GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

HRC Silent when Union Activist Uses Anti-Gay Slur

by

Last November, on two successive days, HRC issued press releases (one each day) asking Sarah Palin (while attempting to demean her by calling her a “reality TV star”) to “come out against . . . anti-LGBT bullying” because her teenage daughter had used the slur “faggot” on Facebook.  Even after the teen deleted the offensive comment and her older sister apologized, HRC still called on the accomplished former governor (i.e. not the individual who used the term) to speak out.

HRC Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz even called Mrs. Palin’s parenting skills into question, “As a mother, she should know to speak up when a child makes hateful remarks”.  Yet, he has no clue what the charismatic conservative said to her daughter in private, only whining that she didn’t speak out in public.  That she removed the post suggests that either her parents asked her to remove it because they didn’t want their child using such language or, perhaps they had raised her well enough to realize, when her emotions had cooled, that she had spoken too harshly.

Since originally posting on this, we could come up with no evidence that HRC had ever asked a prominent Democrat to speak out when her child used offensive language.

Now, we’ve got a union protester using the same slur, and in circumstances which make its use far more troublesome than that of a teenager posting on Facebook.  Let me remind you of the facts:

At AFSCME’s “solidarity” rally in Providence, Rhode Island on Tuesday, a cameraman was accosted by a fuming pro-union protester. The cameraman had his back to the goon, who appears to accost him unprovoked. The goon screams:

“I’ll f**k you in the ass, you faggot.

This borders on assault, with the adult using hateful words actually threatening an individual. HRC has not called on AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee to speak out against such hurtful language, particularly given his minion’s obvious use of the term to demean, in a context clearly suggesting that homosexuality is an inferior status. And HRC is more ideologically in sync with AFSCME than it is with Mrs. Palin, having joined them in endorsing the One Nation, Working Together rally last October.

While HRC has been silent, a number of conservatives who may not toe the official left-wing line on gay issues and even oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, have spoken out against this bullying.  Michelle Malkin addressed the hateful bully on two successive days, writing today about the event in her syndicated column:

At an AFSCME rally in Providence, R.I., on Tuesday, an unhinged pro-union supporter picked an unprovoked fight with a citizen journalist taping the event for public access TV. His eyes bulging, the brawler yelled: “I’ll f**k you in the a**, you faggot!” After several unsuccessful minutes of trying to calm their furious ally down, the solidarity mob finally started chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, union-busting’s got to go” to drown out his intimidating vow to follow the cameraman outside the building. Criminal charges are now pending against him. None of the local media who covered the event thought to mention the disruption in their coverage.

Jim Hoft also picked up on it.  As did Glenn Reynolds.  And Donald Douglas.  And Weasel Zippers.

Interesting that conservative bloggers are speaking out against the use of this offensive slur in a threatening manner while the organization which bills itself “the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization” is silent.

Comments

  4. The idiocy of moral equivalence demonstrated by Dooms: Ann Coulter using the f-word for humorous effect is supposed to exactly the same as a union thug using it to intimidate and threaten.

    The lefty traits of bitter humorlessness and shrill idiocy could not have been better demonstrated. Thank you, Dooms.

  5. WOOOOOW, So when Britebart said Gay Advocacy is worse than Al Queda, that was just comedy right?

    Take your blinders off buddy because you are making yourself look like a big ole aunty tom.

  6. You know. Doombot’s never been able to source that quote.

    Then again he’s been busy helping to define himself as a sociopath and trying to change the topic to answer simple questions.

  9. Funny, Dooms fellow lefty liberal Countervail calls all the men here emasculating names regularly and Dooms says nothing.

    Once again we see Dooms demanding of others what it won’t do or enforce itself. Typical adolescent hypocrisy, and an admittance that gays and lesbians are inferior and unable to function without special treatment.

  10. And once again Dooms demonstrates that gays and lesbians are so mentally inferior that their sexual orientation automatically determines their beliefs.

    It’s just like the insistence of Dooms that black people who disagree with him are ignorant and not really black. Minority status depends, not on skin color or sexual orientation, but on absolute fealty to the Obama Party.

  12. And since Dooms, like the rest of the Obama Party, supports lynching and murdering minority members that don’t obey Their Obama Party massas, what we see is the sociopathic behavior of gay and lesbian liberals; they believe people who disagree with them politically should be killed.

    Then again, they also support lying about their HIV status to their sex partner’s in order to have bareback sex, deliberately drugging and raping children a la Roman Polanski, and snipping the spinal cords of black babies who white liberals deem inconvenient, so this is no surprise. They literally have no regard for human life and well-being, only their own adolescent gratification.

  14. LULZ, you guys are too much, if you are a minority and deny all that is against you, you only aid those that seek to destroy you.

    Again, how many of you are even gay?Live wire, I gave you a source, either deal with it or continue denying reality, I couldn’t care less either way you people are nuts.

  16. Northy, last time I checked, whoever the heck it is you mention wasn’t touted as the “right wing judy garland” who was invited to Homocon to speak and then “talked GOProud out of supporting gay rights”

  18. This seems to be typical of the groupthink of the left:

    “We, the left, are all good. We are all one. If one of us is portrayed as bad, it is a lie. When one of us does something good, it is proof of our goodness. We are all responsible for what our predecessors did, such as slavery and the Trail of Tears and all white Americans are bad because of it so we have to make up for it by taking from other people and giving it to brown-skinned people because if you have brown skin, you are just a perpetual victim, suffering under the hand of dead white people…unless you have brown skin and are a conservative, then you are just self-hating and can be called any racial slur we can think of, you traitor…. You cannot assign a label to the left based on what some fringe group does (chances are that fringe group is really a Tea Party plant anyway). The left is in no way responsible for the actions of PETA, ELF, communists rioting, union violence, or any of that sort of thing….again, it’s probably just Tea Party plants anyway. Anyone who is not a democrat, socialist, communist, environmentalist, atheist, is bad, hateful, evil, and wants to kill people…even though eugenecists are on the left. Soldiers are barbaric baby killers, but we are for abortion. Violence is wrong, unless it’s directed at businesses or conservatives, or when used to protest war….”

    I can go on, but hopefully this explains it well enough. How do I know this? I used to be a lefty.

  25. Hey V, the whole Masc V. Fem thing died out a while ago. Most of us younger gay folks understand that some of us are more masculine and some are more feminine, there is nothing wrong with that. Hell there are plenty of feminine straight men. But to somehow rationalize that not being masculine is somehow bad is only regurgitated to closet cases (you can be out and still be a closet case) on manhunt all to desperate to hold on to the idea that being gay makes them less of a man.

  26. Well Dooms, you yourself said that you’re an enemy.

    LULZ, you guys are too much, if you are a minority and deny all that is against you, you only aid those that seek to destroy you.

    Since you feel that all are against you, and out to destroy you clearly you’ve declared yourself an enemy against everyone, since ‘all are against you.’

    Must be tough having no friends.

    Of course the statement is false. I’m a minority, with an entire civilization designed for those not like me. I adapt, I cope, I thrive. I turn the fact that my brain is wired differently to my advantage and minimize the weaknesses.

    I don’t take the victim mentality that you embrace Dooms.

  27. Livewire, you give the impression that your reading comp skills are that of a 5th grader.

    “All that IS against you” Notice the word IS, notice how that frames the statement giving it a very clear and specific meaning?

    The fact that you take that and try to twist it into something else means one of three things, you are intellectually dishonest, you know I’m right,or you happen to be an idiot. Pick one.

  28. How exactly is the “gay left” an enemy

    Does the Gay Left demand that all criticism of their agenda be silenced? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left label everyone who agrees with them a hater and want them subjected to criminal penalties for expressing opinions they disagree with? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left have an exaggerated sense of victimhood? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left blame other people for their plight even though they are the ones who are primarily responsible? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left despise America as it has historically been understood? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left demand that the resources of the state be used to enforce its moral positions? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Is the gay left fundamentally opposed to free enterprise and market capitalism? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Does the Gay Left believe that Christians are their enemies and must be destroyed? Yes, just like Islamic Terrorists.

    Has the Gay Left brutally murdered thousands of people in a single terrorist attack? No. So, in that most critical respect, they are not similar.

    But both oppose and would like to eliminate American freedom and liberty.

  29. Well Dooms, given that you think ‘all is against you’ you make it pretty clear you are all three.

    Given that you can’t provide a primary source for your Bretibart quote, means I’ll trust Bruce’s account over yours.

    Given that you resort to insults and chidlish banter, and can’t answer simple questions when asked directly of you, I’m not surprised you’re reduced to mocking.

    I think best of all, you use Free republic and say it’s full of people who want me dead. Guess what, I can go to New England and find people wanting to Sodomize me non-consentually and they’re endorced by the President of the United States.

    If I was a whining victim like you, I’d be in a corner sucking my thumb now.

  30. Wait, you ignore all the hate speech from Christians lobbed at gays, exaggerate things, equate gays to terrorists, and out right lie and somehow thing you have a point?

    How are gays responsible for all the hate they receive?

    Last time I checked HATE speech is HATE speech, why don’t you bring up gay famlies who have their homes torched or vandalized, gay’s who are attacked and killed, gay community centers vandalized or firebombed.

    Choosing to be a terrorist or Christian is just that a CHOICE, you cannot CHOOSE to be gay. For them to continually use a book of fairy tales to govern this country is not only wrong, its disgusting. And the fact that you seem to either agree or be complacent in their jackbooted agenda is simply sad.

  32. And that’s what it comes down to.

    Doom’s hatred of religion comes to the fore.

    *hands Dooms a copy of the Constitution. Shows Dooms the ‘No religious test’ part and the First Ammendment*

    I know all the long words will confuse you.

  33. @The_Livewire: Here’s a National Journal story quoting Breitbart as saying:

    I am not endorsing gay marriage, I’m not endorsing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will be the harshest critic of the activist gay left, who I fear more than al-Qaida. But for these people not to exist in a two-party system, for you to tell them they’re not welcome in the big tent, I have a huge problem with that and I’m going to indulge in my all ’80s Depeche Mode, Cure, New Order fetish and we’re going to have a big ‘ol gay party at CPAC.

    I think it’s just possible that Breitbart’s utterance was what some expert scienticians would categorize as a “quip,” but I leave that for you to judge.

  34. Lol, I don’t hate religion, I hate people who cant use critical thinking to distinguish fact from fiction.

    Being gay is part of who you are- fact

    Being gay is immoral-opinion

    You might want to look up a little thing called “separation of church and state”. Defending bigots won’t give you the love your parents denied you of when you came out.

  35. How are gays responsible for all the hate they receive?

    Didn’t say they were responsible for the hate they receive, except to the extent that they insist on shoving their sexual practices in the faces of people who just don’t want to hear it; the Safe School Czar’s teen work-shops that taught fisting and rough sex for example.

    No, I was thinking of AIDS. AIDS was spread through the gay community by promiscuous irresponsible sex; but rather than own up to their responsibility, they blamed Ronald Reagan for not paying them enough attention.

    I would also point to people like Levi, who blames his economic and social failures on people who are wealthier and more successful than he is; rather than taking responsibility for his own well-being. The left is rotten through with such people.

  36. Note, Dooms, how you rush to criticize conservatives on a post where we mention a union activist using a hateful slur. Not once do you criticize this thug nor fault HRC for failing to ask the boss of his union to apologize as it asked Mrs. Palin to apologize when her teenage daughter used the slur.

    For the purpose of this post, it is irrelevant that some conservatives have expressed animus against gays. Yes, some have, and it is a sign we have work to do. But, the presence of that animus should not excuse HRC”s double standard on the use of the slur.

    I criticize those anti-gay voices on the right. Will you criticize anti-gay thuggery on the left?

  39. Blatt your missing the point, the woman was invited to speak at Homocon after she made clearly anti gay remarks.

    How is it if you say anything bad about Israel you are an anti-semite and should be thrown in jail but saying anything about gays is ok with you people.

    V, guess who else has promiscuous sex? Straight people! Want to know how many girls in my HS had the clap? You people act like gays are the worst thing ever, why don’t you stand up for yourselves and stop boot licking?

  41. The phrase “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world” was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[n][o] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[p] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

  42. the woman was invited to speak at Homocon after she made clearly anti gay remarks.

    So, then, I guess, every rapper who uses the N-Word should be barred from the music awards.

    Question, Dooms, Is Larry Kramer a bigot? He wrote a book, after all, whose complete title was the F-Word.

  43. I think its funny you claim gays are trying to shove things down peoples throats, when its the Religious who are harping on about what is moral and immoral and how we must all bow to them.

    You people have zero self respect, which makes sense given your viewpoints.

  45. If you cant understand the clear differences between the use of ER and A, you are too stupid to help.

    Geez, do any of you have any basic understanding of the human mind and social culture? It’s like I’m speaking to a bunch of idiots.

  46. Blatt, why do you continue to be silent on issues that effect gays every day? It seems the only time you get angry at anti-gay bigotry is when it comes from the mouth of a liberal while you ignore all the religious say/do.

    You give shelter to actual bigots while taking pot shots at the few liberals who use the word.

  47. Actually, I can’t decide whether Breitbart’s remark about al-Qaeda was intended as a joke, or if he meant it seriously in the same way that many gay people mean it seriously when they say “I fear the American Family Association more than I fear al-Qaeda”.

    And whether it comes from Breitbart or from a gay leftist, the basic sentiment “I fear my domestic political adversaries more than I worry about another Islamic terror attack on American soil” is a perfectly defensible calculus based on weighing “Severity of Worst-Case Effects” against “(Im)probability of Something Happening.”

  48. In other words, the words “Separation of Church and state” do not appear in the Constitution.

    It is interesting to consider how the idea of a “Wall of separation between Church and State” entered into modern jurisprudence. It comes to us courtesy of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), where he used the phrase to make it illegal for kids to ride public buses to Catholic School.

    And who was Hugo Black? He was Klansman who just plain hated Catholics.

    That’s right, lefty Christian haters derive their understanding of the Establishment clause from a racist bigot who hated children.

  49. If Rush Limbaugh said something factual I would agree with him. I don’t have to like him but if hes right hes right.

    You see that’s called pragmatics!

    Anyway, the American Family Association knowingly publishes FALSEHOODS about gays, they are here, they pose an actual threat to gays. It’s not about who is feared more, its about who posses an actual threat. A bunch of guys in a desert with AK-47’s pose a very small threat to this nation.

  50. oh, we are angry, aren’t we, Dooms? Gotta call me by my last name?

    Issue here once again is HRC. Need I repeat myself? THey get upset when daughter of prominent Republican uses the term, even after said daughter removes the offending comment from Facebook, remain silent when union activist uses same term in a context where his rhetoric borders on what HRC dubs a hate crime.

    Why, do you some of our critics, respond not by addressing the matter in question but by trying to personalize it on us?

    Hmmmmmmm . . . . . .

  52. Ah, Dooms upset that your bigotry is showing?

    I love the boogy man of ‘The Religious’. Makes it easy for Dooms to keep up his victim mentality. “It’s ok to mock and insult all of them. They’d do much worse to me.” Of course being outnumbered nineteen to one, the fact that this hasn’t happened flies in the face of Dooms feelings of persecution.

    He then dismisses all the times he’s proved wrong with ‘I’m superior to you people.’

    Delusional is Dooms.

  53. Angry? You misunderstand, I don’t know what your first name is.

    Palin also wanted Rahm Emanuel fired for using the word “Retard” but claimed when Limbaugh used it that it was simply “Satire”

    Riiiiiight.

  54. Um, Dooms, if you don’t know what my first name is, then you should be able to tell by my use of an initial for that name, that I go by my middle name. This is common practice for folk like myself whose parents decided to call them by their middle name or some derivative thereof.

    🙂

  57. Anyway, the American Family Association knowingly publishes FALSEHOODS about gays

    And Dooms knowingly writes FASLEHOODS about Bretibart.

    The actual quote, from Thorbert’s post.

    I am not endorsing gay marriage, I’m not endorsing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I will be the harshest critic of the activist gay left, who I fear more than al-Qaida. But for these people not to exist in a two-party system, for you to tell them they’re not welcome in the big tent, I have a huge problem with that and I’m going to indulge in my all ’80s Depeche Mode, Cure, New Order fetish and we’re going to have a big ‘ol gay party at CPAC.

    To use Doom’s logic, he’s right to fear ‘the activist gay left’ because they are here, they pose an actual threat to gays Christians. It’s not about who is feared more, its about who posses an actual threat. A bunch of guys in a desert with AK-47′s pose a very small threat to this nation.

    Dooms is the one who’s declared people of faith ‘the enemy’. Who wants to strip them of their right to use their morals to guide them. Dooms is the one who shows that he doesn’t understand how a society works Wanting what’s ‘his’ without concern to anyone else.

    I complmented HRC’s initial statement. Dooms can’t even bring himself to condemn the comments of the guy.

  60. Palin also wanted Rahm Emanuel fired for using the word “Retard” but claimed when Limbaugh used it that it was simply “Satire”

    Again, the left’s complete lack of humor and stupidity is evident. Rahm was using it as an epithet. Rush used it satirically to highlight Emmanuel’s offensive use of it.

    But it takes intelligence and wit to discern the difference, and Dooms lacks both.

  63. I guess none of you care about gay elders subjected to daily torture by Christian extremists while staying in nursing homes.

    I mean some of you are headed that way soon after all.

  64. See. Dooms again, wants to condemn all people of faith, while reserving for himself the right to go ‘nuh uh!’

    Face it, Dooms, you lost the battle of ideas here. The best you can do is say “All those mean religious people want to kill me!” and yet, you’re still alive.

    If you want to lump V the K, Me, Dan et al. with people who want all of us dead, then you have to fess up to your culpability in the murder of Jessie Dirkhising.

    I know standards are unknown to you. Dooms. Double Standards, not so much.

  65. Lulz again, you people keep defending the very people who call you disgusting, immoral, deviants, tells you aids is punishment for being gay,then they try to “cure” you of being gay.

    This all breeds hatred which snowballs into violence, whether its against children or adults you people seem to care not.

    I guess there is a reason why all the gay conservatives I see sit alone at the bar.

  67. #64 – “I guess none of you care about gay elders subjected to daily torture by Christian extremists while staying in nursing homes.”

    Proof please, Doomed. Otherwise STFU – and I believe I speak for the majority here when I make that request.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  71. #66 – “I guess there is a reason why all the gay conservatives I see sit alone at the bar.”

    Project much, Dumbs? Or are you too busy admiring your girlish figure in the mirror?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  74. you people keep defending the very people who call you disgusting, immoral, deviants,

    And while I do not consider same-sex love disgusting or immoral, I do consider promiscuous unprotected sex that way. I also find spreading an incurable STD to be disgusting.

    Yet the Gay Left acts as if AIDS is spread by religious stormtroopers going around stabbing gays.


    tells you aids is punishment for being gay

    It’s not my fault that unprotected sex with a large quantity of partners is the ideal spreading ground of STDs.


    then they try to “cure” you of being gay.

    And if they honestly consider being gay to mean promiscuousity and irresponsibility, I don’t blame them.

  77. A general article citing things over a decade ago.

    A case where religion isn’t cited at all in the link.

    And a general discussion.

    *yawn* So much for Dooms “Christians abusing the elderly” meme. I don’t see where religion was cited.

    Still, to continue to use Dooms standards, if he’s going to blame Christians for elder abuse, I can blame him for Dirkhising.

  80. This all breeds hatred which snowballs into violence, whether its against children or adults you people seem to care not.

    But your hatred and bigotry is justified, right?

  81. #80 – “You despise young, good looking, intelligent relationship oriented gay men who differ with you on politics?”

    You’re kidding, right?

    Narcissism certainly is at home with the libtard left, isn’t it? Exactly how out-of-touch are you with reality?

    Damn, Dumbs, you have issues even for THIS group of trolls.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  84. One, there is no proof that this person is a union activist. Two they are a nobody. As much as you hate it, the Palin’s are polarizing and great for “ratings”. Praising or condemning them is good for fundraising, the only reason HRC did it in the first place. Unfortunate, but money does talk and it made fiscal sense for them to harp on it.

    You really want the HRC to condemn every nobody on camera caught saying faggot? Really don’t understand why you’re so hung up on some nobody, who could very easily be a plant, doing this.

  87. The HRC isn’t saying anything because this “goon” is a nobody and possibly a plant. As much as it pains you, the Palins are polarizing figures. Praising or condemning the Palins gets people involved. Unfortunately, financially it was a smart decision, and since the HRC needs to raise money it made sense.

    If this union member was someone important, then I would understand. But do you really expect the HRC to come out against every person caught on tape saying “faggot”. I can’t understand why you are so obsessed over a nobody, and possible plant, doing this.

  88. The HRC isn’t saying anything because this “goon” is a nobody and possibly a plant. As much as it pains you, the Palins are polarizing figures. Praising or condemning the Palins gets people involved. Unfortunately, financially it was a smart decision, and since the HRC needs to raise money it made sense.

    If this alleged union member was someone important, then I would understand. But do you really expect the HRC to come out against every person caught on tape saying “fa**ott”. I can’t understand why you are so obsessed over a nobody, and possible plant, doing this.

  90. aj, if you have evidence this “goon” was a plant, then provide it.

    Normally, I wouldn’t expect HRC to demand that McEntee apologize for this activist’s antics, but HRC did call on Palin to speak out when it was her daughter who made the offensive remark. We know the daughter pulled the post with the offensive language. We don’t know why. Perhaps, Sarah Palin asked her to do so. Perhaps, she upbraided her daughter for using such language (as per the above).

    We have no evidence HRC has ever asked other prominent parents of unruly children who say inappropriate things. Clearly, they’re trying to embarrass Mrs. Palin because she is a prominent conservative.

    No, I don’t expect HRC to come out across everyone who utters the term. But, they set the standard when they publicly demanded that Mrs. Palin make a statement. If they really wanted her to speak out, why didn’t they approach her privately? Why did they have to make a public issue of it?

    Since they issued that release, I’m just pointing out the group’s hypocrisy.

  91. Well, I decided to take the bull by the horns and on the not insignificant chance that the HRC peeps have been living in an informational bubble all year, I did send the following message on the HRC website:

    “Please, please, please live up to your mission as you state it and call out the latest instance of homophobic threats and intimidation as listed below. No matter from what political stripe or organization, we all need to be held to the same standards of behavior.” I followed this with a copied paragraph from Michelle Malkin’s article describing the incident.

    Since they used to call me ad nauseum for donations for years after I stopped supporting them, I know they have my contact information on speed dial. 🙂 I’ll let you know if they actually reply with some lame response that justifies or side-steps the issue. At the very least, I can attest they have now been put on notice.

  93. but the hypocrisy accusation goes both ways, dan, since you defended the palins by saying that willow’s slur was a private matter, and there was no need for a public apology. so for you to demand a public apology now makes you a hypocrite as well.

  94. They did it to galvanize their base and for PR. When a prominent Democrat’s child publicly does the same thing and they’re silent, then you’ll be right.

    As for the plant theory, I don’t have any explicit proof that he was a plant, didn’t claim I did. But why are people on this blog so quick to dismiss raucous tea parties as plants but so quick to jump on this guy? Especially when tea parties are calling for infiltration of these events publicly.

  95. 90.It was not an anti-gay slur. It was a typical overcompensating LGBT male expressing himself in a most unfortunate manner.

    That’s possible, RJ, since the guy is clearly an idiot. But I think it’s more likely that the idiot is straight, but didn’t realize that if he actually followed through on his threat, that he would be committing a homosexual act himself.

    Again, he can be a latent or self-loathing case who believes that committing such an act does not make one a homosexual. If that’s the case, thankfully, such behavior is not typical of gay persons. Or such a person may really believes that is a punishment that gay persons deserve, and inane persons like him are the persons who should be the ones that mete out the punishment.

    As for hypocrisy, I wouldn’t doubt it. We all see hypocrisy on all spectra of political ideology. And since this has made the news, nobody or not, HRC should speak out. Are they covering for some liberal, union thug? Possibly, but maybe not. It’s possible the person is a plant, although there apparently has been no such evidence. But the person may not be a liberal either. Conservatives are union members, and can be fervent in their support of their union, especially if they feel it might save their jobs.

  96. Chad, you still don’t get it now, do you?

    I do this all to mock HRC, saying if they spoke out on one, they should speak out on the other, that’s all. I’m only holding HRC to the standard they set.

    aj, fair point. HRC did do it to galvanize their base and for PR — and their November stunt and February silence reveals an organization seeing its base as far left of center and sharing the same prejudices as Democratic activists, all going to a point Bruce and I have been making at least since we started blogging, that HRC is not a non-partisan group, but pretty much an auxiliary for the Democratic Party.

    Please provide evidence of Tea Parties calling for infiltration of these events. I think you got it backwards. We have evidence of left-wingers calling for infiltration of Tea Parties and not vice versa.

  103. Chad, if your point is addressed to me, it has succeeded only in putting a smile on my face. I’m trying to see how my bemused responses are defensive. Please explain and please understand the mockery in my posts on HRC as I expose their partisan hypocrisy and then please spell out mine.

    Thanks!

    Oh, yes, and recall that Willow Palin’s use of the slur was meant as a private rebuke whereas this most recent comment was said at a public rally. And recall once again that I wouldn’t be calling attention to HRC’s silence here had they not spoken out (twice!) when Willow Palin used the term, blathering on even after Willow had pulled the post and her sister had apologized.

    Oh, and let me remind you, I didn’t defend the Palins so much as mock HRC. Sarah Palin did nothing wrong. Just trying to figure out why HRC took it upon themselves to bring her in. Oh, yes, that’s right, she’s high on the left-wing list of approved right-wing demons and must be blamed for all manner of ills, the Angri Mainyu of the leftist creed to which HRC’s lickspittles aver ever eager to show their allegiance by trying to her include in all manner of bad things..

    aj, ThinkProgress is hardly a reliable source and Mark Williams has long since been discredited in and disowned by the Tea Party movement.

  104. Yes, thinkprogress might be a biased source and he has been discredited for comments he made about the NAACP. However, Tea Party Nation posted it on their own site, posing the idea to their members. I believe Sara Palin spoke at an event they sponsored last year. I’d say that they’re definitely a prominent organization in the Tea Party movement.

  105. aj, if Tea Party Nation posted it, then they have not learned from Rabbi Hillel, not to do to another that which is hateful to you. Just because some lefties tried this on Tea Partiers doesn’t mean they should try it back.

    That said, for the sake of argument, let’s say the guy is a plant. You’d think then that Gerald McEntee or other leading AFSCME figure would move to distance themselves from his hateful rhetoric and antics.

  106. Dan, again, you’re making the mistake of believing that this is an honest discussion.

    AJ is spinning to protect his leftist goons and doesn’t care. That’s why AJ is screaming that this person is a plant, even though AJ doesn’t have even the slightest scrap of evidence and is trying to draw all sorts of conclusions through circumstances.

    Let’s demonstrate. AJ is a paid Obama shill who is sent to spam this blog. How do I know? Because the Barack Obama administration is setting up fake identities to spam social media, just as Obama confidant Cass Sunstein suggested.

    So let’s see. I have linked proof from a leftist (Glenn Greenwald) that the Obama administration is actively talking about doing this, plus other proof that they ARE doing it. So my level of evidence that AJ is a plant is far greater than his pathetic attempt to shriek that this guy is a union shill.

    Now watch the flip-flop as AJ suddenly decides that circumstantial evidence isn’t good enough and that we have to proactively prove he’s a plant, even as he refuses to provide proactive proof that this guy is a plant, as AJ is claiming.

  107. dan, if you weren’t defensive, you wouldn’t feel the need to write a response dripping in condescension (e.g. “you still don’t get it now, do you?” or “it only succeeded in putting a smile on my face!” translation: you’re dumb! real mature, dan). see, it’s possible to respond without being nasty, snotty or demeaning. it’s called decorum. and for a person who complains about the behavior of his critics, i assumed you were familiar with the term. alas, it’s my experience on this blog that you’re more concerned with belittling people who disagree with you, or insulting their intelligence, than in acknowledging your flawed arguments.

    and save your spin on the palin situation for her next book tour. your characterization is absurd: far from a “private rebuke”, willow palin posted her slur on facebook (another person’s wall, no less!!) which is basically the least private place in the world. it’s certainly less private than a stray comment from an anonymous union member at a local rally. last time i checked, there were about 500 million people on facebook; how many people do you think were at that rally? and this dovetails nicely on my earlier point, because when a person isn’t defensive about the strength of his arguments, he doesn’t feel the need to mischaracterize facts in such a blatant manner.

    you may not like being called a hypocrite, but the label applies nonetheless. maybe your post is completely tongue-in-cheek (though given your hyper-partisanship, i seriously doubt it), but you still regard this situation as an opportunity to score political points rather than an opportunity to have a serious discussion about the harms of homophobic language. that makes you indistinguishable from the hrc, which you loathe so deeply.

  108. Chad, fair point about tone.

    Yes, I acknowledge that it is possible to respond without being nasty. But, no, Chad, I would really rather not belittle people who disagree with me, would rather engage them in a civil give-and-take. That so, I do delight in belittling those who come to this blog, comment to my posts, yet refuse to even acknowledge my arguments. They ignore the point, misrepresent my argument or repeat left-wing talking points.

    While you didn’t do all three, you did the first two.

    Go back to your own first comment in this thread. You wrote in #94, “since you defended the palins by saying that willow’s slur was a private matter, and there was no need for a public apology. so for you to demand a public apology now makes you a hypocrite as well.”

    First, I never said, “there was no need for a public apology.” I did fault HRC (in my 11/23/10 post) for asking Sarah Palin to issue a public rebuke of her daughter, largely because that prominent conservative did not herself make the offensive remark. Nor did I call for HRC to issue a public apology (for the Rhode Island incident), as you claim I did, but merely mocked them for their silence.

    You simply misrepresented my point, a point I even clarified in comment 91, posted seven hours before your initial comment (to this thread). (What was it someone said about mischaracterizing “facts in such a blatant manner”?”)

    If the arguments are indeed flawed, as some may well be, then point to those flaws. You didn’t. The issue here isn’t Willow’s conduct about which you prattle much in comment #108. The issue is that HRC on two successive days last November issued press releases, calling on her mother (i.e., not the individual who made the offensive remark) to speak out. And now when someone working for one of their ideological allies used the same slur, they are silent.

    In my initial post, I asked if the organization had ever “called on prominent Democrats to discipline their unruly or otherwise imperfect progeny.” And addressed their failure to do so in this post (3rd ¶ above). I did that to show that they created a standard out of whole cloth in order to cast aspersions on Palin.

    That here is the issue, the standard that HRC set by calling on Sarah Palin to make a statement because of her daughter’s behavior — even after that daughter sought to correct it by puling the post. And another daughter issued a public apology for her sister’s intemperate remark.

    They just wanted to attack and belittle that prominent conservative. Why else would they identify her a reality TV star?

    So, if they’re going to create a standard out of whole cloth in order to smear a conservative, I’m going to question their failure to apply their own circumstantial standard when a similar situation arises.

    You’re right to note that some of my comments to this thread drip with condescension. But, you simply haven’t addressed the point of my argument, about HRC’s double standard (and no, I don’t loathe them deeply, as you contend, just find them to be shills for the Democratic Party). If you did address my actual argument (instead of misrepresenting as you did), I would not have not replied in such a manner.

    You’re right to ask for decorum. And I’d be delighted to provide it, but if you want me to show you the same decorum I show a good number of our critics, do what they do, address the points I make in the posts to which you attach your comments.

    Thanks.

  110. Chad has put me in mind of embarrassing children and sibilings of politicians of the past. Lyndon kept Sam Houston locked up and supplied with liquor. Jimmy had endless problems with Billy. Reagan had to smile away little Ronnie’s attention snits, and Clinton had Roger and his low road life.

    So, naturally, Willow is a prime target for frustrated lefties. I guess Arod wasn’t available to rape her during the seventh inning stretch. (Now there is a knee slapper.)

    Chad is playing the time honored moral relativist’s game of “If you can’t shoot the messenger, gang bang her children.”

    I don’t condone Willow’s indiscretion and poor judgement. I just don’t hold her to the Mother Theresa standards which her dedicated detractors impose on her immature, teen-aged self.

    This is a classic case of hypocrisy. Chad has condemned himself to a future of pluperfect decorum by his own bleating.

    He is sort of like Lady McBarack demanding universal dietary reform while sucking on ribs and ballooning her hips. Here’s to you and your pure arugula diet, Chad.

  112. alas, it’s my experience on this blog that you’re more concerned with belittling people who disagree with you, or insulting their intelligence, than in acknowledging your flawed arguments.

    It truly boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

    Any bets on how many homophobes Chad finds in the workplace, given his tendency to attack and insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him?

  113. i’m glad that you acknowledge your tone is inappropriate. remember, this is your blog, and you’re responsible for setting tone. both your critics and your supporters will likely become more prone to observing basic rules of decorum if you establish a tone of basic respect. it starts with you, as host of this blog, not with your commenters.

    as for your substantive response, your argument is inadequate. you accuse me of misprepresenting your post on palin, yet your only argument is that instead of “apology”, you said “rebuke.” fine, i’ll concede that i did not quote your post verbatim, but rebuke and apology, in this context, are essentially the same thing. this hardly rises to the level of misrepresentation. your point, was that the hrc was wrong to demand a public statement from palin. this is far from characterizing willow palin’s remark as a “private rebuke” in spite of the fact that she posted it one of the most widely trafficked websites on the internet.

    you also dismiss the facts surrounding willow’s slur as irrelevant, which is simply untrue. when you level accusations of hypocrisy, the facts matter. and you were incredulous over how the hrc used this incident as a way of scoring political points against palin, or rather, “attacking and belittling” her, lest you think i am “misrepresenting” you if i choose to paraphrase. even if i take your word for it, and assume that your post is tongue-in-cheek, you are doing the exact same thing to the hrc. this is the source of your hypocrisy.

    and if you’re truly concerned with applying hrc’s own standard to non-conservatives, you should really make sure you’re comparing equivalent situations. as you note, hrc no doubt took interest in willow’s remark because sarah palin’s prominence as a conservative. to suggest that some random union member occupies the same status in liberal circles as palin occupies in conservative ones is silly.

    in sum, not only do you continually fail to acknowledge your own hypocrisy, but you fail to substantiate your own hypocrisy smear against the hrc.

  114. No, Chad, I did not acknowledge that my tone was inappropriate. I’m not clear where you thin I’m being hypocritical since i never called on HRC to apologize or rebuke, merely mocked the organization for its silence in this case when it thought it so important to call on Mrs. Palin to speak out ever after her daughter had pulled the post.

  115. And again, isn’t it hilarious how the adolescent Chad has to lie about what Dan said?

    You’d think he could provide quotes. After all, I was able to quote his hypcritical statements demonstrating that he was demanding a standard of others that he would never follow himself easily.

    Funny how the poor child ran away from those quotes. You’d think that, if he were honest, he could acknowledge his double standards.

  116. Poor Chad keeps whipping this dead horse:

    this is far from characterizing willow palin’s remark as a “private rebuke” in spite of the fact that she posted it one of the most widely trafficked websites on the internet.

    Chad: READ MY LIPS…..

    Sarah Palin is not responsible for the indiscretions of Willow, Bristol, Piper or the family gerbil. Roger Clinton reflected badly on Bill Clinton, Ronnie, Jr. reflected badly on Ronald Reagan, Billy reflected badly on Jimmuh Cahtur. So, since you damn each and every one those people, you would naturally damn Sarah Palin. It is simple as that. (Meanwhile, marital fidelity does not seem to have influenced John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, or Bill Clinton, but who cares?)

    Ain’t moral relativism a beautiful and useful thang? You go, Chad. You have so much elastic and white out going for you.