That title, as the eagle-eyed will notice, is the GayPatriot blog’s tagline.
In my years of participating in GP threads, I’ve noticed that some who are opposed to the blog or its usual viewpoint, may be excessively fond of the “consistency game”, demanding that anyone who would criticize them must first meet some standard of consistency that has been issued by themselves.
It’s a cute game. They declare the standards and they appoint themselves the judges – which means they can’t be criticized in the thread, because they will never judge their critic as having been consistent enough, and will always change the subject back to their critic’s alleged inconsistency.
I called it “cute”, because little kids do it to their parents (or try to). But the game’s effects, and likely its intent, are destructive.
What I’m really talking about here is Alinsky Rule 4, as heliotrope and NDT have pointed out to me before. Played skillfully enough, it can strangle a thread, destroying any useful process of conversation.
The analogy to little kids got me thinking about a general analogy to families and homes. Is it necessary that people be entirely consistent and fair in what they say, within their homes? Why or why not?
Suppose we had 2 GP commenters calling each other names in a thread: one a conservative supporter of the blog, and the other frequently hostile. Granted that name-calling is incivil, and against GP rules, and ought to be stopped if it gets bad – might it be reasonable nonetheless to find the second commentor – that is, the one whose “home” this blog isn’t – somewhat more at fault? Or, at the very least, to deny his efforts to invoke the consistency game?
When I visit my leftie friends’ homes, I expect to hear them saying whatever they want about libertarians/conservatives, including crap which may be unfair, incivil or inconsistent. I expect it, simply because: it’s their home.
My leftie friends might very nicely tell me to “feel at home”, but if I can’t – if I have a problem with what’s going on – then it’s up to me to leave. Then maybe discuss the problem together over a coffee at Starbucks’. Not to engage them in a consistency battle from within the walls of their own home. Only A-holes do that.
In other words: Yes, there are slightly different rules for the people whose home it is, and the people whose home it isn’t. That’s life.
By analogy: if this blog is a home for gay conservatives, then non-conservatives should not invoke the consistency game from within the blog. They should do it on the outside: on their blog, in private e-mail, etc. At least if the analogy holds.
As I myself am a guest, I do not proclaim any sort of rule here; I only offer food for thought.
I’m often insulted on this site. Rather than actually address facts that I present, some conservative commenters make fun of me. When I get fed up, I employ the Thatcher “personal attack” quote.
Other times, after others have engaged in personal attacks, I figure, screw it, have a little fun, and join in. It’s called having a thick skin. And, judging by Dan (Blatt, not ND30, to avoid confusion; though perhaps it is both Dan’s) being recently offended by Bush II’s rabbit ears care of Obama, that seems to be lacking here.
Am I consistent? No. Could I strive to be more consistent? Always. But, that doesn’t change the fact that I’ve made persuasive arguments on this site that are left unrefuted. I never know if I got through to anyone. Should I just take pride in knowing that I’m right? Perhaps that’s something I need to work on. But, it would be nice to be acknowledged every now and then, when I actually have debated a point well. But, whatever. I’m learning to let go of that. Have a great weekend.
Cheers.
RVS: For the record, I was partly thinking of you, as one of the opponents of the blog’s usual viewpoints who can be counted on to play the consistency game in a way that will sidetrack (or eventually strangle) the thread.
But, since all that *is* the subject of this thread… Have at it.
then
Whether a consistency war is declared isn’t always your choice. Whether you are consistent or try hard to be is.
Sure it is.
Not when it’s declared by someone other than yourself. Whether you engage is your choice.
OK. And the engaging, is more what I’m talking about. It’s possible that the friend whose home you’re having dinner at pulled the consistency game on you, or at least baited you. But you still make an excuse and leave, if it keeps up for long, rather than engaging it in their home, deep into the night. I mean, at least I would.
Ain’t that the truth?
But when anyone is so malignantly narcissistic and self-absorbed that they ‘know’ that their intentions are always good, and that they’re “better, kinder, and smarter” (HT: Dennis Prager) than those with opposing views, well, by golly that person figures that they can pretty much do whatever they damn well please and everyone else has to do, as NDT often says, the “piety dance”.
I’m happy to see a post like this here, Jeff, because on some notable occasions (yesterday, for example), I’ve been ‘GP commenter #1’ from your hypothetical.
In that same thread, however, I did comment directly to you that no one can have a debate or honest disagreement with people who are intent on dealing in bad faith from square one.
Only when I identify a person as being someone who will demand a type of consistency and rectitude from me (and all other center-right contributors) that they will not hold themselves to (and in that very process cause the thread sidetracking and derailing that is almost a guaranteed result of that behavior) will I ‘let fly’.
If it’s going to be allowed (for whatever reason(s) and in whatever spirit), then I believe, fervently, that folks like me have to be free to respond.
And the only response that has ANY chance of being effective is to dose the perpetrators (yes, ‘who started it’ really DOES matter) with their own medicine.
Because I haven’t seen a case yet, on the Web or in the real world, where those ‘A-holes’ can stand up to that.
But then, they’re cowards. And their BS can work only if we decide that decorum always trumps all other considerations (hint: it doesn’t, unless we want to spend inordinate amounts of time being abused).
And I absolutely won’t let anyone abuse me.
When I was a kid, the only advice you’d get from parents and older (male) siblings on handling a bully was this:
The next time they start pushing you around, punch them right in their face.
It worked just fine then and, and it’ll work now.
Whether a consistency war is declared isn’t always your choice. Whether you are consistent or try hard to be is.
Comment by Ignatius — April 26, 2013 @ 6:14 pm – April 26, 2013
But of course, Ignatius.
After all, it is always the other person’s fault for responding to you and not in the way that you wanted them to, right?
For the record, I make my arguments in good faith. Not only that, but I’m public about it. I use my name (or variation thereof) for my continually transforming handle, which always links to MY blog, which provides MY contact info, which links to MY social networking identities, etc. I do not hide.
That there are those (anonymous, mind you, COWARDLY anonymous) who try to disparage my character by saying I argue out of “bad faith” does not make it so. All this talk of” bad faith,” makes me think that it’s born out of projecting one’s own motivations.
During the few moments I engage in harmless personal repartee AFTER the gauntlet has been laid at my feet (mind you, anonymously), I partake in for a little levity.
Yes, Vince Smetana, we’re well-aware that anyone who disagrees with you is mean and cowardly and bigoted, and that you are poor and put-upon, a helpless waif whose numerous problems and conflicts are all everyone else’s fault.
LOL.
BTW, I continued to tweak the post for a few minutes after I published it (as I often do because of the wordsmith in me). But I stopped around 15 minutes ago (6:20 or 6:25)… the post is frozen.
The evoking of violence is telling only because what we’re doing here is actually debating, but whatever. What Jman was trying to say:
FIFY
But, that’s just my interpretation. I’m sure others will respond differently.
Oh, you poor baby. My heart breaks for ya.
Did you catch that, folks?
When YOU do it to HER, it’s an ‘insult’ and a ‘personal attack’; when SHE does it to YOU it’s ‘harmless fun’.
So Madame Good Faith here has just confirmed what we’ve known all along: it’s one thing (malignant, ignorant, hurtful, insulting, bad, uncivil) when YOU do it, but it’s (fun, harmless, playful, cheeky, innocuous) when SHE does it.
What’s that term again?
Damn, right on the tip of my tongue, too.
Ah, Got it!
Double Standard.
Thanks for finally owning up to it.
It’s a small step forward in your interminable adolescence.
Not worry, child. All the grown ups here have you down cold.
You’d better come up for air, Beau Brummel.
The first time I engaged you it was a direct challenge, and I meant every word of it.
You turned me down.
I don’t need knives for you, creampuff.
I could have you pissing your panties with a hard stare.
Love this post!!!
And there’s your problem, Vince:
You’re too needy.
Try developing the self assurance that’s one of the marks of a grown up, and you won’t have the need for other people here to pat you on the head.
I offered to meet you mono e mono, and you turned me down, if memory serves.
Go back on your meds, you scholarshipped college graduate who took geometry before algebra in the 6th grade and believes there is only one way to interpret “variable.” If anyone could use a little less self-assuredness and more self-awareness, it’s you.
To borrow a phrase from you, “creampuff.”
You’re a liar, straight up.
You offered to meet me for dinner and I said it was unlikely as I live in New Hampshire.
BEFORE that, I challenged YOU to meet ME so that I could whip your ass, and YOU turned ME down.
I’m issuing that challenge again, HERE and NOW.
Care to take me up on it, Butch?
You better get a grip on yourself, Esmeralda.
I can smell your engine overheating here, and you’re 2,500+ miles away.
Oh, Mr. Linguist: it mAno a mAno; not mOno, as in monotony (what you specialize in that causes most people to hate your sorry ass).
Check the archives, sport. The truth will set you free. So will a little self-awareness.
Thanks for your amateur diagnosis, Dr. Demento, but I’ll pass.
You see, real self-assurance comes as a result of real self-awareness, neither of which you possess, which is the reason you screwed it up…….again.
If you had the proof of YOUR claim, you’d have posted it already, so as always, you’re full of shit and a liar.
But it’s irrelevant now. I issued it again, and all you have to do is answer
1) Yes
2) No
3) Avoid the challenge by lying
So far you’re sticking with #3.
Typical.
Jman1961,
I know the facts. I also remember you suggesting I engage in gay snuff films (even The_Livewire, of all people, came to my defense; the only time, I believe, but I won’t forget it). But, that’s just speaks to your character.
The time-investment you’d have to make to find the truth of the meeting exchange, and the ensuing results, would be instructive for you. As it is, you have a history (in that epic thread alone where we last met) of wildly making claims that are untrue. You’ve shown who you are (from the convenience of being anonymous) on many occasions. I’ve shown who I am (and done so publicly). And, though I can improve in many areas, I’m okay with that.
My answer to your question is 2) No. You’re certifiable. I stopped extending invitations to meet the GP crazies last year. As proof, feel free to find the last time I’ve asked ND30 (who I have made the most requests of out of anyone) to meet. Right now, I have enough on my plate dealing with a band of creepy, agressive meth heads sneaking in and out of my neighbor’s apartment at all hours. I don’t need you in my life. But, thanks.
Whaddya know.
Here’s proof of how piss poorly your “memory serves”:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=48285#comment-679568
Follow it through comment #176.
This is an example of YOUR heroic challenge to me and MY pathetic refusal.
And it’s not your memory that fails you, it’s your integrity and honesty—-two more positive character traits that you clearly are devoid of.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Later, Tinkerbell.
Whaddya know.
Here’s proof of how piss poorly your “memory serves”:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=48285#comment-679568
Follow it through comment #176.
This is an example of YOUR heroic challenge to me and MY pathetic refusal.
And it’s not your memory that fails you, it’s your integrity and honesty—-two more positive character traits that you clearly are devoid of.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Later, Tinkerbell.
I’d lay even money that you’re on of them.
That would explain a lot.
And, btw, that was a nice craven dodge of the challenge for a SECOND time.
Will you be remembering this one in reverse a year from now, too?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Later, Wonder Woman (get your truth lasso fixed; it runs backwards)
Comment #178:
You then dropped the subject and never responded. Our exchange also ended on a much more pleasant note than where we find ourselves here today.
And, I’d gladly take you up on that bet.
Go get some professional help, kid.
You’re awfully screwed up, and your #27 is just more proof.
To sharpen your memory:
Comment <a href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=48285#comment-679580" 175
Let’s try that again:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=48285#comment-679580
I turned down your request to announce a physical threat against you.
I did not turn down your request to meet. Quite the contrary.
Learn to read. PLEASE.
Oh, so Vince Smetana is suddenly down on evoking of violence?
Well, let’s see some piety dancing, then.
In fact, let’s make it a two-step.
Remember, one equals all, so liberals like Vince Smetana are all violent bigots who believe in physically attacking and killing their opponents.
Gutless liar….but everyone here knows that already.
Go ahead, Miss Insecure. Make sure you get the last comment in.
Go for it!
Good puppy!
Now remember to pee and poop on the old newspapers we’ve put down for you.
Comment #6 was originally just “Okay.” ILC went back and modified it with a sting of sentences, instead of leaving a completely new comment.
So, originally, it looked like he was agreeing with Comment #5. But, now, the “okay” is highly qualified. The commenter for #5 *may* have read the original comment #6, figured he agreed with him, and permanently left the thread.
Yes, we know that everything is always the other person’s fault, Vince Smetana.
That’s typical, though. The Obama Party that you worship teaches you that, just like how your Obama screams and cries and insists that nothing is his fault.
If one wants to be truly consistent, one needs only to speak the TRUTH. Hence, the problem for so-called “progressives.”
#34 – Well, comment submitted too soon, it happens. Fixed within a few minutes.
I love reading this blog, but I rarely comment. I think it’s important to remember we have a right to freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. One of my favorite things about libertarian blogs is that the commenters will say just about anything. That being said, I enjoy an earnest thoughtful discussion. In all honesty, I find liberal discussion to consist of verbal bullying tactics and bumper sticker slogans. I don’t know how you can stand reading them. Complete side note, in case anyone actually reads this, the phrase is “mano y mano”. It’s Spanish for hand to hand.
Hear hear! There should be safe places for like minded. I agree with the author that I would never go to someone’s home and argue with them, if I knew an argument would ensue I wouldn’t go. Likewise with Internet sites. I don’t read liberal sites and would never go out of my way to let alone just to comment. How pathetic.
Thanks for the lesson, Carolyn P.
I suppose to some degree it’s a matter of how the bloggers see this blog’s purpose. When it was a few friends sitting around a brunch table in California, it could safely remain an Amen Corner. Now that it’s a major player in the blogosphere, linked to and quoted by many other conservative blogs, it must balance consistency to its core convictions with a willingness to let a variety of voices be heard.
Personally, I don’t understand why some of the people who comment here continue wanting to do so. If you essentially disagree with everything the bloggers have to say, then what’s the point?
I disagree with the notion that, for the sake of keeping a fragile peace on the Right, we dare any longer pretending that the GOP isn’t confused about the direction it wants to go. When I say it needs to choose between two mutually-contradictory visions — making government bigger and more intrusive, on the one hand, and shrinking it to protect liberty on the other — I am merely stating a fact any sober adult ought to be able to see.
My views are pretty consistently libertarian. People are free to like them or not. As long as they deal with what they really are — instead of (as some here have done) deliberately misrepresenting them as Leftist simply because they think it makes them easier to dismiss — I have no problem with that. Disagreement, I have no problem with. It is dishonesty with which I take issue.
I suppose what I’m doing is asking, what does that motto on the masthead mean? Does “conservative” mean only one particular type of conservative, or does it represent a variety of voices on the Right of Center?
If the concept of conservatism has been so hijacked by the social Right that libertarians are no longer even admitted to the club, I’d appreciate if somebody had the cojones to tell us that.
To disrupt, to distract, to quell dissent.
Just ask the not-at-all missed “Auntie Dogma” (a rather annoying little trolll banned many moons ago), who continues(d?) to attempt to post his spew in comment threads, despite knowing that everything he submits is sent to moderation to die a quick death.
What sane person DOES this, I ask?
This is a public forum devoted primarily to politics, one that invites comment, and is located on the World Wide Web, not some private, invitation-only message board on an obscure academic LAN. Disagreement should be expected, as it is entirely justified. If someone posts an article expressing his thoughts and ideas in such an environment, yet dislikes a reader posting comments that disagree, challenge, or otherwise refute what he has said, I recommend that he develop a thicker skin. As long as such disagreement is presented in a straightforward, respectful manner (i.e. without name-calling, for example), then I suggest it be encouraged in the name of an intellectual exchange rather than discouraged in the name of ‘manners’.
I frequently disagree with the blog articles posted here, either fully or in part. Stating my disagreement is only that: disagreeing. Please, feel free to disagree with me.
I wholeheartedly agree. If you fancy yourself a progressive and make the decision to hang out on a blog populated by people your fellow progressives have spent over a decade describing as self-loathing, RAA-CIST!! homophobes, then by all means, please do so.
Granted, it’s pathetic and sad, but I suppose there’s no accounting for rank intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness.
Oh, no need to worry your little head about that, Ig. We will. Trust me.
I see things the way Ignatius does. Believe it or not, there are people like myself who dislike much or most that’s posted here as blog items or in the comments sections, but who feel the need every so often to communicate with gay, lesbian and bisexual (and transgender?) conservatives of your particular stripe and their straight associates (I’m not sure I should call them straight friends or allies, though one of those may be more accurately descriptive). There may be as many motives for doing so as there political dissenters who come to disagree in a straightforward, respectful manner (as Ignatius said, without name-calling).
Some of us who come to primarily or only respectfully disagree may not fully understand our own motivations, to be honest.
I know a big part of my own motivation is that I still can’t wrap my mind around your kind of LGB(&T?) conservative, who I loosely term LGB(T?) Fox News conservatives. I understood the older kind of gay conservative that predominated in the 70s and 80s, who like everyone LGB to the left of them supported sexual orientation employment anti-discrimination laws. But now, for at least your kind of LGB(T?) conservative, it’s “support the completely pro-employer, pro-big business, pro-wealthy political line of major conservative broadcast media” time, and “downplay anything that would cause straight conservatives, including homophobes, with those politics to not like us.” It’s telling that it was only this year that GOProud, the political organization that best represents your thinking, has been willing to unambiguously come out for legalization of same sex marriage.
I really don’t understand you very well — but I’m trying to.
And just to be clear, for me this isn’t an idle exercise in comprehending a group of people whose psychology seems so foreign to my own. Maybe I’m a fossil from a bygone era and I’m incorrectly thinking of you in the way I am so used to thinking of the old-style Log Cabin Republicans, but I think you have a part to play in the community, and that we LGBT people need to be represented among as many political tendencies as possible.
You will be able to communicate with straight people who share your type of conservatism when no one else in the community would have a hope of being listened to by them. Someday that will help the community as a whole, even your much-vilified “Gay Left” (meaning the preponderance of the community that is the left of you).
ILC, your point of your post is well taken, and should serve as a reminder to all that post here. But I would like to add my 2 (or more) cents, if I could.
First of all, I totally with your point that this is a gay conservative blog, and those who are liberal (or even moderate), as well as those who are anti-gay, should respect that. I believe I have done just that. So when I see a poster go on, in general, how liberals, Democrats, moderates, or even those who are conservate, but not enough are wrong, shortsighted, stupid, etc., I bite my tongue. In fact, most of the time, I barely even notice it.
I understand that many of the things I post will be disagreed by the majority of the posters. No problem. In fact, I don’t even have that much of a problem if someone calls my post stupid. What I object to, is when I am personally attacked and/or slandered. I prefer that I don’t bring up names, but I did promise NDT, that I would never refer to him indirectly. I believe I have been unfairly and continuously attacked personally by him, by what seems to me at least half of my posts.
While I apologize for my own behavior, I believe I have the right defending myself when personally attacked. I stayed away from this board for a while because of NDT. And when I came back and posted on the gay athlete post, I understood that my opinion would be disagreed by most, but I was then visciously attacked by NDT. It’s funny that you bring up that NDT about Alinsky rule 4, when he is as guilty (and more so) as those who he identifies as employing the rule.
Some suggestions. When a thread does go off topic due to a flame war, I think it would be helpful to not just identify who are throwing the insults, but who the one that started it was. It may also help to see if there is a pattern. For example, should one poster be called out when he/she only has an issue with only one other poster, or the poster who has launched personal attacks and slander against multiple other posters, not just liberals and moderates, but other conservatives as well.
It was suggested by another poster that NDT is a troll. Since I was gone for a while, I thought that might be true. There seemed to be, in that thread, no one else supporting NDT with his tactics. But then, soon after, I saw that he is still legitimized here not just by other conservative posters, but by you as well, as evidenced in this post. That’s certainly your choice, and I do respect your decisions. I merely question it. I’m certainly not saying that you need to get into a flame war with him. For example, there are liberal trolls on this site. And even when there are times that I agree with their points and/or views, I make a point to not legitimize them, by publicly not agreeing with them.
So I have to ask, what does this blog want? Does the Gay Patriot blog welcome dissent? I believe so, at least that’s what Dan has stated several times on this blog. So is dissent welcome, but those who dissent in respectful ways should still expect to be personally attacked? If so, fine. Then I will leave, because I obviously have no recourse. If not, then consider publicly admonishing the offender. My understanding is that NDT has been privately admonished several times, but to no avail. The one time I recall that NDT was indirectly, but specifically, admonshed, he laced an attack on Dan for doing so. My understanding is that many people, not just liberals and moderates, have backed off or completely left the board because of NDT. Anyway, these are my understandings and recollections, and you yourself can confirm with Dan whether or not the above is true.
I guess I need to get an idea what the actual rules are here. In other words, which rules are going to be enforced and/or who is going to be allowed to repeatedly get away with violating the stated rules and who is not.
I do apologize if my post got off-topic, but thought this was an appropriate thread to get this off my chest. If you believe my point above has no legitimacy, fine. I am a guest, and I will do my best to abide by the rules, and I know I can leave if I don’t like the rules. Thanks.
What I notice from this thread is that leftists whine a lot.
I’ve been called an unfit father by several left-wing commenters; rusty and Kevin have gone so far as to say my kids would have been better off aborted.
You don’t see me crying about it. The sting in any rebuke is the truth, and where there is no truth, there is no sting.
If NDT gets under your skin, maybe it’s because he has a point.
Maybe conservatives tolerate abuse more because we develop thicker skins from living in a culture that’s hostile to our basic values. Or, maybe thick-skinned people are just more drawn to conservative philosophy because such persons tend to believe more in self-reliance.
V the K, that’s one possible conclusion. But when I post an opinion, and it turns into a personal attack, maybe it’s because I have a point, because it can’t be refuted civilly or rationally.
On the other hand, I have seen you successfully defend your points, and put your opponents in their place. Am I to conclude you did so, because you actually think they had a point?
But you may have another point in there (intended or not) that’s worth considering. That NDT for some unknown reason is purposely doing this to get under my skin, and it’s worked. Interesting.
V, exactly. I sometimes come across comments where the person may believe or imagine that they are stinging me (or you or whoever else), but they aren’t, because actually, they’ve misunderstood (or over-reacted, etc.).
No. Defending one’s points is different than defending one’s own self. Case in point, I recently made a comment about the Boston Marathon bombings that even though I did grieve for the loss of lives as I would for most any terrorist attack anywhere in the world, I didn’t feel any sense of national unity because people who live in Massachusetts are part of a political culture that’s completely alien to me. A few idiot leftists claimed I said I wanted people in Boston to get blown up because they were liberals. That was not my point and they knew it; so I called them out on their dishonest attack.
On the other hand, when rusty or Kevin or some other lefty spouts off with a comment that’s nothing more than “You talk like a f4g and your sh-t’s all retarded”,…. then, who cares.
Also, just because you respond to someone doesn’t mean they got under your skin. If you whine about someone attacking you, that’s a hint that they got under your skin. Also, noting that someone has attacked you is not the same as whining about it.
Kind of sad that I have to point these obvious things out; but not everyone who participates here is intellectually or emotionally adult enough for them to be honest.
V the K, it looks like “whining” and “pointing obvious things out” is in the eye of the beholder.
Also, noting that someone has attacked you is not the same as whining about it.
I thought so.
Kind of sad that I have to point these obvious things out; but not everyone who participates here is intellectually or emotionally adult enough for them to be honest.
And agreed.
FTR. . Plenty more from where that came from
http://www.vthek.net/2012/07/almost-first-rate-pron.html
James is a wonderful person for adopting three boys, but what would one say if one of those adoptions was a girl?
Comment by rusty — September 24, 2012 @ 9:41 pm – September 24, 2012
If you’re interested in the opinion of a commenter, then I’ll say that honest, logical and factual dissent is fine.
More often than not, the ‘dissent’ offered here and elsewhere in these pages isn’t that at all; it’s immature little s*it’s that want to make themselves the issue, and will employ every harangue, diversion, half-truth, misquote (intended or not), post-shifting tactic and outright LIE to do it.
And why not? Truth is not a value for those on the left, therefore their petulance and lying is to be expected. What hasn’t been expected very often during the left’s trashing of this society and its values is ‘getting a taste of their own medicine’, which I am more than happy to dish out to them, since a) it works (V the K’s observation of their bitching and whining in the opening comments of this thread is spot on), and b) its the only avenue available in a forum such as this; what they really need is to be treated like the bullies and punks that they are and have their asses stomped in the real world.
It’s too bad that otherwise rational and mature people can’t or won’t acknowledge this, preoccupied as they are with ‘civility’, a nicety, in my estimation, to which the none of the miscreants that I’ve previously described are entitled.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/09/24/despite-economic-anxiety-social-issues-keep-some-areas-blue/#comment-709417
He’s not a troll.
I don’t believe that a conservative commenter posting here at a conservative site can even be a troll.
I’ll go with ILC’s opener on this one; it’s a conservative ‘house’; it wasn’t created to minister to the needs of those on the left (and there are plenty of swamps of that kind on the web where they can play in the muck with others of their stripe).
If I’m ‘off’ on the meaning of ‘troll’, let me know.
This blog isn’t what it could be (or what I think it might achieve). However, it is what it is and has been the same for years. I can only conclude that Bruce and Dan like it this way, with its current format, level and type of participation, and courtesy. If several regulars provide a toxic, unwelcoming environment for/to honest discussion, then I assume it has been rationally decided that these individuals represent and more or less express the type of conservatism that is aligned with Bruce’s and Dan’s own ideas and demeanor. Since I see no evidence of disapproval of such behavior, I conclude they approve of it. So be it.
I’m not here to waste my time trying to change anyone or anything anymore than I’m here to sing from the same hymnal. I’m here to state my ideas, perhaps broaden the conversation by offering my own viewpoint, and leave it at that.
It’s not ‘alien’ to me; it runs the gamut from ‘silly’ to ‘repugnant’.
I was born (Boston) and raise (Cambridge) there and lived virtually my entire life there, up until early 2009.
It’s one of this nation’s SIXHIRB capitals, as Dennis Prager coined the term (responses by leftists to conservatives/libertarians when they encounter our dissent:
S- Sexist
I- Intolerant
X- Xenophobic
H- Homophobic
I- Islamophobic
R- Racist
B- Bigoted
A seven letter acronym which encompasses, quite concisely, the intellectual depth of response of most leftists when they’re confronted by opinions and ideas (and facts) that don’t align with their own.
Pat, I agree – within limits. I do not claim that the following is always what I practice, but I believe that the response which is most nearly **ideal** (for the good of the blog) is simply to scan for false factual statements about oneself (“Pat voted for the Communist in 1952 and said that every child should be exposed to Brazilian dancing”), correct those (“No, I didn’t and no I didn’t, plus I wasn’t alive in 1952), and ignore the rest.
In other words, I always think people have the right to negate false statements about themselves. On the other hand, a point is reached – usually pretty quickly – where it’s time to take it outside: calling the offender to Bruce/Dan’s attention in an e-mail, criticizing the offender at length from one’s own blog, etc.
The problem is when people (NOT focusing on you, here) combine “I have the right to defend myself, when I am attacked” with “The best defense is a good offense”, to make “I have the right to be intensively on the offense, if I feel that I am being even slightly attacked.” The latter may feel good to the person, or even make some sense as a counter-Alinsky tactic. But when 2 people do it, we get flame wars.
I often see NDT make a valid point. I may well disagree with his expression of it, if he over-personalizes it. As I said in the gay athlete thread: NDT and you are both ‘here to stay’, as far as I am concerned – so please don’t attack each other personally, in threads that I author 😉
And so do I. The thing is, Pat, there is dissent-with-goodwill, and dissent-with-ill-will. You come here with goodwill. You may be here to disagree, but still, you are basically here to learn-and-share the good news. My post deals more with the people who come here to spread their bad cheer and ill-will, or because they enjoy taking over threads (making threads about themselves or their agenda): the Levis, the Auntie Dogmas and Little Kiwis, the RVSes.
Perhaps the perception of goodwill vs. ill-will, or of constructive contributions vs. narcissistic/manipulative ones, is subjective. But again, “that’s life.”
I used to think in those terms, also. “If we had clear rules enforced consistently, that would prevent a lot of flame wars.” But that’s how we get the consistency game. In my post, I’m floating a different view, that perhaps distinguishing ill-will from goodwill must be done first.
In other words, I’m starting to think that blog rules (or consistent enforcement of same) are for people who come to “the home of…” in goodwill. Again, I include you in that. My post partly says that, if I feel that I’m dealing with someone who is here in bad faith or to spread their ill-will, then no, I’m not going to get hung up on *their* calls for consistency.
You’re so full of it you could have a lucrative career as a one person fertilizer plant (perhaps in West, Texas).
You harangue ENDLESSLY: your fact-challenged diatribes in a very recent post regarding A) the definition of the word ‘refute’, B) your stemwinders on the meaning of ‘corner the market’, C) your insistence on injecting race/racism into that same thread, D) your hilarious overreach in claiming that same phrase (‘corner the market’) represented a ‘ratio’ (there isn’t a dictionary or honest mathematician ANYWHERE who would agree with you), D) you’re dishonest (and ill-informed) characterization of another poster’s comment representing ‘pseudo-code’ (no doubt it would surprise that same poster to think that his comment was written with that very flexible (for your purposes) intent), and E) your equally weak ‘primer’ in the DEFINITION (yes, my literal mind again; no less literal than YOUR’s is when you’re trying to beat ILC to death with the DEFINITION of the word ‘refute’) of the word ‘variable’ and it’s mathematical and coding applications.
Therefore, and ‘once more, with feeling’: you’re full of shit!
You never (how’d you put it, again?) ‘leave it at that’.
On a 0-9 scale ‘self-awareness’ meter, you’re coming in at a ‘.5’
Or you’re lying.
I’ll go with the latter.
And Jman arrives to prove my point beautifully.
Then by all means, start one of your own and show us all how to do it properly.
VTK, can you please provide the links to these. Thanks.
Thanks, ILC, for your points. I will do my best to follow your suggestions if it becomes necessary. Hopefully, it won’t.
Hmmmm.
Mine posted at 4:12, and yours posted at 4:14, and you just happened to be standing by, consumed it instantly, and fired off that devastating (to you) salvo.
Nice try, but we all know you can’t process words that quickly.
Now, you can either answer this, or…….you can show some integrity (for once) and live up to that congratulatory self-assessment you posted and “leave it at that.
I agree completely.
I don’t think I’d ever engaged Pat until a week or so ago, and I the exchange was polite and informative.
Thanks, Pat!
Well, that’s easy, Donny D.
You are simply steeped in the Obama Party dogma that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil racist selfish homophobic bigot who hates workers, wants to re-impose slavery, and put gays in concentration camps.
Because that is what Obama has told you and what your Obama Party endlessly repeats. Your Obama says that anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him is a racist. Your Gabby Giffords says that anyone who disagrees with her wants children shot and killed. Your Nancy Pelosi says that anyone who disagrees with her wants women to die on the floor. Your Obama Party Congressional leadership openly states that all Republicans and conservatives are “nuts”, “evil and mean” and “care nothing about anybody but themselves”.
Hence your mental inability to understand. You have been programmed to hate by your Obama Party. You haven’t the mental capacity to do anything but follow and obey Obama blindly, because you have been programmed to and wholly believe that anything else is evil and to treat it with contempt. Indeed, your Dan Savage openly calls for Republicans to be murdered, and your GLAAD openly endorses and supports people like Joe Jervis who call gay Republicans and conservatives “kapos”, “Nazi bootlickers”, and so forth.
Hence your problem, Donny D. You are mentally incapable of treating Republicans or conservatives or their ideas with anything but contempt because you have been taught nothing else — and you also know full well how your fellow leftists would treat you if you were to ever think otherwise.
What is the definition of “welcoming dissent?” The silliest commentary threads are inevitably those in which lefties go off on riffs about drag queens nobody’s ever heard of and who won’t date whom. That’s dissent?
ILC and Kurt have both been excellent additions to the blogging team. They do their utmost to introduce ideas to be discussed. And they recognize that there is — to hijack a leftist term — a diversity on the political Right. Even the gay Right.
FOX news is not a monolith, and if some of the people so sure they hate it actually bothered to watch it once in a while, they’d discover that actual debates take place there. There are some programs I refuse to watch anymore, because the hosts are hacks. But there are also people — like John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano, the gang at the Five and the Redeye crew — who tell it like it is.
If I never bothered to watch FOX, of course, I would have no way of knowing that.
NDT is not a troll. I get upset with some of the things he says, but I’ve met him, and he is a first-class human being. If we all had a chance to meet around a brunch table, I think we’d benefit from the experience. But if we invited the lefties, they might splash coffee on us and pelt us with tater tots.
Politics are about government, and how the citizenry exerts its will upon it. I would like to see more debate on that issue. What is the proper role of the State, and how can We the People regain control of our own lives?
Gay Patriot has the opportunity to become a sort of gay FOX News on the Internet — and I mean that in a positive sense. I hope it gets that opportunity. It isn’t just a brunch table anymore. A lot of people on the political Right — including straight ones — are reading it.
And with that, Donny proves my hypothesis.
Leftists here neither understand my position, nor do they particularly care to learn. They p*ss and moan about whether or not dissent is welcomed here, and in virtually the same breath, confess their complete ignorance about how anyone can possibly subscribe to any worldview which rejects both identity politics and perpetual victimhood and/or membership in a victim class.
Simply breathtaking, they are.
Lori, I’m sorry you see me as a person who might throw coffee on you or pelt with tater tots. But, sometimes, after being accused of saying something I haven’t or proving something false no one wants to take responsibility for after asserting it, I reduce myself to behavior that is less than exemplary. I don’t deny it. I don’t excuse it.
IOW: “They started it.”
Almost childlike, in its obtuseness.
This, frankly, is hilarious.
So Bruce, Dan, and ILC are hypocrites who lied when they put down “the rules” because, according to you, they selectively enforce them and allow people to violate them repeatedly.
I repeat from this post:
Here’s the way I see it, Pat:
1) This is Bruce and Dan’s blog, and they can do as they damn well please.
2) I am here as long as they choose to allow it. If they don’t, so be it.
So if you want people to stop attacking you, you’ll have to manage that yourself, and I do quite nicely.
Mainly because I recognize that liberals like yourself respect one thing and one thing only, and that is pain. As I pointed out, your Obama Party does nothing but scream that Republicans are evil; bigots like Dan Savage and GLAAD-endorsed Joe Jervis regularly rant at Christians and conservatives and tell them to kill themselves, but cower and mouth platitudes about “tolerance” when confronted with radical Islamists.
So really, it’s not the civility or honest discussion that you liberals want; it’s that you want conservatives to shut the hell up and obey. As Kurt Schlichter brilliantly put it, liberals are less interested in effective policy than you are in effective persecution.
Your means of bringing conservatives to heel is to sit here and whine endlessly about “the rules” and how awful ILC and Bruce and Dan are for not banning me, which you promise would make you and your fellow liberals behave and all sorts of wonderful things happen.
And they might decide that’s the case. But I doubt it is the case.
Lori, I also agree with you that John Stossel sticks out as a rare force of good on the network which employs him. Because, whether or not you realize it, I watch FOX from time to time.
So if you want people to stop attacking you, you’ll have to manage that yourself, and I do quite nicely.
You’re the only one who does personally attack me, so I’m doing quite nicely myself. Thanks. But in the meantime, you can stop the personal attacks yourself as ILC asked you to do. I assume you’re capable of it.
But you did manage to sprinkle loads of stuff about me not based on reality once again. At least your consistent. Thanks again.
LOL.
You mean the same ILC you whined was a hypocrite for not enforcing the rules?
I guess you like him when you can use him for your own purposes — and as long as he will be used for your own purposes. When he doesn’t, you’ll just call him a hypocrite and claim he “selectively enforces” the rules.
NDT, your comments about me have no basis in reality. Also, please stop the personal attacks, as requested by ILC. Thanks.
<blockquoteNDT, your comments about me have no basis in reality.
Of course not. You and your fellow bigots have no concept of right and wrong any more; all you do is lie and smear people.
Hey Pat, vote for and endorse Barack “Romney Murdered A Woman” Obama?
Then you can take your demand for “personal attacks” to stop and shove it.
For someone like you who endorses the Obama Party and its constant lies about conservatives and Republicans to scream and whine about “personal attacks” is complete and utter cluelessness and hypocrisy. If they bother you so much, then you wouldn’t be such a good little slave and voter for politicians and the Obama Party that use them.
What you want is for others to shut up while you abuse them. And you aren’t getting it. Ever.
I don’t think I’d ever engaged Pat until a week or so ago, and I the exchange was polite and informative.
Thanks, Pat!
Comment by Jman1961 — April 28, 2013 @ 4:32 pm – April 28, 2013
Pat is great!
Thanks, Jman and Rusty.
NDT. Thanks for your response. However, your comments about me are still not based on reality, among other things. Also, please stop continuing your personal attacks (and now threats) as ILC requested. Thanks, again.
LOL.
Do you need this re-quoted, Pat?
And:
And that proves the point. You don’t think this applies to you. You just are waving it as a weapon to try to shut ME up while you go merrily on bashing me and other people.
That is typical of liberals. Rules and guidelines are only to be followed when they can be used to punish conservatives. You demand that others follow the rules when you won’t, insist that others act a certain way when you won’t, and wave about admonishments about others that you steadfastly ignore when they apply to you as well.
Which, ironically, proves ILC’s entire point.
NDT, I am not trying to shut you up. I am simply trying to stop you from personally attacking me. I’m holding up my end, now you need to. As ILC requested, could you please stop the personal attacks? Thanks.
When a leftist sketches a picture of a man punching Sarah Palin in the face, it’s “speaking truth to power.”
When NDT plays by the rules the left decided upon 15 years ago, it’s a “personal attack.”
When a leftist sketches a picture of a man punching Sarah Palin in the face, it’s “speaking truth to power.”
My Sharia Moor, no, that would be a personal attack as well.
Well, in that case, let me be the first to apologize to Cindy Sheehan for all of the nasty comments I made about her decision to suddenly support the War in Iraq in January of 2008.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to apologize to the Komen Foundation for all of the vile invective I threw their way after they decided to throw Planned Parenthood under the bus.
How the hell was I supposed to know they were only pulling a “New Coke” maneuver?!?
My Sharia Moor, it sounds like you are one of many that should apologize. 🙂
Huh?
Oh, this is priceless….
Progs who lack even the slightest sense of irony when it’s directed back at them.
Smegma the Clown doesn’t get it, does he????
ROFLMAO!!!!!
“I bow before the superior intellect…”
For once, I’m actually glad comments get be edited by us riff-raff, cause when Smegs finally gets around to asking someone what my Sheehan comment meant, he’s gonna kick himself in the ass for not thinking it through before he hit “SAY IT!” 😀
Advice to Smegs…
Never wake-and-bake and troll conservative comment threads at the same time.
Not a good idea.
And a pretty piss-poor way to go about life, kiddo.
My Sharia Moor, if your comment was directed to me, yes I got the irony, and returned with irony that you missed. If this was not directed at me, ignore the previous sentence. But to be sure so I am not snowing you. I’m pretty sure you were referring to leftists who were engaging in attacks on Ms. Sheehan, is that right? That you really didn’t attack Sheehan for her changed stance.
Sheehan never started supporting the Iraq War in January 2008 or ever. She stopped dedicating her entire life to protesting it in August 2007. If she was attacked for getting a life, that’s news to me. Surely, Eric can provide some links. Or explain what he meant.
No, you’re not, Pat.
You’re just whining and screaming when someone actually dares to punch you back after you spent an entire post taking cheap shots at them.
You have ZERO intention of being bound by the rules you try to impose on others, Pat. That makes you a hypocrite, and beautifully illustrates the point ILC was making in this post: leftists like yourself do nothing but abuse the rules and act out of bad faith.
Someone tell Smegs I’ll get to his question about the Holy Mother Sheehan in just a sec…
I’m right in the middle of searching through five years’ worth of raw video. Seems Code Pink failed to announce just when they “stopped dedicating [their] entire [lives] to protesting it,” as well.
This’ll just take a sec, I’m sure….
One clip of Sheehan saying she supported the Iraq War will suffice, Eric.
Here ya go, scooter.
Sharp as a tack, that one is. 😀
Eric, You seem to be insinuating Sheehan stopped protesting the Iraq War because President Obama got in the White House. Hence, your January 2008 reference. Sheehan stepped down in August of 2007 from her vocal protests, before we even knew who was going to be president in 2008.
Ya see…
This is precisely the meaningful, even-handed, compassionate level of discussion our belligerently ignorant friends mean to have.
So let me just say this again for the benefit of those who don’t seem to retain much of what they read: I am not interested in engaging in respectful discourse with adherents of an ideology that has so deluded itself into believing in the righteousness and inevitability of their worldview, that any concept of hypocrisy isn’t just ignored, it’s been forgotten. Wiped clean by the Hand of Gaia…
Having said that, I’ve had it up to my ass placating douchebags that only demonstrate the courage of their convictions when they convert to Islam and hit civilians. Otherwise, they can just keep making my coffee every morning.
Screw them. I’m goin Full Alinsky.
Heya smegs….
I never said the contemptuous, duplicitous bitch hung up her because of the Mocha Messiah, did I?
Nope. Never mentioned il Douche by name once.
I gracefully accept your
apologypathology.Smegs is a racist and as 1/32
Blacker, Cherokee, I must call upon him to denounce himself.Okay, Eric. Fine. Then, explain what you meant about Sheehan “supporting the Iraq War” in “January 2008.”
Or maybe someone else can, as it appears Eric enjoys stringing this along.
FIFM
Ok…lesson for the youngsters out there….
A) Critical thinking is obviously going to be have to be up to you, given that some less fortunate among you clearly weren’t taught how to think, as opposed to what to think.
So, you get what we have here. Which is the way he wants it. Apparently.
“What we have heeeaah, is failure….to commune-cate!”
Beautiful!!!
LOL!
Congratulations, Eric. Good-bye.
Please, let the dog bite ya in the ass on your way out. Piker.
See? That’s what I mean about the danger of not having the courage of one’s convictions. Tends to lend itself to critical mistakes.
Like not reading what’s in front of you.
Attention to detail. My drill sergeant was rrrrrreallly into that concept.
“Please don’t hit no (My Sharia) Moor. I got my mind right.”
God, I LOVE that movie!!! 😀
“I won’t backsass no moe, Boss Paul. I got my mind right!”
“Luuuuuuuuke?”
Thanks, MSM. I haven’t laughed for this long in….almost forever.
What you did was f***ing MASTERFUL.
Thank you so very much!
To be precise, you’re UNworthy opponent provided virtually all of the laughs.
How GD dense can a human being get?
I’ve changed my mind (for the moment). Keep it here for some light (and heavy) comedy.
I know for a FACT that there are Jersey barriers that are more sentient than this Cabbage Patch exile.
SQUAWK!! Margaret Thatcher!!
I am so stealing that…
Be my guest!
And no attribution (nor royalties) necessary; we’ll consider it part of conservative/libertarian community property.
“They gonna be whole lotta world shakin………….”
So was my Dad (RIP, and ex-military).
And as the time tested, old adage says: it’s where the devil is always found.
[For you ‘nuanced’ (LMAO) leftists: No, this is NOT a religious reference, so don’t waste your time getting your panties in a bunch.]
Ladies and Gentlemen, your opposition:
Today’s Democrat Party…
Come for the fear, stay for the hate.
Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 29, 2013 @ 2:04 pm – April 29, 2013
Thanks, I have detested this entire thread until your post at 2:04 pm.
If you know a website is opposed to your views and you engage them anyhow, whatever happens next is just as much your fault as the other guy’s. Everything that progressive people say on here can be found easier and told a lot better on any twenty or so progressive websites by the time it reaches GP. If those numerous attempts to “get through” to them failed, a rehash won’t do much better. But I’ll admit, I like seeing the Vince/NDT battles. It’s interesting to watch the symbiotic relationship between the far left and far right play out so… brutally.
For a while now, they’ve been generally pretty one-sided, as I choose to not engage the man like I used to.
I absolutely adore Smegma/NDT battles, especially because it consistently demonstrates which of them truly has the courage of their convictions.
To wit: I can honestly say I have NEVER seen NDT pull a Smegma, whine a pathetic “Goodbye,” and storm out of the room. NDT, by virtue of not feeling the need to apologize for the man he is (nor should he), isn’t able to get argued into abandoning a thread.
The same, sadly, cannot be said of Smegma.
See what I mean? Smeggies a coward. Wants so desperately to be down for the struggle, but unfortunately, lacks the sand to truly commit.
And he’s also a racist, remember.
Two things here:
1. Absolutely true, and he IS a coward, but even if he had the ‘balls’ and fought, it’d be in the pay of a truly wretched cause.
2. You like Westerns (movies and old TV series). Right?
What have you been reading?
Cuddles the Wonder Parrot can’t ‘battle’ with anyone (he’s ‘even money’ to lose a shadow boxing match).
Whenever he finds himself in a ‘tough spot’, invariably one that he brought on himself, he quickly resorts to mimicry and parroting (plagiarizing Peter Hughes posted signature and ‘expressions’ being the most recent examples).
No ‘battle’ at all, Douglas, just Salty getting his sorry a** kicked from stem to stern, followed fairly quickly by excuse making, lying, and his own catered ‘whine’ and cheese party.
“SQUAWK! Margaret Thatcher”
“Will somebody stuff a sock in that damned bird’s beak. Sheesh!”
Well, regardless of how the battle goes, the fact of the matter is there HAS to be a Vince to contrast with an NDT, and vice versa. Otherwise, how would you even know NDT’s mettle… or Vince’s? Again, it’s a symbiotic thing. You simply can’t have one without the other. And that’s why it will always be a battle.
I see your point Douglas about the symbiotic relationship. But, NDT makes the attacks against left-leaning, centrist, or, dare I say, right-of-center GP commenters who are more rational, civil, and intelligent than myself. So, NDT is always going to be showing his mettle regardless.
At any rate, I’ve been excused of lies in the last couple of comments. Do I engage them and defend myself? Or do I just let it go? I guess I need to let it go, because my history with both commenters has shown that they’re not willing to engage in genuine debate. And I don’t have the energy. Just like I don’t have the energy to deal with ND30 anymore. But, when I do, I usually get fed up them and resort to less than exemplary behavior.
I suppose, if it’s just for the sake of the most superficial type of contrast. So as far as that goes, I’d agree.
But there’s far more to it than that.
I’ve never met the man, but I’d say that NDT is:
a) a grown man
b) a ‘stand up’ guy
c) honest and forthright
d) intelligent AND smart
e) has a straight spine and a firm chin
f) has the guts to stand (and fight, if need be) for what he believes in.
His polar opposite?
He possesses not a one of those fine character traits, and I doubt even his ‘supporters’ would risk the tsunami of derision that would come their way if they were to suggest that he does.
In short: NDT is a man; Cuddles is a little boy.
And if you’re interested in the boy’s alleged ‘mettle’, take a gander at #88-#106 just above.
If it doesn’t strike you as amusing, at least, it’s a testament to the boy’s lack of intellectual heft, sophistication, maturity, nuance**, ad infinitum.
I found one of the participant’s cluelessness hilarious (and I ain’t talking about My Sharia Moor).
** [Really? I thought all those lefties had that in spades, while us poor, foolish right wing types were just literal. LOL!]
Oh, quite the opposite.
But one can’t engage ‘genuine debate’ when the ‘other’ comes here to sh*t and p*ss on the rugs, stomps it’s feet on the floor and demands attention and validation when it hasn’t earned either, etc.
Or when that ‘other’ starts it’s cheeky, wiseass routine when it hasn’t gotten the attention and validation that it’s so sure that it’s entitled to.
No, Other, the problem is that, just above, you engaged in another of your well known and shopworn behaviors; projecting what you know is (or at least suspect might be) true and assigning those less than admirable traits to others.
Naughty boy!
Another problem, like others who’ve been here before you (and since, thankfully departed); you come here not for genuine debate, but spoiling for a fight (which you can never handle….see above).
To put it in the vernacular: ‘Your mouth writes checks that your ass can’t cash.’
Edited for clarity.
As a wise sage has posted. . You don’t have to like someone and not oppose dishonest smears against them.
And if you think it is ok to smear someone over and over and over, just because you disagree with that person, your ethics are questionable.
Comment by rusty — January 7, 2012 @ 11:45 am – January 7, 2012
Who was (is) this person?
Who’s doing this ‘smearing’?
What makes these comments ‘smears’ (as opposed to, say, completely valid criticisms or opposing points of view)?
Who’s being ‘smeared’ (‘over and over and over’)?
If the person being ‘smeared’ is not you, then why do you assume the role as ‘defender’ or spokesperson for this alleged ‘victim’; why can’t they speak for themselves?
Hmm, I was thinking about a different reading ‘… the home of the internet conservative.’
Primarily that I am a guest.
Thor: I thought humans were more evolved than this.
Nick Fury: Excuse me, did WE come to YOUR planet and blow stuff up?
I “feel the pain” of the liberal/Progressive commenters here. I really do. It is like believing in the works, words and actions of Jesus and having someone tell you are full of crap for wasting any part of your mind and soul on sky-god mythology and tooth fairy happy dust.
You see, the liberal of today is a schizophrenic who believes in hope and change on his “Jesus” side, but walks right by the Cross and picks up the spear and forces the hope and change on the “non-believers” using the power of the state on his fascist side.
Liberals and Progressives can not accomplish any goal without the force and power of the state to punish the offensive offenders* by dragging them kicking and screaming into the reality of state control. (* I know that offensive offender is a bit baroque, but so is “hate speech” and “hate crime” and what small stuff “racism” has devolved to in the liberal view of what offensive offenders do that really riles up liberals.)
In the last 40 years, I have not encountered one liberal or one liberal program that will stand or sit for an open debate of the facts and details. Instead, Obamacare comes from out of nowhere and is thrust upon us by mechanisms of legislative chicanery that no one can explain in Constitutional terms. And those who are liberal and Progressive latch onto it like a junk yard dog on a hobo’s leg because it came from their guys and they will support and do anything for their team.
So, what do liberals and Progressives have to share and debate when they can’t sell the lies, the cheating methods, the demonizing, the personal attacks, the omissions of the truth, the demagoguing and the name-calling to the people who want to discuss the facts?
Obama is only open to compromise that raises taxes. Oh, he is perfectly willing to offer a poison pill like the sequester as a token of his “my way or the highway” nastiness and condescension. Then he cries and lies and cuts White House tours and Air Traffic Controllers when he gets his stuff caught in his own wringer.
I think that is a pretty accurate picture of the way the liberals and Progressive commenters act here.
Cas, Serenity, Levi, Ignatius, Vince, mike, and a whole slew of others just don’t get it. They think debate is all about posturing and imposing conditions and scoring points with their peanut gallery.
Petulance. Spoiled four-year-old tantrum throwers. They don’t even try to address the issues and deal with the details. The “debate” is all about who said what and whether someone is capable of doing better in the “play nice” circle.
You can’t support the demonizingrats without tacitly excusing (if not supporting) what they resort to and how they go about obtaining their power, exercising their power and abusing their power.
“The internet home for the American gay conservative” should tell each and every commenter that you are a guest in that home. If you do not like some of the other guests you meet in that home, you have been afforded the space and privilege to tell them what bothers you. After that, you have to go to some real extremes to get banned from the home.
It is fairly difficult to sell a “state control” program here. So, if the commenter is trying to ease the topic toward another “state control” grab, it does not matter how “civil” and full of tact the promoter is, someone is going to bluntly tell you what you can do to yourself and the state control mule you rode in on. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the run-of-the-mill liberal will respond about how governments build roads as some sort of put-down, albeit meaningless in relation to ever-encroaching “social justice” government programs.
Helio, that was beautifully put. Can I add a loud “RIGHT ON!” to that?
Regards,
Peter H.
Since the commenter @ #133 has been to the blog today and posted a comment in a different thread at 12:30P (some 42 minutes ago), and not bothered to be more specific regarding its content, as I asked him to do in #134 above, I think it’s safe to summarize #133 thusly:
Cheap, vague and unsubstantiated innuendo.
And to characterize a person’s employing cheap, vague and unsubstantiated innuendo I would like to cite the #133 author’s own words:
How true, Rusty, and yours most certainly are.
The Obama Party and Barack Obama are very simple to explain, Heliotrope.
1) They want exactly what they want when they want it.
2) Anyone who doesn’t give them exactly what they want when they want it is on the same moral level as the Nazis.
Hence, everything that “progressives” touch — culture, entertainment, institutions, government, education, people — is warped accordingly.
Welfare is a fine example. Barack Obama supporters demand that they be paid more than and from the funds of those who work regardless of whether they choose to work or not, and if you refuse to give them that, they scream that you are a racist and genocidal maniac who wants people dead and thus have no rights to your own property,earnings or opinion.
You bet it is:
The Tsarnaev Family Received 100G In State Benefits
Gives new meaning to the term “state sponsored terrorism”.
I’m waiting for Shrillary to come out and start braying: “What difference does it make?!”
Regards,
Peter H.
Brilliant observation, Jeff! (that is, re the post, I’m not reading all the comments). So true, so true. Succinctly said, too.
My Sharia Moor wrote:
You either didn’t read my message that North Dallas Thirty quoted above, you missed where I said I wanted to understand how gay conservatives of your type think, or you ignored it.
My Sharia Moor, if you’re the Eric Olsen who was a blogger here during the latter half of 2011, you said in a comments section then that all gay conservatives were in favor of legal civil same sex marriage.
To be honest I doubt that’s true, but got from your comment that you are strongly in favor of legal civil same sex marriage.
I haven’t seen much of that kind of complaining here, which I think is due primarily to Bruce’s permissive policy on comment posting.
There’s a problem with what you’ve written above: gay conservatives of your type believe absolutely in identity politics, though that identity is a political one, and only secondly one of sexual orientation; “perpetual victimhood” is derogatory, but basically describes the stance that big conservative media push and that gay Fox News conservatives completely accept (belief in victimization of conservatives by “The Left”); and you all see conservatives as a “victim class”, especially within the LGBT community.
To be clear, I’m talking about the belief that each and every conservative, especially gay conservatives, are personally victimized as such by “The Left”. From everything I can see, this is YOUR (plural personal pronoun) belief.
That much I’ve gotten from you here, and from GOProud.
But one big difficulty is that I don’t get much of a sense of ideological individuality from most of you, the profusion of differences in specifics that you must have amongst yourselves. I am NOT saying that you all are clonelike or not very individual; my sense is you all are VERY individual and individualistic, but that for all the attacking of “The Left” and the repetition of big conservative media and allied politicians’ talking points, I haven’t yet had much chance to see most of you express clearly individual views.
Though those with particularly strong libertarian politics are to some degree an exception to this, since they do articulate disagreements with stock conservative viewpoints here.
North Dallas Thirty, in regard to your post #69:
I don’t have the time right now to go into the detail I’d like to, but you’ve done an amazing job of getting everything about me wrong. I don’t like or agree with a single person or organization you claimed that I did, or have any of the beliefs that you say I do. You batted a perfect .000, a truly amazing performance.
I see you doing in your own way what I think most of the gay Fox News conservatives here do: you apply stereotypes to the left of center commenters here that amount to a caricature of left of center views, and you can’t see past those stereotypes to the individual you are talking about — or you don’t want to.
It isn’t mine, which scuttles your blanket analysis, Dr. Donny.
You know something? I’ve gotta give you assclowns on the left one thing: you’re absolutely relentless in your taking every single rotten character trait that virtually every one of you possesses (in varying degrees and quantities) and assigning each and every one of them to those of us who stand in opposition to your sick, narcissistic, self-involved, smug and sorry asses and the proven destruction and misery and death that your twisted notions of ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘tolerance’, ‘acceptance’, and your delusions about creating a ‘heaven on earth’ (read: Utopia) have caused in the last 100-125 years of human history and will cause again if you’re not……….stopped.
But you can’t see that, Donny, because:
And it can’t be said more succinctly than that.
Plus, for even more of the self-contradiction that vile SOBs like you reveal constantly, yet remain blissfully and pathologically unaware of:
Followed by this:
So…..
Which of these is the lie, Donny Dipsh*t?
Do you REALLY wish to understand, or are you satisfied that you know the answers already?
Which one is it?
I’ll give you the answer: any pleas for us to ‘reveal’ ourselves to you and thus help you to broaden your understanding of us are a vulgar lie, because you have no more interest in understanding US than I have in pissing on YOU if you were on fire.
Does these words I’ve written read like those of a person who sees himself as a ‘victim’, Donny Dearest, and have they helped you gain insight in to my (our) principles and values?
One more thing, Dr. D-Bag: if you paid money to some institution for training and instruction in “How To Become an Internet Concern Troll and Amateur Diagnostician in 6 Easy Lessons”, I suggest you contact them and demand a refund, because it’s painfully obvious that they robbed you blind, Quiz Kid.
And just as my comment is posted, I find this additional gem from our ‘in house’ clinician, Donny Demento:
So rich in irony that a mine should be opened.
Keep digging, Donna D.
Zoning requires that you get at least 3 feet below the frostline before we can bury you for good.
SNAP! That’s gonna leave a mark. 🙂
Regards,
Peter H.
Jman1961 wrote,
Okay, Jman1961, then what is your belief?
A question:
An answer:
Learn to read….learn to comprehend……learn to learn.
Nice seeing you again!
Don’t take candy from strangers!
Look both ways before crossing the street!
Remember to wash behind your ears!
GFY!