Gay Patriot Header Image

Bruce, you’re confusing me

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:54 am - February 19, 2010.
Filed under: Blogging

So, you’re at a gathering of conservatives . . . and . .

Folks couldn’t be nicer to a guy bearing a badge identifying himself as a gay blogger?!?!?

They give a standing ovation to a man who opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and favors repeal of Don’t Talk/Don’t Tell?!?!?

How could that be!?!?!?

I thought our critics told us conservatives don’t like homosexuals and that preventing any forward motion on gay issues was anathema to their agenda, such that they’d blackball anyone who paid so much as lip service to such issues.

You shouldn’t get me trying to unravel such riddles when I’m trying to take a break from blogging.

Share

36 Comments

  1. “Folks couldn’t be nice…”? Um…huh?

    Comment by PCR — February 19, 2010 @ 3:19 am - February 19, 2010

  2. Easy. The racist, sexist, bigot homophobes reside on the left. However, they do their damndest to convince everyone that they’re not and to manufacture bogeymen wherever possible to keep folks dependent.

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — February 19, 2010 @ 3:28 am - February 19, 2010

  3. “Standing Ovation”

    Did Cheney talk about those gay issues at CPAC? Did he talk about his failed war strategies? Did he talk about his desire to run budget deficits during economic expansion? Did he talk about his efforts to vastly expand the reach of governmental power? Did he talk about how he disgraced American servicemen/women by forcing them to torture?

    What exactly where you cheering?

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 6:22 am - February 19, 2010

  4. gillie,

    That was VP Dick Cheney on stage, not President Obama.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 19, 2010 @ 6:41 am - February 19, 2010

  5. You got it, Livewire. VP Chenye never apologized all around the world for the USA either

    Comment by PatriotMom — February 19, 2010 @ 7:39 am - February 19, 2010

  6. That’s great about Cheney. Yet let’s not gloss over the fact that there are many social cons who do actively work to marginalize gays socially and legally.

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DHzASGH2UQ

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119847

    Comment by John — February 19, 2010 @ 8:00 am - February 19, 2010

  7. Most people are nice.

    Comment by PatriotMom — February 19, 2010 @ 9:43 am - February 19, 2010

  8. gillie spewed…

    Did Cheney talk about those gay issues at CPAC? Did he talk about his failed war strategies? Did he talk about his desire to run budget deficits during economic expansion? Did he talk about his efforts to vastly expand the reach of governmental power? Did he talk about how he disgraced American servicemen/women by forcing them to torture?

    I swear to Christ, as miserable as this guy obviously is, I have NO idea how he can even manage to get out of bed in the morning…

    Comment by Eric Olsen — February 19, 2010 @ 9:56 am - February 19, 2010

  9. What exactly where you cheering?

    Take your pick, sweetie…

    1. That people have indeed paid attention to “the man behind the curtain,”
    2. That your worldview is about as relevant as a dog fart,
    3. That most Americans don’t enjoy living in the same cynical, embittered world you choose to inhabit,
    4. Mid-terms are a stone’s throw away,
    5. All of the above

    Comment by Eric Olsen — February 19, 2010 @ 9:59 am - February 19, 2010

  10. #9
    Great you are excited about your chances in 2010. I don’t blame you.

    But what about Dick Cheny were you cheering?

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 10:01 am - February 19, 2010

  11. Kudos Bruce and big cheers for Jimmy and Chris.

    Actually, a little disappointed that Bruce hasn’t had to do that snatchy, turn the head and snap off ‘Bitch’ to anyone. Nothing better than a ‘alexis/crystal’ scrap in public. But I do think that most of the folk at CPAC are professionals and good hearted people.

    It would be fun to hear of one of those awkward situations, like having Tony Perkins look up while in the restroom and then noticing GoPROUD folk are standing right next to him.

    But Dan, could you help clear up some confusion. You asked BobN, please identify the “rights” they are taking away’ in regards to what gay folk might be missing or might be fearful of being taken away.

    After watching Maggie and Sully and Nick the other day, what struck me the most is Maggie’s reference that ‘people are scared.’ In her case, her ‘people’ are scared of the disaster that gay marriage may bring.
    And Maggie is so gifted on playing on those fears and distorting those fears.

    But back to the more important area for clarification: What rights / privilieges / benefits are gay folk really seeking
    and do they really need to be seeking them?

    Why is it so important that Bruce and Jimmy and Christopher are being well received at CPAC?

    Why the hoopla over Cheney’s stand on DADT and gay marriage? Why all the hoopla if gay radicals really aren’t needing to ask for ‘rights’.

    Or is it just that many gay folk are acting with the same fear of the unknown, just like ‘Maggie’s Peeps’

    I know that folk want the legal protections offered to straight married folk and want the fed benefits that come with osm. i know that gays in the military want to serve without having to lie or omit. i know that gay folk would like an easier adoption process. i know that some gay folk face the possiblity of discrimination.

    but Dan what are the rights that might be, have been taken away, and what exactly would be the ‘level playing field’?Kudos Bruce and big cheers for Jimmy and Chris.

    Actually, a little disappointed that Bruce hasn’t had to do that snatchy, turn the head and snap off ‘Bitch’ to anyone. Nothing better than a ‘alexis/crystal’ scrap in public. But I do think that most of the folk at CPAC are professionals and good hearted people.

    It would be fun to hear of one of those awkward situations, like having Tony Perkins look up while in the restroom and then noticing GoPROUD folk are standing right next to him.

    But Dan, could you help clear up some confusion. You asked BobN, please identify the “rights” they are taking away’ in regards to what gay folk might be missing or might be fearful of being taken away.

    After watching Maggie and Sully and Nick the other day, what struck me the most is Maggie’s reference that ‘people are scared.’ In her case, her ‘people’ are scared of the disaster that gay marriage may bring.
    And Maggie is so gifted on playing on those fears and distorting those fears.

    But back to the more important area for clarification: What rights / privilieges / benefits are gay folk really seeking
    and do they really need to be seeking them?

    Why is it so important that Bruce and Jimmy and Christopher are being well received at CPAC?

    Why the hoopla over Cheney’s stand on DADT and gay marriage? Why all the hoopla if gay radicals really aren’t needing to ask for ‘rights’.

    Or is it just that many gay folk are acting with the same fear of the unknown, just like ‘Maggie’s Peeps’

    I know that folk want the legal protections offered to straight married folk and want the fed benefits that come with osm. i know that gays in the military want to serve without having to lie or omit. i know that gay folk would like an easier adoption process. i know that some gay folk face the possiblity of discrimination.

    but Dan what are the rights that might be, have been taken away, and what exactly would be the ‘level playing field’?

    Comment by rusty — February 19, 2010 @ 10:17 am - February 19, 2010

  12. I think Cheney is terrific.

    Romney/Cheney (as in Liz) for 2012

    Would love to see it.

    There are so many issues that need to be addressed. But quite frankly right now the economy and national security should trump all others.
    I am a gay woman in a 13 year partnership and see no reason to be married, however, would love the Domestic Partnerships that Cal has.

    I just know for a fact, that these Conservatives share my values in every area most important to me. The Dems of today like to create victims and exploit them for their votes and donations.

    Comment by Libertygal — February 19, 2010 @ 10:18 am - February 19, 2010

  13. oops sorry about the duplicate paste job

    Comment by rusty — February 19, 2010 @ 10:20 am - February 19, 2010

  14. But what about Dick Cheny were you cheering?

    Well, how about these little fun facts…

    • When it snows in Washington, Dick Cheney doesn’t put chains on his tires, but instead uses hippies.

    • Dick Cheney’s favorite snack? Souls.

    • Ants have the proportional strength of Dick Cheney.

    • For the past 32 years during his family’s Christmas dinner Dick Cheney has carved and served the turkey pardoned by the President at Thanksgiving.

    • In most places where West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil is pumped and sold, it is actually referred to by its more common name, “light, sweet Cheney.”

    • Dick Cheney was bitten by a radioactive spider in high school, imparting to the spider Cheney-like powers.

    • When a new senator places his hand on the book to be sworn in, very few realize it is actually the Necronomicon until Cheney laughs and tells them “you’re mine now”.

    • The only thing hard enough to cut Dick Cheney is Dick Cheney.

    • While on a sex-spree in a Tijuana [brothel], Dick Cheney used a live cougar as a condom… The bodycount was fourteen Mexican [hookers] and one cougar… In Tijuana, they refer to this as “The Night of the Sodomizing Cougar-Man.” Dick Cheney refers to it as “last Thursday.”

    • Bathes every night in the warm, viscous plasma of freshly killed Iraqi insurgents to keep his skin soft.

    • After turning down an offer from Mafia Don, Cheney woke up with a horse head in his bed one morning. He grabbed it, held it like a teddy bear, and went back to sleep.

    • It is widely believed that free-range chickens are far superior to captive ones, as they result in a more tender, juicy, healthful meal. Dick Cheney believes this too, but about homeless people.

    • Dick Cheney refuses to obey the First Law of Thermodynamics on principle.

    • Cheney’s birth weight was 12 pounds 7 ounces, but had to be revised to 6 pounds 11 ounces after circumcision.

    • Dick Cheney carries a leather bag filled with one tooth from the mouth of every man he’s murdered in cold blood. The bag is forty feet in diameter and weighs approximately six tons. When Harry Reid pisses him off, he just points to his Big Bag O’ Teeth and mouths out the words, “There’s still room.”

    • Dick Cheney blocked the filming of The Lord of the Rings for forty years, because he deemed Elves “too f***ing faggy.” Production could only begin once he was busy running for the Vice Presidency.

    • Dich Cheney’s measured, elegant speaking style belies the fact that he opens all Senate sessions with “Listen up, motherf***ers.”, and then throws a gavel at Barbara Boxer.

    • As CEO of Halliburton, executives from rival megacorporations would attempt to kill or capture Cheney to ransom him for Halliburton stocks. Cheney survived all 273 such attacks, his Wyoming ranch uses their skulls to mark his territory.

    • His snarl was formed at an early age. While breastfeeding, he’d tell his dad to “Back the f*** off.”

    • In a bow to conservationsists, Dick Cheney converted his SUV. It now runs on orphans. And puppies. And orphan puppies. Also, it gets 1 mpg city, 3 freeway. And he never leaves the city.

    • Doctors turn their head when Dick Cheney coughs.

    • Most people don’t know Cheney has a soft side. One time he executed a waiter at a resturant with a steak knife (the waiter was late coming with Dick’s steak sauce). Saddened by what he had done, Cheney wept openly for a full minute. Then he cut out the waiter’s heart and ate it, tears running down his cheeks.

    • In quatrain X 75, Nostradamus wrote: A horse-like man, the king he’ll rule – to take black gold in eastern soil – A name of chayne, fooler of fools – Anti-Christ to hats of foyle

    • To this day, John Edwards often wakes up screaming in the middle of the night, terrified that the last thing he’s going to hear before he dies is the words “Let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.”

    • Toughest part of George Bush’s job – convincing Cheney to give better justification in meetings with foreign dignitaries than “Because that’s just the f***in’ way I want it.”

    • As a youth, angrily denounced Pol Pot for “just phoning it in, sometimes.”

    • When Dick Cheney shaves in the morning he has to hold a loaded .44 to his head to keep from cutting his own throat.

    • Dick Cheney is so hard, he has a vestigal immune system.

    • Dick Cheney made the President and CEO of Lockheed Martin piss his pants at a demonstration flight of the F-22 by saying “this better rock, bitch”.

    • Dick Cheney used to write childrens’ stories under the pen name “H.P. Lovecraft.”

    • During a 1962 fraternity road trip Cheney attended a donkey show in a Tijuana nightclub. Today, as the “Shrine of the Weeping Burro,” it attracts over 3 million pilgrims annually.

    • Dick Cheney invented the sport of kitten-stapling, including both the height and span categories.

    • Cheney is in a secure bunker in an undisclosed location. Not for his protection, but for ours.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — February 19, 2010 @ 10:25 am - February 19, 2010

  15. #14
    Ah I see
    You don’t actually support Cheney.
    You simply worship the myth that you have created. Its clear now
    thns

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 10:52 am - February 19, 2010

  16. We see now how thoroughly embittered and sad gillie and his ilk are. Completely incapable of humor and optimism, he chooses to see a more pessimistic view of the world, on in which our “leaders” are the sole arbiters of fair play and progress.

    gillie, you’re a total douchebag, and why you insist upon polluting this site with such bullshit is beyond me. You are sad. You are without an independent solution, and as a result, have about as much to contribute to the discussion as an Acorn activist; blind to anything other than your sanctimony, you spit and hiss upon dissent. As such, you validate just about everything Conservatives see in you.

    What a sad, sad little man you are…

    Comment by Eric Olsen — February 19, 2010 @ 11:09 am - February 19, 2010

  17. Eric,

    You’re assuming he’s not an acorn activist…

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 19, 2010 @ 11:15 am - February 19, 2010

  18. Tiger Woods “Turning Japanese” Tiger pulls a Toyota. Wants to
    apologize to those who would buy the products he would like to keep
    endorsing.
    The Vapor’s Turning Japanese.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/02/tiger-woods-ninja-skills-today-he-will.html

    Comment by keyboard jockey — February 19, 2010 @ 11:17 am - February 19, 2010

  19. Thanks for the post Dan. I’ve honestly been surprised that I haven’t seen the “Free Trip To Idaho Gay Concentration Camps” booth yet here at CPAC too.

    I mean the gay left has been warning about this for 30 years.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 19, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - February 19, 2010

  20. gillie #3 asks about Cheney:

    Did Cheney talk about those gay issues at CPAC?

    Word for word he has out talked President Obama on gay issues. And on substance the results are: Cheney 1 ton; President Obama 1 gram.

    Did he talk about his failed war strategies?

    How can he talk about something that didn’t happen?

    Did he talk about his desire to run budget deficits during economic expansion?

    Naw, he just whined about not being able to blow holes in the bottom of the ship of state with titantic deficits and new entitlement programs during a depression, but Obama didn’t take him on board to join his full out assault on recovery and economic stability. According to the gillie way of seeing things, Obama really needs Cheney to help get us totally sunk.

    Did he talk about his efforts to vastly expand the reach of governmental power?

    Nope. Don’t brag about your trowel when the current administration is using a 100 ton per scoop goliath power grabber.

    Did he talk about how he disgraced American servicemen/women by forcing them to torture?

    Don’t know. But Obama tortures American servicemen/women by forcing them to stand behind him while he babbles about the futility of the military. Especially corpse men. I can think of no worse torture than a soldier having to endure the view of the backside of a Commander in Chief who hates what he stands for. No guts, no glory. Why can’t Obama muster the courage to about face and flip them the bird to their faces? H-m-m-m-m-m?

    there you go, gillie, this type of mindless game can be played by nearly anyone.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 19, 2010 @ 12:32 pm - February 19, 2010

  21. Bruce,
    The camps aren’t in Idaho but Florida:
    http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/381/170/

    Also, since you are there why don’t stop by FOF’s booth and tell them you don’t moo and ask why they are against domestic partnerships:
    http://www.citizenlink.org/sherman/

    Do some good, change some minds.

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 12:38 pm - February 19, 2010

  22. #3

    Ah I see
    You don’t actually hate Cheney.
    You simply hate the myth that the team-killing f*tard left created and you mindlessly believe like a good little lemming. Its clear now

    thns

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — February 19, 2010 @ 12:39 pm - February 19, 2010

  23. I bring out Dan’s comment again… “Sometimes, it seems the primary difference between conservatives and liberals in contemporary American politics is that whereas we wish to engage on the battlefield of ideas, they wish to play the politics of personal destruction.”

    I invite you to read some of the statements that the conservatives who participate on this blog have left.

    I mean, come on. You may dislike some of the people who post here, but they have said nothing – nothing – that is similar in venom to what you have left in response. This is the battleground of ideas? Calling someone a douchebag? This is discourse?

    Comment by Phil Holmes — February 19, 2010 @ 12:44 pm - February 19, 2010

  24. Helio I don’t remember Cheney as VP pushing to end Don’t ask Don’t tell? Do you?

    Also, I didn’t mention Obama once. But you sure projected a lot of your deep fears into your lil’ rant. Obviously your hatred of him consumes every thought you have, but I was asking what has Cheney done to deserve a standing O. All I get is jokes and insults.

    [GP Ed. Note: gillie, that is because you ARE a joke & insult.]

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 12:49 pm - February 19, 2010

  25. Readers Note:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/02/17/preferring-the-politics-of-personal-destruction-when-countering-a-resurgent-right/

    Comment by gillie — February 19, 2010 @ 1:08 pm - February 19, 2010

  26. gillie, I repeat:

    there you go, gillie, this type of mindless game can be played by nearly anyone.

    I thought I did a superior job of applying your logic and technique to commenting. Please don’t tell me you have no scintilla of seeing yourself as others endure you.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 19, 2010 @ 1:14 pm - February 19, 2010

  27. I mean, come on. You may dislike some of the people who post here, but they have said nothing – nothing – that is similar in venom to what you have left in response. This is the battleground of ideas? Calling someone a douchebag? This is discourse?

    Actually, Phil, you had your chance to condemn bad behavior from your side, and you ran away.

    Furthermore, this website has had the gay community try to outright destroy it for years. GayPatriot has had his employer harassed, his family harassed, and his name dragged through the mud since it started. GayPatriotWest has been called a kapo, a self-loather, a Jewish Nazi, and worse by you and your fellow liberals like gillie.

    What you continue to make obvious is that you do not oppose the behavior, only the political affiliation. And since you see nothing wrong with such behavior from your side and adamantly refuse to condemn it, your whining about namecalling is nothing more than the screaming of a little brat who is now receiving the same treatment that he has perpetuated on others for years.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - February 19, 2010

  28. And now, let’s just show what Phil and Gillie consider “discourse”.

    Here’s one.

    And here’s another.

    And yet another.

    Or this.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2010 @ 2:25 pm - February 19, 2010

  29. Years ago, when I was a personnel manager, I used to work with a former FBI agent who was on his post-retirement career as a corporate security manager. Every once and a while, an employee would try to cheat or embezzle, my friend would investigate, and I would be present during the interrogation. “It’s always the same, every time,” said my friend. “They always do the same thing: deny everything, and make countercharges.”

    I never said, at any time, that the left is not guilty of excesses. I will be happy to accept to condemn any behavior of the left – though I really don’t call myself a leftist, and in any event, no one on the left has empowered me to apologize for them, or would care if I DID apologize.

    All I have ever said is that this blog sets up a false dichotomy – it suggests that the right is squeaky clean and the left is dirty – and that is wrong. I pointed out the very lines that Dan wrote that posited such a false dichotomy – suggesting that conservatives engage on the battleground of ideas and that liberals engage in the politics of personal destruction. And all I did in my posts here in this thread was point out the EXACT evidence that anyone would need to verify my assertions.

    I am talking about the level of discourse HERE. It’s a lot worse, a lot lower, than you all like to believe, and it is hypocritical. I see NOTHING in the posts of the non-conservatives here in this thread that is anywhere near as venomous as the posts of the conservatives here.

    I am not talking about any other blog.

    Comment by Phil Holmes — February 19, 2010 @ 3:33 pm - February 19, 2010

  30. Phil,

    Please dispense with the “false dichotomy” abstraction and get to the point. (As one who has taught semantics and logic for a near zillion years, I assure you that pitching around jargon of the trade is no substitute for clear and precise thinking.)

    I am talking about the level of discourse HERE. It’s a lot worse, a lot lower, than you all like to believe, and it is hypocritical.

    The floor is yours. Link to the ten five most egregious examples that make your point.

    I see NOTHING in the posts of the non-conservatives here in this thread that is anywhere near as venomous as the posts of the conservatives here.

    Even though this statement which followed the first statement is a textbook example of “false dichotomy,” I will not shake that charge at you. I understand your meaning and the assumed shades of nuance you intend in spite of the fact that you wrote “nothing” in all caps. One might assume that your statement implies “no exceptions.” I am not making that charge, unless that is in fact the foolish meaning you intended and wish to stand by.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 19, 2010 @ 4:32 pm - February 19, 2010

  31. I never said, at any time, that the left is not guilty of excesses. I will be happy to accept to condemn any behavior of the left

    But, since you haven’t when given the opportunity either now or before, it is nicely demonstrated that that statement on your part is false.

    Since you refuse to criticize your fellow leftists and those who attack conservatives, Phil, your criticisms of the other commenters here are revealed as nothing more than gross hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2010 @ 4:47 pm - February 19, 2010

  32. OK, was not really looking for a lesson in semantics, and don’t really appreciate the superior attitude, to be honest. You’re just trying to divert attention from my point. I think the 99% of us who do not teach semantics thought my post was clear.

    Examples from this very thread of what I was talking about.

    “The racist, sexist, bigot homophobes reside on the left.”

    “I swear to Christ, as miserable as this guy obviously is, I have NO idea how he can even manage to get out of bed in the morning…”

    “That your worldview is about as relevant as a dog fart…That most Americans don’t enjoy living in the same cynical, embittered world you choose to inhabit…”

    “gillie, you’re a total douchebag, and why you insist upon polluting this site with such bullshit is beyond me. You are sad. You are without an independent solution, and as a result, have about as much to contribute to the discussion as an Acorn activist; blind to anything other than your sanctimony, you spit and hiss upon dissent. As such, you validate just about everything Conservatives see in you.”

    “You simply hate the myth that the team-killing f*tard left created and you mindlessly believe like a good little lemming.”

    These are not compelling examples of engaging in the battleground of ideas. The language is crude and the posts are filled with schoolyard taunts and labels.

    I don’t want to hear that the other side does it. I’m not talking about the other side. I was responding to Dan’s suggestion of a dichotomy between conservatives (“we engage on the battleground of ideas”) and liberals (“they engage in the politics of personal destruction”). I believe that dichotomy is false. That’s why I called it a false dichotomy. If I ever decide to get a Ph.D. in semantics, I’m sure I’ll know at that point the better phrase that I should use to describe what I still call a false dichotomy, and no, I don’t care to know what that proper term is.

    Good Lord. You’d think I was asking for your first-born.

    Comment by Phil Holmes — February 19, 2010 @ 5:13 pm - February 19, 2010

  33. [...] us up yet, so that means conservatives aren’t bigots after all!”  They’re also stupidly suggesting that because Dick Cheney got a standing ovation, that the wingnuts are somehow supportive of gays [...]

    Pingback by Truth Wins Out - "Who’s the Pansy at CPAC?" — February 19, 2010 @ 5:23 pm - February 19, 2010

  34. – it suggests that the right is squeaky clean and the left is dirty – and that is wrong.

    It doesn’t and Dan even told you so when you started complaining about it a few posts back. In other words, you’re lying.

    I am talking about the level of discourse HERE. It’s a lot worse, a lot lower, than you all like to believe, and it is hypocritical.

    We know that it is not, in fact, worse here because we’re very familiar with blogs like the KOSholes, HuffBlows and the DUmmies. We know about the “level of discourse” that’s common among them. We’re pretty tame by comparison.

    BUT, who is it here who has a problem? You. If you don’t like the “level of discourse”, there’s ass loads of other blogs which might appeal to you. Surely there’s several that will capitulate to your whining and bitching. And, of course, there’s always the option of starting a blog where you can have all the good “discourse” you want with yourself.

    Comment by ThatGayConservatives — February 19, 2010 @ 6:53 pm - February 19, 2010

  35. I don’t want to hear that the other side does it.

    And that’s not what you’re hearing. What you’re hearing is, “The other side does it and you don’t give a flying f*ck, so why are you throwing a fit over it here?”

    You tried repeating an old leftist canard, based in what can only be charitably described as bad hearsay, about “Bush operatives” claiming that McCain’s Bangladeshi granddaughter was in fact his illegitimate black child. But when you were shown clear evidence that Obama operatives not only claimed that Sarah Palin’s child was not hers and that she faked her pregnancy to cover for her daughter, but are still repeating it to this day, you not only punted, you flat refused to take the field for the second half.

    You won’t even recognize that as being the politics of personal destruction, but you come here and complain about other people? You could not make it more clear that liberals and Obama supporters like yourself think rules and proper decorum are things that apply to other people, not yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - February 19, 2010

  36. Phil, I was not engaging in a smack down. I will advise you again (uninvited, of course) that rather than engage in shop talk like “false dichotomy” or plain “dichotomy” you will always be better served by clear example. Academic terms are essentially useless and crap talk in common discourse. It is like wearing an ascot to a pick up basketball game.

    Let’s parse your irritation.

    “The racist, sexist, bigot homophobes reside on the left.” (#2 above)

    That is certainly not the standard conventional wisdom, is it? But, what is the conventional wisdom about where racists, sexist, and bigot homophobes reside? (No, I am not accusing YOU of anything.)

    “I swear to Christ, as miserable as this guy obviously is, I have NO idea how he can even manage to get out of bed in the morning…” (#8 above.)

    I agree that when you do not connect this with gillie’s diatribe, it is more than a bit harsh. But, since I know you appreciate context, I humbly suggest that gillie is either mentally challenged or a crude interloper intent on stirring up a stink. You can refresh your memory of his beefs at #3.

    “gillie, you’re a total douchebag, and why you insist upon polluting this site with such bullshit is beyond me. You are sad. You are without an independent solution, and as a result, have about as much to contribute to the discussion as an Acorn activist; blind to anything other than your sanctimony, you spit and hiss upon dissent. As such, you validate just about everything Conservatives see in you.” (#16)

    Poor gillie, he really does take his lumps. However, the first part of the post in #16 (which you omitted) is the premise which led to the conclusion and in that context, the commenter chose to castigate gillie. Here is the premise: We see now how thoroughly embittered and sad gillie and his ilk are. Completely incapable of humor and optimism, he chooses to see a more pessimistic view of the world, on in which our “leaders” are the sole arbiters of fair play and progress.I am not a fan of calling someone a douchebag, but the rest of the smack down is clear and precise as to why it was awarded. Would you agree? The commenter has taken his position.

    “You simply hate the myth that the team-killing f*tard left created and you mindlessly believe like a good little lemming.” (#22)

    Once again, context has been omitted: “Ah I see
    You don’t actually hate Cheney.”
    The commenter was trying to explain that rather than being consumed with hate, gillie is merely a blind ideologue.

    Now, it seems, we have to deal with the fact that all of this is an excessive, protective, primal scream to stop picking on gillie. So, it seems appropriate to parse gillie’s “contributions” at #3.

    Did Cheney talk about those gay issues at CPAC?

    I do not know. What is the point? Is DADT a required topic? How about amnesty for illegal aliens?

    Did he talk about his failed war strategies?

    Age old trap. Who says he had failed war policies. Have you stopped beating your lover?

    Did he talk about his desire to run budget deficits during economic expansion?

    Same as above. Where is the proof of “desire” to run deficits?

    Did he talk about his efforts to vastly expand the reach of governmental power?

    Evidence of efforts of vastly expanding government power?

    Did he talk about how he disgraced American servicemen/women by forcing them to torture?

    What torture? What force? what disgrace?

    Every aspect of this gillie comment is laughable. It is small, weaselly, and would not pass the the notice of the most dull jury.

    I do not know why you have so much outrage over gillie floating a turd in the punchbowl, but I find your protestations to be hysterical (literally) and without a sense of proportion.

    Could it be that you are gillie’s alter ego?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 19, 2010 @ 8:46 pm - February 19, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.