Gay Patriot Header Image

On the failure of the legacy media to investigate Palin’s gubernatorial record as it failed to look into Obama’s campaign self-promotion

If, back in 2008, our legacy media had taken the time to look into Sarah Palin’s actual record in Alaska politics, three names of corrupt politicians would forever be associated with her, Frank Murkowski, Greg Renkes and Randy Ruedrich.  And the reason we would associate their names with hers was not because she turned a blind eye to their double-dealing, but because she exposed it.

She stood up against corruption in her own party.  Each of those men is a Republican.  As she put it in her post yesterday on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government:

Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career.

Read the whole thing.

And yet our friends in the legacy media bought into the claim that that career Chicago poll was some new kind of politician.  They neither asked nor looked for any evidence to buttress his claims.

Sarah Palin, by contrast, had a real record of reform.  It’s just that some journalists thought her tanning bed of greater interest.

But, we’ve been through this before.  That said, it serves as an important reminder about necessary battlefield preparation for the coming presidential contest.

NB:  Tweaked the title to make it less clunky

Share

89 Comments

  1. Palin has gone from Fox News to Big Government. She really has thrown in the towel.

    After quickly perusing the site with its new updated look, I see Big Government is still standing behind Joe “the plumber.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - March 16, 2012

  2. Hilarious, because Cinesnatch was just shrieking about people supposedly questioning his motives and calling him a liar — even as he trashes and questions other peoples’ motives and calls them liars.

    Here we see the rules of the left again: ad hoc, make up whatever you need to at that point in time to trash the people you don’t like. What Cinesnatch is saying is not a criticism of Joe the Plumber’s or Palin’s actions; it is a criticism of the fact that they dare talk back to and criticize Obama. When Cinesnatch squeals and screams like a stuck pig, what that means is that someone is criticizing Obama and he can’t take it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - March 16, 2012

  3. ND30, if I was an advisor on Sarah Palin’s team, I would have recommended her to avoid guest-posting on Big Government as to not tarnish her brand. As a public figure with a credibility issue (for better or worse), it was an unwise move as far as her longevity, as it will do little to strengthen her brand, and may even work against it. Its not a site worth her level of celebrity (or, at least, where I thought her celebrity stood). On my site, I often discuss actor and/or celebrity career decisions in regards to their respective persona and protecting and developing their brand in the marketplace. Palin is a brand. And Big Government was a misstep on her part. There are more reputable conservative sites she could have turned to. That’s just my opinion.

    And Joe “the plumber” was never a plumber. But, he’s now aspiring for government office. What a great man. Another person who thinks he can fix things and then sell everybody out to line his pocketbook. If he makes elected office, I hope he remembers to pay his taxes on his government paychecks.

    Can you explain to me how Joe “the plumber” was telling the truth about being a plumber? Or, was it a mistake on my part that I mistook him for one?

    And, if the sounds that come out of your mouth are not the squealing and screaming of a stuck pig, what are they?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - March 16, 2012

  4. ND30, if I was an advisor on Sarah Palin’s team, I would have recommended her to avoid guest-posting on Big Government as to not tarnish her brand. As a public figure with a credibility issue (for better or worse), it was an unwise move as far as her longevity, as it will do little to strengthen her brand, and may even work against it. Its not a site worth her level of celebrity (or, at least, where I thought her celebrity stood).

    And now the ad hoc rationalization flips to something else.

    We already know what’s going on, Cinesnatch; you’re an irrational Palin-hating bigot. That was made immediately obvious when you praised the two people screaming that Palin was responsible for the Giffords shooting as “voices of reason”.

    If you’re stupid enough to accuse her of shooting someone when she clearly did not, you are an irrational hatemongering bigot. And you did.

    And this really got hilarious as far as flipping ad hoc rationalizations:

    If he makes elected office, I hope he remembers to pay his taxes on his government paychecks.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:56 pm – March 16, 2012

    Ha. And double ha.

    This is why you’re not credible, Cinesnatch. Everyone here sees that you’re just one big set of rationalizations, spins, and double, triple, and quadruple standards, all because you and your fellow moochers desperately need your Barack Obama Party to stay in power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - March 16, 2012

  5. Vince,

    You have made a huge pile and then swan dived into it.

    Joe is/was a plumber. He was not a union licensed plumber. The distinction is without a difference, unless your work specifications call for the credentialed person to fulfill a code requirement.

    Joe had a rather minor tax lien of $1,182 levied against him for Ohio income tax arrears and penalties. If this disqualifies him for pubic office, let us ask Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner to step aside as a matter of showing the moral and enlightened way. And Charlie Rangel. Your moral relativism is showing again: the seriousness of the charge disqualifies a Republican and is a scurrilous lie if leveled against a Democrat. How very convenient for you. How utterly idiotic it appears to the less ideologically driven person.

    You have branded the Breitbart site as beneath contempt and writing on it to be a terrible career move for Palin. Where, pray tell, did you earn the credibility here or anywhere to be listened to on such a matter without open derision as the immediate response?

    Your Palin advice is so absent of content or context that it little more than launching a turd in the punch bowl. What is your message? Or are you just trolling for a little vanity stroking by having someone as dumb and misguided as me take notice of your incoherent fulminations?

    I need to go croak a bantam rooster who thinks he is the biggest cock in the hen yard.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 16, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - March 16, 2012

  6. Cinesnatch:

    With all due respect, living inside that head of yours is it’s own punishment. You have my complete pity and prayers for a miracle cure.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — March 16, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - March 16, 2012

  7. Wait a minute, didn’t Anne Coulter just call Palin a charlatan? If Anne is not telling the truth, can we trust anyone?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/14/ann-coulter-gop-has-a-problem-with-charlatans-like-sarah-palin/

    Comment by Brendan — March 16, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 16, 2012

  8. Wait a minute, didn’t Anne Coulter just call Palin a charlatan? If Anne is not telling the truth, can we trust anyone?

    Comment by Brendan — March 16, 2012 @ 6:24 pm – March 16, 2012

    No, she didn’t, Brendan.

    As you would have known if you had read past the headline.

    Here is what Coulter actually said:

    At a Lincoln Day Dinner event in Florida, she was asked about the possibility of a brokered Republican convention.

    “One of the ones promoting that is Sarah Palin, who has suggested herself as the choice,” Coulter replied. “I think as long as it’s between us girls, I’ve been observing something about her. I don’t think it’s likely to happen. I don’t know what these people are cheering for.”

    Then:

    “And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party,” Coulter continued. “I mean, the incentives seem to be set up to allow people, as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have managed to figure out how not to do that.”

    So no, nowhere did Ann Coulter say that Sarah Palin was a charlatan. The headline itself doesn’t even say that Coulter said Palin was a charlatan; it misleadingly crops her quote and then says like Sarah Palin, implying that it was a direct quote when it was not.

    But again, supporters of Obama have nothing on which to run themselves, so they try to gin up these fights in order to desperately deflect from their stupidity and racism in putting in place an incompetent child whose adminstration has been just one fiasco after another.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - March 16, 2012

  9. What Brendon, say it isn’t so. Coulter slamming Palin.

    Like V saud the orher day we should be higher than animals and not succumb to cannibalism.

    Boy November can’t come soon enough

    Comment by rusty — March 16, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - March 16, 2012

  10. Brendan it looks like it was Levin going after Coulter because Coulter wad popping off abiut Palin

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/16/mark-levin-vs-ann-coulter-conservative-radio-host-challenges-criticism-of-sarah-palin/

    Comment by rusty — March 16, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - March 16, 2012

  11. Coulter’s been losing it lately. Didn’t she do a column not too long ago proclaiming how great RomneyCare is?

    Anyway, it’s funny to see how the mere mention of Sarah Palin’s name sends lefties into spinning tizzies.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - March 16, 2012

  12. Just dispensing post facto advice, helio. I learned it from nd30

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 9:55 pm - March 16, 2012

  13. Who needs the church when I got me all kinds of judgment up on the GP

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - March 16, 2012

  14. And Big Government was a misstep on her part. There are more reputable conservative sites she could have turned to.

    Ok. I’ll bite as I could use a larf. Which “more reputable” sites do you have in mind and why?

    Comment by TGC — March 17, 2012 @ 3:18 am - March 17, 2012

  15. The MSM’s purpose was to destroy Sarah Palin; it backfired. The encrusted, fossilized vultures of the MSM remain a clueless bunch left to their own devices.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — March 17, 2012 @ 9:37 am - March 17, 2012

  16. The clueless left is still infected with Palin Derangement Syndrome and nothing can set them off quicker than a whiff of Palin in the room.

    The power that Palin yields because of that type of madness from the left is inestimable.

    Amazing what a “dumb tw*t” can do to such enlightened, superior forces of the left. Somehow, they laugh and laugh but are scared into panic by her. Amazing.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 17, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - March 17, 2012

  17. I think they deny being afraid of her, but she does bring out their insecurities. There are plenty of people on the left I can’t stand, but the mere mention of the name Bill Maher or Ed Schultz doesn’t inspire me to vent bile in the comments of a blog.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - March 17, 2012

  18. Vince,

    Let me explain “church” to you. The Old Testament has a grumpy God who is a bit of a sh*t in how he swoops down and punishes people for being jerks and idiots. The New Testament is about a loving God who has unleashed an ideal man who is a role model for man to study, comprehend and attempt to emulate. The “trick” is that Jesus is perfect and we can only do our best approximation.

    So, we go to church and we look one another in the eye and we talk and talk and talk about morality and right and wrong. And then we leave the church grounds and we know one another in society. And there we learn who is actually walking the walk as opposed to those who talk the talk, but act like Jon Corzine or Bill Clinton or Al Sharpton, or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or John Kerry or Maxine Waters or Louis Farrakhan or Jesse Jackson or Harry Reid or John Edwards or Al Gore (who flunked out of divinity school) or on and on and on.

    Church helps us get the understanding that good morphs into evil and the line between them is all but invisible. Church helps us understand that people without a clue will argue that there is a huge grey area between good and evil and when they are caught in that area, that they will argue situational ethics all day long. They won’t accept responsibility. They won’t ask forgiveness. They will not atone. They will not try to do better. They want their sin and to be let off free of any burden.

    Vince, you are a poster child for moral relativism. Your entire argument stream is about justifying evil or you immodestly turn yourself in the topic of discussion and claim immunity from what you imagine to be moral persecution by zealots of the right.

    You can pick up a child’s version of the Bible and do yourself a lot of good. You can study the myths and the lives of heroes and begin to understand the common threads that differentiate the good men from the wandering souls who make it all up on the fly.

    One of the problems with being a short life here for a good time and then food for worms is that you lack purpose. Darwin didn’t evolve you to be just a smarter orangutan. If he did, then you are certainly a dead ender, because whatever you are right now is the sum total of who and what you are and your future is all decline. That is a fact when you are just so much meat going through the aging process.

    You have a brain and you are capable of contemplating your usefulness and your purpose for existing. With centuries of wisdom accumulated for us to use as benchmarks and guidelines, why would you choose to stagger through life “discovering” age old wisdoms every now and then through an occasional epiphany?

    You just may not be man enough to face the void of your existence. That is why church helps. You will find that all those people you think are looking down on you are actually reaching out to help you get your footing and take a path that is beneficial to you and all those you touch along the way.

    Reject “church” if you will. But you have no idea what you are turning your back on and, worse, you have no idea of why you exist. The problem with that state of unconsciousness is that it leads to eugenics and boards of like-mindless people deciding who should live and who should die and who has the master ideas and who is the master race and on and on and on.

    The true liberal of today is a dead man walking. He does not do good, he ordains it. He is all of Shakespeare reduced to 20 bumper stickers absent the humor, courtesy,friendliness, mercy, dignity, self-respect, tenacity, economy, gravity, responsibility, earnestness, respectability, humanity, industriousness, piety, foresight, wisdom, discretion, health, self-control, honesty, valor, courage, character, worth, harmony, happiness, justice, nobility, patience, and so forth.

    And the modern liberal does not know how to confront the other themes absent from Shakespeare on the 20 bumper stickers that include: jealousy, sloth, anger, vanity, weakness, greed, lust, arrogance, doubt, wrath, carelessness, pride, untrustworthiness, disloyalty and all of the children and cousins of each of these pathways to personal failure.

    Man in society is a complex animal that is modified by thousands of forces and temptations and too often is bolstered by an out sized ego that defies contradiction.

    “Church” helps you focus and sort out the pressures of what it means to be a vital man, a loving man, a useful man. To some, none of that is appealing or of any consequence. So be it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 17, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 17, 2012

  19. “Church” helps you focus and sort out the pressures of what it means to be a vital man, a loving man, a useful man. To some, none of that is appealing or of any consequence. So be it.

    I know it breaks a commandment, but I am stealing that.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - March 17, 2012

  20. Church has revealed itself to be morally relative over the centuries. And neither is necessary to measure one’s vitalness, love and usefulness. Your multiple decade tradition of adhering to the bible’s latest interpretation has a morally relative foundation. For you to acknowledge that would be to question that very foundation–one you insist is morally superior only because of century old popularity made strong by a flawed humanity comprised mostly of the self-interested, weak-willed and unquestioning. The age of man is mere blip on the timeline of the universe and only a speck of dust in its imagined grandeur. Your moral superiority isn’t as deep as you profess and more relative then you can imagine.

    You speaking of courtesy on a forum that openly stands against and amongst men who spit in its eyes it is ironic.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 17, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - March 17, 2012

  21. And neither is necessary to measure one’s vitalness, love and usefulness.

    The behavior of professed atheists and agnostics in this forum argues to the contrary.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - March 17, 2012

  22. “solely” measure

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 17, 2012 @ 6:33 pm - March 17, 2012

  23. #18.

    That *is* a thing of beauty.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 17, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - March 17, 2012

  24. VtheK,

    No theft involved. If the words match your beliefs, they are yours as well.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 17, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - March 17, 2012

  25. Vince,

    Do you realize that you demand perfection before you will make a commitment? Do you realize that as a result of never finding perfection that you have committed your life to accepting whatever comes along (that is less than ideal) and tickles your fancy is OK? Let me explain:

    On a hill near the Colosseum in Rome stands the church of San Pietro in Vincoli which houses Michelangelo Buonarroti’s sculpture of the “horned Moses.” This great, living and breathing work of cold marble is of Moses with horns poking out of his forehead. Why?

    Jerome, 1200 years prior to Michelangelo, took on the inestimable task of translating the Old Testament from the ancient Hebrew and Greek into Latin. (The Vulgate Bible.) Poor old Jerome mixed up some nuances of Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with a halo of glory lighting his face as Moses having horns. 1200 years later, Michelangelo stayed true to the translation. Human error. Not divine error, human error. What would YOU do? Knock the horns off a masterpiece of the ages? Are you so vain as to improve Michelangelo’s imperfect masterpiece?

    The Nowell Codex gives us Beowulf in its pristine form. The Vedic sanskrit gives us the Vedas in their purist form. The Dead Sea Scrolls vary from the current translations. The Apocrypha challenges the Council of Nicea. William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation fame wrote his seminal work on that colony through reference to his Geneva Bible, not the later, popular King James version. Want to understand Bradford? Read the Geneva Bible.

    You more than insinuate that I accept the word of God as written in the Bible and that it is indisputable. Wrong. The Bible is subject to the errors of the humans who wrote down the words, excerpted parts and pieces and mistranslated the words from other languages and nuances of the times.

    There is a prayer, attributed to the Cornish (sometimes the Scotch) that reads: “From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties And things that go bump in the night, Good Lord, deliver us!” Some scholars believe this to be protection from raiding Norsemen. Who cares? It is the same as there being no atheists in foxholes. Eventually, we all seek a higher power when our determined self-reliance and smugness deserts us.

    Vince, I am sure you would like to bring up the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Star Chamber, witch hunts, wars of religion, teen-aged Popes and whores in the beds of bishops and the Vatican itself. You go right ahead. It is valid and worth examination. But you are commenting on the vices of mortals who acted no better than Teddy Kennedy or Bill Clinton when it came to wielding ecclesiastic power.

    I am sure you rejoice when a fire and brimstone evangelist gets tarred and feathered with his own hypocrisy. Fine by me. It is easy to stone those who have fallen. Perhaps you might recall that Jesus said as much when he spoke up for the prostitute who was to be stoned. He told the mob to select the person who was without any sin of his own (perfect) to come forward and cast the first stone. Ooops. Then he told the woman he had “saved” to go forward and to sin no more. What is your “bitch” with that morality tale? Furthermore, would you have the presence of mind or the balls to do what Jesus did?

    You see, Vince, this whole “moral relativism” crap you insist is present in church history is actually an honest record of the highs and lows of trying to be good men and women in the shadow and image of Christ.

    Why do you place so much stock in our failure? Do you root for evil? Are you so insecure and convinced of your own inadequacy that you need for good men to trip and stumble?

    The Beatles confused me a lot. I never really liked the philosophy of their songs and when they went off to get Hindu indoctrination, I decided to go along behind them and look into the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his whole transcendental meditation concept. What I found was a slippery, eely world of terms without firm definition: justice, peace, equality, fairness, self-actualization, karma, soul of God, illusion, Prakiti and Guna, liberation, One Goal, time, duty and other such doctrine dependent psychobabble.

    So, as a scholar, I set about comparing and contrasting the teachings of Jesus with these so-called enlightenment teachings and I “discovered” one immutable truth: Assholes can not escape Jesus. Assholes have a revolving door with the mystics and the people who teach that you can reach nirvana by controlling your breathing.

    So, Vince, if you are bound and determined to be a free agent, I highly recommend that you invest heavily in modern age intuitive license. Award yourself all manner of gold stars on your wee-wee chart and let the good times roll. Eat, drink and make merry (or Jerry) for tomorrow you can always change the rules.

    And if you get power punched by HIV or sideswiped with herpes, you can always run Sandra Fluke-like to the government for a redress of your entirely innocent and totally victim-clad redress of grievance.

    But could you do me a favor? I would like to be completely free to say “he got what was coming to him and he doesn’t have enough sense to come out of the rain.”

    OK? Your throw yourself on the mercy of the light and transient court of public opinion and I respect the ancient and immutable truths of the common man in a loving community of common men.

    Translation: As close as it come to saying: (Sandra) “Fluke you.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 17, 2012 @ 10:37 pm - March 17, 2012

  26. Do you realize what a superiority complex you suffer from, as well as a judgmental nature, for you to assume I whimsically drift through life and put little heart and thought into the decisions I make purely because I don’t subscribe to YOUR biblically-based values, Helio?

    I recognize my imperfections and works towards improving my soul and contributions every day. I’m no less a hypocrite than anyone. But, it is you who assume my ability and will to measure my own hypocrisy as something less than yours. I only rejoice in another being able to stand outside of judgment of those who are judged. You sir, are the one throwing stones and you don’t even see them leaving your hand. I don’t root for evil. It is you, sir, who qualifies the good as being defined through your own prism and reduce my beliefs as possibly being filtered through a drug-addled 60′s pop group and a hedonistic lifestyle.

    You don’t know me any more than I know you, but what you made abundantly clear is your condescending moral superiority and convolution of ALL Biblical moral relativism care of linguistic mistranslation.

    And, another thing, Helio, in order to contract HIV these days, one generally has to engage in sexual relations. Another one of your assumptions shot down. Congratulations on being so lost in your own beliefs that you pretend you know something about me and proven you don’t know me at all. Go Fluke yourself and your clouded perceptions. And, if you have anything left, stick what remains in your pipe and smoke it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 4:05 am - March 18, 2012

  27. Two Snaps for you Vince!

    Comment by rusty — March 18, 2012 @ 6:23 am - March 18, 2012

  28. Well I do admit that Obama had more experience with terrorists than Gov Palin. Just ask Bill Ayers…

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 18, 2012 @ 10:10 am - March 18, 2012

  29. Vince,

    I don’t have to pretend to know you. Your words reveal you clearly. I am certain we could be friends in the flesh by avoiding our differences. But you are constantly popping up here with your judgment calls and then getting all bent out of shape when you are called on your judgment calls. Think about that, Vince. You consider yourself to be free and righteous in making your judgmental statement, but you also demand immunity from contradiction, evidence and explanation.

    Who needs the church when I got me all kinds of judgment up on the GP

    That statement of yours clearly shows that you are an amoral free agent from any morality or ethic that is not convenient to how you “want” to live your life. Undoubtedly, you have a circle of like minded friends and acquaintances who generally sneer and laugh at us uptight prigs who dance piety dances. Rusty gave you “two snaps” as encouragement. You can probably get Levi, Cas, Serenity and Buckeyenutlover if you can find him.

    I have spoken up for the value of the “church” and you have not bothered to dispute it. You have gone for the jugular instead. That, sir, is a true measure of the bankruptcy of your “philosophy.” Name call, shift the argument and ignore the facts. Those are very simple strategies.

    Attack the “church” and move to Ad Hominem and then dissemble and then shift the argument to you and then repeat the process with a straw man followed by Ad Hominem and dissembling and then shift the argument to you followed by another straw man coupled with Ad Hominem shifting into dissembling while repeating the process with you as the topic and then another straw man ……

    Sorry if my “superiority complex” sees right through you. Apparently you have no defense. Apparently you can not establish the credibility of your self-actualizing, self-confident, self-awareness morality and ethic.

    I long for the return of the days when liberals had brains and could pose challenging arguments for their causes. Now they all seem to be zombies reading bumper stickers and giving each other “two snaps” and a high five.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 18, 2012 @ 11:13 am - March 18, 2012

  30. Again, with the assumptions. I weighed in with my opinion that Palin (love or hate her) misstepped when she posted on Big Government as opposed to guest-writing on a more reputable conservative site, like, say, oh, I don’t know, The Wall Street Journal or, say, The National Review. It was my opinion that she was stepping backwards with her brand. This was not a judgment call on Palin, but a decision of hers. Capasci? And, Joe ain’t no plumber. THIS is what followed:

    When Cinesnatch squeals and screams like a stuck pig

    you’re an irrational Palin-hating bigot

    With all due respect, living inside that head of yours is it’s own punishment. You have my complete pity

    Three strikes and I STRIKE back.

    Can you quote where I “name-called” you, Helio? You, kind sir, went for the jugular when YOU made insinuations about my sexual activity, where you clearly revealed yourself to have made assumptions about a person you don’t know nor can PRETEND to know at all. Or are you’re referencing me throwing your own insults back at you with the “name-calling”?

    Update your Costco prescription and reread your words, because you’re knee deep into it. But, I don’t suggest backing up too far or you’ll trip into the larger pile, to borrow a phrase, you created of your own. Or, are you not humble enough to admit when you’re wrong like so many on GP? THAT’S the day I LONG for.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 11:44 am - March 18, 2012

  31. Heliotrope, there certainly moments and circumstances when you deserve two snaps. But there are also times when you rise above and start popping off in that oh so authoritative tone, dismissive and condescending.

    You have an amazing perspective and I enjoy your particpation.

    Still curious if you have had the opportunity to catch a screening of The Beginners. Should be available son on ondemand or netflix or even dvd.

    As a recovering Catholic, I have chosen to forgive the Church for its sins and errant ways, but still love it and my fellow Catholics

    Comment by rusty — March 18, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - March 18, 2012

  32. This was not a judgment call on Palin, but a decision of hers. Capasci?

    No I don’t understand. Please explain how your opinion of her decision is not a judgment call concerning what she should have done.

    And, Joe ain’t no plumber.

    That is not a fact. You can not prove that he is not a plumber. You can prove that he lacked licensing to perform some types of plumbing and he readily admitted that. So, either prove me wrong or improve your claim by detailing why type of plumbing Joe can’t not perform. Meanwhile, Joe is/was a plumber. (Wiki says this:”Each state and locality may have its own licensing and taxing schemes for plumbers. There is no federal law establishing licenses for plumbers.”) So go to Joe’s locality and see if he violated any laws by calling himself a plumber. That would be on Shrewsbury Street in the working-class Lincoln Green section of Holland, Ohio. You can find Joe’s plumbing contractor who employed him to learn if Joe was a plumber or if the contractor was in violation of the law. You can learn if Joe had been able to buy out the plumbing contractor if Ohio law required the owner (Joe) to be a licensed master plumber or even a plumber at all. There is much for you to learn before you say that “Joe ain’t no plumber.” But, I am fairly certain you will ignore the truth and facts and stick with your claim.

    Can you quote where I “name-called” you, Helio?

    Yep. You called me a moral relativist.

    Your moral superiority isn’t as deep as you profess and more relative then you can imagine.

    You speaking of courtesy on a forum that openly stands against and amongst men who spit in its eyes it is ironic.

    Do you realize what a superiority complex you suffer from, as well as a judgmental nature, for you to assume I whimsically drift through life and put little heart and thought into the decisions I make purely because I don’t subscribe to YOUR biblically-based values, Helio?

    None of this is particularly annoying, really. I just wonder where your “moral base” comes from and whether you could even begin to outline, let alone explain, your “belief” system.

    I have tried several times to explain moral relativism to you, but it always seems to zing right past you. You seem to have no interest in the millions of great minds that have preceded your short time as meat on the hoof going from womb to worms. You seem perfectly content to make it all up on the fly and have no “there” as a destination. Those are my observations (judgment.)

    So, Vince pronounces and it is fully a pronouncement from Vince. There is not supporting evidence. There is no moral or ethic. It is stream of consciousness masquerading as some sort of new compass.

    You have entirely misread my Bible and church mentions. I never quote chapter and verse. I never resort to Sunday school parables unless they are extremely fundamental. (Like Jesus the prostitute and those who would stone her.) I addressed your rather convoluted chatter @ #20 with a fairly complete set of comments @ #25.

    I don’t run to some site and then take a talking point and toss it down as a fact, because I don’t ever want the egg on my face of somebody else’s rotten research or bold lie. But you brought “joe the plumber” and the lie about him here and you insist on telling it over and over. Your choice. What part of your independent, self-actualizing “belief” system informs you to do that? Is it the part where “the ends justify the means?”

    Yeah, I pretty much have wiped the floor with your attempts to rise above the utility of your moral relativism.

    I am interested that you refer to your soul? Where did that come from? Did you have it when your were a clump of cells? Where will it go when you are put out to compost? Can the Darwinists speak to the evolution of the soul? Or is it a temporary affectation that you use to dress up your non-arguments?

    Just curious.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 18, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - March 18, 2012

  33. Yes, Cinesnatch and rusty, we know; you’ve always been able to lie or spin or play the gay card your way out of everything, so the experience of actually being wrong and/or having your opinions rejected is quite beyond you.

    And that is also why you have such hatred for the church and religious beliefs, because the core of both is the establishment of mankind’s fallibility and the establishment of an objective series of values by which all are expected to live regardless of age, sex, skin color, or sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - March 18, 2012

  34. I’ve already explained my moral base to you before, Helio. You want to know my answers? Go find the thread. I’m not interested in circle-jerking over the same topic yet again. You want repetition, hit ND30 up. He’s got a whole catalog of pointless links and indecipherable rationalizations he loves to repeat ad infinitum.

    And, just for the record, it’s you who have lobbed that accusation of being a moral relativist many times at me, backing it up with your pathetically cobbled together and holier-than-though arguments. Funny that you should mention me calling you a moral relativist as “name-calling,” when it’s a name you first falsely ascribed to me. I only throw back what’s sent to me over the net.

    If you can’t distinguish between someone criticizing someone’s decision (Palin, in the case of posting on Big Government) and being call a “Palin-hating bigot,” for the comment, then, like I said, it’s time for you to take another trip to Costco’s eyewear center. You’re beyond having it explained to you. If someone told me you started eating Twinkies for all of your meals from here on out, I would say that was bad for your health. I don’t think it means that I hate you. The only thing I hate about you are your wild and misplaced assumptions about me that you toss around freely and refuse to take responsibility for, as if they’ve never happened and/or you’re free to disregard at will.

    And you want hold me accountable for lying about Joe? About the only thing “the Plummer” will fix these days are his eyes on political position. If he once knew how to unclog a toilet, he has probably forgotten by now. And, yet, you keep filling it. The smell in here is beyond tolerable. Maybe you should tend to the commode and stop wiping the floor with your delusions. Adios.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - March 18, 2012

  35. ND30 talks about people not being able to admit that they’re wrong. LOL! (I mean “Laughing out Loud”; I’m not referencing ND30′s Library Of Links–to avoid any confusion) To borrow a phrase from ND30 (with my own little twist), me thinks the stuck pig screams and squeals too much.

    Yeah, you can blockquote me on that one.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - March 18, 2012

  36. Vince,

    Why are you tarring me for remarks made by NDT? I have always taken responsibility for what I say. So why are you wasting my attention over irritations you have with another person?

    NDT is more than well equipped to handle your gripes in a fashion that suits his whim.

    Meanwile, Joseph Wurzelbacher is/was a plumber. You chose to call him a liar and I presented the facts to you. So, you wrote it and now you own it. In words of Omar Khayyam:

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
    Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

    Sorry pal, you can’t use your morality on the fly to escape your irresponsibility.

    I never resort to “situation” ethics or moral relativism. You, on the other hand, have no working understanding of either of those thin ice philosophies. You wouldn’t know situation ethics from Shinola or moral relativism from Splenda. Ergo, when you throw the term at me, you only succeed in showing your tush.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 18, 2012 @ 8:04 pm - March 18, 2012

  37. Wow, Helio, do I really have to walk you through what happened on this thread, since you’ve apparently wandered down an alley and lost your way?

    1) I made a comment regarding Palin’s branding decision
    2) ND30 and BF made personal remarks, some specifically addressing me as anti-Palin (ND30′s Palin-specific remark had NOTHING to do with Joe “the Plumber”)

    3) You said

    Where, pray tell, did you earn the credibility here or anywhere to be listened to on such a matter without open derision as the immediate response?

    4) I made the judgment/church remark in regards to aforementioned quotes laid out in Post #30 made by ND30 and BF.

    5) THEN, you started shoveling a pile over church

    Are you caught up, Helio?

    I don’t give a fluke what you, pray tell, think of whether I’ve earned credibility to be listened to on such a matter or not. It’s your CHOICE to openly deride me as YOUR immediate response. It doesn’t change that I believe it was a misstep on her part. As of yet, you have neither AGREED or DISAGREED. In fact, you’ve wasted all this time not even bothering to counter my argument that it was a bad choice on Palin’s part. Instead of clogging up the commode with your stinking piles of words, why don’t you actually try challenging me on what I said at the very beginning of this thread?

    Or, just keep pilling on. I’m getting used to the smell.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - March 18, 2012

  38. And you’ve used “turd in the punch bowl” already 389 times on this site. You’ve been kicking around for eight decades. Surely your material isn’t all stale.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 18, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - March 18, 2012

  39. YET ANOTHER thread ends up, after Cinesnatch himself works at it steadily, talking about… Cinesnatch. LOL :-)

    FTR, I admit I’m wrong in some way, almost every day of my life. And I have admitted I’m wrong on this blog several times, for example, from

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - March 18, 2012

  40. Whoops, hit wrong key. (See?)

    admit when you’re wrong… THAT’S the day I LONG for

    FTR, I admit I’m wrong in some way, almost every day of my life. And I have admitted I’m wrong on this blog many a time, for example, from March 4:

    There was an earlier thread where you asked if you were a troll. I said no. I take it back. Either I did not comprehend your trolling strategy yet, or you had not yet rolled out your trolling strategy in its full glory. But now it’s clear. For the record, Cinesnatch: Yes, you are a troll.

    See? Right there, I admitted I had been wrong, Cinesnatch, to not recognize your trollishness sooner.

    I think what you want, Cinesnatch, is not so much for people to admit they’re wrong as such (or else examples like the 2 above would suffice), so much as for people to PRETEND that you’re somehow not wrong.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2012 @ 10:58 pm - March 18, 2012

  41. If you want to address me, ILC, try one of the loose ends you’ve left on another thread. Otherwise, this is between Helio and myself. His inability to follow along is confusing matters enough. Your convoluting nonsense is narcissistic. Stop making this about you, ILC.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:47 am - March 19, 2012

  42. However, Helio managed to veer this thread off a course it didn’t need to go down, much in the way you couldn’t prove the NAACP was racist during the Shirley Sherrod speech, but were willing to repeatedly insist how you weren’t interested in litigating.

    Would you like to continue piling on the nonsense and making this about ILC or actually discuss the merits behind Palin’s decision to post on Big Hollywood verses a differently regarded conservative media site?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:51 am - March 19, 2012

  43. Imitation is flattery… or in your case, desperation. What’s wrong, Cinesnatch? Not as much fun, if somebody else gets in the key light of your closeup? LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 1:06 am - March 19, 2012

  44. Helio managed to veer this thread off a course

    And you had nothing to do with it, natch. Poor, poor baby! You’re so persecuted! It is in NO way your fault, that EVERY discussion you engage in significantly (and no matter whom with), ends up with you talking and talking about you! LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 1:08 am - March 19, 2012

  45. (i.e., your travails)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 1:32 am - March 19, 2012

  46. If anything is desperate, it’s your willingness to stick your nose in your own piles.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 1:34 am - March 19, 2012

  47. Now now, Cinesnatch – civility, remember? Not that I care, but… it’s your big thing that you throw at other people, right? (when you want to either silence them, or at least change the subject to your poor persecuted self)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 1:43 am - March 19, 2012

  48. It would have been uncivil of me to not point out the obvious.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:02 am - March 19, 2012

  49. Get some rest Vince. You have got yourself all lathered up over Judeo-Christian morality and ethic and you don’t know how to get off the bus. I understand.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 10:53 am - March 19, 2012

  50. As for topic, if that’s your ploy now, well, here it is as a reminder:

    Sarah Palin, by contrast, had a real record of reform. It’s just that some journalists thought her tanning bed of greater interest.

    Anything to say about that? Something of relevance, I mean; not just randomly smearing Palin, Breitbart and/or Joe the Plumber for the attention factor. Too tall of an order?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - March 19, 2012

  51. Funny, Snatchy, I’ve looked all over that first thread and there’s not a single mention of “branding” anywhere in it. Just an insult.

    1.Palin has gone from Fox News to Big Government. She really has thrown in the towel.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:55 pm – March 16, 2012

    Of course, when that was pointed out, you then flipped to the “branding” argument — only to have it thrown back in your face that a person like yourself who had said that those accusing Palin of attempted murder in the Giffords shooting were “voices of reason” was a less than reliable source on Palin.

    As for Joe the Plumber, that then also blew up in your face when you were presented with examples of Barack Obama staffers and Barack Obama Party Congresspersons who were running around with back tax liens without a peep from you on their unfitness to serve.

    But now, since you seem hell-bent on pissing and screaming about supposedly misrepresenting yourself in order to make a political point, we can easily shut you up by showing how your Barack Obama ordered his delegates to dress up like doctors and misrepresent themselves as such at town halls for the health care bill.

    And, just to cap off the Joe the Plumber saga, we can point out how the Obama campaign ordered its minions to not only use state emails and resources to send them lists of potential donors, but to also illegally search databases and release private information to smear Joe the Plumber.

    Not a damn word from you anywhere in that process, either. You’re flipping out over Joe the Plumber supposedly “misrepresenting” himself when he was actually working for a plumbing contractor — while you’re dressing people as doctors who aren’t and pushing them out in front of the camera while behind the scenes you have your campaign supporters plowing through government and state databases looking for information to release publicly to smear people.

    Don’t you EVER come here and lecture about morals, you filth. We’ve seen what you and your friend rusty give “two snaps” to, and it’s not only completely hypocritical, it’s also illegal. You two truly will say and do anything to keep your grip on power — which makes you completely unsuited to ever be allowed anywhere near it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - March 19, 2012

  52. ILC, if you’re going to ignore the question I posted at the end of #42 first, which is merit-based, then, I can only surmise your questions in #50 are rhetorical.

    Have a great day. Enjoy playing in your pile.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - March 19, 2012

  53. ND30 >> You read everything I write assuming it’s a conservative-attack. Of course, you think it’s an insult. It’s easier for you to assume it is, then actually seriously entertain the thought that I went into more detail in Post #3 and #30 and then rephrased the question in #42.

    If I have credibility issues, then you should have no problem enlisting the moderators to ban me from this site, as that would mean I add nothing to the debate, as they practice removing irrelevant content. If you’re so confident in my “credibility issues,” be my guest and ask them to ban me from the site. (I think you have enough experience getting banned to know what it’s all about.) And, by the way, I’m still waiting for your email address, so I can show you proof of my monthly insurance payments as well as my parent’s long-form birth certificates. Do you remember what real proof is? Or does it have to come from the ND30 LOL (Library of Links) to qualify?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  54. smooches, ND30 xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - March 19, 2012

  55. Special message for you ND30. Love you long time!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - March 19, 2012

  56. ILC, if you’re going to ignore the question I posted at the end of #42

    Imitation is flattery… or in your case, desperation. What’s wrong, Cinesnatch? Outmatched? Not as much fun, when somebody else gets in the key light of your closeup?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 12:40 pm - March 19, 2012

  57. And, if anyone doesn’t want to address the merit-based point I made at the very top of this thread and would prefer to prattle on about something else entirely (whether it be about church, from ND30′s LOL, a personal attack, etc.) unrelated, then be my guest and indulge your sense of narcissism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - March 19, 2012

  58. Case in point Post #56.

    When we’re ready to have a real conversation, feel free.

    Until then, keep insisting that you’re schooling me as you lie in your vile piles.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - March 19, 2012

  59. Love you too ILC! xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - March 19, 2012

  60. In post #56, by their own words, they’re insinuating that they’re desperate.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - March 19, 2012

  61. ND30 >> You read everything I write assuming it’s a conservative-attack. Of course, you think it’s an insult. It’s easier for you to assume it is, then actually seriously entertain the thought that I went into more detail in Post #3 and #30 and then rephrased the question in #42.

    Went into more detail, no. Changed your story and started spinning, yes.

    If I have credibility issues, then you should have no problem enlisting the moderators to ban me from this site, as that would mean I add nothing to the debate, as they practice removing irrelevant content. If you’re so confident in my “credibility issues,” be my guest and ask them to ban me from the site. (I think you have enough experience getting banned to know what it’s all about.)

    One of the nice things about GayPatriot, Cinesnatch, is that the ban hammer is applied, not for disagreement, but for outright disagreeableness.

    Your problem is that the other sites you frequent confuse disagreeing with being disagreeable. That is not surprising; you regularly do the same here, insisting that those who disagree with you or provide facts to the contrary of your assertions are persecuting you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - March 19, 2012

  62. NDT, quite right. Cinesnatch indeed contributes nothing of value – only a strained, gray kind of entertainment with his mix of hostility (random insults), self-pity and forays into lying – and yet there is no reason why the blog owners should take notice of him, much less ban him. They are tolerant guys, and busy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:19 pm - March 19, 2012

  63. 57.And, if anyone doesn’t want to address the merit-based point I made at the very top of this thread and would prefer to prattle on about something else entirely (whether it be about church, from ND30′s LOL, a personal attack, etc.) unrelated, then be my guest and indulge your sense of narcissism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:41 pm – March 19, 2012

    Your “point” has been addressed repeatedly, Cinesnatch.

    You simply refuse to acknowledge anything that is not complete and total agreement with you. You claim to demand facts and want discussion, yet deride links and facts that are shown to you and complain about people “judging” you if they disagree.

    This site is unusual and threatening to you because you’ve never seen a gay website where people are not only allowed, but encouraged to disagree with gay dogma and actually criticize gay and lesbian people who behave badly. You’re much more suited to websites like Truth Wins Out, Waking Up Now, or others that ensure that not a disparaging or different thought is ever posted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - March 19, 2012

  64. 62.NDT, quite right. Cinesnatch indeed contributes nothing of value – only a strained, gray kind of entertainment with his mix of hostility (random insults), self-pity and forays into lying – and yet there is no reason why the blog owners should take notice of him, much less ban him. They are tolerant guys, and busy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:19 pm – March 19, 2012

    Exactly, ILC. Indeed, it’s kind of amusing that Cinesnatch uses whether or not one has been banned from a website as proof of the validity or relevance of one’s arguments — because it acknowledges that the other gay and lesbian websites that Cinesnatch frequent ban, not based on behavior, but whether or not they disagree with the arguments being presented.

    That’s typical, though. Most gays and lesbians are like Cinesnatch — less interested in learning and discussing than they are having their preconceived notions validated as correct by others. After all, given that their value in their minds derives from their sexual orientation, anyone who would dare question their conclusions is doing so out of homophobia and hatred for gays and lesbians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - March 19, 2012

  65. Your “point” has been addressed repeatedly, Cinesnatch. You simply refuse to acknowledge anything that is not complete and total agreement with you.

    Zakly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  66. It’s amusing that you two keep prattling on about what you think of me as a person, when I couldn’t give two piles. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based and you continue indulging your fascination with what you think about past exchanges. Try staying in the present and I will do my best in the future to do the same.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - March 19, 2012

  67. 66.It’s amusing that you two keep prattling on about what you think of me as a person, when I couldn’t give two piles. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based and you continue indulging your fascination with what you think about past exchanges. Try staying in the present and I will do my best in the future to do the same.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 2:47 pm – March 19, 2012

    Been there, done that.

    Your response was to whine about how we were judging you and then complain that if you weren’t credible we should be calling for your banning.

    Oh, and of course, when the links necessary for having a merit-based conversation were provided, you mocked and derided doing so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - March 19, 2012

  68. kisses nd30

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - March 19, 2012

  69. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based

    Oh, my. Merit-based is the latest psychobabble, new age, indefinable, spinning goal post offered up to guide us toward truth, justice and the American Way. Would you like some geez with your whine?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - March 19, 2012

  70. So you’re all in agreement that palin would have better served herself by hooking up with a more respected conservative media outlet. Sorry, it takes me a while to read between the lines. last time it took me over 100 posts to get that ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video. At least, this time, it only took less than 70 posts. Thanks guys! And god bless you and have a great week! Xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - March 19, 2012

  71. Pat,

    Perhaps you are familiar with the work of Lawrence Kohlberg who addressed “moral stages.”

    I hope you will look it over and understand that different people are at different levels of moral understanding.

    Your pork vs. homosexuality perhaps need some rethinking. Eating pork was prohibited. I would not choose the action of eating pork as parallel with the action of having sex in dead-end ways for the end result of satisfying lust.

    Producing children is not the highest moral order. If it were, I suspect the Bible would have encouraged men to impregnate as many women at hand as possible and as often as possible. The prohibition on pork and the prohibition of sowing your seed in useless places are not really too different in many respects. But they are vastly different in concept.

    However, your reference to pork becoming more acceptable and less of a moral stricture is useful. What you eat and do not eat is a strange sort of moral tenet. It is largely about how you, as a religious person, “do” religion rather than how you as a human interact with other humans.

    I suppose if eating pork or shell fish were really a big moral issue, we would find pork and shell fish wars fought between competing points of views throughout history. But, we don’t. (We do seem, however to have kept cannibalism high on the morality restrictions.)

    Can I respect a person who eats shell fish or pork? In many ways, but not if he professes to hold a faith that bans the action. It is not the pork, but the hypocrisy that is morally wrong.

    What is your understanding of why the sexual conduct of homosexuality is considered immoral by many? Why do you think so many prefer homosexuals to carry out their private life in their bedrooms and not confront the public square with actions of affection that draw attention to that with which the public square is not in full accord, let alone approval?

    In many respects, I do not understand why thoughtful, intelligent gays and lesbians do not create a positive religion for their specific minority needs and issues. Instead, there seems to be a lot of energy expended to try to reorganize existing religion to accommodate their wants.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - March 19, 2012

  72. My bad, Pat.

    Wrong thread1 (Again.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - March 19, 2012

  73. So you’re all in agreement that palin would have better served herself by hooking up with a more respected conservative media outlet. Sorry, it takes me a while to read between the lines. last time it took me over 100 posts to get that ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video. At least, this time, it only took less than 70 posts. Thanks guys! And god bless you and have a great week! Xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:48 pm – March 19, 2012

    No, we’re not.

    You simply are trying to win the argument by making a declaratory final statement and then stomping off.

    You didn’t. If anything you made yourself look worse with such actions.

    But that is quite beyond you to recognize.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - March 19, 2012

  74. Well you certainly haven’t bothered to weigh in on the issue, so what am I supposed to think until you do?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - March 19, 2012

  75. And if you don’t want to, can we just end things here and move on?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - March 19, 2012

  76. Vince,

    Are you still at it? Your credibility on what Palin should or should not do is weighed by your ability to draw flies against Palin’s ability to draw national attention.

    Even your barnyard draw for flies, great as it may be, does not begin to interest public notice for its numbers. Palin’s teenaged daughters gather more hatred from the left than you will ever accumulate “two snaps” from you clown friends in the Peanut Gallery on the left.

    This personal attack brought to you by your determined efforts to hog the limelight.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - March 19, 2012

  77. ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video

    My claim was: The NAACP laughed with pleasure, as Sherrod explained her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    You posted comment after comment, documenting that exact thing for me. You only pretended you were somehow contradicting me, LOL :-)

    Hate to intrude on your lies (to yourself?) with a bit of reality, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - March 19, 2012

  78. If anything you made yourself look worse with such actions.

    Indeed. The simple facts are these.

    - Cinesnatch is the local equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church. They picket the funerals of good men, with slanders. Cinesnatch “determined to depict [Breitbart] as disingenous and lack [sic] integrity” and did so in a 170+ comment discussion, on a thread mourning Breitbart.

    - Only smear artists “determine to depict” others in a certain way. Cinesnatch must now live with the stench of his own narcissistic and vile indecency.

    - Unwilling to do so, he blames the stench of his vileness on us, bringing a pathetic mix of hostility, intellectual dishonesty and self-pity to each thread he participates in. Most recent exhibit: this thread.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - March 19, 2012

  79. LOL … your continued belabored repetition on your perceptions of argument style and contributions at GP are not my trying to hog the limelight or fuel narcissism, as I’ve been accused.

    You have all made your points on what you think of me. You’ve said the same things 100 different ways.

    And, I ask you, again, was Palin’s decision to post on Big Hollywood instead of a more reputable conservative media site a step forward, back or sideways?

    And how is me asking this question trying to hog the limelight? If you don’t want to answer it, then, don’t, and leave it at that. Or here’s a novel idea: answer the question. By your very definitions, by just showing up at GP, I’m trying to hog the limelight. Believe me, if I wanted to get attention, I know where I can get it and in crowds much bigger than the 20 or so regular commenters at GP. Attention? You FLATTER YOURSELVES! Try answering the question. We already know how you feel about me and my debating skills. Now, get over yourselves and answer the question or just move on … (it’s not rocket science, folks) …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:10 pm - March 19, 2012

  80. [Cinesnatch, speaking to ILC:] your continued –corrections of my own– belabored repetition on your–my mis–perceptions of –your– argument style and contributions at GP are not –are indeed– my trying to hog the limelight or–and– fuel [my] narcissism

    FIFY, champ.

    You brought up Sherrod, and that thread in which you were so disgraceful; I didn’t. But natch, it’s not your fault. It’s never your fault, right? The devil made you do it! LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - March 19, 2012

  81. And, I ask you, again, was Palin’s decision to post on Big Hollywood instead of a more reputable conservative media site a step forward, back or sideways?

    1.) Any Breitbart site is a reputable conservative site. Prove otherwise. Oh? You can’t? Then Big Hollywood not being a “reputable” conservative media site by your self-serving liberal over the top leftist opinion is just a bigoted judgement call.

    2.) You loony-tunes leftists went totally bat-sh*t crazy over Breitbart bringing it to you and making you own it.

    3.) Conservatives everywhere in this once great nation support the Breitbart sites in honor of the man and we will work to keep up the good work that Breitbart did in his tireless work to build the sites.

    4.) Your opinion and a two farts in an aqualung are just about worth a shattered clarinet reed mended with snail snot.

    5.) You strike poses as a great thinker and authority, like Cas, but you can’t even work up enough presence to cast a shadow.

    6.) Take your presumptuous insistence that we here need to pay you more respect and attention and see if you can get a good parking space at Wal-Mart in trade.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - March 19, 2012

  82. I declare retroactively that Heliotrope just spoke for me. Or as they say… “Dittos!”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - March 19, 2012

  83. Um … did I not single out The Wall Street Journal and The National Review as reputable conservative sites?

    Why do I keep having to hold your hand to keep you on course, Helio?

    Or, are what you’re saying is that you view BH as having the pedigree of the aforementioned? For a non-moral relativist like yourself, I would have had you pegged as someone who leaned towards more time-tested tomes. Guess I was wrong …

    … Good authors too who once knew better words,
    Now only use four letter words
    Writing prose, ANYTHING GOES!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  84. P.S. Breitbart’s book came today. I can’t wait to read it!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:36 pm - March 19, 2012

  85. Your opinion and a two farts in an aqualung are just about worth a shattered clarinet reed mended with snail snot.

    Thank you for listening to my complaint about overusing turd in the punchbowl. Not impressed, but I give you props for trying. Really, this is quite decadent and stream-of-consciousness. I never had you pegged as a connoisseur of David Lynch films. I wonder what your dreams are like at night.

    Take your presumptuous insistence that we here need to pay you more respect and attention

    Believe me, YOUR disrespect is worth the price of admission here at GP. And, I believe I already commented on the attention part. KEEP UP, Helio! Seriously, make that trip to Costco.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - March 19, 2012

  86. P.S. Breitbart’s book came today. I can’t wait to read it!

    I hope they spell-checked it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:49 pm - March 19, 2012

  87. BTW… Speaking of people who can never admit when they’re wrong…

    Rather than get into a hostile, oppositional, limelight-hogging, dig-the-hole-deeper thing in every thread, in which Cinesnatch obsessively brings up the past Breitbart thread even though no one else did i.e. he is first to do so in the new thread… wouldn’t it just be easier – and more honest/decent, etc. – for Cinesnatch to admit he was wrong to play the part of Westboro Baptist? That maybe, just maybe, the first thread after an admired individual dies isn’t the decent place for spewing crap all over them for a duration of 170+ comments?

    So again, when I see Cinesnatch complaining about people who can’t admit they’re wrong, I’m left chuckling “….project much?”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 9:09 pm - March 19, 2012

  88. As far as Breitbart, I know I’m mind-reading here, but I’m guessing the polemicist wouldn’t have wanted to be celebrated any other way than people participating in his favorite sport–unapologetically arguing over politics. For someone who spit on the grave of Ted Kennedy on the day of his death, I fear Breitbart would have accused me of playing in the little leagues with my tactics on Bruce’s Breitbart RIP thread.

    Otherwise, I have already privately apologized to those I needed to for my insensitivity, namely, Bruce and Dan.

    It takes two to tango, my friend. You could have just walked away. Kind of like what I’m going to do right now.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - March 19, 2012

  89. It takes two to tango, my friend.

    Looks like you didn’t read my comment, Cinesnatch. As usual. I’ll add emphasis this time – still knowing, of course, that it won’t sink in:

    wouldn’t it just be easier – and more honest/decent, etc. – for Cinesnatch to admit he was wrong to play *the part of Westboro Baptist*? That maybe, just maybe, the first thread after an admired individual dies isn’t the decent place for *spewing crap all over them* for a duration of 170+ comments?

    Breitbart deserved a defense from the likes of you. We provided it. Suck on it.

    Kind of like what I’m going to do right now.

    LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - March 19, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.