Gay Patriot Header Image

Of Shootings and Double Standards

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:54 pm - August 16, 2012.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Media Bias

As I debated how to post on the shooting yesterday, I recalled an editorial I had read in the New York Times just after the Arizona shooting (in January 2011) when the editors of the Old Gray Lady contended that the shooter “is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery.

They added further that it was “legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” Recognize that prose? I paraphrased it in my first post on the shooting.  Indeed, I borrowed my title from that journal, substituting “District of Columbia” for Arizona.

That post caused one of our most frequent critics to fall right into the trap I set.  He contended it was “completely absurd” to engage in “hand-wringing about the ‘gale of anger’ and how gay groups are ‘setting the nation on edge’”  Of course it was absurd.  And that was my point.  It was similarly completely absurd for the Times to engage in the same sort of hand-wringing.  Bear in mind, our critic quotes as “absurd” words first used by the Old Gray Lady’s editors to respond to a shooting.

Leading voice in the legacy media, like the New York Times editors, ever swift to hold Republicans responsible for a shooting where there is no evidence whatsoever of political motivation all but avoided the notion that there could be a political motive in this yesterday’s shooting even where is considerable evidence of a political motive.

That said, gay leaders are no more responsible for the shooting than Sarah Palin was for the Arizona shooting.  Let us not ascribe to our ideological adversaries responsibility for actions they neither sanctioned nor encouraged.

Share

51 Comments

  1. Great points. Well done.

    Comment by Dennis Shumate — August 16, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - August 16, 2012

  2. That post caused one of our most frequent critics to fall right into the trap I set

    Very clever! Or is it? 🙂 That particular critic is easily trapped. But OK, that should not lessen your triumph. Looking at the trap on its own terms, it was quite clever. I confess that I missed the NYT spoof; although I did furrow my brow for a brief moment, as the writing style seemed a bit unlike you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - August 16, 2012

  3. Bingo, Dan.

    And you have now made total and complete fools of Cinesnatch/walker, rusty, “Jeff”, and Levi, all of whom are now on record as stating that the standards they applied to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and conservatives and Republicans as a whole over the Aurora, Tucson, and Milwaukee shootings are utter and complete bullsh*t.

    The conservative universe has finally grasped one simple fact: liberals are wholly incapable of consistent argument because their entire principle is that everyone else is always wrong. Hence you need only illustrate how their story changes from year to year, day to day, and even minute to minute to utterly destroy their credibility.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 16, 2012 @ 4:39 pm - August 16, 2012

  4. Show us them beads, Rita.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 16, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - August 16, 2012

  5. I hope that one day both sides can learn to respect each others differences and speak out against anyone who is trying to harm anybody regardless of political affliction.

    Comment by MV — August 16, 2012 @ 5:39 pm - August 16, 2012

  6. #4 Correction:

    I hope that one day both sides can learn to respect each others differences and speak out against anyone who is trying to harm anybody regardless of political affiliation.

    Comment by MV — August 16, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - August 16, 2012

  7. Speaking of double standards… “Until Mitt Romney alleged pederast Harry Reid– releases his tax returns –and, as well, his naked self-pictures-, Americans will continue to wonder what he’s hiding.”:

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 16, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - August 16, 2012

  8. ILC: Here’s a question I have posed to several lefties vis-a-vis Mitt’s tax returns: What could possibly be in them that would be relevant to his agenda as president?

    Closest thing I got to an answer was to the effect of: His tax returns will reveal that he really plans for the rich to pay nothing in taxes when he’s elected. An idiotic response on so many levels; beginning with the level that the President can’t unilaterally change the tax code.

    Comment by V the K — August 16, 2012 @ 6:40 pm - August 16, 2012

  9. Your comparison is bogus. Gays rights activists do not regularly espouse violent rhetoric. There are no liberal gay rights activists on TV advocating that everyone take arms against their straight, christian enemies. To the contrary gays are the ones being beaten up and murdered.

    You didn’t “trap” anyone. Your conflation of the LGBT movement’s critiques of a bigoted institution that with Sarah Palin’s blatantly inflammatory language is so dishonest as to be immoral. You have your echo chamber of morons to console you, but you proved nothing other than how intellectually bankrupt conservative ideology has become in this country.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 16, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - August 16, 2012

  10. Gays rights activists do not regularly espouse violent rhetoric.

    Wrong. I doubt you could find Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, or anyone on the right saying anything like that.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 16, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - August 16, 2012

  11. Another_Jeremy, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a mindblowingly ignorant comment. I’m speechless.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — August 16, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - August 16, 2012

  12. Ok, Another_Jeremy, you’re on. You call Sarah Palin’s language is “blatantly inflammatory”. Ok, provide some examples.

    And please do tell me why calling your ideological adversaries “haters” and “bigots” is not inflammatory.

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2012 @ 2:12 am - August 17, 2012

  13. Hey, speaking of double standards, this is what some of our Intelligence and Special Ops community think of the Obama adminsitration’s near-treasonous leaks of U.S. security info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    I say “speaking of double standards”, because, let’s face it: if the Bush adminstration had done half as much, the Democrats would indeed have had them on trial, for treason.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 3:30 am - August 17, 2012

  14. And now, the Obama administration will have the intelligence and special ops guys on trial for daring to contradict or speak out against the Emperor Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - August 17, 2012

  15. There’s no trap. Yesterday I disagreed with the notion that gay groups’ rhetoric caused someone to go shoot up the Family Research Council. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it’s possible for rhetoric to incite people to go on shooting rampages. Indeed, I think conservatives use that kind of language all the time, particularly when it comes to issues having to do with homosexuality. Again – gay people are routinely threatened with physical violence up to and including murder in this country, and I absolutely believe that some measure of responsibility for that sad fact lay at the feet of anti-gay groups like FRC.

    So how, exactly, am I meant to be trapped?

    Comment by Levi — August 17, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - August 17, 2012

  16. Hey, speaking of double standards:

    A Democratic committee chairman overrode his own subpoena three years ago in an investigation of former subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. to exclude records showing that he, other House members and congressional aides got VIP discounted loans from the company, documents show.

    The procedure to keep the names secret was devised by Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y. In 2003, the 15-term congressman had two loans processed by Countrywide’s VIP section, which was established to give discounts to favored borrowers.

    The effort at secrecy was reversed when Towns’ Republican successor as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, California Rep. Darrell Issa, issued a second subpoena. It yielded Countrywide records identifying four current House members, a former member and five staff aides whose loans went through the VIP unit. Towns was on the list. …

    Getting many headlines? A few, obviously, but I think it would be a much bigger story, if the party affiliations were simply reversed. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/cbs-dem-chair-of-house-oversight-covered-up-ties-to-countrywide-for-himself-colleagues-and-staff/

    “Speaking of double standards…” I could keep it up all day.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - August 17, 2012

  17. […] sure as the sun rises every day, a Leftist fell in.  I love it when that happens.  If Bugs Bunny had watched it happen, he would have walked 0ff […]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Gay Patriot baited the trap…. — August 17, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - August 17, 2012

  18. Because, Levi, it showed that you have a complete and total double standard.

    Dan merely intended to show that you would never hold your fellow liberals and bigots similarly accountable. He got the added bonus of you arguing that the FRC shooting was justified.

    So you lose, bigot boy. And on top of that, we now have evidence that you support and condone workplace violence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 2:20 pm - August 17, 2012

  19. “Again – gay people are routinely threatened with physical violence up to and including murder in this country”

    phlease

    ask your mother if she is still willing to hide you under her skirt

    what a sissy you are, grow some balls

    Comment by susan — August 17, 2012 @ 2:59 pm - August 17, 2012

  20. btw since the source of all your desperation is the mere existance of christians why don’t you move to japan? see if you can whine about gay rights there, or some commie paradise you are surely fond of…

    Comment by susan — August 17, 2012 @ 3:01 pm - August 17, 2012

  21. Hey Dan will you do me a favor? Will you try taking off your partisan spectacles and thinking critically?

    What do we call the people who were opposed to African-Americans getting married to Caucasians in the 60s? What do we call the “protesters” who were so adamant about Central High School remaining segregated in 1957?

    We call them racists. We call them bigots. Because that’s what they were.

    And what did the racist whites say in response to this? They weren’t Anti-Black, but rather Pro-White. They weren’t opposed to integration, they were just very supportive of segregation.

    Hmmm . . . . .

    And now we have Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and the Family “Research” Council propogating a message of “support” for “traditional marriage,” as if there has ever been any lack of it in the history of this country. Then they throw up their hands in shock when someone calls them homophobic, hate-filled bigots. Nevermind that their incendiary rhetoric causes young people to live in fear because of their biological desires. Nevermind that their “arguments” sound an awful lot like the arguments against miscegenation in the 60s.

    But they’re not hate-filled or bigoted. They’re just pro-straight people, not anti-gay people. Calling them hate-filled is the REAL injustice.

    Maybe that kind of argument works for those without neurons firing in their skulls, but it sure as hell doesn’t work for me. It’s not inflammatory to call a racist a racist, and it’s not inflammatory to call a homophob a bigot. The Family Research Council was called a bigoted, hate-filled organization because that’s what it is. Wearing a business suit and putting forth inflammatory “reasearch” about the high number of sexual partners gay men have will not alter this obvious fact.

    Sarah Palin put cross hairs on the face of Gabbie Giffords on her wesbite. Gabbie Giffords was later shot. Gabbie Giffords is not a deer. She is not a target. But The Family Reseach Council does support homophobic policies. See the difference? Or will you continue to draw this lunatical conflation between openly bellicose political rhetoric and calling an anti-gay organization what it is?

    As for inflammatory conservative rhetoric, try these.

    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/10/debbie-wasserman-schultz/arizona-shooting-prompts-questions-about-civility-/

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/05/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-called-george-tiller-baby-killer/

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - August 17, 2012

  22. Did Another_Jeremy just try to compare people to racists and segregationists?

    Because Another_Jeremy himself endorses and supports racist rhetoric and statements.

    Again, the hypocrisy and double standards of the left continue.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - August 17, 2012

  23. Another_Jeremy, please stop making assumptions and leveling insults and address the challenge.

    I asked you to provide evidence and all you do is offer an inaccurate reference to Sarah Palin’s web-site, the cross-hairs were on the district, not the Congressman. Meanwhile Wisconsin protesters hoisted signs featuring pictures of crosshairs on Mr. Walker’s face. Was that an incitement to violence?

    Do you have evidence the AZ shooter saw that web-site? Or that he listened to a South Florida talk show?

    And there is equally inflammatory rhetoric coming from gay activists. Their mean-spirited rhetoric, however, does not make them responsible for violent acts of others.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - August 17, 2012

  24. Did Another_Jeremy just try to whine and scream about hateful rhetoric towards gays causing violence?

    Because Another_Jeremy supports and endorses groups that practice exactly that.

    And did Another_Jeremy just try to insist that people should shun and repudiate those who call for others to be killed as bigots?

    Because Another_Jeremy worships and fully supports people who call for others to be killed.

    Looks like Another_Jeremy is a hypocritical liar and bigot who won’t hold himself accountable to his own standards.

    Mainly because Another_Jeremy is inferior, a piece of moral trash, a childish tantrum-throwing brat whose character is rotten to the core and thus must revert to demanding he be given special treatment based on his minority status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - August 17, 2012

  25. oh, and Levi, please provide evidence of the FRC inciting violence. I’m sure you can find a great deal of evidence of the outfit –and its leaders — saying silly and inaccurate things about “homosexuals” (as they call us), but incitements to violence, no, that you won’t find.

    Let me stress, I don’t support the FRC and believe they are not interested in a serious debate on homosexuality in American society, but that are not a hate group. And if you’re going to claim they incite violence, then make your case by providing a clear link between their words and violent actions.

    Can you show that those cretins who assault gay people are familiar with the FRC?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2012 @ 5:14 pm - August 17, 2012

  26. Meanwhile Wisconsin protesters hoisted signs featuring pictures of crosshairs on Mr. Walker’s face. Was that an incitement to violence?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 17, 2012 @ 5:10 pm – August 17, 2012

    And just because Another_Jeremy will scream and lie, here’s the proof.

    Just like here’s more proof of how Another_Jeremy and his fellow LGBT bigots were calling for President Bush to be murdered.

    And here’s Barack Obama Party supporters calling people “baby killers” and assaulting them.

    So once again, we see that liberals are nothing more than morally inferior pieces of filth who can’t abide by the standards they screamingly demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 5:18 pm - August 17, 2012

  27. Nevermind that their incendiary rhetoric causes young people to live in fear because of their biological desires.

    Can I propose a new Innerwebs rule that anyone who falls back on a “won’t someone please think of the chiiiildrun” argument automatically forfeits the right to accuse other people of lacking functional neurons?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — August 17, 2012 @ 5:25 pm - August 17, 2012

  28. I guess you mean besides the crosshairs?

    Ok Dan.

    http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/10935548053

    The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

    Sarah Palin ‏@SarahPalinUSA
    Obama apologizes for inadvertent Koran burning; now the US trained & protected Afghan Army can apologize for killing our soldiers yesterday.

    And if we open the discussion beyond Sarah Palin it gets even easier. Notice though that you’re not even referring to a specific statement by an LGBT activist against the man who was shot. Just generalized (and true) “rhetoric” that refers to his institution as homophobic. Which it is.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - August 17, 2012

  29. Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 6:10 pm – August 17, 2012

    Ah, but you see, desperate bigot Another_Jeremy, your Barack Obama and his advisors were in fact calling for exactly that.

    Your Barack Obama’s advisor Ezekiel Emanuel, for starters, supported and endorsed denying vaccines and health care to the elderly.

    Your Barack Obama wants commissions of bureaucrats to determine whether care is warranted and be empowered to deny or exclude treatments.

    And your Barack Obama already denies care at a rate far greater than that of private insurers.

    Now, you and your fellow Barack Obama bigots screamed that any denial or rationing of health care equals murder, that insurance company reviews equal bureaucrat “death panels”, and that the only reason claims are denied is greed.

    Yet you advocate all three, which means you and your fellow Barack Obama supporters want death panels made up of bureaucrats to decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.

    And that’s why you and yours want Sarah Palin imprisoned, tortured, and murdered.

    And that’s why you and yours want conservatives killed.

    Projection. Since you and yours are violent, murderous bigots, you claim everyone else is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - August 17, 2012

  30. Daniel, why don’t you correct his oft repeated falsehoods about “death panels” l& Obamacare like you so vehemently reminded me that the crosshairs were not on Gabbie Gifford’s face, but her district?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - August 17, 2012

  31. I love the spoiled, narcissistic child Another_Jeremy whining and crying and demanding that those who are continually showing him to be a liar and a hypocrite, with evidence, be criticized and silenced.

    Poor little brat isn’t being used to being confronted with facts. That’s probably why the brat is so desperate to imprison and kill Republicans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 7:51 pm - August 17, 2012

  32. Seriously Dan? You criticize my comments and Levi’s, but not this guy?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 7:59 pm - August 17, 2012

  33. Let it be your job, Another_Jeremy, if NDT’s comments interest you so much – as, apparently, they do.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - August 17, 2012

  34. (continued) The more so because, after you spew insults at Dan like you did, there is no reason why he should want to do you favors. (He might still, of course; but that will just be his whim to be a nice guy. Not anything you would deserve.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - August 17, 2012

  35. Insults? You mean when I said he had on partisan spectacles? Or when I commented on the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative ideology? How about when I mentioned that a certain argument that would only work on people with no functional neurons? Yeah I attacked his position. And his argument. But I did not call him a bigot or accuse him of inciting people to murder Democrats.

    See the difference?

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 17, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - August 17, 2012

  36. You lefties so often believe that truth is established by public opinion, i.e., by polling people. So let’s just take a poll right now, Another_Jeremy. We can begin here:

    Will you try taking off your partisan spectacles and thinking critically?

    Anybody who thinks that Another_Jeremy’s intent there was to *praise* Dan’s thinking abilities and basic intelligence – Not to denigrate or insult Dan’s thinking abilities and intelligence – Please raise your hand now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 8:56 pm - August 17, 2012

  37. Dan I don’t think I’ve ever insulted you. Please take nd30 to task for his inflammatory language.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — August 17, 2012 @ 9:53 pm - August 17, 2012

  38. Dan I don’t think I’ve ever insulted you

    Oh, God. Do we really have to dig through past threads for the days when your comments to Dan and Bruce’s posts were so regularly insulting that Bruce, while not banning you, did invite you to leave?

    Nah. We don’t. Just because it’s not important enough to bother with.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - August 17, 2012

  39. Actually, Another_Jeremy, you’re just lying, because you attacked Dan directly and personally, calling him an immoral liar and claiming he was a moron.

    I quote:

    Your conflation of the LGBT movement’s critiques of a bigoted institution that with Sarah Palin’s blatantly inflammatory language is so dishonest as to be immoral. You have your echo chamber of morons to console you, but you proved nothing other than how intellectually bankrupt conservative ideology has become in this country.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 16, 2012 @ 10:23 pm – August 16, 2012

    Meanwhile, bigot boy Another_Jeremy, here’s you and your fellow bigots putting crosshairs on Republicans, calling for the assassination of Republicans, and calling for Republicans to be killed in the name of the LGBT community.

    Your lies just caught up with you, bigot. And hilariously, you just dragged Cinesnatch down with you, since Cinesnatch misses no opportunity to attack and berate and criticize Dan and fully supports and endorses your statements calling Dan an immoral liar and a moron.

    You support and call for the murder of Republicans, Another_Jeremy. You are an anti-Christian bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 10:11 pm - August 17, 2012

  40. And of course, ILC, let’s get ready for Cinesnatch’s usual screaming bigot temper tantrum, in which he insists that anyone who doesn’t condemn me is a bad, bad person, and how if you don’t, it just proves that this is nothing but a site full of syncophants, that Bruce and Dan are liars and hypocrites who don’t enforce their own rules, etc., etc.

    Predictable, yet utterly hilarious. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 10:18 pm - August 17, 2012

  41. NDT, one thing I don’t understand about Cinesnatch is why – over a period of weeks, months, years – he keeps attempting to play the ‘holy’ card (or is it the ‘holier-than-thou’ card? I can never tell) as if nobody is going to remember the many things he’s said or done, that make the play’s success an impossibility. Does his brain sort of ‘edit out’ his track record, so that he genuinely forgets his track record? I don’t really care, it’s just an one of life’s little mysteries… I have a sibling who’s like that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 10:25 pm - August 17, 2012

  42. Two reasons, ILC.

    One is that Dan Blatt is one of the kindest, gentlest, nicest, most introspective and intelligent people currently walking the earth — generous to a fault, always willing to consider both sides, and the last to assume the worst about anyone.

    People like Cinesnatch are drawn to his type like scummy televangelists to wealthy senior citizens — and for exactly the same reasons and motivations.

    The second is that it’s all he knows how to do. He is used to the concept of saying he’s sorry without actually changing his behavior — as Luther famously said of penance, Cinesnatch is one who makes more of the rite in Latin than of the change of heart in Greek. As Christians and Jews, we are charged to be generous in our forgiveness — a fact which Cinesnatch recognizes and chooses to exploit rather than to respect.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 17, 2012 @ 11:01 pm - August 17, 2012

  43. I’ve noticed the manipulative apologies, for sure: given often, but only in expectation of some sort of approval or credit from the ‘mark’. If it isn’t forthcoming, pique may follow.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 17, 2012 @ 11:09 pm - August 17, 2012

  44. The bit about an echo chamber of morons was referring to you commenters. Not to Dan. And I called the ideology intellectually bankrupt, not him.

    But it’s neither here or there.

    The comparison he tried to draw is a false equivalency. Plain and simple.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 18, 2012 @ 12:03 am - August 18, 2012

  45. Comment Steaming Pile of S**t by Another_Jeremy Jerkoff — August 18, 2012 @ 12:03 am – August 18, 2012
    Get lost, you lying twerp.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 18, 2012 @ 12:33 am - August 18, 2012

  46. The bit about an echo chamber of morons was referring to you commenters. Not to Dan. And I called the ideology intellectually bankrupt, not him.

    Lie and lie.

    And then your lie of omission — attempting to spin away from the fact that you called him an immoral liar.

    Your conflation of the LGBT movement’s critiques of a bigoted institution that with Sarah Palin’s blatantly inflammatory language is so dishonest as to be immoral.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 16, 2012 @ 10:23 pm – August 16, 2012

    Next:

    But it’s neither here or there.

    Oh, it’s both places. You got caught in a lie, you were clearly shown to be insulting Dan, and now you’re trying to backpedal.

    Too late.

    And finally, the ultimate hypocrisy:

    The comparison he tried to draw is a false equivalency. Plain and simple.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 18, 2012 @ 12:03 am – August 18, 2012

    Oh no.

    You screamed crosshairs were bad, then got caught with your fellow freak LGBTs putting crosshairs on people.

    You screamed about assassinations and murders, then got caught with your fellow freak LGBTs calling for assassinations and murders.

    You shrieked about calling for peoples’ deaths, then got caught with your fellow freak LGBTs calling for peoples’ deaths.

    In short, you are using standards for others that you cannot follow yourself. By your own standards, you are a bigot, a criminal, a murderer, and a terrorist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 18, 2012 @ 3:45 am - August 18, 2012

  47. That Zombie essay is brilliant. (NDT’s second link just above, about the double standard in treatment of death threats on Bush vs. death threats on Obama, http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 18, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - August 18, 2012

  48. Hmmmmm. . . .

    More stupid links. More ridiculous commentary.

    I called his conflation of crosshairs with calling a hate group a hate immoral because it is immoral. And dishonest. Being dishonest is immoral.

    To me anyway.

    But I’m not sure you we have similar views on morality since you spend so many of your waking hours calling those who disagree with you murderers and terrorists.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 18, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - August 18, 2012

  49. But I’m not sure you we have similar views on morality since you spend so many of your waking hours calling those who disagree with you murderers and terrorists.

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — August 18, 2012 @ 3:12 pm – August 18, 2012

    Actually, clueless boy, YOU screamed and pissed that those who put crosshairs on others, those who call for assassinations, and those who wish for people to die are murderers and terrorists.

    What I’m doing is applying your own “moral standards” to you — which is something you never intended to take place. You and your fellow brat Cinesnatch cannot and will not follow or apply the rules you demand of others.

    Want even better examples? Here’s your LGBT community and Barack Obama Party giving FULL and complete governmental support and cooperation to a group that calls for the criminalization of homosexuality and the execution of gays.

    With absolutely ZERO condemnation from you and your fellow pants-pissers Levi and Cinesnatch who are insisting that Christians and those with whom you disagree deserve to be murdered.

    Liars, hypocrites, and cowards. That’s what you and your “friends” Levi and Cinesnatch are, Another_Jeremy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 18, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - August 18, 2012

  50. Being dishonest is immoral.

    Comment by Another_JeremyJerkoff — August 18, 2012 @ 3:12 pm – August 18, 2012

    The only true thing you’ve posted since you staggered in here.
    And you’d certainly know, since most of what you post are baldfaced lies.

    Comment by jman1961 — August 18, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - August 18, 2012

  51. Hmm, given that people supporting changing the definition of marriage are ‘assaulting’ the values of the people who support maintaining it, doesn’t that make them a ‘hate group’?

    So why does Jeremy endorce hate groups?

    Comment by The_Livewire — August 20, 2012 @ 8:03 am - August 20, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.