Gay Patriot Header Image

Despite economic anxiety, social issues keep some areas blue

In quoting Salena Zito’s post on why Wisconsin is in play, Ann Althouse offers an insight into why some Americans continue to support the president despite the down economy:

At first, Jeff Millard was undecided about who to vote for in November.

“I am not particularly happy with Obama,” the retired auto-parts storeowner said of the man he supported in 2008.

His wife, walking beside him on the Military Ridge state trail, overheard him voicing doubt. She let him know it was not an option.

“What about my reproductive rights?” she asked, clearly upset. “No, we are voting for Obama!”

“How old”, Althouse asks, “does a woman have to be before she stops thinking first and above all about her reproductive rights?

It does seem that when it comes to politics, a good number of people, when learning you’re a Republican, insist on talking about abortion (or, as the woman cited above puts it, “reproductive rights”).  For those individuals, it seems, that social issue is the only issue that matters.  And for others, another social issue dominates their discourse.

It helps explain although entrepreneurs in this town (Los Angeles — and I’m sure others) complain about state, local and federal regulation making it more challenging for them to run their enterprises, they continue to vote for — and sometimes even support financially — Democrats.

Share

229 Comments

  1. Which is the simpler explanation? Which requires fewer assumptions? Which has thousands of years of human history as supporting evidence?

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 1:05 pm – October 2, 2012

    Actually, here’s an even better one, Levi.

    The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women…..

    The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

    Or, put differently, homosexuals are far more likely to contract diseases, especially lethal and incurable ones, than are heterosexuals.

    Furthermore, those women who then have sex with them as well are at a much higher risk of exposure.

    In short, homosexuality is not only more likely to sicken and kill you, it is far more likely to sicken and kill others as well. Not to mention the additional resource expense to society of people who are sickened and otherwise incapacitated, unable to participate in community life, assist with community projects, or help the community survive.

    In contrast, abstaining from sex prior to marriage and having sex with only that person is far and away the most effective method of avoiding being sickened and killed in such a fashion. These relationships not only protect those in them and thus enable those people to participate in and support community life fully, they also produce new members of the community, who add to the hands available and perpetuate the community.

    This is empirical data, Levi. People have known since antiquity that homosexuals were far more likely to be sickened and die, especially when compared with abstinent, faithful heterosexual couples — and modern science has backed up the fact that homosexuality is far more likely to be damaging and lethal to both its direct practitioners and indirectly to society.

    So the overwhelming supporting evidence is that societies opposed homosexuality because it vastly increased the likelihood of people being sickened and dying, it indirectly harmed the community as well, AND it took resources away from relationships that were far more beneficial and protective to the community.

    So there’s your question, Levi. Why should parents endorse and support their child indulging in behavior that is forty to seventy times more likely to give them damaging diseases, including one that is incurable, requires lifetime (expensive) medical treatment, and ultimately disables you?

    Your screaming and ranting is no different than a six-year-old yelling that his parents are “unfair” for making him go to bed when it’s still light out. You don’t care about the reasons, nor are you mentally capable of accepting any answer other than the one that gives you your way immediately.

    Six-year-olds aren’t mentally capable of thinking about the future. They operate solely on biological imperatives, doing what they want when they want, and insisting that they can’t control their behavior.

    As you show, merely aging does not grant control of one’s faculties. Parents must teach their children to think about the future and manage their impulses accordingly. Yours did not, as you proudly proclaim; instead, they let a six-year-old be the absolute moral authority of the house.

    Hence your worldview. A six-year-old is incapable of calculating consequences; they insist that major disobediences are no different than minor ones because they cannot project, understand or weigh future consequences. This is the reasoning you display with your statements that coercing women into sex, having sex when you are drunk, and having unprotected sex is no different than overpaying for a latte or watching bad reality TV.

    That is the cornerstone of liberalism. Liberals know nothing but instant gratification and think nothing of past or future consequences. Liberals live in a world where everyone who came before them is an idiot and no one else was, is, or could ever possibly be as bright and informed on everything as they are.

    This worldview invariably backfires, which is why liberals are forever needing conservatives to clean up their messes, give them money, and shut up about their failures.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - October 2, 2012

  2. Again, there are certain things I would expect of a book authored with the aide of divine inspiration, and there are certain things I would expect in a book authored by a group of humans that were trying to establish regional political and economic supremacy. The Bible fits perfectly into one of those categories.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 1:13 pm – October 2, 2012

    Yup.

    For example, what book would tell you not to steal from people period, whereas the Levi ethic says it’s perfectly OK to take from others if they have more than you do?

    For example, what book would tell you to manage your biological urges and practice fidelity, whereas the Levi ethic says that your immediate gratification is what’s most important, even if it involves coercing a woman into sex, taking advantage of a drunk woman, or having unprotected and irresponsible sex?

    What book would tell you to turn the other cheek, while the Levi ethic says that being “provocative” like the Family Research Council justifies shooting them?

    When you then look at liberal fascists like Levi, who are trying to establish an all-powerful, dominant State that imposes his political and economic worldview on everyone else in his region and worships himself as the divine knower of all, why wouldn’t it surprise us that he hates the Bible?

    The proof of the Bible’s divine inspiration is that the one person who followed it perfectly – Jesus Christ – is far better than any other human has been able to manage.

    One wonders if Levi is so uneducated because his teachers figured out quickly that he knew everything, that they knew nothing, and that the cost of contradicting this worldview in tantrums and complaints from outraged parents was hardly worth the effort.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - October 2, 2012

  3. My kindergarten understanding, eh? Well, it seems to me that if principles are delivered by god, there should be some kind of otherworldly or extremely prescient quality about them.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 10:46 am – October 2, 2012

    And there are, Levi, as even you admit.

    Finally, the commandment against jealousy, which is not only an authoritarian and impossible order to control your thoughts

    Comment by Levi — October 1, 2012 @ 4:49 pm – October 1, 2012

    So it’s…very otherworldly, it would seem…..almost supernatural, beyond human capacity.

    And yet, what would happen if we were to eradicate jealousy from society, Levi? Would society improve?

    And how about that commandment on adultery?

    Conservatives like to imagine liberals as sexual hedonists who view abortion as birth control, but that’s not the reality for a lot of these people who could have been caught up in what is a compelling and necessary biological instinct.

    Comment by Levi — September 26, 2012 @ 9:13 am – September 26, 2012

    As you’ve stated, it’s impossible to control our biological compulsions. You would have to be superhuman….or, dare we say, otherworldly…to restrain yourself from having sex with your neighbor’s wife, or with someone else when you were already married.

    And yet, what would happen if we were to eradicate adultery from society, Levi? Would society improve?

    Hence the point. The problem is not with the commandments, the Bible, or the dictums; it’s with the fact that you don’t want to follow them.

    So you make up excuses, you try to attack them, and you try to destroy anyone who does follow them.

    The Bible represents a threat to your immediate gratification, Levi. The only reason you attack it and not Islam is because the Islamists do not separate individual action from that of the state, and thus have no qualms about acting as their own judge, jury, and executioner against those who disagree with them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 2:04 pm - October 2, 2012

  4. This is empirical data, Levi. People have known since antiquity that homosexuals were far more likely to be sickened and die, especially when compared with abstinent, faithful heterosexual couples — and modern science has backed up the fact that homosexuality is far more likely to be damaging and lethal to both its direct practitioners and indirectly to society.

    People have known since antiquity about the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases?

    Also, think about what you say here for just a minute:

    In contrast, abstaining from sex prior to marriage and having sex with only that person is far and away the most effective method of avoiding being sickened and killed in such a fashion

    I agree. So why don’t we let gays participate in marriage? It doesn’t make much sense to point out how dangerous homosexuality is and then point out how much safer marriage.

    Why should parents endorse and support their child indulging in behavior that is forty to seventy times more likely to give them damaging diseases, including one that is incurable, requires lifetime (expensive) medical treatment, and ultimately disables you?

    It’s more dangerous partly because religious people are reluctant to have safe sex conversations with their children, particularly if they’re gay, and vice versa. A gay child of anti-gay parents isn’t going to go to their parents for help or to ask questions. Again, the stigmatization is what causes the problem here, it makes people ashamed of how they feel, it makes people feel isolated, and they become desperate. Desperate people aren’t known for taking precautions.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - October 2, 2012

  5. Levi:

    Religion would go extinct in a generation if religious people didn’t force their religion on their children. This in and of itself is a horrible practice that belies the insecurity of religious people to convince people of the religious argument on its own merits.

    Followed by this colossal jewel mental constipation and contradiction:

    As someone who values individual liberty and the right of self-determination, I consider all efforts to control what other people think to be evil

    So much for affirmative action, wealth transfer, reparations for whatever, wiping out religion by prohibiting the parents from passing it along, political correctness of all stripes, and on and on and on.

    Sorry, little fascist, but you are entirely engaged and infused with concerted efforts to control what other people think. You are the poster child for the “evil” you fingered.

    Now, take your atheism and retreat to neutrality. I could care less about Levi the clueless. But you insist on shutting down religion. Your ludicrous hypocritical protestations notwithstanding. What a P•U•T•Z !

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - October 2, 2012

  6. People have known since antiquity about the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases?

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 2:07 pm – October 2, 2012

    Yes.

    The hilarity of you and your fellow liberals, Levi, is that you worship Stone Age cultures as noble savages and talk about their preventative rituals and herbal cures, but you seem mentally incapable of acknowledging that any other cultures predating you did the same thing.

    As Santayana pointed out, those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it. Since you were never educated on the decrees of Augustus, or the decline of Rome, you would be unable to make the connection between similar behaviors among modern liberals that were leading to the impending decay and destruction of the Roman society and economy. Furthermore, since you believe that every society that came before you were primitive and superstitious idiots, you wouldn’t be able to absorb the wisdom of their experience anyway.

    <blockquoteI agree. So why don’t we let gays participate in marriage? It doesn’t make much sense to point out how dangerous homosexuality is and then point out how much safer marriage.

    Because marriage isn’t the magic, Levi; fidelity, monogamy, and responsibility are.

    The gay community would have similar rates of STDs if they practiced similar rules of abstinence and commitment to only one sexual partner. They could do that now without marriage and clearly don’t. The gay community, overwhelmingly liberal, endorses and promotes unprotected sex, coercive sex, and sex under the influence of intoxicants, and states that such ideas as monogamy, abstinence, and faithfulness are “harmful”.

    It’s more dangerous partly because religious people are reluctant to have safe sex conversations with their children, particularly if they’re gay, and vice versa.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 2:07 pm – October 2, 2012

    But Levi, you have stated that safe sex is irrelevant. Indeed, you have stated that having unprotected sex, coercing people into sex, and having sex when you’re drunk are no worse than overpaying for a latte or having

    Why are you demanding that religious parents emphasize safe sex when you and your fellow liberals tell your children it’s perfectly OK to have unsafe sex, coercive sex, sex under the influence of intoxicants, and underage children having sex as being no big deal?

    The answer is simple. Religious parents tell their children not to have sex and to exercise self-control. People who do so are superior to you, since you are unwilling to control your biological urges and argue that your need for sex should outweigh any other considerations, like the other person’s consent, age, or state of intoxication. Hence you have to scream at and berate these parents who are taking the safe, intelligent, and long-term tack because you need society to rationalize your unwillingness to do so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 3:01 pm - October 2, 2012

  7. So much for affirmative action, wealth transfer, reparations for whatever,

    None of these things are attempts to control what people think.

    wiping out religion by prohibiting the parents from passing it along,

    I never suggested this. I pointed out that it’s true, and I described it as evil, but I never suggested prohibiting it. You couldn’t do such a thing in a free society. Hopefully, one day indoctrinating your children into your religion will be seen for the horrible assault on freedom that it is, but there’s other ways to accomplish that without regulating parenting.

    political correctness of all stripes, and on and on and on.

    I know conservatives use political correctness as a battering ram, but were you not just complaining about how offensive and disrespectful I am? There’s nothing less politically correct than criticizing religion, and you’re pretty quick to throw a fit over it. Practice what you preach.

    Sorry, little fascist, but you are entirely engaged and infused with concerted efforts to control what other people think. You are the poster child for the “evil” you fingered.

    You suck at comparing things.

    I have never recommended anything that could be honestly construed as an attempt to control how people think and what they think about. You accuse me of this somewhat frequently, and like to paint nightmare scenarios where I have my way and my faction gets to control everything down to peoples’ thoughts. Unfortunately, this scenario is already the status quo, and it plays itself out in Sunday schools across the country, where children are helpfully programmed to think about their role in the universe in a very specific way for the sake of preserving the large, powerful, and morally bankrupt institution of religion. You know as well as I do there is nothing special about the transmission of religion. It’s passed from person to person and from generation to generation, and the moment that stops is the moment when your religion can be discarded completely. You would accuse me of trying to control what people think because you deliberately misunderstand my politics, but you excuse your religion when they exploit the weakness and gullibility of children for their own selfish purposes.

    You know I’m right. No 12-year old that hasn’t suffered through a decade of having their brain scrubbed is going to find anything interesting or inspirational from the Bible. Religious kids are doing sad little impersonations of their parents because they think it will please them and because they’re scared of being tortured forever and because they want to see their grandma that just died. Religion teaches in the language of fear and ignorance, and that’s why it’s possible to introduce the concept to children in terms that they understand. Teaching your children your religion is making a decision for them that is going to affect them for the rest of their life, and that’s why it’s an evil thing to do. People shouldn’t be making those decisions for other people, and children are not the property of their parents.

    Now, take your atheism and retreat to neutrality. I could care less about Levi the clueless. But you insist on shutting down religion. Your ludicrous hypocritical protestations notwithstanding. What a P•U•T•Z !

    ….

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 4:37 pm - October 2, 2012

  8. The Judeo-Christian ethic is not a stale statement made a few thousand years ago. It is fleshed out by time and adaptation to societal change. The skeleton of the ethic comes from God, but the morality and understanding of the ethic comes from man. We don’t have a phone line to God by which we can ask his secretary for immediate clarification of our ethical/moral dilemma of the moment.

    Okay, so the Judeo-Christian ethic does go beyond the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. As such, there have been changes. I guess what makes things murky for me, is exactly what is the Judeo-Christian ethic versus the socially developed moralities.

    When the society gives the social morality and ethic over to the political power alone, then the state becomes the source of the ethic and moral code.

    I suppose the irony here is that because of the Judeo-Christian ethics, we gradually became freer societies in which freedom and liberty were able to develop, unlike other traditions.

    Our tradition and history and laws are all based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. They can all be sanitized of any connection, save coincidence, of any relation to the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    Because many of our basic morals today mirrored the morals from 3000 years ago. It’s not a coincidence. There’s definitely a connection.

    Your marriage to another man is not my problem or concern. Nor do I feel that it is much of a state problem or concern. What difference does it make if groups of people believe you are a sinner? What difference does it make if you have to win the marriage right at the ballot box? Why are those who vote against you evil?

    Good questions. At my age, I don’t care so much who thinks I’m a sinner. It does make a difference if same sex marriage wins at the ballot box, but I’ll be fine either way. No, I don’t believe that those who vote against me are evil (unless they are evil for other reasons). I would call it a difference of opinion.

    Under those terms, why not several mates. Sounds reasonable to me. And what should society do about people like Jerry Sandusky who are mentoring youngsters?

    If you don’t rely on at least the tradition of the Judeo-Christian ethic, where does the common sense toward avoiding “icky” (evil) arise?

    I think people today for the most part are loathe to step on the liberties of two consenting adults. This may well be based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. This clearly does not cover pedophilia, which may be (and usual is) harmful to the child. And people do see harm when it’s incest, even if they are adults consenting (not just genetics, but the familial aspect of it). What about more than two consenting adults? A lot of people view these as unbalanced relationships. People are loathe to outlaw polyamory, but don’t want to sanction such relationships. So, I’ll agree that Judeo-Christian tradition, if not ethic, is all behind this.

    Anyway, I know you stated that you were done stating your points. I appreciate the discussion, and it has helped my understanding. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — October 2, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - October 2, 2012

  9. Levi:

    Affirmative action is based on what? RACE. There is no race in the scientific world. Science can’t define it. How much RACE do you have to have in you to qualify for Affirmative action? Quadroon, octoroon, mustee, griffe, quintroon, mulatto, terceron, high yellow, passing?

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, you move a black person ahead of other people through Affirmative Action and somehow that does not deny any other person of the equal due process of the law. Right? And you can not define what constitutes and “black” person scientifically. Right?

    And you say that is NOT a government action that controls what people think? Sorry, little brother of Big Brother, but your Doublespeak world is all about controlling what you DARE think. Ditto wealth transfer based on the concept of someone else’s “fair share.” So is the whole “reparations” hogwash be it for Native Americans, Hispanics or blacks.

    You come here spewing your bile about religious belief systems. Fine. But you reveal your statist desires to control people you don’t like and then you say you don’t have any interest in quashing others. You will take their wealth, you will promote a select few over the entire group, you will write out the validity of some belief systems based on your own whims.

    You are ignorant, capricious, groundless and without any practical intellectual substance.

    I am finished with your festering hatred of religion and bitter insistence that your moral relativism (which can not lay out in any cognitive terms) is worth a tinker’s damn. So many here have given up on your goofy insistence that you have something of substance to say. They are clearly smarter than I. Somehow, I kept to the belief that you had some part of an ounce of reason within you.

    Have a wonderful life talking to yourself.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - October 2, 2012

  10. I have never recommended anything that could be honestly construed as an attempt to control how people think and what they think about.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 4:37 pm – October 2, 2012

    You simply lie, Levi.

    Do it in front of whichever group of religious buffoons you’d like. I wouldn’t expect such a demonstration to result in violence on the part of evangelicals or Muslims in the United States, the point is that these idiotic decrees that religious people insist the rest of us defer to are ridiculous and should be mocked incessantly until people are too embarrassed to assert them in public.

    Comment by Levi — May 21, 2010 @ 12:53 am – May 21, 2010

    And of course, the hilarity of that, Levi, is that you and your Barack Obama Party and your fellow liberals are screaming about the necessity of anti-blasphemy laws, condemning as “disgusting” the mocking of Islam, and arresting and imprisoning people who make films mocking Mohammed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - October 2, 2012

  11. I am finished with your festering hatred of religion and bitter insistence that your moral relativism (which can not lay out in any cognitive terms) is worth a tinker’s damn. So many here have given up on your goofy insistence that you have something of substance to say. They are clearly smarter than I. Somehow, I kept to the belief that you had some part of an ounce of reason within you.

    Have a wonderful life talking to yourself.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 6:16 pm – October 2, 2012

    And before you open your mouth, Levi, realize that ANY criticism you make of Heliotrope for not responding to you will immediately and repeatedly be used to bash you for not responding to anyone else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 6:21 pm - October 2, 2012

  12. Pat,

    I expressed myself poorly about the Judeo-Christian ethic going “beyond” the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. My point is that the Old Testament and the New Testament are full of personalizing the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and provide the parables and conflicts inherent in fleshing out the simple Cliff Notes. Certainly, you understand that.

    Societies adopt religion, not the other way around, unless the religion conquers the society. Some societies have pretty much pushed religion into the position of quaint relic. (Think Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark.) It is possible to take the Judeo-Christian ethic and throw out the stuff you don’t like and do the ecumenical stuff that feels good and is of precious little discomfort. You can have a marriage optional society in which a couple has kids and goes along for many years before they finally decide to get “married” as something to do that is different.

    For instance, I can not understand why gays don’t just start their own Scientology-lite “church” and make a mockery of the separation of church and state by using the state to force recognition of the gay religion. There would be no integrity, per se, but it ought to move the gay agenda forward. After all, Major Hasan is sitting in jail with a beard grown in respect of Islam and screwing up the military court by not shaving according to army rules. If you really want to screw the system, build your own God.

    The Judeo-Christian ethic asks you to be a good and responsible person. The state more or less depends on that groundwork. However, people without the motivation of the Judeo-Christian ethic look at individual freedom and decide that the meth they cook in their home is their business alone. If they have the neighbors in and an orgy and then disaster result, the only role of the state is to put the fire out, rescue the “victims” and treat them for free and try to get them back on their feet to do it all over again. It is a sort of unintended nihilism, but that is nothing the people who cause the mess understand or intend. They are amoral.

    Then you have a sort of breakdown where the people in the city go out on weekends to shoot the Neanderthals in the country for sport. (Think Belgrade and the Croatians.) It is the intellectuals over the primitives. While the carnage ensues, the smart set can ask the victims where their omnipotent God is Tee hee hee. After all, if God is such hot stuff, why doesn’t He set things straight?

    I made a feeble attempt to encapsulate a great deal of philosophy and back and forth over many eons. I appreciate your considered and thoughtful response. And I respect your choice in choosing your mate and how you conduct yourself with society as a whole.

    This is not a “High Noon” moment for either of us where principle and valor or on the line.

    With all sincerity, I wish you a good and happy life. I suspect you feel the same toward me.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - October 2, 2012

  13. NDT,

    Had we ever come together to play the good cop, bad cop role, I could not have asked for a better prepared or diligent partner.

    As the saying goes, “I love you, man!”

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - October 2, 2012

  14. This is Dan and Bruce’s blog. They get to decide the rules, and I do my best to follow them. You were called out, at least indirectly, by Dan to knock it off. But after your usual tirade, you basically blew him off on this blog as well. I recall you even used the word “bullsh&t” in your disdain of Dan’s request.

    Comment by Pat — October 2, 2012 @ 8:17 am – October 2, 2012

    Yup. And I stand by it, for all the reasons I cited.

    I have seen people on this blog say that in the real world, that you are a very nice person. I have no reason to doubt that. I have no idea why you turn viscious and ugly on this, and other blogs.

    Oh, that’s easy. In fact, you answered it yourself a few sentences later.

    No one, not even Levi, comes close to the bad behavior that you exhibit on this blog. Sure, you and others disagree with this. But if I’m going to act on opinions, it will be on my opinions, not yours.

    And therein lies the key. “Civility” is not a set of principles to you, nor is it a standard of behavior; it is solely your opinion, subject to your whim and your caprices. Hence, I turn “vicious and ugly”, not because I am violating any sort of objective measurement of either, but because I’m criticizing you.

    For example, Pat, you have tried to claim that my being banned from blogs like those run by Wayne Besen, Evan Hurst, and Rob Tisinai proves that I am “uncivil”. However, when one considers what is considered civil and intelligent discourse by those bloggers:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    None of which merited a response or lecture concerning “civility” from you to any of those individuals or their supporters.

    And that is because, Pat, your morality and your sense of right and wrong are based solely on whether or not something is personally convenient for you. If it is not, it will be immoral, and if it is, it will be moral.

    Some of us are less frightened of personal inconvenience in the service of objectivity.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 10:19 pm - October 2, 2012

  15. Had we ever come together to play the good cop, bad cop role, I could not have asked for a better prepared or diligent partner.

    As the saying goes, “I love you, man!”

    Comment by heliotrope — October 2, 2012 @ 7:21 pm – October 2, 2012

    Thank you, heliotrope.

    Horse training and dog training, especially teaching it to others, taught me most everything I needed to learn about dealing with liberals.

    At the beginning of my classes, I used to show this — all eight-plus minutes of it — as an example.

    You will not find a finer methodology. Nowhere is the easy way out taken. Nowhere is the force excessive. Despite horrible and ridiculous provocations, despite the very real threat of personal injury, and despite how simple it would be to simply tie the subject up and force them to do your bidding, over and over again we see the teacher making the wrong thing difficult and the right thing easy. Force is matched with force, but never exceeded; opportunities are given to do it the right way, even when those opportunities (literally) are spit back in your face.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 10:27 pm - October 2, 2012

  16. Levi:

    Affirmative action is based on what? RACE. There is no race in the scientific world. Science can’t define it. How much RACE do you have to have in you to qualify for Affirmative action? Quadroon, octoroon, mustee, griffe, quintroon, mulatto, terceron, high yellow, passing?
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, you move a black person ahead of other people through Affirmative Action and somehow that does not deny any other person of the equal due process of the law. Right? And you can not define what constitutes and “black” person scientifically. Right?

    And you say that is NOT a government action that controls what people think? Sorry, little brother of Big Brother, but your Doublespeak world is all about controlling what you DARE think. Ditto wealth transfer based on the concept of someone else’s “fair share.” So is the whole “reparations” hogwash be it for Native Americans, Hispanics or blacks.

    Jesus dude, you are completely off the rails. Even if you describe it in the most horrible, unjustified, evil, racist way possible, affirmative action cannot be honestly called an attempt to control what people think. For what it’s worth, affirmative action is an attempt to counter some of the prejudices present in a culture that’s lived through some tense and violent times that weren’t all that long ago, but it’s not trying to control what people think. An attempt to control what people think would be some kind of attempt to criminalize racism, and that’s not happening nor should it.

    You come here spewing your bile about religious belief systems. Fine. But you reveal your statist desires to control people you don’t like and then you say you don’t have any interest in quashing others. You will take their wealth, you will promote a select few over the entire group, you will write out the validity of some belief systems based on your own whims.

    I can’t seem to remember any time when I expressed any kind of desire to control people I don’t like. I have enough respect for my fellow man and for the ideals upon which this country was founded for that, and indeed my distaste for religion is an extension of that respect. I think children ought to be given a chance to be their own people. I think that gay children deserve to grow up without feeling tormented by conflicting signals from their parents and their bodies. I think it’s evil to put people through that, and I think your lackadaisical attitude about the role your religion plays in fermenting that torment is especially so. It’s all just so useless – kids get beat up over this stuff, kids drive themselves nuts, kids run away from home and have awful relationships with their parents, all because your religion needs to assert itself on such a stupid, trivial, boring subject. It’s good to know what gets you guys out of bed, it’s good to see what you guys will go to the mat for!

    You are ignorant, capricious, groundless and without any practical intellectual substance.

    I am finished with your festering hatred of religion and bitter insistence that your moral relativism (which can not lay out in any cognitive terms) is worth a tinker’s damn. So many here have given up on your goofy insistence that you have something of substance to say. They are clearly smarter than I. Somehow, I kept to the belief that you had some part of an ounce of reason within you.

    Have a wonderful life talking to yourself.

    Uh huh. Go ahead and be completely predictable and throw your little fit, just like you were taught.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 10:33 pm - October 2, 2012

  17. And before you open your mouth, Levi, realize that ANY criticism you make of Heliotrope for not responding to you will immediately and repeatedly be used to bash you for not responding to anyone else.

    Again, NDT, I wish I had the time to respond to all of your high quality posts in which I’m described as a child rapist Al-Qaida Nazi devil-worshiper on welfare. I just need to finish reorganizing my toenail collection and I’ll be right back with you!

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 10:45 pm - October 2, 2012

  18. I can’t seem to remember any time when I expressed any kind of desire to control people I don’t like.

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 10:33 pm – October 2, 2012

    Too easy.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future. The entire scope of human history has been a march of liberalism, and this jingoistic, laissez-faire, God-fearing path you fools are prescribing is only knocking us off the right track.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    WAY too easy.

    the point is that these idiotic decrees that religious people insist the rest of us defer to are ridiculous and should be mocked incessantly until people are too embarrassed to assert them in public.

    Comment by Levi — May 21, 2010 @ 12:53 am – May 21, 2010

    And that leads us to this:

    Again, NDT, I wish I had the time to respond to all of your high quality posts in which I’m described as a child rapist Al-Qaida Nazi devil-worshiper on welfare. I just need to finish reorganizing my toenail collection and I’ll be right back with you!

    Comment by Levi — October 2, 2012 @ 10:45 pm – October 2, 2012

    Uh huh. Go ahead and throw your little fit, just like you were taught.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 11:26 pm - October 2, 2012

  19. And there’s more.

    Jesus dude, you are completely off the rails. Even if you describe it in the most horrible, unjustified, evil, racist way possible, affirmative action cannot be honestly called an attempt to control what people think.

    Wait for it…..

    For what it’s worth, affirmative action is an attempt to counter some of the prejudices present in a culture that’s lived through some tense and violent times that weren’t all that long ago, but it’s not trying to control what people think.

    So Levi is screaming that affirmative action is not thought control while simultaneously stating that all people are prejudiced and racist and need to be taught to think differently.

    And then there’s more.

    I think children ought to be given a chance to be their own people.

    Hah.

    You won’t let adults buy a soda that’s too large, but you will allow a six year old to make life-altering choices.

    And this was even more precious:

    I think that gay children deserve to grow up without feeling tormented by conflicting signals from their parents and their bodies.

    Which of course means that parents should allow children to have promiscuous bareback sex because that’s what their body is signaling them to do, and it is wrong to tell them otherwise.

    You continue to amuse, Levi. For a fascist such as yourself who demands that adults be whipped, beaten, dragged, kicked, screamed, and regulated into shape by government because they are too stupid and incompetent to know what’s best for them, your belief that children, who are far less emotionally, physically, and intellectually mature, should be given free rein to do whatever they want with no adult supervision whatsoever crosses well over into the perverse.

    Your motivation is clear, Levi. You want to destroy religious belief. That is your sole reason for continuing to post and attack. Your words about how religion would be destroyed in a generation betray exactly why you are screaming about children; you wish to stamp out religious belief completely. You are a vindictive, hateful little bigot who wants to destroy religious belief, abolish churches, and eliminate religion completely.

    Why?

    Because it shames you. Thoroughly and totally. Religion clearly holds a higher and more beneficial standard to society than your promiscuity-worshiping, jealousy-laden behavior patterns. Religion espouses concepts that are indeed otherworldly and supernatural, and are far better than your petty and base human motivations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2012 @ 11:45 pm - October 2, 2012

  20. Yup. And I stand by it, for all the reasons I cited.

    So, basically, you are saying bullsh&t to Dan, and you’ll do what you damned well please. And you accuse me of acting according to personal convenience. And you are somehow principled. Maybe Dan communicated to you in private that he wasn’t serious, and that you have free rein here. If that’s the case, so be it.

    Hence, I turn “vicious and ugly”, not because I am violating any sort of objective measurement of either, but because I’m criticizing you.

    As I stated above, I have no problem with criticism. But when you lace it with name-calling, excrement, and lies, I get offended. Kind of like when you get offended when you are called a self-loather, Nazi, quisling, etc. See how that works. Oh, it’s only justified when you resort to the level of filth of Dan Savage, or your other heroes Joe My God, or the author of the ugly letter about Dan you keep on maliciously posting. No, you have never said you wished someone dead. But short of that, you are no better than those individuals. But you still somehow believe your behavior is acceptable. Go figure.

    For example, Pat, you have tried to claim that my being banned from blogs like those run by Wayne Besen, Evan Hurst, and Rob Tisinai proves that I am “uncivil”.

    Or Malcontent. I didn’t try to claim, they are facts. Your being banned from these blogs may not prove that you are uncivil. But you are, as demonstrated by your behavior here.

    And that is because, Pat, your morality and your sense of right and wrong are based solely on whether or not something is personally convenient for you.

    Once again, no basis in reality. On the other hand, you have demonstrated this to be the case for you. For example, Dan has asked you to stop your behavior, but it wasn’t personally convenient for you.

    Some of us are less frightened of personal inconvenience in the service of objectivity.

    True. Too bad you are not one of them. And too bad you haven’t learned how to follow rules, because it’s too inconvenient for you.

    Have a blessed one.

    Comment by Pat — October 3, 2012 @ 6:34 am - October 3, 2012

  21. With all sincerity, I wish you a good and happy life. I suspect you feel the same toward me.

    Thanks, Heliotrope. I wish a good and happy life for you. Wonderful discussion.

    Comment by Pat — October 3, 2012 @ 7:24 am - October 3, 2012

  22. Thank you for doing such an excellent job of proving my point, Pat.

    First:

    For example, Dan has asked you to stop your behavior, but it wasn’t personally convenient for you.

    Actually, that is NOT what Dan said, as you even admitted above:

    You were called out, at least indirectly, by Dan to knock it off.

    Comment by Pat — October 2, 2012 @ 8:17 am – October 2, 2012

    THIS is what Dan said:

    Unfortunately, it seems that some of our readers, on both side of the political aisle, have stooped to the level of the hate bloggers in leveling personal attacks on others who have chimed in, offering opposing points of view. In recent days, I have been checking the comments section less and less frequently. And when I do, it often feels foreign to me as if it’s part of the blog entirely independent of its bloggers.

    So, once again, I ask, readers, please keep the comments civil.

    You see that, Pat? BOTH sides of the political aisle.

    And what did you do with that?

    Picked it up and tried to use it as a weapon against conservatives. Not liberals. Only conservatives. Nowhere have you told your fellow liberals to back off. Nowhere have you taken your famous finger-wagging and used it against your fellow anti-conservative and anti-Christian ranters.

    This is typical malicious and malevolent liberal behavior. Rules exist for liberals to use to hamstring and punish non-liberals. Liberals have no intention of following them or enforcing them against their fellow liberals.

    Want examples? Fortunately, you gave them.

    For example, Dan has asked you to stop your behavior, but it wasn’t personally convenient for you.

    Actually, he asked everyone.

    But of course, the law is only to be enforced against conservatives. Pat isn’t about to tell Serenity, or Levi, or Cinesnatch, or anyone else to mind their mouth, or call them “unChristian”, or criticize their behavior, because that wouldn’t be “civil”.

    And here’s another:

    No, you have never said you wished someone dead. But short of that, you are no better than those individuals.

    To summarize that argument:

    1) Wishing people dead is no worse than not wishing them dead

    2) Those who don’t wish people dead are vilified, while those who do wish people dead are not in the name of “civility”.

    It’s the same general theory for why free speech is ignored for posters that anger radical Islamists and invoked for justifying taxpayer dollars for “Piss Christ”.

    And then, the last and best example:

    Oh, it’s only justified when you resort to the level of filth of Dan Savage, or your other heroes Joe My God, or the author of the ugly letter about Dan you keep on maliciously posting.

    Notice this, Pat: nowhere do you say that the quote itself is malicious, or that those like Levi, Evan Hurst, Serenity, Wayne Besen, and others who made it, support it, link to it, praise it, and endorse it are malicious.

    Instead you scream that my posting and bringing attention to it is malicious. Not the quote, not the people who wrote it, not the people who said it, not the people who endorse it, support it, and push it as true. Just the person who points it out.

    And then to summarize THAT argument:

    1) Actually writing, supporting, and endorsing a quote in which Dan Blatt is referred to as a “wretched, illiterate prick” is not malicious or incivil.

    2) Pointing out and criticizing the quote, however, is.

    In short, Pat, you’ve done a magnificent job of pointing out the fundamental rule of Obama/gay and lesbian community liberalism: rules, principles, morality and standards of decency are meant for restraining other people, and are never expected to apply to you anyway.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - October 3, 2012

  23. Wow, NDT, you really missed the point, didn’t you. Okay, let me spell it out. When I put Dan Savage, Joe My God, and the author of the quote you keep on maliciously posting, in the same category as you. That wasn’t exactly praise. It wasn’t neutral either. In fact, it’s hard to come up with worse criticism. If you are still missing the point, I think very little of you. So that means that I think very little of them. As I said, you are just as viscious as they are. And yes, your words and actions against me are as bad, if not worse than the quote about Dan you post. It is malicious, because the quote is malicious. Is that clear yet?

    I guess your bar of civility is that since you haven’t wished someone dead, you are okay. That’s a pretty low bar, wouldn’t you agree? Or being as malicious as you are, you think being a total prick is okay as long as you don’t wish someone dead.

    You see that, Pat? BOTH sides of the political aisle.
    And what did you do with that?
    Picked it up and tried to use it as a weapon against conservatives. Not liberals. Only conservatives.

    Wow, you missed two points on this one.

    First of all, in the thread that post is refering to, my recollection was that you were the only conservative that was engaging in uncivil behavior. So when Dan was referring to “both sides of the political aisle” I concluded that you were one of the people Dan was referring to. In fact, you must have realized Dan was talking about you, because you felt the need to defend yourself in the strongest terms, even saying “bullsh&t” regarding Dan’s request.

    Second, I stated for a while here that I am only going to defend myself against personal attacks, in order to follow Dan’s request for civility. Since that point, I made every effort to not step in when others were personally attacked. Yes, I’m sure you can find examples where I slipped. For example, I’ve criticized Auntie Dogma and this one other liberal troll (his handle escapes me at the moment, and I don’t think he posts here anymore), even though they never personally attacked me. I have seen other conservatives resort to personal attacks against other posters (although none anywhere to the level that you have personally attacked me or others), but I have always stayed out of it. Funny how you never asked me to step in then. I have seen you pull that sh&tstorm on Lori Heine and others, and I stayed out of it. That was a particularly viscious attack, and believe me, I didn’t stay out of it out of convenience.

    Anyway, I am staying away from personal attacks for others. Dan and Bruce don’t need to have this blog polluted anymore with incivility. And I am certainly not going to be your trained seal acting on your orders. You don’t like it? Tough. Complain to Dan and Bruce about it. Perhaps they can do something about it, because you cannot.

    Nowhere have you taken your famous finger-wagging

    From the finger wagger in chief himself. That was a good one.

    Also interesting that you failed to mention your banning from Malcontent. Oh, but that wasn’t your fault either, right? Everybody else makes you behave like an ass. You are never accountable for your own actions.

    Anyway, the fact remains that it is not personally convenient for you to curtail your boorish behavior, that Dan has asked repeatedly to be discontinued, since you continue to exhibit such behavior.

    Comment by Pat — October 3, 2012 @ 4:44 pm - October 3, 2012

  24. When I put Dan Savage, Joe My God, and the author of the quote you keep on maliciously posting, in the same category as you. That wasn’t exactly praise. It wasn’t neutral either. In fact, it’s hard to come up with worse criticism.

    And yet somehow, you can’t find it in yourself to actually criticize them.

    Better to make excuses than be called a Jewish Nazi or meth addict, I suppose.

    I guess your bar of civility is that since you haven’t wished someone dead, you are okay. That’s a pretty low bar, wouldn’t you agree? Or being as malicious as you are, you think being a total prick is okay as long as you don’t wish someone dead.

    Again, Pat, why not? Joe Jervis is a GLAAD award winner, Dan Savage has Barack Obama’s endorsement and the support of the gay and lesbian community.

    I don’t see you impugning their morals, or the values of the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party that support and endorse them all.

    And last, but certainly not least:

    Also interesting that you failed to mention your banning from Malcontent. Oh, but that wasn’t your fault either, right? Everybody else makes you behave like an ass. You are never accountable for your own actions.

    Reprinted for posterity.

    Seriously, though, guys, cut Matt and Robbie a little slack. You all know me a lot better than they do, and frankly, I was both abrasive and aggressive towards them in those posts; on several levels, even though I thought it was unfair, I also can understand why they reacted that way to me. GP, GPW, and ILC know I’m not some kind of screaming fanatic thanks to personal experience; they don’t.

    Plus, if anything, the banning has been a valuable experience; it’s taught me that there are times when you simply don’t need to win a battle that badly. Matt and Robbie are good guys; it would have been better to give them the benefit of the doubt, say my piece, and retire, rather than recreating the March to the Sea.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2007 @ 2:48 pm – June 29, 2007

    And:

    Just keep in mind, friend ILC, that I tend to be almost obsessively prone to pointing the finger at myself first when things go awry; I’m just trying to ensure fairness and that your glimpses of my skirt are not excessively affecting your judgment. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm – June 29, 2007

    That’s what your gay and lesbian community call being a traitor and Nazi, Pat.

    That’s what your Barack Obama calls being racist.

    That’s what you and your friends like Savage and Jervis say should be killed.

    And that’s what you’re whining is “incivil”.

    In the words of Don Surber:

    The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

    Bite me.

    The left wants to play games of semantics.

    Bite me.

    The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

    Bite me.

    There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

    The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

    I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

    Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

    When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

    So screw you and your civil discourse.

    I don’t want to hear it.

    I have been screamed at for 10 years.

    It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.

    My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

    I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

    You chose to pander to the Jervises, Savages, and Obamas of the world, Pat.

    Own it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 3, 2012 @ 10:13 pm - October 3, 2012

  25. NDT, read the post again. I criticized your heroes in no uncertain terms. As I said, you are as bad as them, but I don’t see you impugning your own morals.

    Your quote in your previous quote

    rules, principles, morality and standards of decency are meant for restraining other people, and are never expected to apply to you anyway.

    definitely describes you to a tee as you have demonstrated time and again on this blog.

    Also, it looks like you haven’t learned your lesson since your banning from Malcontent.

    As for the rest of your shrieking, pointless diatribe, it has nothing to do with me.

    Do have yourself a blessed evening. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — October 3, 2012 @ 11:30 pm - October 3, 2012

  26. NDT, read the post again. I criticized your heroes in no uncertain terms. As I said, you are as bad as them, but I don’t see you impugning your own morals.

    Comment by Pat — October 3, 2012 @ 11:30 pm – October 3, 2012

    Actually, Pat, since you support and endorse the gay and lesbian community and the Obama Party that champions their views and supports their behavior, you do in fact support them AND their morals.

    I have no illusions about you or what you support. If I were to call Christians awful names, insist that Christian parents should have their children take away, and call for the murder of Republicans like you and your Obama Party and your gay and lesbian community do, I would have your full and overwhelming endorsement of whatever I did, and you would be championing me as a hero.

    Once one realizes that liberals like you are malicious, destructive individuals who will say and do anything to get their way without regard for anyone else, it becomes that much easier to respond to you. Since you recognize neither respect, dignity, or moral standards, it becomes quite easy to withhold all three from you and act accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2012 @ 1:58 am - October 6, 2012

  27. NDT, If even 1% of what you wrote was true and/or made sense, you might have a point. But none of it is based on any kind of reality. Like Romney (I think) recently said, repeating a lie over and again does not make it true.

    You chose to pander to the Jervises, Savages, and Obamas of the world, Pat.

    Own it.

    I pretty much said the exact opposite. However, you chose to emulate them. So, stick it. And have yourself a blessed Saturday. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — October 6, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - October 6, 2012

  28. Oh, it most definitely is reality, Pat.

    Very, very ugly, reality.

    And I have to ask: at what point are you actually going to get tired of associating yourself with the community, party, and people who would say and do these sort of things? Or are you already tired of it…..but projecting your anger onto those of us who HAVE left the liberal/Obama/gay community plantation?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 6, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - October 6, 2012

  29. NDT, since you are criticizing these tactics, why do you continue to emulate those that engage in it? No projection on my part, but I see you are rolling in it.

    Comment by Pat — October 6, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - October 6, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.