GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Fred Phelps, Representative of the Democratic Party?

August 12, 2009 by GayPatriotWest

Peruse the left-wing web-sites and you’ll see them making much of the “mean signs” and associated right-wing extremists at the various protests against the Democratic health care overhaul.

Lately, they’ve been dwelling on gun-toting William Kostric who showed up outside the President’s “townhall” meeting yesterday in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, with Chris Matthews even inviting him onto his MSNBC show “Hardball.”  While conservatives denounce the guy as “nuts,” the left is determined to portray him as representative of the right.

Okay, fine, I’ll play that game.  If they believe that extremist is representative of the GOP, then anti-gay nutbag and Democrat Fred Phelps is representative of the President’s party.

There are kooks on both sides, but somehow all too many liberal pundits and left-wing bloggers see such nutcases as representative of the GOP (and conservatives in general), but as aberrations on the left.

Filed Under: Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance

Comments

  1. ILoveCapitalism says

    August 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm - August 12, 2009

    Fred Phelps, Representative of the Democratic Party?

    I read it in wiki, so it must be true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Democratic_Party

  2. Tano says

    August 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm - August 12, 2009

    I would point out to you though, that the guys was at your demonstration, and fit right in, in terms of his message. So your analogy would only work if you spotted Fred Phelps fitting into an Obama rally, or something like that.

    The left has a very long history of holding demonstrations, y’know. And the right has an equally long history of picking out the most nutzo person to show up at a lefty rally, and holding that person up as representative of the whole. In fact, that is Standard Operating Procedure at such events.

    So if you want to play the demonstration game, you gotta realize what the standard moves of your opponents are going to be. And since y’all were the opponents for so many years, you really should know the routine.

  3. V the K says

    August 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm - August 12, 2009

    If by “showed up at the meeting” you mean, was half a mile away, on private property… and if by “nuts” you mean was openly carrying in a state where open carry is completely legal…

  4. gillie says

    August 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm - August 12, 2009

    What fun! Let’s play

    I give you Timothy McVeigh – (much less of a stretch too)

    Your pick!

  5. GayPatriotWest says

    August 12, 2009 at 5:59 pm - August 12, 2009

    And no, Tano, these nutbags don’t fit into a Republican rally. Kostric apparently wanted more people to bring guns, none did.

    Says something about his sway, no?

  6. Geena says

    August 12, 2009 at 6:06 pm - August 12, 2009

    Considering Chris Matthews is a TV professional on every night, and Mr. Kostric is a media amateur; I would say Chris Matthews got his ass kicked.

    William Kostric had every much a right to hold a gun, as he had to hold that sign.

    William Kostric is a great American.

  7. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 7:44 pm - August 12, 2009

    In fact, that is Standard Operating Procedure at such events.

    I call bullshit. From liberal douchebag rallies that I’ve seen, there’s ALWAYS nuttier people who DON’T get highlighted at all. The ones that do are pretty tame by comparison to the rest. The Anarchists and other assorted POS you don’t really see that much of, except when they riot like in Seattle a few years back.

    What a lying sack of crap.

  8. Tano says

    August 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm - August 12, 2009

    ‘William Kostric is a great American.”

    And you see, this is the great danger. This is the trap that both your opponents, and the opportunistic nutjobs on your side are hoping for.

    The nutjob hopes to be noticed in the crowd. Your opponets gladly run to notice him and make him out to be the symbol of the movement and criticize him, and thus your movement. Then those on your side who don’t think these things through very clearly feel obligated to defend the nutjob, and so you end up effectively agreeing with your opponents that the nutjob is rightly seen as one of yours.

    Thats a very old and oft repeated story of how extremists manage to take over movements.
    Rationality can be so boring when the blood gets a-boilin’.

  9. The_Livewire says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm - August 12, 2009

    Keep whistling in the dark Tano.

    Keep hoping that the protests aren’t winning hearts and minds

    Keep pretending the White House is deleting mail

    Keep trying to ignore the real Astroturfers

    Keep trying to say the Right are the ones with Obama= Hitler posters when it’s the left

    Keep not challenging the lies of the administration.

    Reality won’t change no matter how much you try to pretend no one challenges your delusional ravings

    As for the left, lets not forget where Eric “Birth control in the water” Holder, Ezikiel “let the old die” Emmanuel, and Ruth Bader “I thought Roe v. Wade would take care of all the undesirables” Ginsberg sit. Along with Barack “Should my white granny get a hip? She’s going to die anyway” Obama.

  10. Swampfox says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm - August 12, 2009

    I am still waiting for the Black Panthers that took over a Philadelphia polling site to prosecuted. Do the Black Panthers and other black gangs come under the definition of an armed militia groups?

  11. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:26 pm - August 12, 2009

    The nutjob hopes to be noticed in the crowd.

    How? From what I understand, it’s not unusual for someone in NH to be carrying. Would you say someone wearing clean underwear “hopes to be noticed”?

  12. Tano says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:29 pm - August 12, 2009

    TGC,

    Well, perhaps it is just a matter of opinion. To my mind, carrying a firearm on your hip while carrying a sign that refers to the shedding of blood, at a demonstration, while the president is nearby – well,,,I guess I kinda see that as a bid for attention.
    To my mind it is slightly more provocative than wearing clean undies.
    But thats just my way of seeing things.

  13. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm - August 12, 2009

    while the president is nearby

    How nearby?

  14. V the K says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:43 pm - August 12, 2009

    Yeah, but to Tardo’s mind, a Democrat Congress that quadruples the Federal Deficit is fiscally responsible… so take his observations with an iceberg size grain of salt.

  15. Tano says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:45 pm - August 12, 2009

    I dont know exactly how nearby.
    Take the president out of it though. Gun on hip with angry threatening sign in big crowd.
    Clearly he was the only one, or else the story would have been different.
    Not normal behavior. Attention seeking behavior.

  16. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:46 pm - August 12, 2009

    Besides, I’m far more concerned the Ass Clown In Chief’s comment about getting a colonoscopy to check for prostate cancer. Instead, douchebag liberals like you and Chrissy Matthews are trying desperately to deflect attention onto said “nutjob” instead.

    You should be concerned too. There’s no more “Well, he has a hectic campaign schedule” excuses anymore.

  17. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm - August 12, 2009

    I dont know exactly how nearby.

    So how can you say “nearby” when you have no idea whether he was or not? I’m “nearby” Disney, but it’s still a 45 minute drive.

    Gun on hip with angry threatening sign in big crowd.

    What was “threatening” about it? It didn’t say “Check me out! I’m here to kill you, Obama!”

    Clearly he was the only one, or else the story would have been different.

    He was the only one or the only one the media focused on? With what degree of certainty can you say that he was the only one?

    Not normal behavior. Attention seeking behavior.

    If it’s normal to carry a gun in that town and it’s legal to do so, what’s not normal about it? If he carries his gun every day or even frequently, I’d say it’s “normal behavior”. By what standard do you make your assertion that it’s “not normal behavior”?

  18. V the K says

    August 12, 2009 at 10:29 pm - August 12, 2009

    Funny, a guy open-carrying a firearm in a state where it is legal to do so is a “nutjob.”

    A guy who built bombs to kill US soldiers and cops is a well-respected member of Chicago’s liberal “intelligentsia.”

    An anti-Semitic preacher screaming “G-d D-amn America” is a spiritual leader.

    A guy who advocated putting sterlization chemicals in the drinking water is a science advisor to the president.

    Weird criteria the left has for determing who’s a nutjob and who isn’t.

  19. Geena says

    August 12, 2009 at 10:31 pm - August 12, 2009

    Tano, now I think your goating people.

    “Not normal behavior. Attention seeking behavior.”

    It’s too foolish for openly gay people to give up an appearance of normal, attention seeking behavior as a standard for rational thinking and consideration of their ideas and beliefs.

  20. SoCalRobert says

    August 12, 2009 at 10:59 pm - August 12, 2009

    If we’re going to start comparing the outliers at protests, I suggest the libs take a look here:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/12/analysis-press-largely-ignored-incendiary-rhetoric-bush-protest/

  21. SoCalRobert says

    August 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm - August 12, 2009

    Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting little digest of some statements by mainstream Dems

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMzYmFkNmEwZjcxOGViNDE2YWNjNzBkM2Y3YzdjMjM=

    Talk about selective amnesia (would that be covered under Obamacare?).

  22. ThatGayConservative says

    August 12, 2009 at 11:22 pm - August 12, 2009

    Hmmm….

    Chanting “Bush is a terrorist!”, the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

    Nice. That’s the tolerant left for you. Oh, but we(?) only pick the “most nutzo” persons. I forgot.

    The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush’s motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president’s moving limousine.

    And the guy with the gun, what’shisname?, is “threatening”. That makes perfect sense.

    Where’s Tano?

  23. Sean A says

    August 13, 2009 at 12:01 am - August 13, 2009

    #18: Thanks for the reality check, V the K. Kostric was, by the way, exercising his right to bear arms, a right enshrined explicitly in our Constitution. Moreover, the very fact that Kostric most certainly had to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to obtain a concealed-carry permit from the state at all has dubious constitutional implications to begin with. But liberals (and many limp-di*k, so-called “conservatives”) instinctively see the exercise of Second Amendment rights as presumptive evidence of questionable sanity. Thus, he’s a “nutjob” for simply doing what the Constitution guarantees his right to do. Meanwhile, the same brainwashed, anti-intellectual zombies who support Obamacare premise their support on the erroneous idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to health insurance. Ann Coulter is right–liberals define “constitutional right” as “whatever liberals want.”

  24. Tano says

    August 13, 2009 at 12:39 am - August 13, 2009

    “Thus, he’s a “nutjob” for simply doing what the Constitution guarantees his right to do”

    ??????
    Aren’t almost all of the people that you would characterize as nutjobs simply doing things that the Constitution guarantees them the right to do – like engage in free speech? Since when does the Constitutional right to do something exempt you from being considered a nutjob for the way you do it?

    “the same brainwashed, anti-intellectual zombies who support Obamacare”

    Careful, you talking about half the population of the country. Ya know….the people.

    “premise their support on the erroneous idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to health insurance.”

    Obviously ridiculous. If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution. We could simply sue in court to institute universal health care, and the Supreme Court would mandate it. I havent heard that argument from anyone, and neither have you.

  25. Tano says

    August 13, 2009 at 12:45 am - August 13, 2009

    TGC,

    Sorry, but I don’t understand the logic of your comment. I stated that it is standard operating procedure for the right to focus on the real nutzos who show up at lefty demonstrations, instead of talking about the hundreds of thousands of average people who attend.

    And so you give us two examples of real nutzos who showed up at lefty demonstrations. Were you simply intending to agree with my point and forgot to say so explicitly?

  26. ThatGayConservative says

    August 13, 2009 at 12:50 am - August 13, 2009

    Careful, you talking about half the population of the country. Ya know….the people.

    Hey, thanks for answering my questions, dick. And what of the population of the country, ya know….the people who are telling Ass Clown in Chief to shove it up left? To Hell with ’em?

    If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution.

    And how about the fact that the Constitution does not grant the US government authority to run health care? Nor does it grant authority to the Ass Clown in Chief to take over private businesses and then put his cronies in charge. Nor does it grant authority to the Ass Clown in Chief to dictate how much people in the private sector get paid.

    Funny, isn’t it, how a man who wipes with the Constitution has the temerity to call himself a “Constituional scholar”.

  27. ThatGayConservative says

    August 13, 2009 at 12:52 am - August 13, 2009

    Were you simply intending to agree with my point and forgot to say so explicitly?

    If I’m not mistaken, I said your comment was bullshit and you lack the capacity to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

    Yep. I did say “bullshit”.

  28. Sean A says

    August 13, 2009 at 1:52 am - August 13, 2009

    #24: “Aren’t almost all of the people that you would characterize as nutjobs simply doing things that the Constitution guarantees them the right to do – like engage in free speech? Since when does the Constitutional right to do something exempt you from being considered a nutjob for the way you do it?”

    Where did I say that exercising a Constitutional right includes the right not to be considered a nutjob? I didn’t and I don’t believe that. Only liberals believe that their rights include insulation from ridicule for what they do and say. My point is that many liberals (not ALL, but many) would presumptively consider Kostric a nutjob by virtue of the fact he owns a gun at all. I just find it interesting because it further illustrates how far removed liberals are from what the Constitution actually says when they are engaged in debate about “rights,” entitlements, and/or simply what they personally want.

    “Careful, you talking about half the population of the country. Ya know….the people.”

    Careful? Why? People who support Obamacare ARE, in fact, brainwashed, anti-intellectual zombies. How else would you describe people who actually believe that government spending in the multi-trillions is going to make healthcare cheaper? It’s ludicrous. As for the “The People,” I have complete respect for the fact that Obama and the Democrats in Congress were properly elected to the positions they hold. I also respect the fact that it is their legal prerogative to enact Obama’s healthcare bill, even if only 1% of “The People” were in favor of it. But I refuse to (as you say) “be careful” with my criticisms of a bunch of ignorant dolts who voted for them or support the bill. Of course, I realize that makes me “un-American,” but unlike liberals, I don’t believe I’m exempt from criticism of my views. Obviously, you believe that supporters of Obamacare ARE.

    “Obviously ridiculous. If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution. We could simply sue in court to institute universal health care, and the Supreme Court would mandate it.”

    Oh, you’re right, Tano. Liberals would NEVER DREAM of filing a lawsuit and taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that they have a constitutional right to something that isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Yeah, Tano, that’s “obviously ridiculous.” I don’t know where I came up with such an outrageous suggestion. The very idea that liberals might fail to pass some vile, leftist legislation through their representatives and then try their luck with the courts is, I admit, completely absurd.

    And by the way, what exactly is a “crime against the Constitution”? Seriously, I’ve been practicing law for over a decade and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such a silly and pedestrian expression.

    “I havent heard that argument from anyone, and neither have you.”

    Ummmm, the fu*k you haven’t, Tano.

  29. thestraightaussie says

    August 13, 2009 at 5:07 am - August 13, 2009

    Sean has some good arguments. Perhaps we can start with Roe vs. Wade. That was the case taken to the Supreme Court with the sole intention of allowing abortion on demand. Then there is the Schiavo case. That was promoted by the most liberal types (even though some involved were Republican they were RINO liberals) were using the case to introduce euthanasia on demand, allowing relatives to pull the tube on people who were NOT DYING but who were a nuisance for one reason or another.

    That is just a start in your country. We have the same thing going on over here.

  30. The Livewire says

    August 13, 2009 at 6:46 am - August 13, 2009

    and again Tano rants. If carrying a gun so ‘close’ to the president is such a horrible crime, why do we parole people who try to kill the president?

  31. The Livewire says

    August 13, 2009 at 6:49 am - August 13, 2009

    Also as pointed out, the right sidelines the cooks that try to wrap conservatism around them (David Duke) The left puts them in Government and education.

  32. V the K says

    August 13, 2009 at 7:21 am - August 13, 2009

    Tardo logic: This guy had a gun, and he was in the same town as the president. Therefore, he was threatening to shoot the president.

    By that same logic, any man with a penis who’s within a half mile of the president is threatening to rape the president.

  33. ThatGayConservative says

    August 13, 2009 at 5:30 pm - August 13, 2009

    I just rememberred: I was about 12 feet away from Bush once. I had a S&W knife in my pocket. I must have been a “nutjob” threatening the President.

Categories

Archives