A Challenge to Those who use the “self-hating” slur
For about as long as I have been out in gay circles as a conservative, I’ve been attacked by gay leftists for being self-hating. Or for being the equivalent of a Jewish Nazi. Or a black Klansman.
I find this insult most amusing because it was once directed at me by a guy who had confessed that he never held a date’s hand in public, something I do regularly I’m dating someone, having just a few weeks ago, walked hand-in-hand with a date from a restaurant on Sunset into the Arclight and to our seats. Heck, when I lived in Virginia, I even took a date to a Republican Christmas party, introducing him to the then-Republican Lt. Governor of the Commonwealth and his lovely wife (current in-laws to one of W’s daughters) as my boyfriend.
Reading the comments to Nick’s recent posts on Constance McMillen and my post on hospital visitation, many caught in the spam filter due to their vulgar content, I chanced upon many versions of the old slur. None of the folks leveling the accusation showed any indication they understood what American conservatism was (or what the GOP stood for), most of those also showing no understanding of the point Nick was making. They didn’t address the point in the post to which they attached their comment. They just attacked the man who wrote the post and the blog where he posted it – not to mention the members of the minority community within the gay community to which he belonged.
So, my challenge to those leveling the “self-hating” slur, explain yourself. Tell us exactly why you call us self-loathing individuals and do so with examples, not expletives.
147 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ugh. Your challenge Dan is more than valid. But it’s the moral equivalent of, say, daring an Islamist to justify Islamism. In both cases, the individuals have an irrational religion of hate. Even if they step up and write something, should you or anyone want to read it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 12:15 am - April 19, 2010
(and yes, I just suggested that the rabid gay leftists Dan is talking about are gripped by hatred and irrationality of Islamist proportions)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 12:19 am - April 19, 2010
@ILoveCapitalism: Since I already accused Nick, you were always my #2 choice for “Most Likely to be a Parodist”. You were #1, until Nick’s recent tirades.
Also, I was going to post a response to Daniel, but halfway through I said to myself “Why bother, he won’t believe a word of it” and deleted the whole thing. You’re so committed to ingratiating yourself to people who would really rather you weren’t around that you’ll never listen to anyone who tells you this. You’ve convinced yourself they’re the allies, and I’m the enemy. So they secretly love you, and I hate you, America, freedom, and all that is good. I pity you.
Comment by Serenity — April 19, 2010 @ 12:26 am - April 19, 2010
Serentiy: You’re not too bright, so frankly I don’t care what you have to say. Go rant at yourself in the mirror; it’s what you often do (without realizing it).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 12:27 am - April 19, 2010
You’re so committed to ingratiating yourself to people who would really rather you weren’t around that you’ll never listen to anyone who tells you this.
The funny part, Serenity, is that you whine about how much those people supposedly hate us — while you repeatedly insult and denigrate our intelligence, looks, relationships, careers, educations, and comments.
What makes you any better than them, then? Do you think we don’t realize the classic pattern of an abusive personality such as yourself, who tries to control and dominate others by claiming that everyone else hates them and that the only choice they have is to do what you say?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 12:37 am - April 19, 2010
NDT, what’s funny to me is Serenity’s mistaken assumptions about me (assuming I am included in its use of “you”). That, right there, illustrated Dan’s post.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 12:45 am - April 19, 2010
Serenity, please tell me why conservatives are not my allies, an idea implicit in your comment.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 1:21 am - April 19, 2010
I get the same attitude when I tell the average gay that I am Christian. Thing is they are missing a big point here. Is being a Republican about a set of ideals or about who else is in the group?
Is being a Christian about what you have faith in or about who is a member of your church?
Are they saying then that they have given over their faith, personal beliefs, perhaps their very soul, to a movement? Is there no room in this movement of diverse sexualities for an equally diverse pool of personalities? Or are we to be zombified copies of one another in everything we think and say?
Comment by NIck — April 19, 2010 @ 1:23 am - April 19, 2010
Hmmm. Perhaps you could explain why a hospital that would discriminate against someone because of their sexuality is any different from a hospital that would discriminate against someone because of their race.
Or you could carry water for a political party that continues to define your sexuality as a disorder that should preclude you from adoption and the basic rights afforded to a heterosexual wedded couple whose love is no more or less authentic than what you would feel for a man all because of a fallacious appeal to tradition that would be inappropriate anyway in a society that maintains a secular government.
See: the previous post. Huckabee is a provincial twit who can’t think outside of meaningless aphorisms and hateful fundamentalist drivel that he glosses over with a folksy snake-oil charm. He is the sort of character who has fooled no one outside of a certain group of easily-led-astray Americans since the days of Mark Twain. But the writer of that post maintains that Huckabee is “likely a very good man.” Maybe you could explain why anybody whose favorite movie isn’t Red Dawn should take this blog seriously.
Comment by JoePo — April 19, 2010 @ 1:56 am - April 19, 2010
Wow, JoePo, you don’t make your point, but you do reveal your prejudices.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 3:17 am - April 19, 2010
And again, a challenge goes unanswered.
Perhaps Joe would like to explain how he feels about the former Vice Presidential candidate not being ‘comfortable’ around ‘those people?
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 6:49 am - April 19, 2010
Self-hating is what I would consider to be a “Betazoid accusation” — i.e., it’s a charge that can only reasonably be made by someone who has telepathic insight into other people’s mental state, and therefore tends to sound stupid coming from anyone else.
Comment by Throbert McGee — April 19, 2010 @ 9:45 am - April 19, 2010
I think it’s up to the individual to determine the level of his or her self-hatred. To that end, I suggest the following Gay Male Homosexual Man-Male’s Guide to Self-Hatred. It’s a version of “the nose knows,” except in this case, it is the no-no. And by no-no, I mean, of course: Special Man Area or Dude-Cooter. Does your no-no Clench or Relax when confronted with the following questions/situations? The more it clenches, the more you hate yourself.
1) 3 10 year-old girls call you fag in the mall. Clench (“How did they know I was gay?! They’re only 10!!”) or Relax (“They’re 10. I’m sure I can put something together to say that will stick with at least one of them for a few years.”)
2) An Effeminate Gay Man Approaches. Clench (deepen your voice and keep your distance) or Relax (Smile and nod appreciatively at his fashion sense).
3) Experimenting with Drag, in the Privacy of Your Own Home. Clench (“I am a boy and Mommy says boys don’t wear girl’s clothes!!”) or Relax (“I’m my own Mommy now!”)
4) Gang Shower. Clench (“somehow I know they’re going to think I’m gay in here!”) or Relax (“whoever invented the gang shower was definitely gay.”)
5) Your straight 20 year-old Marine nephew and his Marine friends are sitting around talking about manscaping their nether regions. Clench (cross your legs, scowl, and silently read a magazine) or Relax (join in and offer pointers).
6) Related, the word teabagging. Clench (“sexual slur!”) or Relax (“mmm, warm testicles”)
7) While blogging, you feel the need to demonstrate how comfortable you are with yourself by offering a blow-by-blow account of a public hand-holding experience with your boyfriend… in Hollywood! And you still take it as a point of pride that you “even” had the courage to introduce your boyfriend to Republicans! Clench (Doh!) or Relax (If someone’s still publicly rejoicing a commonplace occurrence as some kind of bold personal victory, it means they’re still struggling inside).
Comment by william — April 19, 2010 @ 10:06 am - April 19, 2010
In the spirit of reconciliation, I will join with william to announce my support for well-groomed Marines. Huzzah!
But seriously, I believe the elephant in the room is the so-called Queers for Palestine.
Now these are folks who are genuinely subsuming their individuality for the sake of a larger political movement. I think it’s demonstrably wrong-headed and actually counterproductive, but would relish the opportunity to debate them rather then simply assume they are self-hating frauds.
It’s that kind of intellectual laziness that will be the left’s Achilles Heel and is the major reason I personally moved from left to right in my college years.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 19, 2010 @ 10:22 am - April 19, 2010
I disagree. It can be inferred through evidence and examples. For example: Michael Moore is a rich white male American. Michael Moore’s movie efforts are all directed to putting down rich white male Americans. In other words, Michael Moore’s movie efforts are all directed to putting down what he himself is. He must hate himself.
The point is, it takes a rational process of cognition to infer self-hatred with any accuracy. You need evidence, reason, etc. And Dan’s more-rabid critics are missing it – hence his challenge for them to produce it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 10:38 am - April 19, 2010
William, that was actually kinda almost funny. Did you come up with that yourself, or borrow it from another website?
Regardless, it fails to answer Dan’s reasonable question in any way. You can set up any scenario with the “clench” / “relax” metric, but it tells you nothing. For instance:
(1) When you are walking through the mall, and you see a young Latino walking with his pants about down to his knees, do you “clench” (which means you’re a closet racists) or “relax” (he IS kind of hot, which makes you a pedophile).
(2) When you’re shopping with your gay friends and they want to go into Michael’s then Macy’s, do you “clench” (because you can’t interior decorate or even clothes shop because you have no fashion sense, which makes you a failed homosexual), or “relax” (oh snap!!!!!)
(3) When you ask a reasonable question to a group of people who desperately demand that you fit into their self centered world view and agree with them because of your sexual orientation, and they don’t respond in a thoughtful or insightful way but instead respond with snarkiness and vitriol, , do you “clench” (man, it’s so frustrating that no one on my opponents side can ever seem to respond in a thoughtful way), or “relax” (well, it’s just as I expected, as no one on my opponents side can ever seem to respond in a thoughtful way)….
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 19, 2010 @ 11:02 am - April 19, 2010
Yes, liberals need to drop the condescending attitude that assumes they are more intelligent and/or enlightened than a conservative. They fail to realize that being conservative is not synonymous with narrow-minded bigotry and racial/gay hatred.
Point in case, in Canada it is the Conservative party that touts gay rights. Seriously, gay marriage is really a conservative issue and one they should be promoting according to conservative ideology.
It is the religion that has taken over the Republican party and has hijacked the definition of what it means to be conservative in America.
Conservative is a political stand-point and inherently pro-gay by definition.
It is religious fundamentalists that are the enemy of gays, not conservatism in general.
However I will say that these points do not negate the fact that you hate yourself, Dan. Why else would you continue to argue with idiots? Where I am from we call that masochism.
Comment by NIck — April 19, 2010 @ 11:22 am - April 19, 2010
sf, what’s funny is that William inadvertently wrote in *support* of Dan, until his final couple points.
Take another look at his first 5-6 items. In each case, his “clench” is closer to how the gay leftist reacts. (Defensive, hypersensitive, infantile, etc.) His “relax” is closer to how the gay libertarian / conservative reacts. Heh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 11:25 am - April 19, 2010
Thanks, Sonic! I sort of liked yours, too. I was definitely a relaxer on the first one, but I was picturing him to be in his early 20’s. The second one, I half-clenched and half-relaxed because I love ogling all the weird crafts supplies at Michael’s, but I don’t have much fashion sense. The third one confused me because my quiz was jokey but actually in earnest! Whether or not you hate yourself, or to what degree, is a question you can most accurately answer by yourself. It’s between you and your no-no.
The writer of this post seems to know this, and it wasn’t at all inadvertent that I was agreeing with him, ILoveCapitalism (though you, by suggesting that know how another entire group of people might answer these very personal questions, seem to be disagreeing). Thus, he can ask his detractors to “back up their charges” until he’s blue in the face, but he’s never going to get to the bottom of this question until he completes the patented Gay Male Homosexual Man-Male’s Guide to Self-Hatred in the privacy of his own home!
And back to Michael’s for a second: they have a whole section on their website devoted to Doll Purses! http://www.michaels.com/art/online/displayProductPage?productNum=gc1246&channelid=
Comment by william — April 19, 2010 @ 11:50 am - April 19, 2010
You are self hating because:
1) You accept double standards. Eg:
Nick:
““lesbian girlfriend” (I use the quotes because, really. Call me an old stick-in-the-mud*, but are high-schoolers self-aware enough to realize they’re lesbians already? And even if so, are we encouraging kids that young to identify themselves sexually? What ever happened to the innocence and beauty of youth? Ugh, but anyway.) ”
It is ok for 18 yo’s to identify str8. But when they identify as gay or lesbian, they must be confused. Implicit suggestion here: being gay or lesbian is less preferable, so they must be confused.
2) You protect those who employ double standards. Eg:defense of the students and justification of their actions. Eg: “Constance was an ass so thats why she got excluded”
3) You b**** about those who challenge double standards. Eg: All this denigrating talk about Constance. Eg: Nick:
“She was totally unable to figure out that the entire school was in on the joke except her (and, apparently a couple “students with learning difficulties”)?
Hm… Seems to me, she’s exactly the sort of inquisitive, self-introspective, get-down-to-the-bottom-of-it, fact-checker and independent thinker that the gay Left is dying to recruit. Surely they’ll be glad to have her.”
Comment by todd — April 19, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - April 19, 2010
william, “Relax”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 12:24 pm - April 19, 2010
Dude, how do you do that? The Sonic-Mate wants to know.
Why would you know this…. Why…. Why…. The humanity!!!!!
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 19, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - April 19, 2010
So, 21 posts and we have more info on doll purses than ‘proof’ of ‘self loathing’.
Good to know
oh, and todd.
“1) You accept double standards. Eg:”
Events like FSF go on in clear violation of the law, and yet any attempt to condemn them are met with outrage
“2) You protect those who employ double standards.”
See President Obama, Tim Geithner, Kevin Jennings, et al.
“3) You b**** about those who challenge double standards.”
Attacks on Ward Connerly, Sarah Palin et al
Congratulations! You’ve just ‘proved’ the left is self loathing.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - April 19, 2010
You protect those who employ double standards. Eg:defense of the students and justification of their actions. Eg: “Constance was an ass so thats why she got excluded”
Notice the interesting inference there; because Constance claims to be a lesbian, her behavior is always and under every circumstance right.
This isn’t surprising. The gay left has claimed for years that any criticism of gay and lesbian peoples’ behavior is “homophobic” — with predictable results.
I would think that people who valued themselves would not need to defend people solely based on their sexual orientation. But when you’re like todd and your minority status is the only thing that gives you value, I guess we can understand why you would react in such a fashion.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 12:55 pm - April 19, 2010
Sonic-Mate! I don’t think it can happen at exactly the same time, but try it on your end (no pun intended!) and let me know. And if you are chuckling or even having a momentary smile with your question about Doll Purses, I will generously count that as a relax, since it was you who got us onto the subject of Michael’s in the first place, after all!! But if you grumble (#23), that’s a clench.
Comment by william — April 19, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - April 19, 2010
Actually william, that wasn’t a grumble, more amused that we have more info in here on doll purses than self loathing.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 1:11 pm - April 19, 2010
Dan, no one has suggested that you are self-loathing in respect to being open about your sexual orientation, which is the topic you adressed in this post.
What others have pointed out, repeatedly, is that the people with whom you identify politically are also very open in their belief that you are, and deserve to be, less-than-equal to them in terms of protection under the law. As a second-class citizen, you should not expect to enjoy the same legal protections and privileges the rest of us do.
I don’t find it surprising at all that you and some other gay and lesbian Americans identify with conservative ideology in regard to areas like economic and tax policy, foreign policy, national security, or any of a number of other issues.
But that doesn’t explain why you must also align yourself with the conservative majority’s disdain for equal treatment under the law for you and other gays and lesbians. It’s a bit disingenious at best to pretend that the “self-loathing” tag has been attached to you in an attempt to portray you as ashamed or less-than-open about your orientation, when you have repeatedly and openly written in support of less-than-equal treatment under the law for you and your cohort. That’s the self-loathing part, and it’s a pity that it has to be spelled out for you.
Because, certainly, there’s nothing that says you can’t agree with conservatives about everything else while still retaining the belief that you are just as deserving of the rights other citizens have. The only thing that gets in the way of that position, held by many gays and lesbians, is your desire to be in the in-crowd, because as we all know, dissent on any point does not equal popularity within the conservative ranks. You are tolerated in the ranks only because you agree that you deserve the second-class legal status assigned to you by the conservative movement, and you know that if you stepped out of line on that one, you’d no longer be tolerated.
That’s why people say you are self-loathing.
If you want to convincingly argue against the tag, you should explain why you cannot agree with conservatives on all other matters and remain a member of the movement in good standing while also asserting your right to equality under the law.
Good luck with that.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - April 19, 2010
But that doesn’t explain why you must also align yourself with the conservative majority’s disdain for equal treatment under the law for you and other gays and lesbians.
Unfortunately, we have a definition problem here.
To start, Jennifer, please state that there is an absolute “right” to marriage under the law and that anyone who is prevented from marrying that to which they are sexually attracted has been deprived of “equal protection” under the law.
Second, Jennifer, please cite the existing statute that states that heterosexuals may not be fired from their job on the basis of sexual orientation.
I’ll save you a step.
First, there are plenty of people who are prevented from marrying their preferred sexual partners under existing marriage law, yet no one seems to be arguing that this is a violation of their “equal protection”.
Second, there is no statute stating that heterosexual people may not be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation.
In short, you already have equal treatment under the law. You are required to meet the same standards for marrying as heterosexuals, and you have exactly the same protections from being fired from your job as do heterosexuals.
The problem is that you don’t want EQUAL treatment; you want SPECIAL treatment, in which you may ignore laws that are inconvenient for you sexually and have the government guarantee you a job based on your minority status.
Conservatives are about content of character, not minority status. Gays and lesbians like yourself prioritize minority status over the content of character.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 1:28 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer, you comment really makes no sense because you never once made referenceto anything I have written. Instead, your resort to the standard assumption about the way conservatives treat homosexuals. To wit, you write:
Please provide evidence to back up the point that if I “stepped out of line,” I would no longer be tolerated. And your point about my alleged agreement to “second-class legal status” (whatever that is).
I have been very explicit on this blog about my support for state recognition of same-sex civil unions–and for repeal of DADT, issues, alas, not part of the GOP agenda.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - April 19, 2010
The only thing that gets in the way of that position, held by many gays and lesbians, is your desire to be in the in-crowd, because as we all know, dissent on any point does not equal popularity within the conservative ranks.
Which is a fine example of projection, given what Jennifer and her fellow gay and lesbian community members endorse and support doing to gays who dissent on any point from them.
So little bullshit flinger Jennifer is trying to accuse conservatives of intolerance while she and her fellow “real” gays and lesbians are promoting and pushing this sort of thing about GPW.
Now, if little Jennifer were consistent, she would condemn this behavior. Furthermore, since she is obviously willing to come here and whine, she should be willing to go to those other blogs and condemn them in public.
Something tells me, though, that little Jennifer will put being part of the gay “in-crowd” first, lest she be subjected to the kind of abuse she supports her fellow gays and lesbians practicing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer, just to speed things along… could you please give Dan an example? Please name one politician or other person, with whom Dan identifies, who believes he should be less-than-equal.
Just as an example of trying to name an example, we know that Dan admires Ronald Reagan. But Reagan never believed gays should be second-class citizens; indeed, Reagan sided with gays against the Briggs initiative. So, perhaps you can name some other leader where it would be true both that (1) they think gays should be second class, and (2) Dan identifies with them. I can’t think of any.
Again, ???? Please speed things along, by providing Dan some specific example that you have in mind. As far as I know, Dan supports gays in the military, voted against Prop 8 in CA (thus *for* gay marriage), etc.
I’m not 100% sure what you meant there Jennifer, but it sounds like you are asserting your own, mistaken belief about conservatives. Why would it be Dan’s job to accept and explain that?
Fixed it for ya, Jennifer.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - April 19, 2010
NDT – First of all, I’m not gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I’m just a person for whom the argument that certain groups of people should be restricted from the legal benefits and protections other people enjoy just because certain people don’t want them to have those legal benefits and protections is a clearly hollow argument. It’s the same basic argument that was used for years to support segregation and Jim Crow.
Secondly, absent some show of legal harm – that is, physical or financial – that would accrue to a third party, there is no legal justification for saying that two people of the same sex can’t enter into what is essentially a domestic civil contract and enjoy its legal protections and benefits, the same as two people of opposite sexes can freely enter into. No legal basis for that whatsoever – it all flows back to “they shouldn’t be able to because I don’t like it” or “thinking about that makes me feel funny in my pants, so…no” or “I believe that God doesn’t like it so…no.” None of those are legally valid arguments.
But Dan supports all of them.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - April 19, 2010
Well, Dan, there was your somewhat concern-trollish dislike of the feds being able to mandate that the partners of gay patients be allowed to visit said patients while in the hospital. While I understand you like what the mandate accomplishes, you were a bit squishy on it coming in the form of a mandate, which was the only way it was going to happen.
As to your query about “Please provide evidence to back up the point that if I “stepped out of line,” I would no longer be tolerated,” I have to answer by asking that you name for me any gay or lesbian who is prominent and popular in conservative circles who promotes equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 2:16 pm - April 19, 2010
Mary Cheney.
Want any more?
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 2:19 pm - April 19, 2010
Mary isn’t the prominent Cheney in political circles – that’s good ol’ all-American hetero Liz Cheney. And of course, dad himself, Dick.
When’s the last time anyone saw Mary Cheney in public? And wasn’t her highest political calling something for gay outreach for Coors?
Try again.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer,
The issue with the XO about hospitals (as I see it) is that there are laws already on the books at the state level, requiring the visitation and accepting the rights of the people involved. POA, Living Will, DNR, etc. When someone breaks those laws is when the courts get involved (seperation of powers).
The Executive Order does nothing, says it does nothing, and yet is an overreach from the executive branch into the business of all Americans. The President doesn’t make law, and to rule by decree no matter if you agree with it or not is not a good trend.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - April 19, 2010
TL, nailed it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - April 19, 2010
I’d also point out Matthew Berry‘s warm welcome.
I do wonder, Dan believes in state recognition of same sex unions, which is where I stand. Other conservatives on the blog say they want the full M word. Yet, you can’t provide any examples of Dan being ostracized if he ‘steps out of line.’ As the accuser, the onerous is on you to provide proof.
(I’d also point to the warm reception GOProud recevied at CPAC) as more proof that one’s choice of bedmates doesn’t impact how you’re accepted.
NDT, you’re a little, overenthusiastic in your defense my friend. Try decaff.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - April 19, 2010
I just posted this on Sadly, No!–
Bear in mind that Dan doesn’t think he’s self-loathing because he’s not aware of FEELING that way. Like all the fine folks on the right, he probably “doesn’t believe in” analysis, psycho-therapy, or any other kind of therapy.
Recall Bush being asked at a press conference about what might have been his motivation for one thing or another, and his reply, “That’s Psychology 101.”
Ie, that’s addle-brained academic theory that has no real applicability to actual he-men and men of action and men of affairs and etc.
Membership in the right depends on the complete absence and abjuration of self-knowledge. They’re not only anti-intellectual, they’re anti-insight. And who can blame them? That way lie monsters.
One day, if he’s lucky, Dan will experience a single burning second of realization, that he’s shilling for people who OPENLY HATE HIM, his head will explode, he’ll stagger into therapy, and emerge a year later as an actual person. Or not.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful — April 19, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - April 19, 2010
Secondly, absent some show of legal harm – that is, physical or financial – that would accrue to a third party, there is no legal justification for saying that two people of the same sex can’t enter into what is essentially a domestic civil contract and enjoy its legal protections and benefits, the same as two people of opposite sexes can freely enter into.
Now, Jennifer, let’s demonstrate why you haven’t really thought through that argument.
Please cite how incestuous marriages harm a third party.
Please cite how adults marrying children harm a third party.
Please cite how people marrying animals harms a third party.
Please cite how people marrying multiple partners harms a third party.
Now, Jennifer, remember you cannot in any way express disgust or dislike for any of these. You must demonstrate CLEARLY how all of these cause physical or financial damage to a third party. Otherwise, you must support and endorse them.
The problem here, Jennifer, is that you are simply using gay people to attack conservatives. You, as is typical for the plantation mentality of the Obama Party, have no use for gays who refuse to obediently worship you as Massa.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - April 19, 2010
And the really funny thing about you, Jennifer, is that you seemingly don’t have anything to say about gays and lesbians who oppose equality when they’re giving money and endorsements to your Obama Party members who support marriage bans.
Now here’s a challenge. Why don’t you state that any person who says that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a “sacred bond” or says anything about God being involved is a homophobe who isn’t fit for government? Certainly you would support working against that individual and would condemn gays who support them, right?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - April 19, 2010
“Why don’t you state that any person who says that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is a “sacred bond” or says anything about God being involved is a homophobe who isn’t fit for government?”
Why don’t I state that? Because, I haven’t stated anything about religion other than “I believe God doesn’t want you to have equality under the law so you can’t have it” is not a legally valid argument.
Then again, I’m not the one in this discussion who seems to be unclear on the fact that there are two distinct recognitions of marriage – one by civil society, as evidenced in a marriage license and the many laws pertaining to marital rights and property, and the other, by private religious bodies, evinced in performing a church ritual. The latter has the right to determine who they will and will not allow to be married in their church or under the heading of their religious tradition. They do not have the right, however, to dictate which unions the law can certify and legitimize.
So it’s pretty unlikely that I would ever say anything about someone defining the type of marriage their church will allow as being only between a man and a woman as a “homophobe”, because that’s their private business. Were they to try to extrapolate that to a legal defense of unequal treatment under the law, I’d have to point out that their personal religious beliefs do not form a valid legal basis for denying equality to others.
As I’ve done here, now, again, because apparently you didn’t understand it the first time.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 3:01 pm - April 19, 2010
By the way, those private hospitals are free to continue to deny gay partners access to visiting their loved ones.
All they have to do is stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid funds.
It’s their choice. No iron boot on anyone’s neck there – if they think the freedom to deny people access to visiting their loved ones in the hospital, when all evidence suggests that such visits would be therapeutic and beneficial to the patient’s health and well-being, is really important, they can continue to deny access, without government funding.
Not a whole lot different when you get down to it than Wal-Mart being able to dictate to a manufacturer the specifications for a product. The manufacturer has the right to decline to comply with the request, and Wal-Mart has the right and the freedom to spend its money elsewhere.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 3:10 pm - April 19, 2010
The latter has the right to determine who they will and will not allow to be married in their church or under the heading of their religious tradition. They do not have the right, however, to dictate which unions the law can certify and legitimize.
Actually, they do.
Free exercise of religion, including the right to vote regardless of your religious beliefs, is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Thus, the members of these bodies may, with perfect right and exercising the voting franchise they are guaranteed, may act in concert to make and pass law in accordance with their religious beliefs.
You despise that fact, which is why you blather on about and attack religious beliefs. Our Founding Fathers were used to bigots like you, which is why they specifically wrote these protections into the Constitution. The hilarity is that you whine and scream about “constitutional rights”, while you openly support and endorse stripping people of their right to vote and make and enforce the laws they like because you dislike their religious beliefs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - April 19, 2010
All they have to do is stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid funds.
And Medicare and Medicaid patients.
So Jennifer, please state that you support and endorse hospitals and providers being able to turn away Medicare and Medicaid patients, and that you will vehemently oppose any attempt to force private hospitals to accept people with governmental health care insurance, especially those being pushed right now by your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party as infringing on freedom of choice.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 3:18 pm - April 19, 2010
I’ve never clenched since the first time. I think its easier to get laid when you relax. That said, I’m more happy being an independent than a democrat or republican. I can sit back and relax and watch the 2 parties destroy each other. Remember never clench always relax ; )
Comment by Name — April 19, 2010 @ 3:33 pm - April 19, 2010
You seem confused about how the law works, or is supposed to work, according to the constitution.
People have the right to vote for any nutty thing they want. The courts are however sworn to vacate laws that violate the constitution, and certainly those that strike at the bedrock concept of blind justice and equality under the law. So you’re free to believe it and vote for it, but not to enforce it, at least not constitutionally. This isn’t the first time that clearly unconstitutional bigotry has been allowed to control law, but history has a way of moving on and fixing things.
This is why James Madison, author of the bill of rights, blathered on so incessantly in the Federalist Papers about guarding against the “tyranny of the majority” in which the majority decides that some minority will have lesser rights and legal protections, simply because the majority doesn’t want the minority to have them. Madison was of the clear opinion that such was unconstitutional, which is why he fought so hard to include the bill of rights. Not that any of that will make any difference to your dumbassed opinion that private religious beliefs are a stronger foundation for law than a constitution spelling out that all are to be equal under law.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 3:34 pm - April 19, 2010
ND30,
Did you just compare gay marriage with:
1. Adultery
2. Pedophilia
3. Bestiality and
4. Polygamy
SRSLY, d00d – I don’t understand the argument at all – especially in the context of demonstrating a lack of self-hatred.
Comment by Dragon-King Wangchuck — April 19, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - April 19, 2010
Dan;
I counter your challenge with another: Please provide evidence that you have forcefully taken conservatives to task for DOMA, for linking homosexuality with pedophilia, for their psychotic claims that you homosexuals shouldn’t be school teachers or adopt children due the danger of you “indoctrinating” our poor children into your abominable lifestyle choice (their words), for using slurs (in the correct sense of the word) to describe you, and for generally just treating GLBT persons in a bigoted manner.
I realize that not all conservatives feel this way.
Gay marriage isn’t necessarily a right, however, the choice to marry the person of your choosing is yours alone. It is not my choice to make for anyone else, nor is it the choice of sanctimonious politicians. It becomes self-loathing when you know, as someone who claims to value choice and freedom, that allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do.
NDT: Ok, snottypants, how about YOU explain how allowing all persons (even teh gheys) to CHOOSE who is allowed to visit them in this hospital is infringing on anyone’s right to choose other than hospital administrators who have a personal axe to grind with scary gay people. Your argument is a colossal failure. You can’t use freedom of choice to defend taking away an individual’s freedom to choose. Think about it.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 3:41 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer,
This is the point of the arguement. I know polyamourous groups, one that has almost 10 years of time together. They don’t have a ‘right’ to Government recognition of their union. The State can set requirements for official recognition.
Blind men can’t meet the qualifications to get a driver’s license.
18 year olds can’t buy alcohol.
16 year olds can’t vote. (which is actually a right defined in the constitution, BTW)
Any single person can marry any other single person, subject to the restrictions put on them by the state. You don’t have a right to drive, you don’t have a right to drink and you don’t have a right to have the state recognize your union.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 4:10 pm - April 19, 2010
Are you kidding? That has got to be the dumbest argument I’ve seen in a year. Stripping people of the right to vote? Who is doing that? Why do you conservatives have such a hard time understanding that the “free exercise thereof” does NOT mean you get to impose your religious beliefs on others? Stop trying to reinterpret the Constitution to support your depraved hatred for GLBT people. Nobody cares what you think about homosexuals, and nobody cares what I think either. Once again, freedom of choice does not mean free to choose by your leave, or by your approval.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 4:14 pm - April 19, 2010
So here’s the thing – there is certainly a practical reason for preventing blind people from geting drivers licenses.
Is there something so inherently wrong about gay marriage that comparing it to blind drivers or the raft of garbage that ND30 pulled up is reasonable?
Comment by Dragon-King Wangchuck — April 19, 2010 @ 4:18 pm - April 19, 2010
You’re equating marriage between consenting adults to laws that set minimum age standards. Once the age of consent or responsible age is reached, then there are no further restrictions. Being unable to see well enough to drive safely is a public safety issue. Come on, now. I don’t see how this has anything to do with two consenting adults deciding to get married like any other couple.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 4:22 pm - April 19, 2010
TL, nails it again.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 4:27 pm - April 19, 2010
Another dumbassed attempt at defending bigotry.
The state can make a compelling case of potential harm in all of your cited cases: blind men driving would probably cause accidents which hurt themselves and other people; 18 year olds who drink alchohol are more likely statistically to have drunk-driving related accidents; 16 year olds are not mature enough to make determinations about responsible governance to be allowed to vote; also they are not of majority age which is how we define voting rights. Unless you think being deprived of the Jonas Brothers presidency is an unconscienable violation of freedom, all of those have a good legal basis for treating people differently vis a vis narrowly defined rights based on age and disability.
So, show the harm (physical or financial) that accrues from allowing two consenting adult same-sex partners to legally enter into a civil contract, and you might have an argument.
Right now, all you’ve got is the same old BS.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - April 19, 2010
Gay conservatives are like abused women who refuse to leave their monstrous husbands because they think things might get better.
Comment by ohjeez — April 19, 2010 @ 4:39 pm - April 19, 2010
Mr. Wonderful, you betray you ignorance almost as soon as you started typing. I have long had great respect for the psychoanalytic profession, indeed, am pursing a Ph.D in a graduate school that specializes in training analysts from a Jungian perspective and regularly attend lectures at seminars at LA’s Jung Institute.
Please provide evidence that I am shilling for people who openly hate me.
tsam, you’re responding to my post using the space this blog provides and instead of meeting my challenge offer me a challenge. ‘Nuff said?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 4:48 pm - April 19, 2010
umm.. just to clarify: there is NO “right to vote.” Read the constitution. It’s not there.
Comment by Richard — April 19, 2010 @ 4:50 pm - April 19, 2010
So you’re free to believe it and vote for it, but not to enforce it, at least not constitutionally.
LOL….so you are stating that voters have no right to amend the Constitution.
The idiocy of Jennifer and her ilk is that they deny the right of voters to amend their own constitution by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - April 19, 2010
If you see the right to marry the object of your desires as a fundamental right, then yes, there is nothing stopping followers of polygamy, incest, pedophillia, and beastiality from getting marriage licenses.
However, if receiving marriage licenses is viewed as a priviledge granted by the state, then that argument fails. I do feel that same-sex couples should be allowed to receive marriage licenses-if they truly are committed and faithful.
Gay conservatives are like abused women who refuse to leave their monstrous husbands because they think things might get better.
No, that would more accurately describe gay leftists who keep donating to and supporting the Democratic Party even after its politicians keep betraying them.
Comment by NYAlly — April 19, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - April 19, 2010
So, show the harm (physical or financial) that accrues from allowing two consenting adult same-sex partners to legally enter into a civil contract, and you might have an argument.
So Jennifer, again:
Please cite how incestuous marriages harm a third party.
Please cite how adults marrying children harm a third party.
Please cite how people marrying animals harms a third party.
Please cite how people marrying multiple partners harms a third party.
Now, Jennifer, remember you cannot in any way express disgust or dislike for any of these. You must demonstrate CLEARLY how all of these cause physical or financial damage to a third party. Otherwise, you must support and endorse them, or you’re a bigot.
There’s a much simpler answer. Marriage is not a right; it is a privilege that the government, at the behest of the voters, applies to those who are willing to abide by the standards involved. The voters have stated that they do not wish to extend that privilege.
Oddly enough, that works and applies equally to all of the examples mentioned.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 5:01 pm - April 19, 2010
NDT: Ok, snottypants, how about YOU explain how allowing all persons (even teh gheys) to CHOOSE who is allowed to visit them in this hospital is infringing on anyone’s right to choose other than hospital administrators who have a personal axe to grind with scary gay people.
You just answered your own question.
And you just added an amusing point; “equal protection”, unless you’re somebody I don’t like, in which case you’re not “equal”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 5:03 pm - April 19, 2010
I meant for that statement to meet your challenge (please forgive the lack of clarity). The point I was trying to make was that I feel that you in some ways defend the very conservatives who treat you like a broken animal.
I see no connection between this issue and other conservative values (fiscal policy, defense, etc.). Whether or not we agree on these issues is, I believe, irrelevant. I just cannot stand the way some very prominent conservatives treat gay people. As someone with whom conservatives can identify on most other issues, you have the best platform from which to effect change. You can help to prove that gay people are as “real” as Americans can get, and that there lies and hatred are unjustified and cruel.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 5:04 pm - April 19, 2010
tsam, you’ve leveled a charge against me. Now, defend it.
Please show how conservatives treat me like a broken animal. And please show how I defend such conservatives.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 5:12 pm - April 19, 2010
Heh, you’re funny. I didn’t say anything about not liking the hospital administrator. He or she is entitled to his or her beliefs. Do you think that the administrator has a right to deny others the right to visit with the person of their choosing? Is that what you’re saying? Seems like we have a question of whose rights are more important, don’t we. So tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that the hospital staff’s personal choice takes precedent over the the choice of the patient who is paying a hefty sum of money for the care. What else is a personal choice that one can make concerning hospital visitation? Religion? Nationality? Race? What you’re saying is that if it’s someone you don’t like, then it is ok.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - April 19, 2010
Looks as though only Jennifer actually tried to answer Dan’s request. But then she did so in a denial-kind-of-way. “Oh, Dan… no one calls you self-loathing. Pee-shaw, you are so paranoid!”
Wrong, Jennifer.
Secondly, why do we NEED a gay person to be outwardly comfortable among conservative circles? What does that prove? I’ve been to MANY GOP & conservative functions brandishing my GayPatriot moniker and all I’ve gotten are hugs and welcoming handshakes.
But, I say again, why do we NEED that anyway? The most supportive person in America on gay rights is actually Dick Cheney.
I think that says all you need to about how gays are welcomed by conservatives.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 19, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - April 19, 2010
tsam –
Do you get just as outraged when prominent liberals treat gays in a way that upset you?
How about President Obama who hangs out with anti-gay ministers?
How about President Clinton who signed two of the most anti-gay pieces of legislation in American history.
Are they both homophobes? They WOULD be if they had an “R” next to their names, wouldn’t they (in your book).
Comment by GayPatriot — April 19, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - April 19, 2010
#39 Mr. Wonderful: Your rant is so detached from reality, so replete with obvious projections of your issues and difficulties, that it’s practically psychotic. Thank you for adding humor to my day!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 5:43 pm - April 19, 2010
You’re gay, and yet you support a party who make absolutely no secret of the fact that, because you’re gay, they genuinely hate you personally, believe you to have less inherent worth than themselves, and actively desire legislation making that belief law, or preferably a part of the American Constitution itself.
THAT WASN’T SO HARD
God, you’re an idiot.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 5:44 pm - April 19, 2010
ILC, you have no idea what any of that means, do you? You’ve just heard dem liberals using dem fancy terms on other blogs, haven’t you?
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - April 19, 2010
If Dick Cheney, who wouldn’t risk having his gay daughter appear with the rest of the family onstage at his nominating conventions, is the most supportive person in the party for gay rights, then there’s virtually no support for gay rights in the party.
NDT, you don’t have to keep posting to convince people that you’re dull witted. The stuff about bestiality and incest is too stupid to even merit response. So, now go and crow about how you “won” the argument because you finally dragged it down to such a stupid level that the smart people couldn’t be bothered to waste their time in responding to your nonsense.
Although I will note how authoritarian all you conservative defenders of freedom are when it comes down to justifying bigotry. According to you folks, rights come from the government, not the other way around. That’s an odd (and hypocritical) twist to your usual take on things.
Comment by Jennifer — April 19, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - April 19, 2010
NYAlly: That’s my basic view. I would only add that the expectations and qualifications imposed on straights and gays, other than gender and whatever they may be, should be the same. Thanks for being out here!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - April 19, 2010
Put me down for a HELL YES to all three questions. In “my book” I would consider a true leader someone who had the guts to say that all consenting adults should be able to marry the person of his/her choosing. DADT was a disgrace. I’m with you on that one. Are they homophobes? I don’t know. I would call them chickens*** more than homophobes. I would call those who think that gay people shouldn’t be schoolteachers or daycare providers homophobes. I would say that stating that gay marriage will somehow lead to bestial marriage constitutes homophobia.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 5:48 pm - April 19, 2010
Nimrod, please provide evidence that the GOP hates me personally.
Thanks.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 5:56 pm - April 19, 2010
#70 Nimrod – You’re completely clueless and ignorant about me, as well as the matters we’re discussing, aren’t you? (Hint: Yes you are. LOL
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 5:59 pm - April 19, 2010
Nimrod?
Ok, how many quotes would like me to list? You’ve heard all of the same things I have. You know that hatred is out there. Don’t treat me like I’m stupid because you either choose to ignore the vicious lies that are spread about gay people or you just want to sidestep the fact that these things are said on a fairly regular basis, and that I can’t seem to find anything showing you returning fire.
Comment by tsam — April 19, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - April 19, 2010
Proposition 8.
That was even easier.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer missed my point, again. All those things are licensedby the state. Not rights. You and your partner(s) entering into a contract is a right under free association. Government recognition is a privilege.
NYAlly, well said. I prefer having a seperate institution (I call it ‘fred’) for same sex couples. It polls better (good for passage) and helps to make a seperate institution. I like words to not change
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - April 19, 2010
President Obama carried the state by how much? Proposition 8 was bipartisan. Try again.
Better still don’t. you’re embaressing yourself.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - April 19, 2010
Nimrod, please show how Prop 8 represents hating gay people personally.
As to the hatred out there, well, we see it right here in the comments of our critics. You guys do help make one of my points–though not the one addressed in this post.
Thanks.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - April 19, 2010
Jennifer: since you have probably been the most persistent here, I would like to re-post my question from before, which I believe you haven’t come close to answering:
I also had a second question:
Which you kinda-sorta answered, but it was pretty squishy:
So many things wrong with that – even on the level of basic facts – that one could have an entire blog thread to rip it down. So Jennifer, please see if you can offer something better. We know Dan supports gays in the military. We know that in 2008, Dan voted in favor of gay marriage in CA. Now can you come up with something better, some way in which Dan actually and truthfully supports gays being made second-class citizens? But that would only be a bonus to my first question (top of this comment).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:12 pm - April 19, 2010
Bullshit. Proposition 8 was Republican through and through and you know it. And it’s just one single example. Bush wanted to put it in the constitution. The vast majority of the Republican party considers you actually subhuman, you know this for a fact, and you’re nodding along because hey, at least they won’t raise your taxes. Yeah, I’m the one embarrassing myself. Not only can I spell “embarrassing” correctly, I’m not a pig blogging in favour of Danske cocking Slagterier.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 6:12 pm - April 19, 2010
Well, it mandates DENYING YOU THE SAME FUCKING RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU’RE GAY, but other than that oh come on like you needed me to tell you that. I could keep doing this all night and you could keep being obtuse but I can’t be arsed, we all know where it’s going to end: I’ll go to bed, you’ll claim victory.
I don’t hate you, Dan, I’m just baffled by you. You’re blogging in favour of a party who – you must know – actually hates you. It’s like some weird S&M thing.
Of course, I’m a heterosexual. Gays probably do hate you because you’re happily working for your own enemies. Benedict Arnold was smarter than you.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - April 19, 2010
P.S. Jennifer, the more I think about it, the more I love your word “squishy” (which I just took the liberty of borrowing) and your quote:
Folks, let’s think about what that really means. What Jennifer is really saying.
1) Jennifer concedes that Dan, in his intent/motives, is in fact PRO-GAY in this instance. Even pro-gay enough for her own liking. On the right side, so to speak.
2) BUT, because Dan dislikes or is “squishy” about government mandates, it doesn’t matter. He doesn’t get credit; in fact he is self-hating, yadda yadda.
In other words: THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE MANDATE. If you don’t like government mandates, you can’t be counted as part of the Brave New World of the glorious socialist-gay revolution.
That confirms something I’ve suspected about leftists (gay or otherwise) all along. They’re not in it for the stated policy goals (e.g., gay equality). They’re in it for the mandates. If the goal can be accomplished some other way, with no mandate – well that’s no fun!!
And by “in it for the mandates”, I mean: They are fascists-at-heart.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - April 19, 2010
(i.e. “der Wille zur Macht” etc.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - April 19, 2010
awww, isn’t Nimrod cute?
Quick Nimrod, which party imposed DADT?
Which party passed DOMA?
Which party had a vice presidental candidate who was uncomfortable around ‘those people’?
Now try to answer those like an adult, while explaining how a democrat dominated state got a ‘republican’ bill passed.
The fact that you’re reduced to insults and spelling errors show how weak your position is.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - April 19, 2010
Bullshit. Proposition 8 was Republican through and through and you know it.
Then explain Prop 8 winning (albeit narrowly) in Los Angeles County even as Obama won it by 69%.
And it’s just one single example. Bush wanted to put it in the constitution.
So did Harold Ford and Inez Tenenbaum, among other Democrats. Democrats which HRC’s leaders poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into.
Bush also signed a bill allowing same-sex partners to receive pension benefits and stated that he thought Mary Cheney would make a good mother, but you didn’t hear the gay left congratulating him for that.
Comment by NYAlly — April 19, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - April 19, 2010
TL: Nimrod, like many who are ignorant of CA politics and how Prop 8 was actually passed, doesn’t realize that it was Obama voters, i.e. Democrats, who passed it.
Among CA Asians and whites, Prop 8 lost by roughly four points. Among CA Latinos and blacks, is where it won. Among blacks, it won by something like forty points, if I remember correctly.
Now of those four groups – CA Asians, whites, Latinos and blacks – which are the most Democrat? Which had “historic” turnout in CA in 2008, in favor of the Dear Leader’s “historic” election? Just the facts, ma’am.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:34 pm - April 19, 2010
Does the fact that homophobes exist in the Democratic Party have any bearing at all on the fact that even more homophobes exist in the Republican Party, which Dan happily cheers on like a chicken blinking back tears of joy as it’s led to the tree stump? Does it? No, of course it doesn’t, it’s just a feeble attempt at deflection.
(And lol at attempting to blackwash DADT. Feeble and depressing though it was and is, at the time in was progress – at least you guys weren’t being denyed access to a career in the military for no reason other than your sexuality)
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 6:37 pm - April 19, 2010
To substantiate what I said – a link to the Prop 8 exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Democrat/Obama voters. 70% of CA’s unusually large African-American turnout for Obama that year voted for Prop 8. I hate racial categories and make nothing of that… except that Nimrod’s claim, “Proposition 8 was Republican through and through”, was just ignorant and screamed for correction.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - April 19, 2010
(And to keep the record clean, I hereby correct myself: Among CA Asians and whites, Prop 8 lost by two points. I regret stating it as “roughly four”.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 6:40 pm - April 19, 2010
I’m not reduced to insults, insults are my default. Because I’m a cunt. But at least I’m not a snivelling little wretch who’ll cozy up to people who actively believe me to be subhuman and will pass legislation writing that belief into law because at least they won’t raise my taxes or whatever your sorry collaborating ass uses for an excuse.
Comment by Nimrod Gently — April 19, 2010 @ 6:40 pm - April 19, 2010
But at least I’m not a snivelling little wretch who’ll cozy up to people who actively believe me to be subhuman and will pass legislation writing that belief into law because at least they won’t raise my taxes or whatever your sorry collaborating ass uses for an excuse.
Actually, yes you are.
You and your fellow gay liberals will support the Obama Party no matter what they do, and that link proves it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 6:56 pm - April 19, 2010
NDT, you don’t have to keep posting to convince people that you’re dull witted. The stuff about bestiality and incest is too stupid to even merit response. So, now go and crow about how you “won” the argument because you finally dragged it down to such a stupid level that the smart people couldn’t be bothered to waste their time in responding to your nonsense.
Actually, if you were smart, you wouldn’t have any trouble responding.
But instead, you threw a screaming fit like a three-year-old child.
Which, as you’ve demonstrated repeatedly, is about the extent of your intellectual capabilities.
No surprise. The Obama Party has no use for intelligent women, which is why liberal women are so often not.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - April 19, 2010
But at least I’m not a snivelling little wretch who’ll cozy up to people who actively believe me to be subhuman and will pass legislation writing that belief into law because at least they won’t raise my taxes or whatever your sorry collaborating ass uses for an excuse
John Kerry went around campaigning in support of state anti-marriage consitutional amendments in 2004. Gay leaders threw much larger amounts of money into his campaign than they did against the actual amendments themselves-and then had the audacity to complain that the anti-amendment campaigns were horribly underfunded.
Comment by NYAlly — April 19, 2010 @ 7:06 pm - April 19, 2010
Following on NYAlly #95 – Kerry in 2004 said:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 7:12 pm - April 19, 2010
[...] A Challenge to Those who use the “self-hating” slur [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » The Prejudices of Our Critics — April 19, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - April 19, 2010
North Dallas Thirty, I didnt say Constance’s behaviour is always and under every circumstance right. But she is right when she demands justice. I also didnt say minority status is the only thing that gives you value.
The_Livewire, I’m not even American.
Comment by todd — April 19, 2010 @ 7:47 pm - April 19, 2010
As a glutton for irony, how delighted I was to discover Gay Patriot! Sweet, delicious buffet portions!
Starting with the title, of course: because we know that all patriots are gay.
No, wait, all gays are patriotic…?
Ah yes: In the interest of “if A=B and if B=C it then follows that A=C”, or to translate: to be a patriot one must be conservative. My nephew, the card carrying member of the ACLU who is serving his fourth vacation in Iraq will be tickled to hear that.
Now that that’s out of the way, we learn that Mr. Blart has earned his Pink Badge of Courage by walking hand in hand with his date in public.
On Sunset Boulevard.
In Hollywood.
Yummmm…
Now if Mr. Blart would one day consider walking hand in hand with his date through a Tea Party picnic in Michigan, dude, I am so there. I would only recommend that he not extend his pinky as he sips his tea. Having read the Blart archives, I have learned that this would constitute an unfair provocation and any expletives hurled in the direction of the happy couple would be deserved.
But most enjoyable is following the comments as those who agree with Mr. Blart’s position on gay marriage are actually not agreeable to those who do not see a justifiable position for gay marriage yet ironically those are the Conservatives and agree with Mr. Blart except for Gay marriage and yet somehow those who agree in principal with Mr. Blart are not the good guys…
And Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Also! Either! Too!
Back to the subject at hand, I feel that the “self hating” label has become a meaningless bit of pop-psych. I am tempted to say that “gay conservative” is a term somewhat akin to “vegetarians for meat”, but only tempted, and I would suggest that we instead consider the term “Cognitive Dissonance” as this year’s “Self Hating”.
Thank you. I will now get back to Kissing Danger on the Lips by walking hand in hand with my boyfriend.
On Sunset Boulevard.
In Hollywood.
If I’m not back in a week send my diary to my mother.
Comment by Aldorossi — April 19, 2010 @ 8:03 pm - April 19, 2010
Your rant is so detached from reality, so replete with obvious projections of your issues and difficulties, that it’s practically psychotic. Thank you for adding humor to my day!
ILoveCapitalism: Please provide proof that my rant is detached from reality. Please provide proof that it is replete with obvious projections of my issues and difficulties. Please provide proof that you have the slightest knowledge of same. Please provide proof that I have added humor to your day.
Or, failing that, please provide proof that the right is not essentially anti-intellectual. I can’t wait to see which names you cite. “Oh yeah? Thomas Sowell!” Please cite Ayn Rand so that I, too, like Dan, can find something in this exchange “amusing.”
Comment by Mr. Wonderful — April 19, 2010 @ 8:19 pm - April 19, 2010
Man I love this blog. You’re a genius, Dan, and yet again you’ve taken in the liberal clowns with your brilliant parody of a selfhating gay conservative. They fall for it every time. I mean, it’s no surprise you fool the droolers on the right, but the lefties like to think they’re smart! Great work.
Comment by Dr Zen — April 19, 2010 @ 8:25 pm - April 19, 2010
Dan beat me to it: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/04/19/the-prejudices-of-our-critics/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - April 19, 2010
ILoveCapitalism: Please provide proof that my rant is detached from reality.
Because you fully support and endorse people who push bans on gay marriage and people who publicly criticize gay people as long as they belong to the correct political party and have the correct skin color.
So basically, you’re attacking other people for that which you freely do yourself.
Pretty detached from reality, that is.
By the way, are you and your fellow gay lefties ballsy enough to post a diatribe calling Hilary Rosen and the leadership of HRC “self-loathing gays” for what they did, or to call out Louis Farrakhan and the Obama Party that supports him?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 8:34 pm - April 19, 2010
You further provide proof from your own comments:
You are the one asserting, structurally and in essence, that the libertarian-conservative part of America is anti-intellectual. The burden is on you to do several things. Provide a definition of “intellectual”. Provide a definition of “anti-intellectual”. Then show positively, based on reason and evidence, that the libertarian-conservative part of America is *overwhelmingly* the latter (i.e. not just a few slanted / cherry-picked examples) the latter.
Were you not deeply detached from reality, Mr. Wonderful, you would know your burden. But instead, you imagine and assert that it is up to others to do your work for you and prove negatives for you (an impossible task). ROFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 8:38 pm - April 19, 2010
(#104 was to Mr. Wonderful’s nonsense)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 8:39 pm - April 19, 2010
todd,
What does not being an American have to do with using your ‘proof’ to show the left is self loathing? I don’t follow.
nimrod,
As so you are saying you have to work to have civil discourse. Now try to think and avoid the insults and obscenity and explain how we have ‘pro-gay’ legislation under Bush, but none under Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 9:25 pm - April 19, 2010
The_Livewire, I didnt say “the left” is self loathing, try to keep up.
Comment by todd — April 19, 2010 @ 9:30 pm - April 19, 2010
P.S. for Mr. Wonderful: I have noticed and will concede that libertarian-conservative intellectuals, while not anti-intellectual (i.e. not hating what they are – haha), are very much anti-bulls*t.
And to Left so-called “intellectuals”, people who are anti-bullsh*t will *feel* anti-intellectual. Because Left so-called “intellectuals” are, after all, so full of it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - April 19, 2010
Let’s see, shall we?
Defending calling Barney Frank a “fag”
Gay people shouldn’t be around children
Gays don’t deserve marriage because they are rude
What do I win?
Comment by Rusty Shackleford — April 19, 2010 @ 10:59 pm - April 19, 2010
Followed your first link Rusty and in that post, I never defended using that term to define the unhappy Mr. Frank.
Looks like you’re misrepresenting my ideas, finding things in them that I didn’t write.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - April 19, 2010
And I followed the second link and in that post, Dan never suggested that “Gay people shouldn’t be around children”.
The post does concede, in the course of partly criticizing and partly defending Kevin Jennings, that sexual exploiters, and their enablers, shouldn’t be around children. How very interesting that Rusty Shackleford would (mis)interpret that as “Gay people shouldn’t be around children”.
One is left to infer, in other words, that “gay” in his mind would equal what I just called “sexual exploiters, and their enablers”. Gee… Who’s really self-hating?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - April 19, 2010
Finally, I followed the third link and Dan never says nor implies that “Gays don’t deserve marriage because they are rude”. Dan does state (and defend) his own vote in *favor* of gay marriage, while also noting his personal discomfort with the hate and nastiness shown by some Prop 8 opponents.
Rusty, you’re 0 for 3 at representing the content of your links honestly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - April 19, 2010
Oh, this is entirely too easy.
Let’s see, shall we?
Defending calling Barney Frank a “fag”
Ah, I see; so it’s wrong to call a gay or lesbian person a “fag” or “faggot”.
Then I expect, Rusty, you’re going to march right over here and start yelling about how your fellow liberal gays Wayne Besen, Mike Airhart, and Evan Hurst are bad people for calling someone a “faggot”.
Apparently Nick is either too old and senile to remember the fact the started getting boners looking at the underpants ads in the Sears Catalog at age twelve, or he’s just so eaten up by guilt that he’s bought into the entire Religious Right garbage about sexual orientation that he actually thinks he chose to be a self-hating faggot at age 25.
Think you’ve got the guts, Rusty Shackleford? Or are you willing to prove yourself a hypocrite by saying nothing to those folks?
Gay people shouldn’t be around children
Well, duh, especially when gay and lesbian people support dressing them up as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair and when gay and lesbian “rights” organizations actively worked with pedophile groups to abolish age of consent laws.
Now, of course you can spin about that, but I say that gay-sex liberals should apply to themselves the same rule they apply to the Catholic Church; if one is a pedophile, they all must be pedophiles.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 19, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - April 19, 2010
I have no idea if you hate yourself, but you obviously aren’t too crazy about lesbian teenagers, other homosexuals in general or civil rights for homosexuals. So let’s see … if you have no respect for people of the same sexual orientation as yourself, you take pleasure in ridiculing them and you ally yourself with a political party at least partially dedicated to assuring that homosexuals receive no civil rights, no hate crimes protection, no legal recognition of their partnership status, and (in many cases) be subjected to extreme measures to either “cure” their innate sexuality or be exterminated entirely, I’d have to say you don’t demonstrate a ton of self love. You may, indeed, have found a way to manage to love yourself in spite of your homosexuality, but it doesn’t show much.
Comment by Kwach — April 19, 2010 @ 11:49 pm - April 19, 2010
ILC, thanks for taking the time to follow through. Given how wrong Rusty was on the first link, I didn’t see any purpose to show just how wrong he was on the final two as well.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 19, 2010 @ 11:53 pm - April 19, 2010
Kwach, please reference posts that I wrote where I show the attitudes you claim I have. Thanks.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2010 @ 12:03 am - April 20, 2010
And please do a much better job than Rusty – heh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2010 @ 12:11 am - April 20, 2010
Not surprisingly, Kwach is a Trig Troofer and Palin hater.
And someone who thinks that Republicans should, quote, “be living in concentration camps boiling their wingtips and wallpaper paste for food”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2010 @ 12:22 am - April 20, 2010
I’ve been called an America -hater/terrorist-enabler in the Bush years, and that was from pundits and the President.
Since Obama was elected I’ve been called a Socialist, a Marxist, a “cancer” from stars at Fox and a “fascist” from RW posters.
I think what you were called probably stinks but are you caring about anyone other than yourself?
Toughen up. Just a thought, fella.
Comment by Miss_Otis — April 20, 2010 @ 12:48 am - April 20, 2010
Miss_Otis, please point to the statements by then-President George W. Bush calling your an American hater.
That said, your third paragraph is well taken.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2010 @ 12:55 am - April 20, 2010
121 and counting. Like old times!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2010 @ 1:16 am - April 20, 2010
Openly gay prisoners deserve to be raped.
Comment by Rusty Shackleford — April 20, 2010 @ 3:03 am - April 20, 2010
Rusty Shackleford – Are you lying intentionally? Or are you just not reading the Dan’s pieces first, and hoping no one will notice?
Because once again you really, really, really screwed it up. Here’s what Dan actually said:
Reading, Rusty. It’s called… reading. And being honest. Do try it sometime.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 20, 2010 @ 3:08 am - April 20, 2010
@110,
Since I’m feeling totes generous this early morning, I will give you the rdiculous notion that you weren’t defending folks calling Barney Frank a fag in Rusty’s first link post. However, the fact that you’ve responded the way you have indicates that you somehow feel that calling Barney Frank a fag isn’t appropriate, and that that sort of behaviour should not be defended. That’s good, it’s nice to have reasonable terms of reference.
So in response to your challenge to find an example of hatred of gays amongst conservatives, I give you comment #113 of this very thread.
Comment by Dragon-King Wangchuck — April 20, 2010 @ 6:30 am - April 20, 2010
Does the fact that homophobes exist in the Democratic party (for which I only have marginally more love than the Republicans) negate the fact that the Republican party is even more homophobic, and every single anti-gay pronouncement they make is defended by the gay people who operate this blog? Does it?
And just to annoy you, fucking cunty bollocks shit and semprini.
Comment by Turkey Patriot — April 20, 2010 @ 7:02 am - April 20, 2010
But instead, you imagine and assert that it is up to others to do your work for you and prove negatives for you (an impossible task). ROFL
Perfect. In accusing me of “projecting,” you tell me what I “imagine.” And then lecture me on something that was obviously (to someone less enthralled with his own posturing) a parody. ROFL indeed.
Well, go be surprised. To paraphrase Nabokov, you can always depend on a libertarian for a fancy prose style.
Thanks, guys. Enjoy your life of “reason.”
Comment by Mr. Wonderful — April 20, 2010 @ 10:50 am - April 20, 2010
Dan, I think my comment just got spammed. It’s long, and I don’t want to retype it.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 20, 2010 @ 11:15 am - April 20, 2010
Sonic, I can’t seem to find it.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2010 @ 11:50 am - April 20, 2010
So in response to your challenge to find an example of hatred of gays amongst conservatives, I give you comment #113 of this very thread.
LOL…so being against pedophilia and child rape means you hate gay people? Is it so difficult for you and your friends at Sadly, No! to give up on child sex?
And by the way, “Dragon King”, feel free to march right over and blast Evan Hurst for calling gay people faggots.
That is, of course, if you’re actually opposed to calling people faggots. Otherwise, what seems obvious is that it’s perfectly OK to call people faggots and that you’re merely a whining hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - April 20, 2010
Yup.
Because if you won’t call it homophobic when Obama Party members do it, you’re merely being a complete and total hypocrite when you attack Republicans.
Either it’s homophobic or it’s not. If you refuse to call out your Obama Party’s behavior as homophobic, then clearly you don’t consider it homophobic.
Now, little boy, since you claim you would attack anyone who supports “homophobes”, why not attack your Obama Party for its support of Louis Farrakhan, and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals and HRC for their support of FMA supporters?
Then again, I’m asking too much. You can’t even condemn liberal gays who sexualize and use toddlers to pleasure themselves. If minority status outweighs even child rape, you and your friends like Evan Hurst and tintin are pretty sad individuals.
Is that why you support the Obama Party — because it also endorses and supports child rape?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 20, 2010 @ 12:06 pm - April 20, 2010
Crap. I’ll see if it’s cached somewhere.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 20, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - April 20, 2010
My comment went something like this.
I have a friend, a gay friend, Greg, whose family is Mormon. My friend and his partner of 14 years go on trips with the family. Celebrate Thanksgivings and Xmas’s together. The extended family knows that the son is gay, and that his friend is his partner, yet there is never a problem. Even though the Mom and Dad (he passed away a year ago) do not think that gays should be allowed to marry, based on their religious beliefs, my friends’ partner is in every way part of the family. My friend and his partner go to the Mormon church with the family on some holidays. They even sleep in the same room together when on out-of-town family outings. They do dinners together on Wednesdays – I go too.
The reason that I go to the dinners, and know so much about the in’s and out’s of the family situation, is that I am Greg’s partner of 14 years. Yes, his Mom and Dad gave money to support Prop 8. When prop 22 was on the ballot, they even gathered signatures for support. But I am still a part of the family. Was at the hospital supporting the family when Greg’s Dad was on his final days. Though I’m pretty much an agnostic, should I have been praying that his soul goes to hell for not agreeing with my wish to be able to marry?
(OK. That was WAY to melodramatic)
Does it disappoint me that my in-laws don’t think I should be able to marry their son, Hell Yes! But, unlike the Nimrod types, who from what I can tell base their opinions about those who supported prop 8, on nothing more that the skimpy details fed to the world by a lazy, tone deaf press, or by Andrew Sullivan, who I greatly respect but is also biased on this issue, I have actually had long respectful conversations with those whose convictions on this are polar opposite of mine.
Does my experience mean that there are no true homophobic Mormons, or other religious people, who are not truly repulsed by the mere thought of two guys or girl even touching each other? Egads no! And I noticed Nim glossed over the fact that a large number of ethnic religious folks also voted yes on Prop 8, which tipped the scales in its favor. Note that the press tip-toed their way through that without calling them derogatory names, even though the motives for voting “yes” were exactly the same. By yelling “bigots”, and “racists”, and “homophobes”, at your opponents at every turn, you end up looking no better than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. God, I miss the days of William Buckley and Noam Chomsky when they would go head to head. They fiercely disagreed with each other, but still showed great respect for one another.
PS. I didn’t make any headway in changing their minds. When religion is concerned, that’s next to impossible. OK. It is impossible! But we all walked away with a little more respect for each others POV. That can’t, and never will happen, as long as those on my side of the argument insist on blindly accusing everyone who disagrees with us as bigots and homophobes.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 20, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - April 20, 2010
That’s an elloquent post, Sonic.
One thing I love about the regulars on this blog. We may not agree on all things, but I respect, if not agree with the regulars more and more, for the most part.
though watching rusty pull a gillie is amusing too.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - April 20, 2010
I’d add that it looks like Nimrod has gone hunting for easier prey.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - April 20, 2010
I am often concerned that this blog – Gay Patriot – tends to always agree with Republicans, GOP, and now the Tea Party movement. There tends to always be a defense mechanism in place to defend actions of those on the right – whether they be pseudo-cons or real conservatives – for instance the recent defense of Huckabee’s beliefs.
While it is sad to see so many liberals believe & defend everything that the Democrats do, to see you folks do exactly the same only in the opposite direction, is just as sad.
Where are the moderate people? Where are those who are willing to question both sides? Where are those who TRULY do not care what party one belongs to but calls out wrong when it is wrong no matter what?
I do read here still because it is a different viewpoint than the majority that out there, but it’s really just the opposite. It would be nice to see more reality & opinions based upon what’s right is right what’s wrong is wrong, instead of right & left.
Comment by James Younce — April 20, 2010 @ 4:47 pm - April 20, 2010
James, does this make you feel any better? Or this?
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 20, 2010 @ 4:55 pm - April 20, 2010
Actually, I would like to see more stuff posted about… well… just stuff. Maybe walk away from politics from time to time. Like what Inst-P does.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 20, 2010 @ 5:08 pm - April 20, 2010
“Civil rights are civil rights. There are no persons who are not entitled to their civil rights. We have to recognize that we have a long way to go, but we have to go that way together.” – Civil rights pioneer Dorothy Height oh livewire, that is rusty with a little r.
Comment by rusty — April 20, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - April 20, 2010
Um, James Younce, if you think we defend everything Republicans do, you haven’t been reading our blog.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 20, 2010 @ 5:18 pm - April 20, 2010
And rusty, I’ll agree with you on that. I just think you confuse rights with priveleges.
Sonic, you want to see Dan post on something non political, watch this…
“I think Beowulf with Angelina Jolie was the most true telling of the legend on the big screen.”
sits back and waits for the Beorant
Comment by The_Livewire — April 20, 2010 @ 9:06 pm - April 20, 2010
Thanks LW . . . but ILC has ‘learned’ me well. I understand the priv vs right issue. I just think that ‘We have to recognize that we have a long way to go, but we have to go that way together.’
Comment by rusty — April 20, 2010 @ 9:56 pm - April 20, 2010
[...] the forty-eight hours (and then some) since I issued my challenge to those who tar us with the self-hating smear, not a single person has risen to meet it. Oh, yes, a few have offered screeds and called them [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » The malice of those who level the “self-hating” slur — April 21, 2010 @ 1:40 am - April 21, 2010
Sorry I missed this. I may be late to the game, but I just can’t resist.
Then why the qualifier? Oh, here’s why:
And this is rich:
But evidently they can make solid determinations that they’re gay, picking up older men in bus station restrooms is a great idea, being taught fisting by “responsible” adults who give them vinyl gloves is acceptable etc.etc.etc.
It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of comments claiming Repulbicans/Conservative “hate you”, “treat you like a broken animal”, “tolerate you” etc., but there’s not a single example or name provided. Zip. Zero. NADA. Alternatively several examples, including names, have been provided to clearly demonstrate the liberal left’s bigotry and homophobia.
One would think, if these ASSertions were true, it would be easy to provide examples and names.
The most amusing part of this thread is a Rusty Shackleford. For those not familiar with King of the Hill is the name the paranoid Dale Gribble uses so he can’t be tracked by Big Brother and “The System”. He actually stole the name from a guy he went to school with.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 21, 2010 @ 2:33 am - April 21, 2010
Sonicfrog – I’m not sure what those blogposts have to do with this blog?
B. Daniel Blatt – I read it through Google Reader, and agreed I don’t always read every article every day. But generally speaking, in my opinion, I find most articles support Republican/GOP/Tea Party, and I’ve not found anything supportive of anything the Democrats do. At the very least, it is slanted toward the “right”. I’ll keep reading for now to see how it goes – I’ve not found any other middle of the road blogs yet.
Comment by James Younce — April 21, 2010 @ 10:59 am - April 21, 2010
James–well, I don’t claim to be middle of the road, but I have praised (in general–at least these past 4 months or so) the president on DADT. And during W’s second term, we criticized the GOP regularly on spending.
Yes, we slant right, but we also define ourselves as conservative, so at least we’re consistent.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 21, 2010 @ 11:24 am - April 21, 2010
James. I was responding to this:
I was showing that there is at least one here. And, I can say with certainty, that of all the regulars (as opposed to “irregulars”) that comment here, I have the longest association with GP. Been here since April 2005. Do I disagree with Dan, or Bruce, or Nick on occasion? Yes, as they do sometimes with me.
Comment by Sonicfrog — April 21, 2010 @ 2:04 pm - April 21, 2010
SonicFrog & B. Daniel – thanks for the responses.
I’m just looking all over for the least amount of polarization. I can’t even find it in the Libertarian party. I’ve been a registered Libertarian for awhile, but while the platform seems beautiful, the candidates rarely live up to the platform. I’m figuring out, candidates seldom do regardless of party.
By the end of 2011, I’ll be a registered independent. My distrust of parties in general is growing to the same level as my distrust of the government.
Comment by James Younce — April 22, 2010 @ 12:35 pm - April 22, 2010