Gay Patriot Header Image

STATEMENT FROM GOPROUD BOARD

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:45 pm - December 10, 2011.
Filed under: GOProud

As a member of the GOProud Board, I’m publishing this statement:

On behalf of the GOProud Board and its members and supporters, we want to make it very clear that “outing” a gay or lesbian individual is wrong and should never be used as a political weapon.

Private lives should remain just that — private. The right to disclose one’s sexual orientation belongs solely to each individual. We will continue to oppose “outing” as it has never advanced a political cause but only hurts individuals and their families.

We strongly regret the events of this week.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

119 Comments

  1. [...] It has been noted that Gay Patriot put out the following statement: On behalf of the GOProud Board and its members and supporters, we want to make it very clear that [...]

    Pingback by Did GOProud “out” a conservative gay politico? « Hot Air — December 10, 2011 @ 7:01 pm - December 10, 2011

  2. Thanks to you and the Board for posting this, Bruce.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 10, 2011 @ 7:13 pm - December 10, 2011

  3. So true…

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — December 10, 2011 @ 7:33 pm - December 10, 2011

  4. Excellent. Thanks for making things right!

    Comment by AmericanElephant — December 10, 2011 @ 7:36 pm - December 10, 2011

  5. course, I’d still like to hear LaSalvia apologize for calling people faggots for disagreeing with what he thinks they should think.

    Comment by AmericanElephant — December 10, 2011 @ 7:38 pm - December 10, 2011

  6. Bruce, thanks, but what was done cannot be undone. Chris stepped over the line and can’t walk it back. I can’t look at my son and say, all outings are bad – but some aren’t or were just accidents. That is a case of very very bad judgement and Goproud will be paying a very high price for it.
    I hate to think how the CPAC people are gloating right now.

    Comment by Leah — December 10, 2011 @ 8:22 pm - December 10, 2011

  7. Your statement doesn’t mention the offender; doesn’t mention who the target was or why they were targeted; doesn’t mention what will be done to prevent this from happening in your organization in the future.

    Why not?

    Would you accept this as a credible apology from an organization that you weren’t affiliated with? Of course not, because this isn’t an apology: it’s a position statement followed by “we regret the error.”

    And yet, the GOProud site itself does not even acknowledge that there was a problem to regret. In fact, they double down on their initial attack.

    So please — as a member of the GOProud board — tell me: when I look at GOProud now, how am I to avoid seeing it as just another liberal political organization that gets a free pass for attacking conservatives?

    Comment by Bluto — December 10, 2011 @ 8:27 pm - December 10, 2011

  8. I read this quote from Chris Barron on Daily Caller:

    Second, both (….) and I have known (….) for years and have known that he was gay for years. Multiple media outlets contacted us after the Perry “Strong” ad debuted asking our opinion of (….) role in the campaign given the anti-gay nature of the ad.

    I consider this a serious breakdown in the unwritten rules of the gay world. If one is closeted, I would say the onus is on the closeted gay to adamantly deny any inferences that impinge on whether he is homosexual in orientation. That is to say, the closeted gay must not permit others to assume he is gay. To do otherwise is to require others to lie on his behalf. Except for the Mafia, you can not have that kind of obligation of association.

    I am not blaming the “victim” here. By the time GOProud is contacted by “mulitple media outlets” it would seem that others believed the man to be gay. Of course, there is the possibility that the individual was accidentally “outed” and the multiple media outlets were merely trying to get the opinions from GOProud and got surprise information they never anticipated.

    Either way, the man needed to make it clear that his sexual orientation was off limits. Anyone in the position of the GOProud people must be in a position to tell the truth and say “I don’t know” when the subject comes up.

    I also support Andrew Breitbart in his resignation from the GOProud advisory board. When this type of mess hits the fan, it is every man for himself. Breitbart is better off cutting and running than to get mired down in what may turn into a mud slinging contest.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 10, 2011 @ 8:40 pm - December 10, 2011

  9. [...] GOProud’s board of directors.  And, while GOProud released the following statement (from GayPatriot), On behalf of the GOProud Board and its members and supporters, we want to make it very clear that [...]

    Pingback by GOProud: Just Another Leftist Organization? « Canadian Rattlesnake — December 10, 2011 @ 9:43 pm - December 10, 2011

  10. [...] allows his blog to be dominated by anti-gay trolls (who are out in force at the post linked), today re-affirmed GOProud’s policy against outing: On behalf of the GOProud Board and its members and supporters, we want to make it very clear that [...]

    Pingback by UPDATED: Dear Tony Fabrizio, we have no obligation to cut our own throats by keeping your not-secret — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian — December 10, 2011 @ 10:13 pm - December 10, 2011

  11. I echo Bluto’s comment. GOProud has violated the core conservative principle of individualism. They are playing identity politics.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 10, 2011 @ 11:33 pm - December 10, 2011

  12. course, I’d still like to hear LaSalvia apologize for calling people faggots for disagreeing with what he thinks they should think.

    Really? You have sand in your vagina over that?

    Comment by TGC — December 11, 2011 @ 3:52 am - December 11, 2011

  13. This sounds like the fake Valerie Wilson kerfuffle. There’s something that everybody seems to know about someone and another person happens to say it out loud, as it were, and then it’s spun into a scandal.

    As far as I can tell, this says more about the disgracefulness of liberals, especially gay liberals, than anything else.

    Comment by TGC — December 11, 2011 @ 4:06 am - December 11, 2011

  14. This sounds like the fake Valerie Wilson kerfuffle. There’s something that everybody seems to know about someone and another person happens to say it out loud, as it were, and then it’s spun into a scandal.

    It’s not the “outing” part that bothers me about this. I don’t know enough information. If it is determined that Tony Fabrizio was outed, then I would have a problem with that.

    What bothers me is what LaSalvia and GOProud said. LaSalvia’s tweet was very reminiscent of a gay leftie’s reaction to a gay conservative. As I said, he’s playing identity politics. That GOProud claims to be a conservative organization, and then they go ahead and resort to identity politics, while claiming to represent gay conservatives, isn’t right. I just find LaSalvia’s reaction despicable. He treated a supposedly gay man that somehow betrayed the “gay community” or something just like the gay left does to gay conservatives for the same reason.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 11, 2011 @ 6:58 am - December 11, 2011

  15. LaSalvia needs to be fired for GOProud to retain any credibility.

    Comment by ID — December 11, 2011 @ 10:38 am - December 11, 2011

  16. Pam Spaulding also notes:

    “I have no idea if Fabrizio’s a homo, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he’s another one of those Beltway creatures that’s socially out, perhaps even professionally out to many, but wants to play coy in order to maximize the cash flow from homophobes like Perry.”

    Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/gay-conservatives-out-rick-perrys-top-pollster-tony-fabrizio-infuriated-over-anti-gay-ad.html#ixzz1gF0BB0Rz

    Comment by rusty — December 11, 2011 @ 10:40 am - December 11, 2011

  17. OCTOBER 24, 2011
    Tony Fabrizio joins Rick Perry campaign
    Two words from Tony Fabrizio spell bad news for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: ‘I’m in.” That is, Fabrizio is in with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, with whom he has been in talks for months.

    Fabrizio, one of the most well-respected pollsters in Republican circles, is widely credited for being the man who did the politically impossible: He oversaw a campaign that bested GOP establishment candidate Bill McCollum and elected Rick Scott governor of Florida. (A few moments after we wondered when Fabrizio, would join Perry’s team, Politico coincidentally reported sources say he has).

    Fabrizio has highly detailed knowledge of Florida, having polled the state consistently for about two years. The Republican Party of Florida has been paying him to poll on behalf of Scott and state Republicans in general. So chances are, he already has message-tested the weaknesses and strengths of the various Republican candidates.

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/tony-fabrizio-joins-rick-perry-campaign

    Comment by rusty — December 11, 2011 @ 10:46 am - December 11, 2011

  18. rusty, why do you call Perry a homophobe? What’s he done? If it’s his ad, here’s the transcript:

    “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” Perry, wearing a tan jacket and blue shirt while walking and looking directly toward the camera, says in the ad. “As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion, and I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.”

    His point, as scripted, is not that gays in the military are bad, but that (1) keeping kids from acknowledging Christmas is bad; (2) Obama has a “war on religion” which is bad. Agree or disagree with Perry, I don’t think that text can honestly be read as anti-gay. Do you have more reasons?

    Having said that, I agree with Heliotrope and TGC: if the guy was playing both sides of the closet (coming out whenever it was socially and professionally convenient, thus expecting others to magically mind-read when he needs them to lie – and then to lie for him) and if reporters led Jimmy/Chris by the nature of their questions to think the guy was out already, Jimmy/Chris may not be as entirely blameworthy here as first appears.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 12:23 pm - December 11, 2011

  19. (continued) Emphasis on “if”. I don’t want to be too definite (in either direction), as I still haven’t pieced the whole story together.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - December 11, 2011

  20. LaSalvia’s tweet was very reminiscent of a gay leftie’s reaction to a gay conservative. As I said, he’s playing identity politics.

    Naamloos, that may be. I haven’t seen the tweet; again I am only now catching up. Fox says:

    GOProud ran with the accusation that Tony Fabrizio was gay after the Perry campaign ran an ad last week making a point about a country that allows gays to serve in the military but doesn’t allow kids to pray in school. After the ad ran, GOP Proud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia tweeted out a nasty statement, calling Fabrizio a “f—-t” for supporting a campaign that would run the ad.

    Sounds nasty. And, like identity politics.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 12:41 pm - December 11, 2011

  21. Also unfair, if the guy actually *opposed* the ad, as ABC claims: http://news.yahoo.com/rift-rick-perrys-camp-over-ad-criticizing-gays-180613789.html

    In an exchange with Nelson Warfield, who created the ad, Tony Fabrizio, a Perry pollster and top strategist, reportedly called the ad “nuts,”… “Tony was against it from the get-go,” Warfield told the Huffington Post. “It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear, that spot was mine…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 12:47 pm - December 11, 2011

  22. Alright, so here’s my conclusion:
    - I oppose outing.
    - I’m still not convinced this is a case of outing.
    - At the least, however, Jimmy played identity politics, was nasty and perhaps unfair.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 12:52 pm - December 11, 2011

  23. ILC — rusty, why do you call Perry a homophobe?

    Don’t know if Perry is a homophobe. . .Probably sure he knows, likes, respects and even has some ‘gay’ friends and family.

    But Perry agreed to participate in the ad developed by his spin doctors

    So after a lenghty production of STRONG. . .people end up with statements

    you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military

    And thus, like many folk, Jimmy went to twitter and spouted off.
    Probably not thinking too clearly, but Jimmy certainly had her hands on her hips. And then Chris, got her dander up and spouted off as well(sort of like going off on Cleta).

    But we all agree ‘folk spout off’ and with twitter, it doesn’t disappear.

    So now we have this whole issue of outing. Is the one in question, have grounds to say: Don’t out me!, from his home in South Florida, living a different life after his divorce, all the while he does collect money ‘ to bash the gheys’ and work with the spin doctors.

    But then again, it still hasn’t been resolved with one of the commentators/recent blogger’s actions of releasing personal information and ending up as a grand display of power. sort of like outing.

    Comment by rusty — December 11, 2011 @ 1:34 pm - December 11, 2011

  24. ILC@18

    ” Agree or disagree with Perry, I don’t think that text can honestly be read as anti-gay. Do you have more reasons?”

    Had the script not said:

    ……that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military…..

    Then I would agree with you in that it in not anti-gay. I don’t suggest that Perry is homophobic, I don’t know him. But it seems in this ad, he attempting to contrast something good, i.e. Children, Christianity, Christmas etc. against something evil i.e. Obama, war on religion, gays openly serving in the military. I don’t know how you can honesty say the ad can be read as not being anti-gay.

    Comment by David in N.O. — December 11, 2011 @ 1:46 pm - December 11, 2011

  25. rusty, you’ve quoted a half sentence… not enough context there. I agree, this would be anti-gay:

    there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military. [period]

    But Perry didn’t say that… he said this:

    there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas

    It’s a different argument, an “if A is accommodated, why is B not?” type of argument.

    To make the point clear, let’s substitute something neutral, like dancers. This is anti-flamenco:

    there’s something wrong in this country when flamenco dancers can serve openly in the military. [period]

    But this is not:

    there’s something wrong in this country when flamenco dancers can serve openly in the military but our samba dancers can’t openly celebrate Carnival

    See? He’s only saying, there’s something wrong in the way we’re comparatively mean to samba dancers.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 1:46 pm - December 11, 2011

  26. David in NO, see above. I believe in not taking half-sentences, out of context.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 1:48 pm - December 11, 2011

  27. (To be clear: 1) I don’t agree with Perry, 2) I DO believe in taking half-sentences, for the sake of brevity, that preserve meaning i.e. sufficient context)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 2:00 pm - December 11, 2011

  28. The long and the short of it, Perry should have avoided this firestorm and not picked gays serving in the military as one bench march in order to talk about children praying in school. If his issue is with school prayer, I suggest he might better have pointed to the corse behavior of the Occupiers and the government provided protective services as they redressed their grievances. That way there are two First Amendment examples and one involves the government protection of possibly obnoxious speech and the other is the government ruling that a kid can not pray on government owned and supervised schoolhouse property.

    I am still confused about whether someone was “outed” or not. If those “outing” him innocently assumed that he was not hiding his status, then I wonder if he was trying to live two lives: gay when among gays and “closeted” when in general public. If that is the case, then I do not have any concept of how the “protection” rules work. I believe the onus is on him and not on others to keep his half-secret. Having said all of this, I still do not know if the person is gay.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 11, 2011 @ 3:17 pm - December 11, 2011

  29. Here’s the tweet. Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh on Mr. LaSalvia, but I have a low tolerance for supposed conservatives saying things like this. It isn’t conservative to play identity politics. GOProud also has this up on their website. And no apology or even a statement like the one in this post.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 11, 2011 @ 3:44 pm - December 11, 2011

  30. GOProud has been around for several years and I still can’t figure out what their purpose is. They make no effort to appeal to gays and are widely loathed in the gay community. They don’t make an effort to win over conservatives on gay issues like marriage. They opine on issues of general interest like the economy. But you don’t need to form a gay group to opine on things like the budget and jobs. So what are they trying to accomplish?

    Comment by Artie — December 11, 2011 @ 4:13 pm - December 11, 2011

  31. The outing is only the first issue. The second issue is that so what if this person is gay? Why should he automatically have to disassociate from Perry? Not all gays supported repeal of DADT—News reports indicate that Fabrizio himself was against the ad.

    But this leftist mentality of “All the gays must think alike” is worrisome.

    Comment by Kyle — December 11, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - December 11, 2011

  32. I don’t agree. I have zero problem whatsoever with outing gay people who privately enjoy the very hard-earned freedoms that the gay community enjoys (like not being attested for having sex in our own houses or having it illegal to fire us for being gay) but publicly hiding in a closet and working against the rest of us.

    If Fabrizio was out only in private and yet making his living by helping fan the flames of hate and oppression, out he goes. Zero privacy for people like that. I say publish his Grindr pics on “Is Anyone Up” and JoeMyGod.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 11, 2011 @ 5:18 pm - December 11, 2011

  33. I don’t agree. I have zero problem whatsoever with outing gay people who privately enjoy the very hard-earned freedoms that the gay community enjoys

    I see, so folks only have a right to privacy only if Gay Inc. decides to allow it? Is that what you’re saying?

    Comment by TGC — December 11, 2011 @ 5:48 pm - December 11, 2011

  34. #31

    My thoughts exactly, Kyle.

    #32

    Says who? I thought the point of advancing gay rights was that so future gay people didn’t have to fight for gay rights. So all future gay people are indebted to those radical gay activists that likely didn’t do as much for gay rights as they claim?

    And what if Mr. Fabrizio is opposed to the repeal of DADT? Which, considering he opposed the ad, he probably wasn’t. But gay people aren’t allowed to have diverse opinions? Maybe he’s a Christian and considers his faith more important than his sexual orientation. Maybe he agrees with the overall message the ad was trying to illustrate, but he just didn’t agree with how it was illustrated. Maybe he isn’t even gay.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 11, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - December 11, 2011

  35. #30 – “So what are they trying to accomplish?”

    Artie, you err in the same way most leftists do. You think politics must always be a zero-sum game, and that gripe-groups are more important than individual human beings.

    Conservatives and “progressives” do not think the same. The fundamental differences in how the two sides think are simply not grasped by most leftists.

    GOProud is an organization of gays who are also conservative. They do not see conservative values — rightly understood — as being in conflict with gay rights. Therefore they feel no need to fight every battle Leftist Gay Inc. chooses to fight.

    This doesn’t mean they don’t care about gay issues. It merely means they understand those issues in a broader context.

    If the morons on the gay Left who babble incessantly about “self-hating” gay conservatives could clear enough of the rot out of their brains to understand this, maybe they could at least begin to sound like adults instead of petulant little children.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 11, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - December 11, 2011

  36. I’m basically saying, come on people, let’s have thicker skins. Perry’s ad is more labored/dumb, than it is anti-gay. Let’s save our outrage for the real thing. That goes to Jimmy and Chris as well, who apparently are sticking to their story that the ad was somehow an utter outrage.

    I have zero problem whatsoever with outing gay people

    Bad for you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2011 @ 6:57 pm - December 11, 2011

  37. Cry me a freaking river, TGC. If you work against my family’s rights and protections in ANY way… sorry, I’m going to take that as an attack and fight back any way I can.

    If I can hobble Rick Perry by outing his whole campaign staff in deeply humiliating and career-ending ways… I will. If that means the poor closet Marys get their feathers in a jumble… Oh well. Not my problem.

    Spare me the whole “Gay Inc.” BS. Don’t pick fights you can’t win, don’t start a fire if you can’t take the heat.

    And don’t be a closeted gay guy working for an openly homophobic politician. ‘Cause if you think that’s not a weakness I’m going to exploit, My Dear, you have made a miscalculation.

    This is a war… wars are ugly. If you don’t have the stomach for it, may I suggest you go home to mommy and take up Macrame?

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 1:46 am - December 12, 2011

  38. #37

    Thanks for the laugh. What exactly was in Rick Perry’s ad that was so immensely threatening?

    I’ll grant that gays in some parts of the USA aren’t treated fully equitably (in terms of lacking civil unions). But, as far as I can tell, that’s about it. And that hardly warrants the over the top histrionics you exhibit in your comment.

    Do you really think declaring “war” will really accomplish anything? Most people respond better to reasoned and civil debate than they do declarations of war. You’re completely undermining your own goals.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 12, 2011 @ 2:30 am - December 12, 2011

  39. Gays in some parts of the USA aren’t treated fully equitably? Only Some?

    So there is a state where I can sponsor my husband for a green card? Which one? In fact… Dazzle us with your knowledge, oh gret one.. Tell is where gay couples have full equality with straight people here in the USA.

    Do I think declaring war will really accomplish anything? Not really. Why don’t you ask your buddy Ken Melhman to explain why he did it.

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 12, 2011 @ 3:20 am - December 12, 2011

  40. [...] Also, another member of the GOProud board did post a slightly more comprehensive apology here. [...]

    Pingback by Outing people = rude. But…how do you know if they are out or not? | Queer Landia — December 12, 2011 @ 3:35 am - December 12, 2011

  41. lol, TGC still exists. Poor thing, stop turning the lamp on and off, stop carving your leg with a knife and get therapy.

    Comment by AmericanElephant — December 12, 2011 @ 4:56 am - December 12, 2011

  42. So there is a state where I can sponsor my husband for a green card? Which one?

    Try the state of confusion.

    You will find it right behind the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

    Do you seriously base your petulance and disdain on not being able to put your wagon before your horse? Perhaps you should accompany your “husband” from whence he came and you can apply for a green card there.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 12, 2011 @ 8:29 am - December 12, 2011

  43. Nope. This is my country too. And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that straight people do. My husband and I are legally married in two countries and together for nearly 20 years.

    When Britney Spears can stagger drunk into a Vegas chapel and Kim Kardashian can have a 10-week marriage as a publicity stunt and they both get more legal standing than we do, that’s wrong.

    Just because your mommy won’t love you as much if she finds out you take it up the tail pipe doesn’t mean I’m not going to exploit that weakness if I need to.

    When my husband was in a motorcycle accident last year, I didn’t see Rick Perry racing to his side to be with him in the hospital or speak for him when he couldn’t speak for himself. It wasn’t Maggie Gallagher helping him up out of bed and showering him or changing his clothes and cooking for him.

    We deserve equal treatment under the law and I will do whatever it takes to protect my family, and that includes outing some floor-licking political paper pusher who works for Michele Bachmann by day and trolls Grindr by night.

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 12, 2011 @ 9:57 am - December 12, 2011

  44. Although Jasun has not addressed the Perry ad, his sentiments are quite in line with GOProud’s (I mean the Jimmy/Chris part of it – the statement Naamloos linked). In other words: Jasun Mark agrees with GOProud. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2011 @ 10:03 am - December 12, 2011

  45. Ane for the record… You know that when Breitbart released the pictures of Weiner’s Wang, all the little closet boys here were singing “ding dong the witch is dead.”

    So hold yourselves to the same standard… In politics, everything including personal life is fair game.

    I’ve said is many times, “I have no spine,” “I’m in the closet” and “mommy won’t love me anymore” are not a Get Out Of Accountability Free card.

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 12, 2011 @ 10:17 am - December 12, 2011

  46. When Britney Spears can stagger drunk into a Vegas chapel and Kim Kardashian can have a 10-week marriage as a publicity stunt and they both get more legal standing than we do, that’s wrong.

    No, it’s not. Unlike your relationship, Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian could actually add something to society if they were married.

    And my guess is that they pay far more taxes than lazy welfare gays like you do.

    That’s the whole point. Society grants opposite-sex marriage because it provides benefits to society as a whole. Gay-sex marriages like you want are a net drain on society. You don’t provide any value and you don’t want any of the responsibilities.

    Furthermore, you’re hilariously hypocritical. Liar gays like yourself scream and whine about Rick Perry, but say nothing about Obama Party politicians who discriminate. Hell, even your own Barack Obama opposes gay-sex marriage and says that marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, and you don’t care.

    You’re nothing more than a screaming, vile piece of dung who thinks his sexual orientation is a trump card for access to other peoples’ money.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 11:06 am - December 12, 2011

  47. And let’s build on this:

    Pedophile:

    And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that people who prefer adults do.

    Polygamist:

    And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that people who prefer multiple adults do.

    Bestialist:

    And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that people who prefer humans do.

    Incest practitioners:

    And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that people who prefer unrelated people do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 11:09 am - December 12, 2011

  48. When my husband was in a motorcycle accident last year, I didn’t see Rick Perry racing to his side to be with him in the hospital or speak for him when he couldn’t speak for himself. It wasn’t Maggie Gallagher helping him up out of bed and showering him or changing his clothes and cooking for him.

    And we didn’t see you racing to help them in times of crisis either.

    So by your idiotic logic, your failure to do so proves you’re a lying hatemonger who wants to murder straight people and deprive them of their “rights”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 11:35 am - December 12, 2011

  49. Ane for the record… You know that when Breitbart released the pictures of Weiner’s Wang, all the little closet boys here were singing “ding dong the witch is dead.”

    Actually, no.

    But meanwhile, you over at Bareback Joe’s House of HIV were screaming how mean and evil and awful it was and what a violation of “privacy” it was.

    So hold yourselves to the same standard… In politics, everything including personal life is fair game.

    Unless you’re an Obama Party politician or gay and lesbian community leader.

    I’ve said is many times, “I have no spine,” “I’m in the closet” and “mommy won’t love me anymore” are not a Get Out Of Accountability Free card.

    But being an Obama Party politician means you can do whatever the hell you want and little plantation slave Jasun Marks will just beclown himself for you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 12:02 pm - December 12, 2011

  50. Ane for the record… You know that when Breitbart released the pictures of Weiner’s Wang, all the little closet boys here were singing “ding dong the witch is dead.”

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 12, 2011 @ 10:17 am – December 12, 2011

    That is, frankly, a lie.

    Look, Congressmen are human. They have the same weaknesses, the same strengths, as the rest of us. If Weiner’s twitter wasn’t hacked, Mr Weiner did something a lot of (single) men do when they’re lonely and longing for human connection. Not just that, he pulled the tweet within five minutes of releasing it.

    Indeed, in that very post, Dan says it should be a “non-scandal”.

    If you’d ever read this blog, you would have recognized that. But you’ve never actually read this blog; you just opened your mouth and spouted some dumbass bigotry.

    So let’s see; we now have proof that you’re an idiot who operates solely based on bigotry and prejudice and with the intellectual-firepower equivalent of a popgun.

    You wanted war; you got it. And you bloody well lost it. Now go running back to Mommy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 12:16 pm - December 12, 2011

  51. Nope. Your arguments are all homophobic and absurd. You know it, I know it and so does everyone reading. Throwing a huge tantrum, calling me a “lazy welfare gay” and saying that the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian would add something to society that my 20-year union could not…

    All shows you for what you are.

    Of course I didn’t race to Maggie Gallagher’s bedside when she needed help… She isn’t married to me. That’s my point. One you missed while thinking that you were being oh so clever.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - December 12, 2011

  52. Oh, and yes… Your story you linked does say that. Now scroll down and read the comments posted here.

    I rest my case.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 1:33 pm - December 12, 2011

  53. Of course I didn’t race to Maggie Gallagher’s bedside when she needed help… She isn’t married to me. That’s my point.

    Except that you were screaming and throwing fits about how she and Rick Perry didn’t come running to yours.

    And that’s why I call you a lazy welfare gay. You want everyone else to come running when you cry, but you don’t want to apply the same rules to yourself. Typical.

    and saying that the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it marriages of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian would add something to society that my 20-year union could not

    Yup. Examples of how marriage can be abused and public opprobium against such obvious shams as is, and had they actually stayed together and stuck it out, that would have been way better.

    You? You want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

    Your arguments are all homophobic and absurd.

    “Homophobic” from your lips is like “racist” coming from quota supporters like Jesse Jackson; it has nothing to do with actual homophobia and racism and everything to do with you not getting your way.

    I gave you multiple examples, including your very own messiah Obama, of how you don’t have ANY problem supporting what you call “homophobic” elsewhere. You’re a lying little hypocrite and coward, and you’re being called out as such.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 2:44 pm - December 12, 2011

  54. Um… What?

    I wasn’t “screaming and throwing fits” about anything. At all.

    I didn’t say I wanted them to care for me or my husband,I said I did it because I’m his husband and that’s my job. That’s what a marriage is. Not a publicity stunt and not a thing to do while drunk in vegas. And THAT adds to society. When people care for each other in their families and don’t ask the nanny state to do it for them. Don’t you think that’s something to encourage?

    Anything else you wrote I ignored since its pretty clear you can’t comprehend basic concepts and are just going into hysterical rants.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 3:08 pm - December 12, 2011

  55. When people care for each other in their families and don’t ask the nanny state to do it for them. Don’t you think that’s something to encourage?

    Of course. But you don’t need marriage to do that.

    And as we see, you ARE screaming and bleating and complaining that you had to do it and that the nanny state or Rick Perry or Maggie Gallagher didn’t do it for you.

    Not a publicity stunt and not a thing to do while drunk in vegas. And THAT adds to society.

    Why not? Both Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears support gay-sex marriage, so clearly they and you both see it as nothing more than a publicity stunt or something to do when drunk in Vegas.

    And they at least have the virtue of being pilloried by society for doing it. When gays like you treat marriage with the same level of disrespect, you scream that it’s “homophobic” to criticize you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 3:25 pm - December 12, 2011

  56. Anything else you wrote I ignored since its pretty clear you can’t comprehend basic concepts and are just going into hysterical rants.

    Translation: “I couldn’t answer why I won’t call my Barack Obama a homophobe for opposing gay-sex marriage, or why I and my fellow Obama gays support and endorse discrimination against gays, or why I and my fellow Obama gays support sexual harassment of gays, so I’m just going to duck and avoid.”

    I love how these big, brave gays come here and blather about “war” and “courage” and standing up for their “rights”, then go running back behind Mommy’s skirts when someone actually dares to call them out on their hypocrisy or require them to stand up for their “rights” against their own Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 3:31 pm - December 12, 2011

  57. Well except we do need the rights and responsibilities and protections for that. I cared for him, paid for it myself, took the time off and yes… As the next of Kin I would have been the one to make medical decisions for him if he wasn’t able to do it.

    Because that’s my job. And I do it happily. Because we’re family. And have earned the right, I think, to be treated as one.

    You have no leg to stand on and are now making gross assumptions about my political views and getting them wrong. Because if you had to go with facts and information given you’d have to admit that you are wrong. And I’m right.

    Britney and Kim might support gay marriage (I’ll take your word for it, I’m not a fan and don’t watch the show) but I don’t support them making a mockery of what a real marriage is.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - December 12, 2011

  58. Well except we do need the rights and responsibilities and protections for that. I cared for him, paid for it myself, took the time off and yes… As the next of Kin I would have been the one to make medical decisions for him if he wasn’t able to do it.

    Yeah, except you don’t.

    It’s called living wills, medical power of attorney, and the like. All things that exist today and that could be easily optimized.

    Furthermore, you want to optimize them? No problem. For example, change just a few lines in the tax code and you could make medical coverage for any person you want designated, regardless of spousal status, have the same tax coverage as spousal coverage does today. No muss, no fuss.

    Know what? Gays like myself were the ones who pushed through changes in 2006 so that you could leave your 401(k) plan or other retirement plan to whomever you wanted, regardless of spousal status, without having to pay massive taxes on it. It passed with overwhelming Republican support and Bush signed it.

    Know who tried to block it? Your so-called gay-sex marriage supporting Obama Party. For some reason they didn’t like gays like you having that ability. They didn’t want to take the tax hit — and besides, that ruined one of the arguments they were using to ensure that you stayed on the plantation. And they’re doing the same thing with the taxes on medical coverage.

    These are such easy fixes, and yet gays like you aren’t screaming at your Obama Party massas to make them. Instead you’re whining and bleating and crying about how your life is so awful without gay-sex marriage, and then coming here and calling us closet cases while you defend and support to the death Obama Party members who oppose gay-sex marriage and openly discriminate against gays.

    Not that we’re not used to it. But it makes your hypocrisy even more blatant and obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 3:47 pm - December 12, 2011

  59. You know nothing about my political views, as I pointed out, and must make them up if you want to try to pat yourself on the back.

    Pointlessly.

    All the extra steps and jumping through extra hoops and living wills and alternate rules take time cost more money to implement and could be nullified at the whim of congress. Make our relationships equally legal and poof… You can choose your kind of marriage and I can choose mine.

    Your arguments are weak and your reasoning baffling.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 4:07 pm - December 12, 2011

  60. And you know as well as everyone that there are about 1500 rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges that can only be accessed by married couples. No amount of living wills and legal papers can get us those.

    You know that, right?

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 4:09 pm - December 12, 2011

  61. You know nothing about my political views, as I pointed out, and must make them up if you want to try to pat yourself on the back.

    Oh, I know plenty. Call anything Republicans do homophobic, shut up when confronted with evidence of the same from Obama and the Obama Party. It’s very straightforward and quite typical.

    Granted, it’s unprincipled hypocrisy and cowardice. After all, we’ve seen how gays like you shriek and scream that anyone who ever supports a Republican or criticizes an Obama Party member is a self-loathing closet case. You’re just scared to death of being called that, which is why you shut up and do whatever the Obama Party tells you.

    All the extra steps and jumping through extra hoops and living wills and alternate rules take time cost more money to implement and could be nullified at the whim of congress.

    Yup. Congress could make living wills much easier, for example, but your Obama Party is obsessed that gays like you pay a death tax. They also are aware that you’re too ignorant and cowardly to call them on it.

    And you know as well as everyone that there are about 1500 rights, responsibilities, protections and privileges that can only be accessed by married couples.

    Yup. All of which exist because heterosexual activity produces children, and it is in society’s best interest that those children be raised in a stable and safe environment. Thus we privilege such relationships for the perpetuation of a safe, stable, and solid society.

    You? No such luck. Indeed, you’d be getting tax breaks and subsidies designed to promote something which will never be a factor in your relationship. Society is paying you, but you’re giving nothing in return.

    If you and your fellow Obama supporters actually cared about benefits and responsibilities, you could have easily gotten relevant ones by now. But instead you went into your whiny tantrums, and as a result, you have nothing.

    Stupid. Foolish. Ignorant. Short-sighted. Immature. DUMB.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 4:40 pm - December 12, 2011

  62. Ok but… And although you keep saying I’m some Obama disciple… I’m not an Obama supporter, really. I support a few things, I guess, but you just assume because I call closet cases “closet cases” and support outing that I’m something I’m not.

    You ranted about how I support this or that or give people from o e party but not the other a pass… None of it true and none of it backed up with anything.

    And all of your ranting was just to try to change the subject away from the subject which is “I support outing if it serves my purpose.” I don’t care if someone else is upset by that, they haven’t cared much about anyone else and you get what you give.

    Everything else is just you over-stating things and getting them very wrong in the process. Making you look a bit silly.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 5:36 pm - December 12, 2011

  63. So, Jasun, if you were arguing for polygamy or child marriage would your argument differ from your argument here for gay marriage?

    Since the the population arguing for Sharia is steadily growing, do you believe your argument for gay marriage is of a different nature or do you accept the Sharia argument on the basis that upending traditional English common law as the basis of US jurisprudence needs to adapt to new realities?

    Or perhaps this is only about what you want and everything else is of no consequence to you and all other can just go suck eggs.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 12, 2011 @ 8:12 pm - December 12, 2011

  64. #51

    Throwing a huge tantrum

    #54

    screaming and throwing fits

    hysterical rants

    All phrases that accurately describe your comment #37, Jasun.

    You still haven’t indicated what was so threatening about Rick Perry’s ad. So, assuming that it is okay to out a closeted homosexual that “works against gay rights” (which I disagree with strongly), then it still wouldn’t be justified to out a closeted homosexual who worked on this ad, because it isn’t homophobic, nor does it suggest removing rights from gay people.

    I find your comments very homophobic and bigoted, because you do not seem to believe homosexuals should have the right or ability to think for themselves. You are essentially saying all gays should do whatever you think they should do, and you threaten them if they don’t. There are legitimate ways to get what you want. Only with moral relitivism could you possibly think outing is one of them, IMO.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 12, 2011 @ 8:19 pm - December 12, 2011

  65. I find your comments very homophobic and bigoted, because you do not seem to believe homosexuals should have the right or ability to think for themselves.

    Zing! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2011 @ 10:01 pm - December 12, 2011

  66. I can’t be the only one having a giggle about how, when out of arguments, a certain portion of the population loses their collective marbles and starts to blather about The non-existent threat of Sharia law, child marriage and polygamy. I guess we should be happy they didn’t include goat sex. Oh wait… Yeah.. That got a mention, too.

    If you don’t consider it homophobic to suggest here’s something wrong with America when gay people can’t be fired for being gay, I guess we have different definitions of the word.

    And I still say that i support outing just like I supported exposing the infidelity of John Edwards and the details of president Clinton’s affair. Give the people all the facts and let them decide. If they see a gay person supporting reinstating DADT, they will decide that (1) even gay peopple want it back so bring it back, (2) the person is a total hypocrite or (3) not give a toss either way.

    Gay people can think for themselves just like the general public can. So give them all the facts and let them decide for themselves.

    Or do you think being gay is something to be ashamed about?

    Because I don’t.

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 12, 2011 @ 10:25 pm - December 12, 2011

  67. I can’t be the only one having a giggle about how, when out of arguments, a certain portion of the population loses their collective marbles and starts to blather about The non-existent threat of Sharia law, child marriage and polygamy.

    Actually, the vast majority of people here are giggling about how easily gays and lesbians like yourself are stymied with simple questions like the ones Heliotrope asked.

    If you don’t consider it homophobic to suggest here’s something wrong with America when gay people can’t be fired for being gay, I guess we have different definitions of the word.

    You and your Obama Party support and endorse firing and discriminating against people because they’re gay, as well as your very own Barack Obama saying that gay-sex marriage is wrong, and never once have you called him or the Obama Party politicians who do that homophobes.

    Thus, the point: your definition of “homophobia” is based solely on political affiliation, and in fact has nothing to do with what you claim is “discrimination” against gays.

    What’s so funny is how terrified gays and lesbians like you are that your Obama Party massas won’t like you any more if you dare criticize them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 10:58 pm - December 12, 2011

  68. Or do you think being gay is something to be ashamed about?

    Because I don’t.

    Actually, you do.

    That’s why you’re so terrified of standing up for yourself against your Obama massas. You’re afraid they won’t like you any more. You offer them blind obedience because you’re frightened that they don’t like you for any other reason.

    Granted, they’ve told you that since day one. They’ve done a great job of convincing gays like you that you’re worthless, that you need the government to do everything for you, that everyone else hates you, and that they’re doing a favor for you by even supporting you in the least.

    If you weren’t so obviously a willing participant in your own abuse, I might find some sympathy. If you were actually showing some introspection instead of insisting that every gay person who disagrees with your Obama massas is a self-loathing closet case, it might be easier to be supportive.

    But you are, and you definitely aren’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 11:02 pm - December 12, 2011

  69. #68

    That’s why you’re so terrified of standing up for yourself against your Obama massas. You’re afraid they won’t like you any more. You offer them blind obedience because you’re frightened that they don’t like you for any other reason.

    Granted, they’ve told you that since day one. They’ve done a great job of convincing gays like you that you’re worthless, that you need the government to do everything for you, that everyone else hates you, and that they’re doing a favor for you by even supporting you in the least.

    Precisely.

    #66

    If you don’t consider it homophobic to suggest here’s something wrong with America when gay people can’t be fired for being gay

    Who suggested that?

    I guess we have different definitions of [homophobic].

    Clearly.

    And I still say that i support outing just like I supported exposing the infidelity of John Edwards and the details of president Clinton’s affair. Give the people all the facts and let them decide.

    The president or vice-presidential candidate having an affair is quite different from a pollster being in the closet (which hasn’t been established, as far as I know). Having an affair is wrong. Being in the closet isn’t. If someone isn’t ready to reveal their homosexuality, then they aren’t ready. And there are plenty of reasons some gay people might have to oppose certain “gay rights,” regardless of whether or not they are in the closet.

    Gay people can think for themselves just like the general public can. So give them all the facts and let them decide for themselves.

    So why can’t they decide for themselves when it comes to gay rights?

    Comment by Naamloos — December 12, 2011 @ 11:40 pm - December 12, 2011

  70. If you don’t consider it homophobic to suggest [t]here’s something wrong with America when gay people can’t be fired for being gay

    I do consider it homophobic, when someone suggests that. But Perry didn’t it. Please see (or re-read) comment #25.

    That should come as good news to you, Jasun mark. You should feel relieved to learn that something you thought was a danger to you, isn’t. You should feel relieved to find that life, which is full of dangers, holds one less danger for you here. But you won’t. You apparently like having your dander up, believing the worst, playing victim etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2011 @ 11:41 pm - December 12, 2011

  71. But you won’t. You apparently like having your dander up, believing the worst, playing victim etc.

    Pretty much.

    But the reason why is pretty obvious. When you’re a victim, you never have to take responsibility or blame for anything. It wasn’t your fault you took meth, had bareback sex and spread HIV; the Viagra ads made you do it.

    Very clean and convenient.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2011 @ 11:49 pm - December 12, 2011

  72. North Dallas Thirty, I’m baffled. You keep saying that I’m a supporter of Obama and then adding odd statements like I’m afraid to stand up to them or that I’m “obedient.”

    I’m sorry… Where are you getting that?

    You keep saying something about my “Obama party massas” and I have no idea what you mean. Are you one of those people who think that you need to choose one side and then just blindly take all their positions? You seem to be one of those. Do you think that since I think Rick Perry advocated reinstating DADT (he has said he’d be comfortable doing that) and I oppose that… That makes me one of the Obama fans who just blindly follows him?

    I really don’t get why you keep trying to change the subject away from outing to calling me an Obama supporter and attacking my character. Maybe you’re just scared I have your grindr pics and I’m not afraid to use them?

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 13, 2011 @ 1:03 am - December 13, 2011

  73. So, Jasun, the push for Sharia and multiple marriage is OK by you?

    The non-existent threat of Sharia law, child marriage and polygamy.

    Huh? Have you been so focused on picking your own scabs that you are totally unaware of Dearborn, honor killings and family courts that are taking Sharia into account? You don’t know that Dearbornistan is fast becoming an enclave unto itself much like Londonstan, Malmo, St. Denis, Hamburgistan, and growing traditional Muslim enclaves in New Jersey, New York, California, Ohio, etc.

    You don’t know about the Sharia hold on judicial process across Canada? You think Sharia is just about dressing women and stoning gays?

    Obviously, since you call Sharia a non-existent threat, you have no worries.

    The difference between you and fundamental Islam is that you throw hissy fits and demand attention by waving flamingo feathers and doing a pout in at semi-organized pity parties. The fundamental Islamists act from a strong, theocratic belief system and they grow and unite and wait until they can attack.

    I wonder if you have thought about going to Dearbornistan or a Mosque close to you and asking these good Muslims to help you fight your good gay fight for same sex marriage. And I wonder if while you are there if you might chat with them about child marriage or polygamy or women’s rights. They will obviously be a willing audience based on their non-existent threat status.

    Did you notice the firestorm Newt caused when he tied the Palestinians to the non-existent concept by saying they were just garden variety Arabs?

    You dodged my questions by “giggling.” Now go giggle at the Sharia intent fundamental Islamists and report back about how they shared your giggle and welcomed your gay agenda.

    You insist on upending the marriage tradition of one adult male and one adult female. The tradition of marriage to multiple mates and child mates far outweighs the non-existent tradition of man with man and woman with woman.

    You lose. You chose to lose by scoffing. Typical liberal superiority dance followed by high fives with your fellows. Now, please, call me a homophobe. I am, after all, a str8 who firmly opposes gay marriage.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 13, 2011 @ 8:27 am - December 13, 2011

  74. Jasun, this just in

    A gun and grenade attack in the centre of the Belgian city of Liege has killed at least two people and wounded about 25, Belgian media say.

    Must be gays acting out over gay marriage. Or, will it just be anti-war activists? Or will it be a bank heist? Or will it turn out to be Jersey Shore girls gone bad?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 13, 2011 @ 8:32 am - December 13, 2011

  75. Ok, thanks, heliotrope.

    And that has what to do with whether outing is an acceptable tactic?

    Because that’s what the subject is here and your silly “hurry, he’s right.. Change the subject and move the goal posts” thing Is kinda lame. So I’ll giggle at you all I want.

    I am, after all, a gay man who doesn’t give a toss WHAT you “firmly oppose.”

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 13, 2011 @ 10:16 am - December 13, 2011

  76. And that has what to do with whether outing is an acceptable tactic?

    Actually, it does, because outing is one of the tactics used to get gays killed off under sharia regimes.

    Your insistence on outing in every single circumstance will get gays killed. Dan’s insistence that outing is wrong in every single circumstance will protect them.

    Perhaps if you could think past petty revenge fantasies, you might recognize that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 12:02 pm - December 13, 2011

  77. I really don’t get why you keep trying to change the subject away from outing to calling me an Obama supporter and attacking my character.

    I’m sure you would like to interpret it that way. But what I’m pointing out is that your definition of “homophobia” is based solely on party affiliation, not on action — and since you justify outing based on “homophobia”, what I’m pointing out is that you are a hypocrite.

    Maybe you’re just scared I have your grindr pics and I’m not afraid to use them?

    For what purpose? Blackmail? To ruin my reputation publicly?

    That’s the hilarious part. Gays like yourself cannot make an intelligent or persuasive argument; instead, you have to threaten to destroy anyone who disagrees with you.

    As Heliotrope points out, the cowardice you and your fellow gay-sex liberals display is palpable. The only reason you are allowed to survive is because the very people you hate — Christians, conservatives, and the like — do not stoop to the level of your tactics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 12:12 pm - December 13, 2011

  78. Now go giggle at the Sharia intent fundamental Islamists and report back about how they shared your giggle and welcomed your gay agenda.

    Exactly. As mentioned in the past, I am a gay marriage supporter. And I also believe in proportionality, or perhaps reality: we gays should worry about the people in the world who actually want to kill us and destroy our culture and country; not make sh*t up about second-tier candidates running ill-conceived ads. But the second is so much safer: the Gay Left will pick it every time. Ignore the real threat, invent a non-real threat. It’s so much easier.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - December 13, 2011

  79. We do not live in a sharia regime. Outing will not end in a public execution. Please stop acting like it will or that there is a credible an imminent danger of that happening. And stop making incorrect assumptions about my political views, party affiliation and what candidate I support.

    If the only argument you have is to misrepresent what I believe in and tell me you’re protecting me from Sharia Law, it’s probably best you just admit you have no arguments left.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 1:21 pm - December 13, 2011

  80. “If the only argument you have is to misrepresent what I believe in and tell me you’re protecting me from Sharia Law, it’s probably best you just admit you have no arguments left.”

    And if the only argument you have is to misrepresent what WE believe, and whip up fear that — every time a Republican is elected — we’re bound for the concentration camps, then it probably would have been better if you never came here to start an argument in the first place.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 13, 2011 @ 1:41 pm - December 13, 2011

  81. And again, Lori… Where did I say anything about concentration camps? Where did I misrepresent what you believe? Where did I tell you what you believe or what you do?

    I didn’t.

    I see a lot of me being told I’m and “Obama Massas” and a bunch of accusations of blindly following one pOlitical party over another and some reference to my being on a plantation.

    When I really didn’t “start” an argument, I said I support outing and I support it for both democrats and republicans.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - December 13, 2011

  82. When I really didn’t “start” an argument, I said I support outing and I support it for both democrats and republicans.

    Actually, you don’t; you oppose any sort of “outing” for Obama Party members such as Anthony Weiner and refuse to condemn behavior by Obama Party members that you scream is “homophobic” elsewhere.

    Furthermore, you called for “war” on Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, as well as other gays who don’t think the way you do — but blabber and spin how there’s nothing wrong with radical Islamists and sharia practitioners calling for the death of gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 3:35 pm - December 13, 2011

  83. And I also believe in proportionality, or perhaps reality: we gays should worry about the people in the world who actually want to kill us and destroy our culture and country; not make sh*t up about second-tier candidates running ill-conceived ads. But the second is so much safer: the Gay Left will pick it every time. Ignore the real threat, invent a non-real threat. It’s so much easier.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2011 @ 12:27 pm – December 13, 2011

    Well, and also remember this, ILC: Muslim extremists are supported and endorsed by the Obama Party, which owns and keeps on a tight leash their plantation gays like Jasun Mark.

    The link is pretty straightforward. The Barack Obama Party and Barack Obama himself don’t care if you want to kill gays as long as you want to kill Jews. If you’re the New Black Panthers, Louis Farrakhan, Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or anyone of the sort, you can do whatever you want to the ‘mos as long as you repeat the Obama Party mantra, as espoused by Barack Obama’s mentor Reverend Wright, that the Jews are responsible for all the problems of society.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 3:42 pm - December 13, 2011

  84. “Furthermore, you called for “war” on Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, as well as other gays who don’t think the way you do — but blabber and spin how there’s nothing wrong with radical Islamists and sharia practitioners calling for the death of gays.”

    Ok wow. You’ve made up some pretty desperate bs here but THAT is just… Huh? Where did I say anything that could be even misinterpreted as anything like that at all?

    There’s desperate and then there’s the paranoid blithering you’re posting now.

    You say I opposed the Anthony Weiner outing… No, I didn’t. In fact I’ve said I support it for everyone. Expose them all for what they are. Right and left and centrists. And for not going lock-step with what you say I should do, not voting lock-step with what you believe you lie about what I’ve said, call me a “plantation gay” on a leash and tell me (a guy who makes six figures and holds down three jobs) that I’m a “lazy welfare gay.”

    I see what you did there. Looks like there may be a blind plantation gay here but it isn’t me.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 3:58 pm - December 13, 2011

  85. Ok wow. You’ve made up some pretty desperate bs here but THAT is just… Huh? Where did I say anything that could be even misinterpreted as anything like that at all?

    With pleasure.

    This is a war… wars are ugly. If you don’t have the stomach for it, may I suggest you go home to mommy and take up Macrame?

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 12, 2011 @ 1:46 am – December 12, 2011

    And:

    We do not live in a sharia regime. Outing will not end in a public execution. Please stop acting like it will or that there is a credible an imminent danger of that happening.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

    And this was particularly hilarious:

    And for not going lock-step with what you say I should do, not voting lock-step with what you believe you lie about what I’ve said, call me a “plantation gay” on a leash and tell me (a guy who makes six figures and holds down three jobs) that I’m a “lazy welfare gay.”

    Says the person who came in here with guns blazing, screaming that any gay person who disagreed with him was, quote, a “poor closet Mary”.

    You wanted to pick a fight and you got it. Now you’re screaming and crying because people called you out and hit you back.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 4:25 pm - December 13, 2011

  86. Um … No… I said that the poor closet Marys are poor closet Marys. If you disagree with me, fine… Maybe give me a reason to agree with you. Instead, you immediately assumed that since I’m not in lock step with you, it was ok to take as a given that I’m in lock step with someone else.

    And you’re wrong.

    I’m not screaming and crying about anything. I think I’m being pretty calm in comparison to the “Islamic sharia law is coming to get us” hysteria I’ve been met with.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 4:31 pm - December 13, 2011

  87. #32, Jason debuts with

    I have zero problem whatsoever with outing gay people who privately enjoy the very hard-earned freedoms that the gay community enjoys (like not being attested for having sex in our own houses or having it illegal to fire us for being gay) but publicly hiding in a closet and working against the rest of us.

    #37 Jasun ups the ante

    Cry me a freaking river, TGC. If you work against my family’s rights and protections in ANY way… sorry, I’m going to take that as an attack and fight back any way I can.

    If I can hobble Rick Perry by outing his whole campaign staff in deeply humiliating and career-ending ways… I will. If that means the poor closet Marys get their feathers in a jumble… Oh well. Not my problem.

    (…..)

    This is a war… wars are ugly. If you don’t have the stomach for it, may I suggest you go home to mommy and take up Macrame?

    #39 Jasun clarifies himself on the declaration of “war” part

    So there is a state where I can sponsor my husband for a green card? Which one? In fact… Dazzle us with your knowledge, oh gret one.. Tell is where gay couples have full equality with straight people here in the USA.

    Do I think declaring war will really accomplish anything? Not really. Why don’t you ask your buddy Ken Melhman to explain why he did it.

    #43 Jasun returns with this

    Nope. This is my country too. And if I pay the same taxes, I should get the same rights, responsibilities, protections and access to resources that straight people do. My husband and I are legally married in two countries and together for nearly 20 years.

    (…..)

    We deserve equal treatment under the law and I will do whatever it takes to protect my family, and that includes outing some floor-licking political paper pusher who works for Michele Bachmann by day and trolls Grindr by night.

    Clearly Jasun is speaking about gays, but why (I have asked) would the justification Jasun makes not apply equally to plural marriage or child marriage people? Jasun, it appears can not distinguish his argument as specific only to gays. Jasun’s seems to insist that the camel’s nose under the tent is just and justified, but he takes no interest in the neck, humps and butt that follow.

    #45 Jasun declares

    So hold yourselves to the same standard… In politics, everything including personal life is fair game.

    #51 Jasun brings out the namecalling

    Your arguments are all homophobic and absurd.

    #66 Jasun proclaims

    I can’t be the only one having a giggle about how, when out of arguments, a certain portion of the population loses their collective marbles and starts to blather about The non-existent threat of Sharia law, child marriage and polygamy.

    This in response to my asking him how his argument differed from those issues important in Sharia. Clearly, I was told that it made Jasun giggle and that Sharia impact (in the US) is “non-existent.” Aside from honor killings and the gay bar scene in Dearborn, where the war declaring Jasun does not go, so it must not exist.

    #75 Jasun explains logic to me

    Ok, thanks, heliotrope.

    And that has what to do with whether outing is an acceptable tactic?

    Because that’s what the subject is here and your silly “hurry, he’s right.. Change the subject and move the goal posts” thing Is kinda lame.

    You see, Jasun is only arguing about outing gays. Nothing else. Not green cards for his “husband” or gay marriage or civil equality or any of the issues he raised. He is only talking about outing gays as an important strategy in his war for gay rights. And, if you challenge his gay rights issues, you are moving the goal posts. Get it?

    Get it?

    Jasun gets to out his enemies as a matter of principle (his own private principles) but you are not permitted to question the principles themselves. You must just be satisfied that Jasun rules the debate and any questioning of his reasoning is moving the goal posts, being homophobic, causing him to scoff giggle and blather on about the futility of trying to inform the likes of …….

    Get it?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 13, 2011 @ 6:26 pm - December 13, 2011

  88. Clearly you don’t get it. At all. But watching you try to twist in the wind is kinda fun. Must have hurt your back to limbo that far.

    Careful… The Sharia Monster is out to get you.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 6:38 pm - December 13, 2011

  89. Yeah, I get it. You have five aces and you make up the rules as you go.

    Your tiny sliver of the population in this representative democracy can spit into the wind and call it rain all you want. Heck, you can even spit on the rest of us and tell us it is raining. And you can giggle and giggle and giggle and then huff and puff and bitch stomp all around when you get soundly defeated at the polls.

    Happy outing to you. You are certainly a master at winning friends and influencing people. If anyone says otherwise, just wave your sham marriage licenses at them and stick you fingers in your ears and giggle, giggle, giggle.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 13, 2011 @ 6:58 pm - December 13, 2011

  90. And since my referring to arguments (not people) as “homophobic” and “absurd” upset you so much that I was “name calling,”

    Maybe you can explain why it was ok to call me a “plantation gay” and a “lazy welfare gay” and a “hypocrite” along with “Stupid. Foolish. Ignorant. Short-sighted. Immature. DUMB.”

    Cuz we know how much you are upset by “name calling.”

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 13, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - December 13, 2011

  91. Maybe you can explain why it was ok to call me a “plantation gay” and a “lazy welfare gay” and a “hypocrite” along with “Stupid. Foolish. Ignorant. Short-sighted. Immature. DUMB.”

    Let’s see, how does it go?

    This is a war… wars are ugly. If you don’t have the stomach for it, may I suggest you go home to mommy and take up Macrame?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2011 @ 8:49 pm - December 13, 2011

  92. Heliotrope – LOL :-)

    So let me provide my own review. We have a situation where a gay campaign consutant (1) apparently fought *AGAINST* an ad from Perry (see my comment #21), which ad (2) while dumb, wasn’t anything anti-gay as represented (see my comment #25). On the basis of that, Jasun mark is (3) brrrrrrravely ready to go to “war”, scorching and burning and outing all the way, while simultaneously (4) criticizing people who notice and teaching them about logic and calm.

    ROFL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 13, 2011 @ 8:56 pm - December 13, 2011

  93. You got it, ILC. I pulled most of his wit and wisdom out of his various posts and lined it up as a consolidated review of how his “war” strategy to out people for political principle blossomed into a full blown cluster bomb of rule setting after the game (war strategy?) was underway.

    Your points along with those of others were all discarded as invalid by the imperial Jasun. The coup de grace for these types is to finally decree that all of the opponents are laughably illogical.

    Shades of Cas, Levi, Pomposity, et. al.

    We do keep seeing this play out the same way, do we not? And, oh, no, he is not a liberal or anything like that. Jasun calmly controls his feelings and acts only on well thought out principle. Like outing people to destroy them for political gain. After all, the ends not only justify the means, they demand whatever it takes. War, he calls it. Rape, pillage and burn. War is Hell. I can see him now on his ATV wearing his birdman goggles and armed with his trusty Red Ryder Daisy air rifle and three pounds of bb’s riding right up to the closet door and tearing it open. What a guy. What a man of principle.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 13, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - December 13, 2011

  94. Oh hey, doesn’t hurt my feelings at all… Never said it did.

    It was our tough guy Heliotrope who had his panties in a bunch about “name calling” and I just wanted to get some clarification on what was and what wasn’t ok.

    Didn’t get it but I wasn’t really expecting to.

    Comment by Jasun mark — December 13, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - December 13, 2011

  95. Oh hey, doesn’t hurt my feelings at all… Never said it did.

    So, Jasun, the validity of arguments is based upon the effect they have upon someone’s feelings, as opposed to what basis they have in fact and whether their logic is valid? How convenient, considering you’ve been hammered with logic and facts (repeatedly).

    Comment by Naamloos — December 13, 2011 @ 10:05 pm - December 13, 2011

  96. LET ME BE CLEAR. . .sorry love the teleprompter

    I don’t like outing, having had several experiences over the past 20 years that affected me personally and have dear folk who suffered due to selective outing.

    So I go back to GP:

    ‘My two C-bills,

    I do think that Eric gets too, um, passionate, sometimes, but for various reasons, reason is much stronger than passion in me. Having a code means sticking to it, even when it’s not easy. But hey, I’m a Captain America fan, so take that for what it’s worth.. .

    Bruce likely feels strongly about ‘outing’ because of the attacks on him however.’

    The fabulous TL or The Livewire. over at
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/11/17/once-again-liberals-call-conservatives-dumb-rather-than-engage-their-ideas/

    From Wikipedia. . .
    Outing is the act of disclosing a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) person’s true sexual orientation or gender identity without that person’s consent. Outing gives rise to issues of privacy, choice, hypocrisy, and harm in addition to sparking debate on what constitutes common good in efforts to combat homophobia and heterosexism. A publicized outing targets prominent figures in a society, for example well-known politicians, accomplished athletes or popular artists. Opponents to LGBT rights movements as well as activists within LGBT communities have used this type of outing as a controversial political campaign or tactic. In an attempt to thwart or pre-empt being outed, LGBT public figures may decide to come out publicly first.

    but also Wiki continues with

    The term “outing” can also be used to refer to the disclosure of other kinds of information that might be found embarrassing, such as minority religious beliefs, for example being revealed as atheist in a strongly Christian community.

    Now as I have stated before, Jimmy and Chris got all blustered up over the Perry ad. And then they spouted off on Twitter and then made comments to the media. Really Bad Choices.

    But some folk have done quite well after being outed and often times express a sense of relief.

    As far as Mr. Mark, I understand his point of view. I do not agree with the option of utilizing ‘outing’ though.

    But it is extremely curious that someone that expressly used their privileged position to expose other folks identity right here on GP . . . well, will leave it to your own thoughts.

    I understand how passionate discourse ends up with rants and ugly remarks. Heck Miss Rita Beads is absolutely fabulous at it. Kisses Dan

    Comment by rusty — December 13, 2011 @ 11:44 pm - December 13, 2011

  97. Haha… Naamloos … I haven’t been “hammered with logic and facts” at all.

    Maybe I’ve been hammered with hysteria about things that just aren’t going to happen (gay marriage leading to Sharia Law?) and a lot of totally false assumptions about me personally. I, for instance, am not on welfare, I do not work on a “plantation,” I’m not a dedicated Obama supporter and I’m not on a leash unless you mean last wednesday and I was just experimenting that it was TOTALLY consensual.

    Lori said I was going on about “concentration camps” (totally false, I never said anything so silly) and someone else said I was upset that the government didn’t race to my husband’s side when he was in a motorcycle accident (pretty much the opposite of what I said, actually).

    NDT said I was OK with killing Jews. (wtf?)

    Heliotrope compared being in a gay relationship to screwing children, dogs and having 5 wives. He also complained when I said someone’s arguments were “absurd” that I was “name calling.”

    so don’t say that I’ve been “hammered with facts and logic” when that’s clearly not what happened. What happened is that when I said I was just fine with outing if I feel it serves my political purpose… I support it. And I do. And, I think, so do most people here.

    Comment by Jasun Mark — December 14, 2011 @ 1:29 am - December 14, 2011

  98. Heliotrope compared being in a gay relationship to screwing children, dogs and having 5 wives. He also complained when I said someone’s arguments were “absurd” that I was “name calling.”

    You can not understand what you read.

    I asked you how your argument for gay marriage was specific to gay marriage and uniquely different from the same argument a person might make for child marriage (Sharia) or plural marriage (Sharia) and I said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about dogs or other animals.

    You, however, extended it to a man and a goat. I did not respond to that. So, let us stipulate that you are obsessed with the animal part.

    You completely ran away from the question and questioned my “logic” and claimed I was shifting goal posts and told me you were laughing in my face or behind my back or whatever “giggle” means.

    You uttered the word homophobic concerning people who don’t ascribe to your principle.

    Strange as it may seem, you are a bully.

    This thread has gone on and on and you keep coming back with your gay rights and poor little Jasun pity party invective and superiority. NDT grabbed you by your scrawny neck and you cried like a baby. I stuck to the route of trying to get you to espouse and expose your principles.

    You favor vicious outing for political gain. You are big on guerilla warfare and personal destruction just to make a point. We are all very clear on that.

    But from the quote I have listed above, it is also clear that in your hysteria of self defense, you build your own closet full of monsters.

    Too bad you can’t “out” me.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 14, 2011 @ 8:56 am - December 14, 2011

  99. The hilarity of this, Heliotrope and ILC, is that Jasun Mark, Barack Obama, and his fellow gay-sex liberal supporters are now saying that, if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques.

    In the disordered minds of these people, they are indeed fighting a war for their survival. We have to remember that Jasun Mark and his friends over at websites like JoeMyGod and the like literally believe that Christians are going to kill every one of them.

    Why? Because Obama and the Obama Party tell them that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2011 @ 11:42 am - December 14, 2011

  100. And… 100!

    [some] liberal[s] are now saying that, if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques

    Pathetic.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2011 @ 2:34 pm - December 14, 2011

  101. ILC, it was very sweet of you to edit Dalla’s quote to make him sound less deranged.

    Comment by JJ — December 14, 2011 @ 3:53 pm - December 14, 2011

  102. Actually, what most people would consider deranged is saying that, if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques.

    But we all notice that you don’t consider that deranged. Just pointing it out, though, qualifies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2011 @ 5:54 pm - December 14, 2011

  103. He didn’t edit the part where you pointed out the loony left comments. That’s not the part that makes you sound deranged.

    No, he edited out the part where you attribute the comments to Jasun and Obama.

    Of course, pretending you didn’t understand that just makes you seem all the more nutty.

    Comment by JJ — December 14, 2011 @ 6:52 pm - December 14, 2011

  104. Actually, what most people would consider nutty and deranged is saying that, if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques.

    But we all notice that you don’t consider that nutty and deranged. Just pointing it out, though, qualifies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 14, 2011 @ 9:29 pm - December 14, 2011

  105. OOOPSY, Chris Barron is stepping down. . .

    Comment by rusty — December 14, 2011 @ 9:49 pm - December 14, 2011

  106. [...] We strongly regret the events of this week.   Gay Patriot [...]

    Pingback by GOProud Shake Up | — December 14, 2011 @ 9:53 pm - December 14, 2011

  107. So now you’re just repeating yourself Dalla? Looks like that old saw about “the definition of insanity” has been proven again.

    Comment by JJ — December 14, 2011 @ 11:11 pm - December 14, 2011

  108. But, JJ, since you’re neither a psychiatrist or psychologist, you’re not qualified to define or identify insanity. Furthermore, even if you were, you’ve never seen me in person, so your attempt to do so is, while completely consistent with Obama Party and liberal practice, also wholly unethical.

    You can continue to spin and avoid and dodge, but everyone is seeing how desperate liberals like yourself are to avoid taking responsibility for your claims that if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques. Your bigotry and that of your Barack Obama is now fully out in the open, and you’re losing more and more support because of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 15, 2011 @ 2:09 am - December 15, 2011

  109. Great diversion, Dalla, but doesn’t change the fact that even your buddies choose to rewrite your words to take out the crazy. Love it!

    Comment by JJ — December 15, 2011 @ 2:18 am - December 15, 2011

  110. Actually, what most people would consider crazy is saying that, if the Denver Broncos win the Super Bowl, Christians will riot, kill gays, and burn down mosques.

    But we all notice that you don’t consider that crazy. Just pointing it out, though, qualifies.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 15, 2011 @ 2:47 am - December 15, 2011

  111. Great diversion, Dalla, but doesn’t change the fact that even your buddies choose to rewrite your words to take out the crazy. Love it!

    Back to the old you’re moving the goal posts rant.

    However, it may be the first time I have seen the metaphor applied to an actual football conversation.

    NDT, erred in stating that these were the words of Obama and the words of Jasun Mark. They are the words of a Jewish rabbi. NDT painted with too broad a brush, perhaps, when he stated the names of those who did not utter the words. However, it is to be determined if Obama and the libs and Jasun will disavow the words as whacko and crazy and distance themselves from the Jewish rabbi who felt comfortable printing them in the Jewish newspaper. As a huge majority of New York Jews are a strong base of financial and voting support for Democrat liberals it is not unlikely that the Democrat liberals will react to such blatant bigotry by ignoring it.

    It is telling that NDT is being attacked for stating something that he should perhaps have clarified, but the actual meat of the post is being left to stand.

    Have you no shame, JJ? Can you not bring yourself to join NDT in damning such bigotry and then return to browbeating NDT over his way of overusing conversational shorthand?

    My bet is that NDT would concede the point instantly that he can not produce evidence that Obama and Jasun said the words.

    Which brings us back to the point of who is diverting (moving the goal posts!) and who is not.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2011 @ 8:53 am - December 15, 2011

  112. The link NDT provided has been scrubbed of the Rabbi’s rant. Those interested in the core of what NDT was after might try this:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/14/the-obligatory-rabbi-fears-tebow-super-bowl-win-might-cause-christians-to-rampage-or-something-post/

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2011 @ 9:49 am - December 15, 2011

  113. It is telling that NDT is being attacked for stating something that he should perhaps have clarified, but the actual meat of the post is being left to stand.

    Exactly. JJ, if you think you’re ‘winning’ here… stop kidding yourself.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 10:32 am - December 15, 2011

  114. The simple fact is: the rabbi is a bigot. He showed his anti-Christian bigotry and hatred. So do some others.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 10:33 am - December 15, 2011

  115. NDT, erred in stating that these were the words of Obama and the words of Jasun Mark. They are the words of a Jewish rabbi. NDT painted with too broad a brush, perhaps, when he stated the names of those who did not utter the words. However, it is to be determined if Obama and the libs and Jasun will disavow the words as whacko and crazy and distance themselves from the Jewish rabbi who felt comfortable printing them in the Jewish newspaper……

    My bet is that NDT would concede the point instantly that he can not produce evidence that Obama and Jasun said the words.

    Not instantly.

    Only after the point at which JJ condemns Nancy Pelosi as “deranged” for stating that her allegedly seeing a swastika means all Tea Party participants were Nazis.

    Only after the point at which JJ condemns Mike Rogers as “crazy” for stating that all Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps.

    You get the idea. I will do many things, but I will not unilaterally disarm. JJ and Jasun Mark want conservatives to follow the rules while they ignore them freely. I am moving the battleground onto their rules and holding them accountable using their own standards.

    The weakness of Obama puppets and liberals like JJ and Jasun Mark is that, under all their bravado and blustering about “war”, is an irrational and deep-seated fear of being rejected by their Obama Party and being subjected to the same sort of abuse that they have, at the behest of their Obama Party, heaped on other gays that dared not toe the line.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 15, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - December 15, 2011

  116. I will not unilaterally disarm

    I know what you’re saying: you’re throwing lefties’ tactics back in their faces. Still, in my book, some tactics aren’t worth using (in terms of effectiveness) even if the enemy has earned them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - December 15, 2011

  117. Either way, instantly or not, JJ has not been back to plead his case. The reason is clear. He hasn’t got one.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 15, 2011 @ 6:17 pm - December 15, 2011

  118. #97

    ILC gives a nice summary of the hammering in comment #92, as does Heliotrope in comments #87 and #98. I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed how you seem to forget what you’ve said in previous comments (as Heliotrope points out in comment #87).

    Comment by Naamloos — December 15, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - December 15, 2011

  119. And as for “the non-existent threat of Sharia law,” maybe it’s not as big a threat as some people make it out to be. But where’s your evidence that is isn’t? If you think Muslims make up a large percentage of Europe’s population now, and if you think they’re causing problems over there already (which, based on your comments, you probably don’t, but you would be wrong), just wait until they reproduce at a much faster rate than native Europeans. Their influence will increase. It would be naive to assume that won’t happen in N. America. And even if it doesn’t, Muslims gaining influence in Europe threatens Western values here (and everywhere else). The Middle East is causing enough problems. The last thing we need is to have a Muslim Europe (where radical Muslims and their terrorist organizations can hide and breed).

    So, perhaps there is an element of fear-mongering in the “anti-sharia” crowd. But it’s somewhat based in reality, and it’s better to be vigilant than complacent.

    Comment by Naamloos — December 15, 2011 @ 9:34 pm - December 15, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.