Gay Patriot Header Image

Introducing ILoveCapitalism–a new occasional blogger

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:05 am - January 7, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Economy

Because his posts have proven popular among our readers, Bruce and I have decided to invite our frequent contributor, ILoveCapitalism, to join us as an occasional blogger.  He’ll be posting from time to time.  His economic insight and free-market perspective should prove invaluable to our fans — and our critics.

Share

100 Comments

  1. Heliotrope, maybe a code for commenters?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2013 @ 9:40 am - January 8, 2013

  2. Heliotrope, maybe a code for commenters?

    This would also work.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 8, 2013 @ 11:12 am - January 8, 2013

  3. I debated going there, Rattlesnake, but didn’t want to make Levi feel all warm and fuzzy.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 8, 2013 @ 11:21 am - January 8, 2013

  4. NDT – At this point you’re just acting like a dick.

    And, as we’ve seen from this past election cycle and the shrieking of Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Wasserman-Schulz/Grayson/DNC/MSNBC, acting like a dick is what wins elections and gets the support of “progressives”.

    It’s very interesting, Alan; you and your fellow Obama supporters seem to respond to acting like a dick, given that you elect Barack Obama, who screams that his political opponents are rapists and murderers; Harry Reid, who screams that his political opponents are tax cheats; Nancy Pelosi, who screams that her political opponents want women to die on the floor; Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, who screams that Republicans are all rapists; Alan Grayson, who screams that Republican women are whores; the DNC, who screams that Republicans are all Nazis; and MSNBC, who screams that any opposition to Obama whatsoever is a racist dog-whistle.

    Ben Shapiro puts it beautifully:

    The left’s goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?

    This is how the left wins arguments. They polarize Americans from each other. They separate us by groups. They divide us, and they conquer us. They convince us that we’re either victims who deserve recompense or oppressors who must bow to the yoke.

    We are no longer E Pluribus Unum. Disagree with President Obama? That’s because you hate black people. (Want to ignore 14% black unemployment, though, and you’re a hero to the left.)

    Think that increasing taxes on high income earners stifles economic growth? That’s because you despise the poor. (If you don’t care about rising poverty rates under big government, though, your heart obviously bleeds for the homeless urchins.)

    Believe that an unborn child has a right to life? That’s because you hate women. (Ignore sex-selective abortion, however, and you’re a visionary for gender equality.)

    Like traditional marriage? You hate gays and would have strung up Matthew Shepard on a fence. (Blackball Proposition 8 supporters from work, though, and you’re an advocate of freedom.)

    This is not only how the left wins arguments. It’s how they win elections. They don’t win by offering more convincing policy proposals based on evidence. They win by impugning the motives of their political opposition. Exit polls in 2012 showed that Americans liked Mitt Romney better than Barack Obama on the issues. They liked him better on his vision for the country. But there is one area in which they hammered him: they thought he didn’t have anything in common with them. They thought he was a bad guy. That’s because everything the left did during this election cycle was geared toward bullying Romney. He wanted to fire employees just to watch their wives die of cancer. He wanted to force gay kids into dying broken and sad. He was a racist engaged in “n***erization” of Obama. He was a sexist waging a “war on women” using binders.

    The left won this election because they bullied. And the right lost because they did not fight back. Now the left has trained its guns once again on the Tea Party. We’re terrorists. We’re hostage takers. We’re racists and bigots and homophobes. Why? Because we have the temerity to want government to live within its means.

    The left is filled with vicious bullies. And we must not treat them with civility. In the words of Barack Obama, we must punch them back, twice as hard.

    And that’s exactly what you’re getting, Alan.

    You are getting punched back twice as hard.

    And like the little hypocrite you are, you are screaming and whining and crying about my “tone” when everyone here recognizes that you were sucking Barack Obama’s cock as he called Mitt Romney a murderer. You have no morality, no values, no objective standards, nothing other than sheer mad power lust, and you and your sick Obama Party will say and do anything to destroy any opposition to you whatsoever.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2013 @ 11:55 am - January 8, 2013

  5. I am so glad about this.
    ILC’s comments have been an always-read for me for some time now.

    Comment by Nan G — January 8, 2013 @ 12:15 pm - January 8, 2013

  6. I think Rattlesnake said it best:
    People judge you by the content of your words

    Just once, NDT, I’d love to have a discussion about the words and ideas that are spoken here, and not what Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Grayson/Cain/Perry/Romney/Limbaugh once did or said. Progressives have done and said some shitty things. Conservatives have done and said some shitty things. Politics is full of, well, politics. You can agree with someone’s position and not like certain behavior. You can likewise really like someone but disagree with their positions. I’ve already said that I thought Obama’s ad about the worker’s wife was shitty and misleading. Should I add that as a disclaimer to every single comment I every post here? Perhaps you can give me a write-up of every single bad thing a liberal (regardless of whether I support them or not) has ever said and I’ll put that atop every comment I include. Of course, I would expect that you would do the same for every single bad thing a conservative has ever said. Unless you believe that all conservatives everywhere are as pure and innocent as the winter snow.

    I personally didn’t read mike’s comments as attacking or disparaging either ILC or the site. But reading some other comments, it’s clear that some did. I’m surprised that people seem so shocked that a discussion of orientation is so off-limits when it’s already part of the title of the blog. Of course the bloggers here have every right to determine who blogs, the contents of the posts, and who gets to comment. I didn’t read mike’s comments to suggest otherwise, but perhaps that’s up to him to clarify exactly what he meant. I just don’t think it was worthy of NDT’s vitriol. Seriously, that was the full extent of my comment.

    We’re lucky and should be grateful that they (and now ILC) provide the space and time to share their thoughts with us. Cheers!

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 12:38 pm - January 8, 2013

  7. [welcometo the gig]

    Comment by Passing By — January 8, 2013 @ 3:23 pm - January 8, 2013

  8. Just once, NDT, I’d love to have a discussion about the words and ideas that are spoken here, and not what Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Grayson/Cain/Perry/Romney/Limbaugh once did or said. Progressives have done and said some shitty things. Conservatives have done and said some shitty things. Politics is full of, well, politics.

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 12:38 pm – January 8, 2013

    Well, Alan, since such behavior doesn’t bother you there, there would be no reason for it to bother you here.

    And if it does bother you here, then it’s quite clear that it’s not the behavior to which you object, but something else entirely.

    And since it’s not my behavior that’s bothering you, but something else, then I see no reason to change or alter my behavior in an attempt to please you, because my behavior in fact has nothing to do with your displeasure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2013 @ 3:55 pm - January 8, 2013

  9. As I have said, NDT, gutter politics will continue as long as gutter politicians are rewarded; Alan and mike were not shy about rewarding Obama’s gutter politics with their votes.

    Comment by V the K — January 8, 2013 @ 4:36 pm - January 8, 2013

  10. Look, gutter politics exists. That’s obvious. It’s unfortunate and infuriating and reprehensible. But don’t kid yourself into believing it’s one sided. Mitt Romney said that Jeep was thinking of moving all production out of North America to China. That was patently false. He also said that “under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job, they just send you your welfare check.” That’s also false. There are plenty of other examples. There are direct lies, lies by omission, and misleading ads all over the place. I understand that. The system needs to change. I just don’t pretend that one side is all sunshine and flowers and the other side is all malice and destruction.

    The larger point that I was trying to make to NDT is that it isn’t really conducive to any kind of discussion here if it immediately devolves into “SOME POLITICIAN ON YOUR SIDE SAID SOMETHING MISLEADING AND FALSE AND THEREFORE EVERYTHING YOU EVER SAY IS AUTOMATICALLY REJECTED. ALSO, YOU’RE A FASCIST, NAZI, POWER-SEEKING WHORE”. Seriously, just about every thread I’ve seen that NDT is a part of devolves into that (and rather quickly too). You can see it on this thread.

    mike – “I thought he was straight”
    NDT – “You and your Obama Party are simply desperate, malicious liars who attempt to character-assassinate and destroy at every opportunity rather than deal with facts or have rational debate.”

    You can certainly take issue with what mike said or seek clarification or even say “dude, that was inappropriate” without immediately resorting to the bombast and hyperbole. I would hope that everyone here would treat each other with respect. Certainly there are posters here that are only interesting in stirring the pot (little_kiwi comes to mind), but it doesn’t mean everyone who disagrees with you is automatically the enemy or evil. So yeah, a lot of the behavior from NDT is uncalled for. And it’s not his political views I have issue with, it’s his behavior. Pure and simple.

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - January 8, 2013

  11. I also don’t want to hear any of this “both sides do it” crap unless you can point to anything the Romney campaign or his surrogates did that was as vile as
    – Accusing Romney of being responsible for a woman dying of breast cancer.
    – Accusing Romney of illegal tax evasion.
    – Accusing Romney of seeking to outlaw tampons.
    – Telling blacks that Romney would “put y’all back in chains.”

    As you long as you reward those campaign tactics with your votes, you really don’t have a leg to stand on in demanding “civility.”

    Comment by V the K — January 8, 2013 @ 5:32 pm - January 8, 2013

  12. Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Grayson/Cain/Perry/Romney/Limbaugh once did or said. Progressives have done and said some shitty things. Conservatives have done and said some shitty things.

    This is the old “excuse by equivalence” fallacy.

    We have it clearly stated by Progressives here that what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke is equivalent to how Palin and family was degraded by Letterman, Maher, Sullivan and the MSM in general. I guess Romney’s “47%” reference in the equivalence of “(t)hey get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Eqivalence is an easy cop-out. But let’s understand something on the level of the first order of things. The Progressives seek out support from groups by championing their victim status and then demagoguing the society or other groups as villains and perps. Progressives seek out grievances and then amplify them for their political advantage, not the for relief of the “victims.” In doing so, Progressives say mean and disgusting things.

    John F’n Kerry will soon be charged with promoting a country that sponsored soldiers “who had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

    After this 1971 testimony before Congress, Kerry went on in 2005 to whip the soldiers for “young American soldiers (…) going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs.”

    Senator Durbin on the Senate floor: “….you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

    Enough of this “equivalence” baloney. One Congressman says “you lie” to Obama as Obama lies to the world in front of Congress and that is equivalent to Durbin’s or Kerry’s slanders?

    That dog won’t hunt.

    Here are rules of Chicago politics and the rules Obama taught as a some time law professor and community organizer:

    Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

    Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
    The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

    Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

    Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

    Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

    Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

    Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

    Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. (Example: Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport and Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.)

    Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

    Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

    According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

    It is nearly impossible to read this recipe and not find the tactics of Obama and Progressives throughout.

    Progressives, by Herman Cain’s definition have only three tactics: S.I.N. = Shift the subject; Ignore the facts; Name calling. It is a nice addendum to the Alinsky rules.

    Progressives go into high protest when Obama is questioned about his motives toward egalitarianism. Yet all the deep background Progressive organizations have very strong communist leanings: The Tides Foundation, The Center for American Progress, ACORN, the SEIU, Democracy Alliance, The Progressive Majority, Moveon.org, Open Society Institute, Faith in Public Life, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Apollo Alliance, Ella Baker Center, Institute for America’s Future, Hewlett Foundation, Friends of the Earth, CREW, Emily’s List, Media Matters and on and on and on.

    Progressives immediately take the stance of the three monkeys when anything referring to the Progressive roots and organizational funding is brought up: they see nothing, hear nothing and speak nothing. Particularly Eric Holder who holds some sort of position over the liberty and justice for all in the US.

    Cloward and Piven wrote an interesting blueprint in the radical 60’s and Francis Fox Piven is still cooking up trouble as recently as the OWS twinkle fingers rape-fest. The Cloward and Piven blueprint “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.” (Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews published the foregoing quote.)

    Think Obamacare and the movement toward the government single-payer system following the Alinsky and Cloward and Piven strategies or is it just all coincidental. All the funding from the aforementioned groups is also only coincidental that they are state socialism advocates as well, I assume.

    Now, run away and pretend that there is nothing to see here but a lunatic conspiracy theory.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2013 @ 5:38 pm - January 8, 2013

  13. Why do I suspect that if NDT was a liberal, people here would be complaining about his behavior and how it proves that progressives are all emotional and incompetent and unfit for intellectual debate? Seriously, keep NDT’s posts but change the name on them to Levi and people here would be freaking out about him. But somehow NDT gets a free pass. Little_kiwi sometimes acts like a dick. Levi sometimes acts like a dick. I sometimes act like a dick. But NDT consistently acts like a dick and it’s tiresome.

    Once again, congrats to ILC!

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 6:02 pm - January 8, 2013

  14. Why do I suspect that if NDT was a liberal, people here would be complaining about his behavior and how it proves that progressives are all emotional and incompetent and unfit for intellectual debate?

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 6:02 pm – January 8, 2013

    Well, first, because you’re a bigot.

    Second, because the facts are not supporting you, so you’ve got little left other than hypotheticals and strawmen.

    Third, you might want to note that, since you’re not throwing a whining fit about Levi’s posts “ruining discussion”, what you’re making clear is that you are demanding of conservatives what you yourself won’t enforce against your fellow liberals.

    And the reason you won’t enforce it is because you don’t care about objective discussion or principles; you just want conservatives to shut up and take the abuse that you and your fellow liberals think we deserve.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2013 @ 6:22 pm - January 8, 2013

  15. Jesus. I just said that Levi acts like a dick. I wish he were more civil. I’ve said that multiple times on multiple threads. And I can’t stand little_kiwi. And I’m sure there are others.

    And I wish you were more civil. But clearly you don’t think you are being uncivil, so c’est la vie……

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 6:31 pm - January 8, 2013

  16. Jesus. I just said that Levi acts like a dick. I wish he were more civil. I’ve said that multiple times on multiple threads. And I can’t stand little_kiwi. And I’m sure there are others.

    Comment by Alan — January 8, 2013 @ 6:31 pm – January 8, 2013

    And yet, despite all this alleged incivility, no whining post from you wagging your finger at them and complaining to them about how they’re ruining discussion, or how people should be criticizing them and condemning their incivility.

    Now, if you want to say that liberals are not capable of living up to the same behavioral standards as you demand of conservatives, then you have an argument and can rightly criticize me for acting beneath my station.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2013 @ 6:46 pm - January 8, 2013

  17. Why do I suspect that if NDT was a liberal, people here would be complaining about his behavior and how it proves that progressives are all emotional and incompetent and unfit for intellectual debate?

    Alan,

    Try reading my nearly endless comments at #62.

    If NDT were a liberal, he would being doing exactly what he is doing now, except he wouldn’t bother with the facts and he would be shifting the subject.

    What you may not appreciate or even understand is that Progressives are all tactics and close-minded. NDT “greets” progressives with a full dose of what they dish out. He is especially proficient at the name calling and ridicule. But then he veers way off the Progressive road map and actually crams facts into his diatribe while staying on the topic.

    In old time parlance, he gives as good as he gets. In his own words at #66 above:

    Now, if you want to say that liberals are not capable of living up to the same behavioral standards as you demand of conservatives, then you have an argument and can rightly criticize me for acting beneath my station.

    If NDT were a Progressive, I would be all over him for his vitriol and degrading language. However, if NDT were a Progressive, he would be sticking to the topic and providing actual facts and that would make my job significantly harder, if not impossible. I would come off as a whiner who can’t win by logic and superior facts.

    Think about it. Ignore his bombast and take him apart on the facts. That will shut him up. Stop whining and just do it.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 8, 2013 @ 7:09 pm - January 8, 2013

  18. heliotrope, great points. It’s hard for me to think of a more vile Senator to become the face of the United States than Kerry. Well, at least he won’t be SecDef (which would be a near-unforgivable insult to our active servicepeople).

    Seriously, keep NDT’s posts but change the name on them to Levi and people here would be freaking out about him.

    I could point out that this blog is the “home of the Internet gay conservative”, not the “home of the Internet left-wing government worshipper”, meaning that Levi has other blogs to go to if he wants to feel at home, and maybe he should feel a greater burden of caution on this one. But that would be a secondary point. The better point to make is that NDT’s rhetoric always has a strong underlying point, while Levi’s often does not.

    In this case, mike cooked up a little knock on the blog. And he did misstate who I am (meaning that descriptively; leaving out the question of mike’s intent) to get it in. That’s the factual core of NDT’s rhetoric here; what got him going.

    Now, what about that rhetoric? Is it right for him to have gone full-vitriol on his opponents? I concede that NDT often goes farther than I would. NDT made a judgment about the intent of mike or whoever else, that I didn’t. NDT is his own man, he makes his own judgments about people’s intentions, and then his own decision about what rhetoric to use. He clearly doesn’t bend over to make charitable judgments about someone’s intentions, when he thinks they’ve been dishonest or hypocritical. (He’s just as capable of knocking a right-winger, by the way, in whom he sees those qualities.)

    So perhaps NDT’s judgments about people’s intentions aren’t always charitable. On the other hand, I can think of at least one case (but I won’t name names) where NDT’s estimate of someone proved to be rather closer to right, than mine did.

    But somehow NDT gets a free pass.

    In the end, we’re all guests of Bruce and Dan. If they’re OK with NDT, Levi, or the Andrews Sisters, it’s not for me to question… on this blog. If I want to question their taste in guests, be they left right or center, I should do it from another blog (maybe start my own).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 8, 2013 @ 10:07 pm - January 8, 2013

  19. I’m a bit late to this party, but I think this is excellent news. Of all the Internet websites I visit though out the day, and all the comments sections I read, ILC stands out as one of my favorite commentators.

    Comment by Thulsa Doom — January 9, 2013 @ 8:35 am - January 9, 2013

  20. ILC & heliotrope –
    Thanks for your thoughts. Like you say, this is the home of the gay conservative, and because Bruce and Dan allow us all to be guests, I’m aware that people with opposing viewpoints need to be extra respectful. One doesn’t, as an example, run into a church and yell “Christians suck!” and expect to be taken seriously. Or throw flour on a politician and expect to be taken seriously (I do wish folks like PETA and Code Pink would figure that out….)

    There have been numerous times that I’ve disagreed with things on here, but have not written anything because I didn’t think it would add to the conversation or would only be antagonistic. No reason to be a shit-stirrer.

    Unfortunately, there have also been times when I’ve wanted to add something that I thought would be constructive or to ask for clarification so that I understood people’s positions better or share my viewpoint, but self-censored because I didn’t want to deal with the expected judgment of my intentions and motivation by NDT. There are only so many times one can be told “You have no morality, no values, no objective standards, nothing other than sheer mad power lust” before one throws in the towel and gives up. I try to come here with an open mind to see how other people think and view the issues of the day, but that behavior does nothing but shut down discussion and put people on the defensive. And when that happens, there can be no opening of the minds and no willingness to be open to other viewpoints.

    I make no misguided assumptions that progressives have all the answers. I’ve been on the receiving end of “tolerance”, where close friends essentially disowned us for taking a different political stance than them.

    I’ve said before that my partner is conservative (“alleged partner” according to NDT). We’ve had plenty of discussions (abortion, gun control, and campaign finance immediately come to mind) that started out with the typical caricatured platitudes (“you want to flush babies down the drain” / “you want to take away a women’s control over her own body”), but only after really being willing to listen to each others’ concerns and fears and expectations (we both want “legal, safe, and extremely rare” but with very different ways of getting there) can there be some understanding and a way to move towards a common goal. But the constant attacks shut down that willingness to open up. NDT seems to be utterly convinced that he has all the answers and that others don’t. Or at least that’s my perception of his behavior. Not really fertile ground for any kind of debate or meeting of the minds.

    The fact is that I suspect NDT and I share a lot of similar beliefs. I’m actually a rather small “c” conservative guy when it comes to family, strong neighborhood roots, strong parental guidance, and community involvement. But because I want to legal same-sex marriage, somehow I’m a hedonistic, narcissistic pervert out to destroy traditional marriage. It’s frustrating because I end up ignoring this site or tuning out other more thoughtful contributions here. The country is polarized enough. People need to start talking to and understanding each other. And listening. And it’s hard to listen when you’re constantly under attack.

    OK, I’m rambling now. Thanks again and I look forward to reading ILC’s contributions.

    Comment by Alan — January 9, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - January 9, 2013

  21. I didn’t want to deal with the expected judgment of my intentions and motivation by NDT.

    You know, no-one is forcing you to read his comments. His style of commenting often leaves a lot to be said anyway, so there is a good chance you will get responses from other commenters who are more “civil” than he is, even if he responds.

    But because I want to legal same-sex marriage

    There are many commenters or bloggers here who do as well, and who fall on the right (I’m not talking about me).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 9, 2013 @ 2:42 pm - January 9, 2013

  22. The country is polarized enough. People need to start talking to and understanding each other. And listening. And it’s hard to listen when you’re constantly under attack.

    Comment by Alan — January 9, 2013 @ 12:39 pm – January 9, 2013

    And to repeat Ben Shapiro from above.

    The left’s goal is to shut down the political debate by decrying their opponents as victimizers. They label their opponents racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, benighted, backwards bitter clingers. They liken them to Nazis, KKK members, terrorists. Then they cast them out like lepers from the political debate. Because who would bother debating a Nazi, or a KKK member, or a terrorist?

    This is how the left wins arguments. They polarize Americans from each other. They separate us by groups. They divide us, and they conquer us. They convince us that we’re either victims who deserve recompense or oppressors who must bow to the yoke.

    We are no longer E Pluribus Unum. Disagree with President Obama? That’s because you hate black people. (Want to ignore 14% black unemployment, though, and you’re a hero to the left.)

    Think that increasing taxes on high income earners stifles economic growth? That’s because you despise the poor. (If you don’t care about rising poverty rates under big government, though, your heart obviously bleeds for the homeless urchins.)

    Believe that an unborn child has a right to life? That’s because you hate women. (Ignore sex-selective abortion, however, and you’re a visionary for gender equality.)

    Like traditional marriage? You hate gays and would have strung up Matthew Shepard on a fence. (Blackball Proposition 8 supporters from work, though, and you’re an advocate of freedom.)

    This is not only how the left wins arguments. It’s how they win elections. They don’t win by offering more convincing policy proposals based on evidence. They win by impugning the motives of their political opposition. Exit polls in 2012 showed that Americans liked Mitt Romney better than Barack Obama on the issues. They liked him better on his vision for the country. But there is one area in which they hammered him: they thought he didn’t have anything in common with them. They thought he was a bad guy. That’s because everything the left did during this election cycle was geared toward bullying Romney. He wanted to fire employees just to watch their wives die of cancer. He wanted to force gay kids into dying broken and sad. He was a racist engaged in “n***erization” of Obama. He was a sexist waging a “war on women” using binders.

    The left won this election because they bullied. And the right lost because they did not fight back. Now the left has trained its guns once again on the Tea Party. We’re terrorists. We’re hostage takers. We’re racists and bigots and homophobes. Why? Because we have the temerity to want government to live within its means.

    You claim to frequent other liberal sites, Alan. Perhaps you’re familiar with Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out, and other such sites. Perhaps you’ve read GLAAD- and HRC-endorsed sites like Joe.My.God, listened to Michaelangelo Signorile, and the like.

    Do you know what they tell us to do?

    Do you know to what they compare us?

    Do you know what they say about us?

    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.

    So in short, Alan, your pleas for politeness and civility would be better spent on your Barack Obama, your Barack Obama Party, and your fellow “progressive” gays and lesbians.

    But, since your statements of what you want are in clear contradiction to how the party, people, and community you endorse and support act, what becomes immediately obvious is that you could care less about the means if the appropriate ends are met.

    As Heliotrope aptly quoted above, all you are doing is the kinder, gentler variation of Alinsky’s Rule 4, which is to turn someone’s own rules against them.

    And the way in which one counters that is to recognize that the person demanding that you follow the rules has no intention of doing the same or enforcing the same against their fellows. It is all about using the rules to “kill” you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 9, 2013 @ 4:05 pm - January 9, 2013

  23. Actually, I don’t read Joe.My.God, TruthWinsOut, listen to Michaelangelo Signorile, or go to GLAAD/HRC websites. I’ve never even heard of Box Turtle Bulletin. I used to read AmericaBlog years ago, but found him far too shrill to take seriously. Were I a regular reader of those sites, I might comment on those sites. The TruthWinsOut comment about Dan is utterly repulsive and disgusting.

    At the end of the day, I don’t have control over what Signorile says or TruthWinsOut says. I voice my opposition by not associating myself with them, not reading or listening to them, linking to them, or supporting them in any financial way (via ad clicks or donations or whatever). It’s the same reason I don’t listen to or support Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. The only thing I have control over is how I conduct myself, hopefully in a respectful manner. I would hope that people that interact with me do so with the same level of respect.

    Ironically, the first paragraph in the Ben Shapiro quote pretty much perfectly describes NDT’s behavior. But I guess NDT would justify it as fighting fire with fire.

    In case anyone’s interested: for political news, I usually read Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic, Talking Points Memo, Ezra Klein, Mother Jones, and Politico among others. I occasionally also check out RedState and Townhall. 99% of the time I don’t even bother with the comments section (for any of the sites). GayPatriot is actually one of the few sites where I regularly read the comments section, partially because this is one of the few sites that continuously has interesting comments.

    Comment by Alan — January 9, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - January 9, 2013

  24. Unfortunately, there have also been times when I’ve wanted to add something that I thought would be constructive or to ask for clarification so that I understood people’s positions better or share my viewpoint, but self-censored because I didn’t want to deal with the expected judgment of my intentions and motivation by NDT. There are only so many times one can be told “You have no morality, no values, no objective standards, nothing other than sheer mad power lust” before one throws in the towel and gives up.

    I see your point. I myself stay out of the left-wing blogs, precisely because I know I’m going to get worse than that, if I express any material disagreement. Here’s a story. There were a bunch of ‘steps’ in me going from being a flaming liberal (which I was for almost 2 decades) to a libertarian-conservative. Some more important, some less important. Here is one of the smaller items:

    At the time of the Iraq war in 2003, I had definitely started questioning liberalism, but I still considered myself a sort-of liberal, or “basically liberal”. But I couldn’t believe some of the crazy-ass comments I was reading on DU. I thought I should participate, registered and made a couple (no more than two, I think) fact-oriented comments. For example, if someone said “The U.S. has unilaterally invaded Iraq!!1!”, I said (calmly, with no rhetoric) something like “A coalition of 41 nations invaded Iraq. It was U.S. led and mainly U.S. forces, but still, that’s not exactly unilateral.” That level of commenting – that alone – got me banned from DU, swiftly, and back in 2003. That was one of the little eye-openers for me (there were some others) about liberal intolerance.

    Now, maybe there are some conservative blogs out there which are bad about banning dissenters but… I know GP isn’t. And that’s something I like about GP.

    Comment by Jeff — January 9, 2013 @ 5:16 pm - January 9, 2013

  25. test

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2013 @ 6:07 pm - January 9, 2013

  26. Both of the above two comments are me. It seems that the commenting system gives me a different name, depending on whether I’m signed in to make a post.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 9, 2013 @ 6:08 pm - January 9, 2013

  27. Am I correct in assuming DU means DemocraticUnderground? If so, yeah, I gave up on that site a long time ago (like probably 10 years ago). That’s really lame to get banned for something so non-confrontational and non-controversial.

    This is completely random, and I’ll probably get slammed for it, but I actually like Andrew Sullivan’s approach where it’s heavily moderated (he posts reader’s emails on particular topics). It can allow for thoughtful, longer responses from multiple sides without a lot of the riff-raff. Granted, I don’t think many sites can (or should) pull off that approach, but for his readership and the discussions he has, I think it works well.

    Comment by Alan — January 9, 2013 @ 6:49 pm - January 9, 2013

  28. Alan,

    So you get a picture of me, I am 70, straight, fiscally conservative, favor small, efficient government and I am socially conservative on some issues. I support civil unions and oppose gay marriage. I respect the folks here who disagree with me on gay marriage and I believe they respect my differences with them.

    I have not met a Progressive in the past 30+ years who could discuss the facts and stick to the topic and make sense. I admire Joe Lieberman and really enjoyed Patrick Moynihan’s take on things. I have learned much from each of them.

    Since the 1970’s, liberals have pushed abortion, abolishing the death penalty, government regulation of the economy, higher taxation to fund an expanded government program for social justice and affirmative action. This has caused conservatives to react to issues they may not even consider to be the government’s business.

    Prohibition of abortion is as nutty an idea as prohibiting gay sex. But, we conservatives have been successfully painted as that kind of Neanderthal who would starve our own children over a point of principle.

    And principle is what really divides us. While conservatives recognize the existence of evil and the necessity of fighting it within ourselves and to be vigilant for it in others, liberals look for goodness and want to have government intervention to help people solve their “problems.”

    Now, this is about to get a bit philosophical. I am not a Bible thumper. For many years, I taught ethics. I studied the various systems of ethics and morality and took an active interest in the messages of religion. Those messages do not require an unbridled faith in the mysteries of religion. But the ethic derived from recognizing the existence of evil in humanity is very useful and supportive.

    The inheritance of the Babylonian concept that creation is the ongoing conflict between order and chaos was very important to the early scholars and continues to this day. Today, we have the nebulous force of “political correctness” as determined by the politically elite as a substitute for old fashioned “first principles.”

    Thomas Aquinas noted that “….the good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this….” (Summa Theologica.) Modern proponents of neurodynamics look at “intentionality” which is explained as being the direction of the mind toward what it (the mind) is aware of. If a person cleaves to what s/he is “aware of” the outcome may be that little moral or ethical growth takes place. Only the “accident” of learning informs “intentionality.” The essence of Aquinas’ point of doing good and avoiding evil was the starting point of ethics and morality. By contrast, the starting point of “political correctness” is to deny absolutes and create a great grey ground between good and evil and to lard it with moral relativity and situation ethics, all of which are to be judged by winning over emotions.

    Political correctness mavens have fired he ancient Jews and the inheritance from the Babylonians and the works of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and the thoughts of Aquinas and Augustine and Buddha and so many other great thinkers and, to the extent that they affect us, we have become both hollow and complacent.

    Our public square has been reduced to what it “permissible” with overtones of screeching bitching about what is “proper.” Moral relativity destroys our inner compasses and gives us full license to explore the edges of permissiveness without shame. It is a return to Ba’alism and the yin and yang between chaos and order.

    We have a huge population of low-information voters who base their amoral decisions on convenience, popularity and personal satisfaction. They are, by and large, just fine with Honey Boo Boo and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D. Even though many of the low-information voters may be totally in tune with “church” and “the word,” they have not come to them “intentionality” which allows them approach “the word” as being only relative to the time and situation and hones in on their emotion driven awareness.

    So champions of the little guy who are all full of Golden Rule prattle on without any of the underpinnings of that morality and ethic. It is pure permissiveness vs. propriety. So, naturally, the government is called to perform the ritual of unction. Wisdom of Solomon and all of that.

    Shakespeare in Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” But “underlings” of what or who? Are we not underlings to being directed, maneuvered and subjects of our government? When you cede your personal captaincy of your own soul to some political elite what it left of your self?

    Our lazy culture has rotted us in many, many ways. But we choose to climb above it or sink down to where Ba’alism (idol worship) plays on emotion. “The audacity of hope” is a reference to sole resident in Pandora’s box after she peeked and released plague, corruption, strife, pain, death, greed, etc. Hesiod wrote of this great myth that “hope” is an “empty” and “no good” emotion which makes us lazy and prone to evil as we eschew responsibility for a “no good” fairy to turn our fortunes.

    Are we more inclined to be taken care of and basically satisfied or do we still have the flame of sovereignty that is inherent in “We the People” as expressed in the Constitution?

    I long for someone on the Progressive side to lead me to an understanding that government is the answer. I do not long to be converted, I just long for the intelligent debate.

    So far, all we get is Alinsky. Tactics for lying and demagoguing and gaining power by swaying the low information voter.

    In my opinion, anyone who throws in with the Progressives (think Nazis, fascists, demagogues, etc.) is guilty of ignoring their tactics, at best, or throwing in with their ends justifying the means ideology.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 9, 2013 @ 7:47 pm - January 9, 2013

  29. heliotrope –
    Wow! Thanks for sharing your perspective. There’s definitely a lot there to discuss. Unfortunately, I’m stuck in full-day trainings at work today and tomorrow and will have limited access and time to post anything. I agree with your comments about low-information voters and a lazy culture (though I would suspect with different ideas as to the cause as well as different approaches on how to fix it). I’d love to talk religion with you more. I grew up culturally Jewish (though not overly religious) and have taken a strong interest in Buddhism and in the sociology of religion in general.

    Alas, my training is starting in 15 minutes. If I don’t get a chance to touch base with you before then, have a wonderful weekend!

    Comment by Alan — January 10, 2013 @ 11:46 am - January 10, 2013

  30. I see your point. I myself stay out of the left-wing blogs, precisely because I know I’m going to get worse than that, if I express any material disagreement. Here’s a story. There were a bunch of ‘steps’ in me going from being a flaming liberal (which I was for almost 2 decades) to a libertarian-conservative. Some more important, some less important. Here is one of the smaller items:

    At the time of the Iraq war in 2003, I had definitely started questioning liberalism, but I still considered myself a sort-of liberal, or “basically liberal”. But I couldn’t believe some of the crazy-ass comments I was reading on DU. I thought I should participate, registered and made a couple (no more than two, I think) fact-oriented comments. For example, if someone said “The U.S. has unilaterally invaded Iraq!!1!”, I said (calmly, with no rhetoric) something like “A coalition of 41 nations invaded Iraq. It was U.S. led and mainly U.S. forces, but still, that’s not exactly unilateral.” That level of commenting – that alone – got me banned from DU, swiftly, and back in 2003. That was one of the little eye-openers for me (there were some others) about liberal intolerance.

    Now, maybe there are some conservative blogs out there which are bad about banning dissenters but… I know GP isn’t. And that’s something I like about GP.

    That is a pretty flimsy justification for discarding your entire political philosophy. I got banned from RedState after a similarly tame, one-sentence comment, does that permit me to start making assumptions about how all conservatives are intolerant? I don’t think so. This was single moderator that I’ve never directly communicated with, how would I know whether or not he or she is intolerant? Some people just want to sit around in a circle regurgitating talking points to each other. That sounds boring as shit to me, so I’m gone. Now, I do have an opinion about the general intolerance of conservatives, but I believe I have a good basis to make that conclusion based on evidence and argument. My opinion is not informed by how some random stranger treated me on the internet one time.

    Comment by Levi — January 10, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - January 10, 2013

  31. Now, I do have an opinion about the general intolerance of conservatives, but I believe I have a good basis to make that conclusion based on evidence and argument.

    Does anyone besides me find it funny that the truther, who refuses to provide evidence for his wild statements, and believes that ‘arabians’ are unable to comprehend democracy, says he can base something on “evidence and argument?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 10, 2013 @ 2:01 pm - January 10, 2013

  32. That is a pretty flimsy justification for discarding your entire political philosophy

    And so we return, as we often do, to “Levi can’t read.” (sigh!)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2013 @ 2:17 pm - January 10, 2013

  33. And so we return, as we often do, to “Levi can’t read.” (sigh!)

    Give me some credit. I’m well aware that you said that this was one among a number of reasons why you became more conservative. I’d be interested to have you provide us with those other reasons. But whatever those other reasons are, that you feel you learned something about all of liberalism based on one semi-encounter with a random stranger on the internet is a kind of mark against your credibility. Feel free to enumerate those other reasons, please, but I just don’t think the example you provided makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

    Comment by Levi — January 10, 2013 @ 3:01 pm - January 10, 2013

  34. I’m well aware that you said that this was one among a number of reasons why you became more conservative.

    No, you’re not. Or, weren’t. Because, if you were, then you would not have written the opposite about me, namely that I somehow were:

    …discarding [my] entire political philosophy… [because of] how some random stranger treated me on the internet one time.

    You want me to give you a degree of credit, that you do NOT extend to me (until and unless I call you on it). Get lost, jerk.

    Comment by Jeff — January 10, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - January 10, 2013

  35. (And to be clear: That’s suggestion which expresses or encodes an evaluation… Not a command; not a ban.)

    Comment by Jeff — January 10, 2013 @ 3:23 pm - January 10, 2013

  36. Well, at least we can see his ‘evidence and argument’ skills in action.

    I’m still wondering if Levi thinks David Gregory should be prosecuted.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 10, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - January 10, 2013

  37. TL, exactly. Like a toddler, Levi issues demands, rather than asking questions about what he doesn’t understand. (I shortened my DU story here, to spare y’all a long-winded thing. Levi knows quite a bit less than he thinks. But he doesn’t care; he’s too busy screeching to be given credit, that he himself doesn’t give.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 10, 2013 @ 5:14 pm - January 10, 2013

  38. I actually like Andrew Sullivan’s approach

    Not to mention his fascinating insights into obstetrics and gynecology.

    Comment by V the K — January 10, 2013 @ 5:32 pm - January 10, 2013

  39. I never said I liked everything about him. Simply his approach to moderated reader comments.

    Comment by Alan — January 10, 2013 @ 6:47 pm - January 10, 2013

  40. But whatever those other reasons are, that you feel you learned something about all of liberalism based on one semi-encounter with a random stranger on the internet is a kind of mark against your credibility. Feel free to enumerate those other reasons, please, but I just don’t think the example you provided makes any kind of sense whatsoever.

    Comment by Levi — January 10, 2013 @ 3:01 pm – January 10, 2013

    Actually, Levi, it wasn’t a random stranger; it was you.

    If you’re an idiot, and you’re trying to help some other idiot get into a position of power to drag down civilization with your collective idiocy, the smarter among your countrymen are going to have some harsh words for you. I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    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

    That pretty much encapsulated the whole of Obama/”progressive” philosophy right there, and demonstrated beautifully how “progressives” are intolerant bigots who insist that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, uneducated, and unintelligent, and must be forcibly converted to the liberal worldview.

    And the beauty of this is that, you being you, are mentally and morally incapable of acknowledging that things might be different than you stated or that you are NOT a typical “progressive” because that would mean you were wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 10, 2013 @ 7:50 pm - January 10, 2013

  41. No, you’re not. Or, weren’t. Because, if you were, then you would not have written the opposite about me, namely that I somehow were:

    This is one of Dan’s favorite (only?) retorts – “You didn’t read the post!” I see you’ll fit in very well here.

    Like a toddler, Levi issues demands, rather than asking questions about what he doesn’t understand. (I shortened my DU story here, to spare y’all a long-winded thing. Levi knows quite a bit less than he thinks. But he doesn’t care; he’s too busy screeching to be given credit, that he himself doesn’t give.)

    I’m only trying to follow your logic. You started a post about why you stopped considering yourself a liberal, and the one example you provided was an anecdote about how you got banned from commenting at a liberal website. I understand that there was more to it than that, but I just don’t think that’s a good justification, even a partial justification, given that banning people from websites is not an exclusively liberal characteristic. To be sure, I’ve been banned from a half dozen conservative websites – by your logic, I should consider this an ‘eye-opening experience’ about conservative intolerance, should I not?

    I think it’s very interesting when people reject long-held beliefs. I like to try to understand why it happens and what their rationales for switching are. Whatever piece of evidence convinces someone to switch must be a really compelling piece of evidence, and is probably one of the more solid arguments for or against a particular point of view. I just happen to think that the example that you offered is confusing, since there is nothing intrinsically liberal about getting banned from posting on a website. If you don’t want to talk about that, fine, but you don’t have to pretend like I’m lying about you or ignoring what you wrote. Given the course of discussion in this thread and the wording of your post, you’re very plainly insinuating that liberalism is inferior, in some part, because liberals ban dissenters from their website. I find that to be a ridiculous line of reasoning, so I made a comment about it. That’s all. If I’m getting any of this wrong, you most certainly have the opportunity to explain the faults in my posts, but instead you’re just asking me to go away. That’s eye-opening, too!

    Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 9:20 am - January 11, 2013

  42. You started a post about why you stopped considering yourself a liberal

    Nope. Not what the comment was about at all. So again, we’re back to “Levi can’t read”, a side topic that is hopeless yet abundant.

    you don’t have to pretend like I’m lying about you or ignoring what you wrote.

    But I’m not pretending. I’m brushing aside your actual behavior.

    If I’m getting any of this wrong

    Indeed you are. Enough so that it’s your problem, not mine.

    you’re just asking me to go away

    As I clarified at #85, nope I’m not even doing that.

    Truth 99,000,000; Levi zero.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2013 @ 10:18 am - January 11, 2013

  43. (Levi could ask, “So what was your comment about? Clearly I missed something; what did I miss?” But watch, he won’t. Or at least not in any straightforward/sincere way. That would be giving me some credit, the opposite of his intent here, which is rather to exploit me/others for the credit that he needs and demands of us.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2013 @ 10:30 am - January 11, 2013

  44. *pops popcorn*

    Who needs to watch MMA, when watching ILC beat the snot out of Levi is just as fun?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 11:12 am - January 11, 2013

  45. You’re so full of shit. If it’s your opinion that I’m misunderstanding your post, just say so and try to set me straight. You’re explicitly avoiding doing that, instead choosing to accuse me of being too stupid to understand your post. Now, I have to admit to having missed something if I want your explanation, even though I don’t think I have missed anything. I’ve read the original post five or six times at this point, and your intent seems perfectly clear. You used to be a flaming liberal, lots of things contributed to that no longer being the case, one of them involved your banishment from a liberal website. That’s how I’d paraphrase your post in as simple terms as possible, so where am I going wrong? I’ve done nothing but invite you to expand on this, and you’ve done nothing but respond with insults. That makes me think you’re hiding something, which I’ll continue to believe until you put on your big boy pants and produce an actual response.

    Comment by Levi — January 11, 2013 @ 11:26 am - January 11, 2013

  46. You called it ILC. And of course, Levi, having been cornered, has to go into a profanity laced screed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 12:05 pm - January 11, 2013

  47. Dang, forgot to add, I know why LEvi’s coming back here to get his head handed to him again and again.

    Jealousy.

    See there’s nothing in the original post except the announcement that ILC will be blogging more often. I’m glad. His comments are usually spot on, insightful, and polite. I consider him a stellar addtion to the blog’s contributors.

    And here we have Levi, intentionally mis-reading his comments and picking a fight with him, because his posts are pointless, inciteful, and generally mocked. He can’t stand that he’s been shown to be wrong again and again. So he has to attack someone more successful than him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 11, 2013 @ 12:09 pm - January 11, 2013

  48. So he has to attack someone more successful than him.

    Sarah Palin, for example.

    Comment by V the K — January 11, 2013 @ 1:58 pm - January 11, 2013

  49. where am I going wrong?

    Wow Levi, I can’t believe you asked. (Even if it was buried in a lot of garbage.)

    In school English class, I was taught to write topic sentences and conclusions. What comes between them is the supporting material – examples, color etc. Comments usually DON’T fit that format, but they may on occasion.

    Here are the topic & conclusion sentences of my #74. They kind of say what the comment was about.

    I see your point [Alan’s quoted point about how one can get discouraged from commenting by negative reactions]…

    …Now, maybe there are some conservative blogs out there which are bad about banning dissenters but… I know GP isn’t. And that’s something I like about GP.

    So… start with a bit of sympathy for Alan, end with praise for this blog. Those were the comment’s points.

    Where you went wrong, was in choosing not to understand those points. The DU anecdote that I told between (just parts of it) was only supporting/connecting material. I stated explicitly that it was but a “small” moment in my political evolution. Most people would understand that to mean it was not the comment’s main point, and BY NO MEANS a comprehensive story of my political evolution.

    You chose to pretend otherwise. That’s your problem. As TL suggests, you’d rather pick a fight on the topic of who is better. And you are entitled to behave that way if you want to. I have no wish to change you. By the same token, I don’t have to be exploited by your games. I get to leave you behind me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - January 11, 2013

  50. Who needs to watch MMA

    Well… That way, you can see some hot athletes in action 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2013 @ 4:56 pm - January 11, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.