some so vicious I don’t approve them when they’re caught in our (increasingly capricious) spam filter (but do save them as .pdfs).  Why do these people hate us so?  Why do they persist in describing a Republican Party which may once have existed but lives now primarily in the fevered imaginations of its critics.

Why, if they claim to favor a society inclusive of gay people, do they fail to note increasing evidence of that inclusion?  Is it because they “need” an enemy to demonize and find villain in the GOP?

Is it that their partisanship defines them?

Share

94 Comments

  1. NDF

    i have no idea where you live.

    I live in the bastion of liberal gaydom, San Francisco. Its gets no more liberal than here. And believe me NOONE here wants to get married so that they can be non-monogamous. No-one.

    Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008

  2. that he seems to have no respect for anyone that CAN handle monogamy.

    Unfortunately mac, what you and your fellow liberal gays make perfectly clear is that you support and endorse promiscuity within marriage — and call gays like V the K who are opposed to it and demand monogamy in marriage “self-loathing”.

    Just like you support calling your fellow Marines murderers, baby-killers, and “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008

  3. You guys need to get laid maybe.

    Im not into spanking..

    🙂

    Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - November 3, 2008

  4. NDF.. u are pathetic. If you were here and said that about calling my fellow marines nurderers, i would kick you ass till you were str8.

    What the fuk even thought you can accuse me of that… you twisted little shit.

    Comment by mac — November 3, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - November 3, 2008

  5. from w besen: In 1988, Republican Pat Robertson ran for president. Robertson lost, but he amassed a huge mailing list, which was transformed into the Christian Coalition. Under the leadership of Ralph Reed, this organization married the Republican Party and this list is today referred to as “The Base.”
    It is the Base and bullhorn folk like Robertson, Savage and even Rush, that continue to stir the pot in an attempt to rally the allies of the conservative religious base, not on real issues, but on emotional issues. Through that rebel rousing, folk are subjected to utterances, innuendos and even blatant rants against LGBT folk, and thus leaving the memory of this intolerance with the stamp of the GOP.

    I have many family members, friends (both gay and straight) and colleagues who offer their apologies for the Grand Ol’ Party, even though they all are registered Republicans.

    Again, we are seeing changes, especially in the political arena. Kudos to those who welcomed and even acknowledged the LCR folk this year that the convention. Kudos to McCain for his support of LGBT folk in his personal life and on his staff. Kudos to Palin in recognizing her ‘friend’ on national TV.

    But until the Republicans talk about issues, instead of relying on maintaining ‘traditions’, work on ensuring liberty for all, and truly become compassionate conservatives with the Christian motto of ‘love your neighbor’ without judgement. . .then you all will probably continue to witness the vitriol. There was David Benkof’s GaysDefendMarriage stint, until David found out that the folk lining up the conservative folk to PUSH Yes on 8, then started showing their anti-semitic colors and David pulled the plug on GaysDefendMarriage. Although David was also a huge lightening rod also for your ‘leftist’ gay folk.

    and a little side note on the ‘berdache’ comment: folk in native communites are actually using the term ‘two-spirit’; for in most native cultures, they saw their god as genderless or rather ‘two-spirited’ and your ‘berdache’ were highly honored for they represented their god and the berdache weren’t hiding under any guise, but were actually pleased to don the gender wear of the female. cross dressing is not new. if you really want to hone up on your history, men have been wearing skirts/kilts/robes over the centuries.

    Here in Washington’s Governors Race, Rossi the Republican candidate, identifies himself GOP on the ballot, not Republican.

    Comment by rusty — November 3, 2008 @ 7:14 pm - November 3, 2008

  6. sonicfrog, that article cites John Boswell’s research which found that while the church sanctioned same-sex unions, it called it something other than marriage. The only times prior to the end of the last century when anyone called such unions marriage was when one partner had to live in the guise of the other.

    Rusty, so it seems you’re blaming the vitriol of the left on the actions of some conservatives as if “Yes on 8” were the only conservative issue out there. As if you hadn’t written the paragraph you wrote before you wonder about the GOP not talking about issues.

    I pointed out the increased tolerance I experience as a gay man in the GOP and how the Republican presidential nominee reached out to gay voters. Republicans have talked about issues. On the stump, at the convention, they avoided the gay issues. Sarah Palin (as I noted above) says our society should treat gay people without judgment.

    As to the berdache, no, not all those who lived in the guise of the opposite sex chose to do so. Many were forced. And it was more than a question of clothing. They had to live their lives as a member of the opposite sex in a very gender-stratified structure. A man, for example, who lived as a woman had to tend to domestic duties, couldn’t hunt and had to socialize with the women.

    Yeah, there are nuts on the right–and many (as I’ve pointed out on this blog) in the “Yes on 8” movement. But, there are nuts on the left too and many in the “No on 8” movement, but that does not justify vitriol and hate-speech.

    The point of this post is the vitriol on the left in the face on increasingly tolerant GOP. And you attempt to blame conservatives for the hate on the left.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - November 3, 2008

  7. […] Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » John McCain & Improving Situation for Gays in GOP — November 3, 2008 @ 7:55 pm - November 3, 2008

  8. NDF.. u are pathetic. If you were here and said that about calling my fellow marines nurderers, i would kick you ass till you were str8.

    Not bloody likely, since you support the Democrat Party doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - November 3, 2008

  9. Oh, and mac….take a look at Barack Obama supporting and endorsing the very organization, Code Pink, that demanded the Marines be thrown out of Berkeley as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and called them assassins, murderers, and baby-killers.

    Why do you support Barack Obama and the Democrat Party calling Marines murderers, intruders, assassins, and baby-killers?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2008 @ 8:42 pm - November 3, 2008

  10. sonicfrog, that article cites John Boswell’s research which found that while the church sanctioned same-sex unions, it called it something other than marriage.

    Very true. But the church once sanctioned the relationship. The proponents of Prop 8 do not want gay marriage because it will make such unions truly valid, thus put a gay relationship on equal footing with a heterosexual one. The modern church has made a pact with the devil by making the homosexual a scapegoat to avoid tackling more pervasive problems in the diocese, such as divorce. If a congregation would vilify divorce with the same vitriol they do homosexuality, they would lose membership. This is the crux of the problem.

    Again I ask, why should gays not be allowed to be married. They can’t have children? Neither can post menopausal women (without help from the doctor). It’s always been done this way? Sure, slavery has always been a part of human history, but we changed and grew to accept a life without it. Well, keeping marriage between a man and a woman is the base on which human society has been built! Would mankind crumble if all marriages were to become illegal or no-existent tomorrow? See slavery. It has been much more vital to the advancement of societies than marriage. The only time marriage really mattered is when the leader of one country married another to form an alliance. All the “Yes on Prop 8” arguments seem to come back to this “The Church says NO!”. There is no real reason why a gay union should not be called a marriage.

    I have to go cook dinner now.

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 3, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - November 3, 2008

  11. What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming increasingly open toward gay people?

    Needing government to take care of you is highly emasculating — girly lefty homos need a scapegoat.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 3, 2008 @ 11:26 pm - November 3, 2008

  12. Until I see well-known Republican politicians other than Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking out against these religious bigots’ “protect marriage” crap, and speaking out unequivocally against Prop 8, I say shut the hell up. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. ugh.

    Prop 8 came from Republicans. And is bankrolled by Morons. Er… Mormons.

    Comment by jonesey12 — November 3, 2008 @ 11:46 pm - November 3, 2008

  13. Actually, there are churches that take very strong actions against divorce. When handled properly, it’s a good thing, too. The churches with which I’ve been affiliated will assess the situation, try to work with a couple to help them stay together. Depending on the circumstances, they may expel an unrepentant offending spouse. I knew one couple quite well, where the husband simply fell in love with another woman (one with probably 1/4 the brains of his wife), and took off with her, while she abandoned her own husband and 2-3 little children. Basically a story of a Mr. Moneybags falling for Ms. Cute Ditzy Blond, and perhaps, vice versa. The church tried very hard to bring both parties to heel, but sadly, could not prevail on them. So, Mr. Moneybags and Ms. Cute Ditzy Blond were asked to leave.

    Comment by Vivian — November 3, 2008 @ 11:49 pm - November 3, 2008

  14. GPW, with friends and comrades like AE, you wonder where the vitriol comes from. . .?

    ciao

    Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 12:01 am - November 4, 2008

  15. Off the Plantation…

    My friend Dan, aka Gay Patriot West, abhors the worst vitriol he says he has witnessed against gay conservatives in the past 15 years. Dan wonders – why? What explains this bile, this failure to see a Republican Party becoming……

    Trackback by what if? — November 4, 2008 @ 12:50 am - November 4, 2008

  16. And just in case brendan missed it, his fellow gay Democrat and liberal jonesey12 just called gay Republicans “Uncle Toms”.

    Then again, I doubt brendan missed it; it’s just that brendan is a hypocrite who supports and endorses this sort of namecalling by his fellow liberals and Democrat gays while he whines and cries about his own alleged mistreatment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 1:19 am - November 4, 2008

  17. “Actually, there’s an even better example close at hand: your supporting mac calling V the K “self-loathing” and trying to deny that V is gay.”

    ND-30–you are shameless in your flat out lying. First you accuse me of saying something and when asked to support it you can’t. Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.

    What a moron you are.

    Comment by Brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 1:30 am - November 4, 2008

  18. LOL….Brendan, why don’t you read what I said above?

    And as for brendan’s complaint, it is amusing to watch people who scream “kapo”, “Uncle Tom”, and “Jewish Nazi” at the drop of a hat to describe gay Republicans and conservatives whine about their treatment.

    You screamed and whined that that was a lie, that gay liberals and Democrats never call gay Republicans that — but, as I pointed out, jonesey12 just called gay Republicans “Uncle Toms”, which demonstrates the point that they do quite nicely.

    Now, you can either condemn his words and admit that gay Democrats namecall and insult gay Republicans as “kapo”, “Uncle Tom”, and “Jewish Nazi”, or you can demonstrate your complete and utter partisan blindness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:09 am - November 4, 2008

  19. And finally, to demonstrate brendan’s hypocrisy quite nicely:

    Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.

    Whereas before, this was what Brendan was insisting about GPW:

    it would be easier to take seriously if you just once took on some of your supporters on this site

    I do not recall you ever calling out even your nastiest supporters as long as s/he was solidly on the right.

    In short, Brendan is insisting that not saying something is adequate proof when he’s haranguing GPW, but when he is held to the same standards, he whines and cries that it isn’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:16 am - November 4, 2008

  20. 69 comments. How many scratches, ladies? Do you read your comments before punching ‘submit’? Thoroughly funny stuff nonetheless… The winner seems to be North Dallas Thirty, who should be writing political commercials for SNL–you know, the kind that defy logic.

    Comment by jimmy — November 4, 2008 @ 5:04 am - November 4, 2008

  21. I have read this entire post, and have watched you (GayPatriotWest) criticize gay democrats who have commented.

    Yet I have heard no condemnation or criticism of those who have said that you, as a gay man, are not personally qualified to uphold marriage.

    Why have you not done so?

    You are gay aren’t you? Yet all you do is criticize those who happen to be gay and Democratic, but not those who are apparently Republican and support restricting your rights. (V the K, American Elephant)

    Please reply in a respectful manner.

    Comment by Someguywithtwoarms — November 4, 2008 @ 5:31 am - November 4, 2008

  22. “In short, Brendan is insisting that not saying something is adequate proof when he’s haranguing GPW, but when he is held to the same standards, he whines and cries that it isn’t.”

    ND-30 your response is insane. First you accuse me of saying things I have never said but you won’t admit to that. I specifically said in my original post that I did not doubt that GPW receives nasty emails and I have seen some on the left here post things that I find objectionable. But GPW’s larger point, if I understand it correctly, was that it was the left that is always nasty and bitter and does not respond to conservative position but instead just hurls insults. All I said is I would take this complaint more seriously if he would admit and admonish some of the posters on this site who do so from the right. Nothing you have said disputes that point.

    Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.

    Comment by Brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 6:14 am - November 4, 2008

  23. Dan, you are obviously free to vote however you want on Prop. 8. I would just suggest that you base your vote on what you believe the worth of the proposition is, and not vote yes based on comments similar to a poster. On the same token, I would also suggest you don’t vote No based on NDT’s once again slander (and subsequent defense of it) on another poster.

    As for the vitriol, I agree with you that it’s bad. But it does become personal when people set out to strip a right/privilege for someone else. If you want to see vitriol, propose an amendment to get rid of all marriage. Sure, some people will argue about tradition of marriage and all that. But I think you’d agree it wouldn’t be pretty.

    Comment by Pat — November 4, 2008 @ 8:36 am - November 4, 2008

  24. Um, someguywithwoarms, the issue of this post is not criticism of gay Republicans, but the level of vitriol in said criticism.

    I am criticizing those who attempt to blame the level of vitriol on left on the actions of the right. On this blog, I have similarly taken to task loony toon supporters of Prop. 8.

    The issue is the vitriol, the name-calling, someguy. The answers to the rest of your comment can best be found by checking my posts in this blog’s archive.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 4, 2008 @ 10:25 am - November 4, 2008

  25. This is “progress?” Maybe if it were the election in 1908 instead of 2008. Can’t we expect more from the GOP?

    Comment by Richard — November 4, 2008 @ 11:40 am - November 4, 2008

  26. LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hating”.

    As I challenged brendan in that post and now in this one, if he wants to whine and point fingers about namecalling and homophobia, he can do it to his own supporters and to his own party. But unfortunately, he’s not interested in confronting namecalling or homophobia; he’s simply here to bash gay Republicans and conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:40 am - November 4, 2008

  27. #63

    Actually, there are churches that take very strong actions against divorce.

    That’s good to know. Like the gay marriage issue, there are always exceptions. But most churches will not take the same strong stand against divorce as they so eagerly will against homosexuality. If they did, they would chase away more than half of their congregation.

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 4, 2008 @ 11:41 am - November 4, 2008

  28. Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.

    Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments while ignoring the fact that their party and their supporters are making death threats over the public airwaves?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:44 am - November 4, 2008

  29. Regarding the accusation that the left is talking about republican party that no longer exists, it is worth looking at the vile racist comments on Lucianne Goldberg’s blog in response to the death of Obama’s grandmother.

    Don’t you love it when liberal gays complain about nasty blog comments?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 11:45 am - November 4, 2008

  30. Because I spent a long time pursuing an “ex-gay” identity, I follow the ex-gay movement closely. And I can tell you that the leaders of groups like Exodus and NARTH, who are dedicated to opposing any type of equal treatment for gay people because it undercuts their own arguments that gays should “change,” nevertheless mouth the same platitudes about personal tolerance and acceptance that McCain and Paul have uttered.

    So, no, I am not impressed in the slightest by what you see as “clear evidence of progress.” To me, the double talk of the Republican Party reveals just as much animus to all gay people–liberal or conservative–as the ex-gay movement.

    Comment by Nick C — November 4, 2008 @ 12:32 pm - November 4, 2008

  31. Again I ask, why should gays not be allowed to be married. They can’t have children? Neither can post menopausal women (without help from the doctor).

    Post-menopausal women don’t make up the majority of the population.

    Again, this all boils down to this fact; not all heterosexual couples are fertile, but there are zero fertile gay couples. Gay couples cannot produce children without extensive artificial intervention, and the children produced will not be biologically related to both of the members of the couple.

    The ultimate question is whether marriage is ultimately for the benefit of the adults or of the children. Society has stated unequivocally over time that it exists primarily for the children and for the perpetuation of society through children. That is why gay unions have never been equivalent to marriage throughout history; children are simply not part of the equation in the vast majority of gay couplings.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm - November 4, 2008

  32. NDT,
    “the children produced will not be biologically related to both of the members of the couple.” and “Society has stated unequivocally over time that it exists primarily for the children and for the perpetuation of society through children.”

    based on those statements, please clarify how children of blended families where stepparents step forward and become either primary or even adoptive parents are to be perceived? Are those children less likely to be of benefit to society?

    based on those statements, please clarify how children born to parents who do not marry or one of the parents is absent, either through abadonment, unwilling to accept parental responsibilities or through death, how are these children able to become valuable assets to society?

    and finally, if procreation is a standard of marriage, and the marriage results in divorce, how are those children to become valuable assets to society?

    it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.

    In fact, you do a large disservice to all families who are raising adoptive children, foster children and even children who were conceived through artificial insemination by insisting that procreation is a standard of marriage.

    and finally, with your idea of marriage including the standard of procreation, how will society acknowledge seniors seeking a second lifepartner because one or both persons lost there first love to an accident or early death?

    Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - November 4, 2008

  33. Better question, rusty; do you support the government encouraging people to divorce the other biological parent of their child and marry someone else? Do you support the government encouraging people to have children out of wedlock, or as a single parent?

    The fact that the government does not encourage any of those things does not mean those children are less valuable; it simply means that the adults in the relationship have decided to put their sexual and personal needs ahead of the children involved, and quite often to the child’s detriment.

    it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.

    Ah, but you see, rusty, you’ve argued that gay and lesbian people CAN’T raise children successfully without marriage. Will you now admit that gay and lesbian parents have been wholly unsuccessful and have in fact injured their children by bringing them into a situation where their parents are unmarried, or will you admit that gay and lesbian parents don’t need to be married to successfully raise children?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm - November 4, 2008

  34. Notice how rusty equates children’s value and benefit to society with whether or not the government encourages their parents’ behavior.

    Better question: why should government encourage people to divorce the biological parent of their children or to have children out of wedlock and as a single parent? All of those things have been shown to be detrimental to children; should the government encourage behavior that is detrimental to children out of the belief that adults should always be rewarded regardless of their choices?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - November 4, 2008

  35. it seems that you are doing a large disservice to all those GLBT families raising children quite successfully, be it those children were placed through adoption programs, foster care programs, were blended because of previous relationships or entered the family through artificial insemination.

    Isn’t it amusing to watch gays like rusty who insist that gay marriage is necessary for gay couples to successfully raise children suddenly argue that gay couples are already raising children successfully WITHOUT marriage?

    Pick one. Either the lack of marriage is harmful for these children, which means that gay parents deliberately are putting children into a relationship that is harmful for children, or that marriage is irrelevant to whether or not gay couples can raise children successfully. No more using children as hostages.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:22 pm - November 4, 2008

  36. and finally, with your idea of marriage including the standard of procreation, how will society acknowledge seniors seeking a second lifepartner because one or both persons lost there first love to an accident or early death?

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the reason the first Arizona constitutional amendment didn’t pass was because it abolished domestic partnerships for older couples — who were AVOIDING getting married because doing so would increase their tax bill, jeopardize their pensions, and lower their Social Security.

    Society already penalizes older people who get married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:31 pm - November 4, 2008

  37. NDT, you’re the bloke insisting on the mandate of procreation as a standard of marriage. post 80.

    HDT, you need to defend the issue of divorce, blended families, etc. because you are stating that marriage is solely for the means of maintining society.

    gay folk are seeking marriage, for the personal reasons of declaring their committment to each other, seeking the benefits given to all married folk, and working on building their own families.

    Love makes a family. . .

    Comment by rusty — November 4, 2008 @ 2:39 pm - November 4, 2008

  38. “LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hating”.”

    NDT you are shameless and/or stupid, you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics.

    Comment by brendan — November 4, 2008 @ 2:42 pm - November 4, 2008

  39. NDT, you’re the bloke insisting on the mandate of procreation as a standard of marriage. post 80.

    Actually, no; I’m the person pointing out that the capability of procreation makes opposite-sex marriage distinctly different and more beneficial for society than same-sex couplings.

    Divorce and blended families are like putting wallpaper over a hole in sheetrock; it covers the hole adequately, but it is not a substitute for a solid and permanent wall, nor should it be considered as equal to one. It should be seen as what it is, which is trying to make the best of a bad situation. No one should ever deliberately set out to divorce and remarry, nor should the government encourage it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - November 4, 2008

  40. Again, brendan, the irony.

    you reference a quote where I equated calling someoen self-hating with the lack of anyone on this site expressing any concern about some of the vile things commentors have said about anyone who does not share their politics

    But then:

    Instead of admitting it, the fact that I don’t say something is now your proof.

    So in other words, you can use the lack of saying something as “proof”, but no one else can. Furthermore, you can claim that the lack of saying something is equivalent to hateful speech, while insisting that your lack of saying something is not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm - November 4, 2008

  41. LOL…Pat, brendan has been playing this whining game for years, even being so foolish as to whine about namecalling in the same thread as where he calls rightwingprof “self-hating”.

    Actually, NDT, I was referring to your slander of Mac. It’s bad enough that people (on both sides here) feel the need to name call. But I would hope that you could admit that the slander in post 52 was way over the line.

    Comment by Pat — November 4, 2008 @ 6:50 pm - November 4, 2008

  42. Actually, NDT, I was referring to your slander of Mac.

    If you’re referring to his namecalling of V the K, that’s in post 36; if you’re referring to his support of calling his fellow Marines murderers, baby-killers, and “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, that is in post 17 and 18 and again in 58 and 59.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - November 4, 2008

  43. No, NDT, reread my post. I was referring to your slander in post 52 (the part of the quote you cut off). I read through the posts you referenced. NOWHERE did Mac say he supported calling his fellow Marines murderes, etc. In fact, he repeated that in no uncertain terms in post 54. Now do the right thing and apologize and beg forgiveness. Then cease and desist from slandering again.

    Comment by Pat — November 5, 2008 @ 7:53 am - November 5, 2008

  44. […] GayPatriot » Worst Vitriol against Gay Conservatives in 15 years (tags: election08 gayneocons gaypolitics politics) […]

    Pingback by links for 2008-11-12 « Brain Music — November 12, 2008 @ 4:04 pm - November 12, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.