Gay Patriot Header Image

Tammy Bruce Takes Down Ryan Sorba

You just gotta love our Queen Conservative Diva (I created a new title).

From today’s Washington Post “Right Now” blog by Dave Weigel:

On Friday, I noted that anti-gay activist Ryan Sorba, in the process of angling for a role in a CNN documentary, challenged prominent gay conservative Tammy Bruce to a debate.

Let Tammy Bruce and/or Andrew Sullivan know that I am going to publicly challenge both to a debate soon!

Bruce, who as of last week leads the advisory board of the gay GOP group GOProud, responded to me (bolds mine):

I was amused by Ryan Sorba’s declaration that he would be soon calling for a debate between himself and either me or Andrew Sullivan. I have a better idea — I would suggest Sorba ‘debate’ Ted Haggard, Bob Allen or perhaps even George Alan Rekers. I think that might prove more interesting, and would certainly help shed some light on how hypocritical homophobic bigotry has been masquerading as an element of both Christianity and conservatism for far too long. Frankly, I do find it rather odd that homosexuality seems to be more on the minds of certain so-called religious conservatives than it is for most of my gay friends.

In the meantime, as the new chair of the Advisory Council of GOProud, I’m excited to be able to do further work promoting how authentically conservative ideals improve the quality of everyone’s lives, especially gays and other minorities. We are only truly free as individuals when we are able to make life choices that best suit us. That requires limited government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility. This is the conservative message I embrace, that compels the Tea Party movement, and will transform this nation on November 2nd.

Bruce, who appears frequently on Fox News, has quite a bit more credibility with conservatives than Sorba, whom even some gay marriage opponents consider needlessly abrasive. Hence, smack-downs like this.

HAHAHAHA.  Ryan Sorba — what a tool.  I’d pay to see this debate.  She’ll eat him alive.

By the way, can we PLEASE stop the notion that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  For crying out loud!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

49 Comments

  1. By the way, I get very confused when Tammy’s last name is used in print. I do a double-take each time….

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 10, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - May 10, 2010

  2. Yes, I would pay to see Bruce skewer the over-compensating Sorba as well. Self-rightous pillocks are so fun when they doom themselves.

    Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — May 10, 2010 @ 7:32 pm - May 10, 2010

  3. can we PLEASE stop the notion that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative

    Hear, hear.

    But pushing the notion “works” for certain people. It works for lefties, by reassuring them that if hypothetically there were a sane, good-hearted conservative, he would surely agree with them. And it works for Sorba, by reassuring him that if hypothetically there were a gay conservative, he would surely turn out like that human wreck, Andrew Sullivan.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2010 @ 7:42 pm - May 10, 2010

  4. (continued) So both sides there, lefties and Sorba, use the myth of “Andrew Sullivan, gay conservative” to reassure themselves of the correctness of their particular beliefs. And that works for Andrew.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2010 @ 7:44 pm - May 10, 2010

  5. Ugh, if there’s one thing more annoying that WaPo in general it’s their “Conservatives in the Mist” face-roller Dave Weigel.

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — May 10, 2010 @ 9:17 pm - May 10, 2010

  6. Can we PLEASE stop the notion that people who believe in mainstreaming homosexuality are conservative?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 10, 2010 @ 9:57 pm - May 10, 2010

  7. ILoveCapitalism,

    Your comment @ #3 was spot on. Well done! 🙂

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 10, 2010 @ 10:37 pm - May 10, 2010

  8. oooh Seane Anna, Ms Tammy B is a hoot. You should really listen to her. and you know what, alot of people tune into Tammy. and even though Ms Tammy is also pro-choice, she really would tip you over — and Seane -Anna, just take a little break and watch Ellen, you will laugh and actually you will stop being so irritable and crouchy.

    But, after Ms Bruce takes mr Sorba to task and rips him a new one, it would be interesting to see if Ms Bruce would be willing to take Rubio on his attendance of the Florida Family event, with bill wildmon. plus Rubios little push for the misguided measure to require pregnant woman to pay for an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

    maybe some of you wonderful FLoridians could attend the dinner in Orlando and check out the crowd as Rubio makes his speech

    TCG flowery speeches of superfluous flummery

    http://www.flfamily.org/uploadfile/2010upload/FFP-1002_Mailer_final.pdf

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 10, 2010

  9. Seana-Anna @ 6:

    Can we PLEASE stop the notion that people who believe in mainstreaming homosexuality are conservative?

    Now, this, Seana-Anna, hits on a matter I consider very important.

    The word conservative can mean quite a few different things in the political and philosophical realms. If by it you mean someone who is a reflexive (“knee-jerk,” if you will) supporter of the social status quo or status quo ante, then those who favor mainstreaming homosexuality aren’t conservatives.

    If, however, you mean someone who wants to conserve or preserve the countries founding values from the Left’s degradations, then no contradiction follows.

    This web log is interested in political conservatism as defined in the latter way.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 10, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 10, 2010

  10. Sorry TGC

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 10, 2010

  11. Rusty @ 8:

    Rubios little push for the misguided measure to require pregnant woman to pay for an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

    I fail to see just what’s so misguide about such a policy proposal.

    If we are going to permit women to engage in a “killing action” it hardly seems unreasonable to require them to take a good look at who or what they are going to kill.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 10, 2010 @ 10:46 pm - May 10, 2010

  12. My last post was misformated. My apologies. It should read as below:

    Rubios little push for the misguided measure to require pregnant woman to pay for an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

    I fail to see just what’s so misguide about such a policy proposal.

    If we are going to permit women to engage in a “killing action” it hardly seems unreasonable to require them to take a good look at who or what they are going to kill.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 10, 2010 @ 10:47 pm - May 10, 2010

  13. sure . . .why not, but better yet, how about posting the names of both the mother and father on some headstone with appopriate death certificates listing parents. the rest of the specifics can be worked out .

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - May 10, 2010

  14. but then again, it is always fun to hear these stories . . .

    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/the-evil-of-george-rekers

    Comment by rusty — May 10, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - May 10, 2010

  15. Sorry, rusty, but a gay and lesbian community that claims sex with underage children is normal, insists that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs constitutes an “educational experience”, and screams “homophobe” to intimidate social workers into ignoring child molestation by gays has no business pretending to care about children.

    The entertaining part is how blogs like the one you cited shriek about Rekers, but have nothing to say about the examples I just pointed out. For some reason, they just can’t seem to attack or condemn gay people who mistreat and molest children — which makes it obvious that their concern is not actually for childrens’ welfare, but in using children as hostages and human shields to attack other people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2010 @ 12:55 am - May 11, 2010

  16. Can we PLEASE stop the notion that people who believe in mainstreaming homosexuality are conservative?

    You know, Seane-Anna, there are several ways of looking at that statement.

    From the first direction, given that 95-plus percent of the population is heterosexual, homosexuality will never by any definition be “mainstream”.

    From the second direction, homosexuality, which has traditionally implied hatred of religion, supporting of leftist politics, irresponsibility, and promiscuity, could stand some serious mainstreaming — as in a sense of responsibility, fairness, and intelligence, rather than the view of life as one giant empty orgy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2010 @ 1:17 am - May 11, 2010

  17. Sorry TGC

    I should say that you are.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 11, 2010 @ 2:19 am - May 11, 2010

  18. Bravo!! ND30 @ 16.

    Comment by rodney — May 11, 2010 @ 7:14 am - May 11, 2010

  19. NDT (MISS RITA BEADS). . .since like you like to drag up tired old incidents over and over and over. . .here is something new for your next little tirade

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

    Comment by rusty — May 11, 2010 @ 8:02 am - May 11, 2010

  20. Self-rightous pillocks…

    God I love English vernacular!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 11, 2010 @ 11:17 am - May 11, 2010

  21. “The entertaining part is how blogs like the one you cited shriek about Rekers, but have nothing to say about the examples I just pointed out.”

    I was shrieking, ND30? Could you point out where? And actually, you’re quite wrong about me being silent on the question of sex with underage children. I campaign against that here:
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/protect-children-2

    As for your claim that homosexuality traditionally implies hatred of religion, that’s just your ignorance showing. If I denounce conservative Christians for telling lies, I am not hating all of religion or even all of Christianity. It’s a mark of terrible arrogance to think that criticism of your particular religion is equivalent to criticism of religion in general.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 11, 2010 @ 9:36 pm - May 11, 2010

  22. And actually, you’re quite wrong about me being silent on the question of sex with underage children.

    Oh, no one said you were silent on the topic, Rob; you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people do it too and therefore there’s no problem.

    What I said was this, quote:

    The entertaining part is how blogs like the one you cited shriek about Rekers, but have nothing to say about the examples I just pointed out.

    You see, Rob, condemning people who sexually molest children, regardless of their sexual orientation, is rather old hat among the heterosexual universe. Straight people don’t seem to have a problem with condemning straight organizations who claim that sex with underage children is normal. Indeed, a straight psychiatrist who claimed, as does John Kruse, that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to an adult sex fair constitutes an “educational experience” would find themselves at best ostracized and more than likely stripped of their license to practice. And frankly, I can’t imagine ANY circumstance under which a social worker would avoid investigating severe and persistent allegations of child abuse because they were frightened of being called “heterophobic”.

    In short, it’s no great trick to criticize heterosexuals who molest children; everyone does that. But then again, perhaps we’re asking too much of the gay and lesbian community. After all, it was all for supporting organizations that had sex with underage boys — for decades.

    And besides, criticizing the behavior of other gay and lesbian people might get you socially ostracized, and that is way more important than whether or not a kid gets molested, right?

    As for your claim that homosexuality traditionally implies hatred of religion, that’s just your ignorance showing.

    Or being well read.

    Apart from this man’s silly writings, I think he is perfectly right to link homosexuality with evolution – both phenomena pose a threat to religion, and by default, the place and fate of God and the soul. …..

    I think these people are crying for help – they are like little children who need an eternal supervising parent. Or slaves with Stockholm syndrome. The idea of their master not existing must petrify them. We need to reach out to these people, and show them, they can free themselves of their mind-mannacles, and stand up on their own two feet.

    So even though the gay and lesbian community is saying that homosexuality is hostile towards religion and insisting that people of religious faith are “little children” and “slaves with Stockholm syndrome”, there’s no hatred involved here. None at all. Move along and please repeat the talking points.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 1:09 am - May 12, 2010

  23. Sullivan is a Tory. Conservatives in the UK are slightly to the left of Democrats in the US.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 12, 2010 @ 8:34 am - May 12, 2010

  24. ND30: NAMBLA? You’re bringing up NAMBLA? Find me one good-sized gay organization that supports NAMBLA.

    As for your claim that you’re just being well-read when you say homosexuality leads to opposition in general, that’s just funny. You’re not well-read at all: You’re selectively read. You find one or two instances that back up your homophobia and ignore everything else.

    But that’s what closed-minded people do. They judge an entire community on the basis of one or two individuals and ignore all the rest. I’m sure you can point to straight people violently opposed to religion; does that mean heterosexuality is inherently opposed to religion?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 10:55 am - May 12, 2010

  25. ND30: Here’s where you actually libel me:

    “Oh, no one said you were silent on the topic, Rob; you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people [have sex with children] too and therefore there’s no problem.”

    You’re claiming I argued it’s no problem? NO PROBLEM? No, here’s what I said about sex with children in the video I showed you:

    “this disgusting crime”
    “abusers”
    “these disturbed people”
    “All these cases [by straight and gay perpetrators] are tragic”

    But I guess you ignored that because it didn’t fit your talking point about “the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals.” I’m not surprised you’re so flagrantly wrong about what I said. As ever, homophobia permits people to see only things that fit their preconceived notions, even if they’re not really there.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 11:01 am - May 12, 2010

  26. To ad insult to injury….

    NDT, the ILGA…. Really? Have you looked at their web site? It’s pretty and all, but is this what you consider the mainstream gay community? And look at the “about” page. They don’t even list the amount of members they have. On that page there is a picture of some members at a convention somewhere. That is probably half of all the members they have.

    ND30: NAMBLA? You’re bringing up NAMBLA? Find me one good-sized gay organization that supports NAMBLA.

    Sorry NDT, but I’m with Rob on this and I’m going to knock you on the head a bit with it. Your obsession with NAMBLA is kind of… well… Sorba-esque. You do bring this up all the time, whether the thread topic is about this or not. It seems in your world view, that if you’re not a Christian, and are a liberal gay, then you automatically side with the view that NAMBLA’s just fine. And then you find links to this group or that that has any, if even tenuous, connection to NAMBLA to prove your point, even though the commenter has no connection to the group what-so-ever, except for the happenstance that he or she is gay. It’s a guilt by association fallacy, which is not very effective, since the blogger in question, whether it be Rob or Levi, or Tano, or Gillie, so far has not been linked to any of the groups, except for the fact that they are liberal, possibly agnostic or – gasp – atheist, and gay.

    Again, sorry, I don’t mean any offense. But that is something that has been bugging me for the last three years or four years you’ve been commenting here, and I wanted to get it off my chest.

    There. It’s done.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 12, 2010 @ 11:45 am - May 12, 2010

  27. ND30: NAMBLA? You’re bringing up NAMBLA? Find me one good-sized gay organization that supports NAMBLA.

    I already did — the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

    I’m sure you can point to straight people violently opposed to religion; does that mean heterosexuality is inherently opposed to religion?

    No, because simply being heterosexual and opposed to religion does not mean that heterosexuality is inherently opposed to religion.

    However, what we clearly have in this case is a homosexual person stating flat-out that homosexuality is inherently opposed to religion.

    Apart from this man’s silly writings, I think he is perfectly right to link homosexuality with evolution – both phenomena pose a threat to religion, and by default, the place and fate of God and the soul.

    The problem here, Rob, is that once again, you simply aren’t able to confront directly the facts of what you and your fellow gay and lesbian liberals are saying. Instead, you try to spin, and people have realized that. They have recognized that gay and lesbian people like yourself never attack, condemn, or correct other gay and lesbian peoples’ behavior; you simply go after the messenger and claim that anyone who dares to criticize gay and lesbian peoples’ behavior is “homophobic”.

    With predictably tragic results.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - May 12, 2010

  28. “However, what we clearly have in this case is a homosexual person stating flat-out that homosexuality is inherently opposed to religion.”

    Oh, well, if one homosexual says it then all the others must agree. You really can’t see your own prejudice, can you?

    “They have recognized that gay and lesbian people like yourself never attack, condemn, or correct other gay and lesbian peoples’ behavior”

    And now you’re just making stuff up, and you believe it because it suits your own conservative talking point, even when there’s evidence to contradict you. For instance:
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/hating-hate-speech-laws
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/no-h8

    I notice you’ve dropped the whole vile lie about me saying “there’s no problem” with having sex with kids, but you’ve simply replaced that with other statements about me that also simply untrue.

    Are you willing to demonstrate your honesty and good faith by retracting those misrepresentations? All of them?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 12:40 pm - May 12, 2010

  29. And now to knock Rob.

    NDT is NOT homophobic. Considering that he’s gay, that would be a hard trick to pull off. Heavily biased in his defensiveness against any criticism of his faith… yes. But homophobic… NO.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 12, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - May 12, 2010

  30. Sorry NDT, but I’m with Rob on this and I’m going to knock you on the head a bit with it.

    Actually, Sonic, I think that statement illustrates the problem here.

    First, I think you know me well enough to understand that, if I respect a person’s opinion, I have no problem with them disagreeing with or criticizing me publicly. It is part of one’s growth and a sign of maturity to be able to accept criticism gracefully and constructively.

    Here’s the problem, though; for over a decade, the primary organization that purported to represent all gays and lesbians worldwide — to the UN, no less — not only had as one of its esteemed members an organization that promoted and endorsed pedophilia, but was openly advocating that age-of-consent laws were homophobic and a violation of “gay rights”.

    In short, by these statements, this organization, one of many, has deemed us guilty of supporting what they want based on the fact that we are homosexual like them, and “all homosexuals” support this.

    And for some reason, people like Rob have a real problem telling their fellow gays and lesbians to pound sand.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 1:04 pm - May 12, 2010

  31. Well, we already know that a gay person can be homophobic. But sonic, if you tell me he’s not, then I’ll take your word for it. But I do have to wonder then at his willingness to pick and choose quotes from individual gays and assign their beliefs to the gay population at large. I’m open to the idea that it’s not prejudice and homophobia, but then what is it?

    And ND30, I just gave you links where I told my fellow gays to “pound sand.” Yet you’re ignoring that. You also still haven’t retracted your statement that I believe “there’s no problem” with having sex with kids, even though I’ve pointed out my statements to the contrary.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - May 12, 2010

  32. Here’s the problem, though; for over a decade, the primary organization that purported to represent all gays and lesbians worldwide — to the UN, no less — not only had as one of its esteemed members an organization that promoted and endorsed pedophilia, but was openly advocating that age-of-consent laws were homophobic and a violation of “gay rights”.

    Dude…

    It’s the UN! Who takes them seriously anyway.

    In short, by these statements, this organization, one of many, has deemed us guilty of supporting what they want based on the fact that we are homosexual like them, and “all homosexuals” support this.

    Sorry, but this organization… who besides those who care to look for it actually even know it exists. Look at the comments on their home page. They average about two a day. Hell, I get more comments on my blog, and no one in the blogosphere knows I even exist! I don’t get this idea, that because someone is a liberal gay, that unless they actually specifically denounce organization or group X, then they tacitly support it. That is the same type of slander that is used to condemn all Christians based on the utterly stupid utterings of Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, or worse, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Church of Idiots.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 12, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - May 12, 2010

  33. Gotta go work now.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 12, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - May 12, 2010

  34. And now you’re just making stuff up, and you believe it because it suits your own conservative talking point, even when there’s evidence to contradict you.

    Really, Rob?

    Where do you condemn and correct the person who filed the hate speech case and the bigoted commission that ruled in their favor in your first example?

    Where do you condemn and correct gay and lesbian people who call others “haters” in your second?

    I notice you’ve dropped the whole vile lie about me saying “there’s no problem” with having sex with kids, but you’ve simply replaced that with other statements about me that also simply untrue.

    No, I have not dropped it.

    Because, Rob, you really don’t condemn gay and lesbian people who have sex with underage children.

    You practice the typical babbling of a leftist gay who’s cornered in “all sexual molestation of children is bad” — but refuse to actually apply that general rule.

    I’ve given you one example. John Kruse and Gary Beuschel. Out there telling people that taking toddlers dressed as sexual slaves to a sex fair to “show off” for adults is an “educational experience” and that anyone who is against them doing so is “close-minded”.

    Moreover, John Kruse is a psychiatrist, which means he is actually counseling people and patients with this kind of drivel.

    But then again, I also know what the problem is. Kruse and Beuschel are esteemed leaders of the gay and lesbian community, heavily active in Obama Party politics, with powerful friends, and heavily involved in anti-Proposition 8 campaigning.

    In other words, if you called them out for being supporters of child molestation, your life would be made miserable, and you would suffer the opprobium of the gay and lesbian community in LA.

    Again, it just makes your hypocrisy so blatantly obvious. You can, for example, whine and scream that sending children to Sunday school constitutes “child abuse”, but for some reason, you are perfectly OK with gay and lesbian psychiatrists advocating children being taken to sex fairs as “educational”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 1:21 pm - May 12, 2010

  35. I don’t think you and I can communicate ND30. I’ve told everyone who advocates hate speech laws against gays to go pound sand. That includes gays.

    I’ve told gay activists who throw around the term H8 to go pound sand.

    And as for this: ““Oh, no one said you were silent on the topic, Rob; you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people [have sex with children] too and therefore there’s no problem.”

    That’s just a vile lie. I’ve made it abundantly clear that I don’t believe “there’s no problem.”

    But you’re not interested in what I’m saying. You’re just want to talk about me “shrieking” “whining” and “screaming” with no regard to what’s actually been said.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 1:39 pm - May 12, 2010

  36. And I just noticed another hilarious example.

    But that’s what closed-minded people do.

    Yup, just like they also oppose taking children to sex fairs.

    Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.

    “Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.

    Or the other ten-dollar word in the gay and lesbian argument book.

    You find one or two instances that back up your homophobia and ignore everything else.

    As ever, homophobia permits people to see only things that fit their preconceived notions, even if they’re not really there.

    Which is the theory that child-molesting and sexually-harassing gays and lesbians use.

    In short, Rob, gays and lesbians will call you a homophobe if you prevent them from molesting children or demanding sex from their coworkers, and they will call you “close-minded” if you object to them dressing up children as sex slaves and taking them to a sex fair.

    So you calling me “close-minded” and “homophobic” is a bit like Louis Farrakhan calling someone a racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 1:49 pm - May 12, 2010

  37. I’ve told everyone who advocates hate speech laws against gays to go pound sand. That includes gays.

    Name one.

    I’ve told gay activists who throw around the term H8 to go pound sand.

    Name one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 1:57 pm - May 12, 2010

  38. Sure. Once you admit this was a vile lie:

    “you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people [have sex with children] too and therefore there’s no problem.”

    We need to get past that before I can believe it’s possible to have a rational exchange with you.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - May 12, 2010

  39. Sure. Once you admit this was a vile lie:

    Nope, sorry, Rob, we need a bit more than that.

    Now let’s walk through the steps here:

    — You claim to oppose child sexualization and molestation

    — You have claimed that you would speak out against any person who sexualized or molested children in any way

    — What Gary Beuschel and John Kruse engaged in by dressing their children as sexual slaves, taking them to a sex fair to “show off”, and then claiming that doing so was an “educational experience” and only opposed by “close-minded” people qualified as both

    Ergo, you should have zero problem publicly calling out and condemning John Kruse and Gary Beuschel by name for their behavior.

    And you will then in the process make it abundantly clear that you believe that such behavior is a problem and should be condemned.

    But, given your reluctance to name a single gay activist whose behavior you would condemn, it’s pretty obvious that you have a problem with actually naming and calling out gay people who engage in the behaviors that you claim to oppose.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 3:46 pm - May 12, 2010

  40. ND30, stick to the subject. No need to walk through a series of steps. You made this comment:

    “you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people [have sex with children] too and therefore there’s no problem.”

    Saying that someone sees “no problem” with adults having sex with children — that’s a serious accusation, probably one of the most serious accusations you can make in our society.

    And in this case, it’s frankly a lie. Let’s review. In the video I referred to earlier, this is what I said of pedophilia and pedophiliacs:

    “this disgusting crime”
    “abusers”
    “these disturbed people”
    “All these cases [by straight and gay perpetrators] are tragic”

    You can hear my voice saying these words. That’s a far cry from an attitude of “there’s no problem.” You’ve clearly lied about me, and in an especially vile way. I’m not going to move on until you’ve retracted this lie. Now you can post and post and post, but as long as you’re lying about me, you’re not going to get me to talk about your other concerns.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 4:13 pm - May 12, 2010

  41. so a little commentary on the infamous John and Gary:

    from the Arkansas Times back in march 2009
    When Gary and John send Christmas cards, pictures of two loving parents clowning with their kids, they resemble any other family in America, clowning with their own kids. These photos should be on billboards across the country. http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/streetjazz/2009/03/papa_and_daddy_and_babies_in_a.aspx

    But then we have NDT’s infamous and overused story of Gary and John,
    via Moonbattery way back in Oct 2007 On a tip from V the K.

    Posted by Van Helsing at October 2, 2007 7:10 AM

    Bonus off this site: Bug-chasing and gift-giving are very popular among the gay s&m crowd, so most of the fulsom street perverts will die horrible and premature deaths.

    Posted by: V the K at October 2, 2007 11:05 AM

    But yes NDT aka Miss Rita Beads, john and gary probably didn’t make a good decision in taking their daughters to an adult event. But like some have already pointed out. . .why cast a finger at the whole group for the actions of a couple or even a single person. but hey You go MISS Rita. would be nice though if you used something a little more current. but as Sonic noted you keep on the same track for up to 3 years or so. . .

    But let’s get back to this condemning thingy. . .so, I am still wondering if anyone will be pointing any fingers at someone like Rubio for his upcoming appearance at the Florida Family event, you know those Focus on the Family / Rekker’s folk who are highlighting not only Rubio but also Wildmon. Sounds like a job for SUPER TAMMY. after she’s done with Sorba.

    Oh SOnic Sorba -esque . . .too funny. . .way too funny

    Comment by rusty — May 12, 2010 @ 4:29 pm - May 12, 2010

  42. Saying that someone sees “no problem” with adults having sex with children — that’s a serious accusation, probably one of the most serious accusations you can make in our society.

    Indeed. And given your complete refusal to condemn or even to criticize a clear-cut example of gay and lesbian people sexualizing and promoting sex with children, it is a true accusation.

    By your own logic, your fellow gay and lesbian individuals John Kruse and Gary Beuschel are “disturbed people” and “abusers” who are perpetuating “tragic” and “disgusting” actions.

    But you simply cannot bring yourself to even say that publicly. Clearly it isn’t a problem for you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 4:41 pm - May 12, 2010

  43. You made this comment:

    “you did a fine job of putting forth the usual argument of gay and lesbian liberals, which is to claim that straight people [have sex with children] too and therefore there’s no problem.”

    Saying that someone sees “no problem” with adults having sex with children — that’s a serious accusation, probably one of the most serious accusations you can make in our society.

    And in this case, it’s frankly a lie. Let’s review. In the video I referred to earlier, this is what I said of pedophilia and pedophiliacs:

    “this disgusting crime”
    “abusers”
    “these disturbed people”
    “All these cases [by straight and gay perpetrators] are tragic”

    You can hear my voice saying these words. That’s a far cry from an attitude of “there’s no problem.” You’ve clearly lied about me, and in an especially vile way. I’m not going to move on until you’ve retracted this lie. Now you can post and post and post, but as long as you’re lying about me, you’re not going to get me to talk about your other concerns.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — May 12, 2010 @ 4:46 pm - May 12, 2010

  44. I’m not going to move on until you’ve retracted this lie.

    That’s fine. I don’t expect you to do so. I’m just going to post another example of gay and lesbian people molesting children, and watch you continue to complain rather than condemning their behavior.

    And rusty, promiscuous and unprotected sex DOES spread HIV, and HIV DOES lead to horrible and premature death.

    I know that acknowledging that is against the rules in the gay community, which is still trying to blame Ronald Reagan for HIV, but unfortunately, science has found a direct link between the two. You have to acknowledge that your own choices to have promiscuous and unprotected sex are what caused the AIDS epidemic and killed and maimed millions of people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 5:02 pm - May 12, 2010

  45. Fabulous MISS RITA – NDT. . .and from Steel Magnolias Clairee Belcher: Well, you know what they say: if you don’t have anything nice to say about anybody, come sit by me!

    But NDT you didn’t get to that condemening thingy about Rubio and his headlining event with the Florida Family event, with all the FOTF friends.

    But here is something nice. Love Laura Bush coming out on GAY Marriage please see Bruce’s kudos to Laura at GOPROUD.

    sidenote: yes — promiscuous and unprotected sex DOES spread HIV, and HIV DOES lead to horrible and premature death: having worked for years in HIV prevention, care and advocacy I am quite familiar with the scientific evidence.

    Comment by rusty — May 12, 2010 @ 5:47 pm - May 12, 2010

  46. But NDT you didn’t get to that condemening thingy about Rubio and his headlining event with the Florida Family event, with all the FOTF friends.

    What’s to condemn? I have no problem at all with Rubio going to that event. More power to him.

    sidenote: yes — promiscuous and unprotected sex DOES spread HIV, and HIV DOES lead to horrible and premature death: having worked for years in HIV prevention, care and advocacy I am quite familiar with the scientific evidence.

    But, being an Obama Party member and good gay, you obediently ignore it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - May 12, 2010

  47. thanks for the clarification on your stand about RUBIO. and not sure about your other links . But you go girl.

    Comment by rusty — May 12, 2010 @ 6:38 pm - May 12, 2010

  48. NDT, you just used the same story twice to try and prove your point.

    This kind of thing also happens in the straight community. We had one in Fresno a few years back. This time it was because the perp was the mother’s boyfriend. The father, who didn’t have custody because the mom had accused him of abuse, suspected the abuse of his son by the BF. But, because it was the mother of the child, the CPS did not really dig in to investigate until it was too late. More info here.

    I know you don’t think so, but a visitor might think you believe that gays DO do more of this kind of thing than straight people do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — May 12, 2010 @ 8:03 pm - May 12, 2010

  49. I know you don’t think so, but a visitor might think you believe that gays DO do more of this kind of thing than straight people do.

    That’s hard to say, Sonic.

    Do I think gays and lesbians are by virtue of their sexual orientation any more particularly likely to molest children? No.

    Do I think the gay and lesbian community is all too willing to turn a blind eye to gays and lesbians who molest children? Yes.

    Do I think the gay and lesbian community lacks the ability to socially police itself and criticize its members who engage in such behavior? Yes.

    Do I also think the gay and lesbian community glorifies promiscuity among and with the younger? Yes.

    What that adds up to is this; I don’t think that being gay means you are any more inherently likely to molest children, but it certainly is much more socially acceptable and protected in the gay and lesbian community than it is in the heterosexual one when you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - May 12, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.