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?

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.

– 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here’s one.

And here’s another.

And yet another.

Or this.

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.

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.

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

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.]

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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